Silly conspiracy nuts, now they will claim Cheany was trying to subvert...

[lovepg]

The Constitution. Where do they get this stuff LOL!!!!

[StarryNite]

1. Yeah, what's wrong with us...

I mean them! :tinfoilhat:

[SDuderstadt]

2. No, Cheney WAS trying to subvert the Constitution....

You need to learn the difference between actual conspiracies and mere "conspiracy theories". I was disappointed when Fitzgerald was only able to indict Libby.

[StarryNite]

3. Are you always this bossy?

:shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

4. Yeah...

CTers bring it out in me (not you necessarily). You haven't been here long, so you haven't witnessed "truthers" calling us "paid shills" or "supporters of Bushco". It gets old.

[lovepg]

5. You need to read more then you would know this was a theory at ....

one time now proven to be true. GEEEESH.

[SDuderstadt]

6. Operative word...''proven''...

Do you think because all proven conspiracies initially were theorized by someone, that means all conspiracy theories are eventually proven? You need to study the ''fallacy of compopsition''.

Again, you could benefit immensely by taking some critical thinking classes. Your local community college will have them.

[StarryNite]

7. LOL! OMG!

There you go again telling people that they need to take classes. Perhaps you are the one that should be taking the classes. LOL

[SDuderstadt]

10. I did...

in undergraduate school. And most people do not think critically. We see it here everyday.

[lovepg]

8. No I do not think that. Your words not mine read CAREFULLY....

How about you taking a communication class. The first thing they would tell you is get rid of the "YOU NEED" statements LOL!!!

[vincent_vega_lives]

9. YOU NEED

to stop wasting bandwith with pointless threads.

[lovepg]

14. Awwww how cute SD...

Look one of your little friends came to help you!

[William Seger]

31. Piling on

So far, all I've seen from you is flamebait.

[lovepg]

34. Since SD is the king of flame I will assume you were talking about him..

I mean he insults others in every damn post he makes.
Or haven't you read them?

[SDuderstadt]

37. I am ''insulting'' your lack of reasoning powers, dude...

not you personally. For the life of me, why you think whining to the forum rather than taking it up with the moderators makes sense escapes me.

[lovepg]

38. Yes yes everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot but don't take it..

Personally? And you claim my reasoning powers are faulty?
Stop it your killing me here...
Wait for it.......
LOL!!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

40. There you go again, dude...

Have I ever called you an idiot? Hint: no. If you can find where I ever have, please provide it and I'll gladly apologize. If you can't then quit making false accusations, dude.

By the way, your post is a perfect example of the lack of reasoning power I was talking about. Again, you would benefit greatly from those classes in critical thinking I've been urging you to take. Your local community college will have them.

[lovepg]

42. Yeah totally lacking the ability to reason and being an idiot are totally different things......

I do not know how anyone could confuse those two.
EXCUSE ME!

[SDuderstadt]

46. Show me where I called you an idiot...,

or quit making false accusations, dude.

For whatever it's worth, someone could be extremely intelligent yet still be untrained in critical thinking, dude. Now, about those critical thinking classes...

[Realityhack]

53. Um...

Idiot != Ignorant != Lacking Critical Thinking Skills

IMO you need to slow WAY down and think about what you are reading rather than how you are going to respond to it. Your posts (not just in this sub-thread but in general) seem to ignore the points being made by those you are 'discussing' or 'debating' with.

[William Seger]

48. I said flameBAIT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait

"Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in."

[SDuderstadt]

52. "I mean he insults others in every damn post he makes"

Really, dude? You sure of that?

[SDuderstadt]

11. and the first thing they they would tell you is...

"get rid of the LOL's!

Simple question, dude. Have you ever taken a critical thinking class?

[lovepg]

15. I reply in true SD fashion...

Prove it that the first thing they would say is get rid of the LOL,s!!!!
Come on you made the assertion now back it up!

LOL!

[SDuderstadt]

17. Dude, you seriously need to study...

what constitutes a claim. For example, is what I just said a claim? Hint: no.

Trying to reason with you reminds me of a RWer who (no kidding) demanded proof of a joke that Al Gore made.

[lovepg]

25. Funny thats just the kind of thing you would ask proof of.

[snooper2]

68. so, what you do for a living..

