For all those concerned that 9/11 truth makes the left look bad

[noise]

Please explain the proper view one should have of 9/11. If you are that concerned then surely you are willing to offer some wise counsel.

[apocalypsehow]

1. "9/11 truth" doesn't make the "left" look bad, because the truth about the events of 9/11 is pretty

much accepted by everyone in this country, Right, Left, & Center.

Oh, there are quibbles here or there about who is to blame for intelligence failures and the like, but the factual narrative is only called into doubt by folks who believe in the intellectual equivalent of the tooth fairy, and the vast majority of Americans - progressives, moderates, & conservatives alike - simply don't take that tiny minority of daydream believers all that seriously.

As they shouldn't.

[JackRiddler]

10. You are, simply, wrong.

A very long series of opinion polls by different organizations asking different questions shows that it is untrue that what you call the "truth"* is "pretty much accepted by everyone in this country," or questioned only "by a tiny minority."

In fact, the proportion of those who are deeply skeptical, think the government is lying, or believe there was intentional facilitation or an inside job appears to have risen since 2001.

The polls show the proportions of skeptics are far higher in New York, where presumably people are better informed of details (and where, anecdotally, I don't even talk about 9/11 any more. but regularly have people tell me, unprompted, that they think the government was involved).

The proportions are of course far higher in other regions of the world.

Many of these polls are conveniently listed in a wikipedia article, with links to the originals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls

VERY IMPORTANT: You are free to call all 9/11 skeptics and people who think it was an inside job believers in the tooth fairy or daydreams. That is an opinion.

But you are wrong to say they are a tiny minority, in the United States or elsewhere. It may give you a feeling of smug reassurance in your own faith, but it is a factual untruth.

---

* "truth," by which I presume you mean the narrative that 19 guys dispatched by "al-Qaeda" acted alone and there was no actionable foreknowledge intentionally ignored, or cover-up since then of significant facts by the US government.

** The article omits the very first poll ever on this, in October 2001 in Greece, which found a larger share of people thought it was a CIA operation than believed in the official story. Call the Greeks stupid or deluded, if you like. Or maybe they know more from hard-earned experience what "the CIA" represents and does than you do (a term that in common parlance tends to include the rest of the multiheaded parapolitical octopii that inhabit the American government's secret budgets and its spook contractors).

[apocalypsehow]

11. I am, simply, correct - and by your own link.

This is the 'ole Truther shuffle, where the Daydream Believer aka "Truther" pretends a link says one thing, when, upon further examination, it says something quite different.

For instance, the proportion of "skeptics" is largely concentrated in the polling about the Right-wing meme that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved, as see here:

""Was Saddam personally involved in 9/11?"<10>
April 2003 responses: 53% said Yes, 38% said No.
October 2005 responses: 33% said Yes, 55% said No.
September 2006 responses: 31% said Yes, 57% said No.
September 2007 responses: 33% said Yes, 58% said No."

In other words, to the extent that folks in that particular poll believed there was a "conspiracy" outside of what is officially acknowledged, they believe that George W. Bush's (phony) linking of Saddam Hussein to 9-11 in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was the "cover-up" involved! But that's another thing we've come to expect from the Daydream Believer club, aka, the "Truther" movement: peddling Right-wing and/or anti-semitic memes at every opportunity if it advances their dubious versions of "Truth," and without apology.

But wait! There's more:

Even in the entire world (I specifically referenced Americans above) the percentage who believe that either the "U.S. Govt" or "Israel" (there's that dependable anti-semitism back on parade) was behind the events of 9-11 was 7% and 7% respectively. I don't know how they do math where you hail from, but where I'm at we do real arithmetic, and 7% is a "tiny minority" by any definition of the word.

Can't you be bothered to read your own links? :shrug:

In point of fact, the game the Daydream Believer crowd plays is one I've cited before: exaggerate every point, no matter how strained the emphasis is or needs to be, that tends to support whatever "theory" the Believer wishes to peddle, while downplaying the statistics/facts/polls/overwhelming evidence that say otherwise. Distort what evidence the Daydream Believer doesn't like, as your reply has done with the polling in the link you posted.

For instance, in one poll most favorable to the Daydream Believer position, the question is:

"How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?"

Here are the responses:

"32% "Very Likely"
30% "Somewhat Likely"
30% "Unlikely"
8% "Don't Know/Other"

A-ha! the Daydream Believer aka "Truther" says: "my argumentum ad populam has gotten some legs!"

Except, then the poll taker started asking specific questions and...well, the numbers speak for themselves:

""Federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them".
59% "not likely"
20% "somewhat likely"
16% "very likely"<12>
"The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings".
77% "unlikely"
10% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely"<13>
"The Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists".
80% "not likely"
6% "somewhat likely"
6% "very likely"

The numbers speak for themselves - and they reinforce my "tiny minority" assertion above, and do so using one of the polls most favorable to the "Truther" cause!

As I said before: do you even bother to read your own links?

After you do, I think you'll probably be wanting to start over and try again when it comes to replying to my post above....


Edit: corralled a stray preposition.

[JackRiddler]

12. YOU made an argumentum ad populam.

Don't weasel out of that.

You're the one who made, non-sequitur and off-topic to the OP, an assertion that only a tiny minority are 9/11 skeptics, and insinuated that this is evidence of something.

As we see, this "minority" varies greatly in size according to polls, very much depending on the question asked, and has been as high as 86% when asking simply if the government has lied about 9/11. (I have no problems with the link, which is not "mine" but a list on wikipedia, because it's comprehensive and shows the full range of results. Cherrypick'em to your heart's content.)

In response to your argumentum ad populam, I pointed out your factual distortion in characterizing about a quarter of the people (and almost half of New Yorkers, a plurality, in the 2004 Zogby poll) who at the least believe the government didn't act on foreknowledge - and the majority who believe there is a coverup and there should be a new investigation - as a tiny minority.

