The dungeon

[BeFree]

Glad to be here, I guess.

Reading here about how all through our history we have been lied to, had our progressive leaders taken, and the dirty truth about the foundations of polite society, does give one a certain feeling of empowerment.

Can't say we haven't been warned!

Thank all of you, (you know who you are) and glad to be here, really. I mean I could just go crawl back into my cave of denial. Nope, not for me. I like being here on the cutting edge of the sharp deadly sword of truth.

[Beam Me Up]

1. This is not the cutting edge.

DU rules won't even allow me to link to anything remotely resembling the cutting edge.

Of course edges can cut both ways and one has to be careful. 9/11 is (not "was," IS) a psychological operation whose primary target is the minds of living human beings, especially but not exclusively those who think of themselves as "citizens of the United States." It is what is known as a "psychic driver," a tool devised to drive mass public opinion in a particular direction. Shock and awe and all that. It is still driving both domestic and international policy, so we see this is the case regardless of which political party is in power. And we also see that the debate about what actually happened and who was really responsible continues in certain well contained circles -- which is "fine" so far as the real perps are concerned. Controversy is encouraged so long as it is kept within the arena of divisive "opinion," never rising to the consensus level of "factual certainty" that might catalyze social cohesion in genuine opposition to the forces that benefit from it. "Let them fight it out among themselves," is the "let them eat cake" of our age.

So far as I can tell, the counterintelligence "conspiracy theory" seeds were being sown from day 1 and it remains very difficult for most people to sort out verifiable fact from speculative fiction. Nevertheless, if one sticks to the basics that most anyone not an agent or in abject denial can see and if one refuses to get into useless, never ending on-line "debates" with same, then one can move through the rabbit hole into a whole new political paradigm. That is, one in which the old lines are redrawn on a map that more accurately represents the geography of our current global, social topography.

(Clue: It bears little resemblance to the one the corporate owned media is selling you day in and day out. A world at once far more dangerous and yet brimming with far more potential for genuine social change than the one most now "believe" in. What is going to happen as the empire crumbles? Will it be replaced by a nefarious top-down global estate of economic and power-centered interests which hide themselves behind some as yet to be unveiled solution to the economic and social calamities that may lie just ahead of us? Or will it arise more organically out of a more socially conscious global and indigenous perspective? Are these two possibilities destined for some sort of intra-national confrontation that may redefine the nature of "revolution"? The answers to these questions are in the making.)

[BeFree]

2. Indeed

The answers are in the making.

This forum is an imperfect place for the revolution, be that as it may, this forum has provided a venue over the years for much dissemination of the facts. At least for me.

The links here launched a great many of us into spheres of unpopular reasonings. It has been a great starting point and being that the spheres are unpopular has created an uneasiness for the establishment. Each of us needs to realize that.

Realize too that a great many people have come around to feeling free enough to ask questions because of this forum. There has been much success.

But we'll not solve the world's ills here. There are limits to what we can do from here. This is merely a gathering and a starting point. Act accordingly. Do not post stuff that we know will be deleted, unless you want it deleted. And if it gets deleted, say: "So what"? Going off in a huff helps just one group.

[Beam Me Up]

3. .

Having a post deleted doesn't concern me, censorship does. I've been a DU member for a very long time and precisely for this reason have what I consider to be realistic, non delusional expectations. Of course it serves a function. Generally one does not go from sleep to waking consciousness in an instant -- some transition is required -- and of course what most of us regard as "waking consciousness" is closer to sleep and dreaming than we care to admit, Matrix metaphors and all that.

That said, one can't choose one's battles without some consideration of the field.

[whatchamacallit]

4. Great post!

Luckily, some of us have the antennae to detect what churns just beneath the surface.

[LARED]

7. Another adherent of faith based trutherism.

I have long maintained that truthers are in reality faith based believers. Anyone claiming special knowledge is without a doubt basing their beliefs on faith. If 9/11 truthers had a bible, you'd be thumping it.

[BeFree]

9. Well

It beats humping the Bushco OCT, anyday.

[AZCat]

11. Yet another post illustrating your woeful ignorance. n/t

[BeFree]

12. Me?

Really, don't you have something better to do than attack me? I guess you don't. Sad, that is real sad. All the shit going down and you spend your time attacking BeFree? Being in the dungeon must make you very happy.

[AZCat]

13. Yes, you.

Perhaps you should reflect on the nature of hypocrisy before making another ludicrous post.

[MrMickeysMom]

19. Strangely, it makes them v e r y happy

I imagine it's because they don't get out of the house a lot. They'd rather trap those with coherent thought.

[snooper2]

49. :)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LARED]

25. You mean the Obama OCT? nt

[whatchamacallit]

18. From a guy who actually has a bible

[LARED]

26. So what? nt

[LARED]

27. Not only do I actually have a bible

I actually read it.

I actually study it.

I actually teach Sunday School.

I actually attend a Church.

I wonder why you actually think having a Bible is noteworthy.

[whatchamacallit]

29. Self Delete

...

[BeFree]

5. In another thread...

...I made a mistake by not having read all the Bushco dribble (drivel would have been a better word) and posting something from Bushco that was dated two years ago.

I admit I haven't read thru all that crap from the NIST. So f'n sue me.

What sucks is for someone to use a simple, honest mistake like that to decry anyone's seeking of the truth. What sucks is that it seemed to be an attempt to keep the truth down by telling me that I haven't read enough yet. Especially haven't read enough of the Bushco drivel! What? If we all read all the Bushco propaganda we will become perfect? Bullshit!

