Don't forget Flight77.info - this forum mentioned

[greyl]

I wish the capitalization were more 'credible', but the documenting of FOIA requests is admirable.

"Documenting the legal process to obtain government-held video recordings related to Flight 77 on 9/11"

UPDATE 3/24/6

i hate sort of beating-up on certain segments of the collective of people who are skeptical about the official version of happened on 9/11... but here i go again: scholars for 9/11 truth: another just provocative web site. how can you tell? among other things, on their home page, they promote the 9/11 music video called 'loose change' that offers up every crack pot pod missile theory in the book. 'loose change' is out there just to provoke people emotionally. its substance is in its appeal to teens and twentysomethings. so why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' aligning themselves with a tin hat munching 9/11 music video? why are the 'scholars for 9/11 truth' also promoting the no 757 theory? answer: the web site is just provocative. it's using the blanket (AKA 'big tent'; throwing enough shit at the wall) approach to attract more people to the concept that 9/11 was an inside job. then by magic, one of these new people will uncover the proof we need to hang the true conspirators.

what's wrong with this 'scholarly' approach? anyone? anyone ? bueler? bueler?

once bush & co reach the end of their reign - that's the finish line, they win. once those powers-that-be are out of power, people lose interest. we need to get 'em for 9//11 while they're in office if we're going to end this endless war on terrorism.

so the problem with the scholars for 9/11 truth's throw-enough-shit-at-the-wall approach is that they're spinning a new generation of 9/11 skeptics into 9/11 goofballs who are going to spend the next 2 1/2 years looking at the same old pictures of the pentagon going, 'gee, that IS a small hole...' and who will spend endless hours replaying the WTC video trying to see the missile pods.

what does it gain the 9/11 truth movement if everyone is a member - but we're all full of shit reciting misinformation? the purpose of the 9/11 truth movement isn't to have more members - it's to end the war on terrorism while it's still possible. and time is really running out.
.............
finally but not last - the 9/11 forum at democraticunderground has recently been taken over by the pod people - which is a big loss since that forum used to be a great source for critical analysis and research.
http://www.flight77.info/

Ideological battles are endlessly fascinating.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[greyl]

2. No link, just an honorable(?) mention.

The person who runs that site posts here occasionally.

[bronco2121]

30. on occasion?

>>The person who runs that site posts here occasionally

what's your excuse?

B.

[greyl]

31. I don't get it. nt

[Jazz2006]

3. Ahhh, got it. Thanks.

Alas, it's time for my requisite 3-4 hours of sleep now so I have to go ~ will catch up with you soon :)

[New Earth]

4. yeah i'm sure you think that

[New Earth]

5. people are afraid to go near Loose Change

because they know eventually it's going to blow the entire official story out of the water.

[bronco2121]

22. you're right

but its already blowing.

b.

[rman]

6. pod people don't really get very much traction here

But it's an open forum, anyone can post pretty much anything here. Including wack CTs that have nothing to do with 9-11. In fact it is moderator policy to move such posts from elsewhere on DU to the 911 forum.

[mirandapriestly]

7. i remember that guy posted here and was not received well

now he is getting his revenge, not that anyone will listen. The op knows that too.

[greyl]

8. Do you mean like when people are accused of being shills

because they use the term "critical thinking"?

Thanks for your interest in the FOIA requests.

[mirandapriestly]

11. It won't happen, others have tried.nt

[mirandapriestly]

12. Here he is ridiculing the guy who was murdered from Scholars for truth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=78766&mesg_id=79045

nice guy.

[bronco2121]

25. no tea & coffee for me

all i was doing was suggesting the theory that he was offed for suggesting too many theories.

theories don't have to be nice or based in reality to be accepted - they just have to be theories. lord knows that's true in this forum.

B.

[AlienSpaceBat]

9. He lost his way, IMHO

He started his FOIA request to get video that confirmed his opinion that there was NO PLANE. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he has taken his original theories down from his site now, so it looks like he never had this original view.

