Who thinks DU should ban the bizarre 9-11 conspiracy theory threads

[votein04]

There's been a couple of recent threads with a 9-11 conspiracy theme.

The small number of people who seem to be banging this drum mostly spend their time asking pregnant questions.

Such as:
"1. How did falling debris on the OUTSIDE cause ignition of a fire INSIDE the WTC 7 that was so great to topple the building itself?
2. The WT7 building is in between two other buildings, why didnÕt they catch fire
and collapse as well?
3. The WT7 building burned (supposedly) and fell 7 hours after the collapse of both towers.
During these 7 hours, why didnÕt the firefighters notice it was burning?

These questions...any many others equally dumb ones
(like why didn't another steel building - the Peace Dome in Hiroshima - fall?)
are asked with the implication that 9-11 was a government conspiracy to drum up support for the war (and the patriot act/loss of our privacy/ect)

One of the conspiracy-minded posters - after much prodding by me - finally came out and admitted as much.

They believe the Bush government committed 9-11 as an excuse to take us to war.

I believe this kind of thing makes us at DU appear stupid.
It's obviously wasting a great deal of time. Most of the posts are between the conspiracy nuts and those who can't believe they're wasting time with it.

This, in my opinion, is highly DISRUPTIVE to the board. I don't know if that's the intent...but I'm sure the repukes are happy to see it going on.

I propose either a "conspiracy corner" area for such threads so they don't pollute general discussions or an outright ban on them.
We have to many things in the realm of REALITY (like an election just over a year away) that deserve our attention to be distracted by this garbage.

What do you think?

[poskonig]

1. Why not just ignore them?

This makes the most sense to me.

[wtmusic]

8. Agree

Posters who continue getting 2 replies on their mighty conspiracy premises usually give up anyway.

[votein04]

25. I thought of that...BUT

They give fodder to our opponents. They can hold them up as an example of our stupidity.

And invariably people won't ignore them....someone will always bite...so it wastes time also.

They are lightning rods and assuch are disruptive IMO.

[poskonig]

35. Shed your fear of the Republicans.

Those who believe we are wacky will say so on any account.

[DrBlix]

77. Why not ban everyone that disagrees with you?

)
WT7 Collapse Caught on Video_ MPEG
http://globalfreepress.com/movs/911/wtc-7_collapse.mpg
.
Implosion?¿ You be the judge. Can't have these buildings toppling over and damaging surrounding buildings now can we, what would the insurance companies do having to pay such enormous costs?

[radwriter0555]

101. Excuse ME. It's NOT stupid and these AREN'T CONSPIRACY THEORIES. The

issues we bandy about here about 9.11 are REAL. We KNOW the bush regime is complicit in the attack, and we know they're tried their damnedest to impede and prevent investigations.

These conjectures and issues aren't conspiracy theories and are worthy of discussion. We're dealing with the bush regime where our worst nightmares come true.

Fukc the 'enemy." Fukc em. I know what the truth is and I'm not going to let some asshole entertainer's opinion of the truth shut me up.

[jiacinto]

2. I do

nt

[Pepperbelly]

9. Carlos down with banning speech he doesn't like?

Who'd a thought it!?!?!?!

[newsguyatl]

113. LOL

:-)

[DuctapeFatwa]

97. Some questions should just not be asked

If "evildoers who hate freedom" is not a good enough explanation, then you are probably with the terrorists.

[IndianaGreen]

3. I have problems with people that always advocate "bans"

How would you like it if someone were to suggest we ban those that call for bans?

[saskatoon]

24. Conspiracy theories?

Where have you been child? I wouldn't put ANYTHING past those effing members of the cabal and as far as you thinking that anyone believes that there was a conspiracey is nuts then count me in.Google in 9/11 and explore what comes up, spend some time reading those sites and come back and tell what you have found. I don't know the particular stuff you are speaking of and maybe it is way out but there ARE people with unimpeachable backgrounds who think there is something to the whole thing.I don't have the link handy but type in (google) Flight 757 (Pentagon plane) and see what you get. the people there are pretty sophisticated. Try it!

[votein04]

33. Sorry for you.

No actually I'm not.

Aren't many topics banned because they're either too dumb, ignorant, or they're too much of a lightning rod?

What's wrong with that?

If some DU'er wanted to discuss his love of child porn, you got no problem with that?

[leftofthedial]

47. child porn is illegal and has a victim

conspiracy theories are not the same.

[votein04]

69. What about something not illegal?

Like my job?

I could post threads about my job and how I believe I was given my job through a network of Bush operatives to keep me busy so I wouldn't notice them planning evil deeds.

Do you think eventually someone might say ENOUGH!!

POSTS ABOUT YOUR JOB BEING A BUSH CONSPIRACY ARE BIZZARE AND WACKO AND DISRUPTIVE!

