A toast: here's to all the "kooks" and "tinfoilers"!

Whenever I leave this place, or this place leaves me, it's your contributions I'll take and cherish most of all. You know that George W Bush did not arrive in a vacuum. You know that, rather than an aberation, his ascendancy signals the apotheosis of the National Security State, his regime a culmination of its unchecked crimes of the last half century, and the "War on Terror" little more than "Operation Northwoods" 40 years late. Much more than those guardians of conventional wisdom who heap scorn upon anything that smacks of "conspiracy theory," you know who the enemy is, and what is at stake.

So thanks, God_bush_n_cheney, for the "Conspiracy of Silence" thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=392459 It blew my mind, and then I read The Franklin Cover-Up and had it blown all over again.

Thanks, TruthIsAll, for "Yes, Virginia, he KNEW....":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=948816 and "If you believe ABC on JFK: Pass this test and you no longer will..." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=761819 Your steadfastness in the truth is an inspiration.

Thanks, Octafish, for threads such as "The Bush Organized Crime Family" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=875102&mesg_id=875102 and "CIA memo: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=765619 You're a remarkable resource.

Thanks, stickdog, for your argument that Paul Wellstone's death was, indeed, suspicious:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=561809&mesg_id=561809

Thanks, 9215, for "ex-President Carter's Operation Desert Claw sabotaged?", which became a fascinating compendium of October Surprise material, with Lt. Gen. William Boykin thrown in for good measure: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=629531&mesg_id=629531

Thanks to Bev Harris and all the BBV folks, who doggedly pursued the truth all the way into the mainstream, despite the shame-faced howls of "tinfoil." You showed a "conspiracy theory" the respect it deserved, and amassed a wealth of material which persuasively argues for a conspiracy fact.

And thanks to many, many more of you, for your eloquence and rigorous minds, for how much you've raised my awareness this year.

In the closing argument of a case involving a man he believed to have conspired in the death of Robert Kennedy, Vincent Bugliosi said that "conspiracies are conceived in shadowy recesses.... Conspiracies are proven bit by bit, speck by speck, brick by brick, until all of a sudden you have a mosaic. They are proven by circumstantial evidence."

This is what we do here: we bring the bits, the specks, the bricks. On our own, it's not much. Together, the weight of evidence can be damning. Let's not stop. Not now.

Don't want to forget anyone: RBHam, Jack Riddler, Paul Thompson, without whose timeline I wouldn't really know what time it was. Many more.

...debunk bullcrap day in and day out. They keep me reading.

I've seen some rather weak unsupported allegations become well-developed and adequately-supported theories, thanks to the critics who pulled everything apart. DU is the Soft Sell, where those one communicates with are ideologically sympathetic, for the most part. If an allegation about the bush regime or the neo-cons won't float here, it sure won't go far anywhere else.

not only for their scepticism but also that they give us another opprotunity to lay out the research for all to see.

which inevitably will bring even more minds to the task of actually figuring out what happened.

thank you :toast:

peace

(spelling)

:)

of appreciation.

I wish it were threads, plural, but alas I am the only one I have seen to bring up the FACT that what flew into the pentagon was smaller, MUCH smaller than a goddamn passenger jet.
And alas, I wish the thread was noteworthy to include here, but weeners and the gullible were successful in hijacking it with der homeland shpin.
People still would rather talk about the bullet(s) that slammed into Kennedy 40 years ago than deal with the MOST APPARENT sleight of hand by the National Security State because it THIs is true, which it is, then the twin towers story is quite obviously a charade as well.
And, well, too many people WANT to believe THAT. Not to do so makes everything so.......well, FUCKING SCARY. I guess we "enlightened" progressives need the soothing bedtime tales of evil "others" and good "us" to keep this world in a mirage-focus. All you have to do is ask the majority what they would feel if it were PROVEN it was not a passenger jet that flew into the pentagon. In other words, what would you ACTUALLY feel about your reality. People's reality is what they treasure most. Sure you can say family is what one treasures most, but that is not true. It is one's reality that is the most jealously guarded, most protected, most cherished possession.
And to KNOW that your government feels quite capable and flagrantly deceitful to conjure up evil and then lie with lust about their operations is too too much for too too many.
Because it means not being able to gather around the water cooler and laugh about last night's funny show. It means having to re-direct your hate from a different-than-us "other", to people who don't have that "otherness" we just love to hate...to people who more resemble you than not.
But I understand. We must believe them. It's the last shred of a reality and a world and a country to which we are clinging. I understand. And then...I don't...because it such pussy, baby, frightened-of-shadows immaturity, BESIDE the fact that why the fuck would anyone love a lie or give the benefit of a doubt to liars, or yet hope for a lie to be true. Why would you hope for a lie to be true? Just cause it upsets everything? And you would not know what to tell your kids? Well boohoo.
Sorry. Wake up. Really.

"thing" that hit the pentagon. :smoke:

Show me the thing that hit the Pentagon. Until you can do that, you have conjecture, not fact.

There are no photos of a 757 hitting the Pentagon either. Fact. http://perso.wanadoo.fr/ericbart/index.html

part-time here, but I have to say, Bush is making is easier and easier.

Thanks for the shout out -- these past weeks I have never had so many newbies call me a nut and ask me to shut up as I have the entire three years I have been here. It was starting to get discouraging. :)

With bush it's hard not to be suspicious .

For having the courage to sail toward truth, and almost always against the wind.

....but only if you'll switch glasses with me.

I love the free thinkers.

... but really, some of this totally loony 9-11 stuff is doing absolutely nothing but detracting from the efforts to investigate the many serious questions that need answers. As it is, when someone like Dean starts asking them, he just gets lumped in with the "conspiracy nuts" who think a cruise missle hit the Pentagon and someone planted explosive charges all over the WTC.

There are lines of inquiry which are valid and worthy, and others which distract, or worse, sew disinformation and tarnish the credibility of all skeptics of official histories.

