Why should we believe the gov't version of the events of

[HuskerDU]

Sept 11? Forget conspiracy theories, just think about facts.

1. They are all liars and lie about almost every issue, even insignificant ones.

2. They have taken complete advantage of 911 to consolidate power since the day it happened.

3. Smirk and Sneer refused to cooperate with the 911 commission, then only agreed to meet with them if they appeared together and were not under oath and their transcripts not released to the public.

4. They clearly received warnings that were very detailed.

5. Farenheit 911. I watched the movie for the first time a week ago. I purposefully hadn't seen it so I could debate RWers on other sites without the taint (in their eyes) of having seen his movie. I'm sure you all know the piles of Saudi/Bush connections etc mentioned in F911.

6. PNAC. I would like one reporter to ask about the 'New Pearl Harbor.' This is a democracy right? It seems to me that in the America I grew up in, some reporter would ask about that. Who knows, maybe a PNACer could satisfy my suspicion. Until that happens, my suspicion will remain.

I sit here and try to understand the technical evaluations of the explosions etc, but really don't know who is telling the truth. Forget about that stuff because it doesn't matter if the * crew LIHOP.

I don't understand how there are any dems who still believe the gov't version of 911. For those gov't believers, why do you believe the gov't?

[petgoat]

1. Damn Good Questions, Du.

I'd suggest you print them on small pieces of paper (or better yet,
cardstock) and leave them in libraries, on busses, in laundromats,
stuffed in free newspapers, under windshield wipers (only on cars with
bumperstickers) and anywhere else you can think to place them.

Also cite a couple of your favorite 9/11 websites.

And if you want, start a 9/11 Truth group in your town.


It's still a free country, right?

[HuskerDU]

2. I don't know what the truth is. But why are there DUers who

believe the * administration? It is at a minimum VERY suspicious.

And thank you petgoat. I have been talking with open minded folks for a couple of years now, really just expressing doubt about the gov't story. I don't want to promote any one theory, just that I have strong doubts about the gov't version of events. To me that is scary enough!

[petgoat]

4. You don't know what the truth is?

Good for you! I saw a great sign recently at a demonstration.
Something to the effect of "Honor those who seek the truth.
Fear those who claim they've found it."

9/11 Truthists needn't claim they've found it. All we really know
is that the official story doesn't make sense, evidence has been
suppressed, and the official investigations have been dishonest.

I'll suppose you're familiar with Dr. Griffin's essay "A 571 Page
Lie" (1) and with the 9/11 widows' ratings of the 9/11 Commission's
responses to their questions (2).

1. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

2. http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

[HuskerDU]

7. Thank you so much petgoat.

This isn't much, but Condi said, 'Noone could have imagined...' Bush said the same thing after Katrina, even though there is footage of a weatherman telling him exactly what could, and eventually did happen.

I always found that disturbing, if not incredibly incriminating like the others.

[savemefromdumbya]

32. because 'they' send their people here to ridicule any debate

[HuskerDU]

3. Also petgoat, I am really a novice about 911 truth. The list I

made was just off the top of my head. Maybe we could use this thread to make a really well thought out list to spread around.

[petgoat]

5. That's a great idea.

I'd add to the list

"Why was there no air defense for 90 minutes?"

"How was the HQ of the greatest military power every known
attacked by an unarmed airliner?"

[HuskerDU]

6. Yup those were the ones I was thinking of and I know that

there are more.

I hate the explosions and etc threads because it seems like two sides with an agenda each calling the other ridiculous. I don't know enough about it to know who is telling the truth there. But I would like DUers who believe the gov't to answer our questions. I don't think they can so I wonder why they believe the gov't.

[petgoat]

9. "I don't think they can"

I don't either. Few of the OCTers will ever answer a direct question
with any substance (links).

I share your perception that many of the controlled demolition (CD)
enthusiasts seem to be motivated by the notion that CD hangs Bush.
Personally, I think CD could have been done by al Qaeda, so I've
de-linked the CD issue from the Bush-did-it issue.

A lot of the truth-bashers here make a great effort to create the
impression that some of the rest of us are liars, our arguments
are weak, etc. They're trying to deter new lurkers from getting
involved, and their charges don't stand up to scrutiny.

You can pretty quickly get a sense of whose posts lack substance.

Welcome to DU!

[HuskerDU]

10. Their tactics worked because I had no desire to post in those

threads. That is why I started this one. I hope that the DU gov't believers will attempt to answer our questions here. Otherwise it will make me more suspicious of them and their story.

[canetoad]

36. More power to you

for not buying into the petty name calling. I have noted the posters who demand, as though it is some divinely bestowed right, that you reply to them in THEIR time, using words and logic that THEY find acceptable. It's nothing more than intimadatory tactics and I wonder if they ever use the same tone in face to face discourses as they do on this board.

