What is the motivation of OCT supporters?

[HamdenRice]

There are basically three kinds of posters in the 9/11 Forum. There is a core of people who are interested in research and activism, who are scouring internet, mainstream media and other sources of information and sharing them here.

Then there are people who find themselves directed here after their post to some other forum, such as GD or GD-Politics, was removed to the 9/11 Forum.

And of course, there are the official conspiracy theory supporters. I was thinking about the OCTers' motiviations because of this post by DUer, "Old and in the Way." Someone posted a somewhat tougue in cheek OP about radar testing in DC, which was moved to the 9/11 Forum, and the thread was immediately innundated with OCTers' hijack posts. Here is what OAITW wrote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=95337&mesg_id=95503

I could see posting a few months after 9/11 and then, if I strongly disagreed with the anti-OCT crowd, I'd move on. But we are talking 5 years for some supporters of the OCT. That's an amazing effort of perseverence.

I particularly like the "Oh shit, not this again" comments. Is someone holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to click, yet again, on a post that they disagree with? It sounds so damn agonizing for these poor people to have to click, read, and comment on something they have dissed hundreds of times in the past. It really must be a labor of love. I mean they hate this forum....yet I hardly ever see any of these people posting upstairs....hmmmm. I guess this is the place they to hate.

<end quote>

Think about this: Some OCTers have spent hours each day, almost every day, for nearly five years basically saying almost nothing each time except that the 9/11 truth movement is a wacky conspiracy theory -- and I assume they spend hours each day because as soon as anyone posts research the OCTers are there to jump in as the number 2 post or some other early post.

But try this experiment. Do a search by author of the main OCTers and you find something very curious: They almost never post in any other forum! Imagine spending five years on DU in the one forum you claim to hate the basic premise of!

What's more, read the one or two posts by OCTers that they have managed to post in other forums. Here are a couple of examples. In order not to violate DU rules, I will describe them anonymously.

OCTer No 1 has posted hundreds of posts, almost none of them OPs, and many of them second posts -- ie immediate responses to OPs --that attempt to hijack the original informative OP with some accusation of tin foil hattery. One of the only substantive post by OCTer1 outside the 9/11 Forum was in response to a question about reparations for slavery in which OCTer1 expressed his/her/its strong opposition to the idea.

By contrast, OCTer No 2 has not been posting for very long -- less than a year. But in that time almost all of his/her/its posts have been in the 9/11 Forum. Unlike OCTer1, OCTer2 often posts meaningless OPs designed to make the entire forum look ridiculous, but when no one takes the bait, OCTer2 will self kick relentlessly to keep the ludicrous OP on the first page. Of the few posts outside the 9/11 Forum that OCTer2 has made, one was to cheer Kos for banning all discussion of election fraud. Despite the now overwhelming evidence of voter disenfranchisement, especially in Ohio, OCTer2 says that research concerning election fraud is "bullshit" conspiracy theory. The only other substantive post by OCTer2 I came across in my somewhat random sample was a post in favor of charter private schools, as a replacement for public schools in minority areas-- not generally a progressive position.

Now does it sound to you that these OCTers are progressive Democrats who have a lot to say about a variety of subjects of interest to liberals and progressives, but who also happen to be of skeptical and scientific bent and are providing a useful reality check to 9/11 research? Or does it seem like they can be characterized some other way? If you are an OCTer, why would you spend all your time here, and almost none in any other forum? Do you have any interest whatsoever in liberal, Democratic or progressive issues?

[SidDithers]

1. My motivation is that I don't like to see bad science...

and so I address what I believe to be conclusions not supported by evidence - in particular, why Dr. Jones expertise in a very narrow field of physics gives him credibility in what is mostly an engineering and materials science problem.

I also post in GD, R/T, Atheists and Agnostics, Sports, and the Skeptics forum. I read LBN, but rarely reply to posts there.

As far as your claim that OCT'ers are here hours each day, well, discussions in this forum are usually two-way. For every poster skeptical of the PCT's, there are just as many, if not more, PCT'ers spending just as much time, if not more, posting in this forum.

Sid

[petgoat]

2. But you've got no problem with the irresponsible science of NIST nt

[SidDithers]

5. Between the choices of...

1) planes crashed into buildings, buildings caught fire, supports were weakened, buildings fell down

and

2) buildings were secretly laced with thermite / thermate, planes crashed into buildings, thermate / thermite goes off, buildings fall down

I'll take door number 1. I make no claims as to the motives or behaviour of the hijackers, the whereabouts of air defense assets, or the incompetence of your government. But the controlled demolition fairy tale is patently ridiculous.

Sid

[dailykoff]

7. "supports were weakened, buildings fell down"

is supposed to be an example of good science? Please, your hypocrisy is embarrassing. :blush:

[petgoat]

9. It doesn't bother you that:

1) Not one core steel sample shows heating above 250 degrees C.
2) None of the authorities who soon after 9/11 alleged that the jet fuel
"melted" the steel has apologized
3) The blueprints are a secret
4) ASCE's access to the site was rstricted, and their access to the blueprints limited
5) the FEMA metallurgical studies were discontinued, and their mysteries ignored
6) weakened columns do not explain the pulverizatin of the concrete, the squibs, the
energetic ejection of dust, or the molten metal
7) weakened columns do not explain the drop of the antenna before the collapse of WTC1
8) NIST will not show its computer visualizations
9) NIST did not model the collapse
10) NIST fudged their input numbers after realistic-case parameters failed to generate
a collapse
11) Before the steel analysis NIST claimed that samples had been selected from the impact
and fire damage areas, and after the analysis failed to show the results they wanted NIST
said none of the steel samples was from zones where high heating was predicted
12) NIST's model for testing the ability of aircraft debris to dislodge fireproofing was
to apply fireproofing to a plywood box and shoot it off with shotgun blasts
13) NIST's workstation burn tests doubled the hydrocarbon fuel that had been actually
available and overventilated the burn zone
14) NIST's claim that there was no evidence for CD ignored eyewitness testimony of explosions,
the sulfidation attack, and the molten metal
15) NIST's floor-sag tests showed sagging of a few inches; their computer model showed sagging
of 42 inches
16) NIST's floor sag test put the floors in the furnace for two hours and doubled the actual
floor load
17) WTC7 fell though no airplane hit it. FEMA couldn't explain it. NIST can't explain it.

Please tell us why the CD hypothesis is patently ridiculous.

[SidDithers]

14. Off to the golf course...will try to respond later tonite...nt

Sid

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. So believing that

flying airplanes into steel buildings can turn them into dust is not ridiculous?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Straw man

No one claims the buildings were turned to dust but people trying to disprove the OCT

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. At the end of the day

the WTC was reduced to 1.2 billion tons of debris. 600,000 tons of it was fine particle dust.

Almost everything that wasn't made of steel, turned into small particle debris. If you can present data that says otherwise, I would be happy to look at it.

Oh just in case you don't believe me about the dust, I am willing to post my sources. Something you never do.

The 1.46 million tons of Trade Center debris dumped in the Staten Island landfill have been at the center of a dispute between the city and a family group, W.T.C. Families for Proper Burial, since 2002. The family members contend that remnants of their loved ones are intermingled with the 600,000 tons of fine particle dust there. The city insists the human remains were removed.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_146/cb1lashesoutatstate.html

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Chirp, chirp

1,200,000,000 tons of debris
600,000 tons was fine particle dust.

That means:

600,000/1,200,000,000

Which reduces to:

6/12,000

Which reduces to:

1/2000

Which converts to percentages as:

.05% of the WTC towers became dust.

Oh, yes, my sources:

http://www.math.com/school/subject1/lessons/S1U4L2GL.html

http://www.math.com/school/subject1/lessons/S1U1L7GL.html

Now in the future you will be saying that "a tiny fraction of the buildings turned into dust" instead of "the buildings turned to dust", won't you?