I make a mistake, I fess up (rare around here, eh?) and then that person uses that mistake to try to bury me. Using the terrible history of the all the things that so many have worked hard to expose, so that we all may be educated, as a hammer on anyone is an awful thing to do.

What kind of agenda would use the awful truth to make fun of or try to defeat someone on the internet? How low will they go to 'Win'? What is out-of-bounds?

I guess those who hang in the Dungeon just looking to 'Win themselves something' are expected to use real life dungeon like tools? Would they stoop to torture, like Cheney? It seems they would.

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. how are we supposed to know that you are seeking the truth?

You need to step outside your perspective for a nanosecond and try someone else's. The truth is that you were trying to score points by claiming to know something that other DUers either didn't know or wouldn't acknowledge -- and it blew up in your face. (ETA: Or, if that isn't the truth, I can certainly show you why I believe it.)

Kudos, truly, for forthrightly admitting your mistake. That makes twice in four years, that I can remember. You think you've only made two mistakes in four years? I've made dozens. I try to correct them within the editing period, when I catch them. And I try to get the facts right no matter which side of an argument they favor. It's a pain.

No one wants to bury you. But I tell you truly, you've made more than two mistakes in four years, and I don't think you're trying as hard as a lot of us are. I don't even care what you know. I just want you to try.

[BeFree]

8. This is not about me

I am not the truth, never said I was. I only seek it.

But who the hell are you keeping track of my mistakes? Don't you have better things to do, like thinking about and exposing Bushco mistakes?

The dungeon is a good place for your fucking games. It keeps you out of the general populace. This is, indeed, a good place for you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. I thought you had a moment of straight talk there

but now you're just back to raging at me. OK, dude, as you were. The dungeon is better for you, frankly.

[AZCat]

10. Way to go!

Nothing like posting in a thread to whine about what someone said to you in another thread. Congratulations on keeping to the high road. :eyes:

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Make7]

126. I was simply asking you to follow two links that I provided.

Those links were to information that would correct a couple minor mistakes that you posted. You brought up a couple of points that were incorrect and I posted two links that would take you directly to the pages that had the proper information. Those two pages were all that I figured that you would read (well, actually just portions of those two pages). I thought you could view the correct information and we could move the discussion forward.

What I didn't understand (and still don't quite get) is how you could not find the information by following the links. You said that you followed them, yet claimed that you didn't find the information on those very pages - I'm not sure what the difficulty is.

If I had known you were so sensitive, I guess I would simply have not asked you any follow up questions. You seem to be taking this far more seriously than I would have guessed from your prior posting history. This post of yours seems completely out of proportion to the other discussion.

[BeachBaby]

14. Hi, BeFree....

I used to post here, in this forum, fairly frequently; but having the usual suspects just waiting to hijack the threads got old for me.

I use this forum to glean any new information I may not have had before. I've been researching 9/11 since December of 2001 - on and off - with my focus on money trails, and the "who benefitted" angle.

The ace in the hole, for me, was when both Cheney and the FBI admitted that they can't charge Bin Laden with the events of 9/11. In a court of law, the case would be either closed due to lack of evidence....or re-opened. I think it's a no-brainer that an atrocity such as 9/11 should be most definitely a re-opened case, with a new, INDEPENDENT investigation - void of govt agencies.

Good to have you here. :hi:

[BeFree]

15. Thank you, BeachBaby

It is great to hang with folks who seek the truth. There are some real fine people here, brave and courageous, my kind of people. The kind that the world is sorely lacking in the amount needed to keep the bad folks in their places.

True that, your 'ace in the hole', the OCT case could never stand in front of real justice. The adherents here may gain a point or two, but in the long run they will have wasted their breaths and our time.

We must continue, we must keep on. I only wish I had more to offer. There are so many here who I have learned much from, and I thank them all. All I can do is cover their flanks as they truly carry the swords.

[wildbilln864]

16. and prod the masses....

until they finally take notice! A few at a time if that's all that can be reached. :hi:

[BeFree]

17. Indeed

Like me... I was prodded to take a harder look by the good folks here. Yall have been successful. And it's a shame to have to be sent off to the dungeon where some people like to be, but at least we're allowed to have our say. In fact, the dungeon likers do kinda sharpen the points made, wouldn't you say, wildbill? Have they been of some assistance? Or not? Sure, they are a pain in the ass with all their personal attacks, but haven't they helped a bit?

[seemslikeadream]

21. Hey there BeFree,

a present for you, use it wisely ;):rofl: :hi:

[wildbilln864]

22. yes they have helped....

and I have learned quite a lot from a few of them. :hi: I just wonder what motivates them to monitor this one particular thread and no others, day in and day out, in most cases, in order to try in vain to dismis the idea that 9/11 was foreknown and aided by individuals in our government and elsewhere and could have been prevented.

[snooper2]

50. brave and courageous

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm going to click on this link to find some more truth! Have my sword ready! Nothing will stop me! Iron Heart and Iron Will!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[earth mom]

23. I don't post much in this forum either, because it's just too full of disinfo agents

who muddy the waters at every turn.

They are like pesky flies and I just flick em off, but after awhile it gets old so these days I just stop in to read the forum now and again to keep myself somewhat up to speed.

That said, I will join you in thanking those who refuse to give up and continue to make their voices heard and kick the bullshit off the truth. :yourock:

I await the day when the entire country and planet finally knows that 911 was MIHOP or LIHOP.

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. The person in your avatar

would think you were disturbed if you ever acosted him with your theories.