Or should I ask, what else do you go by on DU?

[jberryhill]

12. So, let's see if I understand your implication here....

Cheney wanted to use the Army in an unconstitutional action, and this idea was debated and rejected within the administration.

The implication here is that carrying out 9/11 as a false flag attack - destroying the twin towers, killing thousands of people, and attacking the Pentagon - was considered a good idea and they ran with that one. But sending a few soldiers into Buffalo to carry out arrests and detainment, was beyond the pale for the same people.

Is that your point?

[lovepg]

13. No not my point.

My point is ALONG with all the OTHER evidence that shows the last administrations intentions of circumventing the constitution, this is another bit of evidence that shows they were willing to engage in extra constitutional methods to accomplish their goals. Legality and the toll of human collateral damage sustained in obtaining their goals does not appear to be a concern to these people. Anyone who reads the headlines should be able to recite a list of these actions taken and should be at least willing to admit the possibility that 911 was allowed to happen or that some involvement of elements within the government could have occurred. I do not claim to know how 911 went down .
Thats the domain of the official story people. I just want an investigation that is not a cover up and that examines the evidence that might lead to different conclusions than what we decided was the conclusion on the day it occurred.

[SDuderstadt]

16. How do you know it was a...

cover-up if, by your own admission, you don't know how 9/11 went down?

It is also inherently dishonest to characterize the "Official Story" as "what we decided was the conclusion on the day it occurred".

[lovepg]

21. So let me see who has reading comprehension...

If I say I want a new investigation that is a not a coverup is that the same thing as saying the old one was?

NO.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Well, if the old one WASN'T a cover-up. why would you need a...

new one? It's kinda silly to pretend you weren't referring to the 9/11 Commission and other investigations as a "cover-up", dude.

[lovepg]

24. Because certain things were not allowed to be looked at...

Does not mean the first investigation was a coverup. Unless thats WHAT YOUR implying?

[SDuderstadt]

26. "Because certain things were not allowed to be looked at"

Well, that's specific. Exactly what are you babbling about?

And, yes, I would argue that if "certain things were not allowed to be looked at", that would certainly constitute a cover-up. Whatever the fuck you're talking about.

[lovepg]

27. Building seven was not even addressed in the 911 commission...

firefighters testimony that explosions occurred was not included. Basically all evidence that did not support the predetermined conclusion was excluded.
And the President and the big Dick were allowed to not be under oath when testifying. Stuff like that .
If you think that qualifies it as a cover up fine. Your words not mine.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Why would it be?

Building 7 was addressed specifically and extensively in a NIST report.

http://wtc.nist.gov

[lovepg]

35. The Nist report was released AFTER the 911 commision report.....

Their was pressure exerted to get some of the questions answered that were left out of the 911 report.
You yourself implied this by asking why would the 911 report go into building 7 ?
Well since before this day no skyscraper had collapsed due to fires it would seem to be a relevent question to many others.
Of course the conclusion was decided before the commission report.
People were reporting on the news that day Al Quida was behind it.
Evidence that did not address this conclusion was left out of the report.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Why would the 9/11 Commission be adressing...

egineering questions, dude? Duh.

[lovepg]

45. Well because if the event was studied...

without the preconceived notion of what happened it could lead to a different conclusion.
How could they have KNOWN without studying the physical evidence that the planes and fire alone caused the collapse of the towers?
Skyscrapers had never behaved that way until 911. It was certainly not a fore gone conclusion that ,that alone is why they came down.
But you are saying it was and therefore they had no reason to study the engineering questions?

[SDuderstadt]

47. Jesus Fucking Christ, dude....

the 9/11 Commission didn't study the engineering aspects, NIST did that. Your questions here are like asking why the Democratic party didn't investigate the Egyptian Air crash.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. So?

Their was pressure exerted to get some of the questions answered that were left out of the 911 report.

Are you saying that the NIST report on Building 7 was done because the 9/11 Commission report didn't go into Building 7? Because that's silly. The report was planned much earlier. The FEMA report on the buildings suggested the report on 7 be done because 7 was such an unusual case. Scientists dealt with the scientific questions. Politicians and historians dealt with the politics and the history. We can argue the merits, but a detailed examination of why any building fell on 9/11 wasn't in the purview of the 9/11 Commission.

