Nearly everything this Admin says is a lie... All EXCEPT 9/11!? Come on!

[Bonobo]

Pretty much everyone knows that these guys lie about everything.

Why do some insist that on the rare occasion of 9/11 we just happen to be getting the unvarnished truth?

How dense can people be?

Someday this dungeon will cease to be and those that consigned others to this place or who came to stare and gloat at the "conspiracy nuts" will feel the truth and the shame.

BTW, why is JFK stuff here too? Is this the 9/11 forum or the "we think you are all nuts, so get in there!" forum?

[leftstreet]

1. Very good point

Pretty much everyone knows that these guys lie about everything.

Why do some insist that on the rare occasion of 9/11 we just happen to be getting the unvarnished truth?

I agree that someday the 9/11 Internet "conspiracy" talk will go mainstream. Most people I interact with on a daily basis don't believe the official account, and they have many questions.

I don't know why JFK stuff gets put here.
:shrug:

[HamdenRice]

2. George Bush is a good, Christian, truthful man -- but he's goofy and incompetent

Why would you suggest that George W. Bush lies? He never, ever lies. I admit, he's a little stupid and incompetent -- so incompetent that he could never have pulled off lying about 9/11 or lying to get us into an an illegal war in Iraq -- but he would never, ever lie.

Also, something you have to understand about George W. Bush is that he would never, ever cause the death of another person. All those people who were executed in Texas deserved it. He may have executed more people than any other governor in history and from time to time laughed about it, but remember, it was the jury that decided on the death penalty.

And the slow response to Katrina -- in which thousands of people died because of secondary drowning, ie the slow response to saving stranded people -- was because of Brownie, not Bush, or Condi's shoe shopping, or Cheney's fly fishing or Rummie's house shopping. Anyway, those people heard the warnings, didn't leave, and had to pay the price for their wrong decisions.

As for the 25,000 to 30,000 Iraqis who have died since the war started, remember, this is far fewer people than Sadam killed in Abu Grab prison. Most of them of course were terrrrists and insurgents.

If you disagree with this, you are a bat shit crazy, tin foil hat conspiracy theorist. ROFLMAO! You probably believe that Kennedy wasn't killed by a lone gunman! You probably believe that the Reagan administration really did sell arms to Iran in order to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua and El Salvador! I bet you even believe that Watergate was anything more than and boys-will-be-boys third rate burglary! LOL!

Ha, ha, ha!

You crazy conspiracy theorist!

[nebula]

7. The Kool-Aid drinkers

have complete faith in this administration.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Great graphic.!

[Grateful for Hope]

14. Point well made

and, an excellent graphic!

[Bonobo]

9. 25,000 -30,000? Wrong! Try 1,000,000 and you'll be WAY closer.

He is a MASS MURDERER and committer of GENOCIDE.

Otherwise I agree with everything.

[HamdenRice]

18. Sorry, I didn't have my sarcasm smilies on

but given everything else I was saying I'm surpised anyone took it any other way. In other words, what I was saying is that if you believe Bush is telling the truth about 9/11, you probably also believe that only 25,000 Iraqis have died as a result of Operation Iraqi "Freedom."

[MervinFerd]

3. Well, this post is a good example.....

A. Name JUST ONE person around here who thinks we have the "unvarnished truth" about 911.
B. Name JUST ONE person around here who thinks George Bush would not lie about anything he can get away with.
C. Explain what --you-- think is the "unvarnished truth".

[Bonobo]

11. I apologize for not responding directly, but please see post 10.

I understand what you are saying.

A. I do not know who believes exactly what.
B. I doubt any such person exists.
C. I do not know. See post #10 please.

[HamdenRice]

21. You haven't been here very long, have you

Most of the OCTers used to say over and over that the 9/11 Commission Report is exactly and exclusively what happened. Now that even the chairmen of that commission are saying they were lied to, the OCTers are backtracking.

Nevertheless, their bizarre, disruptive behavior continues unabated.

[AZCat]

27. No, they didn't.

Nor is their behavior bizarre or disruptive. It is your opinion that it is bizarre and distruptive - one that is not shared by others.

[HamdenRice]

33. Oh no? How would you describe this post?

LARED (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-23-05 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
7. Why Americans Refuse to Believe the 9/11 Evidence ?
I think they do. The evidence that the "official Story" is largely correct is pretty compelling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=64313#64330

One of many such OCTer assertions until it became untenable.