[HuskerDU]

39. Thank you canetoad.

I don't pretend to be an expert in engineering or really anything other than baseball and punk rock.

I simply do not believe the gov't and find those that do to be exactly as you describe. IMO, it is they who need to be doing the question answering.

[Sinti]

25. I could add a couple

Why did they stop the investigations that could have prevented this in the FBI and DIA pre-9/11? Why did Ashcroft say he "didn't want to hear about this" and the DIA put post-its over the faces and say "ignore these guys" - to the point that they fired people to stop it from happening?

Why are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan our close allies in this "War on Terror" when they were (in large measure) the ones who financed the terrorists, via ISI and the Saudi Royal family? Why did the 9/11 Commission cover up this fact, and if they were willing to hide this fact, what else were they willing to hide?

Why when they knew we were under attack did Rummy and Wolfowitz think "there wasn't anything they could do right away", as Wolfowitz put it himself, and just continue with their meeting until the Pentagon itself was hit? We were under attack, obviously it's their job to be all over the response and prevention of further damage like white on rice. Is that not what they get paid for?

There are probably more - but I gotta get back to work :)

[HuskerDU]

27. Thank you sinti!

The 911 movement will only grow and grow until these suspicions are put to rest.

[mirandapriestly]

8. it's "faith-based" & irrational to believe the official story,

That is why the Stone movie is being marketed to evangelicals, it is a myth. Also several of the people in the towers who survived and have rather outlandish stories (saw the people in the cockpit, and the plane landed right next to their desk) have gone on the evangelical lecture route, along with a crew of 911 survivors.

I would add to your list that
they claimed not to anticipate planes as missiles (proven lie), yet they knew the name of the "hijackers" within hours.

"junior*" remained in a publicized location in an school full of elementary children apparently without worry while all this was happening.

[HuskerDU]

11. Yeah they got a warning that terrorists were going to use

hijaked planes as weapons against the US and no one could remember WWII Japaneese kamakazis. Just very few plausable excuses.

[HuskerDU]

12. It is interesting that of all people to make this movie- Stone.

And yeah, our nation is under attack, but they knew that * was in no danger. How?

And didn't * say 'I saw the first plane hit and thought 'one bad pilot.' By the time I saw the second one I knew we were under attack.' Does that make him the only person on Earth who saw the first plane hit on tv? I realize that appologists will ironically use the 'he's an idiot' defense, but still.

[canetoad]

13. Good post

Suspicion is all that's needed. Suspicion that the truth has not been delivered and suspicion of those who actively work to supress discussion about the events of that day.

There are people on this forum who trouble me with their snide and pedantic put-downs of any and every person who wishes to see a full and transparent investigation of the events. I will not begin to speculate on their motives - I cannot get my head around the thoughts of anyone who chortles 'looney tin-foiler' when posters are just trying to make sense of what happened.

To me, they are guilty of refusing to see the bigger picture, the slow acceptance into the psyche of American people, and the rest of the world that nothing is acceptable except a full, deep, no-holds-barred investigation of 911 by totally impartial and independent bodies.

The build up has been slow. It takes a long time for a small voice to become a roaring loud one. Killtown and Webfairy are reviled, along with others who posit less than conventional theories. But these people still have their place in the 911 truth movement, if for no other reason than they garner attention.

Imagine if JFK had been assassinated in a time when we had global communication via internet. Picture the growing groundswell of voices demanding an answer.

I write not as an American, but a world citizen who believes we are being hurried to the brink of catastrophe by the greedy excesses of a small and priviledged group who believe it is their right to devastate the world and its people to satisfy their greed. We have very little with which to fight these monsters - except out numbers. To grow the numbers, we need each and every soul that we can recruit. To that end, 911 truth has surely become a movement.

Charlie Sheen, Dixie Chicks, each and every film star who speaks up advances the movement. I don't give a fuck whether or not they can argue the melting point of constructural steel or the properties of thermate. They draw attention to the movement and that is what we want to see. Dylan Avery has done his bit, and how well he did it too! I do not care how many upholders of the official story fuse tiny blood vessels in their brains in their zeal to 'debunk', the word is getting out and that is all we need for this ghastly story to finally come to light.

As the groundswell of discontent grows, it is my hope that truly influential people will be caught up in it. People who have either the money or support to make demands for investigation and have those demands heard. That I believe will be the turning point.

I honestly don't fuss myself about the more outlandish theories about events on 911 and I certainly never feel that in any way the fact that people hold those ideas compromise or make lesser my belief that the Bush administration was responsible for the attacks. Instead I applaud them for sticking to their guns, having the guts to put their theories up there for public criticsm. The 911 truth movement would be a sadder and bleaker place without Killtown, Webfairy and the rest, for their passion has ignited many debates and brought many who never gave government complicity a second thought.

