Talkin' Shit About A Pretty Sunset

You make a pretty good point about the misplaced energy. I would never call a "truther" a moron. In fact, they tend to just be people who think you're an idiot until you agree with them and give people in power WAY too much credit.
 

Bingo!
 

I am surprised you accept at face value the government's supposed "moon landing." Even nearly thirty years ago, MTV was able to recreate the entire thing, except they replaced the USA flag with an MTV flag. I should have hoped that would have put the "moon landing" hoax to rest...
 

@ LB - This is really insightful. I would have to agree. The wide extent of frustration many people feel regarding Bush's demonic and sinlge-minded (I think single-minded people are some of the most frightening out there) abuse of power have made them vulnerable to various portals for venting. Its much easier to spread a spiteful rumor about someone when you already hate them in the first place. Its unfortunate and indeed a tragedy.
 

@ Cuff - LOL
 

Sorry Fodge, 9/11 was an inside job, as more and more people are figuring out. Governments have been false-flagging their own people for millennia to expand their own power, and they'll keep doing it as long as people don't wake up to it.

Here's one of the "Troofer" "kooks" you're talking about. Note what his 34-year career was -- "Air Force aircraft accident investigator."

Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career.

Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.
Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ...

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. …

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. …

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history." http://www.physics911.net


http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
 

Here's another "Troofer" "kook" -- again, note his 22-year Air Force career.

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.

Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…

Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.

I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder." http://video.go
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
 

And one more -- note his last paragraph, and think of it next time you type the word "Troofer":

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. 20-year Marine Corps career.

Letter to the Editor 2/5/07: Regarding 9/11 "Our government has been hijacked by means of a "new Pearl Harbor" and a lot of otherwise good and decent people who are gullible enough to think that the first three steel-framed buildings in history fall down because they have some fires that the fire fighter on the scene said could be knocked down with a couple of hoses and through which people walked before they were photographed looking out the holes where the plane hit . One of these - bldg 7, was never hit by a plane and even NIST is ashamed to advance a reason for its collapse. And, miracle of miracles, these three buildings just happened to be leased and insured by the same guy who is on tape saying they decided to "PULL" the last one to fall." http://michigandaily.com

[Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and was not hit by an airplane. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]


Statement to this website 2/20/07: "This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ...

Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?
 

"Governments have been false-flagging their own people for millennia to expand their own power"

This follows the logic of "government B to Q, so government D would do Y". It's a fallacious. Next ...

Your quotes from aircraft/military people prove absolutely nothing. They aren't people who were involved with the 9/11 cleanup --- just some random people who "have doubts" who happened to have a military history. Take that uber-kook Korey Rowe who did Loose Change. Are we supposed to believe him just because he's been in the military?? Next ...

"not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft." Well, I mean if your arguments are just lies, then I have no response.

"any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged." Which "unbiased rational investigator"? You? Dylan Avery? Riiiigt ....


"Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. …" It's doubtful to YOU and the rest of the Troofers, but that's it. Also, Troofers like to make themselves seem way more numerous than they are. Typical with these types of movemenents. But look at the LONE protesters at those Clinton rallies. HA! I scoff.

All the building 7 stuff has been long ago debunked over and over and over. See this video:

I also bash 9/11 Deniers (Troofers) because they take the same tactics as Holocaust Deniers. For example, David Irving says, roughly: There's no residue of Zyklon B gas on the brings of the alleged gas chambers. No residue, no gas. No gas, no murder of the Jews. No murder, no Holocaust. So, for example, 9/11 Deniers say, roughly, "airplane fuel doesn't melt steel. No melted steel, no plane crash brought down the towers. Therefore, no Al Qaeda attack."
 

My point wasn't that because governments in the past (inclduing our own) have false-flagged their own people repeatedly that therefore the US government necessarily did 9/11. My point was that many people dismiss the 9/11 Truth movement out of hand because they cannot accept the idea that their government would hurt them, and therefore they don't bother to look at the evidence.

Look, your use of words like "conspiranoid" and "Troofer" show that you're not interested in knowing what really happened that day. If you were objective and had the facts on your side, you wouldn't need childish insults of those who disagree with you.

I don't see how the opinions of these high-ranking military officers -- all aviation experts -- can be brushed aside as the opinions of "some random people." Again, you don't seem to want to know the truth. Which is understandable, since the truth is pretty frightening.

It's also becoming more and more widely know. Even you'll figure it out soon, although I suspect you already have.
 

I'd be quite interested to hear how the questions surrounding WTC7 have been "debunked."

A 47-story buiilding not hit by a plane suddenly collapsed, looking exactly like a controlled demolition, on the afternoon of 9/11. No plausible explanation has yet been put forth for how this happened; the 9/11 Commission Report did not even mention the building a single time!