[DoYouEverWonder]

68. I guess you must be a practitioner of voodoo economics?

How did you turn 1.2 million tons of debris, into 1.2 billion tons of debris?

BTW: These are figures for what was hauled out of the pit. It does not include all the dust that covered lower Manhattan and/or blew out to sea. The steel tended to stay where it fell during the collapse.

Now in the future, will you be saying that over half the building turned to dust?

[Bolo Boffin]

69. "the WTC was reduced to 1.2 billion tons of debris. 600,000 tons of it"

Your words. Go read your post again.

I guess that's what I get for trusting you to report the facts correctly.

[DoYouEverWonder]

70. The article states 'million'

Glad I included the article, since I obviously misquoted my own citation.

OMG, I guess I've discredited the entire truth movement because I can't type worth a damn and on occasion (especially has I get older) misspeak.

Now back to the original arguement about buildings turning into dust. Since I also suck at higher level math, would you mind redoing your calculations with the corrected total? Thanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. New information has come to light, man.

Your article says 1.42 million, you said 1.2 billion. Okay, so maybe a slip of the fingers between m and b; though they are typed by different hands altogether, they are probably stored right by each other in the brain. And then, maybe you just missed the 4 as well.

But we need to start with 1.42 million at the Staten Island landfill.

Now, are there any other landfills that debris was taken to? Was debris shipped other places altogether?

And how much of the dust do you suppose drifted out in the air, and went all over Manhattan, or out to sea? We'd need a good estimate there, or we're going to be completely off.

Got any sources that will give us that info?

[petgoat]

73. Debris was shifted to mafia-controlled scrap yards.

Rudy knew the mafia well.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. What has that got to do with what we are talking about?

Focus, petgoat.

[petgoat]

107. It's an answer to the question in your preceding post.

You asked: "Was debris shipped other places altogether?"

I said yes, it was shipped to four different local scrapyards.
I've seen allegations that some of them are mob-controlled.
Rudy's career was made as a mob-buster, a somewhat fascistic
one, I've been told.

[Bolo Boffin]

109. It's a tangent, at best.

What does the allegation of the mob owning the landfills stuff was shipped to...have to do with determining how much stuff was shipped to the landfills?

It's immaterial to the discussion at hand.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[petgoat]

114. It's not the least bit immaterial when the possibility exists that

certain very hinky-looking pieces of steel were sent to local scrapyards
run by people who defy their bosses at risk to their families' lives.

The steel was marked with stamped ID numbers. Apparently of all the 270 or
so samples taken, none came from the impact zone.

And it's not landfills, it's scrapyards. Big difference.

[Bolo Boffin]

117. Landfills, scrapyards, it has zilch to do with determining how much...

...went there. I'm surprised you keep insisting on it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

78. I believe all of the debris was carted to Fresh Kills first

There was a very high level of security for the hauling, especially since they were dealing with human remains. After the debris was sorted at Fresh Kills, then whatever they could salvage was redistributed from there for recycling.

Found an interesting website from one of the companies that was involved in the clean up. They claim that 1.7 billion, oops, I mean 1.7 million tons of debris was taken to Fresh Kills.

Environmental, Safety & Health, Inc. (ES&H) provided Safety and Health Management at the World Trade Center (WTC) Debris Recovery site at the Staten Island Landfill, formerly known as Fresh Kills Landfill. The site is owned by the Department of Sanitation – New York and managed by the New York Police Department (NYPD) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Debris from the WTC was barged across the Hudson Bay and offloaded.

ES&H is subcontracted to Phillips & Jordan. Inc. (P&J), who is contracted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ES&H was the primary liaison between 22 different agencies, including: NYPD, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), FBI, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Customs, USACE, and FEMA.

While onsite, ES&H oversaw the implementation of personnel exposure sampling and safety compliance. Approximately 600 people (mostly NYPD) worked at the site. Industrial Hygiene Technicians monitored for asbestos, dust, metals, mercury, dioxin, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, noise, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and lead. Physical hazards onsite included: heavy equipment, fall protection, slips, trips, falls, sharp objects, and lockout/tagout. Due to our close scrutiny, diligence, and site-specific training, our team performed more than 1.7 million man-hours with only one loss time accident. Over 200 people were identified through these efforts. More than 1.7 million tons of debris were sorted.

[Bolo Boffin]

121. Let's go with the figures we have

1.7 million tons (not billion)

Let's say 700,000 tons of what once was the WTC is particulate (a figure I am pulling out of the air by taking the 600,000 ton figure and conservatively adding another hundred thousand). We should adjust the final figure up to 1.8 million tons, then.

7/18

39% of the WTC turned to dust = two-fifths of the WTC complex

But according to the main NIST report, if I may cite it (that is linking to a source, isn't it?):

Page 32 (pdf 82): "...more than 250,000 tons of steel, concrete, and furnishings hit the ground "

Now WTC 1 would be a little bit more because of the antenna, so let's say the towers together, steel, concrete, and furnishings are 515,000 tons. The airplanes added maybe another 250 tons of material to the pile.

Page 67 (pdf 117): "Roughly 200,000 tons of steel were used in the construction of the two towers."

So about 60% of the WTC towers was concrete and furnishings.

I guess it's safe to say that the concrete went particulate in the fall. But that's a far cry from the statement "the buildings turned to dust."

[petgoat]

125. The concrete turned to dust in mid-air.

[Bolo Boffin]

131. It did no such thing.

Even you don't believe that. You've got to have some explanation for how the concrete particulized, and I doubt you think it happened "in mid air".

[petgoat]

139. Look at the picture. The dust is exploding outwards from the

building--in mid air.

[Bolo Boffin]

140. The dust is expanding from a more dense state to a less dense state.

Kinda the opposite of most 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Explain to me right now, no prevarication, how you think the concrete turned to dust in mid-air.

No! Don't change the subject! How did it happen?

[petgoat]

141. "How did it happen?"

I don't know. The only explanation I've ever heard was explosives. That's not
convincing to me for a number of reasons, but I've never heard another
explanation that works. The bellows of collapsing floors can not pump out the
dust before the dust has been created.

[Bolo Boffin]

142. So how can you say that the concrete "turned to dust in mid-air"?

At this point, the only thing I'm hearing from you is a form of magical thinking.

[petgoat]

143. Because what were concrete floors became dust, and this

picture shows that it happened 800 feet in the air.

[Bolo Boffin]

145. That picture shows no such thing.

That picture shows the expanding pyroclastic cloud created by the collapse. What you think is turning into dust has already turned to dust.

[petgoat]

148. I don't know what semantic distinction you're trying to make.

The concrete floors clearly were pulverized. We can see the dust in the clouds
in the air.

[Bolo Boffin]

149. I never said they weren't pulverized.

I said it didn't happen in mid-air. I don't think that, no evidence says that, and you refuse to provide an explanation as to how it could happen.

[petgoat]

152. Your refusal to explain the distinction between what you mean

by mid air and what I mean by mid air is clogging up this thread and wasting
everybody's time.

80 floors in the air, the concrete turned to dust.

[Bolo Boffin]

155. Your refusal to explain HOW that happened is the clog.

You have yet to do that. Only you claim it happened. Tell us, petgoat, how did it happen?

Consider these next four sentences my next four responses.

How did it happen?

How did it happen?

You still haven't told us how it happened, petgoat - how?

How Did It Happen?

[petgoat]

156. I don't know how it happened. That's the point.

You seem to be arguing that because I can't explain how it happened,
therefore it didn't happen.

But it happened.

[Bolo Boffin]

157. No, when I point out you have no clue as to how your claims came about...

I'm pointing out that you have no clue.

