The inner worlds of conspiracy believers

[Ohio Joe]

Interesting stuff.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/44046/title/The_inner_worlds_of_conspiracy_believers

[procopia]

1. Who doesn't believe in conspiracies?

Conspiracies don't exist?

"Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious and inquisitive, a new study suggests."

Doesn't most everyone have some sort of 9/11 conspiracy belief?

[BeFree]

2. Swami?

Didn't Johnny Carson used to do a good imitation of a Swami?

Well, much like JC's Swami, this one is a joke.

Infer much? The whole scribble looked like a seventh graders expose of who their best friends aren't.

Who is it that trusts the government? Aren't they like lap dogs waiting for the water bowl, deathly afraid to bite the hand that waters them?

Are those lap dog/people somehow normal?

[Ohio Joe]

3. So...

If someone does not buy into the 9/11 CTs they are a government lap dog?

[BeFree]

4. Wouldn't know about that

But I have seen lots of people acting like lap dogs.

Ya know, Swami want to study your idea about OCTers.

[wildbilln864]

5. do you honestly believe...

you yourself are not a conspiracy believer? :crazy: Because you are!

[Ohio Joe]

6. Believing in conspiracies and...

being a CT are not the same thing.

[wildbilln864]

7. well duh!

CT= conspiracy theorist?
Isn't that what you mean by CT?
If so then police detectives are CTs.

[Ohio Joe]

9. Your comparing police work with being a CT?

:rofl:

Funniest one I've heard all day

[BeFree]

10. :(

The next time anyone (including me) wonders why it is so damn hard to discuss reality on this board, Ohio Joe's shtick will provide some clues.

[Ohio Joe]

11. I would love to talk reality

Lets talk reality. Are you prepared to defend no planes? Let hear the explanation how not a single person has come forward to say no planes hit the towers on 9/11. Lets hear how the government was able to contain the tri-state area so that zero pictures or videos showing no planes hit the towers on 9/11. Lets hear the reason that there is not a single video expert claiming video fakery, not here in the US and not in other countries.

[BeFree]

12. Wow!!

Struck a nerve, eh? Good.

Those are good questions, but they are peripheral questions. Lets get down to the foundations. The OCT. And now lets put your questions to that foundation, to whit:

Where are the videos from the pentagon that the fbi snatched?

How did Bush see the first plane hit on the WTC?

What about the videos showing the explosive squibs on the towers?

Those are old, unanswered, but centric questions that are the basis for opening up alternative theories about 9/11.

Of course I don't expect you to have answers for those questions, not even Bushco has good answers. But if those questions are ever answered it would go a long way to defeating the 'truthers' cause. Isn't that what you want?

[Ohio Joe]

13. As always, no answers

I'm not playing this yet again. These are not peripheral questions. They are the heart of why no planes is a fantasy. Every time they are brought up they are dismissed or ignored. You wanted reality, I gave you reality and who is hiding from it?

[BeFree]

14. You evade

And I don't blame you. If I were you, I'd evade the basics too and try to focus on peripherals and on individuals in an attempt to track away from the Bushco OCT.

If somebody believes there are no planes, so what? Why get your panties in such a twist when the basic unanswered questions asked have never been truthfully answered?

Go back to the OCT bible and read it again. Then look at how that bible was written by and who it protects. Until then you have nothing to offer anyone who really wants to pursue the truth in it's entirety. Nada.

[Ohio Joe]

16. bwahahahahahaha, nice try. You refuse to answer

the key questions and say I'm evading? The questions I asked first? It is obvious to everyone who is evading.

[BeFree]

18. First?

See, there is your problem: You think this is all about you and your questions. When the reality is the questions you evade are the ones asked by thousands of people and were asked 7 years ago. First.

[Ohio Joe]

21. They have been answered many times

Your position on these questions makes no logical sense. You accept as fact the word of anonymous people yet dismiss the word of actual experts. You claim that since you are not satisfied with the answers you have received your fantasy must be true, yet, you refuse to even look at the questions the prove your fantasy is just that.

An anonymous person said that all the videos are fake, so they are. The fact that there is no actual expert that agrees does not matter nor will I try to get an expert to review the material.

An anonymous person said that all the videos are fake, so they are. The fact that none of the people that saw it live subscribe to no planes does not matter.

An anonymous person said that all the videos are fake, so they are. The fact that there was no way for the government to control photos/videos does not matter. Add to that the fact that there is not a single photo/video showing no planes hit the towers does not matter.

None of this matters because I have a quote from one of the greatest manglers of the english language known saying something that does not make sense.

Who is evading again?

[procopia]

22. What experts? What answers?

What "experts" have answered these questions:

Where are the videos from the pentagon that the fbi snatched?

How did Bush see the first plane hit on the WTC?

To my knowledge, these questions have never been answered by anyone.

