Evolving Definitions: OCT now equals Obama's Conspiracy Theory

[greyl]

It was never really best described as the "official" explanation anyway. That was just a way for CTists to attack it by trying to identify it exclusively as propaganda from the Whitehouse and Pentagon. In reality, the generally agreed upon basic story is an aggregation of details from many thousands of sources all over the planet.

The basic story as I, and Barack Obama, as far as I can tell, see it: 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and hit their targets with 75% success. Osama bin laden was mainly responsible for organizing it. There were serious intelligence failures, and it is possible those particular attacks could have been prevented. It is definite that the Bush admin totally botched their response in a very grave manner.

OCT = Obama's Conspiracy Theory

[noise]

1. I disagree with Obama

I don't understand why anyone would throw away their intellectual integrity to join the Obama bandwagon. Though he is preferable to Clinton he is still an establishment candidate. Thus, he will adopt views that the political establishment finds appropriate regardless of whether they are true or not.

[greyl]

2. I disagree with him on many things - just not this.

For me, it isn't necessary to abandon intellectual integrity in order to support the candidate that will compete with McCain.

edit: what part of OCT cited in the OP do you disagree with?

[noise]

3. Intelligence failure rationale is BS

I know Matt Taibbi thinks that "conspiracy nuts" play the "evidence is classified" card to protect our cherished delusional belief system. I don't agree with him either.

Taibbi should realize that 9/11 skeptics WANT the damn information declassified! Let the chips fall where they may.

[greyl]

4. If the hijackers were arrested as they boarded the planes; advantage Bush administration.

The Bush admin was suffering prior to 9/11. Preventing a terrorist attack would have been seen as a brilliant success, giving them significant political and diplomatic leverage.

[seemslikeadream]

5. oh please

then no Iraq war.


bush, diplomatic? :rofl: You did see his lastest speech, didn't you?



Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3312275

[Bolo Boffin]

6. On the contrary, all the same rhetoric for the Iraq War would have applied.

It might have happened later, maybe 2005. But they could have played all the same games and taken us to war anyway.

[seemslikeadream]

7. They did NOTHING to even try and stop 9/11

and they would have never been able to tie the non-9/11 to Saddam

[Bolo Boffin]

10. You may not have noticed, but we've wandered off into Subjective Land at this point

If this had happened, maybe this would have happened, and maybe not. Who knows? It's all opinion.

Keep the safety on your Caps Lock.

[seemslikeadream]

14. YOU are the one that said IF

so I was just following the wonderer

[CJCRANE]

12. "Non-9/11 changed everything". I can see it now.

:rofl:

[arcadian]

9. Wrong. Without a catastrophic pretext, it simply wouldn't fly.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Says you. Says me, it would have taken longer but been stronger.

How shall we determine who's correct here in Subjective Land? I know! I'll be right in my mind and you'll be right in yours.

[CJCRANE]

13. No 9/11 = no political will for pre-emptive war.

PNAC made the case for a "New Pearl Harbor" and Zelikow for a "searing, molding event".

No event, no can do.

[wildbilln864]

15. bullllllllllll.....

shit! There'd be no Iraq war and no Afghanistan war if 911 had not happened. :rofl:

[subsuelo]

29. War on Iraq would never have happened without 9/11

Unless of course they created another similar terrorist attack.

[arcadian]

8. That would have given them a bump for about a week.

Then been forgotten. On the other hand, they have never let us for got September 11th. How many foiled plots have the Bushies uncovered? How many have turned out to be complete bullshit?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

17. Do your comments apply to Barack Obama too? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. Do *you* have a link to Obama saying this? As far as I can tell, it's just greyl's opinion:

"The basic story as I, and Barack Obama, as far as I can tell, see it...."

When did greyl become Obama's spokesman for 9-11?

[greyl]

20. Please feel free to subject my null hypothesis to your tests. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. The only thing being tested right now is your credibilty. Do you have a link

to a statement that Obama made? If not, is there some *other* way you came to your conclusion/opinion?

[petgoat]

22. Seems to me Obama support for the OCT is a reasonable assumption.

The interesting thing to me about it is that some people will regard that
as providing credibility to the OCT, and other people will regard it as
discrediting Obama as a NWO shill.

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. Yes, and it *might* be a 'reasonable assumption' to a child that Santa brought the presents under

tree on Christmas morning, too... right? After all, parents wouldn't lie to their kids, right?

Has Obama ever made a public statement about 9-11?

