One Simple Question - If the Official Version of 911 is True...

[Peter Frank]

...why haven't authorities come forward with a plethora of evidence? Wouldn't this be a great boon to public confidence -- as well as a boon to military recruitment?

[petgoat]

1. The theologian Dr. David Ray Griffin recently made the point that the

official 9/11 story functions as a sacred myth to orient and mobilize society to
engage in millenial war. Such a myth may not be questioned, and evidence is
beside the point and only cheapens the story's quasi-religious status.

Yeah, I know it's crazy, but it's worked for almost five years now!

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982

[Peter Frank]

3. Great point... n/t

[Jazz2006]

5. Great point?

Er, care to elaborate on what was so great about it?

Sounds like just another soundbite from here.

[petgoat]

12. "just another soundbite"

Try reading the speech.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982

[mirandapriestly]

10. That is so true. It sort of puts people in a trance like

in grade school when there was a big event or even a fire drill. Everyone would quietly stand in line and do what they were told with a sort of mixture of fear and excitement. But like you said it has been going on for 5 years now.

[Virginia Dare]

48. Experiments with subliminal messages have been

going on for quite a while. Corporations have been using them in advertising and marketing for probably 30 years or better.

[Chomp]

28. But one could say

exactly the same thing about the alternative 9/11 narrative Petgoat.

We all cherish and revere our own "sacred myths" and "quasi-religious beliefs". Don't we?

[CJCRANE]

36. Um...there is no fixed alternative 9/11 narrative...

just unanswered questions.

[iconoclastNYC]

49. Of course it works.

It's the big lie.

They used it to get us into Vietnam. They used it to start the Spanish American war. They wanted to use it to get us to invade Cuba.

It's such a big lie that when we challenge it we get our mental status questioned.

[Jazz2006]

2. Can we start by defining what you mean by a "plethora of evidence" so that

we are all starting on the same page?

[Peter Frank]

4. The Gov is Prosecuting a "War on Terror"...

Who would have more evidence than the American Government? Let's see it.

[Jazz2006]

6. Oh, I think I get it...

you really don't want to think... you just want someone to hand you a dance card.

Well, I'll bow out and just watch the wankfest for now.

Have fun!

[mirandapriestly]

7. promise?nt

[Peter Frank]

16. From What I've Seen...

Same.

[Jazz2006]

18. Yes. Promise.

I know from long experience that there there is no point at all in attempting to discuss something with people who refuse to even define the parameters of the discussion in the remotest of terms and who then go on after the fact to pretend that they did otherwise. I know because that has long been the tactic of right wingers and they did this for eons.

It seems that it has become the tactic of certain factions of left wingers like those here, and that just pisses me off.

Aren't we supposed to better than them?

Aren't we supposed to be less divisive than them?

Come on, people.

[Jazz2006]

21. never mind - not worth responding

[Peter Frank]

9. self delete..

[Peter Frank]

11. How does your response answer my question...

???

[petgoat]

13. Try a dictionary. You're quibbling about inconsequential semantics . nt

[Jazz2006]

19. Was that directed to me?

If so, try a direct question and you'll get a direct answer.

[Peter Frank]

20. So My Question of Why Our Gov Doesn't Use All Its Resources...

...to bolster its case for war boils down to what?

[Jazz2006]

23. Yeah, yeah, petgoat, you're the wost quibbler ever according to searches

on DU.

Not that I care.

But if you have something to say, it would be more beneficial to just say it instead of playing sillybuggers all the time.

Get it?

[New Earth]

46. lol

[Twist_U_Up]

47. lol

:yourock:

[we can do it]

45. How About ANY Evidence to Support the Governments Fairy Tale

Once upon a time in a cave far far away.......

[mirandapriestly]

8. I thought they might pull something good out for the Moussaoui

trial, but everything looked so fake! and those phone calls from the 106th floor: lots of smoke & heat but NO FIRE, were damning. The piece de resistance was the perfect headband, no body; just a headband in perfect condition. How the hell did he do that?

[KJF]

14. Everything looked so fake?

Even this?

What are you saying it is? A shop-window dummy? Another hologram?

[mirandapriestly]

39. No, not that Kevin, in fact I am very interested in those photos

I shouldn't have said that. I found the plane parts and the bandana of Flight 93 to be very fake because there was no fire damage to them. They looked staged. Maybe I posted that before I saw the "Pentagon bodies" On the other hand it is odd that the gov't says that those bodies are EITHER passengers or Pentagon employees, doesn't it seem like they would know?