The question about squibs was "answered" by NIST, but the answer was contradictory to NIST's own collapse (initiation) theory.

The leaders of the truth movement are not anonymous; they are very well qualified experts, and unlike your NIST "experts," they are willing to publicly discuss and debate their findings and conclusions.

[Ohio Joe]

23. Boy, this just keeps happening

One gives up and another jumps in to go over the same stuff. Are you going to address my questions?

[procopia]

26. Again, evasion

Why should I answer no-plane questions? That isn't my theory; I don't even have a theory. You are the one who claims to know what happened, so it's up to you to fill in the OCT gaps for the rest of us.

[Ohio Joe]

27. I have made no such claim

If you do not believe or wish to defend no planes, you are in the wrong place.

[procopia]

37. Do you believe the OCT?

If not, why are you defending it? Why must I defend no-planes to be here?

[Ohio Joe]

43. ummm, because this sub-thread is about..

no planes and you jumped in to change the topic. If you do not believe the no planes fantasy... Sweet! we are on the same page. If you do, please answer my questions... Otherwise, I see no reason to continue with this distraction to what I am after.

Honestly, no offense meant to you.

[procopia]

44. Actually

You changed the topic to no-plane in response to post 10, for the purpose of evasion. Where do you think the sub-thread begins, anyway?

[Ohio Joe]

46. You are correct

However, since, it is about no planes (well before you joined in) and I have never defended the "OCT". I do not even know what it means.

[procopia]

49. OK

Then what do you think happened on 9/11?

[Ohio Joe]

51. Not a short answer...

I have to mow the lawn now (hey, I want to get laid tonight!), I promise I will be back later to answer this and anything else that anyone feels I have not given enough detail to.

[Ohio Joe]

53. OK. I'm back

On 9/11, four planes were hijacked by (mostly) Saudi Arabian terrorists. One was crashed into the pentagon, one each into the twin towers and the last in a field in PA.

Both the twin towers and building 7 came down due to structural damage and fires.

I have not seen any evidence that explosives were used to bring any of the three buildings down.

I have not seen any evidence anything other then a plane hit the pentagon.

I think bush&co most definitely used 9/11 to start 2 wars.

I think the 9/11 commission mostly got it right but was also hampered buy being underfunded and bush&co hiding both the ineptitude and their use of 9/11 to go to war.

I don't have any problem with people asking questions about 9/11, I think its healthy to want to know what happened. I can understand why people will believe patently false things because someone showed them a you-tube video. I don't understand why people will refuse to accept science and facts proving said video patently false and will continue to repeat/repost/kick the same old BS.

I get very annoyed by people that promote absolute crap like no planes, lasers from space and mini nukes.

I think most (if not all) of the "leaders" in the truth movement could not give a crap about 9/11, promoting lunacy is simply how they make their living.

I think the media stays far away from the questions that should be answered about 9/11 because of the lunacy. Guilt by association, its not right but it happens all the time. Like it or not, the truth movement needs to purge itself of the lunatic fringe before anyone will even consider taking it seriously.

ahhh, there is probably lots more but I think you get the general idea. If you want any clarification or my thoughts on anything specific not covered, let me know.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Kalun D]

60. DISINFO

On 9/11, four planes were hijacked by (mostly) Saudi Arabian terrorists.

There's been no real evidence it was Arabs.
Airports have max video surveillance. ZERO footage of the 19 boarding the planes.
None of the 19 on the official passenger lists.
8 of the 19 identities came up as false, they were still alive. The FBI first admitted and then denied this.
No DNA of any of the 19, especially the Pentagon, there should have been some.

Both the twin towers and building 7 came down due to structural damage and fires.

Physical impossibility from an engineering architecture standpoint.
Especially building 7. Steel buildings don't collapse from minor damage and fires. Even raging infernos, which 7 was not, don't collapse.

I have not seen any evidence that explosives were used to bring any of the three buildings down.

And without closer investigation you never will. Thermite cutter charges don't really "explode". There's lots of evidence out there of witnesses including fire-fighters who heard and were affected by explosions in the twin towers. You just won't hear about it in the OCT.

I have not seen any evidence anything other then a plane hit the pentagon.

Nor have you seen conclusive evidence that it did. Do you find this at all curious? Like airports the pentagon has to be one of the most extensive video surveilled locations in the US. There's probably multiple views of the plane hitting. How come they haven't been shown? One word, disinformation. For the record though I think a 757 did hit the Pentagon, there just hasn't been much evidence.

I think the 9/11 commission mostly got it right

How could they if underfunded and appointees vetted by the white house?
Stained blue dress investigation $70 MILLION, started within weeks
2nd Space shuttle crash investigation $40 MILLION, started within weeks
The largest attack ever on US soil. $4 MILLION, 2 year delay
Does that tell you they didn't want to know the truth?
Plus much of the "testimony" was in secret, not under oath, and on the condition it would not be recorded. And they ignored and totally left out much of the conflicting testimony. THAT IS A JOKE.

