Ben Cohen: My Argument with the 9/11 Truth Movement

[Ohio Joe]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/my-argument-with-the-911_b_245788.html

I think this really puts a lot of my own feeling into some very good words.

[travis80]

1. Cohen's paranoia is so laughable -- and dangerous

"The 9/11 truth movement was enormously helpful to the Bush Administration as it provided a giant distraction from the colossal crimes they committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. "

does Mr. Cohen have any shred of evidence to support his colossal claim? if not, he should be fired for trying to malign the truth movement which paints us as the enemy in the minds of many paranoid rightwing nutcases, including the ones who are pretending to be leftwingers.

and my advice to you Ohio Joe is if you don't like our movement, then ignore us because by you spending time going after us takes time away from you being able to go after corrupt government administrations. you only have yourself to blame.

[Ohio Joe]

3. I am a wonder when it comes to multi-tasking

Do not worry your little head about if I can handle it or not, I can. How about you? Perhaps you found the time to write in support of gay rights?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=412&topic_id=111&mesg_id=111

No? Too bad, we could use more people writing.

Maybe you are going to join the new Champions Online beta?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=248&topic_id=6608&mesg_id=6608

No? I can't either, my PC is a POS and I can't afford a new one yet.

I also got the lawn mowed today, did the dishes and made dinner. mmmm, a very tasty turkey roast with a side of mushroom flavored rice (I add crushed red pepper to the rice, try it!) and some stuffing, even a nice salad on the side.

And yet... I still have time for this. Later I'll probably play some Sacred 2 and STILL be able to keep an eye on the world. I am simply amazing so really... Don't worry about me :D

[travis80]

5. every minute you waste on truthers

is a minute you waste from preventing whatever problems you think there are in the world. sleep well.

[Ohio Joe]

7. Well...

When the time comes that you can decide what is important to me and where I spend my time and effort, your opinion may hold some value. Until then, I think I will spend my time doing what I wish. Real sorry if that bothers you... though I won't loose sleep over it.

You will simply have to put up with me. Remember, ignore is your friend, if I or anyone else bothers you, simply use it and the problem goes away.

[travis80]

12. another wasted post where you could have posted about

political issues that really matter to you instead of posting about an issue you say is distracting people like you from the issues you think really matter.

just think, gay marriage may have been legalized across the country by now if all you debunkers hadn't wasted so much of your time against us 'crackpot' truthers.

[SDuderstadt]

14. "just think, gay marriage may have been legalized across the country by now if all..

you debunkers hadn't wasted so much of your time against us 'crackpot' truthers".


Stupid either/or argument. It assumes that one cannot work to legalize same sex marriage while simultaneously debunking goofy 9/11 CT's.

[Ohio Joe]

16. Important to me? Strange...

I would have expected equal rights for all to be important to everyone on this board... I guess not.

Again though, I do have the ability to focus on more then one thing at a time, I take it you do not? Is the short term memory a problem for you as well? I guess I'll have to repeat myself like this with you all the time. Sigh... Why am I just not surprised...

[BuddyBoy]

209. Excellent points. I've noticed his posts are in conflict with what

he claims to believe. Par for the course for an Official Conspiracy Theorist.

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

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

[Ohio Joe]

215. Lets see you prove that

For one that says shit without offering any proof, thats a big statement. More bullshit or are you going to offer any proof this time? Or just another one of your games?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Why can't we recommend from this forum!!!!!

Good article. :D

[LARED]

4. This snippet has to hurt

And herein lies the ultimate weapon the 9/11 Truthers wield over your average 'Myth Busters' viewer: They don't have to prove a damn thing. They just have to raise enough doubt, pick enough holes, and use enough 'science' to make you think twice about the official theory.

It's the same type of intellectually bankrupt shenanigans the Bush Administration pulled when 'proving' the case for war against Iraq. They cherry picked evidence, ignored information that disproved their theory, and used a massive disinformation campaign to persuade people the Saddam Hussein was a reincarnation of Attila the Hun and the biggest threat to America since Adolf Hitler.

Ouch!!!!!!!!!

[travis80]

6. oh my lord

Cohen might of well have said that truthers are like baby seal clubbers or pedophiles. that would have produced an even greater false shock value. sad to see how professional journalism has taking such of dive with fear mongers like Cohen.

[Ohio Joe]

8. Ben Cohen a fear monger.... bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

I guess that comment did sting just a bit :rofl:

[LARED]

58. So instead of addressing his valid point

you decided to respond with a make believe shock value motive. How truthy of you.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

85. Are you still pushing that falsehood that someone.....

who doesn't buy your bullshit is somehow aligned with Bush?

[LARED]

91. I guess when that's the overarching theme of your position,

you have to keep going back to the basics.

I sort of feel sorry for the little fella.

[Kalun D]

97. Token Points

People are against bush on token points, or maybe even major points

but when it comes down to the nitty gritty of the OCT they support an administration that enabled and perpetrated the intentional killing of Americans and using that action engaged in needless wars for conquest and profit, killing millions.

[SDuderstadt]

109. Now you're being fucking dishonest, Kalun

Please provide evidence that any of us "support an administration that enabled and perpetrated the intentional killing of Americans and using that action engaged in needless wars for conquest and profit, killing millions".

What bullshit.

[Kalun D]

119. Sorry if it Rubs You the Wrong Way

But MIHOP(which you should know I support) sez the bush boy was complicit.

and the OCT is largely the bush boy's story

so if you support the OCT, you support the bush boy's story

which according to MIHOP sez he's a deranged killer

I'm not going to try to put it any simpler than this, sorry.

I've presented evidence before but your ears are deaf to it, sorry if I refuse to beat my head against that wall anymore.

[LARED]

126. Let me make this simple

Supporting the so called OCT might mean you support Bush

or

Supporting the so called OCT could mean you support logic and reason.

Those two premises are completely different and no amount of your conflation will change it.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

110. "if you support the OCT you support the bush boy's version of what happened on 911...

therefore in this aspect you support the bush family evil empire"

More of your total bullshit, Kalun.

Here's the deal. You keep pulling this crap and I'll feel free to accuse you of supporting and enabling bin Laden. Deal?

[Liberal_Dog]

88. "Intellectually Bankrupt Shenanigans"

Those "shenanigans" happen every day in courtrooms across this nation. In our system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense doesn't have to prove a damn thing. They just have to raise enough doubt, poke enough holes, and use enough evidence to make you think twice about the prosecution's case.

Cohen doesn't seem to think very much of our legal system. And apparently, since you seem to think that Cohen's point was so great, neither do you.

Ouch!!

[LARED]

90. The "prosecution" in this case happens to be

the truthers.

[Liberal_Dog]

93. That Is Beyond Stupid

The prosecution is always the Government. A private citizen cannot prosecute anyone.

In the case of 9-11, it is the Government that maintain that Bin Laden is guilty and it is up to the Government to prove that is the case. Simple.

[Kalun D]

98. Funny

yeah since it's the gov's case to prove Bin Laden's guilt, funny how his FBI page doesn't even mention 911

funny how the FBI says they have no material evidence linking Al CIAduh to 911

funny how the man in "Bin Laden's" "confession" video is not even Bin Laden.

[SDuderstadt]

113. "Truther Logic"

The Bush administration actually planned and executed 9/11, but didn't bother to get someone who looked more like bin Laden.

This stupid "fatty bin Laden" claim has been repeatedly explained and debunked, dude.

[Kalun D]

120. Oh Really?

Link to the vid then....

I'll wait

[SDuderstadt]

193. Yeah, really...

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

[SDuderstadt]

112. And it did...

except to a small number of "truther diehards", dude.

[LARED]

125. There are many on-line dictionaries that

will assist you with a better understanding of the word prosecution.

[Liberal_Dog]

133. If You Can't Prove Your Argument, Simply Shift The Burden Of Proof To The Other Side

A common OCTer tactic that I have never been particularly impressed by.

Snarky OTCer responses don't really impress me much either.

[Liberal_Dog]

134. OK, Here It Is

Main Entry:
pros·e·cu·tion Listen to the pronunciation of prosecution
Pronunciation:
\ˌprä-si-ˈkyü-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1567

1: the act or process of prosecuting ; specifically : the institution and continuance of a criminal suit involving the process of pursuing formal charges against an offender to final judgment
2: the party by whom criminal proceedings are instituted or conducted
3 obsolete : pursuit

The operative word in that definition is "criminal". Individuals do not bring criminal cases- the state always does. The only thing that I can figure out is that you are confusing the words prosecution and plaintiff. The plaintiff is the bringer in a civil case.

Other than that, I have no idea as to what your argument is.

[lovepg]

158. Except for these two being different THEY are the same!

Official story people cherry pick evidence from reports with faulty science from the same administration that cherry picked evidence, ignored information, and used massive disinformation campaigns to persuade people to go along with an uneeded and unessessary war. Yeah they did all that and set up the investigation and the reports official story people take as gospel "science" from unbiased sources.
HOW DOES THAT WORK GUYS?

[Kalun D]

10. Ben Cohen

Corporate Media W H O R E

[Ohio Joe]

17. And we know how all of the media is in on the 9/11 coverup

:eyes:

[Kalun D]

18. Orwell Was Prescient

It's the TELEVISION Joe, don't buy the lies, if you do you've been duped.

What percentage of Americans get their "news" from the TV Joe?

What 5 companies control all the TV Joe?

What are the names of the men who control these companies Joe?

What other Military Industrial Complex companies do these individuals control Joe?
(a more accurate term would be Military Industrial MEDIA Complex)

The answer is as plain as day Joe, don't be duped. If you believe the TV, you are controlled by these liars.

Follow the money, connect the dots, the uber rich and powerful will do whatever it takes to become more rich and powerful.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. I didn't vote for him. n/t

[Kalun D]

48. Prescience

pre·science
n.
Knowledge of actions or events before they occur; foresight.

It would have been tough to vote for him, he never ran for anything.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. They had invented science before Orwell!

Please.

[Kalun D]

54. No Thanks

but Orwell invented pre-science

[Ohio Joe]

24. I don't really watch TV

I used to have a nice one, before the fire... I watched DVD's of movies and DVD's of some TV shows but I've not watched the TV for news in many many years. or... for pretty much anything. I've not had cable or satellite in almost 30 years. Just a few over the air channels that I almost never watched. TV raises or lowers when and how often, or even if a given news story is heard, no doubt. That much of the media in this country is run by the right wing is also not in doubt, that the birthers are getting so much coverage alone is proof of this. Unfortunately though, the right wing does not control all media everywhere, and who is the most serious person in the media giving coverage to the truthers... Alex Jones? Not very convincing. The fact is, there is simply no evidence to support the truthers... Nothing. I've looked at a crapload of sites and have yet to see anything even remotely convincing.

The truth is, the article I linked to is correct, there is nothing there except for cherry picked quotes and minor inconsistencies. I'm also not buying that the Huffington Post is controlled by the right wing. I'm also not buying that Ben Cohen works for the right wing either. I'll admit, I've not read all his stuff but I've not seen anything to indicate he is right wing. Now, I understand you think anything that does not agree with the tinfoil is right wing, so ignoring his 9/11 posts (we will just have to disagree on them being right wing), let me know what you find right wing on his site:

http://www.thedailybanter.com/

[noise]

25. The classification premise:

When the government classifies records one can take it to the bank that the reasons for the classification are sound. Thus, there is no such thing as a coverup.

[Ohio Joe]

27. Who said that? - nt

[noise]

29. Nobody said it

That appears to be the assumption of pundits like Cohen.

You wrote "there is nothing there except for cherry picked quotes and minor inconsistencies."

There is also the issue of overwhelming secrecy (some might even use the word coverup). Are we to assume all the 9/11 records have been classified in good faith?

[Ohio Joe]

33. No, not at all

I fully expect that they will continue to be released and I also expect they will show how bush used 9/11 as an excuse for war. That is where all the evidence points.

[Kalun D]

50. Is Joe a New Member of the DU OCT Team?

With all the same talking points,

he's fitting right in.

[Ohio Joe]

60. I'm number 87

I wanted 85 but they told me it was already taken... I think it's a plot to keep me from having my old high school football number though...

[Kalun D]

49. EXACTLY

Governments never lie.

[Kalun D]

47. False Dichotomy

Right and Left wing is largely a false dichotomy.

at the National level it's like the WWF, they all work for the same or similar corps.

the real battle that matters is between the overlords and the serfs. Right and Left is the overlord's divide and conquer strategy, it's distracts from the real battle.

If you believe the OCT, you are buying the corporate media story, most people get it from the TV, it's available elsewhere, regardless, it's a complete fabrication.

""minor inconsistencies""

there are numerous major inconsistencies in the MIMC's OCT, would you like me to name some?

or would you like to name some "minor" ones?

all the left gatekeepers at the national level are mum about 911, it's most likely the "horses head in the bed" effect. They come out hard on so much other stuff, but 911 is the 3rd rail of national media, you don't touch it if you want to stay employed.

Ben Cohen, is most likely a "mockingbird" op.

[Ohio Joe]

61. oh, I see...

So... All politicians can be added to the list of those that have been intimidated into silence. That would make it... lets see here... All media, all engineers, all scientists, all video experts annnnd all politicians (probably a few more minor groups I'm missing) but... only about 9/11, they are free to say whatever else they want... oh yeah, I'm getting it now, that does not sound completely insane... I always find it interesting how this great big evil enterprise is able to intimidate such vast numbers of people into silence... Do they just use a big email list to notify everyone or do they have enough guys to pay everyone a personnel visit?

