Glenn Beck thinks it is crazy to even question 9/11

[spooked911]

I hope no one at DU is really and honestly this controlling, narrow-minded and ignorant.

His main argument seems to be that it is crazy to think the government killed 3000 of its own citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHu_oE3dfIE&feature=player_embedded

3000 people die in the US every two months because of inadequate health care!
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dintofinley/2009/08/a-911-every-two-months.php?ref=reccafe

Over 4000 US soldiers were sent to their deaths in Iraq based on a lie.

We've killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world since 9/11.

Why is it so crazy to think some evil and powerful sickos affiliated with the govt couldn't kill 3000 citizens?

[HannibalCards]

1. You watch Glenn Beck???

Well, that explains a lot about you.

[17breezes]

39. It's the theory of

Strange Nut Attraction.

[spooked911]

48. No, I don't.

I avoid him. But I read blogs.

[tetedur]

2. How many have died and will die because of the government's

lies about air safety for workers in the Ground Zero area in NYC?

[William Seger]

3. If that's his "main argument"...

> His main argument seems to be that it is crazy to think the government killed 3000 of its own citizens.

If that's his "main argument" then it just proves that faulty reasoning doesn't necessarily produce an incorrect conclusion. But there are much better reasons for thinking "truthers" -- and especially "no-planers" -- are crazy.

> Why is it so crazy to think some evil and powerful sickos affiliated with the govt couldn't kill 3000 citizens?

It isn't. "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?" What's crazy is to think that anyone would have concocted such an unnecessarily complicated and risky hoax when it's so easy to think of far less complicated, far less risky "false flag" attacks; that they could have gotten hundreds of people (at the very least) to go along with it (presumably including at least a few people who voted for Gore and thought the Supreme Court stole the election); that they could have gotten hundreds more to lie about what they saw; that nothing went wrong with their Rube Goldburg contraption of a hoax; that all the "smoking gun" evidence was covered up; and that nobody would have spilled the beans because everyone involved is quite happy to assist "some evil and powerful sickos affiliated with the govt" commit murder. Of course, just because that sounds like a really, really bad movie, ruined by an absurdly implausible plot, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It does mean, however, that non-crazy people would need some pretty convincing evidence to believe it. Where is it?

[BeFree]

5. Again?

You think a whole bunch of DUers are crazy? Look at the recent threads about who believes bushco when it comes to 9/11 to see who you are calling crazy.

We are dealing here with bushco. Bushco is a group that stole an election. A group that lied repeatedly to the public about a great many things. A group that has proven time and again to have no morals and will sacrifice thousands to get its way. What is it about bushco that you just don't get?

As for 'Smoking Guns', we have the molten steel, and the ejected material from the towers.

And if you call us crazy one more time, then you open the floor to us calling you crazy. If that's what you want we can play that game. Lets just be sure the mods will allow us to do so, because we don't want to be uncivil. But if you persist in calling us crazy because we disbelieve bushco, then it is only fair for us to call you crazy for believing, right?

[William Seger]

6. Nah, you're not really crazy

You just say things that sound crazy. Of course, there could be other reasons why rational thought eludes you.

But FYI, I don't think you could possible insult the majority DUers any more than you already do when you say things like, "As for 'Smoking Guns', we have the molten steel, and the ejected material from the towers," but feel free to give it a go.

[BeFree]

7. Rational thought?

You are the one calling people crazy because they don't believe bushco.
But I see you backing away from that now. That's good. Enough bullshit.

You can deny all you want the molten metals, and the ejected material from the towers, and the fact that bushco is a bunch of criminals, but the facts are there for all to see and your protestations to the contrary are irrational.

[William Seger]

9. I gave my reasons

As usual, you didn't understand them or deliberately ignored them for some other reason, and persist in yet again offering up the same faulty reasoning that since "bushco is a bunch of criminals" it's rational to think they got hundreds of people to help them fake hijacking and plant thousands of pounds of magical silent explosives in the WTC, and your "smoking gun evidence" is that there couldn't possibly be any "molten metals" after a huge fire, and that collapsing buildings shouldn't eject material. And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids in the Mystery Van "truth movement"...