[IndianaGreen]

73. That's only YOUR opinion

so why are you trying to impose your opinion on everyone else by means of a ban? No one put a gun to your head and ordered you to click on a conspiracy thread!

I generally ignore them unless they cite a reputable source. When it comes to 9/11, and the Bush regime's failures to act. there are more than a few reputable sources. Far more reputable than the sources Bush cited for his WMD in Iraq claims.

[Alenne]

74. Yes but

posts about your job wouldn't be banned. A lot of people would probably have you on ignore or no one would respond to your posts.

[greatauntoftriplets]

96. Are you Dick Cheney???

aka Crashcart??????

[Narraback]

117. Crashcart...

I may have heard that before but it made me laugh. Thanks!

[ixion]

4. I'm thinking you should learn to use the ignore button

I think that if people want to discuss it, they should be allowed.

[Fixated]

5. ....

We ban things like racism, anti-Semitism, etc., right? We ban things that are ignorant. Seems no different...

[shockandawed]

21. Wait a minute

comparing people that dont trust the official version of what happened at the federal level with racists is just slanderous. None of us trust the Bush administration. How far minds wander varies, but everyone here is guilty of at one time or another believing in a more vast conspiricy in something that we maybe knew was a bit unfounded. But it is these types of scenarios that have to be run through for some to heal. Let them or go freeper.

those that think that something larger happened and that there government knows more than they are saying are right. What their minds come up with afterwards should be explained, not shouted out.

[votein04]

38. NO..THESE conspiracy wackos think Bush perpetrated 9-11 to get war support

It's a little beyond not trusting official versions.

And it's old and moot and the election approaches..

[qanda]

49. Well, tell us what your version of the events are

I mean that seriously. Educate the rest of us on what exactly happened on the morning of 911 so that we can get off of this topic for good. Immediately after the blackout, there was a call an investigation and yet we are still waiting for a complete investigation of what took place on 911 and until that happens I guess we are left to our own imaginations as to what actually took place-- That is unless YOU can clue us in.

[leftofthedial]

58. it's still not racism

If the official propaganda is true, which it is not, Bush was criminally negligent.

I think the truth is far worse. Bush did have a hand, either through negligence, diverting resources, ignoring warnings, and even perhaps aiding the perpetrators.

To paraphrase someome who shall remain nameless, "NO. THESE fascist wackos want to deny others their right of free speech based on disagreement with what's being said."

[CheshireCat]

82. * applause*

I think we should ban threads about Bush's innocence on 911. </sarcasm>

Why should we ban discussion of theories as to what happened on 911? Why ban dicussion on ANYTHING?

Censorship of ideas is a facist act.

You call some of these theories wacko. Well, my friend, whether or not something is "wacko" is relative. Whose definition of "wacko" do we use?

[w13rd0]

104. Um...

...sorry, but there's plenty indicating that the son of a bitch and his cabal knew something was up, and they let it happen because they knew it would benefit them. "Banning" us won't make that gnawing feeling that our government, at its highest levels, betrayed the people of this country, and deserve jail time or worse...

[Jacobin]

6. Just ignore them

It's useless to participate in the discussions because those folks are flat earth, we didn't go to the moon, types who make up "facts" to support their theories.

They aren't interested in what happened. They are only interested in how they can knit together shit for fun.

I say let'em have it. I've suggested before that we have a padded room for them here on DU

[Pepperbelly]

7. That's awful damned presumptious of you ...

There are people here who have been here from the beginning and find value in those threads. And you stroll in and tell the owners/administrators that should ban a topic that you find uncomfortable?

It could be that if you just didn't click on them, it would be far less injurious to the rights of others to discuss things that they might want to discuss.

[votein04]

42. I'm not TELLING anyone to do anything. That's presumptious.

[bowens43]

56. Really?

You're proposing the banning of things and people you don't want to hear. Frankly, I don't want to hear any more from you but rather then propose that you are banned I'll just put you on ignore.

Those who don't question are the foolish ones.

[leftofthedial]

10. I think DU should ban threads that propose banning threads

First, DU is free-speech challenged enough.

Second, especially since the only thing we DO know about 9-11 is that it couldn't possibly have happened the way the media and government propaganda say it happened, what's your purpose in squelching discussion?

[plaguepuppy]

17. It is forbidden to forbid!

Interesting little end run there - don't like a thread but can't win the argument? No problem, start another thread demanding that it be banned!

[leftofthedial]

40. are 9-11 conspiracy threads morphing into religious threads?

"I disagree with you, but I can't win the argument, so I'll claim hurt feelings or some other damage and get DU to make you shut up." --"aggreived" poster

I have no problem with a special forum for religious discussions, another for conspiracy theory discussion, etc.

I think GD is too big and amorphous as it is now, with threads that logically could be moved elsewhere.