[petgoat]

158. . nt

[Americus]

81. What does your voodoo economics have to do with this thread topic?

While some of your fellow OCT'er Brigade members may be impressed by your math skills, you are way out of line by trying to hijack the topic under discussion. Or, is that the whole idea?
We all know that OCT'ers don't like certain topics and avoid them like the plague, but as a self-promoting, self-described "progressive"...something or other (neocon?), in the interest of FAIRNESS and all that sincere progressives believe in, you should cease and desist from trying to hijack threads in order to show off your knowledge of voodoo economics.

[DoYouEverWonder]

83. Aw, cut him some slack

he nailed me on a typo. It's one of the rare times he can 'prove' something.

[DoYouEverWonder]

50. Gee, boloboffin

Whose the strawman? All I hear are crickets chirping.

[HamdenRice]

12. Sid, I've come across your posts elsewhere

so we can agree to disagree on 9/11. But some of the more persistent OCTers have posted almost nothing of substance anywhere else. And what they have posted has tended to resemble Republican talking points. Kinda makes you wonder.

[mirandapriestly]

42. Bad science ?Then why don't you ever comment on this?

instead of a group of internet posters, shouldn't you be a little more concerned with the following? (Not to mention the well know distortions of the NIST report.)

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html
The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization, also issued a 37-page report, "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking," detailing the accusations. The statement and the report both accuse the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.

[New World Odor]

146. re: credibility

Jones has no credibility? If someone has a better explanation,I'm all ears.

[Ferry Fey]

3. A common internet dynamic

I can't speak to whether OCT supporters' posts elsewhere fit the progressive Dem description, not having the time to look myself.

But I will say that that kind of missionary impulse is a very common one elsewhere on the net.

I see it in an area I'm quite involved in, one that is a battleground that attracts a lot of mainstram science advocates. They bring their attacks to the smaller forums where we are trying to discuss our subject if we don't make it very clear that we don't want trolling and people who are not willing to treat other posters with respect.

In the mainstream science forums they make it clear that we are not to initiate discussions of our minority point of view, and make sure that any discussions about it there are condescending and hostile. They have zero commitment to dialogue with people who hold opposing views. There's that giddy goofiness that they adopt when the subject comes up, and the usual playground taunts of "tinfoil" and "conspiracy theorists."

Most of us in the dissenting viewpoint camp in the science field I'm referring to have put together websites with research we've done (some quite professionally, others achingly amateur, but you have to give them points for at least trying). Our mainstream counterparts are noisy purveyors of bulletin board bluster, and with a handful of exceptions, have never attempted to write a substantive, stand-alone critique aside from flinging mud on the forum.

So in that way I see the same dynamic as we have here. Different subject matter, but same patterns.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Do other websites count?

I hardly post anywhere here at DU but in this forum. However, at the Smirking Chimp, I post in many different topics.

Do I get a prize?

[Virginia Dare]

6. It's frustrating...

Personally, I feel that there are aspects of the OCT that are at the very least suspicious, especially concerning the alleged perpetrators and their motivations. I firmly believe that there has been a cover-up, and that the true story has not seen the light yet.

Unfortunately, even questioning any aspect of the OCT you get lumped in with those who believe in lizard people and Nazi alien plots.

There is no way to have a reasonable discussion anymore, it just devolves into pointless flame wars.

[petgoat]

10. Stick to the facts, and the flamers burn themselves nt

[HamdenRice]

13. "There is no way to have a reasonable discussion ..."

You wrote, "There is no way to have a reasonable discussion anymore, it just devolves into pointless flame wars." What I'm getting at is that these threads devolve into flame wars involving exactly the same people over and over saying almost the same thing over and over.

And what is so suspicious is that they hardly post anywhere else on DU. What little they have posted typically consists of Republican talking points. I'm very suspicious of their motives.

[Virginia Dare]

15. Disrupters?...n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Again I repeat, do other websites count?

I post only in this forum at DU, but I blog and post at Smirking Chimp on plenty of topics.

So you're not suspicious of me, right?

[mirandapriestly]

36. yes

several were involved in the recent Will Pitt debacle (against independent media perhaps?)taking a severe stand against Leopold. One of them started a thread supporting the U.S. stand on Zarqawi and what a bad man zarqawi and how DUers hated America because they could see that it was blown out of proportion. (my words, but basically that was it). Pretty obvious. Not to mention those who say they are atheists and post in the religion/theology forum, of course it ends in flames I've seen the same ones doing that, too. It's not just 9-11. But it's the worst here.

[mirandapriestly]

34. and I think that is no accident. nt

[m0nkeyneck]

8. never underestimate ignorance..

anyone that can accept something like wtc7s symmetrical collapse without question doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously… an advanced physics degree or engineering experience isn’t required to understand the simple fact that the probability of a few isolated fires causing total failure is nearly impossible. that alone is enough for a rational person to question OCT.

ignore them; they aren’t here for discussion and it doesn’t matter what they believe anyway.

[mirandapriestly]

35. You can't ignore them

they stalk you. I used the ignored function once and the ignored poster continued to post to me. I could see the "ignored" after my name. I knew she was slandering me and I'm just supposed to ignore it? I mean, I'm human it's hard not to fight back when 80% of it is personal attack, I want to defend myself. I also want other readers to know the oct are wrong and they say things that are untrue and I want to set it straight, then they trap you into endless subthreads and before you know it , whatever you were looking at before is gone and you've wasted all this time. It is very calculated. They have also quadrupled their volume, starting around the time of the bogus Moussaoui trial and every time new news comes out.

[quickesst]

80. You can't ignore them....

if you're the only one to put them on your ignore list. Why not start an OCT ignore campaign. I'd go along. Then we could find out how long it takes for them to realize they're preaching to their own choir. Of course, it may take some time for the ignored posts to diminish, but then, the Delay legal fundraising site kept Colbert on for an unusual amount of time thinking he was a real Republican. On the other hand, we will be deprived of the comic relief. Tough choice.:shrug: Thanks.
quickesst

[Americus]

95. Sounds like a great idea. n/t

n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

127. I like this idea

and, I think it would help stop the flame wars we see so frequently here.

[mirandapriestly]

133. I've thought of p.m.ing people to ask them to

but figured it would be too hard. I am all for it. I hate talking to the f*ckers, it's like talking to stupid freepers (I'm not saying they are freepers, but I am saying that freepers are stupid). The reason they are stupid is that they believe things that are not true, all so that they can justify greed & bigotry. I think that is why some (not all) want to hold on to their ideas of 911 as Islamic terrorists, they want to believe in the evil Muslim enemy. They don't want anyone to take that away from them.

[m0nkeyneck]

98. great point..

ignore was a bad choice of words; dismiss might be better …there has got to be a strategy to defend yourself and make your point without being drawn in to the circular arguments. i’ve been lurking and posting occasionally for a while and it's painful to watch these guys slander, lie, and falsely claim victory.. it’s as if they are following a script. I think by making your point and dismissing the ridiculous follow up questions and insults would reduce their credibility without being reduced to their level. stick to the questions they can't answer; ask them why they don't question the obvious OCT discrepancies like they do the opinions of the skeptics... this seems to shut them down quickly.

