Four Basic, Major Assumptions that Supporters of the Official 9/11 Story Have to Make

[spooked911]

(Note, by "Official 9/11 Story", I mean the theory that al Qaeda did it completely and that it was a surprise attack.)

1) That the CIA is telling you the truth about "al Qaeda". The same CIA that repeatedly lies, destroys evidence, does nasty shit around the world and has admitted to torturing people. The CIA is the primary source of information about who "did" 9/11, and you need to have complete faith in what they say about "al Qaeda".

2) That politicians are telling the truth about 9/11. The same people who are synonymous with self-serving behavior and lying. The same people who led us into these dark days of economic meltdown and war crimes.

3) That the mainstream media is telling you the truth about 9/11. The same idiotic fluffing, superficial mainstream media that led us into Iraq without countering Bush administration lies. The same media that runs after whatever shiny object the Republicans hold up. The same media that basically acts as a propaganda outlet for the US government, who helped lead us into these dark days of economic meltdown and war crimes without raising a proper hue and cry.

4) That the military-industrial complex, the same people who were dying for a new war at the beginning of the Bush administration, had NOTHING to do with the attacks. The same attacks that led to a huge boost in their power and income. The same people who have repeatedly pushed for war throughout history, and who have started horrible, devastating wars in the past, based on bogus rationales.

Mind you, this is ONLY THE BEGINNING of the assumptions you have to make. There are so many more assumptions you need to believe to believe the official story.

Yet, just to start here-- how NAIVE can you possibly be to believe all this?

Nonetheless, there are a dozen people-- at least-- who man this board, at every hour, constantly defending the official story.

Bizarre.

[LARED]

1. Number 1

The CIA is hardly the only or primary source about Al Qaeda. There are literally volumes of information gathered by independent investigators from people with direct knowledge of Al Qaeda.

Number 2

Do you mean to say all politicians are covering up 9/11? Even Democrats and decent Republicans. No one paying attention believe the politicians are telling all they know. They are of course covering their collective butts as they are responsible to protect us from attackers. This also has nothing to do with any notion of MIHOP or LIHOP.

Number 3

Some will disagree, but it seems to me the media regularly beat the tar out of Bush (well deserved) I hardly can imagine the media covering up knowledge about a government attack.

[jberryhill]

16. Actually on point 1, any assertion about "al qaeda"

Has no relevance to whether 19 hi-jackers commandeered four planes, crashing three into buildings and one being ditched in PA.

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. where are they?

A dozen people, at least, who man this board at every hour, constantly defending the official story?

spooked, there is no part of your post that makes sense. That was just the funniest part.

[NowHearThis]

4. In reality, it could be just two or three people

I suppose you don't know about how that could be, but I've told by a knowledgeable resource that it's not unusual on Web forums.

[SDuderstadt]

6. we're still waiting for you to link to any...

of your posts in which you've linked to any documentation of your goofy claims, dude. why is that so hard? unless, of course, you've never ever done so.

[Subdivisions]

19. Your claims are goofy, der. n/t

[hoi_polloi]

9. that is very believable!

[jberryhill]

17. ROFL

I remember back in grad school when I used to stop by the local bar on my street every now and then.

Every time I went there I would notice the same people there.

I told a friend, "Man, those people must really be alcoholics."

He said, "Don't they see YOU there every time you go?"

[AZCat]

33. Ha-hah! n/t

[NowHearThis]

3. They could truthfully claim that isn't what they do here

"Nonetheless, there are a dozen people-- at least-- who man this board, at every hour..."
In reality, it could be as few as just two or three people, but I understand your point.


"constantly defending the official story".
If you could ever get them to address the above point, I'm sure they would deny that they defend the official story.

Although their collective credibility is lower than GW's or Nixxon's, the reality is that they know that the official story is a lie.
That's why all they do is insult, bully, DEMAND evidence (which the Gov't won't release), change the subject, and otherwise thwart
the efforts of others who support finding out the truth. In that sense, I would agree with you that they "man this board, at every hour, constantly defending the official story."

