I know what's going on in this little dungeon here.

[balantz]

And I'm not tellin'!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

[balantz]

1. I thought it was funny.

[balantz]

2. Ha ha

ha

[Flatulo]

3. Someone's been at the catnip...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

6. I know just how you feel...

...I think.

:D

[HamdenRice]

4. Have you ever read Upton Sinclair ("The Jungle")

Fiction author, muckraker, would-be progressive socialist politician, one of his most famous quotes was:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

5. Good quote -- probably explains a lot about...

...what goes on in this dungeon.

[seemslikeadream]

7. Here you look like you could use this

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. I'm not sure whether you meant that for me or not...

...but I'll take it anyway. Thanks, Slad.

And for you:

[Laurier]

9. More appropriately,

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.

So, trying to reason diehard conspiracy fantasists out of their nutcase beliefs is pretty much futile. Fortunately, however, many temporary adherents to conspiracy fantasies do realize the frailties of the *cough* evidence *cough* presented by the "truth movement" and quickly distance themselves from it.

[petgoat]

10. I reasoned myself into 9/11 Truth. I didn't ask for this fight. It came and found me. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Maybe you should get a restraining order. n/t

[Sweet Pea]

13. Snort

There goes the milk out the nose...lol

[petgoat]

14. That's your style: Call the police of your mind, and order the scary truth to stay away. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Please don't pretend that you don't do the same thing. n/t

[petgoat]

16. I try to avoid delving into trivialities and attractive nuisances.

Big Truths like the impossibility of the official story don't get rejected.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Why don't you take a crack at laying out...

the "impossibility" of the "official story". This should be good. Remember the keyword "impossibility".

[petgoat]

19. Lack of air defense. Claimed lack of foreknowledge.

Bush in the classroom. Unarmed airliner flies 400 miles
to attack military HQ. Wimpy jet fuel fires weaken steel
and initiate completely symmetrical freefall speed collapse.
Scattered fires and damage bring WTC7 down in a tidy heap.
Debris pile melts steel. Cheney and Mineta's differing
accounts about Cheney's whereabouts. NORAD's seven different
stories.

[SDuderstadt]

22. The keyword was....

impossibility, Petgoat. Not your personal incredulity, not to mention the numerous factual errors and omissions in your list:

1) What is "impossible" about Bush in the classroom?
2) The "lack of air defense" has been explained numerous times. What is "impossible" about the hijackers turning off the transponders, pre-911 outward-looking ADIZ's and the lack of communication/coordination due to the chaos that day?
3) I find it truly interesting that you always leave out the structural damage from the jets and try to pin it on only the fires. Your intellectual dishonesty is stunning.
4) How you can describe it as "scattered fires and damage" when pictures show large fires and a large gash in the corner of WTC 7 is beyond me or, more likely, due to your stunning intellectual dishonesty. It's also silly to claim WTC7 fell into a "tidy heap" when looking at a map of the debris dispersal shows the opposite.
5) When you can prove that it was "melted steel" in the debris pile, you might have a point. Did I miss you being a metallurgist or any metallurgist at all identifying it as "molten steel"?
6) Now you're claiming that witnesses to an event never have differing accounts of the same event, so, therefore, it must be "impossible"? Oy.
7) How, exactly, would "seven different stories" from NORAD, even assuming that is accurate, prove impossibility?


It's pretty clear you don't understand the word "impossible". What's even more troubling is that you think the claims you cited somehow prove "impossibility". Oy.

[petgoat]

25. Vey

1) What is "impossible" about Bush in the classroom?

It is impossible that an American President who imagined himself to be a cowboy
and who can reasonably be assumed to have seen every John Wayne movie ever made
would when the defining moment of his life, learning his nation was under attack,
decide "OK, you guys do what you're going to do. I'm going to stay here and
comfort the womenfolk and the kiddies." Impossible.

It is impossible that the Secret Service, which went to the trouble to install SAM
missiles on the roof at the hotel the night before, was not aware of the vulnerability
of the school to aerial assault--it was just 2 miles (20 seconds) away from the
Sarasota airport and almost directly in line with its runways.

It is impossible that the Commander in Chief would, when learning of an attack on
his country, be so uncurious about the details that he'd sit on his ass.


2) The "lack of air defense" has been explained numerous times. What is "impossible" about the hijackers turning off the transponders, pre-911 outward-looking ADIZ's and the lack of communication/coordination due to the chaos that day?

The Bronner Vanity Fair article completely torpedos the "outward-looking ADIZ's" canard,
saying the problem was that NORAD radars showed every plane in the sky and there was thus
a blizzard effect. NORAD has changed its story six times, says Paul Thompson. It is
impossible that FAA officials, after three planes had been flown into buildings, would
debate whether to call in NORAD about a fourth hijacked plane. The FAA-Pentagon phone
bridge was established before 9:00 a.m. and covered all flights of interest. It is
impossible that planes scrambled from Langley to respond to a threat reported in Baltimore
would then fly out to sea.

3) I find it truly interesting that you always leave out the structural damage from the jets and try to pin it on only the fires. Your intellectual dishonesty is stunning.

