Most DUers think the truth is out there

[BeFree]

It is my firm belief, based on years of reading DU, that most DU members are still waiting for the truth to be told about 9/11.

And that relegating the discussions to this forum are ok.

But what busts their chops is the smears here from those who seemingly believe the truth has been told.

I hope that, in the DU3, a 9/11 group be established so that members like myself can discuss this "World Changing Matter" without the smears and other crap that is so abundant here.

I and other seekers of the truth have been equated with birthers, been slandered with prejudice and otherwise been called all manner of names just because we don't believe the OCT- Official Conspiracy Theory.

A designated group will remove that crap from our presence. I think we deserve it. I think we should ask the admins to allow us to form a new group in the DU3, with the same privileges other DU groups have.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[LARED]

2. It's a firm belief, so it must be truthier. nt

[zappaman]

5. well, technically the subject line of the OP is correct

the truth IS out there, Befree.
start here...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[BeFree]

3. For example -- Feminists Group

The purpose of the DU Feminists Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

- Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed are not welcome.

- Like-minded DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=341&topic_id=1&mesg_id=1

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[LARED]

7. There is a big difference between the two.

Problems actually exist regarding women and society. They are real. There are real concerns that have a basis in reality.

9/11 CT's are almost entirely based on fantasy. They are not real. The concerns are not based on reality.

[Make7]

8. That's a good idea, but let me save you some time.

 

DemInDistress wrote:

can 10 of us DU-er's start a 911 group?

it seems evident that disruptors abound inside the sept.11 forum. A few of us would like to create a room where disrupting would be forbidden.
Can we do that Mr. Skinner?

Skinner wrote:

No, we're not going to permit a 9/11 group.

I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of creating a protected space where supporters of 9/11 conspiracy theories are officially protected from having their speculation tested by open debate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1485174
 

[BeFree]

9. Thanks

Interesting.

I guess our only recourse is to wear out the alert button?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[terrafirma]

13. That's odd....

Why would a group that's so obviously in the majority need another, special group created to protect it from the minority??

If 88% of DUers are truthers, then all one really needs to do is just log-in to DU and LO!! You're in a 9/11 conspiracy theory friendly zone!

[BeFree]

6. Groups in General

DU Groups are a special type of discussion forum. DU Groups are forum topics suggested by the DU Members themselves. DU Groups are different from regular forums in the following ways:

1. DU Groups are forum topics suggested by groups of DU Members. (To learn how to start your own DU Group, please read the topic called "How to suggest a DU Group.")

2. Each DU Group has a specific mission statement, which has been submitted to and approved by the administrators of Democratic Underground. Administrators reserve the right to withhold approval from any group idea suggested.

3. In order to post in a DU Group, a member must agree with that group's mission statement. Off-topic postings that violate the mission statement of a DU Group are not permitted. Members who disagree with the mission statement of a particular group may be blocked from posting in that group.

4. Only members with a DU Donor star next to their username may post messages in the DU Groups. Non-donors and non-registered lurkers are permitted to read DU Groups, but they are blocked from posting in them.

5. Currently, thread topics started in any of the DU Groups will not appear on the Latest Page. In the future, we may give members the option to show them on the Latest Page, provided that it does not put undue stress on our web server.

6. Please be aware that no members "own" or "run" any particular group, nor do members have the ability to decide who participates in any given group. The regular DU rules apply to postings in the DU Groups. If a DU Group becomes disruptive to the rest of the message board, the Administrators reserve the right to shut it down.

7. The Administrators will occasionally delete DU Groups that do not attract significant traffic or postings. If a particular DU Group is in danger of being deleted, the Administrators will post a warning in that Group at least 24 hours before it is removed.

We hope that these DU Groups will return some of that "small community feeling" that has been lost on DU during the last few years of rapid growth.

Enjoy!

Skinner
EarlG
Elad

The Administrators of Democratic Underground

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=206&topic_id=11&mesg_id=11

[Ohio Joe]

11. So go ahead and propose the group

Here is how to do it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=206x10

I can't wait to see the mission statement.

[canoeist52]

12. Thanks for tryin' , Be Free.

Those that own this group say no - and they live here.