[William Seger]

28. This is the way the "truth movement" ends

... not with a bang but a whimper.

You're seeking the truth, BeFree? Let's see if you can handle it. The "truth movement" is dead, for all practical purposes, and the main reason is that it buried itself under a mountain of bullshit. And the reason for that is that it primarily consists of people who don't seem to give a shit about the truth.

[BeFree]

30. That's not true anymore

The truth never dies. Lots of people, pubbies mainly, wish that it would. But it grows like a tree, deeper roots every year and taller and thicker with time. Sure, it may be deciduous, after all the winter white washings do come hard and heavy, but there is always new growth rising, bringing new life to all its members.

Not to get personal here, but you seem to not want the truth to grow. That you want there to be an end to the seeking. That you are anti-truth and you want to berate people who seek the truth.

Do we have to remind you that Bushco "primarily consists of people who don't seem to give a shit about the truth".

Yet a Bushco owned and operated OCT is where you hang your hat. That was true then, and it's true now. And if you can't see that - that you have nothing but Bushco - then you wouldn't know the truth if it sat on your head.

[William Seger]

31. That's what I thought

Carry on.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. "an end to the seeking" -- don't you want this?

You have questions. Don't you want answers to those questions? Getting your answer is an end to the seeking.

Refusing any answers to your questions is not some holy quest for the truth. It's living in a state of denial.

[BeFree]

33. Heh

Any real truth seeker never ends seeking the truth. There is no end. Anybody who says: "Look I found it", is a liar. It's like those who tell you: "I have found God, he's right here in this 2,000 year old Bible." What a crock, eh?

Refusing to believe what Bushco says is wise. They have no answers except that they are lying.

You can take Bushco home with you, hold it in your head and let it run your belief system, but it will never have my trust. NONE of it. What part of none do you not understand? So why do you persist in trying to get me to believe Bushco? Don't you have better things to do, better enemies to fight, better issues to resolve, rather than what Befree or others like me believe?

I wonder sometimes, is the backlash we get here really an anti-Islamic agenda?
And I wonder what is your agenda?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Ah, so it's not that you're seeking for answers at all

You've found your answers and anyone who suggests a different answer, no matter what their evidence, is an enemy of "seeking for the truth."

It's actually your attitude that frustrates anyone seeking for the truth because you believe the truth can never be found.

[BeFree]

35. Why attack me?

What is it that makes you attack me and pretend to know what I am doing?

What a poor life you must lead, to concentrate so much on me.

Sadly the world is full of folks that hate blacks because they are black. They hate-hate-hate, hate everyone who is not like them or doesn't think like them. They attack them every chance they get, just to get their jollies, I guess. That is a truth that I have found.

What Bolo is, I have no idea, what Bolo's agenda is, I have an idea but frankly, I'll not waste my time worrying about Bolo because Bolo means nothing. Now, to be free, that means something, eh?

[wildbilln864]

36. well said! nt

:patriot:

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Sis-boom-bah! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

37. I am not attacking you. I am trying to understand your posted positions.

And your squid ink rhetoric does nothing to dissuade me from my conclusion on that front. Now that I understand that you have no actual concern for the truth, you will find I don't "concentrate so much on" you at all. I will post information that corrects your factually inaccurate statements, but I will not ever be under the illusion that you are concerned with seeking for the truth at all.

[BeFree]

39. Now I know what your agenda is!!

It is an attempt to get me to attack you so that you can get my posts deleted. And maybe even this thread. Took me awhile, eh?

You say I have no concern for the truth. That's an attack on me personally having no bearing on this forum. But the truth is, I don't care what Bolo thinks about BeFree. And neither does anyone else.

Now Bushco, that's why we're here. Well, most of us anyway.

Here's a bit of truth:
The world trade towers' clean-up was paid for by the public. The owners of the buildings got paid insurance money for the collapses. Bushco has attempted to hide most items of information about the 9/11.

That's the truth. And it doesn't take much to see that. That's why 100% of the people who have seen that truth want a whole new investigation.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. You are wrong.

My interests are in seeing that the truth wins out, that those who would cloud the truth, whether willingly or ignorantly, see their designs frustrated, advance the progressive and Democratic agenda based on evidence and rationality, and enjoy life.

You keep saying you don't care about me. Prove it. STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. STOP THE WOUND-LICKING ABOUT CONDITIONS IN THE "DUNGEON." STOP ALL THE VEILED ATTACKS, ALL THE ALLUSIONS TO "AGENDAS" AND "WHY ARE PEOPLE HERE" AND ALL OF THAT BULLSHIT.

Produce facts, logically constructed into an argument, and appropriately sourced. Your message and your goals will be advanced immeasurably.

[BeFree]

41. Well

Bushco and the people who put together the OCT are well known by progressives and Democrats to be liars and against the truth. That Bushco clouds the truth and frustrates anyone who wants to see the evidence.

Those are the facts, logically constructed and very well known by progressives and Democrats. DU is founded on those type of facts.

And what we do here is to see that Bushco's designs are defeated, eh?

[Bolo Boffin]

42. Sloppy logic, definitions too broad -- garbage in, garbage out.

Try speaking more specifically.

[BeFree]

43. there you go again

Telling me what I should do. Getting personal, again? Anyway, if you don't understand what the meaning of the last post was, well, so what?

Dick Cheney. GWB. AG Gonzales. DeLay. Diebold. WMD in Iraq. Gore won the 2000 election. Global Climate Change. Air Pollution. Gas prices at $4 a gallon. Peak oil. Gitmo. JFK. MLK. RFK. Wellstone. 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Do what you want. But my critiques of your style and information will continue.

