10 years out, I finally, reluctantly, identify myself as a "Truther"...

[Rabblevox]

I'm not a "conspiracy theorist". My initial take on 9/11 was terrorism combined with massive intel failure and bureaucratic infighting. But dammit, too many things don't add up. I won't bore anyone (unless they ask) with facts and figures and tape.

But the shit they are selling just doesn't play.

There was too much prior FBI/CIA knowledge about the 15 Saudi's involved.

There were definite, concrete warnings delivered to the president.

There was the "coincidence" of an Air Force drill that day that left most of the east coast undefended.

There is the written proof that the PNAC (including Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice and others) had wished for just exactly a "Pearl Harbor" incident like this.

There is the videotape of Israeli intelligence operatives celebrating seconds BEFORE the first plane hits.

And there is WTC7. There has never been a credible explanation for how/why it came down as it did.

This is, like it or not, the defining story of this generation. And I call bullshit. The story as presented simply does not play. Too many holes, too many inconsistencies. Too many lies.

I don't know what the "truth" is about 9/11. I might never know the "truth".

But I am convinced that we are not being told anything close to the truth. I am convinced that the "truth" is being hidden/buried.

So yeah. Call me a "Truther" because I fucking want to know the truth.

[greyl]

1. If you "fucking want to know the truth", look closer at those 6 claims.

Check into them with an open mind without relying on solely on Conspiracy Industry sources. There's no shortage of information to be found, if one looks.

What kind of productive motivation has this new self-identification of yours inspired? Anything beyond skimming Truther sites and making this OP?

[whathehell]

2. Why are you being so hostile to this poster?

[Rabblevox]

3. Thanks for the mind-reading attempt, but fail. (as a matter of fact, how fucking dare you?) /nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

4. OK, then, can you support the assertions in your OP?

If you're just looking to start a flame war, this is a good beginning. But I hope not.

[Rabblevox]

5. Here are some of the sources I've found convincing. (I don't mind arguments, but hate flame wars)...

1: There was too much prior FBI/CIA knowledge about the 15 Saudi's involved.

"The Man Who Knew" PBS 2002. About FBI Agent John O'Neill who was THE expert on Al-Quida and Osama Bin-Laden. Forced out of the agency in 2000. Died 9/11 while head of security for the WTC.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

got to run now, but I'll be happy to come back and argue my other assertions.

[greyl]

6. I agree with you that THAT point is one with legs.

At the very least it shows how the Bush admin should be faulted for extreme negligence and incompetence.
Unfortunately, the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement distracts from it all to often with ridiculous claims about controlled demolition and "no-hijackers".

[Rabblevox]

7. Not just negligence and incompetence, but complicity...

they WANTED something like this to happen, and at the very least, they ignored the warning signs and let it happen for political gain.

as to controlled demolition, I'm not an engineer, but AE911truth.org's vid (Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth) "Blueprint For Truth" was pretty compelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

[greyl]

9. If you're aware of evidence for complicity, it would be important to share it.

As for AE911truth, that's another one of the Conspiracy Industry bullshit sources that hides the full truth and makes demonstrably contra-factual claims. Just check into their claims, and investigate what has been written about them.

[defendandprotect]

53. You're saying we here are a "conspiracy industry" ... ??? ROFL

And are you pretending that you haven't see the evidence laid out here over and again?

Where was NORAD on 9/11 -- AWOL!

Try dealing with that one --

[greyl]

77. No. Loyal Conspiracy Consumers is more apt for you here. nt

[defendandprotect]

78. "Loyal" to whom ...? Are you saying this is "conspiracy-free America" -- ???

[greyl]

79. The Conspiracy Theory Industry.

Did you come up with the idea that humans never landed on the moon on your own?
No.

[defendandprotect]

80. Rather the anti-conspiracy side is the "industry" -- cover ups including death ...

or are you denying that, as well?

We've had more than 50 years of RW political violence --

and internationally, the US/CIA has been busy, indeed -- !!


I'd be happy to discuss the moon landings with you -- start an OP --

but, yes, I happened to doubt the moon landings from the beginning --

That doesn't mean that I would have had the experience with these issues

to have unravelled how they did it --

Same is true with 9/11 -- how many of us were at the Pentagon while the

plane was still reported flying around the most heavily protected air space

in the world?

Do we rely on information from journalists like Jamie McIntyre and the CNN

crew -- of course! Do we rely on film which shows that there was no plane

debris on the lawn of the Pentagon that couldn't be carried by hand?

Or should we ignore it when a qualified journalist and his CNN crew tells us

clearly and proudly that "no plane hit the Pentagon"? Do you really think

that should be ignored?

Or maybe we should ignore the fact that later he is forced to retract what he said?

How many stories are "retracted" by journalists?

Are we to believe that they assigned an incompetent journalist and crew to the

Pentagon on 9/11?

How many of us have specific knowledge of how demolition crews work -- ?

Should we ignore what we see with our own eyes -- or ignore what demolition experts

tell us?

Should we ignore the film of Silverstein telling us that the decision was made "to pull"

Building #7 -- ?

Did people working in the area and at the WTC have any idea of the growing reality that

the WTC towers were "White elephants" -- that they had ASBESTOS problems?

Do you think it was a complete secret that they were going to have to be brought down the

way they were put up -- Piece by piece?

