I Am A Conspiracy Theoririst; and proud of it!

[Beam Me Up]

It is very important that those of us who are sincere in the 9/11 Truth Movement become clear in our own minds about precisely what we are. We aren't merely "conspiracy theorirists," we are a grass-roots movement of concerned citizens and, as such, we do not CLAIM to have all the answers to our questions regarding the events of 9/11. For us, 9/11 is a puzzle precisely because there are SO MANY unanswered questions; some of which have not even officially been asked by either government or the media. We already have enough pieces of the puzzle to know that the official story of 9/11--a conspiracy theory in its own right--can not possibly be the correct account of events. At the same time, as a movement of concerned citizens we have to acknowledge that we can not possibly have all the answers to what happened on that day, who, how and why.

How could we? For one thing, we have not been given all the evidence--not by a long shot. Much of it is in government hands where it can not be seen by ordinary citizens such as we are. Some of the most important evidence has been classified and hidden from us. Worse, much of the evidence that has been made public is contradictory at best. There are many omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commision Report, for example, as Dr. David Ray Griffin has made abundantly clear in his book.

As a group of concerned citizens, we have neither the resources, the money, the authority nor the security clearances necessary to investigate the events of 9/11 the way they should have been investigated from day one. That is, they should have been investigated openly and reported on accurately and probingly by the news media. That, however, is not what has happened--quite the contrary--and we believe this fact in itself should be taken very seriously by every Citzen of the United States.

Our government is selling us the notion that the only way we can stay safe from terrorism is to give them far more power than We (The People) have ever given our Federal government before. Moreover, this call to give up more of our freedom is coming from the most corrupt Presidential Administration to have ever taken control of the White House and, by extension, Washington D. C. This government is telling us that only it can protect us from the threat of terrorism--at a cost of HUNDREDS OF BILLIIONS of dollars, much of it going into the coffers of its corporate friends--and yet it seems with every passing day, this administration makes us MORE AND MORE VULNERABLE.

This is not a joke. This is not a right/left issue. This is not a 'Reublican' or 'Democrat' issue. This is an issue of national security in the true and not 'spin doctor' meaning of the word. Our country is facing a national security crisis of unprecedented proportion--not in some future, but right here and right now. We have to begin to take OUR NATIONAL SECURITY seriously as an issue that touches each one of our lives. We aren't talking an abstraction, here, we are talking about the safety of our families and our communities--as well as our nation as a whole. It is not extreme at all to point out that, when it comes right down to it, it is UP TO US, to defend our nation--and the Constitution that legitimates it--and to do so as all its guardians are sworn to do: FROM ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. We really need to ponder exactly what that means. We've already seen what social devastation can result when a natural disaster is impacted by gross governmental mismanagement--verging on criminal neglect. In such a situation, it is not "government" which comes to the rescue--but citizens helping citizens--so long as they aren't prevented from doing so by our illustrious Department of "Homeland (in)Security." How much worse might befall us IF, god forbid, one of our cities should suffer a heinous terrorist attack with the equivalent devastation of a hurricane Katrina? How would our nation respond? Would we dispense with our Constitution and allow ourselves to be 'unified' behind what would amount to a totalitarian system?

This administration was on duty the morning of 9/11; was on duty during the anthrax attacks which have yet to be solved; allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from the caves of Tora Bora in Afghanistan; lured us into an ill-gotten war in Iraq that has cost the lives of over 2,000 service men and women and untold tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians; justified the use of torture--including that of innocent children; was on duty during the disaster of Katrina; freely admits it spies on American citizens without cause sufficient for a warrant and is ready to sell the security of our nations seaports into the hands of people we dare not trust. And this is just the short list.

This government wants us to 'trust it' to 'stay the course' and I have to ask: WHAT, DO THEY THINK WE'RE CRAZY?

