How come we don't have anything about Vicsims in our 9/11 Forum?...

[SidDithers]

Other 9/11 Forums are all over the Vicsims controversy.

At DU? Nuthin.

What's up with that?

Sid

[canetoad]

1. Well Sid,

As you know, I'm not convinced that the official story is the real one but Vicsims? I've seen that site and the forums and that is real WOOOOOOOO.

[SidDithers]

2. Oh, I agree completely...

But we've got our fair share of seriously crazy woo 'round here, I was just wondering how we've been lucky enough to avoid the Vicsims stuff. :hi:

Sid

[MrMickeysMom]

56. You brought it up, so you go first!

:popcorn:

[Ohio Joe]

3. I should have known better

OK, I had never heard of this and did not need to scan more then a few pages to get the general drift. Serious woo there, I'm not sure it's even serious.

[JTFrog]

4. .

:spray:

[whatchamacallit]

5. Had to look that up

No matter, if you desire maximum woo, look no further than 19 guys with box cutters and little or no flight training, and three massive steel and concrete structures collapsing (naturally) into rubble within hours of each other. Now that's some mighty woo...

[SDuderstadt]

6. It's kinda stupid to claim that...

hijackers with commercial pilot's licenses had "little or no flight training". Beyond that, they didn't have to take-off or land the plane. It's really silly to pretend it takes incredible skill to aim a plane and crash it into the side of a building.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Commercial airliner training? At those speeds?

Whose claims are silly?

[SDuderstadt]

8. Yours are, dude...

as I said before, they didn't have to take-off or land those planes...they simply had to aim the planes and crash them into the buildings.

Serious question: if you believe the hijackers were not the pilots, are you suggesting the "perps" were able to recruit anyone willing to die in the plot??

[whatchamacallit]

9. Ha, like any fool could handle those planes that way...

Like you could.

[SDuderstadt]

10. I could if I had a...

commercial pilot's license, dude. Your attempt to portray them as neophytes with little or no training is laughable. If the hijackers did not fly the planes, who did?

[whatchamacallit]

11. And you claim this because

A) You've had extensive flight training and know, firsthand, what it takes.

B) You make shit up.

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

12. Dude...

do you understand what a commercial pilot's license is?

Your personal incredulity isn't proof of anything. Again, who flew the planes, dude? If it wasn't the hijackers, how did the "perps" recruit someone willing to kill themselves in the crash??

[zappaman]

13. who flew the planes?

and yes, they had enough training to fly them into huge buildings.
btw, my dad flew commercial airliners for 25 years and he says it was possible.
how about you?
care to share your flight training credentials?

[immune]

16. Hmm, A or B, A or B

:dilemma:

I've got a 50/50 chance of guessing the right one, don't I?

[immune]

14. Truthers to the left of you

doubters to the right


There you are, losing ground again.

Mock these outfits to your heart's content, just remember, based on the fast growing numbers of people who think the OCT is a smoke screen and a cover up and who are seeking real answers, one of these days they'll manage to pull what's left of "your" ground right out from under your feet. They're busy digging, digging, digging, exposing more and more of what's been hidden in the OCT hole.

About the only thing the obstructionists have left in their little bag of tricks to break the shovels is Sunstein's "plan". And that, too, would have unintended consequences since most people are just big kids: tell them they can't do something (or else) and watch what happens.

[zappaman]

15. how about you?

care to share your flight training credentials?

[immune]

17. I mentioned flying?

Or is it that you accidentally put your imagination into overdrive? I sure hope you know where the brake is.

[SDuderstadt]

18. You obviously have no idea what a...

VicSim is.

The funniest thing is how you try to pretend you have no "answers", only "questions".

You aren't fooling anyone.

[immune]

22. I had never heard of vicsims until it was posted here ...

but naturally I had to check it out.

"Viewed through the lens that posits some of these so-called victims may in fact be imaginary constructs and not real individuals at all, logically leads us to the inference that the photographs taken down were of the most marginally journalistically verifiable personages."

Actually, it kind of resonates with my earlier postings about names on the passenger lists not showing up on the SSDI. I'm not calling smoking guns on this, of course, just saying its an interesting theory.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[whatchamacallit]

21. Lay off the hooch

you're having trouble recognizing who you're talking to.

[immune]

24. I know we look a little alike, but damn.

:shrug:

[zappaman]

25. my bad

so, whatchamacallit....what are your flight training credentials?

[immune]

23. You'd better check again on who posted what.

[zappaman]

20. "Or is it that you accidentally put your imagination into overdrive?"

"I sure hope you know where the brake is."
Winner of the IRONIC POST OF THE MONTH...if not THE YEAR!
:rofl:

[immune]

26. Good comeback.

[deconstruct911]

27. Is this the same user as Sduder?

or am I missing something?

Surely you don't need to take his quotes.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Z-man is quoting....

"immune, dude.

Duh.

[deconstruct911]

29. Ironic post of the year

sound familiar?

[SDuderstadt]

30. Yeah....

from at least 40 or 50 different members,

[zappaman]

31. it's kind of a running contest

don't worry, you still are in the top ten.

[hack89]

32. Fast growing?

you are kidding, right? Besides a tiny corner of the internet, care to show me what inroads the Truth movement has made on the US public's awareness? Even the Birthers have more visibility then Truthers - at least they have numerous politicians agreeing with them. Truthers are invisible - they are now where to be seen in the American political or cultural scenes.

[immune]

33. A tiny corner of the internet ....???

You are painting yourself into a shrinking corner.

http://www.reopen911.org/ReOpen911_2007Archive/#surveys

64% Want an investigation into the major discrepencies and ommissions in the Offical 9/11 Comission Report. 45%, a plurality, believe government officals knew ahead of time and let it happen on purpose. 44% are not sure or believe that 19 Arabs could not have committed the terrorist attacks on September 11 alone, See poll summary See full details

90% of CNN Viewers Believe in a 9/11 Cover-up:
On Wednesday, November 10th, 2004, Anderson Cooper featured Kyle Hence and Jimmy Walter regarding the latter's TV ad campaign to expose 9/11 truth on WTC 7 and the Pentagon strike. An on-air poll showed close to 90% of viewers believe there's been a cover-up of the true events of September 11... full story >>

66% of New Yorkers Want the 9/11 Investigation reopened. Half believe people in the United States Government knew ahead of time and let it happen. See the poll

[zappaman]

34. LOL

so 90% of the 10,000 people who tuned in to watch those 2 idiots on CNN believed in a cover-up?
duh...that's why they tuned in to watch those buffoons!
As for the NYers, it says "should open an investigation into the major discrepancies and
unanswered questions"...which are what exactly?
do you think some of the unanswered questions are "what hit the WTC" or did Bush plan it"? Maybe to you, but not to the rational among us.
The point is the birthers get more traction than the truthers.
why is that?
is it because we can't handle the truth?
:rofl:

[immune]

35. 30,000 New Yorkers

went to the trouble of signing a petition to reopen the investigation. More than half of those signatures were rejected by one clerk of court. Do you know the stats on how many phone calls/emails are considered in agreement with one letter to a rep or senator? And your have to wonder how many more people would have signed that petition if they'd known about it or were registered to vote?

The birthers get more traction thanks to the mis/disinformation cartel known as MSM. I figured a you would know that. But you prefer to put Richard Gage into the same catagory as Orly Taitz to make your point? Jesus, that's just friggin' brilliant!!!

[SDuderstadt]

36. What's the population of...

NYC, again?

[immune]

37. Yeah, I'm sure that every New Yorker

was offered an opportunity to sign it, just like 350 million people are always invited to participate in national polls. More than the required number or signatures were gotten to put the inititive to reopen the investigation on the ballot. Official New York had a problem with that. So what else is new?

[SDuderstadt]

38. Why don't you mention what...

the problem was?

[immune]

39. They were simply rejected on the clerk's say so.

Do you have some evidence that the signatures were actually invalid, or are you just blowing more smoke? Is the clerk required to make public which signatures were invalid and allow time to resolve any discrepencies, or does he/she simply say, "uh uh"?

That's where the voting system in this country has failed us so miserably, 10 million people in a given locale can sign a petition or vote for or against a proposition and one official or judge can overrule them. Yep, that's democracy alright.

[SDuderstadt]

40. More of your bullshit...

the petition was not rejected merely upon "some clerk's say so". Do you really not feel a need to research the facts of a situation before just blurring out whatever comes to mind?

[immune]

41. Okay, you show ME some proof of why

the petition was rejected?

[SDuderstadt]

42. Because it fell short of...

the required number of valid signatures. Duh. And, it was the New York City Clerk, not just some clerk. You totally misrepresented the situation.

[immune]

43. It only came up short AFTER the invalidation

of the required number signatures. Convenient, that.

It was challenged in the supreme court of NY, who appointed a referee to try to revalidate the signatures and as far as I know, nothing was ever resolved.

[Make7]

44. NYC Concedes 30,000 Valid Signatures

http://www.nyccan.org/NYC_Concedes_30,000_Valid_Signatures.php
 

[immune]

46. Thanks, I hadn't seen that.

Appreciate your research. So, what happened with it?

"NYC CAN must deliver its memorandum of law in response to the City’s motion for summary judgment by Monday, September 21. The City will be given an opportunity to reply before the referee’s decision is made on Monday September 28. Fast-track appeals will likely follow no matter who wins. A final decision will have to be made by September 30."

[SDuderstadt]

48. Why don't you fucking look it up?

If this is such an important issue to you, why aren't you on top of the latest developments?

More importantly, I have little doubt that the investigation will arrive at similar conclusions to the 9/11 Commission/NIST and specifically debunk silly "inside job", "no-planes", "controlled demolition", "NORAD standdown"and other goofy CT claims. Will that be enough to get you guys to quit yammering about these goofy things or will you demand someone else conduct another investigation because you didn't like the results of all the ones we've had to date?

[immune]

50. If our yammering

is so difficult for you to deal with, I'm sure you could find other things to do besides hanging out here being subjected to all the "woo", since it looks like it isn't going to go away any time soon.

Go for a walk.
Spend time with your friends.
Frequent forums where people agree with you.
Take a prozac and call us in the morning.
Or at least try to find a new set of adjectives.

After all, if you're so sure a new investigation would turn out the same as the previous half baked cover up, just chill out and enjoy life while we stumble around down here in the dungeon trying to find what you say doesn't exist anyway.

[SDuderstadt]

53. It wasn't a half-baked cover-up...

that just shows you haven't even read the NIST Report.

Simple question: if NYCCAN launches another investigation and it comes to the same general conclusions, will you stop yammering and quit asking stupid fucking questions? Or do I need to remind you that you declared that UA 93 was enroute to L.A. (it was headed to San Francisco) and the other flights were "short flights" (all three were enroute to L.A.).

[immune]

57. Those were some of the blind alleys I mentioned a minute ago.

I have no problem acknowledging the mistake and going back to where I got off on the wrong track. It was apparently a problem for you, though, but oh well.

BTW, I don't think it would be NYC CAN launching an investigation. Wouldn't the city be in charge of setting that up? Like calling a grand jury, for starters? That would be beautiful to see, but I doubt it'll happen. Too many powerful people wouldn't like it much.

[wildbilln864]

256. Sdude!

"Will that be enough to get you guys to quit yammering about these goofy things or will you demand someone else conduct another investigation because you didn't like the results of all the ones we've had to date?"

Sdude you better hope not, else you won't have anything to do here anymore. :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

257. Wbill!

No, I am certain the NWO will just assign me something else. I am hoping it would be overseas.

[wildbilln864]

258. it won't be! nt

[snooper2]

236. You sure aren't very up on the truthiness that is going on...

You have to be well informed on everything if you want that pig to fly...

