I have a question for "truthers"

[SDuderstadt]

I believe that, among other things, one of the things that fueled a large part of the truth movement was the basic untrustworthiness of the Bush administration, a view that I wholeheartedly share. I also believe that any large-scale, catastrophic event will leave unanswered questions, conflicting accounts and many anomalies, all of which contribute to honest and sincere questions about the events of that day.

Suppose instead, hypothetically, that the SCOTUS had not intervened (don't even get me going on that one) and Al Gore had been President on 9/11. Now it's possible - but impossible to prove - that the attacks might not have taken place, either through a tougher and more informed stand on al Qaeda by a Gore administration or the likelihood that Gore would take the reccmmendations of the Rudman/Hart Commission more seriously by toughening airport security. Notwithstanding those possibilities, let's say that Gore was President and, although we could expect a much more competent performance from Gore, as well as not doing stupid things like invading Iraq, let's assume that everything else happened the same (with the exception of adoption of the Patriot Act and other assaults on civil liberties, etc.). Let's assume the attacks happened and NIST, FEMA, ASCE, NTSB, as well as other agencies, did the investigations they did and reached the exact same conclusions.

Alternatively, let's assume the same situation, except on 9/11/09 with President Barack Obama with the same outcomes as above in the Gore scenario.
My sincere question is whether you would adopt the same view (whether LIHOP, MIHOP, "no-planes", controlled demolition, all the way up to "9/11 was an inside job!"). Or, would you be more inclined to accept the "OCT", believe that government agencies are reliable sources of facts, science and information for that day and less inclined to think the FBI planted airplane debris in Shanksville or WTC 7 was demolished to sabotage financial investigations, etc.

Feel free to construct whatever scenario you like and tell me how your reaction might be different and why. BTW, I am, by no means, intending to exclude responses from debunkers. Please feel free to weigh in, too.

[wildbilln864]

1. In that case it wouldn't have happened! nt

[SDuderstadt]

2. Assume it did, Bill...

that's what I'm asking.

[wildbilln864]

3. okay...

if it did under the same suspicious circumstances then I'd feel the same as now. I'd still want a full and independant investigation!

[SDuderstadt]

4. LIHOP or MIHOP?

Would you still maintain the towers and WTC 7 were brought down in a controlled demolition?

[wildbilln864]

5. yes and AFAIAC...

LIHOP=MIHOP!

[SDuderstadt]

6. You seriously think a Gore or Obama administration would have...

let the 9/11 attacks happen on purpose or made the 9/11 attacks happen on purpose? I'd write more but I am simply stunned, Bill.

[wildbilln864]

8. nope!

As usual, you get it wrong! :yawn:

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

10. You seem to get stunned a lot!

The whole idea is silly actually. I'd then also have to assume that Obama and the G man were also sociopathic P.O.S's like Bush/Cheney and had led similar lives and had no better morals than those two.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. I thought he was saying much the same as whatcha. says below

Not that a Gore or Obama administration would have done such things, but that the evidence points to MIHOP -- so if you carry the same evidence into your hypothetical, he would have to draw the same conclusions.

I think it would be stunning if he didn't say (and believe) that.

[SDuderstadt]

29. That's kinda what I'm trying to get at....

do they see any way the events of 9/11 could have unfolded under a Gore or Obama presidency and not been LIHOP or MIHOP.

[wildbilln864]

30. no it couldn't!

is that also incoherent to you?

[wildbilln864]

7. but this wouldn't make sense

unless Obama installed most of the PNAC group into top government positions as Bush did. And their "new Pearl Harbor event" don't you know!

[snooper2]

156. Which means everything was planned and set-up in 8 months..

gotcha :rofl:

[BeFree]

12. If

And it's a BIG if, it happened under Gore, we wouldn't have seen the coverup, I believe. The coverup is what first made me suspicious. The invented evidence, the raid on the airport that they are said to have trained, the failure of the most basic defenses.

At first I was like: Damn those cavemen! Then I started to read about the coverup. It has forced me to open my mind to all possibilities. And the coverup continues to this day.

And given what I knew about Bushco..... well who can blame me?

[SDuderstadt]

14. Thanks, BF...

Hypothetically, LIHOP or MIHOP?

[BeFree]

16. Bush Knew

Gore? Neither. If Gore knew, I believe it would have been stopped, and he damn sure wouldn't have made it happen. Bush? Anything is possible.

[SDuderstadt]

17. So, my question now becomes....

assume that everything happened the same as I described and the agencies concluded the same thing they've concluded. Under those circumstances, is it possible in your mind for the same outcome without LIHOP or MIHOP?

[BeFree]

19. You mean with the same coverup?

Like the FBI telling their agents to STFU? The CIA guy with hair on fire? The Pakistan financing? The whitewashing Commissioners?

And what dif is there betwixt the two and what does it matter? Bush Knew and there was a coverup. If anybody did the exact same thing, even were it my best friend, I'd be open minded until a really good investigation explained away everything that happened. That hasn't happened. But you could help, ya know?