We're not crazy--at least not most of us. Those of us who have been trying to put the big-picture-puzzle together, some of us for many years, are citizens who want answers to vital questions but, more importantly, WE WANT ACCOUNTABILITY. We're sick and tired of a government that, over and over again, LIES with impunity and, worse, REWARDS FAILURE at the expense of national security. We want accountability; which means we want our Congress and our Courts and our Justice Department to apply whatever laws are applicable in situations where an out of control Executive branch, in cahoots with a compromised Defense Department, run roughshod by a truly diabolical neoconservative cabal, is threatening the very survivability of our Republic.

I, personally, have no military history but to all who do, I say: Semper Fi! If there was EVER a time to come to the aid of your country, IT IS NOW.

[expatriot]

1. Wrong Forum. Read the rules...

1. Click on Rules link at bottom of page.\
2. Click on More Information at the bottom of that page.
3. Under Content, under "Where to post" there is the following:

"Posts about so-called "conspiracy theories" are not permitted on Democratic Underground, except in the September 11 forum."

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Proof that Skinner works for the Illuminati, if you ask me... nt

[RazzleDazzle]

52. Well, not officially

He probably doesn't even realize it.

Really.

[obxhead]

3. I thought this was proper placement....

I may be wrong, but I didn't read any CT flaming....

I did however read a few good points.

[Beam Me Up]

4. Freedom isn't won by sitting in the back of the bus or

hiding inconvenient truths.

[expatriot]

5. If you want September 11th conspiracy theories on the front page

start your own site. It ill-serves the progressive movement to be associated with such crackpots, IMO. Believe what you want, you are free to. But this site is a privately owned LLC, and I think the citation above is evidence of the owner's policy.

[Beam Me Up]

12. Oh. You didn't read the entire OP, did you?

You just read the first paragraph and thought this thread was about 9/11 conspiracies.

:rofl:

No, 9/11 is in the past. I'm talking about where we are right now.

[Rich Hunt]

31. thank you

I'm tired of the strong-arming tactics of people who insist one one 'correct' view of September 11th, especially since some of us have first- or second-hand knowledge of what really went on.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. This Is Actually 100% Appropriate To Be In GD, Though You May Be Casting

judgement on something you didn't even read.

The OP didn't suggest any conspiracy theories or propose any new explanations or theories. It was in fact a very well written opinion piece defending the concept. I see no problem with it being here and cannot for the life of me understand why you are so strongly against its posting. Nothing contained within it is offensive or detrimental to this site. And you are also out of line with calling them crackpots, a close-minded point of view of which in my opinion DOES in fact ill serve the progressive movement.

[Balbus]

50. Well, I guess it wasn't so appropriate after all.

[rman]

9. otoh, DU was founded because of election fraud,

which definitely involves conspiracy to violate election laws.

[marions ghost]

20. good point

the election thefts involved a conspiracy--not only the organized criminal intent kind--but a loose confederacy of players at different levels who believed their interference was warranted, practical, and even patriotic.

"Multiple biases with cumulative effects could be (and were) introduced into the election system through the independent efforts of numerous individuals acting on their own initiative in the pursuit of the same objective." (Lance de-Haven Smith (FSU) writing in the Miami Herald after the last election).

[Hieronymus]

13. Every time I visit these boards someone is attacking someone for posting

on the wrong board. Can't everyone chill and let the monitors take care of it?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[JackRiddler]

53. so kind of you to play police

God forbid people should be exposed to unpleasant... ideas.

[Twist_U_Up]

6. Count Me In !!! crackpot and all

:eyes:

[Neil Lisst]

7. it's the easiest label of all - "conspiracy theorists"

I believe just about anything can be possible, and hearing what people have to say about a topic doesn't infect with me with theories I can't reject. It's information, and it's certainly as welcome as most of the information posted here.

If I read the topic correctly, it's about those who advocate conspiracies not being dismissed as unthinking or inappropriate. The OP makes good points.

[Katherine Brengle]

8. agreed--it's the easiest way to discredit someone w/o ever having to

actual look at their ideas and see if they make sense.

