"The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts "

[Kingshakabobo]

This is a pretty good read.......From CounterPunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09092006.html

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

"The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts "
"How They Let the Guilty Parties of 9/11 Slip Off the Hook"

snip>>>>>

You trip over one fundamental idiocy of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts -- -- the ones who say Bush and Cheney masterminded the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- in the first paragraph of the opening page of the book by one of their high priests, David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor. “In many respects,” Griffin writes, “the strongest evidence provided by critics of the official account involves the events of 9/11 itself… In light of standard procedures for dealing with hijacked airplanes… not one of these planes should have reached its target, let alone all three of them.”

The operative word here is “should”. One characteristic of the nuts is that they have a devout, albeit preposterous belief in American efficiency, thus many of them start with the racist premise that “Arabs in caves” weren’t capable of the mission. They believe that military systems work the way Pentagon press flacks and aerospace salesmen say they should work. They believe that at 8.14 am, when AA flight 11 switched off its radio and transponder, an FAA flight controller should have called the National Military Command center and NORAD. They believe, citing reverently (this is from high priest Griffin) “the US Air Force’s own website”, that an F-15 could have intercepted AA flight 11 “by 8.24, and certainly no later than 8.30”.

They appear to have read no military history, which is too bad because if they did they’d know that minutely planned operations – let alone responses to an unprecedented emergency -- screw up with monotonous regularity, by reason of stupidity, cowardice, venality, weather and all the other whims of providence.

According to the minutely prepared plans of the Strategic Air Command, an impending Soviet attack would have prompted the missile silos in North Dakota to open, and the ICBMs to arc towards Moscow and kindred targets. The tiny number of test launches actually attempted all failed, whereupon SAC gave up testing. Was it badly designed equipment, human incompetence, defense contractor venality or… CONSPIRACY? (In that case, presumably, a Communist conspiracy, as outlined by ancestors of the present nuts, ever intent on identifying those who would stab America in the back.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Grateful for Hope]

1. Whatever turns you on. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

2. No, whatever turns YOU on.

Hope2006 Tue Jan-09-07 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Whatever turns you on. n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

23. The first troofer hit and run

How dignified was that?

I'm replying here boloboffin, because someone is in "lalalala I can't hear you" mode.

[G Hawes]

37. No surprise there.

But I'm not sure if it was the first. Someone called mirandapriestly put me on sooper ignore right after posting a response - in the form of a question, no less! - to my post so that I couldn't respond to her question asking if I "agree" with her that someone else misrepresented what she said (and that person had not).

But they'll get bored of it quickly enough when they find their own threads being ignored or at least devoid of meaningful content because they're nothing but echo chambers. It can't be any fun for them to just post cheerleader posts all day and night, and it's uninteresting for others to read.

EDIT: I checked. mirandapriestly wrote her question to me at 8:05 and hope2006 posted at 8:06 reminding her about the sooper sekrit PM strategy and then mirandapriestly put me on lalalalalala I can't hear mode so that I couldn't respond to her even if I was here at the time (which I wasn't). Presumably hope2006 had already put me on lalalalala mode at the time she wrote her "reminder" to mirandapriestly, but i have no idea when because I've not had any conversation with her.

The hit & run above wasn't until 9:53, more than an hour and a half later. So, unless there is another one earlier than 8:06...I do believe that I should get a badge or something in recognition of the first drive by post & run via the new lalalalala functionality ;)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

39. Ah OK

Looks like you do get that badge of honour. :hi:

[greyl]

3. It's even more difficult to get CTists to listen about holding Giuliani and others to account

after calling them nuts. (Interesting that some of them know who they are. :evilgrin: )
There have been several uproarious threads about this Cockburn piece here, though the issues he tried to raise were never really dealt with.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. The CTists aren't listening anymore.

The new block-reply feature, now officially called the "LA-LA-LA-LA" feature, is now in play.

[greyl]

5. Heheh. I've only seen one person using it so far. (above)

I read Skinner's sticky thread earlier.
I think it's a brave and exciting experiment, to which I say, "What the hell? Let's see what happens".
;)

[Kingshakabobo]

6. Hehe..How much of a coward do you have to be to .........

.......respond to someone's thread while you have them blocked?

[Bolo Boffin]

7. I don't think the word is "coward".

I think the word is "tease".