Their numbers don't make them right, or wrong, and I have not claimed either.

If it's such a tiny minority who doubt the OCT, and such an absurd set of different propositions they're associated with, then what are you doing here? Why do you care that a handful of nobodies have a daydream belief?

[apocalypsehow]

15. Yes, yes, thank you for the assorted irrelevancies, special pleadings, etc., and get back with me

when you're prepared to refute a speck of my reply above. Thus far, we haven't seen it.

And since the wait is apt to be long since what I posted above is pretty much irrefutable, I bid you a good evening.

[noise]

16. Public opinion is based on declassified information

One of the keys to manipulating public opinion is by abusing classification laws. For example, the use of state secrets privilege to prevent a case from proceeding or information from being declassified.

One 9/11 related example is the secrecy involved in the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar withholding failures. Even though John Farmer wrote a book based on the premise that 9/11 failures were attributable to bureaucratic inefficiencies, he recently could not explain to a journalist why the information was withheld from the FBI for 20 months.

Those failures were a very big deal as post 9/11 legislation and counterterrorism tactics were justified on the premise that the intelligence community didn't have enough power to connect the dots.

[JackRiddler]

17. Ah. The "Claim Victory as You Leave in a Huff" maneuver.

That only works for people who can't (or won't) read and draw their own conclusions. I am more than satisfied with my part of this exchange.

Your move will work well enough on this board, of course. The general surliness and constant harrassment of anyone who posts anything other than Bedunker-approved material on "How To Spot A Conspiracy Theorist (24 Tips)" has scorched it to the point where almost the only people hanging around are the handful of No-Planes Imaginaries, who are waterboarded 24/7 by the courageous Bedunker Commandos.

[apocalypsehow]

18. Hardly. I'm willing to wait for as long as it takes you to get around to answering facts with facts,

instead of spending the bulk of your replies cataloging such perceived slights as "surliness" and "constant" (constant! :eyes: ) "harassment" and so on. You did pretty much the same in the reply previous to this one, too: instead of simply answering my facts with counter-facts, or mitigating evidence, you wish to quibble about style.

Indeed, it's very telling that I have composed replies to you either posting fact or asking you to counter mine, and you have channeled most of your intellectual effort into...complaints about how the posts to you are composed. Quite telling, indeed.

I predict it will continue in this same vein, 'cuz you don't have the facts on your side. But by all means, please try again....

[JackRiddler]

27. Your first post didn't address the OP...

And to your contention of a tiny minority I'm content with this and the rest of what I wrote above as reality-based answers:

...this "minority" varies greatly in size according to polls, very much depending on the question asked, and has been as high as 86% when asking simply if the government has lied about 9/11. (I have no problems with the link, which is not "mine" but a list on wikipedia, because it's comprehensive and shows the full range of results. Cherrypick'em to your heart's content.)

[apocalypsehow]

31. See #15: Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

You'll get there eventually, I reckon, if you only apply yourself. So try, try again. :thumbsup:

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. oh, the pathos n/t

[JackRiddler]

55. more of the same

emotionalizing characterizations, personal attacks, avoidance of facts and logic & always start at zero as though the debate hasn't been ongoing for nine years.

[OnTheOtherHand]

56. projection much?

Jack, I have no idea what "facts and logic" you find in post #17, but -- I'm gonna go out on a limb here -- I think that crap about "waterboarded 24/7" scores pretty high among emotionalizing characterizations.

If there's something else you would rather be talking about, please do.

[JackRiddler]

93. "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Waterboarded 183 Times in One Month"

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/18/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-was-waterboarded-183-times-in-one-month/

By: emptywheel Saturday April 18, 2009 11:57 am

I’ve put this detail in a series of posts, but it really deserves a full post. According to the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002.

On page 37 of the OLC memo, in a passage discussing the differences between SERE techniques and the torture used with detainees, the memo explains:

The CIA used the waterboard "at least 83 times during August 2002" in the interrogation of Zubaydah. IG Report at 90, and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM, see id. at 91.

Note, the information comes from the CIA IG report which, in the case of Abu Zubaydah, is based on having viewed the torture tapes as well as other materials. So this is presumably a number that was once backed up by video evidence.

The same OLC memo passage explains how the CIA might manage to waterboard these men so many times in one month each (though even with these chilling numbers, the CIA’s math doesn’t add up).

…where authorized, it may be used for two "sessions" per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period.

So: two two-hour sessions a day, with six applications of the waterboard each = 12 applications in a day. Though to get up to the permitted 12 minutes of waterboarding in a day (with each use of the waterboard limited to 40 seconds), you’d need 18 applications in a day. Assuming you use the larger 18 applications in one 24-hour period, and do 18 applications on five days within a month, you’ve waterboarded 90 times–still just half of what they did to KSM.

---

"Waterboarded 24/7" is obviously a polemical phrase, but hardly unfair given 183 waterboardings in a single month.

How would you fare under that treatment? What would be left of your personality, your will? Would you say anything you thought your torturers wanted to hear? Given all the other techniques at their disposal over years time, might they not gain the power to shape you into practically anyone they felt like? And let's remember in Zubaydah's case he already had brain damage from a war injury suffered back when he was one of "ours."

[OnTheOtherHand]

94. wait, are you saying that KSM posts here?

If not, then what could your point possibly be?

[AZCat]

95. I'm a little confused myself.

Maybe JackRiddler could explain?

[JackRiddler]

96. Oh! I see...

I came here today through MyDU, straight to your post, and when I read it I was confused and thought this must be the Zubaydah thread. I figured I'd must have said the Gitmo "high value" 9/11 prisoners were waterboarded 24/7, which would be rhetorical exaggeration, but not far from the truth, at least as claimed by the CIA and presented in the IG report.

Sorry! Really.

Well, to respond to what you actually meant... excuse my exaggeration for potentially humorous ends, especially if the joke falls flat. Everyone does call this The Dungeon, after all, which is a place of torture.

