Turning the Tables: "The Joy of Conspiracy Denial"

[spooked911]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Joy-of-Conspiracy-Deni-by-Carol-Cleveland-090520-944.html

Recently I read another stinging rebuke of the 9-11 conspiracy theorists for their frightful mishandling of evidence, their will to believe only what gives them psychological comfort, and their general state of delusion. It was not the first I had read, nor will it be the last. The writer held unwaveringly to the party line: all those who seek to discredit the official, announced version of the events of 9-11 are "conspiracy theorists"- and should not be listened to. That this position constitutes an attempt at prior censorship does not seem to bother the deniers, nor the fact that the central tenets of conspiracy denial are an ad hominem attack. We are told that conspiracy theorists are crazy, or at least cowardly clingers to delusions that they find comforting.

It occurred to me that I haven't seen anyone examine the mental comforts of conspiracy denial, using the handy tools of amateur psychology. It's my guess that there's considerable comfort to be had, especially for men, from an acceptance of the official explanation for 9-11. This is not to say that many women aren't happy with the Arab hijacker theory, but for men, the provision of a clear enemy to fight is always especially gratifying.

To accept the official announcements of the story of 9-11 is instantly satisfying in several ways. Commercial airliners, hijacked by suicide terrorists, flew into buildings at the behest of a really smart master-terrorist named Osama Bin Laden. This is an immediately credible scenario""many of us had heard the name Bin Laden, and "knew" he was a terrorist who lived on the other side of the world. Indeed, the WTC had been attacked once before. And terrorism itself certainly exists--both sides of the 9-11 controversy can agree on that. So, to accept the official announcements that followed the attacks enabled you quickly to locate all the blame for the attacks in a tiny evil army of foreigners, all out of immediate reach, but accessible to the U.S. Army, you bet. The hijackers themselves were all dead, and their leader was extremely hard to find, but American forces could find and punish them. No need, really, to conduct any investigations or solve any mysteries--an evil super-hero with a small army of mentally enslaved unfortunates was able to penetrate the defenses of the finest air force in the world to murder 3000 Americans. A fluke, but in life and in sports, stuff like that happens.

The fact that this reads like a comic book plot doesn't seem to be a source of embarrassment for the anti-truther movement. In fact, an evil mastermind who, through mindless suicidal drones, wreaks havoc on good and decent people is the major plot driver of The Lord of the Rings, and many other fantasy and science fiction epics. Mythically speaking, it's golden.


And under the broad strokes of the main story, there's also a layer of historically accurate information that supports the main plot line. Joe and Jane Six-Pack would accept the unadorned story eagerly, but there's something to satisfy the more thoughtful as well. The back story is that American foreign policy for the last 30 years could easily result in some very unhappy Arabs. CIA meddling in the politics of Iran and Iraq, and above all, our support for Israel, have been highly unpopular on the Arab street. Well-read people could find the anti-American sentiments of the terrorists quite credible, if regrettable.

So the psychological comforts of the official story are several and real: you get a clearly defined enemy, a simple solution to a complex foreign policy problem, you get to feel morally superior to your enemy because you're more civilized and don't kill civilians, and finally, if you know something of the history of American policy in the Near East, you get to feel superior to those who don't.

It's entirely understandable that any American should believe the official 9-11 story. And, of course, to consider seriously for an instant that there could be something seriously wrong with that story, to imagine that as possible, really does change everything, just like 9-11 itself. If there's a chance that Americans colluded in those horrors, then the entire mental structure of our sanity, which we've lived in all our lives, has a serious crack, a San Andreas Fault, right down the middle. If we think it possible that "We have met the enemy, and he is us," then everything previously unthinkable is thinkable.

In fairness to their enemies among the truthers, the conspiracy deniers should admit that there is much psychological comfort in their own position, and that conspiracy theorists do not have a monopoly on convenient but deluded assumptions. 9-11 is, after all, a heap of facts, and it is open to human inquiry. Whether the heap was created by our enemies' hatred or something worse has yet to be decided.

[BeFree]

1. Easy way out is to accept the OCT

One would think that the questioners of the OCT would be welcomed and helped, being as the OCT is so simple-minded.

Well, I for one do welcome and encourage the questions because it is the right thing to do.

[jberryhill]

2. "a clearly defined enemy, a simple solution"

Ummm... "Dick Cheney did it" is orders of magnitude simpler than the more nebulous causes which do not have a simple solution.

Pulling off 9/11 without airplanes, granted, is not simple. But delusions rarely are.

[LARED]

3. Will there be a sequel entilted "The Joys of Willful Ignorance"

to explain why seemingly rational people believe the craziest things like no-planes, CD, etcs

[spooked911]

4. uh, because they've done some research and seen the official story is crap

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=248966&mesg_id=249045

You're a fine one to talk about willful ignorance...

[AZCat]

5. Googling on teh internets for a few hours is not research. n/t

[Realityhack]

9. +1 n/t

[defendandprotect]

77. ...and you do real research . . . ???

You were able to examine the crime scenes --

you examined debris, saw the inside the Pentagon, saw the stopped clocks,

talked with Cheney, asked Minetta questions -- interviewed witnesses to

Pentagon plane flyover???

Do tell . . . !!!

[SDuderstadt]

78. "Truther logic"...

one can't really know anything about 9/11 unless one actually examined the crime scene.

[ATTC]

153. Hypocrisy of OS HUggers

Exactly the pathetic bulverism fallacy of "CT believe this because of this psychological condition, therefore they are wrong" is laughable.

If anything is more easily to believe it's that there are good guys and bad guys and we are the good guys. It's much more difficult to accept the fact that the people who run this country and the world for that matter don't have your best interest in hand, in fact just the opposite. They are willing to sacrifice even American civilian life to meet their overall objectives.

That's obviously the more difficult believe to have and why most live in the denial and reject an alternative account of an event on the surface because they think their government isn't conniving or evil enough to commit atrocities

[OnTheOtherHand]

154. nonsense

Much of the CT stuff posted here is wrong on the facts or wrong on the science. How conniving or evil the government is really has nothing to do with it.

Yes, when I see someone argue that tiny nuclear weapons brought down the Twin Towers, I wonder what could motivate the poster to believe that -- not because it implies bad things about the government, but because the evidence doesn't support it.

[BeFree]

156. Actually

How conniving or evil the government is really has much to do with it.
Actually, using 'government' is a mistake. Actually, it was just the administration at the head of government. What we call bushco.

Remember Germany and Hitler? It wasn't the government of Germany that was evil and caused the Holocaust, it was the administrators of that German government that caused the Holocaust.

Same shit, different war.

[SDuderstadt]

155. This may easily be the most...

incoherent post ever.

[LARED]

6. A few things Spooked911

It is possible (although highly improbable) the official story is completely "crap" as you say. One day perhaps sharp CT'er will put together research that provides a rational coherent theory to support the "crap" assertion.

That in my mind excludes the ridiculous notion of no-planes. First no-plane belief seems limited strictly people with serious difficulties understanding reality the same way most of the rest of the world does. I think it's willful ignorance as most no-planers seem normal is other respects rather than having a cognitive problem, but it has to one of the two issues at work. So the official story may one day be crap, but no-planes is always crap.

Why did you post a link to my post asking about the painted plane parts? It makes no sense.

[spooked911]

7. the problem-- assuming you're an honest broker here-- is that you are incredibly naive

about the ways of deep politics.

As far as the link, I messed up -- I meant to give this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=248966&mesg_id=248966

[LARED]

8. Deep politics you claim

You believe "no-planes" is a manifestation of deep politics?

Really? Exactly how does "deep politics" and no-planes work together in your mind?

[Kalun D]

10. No Planes

Is clearly sourced from Disinfo, and misinformed truthers pick it up.

And disinformation agents argue that it's sourced from real truthers. Because that's their very definition.

Credible intelligent truthers don't argue the point.

[LARED]

12. Clearly sourced ?

Great, you should be able to provide some evidence for this.

In my experience "real truthers" come in a variety of strips and spots, in varying degrees of skepticism. How can one tell a disinfo agent from a real truther?

[Kalun D]

18. Clear as Mud=Disinfo

"provide some evidence for this"

who provided the 5(?) frame video of the supposed 757 hitting the Pentagon? Truthers? or the perps?

Based on logic alone it would only make sense that it was a 757, so why release something that seems to show otherwise?

THAT is the original source of "no planes" Where clearly there should be a plane, the video doesn't show it.

It's textbook disinfo.