To the small minded ones, you attack because aggression is the best form of defence. I cannot begin to fathom why you seem to work up so much glee from mindless insults and putting people down, but folks, it's a big tent and everyone in the human race is in it. If you truly believe that it went down with 19 paper-cutter wielding Saudis, more power to you. Just don't be left behind when the rest of the world opens its eyes.

[mirandapriestly]

14. I savored ever word...

and have nothing to add except agreement,( and a few "heh heh hehs")

[canetoad]

16. What the hell time is is there MP?

Still a civilized hour in this outpost of civilization lol.

[mirandapriestly]

18. Way past my bed time,

I love to go on here after everyone in my house is asleep and sometimes I get carried away...just one more thread....

[Grateful for Hope]

15. This post blew me away

It would be interesting to see a poll done around the world which addressed how many think that the US gov had some degree of involvement in 9/11. We now have 36% in the US who think there is some gov culpability, despite the propaganda we are subjected to by our media. I would wager a guess that the percentage world-wide would be much larger.

[canetoad]

17. Almost 100% agreement

among people I know, but ya know Hope, I hang about with a bunch of tin foil looney CTers, if the Musical One was to be believed.

[Grateful for Hope]

19. Nearly 100%!

that is significant, and, even though we have no way of knowing if this is representative of the world view of 9/11, it does suggest that there may be a lot of questioning around the world.

"tin foil loony CTers"...good one!

:rofl:

[petgoat]

28. The writeup of the 2004 Zogby poll that showed that 49% of NYC

residents thought the Bushcists had knowledge of the impending
attacks and consciously allowed them to happen mentioned a
Toronto Star poll showing that 63% of Canadians thought the
same thing.

It quotes David Kubiak: "On May 26th the Toronto Star reported a
national poll showing that 63% of Canadians are also convinced US
leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act."

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

[Grateful for Hope]

40. I am not surprised,

I suspect the farther away a person is from the influence of US corporate-controlled media propaganda, the more likely he or she is to question the official story.

[HuskerDU]

20. The whole boxcutter thing...

I always had a hard time believing that. Maybe it is because I work with boxcutters everyday at the store. I would take on a guy with a boxcutter in a second. If I had 50 friends, we could take out a dozen of 'em if our lives depended on it. And according to the OCT, passengers knew what had happened on the other plane. A plane full of passengers could not be stopped by a few guys with boxcutters.

But here is a counterpoint question. Why didn't the hijakers use ceramic guns? I remember seeing a show about terrorists using those before and would have believed that a lot easier than boxcutters.

Oh well, nothing about the boxcutters changes the fact that I would like our questions answered. Until then, I believe *co LIHOP.

[petgoat]

29. Don't forget the passengers could arm themselves with pillows and

blankets. Seatbelt buckles swung on the ends of
cut-off seatbelts would have made formidable weapons.

[Artdyst]

30. What hijackers? What makes you sure there were any REAL ones? nt

nt

[HuskerDU]

31. The only thing that I know for sure, is that the gov't explanation

does not add up, and that there is tons of suspicious evidence pointing to our gov't.

[savemefromdumbya]

34. there weren't any

neither was there 'Lets roll" that's a Rumsfeld

[Sinti]

50. Personally, if I were to MIHOP I would have real Arab hijackers on every

plane. If something went wrong, I wouldn't want to be caught with my pants down. I've said this before, I think, but you have to consider how devastating it would be for the whole plan if something went wrong. Reality should be as close to the story you're going to tell as possible, IMO. Yep, real hijackers is the only way to go...

[savemefromdumbya]

33. What about the RED bandanas

no muslim wears red bandanas

[canetoad]

37. Lol yeah,

Red bandana that looked like it came from a surf shop.

[Norrin Radd]

41. Good point, I brought that up, as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=105099&mesg_id=105365

From what I've looked at, it seems like Muslim men would avoid wearing red, though I'm not absolutely certain about this.


I'm going to post those links again, as I think they are worth considering:

are boys allowed to wear red?
http://www.ummah.net/forum/showthread.php?p=777422

Red Colour - LI Islamic Forum
http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-islam/1137-red-colour.html

Is it permisable sic for males to wear yellow and red clothes?
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=13708

Excellence of wearing white clothes and the permissibility of wearing red, green, yellow and black clothes made from Cotton, Linen but not Silk
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/riyad/03/chap117.htm

Are males allowed to wear red clothing?
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&fr=sfp&p=muslim+wear+red&u=www.understanding-islam.com/forum/topic.asp%3FTOPIC_ID%3D1152&w=muslim+wear+red&d=JiVw-2P9NMyz&icp=1&.intl=us


Though this source states that the prohibition is against clothes dyed red or yellow with saffron:

Question: I have been told that it is not permissible to wear clothing that is the color of saffron. I would like to know why it is not permissible to do so.
http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=956&main_cat_id=4

and this page also mentions saffron:

Male Hijab (covering)
http://muttaqun.com/malehijab.html

[savemefromdumbya]

42. Post this as a main thread again - shows the whole thing was faked

[Norrin Radd]

46. I'm not that certain of it, yet.

If I post it as a main thread, it might be a distraction. Some of the pages I posted mentioned that wearing red is okay if it's mixed with another color, like the red and white Keffiyeh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keffiyeh

or shumagh

http://astro.temple.edu/~trad/final-project/man.html

[HuskerDU]

21. I live in America, and I can tell you that people are opening up

to the idea. It was not that long ago that I discovered that there were people who didn't believe the 911 story. Some stuff never made any sense to me but I literally had no idea that the 911 Truth movement was out there!

