9/11 Insider Trading

[nebula]

Profiting From Disaster?
Investigators Checking On Unusual Trading In Stock Options

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2001

(CBS) Sources tell CBS News that the afternoon before the attack, alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the U.S. stock options market.

An extraordinary number of trades were betting that American Airlines stock price would fall.

The trades are called "puts" and they involved at least 450,000 shares of American. But what raised the red flag is more than 80 percent of the orders were "puts", far outnumbering "call" options, those betting the stock would rise.

Sources say they have never seen that kind of imbalance before, reports CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. Normally the numbers are fairly even.

After the terrorist attacks, American Airline stock price did fall obviously by 39 percent, and according to sources, that translated into well over $5 million total profit for the person or persons who bet the stock would fall...


continued:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/main311834.shtml

* When the the CIA analyzed the stock market after Sept. 11, they discovered a massive shorting of airline stock...when the stocks hit bottom on Sept. 12, somebody made a fortune.'

* Merrill Lynch saw 12,215 put options placed on UA and AA stock in the three days before 9/11.

* At Morgan Stanley, 2,157 put options were placed on these stocks in the same period prior to 9/11.

* The average put options placed on these companies prior to 9/11 was 27 per day.
There was no similar trading activity on any other airlines.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kxE6lftTWU

[nebula]

1. Insider Trading

Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge



Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. 1 The evidence of insider trading includes:

* Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines

* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group

* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America

*Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon

*Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes

In each case, the anomalous purchases translated into large profits as soon as the stock market opened a week after the attack: put options were used on stocks that would be hurt by the attack, and call options were used on stocks that would benefit.

Put and call options are contracts that allow their holders to sell and buy assets, respectively, at specified prices by a certain date. Put options allow their holders to profit from declines in stock values because they allow stocks to be bought at market price and sold for the higher option price. The ratio of the volume of put option contracts to call option contracts is called the put/call ratio. The ratio is usually less than one, with a value of around 0.8 considered normal. 2
Losers

American Airlines and United Airlines, and several insurance companies and banks posted huge loses in stock values when the markets opened on September 17. Put options -- financial instruments which allow investors to profit from the decline in value of stocks -- were purchased on the stocks of these companies in great volume in the week before the attack.
United Airlines and American Airlines

Two of the corporations most damaged by the attack were American Airlines (AMR), the operator of Flight 11 and Flight 77, and United Airlines (UAL), the operator of Flight 175 and Flight 93. According to CBS News, in the week before the attack, the put/call ratio for American Airlines was four. 3 The put/call ratio for United Airlines was 25 times above normal on September 6. 4


This graph shows a dramatic spike in pre-attack purchases of put options on the airlines used in the attack. (source: www.optionsclearing.com)

The spikes in put options occurred on days that were uneventful for the airlines and their stock prices.
On Sept. 6-7, when there was no significant news or stock price movement involving United, the Chicago exchange handled 4,744 put options for UAL stock, compared with just 396 call options -- essentially bets that the price will rise. On Sept. 10, an uneventful day for American, the volume was 748 calls and 4,516 puts, based on a check of option trading records. 5

The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.
Over three days before terrorists flattened the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, there was more than 25 times the previous daily average trading in a Morgan Stanley "put" option that makes money when shares fall below $45. Trading in similar AMR and UAL put options, which make money when their stocks fall below $30 apiece, surged to as much as 285 times the average trading up to that time. 6

When the market reopened after the attack, United Airlines stock fell 42 percent from $30.82 to $17.50 per share, and American Airlines stock fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share. 7

Reinsurance Companies

Several companies in the reinsurance business were expected to suffer huge losses from the attack: Munich Re of Germany and Swiss Re of Switzerland -- the world's two biggest reinsurers, and the AXA Group of France. In September, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle estimated liabilities of $1.5 billion for Munich Re and $0.55 bilion for the AXA Group and telegraph.co.uk estimated liabilities of £1.2 billion for Munich Re and £0.83 billion for Swiss Re. 8 9

Trading in shares of Munich Re was almost double its normal level on September 6, and 7, and trading in shares of Swiss Re was more than double its normal level on September 7. 10

Financial Services Companies

Merrill Lynch & Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack. Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened. 11

Bank of America showed a fivefold increase in put option trading on the Thursday and Friday before the attack.

A Bank of America option that would profit if the No. 3 U.S. bank's stock fell below $60 a share had more than 5,900 contracts traded on the Thursday and Friday before the Sept. 11 assaults, almost five times the previous average trading, according to Bloomberg data. The bank's shares fell 11.5 percent to $51 in the first week after trading resumed on Sept. 17. 12
Winners

While most companies would see their stock valuations decline in the wake of the attack, those in the business of supplying the military would see dramatic increases, reflecting the new business they were poised to receive.
Raytheon

Raytheon, maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, saw its stock soar immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.

A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading. 13

Raytheon has been fined millions of dollars inflating the costs of equipment it sells the US military. Raytheon has a secretive subsidiary, E-Systems, whose clients have included the CIA and NSA. 14

US Treasury Notes

Five-year US Treasury notes were purchased in abnormally high volumes before the attack, and their buyers were rewarded with sharp increases in their value following the attack.
The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade. As the Journal explained: "Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks." The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11. 15
The SEC's Investigation

Shortly after the attack the SEC circulated a list of stocks to securities firms around the world seeking information. 16 A widely circulated article states that the stocks flagged by the SEC included those of the following corporations: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, US Airways airlines, Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American International Group, AMR Corporation, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp, Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc., L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation, Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive Corp., General Motors, Raytheon, W.R. Grace, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies, American Express, the Citigroup Inc., Royal & Sun Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns.

An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation:

The proposed system, which would go into effect immediately, effectively deputizes hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.
...
In a two-page statement issued to "all securities-related entities" nationwide, the SEC asked companies to designate senior personnel who appreciate "the sensitive nature" of the case and can be relied upon to "exercise appropriate discretion" as "point" people linking government investigators and the industry. 17

Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, explains the consequences of this action:

What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration. 18

Interpreting and Reinterpreting the Data

An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them. In his book Crossing the Rubicon Michael C. Ruppert illustrates this point by first excerpting a number of reports published shortly after the attack:

* A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26

* A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26

* No similar trading occurred on any other airlines
-- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel 3

* Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. 4

* Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. 5


Ruppert then illustrates an apparent attempt to bury the story by explaining it away as nothing unusual. A September 30 New York Times article claims that "benign explanations are turning up" in the SEC's investigation. 20 The article blames the activity in put options, which it doesn't quantify, on "market pessimism," but fails to explain why the price of the stocks in the airlines doesn't reflect the same market pessimism.

The fact that $2.5 million of the put options remained unclaimed is not explained at all by market pessimism, and is evidence that the put option purchasers were part of a criminal conspiracy. 21

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html

[mrgerbik]

2. good stuff ty n/t

[wildbilln864]

3. Thanks. nt

[SDuderstadt]

4. Yet one more example of....

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. It was widely known that both United and American were deeply troubled before 9/11 and, more importantly, put options had already spiked higher even earlier in 2001.

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

[LakeSamish706]

86. And heres Mr. Know it all again.. Hmmm Mighty interesting that you seem to be...

a devout student of all of the happenings surrounding 911.... It certainly would leave one to believe that you are covering something for someone.

[seemslikeadream]

5. Did the 9/11 Commission look into this?

I know of 2 lawyers that are going after bush following the money for one of them. And I'm sorry if no one cares to believe me, don't bother me. It is going to take a very long time but it will happen.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Jesus Fucking Christ, SLAD...

have you even bothered to read the 9/11 Commission Report? You must not have or you wouldn't even ask such stupid questions. This is why I regard you as having cose to zero credibility.

[seemslikeadream]

7. got a link handy

[SDuderstadt]

8. Got a link to what??

The 9/11 Commission Report? Do you mean to tell me you don't even know how to find the 9/11 Commission Report? If you don't, then it's fairly apparent you haven't bothered to read it. I, unfortunately, find this a lot with "truthers". If you haven't bothered to read the thing you're convinced is a fairytale, how do you expect to become informed enough about it to draw valid conclusions, let alone intelligently debate it?

If, on the other hand, if you're asking for a link to some sort of reference that shows the 9/11 Commission took the matter up, I already posted it upthread. Again, in any event, if you haven't read the 9/11 Commission at all or, at the least, remain unaware that they did address the matter, why are you bothering to debate? Isn't informing one's self about something a pre-condition for debating it? Or, do "truthers" simply think this isn't important?

[Bassman66]

10. 9/11 CR - It's not good enough

9/11 Commission Report:

“Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example... a single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6…”

Who? Why? Innocuous?

Tell us why it was innocuous!

[Bassman66]

11. Also tell us about the other days, not just Sept 6

not good enough.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Gladly....

although you could easily research this yourself.

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

[Diane_nyc]

24. 911CR on insider trading: Thanks for providing quote. Here's a citation and link.

Thanks for http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=210312">providing the relevant quote from the 9/11 Commission report.

I just now dug up the link. You quoted the http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Notes.htm">Endnotes, note 130 of Chapter 5, "Al Qaeda Aims at the American Homeland."