You yourself implied this by asking why would the 911 report go into building 7 ?

No. Learn to read.

Well since before this day no skyscraper had collapsed due to fires it would seem to be a relevent question to many others.

Yes, it was a relevant question to many. That's why it was taken up by the appropriate group.

Of course the conclusion was decided before the commission report.

No. Do you know what the NIST explanation was of the collapse of building 7? Can you repeat it right now? Because I can guarantee you that many possibilities were floated as to why it occurred, but what it ended up being was something I hadn't personally heard until the report came out.

People were reporting on the news that day Al Quida was behind it.
Evidence that did not address this conclusion was left out of the report.

Ah, so now you're digressing. The "conclusion" reached before the report was that Al Qaeda did it. Well, that's where the evidence leads, lovepg.

[lovepg]

44. Ahh here come the heavy hitters...

Now that I made it past the pesky annoying SD and it appears I will not fold and go away like most sane people would here comes Bolo the great to save the day.
Always bemused he has to take time to answer these stupid truthers when its just so well so beneath him. Still we(the royal we of course) need to learn how to read because how could anyone not see it his way who could read ?impossible!
The 911 commission came about due to public pressure to have it, The Bush administration fought against it
Hardly a sterling recommendation for objectivity of the Bush administration who appointed key members of the commission.
I am saying if people were satisfied with the evidence and explanations the 911 commission gave, the NIST report would not have been completed.
Though you like to claim surprise at the eventual explanation offered by NIST for the building collapse you must admit they only tried to find out how the jets and fire took down the Towers not if there was another way they came down. And where is the data they used for the computer models they used to prove this theory? Why are you not asking for their release to prove all you official story guys correct?
I assume since you claim to know all the info out there ( if you don't what's with the arrogance?) you have seen the on the street interview on 911 of a guy who claims the towers came down that day mostly due to structural damage done from the super hot fires. How could he know this? The answer is of course he did not.
But the evidence leads you a certain place if you have a predisposed conception. Thats why drug company studies are suspect. Or scientists with agendas to prove suspect.
Yet few question the fact these studies had a preconceived idea of the event and excluded some evidence that contradicted that idea.
Not very good science or investigation protocol.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. :eyes:

Now that I made it past the pesky annoying SD and it appears I will not fold and go away like most sane people would here comes Bolo the great to save the day.
Always bemused he has to take time to answer these stupid truthers when its just so well so beneath him. Still we(the royal we of course) need to learn how to read because how could anyone not see it his way who could read ?impossible!

You know, public masturbation is a crime in most states.

The 911 commission came about due to public pressure to have it, The Bush administration fought against it
Hardly a sterling recommendation for objectivity of the Bush administration who appointed key members of the commission.

True, but who appointed Ben-Veniste?

I am saying if people were satisfied with the evidence and explanations the 911 commission gave, the NIST report would not have been completed.

And you are saying bullshit.

Though you like to claim surprise at the eventual explanation offered by NIST for the building collapse you must admit they only tried to find out how the jets and fire took down the Towers not if there was another way they came down.

There is no scientfically credible evidence for anything else.

I didn't "claim" to be surprised at the answer. I was surprised. You have no reason to say I'm lying about that at all but your own prejudice.

And where is the data they used for the computer models they used to prove this theory? Why are you not asking for their release to prove all you official story guys correct?

What are you going to do with it? What are you qualified to do with it? Nothing. You can yell about it all you want right now.

I assume since you claim to know all the info out there ( if you don't what's with the arrogance?) you have seen the on the street interview on 911 of a guy who claims the towers came down that day mostly due to structural damage done from the super hot fires. How could he know this? The answer is of course he did not.

He didn't "know" it. He was guessing. We know this because of his use of the word "probably."

Another "claim" you've managed to ascribe to me. DEAL WITH MY WORDS. Beat your straw men off on your time.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

50. "I am saying if people were satisfied with the evidence and explanations the 911 commission gave,...

the NIST report would not have been completed".

Dude, I really do marvel at how you manage to pack so much ignorance into a single post. You can't even get basic facts right. NIST announced its intentions to study the building collapses in August of 2002. The 9/11 Commission was established in November of 2002 and didn't complete its findings until August of 2004. How you can possibly believe that 2004 is before 2002 boggles the mind.