[BeFree]

12. Hundreds of people?

Yes, well, the only way it could have happened the way you say, is that hundreds of people were totally incompetent. You get that, right?

FBI, CIA, NORAD, Cheney, NSA, Airplane security and hundreds of employees therein, are incompetent?

Lets say I agree with you. That those hundreds of government employees were incompetent and 9/11 happened. Tell you why that is hard for me to accept: I have more faith in the government employees than to believe they were all incompetent.

I feel that bushco had a hand in what happened and they mislead and obstructed key employees who could have blown the whistle on the whole operation. There is compelling evidence that they did commit actions that allowed the day to progress as it did and the history of the bushco organization also compels one to believe they would stoop so low.

[SDuderstadt]

19. You need to study the concept of a "process breakdown", dude...

When processes break down, that doesn't mean the people following the process are necessarily incompetent.

[William Seger]

38. Wow

> Yes, well, the only way it could have happened the way you say, is that hundreds of people were totally incompetent. You get that, right?

No, I do not "get that." With 20/20 hindsight, it's obvious to me that the attack succeeded because the terrorists attacked us in a way we were unprepared to defend against. No, I do not think "total incompetence" is the only reason we didn't know what they were up to; I'm pretty damn sure that's hard to do, since that "psychic" intelligence program didn't work out so well, did it? Furthermore, my naive friend, I'm pretty sure they could do it again, in innumerable other ways. What kind of fantasy land do you live in to think the government can protect you against any attack a determined enemy can dream up?

> I have more faith in the government employees than to believe they were all incompetent.

Wow, but you're also sure that when the bushco project manager came around to ask them to participate in a mass murder, every single one of them said "Oh OK," and not a one of them blew the whistle, before or after. Obviously, you don't understand how absurd that is -- or more likely, you simply refuse to recognize how absurd that is since it would ruin your whole conspiracy fantasy. And I'm still waiting for your rationalization about why the evil geniuses came up with such an unnecessarily complicated and risky plot that required them to go around recruiting all those people, when it's easy to think of dozens of plots they could have pulled off with two or three trusted "black ops" guys. Why even attempt any kind of hoax at all, especially one with such a high probability of something going wrong somewhere, when it's easy to think of dozens of plots that would be exactly what they appeared to be except for who got blamed for it?

But those are rhetorical questions that I'm quite sure you don't have reasonable answers for. If you understood why "9/11 was an inside job" with fake hijackings and controlled demolition is so absurdly implausible, you would certainly demand some evidence far more substantial than silly nonsense about "molten metals" and "ejected material."

[BeFree]

40. yeah well

All your name calling is childish, but what the hey. We've come to expect that from the 'experts'.

You might have missed the threads here about how the "physic" intelligence on the ground sounded the alarms. Alarms that went all the way to the president's office. Yet all those alarms were obstructed. So that tells us the intelligence was there, but was purposefully ignored.

Why ignored? Incompetence or malfeasance? Given bushco: malfeasance.

In short: the intelligence was there, the means to avert the hijackings was there, the means to track and divert the planes was available yet not done, and the videos showing that explosions in the towers happened to show explosions, all of which brings into question the whole OCT.

The real reason that we press on with this is because we would like a better and more thorough investigation.

We have questions that remain unanswered. As citizens we demand answers.
That is all.

[William Seger]

41. Why demand answers if you've already determined you're going to ignore them?

So you're saying "bushco" let the terrorist attacks happen, but also planted thousands of pounds of magical silent explosives in the towers? Is that another of your "logical avenues of thought?"

Anyway, I see you still haven't addressed why I consider claims about fake hijackings and controlled demolitions to be absurdly implausible. Don't feel too bad; that's about the fifth time I've explained it on this board, and so far not a single "truther" has dared to touch it. Nonetheless, that's the reason why I would need a true "smoking gun" to buy it, and you don't even know what that term means, much less why it's required.