Now it is almost always the first topic as I run into old friends. Blah blah blah LIHOP! It isn't stopping any time soon.

Really only brainwashed Foxsheep dismiss LIHOP out of hand.

[Desertrose]

51. Excellent points...excellent post.

It does make one wonder if peerhaps those so quick to yell "looney tinfoil hatters" may not have their own agenda...or at the very least want to shut down discussion.

Peace
DR

[HuskerDU]

22. Why are those of us who don't believe the gov't forced to

explain what happened on 911? Why don't they give their explanations to our questions? All I said is that I don't believe the gov't and here is why.

With plenty of sober and reasonable suspicion, how can they justify believing the gov't? Why is 911 off limits to GD when it is the underlying most important issue in politics?

[Mist]

23. You're only "forced" to offer alternative explanations if you agree to

play that game. As far as I'm concerned, the 911 truth seekers are simply asking the questions the gov't never saw fit to ask.

[HornBuckler]

24. Why is it that those that are questioned in your post

have yet to answer?

[Grateful for Hope]

26. Like you, I don' think that the demolition discussions are important

we can't prove anything one way or the other because we lack evidence, and, in the overall picture, it really doesn't matter how the towers came down. What does matter is that we don't have answers to the many question that we have. We need an independent, nonpartisan investigation in order to know the truth about what was behind 9/11.

[HuskerDU]

85. Yup. Your post sums up where I am at right now.

nt

[HuskerDU]

35. Kicking for any OCT person to respond to our questions.

I am all ears if any OCT would attempt to give it a shot.

Until then, why are we not in the streets demanding answers?

[canetoad]

38. Fear of being labelled a 'dissident'? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

44. The problem is people who believe the OCT can't answer our

questions. They can only repeat the official line and attempt to protect their world view.

Personally, If I ask the question, "Who benefits? I can answer that question. The neo-con agenda and those who promote that agenda benefit.

So my first inclination is to believe that someone who supports the neo-con agenda is responsible.

Also, it would require someone who could disable US air defenses and who could pull off an extremely complicated plot, so someone perhaps with a military background or with co- conspirators in the military.

We know from various news reports that a number of high ranking officials in the administration canceled their scheduled flights for 9/11. Willy Brown was reported to have been warned by Condi not to fly, and somebody or group of somebodies placed all those puts in the stock market. All that suggests fore knowledge by at least some high officials.

I personally believe the towers and WTC#7 had more help falling than just the airliner impact and the resulting office fires, or in the case of #7, just the office fire and peripheral damage.

The chances that the purported Arab hijackers did it alone is infinitesimal to none. They just didn't have the mental, physical, or political capabilities to pull this off, as in disable US air defenses, fly planes accurately at unbelievably high speeds and make extremely complicated maneuvers. The BBC has reported that at least 4 of the accused hijackers are alive and well. Atta and his buddies certainly didn't behave like devout fanatical Muslims, and they hung around with a lot of FBI/intelligence community connected type people.

So that's my true crime analysis in a nut shell. As to what can be done about it, I think people like Dylan Avery and Dr. Jones are making a difference at least in educating people that everything they know is wrong. They are both playing critical but different roles. Avery is putting the questions out into pop culture and Dr. Jones is doing hard research to prove or disprove his hypothesis that demolition is a better answer to the WTC collapses than is poking a plane into the top stories, kerosene and random fire.

I heard Avery on NPR this morning and he was great, but of course they had on a guy on to balance him out(when someone tells the truth they got to find someone who will lie, not matter what the issue :-( )Guess what the shill said (I bet you can't, it's soooo deep.) He said "Conspiracies are impossible to keep secret." surprise surprise surprise. Let's prove him correct.

We can do a lot in a little way. We can burn or get a friend to burn DVD's of downloaded videos such as loose change, and then hand them out. We can write letters to the editors. We can ask prosecutors to convene grand juries. We can freeway blog. We can let others know that they are not alone or crazy because they know something is rotten.

And we can have fun doing it.

What shouldn't we do? We shouldn't try to convince people as in talk them into it. Doesn't work. We shouldn't live like Vincent Price in the "Last Man on Earth," or like one of the non- zombies in the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," or like the person who discovers the terrible secret of "The Steppford Wives."