The costs of heating and cooling the WTC towers was immense --

the floor space was undesirable --

There's a lot of info out there -- no industry is controlling what the Firefighters have told

us -- or what we can hear being said by those manning the radar screens as the "training"

mission commences and news of the actual "hijackings" are being realized --

As one soldier asks, "Are we really supposed to believe this is a coincidence?"

Are the videos made that day by our coporate-press part of the "conspiracy industry" --

you know the ones -- where police officers and firefighters are telling us about the explosions

going off in the buildings -- explosions ringing the building -- boom, boom, boom --

floor by floor?

Firefighters are part of the conspiracy industry? :rofl:


Same with the moon landing farce --

Ironically, one of the most glaring pieces of evidence is the video

that was released showing the astronauts creating a "black background"

for the earth seen thru one of the space capsule windows.

The LEM itself is another glaring bit of evidence --

The computers available at the time --




One of the most telling things about our space adventures is how boring

they have been -- the public was clamoring to get "I Love Lucy!" back -- !!


The Foundes also cautioned us re conspiracy -- even to the point of suggesting

what should be done if we had a conspiracy between a President and VP --

i.e., that the administration should be suspended.


Keep in mind, I'll discuss any of this with you as long as you aren't disingenuous

in your responses --

[greyl]

81. Like any industry, the Conspiracy Theory Industry has a target market. nt

[defendandprotect]

82. OK ... so you're going for disingenuous -- ?

[greyl]

84. Absolutely not. I just don't want to help this thread go haywire.

I gave clarification to your main question from post #53, and I think that'll do.

[defendandprotect]

86. Actual responses and debate are what keep a thread from going haywire .. try it -- !!

[OnTheOtherHand]

97. sure, except that I think you put several of us on ignore

I don't think you have much credibility when it comes to lecturing greyl about "actual... debate."

[defendandprotect]

85. Are you saying that Bush/Cheney were on the level? No stolen election ..?

No thuggery and criminality from the very beginning -- just two straight arrows?


:rofl:

Or maybe you're saying that the BFEE is on the level?


Keep in mind that our Founders cautioned us about a conspiracy between the President

and Vice President -- but of course we all know that they were tin foilers!!


:rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

98. why can't you address what greyl actually wrote? n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. don't feel bad: most of them aren't engineers either :) n/t

[defendandprotect]

83. Rather, it 's "ridiculous" to suggest that the towers weren't brought down by demolition .....

as for "no hijackers" --- it makes much more sense than that the plot would have

begun by relying on NORAD BEING AWOL -- what were the odds on that?


Or that four commercial airliners could be simutaneously hijacked from our airports?

:rofl: --

And American Airlines tells us that there was NO flight #11 on 9/11 --


The holes in the 9/11 OCT are endless -- !!

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. good, let's all do it that way

I think you'll find, on the one hand, that a lot of nerves here are frayed -- but on the other, that it's possible to have serious discussion.

As a separate matter, offhand, I think you're starting with your best point. I'm not convinced that it isn't compatible with "bureaucratic infighting," but I don't assume that that is an adequate explanation.

On the definite, concrete warnings -- I don't see how they were specific enough to infer that Bush deliberately failed to do things he should have. (Also, I have trouble connecting these dots into a coherent theory.)

I haven't seen any evidence that the drills affected the defense of the east coast; as far as I can tell, two pairs of fighters was SOP.

I don't think it's reasonable to read the Pearl Harbor quotation as evincing a wish for such an event -- not least because it would be pointlessly stupid to put it in writing, but also because I just don't think the context of the document supports that reading.

The "Israeli intelligence operatives" thing -- maybe if you show me the video. Otherwise, that's a bit of a hot button.

I don't see what about the NIST account of WTC 7's collapse isn't credible, especially compared with the alternatives. The building was demolished how? why? Are we positing a motley conspiracy of CIA, FBI, Bush, neo-cons, Saudis, Israelis, and Larry Silverstein? If the point of 9/11 was to provide the pretext for a war with Iraq, then why the frack didn't they (for some value of "they") manage to frame some Iraqis, why did they mess with WTC 7, and in general why was the whole thing so complicated?

[Rabblevox]

12. I appreciate frayed nerves, but am really hoping for real discussion....

I'll freely admit, I also have trouble connecting the dots. I don't have a coherent explanation or a "smoking gun". I just know the "Official Story" has gaping holes and "facts" that fly in the face of logic and science.

Re: drills and defense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o

Re PNAC's desire for a precipitating event:
http://world911truth.org/the-new-american-century-pnac/

Re: Israeli Intelligence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh3wo18oDZU&feature=related

More later, life calls.

[OnTheOtherHand]

23. whoa, four hours of video?

Maybe you can point me to the most relevant parts. Better yet, address the specifics. Are you saying that there were more than four jets that could have been scrambled from Otis and Langley, or are you saying something completely different? Are you saying that Rebuilding America's Defenses really does yearn for a 9/11 attack, or something else?

As for Israeli intelligence, I'll try to make it through that video tomorrow. Are you saying that it contains a videotape of Israeli operatives celebrating before the first plane hits? That seems like an urban legend to me, based on what I've heard about the "dancing Israeli" story and on common sense. Who would have filmed such a video (some weird Mossad rite of passage?!), how would "we" get it, and if "we" did have it, why would it not be much more widely known? Also, while it's not inherently anti-Semitic to suspect that Mossad could have played a role in the 9/11 attacks, it seems that this story doesn't credit Israeli intelligence with much intelligence.

[defendandprotect]

54. NORAD AWOL on 9/11 is a "smoking gun" ... and may I recommend ...

that you consider putting the poster on IGNORE?