[BeFree]

42. Sure

It may seem to you to be implausible, but to me and many others it is plausible that explosives were planted.

I can respect that you feel otherwise, but I'm not convinced to follow you.

And it's not just your know it all attitude that is a mistake, it is the fact that we are dealing with bushco, who has proven they will stop at nothing.

I know you have doubts, who wouldn't? I have doubts about the avenues of thought I've been traveling. Its just that until there is a full and open and impartial investigation I am willing to keep an open mind.

But I am not open to trusting what bushco tells me. No f'n way.

[William Seger]

43. I really don't know why this is so hard for you to understand

Most of what we know about 9/11 doesn't come from "bushco." It comes from the ordinary people who lived through it, and in some cases people who didn't live through it. You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that it isn't just "bushco" that you're accusing of murder and lying. Those are extremely serious charges, and yet "truthers" can't manage to come up with enough evidence to even convince EACH OTHER what happened! The only thing you can agree on is those nice radical Islamists either wouldn't or couldn't harm us, so your own neighbors and fellow citizens must be going along with "bushco's" evil plot -- whatever the hell it was. You admit that this is an opinion based almost exclusively on things you don't understand, then ignore every attempt to help you understand those thing, and then you get offended that these opinions don't get the respect you think they deserve?

Pathetic beyond words...

[BeFree]

44. Most of what we know

Comes from the FBI and CIA, who were under bushco's administration.
Then there is what was reported by the M$M. Who trusts them?
Then there was the independent stuff - a mixed bag.
The videos of the explosions and the ejected material from the towers.
Interviews of people, which are all over the place.

Your assertion that "...those nice radical Islamists either wouldn't or couldn't harm us," is just plain stupid.

But what is not stupid to believe is that bushco would do us harm.
Has done us harm.

I guess, like you said in another thread, you just want us to STFU.
Sorry, this is a democracy and there is a great deal of free speech here on DU.
So that notion is again wrong. We are not going away.

Basically, the understanding of what happened on 9/11 is coming our way.
More and more people everyday are questioning the BS-9/11 OCT.
These are some brave individuals. Everyone is welcome to join us.

[SDuderstadt]

46. "Most of what we know comes from the FBI and CIA"

Please prove this ridiculous claim, BeFree.

[William Seger]

47. "under bushco's administration"

... and career civil service people are just like the Wicked Witch's flying monkeys, huh? Not a moral or honest person in the bunch, right? If the new prez wants to murder people by blowing up the WTC, they're just following orders, huh? Eight years on, and not a single whistleblower. Wow, I'm very impressed that the plotters knew that before they concocted their pointlessly complicated and risky hoax, 'cause if it were me, I'd be pretty worried that one of them might crack.

And no, I didn't say STFU. You seem to have extreme difficulty making any point without twisting and distorting what people say. I said if you're looking to make DU a bullshit swap meet or a paranoia support group, then I'm going to try to convince you to take it elsewhere, but if you just enjoy being ridiculed for posting bullshit, then stop whining when it happens. Yeah, I know some are harder to convince than others, but I'm not going anywhere either, so party on, dude.

And basically, I hate to break it to you, but the "truth movement" peaked about '06 or '07 and has been going downhill ever since. Back then, it was at least an "interesting social phenomenon"; now it's mainly just the butt of jokes. "More and more people everyday are questioning the BS-9/11 OCT?" You're ignoring the attrition: More and more people every day are also learning that they were spoon-fed a bunch of crap by people who ironically call themselves "truthers." Do you really think that nobody bothers to look into things deeper and give more thought to it than you care to? And anyway, the idea that bullshit will turn into "truth" if a sufficient number of people believe it is... bullshit. There are far, far more people who believe in astrology than there are "truthers," and it's still useless bullshit.

[BeFree]

53. "take it elswhere"

Excuse me, you just want us to go away, not STFU. See, this is where your critical thinking skills show the lack of exercising. You want us to go away and that in effect would be to STFU on DU.