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC%20Response%20Presentation%2011122002%20text.pdf

Again, this is why you're not taken seriously here, dude.

[lovepg]

66. The National safety and construction act that was signed january 23..

2002 was the bill authorizing NIST to investigate 9/11. It contains major loopholes allowing information to be witheld that is deemed against public safety.

[AZCat]

81. Wow - you got the name AND the date wrong!

The National Construction Safety Team Act was signed into law on October 1, 2002. (Wiki link, for those who give a shit)

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[AZCat]

84. You mean the date of October 1, 2002, just like I said?

Just in case you're confused, we're talking about Public Law 107-231, signed October 1, 2002, called National Construction Team Safety Act, that authorized the NIST to form a team of investigators for building collapses.

[lovepg]

85. Hey check out the link your friend SD used.......

It contains a link to the actual Bill. The Bill has a January date on it not October.
Could be the discrepency is between date passed and date signed into law.

[AZCat]

86. The copy of the bill I'm looking at is the one signed into law. n/t

[lovepg]

87. Well i do not know what to tell you my copy of the Bill had a january date ..

Are you looking at the one from the link SD provided?

[AZCat]

88. I don't even know which post of his you are referring to.

I have my own source for the National Construction Safety Team Act - I don't need to rely on SDuderstadt. My copy has the correct date.

[SDuderstadt]

90. I don't know what the fuck he's talking about...

n/t

[SDuderstadt]

89. You've got me mixed up with someone else, dude....

n/t

[AZCat]

91. That's what I wondered.

I skimmed your posts in this sub-thread and didn't see anywhere you'd linked to the National Construction Safety Team Act.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Why the fuck would the 9/11 Commission been addressing WTC 7??

Do you even understand why the 9/11 Commission was empaneled? Do you remotely understand how our government works? Do you understand that neither Bill Clinton nor Al Gore testified under oath either? Does that mean something nefarious?

I would really love for you to explain why the 9/11 Commission would have been addressing WTC7. Do you understand that massive fires in buildings cause explosions from things in the buildings?? Do you understand that explosions need not come from bombs? Do you understand that NONE of the 1500 staff that combed through the debris at Fresh Kills and other sites found any evidence of explosives? No detonators, det cord, nothing.

Why don't you read the fucking reports that you criticize and quit wasting our time, dude? Your ignorance of even the most basic facts of the matter is not only annoying, it's dangerous.

[lovepg]

30. I see your job on here is to bore people to death. Your the thread killer.

You just go on endlessly with the same three or four sentences to every post.
Usually always ending with a dismissive put down about the other persons ignorance.
Most people do not have the patience time and energy to put up with a forum thread killer and bully.
They just shake their head give up and stop posting. The thread killers mission accomplished.
See its the I am" dangerous" comment that clued me in. Only because I see through your BS and refuse to give up like most sane people with a life.
Why people with the truth on their side would need to resort to such tactics as you use is a mystery. You should welcome discussion on a subject of interest with those who disagree with you
on a forum like this. Why else come here? Why be so threatened by another's point of view?
Why the moderators of this site put up with it is beyond me as it is against the whole spirit of discussion.
I've enjoyed the few civil exchanges I have had on this post forum with people who do not share my opinion. That's how you gain new information ap on which you can base your conclusions.
I hope I never stop learning new things but insults just drive people deeper into their preformed opinions. And if you are trying to get people to see things your way your method is entirely the wrong way to go.

[SDuderstadt]

32. ''Your the thread killer'' =...

''trutherspeak'' for ''quit asking me hard questions I can't answer''.

Dude, you came here with this attitude that you were going to show all your fellow ''truthers'' what they were doing wrong. Then you proceeded to spout the same old tired nonsense which has been holding the ''truth movement'' back nearly from the beginning. When challenged, you proclaimed, ''oh, this is going to be good'', then proceeded to lay on more of the same debunked bullshit.

When asked questions that would make reasonable people ask themselves, ''Hmm, I wonder if I've got this wrong'', you, instead, immediately start flailing about, complaining that you're being ''bullied'' and accusing the moderators of turning a blind eye towards it, all the while hoping no one notices you cannot answer the simplest of questions put to you.