[Kalun D]

94. National Media and the MIMC

""So... All politicians can be added to the list of those that have been intimidated into silence""

At the national level a majority, there are those few that speak out, they get marginalized one way or another. 95 percent of them don't represent their constituents, instead they favor big business, it's been that way for a long time.

""All media, all engineers, all scientists, all video experts annnnd all politicians""

have you taken a nationwide poll? You are talking only those allowed to say something in the media that's owned by 5 controlling MIMC corporations. How could you possibly know the private opinions of all these individuals. You're only talking about what's seen in public media. And that is the big lie image they want you to believe.

""or do they have enough guys to pay everyone a personnel visit?""

it's called self censorship at the national level. Certain people have been made an example of and word gets around, if you want to keep your job you don't discuss 911 truth.

[Ohio Joe]

102. That leaves you 5% in a lot of professions

That is a crapload of people, why can't you present them? Your delusion runs deep.

[Kalun D]

118. Overall Percentages Will Grow

Sooner this time rather than later.

When the Kennedy killings first happened roughly 25 % believed it was a conspiracy, today it's roughly 60 %. So the OCTers are the ones that are deluded if they think the truther argument is not going to grow.

But I wasn't referring to overall when I said 95% I was referring only to politicians at the national level, which was a follow of your previous post.

My post was only about a dozen sentences and yet you can't even comprehend something that short. This is going to be tough arguing with someone that doesn't even read the post he's responding to.

[Ohio Joe]

128. So you have no one to present?

I thought as much.

[Kalun D]

137. LIES or CONFUSION ?

well if you lie or are confused about what I said then the statistics I present aren't going to work for you.

[Ohio Joe]

140. So... you still have no one to present? - nt

[Kalun D]

141. I Really Don't Care

There's not really a lot of polls out there because they don't want to know. And polls don't prove anything anyway. This country is so dumbed down, all it would prove is how dumb it is.

the truth doesn't need a poll to back it up

but the last poll I remember was in New York, ground zero, something like 50 percent thought the Gov investigation was a bunch of crap.

[Ohio Joe]

147. ok then...

No proof of the big evil conspiracy... everyone... just knows... and none of them talk about it... because... they will all be fired...

Yeah...No. I'm not buying it, sorry.

[Kalun D]

156. MIMC

""No proof of the big evil conspiracy""

The Terror Timeline

Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum

there's mountains of circumstantial evidence

""everyone... just knows... and none of them talk about it... because... they will all be fired""

Cynthia McKinney, very vocal about 911, a certain lobby came in and spent millions on her opponent, although they seemingly had zero interest in her constituency, and she lost

Don Imus, was ranting on 911, let go for a racist comment no different from what he'd been doing all along.

Rosie O'Donnel, ranting on 911, although her ratings were fine, let go for largely unexplained reasons.

Rhandi Rhodes, ranting on 911, let go for comments about Hillary in a private setting.

These are the only people that have discussed 911 as a conspiracy on a regular basis in the mainstream media and all were let go soon after under suspicious circumstances.

It is the 3rd rail, I've personally tried to get news people to talk about it and they refuse. Case in point, Greg Palast, he has exposed everything that's crooked in the US gov. But he won't touch 911, won't even discuss it at all. I went to a talk he gave and asked him personally, he changed the subject immediately.

I called a local radio host several times. She was very into digging dirt on the gov, she exposed a lot of stuff and her show was always about corruption and such. Likewise, she wouldn't touch 911.

The MIC profits from wars, 911 allowed them to go to war. The MIC owns the media, the MIC is using the media to protect the OCT.

[Ohio Joe]

160. My what a big evil conspiracy you have constructed

"Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum

there's mountains of circumstantial evidence"

Zeitgeist? heh... hehehehehe.... bwhahahahahahahahahaha, oh thats rich. That you would fall for such obvious shit like that explains much. Facts and evidence have ne bearing in your world, only what fits into the big evil. Too funny.

"Cynthia McKinney" - Untrue. After her defeat in 2002, she continued to talk publicly about 9/11 and was able to get elected again in 2004. She lost the primary in 2006 due to the Capitol hill incident, not because of 9/11.

"Don Imus" - Untrue. He was let go because of the massive response from the public over his comments, nothing to do with 9/11. If I am not mistaken he is back on the air today.

"Rosie O'Donnel" - Untrue. She was not let go, she decided not to renew her contract because they could not agree on the length of it.

"Rhandi Rhodes" - Untrue. Her departure had nothing to do with 9/11. It started as a suspension because of her comments but ended because of contract disputes. I believe she also is back on the air.

None of these people have been silenced in any way, any issues they have had have had nothing to do with their views on 9/11, not even they make that claim. Regarding other people. they don't want to talk about the big evil conspiracy because it is bullshit, not because they are afraid. Reality is a bitch, I'm not surprised you want to hide from it.

[Kalun D]

171. Censorship and Self Censorship

McKinney""She lost the primary in 2006 due to the Capitol hill incident, not because of 9/11.""

because of a minor faux pas? Or because she was outspent by millions? Would you like to buy a vowel?

Imus""He was let go because of the massive response from the public over his comments, nothing to do with 9/11.""

who publicized his comment? Why didn't they do that when he did the EXACT SAME THING numerous times in the past?

O'Donnel""She was not let go, she decided not to renew her contract because they could not agree on the length of it.""

That's the EXCUSE. You don't axe someone cuz they have good ratings. You don't leave a national show and go into obscurity when you have good ratings.

Rhodes ""Her departure had nothing to do with 9/11. It started as a suspension because of her comments but ended because of contract disputes. I believe she also is back on the air.""

you don't axe your top star cuz of private comments. You don't leave national exposure for obscurity when you have top ratings. She's not back on at a large national level like before.



""None of these people have been silenced in any way""

ALL of them were talking about 911 conspiracy at a widespread national level. NONE of them are now.


""Regarding other people. they don't want to talk about the big evil conspiracy because it is bullshit, not because they are afraid.""

you weren't there to hear the tone of voice of the local radio host. you weren't there to see the look on the face of the great Greg Palast.

[Kalun D]

159. How About NYC and NY State?

Do you think the people near ground zero might have a more enlightened perspective than the average American?

Are the citizens of NYC and NY State "no one" to you?


Zogby International

Monday, Aug. 30, 2004

Half of New Yorkers Believe U.S. Leaders Had
Foreknowledge of Impending 9/11 Attacks and
"Consciously Failed" To Act;

66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions
by Congress or New York's Attorney General,
New Zogby International Poll Reveals

(Utica, NY) - ...half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," .

Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer,

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040830120349841

[SDuderstadt]

114. "How could you possibly know the private opinions of all these individuals."

Ask yourself the same question. This is the same old "truther" double standard.

[Kalun D]

55. GOOD JOB JOE

you "answered" a post without addressing any of the 1/2 dozen points it made

you're going to make a very good DU OCTer, congratulations on your mad skilz.

[Ohio Joe]

62. The points were meaningless

They were being used to claim I was under the influence of TV but... I don't watch TV. If he lists a bunch of points to support how I was under the influence of religion, I would not address those either because I am an atheist. If I were to list a bunch of points explaining why you were under the influence of you neighbors cat yet... your neighbors did not have a cat, would address the points or simply tell me they did not have a cat?

[Kalun D]

92. Influence

The OCT is a big fat lie, perpetrated by the 911 perps, they own media conglomerates and defense contract companies.

They are pedaling the 911 OCT lie, the primary way they feed it to the sheeple is through the TV although there are other avenues as I've already mentioned and which you've ignored.

everything in my post holds true, whether or not you watch TV is immaterial to my points, it's the same big lie story you're buying regardless of which medium you bought it from.

[Ohio Joe]

100. I see...

So... The entire OTC is a lie... lets start with no planes?

Let me tell you what your trying to talk me out of... How the big evil conspiracy got to me. My mother witnessed the second impact live, from the Jersey side of the Hudson. She saw the impact... Not a fly by... Not fooled later by TV, I spoke to her on the phone while she was still there, with only the people she witnessed it with. My brother was a paramedic in NYC and a first responder at the towers. He assures me there was no CD. I know people that were in the towers that day, that were in the area. I was born and raised just outside of NYC, this is not an area unfamiliar to me and I know many people there. Not a single one of them thinks it was anything other then planes that brought down the towers.

Now. Go ahead. Tell me how my brother and my mother are lying to me. Tell me how my friends are lying to me. Tell me how they are all idiots fooled by TV. Tell me how this is something I've ignored from you.

Come on, convince me. Lay out all your evidence. No bullshit. No insinuations. No minor discrepancies. Hard evidence... because nothing less will do.

Good luck.

[Kalun D]

106. Read My Posts, and Watch Your Straw Dog Burn Down

I've vehemently argued that there was 4 planes,

would you like me to link to some of my posts?

You haven't read anything about real 911 truth if you haven't read the Terror Timeline, it talks about 4 planes also.

So stop trying to straw dog the "no plane" DISINFO

You're just "plane" out of your league here Joe, sorry.

[Ohio Joe]

108. "The OCT is a big fat lie"

Well, planes are a part of the OCT... so maybe you do buy part of the OCT? Which parts? Be specific, don't say it is all a lie but then say some parts are true, make up your mind.

[Kalun D]

117. Waste Of Time

Even a simpleton can see that there are common facts between the OCT and the real truther argument.

It's a waste of time arguing that. If you don't know it already I can't help you.

It's a largely irrelevant point. What's wrong are you avoiding the relevant points? Afraid of a beat down?

[Ohio Joe]

127. So what parts do you believe

and what parts do you not? Who is avoiding?

[Kalun D]

131. I asked first

but of course I'll answer first since with the OCT it's so difficult to be truthful

MIHOP

4 planes (remotely controlled)

covert (rouge) CIA, possible Mossad

Cheney defense stand-down

un-conventional demolitions

19 total patsies, may or may not have even been on the planes

fabricated Bin Laden confession

media complicity

a new Pearl Harbor (even if we have to create one) because the masses won't give up their children if you call it what it really is, a war for oil.

[Ohio Joe]

132. So...

In other words, the standard minor discrepancies are the basis of your fantasy. Well... that and some completely made up shit, the ever present cherry picked quotes and of course the very interesting need to involve the jews (can't have a good CT without involving the jews huh?).

Myself, I do, for the most part, believe what many truthers call the "OTC", though I do not call it that. There are parts I do not believe, for instance... I do not believe that Iraq was in any way involved in 9/11, there is no evidence of it. I also think that there are Minor discrepancies in testimony. I think there are some very valid questions that have not been answered. I don't think there is any evidence of demolitions in the towers... conventional or otherwise. I don't think the NIST report is perfect, it does not 100% without exception describe what happened to the towers but I think expecting that is foolish. I do think it, for the most part, got it right.

[Kalun D]

135. LOLZ!!!

after all the BS runaround, you believe the bush boy's OCT

the only difference you have with it is false too, the OCT doesn't say Iraq was involved with 911 and bush when asked point blank said they were not

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

[Ohio Joe]

138. You love the games, don't you

Typical truther, ignore facts you don't like. There is a reason I said I do not like to call it the "OTC" and that is because there really is no such thing. Eveyone that uses the term has different ideas on what is involved in it. That bushco pushed the fantasy that Iraq was involved in 9/11 is a fact, that you try to deny it shows your dishonesty. I really gave it a bit of thought on including that statement thinking you would pull shit like this if I did or saying I must believe it if I left it out. truthers are very dishonest in that way, noise pulled the same crap regarding the author of the article and his not mentioning all of the bush crimes.

[Kalun D]

142. Eat It (or, How do you want your crow prepared?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link
US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.

Sure bush might have implied a connection, by association to terror

but it's not in the bush boy's OCT dialog

""There is a reason I said I do not like to call it the "OTC" and that is because there really is no such thing.""

It's not OTC, it's OCT

O-fficial
C-onspiracy
T-heory

and you can call it whatever you want, if you agree with the Gov, it's FEMA, NIST, the 911 Omission Report. THAT IS THE OCT.

It IS a conspiracy theory because there is no hard evidence. The Gov did state they would make the case of Bin Laden's and Al CIAduh's guilt before the Afghan war, they never did, they don't have any evidence. Bin Laden's most wanted FBI page doesn't even mention 911.

[Ohio Joe]

148. sigh...

Yes, keep ignoring most of what I say, I'm sure it is working for you. Do you really want me to link to the numerous times bushco made an Iraq-9/11 connection? Do you really need that? Just say so and I have no doubt I can pull up a dozen instances.

Again... The definition of what is in the "OCT" varies and that I could not guess your definition does not invalidate that bushco most definitly made and Iraq-9/11 connection.

Yes, I made a typo, we all do. Do you want to degrade this into typo's? Then lets talk about the "rouge CIA" in your post #131... Still want to talk about obvious typos?

Yes, the very things you cite are evidence. Are they perfect? No. Which brings us back to the premise of the article I presented in the OP. Truthers have zero evidence, they only have cherry picked quotes and minor discrepicies in the "OCT". Perhaps at some point you will present something... anything that could be called evidence.