But I'm shocked at the number of alleged "liberals" who are so quick to try to silence those with whom they disagree.

[Pastiche423]

11. I think like the others

that have replied thus far, you don't like them? Either don't read them or put people that you disagree w/on ignore.

[shockandawed]

12. Alright Ashcroft

Why not ban the conspiricy theorists about the lies that justified the Iraqi war, while you are at it.

The conspiricy stuff will always be there. People sometimes have a hard time comprehending that something so huge and tragic can be caused by so few. There is an instict to suspect something larger. Attempting to shut down discussion of something only makes the questions grow larger in that person's head. We need to be as inclusive as we can be. Tolerate the conspiricy theorists, and inform them. After a while of being allowed to vent craziness and people around you patiently show you your errors, people will come around, and they will trust you with other information that they will feed to the other paranoid folks.

Harmless. Shutting down speech. Shitty.

Kind of like abortion. Against it? Don't have one. Dont read stuff that frustrates you so badly you begin to talk like a fucking freeper.

[plaguepuppy]

29. Spare me the patronizing BS

And consider in all honesty and humility that there may actually be things out there that you don't understand, and unpleasant realities that don't go away because you really, really don't want them to be true.

All the abusive language and wholesale insults doesn't change the truth, and nobody has a monopoly on that precious commodity.

[Booberdawg]

13. Most of us don't have a problem just ignoring them

They are not disrupting me. And I don't care what lurking freepers think.

[votein04]

27. I wouldn't either....but...

See post #25.

I don't care what freepers think either. I care what the population at large thinks...swing voters.

If they think DU stands behind this wacky idea then that sends the wrong message about democrats.

And as I said in post 25, they invariably attract people so they will be disruptive to the board if not to you personally.

[DarbyUSMC]

100. I'm fairly new and they don't bother me. If a topic doesn't interest me

I skip it. I don't care too much for banning. When I saw those threads it didn't make me think that DU was in the twilight zone but then, I used to live in Roswell, NM. :hi:

[Fixated]

14. ....

How about we have a "Crazy Conspiracy Theory" Forum? Huh? Huh? No? ok then.

[DealsGapRider]

15. I agree

LIHOP posts are stupid. As someone else said, the DU administrators ban all sorts of other stuff simply because it's ignorant. Why allow such nonsense to be included in the general discussion area? I like the idea of a "crazy conspiracy corner" for the nut jobs.

:kick:

[bicentennial_baby]

34. I take it

you have yet to visit the DU 9/11 forum, eh?

[peabody71]

16. WHERE WAS THE MILITARY for OVER AN HOUR on 9/11?!

Answer that and we'll drop it.

[saskatoon]

78. yes.yes,yes

and why weren't planes dispatched from the airfield ONLY 10 miles from DC instead of the one ten times or more away?

[MrMonk]

18. Ignore them

[Breezy du Nord]

19. You're right

We don't live in some freaky science fiction novel. I mean, BushCo is evil, but i don't think they would really go to that extreme.

edit: love your sig line. B-)

[leftofthedial]

46. what makes you think they wouldn't?

You think trillions of dollars and power over the whole world is insufficient motive for evil men to commit evil acts?

[Breezy du Nord]

59. It just seems improbable to me, that's all

But I think ur right, they shouldn't be banned.

[MisterP]

20. no

[Hubert Flottz]

22. RE:"Who thinks DU should ban the bizarre 9-11 conspiracy

theory threads"
Bush
Freepers
Tucker Carlson
Ashcroft and so on!

[qanda]

23. I think the Repukes are happy to see...

Those who do not question the original story. What's wrong with wanting answers to valid questions?

One day after the bombing of the UN in Baghdad, there are wide-spread reports of an inside job. Why is that when the administration throws around conspiracy theories, everyone is quick to jump onboard? But question anything about the way 911 happened and you're called a nut!

[bicentennial_baby]

26. Chomsky said it best

"Conspiracy Theory has become the intellectual equivalent of a four-letter word: it's something people say when they don't want you to think about what's really going on."

Get over yourself...If you don't like it, don't click on the threads!

[plaguepuppy]

43. Yes, it's right up there

The new all-purpose perjorative term for those who see connections they aren't supposed to see.

And the Florida vote stealing never happened, and Bush & Co. have never done anything questionable to advance their interests. Think otherwise and you're one of those despicable black-helicopter types, giving poor honest liberals a bad name.

It's just an acceptable way of saying "shut up and behave."

[Hubert Flottz]

83. Did Enron Conspire against the public?

Did they conspire against their own loyal employees?

Did Cheney And Bush Conspire with Enron on the Energy Policy?

