Poll: Opposers of alternative scenarios

[canetoad]

Are opposers of scenarios not in alignment with the Official Version of 911:

[canetoad]

1. Had to celebrate

100th post in over 2 years.

Cheers Jazz :toast:

[mirandapriestly]

5. self delete

[Grateful for Hope]

8. Had to ask

why the "cheers" to "jazz"?

Huh?

[mirandapriestly]

10. quality not quantity

I always like your posts, I'm surprised you don't have more.


:party:

[rman]

2. other: any of the above

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

3. Updating payment info due to bank surveillance scandal..

Please disregard my previous request for payment by cheque. Please send a large briefcase filled with unmarked, non-sequential $100 bills. Just fly over my house and throw the briefcase into my yard.

Personal Info:

N. Phil Trater
82216 5th Column Road
Specterville, USA


P.S. I'm making a lotta noise because I didn't get my 'briefcase' and I'm not going to stop until someone listens and I get my 'briefcase'. (Just a like a certain Iran-Contra 'insider')

[MervinFerd]

9. I get mine from a Black Helicopter.

Flies over the house and beams the bills directly into my secret safe.

I keep a little communicator device in there so they can find it. It's also useful when I need to talk to High Command.

Wish I could figure out where they are located.

[psychopomp]

4. There are three basic types

LIHOPers, MIHOPers and OCTers. Just because I am not sold on explosives/thermate in the buildings, cg'ed aircraft and missiles does not mean that I buy the official story of "incompetence."

[DemInDistress]

36. tell me what you see here psycho....

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.2.wmv


no excuses for the BFEE.. this video speaks for itself. very damning to the OCT.

[psychopomp]

42. Looks like a closeup of the collapse of WTC2

I believe the estimated weight of the portion falling above the fail point is 110,000 tons. I remember something in high school physics about potential energy and mass...

[DemInDistress]

70. lol... didn't see the "explosives" used? Look again and count the

bright detonations. At least three to my eyes then look down the east side of WT2 just as the building collapses,see those controlled detonations running down the edge of WT2? Fakers abound here in the Sept.11 dungeon. Fakers forever dumping on the dead of 911.

[psychopomp]

72. I wonder about those bright flashes

I am not sure what to make of them. What do you make of the fact that one of them appears outside of the building, in mid-air, just to the lower-left of the frame at 0:12?

As for the debris ejected forcefully from the windows near the corner of the building, I am no expert, but as the building began to collapse internally first, might it not be possible that the energy from the collapsing floors was enough to cause such a forceful ejection?

[serryjw]

37. What the hell is OCTers?

a new addition to my vocabulary?

[Grateful for Hope]

6. "other"

I would say that anyone who buys the official story without question is incurious, or just plain brainwashed.

Those who buy the incompetence official story do not seem to have thought through what the current admin has accomplished in 5 1/2 short years...they have nearly dessiminated our constitutional rights, for starters. Given that this is what they have set out to do, I hardly think that THIS is incompetence.

And, of course, there are those who will support the Bush regime to the dying end...

As far as those who do not buy the official story at all, I'd like to think that they are all intelligent, well-meaning, savvy people who know a con job when they see it. Unfortunately, I think we see RW apologists (spreaders of disinfo), people who believe everything is a conspiracy (hopefully, they are in the minority), and, level-headed people who wish to find the truth behind 9/11.

[mirandapriestly]

18. You've got to be an absolute moron

to believe the official story, unless you just don't pay attention, which is the case most of the time. But for people who post here every day, they know enough to "know better" and some of them , INDEED, seem like morons, but those that seem intelligent lead me to other conclusions. I tend to think they are involved with a certain group that we aren't suppose to mention. They use the same tactics.

[hpot]

7. Proof Of Disinformation Agents

This video is sufficient proof for me.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7160274150347523777

Edit: Disinformation programs exist but I would not accuse everyone as being an agent.

[mirandapriestly]

11. So you think that vonKleist

is disinfo? Or the guy who did the "debunk" is disinfo?

[sabbat hunter]

13. i think

von kleist is a disnfo agent. either that or he chose to ignore the other angles of the collapse and lack of billowing smoke in them.

not in plain sight is a pretty good video.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Von Kleist is a demonstrable liar.

Not In Plane Sight shows his manifest ability to edit video footage to spread his lies.

He is a Al-Franken-approved LIAR!! He lies like George Bush.

[BuddyYoung]

133. He lied about some video footage? What did he say that you feel is

a lie? Who else is a liar about 911? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rudy ("Kiss My Ring") Giuliani, and who else? Just to be clear, so you don't get "distracted" here, I'm ASKING if you feel the above gentlemen are liars, not saying that you (or any other different OCT'er) would say they too are "demonstrable liars".

[Bolo Boffin]

134. Buddy, you haven't answered my questions below.

I have answered the questions you put to me. So before I answer any more of your questions, I suggest you trot on down to the bottom of this thread and crank up your answer mechanism.

[mirandapriestly]

19. Yeah, I kind of thought it was just

sloppy, but I can see a whole disinfo job in progress with that video. von Kleist does the initial disinfo, then the other video comes out and points to his mistakes, while appealing to "Progressives" by calling him disinfo, rather than unpatriotic. Of course, they don't mention there was smoke not related to either tower in different videos Or any other problems.

[mirandapriestly]

148. actually that smoke was before building 2 fell

[HamdenRice]

12. There are some paid disinfo agents

Not all of the official conspiracy theory apologists are, but if you look at the patterns of posts, it is impossible not to conclude that at least a few are indeed disinformation agents.

Another way of looking at it is this: we know the administration has the ambition of gaining complete control of the information environment, through bribery (Armstrong), intimidation (Rather), or corporate-political control (Fox).

We also know from mainstream media reports that corporations hire people to troll on boards like DU to disseminate corporate perspectives and information.

If there was government complicity in 9/11, could it be at all conceivable that the Bush administration would not employ disinformation agents to alter the information environment by trolling here and in other 9/11 forums?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. That's why discussion of motivations of other posters is forbidden.

If there was government complicity in 9/11, could it be at all conceivable that the Bush administration would not employ disinformation agents to alter the information environment by trolling here and in other 9/11 forums?

If there was al-Qaeda complicity in 9/11, could it be at all conceivable that the al-Qaeda leadership would not employ disinformation agents to alter the information environment by trolling here and in other 9/11 forums? Who else would like to see one more "fat Osama" discussion?