[mirandapriestly]

153. They are here to inhibit conversation

to prevent ideas from reaching fruition. There were some intelligent, reasonable ones, then that didn't work so they have unintelligent, agressive, uniformed ones who engage in personal attacks: (rhymes with Spazz) I find it difficult not to try to defend myself as I'm not used to hanging out at trailer parks, it is human nature to and they know that. It is an organized effort, they have increased 4 fold and they are doing it at other places at DU as well. There are freeper sites that talk about 9-11 and Democratic Underground in detail. I would guess these people have organized and come here. They have the same kind of hatred and conviction in lies. Freeper or DLC (same thing)

[mirandapriestly]

154. The reason

I said "ignore" is because there is an "ignore" function on "My DU". You can put posters who offend/harass you on "ignore". I thought this was a great idea, because I thought they would be blocked from sending you messages. But all it does is prevent you from reading their posts; it will say : ignored. But they can read your posts and the person I put on "ignore" continued to answer (goad, harass) me, but I couldn't read what she was saying. I never read OCT posts unless they are sent to me, because they all say the same lies over and over and they are generally uninteresting. But if someone sends me a message I feel I have to answer it.

I knew she was making personal attacks, and I was right. I checked one day. Then she accused me of just saying I was putting her on ignore because I "couldn't answer her questions". It's very predictable. So that is why I said "ignored" there isn't a "dismiss" function. :)

[Jazz2006]

128. Tsk tsk...

still having difficulties with truthiness, it seems.

I've never slandered you, not once. It was quite the opposite.

But you know that.

Your revisionist history attempt is quite laughable.

[Old and In the Way]

16. That last sentence should have read:

"I guess this is the place they love to hate." It would be great if DU could add an incoherent sentence checker to compliment the spell checker. :-)

Hope I didn't ruffle too many feathers of the OCT supporters here....just my humble observation. I certainly don't think all posters who challenge various OP's on various aspects of 9/11 are administration shills, either. There are some extremists on CT side whose agenda I question as well.

All I am interested in is the truth about what happened on 9/11. Sadly, I see very little advancement on new information from either side. I blame this administration for not starting an open and independent investigation on 9/12/01. They were never interested in getting to the truth about this attack. That is the smoking gun. Perhaps, when the current administration loses control of Congress, we can again revisit 9/11 in context with all of the ancillary connections to guns/drugs/oil/money laundering/assassinations that have been uncovered over the past 10 years. Until we expose this dark chapter in our recent history and get justice served to the deserving actors, we will not progress into a better world.

Thanks,HR, for thinking my comment in the other thread was deserving of its own thread.

[petgoat]

18. I think there's some new information.

Dr. Jones's analysis of the sample of molten steel is new.

Kevin Ryan's analysis of the NIST report presented much information new to me.

"Who Killed John O'Neill" presents many leads for research about Kroll and the
terrorist-drug-moneylaundering-CIA complex that are new to me.

[mirandapriestly]

37. d'accord

The Kevin Ryan interview is a blockbuster. The Jones information will need to be clarified and he will need to complete his work, but that is a blockbuster. The combination of those two pretty much sink the OCT. Who Killed John O'Neill floored me.

[Old and In the Way]

40. "Who Killed John O'Neill" is very powerful and quite thought provoking

I watched it last night and I was blown away with the both the content and production values. I was amazed that such a powerful and well written dialogue could be attributed two people and done on such a miniscule budget.

I agree with your examples of some new information. Sadly, this information never got the mass media play it deserved.

[mhatrw]

17. Personally, I'm completely baffled by the mindset.

Assuming that these contributors are not regressive, of course ...

Even if you believe the official story about 9/11 is 100% true, why would you want to go around bragging as much considering all the damage the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme has visited on us?

Maybe I can illustrate my thought process on this better with an analogy.

I'm not at all convinced that global warming is an irreversible, 100% man-made phenomenon. However, I support solar, wind, water and any other clean and renewable energy sources as well as conservation for a myriad of reasons, and I don't support burning fossil fuel at an increasing rate for a myriad of reasons.

In light of this, whether or not the Earth is capable of regulating its temperature with humans continually screwing with its tiny top layer of crust is simply of not much interest to me. The Earth may or may not be able to regulate its temperature within boundaries that are humanly comfortable under our current environmental pressures. I simply don't believe that anybody knows this answer with any certainty yet.

On the other hand, I'm not going to make it my life's mission to debunk those who feel that global warming is 100% fact because, either way, I completely agree with their overall energy agenda. This is something I feel that the "OCT" crowd could stand to learn.

Trying to shut down legitimate questioning of the event of 9/11 is doing Rove's work for him. Look what the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme has wrought: the Iraqi invasion and occupation, a state of never-ending warfare, a "Bush doctrine" of military pre-emption, a culture of authoritarian secrecy, an assault on our Bill of Rights, a crisis of Constitutional separation of powers, the alienation of most of our former allies and the complete loss of our nation's credibility with the rest of the world. And that's just a partial list. Meanwhile, we simply haven't taken any of the obvious, concrete steps that would help to secure our nation against the threat of Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. What could possibly be the explanation for this?

Moreover, why would anyone want to spend their time propping up any meme that has had so much harm done in its name as the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme? Why would anyone seek to shut down all questioning of the basis of such a destructive meme -- no matter how rational the questions or how legitimate the concerns? What could possibly be the motivation of any progressive for spending hundreds of hours protecting the basis of this heinous meme?

[HamdenRice]

19. Maybe I'm not being blunt enough

I agree completely with your post, but I'm no longer puzzled by their motives. Do a search by author of the major OCTers. What little of their writing you find outside the 9/11 forum consists mostly of republican talking points. When you say they are doing "Rove's work" that is no metaphor.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Except for me, right?

Because you've done an extensive survey of my posts outside of DU and found that I'm quite the progressive Democrat, right?

[petgoat]

53. Except for you? Well, take a look at my blog.

http://www.pamelaanderson.com/details.aspx?itemId=210&menuNo=0




Do you like my thighs? That cost $60,000 but I think it was worth
every penny, wouldn't you agree? Or would you like them plumper?

[Bolo Boffin]

57. That makes a lot of sense, petgoat.

Another example of fine reasoning from the 9/11 truth movement.

Hint: I'm gay. No, that doesn't mean post pictures of Tommy Lee.

[petgoat]

60. Your claim that you are gay, like everything anyone posts, is

subject to internet epistemology.

Which means we can't know if you are who you claim you are, or if
what you claim about yourself is true about the person you claim
to be. (But really, look at that picture. Don't you think that
slightly plumper thighs could excite you just a little?)

That is why reference to an objective authority like Dr. Jones,
Dr. Griffin, and Dr. David Dill is the only way to go.

If I had known we would wind up in this epistemological fog, I would
have gotten a PhD myself.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Why do I threaten you so much, petgoat?

Really. I am gay. I am a progressive Democrat. And I am here debunking the 9/11 alternate theories.

Is that too much cognative dissonance for you? Is that too much for you to handle, so you have to resort to "internet epistomology"?

What about Daniel Hopsicker? I was over at MadCowProductions, and wow, does he have some harsh words for people like Michael Ruppert and Dave von Kleist. Yet Hopsicker's the one who's churning out the info about Atta in Venice. Is HE a part of the disinfomation campaign? Or is it Michael Ruppert? Who is it?

Come on, petgoat. I am exactly who I say I am. I dare you to believe me.

[petgoat]

63. Internet epistemology is a given of cyberlife, and not something I "resort

to." You claim to be a gay progressive, and I claim to be Pamela Anderson.

You don't threaten me in the least. Nobody knows who is disinfo. 911truth
might be Karl Rove's wet dream in suppressing evidence that there was an actual
pod on the plane that hit WTC2.

The webfairy might be Karl Rove's wet dream in presenting easily-refuted horsepuck.

I don't know.

But I'm not going to "dare" to believe the inherently unbelievable: that you are
who you say you are.

I will examine Ruppert, Von Kleist, and Hopsicker on their merits. And until I
have thoroughly examined them, I will reserve judegment.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. I am exactly who I say I am.

It can't be inherently unbelievable, because I actually am who I say I am.

Get to know me.

[petgoat]

66. You've given me no reason to want to know you and

"I'm exactly who I say I am" is a claim anyone on the internet can make.