For years already, the main thing that seems to happen here is that members of the no-planes cult (or hoaxers, which I guess is usually the same thing) post the same ridiculous stuff over and over trying to prove that everyone on the street in New York was in on it, or whatever, and the debunker crowd beat them up, since that's easy. Once in a while actual news comes along, like the latest thing about Zubaydah, or a thread is bumped here from elsewhere, and it gets interesting for a while.

[AZCat]

97. Ahh - thanks, Jack. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

98. gotcha

Obviously the waterboarding thing fell flat with me. But, yes, there is a relative dearth of serious content about the putative topic of the forum, and that isn't because there is actually no possibility of serious content.

[noise]

19. Does Sen. Graham believe in the tooth fairy?

In this explosive, controversial, and profoundly alarming insider’s report, Senator Bob Graham reveals faults in America’s national security network severe enough to raise fundamental questions about the competence and honesty of public officials in the CIA, the FBI, and the White House.

For ten years, Senator Graham served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he had access to some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Graham co-chaired a historic joint House-Senate inquiry into the intelligence community’s failures. From that investigation and his own personal fact-finding, Graham discovered disturbing evidence of terrorist activity and a web of complicity:

• At one point, a terrorist support network conducted some of its operations through Saudi Arabia’s U.S. embassy–and a funding chain for terrorism led to the Saudi royal family.
• In February 2002, only four months after combat began in Afghanistan, the Bush administration ordered General Tommy Franks to move vital military resources out of Afghanistan for an operation against Iraq–despite Franks’s privately stated belief that there was a job to finish in Afghanistan, and that the war on terrorism should focus next on terrorist targets in Somalia and Yemen.
• Throughout 2002, President Bush directed the FBI to limit its investigations of Saudi Arabia, which supported some and possibly all of the September 11 hijackers.
• The White House was so uncooperative with the bipartisan inquiry that its behavior bore all the hallmarks of a cover-up.
• The FBI had an informant who was extremely close to two of the September 11 hijackers, and actually housed one of them, yet the existence of this informant and the scope of his contacts with the hijackers were covered up.
• There were twelve instances when the September 11 plot could have been discovered and potentially foiled.
• Days after 9/11, U.S. authorities allowed some Saudis to fly, despite a complete civil aviation ban, after which the government expedited the departure of more than one hundred Saudis from the United States.
• Foreign leaders throughout the Middle East warned President Bush of exactly what would happen in a postwar Iraq, and those warnings went either ignored or unheeded.

As a result of his Senate work, Graham has become convinced that the attacks of September 11 could have been avoided, and that the Bush administration’s war on terrorism has failed to address the immediate danger posed by al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. His book is a disturbing reminder that at the highest levels of national security, now more than ever, intelligence matters.

Random House blurb on Intelligence Matters

[apocalypsehow]

20. Haaahaa! You guys make this so easy - do any of you bother to read *your own links*?

Nope; just selectively quote them.

"As a result of his Senate work, Graham has become convinced that the attacks of September 11 could have been avoided, and that the Bush administration’s war on terrorism has failed to address the immediate danger posed by al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia."

In other words, the thrust of that quote seems to be that he thinks we should out-Bush Bush, and step up our "War on Terror" against, and I quote, "al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia."

Now, I haven't read the book (and neither, I doubt, have you), but quote-mine me please anything from Senator Graham in that book or anywhere else he's spoken or written on the topic that he embraces even a smidgen of the 9-11 "Truther" account of the events of that day. Or that he rejects the evidentiary conclusions of the 9-11 Commission as regards the actual events of that day, who perpetrated it, and why. You cannot because he does not. If you have information to the contrary regarding Senator Graham's beliefs (bold necessary, because most "Truthers" take such invitations to post specific evidence as an invitation to opine on what a dozen other Daydream Believers think, as opposed to the information requested), by all means post it.

But, - and this is the most delicious bit of irony in this ill-advised reply of yours - guess who wrote the major "blurb" endorsing Graham's book, per your own link? Why, it's none other than...Gerald Posner!!! Yes, Gerald Posner of Case Closed fame - a book that definitively debunks so much JFK assassination conspiracy kookery that the "theorists" and CT'ers rage against his name to this day:

Advance praise for Intelligence Matters

“Intelligence Matters is a work of great patriotism, a searing insider’s account of the government’s ineptitude, and at times deceit, both on 9/11 and in the war in Iraq. Senator Graham is unflinching in a damning and persuasive indictment of President Bush, the FBI and the CIA. This is no liberal, conspiratorial, antiwar polemic, but rather a convincing argument by a hawk in the war on terror as to why the country is less safe today because of blunders made by President Bush. Intelligence Matters also makes a meticulous–and at times startling–case for official Saudi Arabian complicity in the 9/11 plot. This is an important book and a must read for anyone concerned with the war on terror and the future of America.”
–GERALD POSNER, New York Times bestselling author of Why America Slept

Yeah, that GERALD POSNER - bane of CT'er bullshit and silly conspiracy theory "narratives" everywhere...wrote the primary blurb for a book you want to pretend somehow supports 9-11 "Trutherism" and all its assorted phantasms.

Jeesuz, but the entertainment is flowing freely, fast & furious tonight!

Sadly, per usual with "Truthers" and their tactics, so is the intellectual dishonesty.

Please try again.

[noise]

23. I didn't suggest the book supports 9/11 truth

That is your fixation.

The point was to demonstrate that the public doesn't have a full accounting of what went down. This ties into my previous post about the abuse of classification procedures.

I have not limited my reading to 9/11 truth sources. In fact I've probably read more "non conspiratorial" books than most debunkers. The issue that matters (to me anyway) is the lack of transparency. One doesn't need to read a single 9/11 truth website to realize that there was a cover-up.