[oasis]

28. Appoint a panel to distinguish between "bizarre" and "non-bizarre"

9/11 conpiracy threads. ;-)

[Stephanie]

30. There are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies

I think this controlled demolition theory is junk, but there is plenty of evidence that bushco went out of their way to avoid preventing 9/11. If you haven't looked at the PNAC articles you need to do that to understand why we think they looked the other way, at the least. I agree that some of these theories are veering toward black helicopter/world government nuttiness, and that they distract from the REAL questions that need answering, but where do you draw the line?

PNAC Links Archive

[bowens43]

31. And who do we ban next?

Those who don't like your candidate? Those who don't agree with you?
Maybe you should try to a little research instead of criticizing. Maybe instead of attacking these people you should try to answer their questions (if you can).

BTW , because of your attitude, your opinion carries very little weight and your proposal seems ridiculous.

[roughsatori]

32. I want to ban poorly written anti-conspiracy theory threads!

In your post you say that some of the conspiracy theory posts are "dumb" and "stupid," yet your post is improperly punctuated, and your sentence construction is ungrammatical.

The next time you write that other member's posts are "stupid" it would be wise to avoid poor grammatical constructions and incorrect punctuation that lend credence to that word being an accurate descriptor of you.


I

[plaguepuppy]

48. Long live the Grammer Police!

...and the Flying Syntax Squad. Well taken, sloppy writing is often a sign of sloppy thinking, and an implicit disrespect for the reader.

[Sideways]

66. Ugh! That is Grammar not Grammer

Bleech.

[roughsatori]

92. Mary T, you have done us proud! NT

[Kamika]

36. maybe open a conspiracy board?

I dont think banning certain threads is the answer, it would be hard to draw the line.. but maybe open a special forum for that stuff

[bicentennial_baby]

37. We have a 9/11 forum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=125

[votein04]

45. YES YES YES!!!

Put the wacky conspiracy theory threads in their own place!

[CheshireCat]

94. Who are you to label other DUers as conspiracy nuts!

"I believe this kind of thing makes us at DU appear stupid.
It's obviously wasting a great deal of time. Most of the posts are between the conspiracy nuts and those who can't believe they're wasting time with it."

Just because you don't believe in these theories doesn't make them stupid. If you think the threads waste your time, then ignore them. Many of us believe that Bush was involved in some manner. There is nothing "wacko" about that!

"This, in my opinion, is highly DISRUPTIVE to the board. I don't know if that's the intent...but I'm sure the repukes are happy to see it going on."

Highly disruptive - give me a break. This thread is more disruptive than the threads to which you refer.

And who cares what the repukes think! I don't tailor my beliefs to please the repubs.

[votein04]

123. I'M AN INTELLIGENT PERSON!

Me and 99% of the population would label these people conspiracy nuts, so take that for what it is. No, I don't have proof of that number.
Let's take a poll starting with you. Do YOU think Bush caused 0-11 to gain support for a war??

Many of us believe that Bush was involved in some manner.

Maybe you could define "Many" for me. By "many" you mean a small number exceeding 10?

Highly disruptive - give me a break. This thread is more disruptive than the threads to which you refer.


Maybe, but this thread will die soon and I'll pack it in on this issue. The conspiracy threads will keep popping up......and casual visitors (read: swing voters) will keep seeing them and wondering if democrats are a bunch of conspiracy nuts.

[durutti]

39. I agree they're looney, but...

I don't think they're especially disruptive. Don't ban them. Challenge them or ignore them.

[JNelson6563]

41. and you are......??

Who the hell are you? You must really be a somebody to feel your opinion on a certain type of thread should be made into doctrine (especially considering you haven't been here long and you apparently aren't a contributor). Control issues??

If you don't like to discuss it avoid the threads or go elsewhere.

Julie

[votein04]

50. Uh, I'm me?

Why don't you back up a few steps girl, and then come back a little calmer and tell me why you think my idea is a bad one.

See if you can't address my points...such as the fact that the "opinion" that Bush created 9-11 to give himself an excuse for war is totally wacked and makes us look stupid?

If it was harmless crap like "Who thinks Novak is an alcoholic" I wouldn't care, but from what I've seen here lately it's highly disruptive and reflects very poorly on the board.

THAT'S why I'm choosing not to just ignore it.

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

[greatauntoftriplets]

93. Because the whole thing stinks!

The day of 9/11, the numbnuts regime was already plotting war against Iraq. Read some of the archives on this board before you shoot your mouth off.

[dudeness]

44. I would of thought freedom of opinion and freedom of thought

would be a priority amongst us all here...what separates us from the right is our ability to accept different views ..that is what makes the left what it is..a think tank for theories and opinion..personally, i think if you do not wish to discuss a topic , then do not..

[votein04]

53. I agree...but often the need to draw a line emerges

It's not exactly the supression of freedom we're talking about here.

People aren't free to discuss many things here, are they not?

We boot disruptors off the board...is that sacraficing freedom of opinion and thought?

