WHAT IS YOUR "HOP" LEVEL? (Page that refers to DU)

[Muttocracy]

Poll question: WHAT IS YOUR "HOP" LEVEL? (Page that refers to DU)

Came across this and as I was reading, it mentions DU. I bet this has been posted here long before I joined DU, but I'm curious where people fall on this scale:

http://summeroftruth.org/lihopmihopnohop.html
WHAT IS YOUR "HOP" LEVEL?
TEN SCENARIOS OF WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

I'm only listing the ones I'm guessing are more popular at DU given the 10 slot limit.

[Muttocracy]

1. July 2003 results:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x17

[NowHearThis]

42. Very interesting to read what people had to say back in 2003

Amazing how so many people were asking intelligent questions about the Bush Conspiracy Theory and making strong arguments about the absurdity of what the Bush people claimed happened on 9/11.

Then, as now, the UNtruthers had only derision, evasion, BS, personal attacks, and a bag of chips. For evidence, their only source was
the Bush administration and its various commissions and flunkies.
The old "anything is believable, nothing is knowable" strategy.

[SDuderstadt]

43. ''their only source was the bush administration''

that is flat--out bullshit.

[NowHearThis]

44. "that is flat--out bullshit". AGREED.

Glad to know that you see it my way.

[SDuderstadt]

45. cute...

but your assertion is flat-out bullshit, just like your prior assertion that ''the videos were doctored''. if you expect people to buy that, you need to 1) explain how the perps could have possibly known of everyone who was recording the events of the day and 2) absent any explanation for 1, you'd have to explain why no one came forward and said, ''hey, the video shown does not match my original''. of course, you have zero explanation for this and yet one more of your goofy theories bites the dust for its sheer stupidity

[NowHearThis]

46. More nonsense, but I assume your good faith and that you

really do believe what you post. It's much easier to be critical than it is to be correct, but if you are sincerely interested in
knowing the truth, and obviously you've got a ways to go just to catch up with what is already known, there is a large body of research which has been done to explain how the videos were likely doctored. If anyone had a video that shows a real airplane melting into WTC it would have been shown on every TV network. Of course, no one has such a video because a real airplane can't melt into a building. Isn't it curious to you that only anonymous internet posters continue to promote the notion that they CAN?

[SDuderstadt]

47. and, of course, the notion that the plane ''melted'' into the building...

was wholly invented by truthers. you still need to explain how the videos were ''doctored'' without anyone coming forth and saying that what was broadcast is different from the original.

[NowHearThis]

48. Maybe you need a visual examination.

Anyone who isn't visually impaired can see that the only thing that was "invented" is doctored videos.

[achtung_circus]

49. I'm sorry, not my conversation, but

"You still need to explain how the videos were ''doctored'' without anyone coming forth and saying that what was broadcast is different from the original."

I haven't seen your response, yet. Is it elsewhere?

[SDuderstadt]

50. tell us how ''they'' did it...

i am one of millions who saw the second plane hit on live tv. tell me how that was ''doctored''. goofy ''no-planers'' are an embarrassment to all of us liberals.

[NowHearThis]

51. You inadvertently hit on a key question many of us have.

Who doctored the videos isn't known and can only be guessed at for now. I don't know any "goofy" no planers, but I've run across
a whole slew of UNtruthers. They aren't an embarrassment as far as I'm concerned. To me, they're really more pathetic than anything
else. Always makes me wonder "where do they COME from?". Maybe you know. I can only speculate.

[SDuderstadt]

52. They come from people who draw conclusions based upon actual evidence...

not supposition. Do you remotely realize how it weakens your claim when you can't even provide a plausible scenario in which your claim could have been carried out?

You have at least two fatal flaws in your claim, both of which I have repeatedly pointed out, but which bear repeating because they are apparently not sinking in.

1) Since the "perps" could not possibly have known about everyone who was recording the events of what day, they would certainly have a major problem on their hands, when people came forward with their video that obviously conflicted with the "doctored video".