Gawd, having to deal with elemental non-critical-thinkers is BORING, so please, - take it elsewhere.

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. ROFL

I actually think you're losing a little zing on the trash talk, but I admire the stamina.

[BeFree]

57. Yeah, less zing

I am trying to be more civil. Its a new DU wide thing.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Then where is the evidence of explosives, dude?

Care to explain?

[SDuderstadt]

15. No one is calling anyone crazy for "not believing Bushco", dude...

that's just more of your dishonest reframing, dude. And I've noticed you've subtly substituted "molten metals" for "molten steel". More of your dishonest tactics, dude.

[BeFree]

22. This isn't about you

I wrote:
"You are the one calling people crazy because they don't believe bushco."

This is about what I choose to believe. Not about what you believe. I don't know what you believe...

Instead this is about me not believing bushco. Not about what you believe.
If bushco were a company trying to sell me anything, I wouldn't buy anything.

[Ohio Joe]

8. Smoking guns?

"As for 'Smoking Guns', we have the molten steel, and the ejected material from the towers."

Please explain how these are smoking guns?

[BeFree]

10. Eh?

First.... what, to you, does a 'smoking gun' mean? It may be unclear to some of us what that means to everyone. We skeptics have been asked time and again to show the smoking gun. To us, an example of a smoking gun is the molten metal and the forcefully ejected material from the towers.

The videos and evidence of just these two things are enough to convince many people that the official story creates a lot of reasonable doubt. Coupled with the reputation of bushco and the subsequent cover-up of other evidence, leads us to disbelieve the many components of the official story. We know they are hiding something. Do you believe they are hiding anything?

[Ohio Joe]

11. You made the claim

Tell me your definition and explain how these two things fit it. Also, before going on to other topics, please finish this one.

[BeFree]

13. You know what Joe?

I told you what I think is a smoking gun as evidence: Molten metal and ejected material.

What do you think would suffice as a smoking gun?

[Ohio Joe]

16. Your evading

You claim them as smoking guns and I ask you to explain how... You then claim people have different definitions of what a smoking gun is and I offer to let you define it and explain how these things fit... Now you simply claim they are smoking guns again and still refuse to explain what you think a smoking guns is or how they fit. Simply saying something does not make it so. So... I'll try asking you again. Please explain how these things are smoking guns?

My definition of a smoking gun would be... Indisputable evidence.

http://www.answers.com/topic/smoking-gun
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/smoking+gun
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smoking+gun
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/smoking+gun.html

[BeFree]

18. Indisputable evidence?

You have some indisputable evidence that would result in there being no reasonable doubt about what really happened on 9/11?

Of course you don't, and to claim otherwise would be crazy, right?

[Ohio Joe]

21. Your still evading

I never made any such claim, you have. That breaks rule number seven:

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.

Please explain how these things are smoking guns.

or... have you broken rule number one:

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument.

and please, don't break rule numbers four or five:

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold.

For those following along, these are not my rules, they are listed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x277126

[BeFree]

23. Right

You never claimed to have a smoking gun that proves beyond a reasonable doubt everything about 9/11.

That's just it, the OCT has no smoking guns.
If there were any, we would be reading about them right about now. Eh?

[Ohio Joe]

25. Wow... Still evading

and still breaking your own rules. How can you expect honest discussion when you will not follow your own rules of such?

Please explain how these things are smoking guns?

[BeFree]

27. They be smoking, dude

The 'smoking' molten metals and the 'smoking' ejections are 'smoking' guns that the OCT is full of holes. Duh....

I notice you are evading ALL of my questions. About what I expected.

[SDuderstadt]

30. HOW, specifically, are they "smoking guns"...

dude? What do they prove or disprove? They only seem to be "smoking guns" to people who do not understand the way the world actually works...like you.

This is why you are not taken seriously here, dude.