[OnTheOtherHand]

57. NORAD was not AWOL -- they scrambled four planes

We have extensive documentary evidence of what NORAD was doing on 9/11. It isn't altogether flattering, to be sure.

"La-la-la-I'm-not-LI-stening!" is not a very attractive face to present to the world.

[defendandprotect]

87. Basically, we'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind to ignore 9/11 as inside job -- !!

[BeFree]

11. If you are like me...

...you too find no fun or excitement or fulfillment of desire in being a Truther.

It is just something that reason tells me I must be.

[Rabblevox]

13. Exactly! I do not come willingly, and I still don't know what to believe...

but what I KNOW is that the official story makes no sense.

[zappaman]

14. if the "official story" makes no sense

please layout a better story.
Don't leave out the details.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. well, something, anyway

I think it's actually fair to complain that you can't reasonably demand all the details, because after all, there was a cover-up.

At the same time, as you say, if the official story supposedly makes no sense, then it ought to be possible to show that some other story makes more sense, or at least might make more sense.

[BeFree]

22. Cover-up?

Are you saying the government is involved in a cover-up of 9/11?

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. I assume that someone is covering up something, although that wasn't quite my point

Even if the government isn't covering up anything (ETA: to do with the origins of the 9/11 attacks, let's say), it would be pretty reasonable to say (e.g.) "I think the CIA is keeping a dark secret, but for that very reason, I don't know what it is."

[BeFree]

26. Evidence of a cover-up

Redacted senate report that just hit the news again with Sen. Graham asking to uncover it.
Link here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1948752&mesg_id=1948752

C'mon, you can say it: They are in a cover-up mode.

Scary, ain't it?

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. I can't even tell what you're saying, really

Do you think that Graham's comments somehow vindicate AE911Truth? If anything, one might wonder whether AE911Truth is a Saudi front.

[greyl]

29. Can you please, briefly as possible, define what you mean by "the official story"? nt

[defendandprotect]

88. Do you not undestand that the official story is one of "conspiracy" ... ???? ROFL

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

105. I know for certain that I'm seeking truth

I really have no idea what you're seeking. A flame war, perhaps.

[defendandprotect]

55. Had they told Americans that the Chinese or the Russians did 9/11 ...

we'd all still be :rofl: --

[jakeXT]

15. Exercises on 9/11

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=complete_911_timeline_training_exercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline

[defendandprotect]

89. Including one where hijacked planes were being run into Pentagon ... !!

Originally, the Pentagon dismissed this as completely unbelievable -- !!!

But, now the story is how vulnerable, unprotected and exposed the Pentagon was -- !!


:rofl: -- :rofl: --

[LARED]

16. Well I for one hope you

get better.

[Flatulo]

17. AE911Truth is a con. I watched their DVD last night and

came away convinced that he's at the best sadly misinformed, and at worst a charlatant.

He has some mighty bald-faced lies in his opus work, and as a real, degreed engineer from one of the top engineering schools in the world, I can with complete confidence call B.S. on several of his key talking points.

He may be sincere, but he's incredibly wrong about so many things that the whole package is tainted for me.

Now, he's not entirely wrong, and he has made some good observations, but nothing that proves controlled demolition. When you study his work, you should apply the same skepticism filters that you would when reading any OCT work.

Welcome to hell.

[Kaleko]

18. Good for you, Rabblevox.

Your bullshit detector is still intact. Trust your sense of cognitive dissonance. It's your innate navigator urging you to pay attention, to carefully discern between what has the unmistakable ring of truth and what smells fishy - no matter how popular the fishmarket version of reality.

You're being swarmed by anti-truth wasps here. They try to sting everybody who is waking up from the collective trance so they can inject their toxic numbing agents and keep you among their ranks. Don't let them stop you from conducting your own investigation wherever it may lead.

[cpwm17]

19. Incredible claims require incredible evidence

If one post opinions that the US Government committed mass murder against thousands of its own citizens, they need to bring the evidence. This is a public forum. If one can't stand the scrutiny of their own opinions, then they shouldn't post here.

There are some truths to what Rabblevox wrote, many half truths, and some things that are completely wrong and have been thoroughly discredited. None of it adds up to a made-it-happen operation by the US Government.

Please, you, Rabblevox, or anyone else, state what happened on 9-11 in detail: who did it, what happen, how many people involved, how were they recruited, how has it been kept a secret, why did they do it, what evidence do you have, etc. Then compare your scenario to the official story and state why your scenario makes more sense.

If your opinions make no sense, don't play the victim when your opinions are thoroughly discredited. 9-11 isn't a faith-based religion - bring the evidence.

[BeFree]

20. To be fair

Lets look at the bushco OCT against your questions.

Quote: "who did it, what happen, how many people involved, how were they recruited, how has it been kept a secret, why did they do it, what evidence do you have, "

So far only 21 people have been 'officially' charged with the crime. OBL was not officially charged. But we know there were many others in the OTC that had to have been in on it. Why have none of them been charged?

The OCT is keeping many secrets... why? Why did they go after Afghanistan when 15 Saudis were thought to be involved? Why did they let the Saudis leave the country? Why weren't the known foreigners rounded up before the event?

Why don't any of you who are not seeking the Truth have any answers to these and hundreds of more questions? Why?