[AZCat]

35. Can't you see the difference between that and your claim?

In post #21 of this thread, you claim:

Most of the OCTers used to say over and over that the 9/11 Commission Report is exactly and exclusively what happened. Now that even the chairmen of that commission are saying they were lied to, the OCTers are backtracking.

LARED's post says:

7. Why Americans Refuse to Believe the 9/11 Evidence ?
I think they do. The evidence that the "official Story" is largely correct is pretty compelling.

If you can't see why these two statements are different then we have nothing further to talk about.





On Edit: removed carriage returns.

[greyl]

36. It's a ridiculously baseless accusation.

Like this:

HamdenRice: "Thenceforth Bush loving believers that the 9/11 Commission story and the words of George W. "two term mandate" Bush is the be all and end all of what happened tend to be called OCTers -- ie, "Official Conspiracy Theorists."

It's reasonable to conclude that when HR uses the term OCTers, she's accusing them of being Bush lovers, correct? Or, is it just insincere hyperbole meant to poison the well? Whatever the genuine motivation is, it's an irresponsible bullshit accusation.

[AZCat]

44. I'm not sure of the motive...

behind such claims, nor am I sure I want to know. I'd rather they stop, but I'm not naive enough to expect that to happen.

[LARED]

47. It's kinda strange

I have never meet anyone on DU that fits HR's definition of an OCT'er.

The fascinating aspect of this is the claim that these very same seemingly non existing OCT'er have a cognition deficit. He does not seem to recongize his own questionable cognitive ability in even identifying the 'opposition".

So we have a guy that exhibits the same phenomenon he accuses a phantom audience of OCT'er of possessing.

Very strange.

[HamdenRice]

4. Many times the OCTers have said

that the best explanation of what happened on 9/11 is the 9/11 Commission Report -- even thought its chairmen and staff have since admitted that they were lied to.

[wildbilln864]

5. Excellent post Bonobo!

And welcome to the dungeon! :hi:
Just wait to see how many hang out here in the asylum just to argue with the crazys! It's funny IMO!
Anyway, 911 was definitely an inside job in my opinion and we should demand a complete investigation!
Have you read "911 and American Empire"? Great book!

[William Seger]

6. Depends on what you mean by "everything"

I definitely think there was a huge amount of ass-covering in the administration, about a lot of things, and I'm not at all satisfied with either the scope or depth of the 9/11 Commission Report. (Specifically, I'm not satisfied with just saying "al Qaeda did it" or even "bin Laden did it" -- I want real names and real heads on platters for anyone having anything to do with it -- and I certainly don't think they addressed either the root cause or the accountability for the "intelligence failures" or the lack of effective response to the situation.)

However, it's a gigantic leap of logic from that opinion (which I believe is very common) to thinking that BushCo pulled off an absurdly elaborate hoax to fake plane hijacking (complete with faked phone calls to relatives) to fly substituted or remote-controlled or somehow faked planes into the building and then blow them up with either conventional explosives or science-fiction weapons in such a way that it looked exactly like the planes did it. And that's not because I think they're "too nice" to pull a "false flag" operation; it's just that I don't believe anyone would be that fucking stupid to plan something that ridiculously complicated, immensely large, and extremely risky (in terms of failure and getting caught), when there was absolutely no need to go to all that trouble and risk: They could have done something much, much simpler, using many fewer people, which didn't involve any gigantic and incredibly complicated illusion, with practically no risk of having anything going wrong or getting caught. Just a couple of people could have done something like park a big-ass truck bomb somewhere (or several, to make it look more like bin Ladin's signature) and simply blame it on al Qaeda, and that would have served the purpose presumed by conspiracists just as well. (Or actually, if they were going to do that for the presumed reason, I would hope they would at least involve one or two Iraqis, or somehow tie it to Saddam. Blaming it on al Qaeda necessitated invading Afghanistan first, when obviously BushCo wasn't much interested in either al Qaeda, Afghanistan, or bin Ladin.)

Sure, the fact that the premise is so ludicrously idiotic doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way. But it definitely does mean that you have to be at least a little bit out of touch with reality to think that's what happened without some solid evidence -- and there simply isn't any.

OK?

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Nobody got caught, did they? Who would catch them? They couldn't even catch

the 19 accused hijackers they let into the country, followed all over the globe, bugged their communications, made sure they had what they needed, made sure that LEO agents who wanted to apply for warrents could even ask a judge for one.