Spooked gives lessons every Tuesday and Thursday night from 11:15-11:23PM PM him and he can send you the bridge to dial into :)

[SDuderstadt]

45. Jesus...

that is the New York City Clerk's job. If you have some sort of charge against the NYC clerk, why don't you file it?

[immune]

47. I'd be a day late and a dollar short.

They've already been forced to back down.

[SDuderstadt]

49. Again, if you have any evidence that...

the NYC Clerk acted maliciously, please present it. You make it sound like the Clerk was personally out to get you. Beyond that, if you read the accounts of the latest developments, it's silly to claim NYC was "forced to back down".

P.S. Have you ever heard any of Manny Badillo's or Ted Walter's rambling?

[immune]

51. I used the word malicious .... where?

No one disputes that senators and representatives are bought and sold, threatened and cajoled by their sponsors and backers every damn day of the week, but clerks of court are naturally above all that, especially in political hot potato issues like this. I'm not claiming any such thing happened in this case, but the word naive comes to mind when it comes to blindly trusting anybody. Who was it that said, "trust, but verify"?

And when the verifying was all said and done, the clerk proved to have been "wrong".

I am not familiar with either of the individuals you named.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Malicious was my word...

but the funny thing is you deny that's what you implied, then turn around and talk about "senators and congressmen being bought and paid for". Hysterical.

In the meantime, you don't know who Manny Badillo and Ted Walter are? Psst...they're the directors of NYCCAN. You don't even know who your leaders are?

[immune]

54. Sorry, but I 'm pretty much leaderless,

I leave that to obedient followers. Like you.

Like I've said before, I pay less attention to the names of those speaking/writing than to the words they're speaking/writing. If a direct quote is necessary, the names are readily available.

Me, I always try to go wherever the most plausible information leads. Sometimes it ends up to be a blind alley or a dead end and I have to go back and start over from where I took the wrong turn. Sometimes I even look behind me so I can track my way back to the beginning. Funny, that's fine with me, so why it bothers you so much is mystifying.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Can you tell me what I am a...

supposedly "obedient follower" of? My command of the facts of that day is dramatically better than yours, based upon the absurdly stupid things you say. Do you think it's impossible to read the reports and look at the evidence and honestly conclude they got it substantially right? I mean, it's now nine years later and you're still arguing the hijackers didn't do it.

[immune]

58. That was funny,

coming from such a substantially and openly devout NIST disciple. :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

59. Because the NIST Report makes infinitely more sense than...

your goofy bullshit. You might start by actually reading it. You can also watch the videos of that day and see the things that NIST is addressing (buckling, inward bowing). I'm done.

[immune]

60. There you go

calling upon the infinite wisdom of your cult leaders again. Its really no wonder Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world ... the NIST cult members are convinced Muslims can perform miracles, like exceeding the capabilities of man made software.

You've called "done" before and I don't buy it for a minute. You'll be back with your BSims and goofies before we know it. Its almost like an addiction. Or something.

[SDuderstadt]

61. "exceeding the capabilities of man-made software"

What the fuck are you babbling about now? Can you you point to some of these "miracles"? How did anything the hijackers do "exceed" any "software capability"? Also, can you give me an example of non-man-made software?
Everytime I try to bow out here, you break your previous record for unbelievably stupid claims that betray your lack of knowledge about science and the events of 9/11.

[immune]

62. Miracles

Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits
by Jim Heikkila
(excerpts)

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

http://www.viewzone.com/911revisited.html

[greyl]

63. You've been suckered by nonsense.

You might avoid this by fact-checking stuff before repeating it to anyone else.

[immune]

64. In a righteous world

the men making this claim would be called before a grand jury to testify as to what they know and how they know it. Of course it isn't a righteous world, is it? And the one thing that makes it that way is the refusal of some to demand the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[greyl]

66. People take responsibility for posting nonsense if they want to do their part

in creating a righteous world.
Sorry you don't care to participate.

[immune]

69. Who didn't take responsibility for posting something?

I must've missed it.

If you were on trial, I'm sure you'd want procedure to be followed to the letter of the law. You might even call that righteous. In this case, proper procedures were completely overturned by calling it something other than a crime and bypassing the judicial system entirely.

And you're good with that?

[greyl]

72. You, for repeating Jim Heikkila's bs. nt

[immune]

75. Ah jeez,

now links are verboten, too?

If the "bs" about the planes allegedly exceeding the limits of the software is not true, I'm sure it'll come out in the investigation. Nothing to worry about.

[SDuderstadt]

76. Simple question:

How do you decide what is "true"?

[zappaman]

77. simple answer:

whatever he reads on the internet.
duh.

[immune]

87. All I know for sure is that I strongly contend

that a lot of what we've been officially told about what happened on 911 is not true.

Tens ... maybe hundreds of millions of people all around the world agree with me on that, even if we may disagree on many of the details. You say we are all wrong. Prove it. Be a hero and post a thread showing where each of the questions that you have been calling BS on, right here on this board, showing how/where those concerns were even considered by the commission that investigated the events of that day, much less answered.

So often its not the questions that're asked that tells the story, its the ones that aren't asked at all.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Based upon what?

David Ray Griffin?
Richard Gage?

I'd seriously like to hear, in your own words, specifically what you think the 9/11 Commission and/or NIST got wrong. We already know you don't believe there were actual hijackers. Start from there.

[immune]

89. Well, I guess we can start with the

members of the commission itself.

Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a "national scandal".

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate."

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story.

Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements.

http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/911_commission_members_doubt_of.htm

Then I suppose we could move on to all those firemen, first responders, highly trained pilots and others who just shook their heads in disbelief of what was reported by the commission.

[SDuderstadt]

90. So, I thought you said it was a cover-up?

If it was, why would they have considered a criminal probe? Duh.

And, it's Bob Kerrey, not Bob Kerry. Tell me, does Kerrey believe 9/11 was an "inside job"?

[immune]

91. In the end, the remaining members gave their final report.

But if members hearing testimony questioned the quality of that testimony, even to the point of resigning, that's enough to satisfy me that it ain't over.

We already know that no amount of disbelief expressed by any source will shake your faith in any government appointed commission. I doubt if you'd believe a death bed confession of guilt. That's what makes it a religion.

[zappaman]

92. "That's what makes it a religion. "

the best part is you have no idea how ironic that statement is coming from someone who didn't even know where the planes were headed!
:rofl:

[immune]

94. Well, according to your theory,

the passengers didn't know where they were going, either, or they'd have opted for hitchhiking to CA.

Roll around on the flooer laughing like a hyena about that one, zap.

Pitiful.

[zappaman]

95. "passengers didn't know where they were going"

what grade are you in?
I find it hard to believe you are out of Jr. High

[SDuderstadt]

93. Cleland resigned before a single hearing was held.

His issue was the stonewalling from the WH, not the quality of testimony.

He had also already accepted a position on another government entity and could not serve on both simultaneously. Duh.

It's also stupid for you to keep pretending to know my state of mind about "government commissions". For example, if Kissenger had not resigned as chair and Kean/Hamilton taken over as co-chairs, I would have regarded the Commission far differently.

Here's how debate usually works. I state my position, then you take issue with it. Your constant strawman arguments are beyond silly but, if you want to continue to embarrass yourself, be my guest.

[immune]

97. Cleland called it a national disgrace.

Changing that part of the story won't make his statement go away.

"His issue was the stonewalling from the WH, not the quality of testimony."

Not much quality in all that silent testimony from the WH, wouldn't you say?

So, why do you figure the WH was so reticent about testifying ... even NOT under oath?

[SDuderstadt]

99. Dude...

Neither did Clinton nor Gore. Can you figure out why that might have been?

P.S. No one is denying that Cleland called it a national disgrace. It's just not for the reason you claim.

[immune]

102. Interesting question.

There are many things that I BELIEVE to be true, but I am generally open to having those ideas debunked, which has happened more times in my lifetime than I care to recount. And some of the things that I believed had been thoroughly debunked so that something else seemed more likely to be true at the time were also later debunked. When you stop learning where you've gone wrong and stop trying to get it right, you might as well be dead. Actually, they say that's when you finally find out for sure what's true and what's false.

You asked. I answered.

Your turn. How do you decide what is "true"?

[SDuderstadt]

103. Evidence and falsifiability...

Maybe you should take a critical thinking class, dude.

[immune]

104. Two people

can closely examine one piece of evidence and reach vastly different conclusions. Prejudice and bias and bigotry and many other basic human attitudes of the examiners often plays a role. I didn't set it up that way, but that's the way it is.

[SDuderstadt]

108. You just described yourself...

perfectly. You should really study "convergence of evidence".

[immune]

115. What, I'm two people now? Cool,

Now I can do everything that needs to be done twice as fast.

So, what about all those other tens of millions of people who, independently, came up with the same basic theory that the NIST report was ...... inconclusive, to put it nicely? I guess you'd call that a convergence of evidence of missing evidence.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Simple question, dude...

Look at any video of WTC 1 and 2 in the minutes just before the collapse. How do you explain the buckling and inward bowing of the columns??

BTW, I'm not surprised there are tens of millions of science-deniers, just like you.

[SDuderstadt]

74. Google "PENTTBOM"...

it's stupid to claim it wasn't treated as a crime.

[SDuderstadt]

73. How do you know Heikkila....

knows what the fuck he's talking about. Hint: you don't.

[immune]

78. No, I don't know that.

That's why we need a real investigation and real trial where real people are actually sworn in and testify, under penalty of perjury, as to what they really knew and when they really knew it.

Ya know, we spent more money investigating the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress than we spent on the deaths and wars of the past nine years. And hell, that stain even almost got a president inpeached. Christ, people can be such numbskulls.

[SDuderstadt]

80. "And hell, that stain even almost got a president inpeached"

Y'know, I have never encountered a poster more poorly informed than you.

Bill Clinton WAS impeached by the House of Representatives. He was, however, wisely and correctly acquitted by the Senate in their role as triers of impeachments. Serious question: do you actually understand how our system of government actually works?

More importantly, should a new investigation occur, are you really suggesting that every "9/11 was an inside job" nutball should testify??? Why do you need a new investigation to see if Heikkila even knows wtf he's talking about? Hint: he doesn't. The problem is you can't see it.

[immune]

84. I won't "see" it if whoever

gave that information to Heikkila isn't examined and cross examined in a court of law.

That's the problem.

Loose terminology aside, you do know what I'm saying, but you didn't even address the huge sums of money spent on that wild goose chase as opposed to the "frugality" of the 911 commission investigation. Interesting.

[SDuderstadt]

85. The GOP vastly overspent trying to...

remove Clinton from office. Duh.

P.S. An commission, even an independent one, is not a "court of law". Do you know ANYTHING about how our system of government even works?

[immune]

86. That's why they're so fond of commissions.

[immune]

79. Exactly.

That's why we need a real investigation and real trial where real people are really sworn in and testify, under penalty of perjury, as to what they really knew and when they really knew it.

Ya know, we spent more money investigating the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress than we spent on that bogus investigation that led to millions of deaths and two wars over the past nine years. And hell, that stain even almost got a president inpeached. Christ, people can be such numbskulls.

[SDuderstadt]

82. Dude...

people WERE sworn in under oath. The exceptions were Bush, Cheney, Clinton and Gore. Can you hazard a guess as to why?

I can assure you of one thing. Should a new investigation of 9/11 occur, they sure aren't going to waste time interviewing Heikkila or other proponents of the absurdly stupid bullshit you uncritically accept.

P.S. And, if you understood how our system of government actually works, you'd know that Clinton was impeached, but acquitted in the Senate.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. oh, brother

SDuderstadt wasn't calling upon the "infinite wisdom" of anyone. If that's your version of demanding the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you won't get very far.

He did make the point that some of the phenomena discussed in the NIST report are observable. Do you regard testing theories against observations as a "cult" activity? If so, can you suggest an alternative?