I don't think showing these points of view on DU makes us look bad--I think shutting them out does, however.

[Beam Me Up]

11. Thank you both, Neil Lisst and Katherine Brengle for understanding where

I'm coming from.

At this point there is no "conspiracy" in the sense of needing to be secret. It should be apparent to most that "SOMETHING" is terribly wrong with our country. The question is, what is it? We are witnessing what once was a shining example of human ingenuity transforming itself into a social monster.

Now, the question is, what are we going to do about it? We are law abiding citizens and some of us have come to the conclusion that some people within our government are putting themselves above the law--and much worse. There is a system in place that is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but the system isn't working. Why not?

Why is there no accountability currently in the system sufficient to investigate, FOR ONLY ONE EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE MALEFICENCE, reveal and hold accountable those who were responsible for allowing 9/11 to happen?

These people have no more been questioned, truly questioned, than have the Royal families that were given safe-haven and flown out of the United States immediately after 9/11 while other US citizens could not yet fly.

These are just questions--and there are HUNDREDS of them in the 9/11 domain, alone. Why? Because we see that it ties into other subterfuges masquerading as policies emanating from this Presidency.

[OneBlueSky]

10. the most outrageous and unlikely conspiracy theory of them all . . .

is the "official" version of what happened on 9/11 . . . more holes than all the cheese in Switzerland . . .

[radwriter0555]

14. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I just know what the truth is about the

lies of the bush regime. I don't need a title or freaky sounding moniker to be a well informed citizen.

Cheers, and stand up for what's right!

[ClayZ]

16. K and R

:kick:

[LibertyorDeath]

17. Hey BMU

Great Post !

[zbdent]

18. Michael Moore was called a conspiracy theorist for quite some time

until the Bush misAdministration had to actually admit that, yes, they did fly the bin Laden family out of the country while most of the rest of the US was in aeronautical lockdown . . .

[marions ghost]

21. No one has been able to disprove

any of Michael Moore's assertions. Unfortunately things really are that bad.

[Virginia Dare]

19. The entire Bush administration is one big conspiracy if you as me..

from start to finish, point A to point B, from the 2000 election right up until today.

[Octafish]

22. If you'll have me, I'd be proud to stand with you, Beam Me Up.

A Short History of “Conspiracy Theory”

About three years after the death of President John F. Kennedy, it became a matter of official CIA policy to denigrate anyone who disagreed with the Warren Commission conclusion of Oswald as the lone gunman. So, the agency ordered its "media assets" to label anyone who disagreed with the Big Lie as a "conspiracy nut." Ever hear Corporate McPravda say anything nice about Jim Garrison or Oliver Stone?

Here's background:

How the CIA Killed History

by Ace R. Hayes
(May/June 1997 issue)
From the Portland Free Press

Editor's note: Three decades ago (4 January 1967), the CIA produced adocument (#1035-960), "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report." This document was partly declassified under an FOIA, September 1976. It is the blueprint for employing "CIA media assets" to smear critics of the Warren Commission. The justification for this perversion of truth, justice and democracy was clearly stated: "Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society."

CONTINUED…

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/news/ciakillhistory.htm

Read this CIA document 1035-960 here:

http://www.discip.crdp.ac-caen.fr/anglais/documents/america2/CIA%20Document%20_1035-960.htm


Countering Criticism of the Warren Report

http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

The term “conspiracy nut” soon evolved into “conspiracy theorist” as code for “psychotic,” “paranoid” or “kook.” Consider how quickly that label, once pinned on a person, prevents any further consideration of the person’s rhetoric, writings or discoveries.

So people who wonder why the “government” doesn’t give two figs for finding out who killed President Kennedy, a Liberal Democrat, who worked every day of his time as President to keep the peace, make life better for ALL Americans, and make the world a better place (which is a lot more than most presidents since have done or even tried) are called “nuts.”

That's what Allen Dulles, J Edgar Hoover, and their stooges and sub-stooges in Congress and the White House worked to do. And to think so many today continue their work, spreading lies. The hell with such people.