All of which raises THE question -- mention of which and speculation about (no matter how well-informed) means instant "death".
They are very fortunate that the rules work to their advantage regarding this issue. Mind you, I'm not saying I disagree with the
rules, but I admit it would be very interesting to have the answer to that very curious, no-doubt-revealing question. Maybe
one day one of 'em will become the first whistle blower of their group. I predict that if that were to ever happen, it would
be explosive information, indeed.

[SDuderstadt]

5. ''truther logic''

''if our opponent demands proof of our goofy claims, that means they're part of the plot''. actually, the more baffling part of your largely incoherent post is your claim that the ''government'' is withholding the evidence that would prove your goofy claims. first, if, as you claim, the government is withholding the evidence needed to prove your goofy claims, isn't that tantamount to admitting you're drawing conclusions upon the basis of no evidence? what in the world are you relying upon to make your far-fetched claims? secondly, perhaps you heard there was an election. we control the government, dude. maybe you should call obama with your bombshell and convince him to release the ''withheld evidence'' so you won't look so silly. i'm certain he'll take your call just as soon as he's done laughing.

[Subdivisions]

20. Your claims are the ones that are goofy. n/t

[hack89]

23. Why do you assume that we don't work both sides of the issue

and post as Truthers? Or disinfo agents within the 911 Truth community soming the CIA wouldn't consider?

[NowHearThis]

24. There aren't "two sides" of the issue.

Your side wants people to think that lies and truth are equal in value.

The only thing I assume about Untruthers is that they aren't interested in the truth. Therefore, when it comes to suppressing the truth and those who seek to expose the truth, nothing that they do surprises me.

[hack89]

58. Some of your fellow Truthers must be disinfo agents

logic dictates it - can you name a single movement that threatened the government that was not infiltrated? How do you know that I am not also Spooked911?

[NowHearThis]

59. Simple. Spooked911 is intelligent and sincere

"How do you know that I am not also Spooked911?"

[hack89]

60. But a good disinfo agent would have to appear that way

to be successful, wouldn't he? Are you really saying that the Truth movement has not been infiltrated? Really?

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. That would explain why truthers seem so delusional. You guys are GOOD. n/t

[NowHearThis]

7. So far, not one of them has said they are here defending the OCT

Obviously, that is exactly what they are doing, so why won't they say that they are here defending it?

Is it:

1. The fact that this is the DEMOCRATIC Underground and their admission of supporting the biggest lie of the Bush administration
might not sit well with this site's owners.

2. They are a delicate bunch and fear that others would laugh at them if they admitted any such thing.

3. Flexibility. By not acknowledging the truth that they are here defending the OCT, they can say they too have many questions
about the BUSHCO version. In other words, they can be, well, AC/DC when they feel too much heat or want to appear to be "tough" on
BUSHCO.

[LARED]

8. Speaking for myself (although I believe most agree)

I (a so called defender of the OCT) am merely defending logic, science, and the facts.

Plus there is a high level of amusement associated with CTs.

[NowHearThis]

10. Two hours later and STILL not one of 'em will say they're here...

to defend/support the OCT. Is anyone surprised? Not me.

[LARED]

11. Two hours later and you're still wrong

about everything you post.

[NowHearThis]

12. My prediction is still correct. See Post #3

nt

[LARED]

21. Nearly 12 hours later and still, you're wrong - nt

[NowHearThis]

25. Nearly 8 years later and you've yet to prove the OCT is right.

I've merely challenged the basic premise of the OCT and showed why it can't possibly be true. I also predicted that not one
Untruther would step up to the plate and explain how why my explanation is wrong. We're now into day two of my prediction,
and so far, the Untruther brigade has turned out to be a bunch of KFChickens.

[LARED]

34. Youv'e done nothing of the sort, Not even close.

I've merely challenged the basic premise of the OCT and showed why it can't possibly be true.

No you have not. You have made the claim repeatedly, but you have established nothing.


I also predicted that not one Untruther would step up to the plate and explain how why my explanation is wrong.

When you provide an explanation perhaps someone can tell you why it's wrong. Until then you're just a blow hard.

We're now into day two of my prediction, and so far, the Untruther brigade has turned out to be a bunch of KFChickens.

You can predict all the goofy crap you want too. So far no one cares what goofiness you think you predicted.