Some people come here with the intent of muddying the waters so the real issues get less attention.
I consider threads advocating bizarre conspiracies to be similar to that.

[dudeness]

62. those that abuse others..personal insults etc..

I agree..have no place amongst us here..but to espouse an opinion or for that matter a theory that "we" do not think is valid , is a decision based on your individual viewpoint..what may be relevant to you may not be to me..however, i respect your opinion and i wish to continue to comment on it freely..there is plenty of room for everyone here..

[parasim]

70. This thread is a bucket of mud

Some of us consider 28 missing pages from the 9/11 report a real issue.
Some of us consider the concerns of "The Jersey Girls" real issues.
Some of us consider questions about what our government did or did not know about 9/11 a real issue.

...are you considering banning yourself for steering folks from the real issues?

[Sideways]

84. Some people come here with the intent of muddying the waters

Er um hem haw.....cough cough....are you talking about yourself?

I mean really as a realative newcomer to DU don't you think your position is just a tad arrogant? Serious DUers aren't loooking to deflect issues but to clarify them. What is it about this issue that scares you so much that you post this bogus and disingenuous crap?

Hey wait I think Friends is on...better get a moving votein04...I think that is more your style.

All fluff no STUFF. BTW I think your thread is bizarre.

[CheshireCat]

95. "I agree...but often the need to draw a line emerges"

Sounds like someone else I know. You know - the guy that said: "There should be limits to freedom"

[KabalaPaulosLuterGWB]

51. NO

Ban!and why ban them,can you tell us exactly why we should accept baning here at DU?

[Alenne]

57. Because you agreed to it

when you became a member.

[dmr]

52. Are you serious?

There are too many questions that have been either 'spinned' or unanswered. Just ask the 911 widows. Shall we censor them too? I know the White House would sure like that.

I will read and listen to anyone's theory and decide for myself - we don't need the O'Reilly's "shut up, just shut up" to come in and censor us - that would take away our right to form our own opinions - which is one reason why I'm a lefty and not a sheeple righty.

It wasn't too long ago that people tried to shut us up about BBV, and look at what the research has uncovered.

Yes, Bush* and gang would like to bury the 911 questions - that would be to their advantage with the upcoming election. They've managed to shut us out of the mainstream media, so why would DU do that here?

Unbelievable suggestion!

[votein04]

54. I think you're missing the point.

These people believe that Bush&buddies were directly responsible for 9-11.

They are suspicious of HOW the buildings fell with the implication that the buildings had help BEYOND the planes.

Yes, Bush* and gang would like to bury the 911 questions - that would be to their advantage with the upcoming election.

I can't think of anything that would be more harmful to us in the upcoming election than for democrates to suggest that Bush knocked the buildings down. We would be demolished in the election.

[votein04]

63. LET ME CLARIFY

I'm not casting a wide umbrella here to include questions about how the administration handled 9-11...be it their response to it or their lack of preventative action before hand.

I'm objecting to the theory that the Bush administration was somehow directly responsible for 9-11 because they believed it would help them somehow.
The conspiracy folks devote their threads to suggesting this.

Yes, it's only my opinion that this is wacked out and insane. I'd like to think it's also the opinion of most other DU'ers.
Junior and friends have done enough worthy of critisism without making up far out stuff that would draw mockery in most mainstream circles - left or right.

I'm going to leave now, so apologies for not responding further.

This is as much of a lightning rod as the conspiracy threads themselves are...so I apologize for the disruptiveness it's caused.


regards.

[dudeness]

72. no need to apologise

this was your opinion and is indeed valid..encouraging debate only enhances democracy...

[qanda]

75. Felt heat...

Left kitchen!!!

[leftofthedial]

118. and you KNOW the Bushes did not have a hand in 9-11 HOW?

inquiry and discussion are good things.

Leave it to the other side to put draperies over the things they'd rather not see.

[Pastiche423]

68. What are

"democrates?

[dmr]

89. No, I have NOT missed the point

'These people', as you refer to, are many distinct individuals, with their own thought processes, life experiences, education and so forth - liberals don't usually generalize people, so I don't see how you can put all 'these people' in the same basket.

I personally believe Bush* and his buds have dirty hands in regards to 911. I have read most of the thread you are referring to, and found it interesting, but unconvincing. However, I welcome the discussion - I enter these threads with an open mind, and try to extract learning points whenever I can from them.

I cannot think of anything more harmful to DU and to us as liberals in the upcoming election and beyond than to not discuss anything we beleive may be revelant.

From the inception of DU, we have always discussed theories not asked out loud in the mainstream, and it has not yet demolished the Democratic party, and it won't demolish us or the election. Discussions, brainstorming or dissent must not be censored.

[Wwagsthedog]

55. Hmmmm

Seems like a conspiracy to me.