He later changed his mind about this, and is now of the opinion that anyone thinking there was no plane is party to undermining the 9/11 truth movement. He seemed fairly open minded in the beginning, but lately he's become very shrill about threats to the credibility of some kind of 9/11 truth orthodoxy and has promoted himself to senior gatekeeper.

I haven't seen anything here seriously promoting the pod theory in ages and ages, so I think his complaint in this instance is not well founded.

[KJF]

10. I'd say he found it

By "pod people" I take him to mean not just those promoting outlandish theories involving a plane firing a missile at the WTC, but also those who believe that the planes or, indeed, the towers themselves were holograms (grins), or those who go for other no-plane theories. There has been more of that lately on this forum than was the case, say, a year ago.

If he thinks that "anybody thinking there was no plane is party to undermining the 9/11 truth movement", then he's right. How many of the no-plane arguments have been disproved? Given the slipshod nature of Meyssan's work, why anyone would give him the time of day?

[AlienSpaceBat]

13. Always caught by the lack of evidence

thats been forthcoming, or not, regarding the pentagon strike in particular.

My opinion, FWIW, is that there most likely was a plane at the pentagon. It's a balance of probabilities thing though - there isn't enough evidence available to establish it categorically.

In those circumstances I still have to allow the possibility that the impact was caused by something else, and I wouldn't berate someone holding the no-plane opinion.

Given that there is so much evidence still withheld, and so many inconsistencies and anomalies in the events of that day, there are inevitably going to be many possible theories of what happened. I wouldn't be surprised, if the facts ever are known, if most people theorising today are mostly wrong !

There isn't ever going to be a unified view of the truth, or of the best way to pursue that truth, and whilst I am wary of the far fringes of the 9/11 movement, I am also wary of self appointed gatekeepers.

[Old and In the Way]

14. It would be so simple to resolve.

Release the tapes. They managed to release those inconclusive frames within a few days, why not the real video? Why weren't they part of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Sadly, if they are released, 5 years later, there will be some who will question their veracity. Still, I think the greater evil is not releasing them to the public.

[KJF]

15. If you ask me:

(1) It was definitely a plane that hit the Pentagon;
(2) It was probably American 77.

Whereas I wouldn't "berate" someone for claiming it wasn't American 77 (the evidence is nowhere near as strong as for any old 757), or for claiming it was done by remote control (although I would argue against both these positions), I would "berate" someone for claiming there was no plane, because most of the arguments the no-planers use are incorrect, for example they often claim the impact hole was 18 feet, the light wells were 5 stories deep and the aircraft passed through 6 walls made of 18 inch reinforced concrete, and they (mostly) ignore stuff like the mechanical damage to the generator and utility vault in front of the building, the damage to the facade by the hole and the deflected columns inside the building.

Some of the evidence has been withheld, but there is quite enough to make a firm decision on whether the Pentagon was hit by a missile or a plane. On other issues, for example lack of air defence, like you implied, we're still groping around in the dark.

[Bushknew]

16. If there is nothing to hide, those tapes should be released.

With all the pandemonium of that day, I can think of no legitimate reason
why those tapes were seized in minutes of the explosion. How did they know
the attacks were over? Weren’t there better things to do, like securing the area
and helping the injured?

There is no reason why those video tapes should be kept classified.

But Al-Qaeda will use that video for propaganda you holler!!!!!!

So the pictures just released of charred bodies at the Pentagon can not be
used for Al-Qaeda propaganda? Nor can the video of the planes crashing into the towers or the tortured prisoners of Abu Ghraib?

Come on, please. That train/excuse has long passed us by.

If there is nothing to hide, those tapes should be released.

So what’s the excuse now?

Do you really want an open government or not?

[KJF]

17. I agree it/they should be released

However, I am satisfied by the amount of evidence already available that the aircraft that hit the building was a 757-type plane.

One reason the tapes were seized might be that the FBI (or whoever) were curious to know what hit the building.