[petgoat]

31. That he hasn't supports the presumption that he supports the OCT. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

36. Using that logic, we can conclude that every architect & engineer who hasn't spoken up against

conspiracy theories support them, right? Sounds like faulty logic to me.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. An interesting take: the resistance from building professionals in AE911Truth's own accounts

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114188

Originally Posted by Nelson L. Johnson, Architect & Civil Engineer
When I articulated my suspicions, however, I was met with derision.

Originally Posted by Richard Paul Sheridan
It is a shame on the engineering profession that the ASCE hasn't challenged th official government position on 9/11.

Originally Posted by Christopher E. Martini
I'm glad someone has put this site together, finally, people who see the same things I've seen and been scorned for all these years.

Originally Posted by Jeffrey A. Miller
It has taken some time to find this organization with whom to vent publicly and properly.

Originally Posted by Kevin Ryan
I was fired by Underwriters Laboratories for sending a letter to an NIST scientist pointing out inconsistencies in the NIST WTC report, and asking for clarification.

Originally Posted by Steve Bishop
Don't let the so-called “experts” (PhD or otherwise) and network television make up your mind for you.

Seems to me like these guys are getting major pushback from their colleagues.

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. Yes, but is that 'pushback' because of 'professional incredulity' or 'personal incredulity'?

And that doesn't cover *every* architect and/or engineer there is, either. Many may see the scorn passed on others for their views, so they keep their own views to themselves rather than being looked down upon... or losing their job, etc...

I haven't spoken out against the 'no planers'... does that mean I support them? No! I think it's ridiculous, as a matter of fact, but I also think people are entitled to their own opinions, and entitled to chase any rainbow they feel like chasing...

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Since we aren't privy to the conversations, we don't know.

However, we can consider their personal incredulity to be a little better informed overall than most people, can't we?

Do you think 'no-planers' are ridiculous because of personal or professional incredulity?

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. Well, I can agree with that assessment....

As for my thinking that the 'no planers' are ridiculous... how would professional incredulity play into that? I don't know of anyone who could make a profession statement on it.... unless they were a professional TV watcher or something... we all SAW the 1 plane fly into the tower, a video even surfaced of the first hit. Those weren't holograms hiding a missile, were they? Now, I could question the Pentagon hit all day... just because of personal incredulity, but that doesn't mean anything to anyone else, does it?

Of course, we already *know* we don't agree on WTC 7, so it goes without saying... the NIST Report is just a theory, or working hypothesis, and controlled demolition is just a theory. It's up to each individual which theory they choose to believe.... all the fighting/arguing in the world won't change your mind, or mine... nothing but 100% rock solid evidence will do that, and there is none... only theories...

PEACE!

Ghost

[petgoat]

39. Of course they get pushback. Nobody wants to think the government covers up mass murder.

Thinking independently means going up against MIT, Scientific American,
the History Channel, NOVA, FEMA, ASCE, and NIST.

Few engineers are experts in 110-story buildings. Also, engineers,
like other professionals, are reluctant to denigrate their colleagues'
work. That's bad for business.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Thinking independently does NOT mean going up against those groups.

Not if those groups are correct and you are being scrupulously scientific.

[petgoat]

43. There's nothing scientific about their work.

MIT apparently propounded the absurd zipper theory without
even looking at the blueprints.

Bazant published the absurd pile-drive theory two days after 9/11.

NIST doesn't even discuss the total collapse, but simply declares
it "inevitable" after fudging the data to make their computers
model it.

The NOVA program and the FEMA/ASCE report were full of extremely
dishonest graphics.

The Popular Science article is a ridiculous straw man hit piece.

[petgoat]

40. Architects and Engineers are not traveling around the country expressing their positions.

Failure to express an opinion in their case would seem not constitute support
for conspiracy theories, but satisfaction with the status quo.

Obama's failure to call for new 9/11 investigations would appear to constitute
satisfaction with the status quo. He doesn't seem to consider the issue worth
comment.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

32. Let's see what you make of this

since Obama has spoken on 9/11 before

An email from Barack Obama on the anniversary of September 11th:

Six years ago, on a bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, a new kind of enemy came to America's shores.

We will never forget the images of that terrible day -- the planes vanishing into buildings, the thick black clouds of smoke, and the haunting pictures of the missing.