Because I'm going to continue to do what I want.

Dick Cheney. GWB. AG Gonzales. DeLay. Diebold. WMD in Iraq. Gore won the 2000 election. Global Climate Change. Air Pollution. Gas prices at $4 a gallon. Peak oil. Gitmo.

Full speed ahead.

JFK. MLK. RFK. Wellstone. 9/11.

Off the rails. Holding you back.

[BeFree]

45. Do what you want?

Well, on DU hardly anyone ever gets away with "do what they want". There are many limits to doing what someone wants to do. In fact, even in the rest of the world, Bushco is about the only people who did whatever they wanted. And the result of that was the Iraqi invasion, stolen elections, 'Clear Skies', etc.

And we here on DU have been a bulwark against their doing what they want. So far we've helped get a President elected and is one that we all hope will never hide the truth from us like Bushco did.

We on DU were at the forefront of defeating Diebold from using electronic voting machines from stealing another election. We have done, and will continue to do great things.

It really is never ending.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Yes, we here on DU have done a lot of good.

We certainly have.

[BeFree]

47. Oh, how rude of me

Did you want the last reply on this subthread? Go ahead, it's all yours, let 'er rip. Let it all out, if that's what you want to do.

[Realityhack]

51. Sloppy.

at best.

Please define your terms:
"Bushco"
"the people who put together the OCT"
"the OCT"
"progressives and Democrats"
"against the truth"
"anyone who wants to see the evidence"
"the evidence"

Just because Bush said it was Thursday doesn't make it some other day of the week. And once you discover which day of the week it is you can in fact stop looking.

[BeFree]

52. Very sloppy

I admit it. I am a self-taught riter and poorly done.

But I sure can read goud. And what I read here is that you don't seem to grasp basic elements of the terms used here. Am I write? So, I will venture to explane.

"Bushco" The crime family of the bushes shortened into a company ie. 'co'.

"the people who put together the OCT" Bushco is who put together the OCT

"the OCT" Official Conspiracy Theory

"progressives and Democrats" just like what Bolo rote - ask Bolo what that means

"against the truth" What is the Truth? All those that want the truth hidden are against the truth.

"anyone who wants to see the evidence" Me wants to see the evidence. Do you?

"the evidence" Well, I saw the videos and read a hole lot, that's what I observed. And as Mackey states,(paraphrased) evidence is everything observable.

Hope this helps. Let me know.

[Realityhack]

62. Is it fair for me to assume

given that you are a self-taught riter (sic) and the previous post that you have never taken a formal logic class or college level science course?

This is not a adequate definition of terms (just one example from your post)

""the OCT" Official Conspiracy Theory"

The definition would have to include what *specifically* you thought the official theory was for the purposes of your argument.

For example: the official story that aircraft hit the buildings, or the findings of the NIST report, etc. You can't just wave around words like 'the official story' and pretend they can be debated honestly because they are not clear terms.

[BeFree]

63. Well

You are probably the only one here that doesn't understand what "OCT" means.

And frankly, your attitude is anti-discussion, so why should I waste my time with you? Besides, the gist of the dungeon is that we are here because the unpleasant reality of many underhanded actions perpetrated by criminals throughout history is not allowed a free and open forum. Hence the dungeon.

Nobody is saying you have to believe in every hypothetical, just that it needs to be put on the table and let the chips fall where they may. But the sad fact is that too many want to remove the table completely and they seem to regale in doing so.

What are they afraid of? I can understand the establishment of DU wanting to limit exposure of such discussions and can understand why they created the dungeon. What is odd is that so many here seem to be here mainly to get those who do pose items for discussion to STFU.

Screw that, let it flow, let people be free to speak. And if they make idiots of themselves, like I have at times, so f'n what? What skin is it off the backs of those who lurk, ready to pounce?

And just wtf does a Realityhack mean? What logic lies in such a moniker?

[Realityhack]

75. I know full well what OCT stands for... What I asked was for...

a definition of terms.

When discussing complex issues (or in scientific papers etc. as I pointed out previously) it is expected that you provide concise operational definitions for terms so everyone knows what is being discussed.

"official conspiracy theory" is NOT a concise definition. Different 'officials' have said different things at different times. A variety of groups have done work on problems related to 9-11 and which are considered 'official' is not crystal clear.

It is also unlikely that any substantive discussion is going to come from broad brushes like 'the OCT is wrong'.

A definition of terms might say that for this discussion we are going to talk about the official story that an aircraft hit the pentagon. At a separate discussion you might talk about wither it was a specific aircraft, in another who flew it.

Each is a fine operational definition for 'OCT' but in order for there to be any reasonable discussion you need a precise definition.

[BeFree]

76. Reasonable discussion?

Where? When? I see just one side trying to have a reasonable discussion. And the leader of, the indisputable king of the other side, well, it is amused. I am not amused. None of this is amusing. Are you amused?

I am not well versed enough to answer your question nor do I believe your are really interested in any reply I might give except that you could use it to amuse yourself, but I will say that as far as looking for one encapsulating term that encompasses the whole OCT, just look at the Commission report, or as we who have eyes call it, the Ommission report.

Ask the Widows what they think, they are better versed than I. Many here on this board are better versed than I, but if they seem reluctant to respond to you, realize that they too are not amused and feel no need to amuse anyone anymore.

As I am sure you are aware, there are many different stories, coming out of many official pie-holes. At least one side here makes an honest attempt to sort thru those different stories. And to those I offer my hand and support.

