Why You Should Be a 9/11 Truther Even if You Don't Believe the Government Carried Out the Attacks

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8088


Diary Entry by jimd3100





Why even those who don't believe the Government carried out nthe attacks should support 9/11 truthers.

::::::::

Why you should be a 9/11 truther even if you don't believe the Government carried out the attacks.

Let's say you go along with the idea that WTC 7 collapsed because of normal fires, and Hani Hanjour went from an incompetent idiot to a highly skilled pilot, and 9/11 was carried out by 19 arab terrorists working for Osama Bin Laden. You should still join forces with the 9/11 truth movement and here's why.

Because the government is still to blame, and you are still being constantly lied to. Nothing was done to prevent these attacks. No one has been held responsible for massive errors that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and consequently hundreds of thousands of deaths of human beings since then.

President Bush is constantly telling you the terrorists attacked us because you are so free and they hate that. This is an incredibly ridickulas lie that insults your intelligence and takes the blame off the foreign policy of our corrupt establishment and places it on you. You like being free? Well, it could get you killed by these "evil doers" unless you allow your beloved government to "protect" your freedoms by killing and invading other countries.

The truth is, no so called terrorist has ever claimed he hates Americans because they are free. They claim our support for the apartheid and genocidal actions of Israel, along with our interference in domestic affairs of other nations is what they have a grievance against. In other words those 2974 people that are dead from 9/11 were killed because of the actions of our government. And the thousands that will die because of the toxic air at ground zero were lied to by the EPA by order of the white house. Their deaths can also be blamed on this administration

[SDuderstadt]

1. "ridickulas" ?? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

2. EXCELLENT rebuttal!!

You really showed *him* a thing or two! Destroyed his whole presentation!

:applause:

[Bassman66]

4. And that's your only comment?

I'm not surpised.

[Diane_nyc]

7. I suspect that "ridickulas" was a deliberate misspelling, intended to be a pun ....

"dick" = Dick Cheney, I would imagine.

But I have no idea what the last part is intended to refer to. Anyone have any good guesses?

[seemslikeadream]

8. Well now I know

The spelling police are out again in force, or should I say farce? :rofl:

Thanks for the hint since I can not see what was posted

[SDuderstadt]

10. I've got an idea!

I think the poster does not know how to spell "ridiculous". I am amazed at the contortions people go through here trying to defend egregious misspelling. Do you honestly think it should not be taken into consideration when trying to evaluate the degree to which the post is believable? For myself, I prefer posts from educated people. Unfortunately, that leaves out many (not all or even most) members of the CT/"truth" community.

[Diane_nyc]

12. Two can play this game....

Official-story defenders be warned: Watch your spelling from now on .... :P

Anyhow, the O.P. contained a copied-and-pasted excerpt from a much longer article in which I did not notice a whole bunch of other "ridickulas" misspellings, which is why I suspect that that one may have been intended as a deliberate pun.

I could be wrong, of course.

Anyhow, I would be interested in your comments on the substance of the article.

[seemslikeadream]

13. GAMES, GAMES!!

Is someone here attempting to play ?



Unheard of!

[SDuderstadt]

15. I would think if someone was...

deliberately misspelling a word (especially as egregiously as "ridickulas"), they'd go out of their way to set it apart (perhaps quotation marks, etc.) so readers would know that they're not a fucking moron. If you were screening applicants for a job or grading final exams at even a state university, would you just overlook "ridickulas"? Would you take a person who wrote "ridickulas" seriously? Would you? I am constantly amazed at how the "truthers" defend illiteracy. It's downright embarrassing to us as liberals.

On a funnier note, I was once having a battle of words with some RWer about God knows what and they claimed I had misspelled a word (I didn't). Of course, they misspelled "mispelled". It was classic.

[Diane_nyc]

18. You too do misspell words now and then ....

An example is "woever" in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=214224&mesg_id=214405">this post. Another example is "investgation" in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=213810">this post. So, kindly stop bitching about other people's misspellings.

Anyhow, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215329&mesg_id=215363">SDuderstadt wrote:

If you were screening applicants for a job or grading final exams at even a state university, would you just overlook "ridickulas"?

Of course not. But the article quoted in the O.P. is political advocacy writing, not a final exam or a job application. In political advocacy writing, it's not at all uncommon to find neologisms and puns, often not set off in quotation marks.

Be that as it may, I would be interested in your comments on the content of the article quoted in the O.P.

[SDuderstadt]

19. Do you understand the difference between a mere typo....

for example, accidentally missing a key (woever) or (investgation), or transposing two letters (mabye), or hitting the adjacent key (okat) as opposed to not knowing the difference between "there", "they're" and "their" (homophones) or spelling "ridiculous" as "ridickulous"? I'd love for you to show me one single time when I called someone on a mere typo. Just one time.

I happen to think literacy matters. Maybe you don't. Even if it is just "political advocacy writing". If you don't think it's important, I would submit we have no business calling Freepers on their "Get a brain, moran!" signs. I thought liberals like ourselves championed education, literacy and good writing. As far as your "neologisms or puns" take, it would make a lot more sense if it is apparent, rather than making the writer look like a fucking "moran".

[Diane_nyc]

20. Spelling flames

I agree that education is important. However, in nearly every electronic forum I've ever participated in, spelling flames have been regarded as being in extremely bad taste.

More to the point of DU in particular, the Democratic Party's target constituencies do include poor people, many of whom are not well-educated. Of course we should aim to improve education, but that doesn't mean, for example, that people who are not well-educated should be ineligible to vote or to participate in political discussion. There may also be people here for whom English is only a second language.