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

19. Oh boy, here we go again, baby's cranky and needs his bottle...

...alright, here:

http://karlandkinggeorge.com/The_911_myth.html

[HamdenRice]

9. To answer your question SLAD, no

Don't let what's his face's bluster throw you off. The 9/11CR basically dealt with it in a footnote that sidesteps the main issue.

The reason the 9/11 CR was non-responsive to the put trading issue, and some alternative evidence is contained in this thread:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x195924

[SDuderstadt]

13. "Bluster"....LOL

It's not as if you find can't find more detail outside the 9/11 Commission Report. I thought you guys claimed we rely on the 9/11 Commission Report for ALL our info. Hmmm, guess I just knocked bhat one down.

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

[HamdenRice]

15. But ...

you were just insulting SLAD for asking about the 9/11 CR's explanation of the options trading.

Why change the subject?

[SDuderstadt]

16. No, I was taking her to task for obviously not reading the reort....

Is it toio much to ask "truthers" to actually read things they're debating? I was commenting on her obvious lack of knowledge.

[Andre II]

17. No, you weren't

I'm afraid I've to wait till eterntity until you present me whatyou've promised?
Remember your bet?
Other evidence that positively identifies the alleged hijackers. I'm waiting waiting.
And in fact your exchange with SLAD is very clear.
She states that the Commission didn't deal with insider trading. You prespond:
"have you even bothered to read the 9/11 Commission Report? You must not have or you wouldn't even ask such stupid questions. This is why I regard you as having cose to zero credibility."
She asks you for a handy link and all you can come up with are stuff with are nice articles but unfortunately not a nice handy quote from the Commission Report cause there is none.
Sorry, nada.
So, why do you accuse SLAD of not reading the Commission Report if her statement is correct that insider trading is not dealt with in the Commission.
Only conclusion:
You haven't read the Commission Report yourself.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Read it again, Andre...

She asks if the 9/11 dealt with "insider trading"...I challenge you to find anywhere where she states they didn't.

seemslikeadream (1000+ posts)

5. Did the 9/11 Commission look into this?

[Andre II]

46. Oh, Jesus, SDuderstadt, gimme a break

SLAD's question doesn't imply in any way - as you wish - that SLAD didn't read the CR.
So, you're making a big deal out of her not having read the CR is out of place.
And you simply completely ignore SLAD's question that you just quoted above.
(Btw it's called a rhetorical question).
And do you win a price for putting out claims and repeatedly ignore to back them up??????
Where is your evidence thatpositively identifies the alleged hijackers?
Why was the offer of Jarrah's family ignored?
Why couldn't you care less for a positive identification of alleged hijackers??
And here's my next bet:
You'll ignore these questions again cause you simply have no answers.
Which btw proves that you claim things big time and fail to come up with the slghtest piece of evidence.

[Realityhack]

72. Actualy that's how I read it.

seemed to me she was asking if they dealt with the issue, thus indicating ignorance as to wither they did, thus indicating she has not read it.

[seemslikeadream]

18. spell check SD spell check

I know because of your never wavering, ever vigilant scrutinizing of my posts that you would surely like to know that you desperately need the spell check today

[SDuderstadt]

26. Your problem isn't an occasional typo, SLAD...

it's ponderously long posts, persistent incoherency, syntax, subject/verb agreement problems, etc., etc.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

20. "Taking her to task"

What a joke. You absolutely reek of fear and desperation. Why does the truth concerning the events of 9-11 frighten you so?

[SDuderstadt]

27. It's actually your lack of critical thinking skills that....

frightens me, Mr. J.

[Twist_U_Up]

29. now thats desperation

transparency is not your friend.

[Ghost in the Machine]

32. desperation, ad hominen and stalking is all he's got... oh.. and belligerence

It's not worth your time trying to debate with him.. he'll put you on ignore if you prove him wrong, which is really an upside but causes him to just stalk and harrass a lady more..

[sarcasmo]

83. I am glad I put him on ignore years ago.

[wildbilln864]

117. self delete

[Diane_nyc]

23. To HamdenRice: Please see my reply to you in the thread you linked. nt

[didact]

14. Blow the House Down

[Bassman66]

21. Still not good enough

9/11 Commission Report:

“Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example... a single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6…”

It just isn't.

95% on Sept 6, and...?

Why not give the details and let the people decide? Why the secrets?

[wildbilln864]

22. Exactly! Thank you. nt

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

28. I'll post this one more time for people who cannot seem to read...

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

BTW, don't you "truthers" claim that we "Octabots" have no sources save the 9/11 Commission Report? and, of course, what the 9/11 Commission Report stated about the "insider trading" is a little bit more detailed than certain posters want to make it appear. Here's the entire footnote:

130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options- investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price-surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10-highly suspicious trading on its face.Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation.The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

I suspect we could claim this is still a little sparse, however, since "dozens of government agencies and other entities provided the Commission with more than 2.5 million pages of documents and other materials, including more than 1,000 hours of audiotapes", I don't think it's likely they will publish all 2.5 million pages of documents nor will they stream the 1000 hours of audiotapes. Of course, the CT's here will scream "bloddy murder" because they have been excluded from the notification list. Then again, I suspect all of this material is subject to FOIA requests. This should probably keep the CT's busy for at least a couple of summers.

[Twist_U_Up]

30. Why do you continue to use 911myths as a source? Everyone knows its a shill site

911myths should be in DUs banned sites with the likes of rense or with the freepers crowd.
what garbage you spew

[AZCat]

31. "Shill site"?

Please explain what you mean by this. Otherwise I'll just have to assume you use the label to describe any site that doesn't agree with your views.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Exactly, AC...

in fact, what I find funny is how the "truthers" post the flimsiest of stuff from obviously biased 9/11 CT sites, claiming it somehow proves something, then have the temerity to attack sites that debunk their nonsense without having read them.

[Diane_nyc]

35. About 911myths.com, and about generalizations about "the" Truthers

SDuderstadt wrote:

34. Exactly, AC...

in fact, what I find funny is how the "truthers" post the flimsiest of stuff from obviously biased 9/11 CT sites, claiming it somehow proves something, then have the temerity to attack sites that debunk their nonsense without haveing read them.

The above is, alas, true of all too many "Truthers," but by no means all of "the" Truthers.

I've read quite a bit of the 911myths site and have found it to be the most reasonable of all the "debunking" sites I've looked at. While I certainly don't agree with all its conclusions, I do believe that anyone who is genuinely seeking the truth on any given topic should read both or more points of view.

Anyhow, apparently you and I agree that people should not jump to conclusions about other people's motives for holding opinions different from one's own, e.g. calling them "shills."

[Bassman66]

39. Still refering to a singular "troofer" movement?

Why?
There isn't one. Stop pretending there is one.

[SDuderstadt]

41. We'll be glad to when...

your side quits claiming there is some monolith movement of "Octabots" who blindly support the administration. Deal?

P.S. You guys will continue to be defined by your goofier members as long as you don't confront them yourselves. I see very little of that. Instead, they post absurd nonsense (like the towers were nuked or no planes were used on 9/11) with almost no response from the legitimate members of the "9/11 Truth Movement".

[Bassman66]

43. "My side"

They you go again.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Okay....are you now claiming not be a truther? n/t

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Diane_nyc]

52. Guilt by association

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=210612">SDuderstadt wrote:

P.S. You guys will continue to be defined by your goofier members as long as you don't confront them yourselves. I see very little of that. Instead, they post absurd nonsense (like the towers were nuked or no planes were used on 9/11) with almost no response from the legitimate members of the "9/11 Truth Movement".

I think it should be obvious by now that most of us reject no-planes, nukes, and DEWS. I think most of us have more important things to do with our time than to keep arguing with them over and over and over and over again. Perhaps, for the benefit of readers new to the issue, we could respond just by posting links to pages debunking this stuff on 9/11 Truth sites, or perhaps to relevant past DU posts? However, people who have been around these issues for a long time have no excuse to act as if all "Truthers" endorse no planes.

You're correct that people should not assume that "Octabots" all have the same motive or are a monolithic group. But perhaps you and other "debunkers" could set an example by not engaging in guilt by association yourselves?

[SDuderstadt]

54. With all due respect, Diane....

I am not implying, in any way, "guilt by association". I am pointing out a structural problem the "truth movement" has and needs to deal with if they wish to be taken seriously. As far as posting rebuttals from websites, what is the point of doing that when perfectly valid analysis is dismissed as being "pro-government"? There are many career civil servants who are honorable and concerned with the truth as much as you or I. Why anyone (not you) thinks it's okay to pretend that there is some monolithic government effort to supress the truth in this matter is beyond me. Yet people attack NIST (either because they don't understand the science or they claim that NIST is "in on it"). It gets really tiring.

[Diane_nyc]

57. Whad do you think we should do, specifically?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=210787">SDuderstadt wrote:

I am not implying, in any way, "guilt by association". I am pointing out a structural problem the "truth movement" has and needs to deal with if they wish to be taken seriously

What would you suggest should be done, specifically?

We don't control the Internet. We can't stop the no-planers from putting up blogs or posting in forums. Many of the more prominent 9/11 Truth groups and websites already do either exclude or marginalize no-planers, DEWers, etc. What more do you think they should do?

As far as posting rebuttals from websites, what is the point of doing that when perfectly valid analysis is dismissed as being "pro-government"?