[Kalun D]

157. Go For It

""Do you really want me to link to the numerous times bushco made an Iraq-9/11 connection?""

Most of it is at the link I posted. Like I said bush insinuated a Iraq 911 connection but never stated it outright. He did state outright that there was no connection between 911 and Saddam.

It's a moot point because we are talking about the OCT, not what bush believes on the side. The OCT doesn't connect 911 to Iraq.

""Again... The definition of what is in the "OCT" varies""

No it doesn't. It's FEMA, NIST, and the 911 Omission Report, it's all there in black and white.

""Truthers have zero evidence, they only have cherry picked quotes and minor discrepicies in the "OCT"""

Truthers have tons of evidence.

You call failure to test for explosives in a building that had been previously attacked with explosives a "minor discrepancy"?

You call no vids of 19 hijackers passing dozens of cameras a "minor discrepancy"?

You say Bin Laden's most wanted FBI page not even listing 911 is a "minor discrepancy"?

You call none of the 19 on any airlines released passenger manifests a "minor discrepancy"?

[Ohio Joe]

161. Sheesh

As I said, they did make the connection, you admit as much as well. It not being a part of YOUR definition of the OCT does not mean it is not a part of others definition of it. Claim all you want that there is a standard definition but your wrong. Do the no plane people have the same definition as you? No, they think there were no planes and you think there were. You see, it is like religion, every one thinks they are the only true one, like you think your type of truther is the only one true one but... It does not change the fact that there are many.

"Truthers have tons of evidence."

Good, perhaps they will one day present some of it.

"You call failure to test for explosives in a building that had been previously attacked with explosives a "minor discrepancy"?"

No, I don't. I would call it stupidity when the cause was obvious. The large plane that crashed into the building at high speed, exploded, causing large fires that weakened the structure enough to cause the collapse. Should they also have tested for laser beams from space? Nukes? Why test for something there is zero evidence of?

"You call no vids of 19 hijackers passing dozens of cameras a "minor discrepancy"?"

No, I don't. Logan did not have video to release. The FBI has not released Newark or Dulles, they should.

"You say Bin Laden's most wanted FBI page not even listing 911 is a "minor discrepancy"?"

Already addressed.

"You call none of the 19 on any airlines released passenger manifests a "minor discrepancy"? "

No, I don't. I call it a fantasy, completely made up, often debunked. I view this as more proof that you are simply in denial of reality, willfully ignoring facts and evidence to keep your delusion going.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

[Kalun D]

162. Evidence

""As I said, they did make the connection, you admit as much as well.""

The Iraq 911 connection is irrelevant, it was after the fact. It's not part of the OCT. It's part of the case against bush.


""Claim all you want that there is a standard definition but your wrong"" (def of OCT)

That's all that's really out there in writing. All the debunker sites point to FEMA NIST and Omission Report.



""Do the no plane people have the same definition as you? No, they think there were no planes and you think there were.""

You're all over the place. The previous sentence is about the OCT, are you talking about the truther argument now? There never was a point that truthers all had the same argument, and if there was it's ludicrous. Oh wait, that's right, you were arguing that regarding Von Brunn, LOLZ! I certainly argue the opposite.



""It does not change the fact that there are many.""

Point to some other OCT's then cuz that's the argument.





""Why test for something there is zero evidence of?""

Because the evidence only comes from testing. Like poisoning in a murder, you don't have evidence of it until you test for it. "Sheesh" that's just plain ole common sense.

Because until you test for it you don't know. You can't tell how the building collapsed by looking at it. You test for explosives just as a matter of principle.

Besides are you not aware of NFPA 921 that requires testing for explosives and accelerants including thermite in a fire of this nature? How come that wasn't followed?



""No, I don't. Logan did not have video to release. The FBI has not released Newark or Dulles, they should.""

I thought you said truthers had ZERO evidence? Now you're contradicting yourself?



(Bin Laden FBI page) ""Already addressed.""

Where? By someone on this thread? No it's not, I just searched.



""""You call none of the 19 on any airlines released passenger manifests a "minor discrepancy"? """"

""No, I don't. I call it a fantasy, completely made up, often debunked.""

Read what I wrote again, it's painful arguing with you, you don't read and comprehend thoroughly.

Airlines released, I'll add "official" cuz that's what I mean. The link you give is to Moussaoui trial exhibits released in 2006. TRY AGAIN.

[Kalun D]

163. Unprecedented

""I would call it stupidity when the cause was obvious.""

An unprecedented event and you go on face value alone? You don't dig any deeper? Since it's unprecedented what determines what's obvious? Besides face value means it looked like a demolition, sudden and complete collapse, never before seen EXCEPT in demolitions which use explosives.


""Why test for something there is zero evidence of?""

Are you aware that over 100 firefighters gave on the record evidence that they heard explosions? Is firefighter testimony "zero evidence" to you? Credible eyewitness testimony is not evidence?


""causing large fires that weakened the structure enough to cause the collapse""

funny how that's never happened before or since. So in a highly unusual event you don't even test for the usual possibility of accelerants and explosives?


""No, I don't. I call it a fantasy, completely made up, often debunked.""

LOLZ!! the site you link to is a truther site that is debunking your point that the airline's lists included the 19.

are you dyslexic or something?

[SDuderstadt]

115. Hmmm, so the part where the "OCT" concluded there were 4 planes...

ISN'T a "big, fat lie"?

Better watch out, dude. Your "truther credentials" are eroding.

[Kalun D]

124. Most Real Truthers

Don't deny the 4 planes.

You weren't aware of that SDude? (SARCASM)

[Kalun D]

123. Do you see that I say 4 planes?

""So... The entire OTC is a lie... lets start with no planes?""

every big lie contains some inherent truths. There are plenty of basic OCT facts of the event that no real knowledgeable truther disputes.

are you not aware that most of the real informed truther arguments believe in 4 planes?

are you aware I've argued repeatedly for 4 planes?

""Not a single one of them thinks it was anything other then planes that brought down the towers.""

and I whole-heartedly agree with them. My question is did anyone see who was in the pilot seats of the planes?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Q: How many of our resident 9/11 CT advocates have already emailed Mr. Cohen? n/t

[travis80]

13. i emailed the publishers urging to ban his smears articles

that should be more productive that emailing that idiot directly.

[SDuderstadt]

15. I'm certain the publishers will be swayed by your cogent prose...

Travis.

[Kalun D]

56. CLUE for U

the death skulls and their whores, do not care if you email them

therefore why would anyone waste their time?

[noise]

20. No argument with the secretive government/coverup movement?

If I didn't know any better, Cohen's argument is authoritarian. He appears to hold the truth movement to a much higher standard than powerful government officials.

Torture? Indefinite detention? Unending WoT? Warrantless surveillance? War profiteering?

All good faith overreaction?

[SDuderstadt]

21. You think everyone's argument is "authoritarian"

You might want to come up with some new material.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. That argument does seem to have some authoritarian sway over noise. n/t

[noise]

23. Did I miss Cohen's take on the secrecy/coverup movement?

I seem to recall that the same officials who lied about Iraq were in office in the lead up to 9/11.

[LARED]

59. I second that motion. nt

[Ohio Joe]

26. Poor logic

Because he never addressed those things does not mean he supports them. I find it interesting that once again the insinuation comes out that because one does not buy into the tinfoil, you are a bush supporter. It is simply poor logic and... as everything else with truthers, offered without any evidence.

[noise]

30. He wrote the one sided article

which failed to address any aspects of government conduct except to note the Bush administration was too incompetent to pull off something like 9/11.

One doesn't have to buy into the 9/11 truth movement to question government conduct in relation to 9/11.

[Ohio Joe]

31. That is simply not true

"The 9/11 truth movement was enormously helpful to the Bush Administration as it provided a giant distraction from the colossal crimes they committed in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The article is really about the truth movement, not about bush and his crimes yet... he does in fact mention they exist.

Though I see yet again, you feel the need to make the insinuation he supports bush by not being honest about the article. Because he does not go into detail on a topic other then what he is talking about does not imply support of any kind.

[noise]

32. Here is his take on 9/11

1. Any alternative to the official account of what happened is so absurd it simply cannot be true.

2. No reputable scientific journal has ever taken any of the 'science' of the conspiracy seriously.

3. The evidence supporting the official story is overwhelming, whereas the 9/11 Truthers have yet to produce a shred of concrete evidence that members of the U.S. government planned the attacks in New York and Washington.

It's absurd to doubt authority. Who cares about the coverup and the secrecy? It's not relevant to anything.

[Ohio Joe]

34. Nonsense

Based on his 3 points, you reach a conclusion that has noting to do with the context of his points. Cherry picking quotes, typical. If they were in relation to the investigation, you would be correct but they are not. They are in relation to the truth movement and they are correct.

[noise]

37. It seems you defend his intentions

simply because you agree with his denunciation of the 9/11 truth movement.

[Ohio Joe]

39. No, it is because I am using reason, facts and logic...

and not false statements, cherry picked quotes and insinuations.

[noise]

40. You are playing a game

Cohen makes his case:

1)The 9/11 truth movement is bad for America.

2)The 9/11 Commission got it mostly right.

3)Questioning 9/11 is a distraction from real issues.

[Ohio Joe]

42. No games

That pretty much covers it.

Edit - Playing games is making false statements about the article, insinuations about the author and cherry picking quotes.

[noise]

44. It's so easy to go after

the 9/11 truth movement.

I hope someone will post the link when Cohen writes a column on government conduct in relation to 9/11.

[Ohio Joe]

46. With that... I can agee - nt

[Kalun D]

53. Truth and Lies

You can "go after" the truthers all you want it won't change the truth

the bush boy's hand picked and vetted 911 Ommission Report OCT is a pack of lies.

[SDuderstadt]

65. I like #3, myself.

n/t

[Kalun D]

51. the bush boy

the bush boy supports the OCT

if you support the OCT

you support the bush boy in that respect

[Ohio Joe]

63. Truthers = Von Brunn

By your logic, that is a valid thing for me to throw out there. It should be perfectly fine for me to insinuate anything he believes is also what truthers believe... no? But... But... you all are truthers so you agree... in that respect... No?

It is poor logic.

[Kalun D]

104. Be Specific

I don't even know who Von Brunn is sorry

On what specific points does he agree or disagree with me? If you can't be specific you are using poor logic.

my overarching source would the The Terror Timeline

but we can nail you down specifically can't we?

FEMA
NIST
the 911 Omission Report

these are all the Gov's babies

at the time all this went down the Bush boy was at the helm

he fully vetted everything about the 911 Omission Report, that's the major narrative of 911.

Where do you agree or disagree with FEMA NIST and the 911 Omission Report?

remember you can't edit your past posts beyond a very minimal time, it's all there in the record.

[Ohio Joe]

107. Why would I want to edit my post?

I have on rare occasion edited posts but I ALWAYS make a note of exacty what was edited so that the before and after are there for all to see. Don't believe me? Alert me to the mods, they will check it out and I am certain ban me if I am lying. Do you note your edits so people know what has changed? If not... why not?

Your insinuations will get you nowhere with me, I will continue to point them out. It is bad form, try using some facts... just once in a while.

Von Brunn is a truther... so are you... does that not mean you both belive everything the same? What more do you need to know? You think it is OK to say anyone that does not belive the tinfiol is a bush follower, does it not follow that that anyone who does buy the tinfoil is a follower of Von Brunn?

"On what specific points does he agree or disagree with me? If you can't be specific you are using poor logic."

Exactly my point, glad you figured it out, took you long enough. Does this mean you will stop makeing the insinuation that anyone that does not buy the tinfoil is a bush supporter?

[Kalun D]

121. ""Why would I want to edit my post?""

Because the OCT contradicts itself. If you argue with an OCTer long enough they will eventually contradict themselves and it's really effective when you beat someone down with their own words.

It's extra points if I can get them to do it in the same thread.

""You think it is OK to say anyone that does not belive the tinfiol is a bush follower, does it not follow that that anyone who does buy the tinfoil is a follower of Von Brunn?""

Bush vetted, promoted, and supported the 911 Omission Report OCT. It wouldn't be hard to argue that the bush admin created the Omission OCT.

Please tell us where you differ from the main points of the 911 Omission Report?

Von Brunn is just an observer, not a participant/perpatrator like Bush.

and Unless you know where he stands in the many positions of the truther argument, it's going to be tough for you to say I agree with him on a majority of points.

You basically agree with the basic arguments of the criminal. And his argument that you basically believe is directly tied to his deranged killer status

I may agree with parts of what a remote, detached and random 3rd hand witness thinks about the crime. And his belief of this crime is not tied to his deranged killer status.

[Ohio Joe]

130. I went to grab a few hours of sleep and see you edited your post

and did not note what you edited... In the very same sub-thread you make an insinuation about me editing my posts... You realize how this looks?

"Because the OCT contradicts itself. If you argue with an OCTer long enough they will eventually contradict themselves and it's really effective when you beat someone down with their own words.

It's extra points if I can get them to do it in the same thread."

ohhh, good luck with that. Go check out my postings everywhere, you will find most of them here, in GD, the lounge, the gaming group, the GLBT activism group and on occasion in LBN and GLBT... a smattering of posts in other forums. Go find your contradiction.... be warned, I am a vile and foul mouthed man in all of those forums. I suggest as soon as you do find that contradiction, alert me to the mods with your proof of my being a bush supporter.

or you could come back here and admit that because I do not support the tinfoil, it does not make me a bush supporter. I can't wait to see which you do...