(snip)

Six years later, the threat to America has only grown. Al Qaeda has reconstituted a new safe-haven where it trains recruits and plots attacks. Al Qaeda's top two leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, continue to disseminate their hate-filled propaganda and inspire legions of followers. Like-minded extremists have struck in scores of countries. The war in Iraq continues to fuel terror and extremism. A Taliban insurgency rages on in Afghanistan. In too many disconnected corners of the world, hate is casting a shadow over hope.

Our calling today remains the same as it was on 9/11. We must write a new chapter in American history. We must bring justice to the terrorists who killed on our shores. We must devise new strategies, develop new capabilities, and build new alliances to defeat the threats of the 21st century. We must extend hope to the hopeless corners of the world and reaffirm our core values to counter the hateful message of the extremists. And we must secure a more resilient homeland.

More: http://www.polichicksonline.com/2007/09/barack-obama-on-september-11th.html

He seems to believe that the US was attacked by an external enemy, and he infers that Al-Qaedia is responsible.

[Ghost in the Machine]

35. Thank you, Anarcho...

That's all I was looking for..

As for what I make of it... I think someone should point out to him the fact that Osama bin Laden has been dead since December 2001...

[petgoat]

19. what part of OCT cited in the OP do you disagree with?

It's incomplete.

It doesn't mention that those 19 muslims somehow paralyzed the air defense
for 100 minutes.

It doesn't explain how brought down 3 skyscrapers with two planes.

It doesn't explain what made the molten metal in the basements at the WTC.

It doesn't explain why Bush and Giuliani obstructed the investigations.

[greyl]

25. I chose the words "basic story" in the OP instead of "complete story" knowingly.

You making ridiculous statements like "19 muslims somehow paralyzed the air defense for 100 minutes" doesn't encourage me to again go over why your 3 other statements of Invincible Ignorance are incorrect.

[petgoat]

27. The air defense was paralyzed for 100 minutes. How did that happen? nt

[hack89]

28. Couple of things

1. Delay in FAA notifying the Air Force.

2. With no locating data on the hijacked planes, there was no way to vector the interceptors.

3. Mass confusion and lack of procedures - the Air Force didn't routinely conduct intercepts over land so they were making it up as they went.

[petgoat]

33. Bullshit.

The Bronner VF article shows that NORAD has precise coordinates
for the first plane, flight 11, and chose to hang out offshore
even so.

The phone bridge provided information on all flights of interest.

What difference does it make--an interception is an interception,
whether over land or sea.

Why do you guys go to such great lengths to invent defenses for the
indefensible?

[hack89]

34. If you say so. nt

[T Monk]

23. if obama buys the government's story re 911 he'll be a bad president

[greyl]

24. ...and if he "buys" the vast majority of the scientific community's opinion?

(I'm afraid vast majority may be an understatement)

[T Monk]

26. scientists aren't ethicists they're too busy chasing gov/corporate funding

[JackRiddler]

45. When the hell was this ever different? What is your point?

Unless you're implicitly demanding loyalty to all views of the presumptive D nominee and threatening those who aren't on board, this is an irrelevant, obvious, pedantic post.

Official Washington - and yeah, that includes senators and Democrats and Obama too - has never questioned and always accepted with near unanimity the Official Conspiracy Theory of Sept. 11; the most important tenets of which are that the attack was entirely the product of the 19 pirates and their dispatchers, AND in no way consciously intended, allowed deliberately, or engineered by elements of the US establishment, spook/military complex or state (or of any other state except the Taliban insofar as they harbored Bin Ladin). (Consider the AND a boolean operator.)

It's not Obama's theory, in that he didn't devise it, inject (or invent) its factual elements, or do anything other than accept it, like many millions of other consumers. If he now emphasizes renewed brand loyalty, so what?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

46. I imagine it's a response to the association made by some

inside job proponents that accepting the 'OCT' makes one into a "Bush apologist" or associated pejorative.

I think it's absurd to equate all proponents of the "OCT" to neoconservative imperialism, just as it's absurd to equate all proponents of an "inside job" theory to the far-right. There's little doubt that there's unsavoury right-wing characters proposing each theory, whether it be Bill O'Reilly or David Duke.

[JackRiddler]

47. Well, Obama and at least 90% of politicians are Bush apologists...

No, he's not the "same as" Bush, not at all, for one thing he spoke out against Bush on the most important decision of the last 8 years. And apologists are certainly not equivalent to neocons. But apologism is sadly widespread.