Oh wait, I'm not an expert, how would I know what CD looks like? Well, this guy's an expert:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

I guess you'll say he's just some "random person."

If WTC was a controlled demolition, then 9/11 was an inside job. It was, and it was.
 

Fodge, can you provide a couple of sentences summary of the 1/2-hour video you cited as "debunking" the WTC7 CD theories? Or have you not watched it yourself?
 

Lonnie,

Arguing with these people is fun (because it is so easy), but it just encourages them.
A 9/11 conspiracy assumes that "the government" is some sort of organized entity that could have organized and then kept secret the conspiracy. This alone is preposterous.

Then there's the obvious question of where the people who were on the planes are hiding?
 

litoralis,

"The government" is shorthand for who pulled off 9/11 -- it was a handful of high-ranking members of the US government in coordination with US and most likely foreign intelligence agencies.

And if debating 9/11 Truthers were easy, people like you would do it with facts instead of name-calling.
 

Fodge,

Just now seeing your Jan 16th posting where you write about me:

"All our group of friends have been putting forth various sociological and psychological explanations for this abrupt change"

Well, gosh, here's an explanation -- I researched the topic, extensively, and came to a different conclusion than the one I hel when I had much less information on the topic. Don't see much of a "sociological and psychological" explanation required for that one.

There are interesting sociological and psychological explanations for why (some) people are afraid to look at and accept the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, however. Someday we can discuss that.

In the past month, Willie Nelson and Marion Cotillard (Best Actress winner from a few weeks ago) have added their names to the long and growing list of celebrity 9/11 Truther Nutjob Wacko Conspiracists.

An ex-prime minister of Italy (from 1985-92) and ex-foreign minister of Germany have both stated recently that it's well-known among intelligence agencies in Europe that the attack could not have been carried out as claimed and must have had inside techological and logistical assistance.

I've sent you already a list of
aviation, military, and intelligence experts who believe 9/11 was an inside job, and you, among other things, waved off the words of an Air Force Colonel whose position was "Air Force aircraft accident investigator" as the opinions of "some random guy."

A BYU physics professor obtains samples of the WTC 1 and 2 debris, tests them for thermate (the explosive commonly used in controlled demolitions), finds the debris tests positive, and your response to this is that Dr. Jones is "sexless."

Still waiting for an explanation of how WTC 7 came down -- the 9/11 Commission Report had no explanation, still waiting to know why Cheney gave a stand-down order for the plane that eventually flew into the Pentagon, as Sec. Mineta testified before Congress, still waiting to hear why none of the 19"hijackers" names were on the passenger lists for the 4 flights that morning, etc. etc.

There's no explanation for any of it, 7 years later. If you and yours can comfort yourself by making fun of those who have serious doubts about what happened on 9/11, then go ahead. You seem to have a need to do so, as you keep writing about the 9/11 Truth movement on your blog.

But please come to the table with some facts instead of name calling. Whenever I've debated this topic with you in the past, you quickly google an answer to whatever question pops up which shows me you haven't invested the time to analyze 9/11 with an open mind.

I know you have doubts about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, both because you've told me so and because you feel the need to keep attacking truthers in childish language on your blog.

Look, we're in for a weird period. Our leaders are out of control and have plans to increase their power massively via shredding the Constitution. We're going to need a 9/11 Truth and Reconciliation Commission like the ones in post-Pinochet Chile and post-Apartheid South Africa and we're going to need a restoration of the Constitution. No one knows exactly how it's going to shake out, but burying your head in the sand re 9/11 only plays into their plans, and ridiculing those who've taken the time to understand the situation isn't helpful, either.
 

Litoralis --

I don't think the people killed on 9/1 are "hiding" anywhere, they're very likely all dead. That you ask that question tells me that you haven't looked very deeply yet into alternative explanations of what happened on 9/11 -- most of them don't involve passengers on the planes still being alive somewhere.

The best guess I've seen as to what really happened on 9/11 comes from science writer Jim Hoffman, who's "Operation 404 Scenario" is, unlike the official 9/11 explanation, entirely plausible.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html
 

One other thing, Lonnie and Litoralis -- you claim that 9/11 Truthers feel they have absolute truth and are therefore not open to new evidence, changing their minds, etc.

But I think the opposite is true. I spent the first 6 1/2 years after 9/11 as a "Falser," and then I switched over to the "Truther" camp when I got (alot) more information.

But I'm always willing to look at new information, or debate any aspect of 9/11 with any knowledgeable person at any time. If new evidence comes to light, I'm perfectly willing to change my view on 9/11 and admit I was wrong.

So if debating 9/11 Truthers is so "easy," Litoralis, then I'm here to discuss any 9/11 topic you want. I know you'll either not respond or beg off weakly with something about not wanting to waste your time, etc., but if you're game enough to back up your words, I'll be checking in all night.