One reason I am inspired by the Jersey Girls, DR. Jones and Dylan Avery is they just do what they must, keep on keeping on keeping on, and keep telling the truth. And that seems like a good thing for a group that calls ourselves the Truth Movement to do.



(edit for spelling-Doh!)

[HuskerDU]

45. Thank you John Q.

Why can't this thread be in GD?

This is the most important issue of them all. How can we trust the gov't until our concerns are answered?

[HuskerDU]

43. Kicking again!

These gov't believers are so aggressive in other threads. Where are they to address my concerns?

How in the hell can we believe the gov't without having these concerns addressed?

[greyl]

47. a reply

Why should we believe the gov't version of the events of Sept 11?

We shouldn't believe what any government ever says, without subjecting the statement to scrutiny.
We shouldn't believe what anyone says, without subjecting the statement to scrutiny.
The harsher the scrutiny the better, I say.
In fact, we could all benefit from subjecting what we tell ourselves to rather harsh scrutiny, more often than not.

Is Skepticism an Inhuman Position?

...imagine a person who, on principle, trusted everything they heard from others unless their unreliability had been proved, rather than the other way around. The local snake oil salesmen would be assumed to have miracle cures for baldness and erectile dysfunction in the same little bottle, politicians eagerly embraced for every promise made, telephone psychics consulted on every little decision. We have met such people in movie comedies; they are called fools and idiots and are to be chastised or pitied, but not admired.

Such gullibility as this is not inhuman; on the contrary, it is all too human — but it is an aspect of our humanity which properly applied skepticism can keep in check, preventing us from making mistakes we’ll surely regret.
...
more

Due to the huge amount of detail and potentially relevant facts regarding 9/11, there are an immense amount of competing versions of the events of that day. The United States government, not being monolithic, even disagrees with itself.
That point leads back to your question, "Why should we believe the gov't version of the events of Sept 11?", and I think many people who read it probably thought it was leading, vague, and old hat, which may explain the lack of responses of the variety you were trying for.

[HuskerDU]

48. How about you rewrite the points I was making in a less

leading, less vague manner. I'm a fucking store clerk. I just want answers and figure my fellow DUers would be kinder than folks at other sites who simply dismiss you as crazy if you don't believe the gov't.

All of this may be old hat to you, but people like me are waking up all the time. Sorry, not everyone has known the gov't lies surrounding 911 for 5 years and can be as up to speed as you.

[greyl]

52. Thanks for briefly scanning my reply.

I was responding to the main point of your OP that you reiterated in at least 5 other posts in this thread. ie:

why are there DUers who believe the * administration? It is at a minimum VERY suspicious.

I would like DUers who believe the gov't to answer our questions.

I hope that the DU gov't believers will attempt to answer our questions here. Otherwise it will make me more suspicious of them and their story.

I simply do not believe the gov't and find those that do to be exactly as you describe.

These gov't believers are so aggressive in other threads. Where are they to address my concerns?

What does being a fucking store clerk have to do with anything? Do you have a problem with store clerks?

[HuskerDU]

53. Every other thread in this forum features 2 sides yelling at each

other and each calling the other crazy. I simply would like one DUer who believes the official story to tell in their own words why they feel that way. Perhaps if one person had responded, I wouldn't have continued my requests.

I am sorry if I took your post the wrong way. I tried in my response to say that if you think my questions were leading, or my information vague (or whatever other critiques you had of my original and subsequent posts) you were more than welcome to 'correct' them for me. In other words, 'OK Mr. Smart Guy, how would you have phrased my questions and concerns? I am just a store clerk so forgive my not being a Rhodes Scholar such as yourself.'

Does that make sense friend? Again, I appologize.

[Artdyst]

54. It's futile to expect a bush conspiracy theorist to tell you that.

The OCT'ers here ASK questions (usually pointless ones or ones designed to get you to say something they can use to try & get you banned...and YES, of COURSE they don't do that. I'm keeeding). Partisans are only interested in promoting, defending their point of view (or that of their patron). Haven't you figured that out yet?

Besides, put yourself in THEIR shoes. Could YOU give a plausible explanation for the bush 9/11 story? One that wouldn't cause people to fall out of their chairs laughing? NO? Why would you expect that they could do that?

[HuskerDU]

55. Thank you Artdyst!

I feel so stupid for taking greyls post the exact opposite of the way he had intended. But IMO his little 'morality tale' could have been taken either way. Skepticism good. Yes I agree!

[Grateful for Hope]

66. He did not respond to your specific questions n/t

[greyl]

59. Nobody here believes "the official story" hook, line, and sinker.

That's the point I was making. "Government believers" don't exist here, yet you were addressing a question to "them" over, and over, and wondering why "they" didn't respond. It's like the old and unfair "are you still slowly poisoning your husband?" question.