Same with flight 93, only makes sense it's a large passenger jet, yet the crash site doesn't show it. 93 seems more accidental disinfo, or just skillfully played after the fact. It could have been planned that way though. Claim it came down in one piece, shoot it down in pieces, then the misleading crash site that doesn't match the claim. Just more muddy waters.

the pentagon was a set up from the start. Up armored walls finished just in time, then a surgical strike dead on target, the one segment that's up-armored. Who has ever seen what a 757 crashing into an up-armored wall looks like? It's so unusual, the small hole so unexpected, it's easy to say it's fake and people believe it. And if you straight up compare with the twin towers that so perfectly silhouetted the wings, people think the pentagon should look similar. NOT. And then a misleading vid is the icing on the cake.

"How can one tell a disinfo agent from a real truther?"

If you're an agent, that's a rhetorical question.

If you're not, it's immaterial.

I can sense them just like I can sense what the fastest lane is going to be on a stop-and-go 5 lane freeway. But there's cut and dried textbook ways to do it also.

Disinfo agents argue both sides so you also have to separate the OCT disinfo agent from the OCT civilian.

Disinfo agents that argue OCT are stuck in a couple of catch 22's. It requires intelligence to argue a point that is virtually unwinable if both opponents have equal intelligence. So the agent has to resort to tactics other than straight up factual debate on just the points.

In addition he stands out merely because of his intelligence. Because anyone who is intelligent and who studies the 911 facts for a certain period of time invariably knows it was an inside job. So when you expose your intelligence AND still continue to argue the OTC, you ID yourself as an agent.

[LARED]

21. Huh?

who provided the 5(?) frame video of the supposed 757 hitting the Pentagon? Truthers? or the perps?
Based on logic alone it would only make sense that it was a 757, so why release something that seems to show otherwise?
THAT is the original source of "no planes" Where clearly there should be a plane, the video doesn't show it.


The video was released by the government. AFAIK they are not the perps, nor are they Truthers. Your whole argument is a truther logical circle jerk that starts from a premise and works backwards to create whatever is needed to support your wacky theories. You do know your whole premise that a plane should have been seen is based on time lapsed video recording of a plane moving around 700 feet per second? Based on that knowledge how can you state the plane clearly should have been seen?

[Kalun D]

47. The Video Age

"The video was released by the government."

not all gov, criminal elements within

"they are not the perps,"

the foundation of our disagreement

"nor are they Truthers."

you got that right, the truth never serves their needs

"a truther logical circle jerk...your wacky theories"

tiresome noise, quality debate-defensible point, does not need

"how can you state the plane clearly should have been seen?"

should have been more expansive, already done it recently here

the pentagon is one of the most heavily video surveilled locations in DC

the fact that only 5 frames of low res, low frame rate vid that doesn't show a 757 is all they've shown is classic textbook disinfo

if the plane was there, there's vid of it, if you release only vid with no plane, while saying there's a plane, you are misleading, deceiving, distracting, confusing...DISINFORMATION

for all you agents out there, it's your very own word, coined especially just for you

dis·in·for·ma·tion
n.
1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation:

we truthers will stick with the original word, information

TGFTI

[LARED]

50. Sure you do

we truthers will stick with the original word, information

Spoken like a true believer. A purist fundamentalist.

So explain why truthers regularly ignore information that doesn't fit the little fantasy worlds they've created?

[Kalun D]

57. Specifics

Spoken like a true believer.

truth stands on it's own without belief

A purist fundamentalist.

religion isn't involved but truthers try to adhere to fundamental truths.

So explain why truthers regularly ignore information that doesn't fit the little fantasy worlds they've created?

Is that disinfo "truthers", uneducated misled truthers, or intelligent educated truthers?

And without specifics debate is difficult about who's ignoring what.

[Kalun D]

60. Uhhh

you skipped the gist of the argument

the pentagon is one of the most heavily video surveilled locations in DC

the fact that only 5 frames of low res, low frame rate vid that doesn't show a 757 is all they've shown is classic textbook disinfo

if the plane was there, there's vid of it, if you release only vid with no plane, while saying there's a plane, you are misleading, deceiving, distracting, confusing...DISINFORMATION

what's meant when it's said you don't debate straight up

[jberryhill]

120. I think Spooked is quite sincere /nt

[stopbush]

114. The fact that CTists think in terms of "turning the tables" on the rationalists

speaks volumes, doesn't it?

[Kalun D]

11. Good Post

the only slight inaccuracy

"because you're more civilized and don't kill civilians"

well let's just say "we" don't admit up front to killing civilians, and leave it at that

Otherwise, I support and add

the governments conspiracy theory on 911 is the easy way out, and lets face it, most Americans are lazy in certain aspects and sedated on several fronts. It doesn't involve much thought, involvement, or work, just believe what some of those in government tell you.

And psychologically it's rooted in what some may call the Anne Frank complex. And I've encountered this especially in face to face discussion of the "inside job" theory with people who believe the government. "I just can't believe that people could be so evil as to kill 3,000 of our own citizens just to promote wars for oil".

And I can't say I really blame them for not wanting to contemplate the thought. But the history of mankind tells us otherwise.

AND there's always that never easy task you face if you take on the belief that some people are this evil. What are you going to do about it?

[vincent_vega_lives]

13. And Carol Cleveland is? (n/t)

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. eh, that's moot

The arguments can be assessed on their merits.* Since she writes, "I haven't seen anyone examine the mental comforts of conspiracy denial, using the handy tools of amateur psychology," we can infer that she hasn't spent much time on this issue. I've seen plenty of amateur psychological analysis of "conspiracy denial." Here again is a somewhat recent genre classic. That author is a licensed clinical psychologist, but for me the piece still counts as amateur psychology because I see no attempt to test any of her hypotheses, or even to reason about how they could be tested. The same goes for this piece, and of course the author doesn't claim otherwise.

It could actually be useful to see some attempt to study conspiracy denial with at least as much rigor as we've seen in attempts to study conspiracism -- and, let's face it, most psychological analysis of conspiracism has no rigor whatsoever. I think that exploring predispositions for or against conspiracy theories is a legitimate inquiry, but it doesn't mix well with discussions of particular alleged conspiracies.

* The brief bio appended to the piece provides a partial response. Probably not the Carol Cleveland who appeared on Monty Python....

[Kalun D]

19. Moot, yes it is

"I think that exploring predispositions for or against conspiracy theories is a legitimate inquiry"

It doesn't even need to be labeled, conspiracy or anti-conspiracy

It's very simply truth or falsehood.

after all both sides are just arguing different conspiracy theories. So one side is arguing for the truth and one for the lie.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. I'm plenty sick of debating the semantics of "conspiracy theory"

Evidently we have larger substantive disagreements.

[eomer]

37. I'm sick of debating the semantics, and also sick of hearing the ad hominem.

Since everyone here either agrees with or is resigned to the derogatory rather than literal definition of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist", the use of that term will always constitute an ad hominem argument. With the irony that those who use the term are derogating someone for not sticking carefully to the facts and logic while in doing so they themselves are not sticking to the facts and logic.

I vote that we discuss the substance.

[Kalun D]

45. I remember you

from when this forum first started and discussing 911 was not looked down upon like it is today

[Kalun D]

46. Yes

"I vote that we discuss the substance."

And once you've read over 1000 pages of "substance" you realize it's not conspiracy theory anymore but conspiracy facts. And since all large grave crimes are by necessity conspiratorial in nature, you might as well just call it crime. So it becomes crime facts.

the crime facts of 911.

of course when you get into the conjecture of the details of which there is no evidence it's theory, but most of the basics are facts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. for many of us that hasn't been the experience

For many of us, once we read over 1000 pages of substance, we decided that the people who were convinced of various plots were... well, anyway, that's how it goes.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. fine by me

As I think I wrote somewhere else, I think that analytical discussions of conspiracism and anti-conspiracism are completely legitimate (some are better than others), but they don't mix well with discussions of 9/11. Different facts pertain.

[LARED]

23. How binary of you

So one side is arguing for the truth and one for the lie.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. yeah, that struck me too n/t

[achtung_circus]

42. Carol Cleveland is

my favourite Python. But I'm hormonally biased.

[Mist]

15. Speaking as someone who doesn't believe the OCT, I derive no comfort from

contemplating that the US gov't apparently attacked US citizens.

[William Seger]

16. Strangely incomplete for what's supposed to be a psychological profile

The author correctly says:

> "This is an immediately credible scenario... And under the broad strokes of the main story, there's also a layer of historically accurate information that supports the main plot line."