I am Pamela Anderson. Check out my blog.



How do you like my thighs?

http://www.pamelaanderson.com/details.aspx?itemId=210&menuNo=0

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Luckily, with me, you have a few more resources at hand.

To whom it may concern: I am who I say I am.

If you find yourself puzzled by this remark, pay it no mind.

That's what I just posted at Bolo Boffin.

So now you know that I am "bolo" at Bolo Boffin, which is a three-year old blog. It's always been me.

I also post at the Smirking Chimp, under the same handle: boloboffin. If you like, I'll go post that message over there and bring back the link.

I also have another blog: Inner Cog. There are several links there to pictures at flickr.com. That's my account. You can find actual pictures of me there. I don't think any of them show my thighs. They do show me in my latest job as an actor: working aboard the Crystal cruise line as an actor.

I am who I say I am.

[petgoat]

72. Try posting credible posts instead of references.

A liberal website of long duration proves nothing
because it could have been NSA-sponsored.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. What do you mean by "credible"?

"agrees with you"?

[petgoat]

76. "agrees with you"? Not at all. Cites credible sources instead of

claiming unconfirmed credibility.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Ah. Cites sources accepted by you as credible.

I don't have to agree with you. I just have to only quote sources that you agree with.

[petgoat]

103. You're shifting the issue. We were talking about whether

your website establishes your credentials as a progressive. It doesn't.
It could be as phony as Brewster-Jennings. You're shifting the
subject to sources for facts, and making a slanderous remark about
my epistemology while you're at it.

[Bolo Boffin]

110. Oh, do you really want to start talking about slander?

On a thread that is completely against the rules here at DU?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Jazz2006]

129. There are some here,

boloboffin, who seem to be part of a little "pile on" group and, for whatever reason, have a real problem with anyone who disagrees with their theories. They have an odd tendency to call people who disagree with them liars and an odd proclivity for proclaiming utter disbelief about any personal information someone who disagrees with them might offer. Oddly, they seem to accept without question anything that anyone who agrees with their theories says, and they seem to suspend their alleged "standards" for those who happen to agree with them.

It's just a strange ol' dungeon :D

[Bolo Boffin]

130. By their fruits ye shall know them.

Yeah, it comes and goes. I remember an old poster, DulceDecorum, who would do the same kinds of things, along with her sidekick AbeLinkman. It's just silly, especially to come after someone like me, who posts all over the internet with the same handle, and a couple of blogs!

Don't get me wrong, anonymity on the Web is the safest thing by far. I try not to put my personal information out there in a way that spambots could take advantage of it. And I have great respect for anyone anonymous, who nevertheless takes steps to keep a constant identity in place on the web (like a poster here on the other side of the fence, reprehensor, who has the same handle here and at the chimp). But petgoat is right, Internet epistomology means that anyone could do just about anything sneaky online. That's why I've decided to be a little more open about who I am.

And that's why it amazes me that people question me on that line. I'm not that difficult to find things out about.

[Jazz2006]

138. Yes,

I agree that anonymity on the web is the safest by far, particularly if you post in fora like the dungeon here where there are, frankly, some seriously deluded folks who nobody would want to have their personal details. It would be highly embarrassing to me to have some anonymous CTer calling the firm where I work and bothering people ~ and I have no doubt whatsoever that there are some here who would actually do that if they could. Thus, a certain level of anonymity is required on my part. (It's great, though, that you are in a position to be less circumspect and I'm loving your blogs ~ thanks for the links!)

I also agree that anyone can say anything about themselves anonymously and that there is no reason that others should accept it without question. At the same time, I find it odd that people would dismiss it out of hand without any rational basis for doing so other than "I don't agree with your opinion, therefore, you must be lying about everything you've ever said, including your personal circumstances, expertise, or knowledge." And that's what the "pile on" crew here does.

What I also find strange is that the "pile on" crew here will just out and out call other people liars without having any basis for doing so when those other people disagree with their theories but they will accept everything and anything said by those who happen to agree with their theories without question.

Even worse, they change the criteria when it suits their purposes. Case in point, some of the pile on crew here have gone on about non-Americans who disagree with their theories having no reason to be here, yet they have accepted without without question non-Americans who agree with them as being perfectly entitled to be here ~ it's just bizarre.

And it's also at least passing strange that even while they jump all over any credentials offered up by those they disagree with, they don't seem to offer up any credentials themselves.

Anyway, great to see you, thanks for the links, and as I said above, I'm loving your blogs. Keep up the great work, no matter what the "pile on" group here tosses around.

[dailykoff]

150. Why don't you tell us about the "keen interests"

that keep you beavering away here 24/7? That would help us get to know you.

[Bolo Boffin]

151. Thank you for your observation. n/t

[Americus]

82. Kindly stop trying to hijack this thread. No 1 cares if you are gay

I don't know whether or not you're happy or gay or even an actor (well, THAT I can believe), but it's extremely rude of you to hijack threads because you are threatened by the topic people are trying to discuss.

[Bolo Boffin]

112. How am I hijacking the topic, Americus?

The topic is the motivation behind people like me who post.

I'm talking about my motivations for posting. And all I get for it is slander and innuendo from you. Well, I've been getting that from you since you first started posting here, in response to me, for the last four years or so.

[Americus]

115. Shifting the focus to WTC debris is 1 way you're hijacking the topic

n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

116. Bull. DoYouEverWonder brought up that topic. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

144. You make a statement

claiming 'No one claims the buildings were turned to dust but people trying to disprove the OCT' and I respond with facts and figures, yet I hijacked the thread?

You sound just like Condi Rice. Gee, no one ever imagined that they would fly airplanes into buildings.

[Bolo Boffin]

147. I didn't mean you hijacked the thread.

Person accused me of "hijacking the thread". I said, you brought up the topic that I was accused of hijacking the thread with. Yes, it was in response to something I said, but what I said was in response to something someone else said.

Short answer: I'm sorry for giving the impression that you had hijacked the thread. I didn't mean it that way.

[mhatrw]

162. Why?

Even if you believe the official story about 9/11 is 100% true, why would you want to go around bragging as much considering all the damage the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme has visited on us?

[Bolo Boffin]

163. Where have I ever bragged that the official story is 100% true?

I will save you the search. I haven't. It doesn't exist.

I am in fact reading a great book about the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme. It's called The One Percent Doctrine. It has yet to rely on controlled demolition twaddle or Flight 77 denial. It does not quote from Loose Change, or In Plane Sight, or even Everybody'd Gotta Learn Sometime. And it's pretty devestating to read.

I don't even think that 9/11 changed everything. I don't think it changed much of anything, though it should have changed a few things more than it did.

[mhatrw]

164. Why waste your time on this subject when there are so many

other more helpful and constructive things for you to be doing?

Maybe I can illustrate my thought process on this better with an analogy.

I'm not at all convinced that global warming is an irreversible, 100% man-made phenomenon. However, I support solar, wind, water and any other clean and renewable energy sources as well as conservation for a myriad of reasons, and I don't support burning fossil fuel at an increasing rate for a myriad of reasons.

In light of this, whether or not the Earth is capable of regulating its temperature with humans continually screwing with its tiny top layer of crust is simply of not much interest to me. The Earth may or may not be able to regulate its temperature within boundaries that are humanly comfortable under our current environmental pressures. I simply don't believe that anybody knows this answer with any certainty yet.

On the other hand, I'm not going to make it my life's mission to debunk those who feel that global warming is 100% fact because, either way, I completely agree with their overall energy agenda. This is something I feel that the "OCT" crowd could stand to learn.