[NowHearThis]

35. I predict that "lared" will never even attempt to defend the OCT

After eight years "lared" has never even tried to defend the OCT, and who can blame him. He doesn't want to be laughed at, even
if it's only on the Net where he is just another anonymouse/Untruther and loyal soldier in the KFC brigade.

[LARED]

49. That's quite odd

For the last eight years all I get accused of is defending the so called OCT. The reality of it is I do defend most of it because it is based on objective reality, facts, and evidence.

So what?

[LARED]

57. I admitted to the crime you've accused me of and you have

nothing to say. All that bluster for nothing.

[Subdivisions]

37. You are the one that is goofy because you believe in the OCT. n/t

[snooper2]

65. maybe people have a life on the weekends

:rofl:

[MrMickeysMom]

14. That's what enables those defenders of the OCT to go on and on...

and on and on and on....

They never seem to make an balanced assessment of what happened. They claim they have already. It's old, and so is their argument. I've scratched that gnat buzzing across my face enough times here to use the ignore button and come back from time to time to have real discussion.

You don't get it here much with the gnats.

[William Seger]

15. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz

What "enables" me to go on is the firm belief that bullshit never did anyone any good.

And actually, I think we do have a fair amount of "real discussion" here. You must be missing all of it, though, since I never seem to see you involved.

[jberryhill]

18. Spooked911 Believes It Is Obvious That Nukes Blew Up The Towers....

...so while he provides considerable amusement from time to time, obsessively responding to his latest gems may just not be all that interesting.

[William Seger]

13. Twelve major assumption that supporters of MIHOP theories have to make

1. All of the evidence we have actually implies MIHOP, except for the evidence that was faked.

2. All of the REAL evidence that would prove MIHOP beyond any doubt was covered up.

3. All of the witnesses actually imply MIHOP, except for the ones who are either mistaken or lying.

4. All of the REAL witnesses who WOULD prove MIHOP beyond any doubt are afraid to talk,

5. Everything that happened fits into some MIHOP theory, somehow.

6. Everything that DIDN'T happen fits into some MIHOP theory, somehow.

7. MIHOPers are not obliged to prove their claims or to offer any COHERENT theories; that's why we need a new investigation.

8. People who don't accept MIHOP claims are obliged to disprove them.

9. MIHOPers are MIHOPers because they are only interested in the truth.

10. Anyone who doesn't accept MIHOP is either naive or deliberately trying to suppress the truth.

11. Since facts and reason aren't much help in figuring out that MIHOP is true, speculation will have to do.

12. Speculation is the same thing as truth if it's posted in a sufficient number of places on the web, or in one YouTube video.

[spooked911]

27. The assumptions you have to make to support the OCT are the first test.

Clearly, you have to be very naive to support the OCT. Once you get past the OCT, MIHOP flows logically and naturally.

[William Seger]

54. No, it does not

By "get past the OCT," of course you mean to assume it isn't true. But even if you do assume that, MIHOP does not "flow logically and naturally." That's equivalent to saying that if the OCT is false, then MIHOP must be true, and if you believe that, then you aren't as imaginative as I once thought. Perhaps it was an attack carried by some non-Islamist group, or even a foreign government with a grudge, or perhaps it was by a cabal of businessmen who stood to profit. So, even without examining your premise for veracity, your logic is not valid.

No, you really have to start by simply assuming MIHOP. It needs to be an assumption because there is no convincing evidence for it. (If there was, as I've said before, it wouldn't be called a "conspiracy theory.") Then, all of these assumptions I've listed become necessary or at least convenient to support that premise or else it falls apart. However, one consequence of this approach it that it becomes completely impossible for you to be convinced otherwise. But that's the great thing about conspiracism, though: It's got a built-in mechanism for generating reasons to ignore any attack: No evidence can be trusted because it could be fake, no lack of evidence really means anything since it was all covered up, and even the attacks are all part of the conspiracy. And you dismiss anyone who doesn't appreciate this approach as being naive.

But, unfortunately, it's not really a "theory" anymore if it can't be disproved; it's just a closed feed-back loop.