[BeFree]

31. Got me again

They are not smoking guns to some people, maybe not to anybody but me.

Really, this whole situation is totally devoid of any smoking guns, eh?

None. Zilch. Nobody can prove anything. All any of us have is conjecture.

[SDuderstadt]

35. So, I call you on your dishonest reframing and you respond with more...

dishonest reframing? WTF?

[Ohio Joe]

37. Non-sense and more evasion

I see no reason to answer for things I have not said, you putting words in my mouth and expecting me to defend them is very dishonest... lets see, which rule is that?

Please explain HOW these things are smoking guns? I'll say it again, simply saying something is so does not make it so.

[BeFree]

52. Got to hand it to you Joe

That is some slippery evasion.

[Ohio Joe]

54. Do you think you fool anyone with your silly games?

or do you really believe people fall for your bullshit? I do find it amusing though, truthers do more to destroy their credibility then anyone else ever could. heh, it's very amusing.

[BeFree]

55. More than anyone?

Even more than bushco?

And, pray tell, what credibility do you have? The OCT?
See the threads here almost daily of all the DUers who reject the OCT?

It is bunko. Drop it dude. Drop your silly games and your bullshit OCT.
Oh geez, what rules did I violate now? EH, Joe?

[Ohio Joe]

58. heh, your funny

"And, pray tell, what credibility do you have?" Well lets see... Who made silly claims and then refused to back them up? Who keeps trying to put words in someone else's mouth? Who lays down rules for honest discussion and then refuses to follow them? It must suck when you tie yourself in a knot.

"Drop your silly games and your bullshit OCT." I will as soon as you offer something to support your silly claims... besides more silly claims. See, unlike you, I have always given support for what I have claimed or publicly admitted that I could not.

[BeFree]

59. haha

"See, unlike you, I have always given support for what I have claimed or publicly admitted that I could not."

You support the OCT?

[Ohio Joe]

60. Give me your definition of "OCT"

and I'll tell you if I support it.

[BeFree]

61. Sliiiipery

"See, unlike you, I have always given support for what I have claimed or publicly admitted that I could not."

[SDuderstadt]

62. Dude...

OJ is using the word support to mean evidence or proof. Duh.

[BeFree]

64. Right

How could he support something that lacks evidence or proof?

I understand why he can't come out and say it, and why no one can. We've been over this before, y'know, and no one would admit that they support the OCT.

Wait, not no one. Some one did. Who was that? I forgot.

[Ohio Joe]

63. More of your games... You are so predictable

But I think I like how you keep showing that you are just here for games. You may evade simple questions like... oh say, prove your claim but I do not. It is not the same thing when someone is unwilling to support something that is undefined. I have publicly admitted I do not know what you mean by "OCT", why are you unwilling to define it?

[BeFree]

65. You don't know what the OCT means?

C'mon. That's a silly game.

[Ohio Joe]

66. Then go on record defining it

If it is so easy, do it. When you claimed confusion over what "smoking gun" meant, I defined it for you and gave links to back it up. Now you do the same. I will not come out for or against anything I do not know the meaning of.

[BeFree]

67. Part one of the OCT

Bush didn't know and didn't have a clue that AQ was going to attack the US using airplanes.

Is that the truth? Do you support that statement?

[Ohio Joe]

68. No, that is not true, I do not support that statement

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

The PDB he received on 8/6/2001 indicated hijackings to gain the release of the blind sheik and that around 70 different investigations were under way.

[BeFree]

72. So

You believe Bush had a clue they were going to hijack planes?

[Ohio Joe]

74. I believe I was clear

Was my link not enough? I do offer evidence for my claims, if it is not enough I can dig up more. At what point will you offer evidence for your claims?

[BeFree]

77. Good, dig up more

[Ohio Joe]

79. No problem

See the Public awareness paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Daily_Brief

History Commons:

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?warning_signs:_specific_cases=complete_911_timeline__strike_in_us__pdb&timeline=complete_911_timeline

Now... quid pro quo. Present evidence for your claims of a smoking gun... or at least admit you have none.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Dude...

you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here who believes that, let alone OJ. Y'know, you're really fucking brilliant, BeFree. Do you realize that you can't accuse us of believing or defending the "OCT" any more?