Here’s a bit of real work by David Talbot. The editor of Slate.com, Talbot’s a more accomplished journalist, writer, researcher and an all-around better source than Kos ever will be, IMFO.

The Mother of All Cover-Ups

Forty years after the Warren Report, the official verdict on the Kennedy assassination, we now know the country's high and mighty were secretly among its biggest critics

by David Talbot
This article first appeared in the September 15, 2004 issue of Salon.com

EXCERPT…

There is one sanctuary where the Warren Report is still stubbornly upheld and where its manifold critics can expect their own rough treatment: in the towers of the media elite. Fresh from assaulting Oliver Stone, not only for his film but his very character (a media shark-attack in which, I must confess, I too once engaged), the national press rushed to embrace Gerald Posner's bold 1993 defense of the Warren Report, "Case Closed," making it a bestseller. ("The most convincing explanation of the assassination," historian Robert Dallek called it in the Boston Globe.) And the 40th anniversary of JFK's murder last November sparked a new cannonade of anti-conspiracy sound and fury, with ABC's Peter Jennings making yet another network news attempt to silence the report's critics. Most of the press lords and pundits in the 1960s who allowed themselves to be convinced that the Warren Report was the correct version of what happened in Dallas -- whether because they genuinely believed it or because they thought it was for the good of the country -- are now dead or retired. But after buying the official version for so long, it seems the elite media institutions have too much invested in the Warren Report to change their minds now, even if they're under new editorial leadership.

One of the great ironies of history is that while the media elite was busily trying to shore up public confidence in the Warren Report, the political elite was privately confiding among themselves that the report was a travesty, a fairy tale for mass consumption. Presidents, White House aides, intelligence officials, senators, congressmen, even foreign leaders -- they all muttered darkly among themselves that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, a plot that a number of them suspected had roots in the U.S. government itself. (In truth, some high media dignitaries have also quietly shared their doubts about the official version. In 1993, CBS anchorman Dan Rather, who did much along with his network to enforce the party line on Dallas, confessed to Robert Tannenbaum, the former deputy chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, "We really blew it on the Kennedy assassination.")

Thanks to tapes of White House conversations that have been released to the public in recent years, we now know that the man who appointed the Warren Commission -- President Lyndon Johnson -- did not believe its conclusions. On September 18, 1964, the last day the panel met, commission member Sen. Richard Russell phoned Johnson, his old political protege, to tell him he did not believe the single bullet theory, the key to the commission's finding that Oswald acted alone. "I don't either," Johnson told him. Johnson's theories about what really happened in Dallas shifted over the years. Soon after the assassination, Johnson was led to believe by the CIA that Kennedy might have been the victim of a Soviet conspiracy. Later his suspicions focused on Castro; during his long-running feud with Robert Kennedy, LBJ leaked a story to Washington columnist Drew Pearson suggesting the Kennedy brothers themselves were responsible JFK's death by triggering a violent reaction from the Cuban leader with their "goddamed Murder Inc." plots to kill him. In 1967, according to a report in the Washington Post, Johnson's suspicious gaze came to rest on the CIA. The newspaper quoted White House aide Marvin Watson as saying that Johnson was "now convinced" Kennedy was the victim of a plot and "that the CIA had something to do with this plot." Max Holland, who has just published a study of LBJ's views on Dallas, "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes," intriguingly concludes that Johnson remained haunted by the murder throughout his tenure in the White House. "It is virtually an article of faith among historians that the war in Vietnam was the overwhelming reason the president left office in 1969, a worn, bitter, and disillusioned man," writes Holland. "Yet the assassination-related tapes paint a more nuanced portrait, one in which Johnson's view of the assassination weighed as heavily on him as did the war."