Anyhow, you would probably enjoy http://www.horsesring.com/forums/general-discussions/14023-owed-two-a-spellchecquer.html">this poem.

[Falcon_Lights1916]

3. Well Said, SLaD.

No matter what the truth turns out to be, the government sinned by either omission or commission (depending on what one thinks happened that day). Up til now, the government has not been made accountable for either what it did or did not do.

[seemslikeadream]

16. Though not my words

I thought it was interesting enough to post here.

Welcome to the dungeon Falcon_Lights1916

[Bassman66]

5. Another reason...

They should want to make the White House accountable for their on the record lies.

Bush, Cheny and Rice have all lied.

"No one could image planes as missles"
"There were no warnings"
The whole PDB thing.

Lies. They LIED.

Make them answer, become a 9/11 "truther".

[Falcon_Lights1916]

21. That's The Bottom Line Here...

Bush, Cheney, and Rice lied. Why have they not be held accountable?

[balantz]

6. Now the problem is

finding a way to regain the checks and balances necessary to hold them accountable for their many offences from 911 to the present.

[Diane_nyc]

9. We need mass public outrage, like we had in the 1960's, to pressure Congress to make reforms.

Many valuable reforms were made back in the 1960's and 1970's, thanks to pressure from various mass movements back then.

[balantz]

11. Yes we do.

And what a potential mess that can be.

We had better go about it in a very smart fashion.

[Diane_nyc]

14. Going about it in a very smart fashion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215329&mesg_id=215348"> balantz wrote, in reply to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215329&mesg_id=215346">my statement that we need mass public outrage like we had back in the 1960's:

11. Yes we do.

And what a potential mess that can be.

We had better go about it in a very smart fashion.

Agreed. What are some of your ideas as to what a very smart fashion would be?

[balantz]

17. Be aware, be concerted, be peaceful

and don't be lead like sheep to slaughter.

There's a few ideas.

[Bassman66]

23. A 9/11 Woodstock.

A semi-serious suggestion.

There must be a few bands out there interested.

Willie Nelson could do a spot, Charlie Sheen could do an introduction.

Not every rock star has sold his soul these days (I hope).

Where are todays young radicals? Where are the idealists?

[Diane_nyc]

22. Response to the quoted article

Some comments on http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8088">the article quoted in the O.P.:

Let's say you go along with the idea that WTC 7 collapsed because of normal fires, and Hani Hanjour went from an incompetent idiot to a highly skilled pilot

Actually, the usual claim I've seen is not that Hani Hanjour ever became a "highly skilled pilot" (beyond what was necessary to obtain his license, which he eventually did) but that his maneuvers on 9/11 didn't actually require much skill, just recklessness. I've seen quite a bit of debate over how much skill he needed in order to do what he did. Not being a pilot myself, I'm in no position to evaluate these arguments.

You should still join forces with the 9/11 truth movement and here's why.

Because the government is still to blame, and you are still being constantly lied to. Nothing was done to prevent these attacks. No one has been held responsible for massive errors that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and consequently hundreds of thousands of deaths of human beings since then.

Agreed.

As I've said many times here, the 9/11 Truth movement is not primarily about any "theories." It's primarily about calling for a truly independent investigation (like what the 9/11 Commission was supposed to be) and holding people in the government accountable.

President Bush is constantly telling you the terrorists attacked us because you are so free and they hate that.

Indeed, Al Qaeda has made specific demands having to do with U.S foreign policy.

The administration had no interest in investigating these attacks. The Jersey girls forced this government to have a 9/11 commission. A commission that refused to assign blame and was just another cover-up. The co chairmen of the commission admitted that they were lied to under oath by the military and decided to do nothing about it.

Condoleezza Rice and President Bush both said that "no one in this administration nor the prior one could have imagined taking planes and flying them into buildings". This is another lie. In fact they did imagine it, and actually practiced it.

Flying planes into buildings was an idea of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad who were arrested in 1995. Their computer was seized and a treasure trove of information was discovered on it, including manifestos that explained why they hate America. It was the American government and it's foreign policy that they hated, it wasn't your freedom.

Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were two 9/11 hijackers that were being monitored by the CIA. They were known mujihaden. The CIA deliberately let them into the USA. And then you are supposed to believe they unfortunately lost track of them. The CIA is not supposed to do surveillance inside the USA and as we all know the last thing in the world the CIA would do is break any law, so they were supposed to notify the FBI to pick up the surveillance. Well, it is claimed that they thought they did but the FBI wasn't notified. You are also supposed to believe that there was a "wall" preventing the FBI and the CIA from sharing information. Another lie. The counterintelligence unit at the CIA was staffed by CIA and FBI. Out of the 300 million people that reside in the USA these two ended up having a landlord that they lived with coincidently being an FBI informant who supposedly didn't inform the FBI about them.

(For that last point, a reference is given to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/09/attack/main521223.shtml">this CBS News story. We are also referred to page 38/141 of the http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/fbi-911/chap5.pdf">DOJ OIG report (PDF).)

All excellent points above.

"Truthers" need to be responsible as well. Accusing reporters of "being in on it" because they don't like what they reported at the pentagon is outageous and irresponsible, some claims by so called truthers are just outrageous. Sure there are preposterous claims by some who claim to be "truthers" and I don't believe everything said in the name of 9/11 truth because anyone can claim anything in the name of 9/11 truth.

Also an important point.