If there were anti-Semetic cranks who see the Jews behind everything, most especially every single bit of American foreign policy, would they not spend night and day seeking to alter the information environment by trolling here and in other 9/11 forums, convincing people that America (secret code word for Jews) pulled off 9/11?

If the Bush Administration was serious about making their opponents unelectable, would they not employ disinformation agents to affect the information environment in an growing effort to make any serious discussion of Bushian failings in 9/11 synonymous with Flight 11-175-77-93 denial and controlled demolition twaddle?

You're playing with a two-edged sword there, Hamden. Be careful how you wield it.

Edit: changed heading

[mirandapriestly]

20. The "al qaeda leadership"

bwa hahah. have you ever read the original 1996 demands by bin laden ? These fake bin laden broadcasts are so transparent it's ridiculous. Now they are trying to make a connection between bin laden and Iraq by having him make Zarqawi a martyr. In the fake 2004 tape, they were trying to equate what he was saying with American liberals, by having him say almost the identical things that liberals say about Bush. I can't believe anyone would believe that blatant propaganda. When NPR read the latest one they followed it up by saying "this has not been independently evaluated for authenticity" They know it's bogus.
"al Qaeda" doesn't give a damn if people on DU are talking about "the fat osama" you have got to be kidding. Maybe you are kidding and it's late and I'm too tired to get it.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Thank you for your observation. n/t

[rman]

23. You're saying AQ is as powerful as the CIA?

Which one has been overthrowing democratically elected governments all over Latin America ever since WW2?
Who funded who? CIA -> ISI (Pakistan) -> AQ, and CIA -> OBL.
AQ isn't even a network, it's a movement (see "The Power of Nightmares", BBC).

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Did I say that? I don't think I said that.

But feel free to punch that strawman all you want.

[rman]

38. You seem to suggest AQ has as much opportunity

and has as much a chance of success in engaging in psychological warfare inside the US, as the CIA does.

This in spite of the fact that the US intel community has a well established track record of doing so (cointelpro, mockingbird), while AQ does not.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. Inside the US? I'm talking about on the Internet...

Isn't that what we're all talking about?

Oh, unless you were chasing a straw man.

[BuddyYoung]

40. What's their fave Web site(s) -- www.cokedup4osama.com.afgh. ? nt

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Any website where people argue unchallenged that they're innocent.

nt

[leftofthedial]

85. "innocent"?

where is that argument? do you have a link?

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Oh, come on.

Any theory that has the US government planning the attacks lets al-Qaeda off the hook, even if they were used in the plot.

Don't insult the intelligence of everyone here, leftofthedial.

[leftofthedial]

88. if "al qaeda" were involved

they are not "off the hook"

don't be disingenuous


in addition to what really happened and who was involved, another question remains. "Who and what are al Qaeda?"

[Bolo Boffin]

90. The most guilt belongs to the planners, not the tools.

Don't you subscribe to that?

[leftofthedial]

92. in a capital crime, guilt belongs to all who were responsible

being brought to justice, whatever constitutes "justice" for one's particular crimes, is not the same as being "let off the hook."

don't you agree?

[Grateful for Hope]

93. I agree with you

This is definitely not an "either or" scenario, and, anyone who suggests it is is just trying to muddy the waters.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. It is "either-or" for US government complicity

And US government complicity removes the bulk of guilt from al-Qaeda - that's something you can agree with as well, yes?

[Grateful for Hope]

98. No, I don't

Possible US Government complicity in no way removes guilt from Al-Qaeda (or whoever else may be involved), if, in fact, the parties involved willingly and knowingly contributed to the events of 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

99. Interesting.

One theory floating around here says that the hijackers thought they were normal hijackers, but that the remote control flying of the plane allowed them to be blamed as patsies. In that scenario, would you say that the hijackers' guilt was the same as the people who planned or actually flew the planes?

Another theory says that the hijackers are mostly still alive, that apparently their identities were stolen to hide the true culprits. Would you say that these victims of identity theft were as guilty as those who actually flew the planes into the building?

Another theory holds that cruise missiles hit the buildings or even more outlandishly, that nothing actually hit the buildings at all, that it was a pys op for the ages. The erstwhile hijackers - are they just as guilty as the planners and operatives of this psy op, since they never actually hijacked anything?

Another theory says that Mossad planned and ran these operations, framing al-Qaeda. Would you say that al-Qaeda is equally guilty as Mossad under those circumstances?

[Grateful for Hope]

100. I am not as interested in the theories as you seem to be

All I want is the truth, and that those who are guilty be brought to justice.

Simple really.

The OCT cannot be disproven because of the lack of evidence, no matter how many theories float around. However, conversely, the OCT has not been proven either.

The ONLY way we will get at the truth is to have an independent, non-partisan criminal investigation of the events of 9/11. Until then, all this bantering back-and-forth over details that are usually not that important only serves to, as I said, obscure what IS important...to get at the truth, and to convince as many people as possible that a new investigation is necessary.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[Grateful for Hope]

108. No, they do not

Actually, I don't like your implications that anyone who questions the OCT using some of the theories you mention are, somehow in league with AQ ("any site that lets these theories go unchallenged are AQ's favorite websites").

I think this is bordering on an accusation that you have no business making.

[Bolo Boffin]

112. Excuse me, what? "An accusation that I have no business making?"

Hope2006, take a look around the forum these days. How many "accusations" of being paid GOP shills do you count? How many threads devoted to the discussion of the motives of OCTers, in flagrant violation of the posted rules of DU? How many allusions to being Freepers, and "Why are they here defending Bush," and the like?

Maybe you haven't been making them. That's great. But don't sit back behind your innocence and think that what I'm dishing out, we on this side of the aisle haven't been getting in bulk.

And you still haven't answered the questions.

[Grateful for Hope]

116. This accusation is significantly more serious

in my estimation, than anything else I have seen here.

And, No, I do not accuse people of being government shills, paid or otherwise.

Given the spirit in which you have asked the questions, I have no interest in answering them.

[Bolo Boffin]

117. Why more serious?

People who believe the Bush Administration planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks imply that I am defending them.

I believe that al-Qaeda planned and carried out those attacks and I imply that they are defending al-Qaeda.

How is it that these two actions are any different?

[Grateful for Hope]

118. Quite different

defending the government won't land you in Guantanamo, for starters.

I need to end this discussion.