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

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

[Ohio Joe]

139. You just love throwing out insinuations

"I don't need other's posts deleted to win the argument cuz the truth stands on it's own"

You wish to imply I had your thread deleted, wrong. I completely deny having anything to do with it's deletion. I did not alert the mods or have contact with them in any way regarding anything in this thread.


More to the point, you still weasel away from the point of the sub thread. If what you mean is:

"You do not buy the tinfoil, you agree with bush on that point"

Say exactly that, when you say:

"you do not agree with the tinfoil, you agree with bush"

You make the insinuation that the person agrees with bush on all things and is thus a bush supporter. That you need this spelled out to you once again, once again shows your dishonesty.

"The bush OCT IS tinfoil."

Perhaps one day truthers will actually do something about this. I suggest both of the following:

1 - Get a definition of OCT that is uniform
2 - Get some evidence.

[Kalun D]

144. OCT = tinfoil

OCT = Official Conspiracy Theory

Conspiracy Theory = Tinfoil

thus

OCT = Tinfoil

""You wish to imply I had your thread deleted, wrong. I completely deny having anything to do with it's deletion. I did not alert the mods or have contact with them in any way regarding anything in this thread.""

No, I don't think it was you. It was probably SDude, he can't win an argument so like most fervent OCTers he whines to the mods to get the opposition's posts deleted. The whiny wheel gets the grease.

I have to admit I've done it one time, when they deleted my posts for something they'd already done to me in the thread.

I stated I don't NEED other's posts deleted and I stand by that.

The main reason I edit posts is because I'm usually in too much of a hurry and have to go back and fix or add.

"""The bush OCT IS tinfoil."
Perhaps one day truthers will actually do something about this. I suggest both of the following:
1 - Get a definition of OCT that is uniform
2 - Get some evidence."""

1 - OCT = FEMA, NIST, (bush)911 Omission Report. (it's all there in writing)

2 - If the OCT doesn't need evidence why do you demand it from the truthers? And there's tons of circumstantial evidence. What truther sites have you read?

[Ohio Joe]

149. Then do not insinuate I will edit my posts to change my story when you do it.

Without listing your edits. I always list my edits, you do not but had to insinuate I would.

I have been to many truther sites, many I do not even remember the names of but they run the gamut from Spooked's site to the timeline and most everything in between. I've also looked at countless videos on youtube, though it has been over a year since I have looked at any since my PC does not play any of them and I cannot afford a new PC at this time.

Things like NIST are proof, that there are minor inconsistencies that make you want to deny them entirely does not negate the fact. Truthers have zero proof, they have minor inconsistencies and cherry picked qoutes... So far in this thread, you have not even offered that much.

[Kalun D]

154. Hyperbole

When I mentioned you editing posts it was tounge in cheek. Just a word play to point out that the OCT contradicts itself and if you argue it long enough you will find out.

""Things like NIST are proof""

no they're not. They're government controlled coverups.

""Truthers have zero proof""

Why didn't they test for explosives at ground zero? After all explosives were used in '93.

Were you aware of NFPA 921 fire investigation standard? which calls for testing for acclerants and explosives including thermite anytime there's a fire of this nature?

Where are the vids of the 19 getting on the planes? There's at least a dozen cameras they would have had to pass. How come there's no vid?

Where are the 19 on the airlines released passenger lists? Airlines ALWAYS release a full passenger list within a couple days of an accident. Yet they NEVER released lists with the 19 names on them.

[Ohio Joe]

152. I would like to add one more thing here

"No, I don't think it was you. It was probably SDude, he can't win an argument so like most fervent OCTers he whines to the mods to get the opposition's posts deleted. The whiny wheel gets the grease."

Sigh... I don't think you understand why posts get deleted. It has nothing to do with who is winning an argument, it has to do with following the rules. Perhaps someone alerted, perhaps a mod simply saw it, it really does not matter. If someone alerts the mods on a given post and it does not break any rules, the mods leave it alone, they do not delete posts simply because someone keeps alerting. It does not work that way. One of the reasons they get to be mods is because they are able to be impartial.

I've had posts deleted and the truth is, every single time my first reaction has been.. WTF? But every single time, when I take a minute to think about what I had posted, it broke the rules. It really is that simple. It is not anything personel... ever.

Don't let the persecution complex get you, think about what you are posting for a minute and if you really still do not understand why it was deleted, I suggest a PM to the mods asking why. I think you will find there was an actual rule that was broken and not some personal vendetta against you.

[Kalun D]

153. Post Deletions

I'm not worried about it, I actually like DU because the personal attack stuff is minimized.

I don't think there's any Mod bias. The bias is that the OCTers alert way more than I do. But I still don't get deleted all that often.

I finally figured out to copy the thread at the end of a session so I can see what was deleted so I know what not to do next time.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[Ohio Joe]

111. Good try

But anyone reading will see your game.

Me - I do not believe the tinfoil.

You - bush does not buy tinfoil thus you believe everything bush believes.

I try to show you the bad logic behind this by reversing the comparison... and say that is what I am doing and so give you an example:

You - I buy tinfoil.

Me - Von Brunn buys tinfoil thus you believe everything Von Brunn believes.

Yet somehow... You manage to miss the point completely and try to make it like my example is my opinion and point out it is bad logic (as I said) but... Still believe your comparison is valid. This is why truthers are not taken seriously, you play games and try to fool the weak but... your not very good at it.

[Kalun D]

122. Don't Worry

the "try" isn't for you, it's for the dear reader.

""Me - I do not believe the tinfoil.""

OCT stands for Official CONSPIRACY THEORY

the OCT is the bush boy's tinfoil

""You - bush does not buy tinfoil thus you believe everything bush believes.""

I'll ask again, (and you won't answer again, cuz you know you'll get a beating)

Where do you differ from the basic points of the OCT?

""I try to show you the bad logic behind this by reversing the comparison""

by comparing a top level key perpetrator (bush) to a remote detached 3rd hand outside observer (Von Brunn).

""Me - Von Brunn buys tinfoil thus you believe everything Von Brunn believes.""

I can tell you specifics of Bush's beliefs, can you tell me specifics of Von Brunn's?

Are you even aware that some truthers believe there was 4 planes and some truthers believe "no planes"?

""Yet somehow... You manage to miss the point completely""

what? That you have any substantial differences from the bush boy's OCT?

Please tell us what they are?

[Ohio Joe]

129. Are you intentionally avoiding the topic of this sub-thread?

Are you seriously going to try and defend calling someone a bush supporter because they don't buy the tinfoil? Really? It is a garbage argument... You will admit it when it goes for you but you are seriously going to try and defend using it against others? If you are, you are simply being dishonest.

[Kalun D]

143. I've repeated this numerous times

you still don't seem to get it.

""You make the insinuation that the person agrees with bush on all things and is thus a bush supporter.""

No, I was very clear on that point, and I'll repeat.

I DO NOT MEAN THAT OCTers support bush on all things. The ONLY thing I'm claiming is that they support the OCT that bush vetted and supports. Therefore they are aligned with bush on the OCT.

Namely (defining OCT) as

NIST
FEMA
911 Omission Report

[Ohio Joe]

150. Exactly how truthers are aligned with Von Brunn - nt

[Kalun D]

155. Not Even Close

And you refuse to acknowledge my points on this, I'll try to make it clearer.

""Exactly how truthers are aligned with Von Brunn""

The OCT is FEMA, NIST, 911 Omission Report. Bush vetted and approves of all this. It's plain as day and all in writing.

Bush was in the middle of it, he was directly involved, he gave testimony, he was in the spotlight on 911.

Things like NIST are bush's "proof" of the OCT story, and you agree.

Von Brunn is just a disconnected outside observer. And you have nothing in writing or otherwise that compares what he believes to what I believe. I don't think you even have any evidence of how much of a truther he is. Other than the word of Glenn Beck. LOLZ!!!

[Ohio Joe]

164. And yet another insinuation I am a right winger

Glenn Beck? I'm tired of your insinuations. I'm tired of your denial of facts, you are a game player and nothing more. Your purposely starting multi-treads repeatedly bringing up the same tired non-sense and doing exactly what is in the OP. Noting minor inconstancies, offering fantasies about big bad evil conspiracies and presenting zero evidence. You have nothing or you would have posted it. On top of that, when proven wrong you ignore it and just bring up more recycled and tired non-sense.

If you decide you want to debate this in an honest fashon... oh say, keep your non-sense to a single sub-thread and not as many as you can create and maybe... admit when your proven wrong instead of ignoring it and most definitly... Stop your bullshit accusations and insinuations that I am a right winger, I will be glad to go about it. As long as you continue to be dishonest and persist in douchebag insinuations though I'll have none of it.

I'm sure you will figure I'm stopping because "you are winning" but it is not, it is because of the exact reasons I've stated. I am more then willing to continue but not under your continued dishonesty and personal attacks.

[Kalun D]

165. Your Personal Attack

""And yet another insinuation I am a right winger...Glenn Beck? I'm tired of your insinuations.""

Uhh, he's one of the few national media that has made a Von Brunn-- truther connection. OCTers like you are also doing it. That's the connection, nothing more nothing less. Sorry if you think it's something more, I don't think it is. I never inject right/left wing into 911.

I don't care what party Glenn Beck supports, he's a nutcase. Funny how it's a nutcase in the national media that's most vocal about the supposed Von Brunn truther connection.


""Noting minor inconstancies""

Not testing for explosives when it's called for in the regs and over 100 firefighters gave testimony they heard explosions is not a minor inconsistency.


""admit when your proven wrong instead of ignoring it""

I've addressed way more of your points than you have of mine. It's always that way on this board. You haven't proven me wrong on anything. The numerous points you fail to re-counter after I've shot them down is evidence of that. Are you getting frustrated?


""Stop your bullshit accusations and insinuations that I am a right winger""

That's only in your mind. Apparently I have to make disclaimers with you then. I DON'T THINK YOU ARE A RIGHT WINGER. There, are you happy now?


""I am more then willing to continue but not under your continued dishonesty and personal attacks.""

Oh WAAAAAHHHHHHH

if you think there's been personal attacks you should alert to the mods. You're the one calling me dishonest, and my posts "douchbag" and "bullshit". I haven't done that to you. Your entire post here is just talking about me. I bet it could get deleted as a personal attack. (but note to the mods I'm not asking for that) I don't need my opponents post's deleted to "win". LOLZ!!!!

[AZCat]

167. "...when it's called for in the regs".

What "regs" would those be, Kalun D, that require testing for explosives? Please be specific.

[Kalun D]

168. NFPA 921

You know the National Fire Protection Agency?

THE authority on fire, electrical, and building safety? That has codes and standards for investigating fires?

If they didn't use the NFPA fire investigation standards, what fire investigation standards did FEMA and NIST use? And can you link to them?

[AZCat]

169. What section of NFPA 921 calls for testing for explosives?

Please be specific - I have a copy at work and will be checking your reference.

[Kalun D]

170. FEMA fire investigation standards????

19.2.4 - “Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.

Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete

So AZCat, what fire investigation standard did FEMA use?

[AZCat]

172. There is no section 19.2.4 in my copy.

What version are you looking at? Right now I'm looking at the 2008 version. The section you reference is 22.2.4, not 19.2.4. Reviewing the correct section shows your cherry-picking:

NFPA 921 - Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations - 2008 edition

22.2.4 Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers (see NFPA 430, Code for the Storage of Liquid and Solid Oxidizers) may produce an exceedingly hot fire and my be used to start or accelerate a fire. Some of these oxidizers, depending on various conditions, can self ignite and will cause the same type of fire growth. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable. Presence of remains from the oxidizers does not in itself constitute an intentionally set fire. (See 5.7.4.1.5)

What is this? No bit about "melted steel or concrete"? Oh wait - that's in the next section:

22.2.4.1 Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing fires and were referred to in these particular instances as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of a fire), and melted steel or concrete. A study of 25 fires suspected of being associated with HTAs during the 1981-1991 period revealed that there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.

[Kalun D]

173. Hair Splitting

""Reviewing the correct section shows your cherry-picking:""

No, it shows your splitting hairs.

Evidence and testimony of molten steel

evidence and testimony of explosives

does not call for ruling out explosives and accelerants by TESTING FOR THEM?

Just what exactly were the fire investigation standards that FEMA used AZCat? You never did say?



""A study of 25 fires suspected of being associated with HTAs during the 1981-1991 period revealed that there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.""

What are they saying then? That HTA's have NEVER been used and we should NEVER test for them? Why just a 10 year period? No fire investigations before or after that?

[AZCat]

174. You still haven't pointed out the section requiring testing for explosives...

nor have you provided evidence of explosives that would warrant such testing, were it required.

[Kalun D]

175. Layman's Terms

maybe it's layman's terms to call thermite an explosive. It's a firefighters site I read it on. Imagine that, firefighters actually questioning the Government bullsh*t "investigation".


""nor have you provided evidence of explosives that would warrant such testing""

What's wrong you don't believe the over 100 firefighters who went on the record saying they heard explosions?

Evidence and testimony of Molten steel doesn't seem odd in a jet fuel accelerated office fire? Doesn't raise the least bit curiosity to test for accelerants or explosives?

Previous attacks on the same building with explosives?