Discerning which is which is up to each of us. And here's hoping we make informed choices.

btw: SERIOUS QUESTIONS HERE...

why did 3 steel buildings totally collapse in their own foot prints, all attributed to fire. and one, only, alledgedly, due to fire alone - wtc7 - the first time a steel building has EVER done that in HISTORY.

http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps

why wan't the chimp whisked away once we knew we were under attack as they had been warned about only a month before.

:shrug:

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

I was making a "general political" comment about how Bush* is actually getting some advantage from having a lot of obvious nonsense floating around.

But I will say that there are a lot of serious questions that need to be asked and answered about why those buildings collapsed, so that we know how to build better buildings, and silly stuff about the Bad Guys planting "controlled demolition" charges all over the place doesn't help that effort a damn bit.

i never said a think about explosives. i just asked what happened, sheesh.

relax

i know of two types of collapses CLEAN vs DIRTY

only 2 that i can think of come under the 'clean' class...

1. design (flaw)
2. controlled demoltion

at this very moment NO ONE has answered these questions, and they WONT unless we KEEP asking them.

peace

... and the "conspiracy nuts" have nothing but the most offensive slanderous insults for those people.

Being skeptical, asking question, and applying critical thinking to analyzing possible answers to those questions -- these are all Good Things. In fact, I just spent most of the evening investigating a claim I read about on the other board about something hanging from the second plan that hit the WTC. I was skeptical at first, as usual, but I'm willing to take a look at just about any claim -- you never know what you'll learn in the process. So I looked at some of those pictures, and I'll be damned but there did appear to be something hanging down there that didn't belong. But, after convincing myself that there really was something there, my next step was to look for any possible mundane explanation -- oh, let's say for example, finding out what the underside of a 767 really looks like, since I didn't really know. Sad to say, the "hanging bomb" was a short-lived mystery; there's a perfectly mundane explanation. (Maybe I'll post it on the other board, just to drive the "nuts" nuts.)

My definition of a "conspiracy nut" includes the annoying characteristic of being completely disinterested in actually searching for answers, because just like religious fanatics, they think they already know the answers, and they detest anyone who doesn't agree with them.

But not to let your question go unanswered: The short answer is that the buildings were obviously not designed to withstand what happened to them. In all three buildings, the steel supports failed because of sustained fire, and gravity took over. Your arbitrary distinction between "clean" and "dirty" has nothing to do with it; that distinction appears to be nothing more than a device to support your presumptions about a controlled demolition. The "serious questions" have to do with understanding precisely why the supports failed, and understanding how to avoid that happening again.

on a thread that is all about SALUTING them :puke:

and then you spend MOST of your post constructing a STRAWMAN that had NOTHING whatsoever to do with ANY of my SERIOUS QUESTIONS. how PREDICTABLE.

now even IF the fires got hot enough to WEAKEN the STEEL supports to the point of failure, what explains the TOTAL FAILURE of the MASSIVE STEEL CORE? why didn't it offer ANY resistance?

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

n/t

Since the effusively insulting Mr. Bill seems determined to bring up the WTC collapse, let me offer something with more substance than his bland assertion that it's perfectly normal for tall buildings to fall straight down. That particular meme has become part of the debunker hymn book, right up there with the idea that questioning Bush or 911 somehow makes you a fanatical hater (with heavy overtones of being some kind of quasi-religious fanatic - it ties in nicely with the Muslim terrorist meme). But the disappearing building meme is provably wrong, and needs to be confronted for the fantasy that it is.

That "rabid hater" meme still has legs though: it's not unusual to see people who set out calm, rational arguments dealing with the full scope of the BFEE's crimes given the "poor dear, stop hating so much before you hurt yourself" treatment. It's that syrupy mock solicitude that gags me. But there are just too many people asking too many questions with very disturbing implications for it to be written off as the ravings of a radical fringe. After all, a majority of us had our votes disregarded in 2000 - fool me twice? Fuck no!!!!!

Read these Mr. Bill and maybe we can talk:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/tradecencrimes/page368.html

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=112&contentid=564

Such as this gem posted to the latest thread-in-question by RBHam:


Maybe these threads wouldn't degrade so much if there your side (meaning the "demolition charges", "pod on the plane", etc. claimants, collectively) didn't treat the rest of us as dupes and fools for not subscribing to your points of view.

of the insults hurled at folks who are asking LEGITAMITE questions.

it gets frustrating after 2 years of putting up with the insults.

though i salute the owners of this board for NEVER censoring this important debate and i will forever be grate full for the platform they have provided for folks to discuss these issues in an open forum.

three cheers for the ADMINS :toast:

peace

But the only baloney I'll call you on here is your implication that anyone who doesn't buy into to your "controlled demolition" hypothesis must be a brainwashed, Bush-loving, propaganda-slurping "sheeple". I won't let you get away with that crap because my point in this thread was exactly the opposite: that it's really the "conspiracy nuts" who are creating a great smokescreen for the serious questions that need to be asked about the BFEE and 9/11.

But just to rattle your cage a little: Yes, I had already come across some of your stuff on the web, and I don't intend to go into it in detail on this thread (it seems that the moderators want that stuff elsewhere), but I would call it "spectacularly unconvincing," to put it politely. It's full of bullshit like "I can't imagine" this thing and "I don't understand" that thing, and the other thing "seems quite impossible" unless one just assumes controlled demolition. Those are all just textbook examples of a special case of the "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy, sometimes called "argument from lack of imagination." You just can't understand how the "official story" could possibly be true, so you declare it to be "proved" false by your own lack of understanding. Sorry, but your ignorance is not evidence. Then you follow up with even more textbook examples of the logical fallacy of "begging the question" -- assuming the very thing you're claiming to prove, and using that assumption in your proof. Using these fallacies, each and every detail is force-fitted into your extraordinary hypothesis, without the slightest regard for the fact that simple, completely rational explanations are right in front of your face.