[apocalypsehow]

25. Yes you did, though you do a nice back-peddle:

Me: but the factual narrative is only called into doubt by folks who believe in the intellectual equivalent of the tooth fairy (emphasis added)

You: Does Sen. Graham believe in the tooth fairy? (emphasis added)

That's another thing one discovers when one engages regularly with Daydream Believers, aka "Truthers": they routinely parse their previous stated positions when those positions are no longer intellectually tenable, or pretend that they didn't *mean* what their plain words *state*.

You got a bit of both going on here, noise. Please try again.

[noise]

30. You used the overly broad description "factual narrative"

Graham questioned the factual narrative.

[apocalypsehow]

32. "Overly broad description" - more phony parsing/semantics: it is actually narrowly tailored to the

precise chronological events of the day, what led up to it, who actually boarded those planes, and what they then did with those planes.

What Graham appears to "question" - and I'll know after the book arrives and I read it - is the intelligence failures that led to the events of that day, i.e., what went wrong through incompetence or bureaucratic sloth, not deliberate malevolence. Every review/synopsis/blurb I've read so far suggest that is the thesis of this book, not any of the LIHOP/MIHOP fairy tales.

This is, as I cataloged before, the 'ole Daydream Believer/"Truther" parse: Truther states A, it then gets pointed out by another party that A as described/represented by the Daydream Believer is false/distorted/incorrect, and then it's a dash to walk the original claim back and qualify, qualify, qualify.

It starts out bold, like this:

Truther A says - "Big-wig Muckety-Muck such & such - a credible public figure - believes in 9-11 truth!!!!11"

Person Capable of Interpreting Actual Facts Based Upon What They Read says - "Sorry, no, he/she doesn't, here is what he/she actually said, and it doesn't support your claim."

The wounded responses & caliper-measured parsings start forthwith:

"I didn't suggest"

"the point was"

"Some people like to play these absurd debunker vs. truther games. My concern is in understanding what really went down"

Other favorites I've run across:

"what I actually meant"

"I was really talking about"

and the ever popular "what are you afraid of?

Another reply of yours that = Fail, but give it another go - you'll get there yet! :thumbsup:

[noise]

33. Feel free to miss the point

so you can pretend that you have it all figured out.

I didn't suggest that Graham supports LIHOP. I posted that information to demonstrate that even an insider establishment figure had questions about 9/11. Important questions. Unresolved questions. Why are the questions unresolved over eight years later?

[apocalypsehow]

34. There was no "point," so there was nothing to be missed. Just a steady stream of backpedaling,

parsing, and qualifying ever since my initial repartee to your original reply - a reply that attempted to place Senator Graham and his book if not squarely in the "Truther" camp, then right at the front gate entrance. That was what the "Does Sen. Graham believe in the tooth fairy?" silliness was about, followed by a link to an excerpt to the book that you strangely stopped short of posting the entire text from - including the blurb from none other than Gerald Posner.

Further, you are distorting the gist of Graham's position even now - "had questions about 9/11." That has been asked and answered, yet, in true Daydream Believer/"Truther" form, you continue to pretend that the issue has not already been addressed and laid to rest as a matter of further debate. It has, but the tactic does not surprise.

Then you go on to post yet another standard Daydream Believer/"Truther" fallacy, the resort to the phony rhetorical question "Why are the questions unresolved over eight years later?"

They aren't, of course, at least not those that substantively matter to the factual narrative of the events surrounding that day.

Yet again, give it another try. You'll get there, someday. :thumbsup:

[noise]

35. Here is your original comment

..."but the factual narrative is only called into doubt by folks who believe in the intellectual equivalent of the tooth fairy..."

Graham questioned the factual narrative but was unable to answer the questions due to White House secrecy. That is in the book. The questions are substantive to citizens who don't comply with the low standards of political/media establishment consensus (i.e. the "vast majority of Americans").

Instead of admitting your original comment was too wide sweeping you proceeded to rant about characteristics of truthers.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. I think you're talking past each other

You're quoting part of apocalypsehow's original comment, but not the context. The factual narrative about what? "about the events of 9/11."

Maybe Sen. Graham questions some aspect of the events of 9/11, but I can't see it in the blurb you quoted. I certainly don't think he questions the elements whose critique is generally associated with "9/11 truth" -- whether the planes were really hijacked, whether the buildings really fell without explosives or other hijinks, whether NORAD was actually trying to fulfill its mission, etc.

[apocalypsehow]

38. Of course he is talking past me - he is not interested in an honest debate, or we'd be having one.

Instead, this is what one gets into when one deals with "Truthers" who have found themselves caught short on actual facts: when cornered with facts they cannot refute, they play the willfully obtuse game, and go into the online equivalent of a four-corner stall.

The "Truther" knows that the key, when on the losing side of such a debate, is simply two-fold: 1. Keep moving the goalposts and changing the premises & terms upon which the debate originally began, and 2. always, always, always reply to every refutation, every correcting post, even if it's with semi-coherent gibberish and nonsensical rhetorical questions. They know most reasonable people tire of such childish charades, and eventually just walk away, allowing them the ever-cherished & all-important "last post."

Further, the "Truther" also knows that a unique feature to DU is the deleted sub-thread, which, if all else fails, they can just start flaming and/or provoking counter-flames until the entire mess is removed, and their failure in the debate disappears with it.

I've seen this CT'er gambit in online "debates" in countless threads over the years, and we're seeing it in spades here.

[noise]

39. I don't what you are talking about

I wouldn't have posted the link to Graham's blurb if I hadn't read the book. The book is no great revelation as Graham gave tons of interviews about his work on the JI committee.

I've repeated over and over that Graham's book is not supportive of 9/11 truth but you don't care about that. You are too busy winning some imaginary truther vs. debunker debate.

Graham nor John Farmer were able to explain why Alec Station withheld information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar from the FBI until late August 2001. That withholding is very substantive considering that the CIA kept stating over and over that they were on point and understood the threat posed by al Qaeda.

FTR: The 28 pages that allegedly deal with Saudi support for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar have never been declassified. Nor have the 9/11 Commission MFR's with agents involved in withholding issues.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. "The book is no great revelation"

Well, doh. So we're sort of scratching our heads over why you cited it. (OK, I'm being euphemistic: apocalypsehow has a definite opinion about why you cited it.)

If you don't like an "imaginary truther vs. debunker debate," why in hell did you write the OP? Seriously. What do you expect?

[noise]

43. The OP was a reaction

to the BS talking point that suggests anyone who questions 9/11 is without cause. I'm not going to pretend that debunkers are exceptionally careful to differentiate between "valid criticism" and "goofy nonsense that makes the left look bad." They aren't careful.

My post about Graham was an effort to demonstrate that even an insider who worked on the JI committee admitted there are unanswered questions.

For example:

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. I agree with what Senator Shelby said the degree to which agencies were not communicating was certainly a surprise but also I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.

I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.

To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.

GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States.

Ifill GWEN IFILL: Do you think that will ever become public, which countries you're talking about?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now. And, we need to have this information now because it's relevant to the threat that the people of the United States are facing today.

Gwen Ifill interviews Graham

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. whose talking point is that?

The OP was a reaction to the BS talking point that suggests anyone who questions 9/11 is without cause.

What do you mean, "questions 9/11"? That's the sort of evasive handwaving that apocalysehow is, quite rightly, railing against. People have explained their issues with the 9/11 truth movement very clearly, and you're responding by citing Bob Graham -- even though you acknowledge that his position isn't that of the 9/11 truth movement. Eyes are rolling. (You may have convinced yourself that "debunkers" are so uniformly critical of "questions" about 9/11 that they all must hate Bob Graham, but that clearly isn't true.)

If you're going to wrap yourself in the 9/11 truth flag and rail against "debunkers," then you're hardly in a place to complain about an imaginary debate. If you want to do something different, you actually have to do something different.

ETA: I'm tempted to edit out at least one of my rails against railing-against, but what the heck.

[noise]

45. Do you think there are valid reasons to question 9/11?

If so do you agree that Graham's questions (i.e possible foreign government facilitation of the hijackers) are worthwhile? Is his allegation considered part of the "factual narrative?"

[OnTheOtherHand]

48. now you're just punking me

Me:

What do you mean, "questions 9/11"? That's the sort of evasive handwaving that apocalysehow is, quite rightly, railing against.

You:

Do you think there are valid reasons to question 9/11?

WTF?

Now....

If so do you agree that Graham's questions (i.e possible foreign government facilitation of the hijackers) are worthwhile? Is his allegation considered part of the "factual narrative?"

Sure, his questions are worthwhile. I've already addressed your second question. Reread post #36 carefully.

[noise]

46. IMO that talking point is the rallying cry of 9/11 debunkers n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. show me

You refused to answer my straightforward question about what you mean by questioning 9/11. So, your assertion can mean whatever you want it to mean, which is great if your objective is to foment pointless flame wars, but not so useful for analytical purposes.

[noise]

40. This is textbook debunker bullshit

Mock outrage. Focusing on a minor issue while dismissing any unsettling aspects. Accusations left and right.

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. well, we'll see

I agree that we see a lot of the same moves from people, time after time after time. But I try to give individual posters room to do something else. Once every few years, it even seems to make a difference.

[SDuderstadt]

47. I hate to say this but I have no idea what a....

4 corner stall is.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. ah, those damn shot clocks

As I remember it, back in the day, a team like Princeton might spend a lot of time in the "four corners" offense -- four decent ball-handlers just passing the ball to each other, making no attempt to score -- in order to control the pace of the game and hold down the score versus a more athletic adversary. (ETA: So, the NCAA implemented a 45-second shot clock, and later a 35-second shot clock, basically because no one really wanted to watch a 40-minute game that ended with scores in the 20s or even the teens -- not that Princeton was that extreme.)

Maybe not a perfect analogy, but it certainly evokes the boredom of some of these threads.

[apocalypsehow]

53. You can be grateful you've missed some of the most boring basketball in history!

OnTheOtherHand answered technically what it was, till they essentially did away with it by introducing the shot clock. But I once watched a basketball game end with a score of 17-15 thanks to the tactic - just to keep the ball out of the other squad's hands, five minute possessions with dribble and pass practice at half-court!

[OnTheOtherHand]

57. maybe we need "I survived the four-corners offense" T-shirts n/t

[apocalypsehow]

59. I could dig that - "Debunkers make better lovers" would be cool T-shirt attire, too.

:thumbsup:

[BeFree]

65. Heh

The "OTCer" knows that the key, when on the losing side of such a debate, is simply two-fold: 1. Keep moving the goalposts and changing the premises & terms upon which the debate originally began, and 2. always, always, always reply to every refutation, every correcting post, even if it's with semi-coherent gibberish and nonsensical rhetorical questions or a personal hit. They know most reasonable people tire of such childish charades, and eventually just walk away, allowing them the ever-cherished & all-important "last post."

Further, the "OCTer" also knows that a unique feature to DU is the deleted sub-thread, which, if all else fails, they can just start flaming and/or provoking counter-flames until the entire mess is removed, and their failure in the debate disappears with it.

I've seen this OCT'er gambit in online "debates" in countless threads over the years, and we're seeing it in spades here.

[apocalypsehow]

68. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, to coin a phrase. But in the case of the CT'ers, it

mostly appears to a phenomenon of people with nothing original to say once some cherished nostrum(s) of theirs has been flayed to shreds with the intellectual equivalent of a massive Cat o' nine tails - plagiarism on the cheap, so to speak.

I think we are witness to said phenomenon here.

In any event, remember what I said about keeping up. And take due care to read what you are keeping up with slooooooowly & caaaaaaaarefully. :thumbsup:

[SDuderstadt]

69. Point to a concrete example of an "OCTer"...

moving the goalposts, dude. Do you even know what "moving the goalposts" means?

[apocalypsehow]

37. Yes, and...? The factual narrative IS only called into doubt by those who believe in the equivalent

of the tooth fairy.

Sen. Graham has not "questioned" any such thing - as has been demonstrated.

"That is in the book"

So you've read the book now have you? Odd, that's the first time you've mentioned that in this long attempt of yours to obfuscate your backpedaling until the last word is had. I don't buy it - and I doubt anyone else does, either. But I'll soon find out for myself - and I'll wager that the facts will say otherwise.

"Instead of admitting..." blah, blah, blah - same 'ole "Truther" goalpost moving and semantics games playing - instead of simply conceding error continue to pretend that the real argument is about the understanding of grammar & syntax, instead of the posting and/or refutation of facts.

Another fail - keep trying. :thumbsup:

[BeFree]

66. heh

Bob Graham says that there was another foreign influence in on 9/11
and you just blow it off while trying to make noise look bad because Bob Graham has
some serious fucking questions about what really happened?

And you somehow think that makes you a winner?

[apocalypsehow]

67. See #61 & #64. Then go ye hence and neither trim nor hedge no more. And do try to keep up. n/t.

[BeFree]

70. Your words

See post #1

""9/11 truth" doesn't make the "left" look bad, because the truth about the events of 9/11 is pretty

much accepted by everyone in this country, Right, Left, & Center.

Oh, there are quibbles here or there about who is to blame for intelligence failures and the like, but the factual narrative is only called into doubt by folks who believe in the intellectual equivalent of the tooth fairy, and the vast majority of Americans - progressives, moderates, & conservatives alike - simply don't take that tiny minority of daydream believers all that seriously.

As they shouldn't. "

So, Bob Graham is a day dream believer? Or are you way off base?

Look, no moving the goalposts, answer this question:

Is Bob Graham just quibbling?

[apocalypsehow]

71. See #61 & #64. Follow the easy-to-spot reply road from there. Wash, Rinse, Repeat, if needed.

Once you get the hang of absorbing previously posted information - as opposed to pretending you didn't see it - this thread-reply thing will be a snap. :thumbsup:

[BeFree]

72. This is new

So, Bob Graham is a day dream believer? Or are you way off base?

Look, no moving the goalposts, answer this question:

Is Bob Graham just quibbling?

[apocalypsehow]

73. See #61 & #64. Follow the easy-to-spot reply road from there. Wash, Rinse, Repeat, if needed.

Just try it once - if you don't like it, you can always either quit reading, or just keep pretending like you can't read all that well. Or make out like you simply can't follow along all that well. Or whatever the case may be to make the reality-based take on the matter just go away.

But for a few seconds, pretend you can do all of the above just like most of the rest of us. You might just find you like it. :thumbsup:

[BeFree]

75. Man

Those goalposts must be getting heavy.

And there you were bitching about moving goalposts.

Here you won't even answer a simple fucking question to your own fucking words.

Is Bob Graham just quibbling?

[apocalypsehow]

76. See #61 & #64 - pay particular attention to the "asked & answered" part, and sally forth from there

:thumbsup:

[apocalypsehow]

78. And another prediction of mine is being borne out as we speak (type)!:

"a simple fucking question to your own fucking words." - the right-on-cue Delete-this-sub-thread FLAMES of the intellectually frustrated/impotent!!!

*Ahem* - "Further, the "Truther" also knows that a unique feature to DU is the deleted sub-thread, which, if all else fails, they can just start flaming and/or provoking counter-flames until the entire mess is removed, and their failure in the debate disappears with it."

[BeFree]

81. No delete there

Fucking questions are allowed.

So are carrying goalposts all over the place.

You need to bone up on your debate skills, dude.

Is Bob Graham quibbling?

[apocalypsehow]

82. See #61 & #64 - pay particular attention to the "asked & answered" part, and sally forth from there

:thumbsup:

[SDuderstadt]

86. "You need to bone up on your debate skills, dude"

I hereby nominate this post for Unintentionally ironic post of at least the last month.

[BeFree]

88. Is Bob Graham quibbling?

Ok, so no answer from the OCTers.

Here is the truth...

Bob Graham is not quibbling. He is scared. There is an unknown threat out there and he tried to find out just who was behind it. In other words, Bob didn't know who the threat actually is.

Which is truther territory. Bob Graham is a truther and like the rest of us he is being obstructed, told lies, and kept from seeing the secret info. Just like the rest of us.

We are all truthers, except for those who would deny, obstruct and enforce secrecy.

[BeFree]

99. Wow

No argument about the "Bob Graham is a truther"?

What happened?

[OnTheOtherHand]

100. why bother?

You'll post whatever you want to post.

[SDuderstadt]

101. BeFree can't figure out that...

his blatant distortion of what people actually post makes everyone not want to waste time with him...

[SDuderstadt]

74. Are you now claiming Graham as a...

"truther", dude?

[BeFree]

77. well

He knows more than you are even willing to admit.

WTF is with the evasion? After 8 fucking years yall should have your shit down pat and be able to tell us "the truth". But you can't.

Why can't you? Because you don't fucking know the truth.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Dude...

Please show me where we haven't been "willing to admit" what Graham may know.

Another one of your stupid strawmen again, dude.

[BeFree]

83. Name the foreign government

Go ahead. Name it.

What foreign government was involved in 9/11 as named in the OCT?

[apocalypsehow]

84. Tsk*, tsk* - calm yourself. Start with #61 & #64. Take a deep breath. READ. Comprehend. Follow.

:thumbsup:

You'll be a happier human being once you join the rest of us in the reality-based world, I promise. :toast:

[SDuderstadt]

85. Nice try at reframing, dude....

Graham staes that a foreign government MIGHT have been involved in 9/11, not that one was. As I saod previously, unless the "OCT" concludes that no foreign government was involved, there's no contradiction, dude.

Just more of your dishonest reframing and inability to follow simple sentence structure, dude.

[apocalypsehow]

80. And again! It's all about gaming the Mod to get the ugly reality of the "Truther" FAIL removed now:

"Further, the "Truther" also knows that a unique feature to DU is the deleted sub-thread, which, if all else fails, they can just start flaming and/or provoking counter-flames until the entire mess is removed, and their failure in the debate disappears with it."

*Ahem*:

"WTF is with the evasion? After 8 fucking years yall should have your shit down pat and be able to tell us "the truth". But you can't.

Why can't you? Because you don't fucking know the truth."

All too predictable. :eyes:

[BeFree]

102. Yeah, right

Gaming the mods? What total bullshit. Go away.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apocalypsehow]

104. To answer the question in depth, yep: "gaming" in the sense of attempting to get this sub-thread

deleted, since you've obviously not been successful, per usual, in doing much other than posting content that is both absurd and laughable in it.

"Go away"

Being proven consistently wrong is a real bummer, huh?

Were I you, in your unenviable intellectual position, I'd probably feel the same way about me and all the others whom consistently call you on your factual errors, inconsistencies, and outright distortions in this forum.

[noise]

24. As if I stated that Graham's book was the definitive account of 9/11

Posner liked book. So what. I would guess that Posner supported the book because of the Saudi link. As you may know Posner related the story about Zubaydah's high level Saudi and Pakistani contacts. In light of the recent Zubaydah document release, it looks more and more like Posner's story is bullshit.

Some people like to play these absurd debunker vs. truther games. My concern is in understanding what really went down. If the classified material backs the 9/11 CR then so be it. The problem is that too many records are still classified and I haven't seen much good faith from the government since 9/11.

[apocalypsehow]

26. As if I stated that you stated that Graham's book was the definitive account of anything.

More obfuscation.

Keep trying. At some point you'll stumble, accidentally no doubt, into something that'll wash. You ain't quite there yet.

[eomer]

49. In reply to: "quote-mine me please"

... quote-mine me please anything from Senator Graham ... that he rejects the evidentiary conclusions of the 9-11 Commission as regards ... who perpetrated it, and why

A quote-mine in reply:

... I was surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the terrorists in the United States.

I am stunned that we have not done a better job of pursuing that to determine if other terrorists received similar support and, even more important, if the infrastructure of a foreign government assisting terrorists still exists for the current generation of terrorists who are here planning the next plots.

To me that is an extremely significant issue and most of that information is classified, I think overly-classified. I believe the American people should know the extent of the challenge that we face in terms of foreign government involvement. That would motivate the government to take action.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec02/intelligence_12-11.html

Here is the evidentiary conclusion in the 9/11 report that Graham thereby rejects:

It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda's fundraising activities.¹²¹ Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)¹²²

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

[apocalypsehow]

52. More "Truther" selective quoting to reply to something that wasn't asked, and wrong at that!

Here's what you quoted:

"... quote-mine me please anything from Senator Graham ... that he rejects the evidentiary conclusions of the 9-11 Commission as regards ... who perpetrated it, and why"

Here's the actual sentence:

"Or that he rejects the evidentiary conclusions of the 9-11 Commission as regards the actual events of that day, who perpetrated it, and why" (emphasis added)

More "Truther" distortion bordering on outright dishonesty: why am I not surprised?

But even if we accept your precise definition of what that sentence implied, your response is puzzling. It rather supports my contention that the only real issues left open to debate regarding the events of 9-11 are strictly reductive, "quibbles," one might say, because what Senator Graham "rejects" is not the 9-11 Commission report at all: he simply thinks it doesn't go far enough in finding more targets to go to war with.

He doesn't even state that he knows for a fact that those targets really should be engaged, simply that he wishes the U.S. government would declassify more documents so the "American people" (read: his agenda for more hawkishness) would be satisfied at to whether or not we're doing all the fighting around the world we should be doing, or if more is needed.

Once again, this is straining at gnats and vomiting wind, a "Truther" specialty when they've run out of other things to be wrong about.

[eomer]

54. Excellent, we agree then that the 9/11 commission did cover up extremely important aspects

of the attack, and clarify that you were talking only about things that happened that day, which is fine with me since I don't really care about the "gotcha" game.

So we agree, then, that the 9/11 commission covered up important aspects (that occurred before the final day) about who was really behind the attacks.

[apocalypsehow]

58. No, we don't agree - but then, you know that. n/t.

[eomer]

60. You don't agree that there's a clear rejection by Graham on an incredibly important aspect?

How so? Details?

[apocalypsehow]

61. Asked & answered. Use that roller thingy on your mouse to scroll up. Take it slow. You'll get there.

:thumbsup:

[eomer]

63. The only relevant post I see is where you say you're familiar with the ploy of being obtuse when

faced with something you can't refute.

So, rather than being obtuse, why don't you just come out and say it?

Or tell me which post you're referring to (there's a reply number somewhere there, look for it).

[apocalypsehow]

64. Asked & answered. Use that roller thingy on your mouse to scroll up. Focus. You'll get there.

:thumbsup:

[eomer]

87. I don't see where you either agree with or refute my direct statement, directly.

Graham rejects the evidentiary conclusion of the 9/11 CR about which foreign governments were involved in perpetrating 9/11.

Do you agree, or not, with that direct statement of fact?

[apocalypsehow]

89. Then you have either not been paying attention, or are willfully ignoring the words in front of you.

You have been informed repeatedly where to look to find the answers to the (different) question(s) you have asked, and yet you persist in pretending that you are simply incapable of performing that pedestrian task - another well-honed and oft-employed "Truther" tactic in lieu of anything meaningful to add to a discussion that has not been going their way. But it's not a game if one side refuses to play, and I so refuse.

Once again, for old times sake: start at the top of the OP, and work your way down through the replies. It'll come to you, if you do it often enough. Discussion concluded.

[eomer]

92. There's something we can agree on: discussion concluded.

I was looking for a direct answer. I see a bunch of obtuse avoidance. My mistake, I mistook you for someone else.

[OnTheOtherHand]

62. you have a point, although I would dial down the adverbs

Setting aside the context of the thread (which has its pitfalls!), I agree that it's important to understand how various U.S. dealings with Saudi Arabia and Saudi nationals may have, umm, made a hash of some things both before and after 9/11.

I don't know whether I actually disagree with apocalypsehow about this, or whether ah is applying the "local binding" of the thread.

[apocalypsehow]

21. The blurb endorsing the book you're plugging deserves its own reply:

"This is no liberal, conspiratorial, antiwar polemic, but rather a convincing argument by a hawk in the war on terror"- Gerald Posner

Senator Graham, the hawk! No liberal, conspiratorial antiwar polemic being authored here! What a "Truther" CT'er he makes, alrighty...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Lord, I'll tell you - too, too funny.

[apocalypsehow]

22. And as I do more summary research into this book you're plugging, I can't resist repeating something

a wise man recently wrote about what the vast majority of informed Americans - Left, Right, & Center - dispute about when it comes to the overall narrative of 9-11, to the extent they do so at all:

"Oh, there are quibbles here or there about who is to blame for intelligence failures and the like"

Well, okay, I'm not a "wise man" by any means, but I couldn't resist.

Nevertheless, guess what? That is precisely what a major thrust of Senator Graham's book seems to be (though I'm going to order this book through Amazon to read it for myself): an argument about intelligence failures, and who was ultimately responsible for them. And what should be done about it to safeguard the future security of America.

Not controlled demolitions. Not CGI jumbo-jets in a plane-less sky over New York on the morning of 9/11/01. Not missiles hitting the Pentagon. Not CIA/Mossad debris crews trucking in cover-up "evidence" to the crash sites. Not death-rays from space evaporating molecules in lower Manhattan. Not any of the silliness masquerading as "research."

Just a book written by someone with an informed opinion - with some Senate Intelligence Committee expertise backing him up - about the larger intelligence questions still lingering from both that day and what led up to it, written from the mainstream and targeted at a mainstream (i.e., sane), audience.

Soon as my copy arrives in the mail and I've read it, I might even post an OP down here about it.

I doubt the conclusions I will find in Senator Graham's book will even remotely please the Daydream Believers and their "community" - but I'll let yah know.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. in a sane world, those might not be "quibbles"

Some of what that blurb describes seems to go beyond the ordinary meaning of "intelligence failures."

It isn't LIHOP, either. It's fiasco, at least.

People who tend to self-identify with the 9/11 Truth movement, and who care about these actual issues, as distinct from the bullshit about Weapons of Massive Obscurity and all the other weirdness you enumerated, might want to consider a new brand. While I have no reason to believe that the likes of Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin (and down from there) are agents provocateurs, they might as well be.

[Twist_U_Up]

13. Post a poll in GD...... lets see the numbers.........

or not......

[SDuderstadt]

14. Remember what happened the last time? n/t

[Twist_U_Up]

90. Yea you FAILED to pipe in with your nonsense and the "Trusters" were nil

[SDuderstadt]

91. Dude....YOU'RE the one that wants to see a "poll" in GD...

why would I pipe in?

I pointed out that polls in which the respondents are self-selected aren't scientifically valid. I recall that you egged the moderators on until your posts were deleted.

Of course, that probably counts as a win in your bok.

Keep digging, TuuTuu...you're almost there!

[zappaman]

2. ok

On September 11, 2001 at 8:46 a.m. EST, American Airlines Flight 11 was flown into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

Another plane, United Airlines Flight 175, was flown into the south tower at 9:02 a.m.

At 9:37 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 was flown into the Pentagon.

People were horrified to learn that other planes that may have been hijacked were still not accounted for. Loved ones of passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 began receiving phone calls, learning that the flight had indeed been hijacked. The passengers retook the plane, crashing it into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania instead of allowing the hijacked plane to go on to its intended target, believed to be the white house or congress. It crashed at 10:03 on September 11, 2001.

The 4 planes were commandeered by a total of 19 hijackers. The hijackers were armed with boxcutters and threats of bombs. They used these weapons to kill the pilots and assume control of the planes.

There's the basics.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. welcome to DU

There's an entire forum primarily devoted to extensive discussion of these issues. I'm guessing that you can find some an--

Oh, wait.

Is this just another example of asking a question that you really don't want an answer to?

[noise]

5. I do want an answer

What is your take? Are there any valid reasons to be skeptical of the government's account of 9/11? Where should a responsible citizen draw the line?

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. I'm afraid we'll mean different things

I don't have any trouble with being skeptical of any part of the government's account of 9/11, per se. My grievance with an awful lot of the 9/11 truth movement is that its skepticism is weirdly selective. For instance, when people insist that the collapse of the twin towers must have been due to controlled demolition, I'd say that isn't "skepticism" at all.

[noise]

9. I completely agree with that

I have noted in the past that some 9/11 truthers confuse speculation with truth and/or proof.

I should have used the phrase 9/11 skepticism in the OP and not referred to 9/11 truth. The reason being that 9/11 skepticism is more inclusive as it refers to anyone who has concerns about 9/11.

[LARED]

4. Offer wise counsel?

For those that believe in no-planes, controlled demolition, nukes, mini nukes, beam technology, inside job, and those sorts of things, I would suggest seeking a medical professional.

[noise]

6. What about people who

object to the secrecy? Should they stop being so suspicious?

[LARED]

8. I object to secrecy so I say continue to do so.

While I object to secrecy, I also recognize there are certain types of activities that must be held secret for a period of time.

[snooper2]

105. Truthiness knows no political persuasion

The truth is here but it is also over there...

See the form until greatness eyes cast a shadow

[Bolo Boffin]

106. kick