2) Which leads to your second major problem. Are you aware of ANYONE who has come forward in such a manner? Hint: no. If such contradictory evidence exists, please postulate as to why someone would not produce such an obvious smoking gun.

[NowHearThis]

53. Conclusions based on faked evidence. Real airplanes can't...

and don't melt into buildings. So far, no one that I'm aware of has come forward and claimed otherwise, yet UNtruthers still insist
that the impossible is possible. Very strange.

[SDuderstadt]

54. Please find anyone here other than a "truther" who has ever claimed that...

the planes "melted" into the buildings. Not only is it a stupid claim, it is entirely a "truther" concoction. BTW, what do you think SHOULD have happened when the planes struck their targets?? Bounced off?

[NowHearThis]

55. If it's so stupid, why do you defend it? The videos plainly show...

"planes" melting into buildings. That could only happen in a doctored video.

[SDuderstadt]

56. I said the claim was stupid because...

the planes are not "melting" into the buildings (whatever the fuck that means), dude. It's a stupid claim and it most certainly is not being made by any debunker.

[NowHearThis]

57. Are you visually impaired, Dude? Have you even SEEN the...

videos? It's plain as day that they show a "plane" appearing to melt into the WTC2 building. That's impossible in the real world.
Only in Untruth la la land would someone try to say otherwise without breaking into a loud laugh.

[SDuderstadt]

58. DONE....

D...O...N...E with you and your goofiness.

[NowHearThis]

59. Buh bye. Feel free to come back after you've had a chance to...

learn more about the evidence and after you've viewed a few 9/11 videos.

[SDuderstadt]

60. Why don't you come back when you realize that hundreds, if not thousands...

of witnesses directly saw the plane hit. Your "goofy no-plane' theories are not only embarrassing liberalism, they are embarrassing your own movement. They think you're a disinfo agent, dude.

[NowHearThis]

61. Back so soon? Which videos did you watch?

I'm beginning to wonder if some unseen power is impelling you to be something akin to a rookie clean-up hitter.

[LARED]

62. Didn't your Mom warn you about playing with no planers? - nt

[SDuderstadt]

63. No, you did...

you're not my mom, are you?

[NowHearThis]

64. Moms are into reality, not cartoons, so Moms would warn about

playing with CGI planers.

[Muttocracy]

2. August 2003 poll

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=233219

[AZCat]

3. More polls.

We do this pretty regularly here.

September 2008

September 2007 (discussion, not poll, but still relevant)

September 2006

[Muttocracy]

4. Thanks. Guess I've missed stuff between being late to DU and things being in this corner of DU. nt

[AZCat]

6. No problem.

You have to remember, though - most of the later polls (post 2006 or so) are of a small group of DUers. The mods started moving 9/11-related posts here about then IIRC, so *HOP polls don't get to stay in GD. I'm not sure how the opinions of the regulars of this sub-forum compare to the opinions of DUers in general.

[BeFree]

5. Rogue factions

A small group of defense department related neo-cons planned and executed the whole thing. Probably a hundred people who felt the country was going to hell in a dried out barrel of oil.

The invasion of Iraq and a general takeover of the whole middle east was the goal. The possibilities were endless but they overplayed their hand and the rest of the world revolted at their overreaching.

One can imagine how the leaders threatened with torture and death anyone they brought in or anyone who objected.

The immediate aftermath was played splendidly. You have to give them credit. Of course the planning took years and once they had stolen an election Bush had nothing to lose. In fact, just before 9/11 the news that Gore was the actual winner of the 2000 election was coming out, so the green light was given.

Anthrax was a part of the cover up and it worked well.

What they didn't know or could plan on was the advent of the internet but they are working that angle pretty good. Still, without the internet and boards like this, they would have really gotten away with it clean. As it is we are on the trail and the truth will come out - has, for the most part.

But I am still keeping an open mind, mind you.