[BeFree]

14. Thanks

"They live here" Yeah.

The dungeon. I tried to sweep it up but it just stinks too much.
The rules are different down here in the dungeon.

[zappaman]

15. Rules are the same all over DU

just more whining here.

[BobbyBoring]

16. Good luck with that

It's far easier to accept the OCT, it doesn't change your life.

[BeFree]

19. It was here, in November, 2001

That the OTC gained my first disapproval. I cried my eyes out.

Until then I actually believed everything the media and bushco told me.

Now, 9 years later, I look back and can say: "You are so correct. It is life changing".

[William Seger]

17. There are many, many websites where you can swap BS with like-minded conspiracists

... and everyone else is banned. Why, exactly, do you feel this overwhelming compulsion to associate that horseshit with the Democratic Party?

[BeFree]

18. We're in the big tent

I could say the same about you, Seger, but I never have.

It would be uncivil and would be discussing members instead of ideas.

See, some of us actually believe and follow the rules.

[William Seger]

20. I meant "you" in the collective sense

... and you ducked my question.

> It would be uncivil and would be discussing members instead of ideas.

Uh huh, like the "idea" that everyone who can see that the "truth movement" doesn't have a shred of credible "inside job" evidence is a BushCo flunky?

[BeFree]

21. You said it, not me

What is a bushco flunky? Are they allowed on DU?

As to your question about the democratic party and my reference to it: Go Fly a Kite.

I will put my democratic credentials up to yours any fucking day, dude.

[William Seger]

22. You're still dodging my question

Maybe reading it again will help?

"Why, exactly, do you feel this overwhelming compulsion to associate that horseshit with the Democratic Party?"

There must be some reason that you think DU needs to be yet another support group for paranoid delusion; what is it?

[Make7]

23. I believe William Seger is referring to posts of yours like the following...

... when he wrote, "... the 'idea' that everyone who can see that the 'truth movement' doesn't have a shred of credible 'inside job' evidence is a BushCo flunky":

An odd response to someone asking you a question. It seems to imply some relationship between BushCo and the person that you replied to. Perhaps I am misinterpreting, could you clarify the meaning of your words?
 

[BeFree]

24. Bwahahaha

You made an image named after me and posted it on another site and linked to it here?

Bwahahaha... Talk about odd..... bwahahaha

[William Seger]

25. Bwahahaha?

I'm sure I've never seen anyone who had such difficulty responding on point. Did it ever occur to you that you might be better off not responding at all?

[BeFree]

26. Yeah

I would be wise to never respond again to you.

But it is such an education to watch you twist.

I mean, really, have you no shame?

I guess I just get into your head and make all 7 (heh) of you act crazy? Bwahahaha

Shit, I'm sorry, I really shouldn't make (7) fun of you people.
Maybe I deserve the gitmo style responses? Bwahahaha

[terrafirma]

27. You ever gonna explain

how you came to the conclusion that most DUers feel 9/11 was an inside job?

Still waiting for the math on that one.

[zappaman]

28. still waiting for you to support your claims

you've asserted that
1. "more than half of DU are "truthers"".
2. "88% of DU are "truthers"".
3. "Most DUers are "truthers""
Of course, you can't back up one of those claims.
and yes, "truthers" sure seem to cry like little babies when asked to back up their claims.
so, here's your big chance...instead of whining, just back up one of the above claims.
should be easy, right honey?

[terrafirma]

29. Bump for Truther math!

[Make7]

30. For some reason that made me think of the following thread:

 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x215628
 

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. FTW!

That immediately becomes one of my favorite 9/11 forum threads ever. (I apologize if that constitutes damning by faint praise.)

[BeFree]

32. So?

Was there any poll to compare it too?

Can you find one poll that asked if they are 'Believers'?
That said 'we believe we have been told the whole truth'?

ETA: Since I doubt you will ever find such a poll, we can then surmise the record is like a million to NOTHING.

[zappaman]

33. sure just make up numbers

like "88% of DU are truthers".
:rofl:

[Make7]

34. The polls were in the YouTube video in that OP.

I'm not sure if this is the same video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa0ItekYsys

If not, it was something similar.
 