You too, Lonnie. There are two competing realities here, which means somebody is living in a world that is very, very different from what they perceive it to be. Better hope it's me...I'd prefer it was me...but it's not.

Discuss away. Or don't, your call.
 

OK, I'll get us started.

Fodge, you claim that this statement of Col. Nelson's is a "lie":

"with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged."

Well, can you provide a single photo that shows any evidence of a plane crash at that site?

On the contrary, here are two local news stations' reports on that crash site from Sept. 12, 2001 which were played once and then not again. They both show clearly, with video and with witnesses, that a 757 did not crash there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tTiUtgJPy0

Do a google image search on "plane crash" and see if you can find a plane that crashed into the earth, anywhere, where large pieces of the plane were not visible. You won't find one.

Response?

Love, yer Troofer friend
 

Our Anonymous friend has left TEN comments on a single post on this blog --- a record. Congrats.

If anyone has actually read the ten comments above and is still here, I'd refer you to a few websites on the issues our Troofer friend has been ranting about so desperately.

WTC 7 Conspiracies Debunked

9/11 Myths

Debunking 9/11

Internet Detectives

There's also the hilarious blog Screw Loose Change which has plenty of good links on the righthand side.

Here's an excellent article by George Monbiot about the threats that the tinfoil hat brigade poses to real criticism of those in power.

As for the 33-year aircraft guy's quote, honestly, who knows. I know nothing about aircraft explosions, and neither do you --- REALLY. I mean, sure, you're "Internet educated", but that's it. Anyway, just because he says that quote still proves nothing. So, the guy's never seen anything like what happened on 9/11. Has he ever said anything like you're saying about Dick Cheney bombing the towers?

As for any other effort on my part, I'm done. The TEN comments on this blog should be enough to prove the silliness of Trooferdom; I'd encourage my readers to read the above and have a good laugh.

Cheers,
Lonnie B.
 

Don't run away now, Fodge. Anyone can Google "9/11 Debunking" and copy the first few URLs that show up to their website.

Humor my Troofer conspirazoid socio-psychologically analyzable self by answering my one question: you called Col. Nelson's comment that no plane crashed at the PA site a "lie," with no further evidence to back up your statement.

In response, I asked you to find one photograph anywhere online that supported the theory that a 757 crashed in Shanksville, and sent you a short youtube of two Sept. 12, 2001 newscasts (FOX and NBC) that showed clearly that no Boeing had crashed there.

And your response was...run run run and "I'm done!"

Interesting that you have the time (and inclination) to type multiple, mocking blog posts about us Troofers, but once the debate begins...it's adios in a heartbeat.

Don't worry Fodge, I still luvs ya.
 

I think it's hilarious that one of the examples he lists as a truther is our beloved Wille Nelson.

A great American country singer who also happens to smoke more potpourri than the senior class of Oberlin.

Paranoia runs deep, into your hearts it will creep.

LB- I can understand having an opinion like the truthers, but what's with the need to spread "the word"? It's like a cult. I'd listen with interest albeit skeptical if they weren't so frickin desperate sounding.
 

All Rounder --

Thanks for your evidence-free, mocking post. We Troofers are used to those, believe me.

The point of mentioning Willie Nelson isn't that he's an aviation or military expert -- we've got plenty of those kinds of 9/11 Troofers, though.

The point of bringing up a celebrity like Nelson is to legitimize the belief, which has been intentionally stigmatized by those who don't want the truth known.

So All-Rounder, if you've got no love for Willie, why not pick on Andreas von Bulow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_von_B%C3%BClow, former German Defense Minister, or former Italian president Francesco Cossiga, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Cossiga, both of who state unequivocally that 9/11 was a CIA false flag operation?

So much easier to just make fun of stoner Willie, especially when you don't know much about the topic at hand.
 

And hey, All Rounder -- since you're no Willie Nelson fan, here are dozens more Troofer celebrities who all know the 9/11 story is a lie. Maybe you can make witty derogatory comments about them, too...

Ed Begley, Jr.
Charlie Sheen
Martin Sheen
Ed Asner
Eminem
Woody Harrelson
Mos Def
Mark Ruffalo
and for you, Fodge...Ministry!

http://patriotsquestion911.com/media.html

The sheople are waking up, and I'm glad about it. I don't think Troofer's sense of urgency should be tough to untangle, All Rounder -- they're going to hit us again at some point, and then it's adios, Constitution.
 