Yes, indeed, which is precisely why the "main story" is far more plausible on its face than anything so far speculated by the "truth movement" -- in some cases, many orders of magnitude more plausible. But then, the author completely ignores the issue of the evidence supporting the competing stories, which should certainly be of some concern to a rational person. I don't think ignoring that could possibly lead to any meaningful understanding of why most people accept the "main story." I personally take some "psychological comfort" from thinking that I've made my best estimate of what happened on 9/11, and would take "psychological comfort" from re-estimating if and when any new evidence surfaced. Pretty much like anything else, really -- nothing all THAT special about 9/11.

I wonder if that was deliberate omission, since any comparison of the "main story" to conspiracy theories would completely spoil the amateur-psychological profile being offered, of if it represents an underlying lack of concern about evidence on the part of the author?

[BeFree]

17. No evidence?

There is a lot of evidence that contradicts the OCT. Just because it forces someone out of some comfort level is no reason to deny it. And examining the contradictory evidence is quite discomforting. Very few are willing to do so.

So, I have to ask you, Will, have you found any evidence that contradicts the OCT, or do you feel the OCT is open and shut case, and completely perfect?

[William Seger]

20. No, there is not a shred of credible evidence ...

... that contradicts the story that 19 Arab Islamists hijacked 4 planes and hit 3 of their targets, with the 4th crashing in Shanksville. Nor is there any credible evidence that controlled demolition brought down any building. If there was, there wouldn't be a dungeon, and "truthers" would not be a marginalized, shrinking social phenomenon. It's got nothing whatever to do with "comfort levels." It has everything to do with the kind of evidence you need to accuse people of murder -- a concept that apparently does not exist in the fantasy world of Truthism. That's apparently because in conspiracist thinking, the search for evidence comes after the "guilty" verdict.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[William Seger]

27. I'm completely comfortable with rational thinking...

... and your irrelevant straw man attacks are becoming more and more childish. If you could stop and think about why it is that you're having such a hard time defending your position here without resorting to dodges and pointless distractions, you might start to make some progress in shaking off your delusions.

[BeFree]

28. Delusions?

That is a new low for you.

My position is easily defended: Bushco is never to be trusted.

And you won't even claim to defend the OCT. And struggle mightily with any questioning of it. Admit it, if not here, at least to yourself, Bushco is never to be trusted. Here would be nice, but whatever.

[William Seger]

29. Either you're being deliberately obtuse...

... or you're one of the most simple-minded people I've ever encountered. I'm becoming less and less interested in figuring out which it is. If you think you've adequately defended any position by attacking straw men, then that's just another delusion.

[BeFree]

32. Bushco is a strawman?

My position is that Bushco is not to be trusted. Are you really arguing against that basic premise? Really?

[Bolo Boffin]

33. "OCT" is a strawman

Define completely and fully what you mean by the term "OCT." You're using it as shorthand for a range of ideas. Spell those ideas out one by one. Then I'll talk about what I support and what I don't.

[William Seger]

36. Your position is

... that anyone who thinks Arab terrorists hijacked 4 planes and hit 3 targets must also be a BushCo supporter and also support torture and bombing Iraqi children. The position is so idiotic that it's hard to believe anyone could hold it, which causes suspicion that you argue disingenuously. But you've almost convinced me that you really do "think" that way. But as I said, I'm becoming less and less interested in your nonsense, regardless of why you keep posting it.

[BeFree]

38. Wrong again

The supporters of the OCT, a rapidly declining species, are those who will not tolerate, much less discuss the alternative theories. There are those who claim there is no evidence that contradicts the Bushco story.

But as we all well know now, the OCT from Bushco is under intense scrutiny and is doomed to be replaced with something far more complete.

My position is that nothing Bushco claims is to be accepted as the truth. Really quite simple and I am sure you do agree.

As for the innocents who have been attacked by Bushco, I am again sure that no one but a few diehard Bush-lickers appreciates that aspect. And that no one here would support that consequence.

[SDuderstadt]

39. ''the oct from bushco''

once again, the ''oct'' does not equal bushco and the fact that you keep pushing this is why no one takes you seriously here.

[William Seger]

54. You're the one who is wrong. Again.

> "The supporters of the OCT, a rapidly declining species, are those who will not tolerate, much less discuss the alternative theories."

It would be hard to pack more wrong in a single short sentence. As has been pointed out to you an uncountable number of times, your "supporters of the OCT" is a straw man of your own invention, so "rapidly declining" is not a meaningful characterization, unless you mean your imaginary bogey men are disappearing. All indications are that it's the "truth movement" that's rapidly declining, particularly since Bush has been gone. And futhermore, how can you possible claim, on this board, that you can't find any opponents to "discuss the alternative theories?" Is it because all the real discussion goes right over your head while you pointlessly flail away at the "supporters of the OCT?"

[BeFree]

64. Yep

Can't find any supporters of the OCT here. No one here will admit to it.
As suspected. Oh, there was a thread a while back from an admitted defender but that didn't turn out so well.

Too, look at the threads that make it for a while in GD that get dumped here. The majority of DUers obviously think the alternative theories rule!! And the majority of DUers are nearly always right!!

[SDuderstadt]

30. you persist in promoting a flawed starting point...

that is that the ''oct'' (whatever that is) = bushco. it doesn't. the ''consensus view'' of what happened on 9/11 and how it happened relies upon a multiplicity of sources and to claim that bushco is either the sole source or controls all the sources is pure folly. do you really think any ''debunker'' here believed for a second that saddam actually had wmd or that iraq had a role in 9/11?

your silly obsession with bushco as described above is distracting and interferes with serious debate here. more importantly, your rhetorical tactic of accusing anyone who doesn't buy your bullshit of ''defending the oct'' or ''supporting bushco'' has outlived any credibility it ever had, assuming it actually ever did.

[BeFree]

31. Obsession with Bushco?

Now that is some kind of crime? Now it is bad PC to oppose Bushco?

Over the edge again, eh, dude?

[snooper2]

34. you are serious with all this...

:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

35. of course, you dishonestly quote me by...

completely omitting the part where i said obsession with bushco ''as described above'' where i said oct does not equal bushco and vice-versa. you're just playing more of your silly games.

[BeFree]

40. Quoting:

you persist in promoting a flawed starting point...

that is that the ''oct'' (whatever that is) = bushco. it doesn't. the ''consensus view'' of what happened on 9/11 and how it happened relies upon a multiplicity of sources and to claim that bushco is either the sole source or controls all the sources is pure folly.


No. The OCT came from Bushco, for the most part. To deny that is quite disingenuous. There is very little info that wasn't whitewashed by Bushco and/or the commission. Basically, there is very little in the OCT that Bushco does not support or had a hand in releasing.

Obviously what I am doing here is to help other readers understand what relationship the OCT has with Bushco. They can make their own determinations as to who supports the OCT and who doesn't and to what degree they may or may not.

Too, I do want to be rid of Bushco once and for all, so that is part of what is going on here. Otherwise they will be back. We must defeat them and bury them and just about anything goes to meet that end. That is my agenda.

[SDuderstadt]

41. the ''oct' is a strawman and so is your claim that...

very little of it didn't come from bushco. please prove this ridiculous assertion.

[BeFree]

43. Well

Some say that the mass media is their source. If true, one has to question how much control did Bushco have over the mass media?

Too, remember the thread here about how the commission was designed to 'fail'? That's pretty damning evidence that Bushco's hand was deeply involved because that is their MO - Method of Operation.

[SDuderstadt]

44. if bush had ''control'' over the mass media...

how do you account for the negative press he received from many quarters? why did the mass media continue to write about the extremely low polling results bush got?

more importantly, when kean and hamilton complained about being ''set up to fail'', that doesn't mean they actually failed. while the results of any endeavour could be better, one can hardly say the commission failed.

[Kalun D]

49. The corp press

put bush in power

but he was so bad even the sheeple public woke up to his crimes and in spite of a favorable press the public turned against him

so in order to not look like fools the press had to turn against him also, the repugs were done anyway, no matter what the press said, so they cut their losses, keep the pitchfork masses at bay and back the dems, most of whom are just about as corrupt anyway.

"more importantly, when kean and hamilton complained about being ''set up to fail'', that doesn't mean they actually failed."

then why would they say that?

"while the results of any endeavour could be better, one can hardly say the commission failed."

they didn't fail at all, they performed exactly what was intended, the perfect whitewash of an inside job

[BeFree]

115. Say what?

...one can hardly say the commission failed.

One can sure as hell say the 9/11 commission failed. The families say it failed, the commissioners say it failed, and most of the American public says it failed.