[tlcandie]

76. What about if YOU have sufficient, verifiable proof

that it is NOT more than meets the eye and provide it, then everyone will stop? Black and white proof that it is exactly as stated nothing more from a verifiable source that will hold up beyond all scrutiny?

Let the widows of 911 look at it and if it answers ALL of their questions then, ok, no more consipiracy theories?

Sounds fair enough to me.

[Abaques]

60. I wouldn't ban them all.

I just wish the moderators would be more stringent on keeping them to their proper forum. There is no reason that the wtc threads should be in general discussion.

[bpilgrim]

71. it is called GENERAl DISCUSSION for a reason...

and I think something that OBVIOUSLY has broad appeal is very valid to post here and is done ALL the time with other topics.

chill

peace

[Kbowe]

61. I guess the lying about safety at ground zeor is another dumb

conspiracy theory?

[votein04]

64. LET ME CLARIFY

I'm not casting a wide umbrella here to include questions about how the administration handled 9-11...be it their response to it or their lack of preventative action before hand.

I'm objecting to the theory that the Bush administration was somehow directly responsible for 9-11 because they believed it would help them somehow.
The conspiracy folks devote their threads to suggesting this.

Yes, it's only my opinion that this is wacked out and insane. I'd like to think it's also the opinion of most other DU'ers.
Junior and friends have done enough worthy of critisism without making up far out stuff that would draw mockery in most mainstream circles - left or right.

I'm going to leave now, so apologies for not responding further.

This is as much of a lightning rod as the conspiracy threads themselves are...so I apologize for the disruptiveness it's caused.


regards.

[Lars39]

87. Everything is open to scrutiny/conjecture. Everything.

Just because something is dismissed as a *conspiracey* does not mean it cannot be true. Nothing should be left unexamined in regards to this administration.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

65. oy vey..... another 1st ammendment shredder....go away!

[burr]

67. What if there was a conspiracy?

Everyone should have a right to state what they believe that the facts are.

It has been well documented that shrub gave the Air Force authority to shoot down the remaining plane over Pennsylvania, because in Cheney's words, "a hijacked airliner was a weapon."

The official story has been that the passengers retook control of the plane, and then it crashed because nobody could fly it. Now newly released documents point to a situation in which the passengers never retook the plane, and that there was a mixture of angry shouts and load crashes on the tape recordings shortly before the plane crashed.

But "the patriots" would dismiss this as a conspiracy theory. Before the GOV passed the patriot act or went to war, we citizens should have been provided with all of the facts. This would destroy the atmosphere that breeds doubt and cynicism. It is wrong for this adminstration to avoid the in-depth investigation into what happened! Until there is one, everything our government claims..is truth and everything that challenges this..is garbage.

I strongly differ with your objections. If you don't like the 9/11 threads, just don't read them!

[Kamika]

79. Thing is

The silent majority dont think theres a conspiracy, we all agree that it was al quaida and bin ladin that did it, and when some few ppl do big conspiracy threads it looks like we are some republican stereotype who thinks the goverment did everything. And frankly i dont want to look like a stereotype.

[tlcandie]

81. If you don't respond to those threads .. how do YOU

'appear or look' like you are a part of it? I'm confused. There are a lot of things here that I don't want a part of and I don't comment or contribute or read, but I certainly do not think that because I am a part of DU that ALL here 'paints' me into something other than who I am. If someone else thinks that, then IMO that is THEIR problem and THEIR stuff. I'm not about trying to 'CONTROL' what others think of me.

Just be yourself and choose your threads/forums. :shrug:

[bpilgrim]

120. then how do you explain

that pose in your picture :evilgrin:

peace

[joycep]

80. I'm not so sure there is anything bizarre about the

conspiracy threads. Lots of strange things are going on imho.

[AWD]

85. A bit brash...

...a bit brash for a newbie to tell DU how to run the board, isn't it??

Get a little weight under that belt before you try and propose the banning of certain topics to those who have been here for over 2 years, OK????

[Adjoran]

86. One question

If there is a forum for 9/11, why aren't the 9/11 threads started (or moved) there?

I don't favor banning anyone as long as they abide by the rules. This is a privately owned and operated forum, and everyone agreed to the rules when we registered, so there isn't any question of "freedom of speech" issues for those who break the rules.

[burr]

We already have too many forums with too few participants, IMHO!

Why create another one, when this topic can already be discussed in the National Security forum or the General Discussion forum?

[dmr]

102. No rule was broken

General Discussion is for general discussions. You will find campaign threads in General Discussions even though there is another forum for campaigns.

We discuss activism in GD. We discuss health issues in GD. We discuss civil rights in GD. A good deal of what is discussed in GD could be posted in another forum, but GD is very popular, so what's the problem?

Unless I'm mistaken, the only two items not up for GD are guns and I/P.