Don't miss Mos Def's awesome 9/11 Truth song "Tell the Truth" -- note Eminem on backup ("Bush knocked down the towers")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0&feature=related
 

All Rounder,

Troofers and others with Total Conspiranoid Ideologies have the TRUTH; notice the name of the "movement": 9/11 Truth. They're not looking for the truth, as you and I understand it, because they have the Truth, and you'll either accept this wisdom from the enlightened sages who run the "movement", or get out of the way. The ideology is total, locked. It's not like they want to find out details of what happened on 9/11, as you and I understand it; they want you to believe that Dick Cheney (and other mysterious no-names) carried out a one trillion dollar hit against our own financial and military centers, hijacked planes (actually, some Troofers believe they were not planes, but holograms) just so they could carry out a war (nevermind that they could have just done that anyway like they've done against many many countries since 1945 with any violent pretext).

Troofers have spent considerable portions of their lives sifting through tons and tons of information to find the links they're looking for to back up the theories they have. This was done with the JFK kooks as well like Jim Fetzer. So take Fetzer. How easy is it to argue with him? Well, he's spent thousands of hours of his life combing through literally millions and millions of pages of documents that you or I will never read and have no desire to waste our lives obessessive about such rabbit holes. Again, they're not unintelligent people.

Troofers are similar. So, Anonymous encourages me to "find one photograph anywhere online that supported the theory that a 757 crashed in Shanksville." Do you think I'm going to spend more than one minute trying to do this? just to fuck around with someone who thinks that the US government committed the 9/11/01 attacks? It's like saying, "Prove to me that that on August 5, 1956, John Foster Dulles did not order the Soviet Union to invade Czechoslovakia."

What's more interesting to me is to analyze what motivates people with Total Conspiranoid Ideologies. For one, there's some reward in being a little amatuer detective --- a gumshoe, if you will. In the fantasy world of the conspiranoids, anyone can become one and it's a Dan Brown-esque puzzle-solving activity. I also think Troofers legitimately want to cleanse the system and punish perpetrators, and they can become fighters for justice against all odds. There's a real reward in that.

Anyway, I use the term "Total Conspiranoid Ideologies" because it is an ideology that trumps all else and provides a simple answer to many of life's questions, in many cases. It's important to note that Anonymous also belives an entire checklist of conspiracy theories ( know him well!).

Anyway, I would pity these people if some of them weren't such complete vermin (not talking about Anonymous. I'd encourage you to watch this video where leading Troofers make fun of the "government story" that Americans on hijacked flights fought the terrorist.
 

Well, you claimed it was a "lie" when Col. Nelson wrote about the Shanksville plane, I provided a short youtube showing it was not a lie but the truth, and you went into another one of your evidence-free rants.

So let me do the not-very-tough sleuthing for you. I go to Google iage search, I type in "Shanksville plane 9/11" and I see what comes up.

Lo and behold, no evidence of a plane there at all. Just like the colonel said.

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=shanksville+plane

You're being a hypocrite when you claim 9/11 Truthers have inflexible views on this subject. It's you that's impervious to evidence, not us.

But the movement is getting larger, and there's a reason for that. You'll see the (T)ruth soon, I'm sure.
 

Hey Damon, let's make this interesting.

I'll bet you $100 that by the end of 2008, you'll believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

That's the whole bet -- if on Dec. 31st you don't think it was, I'll pay you $100. If you do, you fork over the cash.

Whaddya say?
 

I'll Take that bet, Double or nothing If I also start believing in Jesus?
 

Jesus? Sorry, I only deal in reality.
 

"But the movement is getting larger, and there's a reason for that. You'll see the (T)ruth soon, I'm sure."
 

I do not know about that, but the theory of "Jesus" and the theory of "9-11" seem to be connected or from integrated sources, Don't you think?
 

Yes, but not in the way you're saying.

Since it was released in June of last year, the #1 movie on Google Video has been "Zeitgeist." It's been seen by roughly 60 million people, and it's only available online.

Part 1 is about Jesus, part 2 is about 9/11, and part 3 is about the Federal Reserve.

If you want to understand the world, watch it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&hl=en
 

I do not pretend to want to understand the world, I do not even understand myself, But I can think and dream, I am personally, currently indifferent to the idea of these conspiracies, I have not enough evidence either way, My issue is mainly motivation and result, Maybe those are intangible in this case? The largest hole I see is in the scale of the "Conspiracy". I gather from reading on both sides that it would be rather large? Or could it be done with a few dozen people? How do you round up and execute 3,000 random people without someone coming forward? I am not sure, Is that possible? Even if it was, and you could command that kind of power then the whole point of the attack is mute, "They" already have the power "they" seek, What more do "they" need to prove? I am not sure? If a grand conspiracy exists in the gov't, It kind of sucks, Are you really telling me that is the best they can do? I find that interesting.
 

And Lonnie -- while you're pondering my bet, let me address one of your earlier points.

The 9/11 false flag had several goals, only one of which was a free hand in the Middle East and Central Asia to pursue wars over natural resources.

It was also an attack on the American people -- it's no coincidence that the PATRIOT Act was passed just six weeks after the attack. And I think most of us have figured out by now what the PATRIOT Act has done to the Constitution.