[Bolo Boffin]

120. Well, do what you have to do.

I hardly think that pointing out Bush's manifest part in allowing the attacks to happen is "defending the government". Many here do.

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Ah! But demoting al-Qaeda from operative planners to tools

is "letting them off the hook" for the larger punishments, correct?

I take it you are someone who believes al-Qaeda was in on the operational stages of this plot? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[HamdenRice]

24. In a word, no

If al qaeda is alone behind the 9/11 attacks, they would have their hands full running from US and Pakistani forces, communicating with each other, trying to infiltrate Iraq and planning the next attacks. They do not have the resources of western intelligence agencies

And although there are no doubt anti-Semitic cranks on the net, they are not here at DU. I have rarely if ever read blatantly anti-Semitic crank posts at DU -- unless you equate criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism or if you equate, as you have done, any questioning of US complicity in 9/11 as anti-Semitic. The last assertion is, of course, utterly bizarre.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Wow.

How do you know the resources of al qaeda vs western intelligence agencies? Couldn't one of their Saudi royal family sympathizers spare a couple hundred thou to fund a few disinfo people?

There's not a single anti-Semetic crank here at DU? Thank you for your assertion as such. I'm glad to have your word on it, as it certainly must settle the matter.

My last assertion is no more bizarre than that of the Bush Adminstration employing shills to pump the OCT.

[HamdenRice]

31. Are you kidding?

You are questioning whether the resources of the US and al Qaeda are unequal?

The US federal budget expenditures are around 2.5 trillion per year, it's defense budget is around 400 billion, it has 1.4 million military personnel on active duty and 860,000 on reserve, and has an intelligence budget of $44 billion.

Are you really suggesting that AQ might have equal resources?

If you are suggesting their resources might be equal to those of the US, then you are not someone who can discuss these issues rationally.

As for anti-Semitic comments, if you believe that any one who questions the official story is an anti-Semite, and that any criticism of the US is coded criticism of Israel, then I'm sure you would see anti-Semitism all around you, all day, every day, all the time, and not just on DU.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. I didn't say that, as much as you'd like for me to have.

Of course, the US defense budget far exceeds anything demonstrable by Al-Qaeda. I've never said different.

But to state that al-Qaeda probably doesn't have the resources to do posts undermining the Bush agenda and confusing the issue regarding their culpability in 9/11 is pretty laughable itself, as my Saudi backer example showed.

Anti-Semetic comments: boy, you just enjoy putting words into my mouth, don't you? Tell you what, when you get finished spanking all your straw men, you come on back and have a discussion based on what I'm actually saying, okay?

[HamdenRice]

34. 1 and 2

You wrote:

1. If there were anti-Semetic cranks who see the Jews behind everything, most especially every single bit of American foreign policy, would they not spend night and day seeking to alter the information environment by trolling here and in other 9/11 forums, convincing people that America (secret code word for Jews) pulled off 9/11?

2. How do you know the resources of al qaeda vs western intelligence agencies?

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Yeah?

1. Are you saying that anti-Semetic cranks don't use the word America as code for the Jews so that they can get away with posting their garbage here at DU? Like say, links that lead back to sites that tell the whole story, sans code? Or that it's impossible for them to do so?

2. I know that al-queda has funded by different members of the Saudi royal family, among others (Pakistani funding comes to mind). I know therefore, that some of those pockets are very deep indeed. No, al-Qaeda isn't funded to the tune of the US Defense Department, but that doesn't mean they don't have enough resources to float a few disinfo agents on the web. Come to think of it, the Saudi supporters themselves have ample cause to throw people off al-Qaeda's track (and thereby, their own tracks). Dismissing the idea of al-Qaeda disinfo agents because of lack of funding is a mistake on your part.

[seatnineb]

45. You do fuckin' talk bullshit..........

Why would the House Of Saud fund Al-Quida to attack the U.S?

When the same U.S protects this same undemocratic House Of Saud from it's own supressed/oppressed Saudi people.......

[Bolo Boffin]

46. I didn't say that the "House of Saud" did it

I said "members of the Saudi royal family." But hey, far be it from me to step between somebody and their straw man. Have at it.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml

Adel al-Jubeir, a chief Saudi spokesman, said in an interview that there were thousands of members of the royal family, and that while an internal government investigation had uncovered "wrongdoing by some," such lapses were certainly not part of any government conspiracy.

[seatnineb]

47. You are so fuckin predictable.....

So which "members" of the House Of Saud funded Al-Quida?

Come on bolo.....don't be shy.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Do you kiss your mama with that mouth?

I don't have the names. The Saudi government has them. Ask them.

[BuddyYoung]

50. Slippery is another word that comes to mind. Something's changed.

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

52. He kisses his mama with that slippery mouth? What are you talking about?

[mirandapriestly]

81. Are you talking about

morphing personalities?

[BuddyYoung]

86. Today versus yesterday and the day before etc. Evolution? Morphing?

Backups, substitutions...anything's possible in these days of modern times. Might just be a case of season adjustment syndrome, but I'm not a doctor, so I can only report observations.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. Hey, Buddy! I'm right here!

Why don't you talk to me?

[Tobias]

127. Arabic groups promoted western conspiracy theoretics, for instance

the Zayed Centre published and promoted the Arabic translation of Theiry Meyssan’s Appalling Fraud, which claims that the U.S. military was behind the September 11 attacks.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=348172

The Center also invited Meyssan:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP38302


But sorry if this is offtopic. I´m not sure what´s your point, but it might be of some interest.

Tobias

[seatnineb]

54. In other words you don't have proof.......

But as for naming who the House Of Saud thinks did 9/11......

Then look no further than King Abdullah himself...the most powerful man in the House Of Saud...and also a good buddy of George W Bush......




NBC News translated Abdullah's remarks from Arabic: “Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don’t say, I mean... It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5218227

I never knew the House Of Saud had Zionists in their midst...did you Bolo?

[Bolo Boffin]

57. The Saudi government admit to "evidence of wrongdoing"

If you think that means they found Zionists, who am I to argue?

[seatnineb]

60. Sure......

Bolo.....

I did not say Zionists did 9/11......

King Abdullah said Zionists did 9/11.........

Shall I re-iterate that for you......

In the words of King(then Prince)Abdullah.....
“Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don’t say, I mean... It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5218227 /

[Bolo Boffin]

61. And yet

The Saudi government admits to "evidence of wrongdoing" by members of the Saudi royal family.