[SDuderstadt]

21. Forget about a "cover-up"....

my question is, do you see a scenario under a President Obama or President Gore, in which the "OCT" could've happened the way their administration claimed it did?

[BeFree]

24. Forget! Never!

The answer then is no. Because if they covered it up the way Bushco did I'd have to be a God damned fool to fall for it.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Nevermind, BF...

seriously.

[whatchamacallit]

13. Hatred of Bush is not the motivator!

Bush hadn't been president long, I didn't hate or mistrust him anymore than any other republican on 9/11. Though I admit my mistrust of BushCo dovetailed with my growing awareness that the explanations we were given didn't add up. I was a skeptic long before I knew what MIHOP or LIHOP were. The behavior of Bush and his cronies simply confirmed what I already believed. BTW, if the exact same shit went down under Obama, and he and his people acted like the Bush administration, I'd think the same thing about them.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Thanks, W...

Hypothetically, LIHOP or MIHOP?

[whatchamacallit]

18. You already know MIHOP

I don't believe planes brought down those buildings. They may have hit them, but they did not IMO cause them to collapse as they did. Therefore, it took the coordinated efforts of a group within the government to create the spectacle that changed the course of history.

[SDuderstadt]

20. So, NIST under Obama would be covering up...

MIHOP?

[AZCat]

22. It seems like a big step to me.

That is, basing your assessment of "MIHOP" on very little evidence regarding the demolition of the WTC towers by the Bush Administration. Is there no doubt in your mind that your conclusion might be wrong?

[SDuderstadt]

23. Good question, AZ! n/t

[whatchamacallit]

63. There's always doubt...

My assessment of MIHOP is not based solely on the towers. A spectrum of events - before, on, and after 9/11 - reinforced a dawning awareness that we were treated to a grand spectacle aimed at transforming our world view.

Everything from the unprecedented nature of the attacks - to behavior and performance of various government agencies and officials - to the instant declarations of the who did it, the part of the world they came from, and the danger they pose to our way of life - to the seemingly prepared fascist legislation rammed though congress, and the bizarre anthrax threats to those who opposed it - to the secrecy and obfuscation - to the reluctantly granted, whitewash - to rush to war (conflicts that were apparently desired and being planned for before 911) - to the enormous wealth generated for "friends of the administration" - to the bullshit machinations of the DHS, designed to keep everyone in a state of panic - to the domestic spying, used more to keep tabs on political enemies than to protect us from terrorists...

These are but a few reasons for my suspicions about the true source of the attacks. OCTists prefer to isolate and compartmentalize these issues as it makes it easier to explain them away if unrelated. Viewed together they present a very disturbing ring around a singular event.

[SDuderstadt]

65. I'm opposed to the abuse of domestic spying...

but I seriously doubt that you have a shred of evidence that it has been "used more to keep tabs on political enemies than to protect us from terrorists". If you do, I'd love to see it.

As to your point about the attacks being unprecedented, are attcks only "allowed" if they have precedence? I also don't find it odd that people started attributing it to al Qaeda quickly, given the information we were getting from the hijacked plane passengers, as well as the fact that al Qaeda had attacked the USS Cole and two of our embassies not long before 9/11.

I know you're not using the term "coincidence theory" but it sounds like where you're going. I also know that our brains have evolved over the years to detect patterns, to the point where sometimes we see patterns when they don't really exist. With that in mind, anything can be made to appear to be suspicious. I just don't look at the totality of events and draw the LIHOP or MIHOP conclusion, including the supposition that it was some sort of "rogue element" of our government. While I have a great deal of trouble with Bush's poor performance during the attacks and abhorrence of many things he did after the attacks, that doesn't establish LIHOP or MIHOP.

The limitation of "cui bono" is that many people or entities can benefit from an event, but to conclude culpability upon that basis is a prime example of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. In the meantime, I'm open to changing my mind upon seeing a smoking gun. However, after 7 1/2 years, the "truth movement" hasn't found anything remotely resembling it and, instead, attacks the motivation of anyone who asks simple, logical questions. Using Occam's Razor, when theories proposed by the "truth movement" are found to be wanting because there is a simpler, more plausible explanation, that doesn't bode well for the "truth movement".

[Realityhack]

96. I don't think it is entirely fair to call the attacks unprecedented.

The WTC was bombed before. The idea of planes being used to strike ground targets was not new just never implemented before.

[SDuderstadt]

154. Absolutely...n.t

[mrgerbik]

27. if the head of a crime family(s) were changed, would the family cease to commit crimes?

it doesn't matter who is in office IMO ... unless of course, that the person is truly honest and comes clean with all the bullshit thats been sneaking around in the shadows for the past 100+ years. We are under a global economic system that has systematically co-opted most governments of the world - until someone is willing to stand up to this, we will sadly just repeat the same pattern over and over.