That you would continue to yammer on about about the 9/11 Commission and WTC 7 betrays the fact that you have no fucking idea why the Commission was empaneled to begin with. No one is ''bullying'' you by merely pointing out that it is rather obvious that you haven't bothered to even read the various reports/investigations you yammer on and on about.

Moral of the story: Don't try to play in the deep end of the pool, then complain that you keep getting water up your nose, like it's anyone's fault but your own.

Read the fucking reports. Nearly every question you go on and on about is answered within said reports, thus betraying your utter ignorance of the subject. Don't expect to come here and spout previously debunked nonsense and be taken seriously, dude. Bye.

[lovepg]

33. Yet everyone comments on your hypocrisy........

Why is it that thread after thread people comment on how you engage in doing exactly the kind of things you accuse others of?
Including never answering simple questions. Especially the kinds of inane ones you specialize in asking of others.You apparently view yourself as a legend in your own mind , or some kind of intellectual enforcer.
People with real intellectual talents rarely feel the need to demonstrate how smart they are all the time on forums like this. This tends to happen with the insecure.
My initial post was simply trying to make the point that the people who believe the various government stories on how 911 went down are on the same shaky ground so called conspiracy buffs are on.
Lord knows there are plenty of problems with the official story. What you consider answers to some of the questions I posed I find laughable. Just because I do not accept the answers you give does not make me ignorant.
The stock answer to most questions truthers have is READ THE REPORTS ITS ALL ANSWERED. You seem totally unaware the last administration held back intelligence that contradicted its position on going to war in IRAQ.
Or that it was conducting a war on science for the last eight years. That information alone should make you wonder about the veracity of the "science" conducted in its name. But instead official story people act as if anyone who has the audacity to question the official science in the various reports is crazy. Furthermore in an atmosphere where new information is coming out daily on the past administrations crimes and contempt for the constitution you act as if people who speculate on the possible involvement of elements of the government are insane.To this i can only reply REALLY? REALLY?
After watergate , FBI illegal wiretaps, secret government radiation testing on civilian populations in the US in the late fifties, CIA involvement setting up dictators in other countries, testing acid on unsuspecting subjects, lying about agent orange,Iran Contra BCCI,Stolen elections, K street, Gulf of Tonkin etc etc. Those Are just the ones I recall off the top of my head.
A sane person would be asking more questions than many of you are in my book.

[SDuderstadt]

41. I hardly think that you, MMM and...

a couple of your diehard ''truther'' buddies constitutes ''everyone'', dude.

[lovepg]

43. Well in post ten you claim most people on this post lack the ability to think....

critically. Tell me who MOST is now?

[SDuderstadt]

51. You just did it again, dude...

Why do you insist on twisting what other people say? I didn't say that most people lack the ability to think critically. I said they don't think critically. I know the difference is too subtle for your little black and white world, dude.

Do you honestly think most people take critical thinking classes? Would it surprise you to learn that even first-rate thinkers have often been surprised at how some of their thinking might be flawed prior to taking a critical thinking class?

[lovepg]

61. Gee since my saying I wanted an investigation of 911 that was not a cover up..

Was too subtle a point for you to get. What is your soon to be coming excuse as to why you with all your classroom experience in critical thinking you were not able to suss that out?
IN fact even BOLO could not figure out that my saying I wanted an investigation that was not a cover up did not MEAN the last one was.
Come on boys get with it. Critical thinking caps on please class!! LOL!

[SDuderstadt]

62. Dude...you can't even get this straight....

I'm sure you don't know what a "truth table" is.

But, you ARE constructively claiming that the last investigation was a cover-up whether you can grasp that or not. Again, you don't remotely understand the concept of falsifiabilty.

There are essentially only two choices about the last investigation. It would either have to be a cover-up or not be a cover-up. There cannot be the choice that there was no investigation at all, since "last investigation" admits there was one. With me so far?

So, when you say you want an investigation that isn't a cover-up, you just impaled yourself on the horns of a dilemma. Again, either the last investigation was a cover-up or it wasn't. Think of it as an on/off switch.

"I want an investigation that isn't a cover-up". The only way that could be would be if either a) there was NO past investigation or b) the last investigation was a cover-up. Otherwise, there WAS an investigation that was NOT a cover-up.