And Abdullah's on the horn about Zionists. So he's equating support of al-Qaeda with Zionism.

Sounds like a great way of labeling your wayward relatives in a way to get them back into line.

Are you sure you don't want to blame Zionists, seat9b? It seems to be a popular position.

[seatnineb]

62. You are wrong and you know it..............

Now you really are desperate Bolo...

I missed the part where King Abdullah equated Al-Quida with the Zionists......

But it seems the House Of Saud have a habit of blamin' "Zionists".......

Like the all powerful Minister of the Interior Prince Naif.......



We still ask ourselves: Who has benefited from Sept. 11 attacks? I think they (the Jews) were the protagonists of such attacks,"

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000540-print...

[Bolo Boffin]

64. I know you are, so what am I?

They DO have a habit of blaming Zionists in Saudi Arabia, don't they? Amazin', that.

[seatnineb]

66. So how did the Saudis make these Israelis HAPPY?

O.K Bolo.....

Maybe you can tell me how the Saudis managed to make these Israelis to be happy

The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background, she said. What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces.They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me.I thought it was very strange," she said.

http://www.angelfire.com/az3/nfold/whitevan.html

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Which Saudis are you talking about?

The ones that gave funds to al-Qaeda, or the ones that blamed the Jews for the attacks?

[seatnineb]

84. Nice way of avoiding the question so let's get back to basics...

In the words of boloboffin :

Mon Jul-03-06 09:21 PM

And Abdullah's on the horn about Zionists. So he's(Abdullah) equating support of al-Qaeda with Zionism.

No Bolo....

Abdullah is not equating Al-Quida with Zionists.

Abdullah is blaming the Zionists for 9/11...

That is a big difference.

In the words of King Abdullah:
“Zionism is behind it. It has become clear now. It has become clear to us. I don’t say, I mean... It is not 100 percent, but 95 percent that the Zionist hands are behind what happened.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5218227

You got nowhere to run Bolo......

[Bolo Boffin]

89. Still trying to figure out why I should be running, 9b.

I don't see anything to be running from.

Number one, you love those straw men, don't you? And you've got a special talent for building them. You actually quote my words, and then restate my position saying something that I didn't say! I said "support of al-Qaeda", you said I said "al-Qaeda". Not necessarily the same thing, and you're too clever not to know the difference.

Abdullah is completely wrong about Zionists causing 9/11. He is in front of the faithful, however, so what else is he going to say? The Saudis have admitted to "evidence of wrongdoing", which in the context of that remark, means members of the Saudi royal family giving money to the real bad guys, al-Qaeda. It strikes me that Abdullah being so adamant about Zionism being behind the 9/11 plot is a great way to rein in wayward members of the royal family. Being exposed as a Zionist is a great way to lose your livelihood in Saudi Arabia, wouldn't you say?

[seatnineb]

136. Rubbish.

I ain't gonna let you get away with this Bolo.......

Prince Naif said the following:

"We still ask ourselves: Who has benefited from Sept. 11 attacks? I think they (the Jews) were the protagonists of such attacks,"

http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000540-print...

Now Prince Naif is head of The Mahabeth(saudi secret police)

The same Mahabeth that the CIA used as a conduit for interviewing the Saudi Hijacker families...which in turn was used as reference material by the 9/11 Commission report.

So how does the head of the secret police in Saudi Arabia ,who organization was responsible for interviewing Saudi 9/11 hijacker families who themselves had confirmed that it was their progeny who were involved in the 9/11 attacks......still say that it was the Jews or Zionists who did this same 9/11?

If Prince Naif can lie so easily about the Zionists doin' 9/11 ......who is to say that he(or his organization-Mahabeth) can't also lie about Saudi renegades having done 9/11?

[Bolo Boffin]

138. What is your point??

Your obvious delight in publishing quotations about Zionist complicity in 9/11 is duly noted, but what is your point about the Saudis?

So Naif can spew agitprop about the Jews. It's a necessary part of keeping a Muslim nation in the dark. Why then would they admit to Saudi renegades helping out and carrying out the 9/11 plot? Doesn't that undercut the Zionist devil message? They'd clearly love to pin it on Israel, so why the admission? Because it's true. Members of the royal family helped fund al-Qaeda.

Do you deny that members of the Saudi royal family helped fund al-Qaeda?

[seatnineb]

140. Keepin' a Muslim nation in the dark?...what the fuck are you talkin' about

So King Abdullah is lying when he says that Zionists/Jews/Israelis have done 9/11.

Fine.....I don't have a problem with that.

So if King Abdullah can lie so easily about Zionist involvement in 9/11....then why the fuck should I trust him when he says Saudis have done 9/11(be they Saudi members of the House Of Saud or ordinary Saudi citizens)!

That is my point.

[Bolo Boffin]

142. Saudi rf: big billionaires keeping the masses quiet with fundie religion

Yes, it's not as prevelent in America, but all the right organizations are in place.

So the Saudis uses Zionism as their own personal Emmanuel Goldstein. To keep a fundie Muslim nation in the dark, so they can continue to enjoy their money and control of Muslim holy sites. What the fuck do you think I'm talking about?

You should trust him when he says things that do not benefit him personally. Sometimes people get to say things that do benefit them personally that are also true (i.e., the Bush Adminstration talking about al-Qaeda's part in 9/11). This happens in life.

However, when someone says something that doesn't benefit them personally, then you can more readily trust it to be true.

So Abdullah raking the Zionists over the coals - verify.

Abdullah's government admitting "wrongdoing" - accept it and press further.

[seatnineb]

143. We are dealing with a complicated issue here........

Bolo.....

Your reasoning is flawed.....because The House Of Saud is heavily dependent on foreign support to protects it's big fact ugly fuckin ass from it's own oppressed/supressed/democratically deprived people....

One of the those "protectors" just happens to be the good ol 'US of A.

The U.S.A has a special relationship with Israel.

So in the eyes of the world....

King Abdullah telling his own people that Zionism is to blame for 9/11 does not benefit The House Of Saud.

And that is why you are desperately trying hard to reconcile this paradox......

Everything that we know about the Saudi hijackers has come through the House Of Saud.....

But if the House Of Saud are such a bunch of corrupt liars.....then that blows a big dent in the official 9/11 Saudi hijacker legend that has been perpetuated by this same House Of Saud.