[SDuderstadt]

28. Thanks for the most incoherent response posted yet n/t

[mrgerbik]

31. lol sorry

i was trying to say that it wouldn't matter to me who was in office - i try not and hold allegiances (politics shouldn't be a football game)- if the situation smelled fishy and I felt that there was merit to be suspicious, i would probably be inclined to follow whatever theory held truest to me.

[Twist_U_Up]

32. Thanks for the most incoherent post yet n/t

[SDuderstadt]

34. too bad you cannot actually answer my question...

of course, i am hardly surprised.

[eomer]

33. The government is not a monolith.

I think we can all agree that JFK did not order his own assassination. Yet many people still believe that the government did it. In particular it is not clear to me that the CIA is run by the President rather than the other way around.

So my answer is that my suspicions would lean more toward rogue action by some part of the government in your scenarios. I wouldn't be likely to reach a belief that it was ordered by President Gore or President Obama. That belief comes easily with the Bush administration because of a tremendous amount of evidence showing that Bush and Cheney would be willing to do such a thing. All the available evidence tells me the opposite about Gore and Obama.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Thanks for your intelligent and thoughtful response, eomer...

I would agree with your headline that "the government is not a monolith". My follow-up question would be, since the government ISN'T a monolith, wouldn't that make it much harder for "rogue action by some part of the government" to go undetected and, thus, unpunished? For example, how would the perpetrators of this rogue action ensure that NIST would not expose the way they actually brought down the towers (for those who believe that plane crashes and resulting fires, etc. were not enough to do the trick)?

[eomer]

61. "how would the perpetrators of this rogue action ensure..."

That depends very much on the particular rogue action that we're talking about. What I'm more inclined to suspect is some part of the CIA being involved in the initiation of the hijackings, perhaps facilitating Saudi and Pakistani funding, and perhaps providing intelligence that would assist in planning the timing and methods. CIA involvement could be as small as one rogue agent or perhaps a small cell. Keeping such an operation secret seems very feasible to me.

Or, another variation, a small cell in the CIA doing the things I described above, acting on direction from the Director, who was acting on direction from the VP, who was acting on a wink and a nod from the POTUS. Such an operation would also be feasible to keep secret.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Okay, next question then...

How would the CIA have co-opted NIST? Now, perhaps you don't posit controlled demolition, so my question might be irrelevant to your thesis.

[rollingrock]

35. PNAC was the driving force behind 9/11

Unless they're one of the neoconservatives (who were all members of PNAC), 'some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor' as spelled out and expressly desired in the PNAC documents could not have occurred under their watch. Gore, Kerry, Obama are not neocons.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Are you saying that....

al Qaeda could not or would not have attacked us if Gore or Kerry was President? You don't think another attack could happen under Obama (although I want to make clear that he is taking much more proactive and effective steps to prevent such an occurrence)?

[rollingrock]

37. A 9/11 type of attack

would never have occurred under Gore or Kerry.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Please prove that....

are you saying that if the SCOTUS had not intervened in 2000 election and Gore was the President, that all Qaeda would have dropped their plans for the 9/11 attack?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

42. You're saying al Qaeda didn't attack us on 9/11?

Really?

[rollingrock]

43. The title of your thread is 'a question for TRUTHERS'

Man, you OCTers are just regular geniuses, aren't you?

[SDuderstadt]

44. Nevermind, RR...

Seriously.

[BeFree]

38. Yes, it could

Since the people who orchestrated the last one are still running free. Yes, it could, and that is why we are upset. Haven't you learned one damn thing about us? Not even one that one thing? Are you so closed minded that you can't get that thru your ears?

[SDuderstadt]

40. It isn't being "closed-minded" to operate on actual facts...

as opposed to your supposition, BeFree. People who employ critical thinking ARE open-minded. Are you really suggesting one has to be closed-minded to rehect some of the goofiers assertions of "truthers"? I don't dismiss a "truther's" assertion upon first hearing it. But, when they cannot back it up with concrete proof or their "proof" is fatally flawed, it isn't being "closed-minded" to reject it.

[BeFree]

46. Do you?

Do you think it could happen again?

And do you think they rounded up all the suspects?

You keep talking about facts as if the bible of the OCT had nothing but facts.

Do you find nothing wrong with the Bushco OCT? Only an idiot would, yet you stand on it religiously. If you were honest you'd clean your own damn house before hypocritically telling others about their's.

I do. I think a few things that come from this side are whacked. So f'n what? Their story hasn't gotten thousands killed. So f'n what?

[SDuderstadt]

50. I'm not talking to you, BeFree...

for two big reasons:


1) You keep dishonestly misrepresenting that I somehow "find nothing wrong with the Bushco OCT" I repeatedly have said I don't rely on "Bushco" for info. It's a really stupid argument.

2) You very cleverly insinuate that I'm an idiot by dishoneslty misrepresenting my position and conflate it shamelessly. Upon what possible basis do you conclude that I "stand on it religiously"?

BYE!

[BeFree]

54. That is a stupid argument

You do rely on the Bushco OCT, and using that is a stupid position, even tho you deny your own OCT!!!