I don't understand why people will refuse to accept science and facts proving said video patently false

So who, in the first place, put out the info that was patently false? Real truthers or disinformation agents?
And do you realize there are science and facts proving the OCT is false? There's a long list of experts including many architects and engineers.

I get very annoyed by people that promote absolute crap like no planes, lasers from space and mini nukes.

dis·in·for·ma·tion 1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation.
You need to study disinformation. Many spy agencies like the CIA spend 3/4 of their resources on disinformation operations. The average estimate is about 1/2 of the 911 CT's out there are disinformation, all the ones you list for sure. Like the only video released of the Pentagon, which does not clearly show a large passenger jet, when it's obvious they should have some video of the plane. CLASSIC disinformation, it's designed to muddy the waters and detract from the real questions.

I think most (if not all) of the "leaders" in the truth movement could not give a crap about 9/11, promoting lunacy is simply how they make their living.

On what do you base this assertion?
Sure there's some out there making a buck, but there's at least an equal number doing it just for the ideal.

I think the media stays far away from the questions that should be answered about 9/11 because of the lunacy.

You need to take a look behind the curtain. Yes bush promoted war with 911, but it goes way beyond that. The MIC owns the media, why would they report truthfully about something if it hurt their profits? And who is responsible for the lunacy that is your excuse for them not reporting the truth? Disinformation agents?

You need to try to separate the real CT from the disinfo CT.

A good place to start would be "The Terror Timeline" a very extensive compilation of just about every 911 connected story ever put out by the mainstream media, compiled into a timeline. There's a ton of backpage stories and ones that only came out once that damn the OCT all to Hades and back. The more you read of this the more you will now the OCT is a big big lie.

[SDuderstadt]

64. "None of the 19 on the official passenger lists"

Where do you get this bullshit from? Do you bother to fact-check anything before you post it? You've extolled "Zeitgeist" and "Loose Change" and I suspect that's where you get most of your "info" from. Do you bother to fact-check their claims or do you just uncritically accept what they say?

The whole canard about none of the hijackers being on the official passenger lists got its start when the airlines released what they called a "victim's list". Since the hijackers were the perpetrators, would you really expect them to be regarded as victims? Did you do ANY primary research into the passenger manifests or, did the misinformation that the hijackers weren't on the "passenger lists" feed your belief that 9/11 was an "inside job" so you just stopped looking?

For example, here's the passenger manifest for AA 11:



Your claim is bullshit.

[BeFree]

66. Justice denied?

There are several court cases that have been suppressed. Those cases would, were they allowed to go forward, open up the facts concerning the airlines' operations.

Why have these cases not been allowed to progress? Could it be that the facts uncovered would weigh heavily against the OCT?

Such miscarriages of justice should give pause to anyone truly interested in the truth, but alas, it is of little concern to some. They are happy with the suppression, I suppose?

[SDuderstadt]

67. Name the court cases, BeFree...

I love the way you keep things vague so no one can fact-check your bullshit.

[BeFree]

68. What?

You are unaware of the cases against the airlines?

[SDuderstadt]

69. "There are several court cases that have been suppressed"

How were they "suppressed", BeFree?

[BeFree]

70. Google

Is your friend. Or enemy. Whatever.

[SDuderstadt]

71. No, BeFree...

YOU made the claim. YOU back it up or this is just more of your bullshit. You claimed the cases were "supressed". Quit playing games. Where is your evidence????

[BeFree]

72. Hey

If you don't have a clue about those court cases it's not my fault. They were talked about here.

You see, even if I do search for you, you wouldn't appreciate it.

Feed a man one day and he may starve the next, teach him how to fish and he'll never starve. Go fish.

Besides, proving your ignorance one way or the other is of no concern to me. I don't care.

[SDuderstadt]

73. Typical BeFree disruption tactic...

make a claim, then get apoplectic when asked for proof of the claim. Look, dude...YOU made the claim. You claimed that the court cases were "supressed". If your claim is true, why can't you easily provide evidence of it? If you can't support it, just admit it rather than try to turn it back on me. Otherwise, your claim is just more of your goofy bullshit.

[BeFree]

74. Your ignorance

Is profound. I will no longer play your stupid games and have good posts get deleted.

You are not worth it.

[SDuderstadt]

75. How would simply posting proof of your goofy claim...

result in your post getting deleted? Why do you get apoplectic when asked for proof of your goofy claims? Do you understand the logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof"? You claimed there were court cases that were "suppressed". Yet, you can't provide evidence of a single case that has been suppressed. Why is that?

Let me make sure I get this straight. You're claiming I'M ignorant because I won't prove YOUR claim? BTW, if you'd follow the simple rules that DU has laid out, you probably would not get your posts deleted.