And what happened to the two US senators who were trying to hold up the PATRIOT Act, fearful of its effects on civil liberties? Those would be Senators Daschle and Leahy, as you recall -- and, by complete coincidence, I'm sure, those two senators were the only two lawmakers who had weapons-grade anthrax sent to their offices.

The PATRIOT Act soon passed.

Intelligence agencies and bankers run the world. Who do you think put the phrase "conspiracy theory" in your head so you wouldn't think too hard about these things?
 

Matt,

I already had a bet with you that you did not fulfill. You were supposed to lick my balls when Ron Paul crashed in a ball of flames (like the plane into the Pentagon, if you will), and as I still sit here, my balls are DRY.

D.
 

LX --

I had heard of the 9/11 Truth movement before last June, when I become one of them, but two things had kept me from ever really looking into it.

One, I simply couldn't believe that members of our own government would kill 3,000 innocent Americans. Let me just say that I've gotten way over that belief...those attracted to the highest levels in government, and competent enough to get there, don't view humanity through the same lens as you and I.

Two, I didn't think it was technically feasible to pull off. As I recall my biggest questions were: how could it have logistically been pulled off? Why hadn't anyone come forward? And wouldn't everything have had to go perfectly?

Here is the best guess we have so far of how it was pulled off:

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

Here is the same writer, Jim Hoffman, on why no one has come forward (in short, it took far fewer people in the know than you'd suspect -- a few dozen, not hundreds or thousands):

"Through their positions of access in the military command structure, a very small group of people would have been able to appropriate these technologies to carry out the attack. While the attack is engineered by a core of only a dozen people, vast numbers of people facilitate the attack and cover-up, for the most part unknowingly, by simply doing what they normally do in their positions: promote and protect their agencies and the status quo. The public at large participates in the cover-up by failing to question the attack and instead believing the relatively comforting myth of bin Laden."

And finally, it's likely that not everything went as planned on 9/11. Of course the intelligence agencies who planned the attack had layers of contingencies for any possible mishap in the execution -- such Plan B (and Plan C, and Plan D) scenarios would be standard for such an event. For example, among 9/11 researchers, it's believed that the way WTC 7 was eventually brought down was not likely to have been Plan A -- the building was obviously demolished with explosives and had dozens of cameras trained on it by 5 PM, when it imploded.

It's a sick thing they've done. Much of the planning was psychological, knowing how reluctant people are to believe something so heinous about their own government.
 

Appreciate the South Park reference, Mr. Bruner, but why not take the bet? Sounds like an easy $100.

2008 is going to be an interesting year, kids. Buckle up.
 

My "Operation 404" link keeps getting cut off.

Google "Attack Scenario 404" and click on the first link to see it. It's fascinating; I suspect it's pretty close to what really happened that day. Unlike the government's story, it fits all the facts.
 

$100 doesn't sound too confident on your part. You sure you believe your own Truthiness? How about $1,000.00? I could stand to have a little extra New Year's cash....
 

Hilarious. Dumb ass bush league troofer arguments that have been debunked all over the place.

Loved the part about a BYU professor finding thermate (or was it thermite?). Gotta love it. Sulfur, therefore thermate. Never mind that the gypsum drywall all over the towers contained all sorts of sulfur. And where's the reactive metal? Plus, thermate works by gravity; it drips down and melts what's underneath it, ya douche. It's not an explosive; it's an incendiary - if it was present on 911, you'd have better evidence than sulfur in the pile.

This is all very elementary, very explainable. But you little wimp douches with probable daddy issues will keep bringing this shit up until your meaningless empty lonely deaths.

That BYU professor? The dismissed Steven Jones also wants to prove that Jesus was an American: http://web.archive.org/web/20051124053614/http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext+and+figures.htm

Here's the end of the line for you truthdouches:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080306/us_time/doesnewyorkhaveaserialbomber

Patrick
 

Oops.

Steven Jones the academic nut:
http://tinyurl.com/2qp23k

End of the line for truthdouches:
http://tinyurl.com/28vnqt
 

Saying this or that ex-military officer has endorsed twooferism isn't very meaningful. There are 30 million veterans in this country, some have become mentally ill, others have a major axe to grind (most of these probably fall into the first category as well). They don't speak for veterans.

People believe this crap because they want to believe it, not because there is credible evidence to bolster. Heck, almost all of the twoofer evidence is simply made up. Stephen Jones also claims he proved Jesus came to North America, if science runs up againsts his personal views, he adjusts the science.
 

Anonymous(s):
Ease down and convince me, Why do you want me to believe your arguments? Beyond the obvious? What is your motivation to take up the crusade? Destory the establishment, Change the establishment, reform the establishment, or other?
 