There is no evidence, because they got rid of it as quick as they could.

These are the same folks who, somehow, misplaced Kennedy's brain. Oops!

[Bonobo]

10. This "Dungeon" is a problem because it creates this CT/ANTI-CT thing.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

However, I know that some weird shit happened and that there are plenty of lies and coverups.

By throwing all of this into the dungeon, it creates the false impression that questioning the official story is itself the act of foolish conspiracy theorists. It is not. All I am saying is that we have not been told the truth and I FUCKING WANT IT.

There is NO WAY we KNEW it was Bin Laden hours after it happened. There is NO WAY a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found, etc, etc.

I am not saying it was a missile, or anything like that. But I am SO INSULTED by having all discussion of 9/11 thrown into this fucking dungeon -along with theories of bigfoot, the loch ness monster, and JFK.

6 years ago this horrible event happened that SET THE STAGE FOR EVERYTHING LATER THAT BUSH DID. And we can't talk about it like humans...

The "CT" and the "ANTI CTs"...idiotic. Why waste your time fighting eachother? Something fucked up happened, right? Why don't you start on issues that you can agree with and try to discuss it. So many bright minds wasted on this stupid-ass rhetorical flourishing.

MY OPINION? 9/11 was probably the combination of a messed up CIA plot thing with "sleepers" or something that was a double-cross and then we covered up to cover up our GROSS INCOMPETENCE and NEGLIGENCE. Everything since then has been just a COVERUP. But who knows?

Still, I wish we could at least discuss it...

[jberryhill]

23. Your opinion is fine by me

Clearly, we nurtured and manipulated Islamic radicals for a long time, because it served our purposes during the Cold War, and our engagement with the Taliban, for the purpose of giving the USSR a hard time, certainly came full circle and bit us in the ass after we left them high and dry - and certainly left Bin Laden very bitter, because we might have promised him that his real enemy - the corrupt Saudi leadership - would be next.

What a lot of people don't get about Bin Laden is the core of his basic gripe in life, which only tangentially involves the United States because of our support of the Saudi royal family. THOSE are the folks he'd really like to take out.

Those sorts of issues are perfectly fine for discussion and reasoned disagreement.

But I don't know why you express such strong disbelief that there is "NO WAY" we knew it was Bin Laden when it happened. It is well documented that Richard Clarke was alarmed at the threat indications, and there is utterly no dispute that Bush had received the daily briefing in August entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".

The way Clarke puts it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

So, in view of the fact that every indicator was screaming "Bin Laden is going to attempt a major attack in the US and soon" in the weeks leading up to the attack, I have to ask what you find to be so inconceivable that, as soon as a major terrorist attack happened, there weren't a boatload of people - like Clarke and Tenet - saying "Well, that musta been it". Tenet went on to spend more time doing CYA work than CIA work, but the August briefing says what it says. I can't see how you can then say there was "NO WAY" we knew it was Bin Laden when it happened. It was, after all, the SAME TARGET that the same affiliated bunch of terrorists had gone after in 1993.

I mean, lets say it's my *job* to warn you of threats and I tell you for weeks that I overheard various people saying your angry neighbor Joe Blow is going to throw a brick through your window; and you keep blowing me off because you are preoccupied with other things. One fine evening a brick comes flying through your window. Are you really going to sit there and puzzle over who did it for very long - especially when I then come in and tell you, "Yeah, that's the brick from Joe Blow I've been trying to warn you about"?

IMHO, the lies and coverups of this administration relate primarily to the fact that they were itching for any excuse to go into Iraq, and to try to convince us - against the plain and obvious facts - that 9/11 was anything other than a spectacular demonstration of what can happen when the adults are not in charge.

But if I was going to believe that the whole thing was a planned inside job to provide a pretext for invading Iraq, then I can't for the life of me imagine why this plot was so carefully constructed and executed, while omitting any connection - even a faked one - to Saddam Hussein or Iraq. If someone is diddling with fake passenger lists and non-existent hi-jacker identities, then good golly make those fake hi-jackers *Iraqi agents* instead of brewing up a crop of Saudi's.

To recap... Al Qaeda connected operatives attacked the WTC in 1993. Al Qaeda connected operatives bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in 2000. Why is it such a great shock to the system that they would have been the immediate and foremost suspects on the day of 9/11?