[BeFree]

78. Goofy claim?

It is common knowledge that court cases having to do with 9/11 have been suppressed. Your ignorance of that common knowledge is profound, to use a nice term.

However, if it is your position that there have been no suppressed court cases and you profess that here and now, then it may be cause for action - like a new thread detailing such suppression.

So, here's your big chance.... Do you claim there have been no suppressed court cases concerning the airlines? Yes, or no.

Lay your cards on the table, big shot. Make. My. Day.

[SDuderstadt]

79. "Make. My. Day."

if it was "common knowledge" that court cases have been "suppressed", why do you have so much trouble posting evidence of it? You keep going on and on about it, but can't seem to produc e evidence of it. And your question, "Do you claim there have been no suppressed court cases concerning the airlines?", is just a clumsy attempt to make it appear as if I made a claim so you can demand evidence of me, whioh is just more of your game-playing. Do you have any evidence at all that any cases were suppressed?

Are you claiming that a case dismissed because of agreement by the parties or by the judge dismissing it for lack of either evidence or jurisdiction is evidence of "suppression"? If you do, back up your goofy claim by detailing the caption of the case and evidence that it was "suppressed" as opposed to it merely being dismissed for cause.

I have given you several opportunities to provide evidence of your goofy claim and all you do is disrupt the debate with your game-playing.

[snooper2]

110. still waiting for the suppressed court cases

waiting...

[BeFree]

112. You too?

You have never heard of those cases? Do you ever do any research?

[snooper2]

113. I've seen just about everything, first I heard this one...

you responded to 20 posts of folks asking about it...would have taken less time for you to provide a couple links than question everyone wouldn't it :)

[BeFree]

114. Well

If you think that there are no cases then say so. I claim there are cases. Do you claim there are none? Do you think I am lying?

[snooper2]

115. beats me, you said that cases were suppressed-

I did a couple google searchs and found nothing...

What's so hard about providing a link-

[Ohio Joe]

76. Well, lets see

First off, how do you make those boxes? I really like how they structure your post and I would like to be able to do the same.

OK, I actually started to do a point by point reply to your post but changed my mind when I got to this:

dis·in·for·ma·tion 1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation.
You need to study disinformation. Many spy agencies like the CIA spend 3/4 of their resources on disinformation operations. The average estimate is about 1/2 of the 911 CT's out there are disinformation, all the ones you list for sure. Like the only video released of the Pentagon, which does not clearly show a large passenger jet, when it's obvious they should have some video of the plane. CLASSIC disinformation, it's designed to muddy the waters and detract from the real questions.


It really got me thinking (not an easy thing to do in the morning... heh, especially when I'm hung over). We disagree on a lot of things, I've read this forum for a long time now, not just one side, I read almost everything and have watched many many of the videos. I rarely involve myself with most of the debate... I'm sorry to say, I don't much care about most of it, I'm good. We do seem to have some common ground and it appears it is a topic I do like to involve myself in. Really, if none of this stuff was around, if they were to become abandoned topics dismissed by all, I would probably rarely even visit this forum (I don't mean DU, just this forum). I don't even care what the source of it is, does not matter to me, I don't care what the motive is for spreading it. I do care about pointing out the obvious gaping holes that make these ideas simply out of the realm of possibility.

[SDuderstadt]

77. "First off, how do you make those boxes?"

When you reply to a post, look above your subject line and click on HTML lookup table. Copy and paste the text next to "Create a styled, indented blockquote (useful for posting excerpts from articles)" into your reply and replace the word "text" with whatever you want to be in the box.

[Ohio Joe]

81. Cool, thanks! - nt

[Kalun D]

80. I'll put it very simply

I don't even care what the source of it is, does not matter to me, I don't care what the motive is for spreading it.

the true SOURCE of the argument if VERY important in determining it's value

Very simply disinformation is when those "against 911 truth" act like they are "for 911 truth" and present an argument "for 911 truth" that is obviously false and easily refuted. Then they or people that work with them can come back on the "against 911 truth" side and refute the argument that they presented in the first place. Or they just leave refutation to the general public, because it's so easily refutable. Disinformation is necessary because the real arguments that 911 was an inside job are so hard to beat. And the false arguments distract from the real arguments and serve to discredit them just by being (falsely) associated with them.

I do care about pointing out the obvious gaping holes that make these ideas simply out of the realm of possibility.

Of course they are out of the realm of possibility, they are intentionally written to be obviously fictional.

how do you make those boxes?

As your typing a post in the "message" box, just above there is a link "HTML lookup table" click on that you get a small window, scroll down to

"Blockquotes"
"Create a styled, indented blockquote (useful for posting excerpts from articles)"

(div class="excerpt")Text(/div)

cut and paste this code string into your message, then insert what you want to appear in the box in place of where it says "Text" in the string. (don't use my example string, it's not exactly right for display purposes.)