[Peter Frank]

15. Don't be obsessed with physical evidence...

Google "michael ruppert" and get court level evidence.

[mirandapriestly]

40. I read "Crossing the Rubicon"- After reading what

happened to MR with the CIA drug case, I doubt any of his 911 research will see the light of day. plus, a lot of it was stuff like the Veeland case, I mwean what do you do with that? The book painted the big picture, but there was not anything that is , I guess , obvious enough to incite the American public. It basically outlines a totally corrupt system. I'm not holding my breath until a politician lets that be investigated.

[Jazz2006]

24. Sure... get right on it....

so far nobody but you (miranda) and a couple of other conspiracy theorists have said that that bandana came from a hijacker....


Which begs the question... how did you come to that conclusion?

[KJF]

26. FBI agent Jim Fitzgerald

According to an article posted here:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976737774
the claim was originally made by FBI agent Jim Fitzgerald, although that doesn't make it true.

"Fitzgerald also identified passports and other items belonging to the hijackers that were found at the crash sites, and he held up a long red bandanna that he said one of the terrorists wore on the flight that crashed in a farm field in western Pennsylvania."

[mirandapriestly]

42. from reading....

you ought to try it sometime. Now if I were like you I would make about 5 posts saying how I can't believe you didn't know about the bandanna and the hijacker claim....but I'm not, so I won't.

[Jazz2006]

44. Oh,

How, ahem, witty and clever.

Edit to add :sarcasm: since you might... not... quite... get... it... otherwise.

[medienanalyse]

17. One Simple Answer - If the Earth is a Plate...

we could fall terribly deep at the end ..

Since the official version of 9/11 is full of lies it is better not to release any evidence at all. Even if this evidence would stabilze a "true part" as the fact of the planes.

Every bit of truth leads and led to new questions as we have noticed in the recent years. It gives a standpoint to argue from.

And this is one of the causes why I always said: let us take what we have and not speculate. We have the inactivity of the airforce and of Bush and Rumsfeld. There were not interceprors. It is the key question: who opened the air space for the terror ?

[petgoat]

31. who opened the air space for the terror ?

The war games, right? The Pentagon missile system was deactivated because of the war games.

So who told al Qaeda when the war games were happening?

[medienanalyse]

34. "The war games, right? " - NO.

Air policing is not dependent on war games and not on missile systems.

Air policing is normal NATO SOP.

Andrews AFB has two squadrons. A apir of fighter jets is always according to NATO SOP in QRA state, that is Quick Reaction ALERT.

Which means: 365 days a year , 24 hours a day readyness to scramble in about 5 to 10 minutes.

And BTW: what has AlQaida to do with that day ?

[Grateful for Hope]

38. I agree

all speculation can be twisted into looking like "tin foil hat theories" or "anti-semite theories" by those who wish to defend and support the official conspiracy theory. It is wisest to stick with what we do have...as you so wisely pointed out.

[greyl]

22. You need to define "the Official Version of 911" first.

A discussion is pointless until we agree on a definition of that term. edit: or at least know what you mean by it.

[Peter Frank]

25. The Official 911 Comission Version (I thought this was obvious)...

Can you answer my OP question?

[greyl]

27. This is basic logical procedure.

If you can't understand that...
edit: Do you mean "The 9/11 Commission Report" in its entirety?

[Debunking911]

29. There is a lot of evidence already out.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

[Andre II]

30. It's new to me

that Paul Thompson's timeline contains lot of evidence that the official story of 911 is true. Mind to point some out instead of giving a link to the whole timeline....

[petgoat]

32. A favorite freeper tactic is to wave a Big Fat Book

(or a massive web page) and use it only as a blunt instrument.

They say "the evidence is in there, but I'm not going to
tell you where it is."

The 9/11 Commission Report's lack of an index is no mistake, IMHO.

[rman]

33. "lack of an index" - shades of the Warren Report

same network

[Peter Frank]

35. Liars a are unlikely to index their lies...

...especially when their publications are written at a time when they're generally trusted.

[petgoat]

43. Liars are unlikely to index their lies...

I took a one-day workshop in mystery writing once.