[Bolo Boffin]

144. Why exactly am I "desperately trying hard to reconcile this paradox?"

I'm always interested when people speculate on my motivations.

No, everything we know about the Saudi hijackers does NOT come from the Saudis. We hardly needed the Saudis' input on what they were doing while in this country. And I'm sure that more countries were watching these hijackers and shared their info with America, both before and after 9/11, when Bush was more willing to listen.

So where exactly is this paradox?

[seatnineb]

145. Wrong.

You need the Saudis to validate that the individuals that the U.S alledges were involved in 9/11 ...are from Saudi Arabia.

The same Saudis who can't make up their minds whether Saudis or Israelis were involved in 9/11.

And it is the Saudi Mahabeth who provided the definitive account on the background of these alledged Saudi hijackers...used by the 9/11 Commission report.

The same Saudi mahabeth whose leader claims that Jews/Zionists/Israelis did 9/11.

That is the paradox.

And you will NEVER be able to resolve it.

[Bolo Boffin]

146. How do you resolve it, seat9b?

On edit: It's not that I can't resolve it, seat9b.

It's that you could never admit that I have resolved it, and so you keep yammering about how I'll never escape this one, hoping that as usual, I will tire of your games.

I'm quite unentangled with the idea that the Saudis talk really loud about the Jews for the people, and then provide the real information to their protectors, the United States. Just sounds like human nature to me.

[seatnineb]

149. Sound more like more bullshit to me.

If your scenario is correct.....and King Abdullah is lying about the Zionists having done 9/11........then it proves King Abdullah is a liar....

And if King Abdullah is a liar...then why trust anything he says?.....including the admission of Saudi "wrongdoing" with regards to 9/11.

BTW....if we go by the parameters of the official story........then what exactly did "members" of the Saudi Royal Family stand to gain by supporting Al-Quida and Osama Bin Laden?

If anything.

Any answers?

[Bolo Boffin]

150. No more questions answered until you answer some of mine.

How do you resolve the paradox, seatnineb?

[seatnineb]

152. Well you tried to answer questions....but always gave wrong answers....

So Bolo....

You believe that members of the House Of Saud have aided/funded Al-Quida....right?

So.....

What do members of the House Of Saud have to gain by funding/supporting an organization that attacks U.S targets(9/11)

The same U.S that protects this same House Of Saud from it's own democratically deprived and oppressed people.

[Bolo Boffin]

153. I give the best, most truthful answers I know to give. You answer nothing.

You only question.

I'm ready to answer this latest question, but I demand that you answer mine first, since it's your turn.

So seatnineB...

How do you resolve the paradox?

[seatnineb]

155. I don't have to resolve any paradox..and you know that.

I don't believe in the following:

In the words Of Bolo:
Wed Jul-05-06 05:12 PM

Members of the royal family helped fund al-Qaeda.

So Bolo...if you believe in the above then how do you address or resolve the following paradox:

What do members of the House Of Saud have to gain by funding/supporting an organization that attacks U.S targets(9/11)

The same U.S that protects this same House Of Saud from it's own democratically deprived and oppressed people.

[Bolo Boffin]

158. Oh, yes, you do. You constructed a paradox (so you call it).

The paradox, as I understood it, was "How can Abdullah's government say Zionists perpetrated the 9/11 attacks while knowing that members of the Saudi family funded al-Qaeda, who actually carried out the attacks?"

You asked that I resolve it. I did.

I asked that you resolve it.

And you did. But you don't like to look like you're responding to my questions, for whatever vain reason, so you resolved it while saying, "I don't have to resolve it."

By knocking loose one of the premises, "Members of the Saudi royal family helped fund al-Qaeda", you resolved the paradox.

By asserting the ability of people to both lie and tell the truth if either protects them from harm, I resolved the paradox.

Though you're ungracious enough to claim you didn't answer my question, I will accept your answer as such. Thank you for answering my question.

Now to your next paradox:

It may surprise you to learn that the House of Saud is not a monolithic organization.

It may also surprise you to learn that the House of Saud's security is not, and has never been, solely based on the support of the United States.

Part of the House of Saud's security is in funding fundamentalistic Islamic movements. By paying off people with power and cash who might otherwise call them infidels and raise insurrection against them, the House of Saud maintains that element of their security.

However, there are factions within the House of Saud. Abdullah is getting old. Someone will be ascending to the throne after his death. Who shall that someone be?

The person or people who can provide the most security for the House of Saud as a whole.

Therefore, I'm not surprised to see members of the House of Saud funding al-Qaeda on the sly. By building their own fundamentalistic support base, they can better make a play for their own personal power both now and in the coming years.

Especially if they can build a viable enough base of security that excludes the need for United States participation (and thus, through their eyes, Zionistic control of Saudi Arabia).

Because one of the things that the 9/11 attacks was designed to do was to drive a wedge between America and the House of Saud. America has already capitulated to one of Osama's demands: US troops were pulled from Saudi Arabia.

True, they went to Iraq - America's Persian Gulf Camp X-Ray. So they are close by if needed. So America's part in the House of Saud's security continues.

To the eternal chaffing of the other side of the House of Saud's security: their homegrown fundamentalistic movement, Wahhabism, born of power, lusting for more.

[seatnineb]

159. You are wrong.

Bolo....

No member of the Saudi Royal family has funded Al-Quida.

Period.

You quote this statement as evidence that Saudi Royal familiy members funded Al-Quida:

In the words of Saudi Spokesman Adel al-Jubeir:
An internal government investigation had uncovered "wrongdoing" by some(members of the Royal family),

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml

Now listen to Abdel al Jubeir's brother Nail Al-Jubeir(saudi embassy in Washington)

"People say we pay Al-Quida off, but that is simply not the case.Why would we support people who want to to overthrow our own goverment?"

Craig Unger elaborates:

The problem al-Jubeir explains,was not in not having tough regulatory measures to govern the flow of money through these charities, a task that was especially difficult as money circulated through international channels.It was he adds,essentially a case of innocent contributions gone wrong.
It should certainly be said that allegations against the Saudi merchant elite and variouse members of the House Of Saud are precisly that - allegations.Charges that many of them knowingly facilitated the transfer of funds have been brought in court and have not been proven.


House Of Bush/House Of Saud
By Craig Unger.
Page 180

So Bolo....if you have definitive proof(not allegations!) that members of the Saudi Royal Familiy funded Al-Quida.....then produce it.

But you can't because no such thing exists.......because there is no motive....