I'm not aware that anyone thinks "Muslims" can "exceed() the capabilities of man made software." Why don't you take this subject seriously?

[immune]

70. Oh please

forgive me for the blasphemy. Its nice of you to defend him.

I'll admit, though, its real hard sometimes to take what's posted here seriously and I often come off sounding like a heretic. Guilty as charged.

The planes (allegedly) exceeded their software limits while being (allegedly) flown by Muslims). You figure it out.

[OnTheOtherHand]

96. no, you don't sound like a "heretic"

You can congratulate yourself on how edgy you feel, but what comes across is indifference.

I care about what happened on 9/11. It bothers me that you apparently don't, yet want to post about it anyway. I suppose that I will get used to this, but I would rather not.

[immune]

100. Indifferent

Well, at least you score points for originality, I can assure you that the people who know me well would just roll their eyes and snort at such a suggestion.

But this isn’t about me, no matter how much you would like to make it so. Its about who Americans are as a people. Its about what we stand for or against and who we entrust with our wellbeing. Its about what we permit and what we allow to be done in our name and fund with our tax dollars.

911 was, at its core, the culmination of several hundred years of Americans standing for wrong things based on emotional hyperbole and fear; placing their trust in untrustworthy leaders; being permissive with their children, their personal lives and governing agencies that have all run amuck, all the way from bedrooms to boardrooms and from tiny town councils and city managers to the overwhelming federal apparatus. Anyone who disputes that simply isn’t paying attention.

And so 911 was, as history will surely prove, the point of no return for this nation. Whether you’re a staunch official commission theorist or a die hard truth movement supporter, we are, as the saying goes, on this ship together and no amount of bailing will keep us afloat if the buckets are filled to the brim with lies and subterfuge about our history, our present and what they have planned for our future.

So, do I care? Am I indifferent to it? Disgusted would probably be a closer match. But I do tend to vacillate between just wanting it over and wanting to help fix it. The funny thing is, so many of the people that I might want to help shake off the lying and subterfuge and corruption and collusion that’s eating their lunch can be so vicious and disrespectful that the sheer vitriol makes it hard to keep from slipping into that just-wanting-it over-mode and staying there. If I ever do get to that point, then you can call me indifferent. But then if I ever get to that point I won’t be posting here, either, so I won’t hear you.

Meanwhile, get used to it.

[SDuderstadt]

101. "anyone who disputes that simply isn't paying attention"

Better: if they're not paying attention, it's because they recognize your silly gobbledygook.

[OnTheOtherHand]

105. your indifference is behavioral

You post things without apparent regard to whether they are correct. It doesn't really matter how you feel about it, except to the extent that it illuminates your motivations for posting bad content.

911 was, at its core, the culmination of several hundred years of Americans standing for wrong things based on emotional hyperbole and fear; placing their trust in untrustworthy leaders; being permissive with their children, their personal lives and governing agencies that have all run amuck, all the way from bedrooms to boardrooms and from tiny town councils and city managers to the overwhelming federal apparatus. Anyone who disputes that simply isn’t paying attention.

You think that 911 was the culmination of several hundred years of American permissiveness? That's the mother of broad brushes. If you're going to come out with claims like that, you really ought to count to 1000 or so (maybe I should say 700?) before bandying terms like "cult."

If you want me to believe that you're trying to help people shake off the lying and subterfuge and corruption and collusion, you need to work harder. With some folks here, even if I rarely believe the content of their posts, at least I see them working to have something worth saying, and I respect that. Your posts are long on bad attitude and dubious internet authorities, which aren't exactly novel contributions around here.

[immune]

106. Then put me on ignore and have done with it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

107. why should I?

I can't force you to behave as if you value informed discussion, but you can't force me to stop.

[immune]

109. "Why should I"

Now there's a genuine display of indifference. Pretty juvenile, as well.

[OnTheOtherHand]

110. really?

What, you're begging to be ignored? What's that about? Seriously, what on earth are you trying to accomplish with the name-calling?

[immune]

111. You got me "begging" you for something from that sentence?

Now I understand your difficulty, comprehension isn't your strong suit.

What name did I call you?

[OnTheOtherHand]

112. ROFL

You asked me why I didn't ignore you. I told you. You said my response offered a genuine display of indifference and was juvenile. I asked if you were begging to be ignored, and what was the point of the name-calling. So now you:

(1) misrepresent my question about begging as a statement
(2) insult me by denying my comprehension
(3) misrepresent my question about name-calling as an assertion that you called me a name

If you don't want to answer my questions, that's your privilege.

[immune]

113. One of our first exchanges on this thread

was you trying to make the discussions of 911 all about me with your little psychoanalyzing of my character and behavior, which could be construed as "insulting".

Now the shoe's on the other foot and you aren't liking it it all.

But like my daddy used to say, "if you're going to dish it out, you'll have to learn to take it."

[OnTheOtherHand]

114. WHAT discussions of 9/11?

You're not discussing 9/11. It's wildly erroneous to assert that I'm "trying to make the discussions of 911 all about" you. I don't think 9/11 has anything to do with you, and your posts don't contain information about it.

Rather, in post #86, I pointed out your willful misrepresentation of SDuderstadt, which you haven't denied; asked some questions, which you ignored; pointed out your willful misrepresentation of NIST; and asked another question, which you ignored. That's the pattern of behavior that I'm construing as a lack of seriousness. In fact, it is a lack of seriousness, no matter how serious you feel.

[immune]

116. What discussion?

Oh, I don't know ... missing passengers, exceeding the software, NIST anomolies, you name it, this forum is all about 911 (or at least its supposed to be), not individual posters.

But oh god, here it comes. Now I'm "willful". And I'm ignoring you. Yeah, its fair to say that there are some things I don't take seriously.

[SDuderstadt]

118. Science being...

one of the things you do not take seriously.

[immune]

122. So which of these is true science,

creationism, evolution, or intelligent design?

It doesn't matter which of these you believe, there will be "scientists" on the other sides who you will ridicule and mock you as being a "science denier". And then there are those who don't believe any of the above and you'll catch flack from them, too, if you subscribe to any of the three listed.

Same with global warming/climate change. Multiple scientific theories.

Same with the big bang theory. Multiple scientific theories.

You would expect something different stemming from the only collapse in history of THREE steel frame buildings, all in one day, all from different causes? Get real.

[SDuderstadt]

128. I have repeatedly asked you a question you refuse to answer...

I'll repeat it.

Watch the videos of WTC 1 and 2 minutes before the collapse. What is causing the buckling and inward bowing of the columns???


Bonus question: With respect to WTC 7, why did FDNY expect the building to collapse and why did they establish a collapse perimeter hours before it did collapse????

[OnTheOtherHand]

144. interesting

Do you perceive any rational basis for choosing, even provisionally, among "creationism, evolution, or intelligent design" as "multiple scientific theories"?

Do you perceive any rational basis for preferring one version of the events of 9/11 to another? or does it pretty much boil down to a lot of smart people calling each other "science deniers"? (In that case, it's hard to imagine what good an "investigation" would do. Who would accept an "investigation" that didn't confirm what they already believed?)

ETA: I hope these questions don't distract you from SDuderstadt's very pointed and relevant questions. In a way we're asking the same question: very broadly, do facts matter?

[OnTheOtherHand]

119. but you aren't discussing any of those things

"missing passengers" -- ?

"exceeding the software" -- so far, your contribution on that front has been to quote some article you found on the intertubes and then call for a grand jury to ask the author follow-up questions. I don't think I'm the only one who wonders: are you serious, seriously? What do you think happens to a plane that exceeds software? Neither of those questions is rhetorical, but you should probably skip the first and go to the second.

"NIST anomolies" -- what anomalies? Don't tell us that the NIST report is an object of cult veneration (after all, dude, the forum isn't supposed to be about individual posters). Try substance.

Now I'm "willful".

I really don't know what you are. Perhaps you'd prefer "egregious misrepresentation"? Seems to me that if you could defend the substance, you would.

[immune]

120. "dude"? Is that your slip showing? Pretty lace.

"missing passengers"? Read the OP for chrissakes.

NIST anomalies? Start here:

http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

Incidentally, if you look around, a lot of pilots have also made the excessive speed claims, as I mentioned some time ago, one of them, a retired colonel in the AF, I know personally.

In some polls, up to 90% of people asked are demanding an independent investigation. That must scare the bejeezus out of some folks. Are they serious, or are they all just willful?

[SDuderstadt]

121. I dare you to approach a...

family member of one of the passengers of UA 93, AA 11, AA 77 or AA 175 and tell them to their face that their loved one did not die that day or died another way.

I double dog dare you.

[immune]

123. Find me one.

I am not without deep sympathy for anyone grieving from ANY loss, and challenging that loss would certainly not be on my list of things to do. Ever. I would, however, expect that any family member or friend who lost a loved one would be much more interested than I could ever be in getting the straight story. I know if I had lost someone on that day and had the slightest doubt about the causes, I would be kicking down doors to get that straight story.

But that's just me.

[SDuderstadt]

124. Okay....

Simpler (and less dangerous) challenge: See how many family members you can find who believe that their family members didn't really die in the crashes.

[immune]

125. Heck, I can't even find the people who did die in the crashes.

And the long silence of the family members is getting downright eerie. I can't explain it. Can you?

[zappaman]

126. ok, now I KNOW you are joking

"And the long silence of the family members is getting downright eerie. I can't explain it. Can you?"
You can't possibly be serious.

[SDuderstadt]

127. "Heck, I can't even find the people who did die in the crashes"

You may have just broken your personal best for absolutely stupid statements with this one. You can't find the people who did die in the crashes? What is it, specifically, that you can't find? Their names? Try looking at the victims list from the airlines.

Start here:

http://wbztv.com/local/September.11.9.2.580688.html

Beyond that, what "long silence of the family members" are you referring to????

[immune]

129. We've had this conversation before, remember?.

Don't play dumb.

And as a matter of fact, the inability to find the victims is what the OP on this thread addressed.

Funerals and or memorials in newspapers, SSDI. Where would you expect to find deceased people?

BTW, clicking on your link gives me a blank page with a few icons down the side.

[SDuderstadt]

130. Are you talking about the inability to....

physically find whole bodies of the victims?

Is that what you are yammering about now?

[immune]

131. You were all over the thread some days ago

when I linked the passenger manifests and the SSDI website, calling BS and stupid just like your normal self. Do you have altzheimers? That could explain a lot.

[SDuderstadt]

132. Dude...

I asked you a clarifying question. If you mean why can't you match up the victims list with the SSDI, this has already been explained to you. Again, any victim whose family chose survivor benefits, rather than a lump sum payment from SS is NOT going to be listed. How many times does this need to be explained to you?

[immune]

133. Your "explanations" were short of the mark

and were already dealt with on the thread in question ... which you couldn't even remember until I reminded you.

http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/ssdi/index.html

The SSDI does not include death records for everyone who has been issued a Social Security Number (card). Common reasons for exclusion include the following:

The death was not reported to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
The death occurred before the Death Master File was maintained in a computer database. About 98 percent of the deaths in this database occurred between 1962 and the present.
The person did not participate in the Social Security program.
Survivor death benefits were (are) being paid to dependents or spouse.
A recent death may not be indexed yet.
Human error. (Before you give up, read the section titled "Missing Entries in the SSDI.")
If you do not find a listing in the SSDI, it does not mean the person is still living, or that the Social Security Administration (SSA) has no records on the deceased. See "Contacting the SSA for Information" for instructions on requesting information on individuals not in the SSDI.

So you are claiming that 100% of the passengers of 911 fall into one or more of these catagories? What a coinkeedink.

[SDuderstadt]

134. Did you go 100% through the list?

Did you check to see whether foregoing of SSDI survivor benefits was required to accept a lump sum settlement from the airlines/government?