Markedly similar to (explosive) demolition, the sudden and total collapse? I mean if we're comparing to other events, that's what it looks most like.


and you've avoided the question how many times AZCat? What fire investigation standards was FEMA under? If you ignore it maybe it will go away? Funny how I answer most of the OCTers questions but they answer very few of mine.

[AZCat]

176. Thermite isn't an explosive.

Laypeople often get this wrong. Thermite is an incendiary.

What's wrong you don't believe the over 100 firefighters who went on the record saying they heard explosions?

I would be very surprised if there weren't testimony of explosions. However, explosions are not the same as explosives. Plenty of things explode during a fire that are not explosives.

Evidence and testimony of Molten steel doesn't seem odd in a jet fuel accelerated office fire?

What evidence and testimony of "molten steel"?

Doesn't raise the least bit curiosity to test for accelerants or explosives?

Not when we have a perfectly good explanation of the collapses already (i.e. aircraft impacts and subsequent fires). In fact, NFPA 921 addresses this directly in Section 22.1.

Previous attacks on the same building with explosives?

If your house is robbed, and then a year later a drunk driver loses control of his car and it slams into your house, are you going to ask the cops to look for missing items because the previous crime was a robbery?

Markedly similar to (explosive) demolition, the sudden and total collapse? I mean if we're comparing to other events, that's what it looks most like.

It might look like that to a layperson.

What fire investigation standards was FEMA under?

Who cares? I've read the FEMA report but it was a long time ago that I last did because it was superseded by the far superior NIST reports.

Funny how I answer most of the OCTers questions but they answer very few of mine.

Funny how two people's perceptions of something can be so different. :eyes:

[Kalun D]

180. FEMA NIST SHAM FARCE FRAUD

""Thermite isn't an explosive. Laypeople often get this wrong. Thermite is an incendiary.""

uhh yeah, that's why I said it was probably a layterm


""Plenty of things explode during a fire that are not explosives.""

You'd think at least some of those 100 firefighters would know the difference. Or are you like FEMA and NIST and don't believe the firefighters enough to scientifically test their hunch?

fire fighters described demolition style explosions, since the collapse looked a lot like a demolition, why no curiosity for the presence of explosives?


""What evidence and testimony of "molten steel"?""

I've posted pics on this thread of molten steel, you didn't see that? There's also fire fighter testimony.



""Not when we have a perfectly good explanation of the collapses already""

Un-precedented collapses, never before seen in history, and you accept a verbal explanation without any scientific testing? "We know without testing there was no explosives". "we know there's no evidence of explosives because we didn't test for them" WHAT A JOKE OF AN "INVESTIGATION".


""If your house is robbed, and then a year later a drunk driver loses control of his car and it slams into your house, are you going to ask the cops to look for missing items because the previous crime was a robbery?""

WAY false analogy. It would be tough to get more false if you tried. You describe 2 different incidents, these were 2 similar incidents. They weren't stealing anything in either incident and it wasn't an accident in either indecent, and there was no missing items in either incident. EXCEPT FOR ANY CREDIBLE INVESTIGATION THE 2ND TIME AROUND.

A gang of thugs attacks your home using explosives. They aren't successful but you scientifically test for explosives and find them. 8 or so years later the same gang (supposedly) of thugs attacks your home, this time bringing it to the ground. Over 100 fire fighters hear explosions, yet this time you do not scientifically test for explosives.



""In fact, NFPA 921 addresses this directly in Section 22.1.""

AFTER the fact or before it?


""It might look like that to a layperson.""

That's what it looked like to everyone. That's the only thing that had happened before that it looked like. Because fire has never collapsed tall steel buildings.



""""What fire investigation standards was FEMA under?"""

""Who cares?""

Well obviously they weren't following any standards, at least you admit it. (Thanks for that admission BTW.) Otherwise they would have followed the gold standard which is NFPA. I mean the worst attack on the homeland ever, don't you want the best investigation possible?


""it was superseded by the far superior NIST reports.""

I didn't think NIST was an investigation, I mean they weren't on the ground were they? So what fire investigation standards did they follow? Same ones as FEMA? LOLZ!!!



""Funny how two people's perceptions of something can be so different.""

It's not hard to go back and count.

[AZCat]

187. Maybe you should be more careful selecting sources from now on.

Laypeople aren't the best resource for technical discussions.

I didn't realize there was firefighter testimony declaring that the explosions were because of explosives. In the absence of any other evidence of explosives, why would someone waste their time testing for them?

It is becoming quite tiresome to have to point out to you time and time again that photographs are not an effective tool for determining material composition and temperature. I know you've glommed on to your color vs. temperature charts because they validate your particular theory, but those are merely based on black body radiation combined with a material's emissivity. They can't factor in camera settings, ambient light, or contaminants that might also be combusting (organics, for example, might be entrained in the mixture).

You do realize there was quite a bit of testing done to support the NIST investigation and subsequent reports? The collapse hypothesis put forth by NIST has considerable validation, whereas a "controlled demolition" hypothesis has little (or none).

I think my analogy works, you don't.

I have no idea what you're asking about NFPA 921 Section 22.1. Please rephrase the question.

You're assuming we all viewed the collapses through a similar perspective to yours. This is not true. Continuing to make this assumption is foolish.

Why do you think NFPA is the "gold standard" of fire investigations? Do you have any supporting data?

Yes, the work done by the NIST was an investigation. Please at least read NCSTAR1 - it will help future discussions. I'm not asking you to agree with their work, but if we're going to talk about what they did you should have a passing familiarity with it.

Answers with no substantive content are not really answers at all, Kalun D.

[Kalun D]

189. FARCE NIST FEMA didn't test for explosives LOLZ!!!

""Laypeople aren't the best resource for technical discussions.""

but layterms are used to better communicate with laypersons


""In the absence of any other evidence of explosives, why would someone waste their time testing for them?""

100 firefighters word is not "any other evidence"?

It's absolutely ridiculous on it's face to say that you don't have evidence because you didn't look for it. How much was spent on FEMA and NIST and how much does it cost to test for explosives?


""I didn't realize there was firefighter testimony declaring that the explosions were because of explosives.""

that's not what I said and you know it. I said they THOUGHT it was demolition style explosions. But we know you and NIST and FEMA don't give a damn what the firefighters think cuz if they tested for explosives/accelerants they would find them and then the sham/fraud/farce OCT would fall apart.

over 100 firefighters heard explosions and that's not enough to take the minimal effort to test for explosives, that's not incompetence that's criminal negligence

COMMISSIONER GREGORY: ―No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn‘t broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don‘t know if I‘m crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too…I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes. "

PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA:
"At first I thought it was - do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop-pop-pop-pop-pop'? That's exactly what - because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down."

F.D.N.Y. CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE: "Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping, all the way around the building, and that building had started to explode. The popping sound. And with each popping sound, it was initially an orange, and then a red flash came out of the building, and then it would just go all around the building, on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds, and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down, and then all around the building.‖
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BANACISKI: ―It seemed like it was going all around like a belt, all these explosions.‖ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TOM FITZPATRICK: ―I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.‖

N.Y.P.D. OFFICER CRAIG BARTMER
13
"The whole time you're hearing ‗Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.‘ I think I know an explosion when I hear it."

FIREFIGHTER ED CACHIA "It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down."

FIREFIGHTER KENNETH ROGERS: ―…there was an explosion in the south tower…I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. (It) looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.


""It is becoming quite tiresome to have to point out to you time and time again that photographs are not an effective tool for determining material composition and temperature.""

no, they are just one piece of evidence that says you need to take further forensic steps.

""I know you've glommed on to your color vs. temperature charts because they validate your particular theory, but those are merely based on black body radiation combined with a material's emissivity. They can't factor in camera settings, ambient light, or contaminants that might also be combusting (organics, for example, might be entrained in the mixture).""

When you go by photos you have to determine what it MOST looks like. And that would be molten/near molten steel. I've asked you guys repeatedly what you think it is and you can't or won't answer, because molten steel is what it MOST LIKELY looks like. So of course you can't answer.

"you'd get down below and you'd see molten steel, molten steel running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, (like lava), like lava from a volcano"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287


""You do realize there was quite a bit of testing done to support the NIST investigation and subsequent reports?""

but when a pathetically easy test for accelerants which was called for by fire investigation standards WAS NOT DONE, the NIST "investigation" is exposed for the sham/fraud/farce that it is.


""I think my analogy works, you don't.""

you assert that, but you can't discuss it specifically because I've already broken it down.


""I have no idea what you're asking about NFPA 921 Section 22.1. Please rephrase the question.""

WHEN was if written, before or after 911?

""Why do you think NFPA is the "gold standard" of fire investigations? Do you have any supporting data?""

from their web page "THE authority on fire, electrical, and building safety"

If you know of a better source AZCat, why don't you post it.

""Yes, the work done by the NIST was an investigation.""

I thought it was a report/compilation of other investigations. Did NIST do ANY forensic investigations on their own?

[AZCat]

190. Maybe the problem...

is that laypersons should stay the fuck out of technical discussions where they have no business inserting themselves.

Apparently you're not very familiar with NFPA 921 regarding testing for explosives. Why don't you try reading it first before claiming it says something it doesn't? Any further discussion about this is pointless until you do so.

Your argument about the photos is ridiculous. I and the others refuse to identify the material shown because it is naive to think a photo can be used for such a purpose.

Again about the testing - read NFPA 921 then get back to me.

I disagree with your break-down of my analogy. It's a fucking analogy, not an exact match. Why do conspiracy theorists have such trouble with concepts like analogies and metaphors?

You said

WHEN was if written, before or after 911?

This is just gibberish. Please restate.

So you're depending on a soi desant authority? Wow - I wouldn't expect that from the "truth movement". :eyes:

I know of a better authority - why don't you check out NIST's Building and Fire Research Laboratory? These guys are the top of the heap.

Read the fucking NIST reports. Continuing to ignore their work is quite foolish.

[Kalun D]

196. THE problem Is Your Distraction and Avoidance.

""Maybe the problem is that laypersons should stay the fuck out of technical discussions where they have no business inserting themselves.""

It was taken from a site where a technical person, a fire investigator, was trying to communicate with laypersons.

I know with people like you and people who push disinfo it's a common tactic to claim expertise beyond common comprehension, just take our word for it.

""Apparently you're not very familiar with NFPA 921 regarding testing for explosives. Why don't you try reading it first before claiming it says something it doesn't? Any further discussion about this is pointless until you do so.""

The version you are quoting is not available online. The one I quoted was the current one on 9-11. That's why the section numbers didn't match up. Why are you quoting something that wasn't current on 911?

So the question you keep avoiding is pointless? I'm sure you think that since you can't answer. I'll ask again so you can avoid/ignore again and your agenda will become even more painfully obvious.

Why is 100 firefighters hearing explosions not evidence of explosives? And why not then do even basic tests for explosives?


""It's a fucking analogy, not an exact match.""

analogy
1. a similarity, usually in a limited number of features
2. a comparison made to show such a similarity

An analogy hinges on similarities. Your "analogy" had ZERO relevant similarities.


""""WHEN was if written, before or after 911?""""

""This is just gibberish. Please restate.""


you posted some quotes from your NFPA 921 that seemed to me to be written after 911 and it seemed like you implied they applied to 911 even though written afterwards. Since our section numbers didn't match I wondered when the version you reference was written, before or after 911.


""So you're depending on a soi desant authority?""

What's wrong with the most knowledgeably and specialized authority available? Why would you want anything less with a crime of this nature?


""I know of a better authority - why don't you check out NIST's Building and Fire Research Laboratory?""

Is that where most fire investigators go for a manual of standards before and after 911? Where is NIST's standards for fire investigations published? Please link to it.



""Read the fucking NIST reports. Continuing to ignore their work is quite foolish.""

you know you've got them going when they start using the F word and avoided the questions.

who would want to waste time reading the
N-ot
I-ntended to
S-how the
T-ruth reports.

Continuing to believe their work is quite foolish.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

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

[Kalun D]

200. Pure Ad Hominem

The entire post is ad-hominem name calling and none of my points are answered or addressed.

you know you've won when they're reduced to this level.

BTW the post also get points for hypocrisy. It mentions YouTube in a derogatory manner when it is the exact no-content slander post it's talking about.

[Ohio Joe]

177. Retracted under advice

I apologize to Kalun D for what I originally had here.

Ohio Joe

[Bolo Boffin]

178. Ohio Joe, unfortunately

it IS considered a personal attack here at DU to call lies lies. I agree 100% with your perspective and your intent here, but you might want to modify that last post.

[Ohio Joe]

179. Done

Thanks, I knew that but the wicked obvious stuff I sometimes feel the need to call. I need to learn to restrain myself better.

[Kalun D]

181. Argument

Argument is most effective when you stick to the points. It's less acceptable to attack a group instead of the points, but when you go off on someone personally, and that's all that's in your post, you've in effect lost the argument. Cuz it's no longer about the facts of the case at all, it's about personal side issues.

and I feel for you guys, I really do. When you're straight up against someone of equal wits the OCT is a losing argument. That's why it so often devolves into personal attack, cuz there's nowhere else to go.

[Bolo Boffin]

183. Such magnamity. n/t

[Ohio Joe]

184. I'm glad I can be bigger then you

What I said was against DU rules, it was still the truth. I tried to be honorable and you choose to try and take advantage. Lets go to town. Here is the post made to comply with DU rules.