And you still insist with the following:

In the words Of Bolo:

Thu Jul-06-06 08:50 PM

Because one of the things that the 9/11 attacks was designed to do was to drive a wedge between America and the House of Saud. America has already capitulated to one of Osama's demands: US troops were pulled from Saudi Arabia.

Sure...U.S troops did leave saudi....Only to invade Iraq!...using Saudi Air bases for the bombings....great achievement for Al-quida!

Under the agreement, finalised after intensive negotiations this month, the command centre at Prince Sultan Air Base will be made available and American Awacs surveillance aircraft and Jstars radar aircraft will fly from Saudi airfields. It is also likely that jet fighters will launch interception missions from Saudi Arabia against Iraqi aircraft, while some secret bombing missions might take place

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/27/wirq327.xml

And what is this?......U.S troops are still in saudi Arabia!

About four-hundred American troops will remain in Saudi Arabia to train the Saudi military.


http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2003-05/a-2003-05-05-3-1.cfm

Gee...Bin fuckin Laden must be so pissed....not only is the realtionship between The House Of Bush and The House Of Saud pretty much intact....U.S troops are still in saudi Arabia.....and they have invaded Afghnaistan and Iraq too....

All Bin Laden had to do was was not do 9/11...and none of this would have happened!

[BuddyYoung]

151. Better to BS, distract, dance, change the subject, ANYTHING to keep

from having to try and explain the impossible. Keep the heat on 'em, seatnineb.

[Bolo Boffin]

154. Hey, Buddy! I'm right here!

No need to cheerlead, when you can jump into the discussion and take me on!

I'm right here. Come on, call me on my BS.

Or keep your own brand of BS to yourself.

[BuddyYoung]

156. So, what RIGHT-Wing sites do you argue progressive views on?

NONE? No? Wouldn't you seem more authentic if you did? (i.e., if you argued for PROGRESSIVE viewpoints on RW sites - not RW viewpoints on RW sites or progressive sites that allow RWingers to post on and otherwise disrupt)

[Bolo Boffin]

157. None.

It doesn't make me any more or less authentic that I don't.

It would make me less authentic here if I argued for RW views here at Democratic Underground, a site dedicated to the Democratic party and progressives who support the Democratic party. But I don't.

It would make me less authentic if I argued for something completely different somewhere else that I argue for here. But I don't.

Why are you so concerned for my authenticity? I didn't realize that DU had appointed authenticity police, and that you were one of those. Might I see some credentials?

[leftofthedial]

96. We spend about 15% of our GDP on the black budget

that is about $1.5 Trillion.

do you really suggest that the Saudis (or anyone) invest anything approaching that amount on black ops?

[Bolo Boffin]

97. No. n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. What motivates people is usually the big clue

Paid or unpaid, is a person seeking the truth or are they seeking to subvert the truth? Must people who deliberately want to subvert the truth are assholes and eventually it shows in many ways. Whenever they get backed into a corner, they resorts to putdowns and insults.

My own husband is probably one of the biggest skeptics of MIHOP that you can meet. Science background, everything must have proof. He can accept LIHOP but his brain can't accept that our own government could do MIHOP. He's a good balance for me because I can bounce my 'crazy' ideas off him and let him rip them apart before I come here to get them ripped apart. One result is that after all this time, he's starting to believe that MIHOP is what happened. He still doesn't buy the bombs and missiles theory yet, but we're getting there.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. I don't think any position around here lacks its share of *ssholes.

*ssholery is no divining rod for who's right or who's wrong.

[BuddyYoung]

33. Agreed. Paid, unpaid, nice, rude etc. MOTIVATION really IS the big clue

Your observations about the conduct of most of the people who deliberately try to suppress the truth are right on the money. It might be interesting to know things like how many paid ones there are, what they earn, whether they work for PR firms etc., but we aren't going to ever learn that, but what we DO know is what you pointed out. That is, that "most people who deliberately want to subvert the truth are a**holes and eventually it shows in many ways". The idea of someone being PAID to be that way may seem strange, but it's really not. Every police force in the country has cops that are "paid" to play "bad cop", and when they take on the role of "bad cop", they lie, falsely accuse, threaten and so on.

MOTIVATION really is the big clue. Excellent post.

[BuddyYoung]

15. "SOME" paid disinfo agents? The Net is crawling with 'em

One thing I've noticed is their shift away from trying to pin the responsibility for 911 on Osama bin Laden. For some reason I just can't imagine, they almost never even mention the name "Osama". Right in line with other Bush neocons, they promote "Al Qaeda" as the perp behind 911. Makes for a better target, and besides, Osama is a CIA ASSET and the real perps don't engage in self-blame.

What was the quid pro quo for Osama to accept the (initial) blame for 911? How much was he paid to be the 911 patsy?

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Osama, Osama, Osama.

Osama didn't accept the "initial" blame for 9/11. He denied it. God knows the alternate theorists have made hay out of that around here.

Osama was later caught on tape admitting his complicity in organizing the attacks. We were soon treated to the "Fat" Osama argumentation, based on a single grainy framegrab.

Since then, in every tape and video attributed to him, Osama has made no attempt to hide his involvement. He's proud of the "Nineteen Brothers". He's happy to admit his part in organizing their attack.

So if you haven't had enough of it yet, Osama, Osama, Osama. Want to get busy dealing with my post you tried to avoid?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

22. unless...

http://abc.go.com/primetime/extrememakeover/index.html

</sarcasm>

[Bolo Boffin]

26. See what I mean? The same cherry-picked framegrab.

The same frame grab is used, over and over, to show the Fat Osama. The same grainy, fried framegrab.

I double dog dare you, mirandapriestly to bring back three more framegrabs of Osama from that video. Can you find them? Do you dare put them up against the other pictures and challenge your rhetoric with the facts. I triple dog dare you. An entire video exists, miranda, why do you and your fellow alternate theorists continue to bring back that same single cherry-picked picture?

The choice is clear, miranda: you have either never investigated the video further than that frame, which displays a "woeful lack of curiousity", or you have seen the other pieces of the video, and you know how unrepresentative that single frame grab is of the entire piece, and yet you contine to trot it out. Which is it? Have you seen the rest of the video?

[psychopomp]

44. I took up your dare

and found this:

http ://img132.imageshack.us/img132/386/18cf2.jpg

remove the space after http

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Thank you, psychopomp.