Holy SHIT! I should have known this was going to happen. My original post proved pretty true. The Truther contingent says, "You haven't really done any real research, you've just googled it." Then say, "If you want your mind blown, google...." There's tons of info out there on both sides it's just a matter of what you choose to believe. No one's changing anyone's mind.
 

I officially give up.

We're living in two competing realities, and one of us -- me, or the other 10 people who've posted here -- inhabit a world that's far, far removed from reality.

Time will tell who's living in the real world and who's living in shadowland, and probably not much time.

Good luck.
 

Anonymous,

Things don't suck. We have plenty of time. There are things that need to be changed, of course, but there's no shadow conspiracy.

In every generation, there's a certain douchebag element that believes (whether or not based on religion) either that the world is coming to an end, or that the elite are scheming behind our backs - sometimes both.

I take some comfort that the latest Big Economic Crisis is that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans, have spent the last few years living in big houses that they weren't ever supposed to afford.

We're all OK.

Patrick
 

Is that like reverse Mcarthyism of our generation? If the shoe fits....
 

Two competing realities, Patrick.

Mutually exclusive.

Things aren't OK, far from it.

Good luck.
 

Well, anonymous, my reality is based on science. Yours is based on content provided by people who are lamely attempting to profit from a horrible tragedy.
 

That last comment was me, Patrick.
 

The best part of that comment is that what each side says about the other.
 

For nubnuts who wanted photo-evidence of a crash in Shanksville:


One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
 

Bush's buddy, "100 year war" McCain will possibly "win" the 2008 election and continue with the bush doctrine for another 4 or 8 years so don't expect the 911 movement to die down anytime soon.

-Greg
 

Greg,

COLIN told me he's voting for Obama. COLIN! He's always voted Republican.

Something's happening dude ...
 

As I said, arguing with these people is fun and easy...and it certainly encourages them!

I wish I could respond individually to comments, but since they are all anonymous and because my government surplus mind reading tool is version 1.0 (i.e. can't read through aluminum foil), I will just respond generally.

Evidence of plane crash in Shanksville was already posted above. I assume this is easily de-debunked by some theory involving evidence planted by the same shadowing "government" that planned the attacks?
The fact is that a conspiracy theorist can always come up reasons to support their conclusions because they are not burdened by such obstacles as evidence, science, rules of physics, etc.

The thing I find most offensive about the 9/11 Troofers is that that by assuming a government conspiracy instead of a terrorist act, they attempt to shift the focus from the real danger in the world (islamofacism) to a nonexistent conspiracy that will never be found. The poor Troofers can thus avoid dealing with the scary reality of islamofacism by tilting at windmills, thereby keeping their fragile psyches intact.
 

Alex,

Those are some convincing photos! I especially like 3 and 4, which don't show any recognizable airplane debris at all. Just some government guys walking around in the woods.

The other four don't look at all like someone just put a piece of debris on the ground and photographed it. The government would never do that, nor would it cover up its own crimes.

I especially like photo #1, where the ferns next to the gingerly-placed part of a "plane" are 100% undisturbed.

Were these taken anywhere near the 15-foot debris-less crater where the plane supposedly struck the earth? Only the government knows.

Again, there was no recognizable airplane debris at that site:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tTiUtgJPy0
 

Litoralis --

You have a worldview that is 180 degrees wrong. The real threat Americans face is not "Islamofascism," it is fascism from within our own borders.

Ever heard of Carl Schmitt? German political philosopher who claimed that those who want to seize power need to create a foreign "enemy image" to stir up fear in the people, and get them to hand over their liberties.

Sound familiar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt#On_Dictatorship
 

Litoralis --

I have to admit, this thread fascinates me. You claim that it's us "truthers" who twist the facts to suit our theories, yet it's you who won't even consider the possibility that the government a) did this and b) is covering it up.

Just to be real specific: do you not find it odd that according to the two newscasts I linked to (here it is again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tTiUtgJPy0) there is no recognizable airplane debris in or around the hole in the ground where the government says a Boeing 757 went down the same day this footage was shot.

It's only two minutes long -- watch it. One is Fox and one is NBC. There's an aerial shot from a news helicopter right over the hole, and there are no airplane parts to be seen at all.

One of the reporters interviews a news photographer on the scene who says "there's nothing there at all to indicate that a plane crashed there." And you can see that with your own eyes.

So Litoralis, explain to me how a rational person like yourself can look at that evidence, a simple 20minute newsclip, and not wonder very seriously about whether a plane had crashed there?

And then, how can you look at the six photos Alex posted and weight those more heavily than the newsclip? Two of those photos (3 and 4) don't even show any debris, while 1,2,4, and 5 could have easily been staged, and are so close-up that they could have been taken anywhere.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be rude -- how can you look at the newsclip, and then those 6 photos, and come down on the side of the photos?
 