[greyl]

8. I'm gonna side with Kingshakabobo on this one. ;) nt

[G Hawes]

10. agreed

kind of goofy to post a response to someone in a thread where you've got "lalalalalala I can't hear you" mode engaged so that they can't respond to your post.

it's simple enough to stop posting in threads started by those who are doing the sooper sekrit private message echo chamber thing and instead start new threads and post there. (i thought it was strange that they were even goofy enough to post in an open thread to remind some of their members about their pms - not so smart those conspirators... oh, wait...don't tell me, i know this one...)

[G Hawes]

9. Sure looks like it.

Looks like they want an echo chamber or something. Do they really think that if they block people from dissenting on their personal threads that everyone else will believe that there is no dissent? I don't get it. I can see it leading to double the number of threads but with only one point of view in each. Seems like a strange way to engage in discussion on a "discussion" forum. Oh well.

Thinking about it, though, it also means that there won't be very many posts in the threads started by those who use the new mass-plug-my-ears-lalalalala-function except for cheerleading by certain people, and although that makes all of DU look kind of stupid, it makes the cheerleaders look stupidest of all.

[AZCat]

11. There are threads here...

that already receive posts from a limited set of posters. I'm sure you've noticed them - even some of the CTers have (and have gone so far as to comment in those same threads about this). While some might have a lower total post count than some of the more popular threads, I don't know if the various OPs care much about that.

[G Hawes]

13. i hear you but

i'm saying what i said above because already a couple of people in this subforum have blocked me from responding to their threads, and i cannot comprehend any reason for that unless it is that they want to stop newer members from adding to the ranks of those who disagree with them on this one particular issue. i've never had any discussions with these people and have done nothing to annoy them unless they find it annoying on priciple that i'm a newer non conspiracy theorist, yet they've made a point of invoking the LALALALALA I can't hear you function, and even posted reminders in that thread about their PMs for that purpose, so what can i say? looks like paranoia to me.

[AZCat]

15. There will always be those...

who group "dissent" with "attack". There's a DU-like forum out there (probably more than one, actually) for those who have left the fold because they couldn't take the rough-and-tumble of an open discussion forum. This is also part of the reason the administrators created the "Groups" - so people could discuss things with like-minded others without the "interruption" of dissenters, even though it has always been possible to ignore those posts (and posters) in the first place. Apparently that isn't enough...

[rman]

17. "blocked from responding to their threads"?

How does that work?
I only know about the "ignore" function, but that doesn't block anyone from posting to any thread - for all i know only locking a thread can prevent posting to it, and it's the mods not posters who lock threads.

[Make7]

18. They just upgraded the 'IGNORE' feature.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3076551&mesg_id=3076551#3076551

[G Hawes]

34. Yes, "blocked from responding from their threads"

Oh, never mind. I see that someone else has explained it to you.

[Kingshakabobo]

12. I still have faith in DU that most posters want to have discussions.

Hopefully, the "blocking" will be contained to a few of the weaker minded. You know, the posters that call you a bush supporter because you believe in math/science/physics.

I have no intention of blocking anyone unless, of course, they block me.

[G Hawes]

14. agreed

most are probably not as weak minded as the couple who have arbitrarily blocked me from responding to "their" echo chamber threads, but it's still weird.

[Kingshakabobo]

16. Me too. I got blocked by the same two nit-wits. Funny in a pethetic....

......kind of way. Full disclosure: I blocked them back. One of the cowards posted some snark in my thread while she had me blocked.....funny.

[quickesst]

20. Funny..

The oct is so accustomed to hijacking threads and filling them with nitpicking bullshit, that you've just hijacked your own thread, filling it with, what else, nitpicking bullshit. I'm sure there is not going to be a shortage of people to engage, whether a couple of people use the new feature or not. Rather amusing that the only real "weapon" the oct has is to attack someone personally with remarks one would only expect in grade school or under. Way to show the intelligence of the Bush supporters here. Typical. Back to the amateur pschy-ops? Thanks.
quickesst

[Kingshakabobo]

21. Congratulations!

You win the ironic post of the day award!

[quickesst]

31. .Irony...

such a great word when used properly. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Hm. How about that?

I guess the reality defenders around here are used to off-topic posts.

Still, stuff happens. It speaks to the free-for-all mentality toward posting around here. Threads get derailed and no coherent discussion can be maintained for long. Thanks for the explanation, quickesst.