The only way out of your dilemma would be to demand ANOTHER investigation that is NOT a cover-up, otherwise your condition is already met. In other words, you cannot reject the last investigation because it meets your criteria.

Please, please sign up for those critical thinking classes. Your local community college with have them.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted sub-thread

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

[lovepg]

72. I will try this again in very polite terms .....

You see at other times in the history of our country our government has tried to hide things it did not want other people to find out about.
When they did this it was called a cover up. Our government has done this many many times even though its very naughty. Why you could if you so desired just type in cover up in a google search and find much evidence to illustrate what I am talking about.When I said I want a new investigation that is not a cover up I was referring to all the cover ups in the past that have occurred. And I wanted an investigation that did not have one of those .
You seem to be convinced you know what i was trying to say. And indeed are getting very insistent about it.
But I simply must point out to you only the person posting can really know. That being me I guess I get to say what that is.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Other coverups != evidence of this being a coverup. n/t

[lovepg]

74. Oh it does not!!

Look just admit it you got caught on one of the little niggling sideshow gotcha issues you love to engage in and cut your losses.

[Bolo Boffin]

75. No. n/t

[lovepg]

77. You forgot to stomp your feet with that tantrum!

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Your projections are amusing, but unnecessary. n/t

[lovepg]

79. I am rubber your glue LOL!

[Bolo Boffin]

80. Come back when you have two digits in your age. n/t

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[loslobo]

69. Understand?

"I would really love for you to explain why the 9/11
Commission would have been addressing WTC7. Do you understand
that massive fires in buildings cause explosions from things
in the buildings?? Do you understand that explosions need not
come from bombs? Do you understand that NONE of the 1500 staff
that combed through the debris at Fresh Kills and other sites
found any evidence of explosives? No detonators, det cord,
nothing."

"Massive fires" really? In WTC7? Somebody needs to
read the reports...I'd give you the link but I know you
already have it. 

So you admit there were explosions? Otherwise why explain them
away? And what was the biggest thing found? (besides the cut
beams, so conveniently shipped away). Kind of looks like shit
was blown up, huh? Or for you DUH. Use that critical thinking
your so proud of and recover from your delusions.

"Your ignorance of even the most basic facts of the
matter is not only annoying, it's dangerous."
Really? Can you apply the same standard to yourself, because I
don't think you are ignorant of the facts, so why would you
say such blatantly stupid things? Evidence of thermite is
documented, because you want to ignore it doesn't make it go
away. Molten metal weeks after, concrete turned to dust, and
free-fall speed does not constitute evidence to you?

[SDuderstadt]

70. Are you a ''no-planer''?

n/t

[lovepg]

76. Now i get it......

Nobody answers you but me because they are all using the ignore button.
See ya!

[Realityhack]

54. A Quick take...

"My point is ALONG with all the OTHER evidence that shows the last administrations intentions of circumventing the constitution, this is another bit of evidence that shows they were willing to engage in extra constitutional methods to accomplish their goals. Legality and the toll of human collateral damage sustained in obtaining their goals does not appear to be a concern to these people. Anyone who reads the headlines should be able to recite a list of these actions taken..."
Given.

"...and should be at least willing to admit the possibility that 911 was allowed to happen or that some involvement of elements within the government could have occurred."
As far as the fact that something *could* have occurred I don't think you will find much argument. You will however likely find others disagree on the probability it actually having happened.

"I do not claim to know how 911 went down."
I am unconvinced.

"I just want an investigation that is not a cover up..."
An investigation of what exactly? Which aspects? Care to provide proof of this 'cover up'?

"...and that examines the evidence that might lead to different conclusions than what we decided was the conclusion on the day it occurred."
Bullshit. You are obviously creating a straw man here.

[Fainter]

18. No, U Don't Understand The Implication...

If 9/11 was false flag it was done covertly. Arresting the Lackawannabe 6 with the military would be done in the open and would be seen as asserting a USG right to use the military domestically for law enforcement purposes. Bush's people were canny enough to realize this was politically unacceptable in conservative-leaning WNY ahead of an election even if Vice himself was not. As it turns out the Lackawannabe 6 were convicted on single counts of providing "material assistance" (one guy had a cassette tape which warned AQ's enemies might have a bad day) to Al Queda which can be almost anything just past thinking bad thoughts and is very weak felony-conspiracy gruel. You're an attorney and a student of 9/11 so you know this. Why do I doubt the genuineness of your objection to the OP?