I don't think most onlookers are inclined to believe no-planes theories in the first place, so I don't think we need to put a huge effort into rebutting them. I would favor putting just enough effort into it so as to distance ourselves and so that any onlooker who is really curious can get the other side of the story.

There are many career civil servants who are honorable and concerned with the truth as much as you or I. Why anyone (not you) thinks it's okay to pretend that there is some monolithic government effort to supress the truth in this matter is beyond me.

I certainly don't think that all "career civil servants" are part of "some monolithic government effort to supress the truth." However, to ask "career civil servants" (or career military officers) to investigate possible wrongdoing by their own high-level superiors would clearly be a conflict of interest, especially in the absence of adequate whistleblower protections.

Yet people attack NIST (either because they don't understand the science or they claim that NIST is "in on it").

I don't think NIST is "in on it." However, individual NIST employees don't decide their own research agendas. They research what they are told to research. Hence, to whatever extent there are any aspects of the WTC collapses that would be embarrassing to high officials (or, for that matter, embarrassing to any private entities that happen to have connections with high-level NIST folks), it is only natural that such things would be given low priority if not ignored altogether, except in response to public pressure.

[SDuderstadt]

59. In order:

If it were up to me, I would engage in a robust PR effort to compartmentalize the "9/11 was an inside job!" crowd so they don't overpower the more sensible questions being asked by people like yourself.

As far as your second point, just do an informal survey of the posts in this forum and I'm pretty sure most people will agree that the more absurd claims are squeezing out the more legitimate inquiries, both in quantity and impact. That's why I suggested that the more intelligent members of what I call the "truth movement" need to take a more active role in debunking the no-planes, "9/11 was an inside job" crowd, if you wish to gain larger scale acceptance, at least of the questions you ask.

As far as your third point, as long as the proper checks and balances are observed, I don't see the same problem. In fact, the Bush adnministration is getting PLENTY of push-back from, among others, government scientists who are loudly complaining about their work and conclusions being compromised. Essentially, no matter how an investigation is conducted, I'm certain there will be at least one (if not more) constituency who will question the independence/truthfulness of any commission established. I will also submit that, after we dems take back the WH, there will be a flurry of investigations that have been blocked by the GOP previously.

As far as your last point, NIST has, at some points, been assisted by the 125,000+ member American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for example, the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). I think a lot of people irrationally attack these entities because they are not investigating what they want investigated or how they want it investigated. A major part of what NISI is charged with is to make recommendations to avert similar problems in the future (design, etc.) I don't, for a moment, think that NIST is hiding evidence of "CD" because it would be embarrassing to high-level officials (in fact, NIST indicates there is just no evidence of "CD", which anyone who has ever witnessed multiple CD's could have seen anyhow - WTC 1 & 2 looked like anything BUT a CD). But, you will always have someone who will latch onto some factoid and claim it's absolute proof of CD, even though all the other markers are totally missing.

In sum, the "truth movement", if it wishes to be taken seriously, needs to do a much better job of beating us "debunkers" to the punch and countering the no-planes/"911 was an inside job" crowd before they permanently disaffect more and more amerioans.

[Diane_nyc]

62. The "9/11 was an inside job!" crowd

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=210839">SDuderstadt wrote:

If it were up to me, I would engage in a robust PR effort to compartmentalize the "9/11 was an inside job!" crowd so they don't overpower the more sensible questions being asked by people like yourself.

That would be difficult. At the present time, it seems that a majority of people in the 9/11 Truth movement do believe in CD of the WTC. No-planes and DEW are considered fringe, but CD isn't (within most of the movement, that is).

Not only that, but many people in the 9/11 Truth movement regard http://wtc7.net/videos.html">videos of the collapse of WTC 7 as one of the movement's very best recruiting tools, because the collapse videos look so "obviously" like a CD that quite a few people have been instantly convinced by them.

For a while, I myself was about 90% convinced of CD of WTC 7, based primarily on the almost symmetrical, straight-down vertical nature of WTC 7's collapse. (See my blog post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/straight-down-collapse-of-wtc-7-what-do-debunkers-say/">Straight-down collapse of WTC 7 - what do “debunkers” say?, September 22, 2007.) All along, though, I realized that many of the other arguments for CD of the WTC buildings were either wrong or incomplete. (See my blog post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/demolition-of-wtc-lets-not-overstate-the-case-please/">Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please, November 20, 2007.) During the fall and winter of 2007/2008 I had many enlightening conversations in comment threads on my blog, aided by enforcement of my very strict civility rules. Eventually, as documented in the following two posts and the comment threads beneath them, I came to understand how WTC 7 could have collapsed the way it did "naturally":

• http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/review-of-hardfire-debates-between-mark-roberts-and-loose-change-crew/">Review of Hardfire debates between Mark Roberts and Loose Change crew, February 9, 2008


• http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/two-wtc-7-collapse-videos-can-both-be-real/">Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real?, February 11, 2008

Also at around that time, I came across the argument that the WTC buildings could not have been demolished with explosives because there were not explosive sounds loud enough to be demolition charges. I asked around for counterevidence and didn't find any.

I still suspect the possibility of some kind of secondary arson (not full-fledged CD) in WTC 7. (See my blog post (http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/wtc-7-fire-weirdness-taking-fema-and-nist-at-their-word/">WTC 7 fire weirdness, taking FEMA and NIST at their word, February 15, 2008.) I'm not committed to this idea, though. I'm waiting to see what NIST's report on WTC 7 has to say about the things that still strike me as a bit odd. (See also my earlier post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/wtc-7-fema-report-and-nist-prelim-report-what-about-pre-collapse-leaning-and-the-transit/">WTC 7: FEMA report and NIST prelim report: What about pre-collapse leaning and the transit???, November 29, 2007.)

Also, I haven't ruled out the possibility that Steven Jones might be onto something (consistent with the idea of WTC 7 arson, as opposed to full-fledged CD). But, if so, he's going to need some help from chemists in order to prove it. I've read some of the criticisms of his work by various JREFers, and I suspect that he doesn't fully know what he's doing, given his background in nuclear physics and not chemistry.

To change the focus of the 9/11 Truth movement, I think the following two strategies will be needed:

1) Try to convince those CD believers with scientific or engineering background to proceed in a more scientific manner, without directly attacking their belief in CD, except very gently. For example, see the following posts of mine:

• http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/richard-gage%e2%80%99s-avowed-enemy-part-2-and-my-thoughts-about-wtc-7/">Richard Gage’s avowed enemy, part 2 - and my thoughts about WTC 7, February 28, 2008, especially the concluding section http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/richard-gage%e2%80%99s-avowed-enemy-part-2-and-my-thoughts-about-wtc-7/#research">Suggested WTC 7 research projects for engineers in AE911T


• http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/proof-wtc/">Time to get serious about proving “assisted collapse” of WTC buildings, March 12, 2008

Hopefully then they'll either (a) find something more solid or (b) give up.

2) Try to convince those people in the 9/11 Truth movement WITHOUT any technical background to focus more on non-technical matters. (To that end, I think that Jon Gold's video "9/11: Press for Truth" can help a lot, by way of example.)

Anyhow, back to your post:

As far as your second point, just do an informal survey of the posts in this forum and I'm pretty sure most people will agree that the more absurd claims are squeezing out the more legitimate inquiries, both in quantity and impact.

Yes, I see quite a few no-planes posts. However, by spending much time arguing with them, we just feed the trolls. That's why I'm more inclined to favor responding by just posting links rather than taking the time to argue.

As far as your third point, as long as the proper checks and balances are observed, I don't see the same problem. In fact, the Bush adnministration is getting PLENTY of push-back from, among others, government scientists who are loudly complaining about their work and conclusions being compromised.

Can you give some examples?

Essentially, no matter how an investigation is conducted, I'm certain there will be at least one (if not more) constituency who will question the independence/truthfulness of any commission established.

Perhaps so, but don't you agree that Philip Zelikow had some serious conflicts of interest regarding the 9/11 Commission?

I will also submit that, after we dems take back the WH, there will be a flurry of investigations that have been blocked by the GOP previously.

Well, I would hope so.

[vincent_vega_lives]

84. I like your website

Very reasoned and intelligent posts.

I would ask you to relook this however.

The eye-witness testimony about “molten steel” is confirmed by the existence of the so-called “meteorites,” which contained previously molten iron.

The meteorites were formed from 2-3 floors of concrete...and the material inbetween. The primary force for forming these "meteorites" was not heat, but pressure, although extreme pressure can of course result in heat.

[Bassman66]

87. "Can you give some examples?"

Don't hold your breath. SD never gives examples of 9/11 issues.

[Bassman66]

88. WTC7 and CD...

Maybe, maybe not - it does look like it was CD, even according to the TV news reporters at the time.

I'd like to see an open and honest investigation and I'd like NIST to produce more than two pictures (one of which at least was a fake or very misleading). In fact I'd like to see all the FDNY Photo and Video unit images they captured of WTC7 in the seven hours before it fell.

That would help people with doubts like me (although I think there are much bigger issues like foreknowledge and obstruction).

[Bassman66]

91. 'I don't think NIST is in on it.'