You seem to be in the minority with an opinion like that.

[SDuderstadt]

116. No, the Commissioners didn't say it failed...

they (Kean and Hamilton) said they were "set up to fai1" . Do your understand that subtle difference? More importantly, have you ever read the 9/11 Commission Report?

[BeFree]

117. That's it?

Your whole defense is semantics?

You think the report was a success? You are one of a few, if so.

[SDuderstadt]

118. It isn't semantics, Be Free...

you're conflating their actual statement. As usual, you try to turn this back on me. Why do you continually misrepresent what people actually said? BTW, have you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report yet? After all, you're so "open-minded", right?

[Kalun D]

48. Official Conspiracy Theory

The criminals in gov came up with the OCT. A strawman for truthers would have had to come from them.

"and so is your claim that very little of it didn't come from bushco"

You're confused on the definition of strawman.

2.strawman - a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

an expanded (better) definition would be: a weak or sham argument which is then said to come from the opposition, and then argued against.

like when a disinfo agent puts out a weak argument, then claims a truther made it, and then argues against it.

much more common from the OCT's, they tend to fall back on other tactics because successfully arguing their side on straight up facts is so difficult.

bushco was key, sure there were many that went along, many who looked the other way, or were threatened into inaction, but the bushco's led the way. The "crazies" like they called them in the bush 1 years. Sociopaths.

[William Seger]

53. "arguing their side on straight up facts is so difficult" ??

LOL, no, it's very easy; it's just that getting conspiracy theorists to care about facts is very difficult. If facts were on their side, they wouldn't be called conspiracy theorists. For example:

> "bushco was key, sure there were many that went along, many who looked the other way, or were threatened into inaction, but the bushco's led the way."

Most of what we know about 9/11 did not come from "bushco," but conspiracists just blithely assume that the all-powerful conspirators coerced or cajoled whatever cooperation they needed. While you've got your dictionary out, look up "assumption" and "fact." If you promote assumptions and speculations to be facts and then claim that people who disagree "tend to fall back on other tactics because successfully arguing their side on straight up facts is so difficult," you look hypocritical.

[BeFree]

55. You assert:

""Most of what we know about 9/11 did not come from "bushco,"""

Oh? Where then did 'most' of it come from?

[William Seger]

56. You're kidding, right? Most of what we know

... about the hijackings came from the passengers themselves and the people they called, the airlines companies, the cockpit recorders, and the ATCs who handled those flights. Most of what we know about the crashes came from direct eyewitnesses, the flight data recorders, FAA radar tracks, and the people who cleaned up the crash sites. Most of what we know about the collapses of the buildings came from NIST, which mainly used consultants from private industry. In fact, about the only significant thing that came "from bushco" is the identification of the hijackers as connected to al Qaeda, and that's only if you count the CIA as being "bushco."

[Kalun D]

59. finally specifics

Most of what we know about the hijackings came from the passengers themselves and the people they called, the airlines companies, the cockpit recorders, and the ATCs who handled those flights.

And the vast majority of this stuff has never been released for public inspection. We have to take the (corrupt) government's word for it.

Most of what we know about the crashes came from direct eyewitnesses, the flight data recorders, FAA radar tracks, and the people who cleaned up the crash sites.

Same thing, the vast majority of the details are unavailable to the public except as a written report, the 911 c Omission (whitewash).

In fact, about the only significant thing that came "from bushco" is the identification of the hijackers as connected to al Qaeda

That's right, they convicted Al Qaeda in a public court of law. Not something behind closed doors with evidence given off the record and not under oath.

all your points here are absolutely immaterial until you establish how you ID'd the 19 and how you established they were actually in the cockpits. And behind closed doors just doesn't cut it.

and that's only if you count the CIA as being "bushco."

Well there's certainly long deep ties. (heroin)Poppy Bush was director. They couldn't have done it without each other's support, at least elements within, maybe not the whole. I mean look at Plame, they don't really care about the good parts of the agency, just how they can be used.

[William Seger]

61. In other words...

... you're doing exactly what I said conspiracists do: "blithely assume that the all-powerful conspirators coerced or cajoled whatever cooperation they needed."

> "And the vast majority of this stuff has never been released for public inspection."

Nope, I don't think it's the "vast majority" and certainly there is enough public information available to know that 19 Arabs hijacked 4 planes, hit WTC 1 & 2 and the Pentagon, and the 4th crashed in Shanksville after a passenger revolt. But suit yourself and ignore all of it. The only problem you'll have is if you try to argue that that's not what happened. If you do that, then sensible people are going to expect more than paranoid suspicions, assumptions and speculations.

[Kalun D]

63. How?

how did they establish the 19 boarded the planes?

how did they ID the 19?

how did they establish the 19 were piloting the planes?

[William Seger]

65. How

> "how did they establish the 19 boarded the planes?"

From the flight manifests.

> "how did they ID the 19?"

The used their "real" names to get their tickets (or at least the same names that they had been using for some time).

> "how did they establish the 19 were piloting the planes?"

From the reports by the passengers, and from the communications with the ATCs.

You really should at least read the Commission Report if you're going to criticize it. Pay particular attention to the footnotes, since they provides their sources. I'm not really much interested in whether or not you believe it, unless you've got a better story and can substantiate it. Paranoid suspicions, assumptions, and speculations are not good enough.

[Kalun D]

67. KA-CHUNK

"> "how did they establish the 19 boarded the planes?""

"From the flight manifests."

Which we've never been shown. You'd think if it was an up front deal we would have seen complete lists on DAY ONE, or at least the 1st week. Why hide them? Although some "victim" lists were shown on 9-12 that contained ZERO Arab names. How did they know in ONE day who the hijackers were? How did they figure out in ONE day that these 19 were so definitely guilty? Is that the way investigations are normally conducted? Do they indict convict and sentence people for a crime this grave and complex in ONE day? Or were they just "suspects"? Then why did they leave mere "suspects" off the lists?

"> "how did they ID the 19?""

"The used their "real" names to get their tickets (or at least the same names that they had been using for some time)."

Thank you so very much for falling right into my trap.

So you admit then that there were false identities. And if some are false how do you confirm that any of them are true?

And we know the FBI admitted that the lists were inaccurate when 7 of them worldwide claimed they were still alive.

This is where the gov's conspiracy theory falls flat on it's face. Because if the identities the 19 gave the airlines, and the identities that the gov has given us are false, then what are their REAL identities? And how come after 8 years they haven't found a single one of the correct identities? Is the FBI that incompetent? How do you convict 19 people in the court of public opinion, like they have been, if their identities are false?

So with false identities, who are the people in the 19 photos? Are they the people on the planes? Or are they the people who's identities have been stolen?

This could all be cleared up very very easily. So since it has not been cleared up at all it makes the gov look very suspicious.

Tell us Mr Seger, how many video cameras on average do you think existed at each of the departing airports on 911?

Let's see probably the entrances to the buildings. For sure the baggage counters, for sure the security gates, for sure the boarding gates. So let's say 3 possibly 4 camera locations, let's guess just 4 cameras for each location, a minimum guess. Say 12 cameras bare minimum at each airport. So every single one of the 19 got by 12 cameras each without one single one of them being videoed.

How could that be possible? The answer is it could not be possible. So in other words the video cameras don't show the same people who are in the 19 photographs of unknown source of the supposed hijackers who supposedly were using false ID's. Otherwise this hard evidence would have already been shown because what they have besides that is pretty flimsy.

So according to the gov the 19 got on the planes, there's just no video proof that they did. In fact there's no video at all. WHY?

WHY IS THERE NO VIDEO AT ALL FROM THE AIRPORTS? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SHOW WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO?

"> "how did they establish the 19 were piloting the planes?""

"From the reports by the passengers, and from the communications with the ATCs."

So the supposed 19, who have false identities are now ID'd as being in the cockpit. I'm assuming all we have is written transcripts provided by the gov? No audio tape? No audio voice ID? Did they give their first and last names when checking in with ATC's? Did the passengers know their full names and call them in as they were being held hostage? Was this with their false names, or their real names?

If the names were false how were they matched up with the photos via radio and phone communications? If there's no video from the airports how do we know the false names match up with the pictures provided later on?

How would this kind of case play out in a court of law?

How would you establish these guys were actually who the gov says they were and were on the planes and in the cockpits? How would that hold up in court and wouldn't the lack of video evidence come into question?