Critics of the Warren Report's lone-assassin conclusion were often stumped by defenders of the report with the question, "If there was a conspiracy, why didn't President Kennedy's own brother -- the attorney general of the United States, Robert Kennedy -- do anything about it?" It's true that, at least until shortly before his assassination death in June 1968, Bobby Kennedy publicly supported the Warren Report. On March 25, during a presidential campaign rally at San Fernando Valley State College in California, Kennedy was dramatically confronted by a woman heckler, who called out, "We want to know who killed President Kennedy!" Kennedy responded by saying, "I stand by the Warren Commission Report." But at a later campaign appearance, days before his assassination, Bobby Kennedy said the opposite, according to his former press spokesman Frank Mankiewicz. When asked if he would reopen the investigation into his brother's death, he uttered a simple, one-word answer: "Yes." Mankiewicz recalls today, "I remember that I was stunned by the answer. It was either like he was suddenly blurting out the truth, or it was a way to shut down the questioning -- you know, 'Yes, now let's move on.'"

His public statements on the Warren Report were obviously freighted with political and emotional -- and perhaps even security -- concerns for Bobby Kennedy. But we have no doubt what his private opinion of the report was -- as his biographer Evan Thomas wrote, Kennedy "regarded the Warren Commission as a public relations exercise to reassure the public." According to a variety of reports, Kennedy immediately suspected a plot as soon as he heard his brother had been shot in Dallas. And as he made calls and inquiries in the hours and days after the assassination, he came to an ominous conclusion: JFK was the victim of a domestic political conspiracy. In a remarkable passage in "One Hell of a Gamble," a widely praised 1997 history of the Cuban missile crisis based on declassified Soviet and U.S. government documents, historians Alexksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali wrote that on November 29, one week after the assassination, Bobby Kennedy dispatched a close family friend named William Walton to Moscow with a remarkable message for Georgi Bolshakov, the KGB agent he had come to trust during the nerve-wracking back-channel discussions sparked by the missile crisis. According to the historians, Walton told Bolshakov that Bobby and Jacqueline Kennedy believed "there was a large political conspiracy behind Oswald's rifle" and "that Dallas was the ideal location for such a crime." The Kennedys also sought to reassure the Soviets that despite Oswald's apparent connections to the communist world, they believed President Kennedy had been killed by American enemies. This is a stunning account -- with the fallen president's brother and widow communicating their chilling suspicions to the preeminent world rival of the U.S. -- and it has not received nearly the public attention it deserves.

CONTINUED…

http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/talbot.html

Why is it that some people make the “koo-koo” signal circling their forefinger around their temple and rolling their eyes whenever the subject is something that may be outside their understanding?

People who advance or doubt “conspiracy theories” when they are disagreeing with the “official story” are not nuts. They are not even “theorists.” They are Truth Seekers.



Inquisitive. Intelligent. Kind. Brave. Peaceful. Democrats.


Original DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4086438


BTW:

Not counting Prescott and the NAZIs, or his ancestor's work as Merchants of Death -- The Bush Crime Family have been operational since November 22, 1963.

From Dealey Plaza to Vietnam to Watergate to the October Surprise to Scott Hinckley's dinner plans the day Pruneface almost got whacked to Iran-Contra and CIA drug-running to Selection 2000 to illegal NSA spying to ENRON energy policy to 9-11 to illegal Iraq invasion to e-Selection 2004 -- one name keeps popping up: BUSH.

That's no theory. That's a fact.

Thanks for giving a damn, Beam Me Up.

[Beam Me Up]

28. Thank YOU Octafish!

You are one of my DU heros! I've learned so much hanging out here the past several years and your posts have been some of the most enlightening. Proud to stand with you against the BFEE! :hi:

[Octafish]

40. Ray McGovern said something you (and a whole lot of DU) should know...

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, in an interview with Randi Rhodes, discussed his changing beliefs regarding “Conspiracy Theorists.” He was asked about 9-11 and the security stand-down...