Maybe someone at the top in NIST controls it, maybe not. Saying an organisation is "in on it" or individuals in an organisation are "in on it" are different things, and it also depends what "it" is. There is a wide spectrum of things that "it" could be. It could be looking at ambigeous evidence and producing a report slanted a certain way for "good" political reasons without actually being in on a 9/11 "inside job". It could be lots of things.

I want to know why, out of all the images of WTC7 they must have, did they choose only two, one of which is either fake or very misleading about the damage to the SW corner. Possibly that picture was used not because they were in on a 9/11 plot but because someone in NIST believed it was not "in the national interest" to fan conspiracy flames and decided to make the building look worse than it was - well that failed.

Nothing more than total openess and honesty will do for 9/11.

[Diane_nyc]

93. Possible less-than-pure motives of people at NIST

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=214465">Bassman66 wrote:

110. 'I don't think NIST is in on it.'

Maybe someone at the top in NIST controls it, maybe not. Saying an organisation is "in on it" or individuals in an organisation are "in on it" are different things, and it also depends what "it" is. There is a wide spectrum of things that "it" could be. It could be looking at ambigeous evidence and producing a report slanted a certain way for "good" political reasons without actually being in on a 9/11 "inside job". It could be lots of things.

I think that's an important distinction. I think it's very unlikely that large numbers of NIST scientists would be consciously trying to cover up what they know to be a crime. But it is likely that NIST would be under pressure to interpret ambiguous evidence in such a way as to minimize embarrassment not only to the Bush administration, but also to the construction industry. See the following JREF posts by Frank Greening:

• http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2483626&postcount=237">Confessions of a 9/11 Agnostic, on page 6 of the thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111">Debate! What debate?


• http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2975418&postcount=58">The real 9/11 Conspiracy in the thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93649">Another engineer criticizes NIST & FEMA

[Bolo Boffin]

94. How ironic that you would quote Frank Greening on official pressure on NIST to produce

Frank Greening was banned from JREF because he learned the identity of someone he was arguing with and contacted their employer to exert pressure on him or her to get them to retract a statement.

So it would seem Dr. Greening has expertise in that field.

[Diane_nyc]

97. Frank Greening and JREF - more info, please?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=214489">boloboffin wrote:

113. How ironic that you would quote Frank Greening on official pressure on NIST to produce

Frank Greening was banned from JREF because he learned the identity of someone he was arguing with and contacted their employer to exert pressure on him or her to get them to retract a statement.

Interesting news. Not being a regular reader of the JREF forum, I was not aware of this. Could you please provide some relevant JREF links in support of your statement here?

I'm very sorry to hear this about Dr. Greening, if indeed it's true.

[Bassman66]

99. The devil is in the detail. nt.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. Frank Greening was Apollo20 at JREF.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117412

Apollo20 has been banned. The circumstances are rather unusual so I will place some explanation here.

Apollo20 has contacted a Member's employer in an attempt to force that Member to retract and apologize for comments they had made here. (The complaints to the employer included unsubstantiated allegations and threats of legal action). From our records only one of the posts that Apollo20 complained about resulted in any Moderator action.

Whilst we do not usually concern ourselves with events beyond the Forum we are not willing to allow someone to have an active Membership here who carries out such egregious acts, especially when they use them to bully a Member in an attempt to control what they can and cannot post here.

(The JREF was informed of the details of this matter prior to this decision and we do have evidence of the events described in this notice.)

[Diane_nyc]

105. Thanks for the info about Frank Greening and JREF. A further question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=214705">Boloboffin quoted a JREF moderator as saying, about Frank Greening, a.k.a. Apollo20:

Apollo20 has contacted a Member's employer in an attempt to force that Member to retract and apologize for comments they had made here. (The complaints to the employer included unsubstantiated allegations and threats of legal action). From our records only one of the posts that Apollo20 complained about resulted in any Moderator action.

At least at first glance, this does seem like egregious behavior by Apollo20.

Do you happen to know the nature of the posts that Apollo20 was trying to get the other member to retract and apologize for (but which did not result in moderator action)?

[Bolo Boffin]

106. No. I don't even know the identity of the other poster. n/t

[Bassman66]

95. Yes it is an important distintion.

When the OCTers say how could so many people be "in on it" the distinction has to be made clear.

The same can be applied for example to perhaps top FDNY people being "in on it", they would have had "nation security interests" to consider and without being openly dishonest they could have presented certain things (or not presented things at all - pictures) in certain ways to serve what they see as the "national interest".

Only total openess and honesty will do for 9/11.

[sabbat hunter]

108. How many people

Do you think would have to be "in on it"?

Also do you realize that "pull it" is NOT a term used with CD right?

[Bassman66]

58. "the truth movement"

You're transparent.

[SDuderstadt]

61. And you're opaque...

I don't know what you think yammering that I am "transparent" over and over accomplishes. I have said over and over that I attempt to debate on the facts, no matter where that leads. Isn't that what you were demanding of the 9/11 Commission? I'm going to ask you one more time politely to quit impugning my motivation.

[Bassman66]

64. No, what you continually try to do...

..is claim everyone who disagrees with the official story is part of a "troofer movement" so that they can all be smeared at the same time when the goofy theories crop up.

That is simply not the case.

There is a wide spectrum of questions about 9/11 and there is no "troofer movement". There are disparate groups focusing on the questions that are important to them, some of them are good and some not. However the OCTers (a group without a wide spectrum of anything and can be grouped as one) always ignore that and pretend that the "troofer movement" is a single entity and then make use of the classic COINTELPRO being generated (I am not accusing you of generating the COINTELPRO).

You know it's not like that, so why do you persist?

[SDuderstadt]

65. First of all...

I have never said anyone was part of the "troofer movement". I'd also like you to define exactly what the "official story" is and show that I have smeared anyone who merely has questions about that day. It's also pretty stupid to claim there are not factual analyses upon which to question the claims of the "truth movement" without resorting to "COINTELPRO". I think you've milked your COINTELPRO argument for all it's worth and then some.

[Diane_nyc]

69. Attempt to clear up a misunderstanding between SDuderstadt and Bassman66

I think the two of you are misunderstanding each other. In particular, I think SDuderstadt may be misunderstanding Bassman66.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211040">SDuderstadt wrote, to Bassman66:

It's also pretty stupid to claim there are not factual analyses upon which to question the claims of the "truth movement" without resorting to "COINTELPRO".

1) It is incorrect to speak of "the claims of the 'truth movement'." (See my post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211309">The 9/11 Truth movement does exist, but is not monolithic, especially in terms of "claims.".)

2) The reference to "COINTELPRO" in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=210933">Bassman66's post was as follows:

There are disparate groups focusing on the questions that are important to them, some of them are good and some not. However the OCTers (a group without a wide spectrum of anything and can be grouped as one) always ignore that and pretend that the "troofer movement" is a single entity and then make use of the classic COINTELPRO being generated (I am not accusing you of generating the COINTELPRO).

Bassman66's statement here is not entirely clear, and I suspect that you (SDuderstadt) may have misinterpreted it. By "COINTELPRO," I don't think Bassman66 means just any defense of the official story. If I understand correctly, what Bassman66 thinks of as "COINTELPRO" is, specifically, the combination of: (1) the wackier claims of some critics of the official story, e.g. no-planers, and (2) the strategy of defending the official story by pointing to the wackier critics to discredit all questioning of the official story. And I think Bassman66 perceives you as doing the latter.

Bassman66, have I interpreted your statement correctly?

[Bolo Boffin]

70. We should apply the "claims of the truth movement" argument to the notion of an "official story".

The U.S. Government does exists but is not monolithic, especially in terms of "claims."

[Diane_nyc]

73. Not applicable ....

Can you name anyone in the "9/11 debunker" camp who has any substantial disagreements with points 1 to 3 of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206792&mesg_id=206792">"The Official Story" as summed up by JackRiddler?

[Bolo Boffin]

75. I can't read that thread.

But I'm quite certain that I could produce some propositions that none of the CTers would have substantial disagreements about, even though they have substantial disagreements about many things.

For example:

1. The official story is almost certainly wrong.

2. Other governments and agencies facilitated these attacks.

3. We don't know the full story about how the buildings fell.

Can you find me any faction of the 9/11 Truth movement that would substantially disagree with any of those points?

[Diane_nyc]

76. Yes, there are factions of the 9/11 Truth movement that would disagree ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211336">I wrote earlier:

Can you name anyone in the "9/11 debunker" camp who has any substantial disagreements with points 1 to 3 of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=206792&mesg_id=206792">"The Official Story" as summed up by JackRiddler?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211339">boloboffin replied:

75. I can't read that thread.

Here are the relevant points 1 to 3, then, as stated by Jack Riddler:

1) The 19 hijackers did it as described in The 9/11 Commission Report and have been correctly identified, at least as to name, nationality and status as al-Qaeda recruits on a suicide mission to attack the WTC and Washington.

2) They were dispatched and financed by the al-Qaeda network under Osama bin Ladin, KSM et al., and had no witting help from outside that network. They had no state sponsorship and were not agents of any state. (Especially not any ally of the US.)

3) No one in the US government or its agencies or security contractors was involved in originating, orchestrating or facilitating the attacks; no one saw it coming and deliberately allowed it to happen so as to gain power, implement an agenda, or exploit business opportunities.

Again, do you know of anyone in the "9/11 debunker" camp who disagrees with any of the above?