Obama and other politicians seem unable to acknowledge certain simple and obvious truths about the Bush regime and the present state of the Republic that are beyond rational dispute: The Iraq action was and remains in violation of the US constitution, the UN Charter, and US-endorsed concepts of international law dating back to Nuremberg. Dozens of top regime officials engaged in coordinated big-lie propaganda to justify an unprovoked war of aggression on a nation that did not attack the US and posed no threat to the US. The invasion was undertaken for motives that still have not been publicly admitted and are almost certainly in themselves criminal (power and plunder). Its conduct has led to mass death and the destruction of a nation. These are criminal and impeachable offenses of the worst order imaginable, a dagger in the heart of democracy and the rule of law if allowed to stand. The modus operandi of the (unelected) Bush regime has been routinely criminal and contemptuous of the Constitution in all other areas as well.

Anyone who can't say that is a Bush apologist and an enabler of the next criminal regime; regardless of whether this apologia is out of conviction or due to herd membership. Obama qualifies.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Seriously. You are on the wrong website.

The honorable thing for you to do would be just leave and never come back here, Nicholas.

[JackRiddler]

49. Joseph...

First of all, I would ask you to respect the nicks we each choose.

This is all you have left as an argument? Calls for the Tombstone?

Zombie.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. When you're posting on a Democratic website that Obama is a Bush apologist...

...then it's time to go. You don't have to take the tombstone. That's why I gave you the honorable route.

Want me to respect the nicks we gave ourselves? Fine. I just wanted that to be a very clear and direct post, Jack. No games, no pretense, nothing.

Time to go. You knew this day was coming. Resist the urge to get in your last licks and just go.

[JackRiddler]

51. So you're the boss now?

So you determine who's allowed to participate in the Democratic Party discourse?

A coup d'etat. Yeah, that's right. There was a coup in 2000 (before the one in 2001) and as one little measure a few activists started a website to oppose that; its name is still the same and still has the "Underground" part. I don't believe in solving disagreements through the tombstone, but I guess that makes me a democrat and you an autocrat. If anyone should go, it should be those who want to forget there was a coup, who want to make light of it -- and who are therefore de facto Bush apologists.

Certainly these denialists such as yourself are in no position to tell anyone else what to think or say, or to define acceptable bounds of debate.

This thread is the same old flame-bait trying to draw tombstonings. So lame.

Yours is the response of the autocratic zombie. Why am I so important to you? You understand it's incredible, no? If someone thinks 9/11 was an inside job, then their motivation in insisting on debating it is obvious. But what would motivate someone who thinks that's only laughable nonsense? What would cause them to spend all day to float strawman arguments and moral approbations, to repeat the same fallacious lifeless talking points every day (always pretending there was no prior discussion), literally as a full-time occupation?

[greyl]

52. "flame-bait trying to draw tombstonings"? Hilarious.

The points I wanted to make are in the OP, to answer your first question. Sorry if they upset you.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. You know the rules. You know what's up. This isn't me "the boss" at all.

You've already written your swan song. Now you're in full Skeksis mode, doing as much damage as you can before your eventual tombstoning.

Goodbye, Jack.

[JackRiddler]

59. Big Brother really is an exaggeration for you.

So McCarthy will do as an analogy. Pontificate away.

By pulling their punches and by refusing to name the crimes of the Bush regime, many Democrats, including almost all leadership, are Bush apologists. Given the many obvious "high crimes and misdemeanors," any politician who isn't calling for impeachment is a Bush apologist. That includes Obama, obviously.

This observation is
a) obvious,
b) probably the majority opinion on DU,
c) not an observation that gets you tombstoned,
d) self-evidently not equivalent to "working against Obama," as you falsely and illogically - in fact, disingenuously - state.

I must have missed when DU banned the "lesser of two evils" argument. If anyone's sabotaging DU, it may be the guy salivating at some imminent mass-tombstoning that will leave nothing but can-do loyalists in a thinly populated echo chamber.

I bet the Admins are smarter than that.

Now. Many times I've broken my promise not to bother with you any more, but it's just so tempting. The things you say are made so much more outrageous by the way you wrap them in a seeming sobriety. Except, of course, for those times when you reveal your true face and tell us that reluctant whistleblowers should be maimed and mutilated a la Abu Ghraib. Or flood a thread with the names of everyone in the phone book and claim they're your supporters.

Or right now.

In some fashion, this implicit acknowledgement of yours that you have lost every battle on logical and factual terms, so that you are left only with a scream of "TOMBSTONE THE WITCH!" should be more satisfying. But where's the satisfaction in seeing you exasperated? I'll let you know if it ultimately proves to be the case - on this board - in 2009.