I really don't care whether you find the photographs convincing. These pictures were presented at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. Evidently, the prosecution, judge, and 12 jurors were sufficiently convinced. Your personal biases are of no interest to me, nor are your idiotic rationalizations. If you're stupid enough to believe that the hundreds of investigators at the scene of that crash were all complicit in fabricating evidence and covering up "The Truth", then there's no amount of evidence which will change your mind. You've picked a pretty unusual belief system to place your faith in, but hey, the constitution guarantees you freedom of religion so have at 'er.
 

Alex,

Speaking of Moussaoui...the reason the government gave for not releasing any footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon is that it was evidence in Moussaoui's trial. In addition to the dozens or hundreds of cameras that would have caught the plane from the Pentagon itself, security tapes were also seized by the FBI from a nearby Sheraton hotel and Citgo gas station.

Yet it's been two years since Moussaoui's conviction, and the government still won't show us a tape of what hit the Pentagon.

Does that make you a little bit suspicious? Can't release 30 seconds of videotape showing the plane hitting the building?

Turn on those critical thinking skills, Alex -- I know you can work up a little skepticism!
 

That's what you call scepticism?

Fine, here's my scepticism:

1) I'm sceptical about your claim that there are hundreds of cameras on the pentagon which would have caught the crash. Prove it.

2) I'm sceptical about the idea that you've ever filed a freedom-of-information request to get the videos which you're asking for. Prove it.

3) I'm sceptical of the idea that the federal government has the legal right to release videos which were taken from private businesses. Prove it.

4) Since the plane would have covered about 3.75 miles in 30 seconds, I'm sceptical of the idea that it would be possible for ANY camera at ground level to capture 30 seconds of it's flight, let alone 30 seconds of it hitting the building.

5) I'm sceptical of the claim that hundreds if not thousands of people could be involved in faking an aircraft accident, without a single one blowing the whistle.

6) I'm sceptical of the idea that anyone other than you would be dumb enough to go through the trouble and risk of faking two airplane crashes when just 20 minutes earlier two actual aircraft had been used to attack the WTC.

I'm deffinitely not sceptical of the fact that you're a friggin' moron, though. 5 seconds of thought would have been enough for any rational person to realize that none of your points make any sense whatsoever.

Not to mention that you've now gone from accusing the thousands of investigators at the Shanksville crash site of covering up "The Truth" to also accusing the thousands of investigators and dozens of witnesses at the Pentagon crash site of ALSO covering up the truth.

Frankly, if I were one of the people involved in those investigations, I'd be looking to stomp your face in right about now.

I once saw a video of Buzz Aldrin knocking out Bart Sibrel for calling him a fraud and a liar, and accusing him of faking the moon landing. As much as I'm not a fan of using violence to suppress speech, I thoroughly enjoyed that video. Sometimes the only logical response to a belligerent idiot is a punch in the mouth.

P.S. If you truly consider yourself a sceptic, you may want to think about why all of the worlds sceptical societies think that you and your compatriots are nothing more than a running gag.
 

"Sometimes the only logical response to a belligerent idiot is a punch in the mouth."

Agreed.

Alex, please start a blog. At least for the benefit of the rest of us.
 

Thanks for the suggestion Lonnie. I've been considering it on and off for a while, but I'm loathe to start any sort of publicly viewable project without first having a general plan of where I want to go with it. I've been playing around with some ideas recently, though, so hopefully I'll be ready to start it up in the next few months.
 

Just to be clear -- you think the Pentagon doesn't have hundreds, or at the very least dozens, of security cameras trained on the building and its immediate surroundings?

You don't really think that.
 

"momentum," eh? So your story is that the 757 smashed into the ground, left a 20-foot gouge in the earth, and then tumbled off to...somewhere, not even damaging a building less than 50 feet away, as seen clearly in the video.

So what happened to the magic plane after its magic momentum carried it away from the hole it created? Where did it go?

I figure I have to be making a little progress on the deprogramming, since now you and Lonnie have added threats of violence to your usual repertoire of cussing and name-calling.

So Alex...where's the plane?

And at the Pentagon...where's the plane?

I haven't personally filed an FOIA request, but many news and citizens' organizations have, as you know. And the government won't release the tapes.

So you're left arguing that the Pentagon -- the center of the US military-industrial complex -- wouldn't have security cameras trained on its own building and grounds to catch on tape a 757 slamming into the side of it.

You don't believe that for a second, and neither does Lonnie.

As for the "hundreds or thousands" of people required to cover up such an operation, keep in mind that people in hierarchical structures work on a need-to-know basis, with punishment and rewards easily doled out to those who follow or disobery commands.

In the case of those NTSB guys scouring the wreckage site, they're likely told: look for debris. And not much else. They're not actively covering anything up, just doing their jobs.