On the other hand, "supporters of the official 9/11 story" may or may not make those assumptions you listed, and they may or may not even assert that the "official 9/11 story" is "the truth." It's absolutely possible to reject all four of your assumptions and still believe that the "official 9/11 story" is the best explanation that we have for the evidence -- at this time, at least. It is not logical to say that just because politicians, media, etc., lack credibility, then the "official 9/11 story" must be false. Again, even if the premise were true, that would not make your conclusion true. It's easy to prove that your logic has a large hole, because large parts of the story come from people who are not in any of the groups you listed. Another hole is assuming that all the people in all those groups would conspire to tell the same story; dishonesty per se doesn't explain that.

It's still possible for "supporters of the official 9/11 story" to speculate that some of the "official" details are wrong and that there might be more to to the story, but speculation is not "truth." Where's the evidence? How do we even sort through all the possible speculations and rank them without any evidence?

This is what I call the "rational" approach and it could also be called the "best guess" approach. As limiting as this approach may be, and even though it's painfully obvious that we don't know (and never will know) everything about 9/11 (or anything else of much consequence), those are not justifications for elevating unfounded speculations to be "truth" and filling in the gaps in our knowledge by making shit up. Even with its flaws and shortcomings, this evidence-based approach has the advantage of being self-correcting if new evidence comes into the picture. (I can give you one example from my own experience: I was once a JFK assassination conspiracist, myself, because I read a few books and believed everything they said. Later, when I found that a lot of the information was dubious and more importantly that key pieces of information were left out, I changed my mind.)

So, no, my 9/11 opinions are not based on naïveté; they are based on what I judge to be good reason. As I've said here many times (but never got much of a response from), my problem with MIHOP is that it's so outrageously implausible on its face that you really do need "smoking gun" quality evidence to convince me. That implausibility has nothing to do with believing there's no such thing as conspiracies or that Dick Cheney wouldn't plot a "false flag" attack. The implausibility is that anyone would plot such and insanely complicated and unnecessarily risky hoax, that they could get all the necessary people to go along with a hoax that had such a high probability of going wrong and/or being exposed, and that even if all that did happen, they would actually get away with pulling it off. But I claim that if you show me the real "smoking gun" I'll have to change my mind. Prove me wrong, either way.

[hack89]

22. Which is completely irrelevant when analyzing the goofy pseudo science

that Truthers flock to. Your OP could be 100 percent correct and yet the truth movement would still absolutely wrong about CD, no-planes, thermite, mini-nuke, etc. Because many people have the education and experience to evaluate them independent of the government.

The truth movement would have been much better served by simply forwarding a theory that the CIA duped and aided a bunch of Arab patsies into crashing airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon. I would also go as far as to say that a logical step for the CIA would be to use disinfo agents to associate the Truth movement with outlandish conspiracy theories to discredit them.

[NowHearThis]

26. His OP IS 100% correct. If it wasn't, your response would be very..

very different. You wouldn't have to resort to the cowardly act of insulting all those who have studied the evidence, not just
the cover-up propaganda.

As you know, I've posted a simple challenge to the basic premise of the OCT and not one single member of the Untruther brigade
has even attempted to refute it. I predicted as much.

When it comes to showing the courage of one's convictions, the Untruther brigade is looking more and more like a rag-tag group
of 9/11 Chickenhawks.

[SDuderstadt]

28. If I recall correctly...

your goofy claim is that the "OCT" is "premised" upon Olson's phone call. Of course, you've just created a strawman there unless you can prove that is true (which you won't be able to). Start your "challenge" with actual facts and maybe someone will humor you and engage you. Otherwise, I don't know if anyone takes you seriously enough to engage in such a monumental waste of time. You're rapidly assuming SLAD's mantle as essentially an inside joke here.

[NowHearThis]

29. Yes, the OCT is based on a foundational lie: Olson's calls

You couldn't rebut the thread in which I posited a plausible explanation of what happened to Mrs. Olson. She lost her life, but it
wasn't from being in an airplane that crashed.

I've also challenged the Untruther brigade that if they can't provide any credible evidence that Mrs. Olson called Ted from AA FL77,
then it's entirely reasonable to conclude that the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is a lie. No such evidence has been forthcoming.