[Ohio Joe]

84. ok

I get where your coming from and I'm cool with it. I get the impression (perhaps wrong) that you do not think it a good idea to confront it... What do you suggest?

[BeFree]

63. Guess you missed it, Joe

My reply to you was deleted. Too bad, eh? You would have liked it. Oh well.

[BeFree]

24. Trash talk.

That's all you offer.

Those questions you are evading are not mine, they are from thousands of people, from the very beginning. Those questions form the basis for our theories and you have done squat to answer them, instead you trash talk.

But to answer your questions from my stand point....

I do not accept the word of anonymous people who say the videos are fake. Nor the words of those who say there were no planes. So take your putting words out there that I never said, and stick it in hole in Ohio.

You are barely worth replying to, but that is expected. You are an OCTer. But you can't even defend it, how embarrassing that is.

[Ohio Joe]

25. You should actually look at my posting history

I have in fact said without hesitation that there are questions that should be given answers. I have freely admitted not having answers to questions. I am embarrassed about nothing.

I do not trash talk even a little bit, I call out bullshit as bullshit. If you think my stance against complete bullshit, that has zero evidence (and zero logical basis), such as no planes, mini nukes and lasers from space is baseless, please answer my questions and prove me wrong. I will admit my being wrong without hesitation. or... keep hiding by answering a question with a question.

[BeFree]

28. Very good, Joe

Finally, one of you admits that your theory is unsound.

Finally.

And your trash talk - ascribing words to me that I never fucking said was just that, trash. It was bullshit, and you know it.

[Ohio Joe]

29. Nope

I have not put any words into your mouth. No trash talk, you defend no planes, answer the questions.

[BeFree]

30. "You defend no planes"

Show me one post where I defend 'no planes'. Since you can't, all you have is more damned trash. When will you f'n give up?

[Ohio Joe]

32. I ask about no planes

and you deflect, defend by trying to change the subject. I can admit if I do not know something or am wrong, to bad no one on the "truth" side can do the same. If you have no answers, say so, admit it blows wide holes in the no plane fantasy and that it cannot exist with these holes.

[BeFree]

34. I have admitted

..that I have not the answers. And have said several times that anyone who tells me they do have all the answers is a damned liar.

And yet, you continue with your trash talk. That's all ya got. TRASH.

[Ohio Joe]

39. Where?

Where did you admit you do not have the answers to my questions?

You did no such thing, if fact, you dismissed and evaded them and still do so.

Post 12: "Those are good questions, but they are peripheral questions."

You have avoided them since. Who is evading? Who is trash talking? Keep digging, it only proves my point.

[BeFree]

42. Your questions

"Are you prepared to defend no planes?"
No, and I never have

"Let hear the explanation how not a single person has come forward to say no planes hit the towers on 9/11."
I never have said that and do not defend it.

"Lets hear how the government was able to contain the tri-state area so that zero pictures or videos showing no planes hit the towers on 9/11."
WTF kind of question is that?

"Lets hear the reason that there is not a single video expert claiming video fakery, not here in the US and not in other countries."
I never have defended any videos that were or were not faked. Maybe you have me confused with someone else?

There, are ya happy now? Are ya ever gonna quit talking trash?

[Ohio Joe]

45. Yes, I am happy

and No, I do not trash talk, I will continue to be on the side of logic and facts. Perhaps if you had not started with a personal attack when we agreed and then said this (from your second post)"

"Where are the videos from the pentagon that the fbi snatched?

How did Bush see the first plane hit on the WTC?

What about the videos showing the explosive squibs on the towers?"

I would not have gleaned that you were defending no planes.

[BeFree]

48. Which you evaded. n/t

[Ohio Joe]

50. No, not evaded...

Answering a question with a question is evasion. Now that you have admitted the fantasy of no planes, I will gladly answer your questions.

1 - Where are the videos from the pentagon that the fbi snatched? Still with the FBI. All videos (un-released) should be released immediately and those that held them secret should answer why.

2 - How did Bush see the first plane hit on the WTC? He did not, nor does anyone think he did. I also don't think him saying this is anything more then his typical bumbling and his lack of command of the english language.

3 - What about the videos showing the explosive squibs on the towers? I have seen many videos claiming "squibs". None look like anything more the debris ejecting as the building collapses to me.

You may not like these answers... you may not agree with these answers, but do not deny I have given them.

[BeFree]

52. Your answers...

...Are not important. But like you said, "All videos (un-released) should be released immediately and those that held them secret should answer why."

The answers from the government are what matters. Hope to see you put a tenth of the effort into getting those answers as you do attacking the people demanding the answers.

To not do so makes all supporters of the OCT look like they are part of the coverup. A coverup that you agree does exist, eh?