Did you check out all the alternative explanations? No, you just stupidly conclude the passengers on the flights are still alive.

Ypur posts have long past left the realm of merely stupid and now are bordering on offensive to the victims and their families. You should be ashamed of yourself but, I'm willing to bet you aren't.

[immune]

135. I wasn't the only one working on it, so no.

And no, I have never claimed that the passengers are still alive.

If you'll remember correctly, I was simply asking if anyone had an answer to that strange set of circumstances, not making any statement or offering a conclusion. But if you knew then that the survivors had been REQUIRED to accept benefits, why didn't you just say so? And if it was a requirement for 911 victim's families to accept these benefits, one might ask why they had no choice in the matter?

[SDuderstadt]

136. I never once said...

the survivors were required to accept benefits. You seem to be "debating" with yourself once more.

[immune]

137. No, you said I should check IF they were required

and I wouldn't have the first clue on how to even go about doing that. Social Security numbers weren't exactly included on the flight manifests, ya know. But I figured that you would know the answer to your own question ... just to make sure I wasn't "getting it wrong" again.

[SDuderstadt]

139. That wouldn't be the first thing that you wouldn't have a...

first clue about.

I'm still trying to quit laughing at your use of the word "coinkeedink"

[immune]

142. Glad to give you a chuckle.

But obviously you don't have an answer to the question either. Just snark. No surprise.

[Make7]

138. I believe some of the passengers of the hijacked flights do show up in the SSDI.

immune wrote:

So you are claiming that 100% of the passengers of 911 fall into one or more of these catagories? What a coinkeedink.

Not sure if that was meant to indicate that supposedly none of the passengers can be found in the SSDI, but what possible explanation would there be if some of the passengers were listed but not others?

• The perpetrators paid close enough attention to detail to add some names to the database, but did not pay close enough attention to list all of them.


• Some of the passengers were real and really did die on the planes but the perpetrators thought they should create fictional passengers to make the attacks more dramatic by increasing the body count.


• Some passengers went along with the plan to be relocated to an undisclosed location but the ones who would not agree to their part in the plan were eliminated and therefore show up in the database.


• Phase 3: Profit

az=view_all&address=125x18365#18366

[immune]

140. I don't suppose you'd care to share

your list of those who are on the index.

Didn't think so.

[Make7]

143. Have you not already compiled the list during your thorough research of this issue?

Just for the sake of argument, say some of the passenger names appear in the SSDI - what possible explanation would you offer to explain why some names appear and other do not?
 

[immune]

146. That computer is toast and everything on it is gone.

Before I could offer an explanation to you for that, I'd have to actually see the names on the list. Otherwise its just speculating and you do know how everybody here hates speculation.

Are you prepared to share that list of names that are on it? If so, then we can talk about it.

[Make7]

198. Well immune, now that you have the list of names for AA11 perhaps you could explain.

 

immune wrote:

Before I could offer an explanation to you for that, I'd have to actually see the names on the list.

What reasons could there be for some of the passenger names appearing in the SSDI but not others? And which of those reasons sound most plausible to you?
 

[snooper2]

237. You should have listened to Sean Hannity and got LifeLock

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[OnTheOtherHand]

149. hey, Make7, I just did an amazing thing...

(1) I googled '9/11 passenger manifests' (without quotation marks); the top hit was to 911research.wtc7.net. (I don't remember anything about that site, so I won't post the link.)

(2) I scrolled down to the section called "Faxes of Alleged Flight Manifests," clicked on the first JPEG (for AA11), and noted the first name that didn't appear to be Middle Eastern (reasoning that that increased the chances of finding it in the SSDI). This name also appears in the Flash presentation slide above.

(3) I typed the name (it begins with the letters "Mor") into the SSDI search engine at http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi, along with year of death 2001.

(4) I confirmed that the name appears in the SSDI.

What were the chances? :shrug:

[Make7]

200. You're a better man than I, OTOH.

All I did was look up some posts in the DU archives where someone had already searched the SSDI for the passenger names and shared their results. What I am not quite sure I understand is that the lists in the archives were posted six years ago, but immune said that he "last checked a good many of the names against the index a couple of years ago" and was unable to find any matches.

It seems an odd discrepency that I probably will be unable to resolve conclusively absent an explanation from immune. Oh, well...
 

[OnTheOtherHand]

201. that's interesting information

I basically took the approach that I imagined an amateur 9/11 researcher taking, but it's helpful to have information from 2004.

Research methods could account for much of the difficulty. immune writes below, "Her name is spelled Laura Lee on the manifest and it turns out to be Laurel." Well, no, it doesn't: it appears in the SSDI output as "LAURA L". I'm not sure what to say, except that it seems to be pretty easy to get even corrections wrong. Based on my experience with search forms, I wanted to enter as little information as necessary (except for the purpose of creating the screen shot).

But in the end, I too am puzzled about how immune could have checked "a great many of the names" and gotten no matches. It's a loose end. Based on yesterday's thread, it superficially appears to me that part of the explanation may be extreme confirmation bias.

Incidentally, immune's gender is undeclared.

ETA: And indeed, now that the facts about passengers in the SSDI seem to be more or less established, maybe immune can enlighten us about why they would matter.

[OnTheOtherHand]

141. the pattern continues

"dude"? Is that your slip showing? Pretty lace.

:eyes: Wikipedia might help you out here, but that's just speculation. Maybe I shouldn't seek a rationale for the non sequiturs.

"missing passengers"? Read the OP for chrissakes.

What, you wrote the OP? You contributed to a substantive debate on the OP? You want me to guess what debate somewhere on the Internet, or elsewhere, you may regard as worthwhile?

Since my earlier post, you trotted out the SSDI business again. Just as a point of information, I don't think that many people would spontaneously interpret "missing passengers" as "passengers who don't appear in the SSDI." At any rate, now I'm wondering: do you think those people never existed? or do you think that somehow the government could do everything else, but couldn't mess with the SSDI? Actually, I think I asked that question last time, but maybe only to myself.

NIST anomalies? Start here:

http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

Been there, done that.

Is there any of it that you actually believe, to the extent that you're willing to state an argument about it? If so, please do. Otherwise, I call bullshit.

Incidentally, if you look around, a lot of pilots have also made the excessive speed claims,

Are you saying that "a lot of pilots" have claimed that the planes could not have gone as fast as the Official Story declares because those speeds exceed software limits? Really? How does that work? Your retired AF colonel told you that? How did he or she explain it?

In some polls, up to 90% of people asked are demanding an independent investigation. That must scare the bejeezus out of some folks. Are they serious, or are they all just willful?

Reality check: people who answer poll questions aren't actually "demanding" anything. They're just answering poll questions. I suppose it's possible that the survey results you're referring to may scare someone, but there's no "must" about it.

It's hard to tell what your last sentence was supposed to mean. If you're referring to the survey respondents, in general, they're neither especially serious (about demanding an investigation) nor especially willful (for instance, most of them aren't posting misinformation that they don't even deign to defend).

[immune]

145. RE:: the lace on your slip, dude.

You really can't take a joke, can you?

I did post on this thread regarding the OP in case you missed it. The article isn't my writing and I don't know the person who wrote it, but I did find it interesting in light of my earlier SSDI question. Still do.

I don't recall the official investigation ever dealing with the excessive speed of the planes or any mention of the software installed in them. Can you point me to such a passage?

It really doesn't matter to you what I believe, or what anyone else believes unless they believe exactly as you do. Otherwise, they're just plain wrong. Right?

Actually "my" retired AF colonel called the whole thing a remote control operation before the day was out and based on his military record/history, I think he would have a better idea of what happened that day than any arm chair warrior.

As for the polling questions ... "should there be a new investigation" was the question. I'd call a yes vote a demand. You might call it a wish, or a plea. Semantics.

[SDuderstadt]

147. So, your retired AF colonel called it...

a remote control operation before the day was out???

Do I really need to point out what's wrong with that to you???

[immune]

152. You don't know him, I do ... well, I did.

Not only did I know him, but so did a few of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I even have, somewhere in this jumbled mess of a filing system, copies of memos going back and forth between them in the days following the attacks. I also have a few of the books he's written, and may try to find time later today to quote a paragraph or so from the inside jacket of his last one, claiming that 911 wasn't done by a gang of Arabs. That way you'll even get to mock a deceased military man. Coming up in the world, ya are.

[zappaman]

155. The hole just keeps getting deeper

Your "expertise" in this area is woeful, to say the least.
Brush up on some reading comprehension and logic before you copy/paste debunked bullshit on this site.
And yes, your retired dead military buddy was wrong.
Oh no, am I mocking him?
Certainly I am mocking you.
Tell us again where the planes were headed, Einstein?
(edit for mispelling which drives me nuts)

[SDuderstadt]

156. Since I didn't know he was dead....

(since you never identified him as such), this is just more of your bullshit and gameplaying to accuse me of mocking a dead man. Furthermore, I am obviously not mocking him but, rather, the content of his statements.

Since you seem unable to grasp this, I'll explain what's wrong with his "conclusion". You claimed he declrared it to be a "remote control operation" before the day was out? Simple question: How did he know he had all the facts he needed to draw such a conclusion. If the shoe was on the other foot and the FBI drew any such hasty conclusion, what would your reaction be?

If I were you, I wouldn't worry about your jumbled filing system. I'd worry about your jumbled "thinking" processes.

[OnTheOtherHand]

148. grunt

You really can't take a joke, can you?

I prefer jokes to be funny, but that's neither here nor there.

I did post on this thread regarding the OP in case you missed it. The article isn't my writing and I don't know the person who wrote it, but I did find it interesting in light of my earlier SSDI question. Still do.

Umm, why? I've never heard of the SSDI being used to scrutinize the historicity of disasters.

Make7 has repeatedly asked why it would matter if most of the passenger names were missing from the SSDI. I've repeatedly asked why it would matter if all of the passenger names were missing from the SSDI. I've seen no answer. I cannot tell why you think this matters.

I don't recall the official investigation ever dealing with the excessive speed of the planes or any mention of the software installed in them. Can you point me to such a passage?

Try, for a moment, to open your mind and look at this from someone else's point of view. You haven't made a prima facie case that it makes a tinker's dam worth of difference what software was installed on the planes. As far as I can remember, you haven't even tried to explain what you think "exceeding software" means. Why, then, would any reasonable person expect "the official investigation" (I suppose you mean the 9/11 commission report?) to address it?

Similarly and more generally, most people don't think that the planes on 9/11 appear to have gone impossibly fast, so they don't expect the issue to have been addressed. Most people don't think or suspect that the Twin Towers were destroyed by extraterrestrials as a warning to world leaders, so they don't expect that issue to have been addressed. In fact, they don't regard any of these things as issues. They could be wrong, and if you think so, you could say something about why.

For that matter, you could offer substantive arguments on topics that the reports do address, but instead you serve up ad hominem tripe like this: "If they had told you little green men were flying those planes you'd genuflect." Which brings us to this:

It really doesn't matter to you what I believe, or what anyone else believes unless they believe exactly as you do. Otherwise, they're just plain wrong. Right?

Bullshit. Like many people here, I enjoy learning about things -- and I'm not likely to learn anything from someone who believes exactly as I do.

But I'm also not likely to learn anything from someone who uses other people's supposed closed-mindedness as an excuse for not even trying to engage in serious discussion. And perhaps more to the point, no one else is either.

Actually "my" retired AF colonel called the whole thing a remote control operation before the day was out and based on his military record/history, I think he would have a better idea of what happened that day than any arm chair warrior.

What, he flew 767s in 'Nam? He used a stopwatch during one of the replays to time the speed of the second plane and then called you to say, "immune, begorrah, that plane exceeded its software"? What? Again, try to look at this from someone else's point of view. There's no substantive argument there, and it makes no sense as an appeal to authority.