Are ALL Untruthers KFC?

[SDuderstadt]

30. Dude...

your claim has been roundly debunked by 1) the eyewitness testimony of those who saw the plane hit the Pentagon 2) the data from AA77's FDR 3) the eyewitness testimony of those first responders who consistently talk about jet fuel and plane debris 4) the positive ID of the passengers by DNA, etc. I know you're not good at deductive reasoning, so I'll give you a pass on not being able to draw reasonable conclusions from the totality of the evidence, but your totally ignoring the evidence that contradicts your goofy claim is just, well...goofy.

[NowHearThis]

31. Do you realize you didn't rebut anything? You merely repeated...

some long-discredited "talking points."

I'll give you a pass on trying to rebut my argument about what happened to Mrs. Olson if you can provide some credible evidence
that she called Ted from aboard an airliner on 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

Dude...

Show me where I ever claimed she did. What I am taking issue with is your goofy claim that the entire "OCT" rests upon whether she did or didn't. When you can prove that, you might have something. In the meantime, trying to dismiss eyewitney ss testimony and physical evidence which destroys your goofy claims by labeling said evidence as "talking points" isn't fooling anyone exceot, perhaps, yourself. If you can't refute the evidence, why not simply say so?

[NowHearThis]

36. No proof of phone calls from Olson on FL77, ergo OCT is a lie.

The OCT (hijackers w/box cutters etc.) is based on the lie that Mrs. Olson allegedly made to Mr. Olson. Without the claims she
allegedly made in phone calls from FL77, the OCT falls apart. It's very simple. There's nothing magic about it at all.

Once you realize that the whole OCT depends on those alleged phone calls and that there's no proof they were made from a hijacked
airliner (AA FL77), then obviously, continuing to support the OCT is tantamount to saying you believe in the impossible...if your
support of the OCT is sincere...and I have no reason at all to believe that it isn't sincere. Mind you, I'm not saying that their
aren't plenty of paid supporters, but I don't think ANY of the Untruthers here are professional disinformation agents. (don't ask
me why I say that if you are thin-skinned)

[SDuderstadt]

38. Dude...you keep trying to skirt a very important fact...

a VERY simple question. Do you DENY that there were accounts of OTHER passengers stating they observed Arab hijackers wearing red bandanas and carrying knives? It's a simple yes or no answer. Of course, you won't answer yes because you know it destroys your goofy claim.

[NowHearThis]

40. I'm aware that others supposedly claimed that planes were hijacked.

nt

[SDuderstadt]

47. And you leave out the part where a number of them stated...

they observed Arab hijackers wearing red bandanas and carrying knives. Why? Hint: because it destroys your goofy claim that Olson's call was the sole source for this.

[Subdivisions]

52. Please cite the observances of box cutters and/or knives besides

the Olson one.

BTW, your claims are the ones that are goofy.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Gladly....

hopefully, this will shut you up.

Jeremy Glick picked up a GTE Airfone just before 9:30 a.m. and called his in-laws in the Catskills. His wife, Lyz, and daughter, Emerson, were visiting. The family had been transfixed in front of a television, watching news coverage of airliners smashing into the World Trade Center in New York.
Glick's mother-in-law, JoAnne Makely, answered.

"Jeremy," she said, "Thank God. We're so worried."

"It's bad news," Glick replied. He asked for Lyz.

Lyz recalls no background noise. No commotion. He described the men as Arabic-looking, wearing red headbands, carrying knives. One told passengers he had a bomb. Most passengers had been forced to the rear of the cabin. Glick's mother-in-law went to another phone and dialed 911. As Jeremy and Lyz spoke, New York state police patched in on the call.
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp

Sandra Bradshaw
Sandy Bradshaw, a flight attendant, called her husband Philip (a US Airways pilot) and told him of the hijacking. She mentioned there were three hijackers, with knives.

9:35:40 - 5 minutes, 53 seconds (353 seconds), call to United Airlines
9:50:04 - 7 minutes, 50 seconds (470 seconds), call to her husband
Marion Britton
Britton called her friend, Fred Fiumano.