Calling what you spout bullshit is putting it mildly. it is bullshit. You first claimed you never heard of Von Brunn yet in the post right here on June 10th, you were one of the people who posted in it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x251997

You try to make the fact that Von Brunn is a truther a "supposed" one, again you are spouting bullshit. You saw the link in Bolo Boffin's post so you know it is fact Von Brunn is a truther. You spout more bullshit by trying to pass off that only Back is promoting the Von Brunn when in fact there were a number of news stories about it.

When one spouts easily proven bullshit, it is not a personal attack to call it bullshit.

Even here when you "say" you don't think I'm a right winger, you insist on making the insinuation by the bullshit that Beck is where I had to get my information because no one else is talking about it.

As I said, I'll address anything you like but first you must agree to stop insinuating fellow DU'ers are right wingers. Don't deny it, don't give me anymore bullshit about how your just not being specific and don't give me any bullshit about how you don't think I am one. Agree to stop doing it and actually stop doing it, then we can continue.

End of previous post.

You can try and claim I am the one making personal attacks but I am telling the truth, you spout bullshit and the proof is right here. I have now listed your bullshit as exactly what it is... bullshit.

[Kalun D]

185. Dude

at my age my memory is short. I had to remind myself who Von Brunn was because I didn't pay that much attention when the story came out, because it's irrelevant.

he's just an outside observer, disconnected from affecting pretty much anything about 911 truth

whether some deranged killer follows 911 truth or not, or what kind of 911 truth he follows, doesn't change the facts of 911.

If you really want to start splitting irrelevant hairs then lets discuss what kind of truther he is

and I really don't think you are a winger or follow winger points, regardless of what you think or say :)

maybe I need to dig through your posts and show some points that prove you are left, shouldn't be too hard if your posting about equal rights

I shouldn't be surprised you're convinced I think your right wing, after all you believe in the OCT :)

911 is not really connected to right and left, from what I've seen there's about an equal amount of people on both sides.

and all these facts about Von Brunn and what I said or knew before, or who was talking about him is what you should have brought up in the first place, before you started just saying "bullsh*t"

[Ohio Joe]

191. so... your using an - I'm old and senile defense?

That must really suck. I mean, I guess since it was not important you still felt the need to post in the thread... hmmmm... nope, I have no idea why someone that posts so little would feel the need to post in an unimportant thread, strange. So then, you went looking for who he was but could only find right wing sources and also just happened to know the Back talked about it a lot... though you didn't remember it and it was unimportant... It probably came to you later.

"and I really don't think you are a winger or follow winger points, regardless of what you think or say"

hmmm, yes, you said that. It still does not explain your constant need to insinuate that anyone that does not buy the tinfoil is one.

"and all these facts about Von Brunn and what I said or knew before, or who was talking about him is what you should have brought up in the first place, before you started just saying "bullsh*t""

Sooooo... The same person that bragged about how he would catch me in a contradiction wants to be warned before he contradicts himself... heh... hahahahahahahahaha..ahhhh, too much. I bet your really serious about that as well... bwahahahahahahaha

[Kalun D]

192. meanwhile

back to the original discussions (are you avoiding them?)

You claim Von Brunn is equivalent to Bush, he's not. He's a detached outside observer and you can't even say what truther arguments he's aligned with. Bush was directly involved with the 911 Omission report. He believes NIST, FEMA, and the Omission Report, so do you.

the Iraq Saddam 911 connection is not part of NIST, FEMA, 911 Omission Report (the OCT).

I'm also curious, who else in the corp media is pushing the Von Brunn truther connection besides Glenn Beck? I vaguely seem to remember Faux News, maybe you can fill us in on this one.

You claim since I don't suck the OCT coolaid I must think there was no planes. I support 4 planes, and informed truthers do the same.

Bin Laden's most wanted FBI page says nothing about 911, you say "it's been covered", it hasn't.

NIST, FEMA didn't test for explosives at ground zero in spite of over 100 firefighters hearing explosions. Still waiting for you to say why firefighter testimony doesn't count as evidence.

Where are the vids of the 19 hijackers boarding the planes?

Where are the 19 on the official airlines released passenger lists? You know the ones that airlines always release in the 1st week after a catastrophe?

You claim I'm calling you a right winger, I'm not. Just like all OCTers, you're just terribly misguided and woefully uneducated about the true facts.

[Ohio Joe]

194. You don't want to talk about your contradiction?

I think I understand.

"back to the original discussions (are you avoiding them?)"

No, you are "forgetting" things again (it is a problem for you I see, very convenient). See, I stopped because your insinuations that anyone that does not agree with you is a right winger is bullshit and you refused to stop. I will answer this one and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are going to stop. If you start again, I stop again. It is really simple, if you try and focus, I'm sure you will get it.

"You claim Von Brunn is equivalent to Bush, he's not. He's a detached outside observer and you can't even say what truther arguments he's aligned with. Bush was directly involved with the 911 Omission report. He believes NIST, FEMA, and the Omission Report, so do you."

Makes zero difference. I am not saying they are equal. I am saying that if you think it is valid to call anyone the does not buy the tinfoil a bush supporter, it is just as valid to call truthers Von Brunn supporters. Neither one is a valid thing to say but you just want to try and keep up a justification for making the accusation against fellow DU'er's that do not agree with you. Try sticking to facts and not accusations.

"I'm also curious, who else in the corp media is pushing the Von Brunn truther connection besides Glenn Beck? I vaguely seem to remember Faux News, maybe you can fill us in on this one."

AGAIN, you continue to try and make the insinuation. Try going back to the post of your contradiction, Von Brunn signed a truther petition. There is also a link to a Yahoo story there as well. Also try doing a google search and don't let the right wing sources be the only ones you look at... Why are they the only places you look at for seemingly anything? See, it can work both ways if you want to play that game.

"You claim since I don't suck the OCT coolaid I must think there was no planes. I support 4 planes, and informed truthers do the same."

You love your bullshit, don't you? Just make shit up and see if it will stick? Or is it the bad memory again? See, the truth is, I said that once and there was a reason I said it. You made the claim the ALL OF THE OCT WAS A LIE... Another contradiction by you. You said that, I made the assumption that since planes existing that you were a no planer but then you changed your mind and said you did believe parts of the OCT but never clarified which parts. Since you revealed your contradiction, I have not said you were a no planer, you keep bringing this up. Perhaps you should be more vocal in setting them straight so that people don't assume you are all the same because they really do out shout you "informed truthers"... whatever that is.

"Bin Laden's most wanted FBI page says nothing about 911, you say "it's been covered", it hasn't."

Until he is indicted for 9/11 it will not. Since there is more then enough already... and since there are large rewards for his capture due to his involvement in 9/11, there is no reason to do so at this time. Not to mention he is almost certainly dead... enough circumstantial evidence to say, why indict a dead man... and not enough to say, lets not look for him anymore. But... you knew this, it is simply more bullshit for you to use for you fantasy.

"NIST, FEMA didn't test for explosives at ground zero in spite of over 100 firefighters hearing explosions. Still waiting for you to say why firefighter testimony doesn't count as evidence."

Ahhh, your 100 fireman bullshit. You LOVES YOU some cherry picked quotes, don't you? Please point to where 100 fireman have given testimony that they believe the towers were brought down by CD... oh, there is none is there... there is nothing but cherry picked quotes. How about point to any of the 9/11 fireman that believe in CD... oops, none again.

You see, when people still have control of their mental facilities, they have the ability to understand that when someone sees something they have trouble describing, they tend to use something that others will be familiar with to make a comparison. Your attempt to frame a cherry picked quote as testimony is completely dis-honest, you know full well that not one of the 9/11 fireman believe the towers were brought down by CD and not one of them has testified that they were.

So... since what you are using is cherry picked quotes and not testimony... No, cherry picked quotes are not evidence of anything except you being dis-honest.

"Where are the vids of the 19 hijackers boarding the planes?"

Still with the FBI as far as I know... remember... think hard... I already told you this.

"Where are the 19 on the official airlines released passenger lists? You know the ones that airlines always release in the 1st week after a catastrophe?"

This I also already told you about. The initial lists printed in the papers were of victims, they were not passenger lists but... you know this as well, simply more bullshit.

[Kalun D]

195. Joe Avoids Questions AGAIN

""it is just as valid to call truthers Von Brunn supporters.""

no it's not, because of the level of involvement comparing bush to Von Brunn, and the certainty of what bush and OCTers support and the uncertainty of what Von Brunn believes. And how can you claim someone supports Von Brunn if you don't know specifically what he believes? After all he could be a no planer, many have fallen for that Gov disinfo crap.

Still waiting for you to come up with something on Von Brunn's beliefs.

""AGAIN, you continue to try and make the insinuation.""

so tell us who besides Beck and Faux News was really pushing the Von Brunn Truther connection? I'm not talking obscure Google hits, I'm talking national news, you know the TV where 90 % of Americans get their news? You sure do a lot of typing for not answering questions.

""You made the claim the ALL OF THE OCT WAS A LIE... Another contradiction by you.""

No it's not because you're basically saying the sky is blue, of course the sky is blue. Of course there's basic truths in the OCT. If you don't understand a general statement like this you should find another pastime. And if you don't understand real educated truthers don't support no planes I can't help you there either.



""Until he is indicted for 9/11 it will not.""(Lack of 911 on Bin Laden's FBI page)

LOLZ!!! so the Gov made a public case against Bin Laden without enough evidence to indict? What are they waiting for, it's been almost 8 years? Uhh but what was that Mueller(?) who said they had no hard evidence against the 19 or Al CIAduh? So maybe that's why no mention of 911 on Bin Laden's most wanted page.... NO EVIDENCE.



"""in spite of over 100 firefighters hearing explosions."""

""Please point to where 100 fireman have given testimony that they believe the towers were brought down by CD""

Is your problem with reading and comprehension flaring up again? There it is my quote right above what you just posted. Where did you read that I said they believe the towers were brought down by CD? I only said 100 heard explosions, although many of them did say they sounded/looked like demolition.

and the point wasn't what the firemen thought happened, the point was 100 of them heard explosions, SO THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVIDENCE THAT TESTING FOR EXPLOSIVES WAS CALLED FOR.

I'll ask again since you can't/won't answer. Is 100 firefighters hearing explosions evidence of explosions or not? And why would you then NOT test for explosives?

""How about point to any of the 9/11 fireman that believe in CD... oops, none again.""

Boy, it's really got to suck when the firemen turn a 180 on all you OCTers.

www.firefightersfor911truth.org


""when someone sees something they have trouble describing, they tend to use something that others will be familiar with to make a comparison.""

EXACTLY. So when people see something that LOOKS most like a demolition and hear explosions that sound like a demolition. YOU TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES. When you don't it looks and smells just like the sham farce fraud lie scam crap garbage junk "investigation" that's really just a criminal coverup.


""you know full well that not one of the 9/11 fireman believe the towers were brought down by CD""

that right there is a straight up bald faced lie, or you're just highly uneducated, many firefighters know it was a demo, it's painfully obvious, take a look at the firefighter truther site if you don't believe.

""and not one of them has testified that they were CD.""

they weren't asked that question, all this testimony was asking what happened, not what they thought the cause of what happened was.


""Still with the FBI as far as I know""(vids of the 19)

What happened to the case they were going to make against Bin Laden and Al CIAduh? Vids of the 19 would have been conclusive evidence, why are they holding back? You wouldn't have all this truther uprising, you could very easily shut a lot of people up if you showed some real evidence. So it must not really be there. And of course it's not, cuz that's not what happened.

""The initial lists printed in the papers were of victims, they were not passenger lists""

No kidding? I thought you posted airlines released passenger manifests earlier in the thread? What was that? Oh wait, those didn't come out till 2006 and it's not directly from the airlines. Now you're talking some "victim list", is that something new they do only with "terror" attacks? Or is that something death skulls do when they've pulled off a 911 style inside job?

So the question you can't/won't answer still stands. Where are the airlines released passenger manifests containing the 19 names? You know the ones, that all airlines release right after an event, usually in the 1st week.

[Ohio Joe]

197. heh, More Kalun bullshit

Because you do not like an answer does not mean one is not given, I answered everything.

"no it's not, because of the level of involvement comparing bush to Von Brunn, and the certainty of what bush and OCTers support and the uncertainty of what Von Brunn believes. And how can you claim someone supports Von Brunn if you don't know specifically what he believes? After all he could be a no planer, many have fallen for that Gov disinfo crap."

You can keep trying to justify your wanting to insinuate other DU'ers are bush supporter and right wingers and thats fine. From now on, each time I see you do it, I will follow it up with "Kalun = Von Brunn". That you are both truthers is all I'll mean, I'm sure everyone will understand. So, please, feel free... and so will I.

"No it's not because you're basically saying the sky is blue, of course the sky is blue. Of course there's basic truths in the OCT. If you don't understand a general statement like this you should find another pastime. And if you don't understand real educated truthers don't support no planes I can't help you there either."

When you say one thing and then say something that goes against what you first said, that is a contradiction. Many here believe no planes, if you had been specific from the start it would have been clear but you were not. I said it once, you clarified and I'm good. I don't know why you keep bring it up except maybe to try and get out of your contradicting yourself.