The real problem with the "controlled demolition" theory isn't just the weakness of the evidence: The problem really starts with the fact that premise is completely absurd and ludicrous. Not the premise, mind you, that the BFEE would be above staging some event that could be used as an excuse to invade the Middle East -- I don't have any problem at all with that premise -- but the premise that such an elaborate and complicated scheme would be concocted, when far simpler plots would be much, much easier to pull off, with far greater certainty of success, with far fewer people involved, and far, far less risk of having the whole thing unravel at any time or fail to execute properly because of a hundred things that could have gone wrong. It would have taken many, many months and uncountable numbers of people to pull off something like that (not to mention miles of apparently invisible DET cord ;-)), and every step of the way, and forever after, there is the almost certainty that the scheme will eventually be revealed. And even then, pulling it all off still involved lots and lots of luck.

Why the hell would anyone go to all that trouble and take all that risk when simply crashing the planes into some place with lots of people would have accomplished exactly the same presumed goal? I don't have any problem with suggesting that the BFEE is evil, but what the premise of this "controlled demolition theory" implies is that they are also seriously stupid and insanely reckless. Maybe that's so, anyway, but that's a much, much tougher row to hoe, and the evidence and logic just aren't there to support it.

And while your at it, explain this: We know for a fact that the BFEE would like to divert attention from Saudi Arabia's involvement with terrorism, and we know for a fact that the PNAC wanted some excuse to invade Iraq. So, why did these brilliant conspirators populate their "cover story" with 15 Saudis and zero Iraqis? That doesn't prove anything, either, but it just doesn't make sense, and it just helps illustrate why you have your work cut out for you to prove your hypothesis. So far, considering how far you need to go, your efforts are pretty pathetic.

not to mention actual sources or DETAILS.

just plenty of vauge blanket aqusations AND name calling and yet you have the nerve to claim you are offended.

you think it is ok to come on here and call folks NUTS and expect to be above reproach, talk about arrogance, you exemplify it.

no one on this thread attacked you or your 'theories' while you and your ILK feel entitled to :crazy:

unless you can actually CONTRIBUTE to the discussion and offer up well documented opinions you only serve as an opprotunity for the sceptics to rehash our QUESTIONS which i firmly believe will only help us get to the truth that much faster.

and i certainly will thank you for that :toast:

thank GORE he 'invented' the internet :bounce:

peace

... I'm intentionally not making any attempt to debate the 9-11 stuff in this thread because the moderators apparently want that stuff on the "9/11, Military Affairs, and Terrorism" board. In this thread, I'm "debating" a slightly different issue. And I've carefully defined who I'm "calling names"; if that definition fits you, well shame on ya.

and no facts, details or links.

at least your consistant :toast:

I hope the mods never read your insulting rants and hysterics so all can get a good look at how you conduct yourself.

that is one of the BEST things about an open written forum... there is a track RECORD.

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

Is the fact that you are coming off as pompous blowhard intentional or not?

:shrug:

peace

You're the one making outrageous, outlandish claims.

and what 'outrageous, outlandish claims' have i made?

peace

Here's the basic flaw in your argument. It's a flaw in logic.

All cows are blue.
My dog is blue.
Therefore, my dog is a cow.

Two things sharing one characteristic do not share all characteristics.

Little children do it all the time. A child is invited to several birthday parties and has one himself. At each party, there's a cake. He's then invited to a wedding. Upon seeing the cake he asks "who's having a birthday?"

You see picture after picture of nuclear explosions with the familiar mushroom cloud. You hear a loud explosion and look out the window and see a mushroom cloud and immediately think, "we've been nuked". No. Large explosions create mushroom clouds. There's nothing special about nuclear explosions except they tend to be large.

In the threads about controlled demolition of the twin towers I've seen plenty of claims that because the smoke cloud looks the same as the smoke cloud generated by controlled demolition, therefore it must be a controlled demolition. In other words, because the two incidents share a single characteristic - a certain type of smoke cloud - all aspects must be identical.

All cows are blue.
My dog is blue.
Therefore, my dog is a cow.

i ask WHAT HAPPENED. and to help us answer that question i present what little evidence i have of what we know DID happened.

some folks say a fire brought down WTC7.

so i look for other examples were this has happened before to help me understand this event better and as science teaches us, before a theory can be considered to be true it must be repeatable.

but not only can't I find ANY examples of a steel building collapsing due to fire i find plenty of examples of collapses due to destructive forces, some on many orders of magnitude GREATER than what we are considering here, but they are all DIRTY.

so then i look for examples of CLEAN collapses. so far i can only find two types where such occur, one DESIGN (flaw/feature) the other CD.

does that mean i know what happened, of course not, there could be other possibilities that i haven't come across yet and that is PRECISELY why i bring these questions here, the best framework to solve almost ANY problem. OPENSOURCE, which also has been PROVEN to out perform orgs with huge staffs and big budgets on problem solving. a vast array of networked minds who are committed to the task at hand, shoot even MicroSoft can't compete (APACHE/MySQL)

so... i admit i DON'T KNOW wtf happened I am asking for HELP in answering my questions.

do you have ANY answers?

please don't put words in my mouth or call me a kook. i am an american and a human being just like you and i probably wont respond positively and does NOTHING to contribute to answering the question.

thanks for your time :hi:

peace

You've been told over and over that building 7 had the shit shaken out of it by two earthquakes happening next to it, heavy debris dumped all over the roof and a huge fire inside fuelled by the diesel fuel for a generator. Between these three problems, every rivet in the building, ever weld, every nut and bolt must have been at the breaking point waiting for the one trigger, possibly a butterfly going past, to set the whole thing off.

yeah, it will take a lot more than that.

and to think we get called for believing in nonsense :crazy:

peace

hypocrite

i think LYING about other posters is against the rules, be careful you don't want to get a WARNING from the mods :hi:

peace

you sound like you're gonna have a stroke.