By your words here do I see you standing on the Buchco OCT bible of 9/11. You can't even tell us one thing you have a serious issue with as concerns that bible. Not one.

On edit:
I did not cleverly call you an idiot, I said
"Do you find nothing wrong with the Bushco OCT? Only an idiot would,"

Meaning only an idiot finds nothing wrong with the OCT. You're not an idiot, you can find lots wrong with the OCT, right?

[SDuderstadt]

55. Prove it, BeFree...

I'd be glad to surce anything you don't seem to understand.

Oh, wait..I forgot...you're a no-planer. Nevermind.

[BeFree]

56. Stop yer whining

You are worse than the x-ian bible beating fundamentalist.

Just like them you duck every serious question and can find nothing wrong with your bible. Its perfect!

If you can't discuss here, maybe you need your own forum?

[SDuderstadt]

57. Let me say it slower...

I...don't...talk...to...no...planers.

[BeFree]

58. Oh BS!

You talk, but you don't listen. Just like the fundies.

I propose a new name for yall: The FOCT. Fundamentalist OCT.

Go ahead, tell us one serious problem you have with the OCT bible. Anyone?

[BeFree]

62. Crickets??

Is that crickets I hear? I guess the FOCT do think their bible is perfect?
Tell me that ain't so. Somebody? Anybody?

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. since you asked nicely...

If memory serves, part of what you would call "bushco's" bible is that Saddam Hussein was somehow integrally connected with the attacks. As far as I know (although I am by no means certain), no one posting to this board ever believed that, or believes it now.

I hope this helps.

Note, by the way, that the various people you are characterizing as the "FOCT" don't recognize any common "bible." If you're asking whether there is any part of my beliefs that I don't believe... well, my beliefs are provisional. Nothing to do with a perfect bible.

Oh, wait. You didn't ask nicely. Oops.

Yr. humble servant,
OTOH

[SDuderstadt]

67. I certainly never believed Saddam had anything to do...

with the attacks nor do I believe that he had WMD. Your point about the lack of a "bible" is well taken and something I can't seem to get "truthers" to understand. Of course, I think their use of the term (as well as "OCT") is nothing more than a transparent rhetorical device meant to funtion as a sort of "psychic foreclosure - in other words, the "truther" says we don't need to argue this because it's clear you accept the "Bushco 9/11 OCT bible". as if that somehow ends the debate. As far as their claims of fundamentalism or a religious underpinning, I'm an atheist, so I find the notion truly laughable.

P.S. You might remind BeFree that I don't respond to "no-planers". It's truly pointless.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. I think it's cognitive, not just rhetorical

It seems to me that in order to be a 'truther' in the sense that I think you mean it here, I would have to believe -- not just say -- that folks on the other side of the issue were trapped in their dogmas. It's a parsimonious (albeit specious) way for 'truthers' to account for others' inability to see what they regard as obvious. I think it is closely analogous to creationist critiques of scientific 'dogmatism.'

Here for comparison is a psychological account of election fraud denialism (note the host -- no, this is not a banned site). I laugh at this, yet I as much as anyone look for psychological explanations of people who disagree with me -- at least I do after the first several rounds of trying to find a basis for reasoned discussion. Of course one often can have reasoned discussion about election fraud, 9/11, or any number of other subjects. It's just hard to remember that sometimes.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Great post, OTOH

I. of course, agree. Of course, if we don't agree with "truthers", we're "not open-minded", as if it is somehow closed-minded to require proof from them.

[BeFree]

71. Good twisting!

To be expected from you, so, no surprise. You say a lot without saying anything.

The bible did at one time include SH, so one point for you! A gold star!!

But, we must take it back because of your willful twisting. No star for you!

The OCT term is an apt appellation for folks who have nothing but the OCT. And their story is like unto a bible, but the FOCTers can't or won't even really read and examine it, much like the fundies read their bible looking only for the parts that match their narrow beliefs.

Your religion here, is, afaict, FOCT. You have no room in your head for anything else.

Question is: Did NIST look for actual "live" thermitic compounds? Any NIST experts here who can answer that question? Look in your bible and see what it says.

If you don't have an NIST answer, move along.

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. :eyes: n/t

[BeFree]

76. Heh

In this idea of the Fundie OCTers, we are the skeptics, the atheists.
Their gawd is the planes! The Planes! The planes did it all!

And we are skeptical about the planes. We don't believe the planes are as powerful and as mighty as they are made out to be.

And like atheists anywhere we are attacked for our beliefs and placed in the dungeon!

I dunno, it's all beginning to seem like a bad movie.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. Hey, it's Easter.

Perpetuating your own victimhood goes well with crucifixions.

[BeFree]

80. Move along, Bolo

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Are you familar with the concept of a public message board?

I don't think you could be.

[BeFree]

82. Yeah, now move along, Bolo

[Bolo Boffin]

84. Well, telling me to move along in a public message board belies you knowing

what a public message board is.

Do you understand that?