[Bushknew]

19. But but but but…

Everyone SAW a 757 crash into the Pentagon why would
they be curious to see what hit the building?

[iconoclastNYC]

20. Explain why the government has to withold evidence from us.

[bronco2121]

29. i think...

>>Explain why the government has to withhold evidence from us.

if i were one of them, i wouldn't give you one thing i wasn't forced to give you (if i were them - that's the very truth) i'd try to revoke the the FOIA. i'd work harder than they are to do this - and why they're not trying to kill the FOIA is a mystery to me. which worries me a little because they must be, or they must think they're smart enough to use the FOIA it as a tool. maybe they are. maybe they're a lot smarter than we think. how smart do you think we are? see what i mean?

some of them are much smarter than any of us are. most of them are not 'smarter' than we are. we'd win in a fight, but that'd be a gang fight - and few of us ever get out behind our computers to meet one another in a given month... these guys get paid to interact - and they like it. that's how they beat us.

why do they have to withhold evidence? they withhold evidence because they can. they don't like you.

but YOU have the power over them. you can spend all day and night kicking their asses up and down the street, but you don't. you don't because you don't care enough. you REALLY don't care enough.

in truth - you deserve these folks and all they do to you and all they get away with. at this point in history, you've all'but asked them to do this to you. but you say, 'no no no - i'm an american! i'm a patriot! i don't like bush!' ... not that case. you, me, and everyone here is to blame for what is happening. DIRECTLY TO BLAME. YOU and ME. and until you stop blaming bush & co for iraq asking 'oh why... oh why...'

we'll never beat them at our own game...

how sad is that?

B.

[bronco2121]

27. the excuse now...

>>So what’s the excuse now?

update: right now the lead counsel quit the DOJ and has been newly replaced. we don't know what the new counsel's excuse is yet. the judge has given the order that by may 26th the DOJ is to tell us why their argument for not releasing the pentagon cam CD ROM footage of the impact isn't moot.

their previous argument was they wanted to kill zacarias moussauioioioueiey by shocking the jury with the footage. that's all over now. so we'll either get a new excuse by the 26th - or the CD ROM.

cheers!!
b

[bronco2121]

26. you are correct ;) nt

[bronco2121]

21. OMG

i can't imagine, AlienSpaceBat, how you would presume to know 'my way' in any possible fashion.

that you're following what i think about this and that and when and how i changed my mind and what kind of edits i'm making is beyond silly. but maybe that's 'your way'.

this forum takes 'pod theory' to a new level. no longer does 'pod people' refer to those who think missiles hit buildings on 9/11 - but rather it refers to those who would rather play-nice and belong to an online community, rather than actually do anything in real life that produces new evidence. there's no shortage of items out there that YOU could be searching for. but you're spending your time reading my 'blog' interpreting my whatever.

'senior gatekeeper' ? you must be on drugs. how can not be shrill? if someone calls BS and/or makes hard points in this 'community' you don't get invited over for tea & coffee. oh bother.

B.

[bronco2121]

24. revenge?

revenge? i like DU. i like this forum. the problem is just as i stated - most of the people here are conspiracIES junkies. there was before, and still from time-to-time some good critical analysis here. but mostly, people are humping 'loose change' and the like and talking about aliens and stuff.

i honestly could care less if you listen to what i have to say or read the res

[bronco2121]

23. pod people

IMO, 'pod people' are those who enjoy conspiracy theories. they're interested in 9/11 because of the conspiracy aspect. typically, there's little indignation regarding the treason aspect - just 'oh boy boy! look at those pixels on that pic, must be a black helicopter'.

you know the types - they're all over this forum.

B.

[rastafan]

18. important commentary

His commentary tells it like it is and hits a lot of nails RIGHT on the head.

[bronco2121]

28. thank you!

thanks, rastafan.


B!

PS if i'm rude sometimes, it's only because 9/11 makes me incredibly angry and frustrated ;-)