“ She said the plane had been hijacked, they had slit the throats of two people and the plane had made a U-turn.
Fiumano told her that the World Trade Center towers were in flames. She said, "I know, and we're going to go down." Fiumano said they were only going to take them for a ride, but she responded, "No. They're going to kill us."

Fiumano heard a lot of yelling and screaming, and the line went dead. He tried calling back but the call didn't get through.<6>
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010922gtenat4p4.asp

Peter Hanson's second phone call
At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:

"It's getting bad, Dad-A stewardess was stabbed-They seem to have knives and Mace -They said they have a bomb-It's getting very bad on the plane-Passengers are throwing up and getting sick-The plane is making jerky movements-I don't think the pilot is flying the plane-I think we are going down-I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building-Don't worry, Dad- If it happens, it'll be very fast-My God, my God."
The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson had heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both then saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.

And there's plenty more where that came from, dude. What truly baffles me about you self-described "truthers" is how you indignantly demand proof of things that seem to truly surprise you, as if you have never heard them before, revealing, in the process that you guys apparently just buy what CT sources tell you, never bothering to fact-check them through primary research. If you're truly about getting at the truth, wouldn't you want to find out all the facts before shooting your mouths off?

[Subdivisions]

61. What truly baffles me about you is that you actually

went to all that trouble and allowed me to play you like that. Thanks for the laff.

Indignantly? ... "as if you have never heard them before"?

[SDuderstadt]

63. Dude...seriously, if you knew about them, you wouldn't have asked...

the question you did. Your claim that you already knew about them isn't fooling anyone.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

71. You demanded to know about any other passengers...

that observed Arab hijackers wearing red bandanas and carrying knives in a thread that claims if Ted Olson's claim of a call from his wife is untrue, then the whole "OCT" collapses, and you expect us to believe that you knew about them all along and you were just playing me? Really?


No one believes you, dude.

[Subdivisions]

80. ...duder...

Pathetic. The very same phone calls you referenced are available from many sources, including the 9/11 Commission itself:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf

What, now not only am I delusional with regard to my belief that 9/11 was, to some degree at least, an inside job, but I am also unable to read the goddamned report or associated research and materials?

Pfffttt....Gee thanks!





ETA: The full report is available online here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
You should read it sometime.

[SDuderstadt]

81. Dude...

in case you've forgotten, here is your post:

52. Please cite the observances of box cutters and/or knives besides
the Olson one.

BTW, your claims are the ones that are goofy.

Now you're trying to claim you knew all along and you were just playing me? I don't think so, dude. Your demand is obviously from someone who has convinced himself that Olson is the only source for the allegations of knives (a boxcutter is a retractable knife), probably on the basis of poor research skills, resulting in overconsumption of CT bullshit.

If you're wiggling around here, trying to save face, it's not going to work because you have no face left to save. Face it, dude. You made a demand that inadvertently reveals how uninformed you are about 9/11. Thrashing all about isn't going to help you.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

83. Then why would you ask such a stupid question?

You can try to pretend that you were "just playing with me", but what you revealed is the ignorance about 9/11 that is the hallmark of most (not all) of the diehard, true believer 9/11 CT types. If you already knew of the multiple sources that confirmed basic info about the hijackers, why wouldn't you have corrected NowHearThis?

Dude: some unsolicited advice...when you've dug a hole that's so big it threatens to consume you, it's time to stop digging. No one believes your bullshit about this.

[Subdivisions]

84. Of for fucks sake! I was merely playing on yours and your cohorts'

penchant to constantly ask for proof by posing such questions as "Please cite ." or "Do you have a link to substantiate that assertion?" or "Please show me where I said that."

And, who are you to speak for everyone when you say "no one" believes me on this and how could you possibly even know that? And, even if everyone doesn't believe me, I don't really give a fuck. But, thanks anyway for playing.

[SDuderstadt]

85. No, you weren't, dude....

as I advised you before, stop digging.