The buildings didn't fall from structural damage, or even the fires, says NIST. They fell
from damage to the fireproofing. Coming from you (look at you bob and weave on the
"CD is an embarrassment" thread!) accusation of dishonesty is a tribute.

4) How you can describe it as "scattered fires and damage" when pictures show large fires and a large gash in the corner of WTC 7 is beyond me or, more likely, due to your stunning intellectual dishonesty. It's also silly to claim WTC7 fell into a "tidy heap" when looking at a map of the debris dispersal shows the opposite.

Show me a picture of large fires at WTC7. All I see is a lot of smoke, probably sucked up
from WTC6 in the vortex (there was a NW wind). If the gash you're talking about is the one
on the video, it's probably a digital artifact from rapid panning. It doesn't show in the
picture that shows the metermaid's scooter at the front.


5) When you can prove that it was "melted steel" in the debris pile, you might have a point. Did I miss you being a metallurgist or any metallurgist at all identifying it as "molten steel"?

Many witnesses described it as molten steel. Engineers and demolitionists and contractors.
Dr. Astaneh Asl said he saw "melted girders" at the WTC. Stop trying to deny the obvious.
http://governmentterror.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D

6) Now you're claiming that witnesses to an event never have differing accounts of the same event, so, therefore, it must be "impossible"? Oy.

If Minetta is wrong, he's mistaken. If Cheney is wrong, he's lying. If you examine the
evidence, one of the major sources of info on Cheney's whereabouts is his wife. Cheney
is highly motivated to lie. Cheney's account was not regarded as credible by the 9/11
Commission, and yet it has become the official story.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/56896/page/6

7) How, exactly, would "seven different stories" from NORAD, even assuming that is accurat
e, prove impossibility?

To the extent they are mutually contradictory, six of them are impossible. And the seventh
lacks all credibility.


Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, Sid, you left out point two -- the
impossibility of the claim of lack of foreknowledge of the attacks. That alone
is enough to justify my claim that the official story is impossible. You owe
somebody a big apology. But not me, 'cause I don't give a fuck. Apologize
to your mama, Sid. I'm sure she raised you better than that.

[mhatrw]

20. How were you "reasoned into" your faith that Osama and his 19 did 9/11 alone?

Where is that proof that Colin Powell promised to show the world before we invaded Afghanistan?

[hack89]

11. Don't you appreciate the attention?

don't you privately revel in the idea that your knowledge is so dangerous that the government actually spends time and money to thwart you?

[mhatrw]

21. Oh, yes! Just like I get off on thinking that powerful US insiders could

kill 3,000 US citizens in cold blood in order to gut the Constitution and launch a never-ending state of warfare.

All of stuff secretly makes me feel much better than I used to feel back when I was still able to close my eyes enough to believe in truth, justice and the American way! :sarcasm:

[hack89]

23. Special knowledge is always a heavy burden

having to deal the the great unwashed, uneducated masses that just don't get it.

[noise]

26. Special knowledge not required

One simply needs to examine the conduct of government officials in the lead up to 9/11 and then contrast that with post 9/11 claims that torture and police state domestic legislation were needed to prevent future attacks.

The authoritarian nonsense put forth by Republicans shouldn't work with Democrats. I don't accept their fake patriotic appeals and chip on their shoulder justification for torture. That is sick. No, I'm not ascribing such views to you. I would respond to the "special knowledge" argument with the "special patriotism" argument. That is when some officials think they are so special that US laws do not apply to them:

MOYERS:

Assume I'm president, and I'm going to say, Professor Firmage, that's all wonderful, but I deal in an ugly world. The United States is a wonderful place, relatively, because of this document, because of the values the founders inculcated in us, but the world beyond these borders is a pretty ugly world. People don't like us, people don't share those values, people are out to get us. And if I don't do the ugly things that are necessary to protect us from an ugly world, you won't be able to exercise the right of free speech out at that university."

PROFESSOR FIRMAGE:

I would say poppycock, Mr. President. That is simply nonsense. The whole fight is over means, not ends. Every president with every good intention, and every tyrant, with whatever his intention, has used precisely the same argument. That is, don't constrain me by means, and I will get you there safely and well. And I think any time we accept a reason of state argument to justify means that are totally incongruent with the values of our state, we're on the high road to tyranny and we deserve to be there.

Link

Talk about special! We have officials who have made the case that they must have dictatorial powers to prevent terrorist attacks! Yet the record shows they didn't do a damn thing to prevent 9/11.

[hack89]

27. Of course not. nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

29. "gut the Constitution and launch a never-ending state of warfare."

You could be just as easily talking about 1861 or 1941.

[LARED]

30. Interesting point

FDR and some of the policies he instituted and attempted to create would surely have provided fodder for CT'er for years.

[Echo In Light]

28. LOL

[balantz]

17. Bo Diddley Knows

:headbang:

[Grateful for Hope]

24. I think I know what you are sayin g here

I had been away for a while, so, catching up was almost an overload of these threads. But, because I was doing this kind of catch up, patterns emerged that I had never noticed before.

Editing because I don't have enough time in my day to defend my statements here.

Peace

[greyl]

31. Please fill us in on your theory. nt