[Bonobo]

26. I agree BUT...

All of that only suggests that it MAY/PROBABLY was OBL.

That day it was presented as a a foregone conclusion.

[jberryhill]

28. Given that...

It was the only show in town that day, so to speak, for intelligence and law enforcement. A quick rundown on the passenger lists, the near simultaneous assassination of a Northern Alliance leader... all of which support a strong immediate inference, along with the warnings that were known. Add to that that the capital of the US had not been attacked since 1812, and its a sure bet that every station in every embassy on the planet was shaking down every informant or source they could, toot suite.

19 Saudis in first class distributed among the flights in question? If you had some Lebanese, Palestinians, Sri Lankans, South Moluccans or whatever, then you'd have support for alternative inferences. How many predominately Saudi terrorist groups are there?

Any conclusion on a set of facts has a degree of certainty attached to it. Again, reasonable minds can differ, but there was enough to go on, starting with the passenger manifests, that one could arrive at a relatively high confidence on what limited information could be integrated by a small group pretty quickly.

Of course, as reported by Clarke, there were two high-level nitwits who wanted to pin the tail on Saddam, but even Bush & Cheney couldn't do that in the face of the strong indications that it was Al Qaeda. And that's where I come full circle with wondering why, if it was an inside job for the purpose of selling an Iraq attaq, they set it up to make it look like the perps were Islamic radicals instead of Baathist thugs.

[Bonobo]

30. Good response. Thank you.

You see, some people DO listen to well-reasoned arguments.

I strongly suggest all members of this board start to do much, much more of the same.

We need DIALECTICAL REASONING!

http://sesd.sk.ca/psychology/psych20/dialectical_reasoning.htm

One thing we probably all agree with is that the Bush admin is guilty. Whether that be gross negligence or whatever. Maybe we should all focus on the cover-up and stop worrying about the actual crime.

Let's remember that it is always the cover-up that gets them in the end, like Watergate.

Anyone care to join me in bringing some reasonable behavior to this board?

[jberryhill]

19. Bingo...

This administration lies about plenty of things.

This administration has certainly lied about a lot of things relating to 9/11, which was allowed to happen because the highest levels of our government were, in the months leading up to 9/11, filled with pathological liars, sociopaths, and a healthy heaping contingent of idiots.

I do not understand why this requires that I believe in controlled demolition of the WTC towers, that a 47 story building can be rigged for demolition by a squad of who-knows-what and brought down within a few hours of a real estate developer uttering "pull it", that anyone in the military could be persuaded to fire a missile at the Pentagon, and so on.

My utter contempt and distrust of this administration does not require that I deny that there were indeed terrorists intent on attacking the World Trade Center towers which, after all, was unsuccessfully targeted by terrorists during the Clinton administration. Or must I, to be a "pure" disbeliever of this administration, also believe that the Clinton administration was somehow in on the 1993 attack against the World Trade Center?

I haven't even *read* the 9/11 commission report. I kid you not. But I do not need to read the 9/11 commission report to observe that some guy with a roll of chicken wire is not going to make any valid engineering conclusions about the WTC towers. I do not need to read the 9/11 commission report to know that steel is soluble in molten aluminum at a significantly reduced temperature below the melting point of steel. I spent several years in grad school studying the behavior of molten metal solutions, and I don't think the 9/11 commission report is going to change what this says to me:



So, no, I don't accept the conclusions of a report I've never read. But that fact does not require me to buy into whatever anyone else is peddling.

Okay, so you have a pretty simple and complete drawing staring you right in the face. Why don't you look at IT and tell me what it says about what will happen when molten aluminum above 800 deg C comes into contact with a compound primarily composed of iron?

If you don't have an answer to that question, then you aren't going to convince me of boo relative to any theory you might have about the behavior of hot metal, and our mutual distrust of the Bush administration isn't going to change my opinion that if you can't read that diagram then don't bother talking to me about your opinion of what molten aluminum can or cannot do to a piece of steel.

[CJCRANE]

54. "I would hope they would at least involve one or two Iraqis".

That argument is counter-intuitive for a very simple reason:

"you can only carry out an inside job with the agents you have, not the agents you'd like to have"
(to paraphrase Rumsfeld).

Bushco's inside links are to Saudi Arabia and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan therefore they are the guys they used. They could never have used Iraqis because if Saddam found out a) he would stopped it and b) it would give him some incredible evidence to use against Bushco.