[William Seger]

68. Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote

I don't care what you don't believe, and I'm not interested in your paranoid suspicions, assumptions, and speculations. You're shooting blanks. These men were Arab Islamist terrorists, as proved by their actions and their http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hijacker_videos">last wills, and fretting about their "real" names is a totally pointless (and frankly, idiotic) red herring -- the hijackers are all dead. (And, btw, http://www.911myths.com/index.php/No_hijackers_on_the_passenger_manifests">two of the manifests were officially released and the other two were unofficially released. While you're on that site, you might want to look for some of your other favorite myths. If you can't find them there, try http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home">here or http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Main_Page">here The facts are not on your side.)

[Kalun D]

70. I read exactly what you wrote

and now you're changing what you said.

I asked "how did they ID the 19?

you said, "They used their "real" names to get their tickets (or at least the same names that they had been using for some time)."

I replied. "If they are false identities as you and the FBI admit, how do we know who they really are if the FBI isn't searching for their real identities or releasing any airport video?"

So now you've changed your story to "they're proved by their actions and their wills, THE REAL NAMES ARE POINTLESS, the hijackers are dead."

So let's ask the same question again. How would this hold up in a court of law?

We have some photo ID's, we know some of them are false, so we're not really sure about any of them because WE HAVE ZERO AIRPORT VIDEO!

But if it please your honor it's proven by the crime that it has to be Arabs, and Al-Jazerra released some un-sourced "last wills".

If it please your honor, THEIR REAL NAMES ARE POINTLESS BECAUSE THEY ARE DEAD!

Honestly Mr. Seger, what kind of argument is that? You have some false ID's of Arabs, who cares if the names aren't real?

Based on this "evidence" THEY COULD BE ANYBODY!

"two of the manifests were officially released and the other two were unofficially released."

According to a unknown source anti-truther website. That links to a CBS story about a Boston Globe story that says they obtained the complete lists. They don't say anything about where they got them. The text of the Globe story is included, it says. "The Boston Globe obtained the complete list" but no source is given.

That's "officially released" to you Mr. Seger?

the flight manifests are just like the video. The airlines are supposed to release them, not some newspaper in Boston. How come they didn't release the official flight manifests on all 4 flights on 9-12? Just like they do on all airplane crashes?

If you were in a court of law and making a claim on one of the dead passengers, would an un-sourced newspaper article hold up as evidence?

And then just like the false ID's of the 19 you go on to admit. "the other two were unofficially released"

What the heck does that mean Mr. Seger? 1/2 of the names are "unofficial". What kind of case is this?

=============================================

Let's dissect your "argument", to give an example of how OCT'ers try to "argue", and explain what I've said about how they can't argue point by point.

"Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote, I don't care what you don't believe, and I'm not interested in your paranoid suspicions, assumptions, and speculations. You're shooting blanks....totally pointless (and frankly, idiotic)....While you're on that site, you might want to look for some of your other favorite myths....The facts are not on your side."

This is more than 1/2 of your word count on this post. There's no counter information here, merely opinionated assertions and ad-hominem.

Then you go on to change your stance on the ID of the 19, and the backup you use is an un-sourced site that's obviously biased.

You ignored more than 1/2 my points, like how come there's no airport video, how did they ID the false identities in the cockpits, and how did they know all of the 19 were hijackers only one day later.

[William Seger]

72. No, I'm not changing what I said

Especially this part: "I don't care what you don't believe, and I'm not interested in your paranoid suspicions, assumptions, and speculations."

You asked how the hijackers were identified, and I told you: from the passenger lists. I did not "admit" anything about false identities, except that there obviously could be some -- I have no idea. Yes, I consider the airlines giving copies of the manifests to the Boston Globe as an "official release" and if you don't, then let's add "Boston Globe is in on it" to the list of things I don't care about. Apparently, the manifests were also introduced as evidence in Moussaoui trial, but so what, when 9/11 conspiracists can just assume they were faked. You talk about the manifests and security videos (if in fact the cameras were recorded, which of course is not necessarily the case) as if you might believe the "official story" if they were available, while at the same time you dismiss whatever is available as being faked. Yes, of course, identifying all 19 as accurately as possible is a concern for law enforcement, but the subject matter here is 9/11 conspiracism. In that matter, what's idiotic about this is any suggestion that if some of the hijackers were using assumed identities then maybe they weren't Arab terrorists. What's idiotic about it is any suggestion that unless all 19 can be positively identified, then a reasonable alternative to terrorist hijacking is that Dick Cheney was flying the planes by remote control. (No, I'm not accusing you of that particular idiocy but you get the idea: I'm not interested in unsubstantiated speculation.) And what's idiotic about it is nonsense like "7 hijackers still alive." There are exactly zero hijackers still alive, regardless of their real names, so zero hijackers will be brought to trial, and you've given me exactly zero evidence that you can tell a better story than 19 hijackers crashed 4 planes. Calling this nonsense idiotic is not ad hominem; it's just a descriptive adjective that seems accurate to me for the games 9/11 conspiracists play about the hijacker identities.

[Kalun D]

73. Your story

Went from "they used their real names to get their tickets'

to "they're proved by their actions and their wills, THE REAL NAMES ARE POINTLESS, the hijackers are dead"

So we don't even need to ID them, we say they are these Arab names.

"I did not "admit" anything about false identities, except that there obviously could be some -- I have no idea."

That's all I said you admitted. Most in the OCT won't even admit they could be false.

So possibly none of the names could be real since you don't have ANY video of them boarding the planes.

"You asked how the hijackers were identified, and I told you: from the passenger lists."

How is a name on a list a positive ID? If you don't have obviously available video?

"You talk about the manifests and security videos (if in fact the cameras were recorded, which of course is not necessarily the case)"

Sheesh, of course security video is on at least a 24 hr loop, you aren't stupid now come on. They were on vid in the morning by evening everyone knew we'd suffered the worst attack in our history. How come they didn't save the tape unless it didn't show what they claim?

"you might believe the "official story" if they were available, while at the same time you dismiss whatever is available as being faked."

Because no solid evidence is available. In this day and age ID theft is easy. The fact that the hard video evidence is all missing is highly suspect in itself.

"In that matter, what's idiotic about this is any suggestion that if some of the hijackers were using assumed identities then maybe they weren't Arab terrorists."

Are you saying that race is a barrier to ID theft? Come on you're not idiotic. In a melting pot like the US isn't it sort of hard to tell someones race sometimes? And then throw in mixed race. Or like Palestineans and Israeli's they're both Semites, how do you positively tell them apart?

We have some false ID's here, but we've positively ID'd their race no problem. LOLZ!!!!

"What's idiotic about it is any suggestion that unless all 19 can be positively identified, then a reasonable alternative to terrorist hijacking is that Dick Cheney was flying the planes by remote control."

So somehow we've positively ID'd them as being Arab and that positively establishes them as being in the cockpits? How does this reasoning work? That's more far-fetched than the planes being flown remotely from AWACS with global hawk technology. Which BTW is possible. They have taken off and landed full size jets with no one on board, so it is possible. And many pilots say that the planes that day were flown with pinpoint accuracy, much better than you would expect from someone who has only flown simulators if even that, or single engine props.

"And what's idiotic about it is nonsense like "7 hijackers still alive." There are exactly zero hijackers still alive, regardless of their real names"

I don't think you missed my point, you must be obfuscating. 7 or 8 of the REAL ID's were still alive. IOW, confirmed false ID's. Of course there's ZERO false ID'd hijackers alive.

"and you've given me exactly zero evidence that you can tell a better story than 19 hijackers crashed 4 planes."

Yes the OCT is a "story" There should be REAL evidence, like video tape, or confirmed people still alive, but it's not being shown so the entire story becomes suspect.

"Calling this nonsense idiotic is not ad hominem;"

Spending 1/2 your post describing the other persons argument, instead of just arguing against, is a distraction and a waste of time regardless of what kind of name you want to put on it.

[Marksbrother]

74. I wish you could find a way to post so that they're easy to follow

What you post is always intelligent but it's hard to keep track of who is saying what. I almost quit reading this one because
I was having such a hard time trying to keep track of who was who. The main guide I had was the fact that seger's comments
were typical of a certain style of "argument".

[Kalun D]

87. Quotes

Generally if there's quotes around a sentence it's from the message I'm replying to

my replies will not be quoted

what's easier for you quotes or grey boxes?

there will also be quotes if I'm quoting some other information or statement from an outside source that I'm using to back a point.

In the upper right of any post you are reading it says "response to reply #XX"(where XX is the number of the post being responded to)

sometimes you have to read that post first to better understand my reply because sometimes I don't quote all their points in order.