Anyhow, the next sentence of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211339">boloboffin's post contained the term "CTers," which I regard as a highly ambiguous term. Please see the following posts of mine:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=207795&mesg_id=210257">I've written a critique of Chip Berlet's use of the word "conspiracism"


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210224&mesg_id=210589">Again I ask: Define "conspiracy theory"?

Boloboffin, I would be interested in your comments on those posts.

Anyhow, you wrote:

But I'm quite certain that I could produce some propositions that none of the CTers would have substantial disagreements about, even though they have substantial disagreements about many things.

Your post ended with the following, after your list of points:

Can you find me any faction of the 9/11 Truth movement that would substantially disagree with any of those points?

Yes, there are factions of the 9/11 Truth movement that would substantially disagree with point 2 (as worded by you) and/or with a reasonable re-wording of trivially true point 3.

Let's consider your points one by one:

1. The official story is almost certainly wrong.

Yes, that's something nearly everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement would agree on, keeping in mind that "wrong" means "wrong on at least one substantial point," not necessarily "wrong on every point," and not necessarily even "wrong on most points." Thus, your point 1 allows for a much wider variety of possible hypotheses about what happened on 9/11 than does the official story.

2. Other governments and agencies facilitated these attacks.

By no means does everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement believe that "other governments" were involved. Quite a few are inclined to believe that the 9/11 attacks were a false flag operation by some rogue clique within the U.S. government, without necessarily any help from any foreign governments.

Perhaps by "other governments and agencies" you actually meant to say something like "other people or organized entities besides just Al Qaeda, including at least some officials or agents of at least one government"?

If so, that's closer, but still not quite a statement that everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement would agree on. To the latter end, you would need to add a qualifier, as follows:

"It is at least a likely possibility that at least some other people or at least one other organized entity besides just Al Qaeda, including some officials or agents of at least one government, facilitated these attacks."

Note that this statement allows for many possible hypotheses, varying as to which government(s), which officials and/or agents or agencies, and how they might have facilitated the attacks. It also allows for a spectrum of belief regarding the likelihood of any given scenario. Hence my modified form of your point 2 allows for many more possibilities than do points 2 and 3 of Jack Riddler's summary of the official story.

3. We don't know the full story about how the buildings fell.

Trivially true. Even NIST would probably agree with that point as stated in those exact words. NIST wasn't able to generate a complete mathematical model of the collapse itself, for example. It wouldn't even be physically possible to know absolutely every last detail about how the buildings fell.

So, let's re-phrase your point 3 as something on which someone could conceivably have a substantial disagreement with NIST. What I guess you actually intended as your point 3 is this: "There are fundamentally significant things we still don't know about how the buildings fell." Is that correct?

Considering now the re-phrased version:

Many people in the 9/11 Truth movement, but by no means all, would agree with it.

There is also a faction of the 9/11 Truth movement that doesn't concern itself with the question of how the buildings fell. Jon Gold is in that category, for example.

On the other hand, there are other factions of the 9/11 Truth movement that believe they do know everything significant about how the buildings fell. Some of these folks think they know for sure, for example, that the buildings were demolished with explosives.

Anyhow, as I've explained, it's true that nearly everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement would agree with your point 1 and in my modified version of your point 2. But those two points are, both, extremely non-specific compared to the three points of the official story as outlined by JackRiddler.

(To those readers with a basic knowledge of formal logic: Note the universal quantifiers ("no" and "not ... any" in points 2 and 3, and the implied "all" in point 1) in the official story as outlined by Jack Riddler. In contrast, note the multiple existential quantifiers ("at least one" and "some") in my modified version of your points 2 and in my explanation of your point 1.)

By the way, you left out the most important -- and much more specific -- point that everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement would agree on, which is this: "The 9/11 Commission Report is not to be trusted as a full account of what happened on 9/11, due to Philip Zelikow's conflicts of interest." (Many would add more reasons not to trust the 9/11 Commission Report.) Note, however, that this point is purely an epistemological claim, not a claim about what did nor didn't happen on 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. *pat pat pat* You've got a gnat caught in your throat there.

...do you know of anyone in the "9/11 debunker" camp who disagrees with any of the above?

Me.

I refer to no. 2. I gots no problem with no. 1, and no. 3 I'm willing to accept until actual evidence of malfeasance is produced by anyone. Seven years on, I kinda doubt it. But there's the Lockerbie situation, so who knows?

However, there's quite a bit of evidence that at least needs to be cleared up with regards to certain elements of authority in both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helping the 19. That's actually available from some official sources, so funnily enough what the 9/11 CT community would call the "official" story even disagrees with no. 2 as laid out by that poster.

So there's an example of a 9/11 debunker who disagrees with one of those three statements. Is that enough for you? I'll bet we could find a few more here.

"CTers" is no more ambiguous than "9/11 debunkers" or "OCTers" or "OCTabots" or "OCTabarnacles". Don't like being called a CTer? Don't espouse CTs.

Your straining to show my points as irrelevant is ludicrous. "Other governments" would include the U.S. government, according to anybody's version of the OCT, now, wouldn't it?

No, it's not "straining", actually. It's actual straw man building. You didn't like what I wrote, so you reworded everything I said (thank you, Mommy!) and then exclaimed on the weakness of my (your) statements. Not too many people show their work in that regard, however. I'm not sure that should be considered a point in your favor, though.

There is also a faction of the 9/11 Truth movement that doesn't concern itself with the question of how the buildings fell. Jon Gold is in that category, for example.

On the other hand, there are other factions of the 9/11 Truth movement that believe they do know everything significant about how the buildings fell. Some of these folks think they know for sure, for example, that the buildings were demolished with explosives.

Whether or not someone concern himself with the buildings doesn't mean he wouldn't agree with the point. And knowing for sure that the buildings were demolished with explosives doesn't mean they know everything significant about how they fell. Those people have yet to produce a plausible hypothesis as to how the explosives were planted, what explosives were used, etc. These people are the ones clamoring for a new investigation! Obviously they don't think they know everything about how those buildings fell. Your disallowing of point three is specious.

[Diane_nyc]

78. self delete. wrong place.

[Diane_nyc]

79. I didn't build straw men. On the contrary, I replaced some of your points with STRONGER points ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211465">Boloboffin wrote:

However, there's quite a bit of evidence that at least needs to be cleared up with regards to certain elements of authority in both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia helping the 19. That's actually available from some official sources, so funnily enough what the 9/11 CT community would call the "official" story even disagrees with no. 2 as laid out by that poster.

I think that wnen JackRiddler speaks of "the official story," he is thinking primarily of the 9/11 Commission Report, which specifically denies that the 9/11 Commission found any evidence of help from foreign governments or officials, at least with regard to funding. (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm">Chapter 5 says: "we have seen no evidence that any foreign government - or foreign government official - supplied any funding.")

So there's an example of a 9/11 debunker who disagrees with one of those three statements. Is that enough for you? I'll bet we could find a few more here.

Thank you. I would be interested to hear from more "9/11 debunkers" on this.

"CTers" is no more ambiguous than "9/11 debunkers" or "OCTers" or "OCTabots" or "OCTabarnacles". Don't like being called a CTer? Don't espouse CTs.

Again I ask: Could you please tell us, in your own words, exactly what you mean by the term "CT"?

JackRiddler has spelled out what he means by "the official story." Could you please do the same for the term "CT"?

Your straining to show my points as irrelevant is ludicrous.

I didn't strain to show that your points were irrelevant. On the contrary, I "strained" to massage your point 2 into a point that was relevant. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211389">Please re-read my post.)

"Other governments" would include the U.S. government, according to anybody's version of the OCT, now, wouldn't it?

Only if you consider Al Qaeda to be a "government." Do you? If not, then these "other governments" are "other" than what? It doesn't make sense to say "Other governments" unless you already have in mind some specific government that these "other governments" are other than.

I'll acknowledge an error in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211389">my previous post: I should have pointed out that the phrase "other governments" simply did not make any sense (in the absence of any previously mentioned government), rather than assuming that you meant "governments other than just the U.S. government."

Perhaps my misinterpretation of "other governments" as "governments other than just the U.S. government" is what you are referring to as a "straw man"? I hereby apologize for that misunderstanding.

Anyhow, I then went on to suggest clearer wording ("other people or organized entities besides just Al Qaeda, including at least some officials or agents of at least one government") which would include the U.S. government. And it turns out that my proposed alternative wording is consistent with what you now say was your original intended meaning. I then proposed a further revision of your point 2 and accepted that proposed version as a valid (though vague) point. So, even my misinterpretation of your original point 2 was ultimately used for the purpose of building up your point, not knocking it down.

No, it's not "straining", actually. It's actual straw man building. You didn't like what I wrote, so you reworded everything I said (thank you, Mommy!) and then exclaimed on the weakness of my (your) statements.

No. Quite the opposite of straw-man building, I replaced some of your points with stronger points, and then showed some weaknesses of even the stronger versions. Again, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211389">please re-read what I wrote. Furthermore, when reinterpreting any of your points, I did so only tentatively, asking you for correction and clarification if needed.

Point 1 I did not replace, but agreed with and elaborated on. Was there anything wrong with my elaboration?