ETA: here is a DU link with some background on why I have this opinion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5518578&mesg_id=5518578

[LARED]

9. the advent of the internet????

Dude I was on the internet in the early 90's. I'm pretty sure the internet was in full bloom long before 9/11/2001.

BTW, your script would make a great 24 season. Perhaps you could put that vivid imagination towards something useful.

[CJCRANE]

10. How many people were on the internet

in the early 90's compared to the early 21st century?

The rise of the "blogosphere" happened in this century.

[achtung_circus]

13. Me.

and many other people that I know. That was back when a keyword search for the word "dildo" yielded a mere 60,000 hits.

15 seconds ago I got 39,000,000 hits.

[CJCRANE]

15. I remember a friend of mine was on it too

in the late 80s or early 90s.

There didn't seem to be any websites as we know them today just bulletin boards.

The only interesting thing on it was "The Anarchist's Cookbook" which my friend printed off using his dot matrix printer.

[BeFree]

11. Yeh

Right-wingers were the majority of the internet users early on, you must have been lonely, eh?

Of course the internet was around then, but the term 'advent of the internet' references the discussion on the internet of this issue in ways that was hardly conceivable back then.

But your use of the term "in full bloom" is hardly accurate, it may be in full bloom today, who knows, but it was a mere seedling ten years ago.

[Ohio Joe]

16. "Right-wingers were the majority of the internet users early on"

ummm, bullshit.

[BeFree]

17. Freepers

They had thousands of members before DU was even born.

Basically, rich business people who bought, then wrote off from their taxes the costs of their computers, were the majority of computer owners 10 years ago.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Otherwise the only bs is that coming from you.

[SDuderstadt]

18. ''prove me wrong''...

spoken like someone who has zero grasp of logic. you're committing the logical fallacy known as ''trying to shift the burden of proof''. it's your claim, therefore it's your burden of proof, not your opponent's burden to prove you wrong. with a lack of critical thinking skills like that, no wonder you embrace such goofy conspiracy theories on a host of topics.

[BeFree]

22. And you got what?

Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. You don't even bother to question my statement.

To be expected from someone who lives by the Bushco OCT.

[SDuderstadt]

25. your claim...

your burden of proof. throwing in a strawman (believe the bushco oct) doesn't save you from the burden of proof. i'm pretty sure it's against the rules to continually question my motivation, even indirectly. you might want to consider knocking it off.

[BeFree]

29. Motivation

Wondering what motivates someone leads to better conversations, so, no, I won't knock it off.

If you don't believe the Bushco OCT, you have had plenty of times and the motivation to say so. Since you don't, it leads me to wonder. Do you also feel that I should not wonder, too? Hmmm, I wonder.

[SDuderstadt]

39. nevermind...

your constant attempts to tie anyone who challenges you on the facts to ''bushco'' is nothing more than a rhetorical tactic. let us know when you're ready to debate on the merits/facts which, i predict, will be basically never.

[Ohio Joe]

20. Typical

Generally, when one makes a claim it is up to them to prove it.

[Ohio Joe]

21. Though by coincidence

There are some very good liberals mourning the death of geocities today that they used in the mid 90's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3846496

[BeFree]

23. The truth

Hard to swallow, eh? It's the truth.... freeperville was way ahead of the DU.
Saw it with my own eyes.

Just for fun, what kind of proof do I need to use to get you to think?

[Ohio Joe]

24. uhhh, no

That FR was online before DU is not in dispute (as far as I know). What is, is your statement "Right-wingers were the majority of the internet users early on".

[LARED]

27. Were you like ten years old, ten years ago?

You act like nothing happened in the Internet before 1999.

The very notion you think:

Basically, rich business people who bought, then wrote off from their taxes the costs of their computers, were the majority of computer owners 10 years ago.

is just plain funny.

[BeFree]

28. Who else could afford computers then?

And the internet was born from DoD desires. RWers.

Along with the DoD came the suppliers to the DoD. RWers, eh?