[BeFree]

35. Is that your final answer?

Because it didn't answer my question: Are there opposite polls to compare to the truth seeking polls.

[Make7]

58. I was just trying to provide the context for the replies to that thread.

Without being able to view the content of the video in that OP, the meaning of the replies may have been less than clear.
 

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. who EVER said "we believe we have been told the whole truth"?

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it.

Oh, but maybe you were Just Asking Questions.

[BeFree]

37. Yes

The basis of being a 'truther' as we are called, is that we do not believe we have been told the whole truth.
DUH!

Is there a poll that asks "Have we been told the whole truth."?
And if there was, how would you answer that poll?

[William Seger]

38. No, the basis of being a "truther"...

... is claiming to KNOW the truth through some means other than evidence-based reasoning.

[BeFree]

39. No, you are confused

An OCTer is claiming to KNOW the truth through some means other than evidence-based reasoning.

Do you know the truth about 9/11? Yes, or No.

Preemptive post for seger...Hey, where'd ya go?
Come back and answer the simple yes or no question.

Do you know the truth about 9/11? Yes, or No.

[zappaman]

40. Hey, where'd ya go? Come back and answer the simple questions.

you've asserted that
1. "more than half of DU are "truthers"".
2. "88% of DU are "truthers"".
3. "Most DUers are "truthers""
Of course, you can't back up one of those claims.
and yes, "truthers" sure seem to cry like little babies when asked to back up their claims.
so, here's your big chance...instead of whining, just back up one of the above claims.
should be easy, right?

[BeFree]

41. Ok, that has been deleted 3 times already in this thread

How you get away with flaunting the rules is amazing.

Not only are you spamming, you are stalking.

[terrafirma]

42. And you are dodging.

88%?

Either you can fess up that you don't understand how polling and percentages work, or you can show how you arrived at that number.

And PS... just because a poll doesn't exist, doesn't make an existing poll more legitimate. It just means that the question was never posed. (Because it was probably so obvious as to be completely pointless.)

[William Seger]

43. No, you are seriously confused

Your confusion seems to come from not quite understanding what the term "evidence-based reasoning" means, combined with the assumption that "OCTers" really think in the same manner as you, just 180 degrees opposite. That's why you think you can just turn my statement around.

Truth is hard to come by, and evidence-based reasoning doesn't guarantee it by any means. It just beats the holy crap out of whatever method is in second place. That's why it's used in the judicial system: Even though it doesn't guarantee justice, it's far, far closer to being just than lynch mobs acting on unsubstantiated accusations.

To answer your question, though: I claim to know a great many "facts" about 9/11, and I claim that those facts tell us that 19 radical Islamists hijacked four planes, crashed three of them into buildings, and that structural damage and fires caused those buildings to collapse. I further claim that the "truth movement" is so far away from presenting an evidence-based alternate version of events that it's probably not too soon to predict that they never will.

The very definition of "truth" as used by the "truth movement" is much closer to the definition used by religions than it is to the one used by our judicial system, so by that religious definition I do not claim to know any "truths."

[BeFree]

44. No reasonable doubt, eh?

Not even a shred?

See, reasonable doubt is a judicial term. In fact a superior term. So superior it can mean the freedom of someone the state has already decided is guilty.

You can ride your high horse all you want and claim that there is no reasonable doubt. But if you do, then you should not piss and whine and moan when someone questions the horse you rode in on.

IOW, don't come in here with this judicial crap when there has not even been an American style of justice applied to the god damn version you so fervently believe.

Yeah, that's right, I don't believe the OCT, but I do believe in truth, and your making fun of seeking the truth and calling and making fun of those who seek the truth because they have reasonable doubt and want solid justice is as fucking undemocratic and un American as McCarthy.

Don't fuck with me.

[zappaman]

45. still dodging?

and now you are claiming you are being stalked?
asking you to back up your baseless assertions is stalking?
awwwwwww....poor thing.
to recap:
you've asserted that
1. "more than half of DU are "truthers"".
2. "88% of DU are "truthers"".
3. "Most DUers are "truthers""

so, here's your big chance...instead of whining, just back up one of the above claims.
should be easy, right?