Trying to shut down legitimate questioning of the event of 9/11 is doing Rove's work for him. Look what the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme has wrought: the Iraqi invasion and occupation, a state of never-ending warfare, a "Bush doctrine" of military pre-emption, a culture of authoritarian secrecy, an assault on our Bill of Rights, a crisis of Constitutional separation of powers, the alienation of most of our former allies and the complete loss of our nation's credibility with the rest of the world. And that's just a partial list. Meanwhile, we simply haven't taken any of the obvious, concrete steps that would help to secure our nation against the threat of Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. What could possibly be the explanation for this?

Moreover, why would anyone want to spend their time propping up any meme that has had so much harm done in its name as the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme? Why would anyone seek to shut down all questioning of the basis of such a destructive meme -- no matter how rational the questions or how legitimate the concerns? What could possibly be the motivation of any progressive for spending hundreds of hours protecting the questionable basis of this heinous meme?

[Bolo Boffin]

165. I really don't have time to explain myself yet again to you.

I'd love to write an essay, and maybe I'll get it done tomorrow or the next day.

But the bottom line is: all the reasons you have for opposing me? They are why I'm opposing you. Sit down and write them out - I have my versions of every one of them. I guarantee it.

Plus two more - paying the universe back for dropping Lawrence David Kusche's Bermuda Triangle book in my path, and trying to wear myself out so I can get some sleep. It's finally working tonight.

[mhatrw]

166. I'm opposing you?

How?

This should be good ...

[DoYouEverWonder]

170. The Bermuda Triangle

is right up there with the Loch Ness Monster. What is there to debunk?

Yes, a lot of things weird do happen in the 'Bermuda Triangle', maybe because it's one of the busiest pieces of ocean around. Lot's of small planes and boats going back and forth between FL and the Bahamas and half of the boaters are probably idiots because you don't even have to have a license to run a power boat. I lived on the water down in So. FL. Crazy shit happens and it's very easy to get killed. There's good reason why Florida's coast is a great place for treasure hunters.

In the meantime, I am surprised that such a book would have such a profound influence on you?

BTW: I have been out on the water and have seen compasses just start spinning for no apparent reason. Who knows what interfered with it? Just one of those things that happens every now and then.

[Bolo Boffin]

171. I was very young when I read it, maybe 11 or 12.

My mind was filled with a lot of hocus-pocus, religious and otherwise. Stories like I'd heard of Flight 49 and others were bewildering to me.

And then I found that book in my smalltown Alabama library. The experience was like having a light bulb turned on. Finding out the actual facts, and seeing how the stories had been misrepresented - wow. It was a Gestalt moment for me.

The easily confused will always be with us. There's people that would swear that Nessie exists, and that planes and ships mysteriously vanish in the Triangle, or that the Earth is flat, or that we never went to the moon. There's no need to debunk these notions, other than to see it done, to help teach the proper bounds of critical thinking. That's why I started a thread on crazy pyramid theories: to show the same kind of sloppy thinking that crafty presentations of half-truths can take advantage of. I feel that if anything's a sin, it's to take advantage of ignorance for your own profit. To increase the darkness so that you can take greater advantage is even worse.

Yes, this is why I hate the Bush Administration.

[Grateful for Hope]

28. Yes, I have noticed this

and, some are busily engaged in smearing some left-wing news sites.

[mirandapriestly]

38. yep, discrediting independent media while they are at it.nt

[Old and In the Way]

44. Good points.

To further your example on global warning, I liken the debate this way. If we are wrong about the environmental effects of global warming, what's the downside? We make our environment a slightly better place to live in and we create new jobs and technology in addressing a problem that might not be as serious as we believe. If they are wrong, the downside of their mistaken opinion is enormous.

I think it is pretty much the same with the 9/11 debate. If we are technically wrong about the what happened on 9/11, we certainly aren't wrong with understanding the agenda of the neocons and this administration. So why would one argue with us on the facts of 9/11 unless one actually supported the agenda that this administration is carrying out? If the OCT believers are truely Democrats, it seems quite odd to me that they would argue and belittle the questions and research of those that are trying to expose the truth that will help rid us of these people.

If we are wrong about 9/11, it is because we haven't had an open and independent investigation into the events of that day where all evidence is presented and addressed. If they are wrong about 9/11, they are enabling the same criminals to maintain power and allowing them to remain in a position to carry out yet another terrorist "event".

[leftofthedial]

20. they are defenders of the status quo

why?

I dunno

[DemInDistress]

21. good observation HR.. why do they disrupt? My guess is

they aren't true Democrats. Maybe they are trolls. I asked Skinner if a 911 group could be started and he replied," NO !!" the Sept.11 Forum needs open and honest discussions. Except the flow of good thoughts are often "disrupted" by the very people you write about.
Its one thing to agree to disagree but these disruptor's flat out reject "true facts" omitted by FEMA,NIST and that "LUDICROUS" Official 911 Report.

Skinner replies: Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-22-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. No, we're not going to permit a 9/11 group.
I'm absolutely opposed to the idea of creating a protected space where supporters of 9/11 conspiracy theories are officially protected from having their speculation tested by open debate.


Their are a few regular debunker's who can't seem to accept "911 was an inside job" all three buildings collapsed from explosives. What was needed to cover the blasts was maybe a commercial jet crashing into the towers.

WT7 = a bad loose end. No way in hell could that have collapsed due to those "puny fires" none!!

Who does one believe? NIST, FEMA, a Ludicrous Official 911 Report OR your lying eyes?

Anyway HR take a bow for that great observation about the "evil" that lurks inside the Sept.11 Forum.

[HamdenRice]

22. It's amazing what they won't accept

I think the 9/11 truth movement is a "big tent" and there are no litmus tests. We also have to accept that some people are going to accept LIHOP but not MIHOP.

But the disrupters believe in such implausible things that I can't really take seriously that they are here to "test" our ideas in "open debate."

The modus operandi is just too identical -- namely hijacking a thread almost as soon as it starts and never actually presenting facts of any kind.

But what really struck me when I did my search by author is that these same people generally write in other forums that they favor charter schools over private schools, don't believe there was misconduct in the 2004 election, etc, etc -- basically a Republican point a view. So I do think several of them are just trolls.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Except for me, right?

Because you'd find my posts over at the Chimp and at my blog to be much more representative of the average DUer, right?

[Grateful for Hope]

30. I have taken a look at your blog

and, it does seem that you have progressive leanings.

I guess what I don't understand is why you seem to be progressive, and yet, you seem so unable to consider the the possibility that the NIST report, the FEMA report, and, the 9/11 Commission report all have very serious short-comings.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. I don't think progressive means "distrust the government"

in every movement it makes.

In fact, progressivism uses open and responsible government to make the necessary changes in society.

Science is not the enemy of progressivism. The FEMA report did the best it could with limited resources (as I understand it), and the NIST report was far more exhaustive and though it doesn't meet the requirements of the 9/11 truth movement, it is very good within the tasks it sets for itself.

The 9/11 Commission report is another matter entirely. It definitely has its omissions (what we know of Sibel Edmond's experiences shouldn't have been completely avoided in the one footnote that mentions her name). But it too was a narrowly defined exploration of the day. There has not been a thorough investigation into how the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen, or at least there has never been a full accounting of this along the lines of the outstanding Frontline documentary last Wednesday.

[Grateful for Hope]

52. you wanted someone to "bite" .huh?

Sorry that I did. You do not justify your stance on 9/11.

Period.

On edit: I think you were baiting this thread to have someone respond to you. I am sorry that I was that person. And, anyone can have a phony website. I think your's is of that genre.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Well.