[ewagner]

107. Agree

General discussion should be a place about a wide-range of political and social issues, but there is a place for theorists to gather and discuss matters that they are concerned with.

I don't think banning those posts is a good idea and I would never generalize people who post conspiracy theories because they sometimes post about other things and are generally welcome additions to a discussion just like anybody else.

Use the forum provided. If others don't like it then don't go there. If it shows up in GD, move it to the forum reserved for it. Even if it shows up on GD, then we are not obligated to either click on it or respond to it.

[burr]

111. Lets call this the fuck all evidence forum.

Anyone upset or angry about the lack of facts provided about 9/11, they shall be banned and fucked.

My proposal, one strike and you're garbage.

This doesn't apply to politicians or the government of course, just to taxpaying DUers! Another great idea, evidence = silence forum. Here we can only kiss the asses of our honest, hardworking governmental officeholders, and the private contractors that do us a massive public service. B-)

[xequals]

88. I agree -- it makes Dems look foolish

It would be better maybe if this place didn't have the "Democratic" in it's name.

Opponents of the Democratic Party just have to come here and will find something outrageous in a few seconds. It's sad because most of the people spewing the nutty BS are not even Democrats .. mostly far leftists, conspiracy nuts and other wackos. Makes one think that some of the really over the top stuff could be Republicans posting it just to make Dems look foolish.

And to the people defending the conspiracy crap: We always bash Republicans for not thinking logical, not arguing with facts, etc. Democrats have always prided themselves for their ability to reason, to see shades of grey (instead of black/white like the Republicans), to make solid arguments, etc.

But a lot of the stuff on this site just reinforces the "looney left" stereotype.

[burr]

99. looney left sterotype?

What about the rabid right stereotype?

I'm glad you know the importance of seeing the shades of grey in arguments, because if you did you would recognize this as a debate concerning the lack of facts and information. In order to make a solid argument, we must gather solid evidence. And that guilt must be proven, not innocence. The burden of proof lies with this adminstration, and they have failed to provide the necessary facts before making the conviction.

[bowens43]

103. So you get to decide who is and isn't a Democrat?

Because you consider them to 'far left' you think that disqualifies them from being a Democrat? Maybe you should open your mind before you open your mouth.

[Kamika]

108. Totally agree

It makes us look exactly like the crazy leftist stereotype

[bpilgrim]

112. what, asking questions?

get real.

peace

[Junkdrawer]

116. All that talk of the CIA installing the Shah in 1953...

or the CIA under Dulles toppling governments in South America...

or Israel firing on the Liberty...

Oh wait, now most historians think they're true. Funny how 30-40 yrs. turns these things from "conspiracy theories" to "safe to question".

Most people don't allow themselves to believe these things happen while they are happening.

[greatauntoftriplets]

90. Uh, how long have you been on this board?

As a relative long-termer, I would suggest reading more and saying less before you accuse us tinfoil hatters of being disruptive. Jeez.

I think you need to think.

[slack]

91. you're 2 weeks here at DU and try to ban threads ?!?

i think there are many open questions, and if the official explanation smells strange, than it have to be possible to discuss that.
i hate censorship. it's on your own, not to read or discuss in these threads if you think they are BS.

[Junkdrawer]

98. Look - no elected official with an office higher than Alderman...

dares to question Bush or Israel about any involvement in the increasing number of violent incidents worldwide. Cynthia McKinney questioned the Bush/Saudi financial dealings and look what happened to her.

But we do explore those things here. And, apart from the usual suspects who demand we drop the discussion immediately, there is more often than not a thoughtful discussion with the silly theories overwhelmingly rejected. After 911, there are many such questions/theories that to this day have neither been rejected here nor answered by the powers that be. My guess is that 30-40 yrs from now, we will find that many of them were true. Contemporary history is full of such examples.

[sam sarrha]

105. I talked to my mother about 10 days before the 911 attack, I told her that

there was information collected from all over the world in the last year that indicated beyond any doubt that terrorists were planning to attack tall buildings and national monuments with commercial air planes. I had just returned from a flight that was held up for hours because of over booking flights and there was next to none security. I felt that the government was going to allow this to happen to grab power like the fascist bastards they proved themselves to be... my mother called me first thing when the attack happened to warn me not to say anything else about it or i might disappear. If i could come to that conclusion with just common non news, the government Absolutely had to know about it. they spend 40 Billion dollars a year on all the different security agencies...They knew

[TacticalPeek]

106. Only the bizarre ones.

Like one I heard from my barber the other day, something about Gore actually getting more votes than Bush, and a court his daddy appointed, or his brother or campaign chairman awarding him the presidency or something.

I mean really, this tinfoil stuff is just about as likely as the bizarre tales you used to hear about a President firebombing a thinktank and whatnot.