ETA: One thing needed is the testimony of Bush and Cheney to the commission. Now that is a place to start. Instead what we see here is attacks on the people who have been trying to get that testimony. To me those attacks look like an effort to assist Bush and Cheney.

[Ohio Joe]

54. You don't make any sense

So, it is ok to ask questions if your asking them but not when I do? Then it becomes an attack? I've attacked no one. You on the other hand, accuse anyone (specifically me in your previous post) that shows obvious flaws in your ideas of helping bush. THAT is an attack. You are also accusing me of not putting enough effort into getting to the truth of 9/11? Funny, it seems to me that the person defending and promoting an idea that has zero evidence for and plenty of evidence against is the person that is not putting enough effort into the truth. Especially when that person ends up admitting they don't believe the idea. Now... who is doing that... hmmm, lets see now... oh yeah, I remember now.

You BeFree. You are the one that is in the way of finding any truth. Constantly wasting time defending and promoting ideas that are so completely false that even you don't believe them is blocking the truth.

It makes no sense. You don't buy the "OCT" (however you define that) because there are unanswered questions, because there are things that don't make sense to you... I'm ok with that. You want to know the truth. I'm good with that as well. In order to get to the truth, would you not agree that removing all of the bullshit would be of help? That is not what you do though, instead you call bullshit on anything you consider part of the "OCT", regardless of what it is, simply because it is part of the "OCT". In addition, you consistently accuse not only anyone that defends any part of the "OCT" of being a bush employee/enabler (or some variation on that theme) but the same goes for anyone that calls bullshit on an obvious bullshit idea. But when it comes to anything at all, no matter how obviously false, as long as it is not the "OCT", you will defend and promote it. If you really wanted truth, you would sweep away bullshit because it is bullshit, not because it is on one pile or the other.

[BeFree]

55. You are so wrong

I don't even know where to start. You must be rattled. Your faith in the OCT is wilting. Good. That is exactly what is needed. The diehard faith in the OCT is a foolish endeavor. Yall need to question it, and I see folks denying it these days. Good. Excellent.

If you see me supporting any bullshit, call me on it. You haven't once yet. Others have and they ended up eating their sling. Go ahead. Make. My. Day.

The OCT: I use it all the time to beat it up - too trash it. It is too easy, really. You would think they'd come up with something better but the OCT is full of shit. It stinks.


Again: Find one damn thing where I support bullshit and throw it at me. All you do is talk trash. I fear nothing from you. I know whereof I speak. Go ahead. Make. My. Day.

[Ohio Joe]

56. heh, you are too funny

gee, I think I'll go with your thinking there might be the slightest thing odd about bush not being able to articulate something correctly. oh wait... let me guess, you did not specifically have the words "I support this" preceding the question so really it was just a question... not supporting anything.

or gee, maybe thats some bullshit there.
Edit to add: Hope that made your day :hi:

[BeFree]

58. WTF...

...are you babbling about?

[Ohio Joe]

62. "If you see me supporting any bullshit, call me on it."

That is what you wanted, no? You did ask me twice to do it in post 55.

[MrMickeysMom]

82. Hey OJ!

Do you believe in the OCT?

[Ohio Joe]

85. Please see post 53

While certainly not a detailed account of everything I believe, I think it will give you a general idea. I don't feel comfortable with the term "OCT", different people have different definitions of everything that is included with that.

[MrMickeysMom]

86. Yes, I read it...

Your message seems to be similar to others who seek truth about what happened in that you "haven't seen evidence". Well, there is so much evidence that could have been collected and should have been evaluated, but was not. That forensic blunder is very suspicious for an event of this magnitude.

You want to sum up some things, but don't want to have an opinion, maybe because you fear the word- "theory"?

Why be afraid to have your own theory? That's all I've ever done. Theorized. This is because there suspiciously IS "no evidence". I see some experts talk about 19 names that don't appear on a manifest so that would appear that some kind of conspiracy took place. My suspicion further grows when possible physical evidence is shipping off as fast as it could be. Meanwhile, Dan Rather interviews an expert spokesmen within minutes of the falling towers in language that further gives rise to my theory.

I guess you see it as a sign of weakness and too many tin foil hat wearers to think something is being covered up so tight. That's too fringe.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. "some experts talk about 19 names that don't appear on a manifest "

You need to find some experts that know what they are talking about. The manifests had the 19 names on them.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/linkstoterrorism%2Calqaedainfo

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/official_manifest_images.html

[MrMickeysMom]

90. The authenticity of this...

...has been questioned by some 9/11 researchers!

[Bolo Boffin]

91. :eyes: n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

102. I guess that's your way of saying...

:eyes:

Cluck, cluck, cluck, which is the only way you could respond to this.

Neither you nor I have a corner on the truth, which gives way to seeking it.

[snooper2]

111. "researchers"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


You got three of them in this thread alone!