[wildbilln864]

74. I don't see that as part of the OCT...

Bush/Cheney pushed the idea that he was involved but that wasn't part of the documented OCT.

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. "the documented OCT"?

This is very confusing for those of us who (1) are continually told that we are adherents of the OCT and (2) don't know what it is. Would you say the OCT is roughly coterminous with the 9/11 Commission Report? Is there an actual 'bible' to which we can refer when trying to answer questions about what part of the bible we don't agree with?

[wildbilln864]

78. I don't know about any bible but...

documentd oct means the oct supported by documents released by the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and other "official" sources. :eyes:

[OnTheOtherHand]

83. are you saying that these always agree?

Or that the OCT constitutes the intersection of these sources?

My impression is that many people use "OCT" to refer to whatever 'conventional wisdom' they themselves consider ridiculous, regardless of its documentation. But if the term is to mean anything at all, it makes sense to tie it to specific "official" sources -- the more specific, the better.

[wildbilln864]

85. the latter...

that it constitutes an intersection.
I can't speak for "many people". That's what the phrase means to me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

86. very fair, you can only answer for yourself

But I'm not sure I know anyone who has read every word of the 9/11 Commission and NIST reports, and I'm fairly sure I've never seen anyone commit to believing every word of the reports. So the notion of an OCT does seem pretty abstract.

[BeFree]

87. Crickets?!?!?!

Is that crickets I hear? I guess the FOCT do think their bible is perfect?
Tell me that ain't so. Somebody? Anybody?

[OnTheOtherHand]

89. I don't think you hear much more than you read n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

59. changing the speed won't help

Trust me on this.

[NowHearThis]

118. Who told you that "al Qaeda" attacked "us"?

Go ahead, take a shot at it and explain to us how you think a CIA-created database attacked "us". How would that be possible in
the real world? And why would the Bush administration be unable to back up its story with the proof that Mr. Bush promised he had and would release? OBL has never even been put on the FBI's most wanted list for one simple reasons: 1. The FBI has no evidence that Mr. CIA-asset Bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11. So, they cooked-up another lie and now claim that some other Arab gentleman "confessed" that HE was the fiendish genius who personally figured out how to defeat the entire U.S. national security
system.

But, YOU insist that "al Qaeda" attacked us and I'd be interested to hear how you justify your theory.

[SDuderstadt]

119. bin laden has been on the fbi's ''ten most wanted list''...

since june of '99. duh. do you even bother to fact-check your stupid claims before you make them?

[NowHearThis]

120. Did you ever try out for the Dodgers team?

You have a very subtle way of avoiding questions. It might even make some people suspicious, but I'm sure it's nothing unusual for a Dodgers player.

Now, go ahead and take a swing at the issues presented to you. You've made your position clear that OBL is wanted by the FBI for
alleged terrorist crimes. Is that all you've got, Mr. Dodger?

[SDuderstadt]

121. you have a subtle way of avoiding facts...

and you keep rebunking things that have been roundly debunked for years.

[NowHearThis]

122. Another DODGE. Where do you get the energy, boy?

I know that you are an honest broker and that you try to do the right thing for your cause, and for that I do have an awful lot
of respect for you.

[SDuderstadt]

124. Then don't call me "boy" n/t

[NowHearThis]

125. How about smart boy?

You are, aren't you? Or, would you prefer "modest one"? "Objective one"? Your choice. Your username is too long to type every time and besides, I thought you came across like a "good ole boy" from the deep south so it never occurred to me that you would
get upset over something like that, but I apologize if you feel offended. You call people "no-planers", "truthers", and Lord knows what else (I haven't read very many of your posts, but I'm sure there are plenty of names you use to describe people who disagree
with your stated views...which I acknowledge may even be your actual, deeply-held opinions).

You have a nice day, you hear?

[SDuderstadt]

126. nice try...

i'm one of those ''san francisco liberals'' rwers love to despise. i'd steer away from anything containing the word ''boy'' when you address me. understand?

[NowHearThis]

127. The quotation marks give you away.

You understand?

[SDuderstadt]

128. I understand you think you can read people's minds....

through their use of quotation marks. Hysterical.

[NowHearThis]

129. Thanks for the compliment. Yours is very easy to read.

It's simple ("The Gummit says it and I believe it - or at least say I do, so any evidence to the contrary is stupid, so I don't need to, nor could I give an accounting of the various, changing conspiracy theories cited on the TV and furthermore I'm just an average
citizen, nothing more. In my worldview, there are no conspiracies other than what my TV tells me about those 19 young Arabs and OBL or whoever is the current #2 name in The Base group. I do accept that there are some other conspiracies - but those all involve
actual crimes and 9/11 wasn't criminal in nature. 9/11 was a bunch of hoodlums who hate us for our freedoms and so they decided
to take America down in a great big show that would make Hollywood jealous -- and it worked, too. These conspiracy theorists upset me so much that I give up much of my free time just to come on here an tell 'em how stupid they are. It just irks me to death that
they expect ME and mine to have to prove the storyline that Bush told us all those years ago. He wouldn't lie about something like
9/11. He's the PRESIDENT and of course HE'S honest. So, I just feel it's my duty and responsibility to do what I do here and
all these people who claim to have proven that the Official Story is BS can just take a hike as far as I'm concerned, but I'm STILL gonna put 'em in their place every chance I get. It's what I DO.")