[Redleg]

109. No- unless the theories blame Clinton's penis.

[JasonBerry]

110. democratic underground w/ a LITTLE "d" ..............

I propose NO BANS at all!!!

[burr]

115. Why bother?

nt

[John_H]

114. just let 'em drop like rocks to page 5

I think they're kinda funny myself.

[burr]

119. yep they just crack me up..

just like Nixon did with his abuse of intellegence info, and J.E. Hoover did with his wiretaps and attempts to setup Dr. King as a Communist.

Why those jokers just don't understand where to find the truth, it can be heard in shrub's weekly radio address!

[lazarus]

121. locking

Threads about DU policy belong in the Ask the Administrators forum.

[RobinA]

122. I Don't Think They Should be Banned

I just ignore threads that come wrapped in tinfoil. Or sometimes I read them for laffs. However, one reason I will not give money to this site is that so much of it is steeped in conspiracy mongering. Some people like it that way, so let them have their fun, but I won't support it.

[paulthompson]

124. Unbelievable!

I like to think that one thing distinguishing the typical person who reads DU from the type of person who reads Free Republic is that the DUers believe in free speech whereas Freepers are quick to censor and ban.

Unfortunately, there appear to be many here who don't understand the meaning of free speech. Recall how the ACLU even protects the rights of neo-Nazis and KKK members to air their views? That doesn't mean I think neo-Nazis should be able to spout off anything here, but its all too easy to say, "Sure, I believe in free speech, except the stuff I don't agree with." Then you're no different from a Freeper.

There are a zillion unanswered questions about 9/11. I've spent a ton of time documenting the issue, using absolutely nothing but mainstream sources (www.complete911timeline.org). To say 9/11 theories and discussions suggesting US gvmt foreknowledge or involvement are "wacky" and "fringe" only shows your ignorance of the facts, and your reliance on biased US media sources for your opinions. Reuters reported a few weeks back that a new poll shows 20% of all Germans now think the US gvmt was behind 9/11, and amongst young Germans that number is 50%. The reason for that is A) their media is much better (a few weeks ago there even was a TV show on the German version of PBS investigating (and pretty much supporting) the idea the US gvmt was behind 9/11, something you would NEVER see here), and B) too many people in the US have mental hangups that make them completely close their minds on this issue. In many countries (including virtually the Muslim world), a majority of the population believes the US gvmt was behind 9/11, and the official Bush explanation is the one that's the "wacky conspiracy theory."

So that theory is not just held by a small "lunatic fringe." You're saying that the beliefs of literally hundreds of millions of others are so wrong that they cannot even be discussed. And to decide what's "wacky" and what is not by using the label "conspiracy theory" smacks of thought police and plays right into the hands of the likes of Karl Rove. Does anyone remember a few months before the Iraq war, when Tony Blair called the idea that the US and Britian were interested in attacking Iraq because of oil a "conspiracy theory"? How many people still trust Blair on that now?

Shame on all you people who are so quick to ban or pigeonhole ideas you disagree with! "It makes us look unseemly and unrespectable! Oh dear! I'm sure Bush will win reelection cos there are some 'wacky' threads at DU!" Yeah, right.

Even Canada's media coverage of 9/11 is much better. For instance, read this Toronto Star article (which I'm happy to say, gives a nice plug of my website):

http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774511890&call_page=TS_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=Columnists

Do you disagree with her sentiments? Who are you to decide which 9/11 discussions or theories are "legitimate," and which are "wacky"?

[Skip Intro]

125. Oh brother...where to start.

So the outcome of your "shut up" proposal would be that talk of the events surrounding 9*11 could only mention the bush regime in terms of respect and deference to its "authority?" There's no need to ask why the official story (LIES) doesn't add up, right, just stop asking questions, we are "at war" after all, right?

The most bizarre theories I've heard put forth are those from gwmoron, condi, rummy, cheney, and the rest of the murderous traitorous regime. ("Nobody ever imagined, bla bla bla... You'd think someone in Condi's position would have heard of Kamikaze pilots; you'd think a memo warning of planes being flown into buildings in NY would definitely have been enough; you'd think detailed warnings from other governments would have been acted upon, but how dare I say such things about our lord bush!).

Nope, forget the inconsistencies in the ever-evolving official line. Forget what simple logic and common sense would dictate. Forget what you've seen with your own eyes. Forget the biggest giveaway of all - who benefited? How dare we question our glorious leader?

Maybe you should take your insistence that we adhere to a blind trust in the murderous, treasonous bush regime, and your suggestion that any talk of the events surrounding the 9*11 job that don't jibe with the moron in chief be banned, and find a more appropriate forum for your bush worship and censorship mantra.

I hereby deem your ideas bizarre, and call for such talk to be henceforth banned from DU. How do you like that?

BUSH KNEW!