As for the polling questions ... "should there be a new investigation" was the question. I'd call a yes vote a demand. You might call it a wish, or a plea. Semantics.

No, I wouldn't call it any of those things. I have no idea how many Americans wish for a new investigation of 9/11, but I know that I can't infer the answer from a survey response, especially when I don't even know what question the respondents were answering. (You purport to quote the question, but after a Google search, I'm unconvinced that your quotation is accurate.)

I also know that you haven't provided a basis for your speculation that the polling results, whatever they are, "must scare the bejeezus out of some folks." So, if you're serious about any of this, you'll have to show me why. It seems like another very weak appeal to authority, in this case ad populum.

[immune]

150. What a lot of words saying exactly nothing.

most people don't think that the planes on 9/11 appear to have gone impossibly fast, so they don't expect the issue to have been addressed. Most people don't think or suspect

Most people don't think period. You can take a look at the shape this country is in if you need proof of that fact.

But I'm also not likely to learn anything from someone who uses other people's supposed closed-mindedness as an excuse for not even trying to engage in serious discussion. And perhaps more to the point, no one else is either.

LOL, I've seen your method of learning from people you don't agree with all over this board.

Appealing to authority? Pot meet kettle.

What's really interesting about that appealing to authority business that you've accused me of, is that you have never, from what I've seen anyway, made any positive statement about what YOU believe ... direct from your own noggin. Your whole "serious discussion" gig is limited to ridiculing what anyone else thinks if it isn't within the parameters of the official version of 911 ... well, we could eliminate a few folks here from that anyone, I suppose, but you're not going to learn much you don't already think you know from that quarter.

Oh, and since you couldn't find "it" on google, it doesn't exist. Imagine that comment in reverse ... from me to you. What a field day you'd have with that.

[SDuderstadt]

151. All this verbiage from a poster who...

claimed that UA 93 was headed to L.A., when it was actually headed to San Francisco and further claimed that AA 11, AA 77 and AA 175 were all "short flights" when, in fact, they were cross-country flights headed to L.A. Further, you can't even answer a simple question as to why WTC 1 & 2 were seen to be buckling and there was inward bowing of the columns in the minutes leading up to the collapse.

Of course, the reason no "truther" can or dares answer that question is because it blows the silly "controlled demolition" claim out of the water.

[immune]

153. Like a dog with a bone, you are.

I guess that's because its all you've got. Pitiful.

This thread is supposed to be about passengers, there's another thread about the controlled demolitions and more qualified posters there who've done the research on that issue.

And besides that, there are many architects and engineers and other highly qualified individuals who are calling the official findings silly. Well, I think they're using stronger words than silly, but I'll put more stock in their scientific minds regarding the physics of it than the wild gesturing of a cyber warrior looking to bolster Uncle Sam's version, any day of the week. That's just how it is.

[SDuderstadt]

154. I see you STILL cannot answer the question....

figures.

[OnTheOtherHand]

157. yikes

Most people don't think period.

That's pretty much my point -- more tartly worded, to be sure. So, why are you impressed with your purported survey results?

LOL, I've seen your method of learning from people you don't agree with all over this board.

Riiiiiight. Well, I guess that spares you the burden of responding to anything I actually write.

...you have never, from what I've seen anyway, made any positive statement about what YOU believe ... direct from your own noggin. Your whole "serious discussion" gig is limited to ridiculing what anyone else thinks if it isn't within the parameters of the official version of 911...

No part of that is true. But, hey, way to keep it classy.

The fact is that it took me about three minutes this morning -- maybe less -- to track down a passenger list, type a name into the SSDI, and find it.

Why didn't you do that first, immune? And, really, can you blame me if I'm tempted to draw some uncharitable inferences from it? If our positions were reversed, wouldn't you?

[zappaman]

158. Now I know what he is IMMUNE to

Logic, reading comprehension, research, basic facts, math, and common sense...among other things.

[SDuderstadt]

159. The understatement of the year....

dude. It's fucking unbelievable.

[OnTheOtherHand]

160. y'know, I try not to go there

It doesn't stop people from complaining about how meeeeeeeeeeeeeeean I am, but I try not to write people off for all time.

[immune]

161. Flight AA11

(1) I googled '9/11 passenger manifests' (without quotation marks); the top hit was to 911research.wtc7.net. (I don't remember anything about that site, so I won't post the link.)

(2) I scrolled down to the section called "Faxes of Alleged Flight Manifests," clicked on the first JPEG (for AA11), and noted the first name that didn't appear to be Middle Eastern (reasoning that that increased the chances of finding it in the SSDI). This name also appears in the Flash presentation slide above.

(3) I typed the name (it begins with the letters "Mor") into the SSDI search engine at http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi, along with year of death 2001.

(4) I confirmed that the name appears in the SSDI.

What were the chances?

Okayyyy, so you don't remember the anything about the site, but it gave a "fax" of an "alleged" manifest. Then you looked for the first name that "didn't appear to be middle eastern" (just say Arab, okay?) and we're supposed to buy your little exercise? :eyes:

Your assignment: find the first non middle eastern sounding name on the "real" flight AA11 manifest. Pssst, this is the same site you named, but can't seem to remember anything about, but pulled a "fax" with a list of "alleged" passengers from for your little experiment.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/cnn_AA11_victims.html

And since its an alphebetical listing and you had to get all the way to "mor" before you found a non middle eastern sounding name, one would think the plane was loaded with Arabs.

What's your real game?

PS: There was one name on the manifest that began with "mor", I typed the full name in the SSDI and got:

Your search returned no matches. Try making your search less specific.

[OnTheOtherHand]

162. wow, you're remarkable

Oh-kay, maybe Google is dynamically responding to your interests -- whatever those might be -- to give you a different order.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

The name I typed into the SSDI search engine was name number 3.

FYI, if one inadvertently (or deliberately) links to a hate site, the post is subject to deletion. That's why I was trying to avoid a specific link to a site I didn't remember anything about.

OK, my turn: what's your real game?

[immune]

165. Even on the fax,

which added several Arab names to the original manifest. There was some major complaints about that at the time. And the "mor" you claimed to have checked against SSDI is no way the "third" passenger listed, she's actually way over in the fourth column. And she ISN'T in the index. BUSTED!!!

A hate site? Me? I linked to a CNN report. You're losing it.

[SDuderstadt]

166. Jesus fucking Christ...

can you get anything at all right??

The fax didn't add "several Arab names to the original "manifest", because it wasn't a fucking MANIFEST! Jesus.

THe airline originally released VICTIM'S lists to the public which, of course, would not be expected to contain the names of the perpetrators.

[immune]

167. Sooooo ...

how do you explain that the "mor" name that was alleged to be on the SSDI, after a little "fact checking" isn't there at all? Aren't you the one who's always hammering at me to fact check everything before I post it?

How about you pull up that "list" of passengers and do some fact checking on the other names on it to find out who else in't listed in that ultimate list? Or don't you want to know?

[SDuderstadt]

168. For the last fucking time...

you haven't established the relevance of the SSDI list. Even the SSDI website lists numerous reasons why someone would not be listed.

Maybe when you start answering some of my questions, I'll start answering some of yours.

[immune]

169. And you haven't proven

there were any passengers on that plane. How about we start there, since you are asserting that they were, indeed, on that flight.

[SDuderstadt]

175. Here's an idea

Again, contact one of the family members face-to-face and tell them their loved one wasn't really on the plane.

Let me know how that goes.

[immune]

181. You keep repeating yourself.

I've been trying. But what if there aren't any to find? I've been waiting for you to produce one for me as I asked you to do a while back, and I can see you haven't been successful at that either.

[SDuderstadt]

185. You can't find a single family member of one of the victims...

of the plane crashes from 9/11???

Now we know for sure you're playing games.

[OnTheOtherHand]

187. never ascribe to malice... n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

171. what part of "fax" don't you understand?

You appear to be looking at "Moussaoui Trial Exhibits," whereas I explicitly cited "Faxes of Alleged Flight Manifests." Click on the first page. No idea why you're struggling with all this.

And, yeah, she's in the index. (ETA: I checked to make sure that it's the same name as in the page you linked to.)

And, no, I never said that you linked to a hate site.

And, no, I'm not losing it.

[immune]

173. Lets try again on who "she" is,

are you still claiming that the name started with "mor"? Or are we talking about two different people?

[OnTheOtherHand]

174. the name does start with "mor"

It's not a matter of "claiming." Do I need to post an effing screen shot, or do you think you can take it from here?

[immune]

177. Okay, I'll say it again.

There was only one passenger listed on either the original CNN manifest of AA11 that I linked to, or on the faxed list you linked to and I'm not going to spell out the name, but anyone can check that out easily by going to either link and looking for the one and only name beginning with "mor" on AA11. I repeat, there is only one such name listed. It is, however, not listed on SSDI. Period. Doubt it? DYODD.

[SDuderstadt]

178. Given your own miserable track record...

I doubt if anyone is going to take your word for much of anything.

[immune]

179. That's the beauty of it ...

no one needs to take my word for it. All they have to do is run the names and see for themselves.

[OnTheOtherHand]

180. well, this probably doesn't come as news to the family:

http://bit.ly/bRyrkC

[zappaman]

182. well, that should quiet him down

but I bet it doesn't...

[OnTheOtherHand]

184. I'm going to be singing for the next two hours

Just in case you find yourself waiting for my next witty (or whatever) riposte. Really, I'm amazed how bad this is getting.

ETA: In case anyone was wondering, I made this search more specific as to date of death so that the graphic would be smaller. The search I originally did just used "2001," so it was necessary to (shudder!) scroll.

[immune]

186. You're so damned clever!!!

You almost had me stumped. The link tipped me off.

[OnTheOtherHand]

189. say what?

I intentionally didn't embed the image. You, presumably intentionally, did.

What tipped you off to what?

Maybe someone else can sort this out.

[immune]

194. Well, I really put my foot in it this time

because I used her full name only and you used the last name and the date only. Her name is spelled Laura Lee on the manifest and it turns out to be Laurel. So I apologise for getting on you about my mistake.

But, in the end, the whole ugly exercise was useful (even if its totally embarrassing. Good thing I don't mind eating a little crow when I'm the cook) because it forced me to do what I've been hollering at everybody else to do .. I went through the list from top to bottom (minus the crew) and found 19 listed on SSDI and 53 not on it. I'll be double checking those I didn't find this time around to make sure, but so far that's where it stands. (if anyone cares)

When we did this back in 2003, we couldn't find any names at all on the index, so maybe some were added over the past 7 years and maybe we missed some, like this Laurel person. I should have figured that that might happen. But 53 still sounds high to me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

195. OK, thanks

I accept your apology. Maybe we can ask Hillary Clinton to stop by with a "reset" button -- although I still have some serious reservations about things you've said about folks in other posts.

[immune]

197. Same goes,

but thanks for accepting the apology. Maybe we can just take it for what it was worth and all of us can lighten up a little on the badgering and harping on each other so we can have a civil discussion ... if so, its a good thing.

[Make7]

199. I think we've all put our foot in it at one time or another.

 

immune wrote:

But, in the end, the whole ugly exercise was useful ... because it forced me to do what I've been hollering at everybody else to do .. I went through the list from top to bottom (minus the crew) and found 19 listed on SSDI and 53 not on it.

I am not really sure why it took you over two weeks to do this. If you thought it was important, why not invest a little time and effort to verify your information?

Perhaps this particular experience will act as an incentive for you to make more of an effort to verify the material you post here. It seems many disagreements could be avoided by simply fact-checking something before you post what turns out to be factually inaccurate information.
 

[SDuderstadt]

190. OTOH just handed you....

your ass, dude.