Is it because the OCT is a faith based religion? It seems it is. And yall get your panties in a twist every time we question that Gawd damned bushco derived set of theories that are NOT complete, indeed, many, many secrets remain held by the officials. Little by little leaks are happening and all yall do is totally ignore these new facts that continue to eat away at the veracity of the OCT. Actually, the OCTers are to be pitied because of their blind faith and dogmatic positions.

[William Seger]

30. But you're not going to do as cpwm17 suggested, are you?

You don't understand what he's asking? Too much effort? Afraid of the result? What's your problem, if you're so damned concerned about getting the truth?

> Is it because the OCT is a faith based religion? It seems it is.

You have a laughable proclivity for taking things said about the "truth movement" and simply turning them around, completely oblivious to the fact that they just don't make any sense that way. Evidence-based reasoning is pretty much the opposite of religion.

[cpwm17]

35. 9-11, as all evidence indicates, was a very low tech and simple operation

The high tech aircraft were used to conduct the attack. The terrorists didn't need to design the aircraft, they only needed to learn to fly them. The attack on 9-11 required very few people.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is considered the mastermind. A half dozen others were involved in the planning, who knows how many financed it, though it required relatively little money. I'm not sure who you are referring to when you mentioned the uncharged terrorists.

Here, Osama, shortly after 9-11 discuses his involvement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qloshSGAJ1s

As you should know, the US is the world's worst war mongering nation. This has been going on since well before 9-11. Our entire history we've found lame excuses for war. Post 9-11 is no exception. Attacking Afghanistan and Iraq is business as usual. Americans like war, at least when they first start, so the public went along. Our wars tend to be about the money and corrupt special interests.

Our foreign policy is why we got attacked in the first place. The terrorists are very clear about this fact.

Why did they go after Afghanistan when 15 Saudis were thought to be involved? Bush could sell a war against Afghanistan and Iraq, plus Bush already had fantasies about attacking Iraq. Saudi Arabia is our second strongest (alleged) ally in the ME - don't touch. It's about money and the oil with Saudi Arabia.

Why weren't the known foreigners rounded up before the event? We're not supposed to be a police state, so US officials can't just round up anyone they please. Though, letting these particular terrorists get through seems like incompetence, possibly brought on by infighting between the intelligence agencies. 20-20 hindsight is great. One can speculate about more sinister motives in a let-it-happen scenario, but that's just speculation; and it's far from a make-it-happen 9-11 conspiracy.

Like I wrote earlier: incredible claims require incredible evidence. The Truthers have none.

[BeFree]

37. My Gawd, the excuses!!

If it is as simple as you make it sound, why all the damned cover-up? Don't you wonder for one brief second why, if it is as you believe, they have to cover-up and hide secrets?

For even a second?

I know, you like it simple: "It was always thus".

Then you have us Truthers who don't believe bushco and don't eat their bullshit and make excuses for them. You must really hate people who think all the way through things, eh?

[cpwm17]

38. Can you be more specific?

What cover-ups?

Why can't you come up with a plausible scenario, with evidence, of what happened on and leading up to 9-11. You don't have to be perfect - that's impossible, but it has to be plausible.

You're not even trying. You claim that the US Government committed mass murder against US citizens. Bring on the evidence.:shrug:

[BeFree]

39. Really?

You ask what cover-ups? Really? Are you that clueless?

"The chairman, vice chairman, and senior legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission wrote books partially disassociating themselves from the commission's report. They said that the Bush administration put obstacles in their path, that information was withheld from them, that President Bush agreed to testify only if he was chaperoned by Vice President Cheney and neither were put under oath, that Pentagon and FAA officials lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for investigation for obstruction of justice."

If you really want to know - which I seriously doubt - about alternative scenarios just search for and read a few threads of mine.

[cpwm17]

64. So this is what constitutes evidence of Bush's mass-murder against US citizens?

Obviously you have little. That's barely the first step in a marathon distance to reach your conclusions.

The link I provided of Osama's discussion about his actual involvement in 9-11 is a million times more compelling.

I believe it's tribal. You're able to believe all these crazy conspiracies about Bush and his team because they aren't like you. They're on the other team. It's similar to but much more extreme than the dehumanization of Southerners, Texans, Christians (I'm an atheist) seen frequently on DU.

I despise Bush. He's a war criminal and should be prosecuted. It's based on objective evidence. I never feel for his WMD BS, and I won't fall for your Truther BS.

If I'm ever falsely accused of a crime and go to trail, please don't be on my jury. I'd be in a shit load of trouble.

[BeFree]

67. You're the first

OCTer who has, tmk, stated bush should be prosecuted, so give you a star!

Anyway, wave off the facts about the 9/11 commission and the rest of the cover-up, and continue your personal attacks on me and see how far that gets you: nowhere.

I feel sorry for you.... all you have is what bushco has come up with, and all you have done here is make excuses for their story, even tho you know they are liars. Tough spot to be in.

[defendandprotect]

93. Osama Bin Laden DENIED any involvement in 9/11 -- and he was a CIA asset -- !!!

US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda and financed it thru ISI-Pakistan up to the

very moment of 9/11 -- and probably beyond!

[defendandprotect]

92. Not to mention it was going to take KISSINGER to cover it up -- !!!

And Keating resigned if I recall correctly --

That's a lot of covering up --

[defendandprotect]

91. Get real -- what were the risks of hijacking four commercial jet liners --

How did they know that NORAD would be AWOL --

Try answering those questions --

We've seen the "evidence" of the OCT -- and it sucks -- even the Commission has

stated that -- !!