:rofl: :rofl :rofl:

[Kalun D]

92. Those aren't the original mainifests

the original manifests did not have the 19 names on them

[Bolo Boffin]

94. The Globe got the original manifests to produce that graphic.

The manifests are available in the links I provided.

[Ohio Joe]

88. oh, I do have my own theory

"I see some experts talk about 19 names that don't appear on a manifest"

I take a personal interest in outlandish claims... mainly the ones that include people I know being fools or liars. When I see things like you have above, I kind of loose interest. The passenger lists have been posted here/linked to many times. I'm convinced, you are not, I do not see how my being uninterested in going round and round on it is any indication of a cover up, me being weak or me not having a theory.

[MrMickeysMom]

89. Doesn't sound like a theory at all

As far as being a fool or a liar... what a self fulfilling prophecy.

Speaking of loosing interest...

[Kalun D]

93. those aren't the original lists

the original lists that came out right after the event did not include the 19 names

so what is your theory of why there is no video of any of the 19 boarding any of the planes on 911?

have you seen all the video cameras that are at all airports?

how come there's not one single frame of evidence?

[SDuderstadt]

95. For the last fucking time...

the lists that came out right after the event WEREN'T the manifests, they were "victim lists". How many times does this need to be explained to you?

[Kalun D]

96. Determinations

so how did the airlines immediately determine that the 19 Arabs were the perpetrators and shouldn't be included in the "victim lists"?

did they conduct an investigation? did they analyze the video evidence and identify these guys as "terrorists"?

What did you say happened to the video evidence?

Or did airports not have video surveillance before 911?

[SDuderstadt]

97. From the reports they heard from the planes...

duh.

As far as the videos, we have seen various videos of the hijackers going through security. We also have the previously mentioned witness accounts from passengers. You're really stretching here.

[Kalun D]

106. So let's get this straight.

While all 4 planes were being hijacked at least one of each crew was calling in during the limited time left and ID'ing the hijackers. And none of the hijackers had any problems with the crew making phone calls ID'ing them. So both airlines and at least 4 crew in panic conditions get all the ID's exactly right and post the results the next day.

"You're really stretching here."

you couldn't be projecting here could you?

So is there any record of even one of these crew phone calls taking place? Like a transcript? Which could easily be faked, but let's see it.

"we have seen various videos of the hijackers going through security"

Security of one of the 4 flights? Or 2 "hijackers" going through a checkpoint elsewhere?

Got links?

"We also have the previously mentioned witness accounts from passengers."

More written transcripts from alphabet agencies? Supposedly from the deceased? How convenient, from people who can't be here to testify?

[SDuderstadt]

109. Strawman argument....

Who said the calls were from the crew? Did you forget about all the calls from passengers?

More written transcripts from alphabet agencies? Supposedly from the deceased? How convenient, from people who can't be here to testify?

Wrong again, dude. The transcripts aren't from "alphabet agencies". Supposedly from the deceased? Well, yeah, unless you're claiming their relatives are lying. And, as to your point that the passengers are dead so they can't testify, it sure seems that people like you exploit that...except you really can't because they left relatives behind who can testify what their loved ones said. Maybe you should talk to them. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

[MrMickeysMom]

103. Good question...

I expect another :eyes: and a cluck!

[RedSock]

15. answers

Where are the videos from the pentagon that the fbi snatched?

Locked away in some secret place. The location of which we do not know.

How did Bush see the first plane hit on the WTC?

He didn't. He's a dolt who is/was simply a figurehead who has/had no real job or responsibility. So he says/said crazy shit from time to time to convince himself and others that he is/was part of the action.

What about the videos showing the explosive squibs on the towers?

What about them? (The squibs do look suspicious, however, I will say that.)

[BeFree]

17. Answers?

You call those answers? Put a sock in it.

[wildbilln864]

33. I'm sorry RedSock but....

your opinions will not suffice! We need answers from a real investigation.

[wildbilln864]

41. so you don't know that police investigators...

theorize about the conspiracies related to the crimes they investigate? Rather naive.

[Ohio Joe]

47. of course they do...

However, properly done (and not all police work conforms to it), they use science and facts.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[LARED]

19. Sounds like a religion to me.

Swami’s finding that 9/11 conspiracy believers frequently spoke with likeminded individuals supports the notion that “conspiracy thinkers constitute a community of believers,” remarks historian Robert Goldberg of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Goldberg has studied various conspiracy theories in the United States.

Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts.

[BeFree]

20. You'd know

Official Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can hide “the truth,” and keep it from spreading to the masses, fostering social change. And keep all conversations about it in the dungeon.

[LARED]

31. You know I do agree with a sentiment held by many truthers

I to believe you can't hide the truth, and it will eventually be made known.

After eight years perhaps the truth is right in front of you, but you can't see it because you have your heart set on a different vision

Jer 17;9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

[BeFree]

35. Oh

How about "Do not be a false witness"?