[immune]

188. You're so damned clever!!

But the link tipped me off. Photobucket? Sheesh.



BUSTED twice.

[SDuderstadt]

191. Dude...

how else do you think someone would save a screenshot of something???

Do you understand anything about computers? You haven't busted anything except what little credibility you've got left.

[zappaman]

192. he doesn't seem to understand anything

so why would you think he'd understand computers?

[zappaman]

193. *pause*

While Immune tries to find information about this "photobucket" thing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

196. that made me laugh

I'm glad immune figured out how to replicate the search, but what a long, strange trip it's been.

[Make7]

248. BUSTED twice, immune?

I am not even sure what that is supposed to mean.
 

[mrarundale]

249. Isn't it odd that CNN released the "flight manifest"

when the FBI, in a recent FOIA request, refused to release the originals ?.... "ongoing investigation" and all that, and I bet the bogus trials of drugged scapegoats will be going on until 9-11 goes firmly into "JFK conspiracy" land...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40031118/Larson-FOIA-FBI-911-Manifests-Boarding-Passes

and regarding the SSDI, I went through the lists a while back and fewer than 20% of the "victims" are in the SSDI (which means no one reported their deaths to SS) and the "death certificates" I have seen list "no body", so draw your own conclusions. This is a reverse of the "general population" where a maximum of 20% of people I checked from obituaries were not in the SSDI (from a small non scientific sampling). Every U.S. citizen I knew personally who has died is in the SSDI. (FWIW)

Maybe Social Security wasn't "in on it"...

also, anomalies, such as FBI notes list Alice Hoglan (just one of the spellings) as Mark Bingham's "cousin" not his mom...and Danny Lewin was in the Israeli IDF as Dan Levin not Lewin, now why would that be?

[SDuderstadt]

250. Maybe you're really...

onto something, Mr. A. Perhaps it's the smoking gun we've been looking for. Make sure to give us regular updates!

[Make7]

252. It helps to know who has a habit of perpetrating deliberate falsehoods, immune.

Is it posts like yours in this thread that you had in mind when you said that "it always helps to know who has a habit of perpetrating them"?
 

[SDuderstadt]

163. The reason it gave a fax of

an "alleged" manifest is because it's a goofy "9/11 was an inside job" website

[immune]

170. Yeah,

but the REAL manifest that I posted, came from CNN. Wanna call that a goofy inside job website?

Oh and just for the sake of curiosity, why would an inside job website add Arab names to their "list? That's pretty spooky.

[OnTheOtherHand]

172. well, the nice thing is...

it doesn't claim to be sure about the provenance. Also, the same name appears in the "Trial Exhibits" slide*. It's logically possible that all this was faked by OCTers in order to hide the truth about the SSDI, but I don't think that's very likely.

*ETA: and on the CNN page, or what appears to be a CNN page. Again, there's no knowing how far the cover-up might extend. Oh, I know! Maybe the OCTers are messing with my SSDI searches, but not immune's. Or maybe immune is having a teesny bit of trouble with SSDI searches.

[zappaman]

164. This is some kind of "PUNKED" thing, right?

You post things that have been debunked here and everywhere else for years and act like you just discovered something new.
Then when it is pointed out to you just how misinformed you are, you change the subject.
Where were those planes headed to again when they flew "all over the country wasting fuel"?
Spooked might make some outrageous claims but he at least knows the basic facts like the destinations of the(in his mind hologrammed) planes.

[immune]

202. "Most people don't think" ...

I hate when I do that ... that's probably the silliest statement anybody could ever make. If anything, people think too damn much, they're just not thinking about whatever WE think they should be thinking about. Its one of those meaningless "truisms" that we hear a million times over until it gains some kind of validity in our minds and we start propagating it, like I just did there.

If somebody asked me who was going to win on American Idol, I'd probably look like a deer caught in the headlights, but its important to other people who think I'm mentally deficient because I don't care about it. Same goes with any subject. And even those who agree on what's important to think about seldom agree with what we conclude, anyway.

So what I said there, and what you agreed with started me thinking about how many people have to be asked a question in order to reach the 1000 or 1500 answers a pollster needs to reach a percentage. That number would probably be every bit as important, and maybe even moreso, in the final result.

That said, 90% of anything is pretty impressive, we just don't know 90% of what without that other number being factored in. And I still think about all those millions of unasked people who may have an opinion one way or the other on this question and I'd like their voices heard, as well. Its supposed to be a participatory democracy, not a sampling. That's why I believe we need a full vote of ALL the people ... straight up or down: a new investigation or not. And then go forward with whatever the voters "demand".

Heck, I don't know, maybe this thread is dead. Maybe it should be. But as long as I was correcting the errors of my ways, I wanted to correct that one, too.

[OnTheOtherHand]

203. OK, let's see

I pretty much agree with the first part of this. In the context of survey research, it's not really that most people "don't think" per se, but in most cases they haven't thought very much about the specific things that pollsters ask them about, because they've been thinking about other things instead. I don't conclude that we should simply ignore the results of survey research -- just that we should keep some sense of perspective.

By the way, there's one part of that comment that I simply forgot to respond to. "Oh, and since you couldn't find 'it' on google, it doesn't exist." No, that's not what I said, and not what I meant. I said that I was unconvinced that you had quoted the question accurately. "Imagine that comment in reverse ... from me to you. What a field day you'd have with that." Here's how I imagine it: if our positions were reversed, and I told you that x% of survey respondents say (blah blah blah), I think there's a good chance that you wouldn't just take my word for it. In fact, you shouldn't. You should want to know not only the exact wording of the question, but the methodology of the survey (for instance, was it even a random sample survey, or was it actually one of those opt-in "online polls"?), when it was performed, and ideally the context in which this question was asked.

And I still think about all those millions of unasked people who may have an opinion one way or the other on this question and I'd like their voices heard, as well.

I agree with that (although not exactly with the next thing you said). I would add that there should be some way of representing people who may not have an opinion on this question yet, but would if they were given an opportunity to consider it. Honestly, I don't think that this particular question cries out for better public representation, but in general I think it's best when the government does what an informed citizenry would want it to do. (Of course, if an informed citizenry wants to lock up all the Muslims, screw 'em -- constitutional rights trump. That's just one of many problems with my statement.)

I can't say that I think we need a referendum on whether to conduct a new investigation. I don't love referenda as a mechanism of participatory democracy. Personally, I don't care much whether there is a new investigation, because (1) I wouldn't expect it to uncover much (although it probably would uncover something), and (2) I wouldn't expect it to satisfy people who are strongly predisposed to believe in MIHOP or LIHOP or thermite or plane pods, etc. For that matter, I wouldn't expect it fully to satisfy anyone, including me. I think it's very likely that some folks will take secrets related to 9/11 to their graves, no matter how many investigations there are. So, I'm not opposed to a new investigation, but I see the stakes as fairly low.

I can tell you that some of us are genuinely curious about some of the points that have come up here -- for instance, what you think is the significance of how many passengers' names appear in the SSDI; what you make of visual evidence that appears to support the central conclusions of the NIST report; and where you were headed when you appeared to analogize the debate over why the towers collapsed to the debate among creationism, evolution, and intelligent design. As a point of information, rarely do I ask a question that is merely rhetorical. For instance, while I'm sure that the retired Air Force colonel didn't actually call to say "begorrah, immune, that plane exceeded its software," the real point was to draw you out on what he said and what basis he had to say it.

[immune]

204. In no particular order

Of those amongst us who are genuinely curious about some of the points that’ve come up here …

Have you been appointed their spokesman? That would make a great deal of sense since you are, by far, the most persuasive and reasonable of the NIST supporters here. It would also be naïve to believe there isn’t some sort of Galt’s Gulch for 911 deniers email list, or by invitation only sub forum where “some of us” gather to discuss and coordinate assaults on heretics of the official story. I’ve been invited to participate in such groups on forums much smaller than this and actually experimented with it for a short time before I discovered that I prefer transparency.

As for not quoting the exact wording of the question, I don’t think I put it in quotes or indicated in any way that it was a direct quote, but I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong about that and as we all know, I have a tendency to throw quote marks around in places they probably shouldn’t be.

Other than that, I agree its good to know how a poll is conducted, which is why I prefer a referendum on a ballot. And since we all know about rampant voter fraud, even that’s not sacrosanct. If you’re looking for perfection, or even fairness, it doesn’t exist on this planet, which is the genesis of the phrase “the good guys never come out ahead.” And that’s also why the public is so uninformed and has no idea of what’s in their best interests; because the bad guys are in control of the information and they’re also, in large part, responsible for the fact that so many people over vast tracts of time take whatever unfortunate truths they may have had to their graves, as you put it.

I guess the meat of your post, though, was asking what I think is the significance of whether the passengers' names appear in the SSDI. As I’ve said before, this wasn’t my brain child and I actually got started on the project thinking it would be disproved.

Its hard to remember the exact sequence of my thought processes of almost a decade ago, but Atta’s passport was a zinger. Then learning about the military exercises consisting of planes crashing into buildings on that very morning and Condi or whoever it was saying (paraphrasing) “oh, we could never imagine terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into our buildings”. Taking those two opposing facts together about had one of my eyebrows stuck in my hairline, permanently.

Those exercise planes took off from somewhere. Do we know from whence they entered our airspace? Does your NIST report address that question? As I said once before, the questions that aren’t asked are often the most important. But have you read Woody Box’s thread about evidence of two flight AA11s? If so, my questions to you regarding the passengers would be: Would a military exercise such as that, involve normal passengers? And wouldn’t making such an exercise realistic require the use of normal airports and normal (looking) airliners?

Yes, the late colonel was very instrumental in making me aware of the incredible technology of home run and global hawk and remote control. He pointed me in a direction and I went there. Sorry if anyone thinks I should apologize for that or disremember what I learned just so I can be politically correct or have my views accepted by those who don’t care to follow in my (or others) footsteps in the hunt for their own truth.

But since I brought the Colonel into the conversation, here is a direct quote from the dust cover of his book, The Viper’s Venom”.

http://www.amazon.com/Barbarians-Inside-Gates-Vipers-Venom/dp/096643742X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285790098&sr=1-1


“The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation against the United States, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles, and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.

As a tactical military exercise against two significant targets (world financial center and citadel of world strategic military planning), the attack, from a psychological impact on the American public, probably surpassed the Japanese ‘surprise’ attack on Pearl Harbor 7 Dec. 1941.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________


“so-called” should indicate whether or not he bought into the 19 terrorist’s version of events. And note that he says “against the United States”, not BY the United States. So his conclusion is: “The goal continues to be the ultimate destruction of all national sovereignty and establishment of a global government.”

I take from that, that he believes the attack was done by the same people who’ve been infiltrating our government and working on hijackiing it along with our wealth almost since the beginning and who are so close, no small thanks to 911, to reaching that ultimate goal. Well actually, I think we’re already burned toast.

But nowhere did I say that he said anything about the excessive speeds of the planes ... rather he used the term "guided missiles" and one might assume they would fly a bit faster than a passenger plane. And since he fired and flew a few of each, he might have known the difference.

And finally, I wasn’t comparing the collapse of the towers with the various allegedly scientifically determined “origins of mankind” beliefs. Where did you get that idea? I was called a science denier, and was merely comparing how one set of scientific beliefs can oppose other sets of scientific beliefs using the same exact “evidence” available to them.

[zappaman]

205. thank you for finally identifying your friend

He makes lots of claims...

According to his Alex Jones interview, he served with the OSS in World War II, and later returned as an infantry airborne officer during the Korean War, and is a retired Army Colonel. Impressive spook credentials.

However he is also listed as a retired Air Force Officer, which is it?

Here's the best part..another Holocaust denier.