Talk about unintended consequences.

[BeFree]

70. Really?

What do you believe?

What are you defending?

[SDuderstadt]

71. Oh, no you don't, dude....

your little rhetorical trick (despicable tactic) just got exposed. You have dishonestly used this tactic to accuse people of "supporting Bushco" by using "OCT" to mean whatever you need it to mean at the time. I don't know of ANYONE here who believes that Bush had no warning. Not one person.


You owe everyone you have dishonestly accused of defending the "OCT" a huge apology.

[BeFree]

73. But he said he didn't

And that is why the OCT has no credibility. It starts out a lie and ends in a lie.

[SDuderstadt]

75. No, dude...

that's why your despicable debate tactic has no credibility. Your little game just backfired on you, dude.

I'd be ashamed to show my face around here if I were you. If you want to save face here, please find a single debunker that claims Bush had no warning of 9/11. Take your time, dude.

P.S. Hopefully, this will convince you to quit poisoning the debate with your despicable tactics, dude.

[BeFree]

76. So

If he had a warning, why didn't he do a god damn thing, but sit there reading pet goat?

[SDuderstadt]

78. Because he's an idiot, BeFree....

duh.

Quit trying to wriggle out of this by trying to change the subject. Your little "you believe the OCT" game just blew up in your face.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

24. This is just more dishonest BeFree reframing...

OJ is not claiming that he has indisputable evidence of anything. You're the one claiming to have smoking guns, dude. Your despicable tactic of misrepresenting what people have actually said is one of the major causes of the incivility you supposedly decry.

[BeFree]

29. You're right

OJ does not claim indisputable evidence of anything.
Heck, not even the 9/11 commission claimed such a thing.
Yep, it's all disputable.
You are so right.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Dude...

why do you insist on misrepresenting what people have actually said? If, as you claim, you'd like civility here, wouldn't a good place to start be for you to quit the dishonest reframing of other members statements and arguments?

[SDuderstadt]

20. How are those "smoking guns", dude?

What, specifically, do they prove?

[SDuderstadt]

14. It's absolutely crazy to keep claiming there was "molten steel"...

when there's no evidence of it.

[BeFree]

17. Not crazy, but not exactly factual, yes

Factually we don't know that it was molten 'steel'.
What we do know is that there is evidence of molten metal.

Point for you, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Dude...

why would you be surprised at the presence of "molten metal" when an aluminum airliner disintegrated in a fireball and collision??? Where is the smoking gun?

[BeFree]

28. Well

One thing is that the fires were at the top of the building and the molten metals were found in the basement, some 50 or 60 stories down.

I see, tho, that we do agree that molten metals were found.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Dude, the fucking buildings collapsed...

where would you expect the molten metal to be found? Up in the air?

And, you do realize that there are multiple sources of metal in a building (the aluminum cladding in the WTC, for example) and most, if not all of them would have a lower melting point than steel, right? So, given the intense fires in both towers and that said fires smoldered for quite some time after the collapses, how is "molten metal" a "smoking gun"? You've been asked repeatedly what that proves or disproves and you keep playing games, dude.

[BeFree]

33. Where to be found?

On top of the pile, not down below the pile.
Or found on the outside of the pile, not deep down in the middle.

That's what I would expect. Just wish they had investigated it a bit better.
Maybe then I could erase these reasonable doubts.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Jesus, dude...

why on earth would you expect molten metal to remain on top of the pile? Do you understand gravity? Most of your "reasonable doubt" is nothing more than your lack of critical thinking ability.

Again, this is precisely why you aren't taken seriously here, dude.

