My problem is this.........

[lovepg]

The Bush administration has been found to have engaged in deceptions and cooking of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. Members have been caught in perjury (Mr. Libby).
Others have written books describing deceptions and lies. Rumsfeld lied about knowing where the WMD was. I mean come on do I really need to list it ALL For you?
More stuff comes out every day. Torture, illegal wiretapping, secret CIA programs ECT ECT.
These are the people who appointed the people for the 911 commission. Nist is a government agency.
They see the evidence they are allowed to see. It is clear evidence is still being withheld from us. How do we know what is there that is not being shown. Photos and videos of the Pentagon planes are said to exist that we have not seen. Steel from the twin towers was scrapped crime scene evidence destroyed. There are decades of government deception and scandal that should tell any rational person who has paid attention that we are not allowed to know what they are doing in our name. People have told of being pressured, threatened. People fired for whistleblowing. CIA agents exposed for the fact that the husband of one of them disagreed with their intelligence.
You look at videos and see puffs coming from the twin towers before and as they collapse and agree with the official story that it is air being forced out the building.
I see it and think it might be what you say or it might be explosions from a demolition. Why can't we have a independent prosecuter that can make Bush and Cheany testify under oath?( Isn't that a red flag to some of you??) Someone who can get many opinions from varied experts? Sift through the evidence and test the various theories out there?
I know its hard to believe our own government could engage in activities such as 911. But i never believed they would engage in many of the crimes they have been found to engage in over the last 50 years or so.
Is it so hard to believe people willing to lie to get the war they wanted that has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands could be involved in the deed that made it possible? Are you people that naive of the history? The billions of dollars "lost " by the pentagon and in the war in Iraq. 18 billion the last I read. Money is never LOST it changes hands. Money is a long standing motivation for death and destruction and treason. I see magic passports and daring feats of flying done by rank begginers and see the people involved in our government and believe I am very rational to doubt the official story. Which has evolved over time as well. The pancake story became the global collapse story ect.
Given the players involved and the nature of their discovered lies and coverups why not just have a open transparent investigation that will hopefully prove all us doubters wrong and close this nasty chapter of our history?

[Ohio Joe]

1. Who would you trust?

I have wondered about this on occasion. The conspiracy seems to be so widespread, so just curious, who would you trust to do it?

[lovepg]

2. Thats a very good question....

I guess the best i can think of is an independant prosecuter.
But there would be problems with that as well,
Any of you got any good suggestions?

[lovepg]

23. I think after reading all your ideas I have an idea.

A lot of the people on this forum are way more aware of the details pro and con than most investigators would be.
I think i would trust an investigation that had a mixture of DUers on this forum on it.
You would know for damn sure that every angle would be covered.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. I know I'm just full of book suggestions

But I finally got to read Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 by Kathryn Olmstead at the beginning of the month. I highly recommend it. You are correct when you look at this crowd and distrust them as a source of truth. And the conspiracy theorists that have done this country the most damage are the ones that have sat in the Oval Office.

9/11, however, is an event that the basic facts could not be faked. 19 people put together into four teams by the terrorist network Al Qaeda hijacked four planes on 9/11. Three of those planes found their targets and the fourth was intentionally crashed by the hijackers when the passengers threatened to retake control of the plane. The plane crashes in New York led to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 with no other human assistance.

This much is uncontestable fact, and it is not based solely on governmental sources. If you want to convict George Bush and his cronies of these crimes, you must put Al Qaeda into their hands. That is the smoking gun.

[eomer]

4. It should go without saying...

but I'll say it anyway: not everyone agrees with you that all of that is incontestable fact.

[Subdivisions]

5. The evidence goes back all the way to Indonesia and through

the flight schools and all the way through the airport terminals. The hijackers did exist and did plan an attack and apparently did board the planes. The question is: Who were they working for, bin laden or PNAC...or both, and how much did they know about their own role in the plot?

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Good questions.

I think they have answers, but this becomes a less knowable area of inquiry.

[Subdivisions]

8. Well, I'll be damned...

Someone check the temperature in Hell...

[eomer]

9. Does the evidence rise to the level of incontestability?

The evidence that each and every one of the 19 is exactly who and what the official story says they are? Aren't there some sketchy parts where you have evidence of one or more of them in two places at once, some of them behaving in ways that don't match their supposed psychological profiles, and other various questions that cast at least a small measure of doubt that the official list is 100% correct?

I'm not saying I totally disagree with the 19 hijackers claim. But I don't think 100% of it rises to the level of incontestability, which sounds to me like a pretty high standard, higher even than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I was actually thinking more, though, of other parts of bolo's narrative. For example, the part about Flight 93 being taken over by the passengers, who crashed it as per the official story. I don't see how that can be considered incontestable. One of the possibilities? Perhaps. Incontestable? No.

[Subdivisions]

10. I wouldn't have used the word "incontestable". n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Is the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun incontestable? Yes.

Does that mean that no one contests it? No. There are silly people in the world. However they are wrong.

And, by the way, incontestable is not the reverse concept as falsifiable. The Earth revolving around the Sun is falsifiable, but it is also incontestable. Just an aside thrown out there in case the discussion goes that way.

Your contesting of parts of the events of 9/11 doesn't mean that they are not incontestable. Your contesting may have no real basis in fact, and in the case of the things I listed off, your contesting does have no real basis in fact. Contesting those things means that you have not availed yourself of the full range of evidence available at the very least, which is as far as I am willing to speculate on the matter.

When you move off in the murky waters of Deep Politics, well, that's a different matter. For my tastes, it's too much like tea leaf reading to give any reliable information, but that's where some prefer to play. There's plenty of room for speculation and the like in Deep Politics. God bless you, go with God.