[defendandprotect]

90. Simple to hijack 4 commercial airliners simultaneously? ROFL

And obviously there would have been no risks in that -- :rofl:

Presumably the hijackers just happened to have a crystal ball which told them that

NORAD was going to be AWOL on 9/11 -- coincidentally -- :rofl:

And then they were going to cruise the most heavily protected airspace in the world --

DC and area of White House and Pentagon -- for more than an hour -- :rofl:


And, evidently the news still hasn't reached you -- these "pilots" couldn't fly -- :rofl:


The financing is known -- and it traces back to an inside job --


The sanctions on Iraq were close to being lifted -- and the MIC were "the only losers."

See Susan Lindauer --


No one was "rounded up" before the event because Bush/Cheney were conducting a "project ignore"

re the intelligence coming in -- including a visit from the United Nations Security Council in

August -- not only to the White House but to our intelligence agencies as well!



9/11 OCT is an "incredible claim" -- with no evidence -- so many holes in the story it's

lace curtain Irish!

[William Seger]

100. It doesn't become "incredible" because conspiracy crackpots refuse to believe it

... and more importantly, the evidence doesn't just disappear when crackpots blithely assert it's fake without a sliver of a reason except that if it's real then their fantasies aren't. It was easy to hijack the planes because at the time, the policy was to cooperate with hijackers in the hope that the passengers could be saved. The pilots had more than enough training to be able to point the planes at buildings. And it was easy to avoid a defense system that was designed to protect us from Russian bombers, not from our own commercial flights.

What the credible evidence tells us is that the hijackers were much more intelligent than "truthers." Scary, ain't it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

101. "no risks in that" -- well, it was a suicide mission, after all

If you want to walk us through whatever it is that you think happened -- something to do with thermite, cruise missiles, faked plane crashes, planted evidence, and/or who knows what-all else -- I guess we could consider whether that was foolproof. Yeesh.

[Kaleko]

25. For people who still believe in the BushCo fairytale

after 10 years of debunking, I have no comment.

[BeFree]

27. Pitiful, ain't it? n/t

[Kaleko]

43. You're right.

I tend to get impatient with BBs (Bushit Believers) but the highest level response to this inability to handle the truth would be genuine compassion.

[William Seger]

44. We have a winner

... for Irony Post of the Month.

[BeFree]

46. Yes, Kaleko

We must remember we are on the right path and in all that we do we must understand that there are those who are either willfully ignorant and too scared to face the truth, so we must have some pity on them, because they are fellow humans.

One fault of these (new word) comp-versations is that we are not face-to-face and therefore not keenly aware that the others are indeed humans. I find myself treating them sometimes like I would a bad acting computer. Trying to not do that, but..... it ain't always easy.

[LARED]

61. Spoken like a true believer

to paraphrase your comment

Hate the sin but love the sinner.

[defendandprotect]

94. Agree --

the debate is so lame they eventually end up on ignore --

[defendandprotect]

56. If US government wants to suggest that 9/11 happened there should be evidence of it ...

where is any evidence of a plane? Or passengers?

Nor do we really know who died at the WTC -- seems the buildings may have been

closed at 7am ??


NORAD BEING AWOL makes no sense --


What does make sense is the reality that the WTC were going to have to be brought down

piece by piece as they were put up due to ASBESTOS -- and that demolition was not going

to be permitted for environmental reasons --

What's also makes sense is RW's need for a new "Pearl Harbor" -- and an attack on Iraq!


And, time was closing in on them -- the sanctions were about to be settled --

and only the MIC was the big loser!!


See Susan Lindauer -- CIA asset and whistleblower here ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x321024#321175


And, btw, Lindauer confirms that CIA weeks before were saying they expected it to be a

"Thermonuclear device" and express fear re release of radiation --

[William Seger]

28. "innate navigator"

"Truthers" are a subset of those who put their faith in their "innate navigator" even though they can't prove the things it leads them to believe, and despite the fact that evidence-based reasoning has proved itself to be a far superior method for understanding the world. The larger group that you belong to believes all sorts of (literally) incredible things. You're free to prefer that method, but when you call people who prefer evidence-based reasoning "anti-truth wasps" you're simply demonstrating that you really, really don't understand how rational people think. That's no crime, of course, but making statements like that pretty much insures that rational people will not take you seriously.

[BeFree]

31. What about the cover-up?

Link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1948752&mesg_id=1948752

Is Graham a Truther, too?

[William Seger]

32. Of course not. A "truther" is...

... someone who has a religious belief in a highly implausible conspiracy theory for absolutely no good reason. Graham thinks there should be a new investigation of the possible involvement of certain Saudis in a plot that you insist on denigrating as the "bushco OCT." That would just be a theory about a conspiracy, not a "conspiracy theory" (as that term has come to mean in the vernacular) because the association of that family with the hijackers would be a good reason to suspect they were involved in a plausible conspiracy.

[BeFree]

33. Yes. It is a cover-up

And it is obvious you don't have a clear mind as to what Truthers are and what they think.

Just because they don't believe as you do doesn't mean you know anything about Truthers. In fact it means you don't have a clue.

But if you take off your OCT glasses and read this thread carefully, you just might, eh?

Now, about this from you:"...the association of that family with the hijackers would be a good reason to suspect they were involved in a plausible conspiracy."

Care to elaborate about the cover-up that Graham wants un-covered? It's obvious that Graham wants the truth about this plausible conspiracy that has been covered-up. Are you for that?