The answer is "All of them belong. They are all the same person."

[BuddyYoung]

51. Sure, and you're a Chinese general. Maybe they are to someone on LSD.

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

53. I'm not a Chinese general. I have no LSD.

They are all of the same person.

I will leave it to the more impartial observers of this discussion.

[BuddyYoung]

55. Name ONE impartial observer that agrees w/you.

Is it a little harder now for you to distinguish a FAT person from one who isn't?
Have you had an eye exam in the past four years?

[Bolo Boffin]

58. Would you call the lower pictures of a FAT person?

Really?

http://www.1800contacts.com

[Grateful for Hope]

56. It's not just the fatness

it is also that the nose is too short and wide on the one at the top right. I remember watching that video, and, I remember thinking at the time that the "Osama" looked nothing like the one we had seen in earlier videos.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. That's a good thing, since the "fatness" doesn't exist.

The one on the top right is also all the ones of the bottom. Same guy.

You need to watch it again.

[Grateful for Hope]

63. Thank you for your observations n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

65. No, thank you! n/t

[BuddyYoung]

67. Maybe it's not even about the fake OBL. Distract, disrupt, waste time? nt

nt

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Well, why did you bring Osama up, then, Buddy? n/t

[BuddyYoung]

69. Two points

1) Pointing out the obvious fact of the fake OSAMA. BTW- you've yet to tell us the name of any credible person that believes the FAT Osama is the same person as the CIA-asset OSAMA.

2) Also pointing out that since THAT particular debate has been long settled, trying to pretend like it isn't might have the benefits of distraction, diversion, and wasting time.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. Pretend I don't always know what you're talking about.

I have trouble with your prose, and I could dissect the meanderings of DulceDecorum. Perhaps English isn't your first language, and I'm not making fun of you if it isn't.

However, I think the general jist of what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the fake Osama has long been determined to be the fake Osama, and I'm distracting people by saying that it hasn't been so determined.

But it hasn't been so determined. What, did everyone get together all over the world and vote "That's not the real Osama?" I don't think that's the case. Perhaps it's all locked up in your mind, and the minds of the people you normally discuss this with. But I assure you the vast majority of people in this world consider that to be the real Osama, and with good reason.

[Grateful for Hope]

77. Actually

If you took a survey among Du'ers at large...not just those who post here, I am pretty sure that you would find that most do not buy the fake Osama tape(s). The opposite would be true if you did the same on, say, FR.

[Jazz2006]

71. Placing a side bet here

that your dare will not be taken up by the party to whom it was directed. It appears that tinhatters rely upon that single screen grab of "fat osama" to assert that the video is fake. Odd, that.

[canetoad]

75. Hey Jazz. Great to see you

How much did you say that side bet was :hippie:

[psychopomp]

76. Compare the screen grabs in your post to the screen grabs posted at the

link below. It looks like the quality of the capture is much worse in those stills that you posted. I am going to suggest a possiblility for the "fatness" of OBL in your posted stills. I think you will agree that the other two men in the stills also look squat, bulky and, well--fat. Consider this: has the aspect ratio of the video been flattened and made wider? That is what it looks like to me.

[canetoad]

78. Oi, don't shoot the effing messenger.

The video, exactly as released by the US government is freely available. I took some screen grabs, resized at exactly the same aspect ratio as the original.

I brightened them up a bit, thats all - leaving them as original as possible yet still visible. What the hell do you want? HD?

Please note, the challenge went out for someone to produce other clips from the video. I did so. Now please shut up.

[psychopomp]

79. Despite your appeal to the contrary

I think I will continue. I have an idea to explain the discrepancy: the version of the video you posted has translations in the bottom half; does it seem plausible that the government changed the aspect ratio of the original video to fit the entire field of the original video plus the translated portion in the same frame? I think that seems highly likely.

Is there a version of the video available without the translation? There must be and it may look different.

[psychopomp]

80. Oh and for somebody who purports to want to know the truth

you certainly do not tolerate discussion of your pet points, do you.

[mirandapriestly]

82. hehheh.nt

[psychopomp]

83. What do you think of my idea in post 79?

[mirandapriestly]

102. I think you guys are denying the obvious

It isn't just the pictures, which are blatantly different, it is the content. The 2004 tape has Osama sounding very similar to a liberal, so that people will think "those liberals hate America, see how they sound exactly like bin laden?". Bin laden encourages Sunnis and Shiites to fight against each other, they also show bin laden supporting Zarqawi so that people make the connection in their minds between 9-11 and Iraq. It doesn't take a genius to see what is going on here. Additionally, when played on NPR, the tapes have been followed by "these have not been independently evaluated", which indicates to me that NPR has doubts as to theri authen ticity. They also say the government has no reason to doubt their validity, which means someone asked probably because they doubted it.

[mirandapriestly]

103. canetoad answered a question

then you reframe the question, then claim the question was not responded to. Where have I seen that before?

[psychopomp]

128. Okay, I see you are not interested

Where did I "reframe the question?" I did not "claim that the question was not responded to." We are engaged in a dialogue, or at least that is what I thought.

If anybody can find a link to the video without subtitles, please post here.

[Jazz2006]

130. Hi canetoad

It seems that you misread my side bet post.

It was that the "party to whom it was directed" would not take up the challenge from boloboffin's post.

And she didn't.

[psychopomp]

43. Is this a fat Osama?

on edit:

The posted link embedded the image into DU's messageboard so I added a space to the link after http:

http ://img132.imageshack.us/img132/386/18cf2.jpg

Also, the text below the photos is not mine, I just found this looking for links to the video. I do not agree with all of the writer's conclusions.

[mirandapriestly]

101. His Mother Said It wasn't Him

http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID5/11803.html

Do a search on DU and you will see that the majority of DUers think the tapes are fake. If you went to another site, Free Republic for example, the majority would believe that the tapes were real.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Well, there's an impartial witness.

:eyes:

[mirandapriestly]

109. And the bush administation is impartial?

The "government" is the only one saying this tape is authentic (no reason to believe it is not authentic is what they say )and they are proved liars; the government/intelligence/military which is affiliated with Bush anyway. But you don't question them....
I do not think she would necessarily lie about her son not being on the tape. If it was something he was doing and believed it she might support him in what he was doing and saying. She gives specific reasons for why she believes it is not him, that is what should be addressed, you are making an ad hominem argument.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. Thank you for your false dichotomy! n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

111. The Pentagon has admitted to hyping Zarqawi

But, I guess, the same would not apply to Osama?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1560043

[Bolo Boffin]

115. So?

I never said that Osama and al-Qaeda weren't hyped.