[William Seger]

76. Arguing against what? Vague paranoid suspicions?

Actually, I've been trying to explain to you why your claims would be ultimately irrelevant to 9/11 "inside job" conspiracism even if they were correct, but in fact there http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive">doesn't seem to be any good reason to accept your claim that "7 or 8 of the REAL ID's were still alive." There was some confusion on some of the names in the first few days after the attack, but that seems to be pretty much sorted out now.

But I don't really care to argue about that, since it's really pointless: Even if your claims were accurate, arguing about the "real" names of 7 hijackers is to ignore the significance of the fact that most of the hijackers were indeed identified as particular people connected with radical Islamist terrorism, and those people seem to have disappeared for some reason. In the end, your argument is simply that you aren't convinced that the hijackers were Arab terrorists, and I don't care to waste time trying to convince you that they were. The reason I'm sure that it would be a waste of time is that while you say there isn't enough evidence to suit you, you simply dismiss out-of-hand the evidence that we do have, e.g. the manifests, the passenger calls, the communications with the ATCs, the last will videos (and presumably much more, such as the bin Laden "confession" video). Again, I don't care about what you don't believe, so I don't know why you would expect me to argue with you about that. But you seem to persist in missing why I keep saying that, so I'll be more explicit: Tell me what you do believe and why you believe it, and then we'll see if you've got anything besides paranoid suspicions, assumptions, and speculations.

As it is, you don't seem to have much of an argument, and it's getting kinda boring to keep repeating why I think that, so if you've said all you have to say, so have I.

[Kalun D]

89. No normal mainifests, No video

your claims would be ultimately irrelevant to 9/11 "inside job" conspiracism even if they were correct

If there is no hard proof the 19 actually boarded the planes anybody could have been the perps. Even if it was proven the 19 boarded, and it hasn't been, it would then have to be proven they were piloting the planes, and there's even less proof of that.

There was some confusion on some of the names in the first few days after the attack, but that seems to be pretty much sorted out now.

The names have never changed, they were questionable even by the FBI at some point, no proof has ever been subsequently presented as to their authenticity. And the biased unknown source 9llmyth website even admits this, "Of course we can’t prove that Mueller really believed that...(the ID's were positive)".

And there was never any hard evidence these people, even if correctly ID'd, actually boarded the planes. Even though there positively should be video evidence. The mere withholding of that video evidence is highly suspicious in itself.

And the question has NEVER been answered, and it never will, where is the video?

most of the hijackers were indeed identified as particular people connected with radical Islamist terrorism, and those people seem to have disappeared for some reason.

Regardless of their ID, it was never proven they boarded the planes, even though there should be proof.

the manifests, the passenger calls, the communications with the ATCs, the last will videos (and presumably much more, such as the bin Laden "confession" video)

There has never been ANY manifests from the airlines contrary to the usual SOP. How come it was different just this time? Shouldn't it have been even more straight and narrow if we really wanted to know the truth?

transcripts of passenger calls or all audio released to the public in a court of law? Last will videos from unknown sources? An unknown source Bin Laden "confession" video that doesn't even look like Bin Laden?

NONE of this "evidence" positively establishes the 19 boarding the planes or in the cockpits.

Tell me what you do believe and why you believe it

We don't know who was really on the planes, or who flew them into the buildings. The lack of what would be positive evidence is damning all by itself. Like lack of video and manifests released by the airlines as is SOP. "The FBI says so" is not good enough, show us the video.

[Marksbrother]

91. Does that mean it might well have been the 19 Arabs? Also,

What evidence do you believe supports the notion that anyone flew planes "into the buildings"?


"We don't know who was really on the planes, or who flew them into the buildings."

[Kalun D]

92. Evidence

Does that mean it might well have been the 19 Arabs?

doubtful. Since some of them were shown to be false identities and they were never confirmed to actually be on the planes. They were patsies, not even capable of pulling off something this complex.

What evidence do you believe supports the notion that anyone flew planes "into the buildings"?

Well with the WTC 1 and 2 we have video and some plane parts. It could have been remote Global Hawk technology.

With the Pentagon and Flight 93 we have less evidence and it doesn't seem to support the official conspiracy theory.

[Marksbrother]

93. Did patsies fly planes into WTC 1 and 2?

If, as you say, the 19 Arabs were patsies, "not even capable of pulling off something this complex" - and I agree, then is it
your position that the video images showing planes literally melting into buildings are authentic, actual images of
planes that were flown by remote control (Global Hawk), not doctored videos with CGI planes inserted into them?

[Kalun D]

94. Not CGI

the video images showing planes literally melting into buildings are authentic, actual images of
planes that were flown by remote control (Global Hawk), not doctored videos with CGI planes inserted into them?

There are way too many vids of the 2nd tower being hit for it to be CGI. So many private individuals had their cameras on the towers because one had already been hit.

At the WTC one of the plane engines fell to the street.

And not positively Global Hawk, just possible, and possible other operatives posing as Arabs.

[Marksbrother]

95. Thanks. I don't agree, but I do appreciate knowing your thoughts.

If, as you say, there were lots of individuals with their cameras aimed on the towers, surely there would be video images
that show an authentic-looking plane and an authentic-looking crash.

I believe it has been convincingly argued that the engine part found on the street was most likely planted there.

Global Hawk could only be possible if there was an actual plane crash, although it's possible that a Global Hawk plane
was used in a fly-by scenario.

As far as "other operatives posing as Arabs", that's a long-proven tactic.

[Marksbrother]

69. Without taking sides, let me say that you are a tough

but fair interrogator and advocate.

P.S. Would you consider using a different format than the grey boxes? I find it difficult to follow those posts. In fact, and
this is not a disparagement of your logic, sometimes I'm unsure just who is who in those posts.

[Kalun D]

71. Thanks

Without taking sides, let me say that you are a tough but fair interrogator and advocate.

Thank you.

P.S. Would you consider using a different format than the grey boxes? I find it difficult to follow those posts. In fact, and
this is not a disparagement of your logic, sometimes I'm unsure just who is who in those posts.

It's almost always just like this. The grey boxes are quotes of the message I'm replying to, with my reply right after. Occasionally I will make a comment before a quote. It will be closer to the box. Once you get used to it you may find you like it better.

Usually you have to read the entire thread because most people leave stuff out and reply without quoting anything in their post.

[SDuderstadt]

75. Why don't you do some research...

just because you don't know something hardly means it doesn't exist or is being "hidden".

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uslugg0417,0,3743892.story&h=383&w=500&sz=14&tbnid=TRCh-Nt6z835XM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphotos%2Bof%2B9/11%2Bhijackers%2Bat%2Bairports&usg=__fc3CpZelkNdoHpTPeRvFLYkelSE=&ei=ZDsjStHFF6SgM8eUjbMJ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image

[Kalun D]

90. This is all you ever get.

This is all we ever get when we ask where's the video of the 19 boarding the planes?

from the caption below the video screen capture

A surveillance camera photographs two men identified by authorities as suspected hijackers Mohammed Atta (R) And Abdulaziz Alomari (C) as they pass through airport security September 11, 2001 at Portland International Jetport in Maine.

It is solid proof two of the supposed possibly false ID hijackers boarded a plane in Portland Maine.

Only problem is NONE of the 4 planes hijacked on 911 took off from Portland Maine. LOLZ!!

[defendandprotect]

81. AlQaeda is connected to CIA . . .

AlQaeda was taken over the the Nazis prior to WWII . . .

and after WWII AlQaeda was passed over to the CIA by the Nazis.


The CIA financed Taliban/AlQaeda thru the ISI-Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the CIA was founded with Nazis brought in by Allen Dulles after WWII

under Operation Paperclip and many funneled into FBI, NASA, USIA, etc.


The CIA -- as we all know -- worked to keep right-wing governments in place all over

the globe after WWII -- ensuring that liberals/progressives were kept out.

They stole elections and used mahem, Mafia and violence and assassination to do this.

Is there any reason to think they didn't do the same thing

here in America?

PS: Note that their is concrete evidence that the CIA funded right-wing Senators/
Representatives contributing to their campaigns -- a few were Sen. Jesse Helms/
Sen. Strom Thurmond and Rep. Gerald Ford. Pat Buchanan was also a beneficiary.
There were others . . . these are the only names I'm familiar with at the moment.

[SDuderstadt]

83. "AlQaeda was taken over the the Nazis prior to WWII"

wtf?

[LARED]

88. Yes, yes

don't you know Adolf Bin Laden, was a long lost cousin of Osama.

[BeFree]

62. Heh

All independent sources, you think?