“All of that – all of that — strains credulity. I was foolish enough in my callow youth to believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination. (That went on). I, even in my middle age, I was inclined to believe the inquiry into the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Never. Never again, Randi, will I disparage people who look into these things and bear the brunt of criticism as ‘conspiracy theorists.’ I think those people are doing a patriotic service to this country. And I think we have to remember: The reason there are so many questions is this administration refuses to answer these questions.”

LINK:

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/live/audio_highlights?from=10

I'd rather stand with you and Ray McGovern than with those who defend Bush and his "incompetence" at best or "treason" most likely.

[EuroObserver]

56. "The reason there are so many questions

...is this administration refuses to answer these questions.”

And there's a smoking gun right there. Good quote, thanks!

(and sorry, unable to recommend this thread anymore).

[reprehensor]

51. You rock.

Here is a book you must read.

http://expendableelite.com/

[doni_georgia]

23. We are dealing with the most secretive administration in US History

As such, we have no answers, so it is easy to discount people as "conspiracy theorists." The points you brought up have NOTHING to do with conspiracy theory. Rather, you are merely wanting answers and accountability. I stand with you. Instead of bashing people here worrying about our reputations for some future election, we need to wake up to the realization that this administration is destroying this country now, and we need to do something about it NOW. We can't sit back and wait until 08 with thoughts of a fair election where the people decide. Daily this nation moves further and further away from a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. There are no guarantees. The people need to stand up now and demand that the Bush Administration quit trampling upon our rights as Americans. There is entirely too much damage that can be done in the next two years to sit idly by waiting for some Democratic Knight to ride in on a white horse and save us. With midterm elections approaching later this year, Congress has demonstrated that they will do nothing to risk losing votes. They will only act if we demand them to act. They will only speak out if we the people speak out. We elect them to represent us, but instead of asking them to represent us, we abdicate all of our power to them. It is time for the people to rise up and demand that our elected representatives do their jobs for once.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

25. That's what we need to do. How do we do it?

I try to talk to everyone I meet just about, but they don't want to know. They don't want to speak out. They don't care. About anything. And my attempt to speak to them pisses them off.

I think it's too late, but I'm always willing to try something.

[doni_georgia]

33. Pissing people off seems to be my raison d'etre lately

I simply won't give up. I talk to everyone, send emails, call in vents to the newspaper, write LTEs, write-call-fax-email my Congresscritters. I figure if enough of us start doing these things someone will eventually listen.

[Mnemosyne]

24. Bravo, Beam Me Up, bravo! n/t

:patriot:

[obreaslan]

26. Remember the "conspiracy theorists" that thought there weren't any WMD's

In Iraq? Or the "conspiracy theorists" that thought the administration ignored the Katrina warnings?

The sad thing is, a conspiracy theorist is usually someone who is paying too much attention. :shrug:

[ProfessorGAC]

27. That's Pretty Convenient

Now, just like the repukes, you change the definition of the term to suit your needs. The difference between the WMD issue and most other conspiracy theories is that there was no contradictory evidence.

There was clear and public evidence that the WMD's did not exist, since the inspectors destroyed them. There was NO clear evidence that he was attempting to obtain new ones.

So, the theories here were not about a conspiracy. They were debate points, with clear facts on one side and sloppy ones on the other, about the existence of lack thereof, of WMD's.

So, that being correct, is not evidence of a conspiracy theory that turned out to be right. It was never a conspiracy theory. It wasn't even a theory.

Sorry. Bad example.
The Professor

[obreaslan]

30. My only point was that's what people were called for believing that....

Mostly by the Right Wing talking heads on the "liberal" media. If you said that you thought the admin. was lying to get us into the war, you were labeled a "conspiracy theorist".


I wasn't trying to redefine the term.

[ProfessorGAC]

32. I Don't Think I Was

That's my point. The term conspiracy theorist implies something. It implies that one is pursuing a potential avenue of conspiracy by stacking one set of evidence against another, or the conclusions from the same sets of evidence against another.