What is wrong with people analyzing what made these buildings fall down the way they did? So far the official story doesn't make sense and for most of us who think about this stuff and are trying to figure it out these are valid discussions. If you don't buy into this stuff, state your opinion and then chill. If discussions about these theories bother you so much then maybe you should find something else to do? No one is making you read this stuff?

"What is wrong with people analyzing what made these buildings fall down the way they did?"

Nothing at all, as I clearly stated several times. My complaint is about people who doing nothing of the sort.

"So far the official story doesn't make sense..."

Well, yes, it does. If it didn't, the "wacky story" would have a lot more traction.

"If you don't buy into this stuff, state your opinion and then chill. If discussions about these theories bother you so much then maybe you should find something else to do? No one is making you read this stuff?"

Pot, kettle, shoe on the wrong foot, etc.

It appears to me that you didn't actually read what I wrote very carefully. <Yawn>

i have been waiting a long time to read it.

thanks in advance :toast:

peace

Don't you have access to Google?

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal

here's what the 'official' FEMA report that you linked to has to say...

`With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.'

thank GORE he invented the 'internet' :bounce:

peace

As I said, "There are a lot of people trying to understand what happened," not that anyone has yet "definitively determined" "the sequence of events leading to the collapse."

But you're intentionally taking the statement you quoted out of context, aren't you? That statement is immediately followed by, "However, the following findings and observations were made:" And that is followed by a general overview of how aircraft damage to the structure, followed by fire, led to a progressive collapse. Could be we'll never "definitively determine" the precise sequence of events. But that's not the same thing as saying that the wacky "controlled demolition" theory has a shred of credibility. There's a big difference between "unexplained" and "inexplicable".

But I really had to LMAO at your quoting an editor at Fire Engineering magazine, "the 125-year old journal." Too bad the magazine isn't 150 years old; I might have found his opinion more credible. ;-)

interesting.

then you laugh at a respected source in the industry for over a centuary and you expect DU'ers to take you seriously.

i'll keep that in mind whenever i consider anything you may have to say on the subject.

thanks for sharing :toast:

peace

I was referring the quote from the report being correct, not the unknown editor's unsubstantiated rant. I'll try not to confuse you next time.

Of course, you weren't really confused, were you? Taking things out of context, demanding links that you aren't really interested in, asking questions and ignoring the answers -- these all seem to be attempted diversions from the fact that you don't have any actual arguments or rebuttals.

and yes i like to have links to sources in responce to my questions.

it's a DU tradtion.

on edit: i cited the "unknown editor's" name and place of employ which is a HIGHLY RESPECTED trade publication in the industry.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER
William A. Manning
williamm@pennwell.com
http://fe.pennnet.com

i am sure you just consider him another kook on a rant but for the benifit of others who are seeking more info on this matter i have included links.

enjoy

peace

and you never addressed the issue of taking his comments out of context.

How very strange that you don't accept our "trusted sources" yet we have to accept yours.

and your source even admited they weren't sure so i find it a bit presumptuous and FOOLISH on your part to not only ACT like-you-know but also insult other DU'ers with your ARROGANCE and NAME-CALLING.

at least your transparant and leave a record :toast:

peace

Since you took Manning's "half-baked farce" statement out of context (ahem), I assumed that he must be one the "conspiracy nuts" that thinks the towers were brought down by "controlled demolition". It turns out that he is quite sane; he is just very upset about what he considers to be an insufficient investigation of what caused the collapse. Maybe he has a valid point; maybe he has an axe to grind with FEMA; at any rate, he's not a "conspiracy nut".

However, clearly there are several "9/11 conspiracy" sites around the web that are doing exactly what you have done here: taking Manning's criticisms of the investigation completely out of context to create the illusion that an expert agrees with your loony "CD" theory.

Here is one paragraph from one of Manning's editorials (with emphasis added):

"Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down. Make no mistake about it: This high-rise collapse was no 'fluke.' The temperatures experienced and heat release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in future high-rise fires."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/fireengineering0102.html

Worse, while looking around for what Manning actually had to say, I found several "9/11 conspiracy" sites that quoted just the first part of the following paragraph from the same article as the "half-baked farce" comment, and completely omit the part that I have emphasized.

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory."

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/FireEngineering-1-4-02-BurningQuestionsNeedAnswers.pdf

I found several sites that deliberately worked some carefully selected quotes from the article into their own idiotic "CD" speculation, with the clear intent of making it appear that Manning agrees with them. I owe Manning an apology; not so the intellectually dishonest "conspiracy nuts" who are hijacking his words and misrepresenting them as expert concurrence.

about something i have NEVER SAID 'CD' - use the search, and i have said quite a bit after more than 14k posts - not that i would expect someone who apparantly likes to JUMP to conclusions, going by your statements here since the ONE 'official' report cited by YOU admits that even THEY ARE NOT SURE how the towers collapsed, would apologize to me.

then you feel entitled to critisize, riddicule and attack other DU'ers for the habits you yourself practice OPENLY for things they have NEVER even said and has ADMITED they aren't sure and are simply STILL asking QUESTIONS.

HYPOCRITE, the the tribute vice pays to virtue.

thanks for the demo

peace

But actually, I don't have to do any searching; I distinctly recall at least two postings where you said the only possible explanations for your (arbitrarily defined) "clean" collapse were design flaw and controlled demolition, and you have repeatedly rejected the notion that the building was apparently not designed to withstand the events of that day, and repeatedly stated that your reject the notion of the fire causing the structural failure. What does that leave?

Now you want to disassociate yourself from your own logic? Fine with me.

But let's look at the bright side. If you now accept that CD is a nutty theory, then my work here is done. ;-)

i said that i can only think of two types of collapses that fit the 'CLEAN' collapse class AND admitted there might be OTHERS and asked for information on ANY info that would shed light on this problem.

some say that the buildings fell, there's your proof.

well pardon me for not being satisfied with that 'evidence'

and pointing out the flaws in 'theories' presented here STILL doesn't mean i've said what you claim.

anyway i admit that i don't know what happened while you smugly claim to know what even our own GOV admits they aren't sure.

while your mind may be maid up mine is still open to all reasoned possibilities.

another DU tradition that makes this place great ;->

peace

Can you help out on the Wellstone threads?