However, the buildings falling down is science. Who the hijackers were and what they did on 9/11 is just good detective work. That's wrapped up.

[eomer]

12. One way in which your narrative is contestable

is that much of the evidence used to support it is of questionable provenance or unknown provenance.

If you can't demonstrate incontestably the provenance of the evidence then you can't demonstrate anything by way of that evidence incontestably.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. No. n/t

[eomer]

15. No, what?

Do you deny that evidence has to be incontestable before it can be used to prove something incontestably?

Or do you claim that all the evidence you would use can be shown to be incontestable, that you can demonstrate the provenance and reliability of every bit of evidence you need to prove your case? I'd say that is possibly the most ridiculous claim I've heard in a long time.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. No, the provenance isn't questionable, not for the items I listened. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

17. But the provenance of Jones' dust samples surely are...

of course, the "truthers" who think they've found the smoking gun are certainly mot going to question it because of an obvious double standard

[eomer]

19. The provenance of Jones' dust sample certainly is contestable. n/t

[eomer]

18. What is the evidence, then, that flight 93 was crashed intentionally by the hijackers?

Once you've told me what the evidence is, please also provide the provenance, including detailed chain of custody, for each piece of evidence that you used.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. The flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder.

Both recovered at the scene and held by the FBI ever since.

[eomer]

21. OK, "held by the FBI" certainly does not constitute provenance that is indisputable.

Are you claiming that it does? Are you claiming that the FBI has never, in its entire history, tampered with evidence?

[Bolo Boffin]

24. So everything else is cool with you? n/t

[eomer]

25. Certainly not. One counter example is all it takes to disprove your statement.

But every one of the claims in your narrative will have the same problem if you work through it.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Bullshit.

Ooooh, dat wacky EffaBeeEye! That's your objection?

Get the fuck out of here.

[eomer]

27. You do know

that many of allegations that the official story is not true involve some kind of involvement by elements of the FBI?

So your proof, incontestably, is:

Ooooh, dat wacky EffaBeeEye! That's your objection?

Get the fuck out of here.

I guess I see what kind of incontestability you meant. The kind where everything the government tells us is automatically true.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. You keep thinking that...

...while you're walking out the door.

[lovepg]

29. Like you own the place?????

Whats with the offensive responses everytime your challenged????
Does your side no good.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. No.

Whats with the offensive responses everytime your challenged????

eomer made it clear he or she wasn't a serious discussion partner, so back to the curb he or she goes. Don't like it? Ignore me.

[lovepg]

36. Your definition of serious discussion partner = agrees with you.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Nope. n/t

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Fainter]

45. It's You Who Should Be Walking Out Your "Door"...

redfaced, Eomer just handed you your ass Boloboffin. This is plain as day to any and all with an open mind.

[SDuderstadt]

46. "This is plain as day to any and all with an open mind."

This is Trutherspeak for, "If you don't agree with our goofy theories, you can't be open-minded"

[Bolo Boffin]

47. I'm sorry. If you want to see an ass-handing, please report to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x257602

What eomer has done is pretend his personal incredulity with the FBI puts a dent in their ability to be custodians of the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder.

However, CT advocates have obtained the FDR data, and it is such that it could not be faked. The FDR maintains records of many complex and interweaving systems during every flight taken by the aircraft in question. All are present, none disagree, and the last flight clearly shows that the aircraft crashed because of the intentional actions of the pilot at the time. There was nothing wrong with any of the systems of the aircraft. There was nothing at all wrong with the plane but the direction it was flying and the speed with which it was flying there.

And the cockpit voice recorder was played for the family members of the passengers, some of whom heard their loved ones on the tape. From that record it is very clear who was in charge of the aircraft at the time -- the hijackers.

Eomer has done nothing but show his ass.

[vincent_vega_lives]

35. tampered with evidence

What exactly would be said individuals motive to do this regarding flight 93???

Please, please, please do not say "to keep their job", cuz I can certainly see how an agent could justify doing somthing illegal to put somone they consider a scumbag away, but that is vastly different from covering up or even being an accessary to mass murder.

[SDuderstadt]

14. So, Jones' "nano-thermite" theory is pretty much...

toast, huh...

[eomer]

22. All of the theories are in the same boat.

None of them have been demonstrated, incontestably or even beyond a reasonable doubt.

That leaves us in need of getting a serious investigation started.

[lovepg]

30. Hey at one time the official story was pancake collapse.....

guess that was not so uncontestable huh?

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Lovely.

When you find out what a hypothesis is, check back with us.

[lovepg]

39. I guess the book you official story guys tell us to read to educate.....

Ourselves now qualifies as hypothesis.
Well I already knew that LOL!

[truedelphi]

33. Yes good questions.

The hijackers may have existed and even boarded the planes, but I now feel the planes were on remote control.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. No. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

6. I know not everyone agrees with me on that.

They are wrong.

[vincent_vega_lives]

37. None of what you mentioned

comes close to mass murder of US Citizens. That's quite a leap.

[lovepg]

40. Nice so civilians from other countries and our military people killed for....

no good reason do not equal the humanity of people who live within the defined borders of the United States.

[vincent_vega_lives]

41. That's quite a reach

Not to mention dodge, spin and weave.

Hope you didn't hurt yerself. :hi:

[lovepg]

42. Your the one who heavily implied it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

44. Implication

requires intent. You choose to perceive an implication I did not make.

[lovepg]

48. Ok then you do agree the killing of civilians in Iraq and our military personel

Is an equal crime to the killing of american civilians in 911?
Or is that an implication you do not agree with?