Are any aspects of 9/11 subject to questioning?

[noise]

Or is the very notion of questioning 9/11 an instant qualification for "mentally ill anti-American conspiracy nut?"

[greyl]

1. The 9/11 Responders Bill was passed in spite of Truthers. nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. Truthers tried to block that bill? Link please....

[BeFree]

6. What a crock of crap

Have you no shame, greyl?

Throwing that shit out makes you look awful. Is it any wonder no one here takes you seriously?

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. Pathetic, isn't it?

A hit-n-run post that he won't back up... go figure....

[BeFree]

9. It is pathetic

Unfortunately what we have come to expect. There really are no honest discussions anymore. I guess they've all been beaten so bad they just have given up and resort solely to that kind of hubris to protect their positions?

[JackRiddler]

7. No accusation is too low or outrageous if you can hit the "truthers," is it now?

The "nt" is a nice touch. Because you know you don't actually have anything to back your hateful statement.

[greyl]

17. The OP's question was efficiently shown to be illegitimate.

And hey, don't be agitated by me. It's not my fault that The 9/11 Truth Industry has been accusing First Responders of being knowing participants in demolition conspiracies for 10 years.

[noise]

18. Illegitimate?

I am wrong about an effort to portray anyone who questions any aspect of 9/11 as a unpatriotic mentally ill conspiracy nut? The posters on the DU 9/11 forum are exceedingly careful to avoid broad brush one size fits all categorization (i.e moon landings=birthers=people who don't toe the acceptable line in regard to 9/11)? The posters on the DU 9/11 forum are exceptionally tolerant of dissent against the 9/11 Commission?

BTW the OP makes no mention of the 9/11 truth movement.

[greyl]

19. Yes, as proven by the passage of James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

If there were evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, you'd be talking about it, and critics would listen. Critics like Jon Stewart, who championed that bill but was accused here by "truthers" of being part of a conspiracy cover-up(this during a thread about The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear).

Comedian Jon Stewart put the stalled 9/11 health bill center stage on his final show of the year, lambasting Senate Republicans for holding up passage of a bill that would provide billions of dollars in health care for sick 9/11 first responders.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jon-stewart-rants-republican-filibuster-911-responder-bill/story?id=12422872

Your statement regarding "an effort to portray anyone who questions any aspect of 9/11 as a unpatriotic mentally ill conspiracy nut" is simply fucking ridiculous, bro.

[noise]

20. The OP wasn't about truthers

It was about any citizen who dares to question any aspect of the 9/11 Commission report.

[SDuderstadt]

2. No one is upset by any "question", however...

you guys summarily dismiss answers you don't like.

[CJvR]

3. Questioning...

Asking questions is never wrong, refusing to accept answers one doesn't like however is a more serious symptom of Conspiratis.

Extraordinary claims do call for extraordinary evidence. Conspiracies like 911 and the Moonlanding should be patheticly easy to prove since they would be massive and would be leaving tons of evidence behind. In the real world where sane people live the goverment suck at conspiring.

Nixon couldn't keep Watergate from popping up.
Reagan couldn't keep the hostage - arms - Contras trade from blowing up in his face.
Hell Clinton couldn't even keep the lid on a blowjob in the Whitehouse!

Those were small conspiracies with very few people involved. Yet the conspiracy theorists would have us belive that suddenly the same goverment should be capable of organizing and covering up conspiracies with thousands of participants?

[jakeXT]

5. First you have to identify at what you are looking

For purposes of this brief review, however, my focus will be on the book’s chapters 10 and 11. These deal with Watergate, the first being titled, “Downing Nixon, Part 1: The Setup,” and the second, “Downing Nixon, Part II, The Execution.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Baker’s declaration “That Nixon could actually have been the victim of Watergate, and not the perpetrator, will not sit well with many, especially those with a professional stake in Nixon’s guilt. Yet three of the most thoroughly reported books on Watergate from the past three decades have come to the same conclusion: that Nixon and/or his top aides were indeed set up. Each of these books takes a completely different approach, focuses on different aspects, and relies on essentially different sets of facts and sources. These are 1984’s Secret Agenda, by former Harper’s magazine Washington editor Jim Hougan; 1991’s Silent coup, by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, and 2008’s The Strong Man, by James Rosen.”

I also concur with Baker’s statement that “Nixon, of course, was no innocent. He played rough with his critics, and he liked intrigue. But the evidence indicates that, despite his documented penchant for dirty deeds, he wasn’t behind Watergate and the Watergate-related dirty deeds that ultimately brought him down.”
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14618

[noise]

10. Extraordinary evidence and refusal to accept unwelcome answers?

The government refuses to release many key records. I don't have any idea what these records will prove. The point is that a government acting in good faith would have released these records years ago. Why should the public trust those who make classification decisions? Do the intelligence agencies have an impressive track record of good faith conduct? If there is nothing to hide then why is there still so much secrecy?

What is the basis of political/media credibility? Inherent goodness? Super patriotism? When they dismiss critics as crackpots why aren't they in turn subject to scrutiny?

[SDuderstadt]

11. I am impressed that...

you managed to get through a post without calling any of us an "authoritarian".

[BeFree]

12. bushco made all the decisions

Since bushco is/was an authoritarian group of people who have been in DC for 30 years+, they have taken down almost all of their opposition and have gained control of the message. That message is an authoritarian/dictatorship style which can only be defeated by the release of all information to the public. Nobody should, in any way, shape, or form be condoning the withholding of the information. Eh?

[LARED]

14. I think I asked this before, but

what exactly is bushco, and how does it operate in a way "to control the message" over 30+ years.

[noise]

15. The trust in the classification system is hard to understand

Look at Shaffer's book. It appears that the DIA clamped down on his book to conceal politically embarrassing information and for retaliation purposes. Those aren't legitimate reasons for censoring information. Look at the notes of the 9/11 Commission meeting on declassification. Their contempt for transparency is blatant.

[BeFree]

16. And the Senate report

Graham,( F), was more than a little Po'd about the information he uncovered that was redacted/blocked from being made public. So much so that he voted against the Afghan invasion.

There is a massive ongoing cover up. Why? What secrets are there they want kept hidden? Inquiring minds want to know.

[deconstruct911]

13. Yes,

there are aspects of 9/11 subject to questioning. When the Commission doesn't explain certain things in full detail who else other than the public is going to pick up where they left off....

[Bolo Boffin]

21. No. You stop questioning any aspect of 9/11 right this second.

Why? Because I say so. Because all that is Good and Decent and Holy and American tells you to stop.

So stop immediately.

(/the Bolo Boffin in your head)

[Bolo Boffin]

22. 6 virtually identical threads in the past year or so, noise

And there are more, but they are archived now.

Stop whining, already.

[noise]

23. Somebody has to highlight authoritarian double standards

The 9/11 Commission decided to withhold records from the public until 2009. Imagine if a 9/11 truther posted a theory and when asked to provide evidence replied by saying, "I'll post it in a few years. Not all of it. Some of it needs to remain secret but you should take as an article of faith the fact that the secret evidence confirms my theory."

[Bolo Boffin]

24. It's called spamming a message board. n/t

[noise]

25. I tend to bring it up

when there is another round of scapegoating 9/11 Commission skeptics. Maybe you resent the fact that I focus on the double standard.

[SDuderstadt]

26. How, specifically, are...

"9/11 Commission skeptics" being "scapegoated"?