[vincent_vega_lives]

27. nitpicking bullshit

You mean like facts derived from physics and structural engineering based on education and life experience rather than mutual-internet-masturbation? That "nitpicking bullshit"?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

29. "Way to show the intelligence of the Bush supporters here"

Would you care to enlighten us who these Bush supporters here are?

[quickesst]

33. I argue with the oct all the time....

especially when my older brother, a staunch repug Bush supporter calls or e-mails me. I find little or no difference interacting with the oct here. Thanks.
quickesst

[quickesst]

19. Oh geez....

Here we go again with another post using kindergarten pschycology. Someone may be nuts around here, and seems to me the evidence is, well, self-evident. You got nothing on a couple of others that can't seem to get by here without amateur "pschycological" help either. Thanks.
quickesst

[Bryan Sacks]

22. RE: Cockburn

I responded to his essay. Cockburn is a very sharp thinker in many ways, but on certain subjects (9/11 is one) he exhibits, as many of those in this thread exhibit, what may be called 'excessive credulity'.

The reply from the excessively credulous has been: it's the CTs who are too willing to believe the incredible, not our excessively credulity, that are the problem. For his part, Cockburn thinks 9/11 conspiracy theory reflects a regression in consciousness. Certainly the most ridiculous CTs do; but what he doesn't see (and y'all don't either, unfortunately) is that the excessive credulity of left-leaners is just as troubling a mental habit as is the inability to detect the incredible from the possible.

So not much progress, IMHO.

[wildbilln864]

24. well stated Bryan!

:hi:

[vincent_vega_lives]

25. I think we should Ignore the Ignore function (n/t)

[Kingshakabobo]

26. Me too. But what do you think about posters who have YOU on block?

The first post in this thread was from a "blocker."

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. Not much.

Let them eat cake. :grouphug:

Hugs all 'round!

[angstlessk]

30. There are just TOO many coincidences in this attack...for there to be THAT

many there HAS to be a conspiracy...from Silverstein purchase of the two towers..to the spiriting away of the crime scene evidence...sorry to 'pretend' it all was just a FUBAR...is WAY too far fetched for me to swallow!

[wildbilln864]

35. welcome to the...

dungeon, angstlessk.
:hi:

[greyl]

38. The number of coincidences that support the basic so-called OCT far outnumber

the variety of coincidence you're talking about.
And I mean far outnumber; To the extent that the majority of average citizens and the majority of relevant experts and scientists share a worldview in which the basic facts of the "official story" fit.
If too many coincidences is your yardstick for deciding the truth, you'd have to decide that the official story is probably true.

edit: For fun, try to figure out why their are so many disparate 9/11 conspiracy theories - they are contradiction of each other, frequently on the most basic of levels. Their facts are neither coming from the same direction, nor aiming the same direction.
The 9/11 CTs are also aptly named Coincidence Theories, for damn good reason.

[Contrite]

36. David Ray Griffin responds to Cockburn

http://www.911truth.eu/index.php?id=0,8,0,0,1,0

The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory:
A Reply to Alexander Cockburn


Alexander Cockburn’s “US: The Conspiracy That Wasn’t,” which is an attack on the 9/11 truth movement, is faulty in virtually every respect.

He calls me one of the movement’s “high priests,” as if it were a religious movement, rather than a fact-based movement that involves scientists, engineers, pilots, war veterans, politicians, philosophers, former air traffic controllers, former defense ministers, and former CIA analysts.1

He calls us “conspiracists,” ignoring the fact that in defending the government’s account, he is defending the original 9/11 conspiracy theory.

In claiming that the Bush administration and the military are too incompetent to have organized the 9/11 attacks, he gives an argument that could equally well be used to prove that they could not have organized the military assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq.

In claiming that bin Laden took credit for the attacks, Cockburn appears not to be aware that in the video on which this claim is primarily based, the man playing Osama bin Laden is heavier and darker than the bin Laden of all undoubtedly authentic videos,2 or that the FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorist” page on bin Laden does not mention 9/11---because, an FBI spokesman explained, “the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” 3

Although Cockburn says that members of our movement are “immune to reality check,” he endorses the official theory of the collapses of the Twin Towers, which can be held only by ignoring an enormous number of facts....