[SDuderstadt]

130. Goodbye....

It's really stupid to characterize my position as ""the Gummit says it and I believe it". As I have pointed out repeatedly, it's folly to argue that the "Gummit" is the only source of information about the events of 9/11.

[NowHearThis]

132. Have a nice day. Read up on 9/11 & JFK.

It's really unbecoming, especially of someone of your stature, to be so arrogantly ignorant of U.S. history and politics.

[SDuderstadt]

133. it's even more unbecoming...

for someone like you to neglect to consider that you could posibly be wrong. i'm willing to bet i am considerably more informed than you are, i just don't fall for the ct nonsense you seem to fall for.

[Meloman]

155. Hiding the truth

It's all about money and world dominance. I am not sure al Qaeda attacked the US. Those interested will always hide the truth from us.

[Kalun D]

159. Al CIAduh

Are you saying that al Qaeda could not or would not have attacked us?

Al Qaeda could not and did not attack us.

911 was an inside job

Unless you think Al Qaeda could; rig the buildings, stand down normal defenses with 4 planes hijacked, remove all the evidence with only cursory examination, conduct a delayed inadequate white wash commission.

MIHOP and it probably wouldn't have happened with anyone other than the bush cheney rummy crazies. You need to have sociopaths at the top to pull off something like this.

[SDuderstadt]

70. I see...

so the perps were so incompetent., that they basically confessed, incriminated themselves and laid it all out for us in advance in their paper "A New Pearl Harbor" or whatever it was called. Right. Ever heard of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"? Look down...you're standing in it right now.

[hoi_polloi]

47. Is there a question in there somewhere?

It looks like you mostly reconstructed some 'facts' from magazines. What's the actual question being posed here?

[wildbilln864]

48. Welcome to the DU dungeon hoi_polloi!

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

51. There's not a question for you...

P.S. I don't read magazines. Those are mostly my own thoughts. You don't need to bother to respond, thanks.

[Woody Box]

49. Without a vice president named Dick Cheney, the attacks wouldn't have happened

All roads lead to Cheney (and others). There is ample evidence that Cheney was involved in the operative conduction of the attacks (for instance, his Secret Service had direct access to FAA radar data).

That's why your question is purely hypothetical and redundant.

[SDuderstadt]

52. So, you're saying al Qaeda could not have attacked with a Gore presidency?

Really?

[scott75]

95. What solid evidence do you have that Al Qaeda was truly involved?

Bona fide videos of Bin Laden deny he ever orchestrated the attack; the FBI never charged him with 9/11 precisely because there was no credible evidence linking him to the crime. This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that 9/11 couldn't have been carried out if Gore had won. I have heard that a 'deep throat' mentioned that he had heard some of the shadowy figures who planned the whole thing out about 9 months before 9/11; when one of them asked if Gore winning would change things, another told him that it didn't matter who won, it was beyond them. I'm not sure if this was simply bravado or whether he really knew that it could be accomplished even with Gore winning. What I do feel fairly confident about is that the people behind had powerful people in both major political parties; this seems to be born out in that neither party seems to have put all that much serious effort into getting to the bottom of what really happened that day, despite so many well written books detailing the inconsistencies in the official story.

[SDuderstadt]

97. Before I answer your question...

I have a simple yes/no question for you:

Are you a "no-planer"?

[scott75]

98. No, even in the case of the pentagon, but..

I believe that a plane flew over the pentagon, not that it crashed into it. I essentially agree with what is said over at thepentacon site.

[SDuderstadt]

99. By "no-planer", I mean...

people who deny a plane crashed into the Pentagon. I mean, how do you reason with people who claim that, especially since there are 100+ witnesses who saw the plane hit the building and exactly ZERO who saw the plane fly over the building. I'm invoking the "Lared rule": If you're a no-planer, I'm not wasting time with you.

I am curious, though. Do you deny that UA 93 crashed in Shanksville or that two jets crashed into WTC 1 & 2? I won't be offended if you don't answer.

[MrMickeysMom]

53. Assuming this happened under a non-Bush presidency, Gore or Obama-

the scenario constructs an investigation based on material evidence, much of what would still be on site.

There would have been an investigation not edited in Kean-Zelikow fashion, but headed by a panel of experts with nothing to suggest conflict of interest, and what would have been ruled out was LIHOP or MIHOP.

The described "surprise theory" in some books claiming that Osama bin Laden conspired with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have been presented based on evidence. Osama bin Laden has never claimed he was responsible for 911, BTW.

The LIHOP theory would have revealed persons or alleged persons in the US government who deliberately allowed these attacks. The MIHOP theory would have revealed the Christian or Jewish Christian conspiracy in which Muslims, if involved at all, were involved.