But can or can you not help plaguepuppy straighten out his logical fallacies?

Anyway, thanks for giving me an opportunity to restate the point: When you are proposing a theory that has such an absurd-sounding premise (which, judging from the lack of response, apparently can't be rehabilitated into something that sounds rational), then you need a lot more than faulty logic to hold it together.

To put it another way, if these "controlled demolition" theories are to have any credibility, then it should be possible to state a reasonable premise, at least a few unambiguous facts that need an explanation, and at least a little bit of valid logic to show how the theory best explains those facts.

Can you or can you not explain why all three of these elements seem to be missing from plaguepuppy's "theory"? Without something resembling those elements, even calling it a "theory" seems to be giving it too much credit. Sorry if that offends you or him, but it's the truth.

especially if there's a flaw in their construction.

Gravity works.

of steel buildings falling in their footprints due to fire\

OR

the design flaw that caused it.

thanks

peace

The twin towers didn't fall in their own footprint. They rained debris on surrounding buildings causing severe damage.

Watch any footage of earthquake damage and you'll see plenty of buildings falling in their own footprint. Some of the buildings in the LA quake awhile ago pancaked. The freeway pancaked. A large hospital in Mexico pancaked a few decades ago. These had design flaws.

People have posted a number of pictures of other building collapses showing different types of damage. These building were other designs. If the twin towers were built using these designs they would have collapsed under their own weight before they were ever completed.

Because they were so tall, the twin towers were built using a unique method of construction containing a fatal flaw. This flaw could have been triggered by earthquake, malicious damage or even corrosion. In this case, it was heat.

WTC7 feel in its own footprint...
http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps/wtc7.8fps.swf

the towers for all practicle purposes fell in their own footprint.
http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/mov/

now as to those pictures posted by ME showed partial collapses and i should know i actually lived there (KOBE) and walked amongst the rubble.
btw: the pancaking was PARTIAL. not to mention that they weren't due to FIRES.

links please.

peace

You really have got to start bookmarking some of this stuff. Re-teaching you the basics is boring.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

I saw your links to the Kobe quake. I didn't see one building taller than 10 stories. 10 storey building are built differently than tall buildings.

For more PBS programming, do this search (http://www.pbs.org/search/search_results.html?q=twin+towers+collapse&btnG.x=8&btnG.y=7&neighborhood=none)

Here's some other ones.

http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20010913_fire.htm
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

Other steel buildings where there have been fires either had a properly working fire suppression system or were of a different design.

i guess thats why you didn't provided ANY quotes.

:shrug:

i will never click on one of your links again unless you provide quotes as tradition and curtesy dictates.

peace

We're getting our conspiracy theories tangled.

I'm primarily talking about controlled demolition of tower 1 and 2.

You're talking primarily about tower 7, which is a separate issue.

peace

There aren't any of those either.

Cite other examples of 767's crashing into any kind of skyscrapers.

There aren't any of those either.

The observation that this was the first time anything like this happened is just that: an observation. It isn't evidence that this wacky "controlled demolition" theory must be correct.

and i cited examples of destructive forces being applied to steel buildings and NONE of those collapsed totally even on orders of magnitude GREATER than the wtc event even a NUCLEAR explosion and there are 0 examples of FIRE bringing down ANY steel buildings.

i never said it was CD i am only asking how it happened, hello...

peace

Cite a a building that had the same design as the WTC towers and was hit by a 767, and you might have a case. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke with this "argument".

I don't think anyone thinks that either the airplane impact or the fuel fire that followed, acting alone, would have caused the collapse. You do realize that both things happened, don't you?

good thing our minds are not limited to the simplistic constraints you try to impose or we would all still be in caves.

i have made my point and since you obviously have nothing further to present in regards to these legitamite issues on the matter i will say good night to you sir.

peace

The one that was designed with cantilevered transfer girders and trusses over top of fuel oil tanks? The building that burned for hours?

Yeah, yeah, those details don't matter; it's a whole 'nother mystery, ain't it.

that doesn't seem plausible even if a fire burned for hours it still seems hard to believe that it would cause the collapse of a steel building so cleanly.

do you have ANY sources to back you up?

thanks in advance :hi:

peace

"...doesn't seem plausible... still seems hard to believe..."

I think we've already discussed that kind of "logic". And I already gave you the links to the FEMA site.

The center of the building collapsed first, as indicated by the mechanical penthouses sinking. If it "seems plausible" to you the building should have fallen over sideways when the center collapsed first, then you're the one who needs to be providing some links to convince the rest of us.

sheesh

peace

I gave you the links to the FEMA page which includes their report on WTC7. If you were really interested in the subject, you'd do what other people do: Do your own research. I'm not sure where you got the idea that demanding references and then ignoring them is a good debating tactic, but you've used that one all up.

If you don't want to accept the FEMA explanation of what happened and you want to present some alternate theory, then it's your turn to put up something -- links, assertions, arguments, whatever you've got -- something besides this pointless song and dance routine. If that's all you've got, then the "debate" appears to be finished.

World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.

Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings.

(actually there aren't ANY)

The structural design and construction features of this building, potential fuel loads, fire damage, and the observed sequence of collapse are presented to provide a better understanding of what may have happened. However, confirmation will require additional study and analysis.

more...
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm (FEMA REPORT WTC7)

so fema ADMITS they aren't sure and you expect us to accept their version as FACT, please... this ain't FAUX news.

you didn't even know who the editor-in-chief is of the most respected fire engineering trade mag is who has been very critical of the 'investigation' and you accuse them of not doing their research... well at least your in charector.

here is some more information to add to your 'research'...