[jberryhill]

19. "Why do I doubt the genuineness of your objection"

Because impugning the motives of anyone who disagrees with you is pretty much par for the course.

Unable to accept the fact that someone may genuinely disagree with you, then you have to believe that such people are paid shills.

[Fainter]

20. Sorry. Now What About My Argument Against Your Objections To The OP? n/t.

[Fainter]

92. Pay Especial Attention To Maddow Clip Embedded In The Second Link...

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/lackawanna-residents-happy-crazy-cheney-plan-was-axed/

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/28/suskind-cheney-wanted-show-of-force-on-911-anniversary/

I have never said you're a paid shill and furthermore don't believe it. However, I still doubt your motive for criticizing the OP in the way you did. You're too smart, an attorney, and a student of 9-11 so I have a great deal of trouble imagining that my objections to your criticisms of the OP did not also occur to you before you stated the inference you would draw from it. It is my opinion you were trying to score another cheap point in defense of the Official Story or were uncharacteristically sloppy in your thinking. Yes, I am a bad guy, I doubt the sincerity of all defenders of the OCT at all times, and there is not one honest bone in my body, but your reading of the OP is way below your usual level of sophistication. Forgive me for pointing this out jberry.

[lovepg]

22. The issue as you should know is using the military to arrest .......

US citizens. Not if it was done in the open or not. It is the attitude of the administration of contempt for what Bush refer ed to as that godamn piece of paper.
THE CONSTITUTION. People who swear allegiance to the constitution and then express contempt for it are not trust worthy. Especially when given (and taking more) great power in its name.

[truedelphi]

55. For some on this forum, any issue is not about logic and legality and

The need to maintain appearances (by those government officials in Power), but instead important only in so far as the issue can prove some illogical point they need to make.

So don't feel upset if you rremark goes over their heads.

[SDuderstadt]

56. ''Truther Logic''

Logic is bad.

By the way, dude, if you see us make an illogical point, feel free to point it out. By name, please.

[truedelphi]

58. No, what I am saying, and let me spell it out for you

Since comprehension is not your strong point

"T-h-e-r-e i-s n-o
p-o-in-t in u-s-i-n-g a l-o-g-i-c-a-l
a-r-g-u-m-e-n-t to w-i-n o-v-e-r
s-o-m-e-o-n-e
w-h-o u-p t-o n-o-w i-s- o-n-l-y p-e-r-s-u-a-d-e-d b-y
n-o-n-s-e-n-s-e a-n-d i-l-l-o-g-i-c, e-v-e-n t-h-o-u-g-h
t-h-e-y d-o h-a-v-e t-h-e sa-m-e t-o-o-l-s a-n-d
i-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n a-v-a-i-l-a-b-l-e t-o t-h-e-m
a-s ev-e-ry-o-n-e e-l-s-e.

I-n f-a-c-t, i-t p-r-o-b-a-b-l-y m-a-k-e-s m-o-s-t -s-e-n-s-e t-o n-o-t -a-r-g-ue -wit-h t-h-i-s
t-y-p-e of i-l-lo-g-i-c-a-l p-e-r-s-o-n a-t a-l-l.

[SDuderstadt]

59. Thanks for the snark, dudette...

maybe you could try writing more clearly to begin with

[lovepg]

60. THAT IS THE MOST LOGICAL POST ON THIS FORUM!

[SDuderstadt]

63. Only if compared to yours, dude....

n/t

[truedelphi]

67. It is pretty cool, isn't it.? But then,I am just being modest.

Glad you like it, and also glad it got under Sduderstadt's thin skin.

[lovepg]

71. delete

[SDuderstadt]

57. Actually, you make a good point, although...

I can guarantee you will not like what I am about to say. The biggest problem with a lot of the "truther bullshit" (9/11 was an inside job, controlled demolition, the towers were nuked, etc) is precisely because it obscures real issues like the one you're pointing to with respect to Cheney and is precisely why the frequent "truther" mantra to debunkers of "you support Bushco" was so offensive.