For the record, I don't have a problem with the 6 items you listed in your OP. I agree with you, and have a possible answer for your PNAC question, but I saw this other "gov't believer" issue as being more important.

Also for the record, it's asinine for someone to refer to people who disagree with their pet conspiracy theory as "bush conspiracy theorists", but it happens far too often.

[HuskerDU]

60. Thank you greyl. I understand what you were saying now.

Since I have been turned off by all of the namecalling in other threads, I am very sorry that I inadvertently did the same thing in mine.

Please note that while I am very suspicious of the gov't version, I have no reason to believe any version! I pointed out that I was skeptical as to why boxcutters vs ceramic guns if it was indeed a gov't conspiracy. I just don't know and that is MY point.

And not knowing makes me very frightened as an American. (and yeah maybe take to the streets to demand answers- that's still legal and the patriotic thing to do, no?)

[Artdyst]

65. Do you know what "limited hang-out" means? EOM

nt

[HuskerDU]

68. No I do not.

nt

[Grateful for Hope]

67. It's good to hear, greyl

that you agree with HuskerDU. Personally, I thought he was asking some pretty good questions.

[HuskerDU]

56. I am truly sorry. But can you not see how one could take that

story as either side being the snake oil salesman? Was that convoluted bunch of schlock suppose to convince anyone of anything?

[leftofthedial]

49. there is no reason, nor has there ever been a reason

to believe anything they've told us

[HuskerDU]

57. I really did not want this to be group think. I have read in other

threads reasons why I should believe the gov't. Engineering mumbo jumbo and the other guys are crazy.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for most folks who just don't understand that stuff. I will wait patiently to allow someone to give it their best shot.

And anyone who can explain to me how greyl's 'skepticism' tale enlightens anything, please let me know. I am indeed skeptical.

[Artdyst]

58. And another thing, HuskerDU. It's the MOO slims that are the real

INcompetent ones. Remember the first "attack" on the WTC (circa 1993) when the U.S. used them as their proxy "bomb bers", and the fools blew it, right? No way were they going to risk the 2001 "attacks" on such incompetent patsies.

[HuskerDU]

61. Sorry, but I don't really know what you are talking about

in this post.

Who are the MOO slims?

[greyl]

64. 1,042 people were injured, and 6 died in that attack,

and you say "the fools blew it"?
Nice.

...With any major calamity, conspiracy theories tend to emerge when key details of the case appear incomplete. A few analysts suggest that Yousef and Ajaj (another of the bombers) were either Iraqi agents or freelance terrorists employed by Iraqi intelligence to exploit Islamic militants residing in the United States, as a means of continuing the Persian Gulf War on American soil...(4) Nevertheless, the theory that the Iraqi government sent Yousef on a mission to avenge the Gulf War relies too much on circumstantial evidence to create a compelling case...

...(S)ources suggest that Yousef was motivated by an inchoate mixture of visceral hatred and personal affirmation, wrapped in a variety of geopolitical rationales. The primary motivation for the WTC bombing was to kill and injure a large number of Americans. Yousef told Agent Parr that he intended for the explosion to cause one tower to fall into the other, inflicting 250,000 civilian casualties.(10) Throughout Yousef’s terrorist career in the mid-1990s, he sought to carry out truly diabolical terrorist acts, all of which he justified by visceral hatred of the United States because of its support for Israel. Another striking feature of Yousef’s motivations is the absence of a religious rationale... Yousef’s declared motivation was not religious but rather an anti-occupation crusade aimed against Israel and its main supporter, the United States. In contrast, Ayyad Abouhalima, and Ajaj all expressed religious sentiments during their statements at sentencing but never admitted any connection to the WTC bombing.(11) Their statements were more affirmations of faith than rationales for a terrorist attack. Given that several of the conspirators were followers of Sheikh Omar (Abdul Rahman), Yousef’s lack of religious justification is conspicuous by its absence. He appears to have been a secular terrorist who mobilized others by playing on their religious zeal. At the root of the WTC bombers’ intent to inflict mass casualties was a strong desire to punish, to seek revenge, and to underscore the dignity of Muslims. In the letter claiming responsibility for the bombing, they stated that their “action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.” ...

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/wtc93.htm

[dailykoff]

62. Which one?

It changes every news cycle. I fully expect that in about six months the official story will be "Yes, we blew up the Trade Center, but we had to, for your own good, but we couldn't tell you about it, because it would threaten national security."

Which ought to get them to 2008, when they can pardon themselves and hand off the whole mess to the next adminitration.

[HuskerDU]

63. Yes, more reason for suspicion.

Rove does not seem to have a Republican style soundbite to defeat 911 skepticism.

'Look at all these experts!' sorry, not a physicist or engineer.

'Don't you see the airplane hit the pentagon?' no I saw about half a second of nothing.