[Realityhack]

77. Ug

Take some calming breaths.

"As I am sure you are aware, there are many different stories, coming out of many official pie-holes."

This is an illustration of my point. The post you made earlier that a couple of us pointed out was sloppy made no distinction.
You claim you are seeking truth but make statements like this:
"the Commission report, or as we who have eyes call it, the Ommission report."

Do you seriously think people who refer to it by the correct term lack eyes? Of course not. But you see no problem with throwing around such generalizations and then you get all confused when people call you on it.

[BeFree]

78. Nah

Most of the other side, when it is really honest, agrees that 'Omission report' accurately characterizes the report.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see a thread containing a list of the things they do find objectionable and/or missing?

I've yet to read such an honest discussion from the other side. So, in my mind they have not eyes to see.

Such a thread would be welcomed and lead to real discussions. But I'll not hold my breath.

[Realityhack]

79. You should search through some of the history here.

You might also try refraining from slandering large groups of people many of whom are better read than yourself.

The main problem with reasonable rational threads discussing issues that many of us have with the various reports etc. is that they very quickly break down into discussing theories of 'no planes' 'nukes' 'CD' and other lunacy. The environment here is not conducive to a reasonable discussion.

[BeFree]

81. So

You're not going to start a thread detailing what you find wrong with the report? Shoot, I failed again.

I was around here when the report was issued and we - the open minded side - discussed it. And all we got from the other side was similar to what you just spewed -Lunacy.

Basically, one side is just a reactionary bunch and about all they ever do is complain, like you are here in this subthread, and slander large groups of people with terms like lunatics, twoofers, etc.

And then you have the audacity to exclaim that the environment here is not conducive to a reasonable discussion!! Hypocrisy at its finest. I guess that what hacking reality means?

[LARED]

84. You see this is part of the problem

the open minded side

In fact your side is not open minded. I believe a better characterization is conspiracy minded.

If CT'er were open minded, they would at least recognize the mundane and simple explanations provided for so called controversial issues, are the most likely way to the truth.

[BeFree]

86. Tell ya what

I spent years in Election Reform, and the open minded side that eventually won the war and got reform going, were at first called conspiracy nuts and all kinds of other names. We refused the "mundane and simple explanations" that were offered and we eventually overcame!!

And here, on this issue, the twoofers and lunatics, and as you just called us - conspiracy theorists - have shown quite a few inconsistencies in the established "mundane and simple explanations".

You can take your simple and mundane explanations and stick 'em back to where the sun don't shine, we ain't buying it!! If you can do no better than this, then don't expect any respect.

Quit yer whining.

[Realityhack]

88. Proof you do not have an open mind.

"You can take your simple and mundane explanations and stick 'em back to where the sun don't shine, we ain't buying it!!"

Absolute proof. Right there.

[BeFree]

90. Well

I guess complexity is too hard for some to fathom, and that is precisely how Bushco was enabled to run amok. People just wanted the simple and mundane, and Bushco came up with elaborate lies that just washed right over the heads of the simpletons. Washed over because their minds were closed. Those with open minds took it all in, hashed over was was being offered and told Bushco they weren't buying it.

And the open minded were right all along. Only the closed minded still buy Bushco's crap.

[Realityhack]

92. lol

You proved with your own words that you do not have an open mind. And you show again in this post that you are biased towards preconceived answers regardless of the facts.

You seem to think I (and others) are defending Bush and his actions when we are simply pointing out the facts surrounding a particular event. If you want to get an 'OCTer' to agree with you just present a logical well supported argument.
So far all you have said is the equivalent of 'Bush is bad, the report isn't perfect, therefore Bush must have done it'.

[BeFree]

94. Yes

I have a closed mind when it comes to Bushco. Duh!

I could care less whether a OCTer is convinced of anything except that they get the fuck outta the way of people trying to get to the bottom of all this.

Quit yer whining, quit the obstruction, quit the name calling. Your case has been presented. And more and more it is proving to be full of holes, which honest people are trying to fill.

Heh, I guess you think the Widows have a closed mind too?

[Realityhack]

96. I think you shout a lot about having an open mind...

for someone who admittedly has a closed mind.

As for 'getting to the bottom of all this', I don't see how you expect to do that with a closed mind. If you refuse to even consider some possibilities how on earth do you expect to find out what actually happened (or even a best guess there of)?

Perhaps you would like to discuss some specific 'hole' you think needs 'filling in'?

[LARED]

98. Wow, you are equating election fraud with 9/11 CT's?

I'll pretty sure that most folks with an IQ of > 80 understand election fraud exists and knows election reforms are routinely needed to minimize the various and sundry ways elections are rigged, managed, etc.

Please show me a single inconsistency with a mundane and simple explanation that CT'er "eventually overcame"

[BeFree]

101. No

I equated calling people stupid names re: the Election Reformers being called CTers with the same stupid name calling here.

And how it didn't stop us then and won't stop us now. It's really was just a mere hindrance. Same as here.

Did you know NIST gave a rubber stamp approval to HAVA and the certification of hardware? Of course you didn't.

Do you think Bush fairly won the 2004 election?

[LARED]

104. You have questions for me?

Answer this first

Please show me a single inconsistency with a mundane and simple explanation that CT'er "eventually overcame"

[BeFree]

105. Widows

You should ask the Widows about that if you really want a good list.

Now, election reform, I can answer. It was said that computers were the best way to count votes accurately. Simple and mundane. What was proven was that computers are not the best way to accurately count votes.