BEHAVIOUR OF STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURES UNDER FIRE CONDITIONS.

PIT Project
MAIN REPORT, June 2000
THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
School of Civil & Environmental Engineering
King's Buildings, Edinburgh

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

more...
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/fire/main.htm

The Cardington and Broadgate Fires.

On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development. <115> The fire began in a large contractors hut on the first floor and smoke spread undetected throughout the building. The fire detection and sprinkler system were not yet operational out of working hours.

The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C. The direct fire loss was in excess of £25 million however, only a fraction of the cost (£2 million) represented structural frame and floor damage. The major damage was to the building fabric as a result of smoke. Moreover, the structural repairs after the fire took only 30 days. The structure of the building was a steel frame with composite steel deck concrete floors and was only partially protected at this stage of construction. During and after the fire, despite large deflections in the elements exposed to fire, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors. <115> The Broadgate phase 8 fire was the first opportunity to examine the influence of fire on the structural behaviour of a modern fast track steel framed building with composite construction.

more...
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/fire/cardington.htm

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

...is that it lumps everyone together in one big 'conspiracy nut' stereotype. Those who make blanket statements about all efforts to expose conspiracies make the mistake of confusing the plausible with the improbable.

- Some have theories that rational thought can't accept. Does this mean that alternative theories about the same topic should be dismissed?

- Conspiracy theories thrive in an atmosphere of secrecy. The Bushies bring this upon themselves when they obstruct investigations and keep information secret that should be in the public domain.

Being seen as a nutcase doesn't appeal to me. Unfortunately, my association with DU occasionally puts me in that position.

As if there weren't enough clear facts to indict the BFEE, some people seem to be insecure enough to invent the most bizarre rationales for their odd beliefs. Not all idiots are bad, they're just idiots.

but you have no problem calling others names, nice.

thanks for contributing to the slander.

peace

...is the difference between discussing a thing and believing a thing.

- For instance...I never gave a second thought to the collapse of the WTC buildings until I began to examine the many videos in existance on the web and from various news sources.

- What I saw raised questions...but it hasn't yet convinced me there were 'controlled demolitions'. What I saw was what LOOKED LIKE 'controlled' explosions going off in increments on the floors just below the collapsing building.

- Were they 'controlled explosions'? I have no idea. But my curiosity leads me to look for answers. Does this make me a 'kook'? That's up to you to decide.

the difference between discussing a thing and believing a thing

As an example, I'd site the recent hypothetical "Could the US have caused the earthquake in Iran?" post. My answer was I don't think so, and for all the ridicule the thread engendered, no one said the US caused the earthquake. But the hypothetical did prompt an airing of the exotic interests of the US military. Is that such a bad thing?

Discussing and believing. Please, coincidence theorists, note the distinction.

Seems to me that you're capable of stereotyping, yourself. ;-)

I just told a little story about seeing a 9-11 claim that I took the time (many hours in fact) to look into even though I was skeptical about it, and I found that it appeared to have some substance. But it just didn't bear up under closer scrutiny. All it really shows is that the "conspiracy nuts" that I'm referring too will post claims on their websites when they haven't done even a cursory investigation to see if it holds water.

The same thing happened to me here a little while back when Truth Is All invited us to take a look at the Zapruder film to see the proof that JFK was shot from the front. I didn't dismiss that claim because of some dogmatic belief it "couldn't be" (I think I mentioned that I've changed my mind about the JFK assassination at least four times); I took a look at the film, and yes it did appear that what he was saying was true. At first. But something didn't quite look right -- perhaps because I was viewing it on my old notebook computer and it was actually running in somewhat slow motion -- so instead of leaving it there, I did some digging to find individual frame captures. And what I found from looking at those closely was exactly the opposite of what TIA claimed: There is actually very convincing physical evidence on that film that the shot was indeed from behind (i.e. his head actually snaps forward for two frames), and that evidence makes it virtually impossible for the "back and to the left" motion to be the result of the momentum from the bullet from the front (i.e. no such movement appears until two frames after the bullet has long gone). So, I posted that evidence here, and it was immediately met with derision and insults from people who simply refused to even see it, or people who simple refused to consider what that motion clearly implied -- this, after pretending being to be experts in physics. Then, I go searching on the web, and I see that what I'd found in the film has been known for a long time, and it had even been analyzed very quantitatively, so I posted that link. As far as I can tell, not a single "shot from the front" advocate spent even two minutes considering the possibility that perhaps they were wrong.

Discussing that one issue brought up lots of other assassination issues (e.g. the Magic Bullet), and even though I wasn't much interested in doing so, I wasted a lot of time discussing even more hypotheses that have long since been debunked.

A similar thing happened a little later when bpilgrim claimed that it was a proved fact that FDR knew in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor. If that were true, then history needs to know about it, so I spent quite a bit of time digging into what Stinnett claimed in his book -- and what his critics had said. What I found was that Stinnett had ignored huge amounts of evidence to the contrary, seized upon a few very ambiguous pieces of evidence, and then completely misrepresented those so that they appeared to be much stronger than they actually were. But the people who were raving about how accurate and thorough Stinnett had been were not the least bit interested.

That's the attitude that I was referring to with my definition of "conspiracy nut": someone who makes pretentious claims about being in search of "the truth", but really doesn't seem to be interested in any such thing -- in fact, is hostile to it -- if it conflicts with the conclusions he's already jumped to. If that definition of "conspiracy nut" doesn't fit you, then I wasn't referring to you.
;-)

...but we know that some DUers can't or don't want to tell the difference between the 'nuts' and those simply trying to find the truth. Let's not forget that even those you consider 'conspiracy nuts' may base their 'theories' on a kernel of truth.

- My advice is to take those theories you just can't accept with a grain of salt. But it's wrong to say they're not welcome to post here or that they shouldn't be heard.