Point 2 did not make sense in its original form. I replaced it with a point that made sense: "It is at least a likely possibility that at least some other people or at least one other organized entity besides just Al Qaeda, including some officials or agents of at least one government, facilitated these attacks." And, in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211465">your reply, your clarification of what you meant by "other governments" turned out to be consistent with my proposed rephrasing.

Point 3, in its original form, was trivially true. Did you actually intend for it to be such a trivially true point? Perhaps I erred in speculating that you may have intended point 3 to say something more substantial than it actually did. In any case, I responded to both the original trivially-true version and my proposed more substantial version. And, in in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211465">your reply, you did not specifically object to my proposed more substantial version your point 3. Instead, you merely argued that even my proposed more substantial version is a point on which everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement would agree after all:

Whether or not someone concern himself with the buildings doesn't mean he wouldn't agree with the point. And knowing for sure that the buildings were demolished with explosives doesn't mean they know everything significant about how they fell. Those people have yet to produce a plausible hypothesis as to how the explosives were planted, what explosives were used, etc. These people are the ones clamoring for a new investigation! Obviously they don't think they know everything about how those buildings fell.

Not everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement means the same thing by "a new investigation." Many do have objections to both the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report and are calling for a new investigation (or investigations) to review both of them. But there are others (admittedly a minority) who have objections only to the 9/11 Commission report but seem to be more-or-less satisfied with the NIST report.

For example, in the video "9/11: Press for Truth," the only mentions of questions about how the buildings fell are in connection with Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, the founders of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign. As far as I can tell, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign's only http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/toeditor_20050422.html">complaint about the NIST report is that it doesn't spell out the WTC building's design flaws in "plain English" rather than "techno-speak" and "carefully constructed vagueness." So they don't seem to be calling for a new investigation of the WTC collapses, but just a clearer statement of NIST's findings. And, as far as I can tell, Jon Gold (the producer of "9/11: Press for Truth") endorses the Skyscraper Safety Campaign and its point of view. (Jon Gold, if you're reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

As for your point that "knowing for sure that the buildings were demolished with explosives doesn't mean they know everything significant about how they fell," I agree with you that, logically, it shouldn't mean that they know everything significant about how they fell. But, alas, not everyone is logical. See my blog post http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/12/08/on-our-need-for-more-scientists-reply-to-petros-evdokas/">On our need for more scientists: Reply to Petros Evdokas, in which I debated with a person in the 9/11 Truth movement who believed strongly in explosive demolition of the WTC buildings, but who specifically denied the need for further scientific inquiry regarding the WTC collapses, on the alleged grounds that everything we need to know about the WTC collapses is already obvious. (Note: That blog post of mine was written back on December 8, 2007. I just now added a P.S. saying, "At the time I wrote the above post, I believed that explosive demolition of at least WTC 7 was a likely possibility. I no longer believe that. I haven't ruled out the possibility of some kind of secondary arson, e.g. with thermite, but I now don't strongly believe in that possibility either.")

[Name removed]

80. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Diane_nyc]

66. The 9/11 Truth movement does exist, but is not monolithic, especially in terms of "claims."

In various posts, such as http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=210933">this one, Bassman66 denies that there is such a thing as the 9/11 Truth movement.

The 9/11 Truth movement does exist as an organized political movement. As evidence of this, for example, the website http://www.911truth.org/">911Truth.org - The 9/11 Truth Movement contains a page of links to many local organized groups. (Well, at least it used to. The link to that page doesn't seem to be working at the moment. http://web.archive.org/web/20070809002705/http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=grassroots_contacts">Here's a 2007 copy on the Internet Archive site.)

However, the 9/11 Truth movement is not monolithic, especially in terms of "claims." Thus, it is incorrect to speak of "the claims of the 'Truth movement'" as http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=211040">SDuderstadt does here. Furthermore, the 9/11 Truth movement is not primarily about any specific set of claims. It is primarily about the call for a new investigation of 9/11 and for government accountability.

Instead of "the claims of the 'Truth movement'," it would be more accurate to speak of "the claims of various people in the 'Truth movement'."

[SDuderstadt]

67. Now, Diane....

would you be kind enough to take on those who claim there is a monolithic OCTer movement?

[Diane_nyc]

71. Could you please identify some of the different factions among official story defenders?

I would say that official story defenders are "not monolithic" in the sense that they probably aren't all (or even mostly) just a bunch of paid "shills." Also, they don't all have the same overall political ideology, e.g. they aren't all Bush supporters.

However, in the sense of promoting a single, unified set of ideas, official story defenders are far closer to "monolithic" than the 9/11 Truth movement is.

Do you not agree that that's the case? If not, that would have to mean that there are 9/11-related issues on which official-story defenders (or opponents of the 9/11 Truth movement) have had fierce disagreements with each other, to the point of splitting up into mutually hostile factions. Are there any such issues? Are there any such factions?

[Bassman66]

82. Could you give us a quick overview of the...

width of the spectrum that divides OCTers please.

A couple of examples would suffice.

[Bassman66]

68. Many 9/11 Truth movements exist , that's the point.

Some of them with very dubious motives.
There is no "truth movement" singular.
Which I think you acknowledged.

However some people seem desperate to have a singular truth movement because it makes the snipes easier.

[Diane_nyc]

74. Is there a single "9/11 Truth movement"? Depends how you define "(political) movement," I guess.

Looking up the word "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/movement">movement" on dictionary.reference.com, I find that "the 9/11 Truth movement" (considered as a single entity, but with factions) does seem to fit some of the relevant definitions (i.e., those definitions that pertain to politics and society), but does not fit other such definitions.

From Dictionary.com unabridged:

12. a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal: the antislavery movement; the realistic movement in art.

Using the above definition, one can indeed speak of a single 9/11 Truth movement (which is indeed a "heterogeneous group of people or organizations ... favoring a common goal."), the common goals being a new investigation of 9/11 and more government accountability. On the other hand:

On the other hand, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

d. An organized effort by supporters of a common goal: a leader of the labor movement.

This definition is a bit iffier, since "the 9/11 Truth movement" isn't one single organized effort analogous to, say, the AFL-CIO.

From WordNet:

4. a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals; "he was a charter member of the movement"; "politicians have to respect a mass movement"; "he led the national liberation front"

This definition doesn't allow for a single 9/11 Truth movement, given the emphasis on "ideology" and working "together."

But also from WordNet:

6. a series of actions advancing a principle or tending toward a particular end; "he supported populist campaigns"; "they worked in the cause of world peace"; "the team was ready for a drive toward the pennant"; "the movement to end slavery"; "contributed to the war effort"

"The 9/11 Truth movement" as a single entity does fit this definition.

I'm going to talk out of my ass now and say that I think (though I'm far from sure) that most sociologists who study social movements would consider the 9/11 Truth movement to be is a single political movement, albeit one with factions and sub-movements.

As I said, though, I'm not sure. One of these days I should find out exactly how sociologists define "political movement," but that will have to wait until the next time I'm at a university library, I guess.

Anyhow, regardless of whether "the 9/11 Truth movement" constitutes a single political movement, the important point is that it cannot be defined in terms of a single particular set of claims.

[Bassman66]

81. I am not part of any "movement" that embraces no planes..

No way.

We are not one movement.

[Bassman66]

90. OK, if we remove no-planes, nukes and the other 'goofy' stuff...

I am pointing out a structural problem the "truth movement" has and needs to deal with if they wish to be taken seriously.

...what are we left with in the "truth movement" that you would take seriously?

[Bassman66]

100. What a surprise, no answer from SD.

Basically he is asking Diane to waste her time combating the goofy elements of the "truth movement" so that the "truth movement" can be taken seriously, but in actual fact there is NOTHING that SD takes seriously from the "truth movement".

Unless he wants to prove us wrong.

SD?

What do you take seriously from the "truth movement"?

[Bassman66]

103. Well are you going to answer?

I am pointing out a structural problem the "truth movement" has and needs to deal with if they wish to be taken seriously.

You been asked several times, if the "structural problem" is removed then what is it about the "truth movement" that you would take seriously?

How many more times are you going to dodge this question or it's variants?

[Bassman66]

89. "You guys will continue to be defined by your goofier members as long as you don't confront them you

Diane does confront them.

So do I.

I am not "defined" by anyone, however it is an OCTer tactic to constantly talk about a singular "Truther movement" and then apply guilt by association.

"You're correct that people should not assume that "Octabots" all have the same motive or are a monolithic group."

I don't see much that differentiates one from the other to be honest. I don't see any kind of spectrum in their rhetoric.

[Diane_nyc]

92. What I meant by saying that official story defenders don't all have the same motive

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=214463">Bassman66 wrote, quoting http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=210781">this earlier post of mine in reply to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=210787">a post by SDuderstadt :

"You're correct that people should not assume that "Octabots" all have the same motive or are a monolithic group."

I don't see much that differentiates one from the other to be honest. I don't see any kind of spectrum in their rhetoric.

What I meant is that a few might literally be "paid shills," while others, probably most, are probably sincere and unpaid. Among those who are sincere, whether paid for their work or not, motives could vary from a love of Bush to the defense of what one sees as a proper leftist agenda.

You are correct that there isn'm much of a "spectrum" in that they are all defending essentially the same story.