The passengers themselves through phone calls which are questionable? Who transcribed those calls and who authenticated yjose calls? Why, it was the FBI, who was under Bushco's thumb.

Airline companies which received millions of dollars in bribes from Bushco?

The cockpit recorders (where are the missing ones?) again handled by government employees under Bushcos thumb? ATC's too.

Direct eyewitnesses? Many of whom contradict the OCT?

Who cleaned up the pentagon? The control of the towers clean up was under Bushcos thumb, and who knows about Shanksville? Again many conflicting opinions and eyewitnesses there too.

And is the CIA under Bushcos thumb? George Tenet quit and got a big medal? W's daddy was once head of CIA? Only if you're actually counting. Obviously, you are not.

[William Seger]

66. You guys just keep proving my point

Looks like that's about as good as you're going to get, too.

[defendandprotect]

82. Exactly . . .

and isn't NIST also questionable . . . ?

I'll have to look that up --

[SDuderstadt]

84. I've come to realize that...

D&P is like the "den mother" of the "truthers"

[JuniperLea]

97. I've come to realize that when you are forced to face reason...

You insult and deflect, call names and insult, and offer straw man arguments.

[SDuderstadt]

100. Please point to any name I have called anyone...

please be specific.

[JuniperLea]

101. Truther... all over the place... eom

[SDuderstadt]

102. Referring to someone as a "truther" is not "name-calling"....

duh.

[JuniperLea]

113. You are lumping everyone who doesn't believe

In the official story under one, lame, umbrella name. It is beyond insulting, and all part of your general straw man argument style. I find it quite rude, and utterly offensive.

[BeFree]

143. delete

[Marksbrother]

103. No-planer.. also all over the place ... eom

[SDuderstadt]

104. Jesus Christ....referring to someone who believes no planes crashed on 9/11...

as a "no-planer" isn't name-calling either. Get serious guys and point to an actual name I called anyone (good luck) or this is just more of your bullshit.

[Marksbrother]

105. So, referring to someone as a "fake-planer" isn't

name-calling?

[SDuderstadt]

106. No...

and I never called anyone a "fake-planer" either. Do I really have to spell out "namecalling" for you? You know, like "idiot", "ignoramus", etc.? That's name-calling. If you think I'm "name-calling", please take it up with the moderators.

[Marksbrother]

107. So, you agree that referring to someone as

a fake-planer isn't namecalling. Good to know you don't practice a double standard.

[SDuderstadt]

108. So, again...

point to any name I have called anyone. It should be easy...unless, of course, you can't. Silly accusation.

[Marksbrother]

109. Would you be offended if someone referred to you

as a fake-planer? How is that any different than referring to someone here as a no-planer? If it's okay to do that, then
it should be okay to refer to someone here as a fake-planer. If it isn't name-calling to refer to someone as a no-planer,
then it should be perfectly acceptable to refer to someone as a fake-planer.

There's nothing silly about calling for fair play, is there?

[SDuderstadt]

110. For the last fucking time, dude...

I don't fucking care if you call me a "fake-planer". In reality, I don't care what the fuck you do. I don't take you seriously. Is that clear enough?

[Marksbrother]

111. Thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

I don't want to, and I hope I don't have to, but it's good to know that there's a non-threatening way to remind you to be civil
if/when it seems to be necessary.

[SDuderstadt]

112. If you want me to be "civil".,..

then quit asking me the same fucking question over and over.

[Kalun D]

58. OCT

stands for Official Conspiracy theorist.

If facts were on their side, they wouldn't be called conspiracy theorists.

> "bushco was key, sure there were many that went along, many who looked the other way, or were threatened into inaction, but the bushco's led the way."

Most of what we know about 9/11 did not come from "bushco,"

was speaking in terms of the event and coverup, not the (sham)"investigation", although bushco certainly manipulated that also.

and when I say bushco I mean the Neocon crazies, bush, cheney, rummy, and who knows who behind the scenes.

If you promote assumptions and speculations

it's just semantics until you get specific

[JuniperLea]

96. Straw man...

Like when you say you don't trust BushCo or anything they said at all, not one little bit, you are then confronted with some Neanderthal who says, so you think BushCo did it and you aren't swaying from that thought so I say you have a closed mind... but of course you never, ever said BushCo DID it.

I think threatened into inaction was a big part of this, and a big part of the reason why unlawful wiretapping began long before 9/11.

[defendandprotect]

79. So you're saying that there's "no evidence" because DU puts 9/11 info in the dungeon . . .???

While I see it as a weakness on the part of DU -- keep in mind that many other
subjects are also made "taboo" here -- take a look around.

If you've read anything, you understand that this could no more have happened than
Russia could have pushed in 19 Russians to hijack 4 planes and hit 3 of their targets.

Would you have believed that?

Would you have believed that the Russians "coincidentally" happened to pick a date when
our Pentagon had all systems off because they were running four simulated programs of ....
are you ready for this . . . HIJACKINGS/BOMBING OF AMERICAN SKYSCRAPERS!

Would you have believed that the Russians could have floated planes in our skies for
more than an hour -- flying over numerous military bases -- and NORAD would not have
responded?

Would you have believed that the Russians could have flown a plane into the Pentagon and
there would be no alert of "incoming" to employees there. The Pentagon would simply not
have known that there were any problems . . . unlike citizens everywhere else!!

Would you still believe that the Pentagon had no defense system? No anti-missile
batteries which could bring down anything that came near them? Perhaps because taxpayers
couldn't afford to arm the Pentagon?

Meanwhile -- the night before 9/11, George Bush stayed at a hotel in Florida. Guess what?
They put anti-missile system on the rooftop there to protect him.

Aw shucks! If only the Pentagon had thought of that --


Meanwhile, demolition experts were of course consulted and they all agree -- DEMOLITION.

Further, there is exploded thermite and unexploded thermite chips found in the debris/
power/dust. How could that have happened? You're saying that the "Russians" were able
to wire the WTC for demolition?


:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

80. "Meanwhile, demolition experts were of course consulted and they all agree -- DEMOLITION."

Then name them, D&P, otherwise this is just more of your bullshit.

[JuniperLea]

98. Oh, you mean experts that didn't later have their arms twisted to recant?

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4


Hope you don't mind the source.

So, he says it looked like explosives to him... just "looked like"... not that there were any... it just LOOKED to him, the expert, that it was caused by explosives.

[OnTheOtherHand]

99. "Romero responds:"

Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

This raises the question: what's the basis for your "later have their arms twisted to recant"? You just can't imagine that he might actually have been misquoted? Or maybe you were thinking of someone else? Or...?

[Marksbrother]

85. Interesting analogy.

The next time someone mentions OBL to me, I'm going to pose your scenario to them. It'll be interesting to see if they
have a better response than your post got.

[defendandprotect]

86. It is preposterous . . . and I'll also keep moving that thought along . . .

:)

[anigbrowl]

119. It's ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it

I'm happy to entertain any theory about what went down on 9/11 IF it is proposed with respect for the basic rules of evidence and logical procedure. Some good arguments have been made in these areas, but they are vastly outnumbered by the silly arguments (the no-planes one being my favorite).

It's also reasonable to point out flaws or incongruities in the official theory...but a lot of people jump to unwarranted conclusions from that.

[Octafish]

121. 7 Habits of Highly Successful Conspiracy Deniers

1. Ignore evidence that doesn't fit with belief system.
2. Deny evidence that doesn't fit with desired narrative.
3. Forbid discussion by attacking posters who do not support desired explanation.
4. Delay discussion by red herrings and irrelevant questions.
5. Sidetrack discussion by mentioning authority perspective.
6. Denigrate discussion by inserting meaningless information.
7. Confuse the closed-minded by chanting Occam's Razor over and over.

[KDLarsen]

122. Incidently..

All but #7 would fit the Tinfoil Hatter to a T.

.. but if you feel like including #7 anyway, replace Occam's Razor with "Pull it"!

[Octafish]

123. Then why didn't you think of them first?

FYI: Don't associate me with your idea of what my ideas are.

[SDuderstadt]

124. Dude...

can you point to a single one of us who denies actual conspiracies? You know, ones that have been proven true with real evidence?

Conflating your goofy conspiracy theory bullshit with actual conspiracies is laughable on it's face. Quit trying to make this about us and spend your time coming up with evidence to convince others. It'd be a far better use of your time, dude.

[BeFree]

125. Hahaha

You are funny. "...better use of your time..."