Funny how some religions are more dangerous than others.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Thanks, MMM...n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

90. No problem...

You're welcomed.

It's a good thread.

[Democracyinkind]

60. I do like the notion that al-qaeda really exists. I find it entertaining.

.. The land of confusion, anyone?
As the world is laughing at the notion of such a thing.

How come everytime I've been served an "Al qaeda" terrorist story, and I got to the library and start checking the guys out, they turn out to be some local jihadist dimwits that have no connection what so ever to a supposedly "global network of terrorism"...

THe only GNOT that exists is funded by our Saudi friends, and Langley knows all about that shit.

Can anyone make a sound argument for the existence of Al qaeda?
The jokes on us, guys. Back in the 80's, the saying was:
" Watch out or you'll end up Al-Kaida"
For the most part, it was a joke between Jordanian security forces.
but hey, nevermind. The pundits on TV surely know better than the people who actually work in the field, studying it. Those people are categorically denied airtime in the US. It's insane.

[CJCRANE]

72. I supported Bush

when he launched the invasion of Afghanistan. He showed good leadership in those few weeks after 9/11.

But I thought it was strange when Bin Laden eloped from Tora Bora and simply skipped over the border into Pakistan never to be heard from again. Then Bush forgot all about Bin Laden and rebuilding Afghanistan and suddenly started lying about Iraq.

[seemslikeadream]

75. Would Gore have had Iraq war on the table BEFORE 9/11?

[SDuderstadt]

91. You might try actually reading the OP...

before you just blurt out the first thing that comes to mind. The OP stipulates that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. From the numerous public statements he's made, I think that would be a fair assumption. Again, this is why you've become an inside joke to many people here.

[achtung_circus]

92. Not so inside.

:rofl: :crazy:

[SDuderstadt]

108. Don't let SLAD hear you say that...

she thinks she is revered here.

BTW, SLAD...if you're watching, I believe AC makes 8. It would probably be easier to list those who don't regard you as an inside joke.

[CJCRANE]

93. This whole OP misses the point.

There are many 9/11 Truthers who are RWers, many LWers and everything in between.

It isn't a question of whether we like or dislike Bush or Cheney. In fact over the last few months I've come to like Bush as a person. He seems to have mellowed. But that doesn't change the facts.

However I can understand a benevolent reason for pushing the OCT - kind of like the atheist priest who soothes his congregation with consoling myths (that he himself knows are not true).

[SDuderstadt]

94. I'm not asking whether anyone likes Bush or Cheney...n/t

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

101. Kick...n/t

[spooked911]

102. Covert Ops like 9/11 are generally non-partisan

No doubt some people were more suspicious of 9/11 due to their dislike of Bush, and it's possible if 9/11 happened under Gore I'd be less suspicious.

But the bottom line is that everyone no matter their political persuasion should be suspicious of what happened, and ultimately if they look at the evidence, should be able to conclude the official story is a lie.

[SDuderstadt]

103. As I've said before, Spooked...

Please tell us precisely what the "official story" is. It's kinda silly to claim there's some sort of unified source for everything.

[spooked911]

109. you really need this?

The official story is--

19 al qaeda hijackers
4 planes
the official planes hitting the wtc, the Pentagon and the ground in Shanksville
no demolition
no video fakery
no let it happen on purpose
no made it happen on purpose
the warnings were ignored because of poor communication between agencies
no govt conspiracy

Isn't this your POV?

[SDuderstadt]

111. Your laundry list

19 al qaeda hijackers - check
4 planes - check
the official planes hitting the wtc, the Pentagon and the ground in Shanksville - check (wtf is an "official plane"?)
no demolition - check
no video fakery - double check (I'd love for you to outline how all video/camera footage could possibly be faked)
no let it happen on purpose - check
no made it happen on purpose - double check
the warnings were ignored because of poor communication between agencies - check + incompetence
no govt conspiracy - certainly not prior to 9/11

Happy now?

[spooked911]

112. you merely confirmed my original point

so I'm not sure why you objected so much to my use of the term "official story"...

[SDuderstadt]

113. you don't get to self-define the ''official story''

the term ''official story'' is nothing more than a rhetorical device or an attempt at psychic foreclosure (implying the topic is not debatable -''you believe the 'official story' from those psychopaths?''). as i have amply pointed out numerous times before, one does not need to rely on the bush administration for information on 9/11.

[spooked911]

115. obviously you misread my point

the important point is that the psychopaths were the ones running the show and setting the agenda...

not to mention that your "other sources" may not be simply mistaken, or in denial, or not credible, or may have been coerced into supporting the official story, or bona fide agents spreading disinfo.

[SDuderstadt]

117. yeah...

all tens of thousands of them. you're a hoot, spooked!

[NowHearThis]

152. The Official Story is...

a lie and even Untruthers know it. The only people who don't know it are those who've not studied the known facts.

[SDuderstadt]

153. "Truther Logic"

It's impossible to disagree with a truther on the facts because they are the only ones who have them.