But here ya go re this issue.... the M&S claim that Bush didn't have any idea that the attack was imminent.

How about the M&S claim that the buildings pancaked.

Or the M&S explanation that Iraq was involved?

Ya know, there are actually quite a few M&S explanations that have been proven to be lies. And here you are asking me to show you a single item. Haven't you been reading up on ANY of this? Do you spend all your time just attacking?

Did you know NIST gave approval to HAVA?

[AZCat]

106. "M&S"?

What does this mean?

[LARED]

111. Mundane and simple

It took me a few minutes to figure it out

[AZCat]

113. Thanks, LARED.

All I could think of was "Marks & Spencer".

[LARED]

110. OK

the M&S claim that Bush didn't have any idea that the attack was imminent.

If that explanation has been proved false, please provide some evidence. None exists to my knowledge.

the M&S claim that the buildings pancaked.

In an ongoing technical investigation it is often the case that initial findings are refined as the investigation moves forward. I hope your not claiming that CT'er were responsible for change.

M&S explanation that Iraq was involved?

Ok that is one. But this is an issue the media exposed. So again i don't think the CT'er should get much credit for this. And no one around here is arguing for Iraq was involved.

In summary you have not done well in establishing your case.

[BeFree]

116. Say what?

You don't think Bush knew an attack was imminent? That you have no knowledge that Bush knew!

Well, if that's what you believe, I guess that explains where you started from, and where I end this discussion.

[LARED]

120. I will consider your remarks as admitting you have nothing to offer - nt

[Realityhack]

85. WTF??

For every mention of 'Twoofer' there is an 'OCTer' reference.
You are painting with an awfully large brush and distorting things to appear one sided where they are not.

You didn't search through the history to find threads I started did you?
We have had discussions here on specific engineering issues and problems with specific parts of various reports.

And they do break down when people post rather silly theories like nuclear weapons being used to demolish the towers.

How do you expect reasonable people to react to such nonsense? Of course we blast those who hold up BS. The same as we would do if they were saying the world were 6k years old.
Given the time when these attacks took place very few new arguments are put forth. Most of what is said has been debunked before. When someone comes along and presents 'new' evidence that an aircraft never hit the pentagon, it typically not only isn't new but contradicts large amounts of previously established evidence. So without a hell of a lot better information from the 'truth seekers' of course we will dismiss it.

[BeFree]

87. Interesting

"...contradicts large amounts of previously established evidence."

Eh, that's what science is all about. Well, the pursuit of science anyway.
The pursuit which looks to contradict previously established evidence. Like the previously established evidence that the earth is flat.

Good lord, man, you are making this way too easy!

[Realityhack]

89. Wrong.

The idea that the earth is roughly spherical does not contradict the evidence that it is flat.
A scientific theory must explain the evidence. It isn't about just making up new ideas and disregarding all of the existing experimental results.

If someone wants to claim nuclear bombs brought down the twin towers, fine. But unfortunately the existing body of evidence rules that out.
So even if they come up with some 'new evidence' nuclear bombs are not a likely explanation. The new evidence may change the way we view the existing evidence and alter our conclusions but it doesn't magically erase the existing evidence.

[BeFree]

91. Good twisting!

More hacking of reality. The moniker reveals itself!

For the science to be sound, the basis of the findings has to be rooted in the fact that all possible explanations are examined. In this case, the basis of findings in the OCT are not based on taking in all the possibilities, leaving us peons to undertake that task.

Which is what we are doing. Well, some of us anyway. The rest are buying the simple and mundane and fighting all the other possibilities. We shall overcome!

[Realityhack]

93. More BS.

You don't understand how science works very well do you. You seriously need to take a formal logic class and some introductory science courses.

"For the science to be sound, the basis of the findings has to be rooted in the fact that all possible explanations are examined."

No. There is no need for us to explore the possibility that DNA was planted by hyper-dimensional super beings to trick us in order for the science surrounding DNA to be valid.

What valid science must do is explain all of the available evidence and make testable predictions.

In other words, NIST does not need to prove (or even consider) that an asteroid filled with nuclear bombs didn't cause the damage to the twin towers in order for their conclusions to be scientific.

You aren't going to overcome a wall of cow dung by blatantly misrepresenting the scientific process and assuming that any simple explanation is automatically wrong because someone who worked for the government once said it.

Just because Bush says today is Saturday doesn't make it Tuesday.

[BeFree]

95. My Gawd

You have really gone over the edge. I see I have pushed you too far.

"Asteroids" "hyper-dimensional super beings " "Just because Bush says today is Saturday doesn't make it Tuesday. "

I'm done. Carry on with your lunacy. You can have the last post. Make it a good one.

[Realityhack]

97. I am sorry my examples went over your head.

I was illustrating your false premises.

[LARED]

99. While you peons are taking on the task of examining all possible

explanations, please don't forget to examine if Bigfoot, space aliens, fairies, gnomes, or dragons were possibly involved. Science demands it. :hi:

on edit. Don't forget, laser beams, missile pod, nukes, holograms, mass hypnosis, video fraud, bombs, etc. Wait, those have already been examined endlessly, with zero fruit. Forget I mentioned it.

[BeFree]

100. Not surprised

You are not interested in discussions, you are interested, I guess, in showing how many stupid things you can list in one post.

I said possibilities and you went off the ledge with all that crap. I understand yall like simple and mundane explanations, that's your problem. The world is full of folks who like to have authorities explain things to them so that they don't have to think. It does cause problems for the rest of us, but we can deal with it.