The teacher said it was important to make your characters' names easily distinguishable
from each other (i.e., Charlene and Wilma and Theresa are ok, but Charlene and Cheryl and
Carla are not) and the reason was because you don't want the reader turning back the
pages to clear up some confusion, 'cause if they do that they're likely to stumble on the
clue that spoils the mystery for them.

[CJCRANE]

37. ...and sometimes link

to sites that disprove their point.

What's the point of that?

[DemInDistress]

41. mind quoting some of those points? how about

July 26 2001..asscroft warned not to fly commercial jets, when asked why asscroft replies" its classified" TOO FUCKING BAD FOR THOSE SOON TO BE VICTIMS.. and this
July 2001 Dave (clinton fame) Schippers is confronted by 2 FBI agents who "know" of spectacular attacks planned to strike the USA. Dave sets aside his politics and calls asscroft for answers. asscroft blows him off
SO dave calls the Whitehouse and requests information as to what the fuck is going on. Whitehouse refuses to answer Schippers. and this,
Britain,Israel,and Russia warn our govt of impending attacks. Plus 8 other countries and this,
Sept.10 2001 some top generals are warned to stay the fuck off commercial jets, why not warn ALL AMERICA?
Yes Paul Thompson was right on without taking a position. Media stories make the entire BUSH CRIME FAMILY DIRTY STINKING FUCKING LAIRS AND M-U-R-D-E-R-E-R-S !! PROFITEERS !!!!! OFF THE DEAD OF 911, SHAMELESS FECKLESS FOOLS THAT BUY THAT REPORT. ARE YOU ONE?

Thanks

PS, 1,000 more facts in that "timeline"

[The Straight Story]

50. Why should they? It would all be called a lie anyway.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[dailykoff]

51. Because the US government is accountable to its citizens

or at least it's supposed to be. But you're right, if they continue to lie, their lies will continue to be exposed.

[Generator]

52. The case was closed on September 12, 2001

Anything since then is just gravy. Which is really really a riot isn't it? Able danger? (doesn't exist) Eyewitness accounts that difer from the government's 9/12/01 version-they don't exist either. Never have been heard. Sibel Edmonds? WHO? Yeah, she talks to the 9/11 commission and is a micro footnote. It was a crime scene. What happened to the evidence? Oh yeah-footed away in the middle of the night and melted down into paperclips made by China. Imagine in your hand is the evidence they could have used-the steel from the WTC made into paper clips.

I know there are always the savy skeptics-that were suspicious on 9/11 but for most Americans, it was a fucking shock. So..your government tells you what happened. It makes some sense. You are too damn busy being afraid and in grief-I remember weeks of it-to even care about the crime scene, the murder investigation. It takes time to start to question. Then bang-the anthrax attacks. Fear works. Then the Iraq war. One thing after another..and by the time you start to question things-for me it was the middle of the summer of 2003 when I realized the Iraq war was a total crock of shit sold to me by using the basest emotions we have-fear and grief, and all that's left is paperclips. The perps, the witnesses, anything pertaining to the story is long gone. Look at what they are using to prove the Moussaoui case. All that was from the day of the attacks-or one day after! There is no investigation. The investigation leads to the FACT that the FBI knew the PERPS were here for months or years and what did the H.Q. want to know about them? Nothing. You might as well convict the heads of the FBI as Moussaoui-they knew about it and did nothing. Even Moussaoui didn't know it was a fact-until it's a fact-what excuse is that-but flying planes into buildings? Especially the WTC? THEY KNEW. They did nothing. They still have their jobs. One guy even has a medal for it.

The short answer to your question is because no one questioned it,at the time it happened. We have almost ZERO real journalists. And so the story stands. They don't need to prove a damn thing. You don't need to prove a myth. It's become a myth and to break that myth you need something shocking. Someday someone or something could put cracks in the myth-but it won't ever be broken completely. (Oswald did it you know. Case closed.) But I remain hopeful, because the story stinks so bad that some of us will never let it rest.

[Generator]

53. Evidence, we don't need no stinking evidence

I found a link that I was talking about in my other post that I read a long time ago. Just one thing-there a few thousand other things wrong with the official story but this proves the case was closed on 9/11 basically. Who cares why those buildings fell anyway?

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

FIRE ENGINEERING MAGAZINE:

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation"

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

~

It isn't just us leftie nutballs on DU that know the goverment is guilty of something. Is destroying evidence a crime? Hmmmm..not when the government does it apparently.