Here is a short FAQ on Jim Hoffman's site addressing several of this kid of (very valid) question (how come no conspirator has come forward, how many people would the conspiracy have required, etc)

http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/conspiracy.html
 

Here's another deadly U.S. government conspiracy and cover-up for you, Alex...that even the History Channel admits is true: the Anthrax sent to Sen. Daschle and Leahy's offices in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks came from...the US Military-industrial complex. I'm sure it had nothing at all to do with the fact that Leahy and Daschle were the only two lawmakers holding up passage of the Patriot Act. YouTube is one minute, 27 seconds.

Alex will say: "It can't be true!! Our government would never hurt us!! Where are the whistleblowers?? I'm going to punch any Twoofer who says otherwise!! I can't handle the deprogramming!"

The Twoofers are...the History Channel!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdamOzrfZI0&feature=PlayList&p=11D940354898042A&index=0
 

Why is it that the most egotistical people in the world are always the ones who have the least to be egotistical about?


You see the problem here, Lonnie. I think Mark Twain pretty much outlined the exact problem we're facing when he stated that "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes". In 5 sentences this clown can spit out 5 plausible-sounding lies, while it takes 5 paragraphs to explain in detail the fallacy behind each one.

Actually, that's what the project I mentioned earlier is all about - I'm thinking of creating a collaborative wiki-style repository dedicated entirely to dealing with myths and conspiracy theories. Initially I'm planning on primarily addressing 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if that goes well, then the sky's the limit. There's enough woo out there to keep us busy for a lifetime.

The only good thing to come out of this thread is that your suggestion, combined with this clown's mindless drivel, have convinced me to get the project moving. I just registered a domain, and am in the process of figuring out which wiki software to use. I'm leaning toward TWiki, but I'm open to suggestions. In any event, thank you both: Lonni, for your interesting articles and your encouraging words, and Anonymous, for being such a perfect caricature of the typical mindless zealot.
 

9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns

These conspiracy idiots are a boon for Bush and Blair as they destroy the movements some of us have spent years building

George Monbiot
Tuesday February 20, 2007
The Guardian

'You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the new world order ... bought and paid for." "Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and special branch recruit agents?" "Shill, traitor, sleeper", "leftwing gatekeeper", "accessory after the fact", "political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all".

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the United States government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my leftwing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I've blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.

I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a longstanding plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the twin towers with explosives without attracting attention and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever.

In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.

The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on the Guardian Comment is Free website, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467. On the same day the Guardian published my article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain's biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE Systems. It drew 60 responses. The members of the 9/11 cult weren't interested. If they had been, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.

Many of those who posted responses on Comment is Free contend that Loose Change (which was neatly demolished in the BBC's film The Conspiracy Files on Sunday night) is a poor representation of the conspiracists' case. They urge us instead to visit websites like 911truth.org, physics911.net and 911scholars.org, and to read articles by the theology professor David Ray Griffin and the physicist Steven E Jones.

Concerned that I might have missed something, I have now done all those things, and have come across exactly the same concatenation of ill-attested nonsense as I saw in Loose Change. In all these cases you will find wild supposition raised to the status of incontrovertible fact, rumour and confusion transformed into evidence, selective editing, the citation of fake experts, the dismissal of real ones. Doubtless I will now be told that these are not the true believers: I will need to dive into another vat of tripe to get to the heart of the conspiracy.

The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents. Witness the respondents to my Loose Change column who maintain that the magazine Popular Mechanics, which has ripped the demolition theories apart, is a government front. They know this because one of its editors, Benjamin Chertoff, is the brother/nephew/first cousin of the US homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff. (They are, as far as Benjamin can discover, unrelated, but what does he know?)

Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the new world order, I would say that, wouldn't I? It's all part of the plot.
 

Wow that article really captures my opinion on this better than I could express. Too bad it won't change anyone's mind
 

Alex --

Since you wonder about how big a conspiracy can be and still be kept quiet, thought you might like to know who killed JFK.

This interview is with a woman named Madeleine Duncan Brown, who had a decades-long affair with LBJ. He fathered an illegitimate child by her, and paid child support on the boy for 21 years.

The boy died in a government mental hospital in 1990 after his mom told him who his dad was and he threatened to go public.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6962062879996612313&q=duncan+brown

Here's the video, and here's a 2006 thread on Democratic Underground of people's reactions to watching the video. As you can see, almost all of them find Brown credible, and it rocks their worldview.

I won't ruin the ending by telling you who killed JFK, I'll let you see that in the video. But 11/22/63 was nothing less than a coup d'etat.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2044310
 

No thanks. The JFK conspiracy theories have been covered so many times that the market is over-saturated. The 9/11 lunatics will keep me busy enough. Thanks for the suggestion, though!
 

Yes, and Johnson was so madly hungry for presidential power that he decided not to run again for president in 1968...