Lared wrote: "...please don't forget to examine if Bigfoot, space aliens, fairies, gnomes, or dragons were possibly involved." I only paste that here so that those who might have Lared on ignore can see how far he's gone.

[AZCat]

102. You DID say "all" possibilities.

Are you now backtracking from that argument?

[BeFree]

107. No

Only idiots would consider asteroids and bigfoot as possibilities. Only idiots would go so far as to consider the things Lared stated.

And here you are backing that shit up? I must really be getting under yalls skin, eh?

[AZCat]

108. So you do agree that it is sensible to rule out some possibilities.

You would rule out the things listed in LARED's post. I agree with you. I also expect to see you refrain from claiming the following again:

For the science to be sound, the basis of the findings has to be rooted in the fact that all possible explanations are examined. In this case, the basis of findings in the OCT are not based on taking in all the possibilities, leaving us peons to undertake that task.

(post #91, in case you forgot)

So I take it you now agree the NIST was right in ruling out some possibilities in their investigation into the causes of the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and building 7 on September 11th, 2001, rather than trying to examine "all possible explanations"?

[BeFree]

112. There is some basis for that

But.... given all the observable evidence, the idea that the NIST is to be unquestioned is foolish. NIST makes mistakes either through simple error or arm-twisting. Do you think Bushco didn't twist a few arms? The observable evidence from Bushco was that arm-twisting was their MO. NIST was under Bushco.

NIST gave the green light to allowing computers to count votes. They made a big mistake there. Why?

[AZCat]

115. I STRONGLY support examining the claims made by the NIST.

I am not alone - there are quite a few professionals who have voiced their concerns over the methodology and conclusions of the NIST investigations. Fortunately, one of the benefits of science is the ability for others to examine claims. This has happened and is continuing to happen with the collapses.

[BeFree]

118. Well

As far as I can tell, you are the only one on that side who has stated such a thing.

And you are the controller of all those operatives? I'll mark that up as another victory for our side.

Seriously, we need a thread on the NIST to examine their findings, but only if we all agree that the mods can delete the bullshit posts.

[AZCat]

119. The question has come up before.

While I don't think we've ever taken a poll, I would guess that the sentiment I expressed in the above post is shared by almost all the so-called "OCTers". Feel free to start a poll or a thread, though, if you want to press the issue.

I'm not the controller of our group. As one ex-poster here found out (to the lasting amusement of the rest of us), LARED is the head of the daisy chain, not me. I'm just a flunky. ;)

As you might imagine, the NIST investigations and reports have been the subject of many threads here. Sadly, most of them never get to what I consider to be the interesting questions, but rather focus on the peripheral questions (which many people seem to find more worthy of discussion than I do, but I guess it's a question of personal preference).

[LARED]

121. I agree the NIST reports should be reviewed (as they are) by people

that understand the process.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I am assuming you are not advocating a review in order to establish some credibility for CD, but rather that the recommendations to date issued are a concern. (My concern)

I ask this because I think BeFree may not understand your position. Again if I'm mistaken please clarify.

[AZCat]

123. My concerns about the methodology and recommendations are two-fold.

You are correct that I question the recommendations made by NIST to various code and standards organizations. I think they are not strongly supported by either the evidence from September 11th or other incidents, nor do I think they are necessarily a good idea. As I have said before, building safety is a zero-sum game - extra money spent on one system necessarily reduces the money available for other systems. Fortunately, organizations like the International Code Council have rigorous review processes, and not all the recommendations have been incorporated into the building codes. I don't have a problem changing the way we design and build buildings if the changes make sense, but otherwise I'd prefer to leave the decision up to the owner/operators.

My second concern is with the methodology, particularly of the WTC towers investigation. I am quite skeptical of the results of computer simulations of highly chaotic, nonlinear events, particularly when several simulation engines are coupled together (three or four engines, IIRC) as in the manner of the NIST WTC towers models. Computer models are notoriously finicky and the results can diverge wildly from expected results. Programs like ANSYS and the FDS are best applied to fairly well-constrained events, because there's more opportunity to back-check the progression of the simulation. That said, I think the NIST recognized this and worked to eliminate some of the modeling vulnerabilities for the WTC7 simulation. I still resist trusting such simulations, but feel better about the direction the NIST took. I would like to see further investigation with the aim of improving our analysis and prediction tools.

I hope this is sufficient clarification for both you and BeFree.

[LARED]

124. Thanks and I agree with your assessement - nt

[LARED]

103. This is what you said

For the science to be sound, the basis of the findings has to be rooted in the fact that all possible explanations are examined.

I was unsuccessfully trying to point out in a sarcastic way that your view of what science is and is not is incorrect. Science is not about examining all possibilities. It is about trying to understand the world around us. It is not about truth. Never was, and never will be. It is about using taking a hypothesis and testing it against observations and experimentation.

If you desire discussion why not answer my post 98?

[BeFree]

109. I know, eh?

Yalls view is that only one possibility be examined. That's what the whole OCT is predicated upon. It started with 19 hijackers and then based the whole hypothesis on that. Instead of starting from a point that it could have been perpetrated differently.

Alternative explanations were never officially examined.

Bush knew, has never been officially examined, has it?

[LARED]

114. Are you kidding me, "Bush knew, has never been officially examined, has it?"

First of all do you think Bush or Congress is going to investigate this allegation? No. So there is no possibility of an "official" investigation. But your whole premise is just dumb. "Bush knew" has been subjected to massive media attention. Dozens of political operative would have loved to oppose a "Bush knew" there was an immediate attack on the way and did nothing.