[Echo In Light]

104. The powers that be understood what was coming & had Bush/Cheney installed

That would seem to explain the desperate need to have the 'right' people in place despite how sadly obvious it was that Gore won ... or, and I tend to perceive it this way, the dems were aware of it too, and took a fall, such as it happens in a scripted "pro-wrestling" match where the outcomes are predetermined, yet the crowds remain in that weird state of suspending disbelief in order to side up accordingly - even tho they know it's fake. And that's certainly how the M$M played it.

[SDuderstadt]

105. Oh, I see...

it was the "powers that be". Well, that answers everything.

[Echo In Light]

106. "Everything?" That's your extrapolation. It offers contextualization

[SDuderstadt]

107. So, who are...

the "powers that be"? Perhaps you can make it a little less amorphous.

[spooked911]

110. yes-- good way to put it

[achtung_circus]

114. Does having the "right people in place"

extend as far as Fire Departments, Police Departments, EMTs, coroners, etc ad nauseum? That's a pretty large personnel turnover.

[NowHearThis]

116. Does that mean it took more than 19 young Arab men

to put on the Really Big TV Show? Or were all those you named just the supporting cast?

[JuniperLea]

123. If all governmental actions/inactions were the same...

Hell yes. I'd still blame the government.

[SDuderstadt]

131. lihop or mihop? n/t

[JuniperLea]

134. Well, duh! That's the $60,000 question!

Well done.

[SDuderstadt]

135. So, you have no idea? n/t

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[JuniperLea]

137. Why on Earth do you think I'm going to let you draw me into...

Your hypotheticals?

[SDuderstadt]

138. For the same reason you responded initially...

You know it was a hypothetical question in the OP, right?

[JuniperLea]

139. It's your MO. eom

[SDuderstadt]

140. I KNEW you would run away from real debate...

it's amazing how trying to reason with "truthers" nearly always devolves in them trying to discredit your motivation or "figuring your MO" rather than focus on the topic at hand.

[JuniperLea]

141. The topic at hand is your MO...

You attempt to lasso people into a hypothetical argument over made up instances. Nothing good comes of it, and frankly, it's a worn out, tired tactic best left for the RW.

[SDuderstadt]

142. i see...

so ''truthers'' want us to discuss their endless hypotheticals, but it's off-limits for us ''debunkers? are you serious?? if you don't like hypotheticals, you should not have responded. and, btw, it's my op so you don't get to pick the topic. if you want to pick the topic, start your own damn op.

[NowHearThis]

143. Your logic doesn't make any sense

You said:

"I believe that, among other things, one of the things that fueled a large part of the truth movement was the basic untrustworthiness of the Bush administration, a view that I wholeheartedly share."

If you meant that sincerely, then why do your posts come across as being anything BUT interest in the truth? Is it fair to assume that you are a member of the UNtruth movement?

[BeFree]

144. Has to be

That they really don't have any confidence in the OCT but they are afraid to admit that they actually believed it. So subconsciously they are attracted here, like a moth to a flame and like that moth every time they get close to the heat they fly away, only to be drawn back, time and again.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

145. because you're biased...

it's rather silly to argue that they only alternative to being a ''truther'' is to be an ''untruther''.

[BeFree]

146. That's right

There are people like me that have an open mind. Willing to listen to everything anyone has to say. Nope, not a dungeonette or an FOCT either. Try it, it's real freedom and it's free.

[SDuderstadt]

147. asking for evidence before embracing claims...

is part of being open-minded, befree.

[vincent_vega_lives]

148. here's another serious question

What is the future of the 9-11 truth movement?

Bush is out of power and the Democrats in fully in and there is not an inch of movement towards a new 9-11 investigation. What next?

Its coming up on eight years since the attacks. What new evidence has been produced? Will the movement ever get out of the "just asking questions" phase?

Any future predictions?

[NowHearThis]

149. VVL asks: "Any future predictions?"

Prediction: The term "UNtruthers" will become commonplace even amongst those who are blissfully unaware that 9/11 was an inside job.

[SDuderstadt]

150. "UNtruthers"....

LOLOL. What a crock.

[Old and In the Way]

157. Sure, a staged event might have taken place under Gore, but pretty doubtful.

Why? Because, Al would have been in DC that day announcing an investigation with an unlimited budget. No way would he have waited 2 years to form a Commission (demanded by public pressure), underfunded it, put up Henry K as the Commish before naming two reliable Bush minders in Kean and Hamilton, and refuse to appear in front of the 9/11 Commission. Since Gore would have been motivated to really investigate, the perps would never have attempted the event. Capitol crimes and all....

Since you readily concede "incompetence" as a Bush attribute, do you agree that Bush/Cheney should be prosecuted for gross criminal negligence? Incompetence should have consequences when 3000 people lose their lives because you incompetently disregarded all kinds of warnings and failed to even give the American people a 'heads up' on the intelligence you had.

[SDuderstadt]

158. I think it's the after stage that is far more actionable....n/t