In this case, the WMD's did not constitute that, and does not meet the implication, since there wasn't any contrary evidence that Hussein had any WMD's. We knew Silverspoon was lying, but it wasn't theoretical. They had ZERO evidence to refute the statements of the hundreds of expert inspectors who said there weren't any.

I thought you were supporting the idea of being a conspriacy theorist with the WMD. If one uses that as an example, then it falls flat, because there was no theory that he MIGHT not have WMD's. There were facts in the public view that he didn't. So, to conclude that Silverspoon and his thugs were lying wasn't a theory. It was a fact.
The Professor

[Armstead]

29. As long as you frame the unknowns as questions that's fine with me

I believe it's important to question everything, until it is known and verified instead of taking the official line blindly.

But i also believe it's important not to claim to "know" something just because it might fit into one's own worldview or suspicions or desire to find a "smoking gun" regardless of whether it actually exists or not.

I tend to think, for example, that 9-11 is basically what it is portrayed as. A successful attack by a group of radical Islamic extremists. But I'm open to any evidence that either proves otherwise, or deals with the myriad of otehr dubious circumstances surrounding and flowing from it.

What does get my own knickers in a knot, however, are people who start with an assumption that it was MIHOP or LIHOP without any concrete proof, and then try to create dots to connect. That's as much of an intellectual cop out as the opposite assumption.

It's like all of those people who "knew" within minutes that the plane crash that killed Paul Wellstone was actually a murder -- and vehemently pounded away at that as an assumed truth without any proof. Assuming the worst just because it fits in with one's darker suspicions is a very different thing than wanting to know more and find out what the real reasons for the crash were.

[Beam Me Up]

37. My only problem with what you're saying, Armstead, is it has become

increasingly difficult (for me, at least) to TRUST what representatives of government say to me. As has been pointed out in this thread and tens of thousands of times here on DU, this is the most secretive administration EVER. Worse, it LIES on a regular basis--even when it doesn't HAVE to lie. That certainly isn't a theory but has been demonstrated many times over. Their very existence, so far as I'm concerned, is based on deception and manipulation of perception. The neoconservative philosophical underpinnings promote this attitude as the inevitable necessity of those who govern. The entire edifice of the "War on Terrorism" (tm)--both in terms of domestic and foreign policy--is based upon the presumption that the information provided by government officials and echoed by corporate owned media regarding the events of 9/11 is accurate and truthful. And yet, it doesn't take much looking to figure out that AT BEST this administration is selective, extremely selective, about the information it presents.

[Armstead]

38. You have to seperate the political government from it

The political government is untrustworthy. However, the actual government has many honest career civil servants who are tryong to do a good job and do it honestly.

The same goes for the media, in a general sense. There are a lot of hardworking reporters who are tryiong to get the truth.

Personally, I tend to look to reporters who have proven themselves to be trustworthy. Symour Hersch, for example, relies on poepel deep inside the security and military establishment who are just as frustrated by the current political government or specific policies that are being imposed. IMO people like Hersch are very careful not to delve into speculation, but they do delve into the truth below the surface.

[Beam Me Up]

39. Hersch is one of my heroes--I wish there were more brave souls like his!

n/t

[Armstead]

44. Me too

He's been at it for a long time.

If there were more like him, it would be possible to trust the media more.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

45. Portrayals are fine, unless you're declaring wars over them

iran will be the third.

For me, going to war requires the absolute truth on a matter, not the most plausible portrayal.

911 needs to be re-investigated, or as I prefer to call it investigated properly.

[Citrene]

34. All of history is a conspiracy. All it takes is two conspiring.

Very proud members of the Grassy Knoll Society and we wear our "tin" proudly.

[Greyhound]

35. More like conspiracy factualist. n/t

[Jara sang]

36. The lady I work for and her husband were in Manhattan on 9/11.

He is from Manhattan. She worked on Wall Street. I came out and asked them flat out if they thought 9/11 was a "inside job". He said "The jury is still out on that one."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. Very Well Written and Intellectually Put. I'm With Ya.