"so the Gov made a public case against Bin Laden without enough evidence to indict?"

Because one has not been handed down does not mean there is not enough evidence. As best I understand it, bushco decided to pursue it as a military matter and not one of a police matter. I don't agree with the choice but that does not change it. An indictment could still be handed down, and the FBI has stated it could be if he was caught.

"I'll ask again since you can't/won't answer. Is 100 firefighters hearing explosions evidence of explosions or not? And why would you then NOT test for explosives?"

No, it is not unless they believe it was the explosions that caused the collapses. It is the danger of using cherry picked quotes, they do not convey real meaning.

"""How about point to any of the 9/11 fireman that believe in CD... oops, none again.""

Boy, it's really got to suck when the firemen turn a 180 on all you OCTers.

www.firefightersfor911truth.org"

None of them were there as far as I can see.

"EXACTLY. So when people see something that LOOKS most like a demolition and hear explosions that sound like a demolition. YOU TEST FOR EXPLOSIVES. When you don't it looks and smells just like the sham farce fraud lie scam crap garbage junk "investigation" that's really just a criminal coverup."

The towers did not look like a demolition and did not sound like a demolition. So, no reason to test for explosives.

"""you know full well that not one of the 9/11 fireman believe the towers were brought down by CD""

that right there is a straight up bald faced lie, or you're just highly uneducated, many firefighters know it was a demo, it's painfully obvious, take a look at the firefighter truther site if you don't believe."

I looked, I did not see anyone that was there sooo, I did not lie. I'm also not sure I would call 62 unverified names "many".

"they weren't asked that question, all this testimony was asking what happened, not what they thought the cause of what happened was."

Why are truthers not trying to go beyond their cherry picked quotes and get more from these firemen? I think we both know the answer to that, it would take away what little you have with these cherry picked quotes.

"What happened to the case they were going to make against Bin Laden and Al CIAduh? Vids of the 19 would have been conclusive evidence, why are they holding back? You wouldn't have all this truther uprising, you could very easily shut a lot of people up if you showed some real evidence. So it must not really be there. And of course it's not, cuz that's not what happened."

truther uprising, hahahahaha, good one. As I've said, I can think of no reason not to release the videos they have. I'll go further, I don't know why they are not being released.

"No kidding? I thought you posted airlines released passenger manifests earlier in the thread? What was that? Oh wait, those didn't come out till 2006 and it's not directly from the airlines."

So? They still came out. Yet... I did a little more digging. What I'm seeing is that airlines usually set up a phone number to call for names and papers print them. It appears that at least AA did and that the papers decided to only print the victims and not the hijackers. Here is a link to the AA number to get the list:

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2001victims.asp

Near the bottom is a hotline for UA as well, I would guess that was for getting their list but I am unsure. While I do not see something definitive for UA's number for passenger lists (It is late and I don't feel like looking any more), I can think of no reason they did not have one.

[Kalun D]

202. Hey, Another FOUL MOUTH OCTer. What else is new?

""From now on, each time I see you do it, I will follow it up with "Kalun = Von Brunn".""

That's fine, because anyone that knows better will know your statement is inaccurate and meaningless.

""When you say one thing and then say something that goes against what you first said, that is a contradiction.""

No it's not. It's a broad general statement. "The OCT is a big fat lie" means that generally on the whole it's a lie. Saying there's no planes is like saying there's no buildings, or there's no sky. Of course some aspects of any big lie are going to be true.

""Because one has not been handed down does not mean there is not enough evidence.""

LOLZ!!! He's guilty but they haven't even indicted. How does that work in a court of law?

What are they waiting for? they said in OCT of '01 they were going to present the evidence, they must not have any since it's been almost 8 years.

Why did the head of the FBI say he had no hard evidence if you say there's "enough evidence"?

"" An indictment could still be handed down, and the FBI has stated it could be if he was caught.""

LOLZ!!! How long are we going to wait? Why do they have to catch him if they already have evidence? Are they going to torture it out of him?

""The towers did not look like a demolition and did not sound like a demolition.""

That's funny then why did some newscasters and some demo experts say it looked like a demolition?

Compare the vid of building 7 and vids of demolitions. It looks JUST LIKE a demolition. It's just like the pics of molten steel. All the OCTers say it doesn't look like molten steel but they won't/can't say what it looks like cuz it looks like nothing else.

So since you say it didn't look like a demolition, tell us what it looked like and go on YouTube and find a vid that looks like what you describe.

Where you there at ground zero on 911? Did you know several fire fighters said they saw and heard explosions that looked like demolition type explosions? So they disagree with you that it did not sound like a demolition. Of course you're like most OCTers, you're going to ignore the firefighter testimony and go with the bush boy's hand picked 911 Omission.

""So, no reason to test for explosives.""

So you are on the record saying that 100 firefighters hearing explosions, many who thought they sounded like demo explosions, is not evidence to test for explosives? Just want everyone to see the disconnected and delusional opinion you hold.


""I looked, I did not see anyone that was there sooo, I did not lie.""

So how do you know all the firefighters don't believe in CD? Since the interviews only asked for the facts of the day and not what they thought caused them? Was there other interviews or polls that I'm not aware of? You might think that but how do you "know" that?


""Why are truthers not trying to go beyond their cherry picked quotes and get more from these firemen?""

Is that their job? And they have done that anyway, what do you think firefightersfor911truth is? It's concerned fire fighters, including fire investigators. Did you know fire investigators said the "fire investigation" at ground zero was a sham?

Who's job was it to test for explosives? Why did FEMA NIST FAIL?

and the quotes aren't cherry picked they are there for anyone to read, they stand on their own. Have you even read them? You've asserted that numerous times but you've yet to give one single example of how they are "cherry picked".


""I'll go further, I don't know why they are not being released.""

I'll tell you exactly why no vids are released, cuz they don't have any of the 19 boarding the 4 jets. If they had them they would release them, it's a no-brainer.


""So? They still came out.""

years later, why so long?

And not officially from the airlines? Why? And why weren't the 19 names on there initially? Who decided to leave them off? If they have no hard evidence against the 19 why leave them off? Wouldn't that taint a jury pool? How did they know they were guilty in mere days?

I know why, the 911 perps wanted to convict them in a court of corp media public opinion, there's no hard evidence against them but they are "guilty".

[Ohio Joe]

198. Delete - Double post

odd, not sure why that happened, oh well, sorry.

[BuddyBoy]

201. You're making a sweeping claim and it couldn't be more wrong

"I support 4 planes, and informed truthers do the same."

Maybe "some" do, but as many or more disagree. In fact, probably FAR more disagree than agree with your position. The most common support for the notion that real planes were used is
the weakest form of evidence there is: eyewitness claims.

And, as you yourself pointed out, Official Conspiracy Theorists use selected witness testimony. When it's convenient to their
position, they use it. When it isn't, they don't - even when it comes from professionals who were literally on the scene that
day (firefighters).

[Kalun D]

203. No Planes = Disinfo

""Maybe "some" do, but as many or more disagree. In fact, probably FAR more disagree than agree with your position.""

got some stats to back that up? Maybe a poll or something?

""The most common support for the notion that real planes were used is
the weakest form of evidence there is: eyewitness claims.""

No it's videos. I've argued against "no planes" extensively, you will lose and you will lose bigtime.

"No planes" most likely original source is perpetrator disinfo.

dis·in·for·ma·tion
1. Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation:

[BuddyBoy]

204. You made the claim that most truth seekers believe that part of the Bush

version of 9/11. Do you have any proof of it? Do you know what percentage of truth forum members agree with you? Or what
percentage of DU 9/11 truth seekers agree with you?

It's interesting to know that what YOU rely on for your support of the all-important crucial aspect of 9/11 are the fake videos.

Exactly what about the Bush 9/11 Conspiracy Theory do you DIS agree with?

[Kalun D]

205. No Planes = No Brains

""You made the claim that most truth seekers believe that part of the Bush version of 9/11. Do you have any proof of it?""

I asked first but I'll answer first. But first we need to define what "no-planes" means. To me it means no planes at any of the 911 sites.

My position is planes are certain at WTC and inconclusive either way at Shanksville and the Pentagon. I wouldn't describe that as the Bush version, you can if you want but it shows inaccuracy and hyperbole.

""It's interesting to know that what YOU rely on for your support of the all-important crucial aspect of 9/11 are the fake videos.""

You are referring to ALL the videos of the WTC? What is your source that says they are all fake?

""Exactly what about the Bush 9/11 Conspiracy Theory do you DIS agree with?""

most of it. 911 was a MIHOP inside job. For the specifics of what I think read this POST

[BuddyBoy]

206. Thanks, but I'm not interested in reading your apologia for...

what is obviously Bush Sh. Anyone who has seen the videos can see that the planes aren't real planes. There's simply no evidence
of anything except TV fakery and witness claims that don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Kalun D]

207. Your "Argument" is Going to Zero Substance

""Thanks, but I'm not interested in reading your apologia for what is obviously Bush Sh.""

LOLZ!! Calling 911 a MIHOP inside job is apologia for Bush*t? Apparently you're not familiar with the terms. It's the exact opposite. I just think the 10 pages was past your reading level. Cuz IF you'd read it you'd know I'm not a bush OCT supporter.



""Anyone who has seen the videos can see that the planes aren't real planes.""

back it up somehow, anyhow, a mere assertion carries no weight whatsoever.




""There's simply no evidence of anything except TV fakery and witness claims that don't stand up to scrutiny.""

Yeah, and there's far far less evidence of "no planes".

Let's play a game called...

What is more difficult?

A:
Hi-jacking 4 planes using ROV technology.
fly them into buildings using the ROV technology.
collapse the buildings using top down un-conventional controlled demolition mainly using thermite cutter charges.


B:
Rig explosives in the towers in the shapes of tilted airplane silhouettes and rig timed explosions to partially come out the other sides.
Create 5 "live" videos of planes hitting the towers. Confiscate ALL video shot by all the media. Confiscate ALL other private video of the 2nd plane impact in ALL of lower Manhattan, go door to door of every hi-rise apartment and search them all for video cameras. Confiscate all videos. WITHOUT WORD GETTING OUT. Release another 40 edited videos that show fake planes. Presumably you would have to do this without search warrants, or did they have search warrants for EVERY hi-rise apartment in lower Manhattan? How come we've never heard of the perps searching all of lower Manhattan?
Land 4 planes at alternate airports, hide/destroy all 4 planes and kill all the passengers, WITHOUT WORD GETTING OUT.
Get the airlines to go in on it when they have to release the passenger manifests after you landed the planes at their airports and destroyed their planes and killed their passengers.
Get dozens if not hundreds of people in the media to ignore the no planes videos and go along with the faked videos, WITHOUT WORD GETTING OUT.

LUDICROUS DISINFO

[BuddyBoy]

208. Would you also describe your political views as

progressive? No, I'm not surprised. Bush would certainly say that his are and so would any DISINFO agent who supports the OCT and posts on 9/11 discussion
forums... no matter how LUDICROUS.

[Kalun D]

210. Waiting

Still waiting for you to begin your argument about "no planes".

Be careful of the deep end if you don't know how to swim.

[BuddyBoy]

212. Do you have any credible evidence?

It's SOP for disinfo agents to pretend to hate Bush and claim that the OCT is a lie. I'm sure that you aren't a disinfo
agent, but your position and your conduct is mighty peculiar and oddly in sync with those who may well be suspected of
having a hidden agenda. Be careful of deep politics if you don't know how to be subtle.

[Kalun D]

213. Waiting...

Still waiting for you to begin your argument about "no planes".


""I'm sure that you aren't a disinfo agent""

LOLZ!! So am I. MIHOP and WTC planes is clearly truther.

It's the no planers we need to suspect.


""Be careful of deep politics if you don't know how to be subtle.""

I think being careful of gibberish is more important.

[BuddyBoy]

214. Enjoy your wait

It's those who believe in faked videos that knowledgeable people are suspicious of.

[SDuderstadt]

216. Dude...unless you can explain how every bit of video...

taken that day could POSSIBLY have been ''confiscated'', your claim is disproven by the fact that not ONE person has come forward with a ''no planes'' video. Even if that were possible, you'd have to explain why no one hasa come forward and said, ''Hey, when I took that video, there was NO plane in it. Your claim is incredibly stupid. 'll predict that you'll quickly become somewhat of an inside joke here.

[BuddyBoy]

217. Anyone who looks at the videos can see how ridiculous it is to

claim they show a real plane crashing into the WTC. Ditto the Pentagon.

[Kalun D]

218. Assertion and Argument

So that's your assertion that you're just repeating again.

When are you going to start your argument?

Where's the vid experts that back you up? (I personally know one that works for the Hollywood studios that says the WTC vids are real)

What specifically in the vids is fake? (in your own words, I'm not going to argue with a site you link to)

How did they confiscate almost 50 vids from all of lower Manhattan and re-release them after being faked?

How did they search all of lower Manhattan for the vids with no planes without anybody saying anything?

Did they have search warrants or did they just bust down doors? How'd they do that without someone saying something?

We know they confiscated all the vids around the Pentagon, we heard about that and it was a much smaller area. How did they confiscate all the vids in the much larger area of lower Manhattan without anyone hearing about it?

How come we haven't seen one single vid with no planes?

The internet is very viral, once something hits it the genie is out of the bottle and isn't going back in. If there was real no plane vid we would have seen it.