Our time is spent trying to turn the tide of bushco. And we are succeeding. Everyday a bit more comes out. Everyday another person comes to see the truth. We are the champions, and we will win, so what little time we can spend finding the truth is excellent.

Thank you for your opposition. All it does is make us stronger.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[KDLarsen]

127. Bushco was overturned 15 months ago...

At least I can take joy in knowing, that once I press the X in the top right corner of my internet browser, 9/11 Truth ceases to exist. You have had 8+ years of slacktivism and what do you have to show for it, that has had an effect in the real world?

[BeFree]

128. See, that's the difference

Some think bushco is gone. And we know they still have lots of power.

Some think an election makes all the difference
But we know that it will take a generation to turn back the tide.

Some think everything is fixed because of who is in office.
But we know that the 'fix' is always being perfected and our freedoms are under constant attack.

One day we will hopefully have everyone understanding what is really happening.

[SDuderstadt]

129. Yeah, one of these days maybe you'll convince everyone that....

"Bushco" is still in power. The rest of understand the actual way the world works, dude.

[BeFree]

130. Nah

There are some people who will never be convinced that bushco even exists.
Seems they think that there is no evil behind wars, exploitations, slavery,
and all the other various and sundry ways powerful people use to steal from the masses of humanity.

But any student of history can tell that they never stop.

[KDLarsen]

131. 100 years ago, people were repeating that very phrase

.. only with the word 'Bushco' replaced with 'the international Jew' or 'Zionism'.

A shame we haven't progressed further as mankind.

[BeFree]

133. Screw that

There is no correlation. Your attempt at making one is absurd.
We are talking about an American family that has nothing to do with religion.

And you need spell check. There is one available to you right here on DU. Please, use it.

[BeFree]

134. Good edit

Makes us look less like freepers just by using spell check. Thanks.

Now, about your absurd attempt at correlating... care to respond?

[Make7]

140. Sometimes not spelling a word correctly actually results in a word that is not misspelled.

In such a case, spell check will not catch the mistake and the person might end up looking a little bit like a freeper anyway.
?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=280741&mesg_id=280805

[JackRiddler]

141. Who's the Secretary of "Defense"?

Who's the chairman of the Federal Reserve?

Which banks have the most influence on US policy?

Which corporations?

To what degree have any of the above changed since Bush and Cheney left DC?

Can you tell us which covert operations of the intelligence agencies were cancelled as a result of the change in administrations? (I can't either: that's my point, in this new age of sunshine.)

When was Guantanamo closed again? When will the civilian trials of suspects there begin?

When will John Yoo become the first former official to be indicted for the manifold crimes of the Bush regime?

I can think of a few things that have changed. Sadly that doesn't include the total capitulation of sovereignty to Wall Street, which dates back to Sept. 2008. It doesn't include the devotion of the majority of federal discretionary spending to the war machine, or the end of the general state of war that Bush initiated, or the end of the two invasions. It doesn't include a rollback of the surveillance state which got so much bigger under Bush. On the contrary, more PATRIOT Act renewals were snuck into the jobs bill.

But I'm pretty sure the chances of a strike of Iran are much lower. I can easily imagine McCain would have bombed that country last June. Maybe there will be an opening to Cuba, finally. Taxes on the rich won't be as low, spending on jobs and infrastructure is slightly higher.

And there were about five minutes when the US adopted a slightly more critical policy with regard to the Israeli occupation and apartheid policy. That was something, I guess.

Sonia Sotomayor. That's a big one. I can be really happy about her. God forbid the Supreme Court should have turned SIX to three, that would have taken decades to change.

Anyway, maybe you should consider the evidence of continuities about you.

When a Nigerian man (whose father had warned the US about the danger he posed) got on a plane in Belgium (without a passport - o, miracles) and tried to blow it up on the way to Detroit, the administration logically announced that we really needed to bomb Yemen, which just happened to already be on the to-bomb list.

There's a lot that's depressingly familiar in that.

[sixstrings75]

132. It's called 'dis-information'.

Unfortunately, it is very successful.

All this "no-planes", "mini-nukes" bullshit makes the people who are genuine in their concerns for truth look like idiots. And that is the point.

Attack, attack, attack. Try and lump all the people who do not believe Bush's story with people who believe that martians orchestrated 911. It's a very simple technique and it is working as planned.

It's not enough to say that you believe elements of the US intelligence community and MIC, working with elements in the Bush admin., working with international intelligence agencys orchestrated 911. It's not enough to ask "who benefits?" These theory's and questions never get the attention they deserve because the disinformation has been so succesful...

You don't believe the Bush admin's story of 911? Well then you must believe that the martians did it.

See how that works? And it is VERY succesful and has been going on in your country since JFK was killed, probably by the same elements that did 911.

All you have to do is read the posts in the 911 forum. It's all there for everyone to see.

[SDuderstadt]

135. Simple question...

Can you actually point to a single person here who has accused anyone who doesn't believe the "official story" of believing martians did it?

Stupid strawman post, dude.

[sixstrings75]

136. I think you are being facetious...

Everyone understands the gist of what I posted...

I used an example of the extreme to demonstrate the norm...

[SDuderstadt]

137. No, I'm dead serious...

now you're trying to rationalize your stupid strawman argument by saying everyone knows what you meant. Why don't you SAY what you meant rather than try to demonize anyone who doesn't buy your "truther" bullshit?

[sixstrings75]

138. Wow. Just wow. I'm not playing your game dude. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

139. No, you're playing your own little game...

and not very well, I might add. My point is that those of us on the "debunker" side typically call "truthers" on their lack of evidence and/or the illogicality of their argument and, in turn, the truthers twist that into us supposedly being "Bushco" supporters or calling "truthers" wackos when we've done no such thing. It's really quite a racket. You just don't like being called on it.

[BeFree]

142. Oh

This whole thread shows how the 'facts' that support the official story do originate and are controlled by bushco. It really is a good read, especially Kalun's arguments with Seger. So, it stands: the majority of the story is straight from bush. The OCT skeptics do not trust bushco. And they are wise to put as much distance between themselves and bushco as possible. Very wise.

[SDuderstadt]

144. "So, it stands: the majority of the story is straight from bush"

I see you're still playing the same stupid game, dude.

Prove your bullshit claim. Citing Kalun doesn't work.

[vincent_vega_lives]

145. I agree with her

there is a certain psychological comfort in a recounting of events supported by eyewitness accounts, evidence and facts.

[BeFree]

146. yep

Was talking to a guy the other day that eyewitnessed the towers falling.
He hadn't thought about 9/11 for years.
But he said it looked like the towers were blown up.
Just like there were bombs planted.

[zappaman]

147. a guy told you that just the other day?

Well, that convinces me.

Excellent evidence!

[BeFree]

148. heh

It's better than the M$M.
Which, I've read here, is where most of the OCTers get their evidence.

[zappaman]

149. yeah

a "guy" telling you 8 years later is much better evidence than my lying eyes. And the lying eyes of thousands of people.
But, don't stop...you are making real headway.
Who knows, you might meet another "guy" who says he isn't sure what he saw.
I sense this thing is gonna break wide-open any day now...

[BeFree]

150. Lying eyes?

Bummer. If you had good eyes like me, then you might have seen what I saw and what the 'guy' saw. Y'know, us eyewitnesses.

Funny about that "break wide open" comment. Ya never know. Someone might just get tired of protecting bushco and spill more beans.

Of course, if you are an OCTer, or a M$Mer, then your lying eyes will just keep on keeping on, I suppose.

Zappaman, eh? That's a pretty heady moniker. Are you up to living up to the Zappa man or what? He was a pretty far out dude, ya know. Ya think he'd believe the M$M and bushco?

[vincent_vega_lives]

151. one's opinion hardly constitutes evidence

unless one can back it up with a certain measure of credence. Such as in an expert witness in a trial.

The guy you spoke to saw the towers collapse. Beyond that is his opinion which may or may not be one that is backed up by experience, education or even rational thought.

For example an eyewitness account would be "I saw the blue car crash into the red car."

Eyewitness opinion would be: " I saw the blue car intentionally crash into the red car." Sure it may have looked like the driver of the blue care crashed into the red car intentionally, but without corroborating evidence his account is pure speculation, and alone not evidence of anything.

[BeFree]

152. Yeah,

That would be nice. A trial. Some semblance of justice.

As it is thousands have suffered the consequences of allowing bushco to go it's own way. All the while obstructing justice as if they had something to hide.

Am glad to think you actually would like to see some justice done, American style, and put an end to the cowboy-bushco style we suffer.

Well, do you? Are you now in favor of a real trial? A real investigation?