[spooked911]

49. There is abundant evidence -- all of which that you choose to ignore or dismiss.

As far as how they did 9/11, your argument that it was too complicated is silly. We have no idea what they were thinking, and I'm sure they did have a reason for making it complicated. I have posted here how incredibly complicated the assassination of MLK Jr was, even though they could have done a simple hit job with one covert gunman. 9/11 was much more of a massive op-- designed to start a world war! So clearly they had abundant resources and could make it massively complex.

"Apparently" you just don't understand how covert ops are run, and how the cover-ups are run.

What we do have is abundant evidence that the official story is very wrong. Why you choose to think the opposite is hard for me to know, but you seem too smart to not realize the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

50. Dude...your "abundant evidence" is neither being...

ignored nor dismissed. It's being dismantled by logic and reason and nearly everyone sees that except for you and a handful of diehard holdouts. You can believe whatever the fuck you want to believe, but the rest of us who know that it would be impossible to fool hundreds, if not thousands, of people into seeing planes that didn't exist, will continue to read your wild-eyed claims and snicker at the depths of your paranoid delusions.

How much time you want to waste only to make a spectacle of yourself is, of course, entirely up to you, dude. It's actually rather amusing to those of us with rational thought processes.

P.S. Maybe you could concoct some sort of conspiracy theory explaining why the Colts lost the SuperBowl. I've got it! All of the Saints' TD's were really CGI or the entire Colts roster was assassinated and replaced by totally incompetent lookalikes!

P.P.S. I tried to work "mini-nukes" in there, but could not quite figure out how. Maybe you could try your hand at it, since your imagination is so much more vivid than mine and you aren't constrained by actual facts in your theorizing.

[William Seger]

51. That's just nonsense, Spooky

> As far as how they did 9/11, your argument that it was too complicated is silly.

No, it certainly isn't silly if it's an argument about implausibility, which was the entire point of my post. As I clearly said, it isn't an argument that it didn't happen. Claiming that an extremely risky and complicated plot was selected for no apparent reason, when it's so easy to imagine far more simple and far less risky plots, makes the claim far more extraordinary, and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There is nothing silly about ordinary critical thinking.

> We have no idea what they were thinking, and I'm sure they did have a reason for making it complicated.

That's just ordinary backward thinking -- they did it, so they must have had a reason -- and completely misses the point above.

> I have posted here how incredibly complicated the assassination of MLK Jr was, even though they could have done a simple hit job with one covert gunman.

This is just another example of the same logical fallacy. First you have to prove that there was an assassination plot; then you might wonder why such an incredibly complicated plot was used. The claim of an unnecessarily complicated plot simply makes the claim more extraordinary and raises the requirements for your proof.

> There is abundant evidence -- all of which that you choose to ignore or dismiss... What we do have is abundant evidence that the official story is very wrong.

LOL, it takes a lot of nerve to make that claim to someone who has spent so much time personally wading through the nonsense that you've claimed as evidence, Spooky. I think you'd have to look long and hard to find anything claimed as evidence by anyone in the "truth movement" that's been "ignored," and if you did happen to find an example, I think it's safe to predict that it's not really evidence of anything, either because it's extremely dubious or because it just doesn't imply what "truthers" claim it does. Prove me wrong by showing one example of significant, credible evidence that you think has been ignored, and I'll see if I can help you find an example of it being addressed. Likewise, I'm not aware of a single piece of significant evidence that's been "dismissed" without good reason -- i.e. either because it's extremely dubious or because it just doesn't imply what "truthers" claim it does -- and again I'll challenge you to show an example to prove me wrong. Who's really doing the ignoring or dismissing here?

> Why you choose to think the opposite is hard for me to know, but you seem too smart to not realize the truth.

It's very simple: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and so far, there is simply nothing that comes anywhere near the level required. In this case, the claim is so extraordinary that you need a true "smoking gun" -- irrefutable evidence that tells one and only one story -- and if you had one of those, then you wouldn't be called "conspiracy theorists" anymore. To me, a better question is why you think the opposite of ordinary critical thinking.

[whatchamacallit]

4. Glenn Beck, king of the OCT (nt)