[William Seger]

34. Huh? "Truthers" are constantly telling us what they think and why they think it

Are you saying that they aren't expressing themselves clearly? Are there some secret beliefs that you aren't sharing? Do you really have rational reasons for what you believe but can't or won't share them? Inquiring minds want to know!

But yes, the issue of identifying anyone and everyone involved with the attack and bringing them to justice is a very serious matter. But I really can't think of any reason for wasting time discussing any serious issue with you.

[BeFree]

36. Truthers don't believe what you believe

So how could you know what Truthers think? You don't think the same as Truthers.

There are many rational reasons for being a Truther. Chief among them is the vast evidence of a vast cover-up. And here, 10 years later, you admit that it is a very serious matter. Where have you been for these 10 years? What have you, Seger, been thinking all this time? All this time the cover-up is nothing, but now it is suddenly a 'serious matter'? I call that progress for you, Seger. Not that it matters one shit, but you have, finally, a breakthrough?

[William Seger]

40. I asked you some direct questions, and as usual you duck and dodge.

> So how could you know what Truthers think?

Try to keep up; I just told you: "truthers" are constantly coming here to tell us what they think and why they think it.

> There are many rational reasons for being a Truther. Chief among them is the vast evidence of a vast cover-up.

In the first place, there is no such "vast evidence of a vast cover-up" -- that's mere begging of the question -- but the more serious problem with your statement is that what "truthers" actually do is take their paranoid suspicions and elevate them to be "truth" based on nothing but what Kaleko calls their "innate navigator" and then claim that the reason they can't prove this "truth" is because of a vast cover-up. No, that is not rational to think that if the CIA covered up what they knew about the Saudis, then they also brought down the towers with superdoopernanothermite.

> And here, 10 years later, you admit that it is a very serious matter. Where have you been for these 10 years? What have you, Seger, been thinking all this time? All this time the cover-up is nothing, but now it is suddenly a 'serious matter'?

You are so full of crap, BeFree, that it's impossible to take you seriously. While the "truth movement" has been chasing after idiotic theories about fake hijackings and controlled demolitions, many people including myself have pointed out that you're nothing but a pathological and pathetic distraction from the real issues of 9/11. If you have suddenly come to appreciate one of them, that would indeed be progress, but I predict that you will soon return to your idiotic theories about fake hijackings and controlled demolitions.

[BeFree]

41. Bwhahaha

What do you think of this? This is real, and you always just ignore it.

The chairman, vice chairman, and senior legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission wrote books partially disassociating themselves from the commission's report. They said that the Bush administration put obstacles in their path, that information was withheld from them, that President Bush agreed to testify only if he was chaperoned by Vice President Cheney and neither were put under oath, that Pentagon and FAA officials lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for investigation for obstruction of justice.

[William Seger]

42. Again, you're distorting the facts (and deliberately dodging the issue at hand)

The books you're talking about say the Bush administration put obstacles in their path, as would be expected of an inherently secretive administration that always put its own political ass ahead of anything else, but then they say that despite the obstacles, they believe they basically got it right. As much as you would like to distort what they said by taking it out of context, they have made it quite clear that they have no use for your idiotic fake hijacking and controlled demolition theories. And since it's the idiotic fake hijacking and controlled demolition theories that get discussed on this forum, and virtually never any of the real questions surrounding 9/11, your accusation that I "ignore" them is baseless. In this subthread, you are simply demonstrating the uselessness of attempting rational discussion of any real issues with "truthers": They will just try to twist it around to be another rationalization for their imaginary issues.

[BeFree]

45. Wow

There it is: Proof of the cover-up and lies at the foundation of your beliefs and you dismiss the evidence with excuses for the bush administration. IT. NEVER. ENDS?

Recent news has shown, that, without a doubt, the 'hijackers' could have and would have been picked up weeks before 9/11 if bush had not ignored the PDB on Aug. 6.

The whole litany of the whole damn thing stinks to high-fucking-heaven and here you are waving it off. Fine, wave it off. But don't for one second think I'm going to ignore it and let bushco off the hook. They had a hand in it, and your trying to act as if they did not, is, as your friend and fellow hand-waver used to say: Goofy Bullshit.

Get a life, Seger. This one here is no good for you.

[William Seger]

47. Yeah, that's the ticket

> There it is: Proof of the cover-up and lies at the foundations of your beliefs and you dismiss the evidence with excuses for the bush administration. IT. NEVER. ENDS.

Of all the horseshit you've posted here, that takes the cake. There are no "cover-up and lies" at the "foundation of (my) beliefs" that 19 radical Islamists hijacked four planes and managed to hit three of their targets, and that there were no buildings brought down by controlled demolition: That is the story told by the credible facts, your preference for delusional fantasies notwithstanding. To your dismay, after 10 years there is absolutely no reason to think that the "truth movement" is anywhere close to replacing that story with a better one. And there certainly aren't any excuses for the Bush administration's secrecy and incompetence, but it's apparently impossible for you to make any point whatsoever without distorting reality. You jump into threads, then duck and dodging the issues raised, then when cornered you think playing your idiotic "bushco apologist" card will change the subject, put you on the offensive, and save you from looking like a fool for talking through your hat. Maybe so, to someone whose thinking is as fuzzy as yours, but I can't say I'm too concerned about those people.

[BeFree]

48. Sorry

I never said here that you are a bushco apologist but you just HAD to bring it up.

If bush had paid attention to the threats, the CIA/FBI would have taken the assholes off the streets and 9/11 would be just another day. Instead he ignored the truth and here you are looking like a fool again. Grow the fuck up.