Depending on my frame of mind that I wake up with each day I go from incompetent, Lihop or Mihop relating to what really happened on 9/11. The reason I run the gammut on belief is only because, as you say, there are so many unanswered questions.

I'll tell ya what though, My wife and I were watching a demolition special the other night and when I saw all the different buildings implode couldn't help thinking "shit, it just still doesn't make sense that all 3 trade center buildings came down due to the official reasons, especially building 7". The more demolitions I watch, the more suspicious 9/11 becomes.

I may never know for certain, but I do agree there are some glaring questions that should easily have been answered by now.

[Blue Belle]

43. I'm with you BMU!!

And as for those who think this post doesn't belong in the GD forum, consider your stance on the other "Conspiracy" Theories the left is always accused of:

a) JFK, RKF, MLK Assassinations.
b) Iran/Contra Scandal
c) 2000/2004 Election Fraud
d) The Downing Street Memos
e) Global Warming/Big Oil/Big Auto
f) Hurricane Katrina Response
g) The President's relationship with the likes of: Jack Abrahmoff, Jeff Gannon, Ken Lay, Saudi Royal Family, etc.
h) Dick Cheney's Blood Alcohol Level on 2/11/06

If you think all of these things happened exactly according to the "Official" explaination... remind me why you're posting on this board again?

[Beam Me Up]

47. Thanks, Blue Belle, how right you are.

I have a difficult understanding people who question so many things but NOT 9/11. Somehow this myth (and the official story is a myth--a "necessary illusion" if there ever was one) has taken on the character of a religion: an unassailable matter of faith. And yet, there is nothing more central to the genuine security of this country than clear and accurate answers to the unanswered questions surrounding that day. Example: Why was NO ONE held accountable for the 'lapses' in strategic procedure on that day? Moreover, why has the media chosen to IGNORE this question?

There can be no security without accountability.

:hi:

[earth mom]

46. Kicked & Recommended-if I could!

Looks like there are 2 conspiracies...9/11 and the push to cover up the truth about 9/11.

Who are the REAL terrorists?

Might not be too long before people start asking that question and start putting 2 and 2 together....

After all, the blase attitude by the powers that be about the port issue speaks volumes to those who are paying attention...

[laruemtt]

48. i'm with greyhound - a factualist or

truthist. i'm wondering what all those who call us crackpots now are going to say when the truth is proven.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

59. This is how it always is

"Important ideas are first ridiculed, then attacked, and then taken for granted"

Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860

A couple of my favorites about The Truth:

Arthur Conan Doyle:
Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Winston Churchill:
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

[Bushwick Bill]

49. TGIF, Beam Me Up!

"I am not a conspiracy theorist. I deal in conspiracy fact."
- Michael C. Ruppert
:patriot:

[Christophera]

54. OK, Awesome: Now WTF You Gonna' Do With It?

I'm a conspiracy theorist too. I have a plan, and, it will work but we'll have to use our rights and freedoms, mostly our hearts and minds. We'll have to learn to trust each other more than government.

http://algoxy.com/psych/optimize_for_peace.html

[jschurchin]

57. I agree Christophera, Trust in.......

each other is key. You have done some incredible research and I thank you for it. You are not alone there are others in this forum who do like work and their efforts are appreciated. I am sorry I haven't had the time to do the research necessary to properly respond to my thread about the concrete. I will try to make time this weekend. Again Thank You for your efforts.

[Usrename]

55. A while back I was asked if I'm a conspiracy theorist..

I responded with "do you believe in Iran/Contra, or was that just a wild theory? One hell of a conspiracy there. And many of these guys are the same players. Some of them were convicted and pardoned. Their guilt is not even questioned."

[Desertrose]

58. I'm with you too, BMU

and I couldn't agree more....

If asking for answers and accountability from this lying administration makes me a conspiracy theorist...well then, count me in!

DR

[Dora]

60. I'm on board. Me too, goddamnit. n/t