[Subdivisions]

46. It's your claims that are goofy, duder. n/t

[Subdivisions]

45. Of course they're not "professional disinformation agents". It's readily apparent that

they aren't. If you're not an "Untruther", as NowHearThis calls them, you won't be offended when I say that they are obviously amateurs.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Subdivisions]

43. He can't provide evidence that she actually made that call. n/t

[Subdivisions]

42. No...YOUR claims are goofy. Anyone who believes in the pack of lies that is

the OCT is the one who is goofy.

[OnTheOtherHand]

50. neener neener

No need to thank me. I'm always happy to raise the level of discourse. :hi:

[Subdivisions]

51. Which you have brilliantly done...

Not.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Subdivisions]

53. 'I don't know if anyone takes you seriously enough to engage in such a monumental

waste of time." Yet, you do it anyway. Weird.

[Subdivisions]

39. The OCT, in which you believe, as well as the laughable NIST report

are goofy pseudo science and outright lies. Which makes your conspiracy theory outlandish.

[AZCat]

55. Well, then...

what's laughable about it? Mind posting something in support of your argument other than your opinion?

[Subdivisions]

62. What laughable about it? Ummmmm....

All of it.

[AZCat]

64. Have you even read the NIST reports?

Or are you criticizing them based on the interpretations of others?

[OnTheOtherHand]

67. I think you're actually misstating your own position

The OCT includes the proposition that planes hit the towers. That's a matter of contention. You agree with it, don't you?

Now, is there any chance that you could talk about this subject seriously?

[Subdivisions]

69. Of course planes hit the towers. I just don't believe

they were the cause of the collapse of three buildings nor do I believe that fire from kerosene, wood (and wood pulp), carpeting, or petro-chemical products contained in the buildings melted the steel structure, initiating the collapse of all three buildings. I am a card-carrying member of an international metal trades construction union with 25 years of steel construction experience and I know (though I am not an engineer) what it takes to melt even thin samples of steel.

I believe the planes were used for two purposes. 1) To incite terror (but by whom still remains in question for me, hence my call for a new investigation) and 2) to create a mechanism by which to explain the collapses.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. "fire... melted the steel structure, initiating the collapse of all three buildings."

That isn't what the NIST explanation is, for any of the three buildings.

[Subdivisions]

74. Semantics and a little lack of detail on my part (since it's been

re-hashed ad nauseam here and elswhere). Here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6.pdf

-snip-

Events that played a significant role in the structural performance of the towers were the aircraft impact, the rapid ignition of fire on multiple floors, the growth and spread of fires and the structural weakening resulting from effects of high temperatures.

-snip-

I don't have time to go beyond that right now. Perhaps when I get back later.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. "a little lack of detail on my part" = straw man argument

Welcome back to NIST's actual statements. I await your explanation of why those listed events had no actual effect on the buildings. I hope you have reality-based modeling.

[AZCat]

88. We await a substantive discussion with anticipation. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

86. "Of course planes hit the towers."

You didn't even respond to the content of my post. Is that, or is that not, part of the OCT?

Hmmmm. Do you actually define the OCT as "the 'official story' minus what I, Subdivisions, don't believe"? That would be a slick move, because it enables you to join others in railing against "the OCT" no matter what they believe, as long as they vehemently disagree with something. But it doesn't have a lot to do with what people like me actually believe.

For instance, we don't believe that the steel melted -- and, no, I don't think that's just "semantics."

[vincent_vega_lives]

68. I didn't think it was possible

But we have a poster here with less substance and content to offer than a certain poster here that will remain nameless.

Awaiting your "goofy" comment. :eyes:

[Subdivisions]

72. And where, pray tell, can I find the 'substance and content' in

what you've said here? If you have some "substance and content" to add, then by all means, please lets see it.

Otherwise, lil guy, stick and stones...

[vincent_vega_lives]

73. your sticks and stones are goofy dude (n/t)

[Subdivisions]

76. Your lack of "substance and content" is now well established. Good day. n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

78. Your Irony is now well established. Good day. n/t

[Subdivisions]

75. delete. moved. n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[vincent_vega_lives]

79. Hence the problem

Not "defending the official story"...but countering the constant bogus analysis here of what they think really happened that day.

[aldo]

87. Well, they can believe 12 impossible thing before breakfast

So what's a few more. Either that or they've been assimilated into the Borg hivemind.