[William Seger]

49. When you're ready to give up your delusional fantasies

... about fake hijackings and controlled demolitions, then maybe we can discuss real 9/11 issues. But we both know that ain't gonna happen. You've been bitten by the conspiracism vampire, and you're on the hunt for more victims.

[BeFree]

50. well

You give up your delusion that bush is innocent and you might get some respect.

And really, your personal attacks are just bullshit. You got nothing but what bush has been claiming. That's all you got. At least I am anti-bush the whole way.

[William Seger]

62. Can you make ANY point without distorting reality?

Shouldn't your frequent need to distort reality tell you something about your positions? In terms of real, tangible damage to the country and the world, in my opinion the Bush administration was the worst this country has ever suffered, by far. But what I and others always seem to end up "discussing" over and over with you is your boneheaded "logic" that that means 9/11 was an "inside job." When you make that kind of accusation, which necessarily spreads far beyond the PNACers, imaginary evidence and sloppy thinking is vastly insufficient.

[BeFree]

51. Let's review the OP.

There was too much prior FBI/CIA knowledge about the 15 Saudi's involved.

There were definite, concrete warnings delivered to the president.

There was the "coincidence" of an Air Force drill that day that left most of the east coast undefended.

There is the written proof that the PNAC (including Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice and others) had wished for just exactly a "Pearl Harbor" incident like this.

<snipped>

And there is WTC7. There has never been a credible explanation for how/why it came down as it did.

This is, like it or not, the defining story of this generation. And I call bullshit. The story as presented simply does not play. Too many holes, too many inconsistencies. Too many lies.

I don't know what the "truth" is about 9/11. I might never know the "truth".

But I am convinced that we are not being told anything close to the truth. I am convinced that the "truth" is being hidden/buried.

So yeah. Call me a "Truther" because I fucking want to know the truth.

Except for the one snip, that too is my thinking. No delusions, just facts.

[William Seger]

63. In the first place, not all of those claims are "facts"

... and in the second place, the delusions I'm talking about are the invalid and/or unsound inferences you make from the facts that are credible. You clearly do not "fucking want to know the truth" if the truth means you can't pin an "inside job" on your bushco boogieman.

[LARED]

59. And the Captain Obvious awards goes to Befree.

"You don't think the same as Truthers."

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. so you think it's impossible to understand anyone who disagrees with you?

That could explain a lot -- although you often seem to go out of your way to misunderstand people.

Just in case any lurkers are missing this: there's a large difference between thinking that people in government may be covering for Saudis who were complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and thinking that WTC 7 was demolished using highly engineered explosives. Using phrases such as "vast cover-up" doesn't really narrow that difference; it only obscures it.

[defendandprotect]

52. Glad to hear that -- but the truth of 9/11 as "false flag" is everywhere ... and it

keeps piling up --

It begins with the reality that the WTC towers were going to have to come down

because of ASBESTOS -- and demolition was not going to be permitted for environmental

reasons --

Scaffolding was going to have to be built -- very expensively -- and WTC towers taken

down piece by piece -- they were also "White Elephants" in rental market --


This truth crossed with the need for a false flag -- "new Pearl Harbor" operation by RW --


Meanwhile, also note Susan Lindauer's Whistleblowing on CIA -- she was under indictment

for 5 years and served 1 year in prison! She was a CIA asset -- who makes clear that we

were near settlement on the sanctions on Iraq which had killed a million and more there --

We were getting everything we ever dreamed of from Sadaam/Iraq government -- including full

cooperation on inspections -- and tremendous boost for our economy from cars -- Sadaam

was going to take in 1 million American cars every year -- to communications, and many other

ventures.

The only loser was the MIC -- !!!


Sanctions were also being threatened by many nations who were violing our "No fly zone" for

HUMANITARIAN reasons to bring aid and food to Iraqis --

CIA was "furious" and wanted to regain control.


Here's a link to a recap of what Susan Lindauer is reporting --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x321024#321175

[hack89]

65. It should provide a life time of intellectual stimulation

judging by the interest in JFK, UFOs and Bigfoot. However, don't expect to have get an answer in your lifetime.

[ocpagu]

66. So many coincidences...

...are used to explain the official account - not only on 9/11, but the whole wars on "terrorism" (all of them being obvious proxy oil wars) that it started - that I came to the conclusion there's no better name to it other than "coincidence theory".

Dick Cheney, vice-president was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000. Halliburton was also an important supporter of Bush's campaign. In the following year, Bush became president (did he?) and Cheney became vice-president of the US. After 9/11, the government invented the conspiracy theory linking Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (Hello!! Anybody there?), Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid. But that's just a coincidence, right?

In the day of the attacks, North American Aerospace Defense Command was involved in an ongoing operation which involved deploying fighter aircraft to northwestern North America, i.e. leaving East Coast defenseless. Aside from the military exercises, a National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11, 2001. In a simulated event, a small aircraft would crash into one of the towers of the agency's headquarters after experiencing a mechanical failure. But of course, leaving East Coast airspace unprotected the only day it couldn't be must be just another coincidence.

2.3 trillion dollars were announced as "missing" from the Pentagon's coffers, in a press conference given by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on September 10, 2011. The following day, the budget analyst office was hit by that thing that some people say to be "airplane", although not even one single image of the "airplane" has so far being released. How do we call believing in things that we can not see? Oh yes... Faith. You must rely on FAITH to believe the official account on the Pentagon attack. And of course, if you doubt of it, you must be crazy... Yet, another coincidence, right?