[BeFree]

117. Actually

Now you are babbling. Please, calm down and rewrite it so that we can make sense of what you are saying.

[LARED]

122. Yes, calling it babbling is much simplier than defending your position

I understand.

[LARED]

125. I think I see the problem

I wrote

Dozens of political operative would have loved to oppose a "Bush knew" there was an immediate attack on the way and did nothing.


It should read

Dozens of political operative would have loved to expose a "Bush knew there was an imminent attack" on the way and did nothing.

[LARED]

80. Are you amused?

Yes

[BeFree]

82. Is that it?

That's all you got?

Here the hack and I are having a somewhat reasonable discussion and all you got is this? I guess your king has set a bad example for his subjects and this is all we can ever expect?

What about a thread detailing what you don't like about the Commission report?
Good idea? Bad? What?

I know, I should just ignore your posts like I usually do, but really, you deserved a response this time.

[LARED]

83. I think a post about where the Commission report is lacking is

a wonderful idea. It has been the subject of previous OP's but it might be worth rehashing.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[vincent_vega_lives]

54. The truth will come out

which is why the 9-11 truth movement is destined to the ash heap of history.

Hell, beneith the heap, near the taint.


You got it wrong about Bushco. They were too arrogant to waist time and effort coming up with elaboratae lies. They obviously didn't give a shit what the masses thought about what they were doing.

[BeFree]

55. In a sense, yes

When the truth is finally revealed and the Widows are satisfied that all their questions have been answered, this part of the truth movement will become history. But not before then.

You think Bushco didn't make any elaborate lies? They've told the truth all along? That's news to me. Where did you hear that? Everybody thinks they made up elaborate lies about damn near everything. Well, not everybody, just progressives and Democrats.

So if you have a source that is separate from the Freeperpubs, sling it. Otherwise I will take it as a typo.

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. Everybody thinks they made up elaborate lies about damn near everything.

No not everyone. Just drooling simpletons that live in their own little worlds. Simple lies? Yes, but they didn't giva shit enough what people thought to wring their hands over stupid illusions that have been thought up here.

Are you saying the Bush admonition wasn't arogant?

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. On second consideration

drooling was a poor choice of words. What I meant was frothing.

[BeFree]

64. I lost you

What are you frothing about now?

Would you be happier if everybody just STFU and went away? Wait, you'd be happy if everybody just believed exactly like you, right?

Ya know, they don't make you read here. No one makes you log onto DU, or come to the dungeon. But here you are. Don't blame us for your unhappiness.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. "Don't blame us for your unhappiness. "

"Ya know, they don't make you read here. No one makes you log onto DU, or come to the dungeon. But here you are. Don't blame us for your unhappiness."

Says the person who started this entire whiny, woundlicking thread in the first place.

Buck up, internet poster.

[BeFree]

66. Me? I'm happy!

I said so in the OP. "Glad to be here."

You, tho, seem quite distressed. All in all, it's just a discussion forum. No real reason to get upset and go around bashing on good DUers, eh? Butt here you are.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. This is what you said in the OP: "Glad to be here, I guess."

Well, you know that starting flamebait, woundlicking threads aren't going to get you anywhere closer to your goals, unless your goal is to have an opportunity to whine about your treatment down here and bash people you imagine are persecuting you.

Then, I could see how this thread accomplishes your goals.

[BeFree]

68. Why the personal attacks?

Does attacking me make you happy? If so, you must be in Hog-heaven.

And read the OP again. The whole thing. See, everyone makes mistakes. The eyes can fool ya. I'm proof! And that's the truth.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. That's not a personal attack.

I'm discussing your posts and how they might fit into hypothetical goals or not. That's not a personal attack.

Stop accusing me of something I'm not doing.

[BeFree]

71. You misread the OP

Right? So, you were wrong.

No big deal. Shucks, I've been forgiven for my mistakes.

I've been all over DU this morning discussing health care, oil prices and learning a newbie the DU ropes. And wandering down here to the dungeon. DU sure is a great place, eh? Lots of room and lots to discuss. I'm happy to be here!

[Bolo Boffin]

73. "And it amuses the pig." n/t

[BeFree]

74. Glad you are amused.

Bacon, anyone?

[OnTheOtherHand]

69. woundlicking branches, one might say

Post #5 was pretty dismal, but he seems to have moved on.

[Grateful for Hope]

48. I believe

the truth about a number of events will eventually be known. I also believe that most people want to know the truth, despite what it (the truth) might do to their belief systems.

Ironically, I think that, in these hard economic times, the truth may have an easier time surfacing.

We will see.

[Subdivisions]

58. self-delete. wrong place. n/t

[Subdivisions]

59. I know I'm onto something because of the attempts by some

here to dissuade me from thinking beyond the OCT.

You know them. They work in shifts.

[SidDithers]

60. Nice reasoning...

paraphrased, "People keep telling me I'm wrong, therefore I must be right."

As Sagan said: "They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

Sid

[Beam Me Up]

72. Yes

It becomes very clear very quickly that some people not only have nothing to offer, they have an agenda. Attack the messenger, detract from the message, ridicule, obfuscate, misdirect, clutter a thread with irrelevance and argumentation that takes everyone further away from the original question. Even when their criticisms are relevant and well taken, which they sometimes are, they're never presented humanly, cooperatively, as in, "I may not agree with you but I do see there are legitimate questions. Lets ask them together, work together and see what we can find." No, their function, their only aim and intention, is to preach condescendingly, detract, divide and conquer. Fortunately for most people their strategy is as obvious as it is loathsome.