You obviously haven't read it, then. It's not fake. I don't know what's made you come to that conclusion.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[mirandapriestly]

134. The NIST report was misleading

Have you read the new interview with Kevin Ryan ? It's an old story, though.
The NIST report suggests that low temperatures caused the building's steel core to "soften and buckle". but they also said it saw no temperature above 250C". Fires need to be over 1100 and the steel was tested to 2000. That is the "bad science" you should be concerned about. My post above talks about the group of nobel laureate scientists who are concerned about the Bush admin and their phony science to support their policies, but you have no concern for that. Yet you go after a group of internet posters?
The Bush admin is not the usual government there is something much scarier going on there and if you don't know that you are not paying attention.
Your comments do not ring true.

[Bolo Boffin]

137. I'll work on the "ringing true" parts

We've been going over and over the steel samples on another thread. Short story: using those samples to posit what all the steel went through is bad science. Testing the gathered steel to see if it matched up to design specifications is good science.

Guess which one NIST did, and which one Kevin Ryan did.

[mirandapriestly]

43. anyway can start

a blog.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. mm hmm

Mine goes back quite a way. I got a little attention when I deciphered some old Guard records of Bush's to show how little service he gave his last couple of years. Then the Burkett/Rather fiasco happened and completely stymied that story.

My posts at the Chimp go back to October 2001.

[KJF]

62. FWIW

I think most of the "debunkers", at least, are genuine, especially the older ones like you who actually know something about 9/11. Some of the new "debunkers" are slightly odd, though.

[Grateful for Hope]

54. And, the hijacking occurs in the early AM hours

The OCT crew is on board very early in the AM...like it is the first thing that they need to check for their day at work.

Check out the times of their posts.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. So now my insominia is part of the coverup?

Yeah, yeah.

[Grateful for Hope]

58. If the shoe fits...

[Bolo Boffin]

59. You are unreal.

This is me:

http://boloboffin.blogspot.com/2004_07_04_boloboffin_archive.html#108943223162665302

Here's another blog at the time that links to this post of mine.

http://www.usndemvet.com/blog/archives/001926.html#001926

So the Democratic Veteran is in on the conspiracy too?

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[Grateful for Hope]

96. "So the Democratic Veteran is in on the conspiracy too"

No, for sure. Seems I am wrong.

I apologize.

[Americus]

88. Sorry, counselor. Your "insominia" (sic) claim isn't credible.

How familiar are you with Daisy?

[mirandapriestly]

135. yeah, why do they post in the middle of the night?

but they claim to be these professionals? what time zone would they be in to make that working hours?

[mirandapriestly]

39. well, that's interesting

thank for trying. It's not "open debate" though.

[MervinFerd]

29. So, why are 9/11 "Theories" banned from major Liberal blogs.....

and confined to the "Dungeon" on DU?

Because, 9/11 Conspiracy Hobbyists are an embarrassment to the Left and Poison to the Democratic Party.



There -were- extremely serious voting irregularities in Ohio. They just didn't involve Invisible Elves changing votes in non-existent Diebold Electronic Voting machines. They involved -non-existent- punch card voting machines that left long lines of City voters standing for hours in a cold dreary rain.

There -are- serious questions about 9/11. But they don't involve Invisible Elves planting non-existent explosives in burning buildings.

Neither will be investigated, so long as the Admin can hide behind the latest loony "Theory" bubbling out of the 9/11 Conspiracy Cesspool.

[Grateful for Hope]

31. There was a lot more to election fraud in 2004

than simply "voters standing in line for long hours in a dreary rain".

Did you read RFK Jr's analysis?

And, if you did, did you agree?

Just askin'...

[MervinFerd]

32. What I don't agree with,

is the jump from exit polls to vote fraud, without provision of any plausible mechanism for pulling off the fraud. That's a Conspiracy Theory, and it just blocks discussion of real questions.

There were several states with exit poll discrepancies. There were multiple voting systems in Ohio. Electronic votes were only a small part. I don't see any plausible way that the votes could have been systmatically miscounted AFTER they were cast. My ballot was handled by a crew of elderly Black women, who I am quite sure were not Republicans. And, yes, I voted for JFK.

I don't have any problem with the rest of it.



Keeping people standing in a cold rain was damn effective. Trust me.


I've read reviews of the Kennedy article on both sides, but haven't had time to read the whole thing.

[Grateful for Hope]

33. You did not answer my question.

Hmmmm....

What about Rfk's analysis?

I've read reviews of the Kennedy article on both sides, but haven't had time to read the whole thing.


Why not?

[Old and In the Way]

45. "Keeping people standing in a cold rain was damn effective"

Whether you choose to believe in computer fraud or the fraud of not letting people vote, it is still fraud. It is still a conspiracy to not allow the American people to choose their elected government. They are still criminals who have stolen the election from the American people. Twice.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Amen. n/t

[mirandapriestly]

49. Greg Palast has an excellent section on EF in his book

and he said something to the effect of: They tried it out in 2000, worked out some of the kinks in 2004 and they will perfect it by 2008, and he's right, they will.
:scared:

[MervinFerd]

90. There's a very real practical difference.

We can make a very good case that people should not be standing in the rain, or purged illegally from the voting rolls. That's a winner.

You -can't- make a convincing case that punch card ballots were altered by computer fraud. And pushing that issue just makes the whole issue look silly. That's a loser.

OK?

[Grateful for Hope]

97. Except that RFK

is filing some lawsuits against Diebold and other voting machine companies. Seems he has some whistleblowers.

So, your premise that computer fraud cannot be proven may well be the only thing that is silly in this issue.

[Old and In the Way]

99. Not OK.

Rigging machines is a far more nefarious way of stealing elections. You and I have no idea or access to the software to assure votes are counted properly. The fact that these manufacturer's are big contributors to the Republican Party sends a big red flag up for me. If we had printed receipts of our votes, that would be OK, but I'm not counting on people like Bob Ney, the Ohio SOS, Karl Rove, and the Bush family to assure our electionic votes are secure when we can't get access to the programs that compile the results. Neither should you, Mervin.

[mhatrw]

51. The plausible mechanism for pulling off the fraud is called

computer code.

And the real question is why anyone in the entire world would support unauditable voting unless he or she was planning on taking advantage of it to cheat.

[MervinFerd]

91. Ohio didn't use computer voting.

Most votes were done and counted the old fashioned way.

That's why computer fraud not plausible as an explanation of the OH vote.

YES. Unauditable voting is unacceptable.

[mhatrw]

102. The "old fashioned" way still uses a computer to do the counting

and a computer to summarize the counting.

Having an audit trail is only meaningful as a fraud deterrent if and when an audit (or at least 100% random, partial audit) is performed.

[HamdenRice]

105. How many times can you repeat that lie in one thread?

What is your mistatement count up to by now?

Ohio did use computer touch screen voting machines, althought not statewide, and malfunctions were widely reported. But how would you know? You admit you haven't even read RFK's article, even though you make all these authoritative statements about the vote fraud issue.

[Old and In the Way]

118. You have to give him credit.

He is validating the premise of your OP. :rofl:

[m0nkeyneck]

101. the 'jump' isn't very far..

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

"but haven't had time to read the whole thing."
of course, but you have plenty of time to ridicule and suppress discussion in a forum that specifically deals with a subject you say you believe is ridiculous.. yeah right

[petgoat]

104. "I don't see any plausible way"

I don't see any plausible way that the votes could have been systmatically miscounted AFTER they were cast.

I guess you never heard about the stickers on the op-scan ballots in Clermont County.

http://gnn.tv/headlines/947/_Why_were_there_stickers_on_ballots_in_Clermont_County_Ohio

[mirandapriestly]

41. self delete

tricked into a trap.

[HamdenRice]

79. Mervin, You are the ONLY one who talks about invisible elves

Ever notice that? Has any election fraud researcher written that invisible elves manipulated the voting machines? Has any 9/11 researcher written about invisible elves?

So obviously you are not serious. In another forum you dismissed all election fraud research as "bullshit." Yet it has proved to have occurred in a variety of ways, from misallocation of voting machines, to, yes, hacked electronic voting machines.