- Once again I have to refer to the 'theory' of controlled Demolition. I thought those who were talking about this were simply out of their minds...until I saw the videos and began applying different contract/color effects to make the details stand out. What I saw amazed me...even though I'm not yet sure exactly what they mean.

- Don't expect answers if you never asked questions.

I didn't say that. In fact, I said that debunking them was entertaining and educational. ;-)

...discussed in this forum. If that's the case...accept my apology for including you in that subset. But there are more than a few here that don't want any kind of 9-11 information disseminated in General Discussion. The 'official version' of events is just fine with them and think it's embarrassing to even talk about it.

- Have a good one.

it has been my experiance that folks who have to resort to name calling and provide no credible links or sources are the ones who are often the least informed - ie FAUX NEWS - TALK RADIO

then you climb high on your sactimonious researc truth horse then in the next breat you admit to being IGNORANT on the issue and then spending 1/2 a day 'researching' and are now firmly convinced of YOUR dogma.

ah, what a hoot...

look any time you wanna have a DISCUSSION on any of the topics you see me posting about please join in. i love learning NEW information and the OPPROTUNITY to inform others of the issues they may not be aware of.

but be aware that i have spent YEARS reading on these two topics and have a great interest in japanese - and american - history and have lived there for 5 years.

the only request i have is to please show some RESPECT.

thank you :hi:

peace

I strongly suggest that "On the Trail of the Assassins", by Jim Garrison, be required reading for anyone interested in the JFK murder. It is a beautifully written, clear and factual account of the Garrison investigation, which uncovered much of what we now know and was the basis for the film "JFK"

In 1969, to help the jury understand expert testimony regarding JFK's head wounds at the Clay Shaw trial, prosecutor Jim Garrison subpoenaed Zapruder's film from Life magazine. This was the first time in more than five years that the film was presented for public view - but only for the trial. However, prior to this, there had been no public viewing of the film. We had to wait until 1975, when Giraldo Rivera presented it on national television. The National Archives had a copy.

The FBI had given a copy to the Warren Commission, but two critical frames had been reversed to create the false impression that a rifle shot to Kennedy's head had been fired from behind. Frame 313 showed the instant of the shot striking Kennedy's head. As photographed, frames 314 and 315 showed JFK falling backwards, plainly indicating that the rifle shot had come from the front. Following the FBI's transposition of the two frames, it was made to appear that the Presiden's head fell forward, indicating a shot from the rear.

After a routine examination of the subsequent frames, even the Warren Commission was forced to recognize the transposition of frames 314 and 315. They asked the FBI about it. J. Edgar Hoover explained that an "inadvertent" printing error had occurred.

Just another coincidence.

Note: From "On the Trail of the Assassins", Jim Garrison, pg 280.

I have absolutely no idea what "printing" you're referring to, but my frames were taken from more recent digitization. And if frames 314 and 315 are switched in this sequence, then his head went forward in 313 (immediately after the bullet hit), back to it's original position in "314", then forward again in "315" (then back again in 316, which I didn't include in the following sequence). Does that really make sense to you? (And even if it did, I'm still waiting for an explanation for why the "back and to the left" didn't start until 316, if it was the result of momentum from the bullet.)

Head going forward or backward or not...its obvious where the bullet entered by the explosion of blood location.

It's always been obvious which direction the bloody cloud was moving, and the lack of any evidence to indicate a bullet exiting to the left-rear. Got any explanation for that forward head-snap being caused by a shot from the front?

I came up with this autopsy photograph

It's easy to tell which frames go in which order. Look at the darker lump that appears above the windshield in the first frame. You can track it for two more frames. By that time, the white spot has appeared. You can track it for the remainder of the frames.

I think you mean these two frames:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=973967

And if you think that's the only evidence for a shot from the grassy knoll you just haven't made much of an effort to inform yourself.

"someone who makes pretentious claims about being in search of "the truth", but really doesn't seem to be interested in any such thing "

Yeah, annoying, isn't it?

... and explain what's happening in that film. Sorry, but the "reversed frames" theory doesn't make any sense at all (and it would still be irrelevant to the issue even if it did -- that issue being, A) how do you explain that forward head-snap and B) if the shot was from the front, why did it take two frames for the momentum to take effect).

If you're referring to the "acoustic" evidence from the DPD recordings: When that first came out, it was the reason for (one of) my reversals of opinion on the subject. But, it just didn't hold up to close scrutiny; it's been re-re-re-analyzed again recently (this year), and convincingly refuted once again.

i don't think you'll find many folks here who will take you SERIOUSLY on the wildwildweb with nothing but your random statements of innuendo.

at least not on DU anyways.

remember our REP? we didn't get it by believing everything we are told even by the lamestream media let alone annonomous strangers.

i think that folks who post opinions on tragic events in our history with NOTHING not a single link to back up their claims does the most to dimminish the VALUE of this site by adding to the ever increasing NOISE ratio.

:shrug:

peace

You insist on hijacking this thread to be yet another debate about the conspiracy theories, instead of what it was originally intended to be. Fine. Here are your links, and since you insisted on having them here, can I expect to see comments that at least indicate that your read them?

On the head shot:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/Physics_of_the_head_shot.html

On the "acoustic evidence":
Word doc: http://www.courttv.com/onair/shows/kennedy/JFK_Audio_Analysis_Report.doc

(Ed: Sorry, link to HTML version gets mangled by board software.)

and i am NOT talking about JFK I am talking about 911 in gen and wtc7 in paticular.

and you got some nerve to talk about 'hijacking' a thread that is for saluting the LOGICAL, DEDICATED sceptics we have on this board but it ain't the first time ou have revealed your self for all to see.

start a new thread if you want on that subject there are many here more knowledgable then me on it.

peace

:nopity: The thread is about "saluting" the conspiracy theorists on the board, and my original comment was that "some of this totally loony 9-11 stuff is doing absolutely nothing but detracting from the efforts to investigate the many serious questions that need answers." It's not "hijacking the tread" to point out the downside of the more irrational conspiracy theories.