[SDuderstadt]

96. Here we go again...

I don't know how to make this any clearer. How many posts have you seen from me that says anything like, "let me tell you why _______ from _______ is correct."? That would be an example of me "defending" the (insert your favorite target here). But, I don't. I spend my time addressing particularly goofy CT's or outright falsehoods. I realize that it's a subtle distinction, but I'm sure that you can get it. It's not the same thing as "defending the ______".

[Diane_nyc]

98. Official-story defenders, what they are

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=214575">SDuderstadt wrote:

115. Here we go again...

I don't know how to make this any clearer. How many posts have you seen from me that says anything like, "let me tell you why _______ from _______ is correct."? That would be an example of me "defending" the (insert your favorite target here). But, I don't. I spend my time addressing particularly goofy CT's or outright falsehoods. I realize that it's a subtle distinction, but I'm sure that you can get it. It's not the same thing as "defending the ______".

If "addressing particularly goofy CT's or outright falsehoods" (solely on the part of people questioning the official story) is all you do, then this does indeed constitute "defending the official story" - at least in effect, if not intent.

It is almost exactly analogous to what a defense attorney does, as I explained, in detail, in my earlier post to you titled http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212534">What makes someone an "official story defender"?. (See also my follow-up post titled http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212598">To SDuderstadt: miscellaneous.)

I've already explained, many times here, what I mean by an "official story defender." For a brief summary, see my post to HamdenRice, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=203375&mesg_id=213703">What is an official-story defender?.

See also my post to AZCat titled http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=212753">I'm sure this must be very frustrating. I have a suggestion.

[SDuderstadt]

101. Oh, bullshit, Diane....

taking issue with a poorly reasoned, Logic-bending, factually incorrect goofy claim or theory is not defending anything. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. For some reason, you keep trying to put (whatever you're calling us this week) on defense. It isn't working.

[Diane_nyc]

104. Defense vs. positive advocacy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=214575">SDuderstadt wrote, in this earlier post:

How many posts have you seen from me that says anything like, "let me tell you why _______ from _______ is correct."? That would be an example of me "defending" the (insert your favorite target here).

What you're defining here as "defense," I would call "positive advocacy." To me, defense is not the same thing as positive advocacy. To "defend" something means merely to oppose attacks on that something, and to do so consistently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=192084&mesg_id=212534">As I pointed out a while ago, a defense attorney is not necessarily a positive advocate for one's client. A defense attorney does not necessarily claim that one's client is a saint. Rather, what a defense attorney is supposed to do (assuming that one's client has pled innocent) is to tear the prosecutor's case apart. That is the sense in which I am using the word "defend."

Given that sense of the word, while it may be correct to say that you're not a positive advocate of the official story, you're still an official story defender.

Anyhow, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=214664">you wrote, more recently:

120. Oh, bullshit, Diane....

taking issue with a poorly reasoned, Logic-bending, factually incorrect goofy claim or theory is not defending anything.

If you make a consistent habit of attacking flaws in the arguments of just one particular category of people, without putting that criticism in a constructive context, then you thereby are defending whatever the people in that category are attacking.

Example: Someone who makes a consistent habit of pointing out fallacies in the writings of liberal or left-wing authors is thereby defending a right wing position, unless either (1) the person also points out fallacies in the writings of right wing authors too or (2) the criticism of liberal or left-wing authors is in a constructive context, i.e. pointing the way toward a sounder liberal or left-wing position. That's true regardless of how justified the criticisms might or might not be.

(ETA: My point above is not to equate the 9/11 Truth movement with "a liberal or left-wing position." The 9/11 Truth movement has attracted people from all over the political spectrum, as also does the antiwar movement. My paragraph above is intended only as an example of what I mean by "defense.")

I have repeatedly asked you and others (e.g. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=212753">here and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213806">here) to take a more constructive approach in your critique of the 9/11 Truth movement. I've repeatedly asked you to combine your (often though not always justified) criticisms with specific pointers to what you think would be a sounder approach to the call for a new investigation of 9/11. You have repeatedly refused. You've repeatedly indicated that there are things you suspect may be inaccurate in the 9/11 Commission Report or other official reports, but you have repeatedly refused to say what these things are. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213810">Your latest refusal is here, to which http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213862">I replied here.)

Nearly all your posts here are devoted to defending - i.e., countering attacks on - the official story. Because of that, and because you have refused to take a constructive approach, and because you rarely if ever criticize anything written by anyone who opposes the 9/11 Truth movement, it is reasonable to classify you as an official-story defender.

[SDuderstadt]

107. I honestly give up, Diane....

I don't care what the "truth movement" thinks about my efforts one iota. However, if just one reader looks at what I have to say and considers the evidence, thus rejecting goofy "truth movement" CT claims, I'm happy.

It's now nearly 7 years after the attacks and not one major political official or investigative reporter (think Seymour Hersh) has picked up the "truth" banner. Why is that? Hint: because there's no story there. Was the 9/11 Commission Report perfect? Far from it. I don't know of a single commission that did a perfect job and met with universal approval. The real question I have is, how many times does something have to be totally debunked before the "truth movement" finally abandons it? It's seems that every goofy 9/11 CT is still on the table, it's a just a question of the degree to which it is supported by the "truth community". What I really don't understand is why hardly anyone in the "truth community" is looking at the totality of the internal claims and says, "Hmmmm, this is FAR more implausible than the 'OCT'."

To repeat, I am not looking for acceptance nor approval from the "truth community".

[Diane_nyc]

109. There is indeed a story, and it's in process of coming out, slowly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=214869">SDuderstadt wrote:

It's now nearly 7 years after the attacks and not one major political official or investigative reporter (think Seymour Hersh) has picked up the "truth" banner. Why is that? Hint: because there's no story there

There is indeed a story, and it's in process of coming out, slowly. Although not "picking up the 'truth' banner" per se, Philip Shenon's book The Commission, published just this year, has revealed quite a bit. (See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=190636&mesg_id=190636">this DU thread about it.)

Alas, the mass media, in addition to being owned by fewer and fewer mega-corporations, thus losing much of their independence for that reason, are also skimping on investigative reporters these days. (For example, http://www.philipshenon.com/blog/2008/05/new-chapter.asp">Shenon tells us on his blog that the New York Times recently offered an early retirement package to a bunch of veteran reporters, including himself.)

The real story of 9/11 will not come out, fully, until there's a new and more truly independent investigation, with subpoena power, similar to what the 9/11 Commission was supposed to be.

The real question I have is, how many times does something have to be totally debunked before the "truth movement" finally abandons it? It's seems that every goofy 9/11 CT is still on the table, it's a just a question of the degree to which it is supported by the "truth community".

In the absence of the real story, whatever that might turn out to be, many people's minds naturally try to fill in the gaps. And, alas, most people naturally tend to cling to their beliefs, including unfounded ones. That would account for some of the persistence of at least some of the errors.

On the other hand, many of us suspect, though we cannot prove, that the very goofiest theories (e.g. no planes) are being advocated by disguised opponents of the movement in a deliberate effort to make us look ridiculous.

Anyhow, the 9/11 Truth movement is not primarily about any theory. It is primarily about calling for a new and truly independent investigation, the only thing that can tell us the real story.

[SDuderstadt]

110. Then, I'm not the enemy here, am I....

On the other hand, many of us suspect, though we cannot prove, that the very goofiest theories (e.g. no planes) are being advocated by disguised opponents of the movement in a deliberate effort to make us look ridiculous.

Then why don't you guys go after THEM instead of making us do it and criticizing us for it? It's not our fault that they eclipse you guys. Instead, when they post, precious few of you react to correct the record/call them on their goofiness, while countless others jump on the bandwagon, irrespective of how preposterous the claims being made. You just accuse us of "defending the OCT" and criticize us for not posting what you want us to. It's truly comical.

[Diane_nyc]

112. Arguing with obviously crazy people

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=214907">SDuderstadt wrote, regarding what http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=214901">I referred to as "the very goofiest theories (e.g. no planes)":

Then why don't you guys go after THEM instead of making us do it and criticizing us for it?

First off, no one is "making" you do anything (unless you're literally a paid shill, in which case the person paying you is the only person "making" you do anything).

Second, if you do wish to spend your time debating with a bunch of obviously crazy people (if indeed they're not outright hoaxters) like the no-planers, that's up to you. The only thing I would object to is referring to their claims as "claims of the 9/11 Truth movement" or otherwise associating their claims with the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole, given that the vast majority of people in the 9/11 Truth movement reject their claims.

Why don't more of us go after them? Because we have other, more important things to do than to spend our time arguing with a bunch of obviously crazy people. No-planers aren't likely to convince vast numbers of people to accept their beliefs, after all. While we shouldn't ignore them completely, there's no reason to give a high priority to debating with them. Posting occasional rebuttals (or links to same) should suffice to distance us from the no-planers in the eyes of any honest onlooker.

It's not our fault that they eclipse you guys.

They don't dominate most 9/11 Truth movement venues, where they are either not allowed at all or are confined to a "controversial theories" area.

Instead, when they post, precious few of you react to correct the record/call them on their goofiness, while countless others jump on the bandwagon, irrespective of how preposterous the claims being made.

"Countless"? Where are these "countless" people jumping on the no-planes bandwagon?

You just accuse us of "defending the OCT" and criticize us for not posting what you want us to.