Also, if you noticed, even before 9/11 it was predicted by PNAC (and the Lone Gunman pilot episode and just plain political common sense) that any attack by arab terrorists would be an excuse to invade any tinpot dictatorship in the the ME - and in practice that's exactly what happened.

[LARED]

12. Regarding post #4

Mr. HamdenRice states

Many times the OCTers have said that the best explanation of what happened on 9/11 is the 9/11 Commission Report

I don't think any so called members of the OCT define the commission report as the "best explanation" for the events of 9/11. Please direct me to a link that has anyone stating that.

I believe the general consensus is that the 9/11 report states the facts as known when issued, but does little to point the finger at those individual and institutions that failed that day. Seriously, does anyone expect anything more than a neutral sanitized "just the facts Mamm" report from Congress realizing Congress has oversight of all the wonderful institutions asleep at the wheel on 9/11?

[sodenoue]

15. what is an OCTer?

[HamdenRice]

17. OCT = Official Conspiracy Theory, in other words ...

For a long time in this forum there have been two sides: (1) those who believe something is fishy about what happened on 9/11 and who consist of a fairly diverse group of people who believe various things about the events of that day; and (2) those who believe that the version of 9/11 told by George W. Bush and the 9/11 Commission is what happened or is the closest version of what happened.

For a long time group 2 called group 1 crazy "conspiracy theorists" for daring to question the honesty of George W "two term mandate" Bush. So group 1 noticed that the official story is also a "conspiracy theory" albeit, the "official conspiracy theory." Thenceforth Bush loving believers that the 9/11 Commission story and the words of George W. "two term mandate" Bush is the be all and end all of what happened tend to be called OCTers -- ie, "Official Conspiracy Theorists."

[sodenoue]

20. thanks

so wouldn't OCTers still believe the official story (is true)? I mean it's not like them to cut and run, or flip-flop right?

[Big Pappa]

22. That is quite a leap.

So if you believe that terrorist flew planes into the Towers and the Pentagon, then you are a "Bush lover". As Mr. T would say "I pity the fool".:wtf:

[jberryhill]

24. It's called a "false dichotomy"

In order to not be a lackey to every utterance of George Bush - as if George Bush has promulgated any personal theory of tower collapse mechanisms - you have to believe in a whole litany of mutally-contradictory crap.

But, Pappa, if you want in on the swag, just drop me a message and I'll put you on the OCT payroll. The main reason the CT'ers get so worked up is that us Bush lovers get paid the big bucks to post on DU.

[Big Pappa]

31. Thanks

I sure want to make sure I get paid well for all of my disinfo.

[LARED]

32. Once you're on the payroll, you get a fancy

secret decoder ring. The girls loves it.

Interestingly, based on Mr. HamdenRice's definition of an OCT'er, it seems none of them (whomever or wherever they may be) participate in this forum. Could be a cognitive deficit I suppose.

Thenceforth Bush loving believers that the 9/11 Commission story and the words of George W. "two term mandate" Bush is the be all and end all of what happened tend to be called OCTers -- ie, "Official Conspiracy Theorists."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=136448&mesg_id=136678

[Big Pappa]

16. Direct

and to the point. I think 9-11 was a failure at all levels. From the CIA to the FBI to local agencies, and Congress as well as the President.

[wildbilln864]

25. Isn't that a coincidence theory?

Was the Secret Service, in your opinion please, just being incompetent when they failed to rush George W. Bush from that Florida school before a hijacked plane could come crashing onto their heads? And instead they all stayed including Bush for at least 30 minutes after Bush was told the country was under attack! They thought as many as 8 planes may have been hijacked at that very time! Why didn't they get him the fuck out of there? Do you have any plausible explanation? Come on!? :shrug:

[jberryhill]

29. IMHO

I don't see the point in rushing him out of the school, as there was no threat to him there.

If one is going on "something is going on with a bunch of hi-jacked airplanes", then rushing the president to an airport in order to put him in a big blue 747 parked alone on the runway, doesn't seem like a move to a more secure situation than where he was.

Remember the incident where the SS failed to secure an intersection, and some poor schmuck ran into Gerald Ford's motorcade as it proceeded through a red light?

I'm no security expert, but if you asked me, in an uncertain and massive emergency situation, whether to move the shrub out of a secured perimeter and dash off to a large, conspicuous aircraft, then I'd be more likely to say, "Get back to me when you have no breathing creature within a block of the route, every cross street roadblocked, and you know there is nothing in the air for 500 miles in any direction."