'CTers are crazy.' that ends your arguement IMO.

[salvorhardin]

69. Some thoughts...

I agree with greyl in that we should not just automatically believe what any government, including our own tells us. Further, it has been pointed out many times here by myself and others that it is disingenuous to suggest that DUers who do not accept the conspiracy theories regarding 9-11 are completely accepting of the government's accounting and narrative.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=101457&mesg_id=101457

I think it's also disingenuous to suggest that everyone involved in our government are liars and or complicit in a coverup. That the upper levels of the Bush administration have taken advantage of 9-11 to push their own agenda for war in the Middle East is indisputable but as I have noted elsewhere, "Cui bono?" on its' own has inadequate explanatory power.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=106099&mesg_id=106817

As far as I'm concerned, PNAC and their "new Pearl Harbor" statement are red herrings in this conversation. Those two topics have nothing to offer in regard to discerning the facts of 9-11 attacks. Do they speak to motive or intent? Possibly, though doubtful. I can respect and understand where others' thinking on this point diverges from my own.

I think if you really want to understand 9-11, and obviously we all do or we wouldn't be here, then you have to start with the basic facts of what happened on that day. To that end I think these are the facts that all but the most reality challenged individuals can agree upon:

• A jumbo jet flew into WTC 1, it later collapsed
• A jumbo jet flew into WTC 2, it later collapsed
• WTC 7 collapsed
• A jumbo jet flew into the Pentagon
• A jumbo jet flew/possibly fell after being shot down into the Pennsylvania soil
• There was massive loss of life and injury

Now, I'm sorry to say that if you don't accept those 6 statements as facts then there can be no discussion. To suggest any narrative accounting of 9-11 that does not recognize those statements as facts is delusional in my humble opinion and I do not use that word lightly. That is not to say those who have "alternative" interpretations of reality are necessarily insane but I do think that to deny what so many thousands of people witnessed is asinine. That statement might make you angry, but there it is.

So if we accept those 6 statements as fact then we can begin to ask useful questions. Many of those questions will parallel questions asked by the 9-11 Commission and the degree to which reasoned opinion differs from that of the 9-11 Commission Report and the Bush administration is the degree to which the 9-11 Commission was either incompetent or purposefully thwarted from carrying out their task by the administration. But it is not enough just to form opinions. If one is to make charges that anyone is lying, deceptive or even just mistaken it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to provide evidence to support their claim. To that end I think the 9-11 Truth movement has failed miserably. They sure have sold a lot of DVDs, CDs, books and radio ads though.

On edit: purposely --> purposefully, mistake --> mistaken

[Artdyst]

70. Maybe your other OCT'ers will debate you. Good luck to you all.

n/t

[salvorhardin]

71. Your post is nonsense

First and foremost, I'm not looking for debate. I'm looking for enlightened discussion. However if we can't agree upon the basic facts of reality then there's no hope of understanding. If people distort or otherwise perfidy reality I will call them on it. If I am unsure of facts I will defer to those who have a better understanding than I. Finally, again, I fail to see how acceptance of reality amounts to total tacit acceptance of the Bush administration narrative or implied support thereof.

[Artdyst]

72. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that your basic facts are unproven

If you can provide proof for your premise allegations, those of us who use logic in our thinking and reasoning will gladly engage you. Ask your fellow CT'ers (the ones who were debaters in college) what would happen in a formal debate to someone who tries to base an argument on unproven allegations.

[salvorhardin]

73. What unproven allegations?

Do you seriously question that jumbo jets flew into WTC 1 & 2 and the Pentagon? Do you seriously question that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed? Do you seriously question that a jumbo jet impacted the Pennsylvania soil? Do you seriously question that there was massive loss of life and injury? If you do then I would suggest that you either provide evidence that what thousands of people witnessed 1st hand is false. Otherwise I can only conclude that your are either delusional or purposefully perpetuating a lie.

[Artdyst]

74. The allegations in your post that have never been proven. THOSE.

nt

[salvorhardin]

77. Which allegations.

I'm stupid. Tell me which allegations have never been proven. Be specific. Remember, I'm stupid.

[Artdyst]

80. The allegations that have never been (or won't ever be) proven.

If you use unproven allegations as your premise, then your conclusions will NOT be valid. No one has ever told you that? Pick up an elementary book on logical thinking/reasoning and then DO OVER.

[Artdyst]

81. None of your allegations have ever been or ever will be proven.

If you use unproven allegations as your premise, then your conclusions will NOT be valid. No one has ever told you that? Pick up an elementary book on logical thinking/reasoning and then DO OVER.

[salvorhardin]

82. Which allegations.

I'm stupid. Tell me which allegations have never been proven. Be specific. Remember, I'm stupid.