If you dismissed voter fraud as bullshit conspiracy theory after RFK's article came out and are so obviously wrong about that, and you dismiss all discussion of government complicity in 9/11 as bullshit conspiracy theory, then this makes me think you are not serious about engaging in a real discussion of either.

[Americus]

92. They're doing this because they don't want to hear about why CT'ers

spend hours on a Democratic site trying to strangle the truth about 9/11 while simultaneously being cheerleaders for the neocon agenda (rigged elections, perpetual war, and state-sponsored terrorism as a vehicle to drum up support for perpetual war and the redistribution of money from the middle and lower classes to the coffers of their wealthy patrons).

[MervinFerd]

93. It's Bullshit, if there is no Plausible Mechanism.

If OH didn't use electronic voting machines, then you can't blame hacking of electronic voting machines for the outcome. OK?

Invisible Elves are a shorthand for "No Plausible Mechanism". If you postulate theories that require hundreds of workers to implement, but don't identify WHO those people would be, unless Invisible Elves, THAT'S bullshit.

OK

[HamdenRice]

100. Now you are just making stuff up

First, on another forum, after the RFK article comes out you say all election irregularity discussion is "bullshit conspiracy theory." Now on this thread, you backtrack and say that there was misallocation of machines, but no electronic voting irregularities because there were no electronic voting machines in Ohio.

That's just bullshit, really. Of course, you don't know better, because, as you admit, you haven't even read the RFK article, even though you have these strong opinions about election fraud and make oracular factual statements about elections in Ohio.

<eg quote>

http://www.spectrumz.com/z/fair_use/2004/11_04.html

Touch screen voting machines in Youngstown OH were registering "George W. Bush" when people pressed "John F. Kerry" ALL DAY LONG. This was reported immediately after the polls opened, and reported over and over again throughout the day, and yet the bogus machines were inexplicably kept in use THROUGHOUT THE DAY.

<end quote>

Of course there were electronic voting irregularities in Ohio, which was mentioned in both the Conyers report and the RFK article. But you just make shit up to disrupt discussions -- whether of 9/11 or voting reform -- it's the same modus operandi in either case.

[Americus]

106. Couldn't be any clearer what motivates that OCT'er to be here

"make shit up to disrupt discussions"

Which raises the question why someone would want to do that. If their source of income was known, we'd have the answer for certain but even without knowing to a 100% degree of certainty, we can prety much figure it all out.

[MervinFerd]

108. No.

I never said anything of the kind.

MOST of the votes in OH were not electronic voting machines. The small fraction that WERE electronic could not be wildly off without that being obvious.

Where were the Democratic Party Poll watchers in Youngstown?

I know about Ohio because I was actually IN Ohio that day. Were you?

Once again, I need a PLAUSIBLE MECHANISM that would allow votes to be changed WITHOUT getting caught.

How did they do it?

[Americus]

111. How'd they do it? Same Magic used as that used by the 9/11 perps.

How'd they make it look like large commerical airliners crashed into the WTC and another one at the Pentagon? MAGIC, propaganda, a cooperative media, disinformation (very common on THIS site), and the advantage of access to exotic weapons that the public doesn't know about.

How do YOU think they stole the elections (2000, 2204 Presidential and the ones in Georgia for Governor and U.S. Senate)? Are you saying maybe they didn't CHANGE the votes, but rigged the voting machines so that they didn't COUNT all the votes, or count them correctly, or something similar. Is THAT what you're suggesting?

[MervinFerd]

120. I rest my case.

Rigged voting machines = No Planes.

QED.


I think they used all the ordinary election dirty tricks just more of them.

[HamdenRice]

122. So what is it now (fourth or fifth version of Ferd's view of Ohio)

1. There was no election misconduct in Ohio, and saying that there was is bullshit conspiracy theory

2. There was election misconduct in Ohio, but it was only misallocation of voting machines, but there was no electronic voting machine misconduct because there were no electronic voting machines in Ohio.

3. There was election misconduct in Ohio, but it consisted of traditional misconduct and yes there were some electronic voting machines, but they could not possibly be manipulated.

You are discrediting yourself by constantly changing your story. But more importantly, you are discrediting yourself by just making shit up on the fly.

[mirandapriestly]

136. "Count the Ballots At The Back Of The Bus"- that's how

the machines played a role, but disenfranchising millions of wrong skin color voters is how they stole the vote. With some help from HAVA.
article by Greg Palast

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[Americus]

94. To understand mf & the others, consider their motivations. But don't SAY

out loud what you believe (and surely know) they actually are. Wouldn't be prudent.

[dailykoff]

119. Funny how they sprinkle in a little "opposition research"

a.k.a. dirt on Dems into GD every now and then. Just sayin'.

[Mnemosyne]

123. Sound familiar?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1492568

[dailykoff]

124. Exactly.

Just a little heads up so we're "prepared," he says.

What a load of crap THAT is! :mad:

[Mnemosyne]

159. "prepared" for more BS.

I lurk here mostly because most know much more and I can learn.


Why does anyone even answer these fake posters??

[Grateful for Hope]

126. I noticed that one today

And, was thinking the same thing.

[Mnemosyne]

160. I just want to find the truth and

those posters are nothing more than plants to disrupt and insult those that truly care, imo, even in other forums.

[mirandapriestly]

132. Good one!!! I've seen him saying there was no

election fraud either. That is a very obvious one.

[Mnemosyne]

161. I read that post too, mirandapriestly

How much do you think some like that make for posting here? They spend enough time doing it to be millionaires by now!

I really appreciate this forum and the honest truth-seekers here.

Thanks for all you do! :yourock:

[HughBeaumont]

167. The one by him that burns me up . . .

- Anyone who uses the terms "BFEE", "Bush crime Family", "Bush Junta" and makes Nazi connections with them is "a few sandwiches short of a picnic".

Um, no they're NOT. How is pointing out historically documented facts being "paranoid"?

[mirandapriestly]

173. The insinuations of mental illness are

the worst. They hope people will subconsciously think, "DU'ers think that you are crazy if you post that, so I'm not going to." When it is done in an aggressive, bullying manner, it prevents people from posting certain opinions out of fear of ridicule or ostracism.

[BuddyYoung]

168. Outstanding post. One thing I've noticed is an OCT'er that says s/he/it

also posts on other PROGRESSIVE Web sites. What strikes me as odd about that is that the OCT'er DOESN'T go to RIGHT-WING sites and post ANTI-right-wing messages. Wouldn't you think that such a person (that supports the OCT but claims to be a PROGRESSIVE on most other issues) would use their prolific posting energy and persuasive skills by trying to influence RIGHT-Wingers, rather than merely preaching to the choir at progressive sites? It's easy to blend in at a Web site if your posts are in general agreement with the overall views of others there.

Just seems like a waste of talent, but maybe I'm wrong and maybe it's not unusual at all for a sincere, objective, genuine Progressive to argue against 911 Truth Seekers but not argue against right-wing positions.

[Bolo Boffin]

169. Got a name, Buddy?

Seriously, who is this person? Don't pussyfoot around, name some names. Who is this progressive OCTer who would better "blend in" at a right wing site?

Come on, Buddy...you're not afraid of a few little rules here, are you? Bring it. Name a couple of names.

[mirandapriestly]

172. Precisely

why focus that much time and energy on "kooky tin hatters" why not go after the big fish at right wing sights, it makes no sense.

[Bolo Boffin]

174. Got a name, miranda?

Come on, fill the rest of us in. You've got a particular poster in mind, spill the beans.

[mirandapriestly]

175. No, I don't ,

it's an observation made from more than one and not limited to this forum.

[Bolo Boffin]

176. So you have several names. Do tell. n/t