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. When did *you* buy this website? It's not your place to tell *anyone* what to do, what to post

or when to leave. You *do* understand that, don't you?

Get a grip on yourself, bolo.... seriously... delusions of grandeur aren't pretty...

Wasn't there something in the rules about telling other members they aren't welcome here, or making them feel unwelcome? I forget though, the rules don't seem to apply to you here sometimes.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. It is against DU rules to post in a way to defeat the Democratic candidate.

Jack knows this, and has already written his swan song about a month ago.

Jack knows that we are coming up on a time when that post stating that Obama is a Bush apologist WILL get him tombstoned. He's just getting his last licks in now.

Quit defending someone who's actively working to defeat the eventual nominee or you'll find yourself looking at a tombstone as well. I don't make the rules, I just point them out.

[Ghost in the Machine]

56. Did you just threaten me?

"Quit defending someone who's actively working to defeat the eventual nominee or you'll find yourself looking at a tombstone as well."

Are you sleeping with a moderator or something that makes you feel you can say who will be tombstoned?

Until Obama (or Hillary) becomes the nominee and the primaries are over, they're fair game. If not, you'd have to tombstone everyone in GD-P, wouldn't you? Save your chastising for the appropriate time, at least. Hey, for all we know, we could have a brokered convention and get Gore and/or Edwards (what a dream, huh?)

As far as I'm concerned, Congress is FULL of Bush apologists, including Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi. It's the reason Bush is still in office. Period.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. I was here in 2004. I watched it happen over and over again.

Telling someone that if they continue to drive in a certain direction, they'll drive off a cliff -- that's not a threat.

Telling someone who's obstinately posting that Democrats are Bush apologists when they are clearly not supporting ANY Democratic candidate, that in a matter of six weeks or so they're going to be tombstoned for making further posts like that -- that's not a threat.

That's just the way it played out in 2004 and how it's going to play out again in the next few weeks. There's a cliff ahead, Ghost, and if you drive off it, it will only be your fault.

[Ghost in the Machine]

58. I was here in 2004 also, just lurking and reading. It took me a while before I joined to post

I had actually joined at one time, but couldn't remember my username. password, or even the email addy I used to join... a couple of names I remember from back then are "OldLeftyLawyer" and "Distressed American".

My driving is just fine, though... I may not like either of the current candidates, because they're both corporatists, but I've never voted for anyone *but* a Democrat in my entire life, and that won't change this year.... I'd cut my hand off before I picked up a pen or pushed a button to vote for anything else, especially a repiglican.

PEACE!

Ghost

[Twist_U_Up]

65. dont you mean "most times"?

boffin asking for a tombstone for being a bush apologist.......oh the irony

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

60. kick nt

[JackRiddler]

62. kick

[LARED]

63. It will be interesting to see how the true blue CT'ers

are going to react once Bush is back in Texas. I've always believed Bush was simply a convenient prop for the majority of their fantasies by providing a boogie man.

I'm guessing loads of them will jump over the FreeRepublic type sites that have been gearing up for the manifold Obama based CT's already hitting the Internet.

[mrgerbik]

64. why cant an establishment of ideas

aka an 'old boys club' (as amorphous and fluid as that can be) be the the boogie man?
why are you assuming that each leader who comes to the plate is squeaky clean and innocent of any ties to the previous? even if they were completely out of the loop, who's to say that an extensive grooming process wouldn't take place? ferchristssake you cant become a walmart teller without going through some arduous 'team orientated' training bullshit .. its all a state of mind for the upper-crust oligarchy IMO.

but, for Obama, only time will tell right?

[eomer]

66. Shocking revelation:

Politicians don't always say what they really think. Sometimes they say what is expedient.

[LARED]

67. So you believe Obama may launch a new investigation into

9/11, once he takes office because he really thinks one is needed and was only being coy about believing the so called OCT in order to get elected?

[greyl]

68. Maybe he's a closeted atheist

who would love to kick David Ray Griffin square in the nuts, you mean?

[greyl]

69. kick, for those who forgot. nt

[whatchamacallit]

70. Well he's a dumb-ass then

Homey don't play idol worship.

[greyl]

71. Why didn't you say that before the election? nt

[whatchamacallit]

72. I'd blow my brains out before I'd vote for a republican

Unfortunately, the distance between (D) and (R) is is growing shorter all the time.

[SDuderstadt]

73. Well, there's still hope then n/t