The term I use is "official story defender," and what I mean by it is that you consistently defend the official story on just about every topic, never (or almost never) voicing any specific objections or qualms about it (even though you've claimed to have some qualms).

[SDuderstadt]

113. Taking issue with a particularly goofy claim

again is NOT defending the "official story". It's taking issue with the goofy claim. I don't know how many times I have to explain this. Pointing out that it would be impossible to control every film made of the second plane striking WTC is defending the "official story" how, exactly?


I would also very much take issue with your claim that "the vast majority of people in the 9/11 Truth movement reject their claims". I'd love to see some proof of this.

As far as your "rebuttal" of my "bamdwagon" claim, look at some of the posts like "Enough nonsense...the towers were nuked" (or whatever the subject line) and try to deny that a number of people rush to embrace the post, accepting it uncritically in the process, creating at least the impression that it speaks for the "truth movement". While you think they are "too crazy" to respond to, they are hijacking your movement, much to your detriment.

As far as your claim that I "consistently defend the official story on just about every topic", please take note of the great number of OP's I don't even respond to and notice the nature of them. Then try to convince me of your silly claim.

[Diane_nyc]

114. The blatantly goofy stuff

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=215103">SDuderstadt wrote:

132. Taking issue with a particularly goofy claim

again is NOT defending the "official story". It's taking issue with the goofy claim.

Depends on the context in which you do it.

I've explained this enough times already, in this thread and elsewhere. If you take issue with what I've said, please respond to the specifics of what I've already said. Don't ask me to start all over from scratch on this issue.

I would also very much take issue with your claim that "the vast majority of people in the 9/11 Truth movement reject their claims". I'd love to see some proof of this.

Well, I haven't taken a scientific survey. However, I do know that no-planes claims are either disallowed altogether or strongly discouraged on major 9/11 Truth sites such as 911blogger.

Even the Alex Jones/LC/WAC crowd pretty much rejects no-planes claims these days, as far as I can tell. Last time I visited the Loose Change message board, their policy was to prohibit no-planes claims regarding the World Trade Center. (They did tolerate people advocating the idea that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a 757, although the latest version of Loose Change doesn't advocate that idea.)

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice specifically reject no-planes claims for both the WTC buildings and the Pentagon. And, at the time of the schism between STJ and the original ST group led by Jim Fetzer, the vast majority of members chose to join STJ.

As far as your "rebuttal" of my "bamdwagon" claim, look at some of the posts like "Enough nonsense...the towers were nuked" (or whatever the subject line) and try to deny that a number of people rush to embrace the post, accepting it uncritically in the process,

Here on DU, yes, we do seem to have a fair-sized no-planes/mini-nukes contingent. However, the 9/11 forum of DU is not representative of the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole. The no-planes/mini-nukes people are outcasts in most 9/11 Truth forums I've had occasion to look at.

As far as your claim that I "consistently defend the official story on just about every topic", please take note of the great number of OP's I don't even respond to and notice the nature of them.

I mis-spoke. I should have said, "... on just about every topic which you do address."

[Grateful for Hope]

111. Some excellent points here

Your debate style is very refreshing. It is respectful, and obviously very well researched.

Thank you.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Oh, really?

And you come to this conclusion how, exactly?

[Bolo Boffin]

49. If 911myths "should be" in the banned list along with rense and the freepers

you should have no trouble demonstrating any hateful bias they might have to the moderators.

After all, sites hit the banned list because of demonstrable hate. I've not seen a speck of such from 911myths. You are spreading factual inaccuracies about 911myths because they skewer your own fantasies so handily.

[Ghost in the Machine]

50. You shouldn't be accusing *anyone* of spreading factual inaccuracies, Mr "The lake is just *yards*

from the impact crater"... :rofl:

Hypocrisy, thy name is boloboffin

[Bassman66]

36. I read that from the 9/11 CR

There is fudge in there, real fudge. But why?

Why talk about 95% on the 6th and a specific number of shares on sept 10? Thus is sept 10 is buried with a seemingly big number, but we are not really told anything about it relative to the other trading.

Was sept 6th a quiet trading day for instance on UAL? What happened to AMR on the 6th? What happened to UAL on the 10th? What happened on the other days inbetween? What proportion of trading was due to the newsletter and what wasn't?

"Sparse".

Dead right.

"Fudge" is another word that can be used.

Why the need for fudge? This was a highly suspicious thing, even the 9/11 CR report admitted it looked suspicious, the onus was on the 9/11 CR to explain this fully if they could. This is not a full explanation by any means, they have failed to put peoples minds at rest.

[SDuderstadt]

37. "looking" suspicious is not the same thing as...

being suspicious. The 9/11 CR found no reason to investigate it further. If you bother to look at it more closely, including other available info/analysis, there just does not seem to be that much there. The 9/11 CR's conclusion is perfectly reasonable.

[Bassman66]

38. They found no reason?

They found "innocuous" reasons, they didn't tell us what they were, they gave us fudge instead (did you read my post?). Where is the other info/analysis you refer to?

It's not good enough.

[SDuderstadt]

40. I have posted it REPEATEDLY.....

This is the last fricking time.

http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html

[Bassman66]

42. From the web site

"Our take..."

So their subjective opinion on the put options on 9/11 is supposed to sooth our troubled breasts.

We've "officially" had fudge, I'm not interested in the subjective opinion of an obviously pro-government web site.

It's not good enough. Why did the 9/11 CR give us fudge? Why do we have to have an interpretation of the fudge on a pro web site?

It's not good enough.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Then stay ignorant...no one cares...

It's also stupid to claim that 911myths.com is pro-government when all it is doing is entering the fray and providing analysis ("out take") and, most importantly, advising the reader to check out the information for themselves. If you're going to label everything that contradicts your theory of 9/11 as "pro-government", I'm not sure there's anywhere for us to go.The 9/11 Commission investigated it, found nothing really all that remarkable and said so in several paragraphs. If you think this is so suspicious, then file an FOIA request.

[Bassman66]

47. No, I want the Government to provide facts not fudge.

I want an open unobstructed investigation that clearly explains in unambigous terms why the put options are innocuous.
Fudge is no good.
Interpretations of fudge are worse (reminds me of theology, but anyway...).

The 9/11 Commission investigated it, found nothing really all that remarkable and said so in several paragraphs.

"Sparse" is how you describe it yourself. I have pointed out why it's actually fudge. Saying "we found nothimg really remarkable" is easy, we don't believe the 9/11 CR report, we don't trust it just because it says something without providing the proof. Some of the people who created the report don't believe the report either.

It's not good enough.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Are you accusing the Commission of covering something up in this regard?

For crying out loud, they reviewed 2.5 million pages of documents and 1000 hours of audiotapes. Do you honestly think they can take the time to detail everything you seem to have a problem with? It was NO surprise that AA and UA were in trouble. The Commission traced it back to a large INSTITUTIONAL trade that was triggered by an investment newsletter. Why you think that sounds suspect is beyond me. And, now you're getting to one of the problems I have with the "truth movement". "Something" appears to be a bombshell then, upon closer examination, turns out to have a reasonable explanation, but "truthers" keep flogging it like it holds the key to some puzzle. This is the same reason why there is a JFK assassination conspiracy cottage industry 45 years after his death.

As I have said before, if you are not satisfied with the Commission's conclusion, then submit a FOIA request for the underlying materials. This is NOT new stuff. You have zero evidence it's been covered up in any way. Quit making it sound like it's some rosetta stone for "truth".

[Bassman66]

55. Cover up? Absolutely!

"9/11: Press for Truth".
Watch it and weep.

[Bassman66]

56. 2.5 million pages...

summarized into a paragraph on insider trading.
OK.
That works.

Oh I get it, the public is too dumb to understand such matters.

LARGE INSTITUTION TRADE not connected to Al Queda, so.... were they connected to anything else?

Is that a dumb question?

Or reasonable?

FOIA - the new placebo.

[SDuderstadt]

60. No one ever said that the 2.5 million pages....

concerned only this issue, dude. If you think the Commission is covering something up, expose them.

[Bassman66]

63. I never suggested that, however one sparse paragraph...

..containing fudge for such an important issue is not good enough.

People are trying to expose them, people have!

Watch "9/11: Press for Truth" and weep at the depth of White House obstrcution to an investigation.

[Bassman66]

48. "no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda"

That's what the 9/11 CR report said.

So.. what about ties to.... ah you know...

We need an open unobstructed investigation, who could disagree.

[lawnmowerman]

85. Buzzy Krongaard is a prime suspect

or at least should have been

- appointed by Bush to the CIA in March 2001

- a former United Airlines funds manager

- currently on the advisory board of Blackwater

[scholarsOrAcademics]

115. econ professor Zarembka agrees

Paul Zarembka has an article in the book The HIDDEN HISTORY of 9-11 titled "Initiation of the 9-11 operation, with evidence of insider trading beforehand". He is the editor of the book out 2006 and 2008. He was in town last Sunday (Seattle). He agrees the toweres fell at free fall speed.

[scholarsOrAcademics]

116. video on free fall

the previous post I used was Towers Collapse.
the physics used in the video is simple algebra, an equation.
http://www.archive.org/details/Sept12200112accelerationduetogravitytimesquared