Truth is, from whence the OCT comes and what it is designed to do tells me that my heart IS in the right place. "Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing."

[LARED]

38. Gee, rationalize much nt

[BeFree]

40. :(

The next time anyone (including me) wonders why it is so damn hard to discuss reality on this board, this shtick about "rationalize much" will provide some clues.

[MrMickeysMom]

83. That, and...

when after evasive maneuvers they whine, "Quit Hijacking the Thread!"

[Ohio Joe]

36. Agreed

As an atheist, I find it has the same reaction from me as well. My agreeing with science and fact should not elicit attacks from those that wish to impose belief over said science and facts, because they feel it voids their belief.

I don't care what you believe, but don't expect me to remain silent when you wish to proffer belief as fact.

[JackRiddler]

57. But these criteria would fit any movement for change

including elite think-tank initiatives:

"spoke with likeminded individuals"

"community of believers" (in common goals or a common set of propositions, like, say, "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?)

"find 'the truth,' spread it to the masses and foster social change," again...

true of religious missionary movements, but also true of any social movement for change, ever, whether elite or from below. Right down to the Obama campaign.

Should one not speak with likeminded individuals, agree on common propositions, try to spread these and foster social change? It's practically the definition of all political activity not concerned with maintaining a status quo.

[Kalun D]

61. From the Article

Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious and inquisitive, a new study suggests.

Inquisitive? You have to be, otherwise, just be a sheep my friend, cuz only sheep are not inquisitive.

Suspicious? Why would anybody be suspicious? After all those with money and power have never lied to us!

A belief that the government is covering up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks thus feeds the idea that the government is also hiding evidence of extraterrestrial contacts or that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman.

You lost me right there, and 90% of Americans think the Kennedy killing was a conspiracy, after all the Zapgruder film shows him being shot from the front. Classic disinfo too, trying to tie unproven aliens with a proven conspiracy theory.

But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says.

Absolute bullsh*t. I filter everything I read.

[SDuderstadt]

65. "90% of Americans think the Kennedy killing was a conspiracy"

Please provide some proof of this goofy claim. Also, how does the Zapruder film establish that JFK was shot from the front? This is just more of your bullshit.

[noise]

98. The article implies

that the people who don't question 9/11 are superior critical thinkers when it's possible they are simply more authoritarian or less informed.

[SDuderstadt]

99. They are superior critical thinkers when it comes to...

evaluating evidence and drawing proper conclusions.

[noise]

100. Proper?

What are proper conclusions?

I wonder what Viren Swami would suggest one do when key evidence isn't available. Is the proper view in such a case to assume all classification was done in good faith?

[SDuderstadt]

101. Yeah...proper....

do you deny there is such a thing?

For example, let's say a murder has been committed and an eyewitness testifies that the muderer was wearing all black. On a hunch, the police get a search warrant for two doors down and find a black shirt, black pants, black socks and black shoes. Did the police definitively find the murderer?

[Realityhack]

104. Do I get to answer?

This reminds me of the genetic statistics problem (from a mathematician reads the newspaper??) where the suspect fits the 1 in 10,000 DNA profile... so what are the statistical odds it's the right guy... etc.

[noise]

105. Was the investigation above board?

Was the eyewitness telling the truth? Were the police pressured to come to the proper conclusion? Did Lee Hamilton hold a press conference stating that the police were incompetent?

When does Viren Swami find it appropriate for citizens to question authority? Anyone who questions any aspect of 9/11 is considered a conspiracy theorist? If some people who question 9/11 have a conspiratorial worldview does that mean that their questions about 9/11 are unfounded?

It's difficult to evaluate Swami's study without more information about his personal views on 9/11 and dissent against authority.

[eomer]

107. Not getting your point.

Let's fill in more details to your example and say that the murder occurred in a small town in Alabama, that the suspect's skin was black too, that the suspect was convicted by a case that was a combination of circumstantial evidence and a few white "eyewitnesses", and that the suspect has been doing time in prison for a couple of decades. Physical samples were taken but no technology existed at the time of the trial that could put them to any use.

Should citizens passively assume that the government's conclusion was proper?

Or should they question the conclusion and insist on DNA testing? Perhaps at the risk of implying a conspiracy among local authorities, even though they can't prove it?

Some governors are actually arguing that DNA testing should not be done in their states, even in the face of exoneration of other innocent men by it, because it would take away the "finality" of the state's criminal processes. Do you agree with these governors that all those "proper" conclusions of guilt should be respected, not questioned, considered final?

[vincent_vega_lives]

108. I've always suspected

“It seems likely that conspiratorial beliefs serve a similar psychological function to superstitious, paranormal and, more controversially, religious beliefs, as they help some people to gain a sense of control over an unpredictable world,” French says

[MinM]

116. Psychologists Weigh In On 9/11

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/psychologists-weigh-in-on-911.html