Donn is retired military. Served in WWII and the Korean "police action". Stated reason for the book: to sound the alarm, U.S. military is being downsized, downgraded, degraded and demoralized. Barbarians/Bolshivists in charge hold the highest ranks of military office. While we find his suggested remedy frightening, he makes a case. Highly recommended reading for its documented historical facts that fill in many blanks; i.e. Swedish Jew, D. D. Eisenhower's rise to power, responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Germans post WWII; Holocaust hoax planned in 1919; history of Israel's creation/ creators; ongoing media blitz foments animosity toward Arabs.. the real Semites. Published in 2000, Barbarians brings us to present day.

[immune]

206. I also heard that Alex Jones interview.

If he'd said anything reflecting that crap in that interview Alex wouldn't have allowed it to air.

As for the above claims, I suppose reading his books would be the place to start. Well, if you wanted to debate fact vs fact or claim vs claim.

Instead of that, you post this line of drivel without any attribution or link.

[zappaman]

207. here ya go

Yes, your dead friend was a holocaust denier and a flat out liar.
Hell, he can't even get his service straight.


http://www.sweetliberty.org/guests.htm

[immune]

208. Interesting ... they're promoting the same concept as the Colonel.

right on their front page.

"In defense of the world Order, U.S. soldiers would have to kill and die. ... We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood, as well as in words and money."

-- Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Back to the Womb, July/August 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs

So what do you have to say about the Colonel's quotes I posted? Nothing, I'm sure. Just shooting the messenger because you don't like the message? I can't help you with that.

[zappaman]

209. interesting....

what does that quote have to do with your friend being a holocaust denier and a liar?
More lies...He claimed to know the pilot who shot down the plane over PA. Pilot says he has no idea who this guys is.
He claims to be intimate friends with figures such as General Hugh Shelton, who when contacted by Popular Mechanics, never heard of him.
and on and on.
maybe he wasn't a liar and just liked telling stories?

[immune]

210. What does 911 have to do with the holocaust?

Do you think they're connected in some way?

Popular Mechanics? Damn, I thought only whacked out republicans read that pile of crap.

[zappaman]

211. nice try

the point is I should believe what your dead buddy says even though he is not only a holocaust denier, but he even lies about his military service?
Keep regurgitating his bullshit.
you've already shown a no knowledge of the basic facts of that day...where were those planes headed again?

[immune]

212. Wow, you're really on the holocaust today.

There have been many holocausts and I suppose its only natural to focus on one that was perpetrated against your own people. But me ... well, I stay focused on the one that happened right here on the ground under my feet that was perpetrated by half of my people against the other half of my people. That's brutal. (edited to add) and many people deny that, too, we were only doing those savages a favor.

Now how does that quote from the Colonel have anything to do with me knowing where the planes were headed? Unfortunately they did end up where they were headed and they all were short flights, even after dallying around wasting gas for an hour. Fact is, NONE of us knew their destination until after they "landed". Why do you find that so amusing?

[zappaman]

213. Do you understand English?

Because your post makes no sense at all,
You not knowing where the planes were headed demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on the basics.
It would be like entering a conversation about the NFL and saying "Those Minnesota Twins scored a lot of goals".
The quotes by your "colonel" point to the fact he is not to be trusted because he has lied about his background and who he knows.
Not to mention, he is a holocaust denier which says plenty about where he is coming from.
You want me to pull his quotes about how "the jews helped plan 9/11"?

[immune]

214. ROTFL

Now you have more of an inside track as to what I mean than I do. So did the planes end up in California or did they go where they were "destined"? And whether or not I knew if what we were TOLD was their destination was true ... well, everybody found out, didn't they. You keep thinking the joke was on me but it turns out that by being wrong, I was accidentally right.

And of course since you're disputing the colonel's background, you will have to reveal your own status to show how you could possibly know what his was or was not.

You are free to pull whatever quotes you desire.

[zappaman]

216. yes it's very funny

And yes, I remember knowing that the last plane had LA as its destination while it was still missing.
Why are you so dense when it comes to this?
You really are the most clueless person I have ever seen in regards to 9/11.
Why don't you tell me the Colonel's background since he was your friend.
Also, I am convinced English is not your first language since your response makes no sense.

[immune]

217. What's your rank in the military again?

[zappaman]

220. who are "my people"

and why does it matter?
I am a 5 star general, just like your buddy was in the army...I mean air force...wait, what was he again?

[OnTheOtherHand]

218. ummmm...

Do we need to walk you through why denying the historicity of the Holocaust would seriously undermine someone's credibility, regardless of who one's "own people" are? (I myself have no idea who zappaman's "own people" are, but, hey, whatever.)

[immune]

219. What does the holocaust have to do with 911?

The Israel/Palestine board is for the holocaust, the September 11 board is for ... well, September 11.

I don't know who anyone's people are besides my own and that's how I like it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

221. say what?

The Israel/Palestine board is for the holocaust...

Why, no. No, it isn't.

I'm not sure what to say, except to ask again: Do we need to walk you through why denying the historicity of the Holocaust would seriously undermine someone's credibility?

Or is that just me being all cult-like and dogmatic?

I don't know who anyone's people are besides my own and that's how I like it.

You don't know who anyone's people are besides your own. Sort of like Steven Colbert, I guess.

And yet, you "suppose its only natural to focus on one (holocaust) that was perpetrated against your own people." Not that you know who anyone's people are.

I thought I was about as weirded out last night as I could get, but you just found 11. Touche.

[SDuderstadt]

223. "In defense of the world Order, U.S. soldiers would have to kill and die. ... We are not going to...

achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood, as well as in words and money"

I'm about to call bullshit on this one, because entering that phrase into Google's search bar does not return a link to "Foreign Affairs" but, instead, to some goofy anti-"New World Order" bullshit websites. I don't have a subscription to "Foreign Affirs", but I am willing to bet that one of the websites either fabricated it or otherwise misattributed it and the anti-NWO/WTO/Bilderberger/PTB/Illuminati nutball "echo chamber dutifully started broadcasting without a whit of fact-checking.

[OnTheOtherHand]

226. try this:

We are not likely to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and treasure. Dying for world order when there is no concrete threat to one's own nation is a hard argument to make. Let a few American soldiers be killed and the congressional and popular demand for withdrawal of the rest becomes almost irresistible.

Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Nizer Lecture, 1995

This lecture seems to adapt his earlier article, so the quotation may actually be spot on, as far as it goes. As for the interpretation... :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

228. Notice the difference in the wording...

it seems, at the least, Schlesinger is not being accurately quoted and it's for damn sure that he is using the phrase "new world order" differently than the anti-NWO crowd.

[Make7]

229. Actually I think the other quote was from his George W. Ball Lecture at Princeton.

There is a announcement of the (then) upcoming lecture still on Princeton's website:

   http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/95/q2/0404schlesinger.html


Which apparently was the basis for his article in the July/August 1995 issue of Foreign Affairs:

   http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/51201/arthur-m-schlesinger-jr/


Unfortunately the article is behind a pay wall, but it looks like $0.99 will buy a PDF version from their website. I don't really care enough to register on their site and pay even that. Perhaps someone else might...
 

[OnTheOtherHand]

231. briefly

I have no clue about the first part of the quotation -- it definitely sounds garbled -- but the quotation at least might be literally accurate. (The lecture I quoted clearly came after the article, so Schlesinger may have tweaked the wording.)

Really the more important point, I think (not to dismiss the importance of literal accuracy), is your latter point: surely Schlesinger's reference to a "new world order" wasn't intended to refer to Nicolae Carpathia, or whatever. It's hard to tell, in any particular instance, whether this sort of distortion is a conscious misappropriation of someone's words or whether it simply reflects a cognitive bias.

[OnTheOtherHand]

215. ?!

Of those amongst us who are genuinely curious

Well, thanks for not putting quotation marks around that, at least. "Amongst"? Yeesh.

Have you been appointed their spokesman? That would make a great deal of sense since you are, by far, the most persuasive and reasonable of the NIST supporters here. It would also be naïve to believe there isn’t some sort of Galt’s Gulch for 911 deniers email list, or by invitation only sub forum where “some of us” gather to discuss and coordinate assaults on heretics of the official story.

(I guess I'll pause to accept the compliment, although it's undeserved. You should spend more time on the board before making such judgments.)

Ummm, no. I'm not spokesman for anyone. Whether it's naive or not, I'm not aware of any such list or subforum; if it exists, I'm not part of it. I'll cop to one or two private messages along the lines of 'can you believe immune just posted THAT?!' Mostly I'm drawing on my knowledge of the other posters: like me, they generally ask questions because they're interested in the answers. Of course that isn't true of every poster or every question.

Frankly, I think it's naive in a sense, or paranoid in another, to think that there is any point in gathering to "coordinate assaults on heretics of the official story." When people perceive me as part of some conspiracy to suppress them, I like to think that it might do some good in that it will encourage them to present the best possible arguments -- although that doesn't seem to happen very often. Mostly, it's just really annoying.

Oh, but of course, I would say that. :eyes: Allons.

As for not quoting the exact wording of the question, I don’t think I put it in quotes or indicated in any way that it was a direct quote, but I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong about that and as we all know, I have a tendency to throw quote marks around in places they probably shouldn’t be.

For crying out loud, where's the *facepalm* emoticon?

immune, I don't get it. You just went to a fair amount of work to avoid (re)reading your own post. #145, to be specific. It's great to have a sense of humor about it, but why settle for that?

By "voter fraud" you probably mean "election fraud"; I'll otherwise set that topic aside for now.

And that’s also why the public is so uninformed and has no idea of what’s in their best interests; because the bad guys are in control of the information....

A big reason why the public is so uninformed is a collective action dilemma: the cost of being informed exceeds any tangible benefits of the knowledge. (For instance, in my case, I must be an absolute masochist to know 90% of what I do about 9/11.)

Those exercise planes took off from somewhere. Do we know from whence they entered our airspace? Does your NIST report address that question?

No, dear, you're referencing the wrong sacred text. </snark> Seriously, though, it would make no sense for the NIST report to address exercise planes. I'll come back to the issue you're raising here (Condi and all that) later on. Depending on the purpose, a military exercise wouldn't even necessarily require planes, much less 767s flying out of Logan.

I don't think anyone suggested that you should disremember what you learned from the colonel in order to be politically correct or acceptable. And I hope that you wouldn't suggest that anyone else would blindly accept what you say upon your representation that you learned it from the colonel. Right?

Without diving into all the details of a book I haven't read -- OK, without diving into any of the details -- I'll admit that I'm radically unconvinced that the people who are hijacking the U.S. government are trying to establish a global government, much less that they rigged 9/11 in order to do so.

But nowhere did I say that he said anything about the excessive speeds of the planes....

Actually, back in post #120, you said: "Incidentally, if you look around, a lot of pilots have also made the excessive speed claims, as I mentioned some time ago, one of them, a retired colonel in the AF, I know personally."

(Screw it. I should give up right here. The system is blinking red, so to speak.)

But even if you hadn't said that, you also said that he "called it a remote control operation before the day was out," and the question remains, how would he think he knew?

And finally, I wasn’t comparing the collapse of the towers with the various allegedly scientifically determined “origins of mankind” beliefs. Where did you get that idea? I was called a science denier, and was merely comparing how one set of scientific beliefs can oppose other sets of scientific beliefs using the same exact “evidence” available to them.

Why do you construe creationism as a "set of scientific beliefs"? I'm trying to understand what you think science is, basically.

[immune]

222. Sorry about your system failure.

You got me on “amongst” and voter instead of election fraud. Kudos. The rest of it, not so much.

“Frankly, I think it's naive in a sense, or paranoid in another, to think that there is any point in gathering to "coordinate assaults on heretics of the official story."

Well, since I was invited to participate on one such email list and actually did so for a short time, I couldn’t call it paranoid. Of course you can call it anything you’d like.