[BuddyBoy]

219. Those have all been answered many, many times.

If you really don't know the evidence any better than what your questions imply, then the best advice I can give you is to
do some research. Actually, you don't even need to do any research. That's been done. What you need to do is read the
findings of some of the better researchers around. When you finish, I'm willing to bet that you will have a different
point of view -- assuming that you are willing to change your opinion whenever you become exposed to new information that
renders your present views untenable. Information is your friend. Get acquainted.

[Kalun D]

220. You Sure Do Post a Lot

For never having any argument.

[BuddyBoy]

221. Got a long way to go to catch up with your record

You've nearly posted 1,000 messages, so it's a little hard to feel sorry for you whenever you pretend to not know the answers to
questions which have been addressed countless times.

What effort have you made to investigate and learn the answers to those questions you seemed to have so much interest in?

[SDuderstadt]

223. Why take so many sentences to say...

"I don't have any evidence"?

[SDuderstadt]

222. Then there ought to be plenty of videos showing precisely what you claim...

Where are they, dude?

[BuddyBoy]

224. Interesting word you use, but only with certain posters

"dude"

I'm curious as to why you only use that term whenever you are responding to someone who isn't an Official Conspiracy Theorist. Do you use it as a way of disparaging or showing disrespect for those who disagree with Official Conspiracy Theorists?

[SDuderstadt]

225. No, I use it to address people with limited reasoning skills...

dude.

[BuddyBoy]

226. If others don't perceive it as a way to insult certain people,

it's probably because they don't realize you're showing your contempt for them, but NONE of them have shown the lack of
reasoning skills and inability to debate rationally and respectfully that marks every single post of yours that I've read.
Of course, you may actually be more intelligent than your use of pre-recorded talking points would indicate, but anyone who
who has to resort to such childlike behavior to avoid having to cover up their inability to make or refute an argument,
is obviously someone with limited (adult/educated) reasoning skills.

Besides, it shows a lack of respect for your fellow DU members. Do you realize that?

[SDuderstadt]

227. Do you mean the same lack of respect you demonstrate for anyone who...

doesn't buy your goofy ''no plane'' theory? That lack of respect, dude?

[BuddyBoy]

228. I respect everyone's views. That's the difference between us.

I don't have to resort to insults because of a need to divert attention from arguments I can't refute. That's what weak-minded people
and small children do. By using the phrase "the same lack of respect" in your post, that tells me that you know damn well that
you are guilty as charged -- per my first post on the subject. Your Mens rea is showing again.

[SDuderstadt]

229. Maybe you should go back and re-read your posts...

then try to make the argument you showed respect to people who believe differently than you. You have a strange way of showing respect, dude.

[BuddyBoy]

230. Maybe you should try to explain how a real plane can

glide into a building and why anyone should believe that real planes crashed in NYC, at the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania, on 9/11.
I don't think you can make a plausible argument for what is physically impossible but if you feel you can, please do.
If you can do that, I'll be the first person here to congratulate you. Don't let us down now, you hear me?

[SDuderstadt]

231. Dude...

with the exception of UA 93, there are witnesses to the actual crashes. In the case of the Pentagon, there are over 100. Your personal incredulity is trumped by the eyewitness accounts, the physical evidence and the utter lack of evidence for your claims.

We've gone round and round on this and the best you can muster is illogical arguments that fly in the face of the known facts. I'm invoking Lared's Rule, dude. I don't waste time trying to reason with ''no-planers''.

[BuddyBoy]

232. Most of the witnesses didn't claim to have seen a plane crash.

Some of them did claim to see a plane flying, but no one disputes that planes were in the air on 9/11, but the majority of witnesses
didn't say they saw a plane crash nor did they mention hearing what would have been a deafening roar if a real plane had flown
low in the sky over Manhattan. Yes, SOME did claim to have both seen a crash and heard a loud roar, but MOST did NOT say that.

What is your explanation for how a plane could just glide into a WTC building as though the building wasn't even there?

What is your explanation for the points I made about the Naudet film anomalies?

[SDuderstadt]

233. I don't try to reason with "no-planers", dude...

It's impossible.

[BuddyBoy]

234. You weren't asked to reason w/anyone. You were asked to explain

a few things. I'm not interested in trying to reason with you because I know you aren't open to being reasoned with. I was just
curious to hear how you would try to explain some things that undermine your conspiracy theories. I thought that would be less
threatening to your ego than trying to reason with you.

Would you now like to take the opportunity to give your explanations for
what I mentioned? Wouldn't that be better than a transparent attempt to avoid the points? Avoiding questions makes your position
look extremely weak...which it is, but maybe you can redeem yourself. Won't you give it a try?

[SDuderstadt]

235. Dude...

I don't waste time with "no-planers". I highly doubt that you'll find anyone else willing to do so, except fellow "no-planers" like Spooked. You guys have become an inside joke here, dude. I know that sucks.

[BuddyBoy]

236. Stop wasting time and just answer some questions

"I don't waste time with "no-planers". Right.

For someone who says that they don't waste time, you sure do waste a lot of time saying that you don't waste time.

If you continue to procrastinate and otherwise avoid responding to substantive questions, the Doctrine of Latches
could well come into play and that could jeopardize your rights. What will you do then?

[SDuderstadt]

237. What the fuck are you yammering about now?

The Doctrine of Latches? If I decline to waste time trying to reason with "no-planers", I could "jeopardize my rights"? Dude, the more you run your mouth, the less sense you make (if that's possible). Maybe you should talk to Spooked. I hear he got a new "Where are the planes?" coloring book in. You guys could collaborate.

[BuddyBoy]

238. Don't be talking that BS to me. You know exactly what the Doctrine

means. You may not know much about the JFK assassination, but that's not the issue here.

[SDuderstadt]

239. Yeah, dude...

I know what it is and what it means. What isn't clear is why you're yammering about it in a discussion forum.

[Kalun D]

182. I accept your apology

although you didn't have to give it.

I never even saw what you wrote and it doesn't matter.

[Kalun D]

166. Okay Forget Glenn Beck

how come you haven't tried to address my points about Von Brunn? Here I'll post it again so you can try again.

Von Brunn is just a disconnected outside observer. And you have nothing in writing or otherwise that compares what he believes to what I believe. I don't think you even have any evidence of how much of a truther he is.

Is that what's REALLY bothering you? that you can't address the gist of my points?

[Kalun D]

145. Notice

how you didn't answer one single one of the questions in the post you were replying to

[noise]

28. Once again another pundit

holds government officials to an absurdly low standard of conduct. Note there is no mention of the lies, the obstructed investigations and the overwhelming secrecy. Instead the real issue is with citizens who dare to call for accountability.

Yes I do realize the 9/11 truth movement has a lot of issues. A call for government accountability is not a defense of the 9/11 truth movement.

[Ohio Joe]

35. Same poor logic - nt

[noise]

38. Feel free to let me know

when he writes a column about government conduct in relation to 9/11.

Government=the powerful officials who implemented a torture program in response to 9/11. The officials who claimed they simply had to have the crutch of police state powers to prevent furture terrorist attacks. The officials who have hidden their pre-9/11 conduct by way of classification procedures.

[Ohio Joe]

41. You mean like this one

http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/2009/07/us-has-the-kind-of-elite-corruption-you-usually-see-in-banana-republics.html

[noise]

43. That column isn't about 9/11 n/t

[Ohio Joe]

45. It is about the lack of investigation into torture

Brought about by 9/11. You know... the governments conduct. If you want something more specific, you should write him and ask for it. He seems responsive when truthers send him their emails... That is after all, what prompted his column.

[Kalun D]

57. Responsive

""He seems responsive when truthers send him their emails""

yeah, he's responsive all right

he responds with SH*T

[Ohio Joe]

64. Shit?

Such a convincing counterpoint :eyes:

[Kalun D]

95. Lies are Truth

black is white

slavery is freedom

war is peace

call it what you want, when some paid for whore spouts the corporate line that kills people for profit and power,

I call it SH*T

What do you call it Joe?

if you've never read it you should read it online, a never ending war against "terror" peddled by the TV, Orwell saw it coming years ago.

[Ohio Joe]

103. Maybe... just maybe....

One day you will have proof for even a fraction of the bullshit you claim. Until then, it is just your delusion. The big bad evil conspiracy that emcompasses everyone but no one can prove... yeah. What color is the sky in your world?

[Kalun D]

146. The big proof

Is that the Gov has never proven any of their OCT.

[whatchamacallit]

36. Oh boy, another closed-minded asshole lays it down.

:boring:

[SDuderstadt]

66. Are you talking about your own post?

n/t

[whatchamacallit]

67. Your wit is on par with your intelligence

No surprise there

[SDuderstadt]

68. Dude...

I'm not the one still searching high and low for a non-existent smoking gun nearly eight years later.

I forgot. Are you a no-planer?

[whatchamacallit]

69. I'm not "searching" for anything

It's all right there in front of us. My guess is the Bush Administration could have made up a completely different, equally ludicrous, story, and you'd still be in here calling everyone idiots for doubting it.

[Realityhack]

70. I doubt that.

And it is not like 'OCTers' think every single thing the administration said was truth. In fact I think you will find we thing much of it was outright lies.
The issue lies with things like what brought down the towers which is an engineering question and if anyone including the administration claimed that it was mini-nukes (ala spooked) or impossible without explosives even if the top stories were dropped from space (like some other morons) we are absolutely going to call it idiotic.
However, given that our understanding of the collapse sequence has evolved over time as new evidence and better models etc have been created/released I think it is very obvious that we are willing to revise our views given real evidence.

Unfortunately the truth movement has not provided any serious evidence for their goofy theories.

[Liberal_Dog]

89. Well, Gee Whiz, Why Don't I Do That?

I have the steel from WTCs 1, 2, and 7 piled up here in my backyard. I will examine it and promptly write you out a full report. :sarcasm:

[SDuderstadt]

71. Dude, you're like a fucking broken record....

1) it's NOT all right there in front of us. You remind me of people who think they see Jesus in a toasted cheese sandwich.

2) I didn't get my information from the Bush administration and if they made up a story, I would condemn it too. You keep trying to conflate the work and words of thousands of people with the Bush administration. It isn't working.

3) I have never called anyone here an idiot, not one time. I'm going to ask you politely one last time to quit making false accusation, dude.

4) I notice that few of your posts actually address the subject matter of the OP and nearly all of them address some creepy preoccupation you have with me.

Are you a "no-planer"?

[LARED]

72. Jesus in a toasted cheese sandwich is real. :)

http://dagblog.com/humor-satire/cheese-bread-jesus-624

I'm sure one day some spiritual minded ct'er will find some evidence of no planes in a cheese sandwich

[whatchamacallit]

74. No, that's the domain of the religious

like you.

[SDuderstadt]

76. I'm an atheist, dude....

nice try.

[whatchamacallit]

77. You're also too self-absorbed to notice that was a response to LARED (nt)

[SDuderstadt]

78. Or, I simply made a mistake, dude....

n/t

[whatchamacallit]

79. You???

No way!!!

[LARED]

80. Really?

Jesus in a toasted cheese is in the domain of the religious? No, it just idiotic like the things CT'ers believe in.

[whatchamacallit]

81. Really?

Well, if one can believe in an omniscient, all powerful, supreme being, why wouldn't they be able to believe in that being creating manifestations of biblical characters on toast? Certainly nothing is beyond the realm of possibility for God. I'm always surprised to find religious folks who like to claim to be "logical religious" or "scientific religious"... To me that's like being "kinda pregnant".

[SDuderstadt]

82. Dude..

Take this to the R/T forum.

[whatchamacallit]

83. Unreal

I love how you get to say I remind you of people who think they see Jesus in a toasted cheese sandwich, LARED get's to add his snarky bullshit, and *I* need to do something about it. You hijacked your own post, Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

84. Okay....

You see the evidence that "9/11 was an inside job!" in a toasted cheese sandwich. Is that better?

[whatchamacallit]

86. Were you head writer for

The 1/2 Hour News Hour?

[SDuderstadt]

87. You know, dude...

from here on out, I'm only going to respond when you post something worth responding to. That should leave me a lot of free time.

[Kalun D]

101. I love it

I love it when SDude responds to someone by responding that he's not going to respond to them

and it's usually in the middle of a 25 post back and forth response fest.

[SDuderstadt]

116. Read what I actually posted, dude

n/t

[Kalun D]

99. NO

that was the 2 hour phony news hour

[whatchamacallit]

73. Ha, don't flatter yourself

If there is a correlation between some of my posts and you, it's because you fucking swarm this forum. It's nearly impossible to not respond to your posts, they're as multitudinous as they are lame.

[SDuderstadt]

75. Then try to exercise some discipline, dude...

n/t

[procopia]

151. thousands?

You keep trying to conflate the work and words of thousands of people with the Bush administration.

Specifically, who were the "thousands" of independent investigators who determined 9/11 was perpetrated by al Qaeda, and only al Qaeda?

[CrawlingChaos]

186. Cohen's article is absurd, insulting to reader's intelligence

In fact, it's SO flagrantly absurd, it will probably produce exactly the opposite of the desired result in all but the dyed-in-the-wool autoritarian types.

[defendandprotect]

188. If Bush/Cheney had said the Russians had done 9/11, everyone would be . . .

:rofl: