US Military Officers for 9/11 Truth

[spooked911]

http://www.mo911truth.org/

see also the links there for:

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth

Patriots Question 9/11

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Political Leaders for
9/11 Truth

Religious Leaders for
9/11 Truth

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice

Veterans for 9/11 Truth

The momentum keeps building...

there's no doubt people with intelligence, integrity and credibility are deeply skeptical of the official story.

But here, to the OCTists, they are just deluded and/or wackos, right?

Note to the OCTists-- please scroll down to the lesser known names rather than concentrate your abuse on some of the names at the top.

[zappaman]

1. "The momentum keeps building..."

yes, any day now the aliens who keep us under quarantine will reveal all about 9/11!
I, for one, welcome our new alien overlords!
By the way, you can be a veteran, a scholar, a religious leader, a political leader, a pilot, a patriot, a medical professional, a firefighter, an architect or an engineer...and still be wrong.
Is there a "Fast Food Cooks For Truth" group yet?

[immune]

2. FAIL

[zappaman]

4. how about

Lesbian One-Legged Nuns For Truth?

[SDuderstadt]

3. I have just founded...

"Left-handed Canasta Players for Truth'.

[whatchamacallit]

6. You can certainly be a petulant authoritarian blowhard and be wrong

Of course they'd never admit it.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Throwing the "authoritarian" smear around again...

dude?

[whatchamacallit]

11. I'm just saying if such a person existed, they could be wrong.

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

12. Of course...

we all know that you would never try to work it in as a backhanded smear, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

13. Never!

;)

[IScreamSundays]

14. blowhards for fairy tales??

blowhards united?

[BeFree]

5. If DU banned Truthers?

How many DUers would there be?

Not many, it would seem. And DU sure wouldn't be worth clicking on.

I mean, just look at the other posts from the Truther haters.

[Octafish]

8. 'Truth Hater' is un-Democratic.

Democrats know Truth is the foundation of this nation.

[William Seger]

9. And yet...

... you can't figure out why some of us abhor manure spreaders?

[BeFree]

10. Like who?

bushco?

Wikileaks?

M$M?

Or are you saying a whole bunch of DUers are manure spreaders?

[immune]

15. Manure spreaders

help gardens grow.

[Octafish]

17. That depends on what your definition of 'manure' is.

If it's believing the Warren Commission and 9-11 Commission represent manure, then I abhor manure, too.

If it's believing the Warren Commission and 9-11 Commission represent truth, then count me as one spreading the word: They are manure.

[SDuderstadt]

18. More examples of your...

science-denial, dude.

Why don't you enlighten us as to what makes you think they are "manure". Try to use science if you can.

[IScreamSundays]

21. blowhards for denial?

It is a work in progress.

[SDuderstadt]

22. If you made it...

"blowhards for denial of science", it would fit "truthera" perfectly.

[IScreamSundays]

23. he he he

I knew you were lurking. I just love your selective thread posts. LOL

[SDuderstadt]

24. I confess to being unable to...

resist a good straight line.

[Octafish]

25. sduderstadt is like having my own personal minder.

Do you ever mind your own business?

[IScreamSundays]

27. Only on lunch break. nt

[immune]

28. Palace guards

Fortunately they're disarmed.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Why...why...

you guys are the only thing between us and the end of civilization, as we know it.

Has it ever occurred to you for even a second that we're right and you're wrong? What evidence would you have to see?

[immune]

32. Right about what.?

I've yet to see anywhere you've had anything to say besides how everybody else is wrong. Ummm, just like this latest offering: that I should consider "we're right and you're wrong". First of all, I'd need to know, who are "we"?

As for evidence, maybe you could show us how hard you've worked to get Bush indicted and prosecuted like you keep insisting should happen. Maybe you could provide a link to the threads you've started detailing reasons to indict him and motivating us to get behind you on that.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Yeah...

I'm here to remind you that this is a PUBLIC DISCUSSION BOARD. Duh.

If you don't want to be challenged, communicate with your little groupies by e-mail, dude.

[immune]

19. manure isn't selective

It can produce a garden of fresh veggies, or it can grow a jungle of tanglefoot and kudzu. The first can be harvested for good use and the other can be burned to clear more productive soil.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Thanks for the...

Chauncey Gardner impression.

[Octafish]

26. Creepy.

[SDuderstadt]

51. is that a...

self-portrait, Octafish?

[William Seger]

29. Uh-huh, so now all you have to do is prove it

One real "smoking gun" and the debate will be settled.

BTW, this seems to be a recurring point of confusion with conspiracists: Pointing out that you are proposing highly implausible theories and offering nothing but ridiculously inadequate evidence and reasoning to support them is not at all the same thing as "believing the Warren Commission and 9-11 Commission represent truth." If you've got a better story that's a better fit with the evidence, then let's hear it. If you think conspiracists have already done that, you are simply deluding yourself. I once read a description of the evidence that JFK conspiracists offer, which fits 9/11 conspiracy theories even better: The evidence that would be conclusive if it were true is highly dubious, and the evidence that seems to be solid just isn't conclusive of conspiracy. That's just not nearly good enough when proposing something extraordinary. If it's good enough for you, then knock yourself out believing it, but when you start proclaiming that it's the "truth," then you are spreading manure.

I'd have a LOT more respect for conspiracists if they would at least demonstrate some understanding of where their critics are really coming from. It would be comforting to see at least that point of contact with reality. But it seems that most would rather not confront the awful possibility that their paranoid speculations are not "truth," and prefer to retreat into even more delusions about their heroic struggle with the Forces of Evil.

[IScreamSundays]

33. I got your smoking gun right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0Ms7mId34

Everyone reading this thread, be sure to watch it. I know the supposed "Edward Kennedy" lovers wont.

[SDuderstadt]

35. I've seen that video before...

tell me...why do you think that video is a smoking gun? Could it be partially because of Jonathan Barnett's comments? Did you bother to do any further research on Jonathan Barnett? Somehow, I rather doubt it.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/professor-jonathan-r-barnett.html

By the way, I'll ask you politely one time to cease referring to me and others as "supposed Edward Kennedy" lovers. Do you think EMK thought that "9/11 was an inside job"?

[William Seger]

38. Sorry, but the term "smoking gun" has a specific meaning

9/11 conspiracists seem to find "smoking guns" everywhere they look, which demonstrates nothing except that they seem to have no idea what the term means. Here's my definition: A "smoking gun" is unimpeachable evidence that tells only one plausible story. If you don't understand how far short of that standard your "smoking gun" falls, that's a shame, but the fact that you don't understand something certainly doesn't imply that it's not understandable. But I have to suppose that that's yet another concept that eludes you.

[IScreamSundays]

41. The smoking gun is the controlled demolition of the towers.

That is all.

[SDuderstadt]

42. When you can prove it was a "controlled demolition"...

you might have something. Not before.

And, no, just the fact that it "looks" like a "controlled demolition" to you doesn't mean anything.

[William Seger]

43. You guys...

... are making it really tough for Octafish to argue with what I said. Thanks.

[immune]

34. Oh goody, an offer I can accept.

"I'd have a LOT more respect for conspiracists if they would at least demonstrate some understanding of where their critics are really coming from."

Where are you coming from?

[William Seger]

37. Well, since it's right there in my post...

... I guess I should thank you for volunteering to illustrate my point.

[BeFree]

39. All I saw in your post was this:

""I trust the OCT. Any idea that contradicts the OCT is unacceptable.""

"I won't even listen to anything else. Because it's all wrong."

"The OCT is the law."

YMMV.

[Ohio Joe]

44. Still making up things nobody said?

I find it interesting every time people supposedly so concerned about truth do that.

[BeFree]

46. Heh

seger says: Pointing out that you are proposing highly implausible theories and offering nothing but ridiculously inadequate evidence and reasoning to support them is not at all the same thing as "believing the Warren Commission and 9-11 Commission represent truth."

Nothing makes any sense to seger but the OCT

then seger says: If you've got a better story that's a better fit with the evidence, then let's hear it. If you think conspiracists have already done that, you are simply deluding yourself. I once read a description of the evidence that JFK conspiracists offer, which fits 9/11 conspiracy theories even better: The evidence that would be conclusive if it were true is highly dubious, and the evidence that seems to be solid just isn't conclusive of conspiracy. That's just not nearly good enough when proposing something extraordinary. If it's good enough for you, then knock yourself out believing it, but when you start proclaiming that it's the "truth," then you are spreading manure.

It's all manure except for the OCT.


I'd have a LOT more respect for conspiracists if they would at least demonstrate some understanding of where their critics are really coming from. It would be comforting to see at least that point of contact with reality. But it seems that most would rather not confront the awful possibility that their paranoid speculations are not "truth," and prefer to retreat into even more delusions about their heroic struggle with the Forces of Evil.

The only thing that has any truth is the OCT, says seger, and altho he can dis others by claiming none of what they say is true, he is not willing to accept for one second that he, or the OCT, may be wrong, or even has errors.

This manure he is spreading is really beginning to stink.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. please tell me you're joking

Oh, eff it. Time for a drink.

[Ohio Joe]

49. Still don't know what using quotes means, do you?

Why make up what people say instead of using what they actually say?

[zappaman]

50. Heh

more made up quotes from BeFree's fantasyland.

[William Seger]

45. Must... resist...

... fish in barrel.

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. +1... oh, wait, +2 n/t

[immune]

52. I was hoping for something original

not the same old chewed up, digested and regurgitated worm mush birds feed their young. I can guarandamntee you. I ain't no baby bird sitting helplessly in a nest with my mouth wide open waiting for you or a politically charged government commission to deliver anything with any meat to it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. you must hang out with an interesting class of birds

Help me out here. Was there something you wanted to ask William Seger? or is this really all about the Beta XII-A entity?

[immune]

54. LOL, yeah, I come from a long line of tough old birds.

I've gained all the knowlege William Seger has to offer. Didn't take long. I'm good.

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. no, actually, you haven't

If you're interested in this subject, you'll probably learn something from him sooner or later. If your repertoire is pretty much limited to "neener neener OCT-er!" perhaps not.

[immune]

56. Sorry to disabuse you of that notion,.

I read his long list of explanations to the questions posed by Eileen Cole on that other fascinating thread. All he offered was regurgitated worms from NIST. Old news. Then somebody comes along with new news straight from the horse's mouth and they don't last long. Its called containment, and that also is old news.

[SDuderstadt]

57. You mean that "fascinating thread" where...

Eileen Coles got her ass handed to her by multiple members?

That "fascinating thread"?

[immune]

59. Its amazing,.

you all wanted her ass handed to her so badly that in your mind that's exactly what happened. She lost her temper, justifiably so in my mind, after that shark attack that happened before she was even there to defend herself. But her information is still there (last I checked) if one cares to scroll around a good bit to sort it out, so its not a total loss.

In a strange way, though, that little upset might explain all this avid devotion to the NIST report and the ideal that "one of ours" could never do the terrible things that happened on 911, probably because "we" would never do something so terrible ourselves. And that's exactly how a lot of good Americans see "us", because that's how they want to see us. And since no normal person would set explosive charges in the WTC, and since there's no way these accused outsiders could have gotten access to do it, the charges simply couldn't have been there.

So, in the minds of many, it follows naturally that it had to be those evil outsiders slamming-planes-into-buildings-end-of-story ... ya know, those bad guys we've been so carefully tutored and groomed to hate and distrust for decades and centuries, all ready made for a disaster.

I really feel sad now.

[SDuderstadt]

62. Yeah...

all you have to do is ignore all the physical evidence.

You should look up the term "true believer". Your picture should be right there.

[immune]

66. You seem to forget,

the physical evidence imploded and pancaked. All that survived the maelstrom was Atta's passport. Try to keep up.

The only thing I "truly believe" is that the investigation is nowhere complete and that some of the official conclusions are, IMO, extremly dodgy. Why does this worry you so?

[SDuderstadt]

69. "All that survived the maelstrom was Atta's passport"

More bullshit.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

[immune]

70. I wouldn't say that anything in these photos

could really be described as having survived the maelstrom, and certainly none of it was made of paper.

You didn't answer my question: what worries you so much about my interest in reopening the investigation?

[SDuderstadt]

74. Nice strawman...

Who said I was worried? Moreover, I provide direct evidence that directly contradicts your goofy claim, then you lamely mumble that nothing in the pictures looks it survived. The reason I reject another investigation, especially one headed up by the likes of someone like you is because you show no evidence whatsoever of having critically analyzed any we've conducted so far.

[immune]

76. Goofy claim? Dunno,

Looking at those photos, I would have a hard time believing one sole piece of paper survived even if it was something that unequivocally indicted Cheney. I simply don't believe in miracles.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I wouldn't consider "heading" any investigation. Nevertheless, there are a ton of individuals out there who are qualified, moreso than either you or I, who could do that ... and they very well may do so before its over. They're certainly joining forces and collaborating on the evidence/testimony they do have. Whether or not you subscribe to their methods or their conclusion ... well, it'd be interesting to see the shoe on the other foot ... you folks trying to prove the negative with nothing but your famed NIST reports to support your claims.

[SDuderstadt]

77. "they may well do so before it's over"

Well, what's stopping them?

[immune]

78. Obstructionists.

Why they're obstructing is the question.

[SDuderstadt]

79. Oh, please...

Point to any "obstructionists"

[immune]

80. www.911myths.com for one

so giving credit where credit is due, I'll even admit they do a decent job in keeping the anti-truth-troopers in talking points and counter clockwise arguments. I couldn't tell you who originated the movement or who's funding it, but you'd probably know more about that than I do.

[SDuderstadt]

81. You've got to be kidding...

how is that "obstructionism"? Any opposing viewpoint?

Jesus, you can't be serious.

[immune]

82. You reference 911myths all the time

to support your arguments. Surely you know what their purpose is and who funds them. Simple question.

[SDuderstadt]

83. Right after you explain who funds all...

your goofy CT bullshit "sources".

Again, I ask (and I asked first), how is that "obstructionist"?

[immune]

85. Are the entities bending data to disprove global warming.

obstructionist? Do they have an agenda? I'd say yes, on both counts.

But maybe you and I have different definitions of what obstruction is.

[SDuderstadt]

87. You have yet to show...

911myths.com "bending data". You seem to think no one has a right to oppose your viewpoint.

Simple question: do you accept that those of us who disagree with you on the facts, do so sincerely based upon the evidence?

[immune]

88. One could say that 911myths only accepted "bent data"

I'm not sure which is worse, though, bending data or just blindly accepting it at face value.

"NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors."

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9604

[SDuderstadt]

89. Except you haven't shown that 911myths.com...

has "bent" any data at all.

I'm certain you've thoroughly fact-checked pilots for 9/11 "truth's" claims, right?

[immune]

90. As far as I can remember, I've yet to SAY they are the ones

who bent the data. But when I reference the commission report's "alleged" bent data and link you to the direct accusations that they did, you call it a strawman.

And you call me a true believer. I call that projection.

[SDuderstadt]

91. It IS a strawman unless...

you can show where NIST likened anything to a man being shot and falling up.

Y'know, I'm throwing in the towel. The woo in you is so strong, I don't believe anything can beat it out of you.

[immune]

94. I'll miss our chats.

But I am left wondering if you think the "woo", whatever the heck that is, should be beaten out of me. Sounds like something Bush would say.

[zappaman]

84. simple question

is DU in on it too?
they seem to put any questioning of the OCT in the dungeon...

[immune]

86. How would I know?

And to tell the truth, I'm glad tha dungeon is set up this way ... to keep everybody on topic. I'd rather the forum had a larger audience, but that's up to individual posters.

[zappaman]

92. why doesn't it have a larger audience?

in your opinion...

[immune]

93. I couldn't tell you that.

I suppose you could go over to GD and ask people, if you really want to know.

[AZCat]

63. That's a bizarre response.

It wasn't that long before September 11th, 2001, that "one of ours" did indeed to terrible things to "us". Why would you think this would prevent anybody from considering the NIST report in an unbiased light?

[immune]

65. Bring me up to speed.

Did it involve three destroyed mega buildings, four destroyed aircraft, 3000 lives lost and two illegal, immoral wars?

Of course some of "ours" do terrible things, frequently. Just try to put what I said into the context of the discussion at hand.

My doubts can't be rolled into a neat little box and wrapped with a bow and presented to you like a gift. After nine years there are still so many unanswered serious questions about that day that its sometimes almost impossible to converse civilly with people who aren't demanding answers to them. If the NIST report was complete and accurate, these questions wouldn't be hanging fire and we'd be talking about the crazy weather.

[William Seger]

64. Is that an example of the kind of fuzzy thinking that deduced all that "truth"?

That particular "whistleblower" blew her top when it was pointed out that she was parroting misinformation from Loose Change, and that she didn't actually know if there was a power outage that weekend, among other peculiar irregularities in her story. But I wouldn't really expect such "subtlety" to be detected by someone who only asks questions in order to demonstrate his ability to ignore the answers.

[immune]

67. other peculiar irregularities

First of all, I thought progressives thought fairly well of Michael Moore's work. Its the republicans who hate him.

Second, the memo she received regarding the power down, was destroyed right along with the building. Like I said earlier, the "evidence" didn't end up as pristine as Atta's passport.

Third, you seem to be having trouble detailing other peculiar irregularities.

[William Seger]

68. First, Loose Change is not a Michael Moore movie...

... nor is Michael Moore a "truther." Loose Change is a series of movies by Dylan "Do-Over" Avery, and it is indeed full of misinformation, such as the story about the bomb-sniffing dogs being removed from the buildings, which this "whistleblower" repeated at her "whistleblowing" NYCCAN press conference.

Second, my point was that she claims she saw a memo that there was going to be a power outage that weekend, but a close reading shows that she doesn't know if it actually occurred. That's not a trivial detail, since there is credible evidence (the timestamped elevator ticket) that there was no site-wide power outage that weekend.

Third, several peculiar irregularities are detailed in the thread that you found so "fascinating," so there was really no reason to cater to your missing them by repeating them here. However, some specific ones that I recalled when I used that phrase were: she should easily be able to find a coworker (or even the memo's author) to corroborate the story, but didn't seem to be interested in doing that; she apparently didn't recall this memo until about a year after she became actively involved with the "truth movement"; she kept insisting that people were deleting their posts even after being informed that that isn't possible on this forum (only moderators can delete, and it leaves a "deleted" title); she believes her Sun supervisor must have known about the plot (!) and was trying to get her killed; and most importantly, even though the tower collapses neither looked nor sounded like a controlled demolition, nor is any such hypothesis necessary to explain the collapses, those facts don't stop her from fantasizing about how the plotters must have pulled off a controlled demolition. In fact, without any really rational reason to think there was a controlled demolition, whether or not there was a power outage that weekend is a red herring.

[immune]

71. Okay, the loose change / Michael Moore debacle

was definitely you delivering a solid punch to my chin on a given fact. And, of course, you're right about who made which film when. What's more, I couldn't even tell you, at this point in time, which facts/non-facts were promoted in any of the many documentaries/movies ever made regarding 911. And since I have no intention of reviewing them all at this late date to determine who was right/wrong about which facts or conclusions each of them drew, I will refrain from commenting on them further.

That said, have you ever been embroiled in a "leak" of information at your place of employment where every employee, right down to the janitors, were warned that if they intended to keep their jobs and not have their reputations/careers ruined, they'd better not talk with media? I was on the periphery of one such minor incident just this last week. It happens all the time. Now take such a gag order to the level of inside information related to the worst attack in American history.

I had heard claims of this alleged power down before a month was even out after the attacks, so she isn't saying anything new, but I will agree that everyone making that claim has been discredited and shut up in one way or another, which as is noted above, is no proof that it didn't happen. Holding a ticket for an event isn't proof, either, including whether or not the purchaser was actually there at that exact moment, even with a time stamp ... those machines are as subject to tampering as election machines are subject to creative "adjusting". In any event, as she said, who knows if the power down was building wide or only selected areas/services. She does not, you do not and I do not. But guarandamnteed, somebody does.

So, just based on the fact that several of you jumped on her "statements" before she was even there to defend herself and then engaged in belligerent and rude hammering to force her to give a complete rundown of everything that happened that day all over that huge building, well, shark attacks like that raise their own questions in my mind and it smacks of the same old worn out tactic (calling out "fraud", etc.) which is so often used to discredit, defame and silence a speaker who's voice needs to be "shut down" for whatever reason.

jmo

[zappaman]

72. translation

"even though you showed I can't get even the most simple of facts straight, I will continue to post bullshit.

[immune]

73. I hope that content laden rebuttal

didn't overly tax your brain.

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. your metaphors are colorful, at least

But your indifference to content is really weirding me out.

[immune]

60. Good

some people need a good old fashioned wierding out from time to time.

[immune]

75. A "smoking gun" is unimpeachable evidence

smoking gun - 7 of 7 thesaurus results
Expert Witness Services
Scientific Professional & Effective FAI Materials Testing Laboratory
www.FAI.US

Arthur Copeland,MD
Medicolegal Consultant Expert Witness
www.forensic-office.com

"Dental Expert Witness"
Dr.
Daniels Expert Witness Dental Malpractice- Personal Injury Cases

Sponsored Resultsazdentalexperts.com

Main Entry: smoking gun
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: damning evidence

Synonyms: absolute indication, clue, conclusive evidence, corroboration, documentation, evidence, incontrovertible evidence, indisputable evidence, proof, straw in the wind, substantiation, support,, sure sign, telltale, tip-off, unmistakable sign, verification

That's what makes the english language so fun.

[spooked911]

61. so you're a 9/11 skeptic then?

I mean you seem sort of open minded to a conspiracy here, but you just seem overly picky in terms of needing a "smoking gun".

I guess I don't understand why you think:
a) the perps would willingly give themselves up
b) why those in charge of the government would let the real truth out

[OnTheOtherHand]

16. just what we need: more irrelevant meta!

I do think that "people with intelligence, integrity and credibility" can be wrong, yes. (The issue isn't who is "deeply skeptical of the official story." I like bona fide skeptics.)

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Lots of little shell organizations, all asking for money.

All we need now is a Conspiracy Theory MLM scheme and they can watch the cash roll in!

[whatchamacallit]

48. Ah, a "conspiracy to commit fraud" conspiracy

You CTers never know when to stop.