After the attacks, one could not find a piece of cloth intact. Yet, the Hijackers' passports were found in WTC rubble... Could it be other thing than coincidence? No, it couldn't.

9/11 Comission investiagation was "delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish." Coincidence.

The neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century, based in Washington, D.C., called for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years. And just one year before the 9/11 attacks, PNAC - which exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of George W. Bush, released the report "Rebuilding America's Defenses", stating that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". Of course, it's just a coincidence.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. so much repetition...

I'm not going to wade through all these again.

Why do you say that East Coast airspace was left "unprotected" on 9/11? Do you deny that four jets were scrambled? If so, on what basis?

That 2.3 trillion dollar thing -- c'mon, let's try a bit of critical thinking. What would it even mean for $2.3 trillion to be "'missing' from the Pentagon's coffers" -- and what would be the point in having Rumsfeld announce it in a press conference, on September 10 or any other day? If publicizing something is evidence of covering it up, what isn't?

"After the attacks, one could not find a piece of cloth intact." You "know" this how?

I've been thinking I should give poor Skinner's quotation in my sig a rest, but really, it's precisely on point.

[BeFree]

69. Kamikaze mission on 9/11?

This puts your claim to a test, eh?

Pilot has no weapons but is ordered to chase and crash into flight 93?
The skies were left undefended, and your claiming they were defended is bullshit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1946614

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. so YOU deny that four planes were scrambled?

Wouldn't it work better if you at least pretended to address my point?

[ocpagu]

70. Yes,

Let's try some critical thinking.

This is what you should see after an airplane crash into a building:



This is what you should see after an airplane crash anywhere:


And this is the Pentagon:



I'll give you a candy if you notice what's missing. :)

[OnTheOtherHand]

71. so, you have no response to any of my points

As for your new "point," that's just another unsupported claim. I'll grant that it's less nonsensical than invoking the Rumsfeld press conference as evidence of a cover-up, but that's not very high praise.

That plane at Congonhas was attempting to land. I don't know why anyone would expect its accidental collision with an unidentified building to look a lot like a high-speed ramming of the Pentagon. (I also don't know how anyone makes any sense out of the idea that someone shot... something into the Pentagon and then pretended it was a jumbo jet.)

[BobbyBoring]

73. OH YEAH!

That's the craziest part of the whole thing. Usually, when you have a plane crash, you have planes. They're pretty big things.

Of course, there's always the "They evaporated" argument. SHEESH!

[OnTheOtherHand]

75. "the 'They evaporated' argument"?

Have you ever taken, oh, ten minutes to find out what anyone who disagrees with you on this actually says about it?

[BobbyBoring]

102. I'd be glad to

Where are the planes, especially the one that hit the Pentagon?

[OnTheOtherHand]

103. seems like you've already conceded defeat

If you had any example of someone asserting that the planes evaporated, surely you would have given it.

At the Pentagon, the damage indicates that most of the plane must have gone inside the building, although debris was found outside the building as well. You may, or may not, find this essay by Jim Hoffman helpful.

If you're interested in this subject, you'll have no trouble finding answers for the other sites. You may choose to disbelieve them, for whatever reasons, but you won't need to pretend that anyone asserts that the planes evaporated.

[defendandprotect]

96. Amazing how 4 planes "evaporated" on 9/11 -- !!! ROFL

[OnTheOtherHand]

99. they didn't evaporate, so, not so amazing

It's really hard to take the "Truth Movement" seriously when straw man arguments like these run rampant. I admit that personally, I don't see that as much of a problem, but I'm surprised that so few sympathizers do.

[defendandprotect]

95. Terrific post --

Having failed to resurrect the Cold War -- they settled on "terrorism" --

Though the Pentagon made clear to W Bush in a 2002 memo that "Global Warming is a

greater threat to US than terrorism" -- !!


Halliburton was evidently as deep in ASBESTOS as the WTC towers were --

Lawsuits were bankrupting them -- but what a blessing 9/11 was to their recovery -- !!

Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion contract for which 'unusually' only Halliburton was allowed to bid. But that's just a coincidence, right?

And yes, on 9/11, Cheney decided some of the NORAD planes should be watching the Russians

conduct their training sessions -- !!

Other of the NORAD planes were moved to the Southern states -- !!

Even the military radar operators caught on very quickly -- one young soldier immediately

says -- "Are we really supposed to believe this is coincidence?" --!!


2.3 trillion dollars were announced as "missing" from the Pentagon's coffers, in a press conference given by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on September 10, 2011. The following day, the budget analyst office was hit by that thing that some people say to be "airplane", although not even one single image of the "airplane" has so far being released. How do we call believing in things that we can not see? Oh yes... Faith. You must rely on FAITH to believe the official account on the Pentagon attack. And of course, if you doubt of it, you must be crazy... Yet, another coincidence, right?

Well put --- !! 9/11 is a "faith-based" conspiracy -- !!


Coroner in PA made clear there was "nothing" there --

Shortly thereafter -- he noted that it now looked like they had brought in a truck full of junk

and dumped it in the hole!


9/11 Comission investiagation was "delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish." Coincidence.


$15 million on a day as Bush put "never to be forgot" --

but $90 million to try to impeach Clinton for a blow job --



PNAC has also now undergone a name change -- !!

Funny how that happens -- !!

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[zappaman]

76. "To Zionists like Larry, the lives of a few thousand people are no big deal."

you can't be serious.