Of course, you have nothing to refute my claim. Maybe because you were 10 years old then? That would make sense, a lot of sense. It would explain a lot and give cause to understanding your POV all these years.

[achtung_circus]

30. In 1999 I was 43 years old.

On Edit: I could afford a computer.
Edit On Edit: I am not, nor have ever been "rich" or anything approaching it.

In 1992 I was, let's see, 36 years old. I was running Windows *gasp* 3.0. I was on the Internet. I live in Canada and have no connection to the MIC, the US DOD or RW anything.

Are you currently 10 years old?

I also vividly remember the Microsoft commercials (eaturing a nun, of all things) heralding the upcoming release of Windows 95, the combination of OS and GUI. The ads used the preliminary name "Chicago".

Grow up.

[BeFree]

31. Wow

You must be so cool. Although, being really cool you would have provided a smidgen of refutation to my statement and not gone off on your tangents.

All the RWers I knew were heavily into computers while libs were out doing community activism w/o comps while freeperdom was in 'full bloom'. Bwahahaha.

[achtung_circus]

32. You asked a question.

I answered it.

My sincere apologies. I'll try not to let it happen again, it seems to confuse you.

[BeFree]

33. Ahhh, so you're an expert?

So, was the internet in full bloom 10 years ago?

And what percentage of people use computers now and then?

[achtung_circus]

34. yup

http://www.google.com/">Here

[achtung_circus]

35. Goodnight, funny man.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. I bought my first computer in 1988.

I got a loan from my savings and loan. I have always been a Democrat. I was 21 at the time.

[LARED]

38. My first was a Tandy for around $2,400 in 1991 (I think)

I took a loan, I was in my early thirties, and using it for college. Practically a necessity even then. By 2001, even my grandmother had a computer.

[LARED]

37. One stat to refute you

http://www.c-i-a.com/pr0806.htm

[LARED]

26. Really?

Right-wingers were the majority of the Internet users early on.......

Evidence please.

Of course the internet was around then, but the term 'advent of the internet' references the discussion on the internet of this issue in ways that was hardly conceivable back then.

Really, hardly concievable? DU was around long before 9/11. So were thousands of discussion boards, blogs, weblog, So were easy to manage personal web sites, Geocities etc. Again please back up with evidence

But your use of the term "in full bloom" is hardly accurate, it may be in full bloom today, who knows, but it was a mere seedling ten years ago.

Maybe I'm just way ahead of the Internet curve, but the Internet clearly was used by many millions if not billions in 1999, and 2001. In short the Internet has clearly grow every year, but your claim it is somehow a functional tool to find the truth is ludicrous.

[rhymeandreason]

40. Sad but true.

The government versions of what happened just don't make any sense. It had to be an inside job.

[defendandprotect]

7. Not clear on the choices ... MIHOP by Bush/Cheney neo-cons with probably

Blackwater of KBR help. And, many others --

[Kitty Herder]

8. Why no "I don't know" option?

I don't entirely buy the government's story, but many of the truthers seem crazy, and there's so much crap out there that I don't know what to think anymore.

[NowHearThis]

12. 9/11 was MADE to HAPPEN on Purpose

9/11 was an inside job. The main questions that most people have concern exactly who was behind it and how certain aspects of
the attacks were made to happen. Who doctored the videos, who made sure the media was on board, who briefed Bush on what he should
do on that date, were professional public relations firms used to sell the Official Stories to the media and on the internet etc.

[achtung_circus]

14. "most people" ???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

19. please enlighten us as to how the videos could have been 'doctored''..

are you claiming the ''perps'' could have possibly known everyone who happened to capture the events of that day? even if we assume that video was ''doctored'' after it left the possession of the person who took it, you don't think they would come forward with the original and cry foul?? no wonder you embrace the goofy conspiracy theories you do. you're beyond help.

[vincent_vega_lives]

41. Number 1

does not exclude number 2.

[nemo137]

65. Number 2

"cock-up before conspiracy."