“A big reason why the public is so uninformed is a collective action dilemma: the cost of being informed exceeds any tangible benefits of the knowledge.”

Wrong, the reason the public is uninformed is because the national media is owned by five corporations with a common purpose … to mislead through disinformation, misinformation, evasion and outright lies. And they’re damned good at their jobs.

“Actually, back in post #120, you said: "Incidentally, if you look around, a lot of pilots have also made the excessive speed claims, as I mentioned some time ago, one of them, a retired colonel in the AF, I know personally."

Wrong again. The colonel made that comment on the phone in a private conversation in the context of remote control. And this argument has been bandied about on public pilot forums for years by those who actually spend time in cockpits. Some say it would be impossible and some say it would not only be possible, but plausible and/or probable.

I didn’t say that I had learned anything from the colonel … I said that he pointed me in a direction and I went there. Try to be accurate. As to how he knew, or thought he did, that it was done by remote control, how would I have known that? I didn’t grill him over it on the phone, I was too stunned. But after doing some independent research that his comments led me to, I didn’t have much reason to dispute him. Still don't.

“I'll admit that I'm radically unconvinced that the people who are hijacking the U.S. government are trying to establish a global government, much less that they rigged 9/11 in order to do so.”

Maybe you were on break when other people were reading the PNAC reports and hearing in-your-face statements from both American and world leaders about the need to establish a new world order to promote global governance .... for world peace, dontchaknow. The world economy is already fully in the hands of globalists … BIS/IMF/WTO et al. And if you hadn’t noticed, the global economy has gone too far into the tank in the past ten years to hope for recovery while the top one percent were sucking up a huge percentage of the world’s wealth and resources. But you never knew. Astonishing.

And finally, I don’t construe creationism or any of the rest of it to science … but they do and they argue endlessly over the supremacy of their theories, likening them to science. The question it raises is, what constitutes a true believer? Would that be one who accepts a theory without challenge, or one who tries to either successfully replicate or discount the initial conclusion?

Now I'll bid you a good evening.

[Make7]

224. I have to admit to being curious about something, immune.

As someone that obviously does not believe the official story, why would you be invited to participate in an email list and/or private forum/sub-forum to "coordinate assaults on heretics of the official story"?

Or perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of the email list that you joined...
 

[immune]

225. Just briefly,

it was 911 related only in the sense that the group was trying to counter all the anti-Muslim fervor that was going around after the attacks. No conspiracies or anything like that.

[Make7]

230. Thanks for the clarification.

Although this last post seems quite a bit different than what your previous post implied. (Emphasis added)

immune wrote:

It would also be naïve to believe there isn’t some sort of Galt’s Gulch for 911 deniers email list, or by invitation only sub forum where “some of us” gather to discuss and coordinate assaults on heretics of the official story. I’ve been invited to participate in such groups on forums much smaller than this and actually experimented with it for a short time before I discovered that I prefer transparency.

Which prompted the following response.

OnTheOtherHand wrote:

Frankly, I think it's naive in a sense, or paranoid in another, to think that there is any point in gathering to "coordinate assaults on heretics of the official story."

To which you replied. (Emphasis added)

immune wrote:

Well, since I was invited to participate on one such email list and actually did so for a short time, I couldn’t call it paranoid.

It seems more than likely that most people reading your previous posts would have thought the email list you belonged to had something to do with discussing and coordinating "assaults on heretics of the official story."

Frankly your clarification seems at odds with the information you previously posted. But I suppose it really isn't that important anyway.
 

[immune]

232. ....

JesusHChrist, 7

Why does it feel like I went to sleep last night in my bed and woke up this morning in Gitmo? Didja bring your pliers and waterboard to the party? Probably not logistically possible, so tell ya what, since you're struggling so hard to drag a confession out of me, later on while I'm doing my laps I'll dunk myself a few times in your honor and see what beans I can spill to the guy in the next lane about my wicked ways.

Yeah, there are all kinds of off-forum and back room discussions ... some innocent and some not so much.

But ya haven't lived until you've seen the kind of havoc one disgruntled insider can do to those cagey strategists with some creative copy/pasting in the open forum. it tends to ruin everybody's day.

In retrospect, what's really interesting about that whole sordid exercise, is contemplating how that would work on a much higher level. Will it happen? Who knows, but probably. I hope it won't ruin your day.

[Make7]

233. Sorry immune, I did not realize you had anything to confess.

I guess I should have explained my previous post(s) more precisely. My intended message was more along the lines of being aware of how the words one chooses can sometimes give an impression that differs from the original intention - which often leads to issues for both sides of a discussion.

I can't see how it matters one way or the other what private email lists and/or other forums you belong (or belonged) to. My curiosity was caused by my apparent misinterpretation of your prior response as you being a member of an email list that seemed diametrically opposed to your apparent position on this issue.

All that people here really have to understand your viewpoint is what you write in your posts. Frankly, some of what you have written here these past few weeks seems a little peculiar to me (for example, the post I am currently responding to) but that could be nothing more than me not correctly understanding the message you are trying to convey. Or perhaps the disconnect stems from your side of the conversation.
 

[immune]

234. Your comprehension deficit

is not my problem.

But let me make my viewpoint perfectly clear one more time ... I do not believe the official story about what happened on 911. You want to know why? Tough, you've been told.

What I want to know is, if you can't understand the simple words I use, how on earth did you manage to comprehend the complicated language used in the thousands of pages of the official reports? Or was it just hearing the news media telling you on the TV that it was good that convinced you? If so, you really should run for office, you'd fit right in since they don't have to understand anything, either, before they sign off on it.

[SDuderstadt]

235. I hereby nominate this as...

the most unintentionally ironic post of the decade, if not the century.

Immune, are you on a deliberate campaign to alienate everyone here? If so, it's working.

[Make7]

238. Immune, I think the problem might arise from your imprecise use of language.

But first I would like to respond to this:

immune wrote:

But let me make my viewpoint perfectly clear one more time ... I do not believe the official story about what happened on 911.

That is why I thought you being on an email list to "coordinate assaults on heretics of the official story" didn't make much sense - which led me to post my initial query. I prefaced that question posed to you with: "As someone that obviously does not believe the official story, ..." (post #224)

Perhaps you are having some "comprehension deficit" problems of your own.

---

As to the issue of your imprecise use of language, I will offer one example pertaining to the SSDI and the passenger lists:

In one of the first posts of yours that I recall reading, you said that you "last checked a good many of the names against the index a couple of years ago" and were unable to find any matches. Most people would probably interpret a couple years ago as two or three years, certainly less than five. However, other people had looked into the SSDI issue more than five years ago and found numerous matches between the passenger lists and the SSDI.

So either your time frame was imprecise, or you simply could not find names in a database that were clearly there. I suppose there are other possible explanations for what you wrote, but the most generous interpretation is that you used the phrase "a couple of years ago" when you meant seven or eight years ago.

This is what I mean when I say that people only have the words you choose to use to interpret the message you are trying to convey. How am I supposed to decipher your intended meaning when the information you are posting about is at least six years old and you say that you could not find any matches "a couple of years ago"?
 

[OnTheOtherHand]

227. sigh

I don't see how your "one such email list" is anything like the one that you suspect I belong to, but I guess I'll defer to the reality in your head.

"Wrong, the reason the public is uninformed is..."

That's spirited, but completely unsupported. Media concentration is alarming, yes, but that doesn't mean that it accounts for people being uninformed. Of course, given what you apparently think the public should be "informed" about, I guess this can't go anywhere good.

I have no clue how I can quote you verbatim, and you can reply "Wrong again." If you mean that what you meant to say was that the colonel didn't bring up excessive speed on 9/11, I accept your clarification... but so what?

What do the PNAC reports have to do with "global governance"? Take your time, I can wait.

The question it raises is, what constitutes a true believer? Would that be one who accepts a theory without challenge, or one who tries to either successfully replicate or discount the initial conclusion?

Y'know, after last night's flurry, you might want to take a gut check on that theme.

[greyl]

176. Best use of blink I've ever seen.

Actually, it's the only good use of blink I've ever seen, so...

[OnTheOtherHand]

183. hey, I'll take the compliment :)

Out of respect for readers, I've only used it twice. Opera doesn't show the blinking, but the formatting degrades gracefully (at least in comparison with some of the arguments).

[zappaman]

98. this is a joke

no one can be as misinformed as you when it comes to something they allegedly care about.

[hack89]

65. You prove my point - look how old those links are. nt

[immune]

67. Harder to find recent polls.

So are you saying the numbers would be less now than they were way back then?

Got any recent polls to prove it?

[hack89]

71. I am saying no one is taking polls anymore because no one cares. nt

[immune]

81. No, if no one's taking polls anymore

its because they know how they'd end up.

[SDuderstadt]

83. So, what's stopping you guys from taking up a collection and...

commissioning a poll?

[spooked911]

239. personally, that is one area of 9/11 conspiracy that I think is offensive to the victims

while in general I am open to the idea that some of the plane passengers were fictitious, some of the claims I've seen on vicsims range from very weak to just dumb. I think without strong evidence, saying that someone never existed when is could be deeply offensive and counter-productive.

[SDuderstadt]

240. "I am open to the idea that some of plane passengers were fictitious"

Why don't you call up their families and tell them that?

[OnTheOtherHand]

241. hey, this time I agreed with spooked

At least, I think I did. I'm open in general to some ideas that I think are ridiculous in particular. Very weak, just dumb, deeply offensive, counter-productive -- check, check, check, check. I really have no problem with what spooked wrote.

Granted, spooked believes some things that to me seem equally bizarre. It's a strange world.

[mrarundale]

242. Good luck

finding any of them.....

[spooked911]

243. why should I?

Anyway, if they were fictitious, how could I call their family?

[SDuderstadt]

244. Nice circular argument, dude...

let's get specific...which passenger do you claim is fictitious and/or which family can't you locate?

I'm calling your bluff, dude.

[mrarundale]

245. Heh Heh, good one! I have tried

tracking some of these victims down, and there are some intriguing family connections for, well, just about all of them. Which does not mean they are real, but it means that people like, oh, I don't know, government informers or felons could have been used to "build" a fake family tree. (Which is similar to how Bode Technologies (NYC M. E. is using them) is setting up DNA databases) The FDNY connects to Choicepoint pre 2001, a database service which also served as private intelligence to gov't and business, and was caught providing false data. They were also involved in the 2000 Florida voter rolls...now let me see what happened there? ;)
I visited a recent event at "Ground Zero" and people were not allowed to take pictures of the victim's families, and my cell phone camera, which was charged up previously, abruptly stopped working when I took some pictures in the area. I managed to talk to one and let's just say I WAS NOT convinced.

RE: Reality Shack, I tried to register there several times and they would not let me.

[zappaman]

246. wow

Just wow.
:crazy:

[mrarundale]

247. So tell me zzzzzzz

How do YOU think that DNA from bone fragments of UNIDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS can be conclusively matched ?

[mrarundale]

253. I think a lot of them existed

but with different names and/or faces.....and I think some of them still exist...free from prosecution for various crimes and the repayment of debts, etc...

[SDuderstadt]

254. Jesus...

WTF are you babbling about now?

Serious question: do you ever pause for just a second and think about how much harder it would have been to pull off a hopelessly complicated "plot" like you're suggesting, as opposed to just a terrorist attack (for which there is actual evidence, BTW)?

[mrarundale]

251. FBI will not release manifest

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40031118/Larson-FOIA-FBI-911-Manifests-Boarding-Passes

[deconstruct911]

255. Kick

[mrarundale]

259. So why have none of the families sued the Vicsim authors

for slander? Could it be that they have to prove that what is being said is not true? Where's the outrage? except for random internet posters? hmmm...