[William Seger]

46. You simply sneer at well-established facts

... then claim to have any interest in seeking the truth? You claim to have "reasonable" doubt, but that doubt is based on nothing but imaginary scenarios? Sorry, but you're just an ordinary hypocrite with a prophet complex, looking for people to join your cult.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[William Seger]

56. That's just a delusion, and we've discussed it before

Virtually none of what we know about 9/11 comes from "bushco." Much of what we know comes from people who aren't connected with the government at all -- e.g. the passengers, flight attendants, airline companies, media, engineers, and ordinary people who just happen to be on the scenes of the crashes -- and virtually everything that comes from the government is from career civil servants who were there before "bushco" and are likely still there. It doesn't enter into your fantasies that many of the people who would need to be involved in the massive hoax you imagine were very likely ordinary citizens and career civil servants who were Democrats, and who were still very pissed about the events in Florida in 2000. Not only do you fantasize about the "powers that be" concocting a ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated and risky hoax, when a much simpler plan would do just as well, but you fantasize about them going around to all the people who would need to be involved and saying, "Hey, the Prez needs your help to commit a mass murder so he can invade Afghanistan and Iraq." The rational mind boggles at the sheer stupidity of that fantasy.

Either you simply do no possess the ordinary skills necessary to evaluate the quality of information, or you simply prefer your delusional fantasies instead of even making the attempt.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. as you might say: bwahaha

I don't think that could possibly be the actual basis of "being a 'truther' as we are called."

I don't "believe we have been told the whole truth," and I'm not aware of knowing anyone who does. Can you provide any examples?

Quoting from ae911truth.org:

We call upon Congress for a truly independent investigation with subpoena power. We believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that three World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47-story high-rise across Vesey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives....

Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth focuses solely on the forensic evidence available to prove that the three World Trade Center buildings were demolished as a means of proving to Congress that a new and independent investigation is warranted.

I love that. The organization, by its own account, focuses solely on the forensic evidence available to prove that the three WTC buildings were demolished.

That's just one self-identified 911 Truth organization, of course. And some people will never see the problem with this statement.

[William Seger]

48. +1 (n/t)

[BeFree]

50. What is your problem with it?

Can you even attempt an explanation?

Bushco is the purveyor of most of the information. And given the FACTs they have worked to hide, obstruct, and derail investigations, and knowing the history of bush, no reasonable person could ever say we have been told the truth. Indeed one can rightfully say it is a pack of lies, this OCT.

Can you say it is the truth? Or can you say it is a pack of lies?

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. what if the towers weren't demolished?

If not, then why would it be a good thing to focus on the forensic evidence available to prove that they were?

[BeFree]

52. weren't demolished?!?!?!

You lost me there, the towers were demolished. Duh!

Oh, you mean, what if they were not CD? Why didn't you write that instead?
Now, go back and write your question with the proper verbiage and maybe I can help you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

53. bullshit

I didn't lose you at all.

[BeFree]

54. Sorry

I just got some really good news and have to leave to go celebrate.

We'll talk later when I am not so giddy.

Until then, just know that I feel for you having to get a writing lesson from the likes of me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

55. riiiiight

Maybe you could offer your services to AE911Truth:

Wordsmiths Wanted: Become a Writer with AE911Truth

They seem to be having a bit of trouble articulating a defensible mission. Perhaps you could help.

[Make7]

59. You can't really want BeFree to not respond at all.

Where's the entertainment value in that?
 

[BeFree]

60. well

he wanted me to claim he was a bushco flunky.

I didn't want to touch that. Just leave it alone. No real need to get the last word.

And I am still laughing at your making an image just for me.

[zappaman]

61. well. you've claimed

that there are approximately 150,000 "truthers" on DU.
yet no one backs you up.
weird, eh?

[CJCRANE]

57. 9/11...7/7...now 7/22 in Norway...

The terrorists agenda is to destroy governments and liberal democracy and spread fear.

[shanti]

62. ITA

if the ASAH group can operate without the negativity, 9/11 should be able to as well. i like to read this board, but don't really post here because i don't like being attacked by "my own".

i hope skinner really considers this.