These people had flown planes into some of the tallest and largest buildings in the country. There's nothing exceptionally identifiable about an elementary school, and the president's exact movements are not published well in advance of photo-ops like that one.

Moving him in a hurry, when he is within a secure perimeter, does not seem to be a step in the direction of maintaining maximum security.

He was told there was an attack in progress, and HE sat there like a bump on a log. Unless one of the kids lunges at him with a knife, the SS agents aren't going to bodily remove him. What order of HIS did the SS "fail" to follow. They are supposed to provide him with protection as he does whatever it is he wants to do. Clinton used to drive the SS nuts with his propensity to spontaneously approach crowds and shake hands, but it's not as if the SS was going to put a leash on him and jerk him back when he wandered off.

If Bush had gotten off his ass and said, "I'm sorry kids, but as president I have to deal with important and unexpected things, and something just happened that I have to take care of" and then told his folks to get him going, then he'd have probably been gone a lot sooner, and that crap about "I didn't want to frighten the kids" is just... crap.

But, okay, you rush him out and put him in a big blue airplane readily identifiable from miles away and thousands of feet up - conveniently located at an airport with all sorts of navigational aids.... How long are you going to sit him in that plane/target while you decide "Where are we going now?" and "Do we have a guaranteed clear sky from here to there?"

Again, I'm no security expert. Maybe you have more experience in guarding high value personnel. But it does not strike my thoroughly non-expert mind as being immediately obvious that moving him is a better idea than staying put and maintaining a secure perimeter until such time as you know where you are taking him and have secured every inch of the route to that destination.

That said, it would seem to also be plausible that whenever the president goes somewhere that a rapid extraction plan would have been reasonably worked out in advance but, hey, it's not as if the SS publishes a guide to their procedures for protecting the president (duh).

[Anarcho-Socialist]

34. You've missed the point

In regards to the subject matter, my opinion is that Bush and his cronies lied to cover up their incompetence and negligence rather than any sort of "inside-job" plan.

"Someday this dungeon will cease to be and those that consigned others to this place or who came to stare and gloat at the "conspiracy nuts" will feel the truth and the shame."

What? When the TRUTH comes out about holographic planes, death-rays from space and all structural engineers in the world being part of an uber-conspiracy? I don't know if you believe in those conspiracy theories, but some in this forum do, but I consider them wide of the mark.

"BTW, why is JFK stuff here too? Is this the 9/11 forum or the "we think you are all nuts, so get in there!" forum?"

Both, it seems. This is where the embarrassing conspiracy threads come to live.

[Amused Musings]

37. Come to live for sure,

But in that "Mutant brother locked in the attic and fed fish heads" in order to keep them away from polite company. Not so sure I would call that living. Maybe half-life.

"Someday this dungeon will cease to be and those that consigned others to this place or who came to stare and gloat at the "conspiracy nuts" will feel the truth and the shame."

-spoken like a true conspiracist- or mad scientist. Because this is a dungeon, perhaps the Count of Monte Cristo. Did you know the pyramids are actually 10,000 year old remains of the Atlantean civilization?

Has anyone here read the hilarious cult classic, The Illuminatus! Trilogy?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Amused Musings]

45. Oh please, that was a joke. You are so serious.

and you must have thin skin if you compared my provocation to burning ants... I know that you didn't explicity compare the two but still- too close not to chuckle.

As for me? I have loads of confidence. So confident in fact that I do not feel threatened when people question my beliefs.

[Bonobo]

46. Oh Jeez! I was just joking for Gawd's sake!!

Talk about thin skin...

You can give it but you can't take it, I guess.

[Amused Musings]

48. You actually think I took offense and hurt to what he said?

I suppose my light hearted tone does not translate well over an anonymous discussion boards. Oh well. Still, I am not sure how that last post gives off the impression of the quality of skin covering up my guts and bones.

[Bonobo]

49. No, you're not thin-skinned...

That's why you "called the mods on mean ol' Bonobo"...

[Amused Musings]

50. Ummmm, no I didn't,. Sorry to burst your bubble

I don't even know what was in that post that called for such action. Before you go accusing people I suggest you ask the Mod yourself. I thought I made it clear in the response that the post did not bother me. And even if it did, which it didn't- it made me chuckle, I don't think taking offense to a post, especially on this website, is enough for a deletion.