I'll provide you the menu again:

• A jumbo jet flew into WTC 1, it later collapsed
• A jumbo jet flew into WTC 2, it later collapsed
• WTC 7 collapsed
• A jumbo jet flew into the Pentagon
• A jumbo jet flew/possibly fell after being shot down into the Pennsylvania soil
• There was massive loss of life and injury

Which one(s) of those allegations has never been proven? Which one(s) do you deny. Once again, I'm stupid so please be specific.

[Artdyst]

83. I accept your self-description. THAT you've proven over & over.

nt

[salvorhardin]

84. I'm still waiting...

Which of these facts (you call them allegations) do you deny?

• A jumbo jet flew into WTC 1, it later collapsed
• A jumbo jet flew into WTC 2, it later collapsed
• WTC 7 collapsed
• A jumbo jet flew into the Pentagon
• A jumbo jet flew/possibly fell after being shot down into the Pennsylvania soil
• There was massive loss of life and injury

Remember, you said...

You don't have to be a lawyer to know that your basic facts are unproven

and you said...

The allegations in your post that have never been proven. THOSE

you also said...

None of your allegations have ever been or ever will be proven.
If you use unproven allegations as your premise, then your conclusions will NOT be valid. No one has ever told you that? Pick up an elementary book on logical thinking/reasoning and then DO OVER.

So obviously you agree with (according to your own words) NONE of the basic facts I laid out above. Which means...

• You DO NOT believe that a jumbo jet flew into WTC 1 and you DO NOT believe that WTC 1 collapsed
• You DO NOT believe that a jumbo jet flew into WTC 2 and you DO NOT believe that WTC 2 collapsed
• You DO NOT believe that WTC 7 collapsed
• You DO NOT believe that a jumbo jet flew into the Pentagon
• You DO NOT believe that a jumbo jet flew/fell after being shot down into the Pennsylvania soil
• You DO NOT believe that there was massive loss of life and injury

Just to reiterate, you said...

None of your allegations have ever been or ever will be proven.

Thus you deny that 9-11 ever happened. Would you care for a DO OVER?

[HuskerDU]

75. I am convinced of most of your bullet points. I am

however skeptical of the Pentagan situation. Realize that I am a complete layman, but when they showed the tape 'proving' that an airplane hit it, I sure as heck did not see it. I have not been convinced of that one, mainly because of how hard the talking heads were trying to sell it. 'How can you not see that plane?' Shucks, I just don't Maybe if there was more than 1 second of footage it would be clear to me.

I have made no charges. However, I remain more prone to believe that there was gov't complicity in 911 than not. Mostly because of how they have used 911.

I will continue voicing my skepticism regarding 911 with friends and acquantinces. I do not think that the burdon of proof is on anyone besides my gov't to prove that I can trust them. I think every American should feel the same way.

Rove and CO do not have a 15 second soundbite to snuff out the skepticism growing in America. What WILL they do?

[salvorhardin]

76. No, I can understand how you could say that

The so-called evidence put out by CTers that a plane did not hit the Pentagon is convincing until one realizes that it is on a small fraction of the evidence that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon and that CTers like to cherry pick images and quotes to support their case while ignoring the overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts their case. But I don't want to argue that with you now.

Rather I do want you to continue to voice and be resolute in your skepticism. Just be as skeptical of claims made by the CT crowd as you are of the government's official narrative.

I do not think that the burdon of proof is on anyone besides my gov't to prove that I can trust them.

You're absolutely right. However the burden of proof is also on the CTers to prove that you can trust them as well is is the burden of proof on me and any other skeptic to prove our claims. The burden of proof is always on the party making a positive claim, no matter whom they may be.

On edit: removed nonsensical phrase

[HuskerDU]

78. Got it! Thank you very much.

I discovered that there was a 911 truth movement about 2 years ago. But I purposely avoided viewing any 'propaganda videos' because I liked to debate RWers on other sites armed only with mainstream info and a heavy dose of skepticism.

My fellow sports fans I debate politics with would dismiss me if I even cited F911 by Moore. That is why I only recently viewed it.

Before watching F911, I would mention my suspicions, to which they would reply, 'You mean you believe that nutty Michael Moore movie?!?' 'Nope, never seen it.' I think that it is moments like that that open minds.

Being skeptical of the gov't is really all we need. Once EVERYONE is skeptical, we have a better shot at an open and independant investigation. I think we have a right to know what * and the VP know under oath and penalty of law. That is the America I once knew.

[salvorhardin]

79. I'm not quite convinced that we ever had *that* America

Though much has been lost. It is certainly the ideal to aspire to and hopefully we can get there someday.

[HuskerDU]

86. We once had an America where the President said, 'The only

thing we have to fear... is fear itself.'

Now our gov't would have us believe that only one political party can keep us 'safe.' Fascism frightens me far more than any terrorist.

[salvorhardin]

87. And on that we both agree.

Well, fascism and theocracy.