I said all of those are pictures of Osama, and Osama claims in that video and quite a few others that he was involved in the planning and funding of the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't mean that the Pentagon didn't immediately turn him into Emmanuel Goldstein.

[mirandapriestly]

106. Return to the OP

Another thing about the "alternate scenario opposers" is that there are a proportionally large number of them when you consider the percentage of people in polls who think 911 should be reopened. That percentage has increased since 9-11 whereas the number of "alternative scenario opposers", in this forum for example, has increased. What does that tell you? Particularly since this is a progressive forum and the number of people skeptical of the official version would probably be greater than in the general population. Yet the large number of opposers in this forum are disproportionate to the number of DUers who would oppose letting people discuss 9-11 scenarios.

(Does that make sense? A more articulate person is free to rephrase to make it more understandable,if desired.)

[Bolo Boffin]

107. Rephrased mirandapriestly post, as per his/er request

"WHHHAAAAAAAAAAA! Mean people who show the flaws in my logic suck!"

I think that about covers it.

[mirandapriestly]

110. You misread

I indicated "a more articulate person". One of you is sort of articulate, but not the one you are today.

[Bolo Boffin]

113. It's all me. Every word. Every post.

But thanks for the implication that more than one person shares this posting handle. Hope2006 seems to believe that OCTers are the only ones flinging cute little implications.

[Grateful for Hope]

119. This isn't what I said

please don't bring me into discussions with other posters. And, please do not misquote me.

[Bolo Boffin]

121. Stop jumping into discussions I'm having with other posters, then.

Up there and down here.

[Grateful for Hope]

122. This is an open forum

Anyone can participate. It is, however, against the rules to speak disparagingly about other posters by name in one's posts.

Particularly when you don't speak the truth about that poster.

[Bolo Boffin]

124. But as long as I leave names about it, I can accuse people of

whatever I want, all day long, even in the most thinly veiled ways?

Except if I imply that people say things that might get them "thrown into Guantanamo", according to you. I did quote you correctly there, yes?

[Grateful for Hope]

139. Whatever turns you on...

Thought you might be interested in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1571694

[Bolo Boffin]

141. You don't intend to pretend that people on your side of the argument

indulge in that behavior every day they post here?

PS: Thanks for the tipoff.

[Grateful for Hope]

147. Hey, you are welcome.

:toast:

[BuddyYoung]

123. "This posting handle"

I'm confused about what you are trying to say.
Are you saying:

* There's an implication that more than one person shares "this posting handle"?

* There's an implication that ONE person may be posting under more than one handle?

* There's an implication that ONE person may post exclusively under one handle, but also post under a different handle?


There's a difference between "Only one person posts under this handle" and "a person might be the exclusive poster under a given handle but may also post under a DIFFERNT handle".

In any case, I think we can all agree the Bush administration could hardly complain there just aren't enough DU posters aggressively challenging those who openly state their belief that the OCT is a lie.

[Bolo Boffin]

125. You are making the accusation.

Why don't you explain what you mean by it?

On edit: I'm talking about these posts from you and mirandapriestly:

BuddyYoung (103 posts)
Mon Jul-03-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #49

50. Slippery is another word that comes to mind. Something's changed.

nt


mirandapriestly (1000+ posts)
Tue Jul-04-06 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #50

81. Are you talking about

morphing personalities?


BuddyYoung (103 posts)
Tue Jul-04-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #81

86. Today versus yesterday and the day before etc. Evolution? Morphing?


Backups, substitutions...anything's possible in these days of modern times. Might just be a case of season adjustment syndrome, but I'm not a doctor, so I can only report observations.

On another thread, you ask if I'm an engineer. And now you're here, again concerned with my identity.

Tell me what you are talking about.

[BuddyYoung]

126. Suggestion that might help

Here's a simple suggestion: do a little research on the times people have posted. See if they post within say, a minute or two of another poster in DIFFERENT threads. It's unlikely the same person would do that. Conversely, different posting times would not prove anything one way or the other, and it would be wrong, in my opinion, to draw any conclusions from such a finding.

[Bolo Boffin]

129. Me, do the research on what you're saying???

Why don't you tell me, in plain English, which you've just demonstrated you're capable of, what you mean by all this oblique statements?

Why should I run off and "research" something when you can just speak clearly and tell me what you mean?

[BuddyYoung]

131. Sure, why not? But first, take another look at post #123

You can answer the questions there, can't you? Just to make sure none of your friends get the wrong idea and everything, and since it's non-threatening YOU don't have anything to fear from clearing up those questions anyhow. Run along. You've got some things to do. Hurry every chance you get, and whistle when you're done.

[Bolo Boffin]

132. I alone post under this name. I only post with this name.

Now will you clear up what you're talking about? Doubt it.

PS: How long has it been since Americus was tombstoned?

[Jazz2006]

135. Good luck getting a straight answer.....

Many of those wearing the thickest gauge in the tinhat brigade do a brisk trade in flinging accusations of "paid shill", "disruptor", "freeper", "multiple personalities", "bush apologist", "rightwinger", etc. at anyone who voices any disagreement with anything that the CTs spout, most often via innuendo because they don't actually believe it themselves and therefore won't just come out and say it, but they think that they are oh, so very clever in alluding to all over the threads.

It's quite bizarre, really. There are even some here who think that anyone who uses the word "indeed" or the phrase "critical thinking" is a freeper/troll/disruptor/paid shill/etc.etc.etc.

This is hugh1111111111!! I'm series!!!!!!!1111

[psychopomp]

137. E-x-a-c-t-l-y

In fact, those who shout the loudest about "paid disinfo agents," etc. are, if nothing else, the ones whose motivations are most suspect in my book.

For anybody who really is interested, look back on my posts in, oh, say, spring 2002 through about late 2004 and find out what I had to say about the destruction of the towers and such.

You might be surprised. I have kept an open mind and have come to my own conclusions. An "agent" or "troll" "disruptor"? No, I am not. I am a DU'er and I have kept an open mind and am still open to new ideas, should they be convincing.

During Cointelpro days it was typical for infiltrators to come off as the most die-hard radicals in order to turn people against the leaders of the Movement, whether it was Black Power, anti-War or Student Movement.

edit: spelling