EDIT: I am posting in a forum (September 11) where I critically disagree with at least half (probably more) of the posters and then compared them to something unfavorable. Why would I not expect such a reaction?

[Bonobo]

51. Look, let's cut it out.

The only thing I want to do in this forum is get the assholes that scream at each other to wake up and see that we all agree that 9/11 was a tragedy that can be layed at Bush's door for WHATEVER REASON.

Whether it was LIHOP, MIHOP or fucking I-Hop, it doesn't matter. The coverup of the facts and Bush's incompetence are more important because he is the president and he needs to be replaced.

My point is, let's focus on things we agree on, not things we disagree on.

I am not a nut and I don't think think that believing weird shit happened that day makes you a nut.

Neither do I believe that BELIEVING that terrorists did it makes you a Bush supporter.

BOTH EXTREME POSITIONS ARE RIDICULOUS.

Let's try to get on the same page. I just feel that some here only come here because they like to fight and be cruel to each other. If so, they should find another avenue because THIS IS TOO FUCKING IMPORTANT OF AN EVENT TO BE USED AS ENTERTAINMENT FOR POSTERS!

I lost a childhood friend, a firefighter, that day. I am born and raised in NY and it hurts to see this stupidity.

[Amused Musings]

52. Agreed,

Im sorry for your loss and will keep perspective when debating these things

[nomatrix]

38. You asked a good question and I appreciate the

"facts-as we know them" approach to solving this debate. Throughout the years after the attack there has been a great deal of information that is solid enough to doubt the official story of exactly what led up to and what happened on that day.

What should be looked at, is the response to the attack. Please, step back a moment and remember that people are dying right this
moment for reasons that are not in direct response to radical group declaring war on the U.S.

If you really care about this great loss, we need to take stock of where we at, how we got there and where ultimately it will take us.

A fine documentary to examine, which looks at the years of our involvement in conflicts, occupations and wars over the past 50 years.

It is a reasoned approach using the opinions of the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC)members,
former CIA officers,
AF officers and pilots, intel officers,
President Eisenhower (5 star general)and his warning of the Military Industrial Complex, and his son Brig.General John Eisenhower,
Gore Vidal, Military historians, KBR, Congressional Reps., Dan Rather

A father who lost his son in the WTC,
the people of Iraq and Afghanistan,
and U.S. citizens

Why We Fight
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4924034461280278026&q=why+we+fight+movie&hl=en

It is also available On Demand and one of the premium channels.

There is no character assassination, name calling, or any unnecessary labeling people with "conspiracy theories". Just Facts.

The business of war & the political actors who promote them.
I guarantee you will learn something new and look at this in a different light.
Ask yourself why we are so indebted to a country we call "communist" China as needed, and why do they have technology to take out satellites at will.

Iraq is the precursor to the next conflict which will also have nothing to do with 9/11 or how the building fell.
The truth may or may not come out.
You are correct to say, it is an INSULT to lump any topic CT into an asylum forum for the far reaching.

People are dying because of this propaganda and here we are arguing still about who shot Kennedy.

[Bonobo]

42. Oh. My. God. A reasonable voice. THANK YOU! Like water in the desert...

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Bonobo]

43. You threw gas on the fire, that's all.

Here is your quote:

"I agree with you, I am tired of the booshco apologists on this forum, they really don't ever have anything to add, they just pile the BS on so high that no one can carry on a conversation."

NOW. How does that advance reasonable debate?

[Bushknew]

40. Here here

:patriot:

[wildbilln864]

53. kicking...

:patriot:

[Twist_U_Up]

55. How dense can people be ?

Im not sure if its dense or planned. Im leaning towards the latter

[wildbilln864]

56. kick!

:hi: Bonobo!
Good thread IMHO!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

57. Logical fallacy

The Bush Administration says Iraq is in the Middle East.
Nearly everything this Admin says is a lie.
Therefore it is highly unlikely that Iraq is in the Middle East.

[Grateful for Hope]

58. Logical fallacy

The Bush Administration says Iraq is in the Middle East.
Nearly everything this Admin says is a lie.
Therefore it is highly unlikely that Iraq is in the Middle East.

I think you have it a bit wrong:

The Bush Administration says Iraq is in the Middle East.
everything this Admin says is a lie.
Therefore it is highly unlikely that Iraq is in the Middle East.

The above IS a logical fallacy. Your example is not.