The thread hijackers are the ones who want to argue about whether or not the "controlled demolition" theory is wacky. That's to miss the point that most people consider "wacky" to be an understatement for that "theory". And the problem I was pointing out is that now, when anyone suggests the BFEE knew or should have known that the attack was coming, or questions why our defenses were completely ineffective that day, they will get lumped in with the "nuts".

whatever floats your boat i guess.

but questioning how those buildings fell is NOT 'totally loony' and calling DU'ers such names only weakens whatever case you are trying to make.

the facts are we don't know what happened since there is no OFFICIAL REPORT just speculation based on a HALF-BACKED-FARCE of an investigation yet you are perfectly happy to accept such a report and that is your perogative but i don't believe that will help your credibility on DU.

now maybe it is folks who like to call others 'NUTS' who ask unpopular questions about 911 reluctant to look into it or even speak up.

think about it

http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/wt7/flash_8fps
http://new.globalfreepress.com/911/mov

peace

... because they already "know" the answers.

Show me some convincing evidence for your arguments, and you might be surprised at the effect it would have.

I hope when you come back, by the way, you'll have done some work on the ludicrous premise of this "controlled demolition theory". Why such an elaborate, complex, risky plan, when something simple, reliable, and only requiring a few people would have worked just as well for the presumed goal? Since you brought up WTC7, can you please explain how adding WTC7 to the "controlled demolition" added anything worth the extra complexity and risk? Most people don't even know that it happened.

You need to understand that your inability to provide rational answers to these questions will mean that the theory will forever remain in "loony" territory. If that doesn't bother you, then it's not skin off my nose.

and put words in their mouths, repeatedly, even after being asked politely, repeatedly, to refrain from doing so.

not only is that not polite nor respectful it is against this boards rules...

"2. Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

if you want show me any respect at least show DU some.

if you are serious about learning more about 911 you can visit my website here...
http://new.globalfreepress.com/index.pl?section=911

and here...
http://new.globalfreepress.com/911

we have 2 whole sections devoted to it.

peace

Here's a paper published by the Forensic Society of Great Britain in 2000, which supports the case for the acoustic signature of a shot from the knoll. Court-TV did not take this research into account.

"Echo correlation analysis and the acoustic evidence in the Kennedy assassination revisited":

http://www.forensic-science-society.org.uk/Thomas.pdf

... and it specifically discusses the flaws in DB Thomas' analysis.

Um, how about there wasn't one?

- "but the "reversed frames" theory doesn't make any sense at all (and it would still be irrelevant to the issue even if it did"

I'm starting to think you're just being deliberately obtuse...

A) It's not a theory, it's a damn fact. In fact it has been very thoroughly documented (see the book Assassination Science) in careful frame-by-frame analysis the the Zapruder has been extensively meddled with beyond that one inversion of frames.

B) It precisely explains the appearance of the head seeming to move forward when in fact the movement was back. That's what reversing frames does.

C) The spray of blood and brains goes flying back behind Kennedy. In fact Jackie appears to scramble toward the back deck of the car to try to retrieve a piece.

D) Several eyewitnesses on the scene described shots from the Grassy Knoll, people standing directly in front of it even threw themselves down to get out of the way.

Bill Hicks from 1993 (offered for entertainment value only);

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/BillHicksElite.mp3

edited just for the hell of it

"Um, how about there wasn't one?"

Well, um, yes there was. I posted the images that I'm asking you to explain. This should be a snap for a crackerjack video analyst such as yourself.

"I'm starting to think you're just being deliberately obtuse..."

Or, perhaps you simply don't understand what I'm getting at? If you'll please refer to the images I posted, I'll try to explain it:

Frames 311 and 312 are immediately before the head shot. I have aligned the cropped images using red lines on the seat behind JFK and the limo rollbar, and I've added a red line near each occupant's head. Please note that JFK's head is tilted forward to the point that his chin is almost touching his chest, and that it's in the same position in both those frames.

Frame 313 is the head shot. The bullet has already passed through JFK's head sometime between 312 and 313, and it is now gone from the scene. Now, please try to grasp this simple concept: The bullet imparted all the momentum on the head that it possible could while it was passing through the head, before frame 313, and now it's gone from the scene.

If you don't understand the above paragraph, there's no point in going on, so please reread it as often as necessary to grasp this fact: The bullet cannot impart any more momentum on JFK's head than it did before frame 313.

Now, what difference do we note between frame 312 and 313? That JFK's head has snapped forward to the point that it now appears that his chin is against his chest! What "mysterious" force could have caused that head-snap, I wonder?

I still have no idea what "printing" TIA is referring to, about frames 314 and 315 being reversed, but these images obviously have nothing to do with that "printing". It's easy enough to determine that it's a ridiculous assertion by looking at the grass behind the limo, e.g. the light and dark spots above the driver's head. And as I said, it really has no significance whatsoever to what is shown to have happened between 312 and 313: the head snap that you say didn't happen.

What the film shows is that in frame 314, JFK's head is still pitched forward, and then in frame 315 it's returned to it's original position. In frame 316, which I haven't shown, we see the beginning of the "back and to the left" movement that is alleged to prove that the shot came from the front. The obvious problem with that theory -- at least, for those of us not blinded by "conspiracy hypnosis" -- is: A) it comes at least two frames (1/9th second) after the bullet has imparted momentum to the head; and B) it ignores the forward head-snap, which is the most likely result of the bullet's momentum since it happens immediately after the shot.

"The spray of blood and brains goes flying back behind Kennedy."

Take another look at frame 313.

Your analysis of the Zapruder film seems to be similar to your analysis of the WTC videos, i.e. you can only see whatever it takes to confirm your preconceived conspiracy theories even if it means ignoring what's really there.

Most of those loony theories are debunked not by those who think debunking amounts to calling it loony,
but rather by the the more serious LIHOP/MIHOP theorists.

Haven't seen him around much, but he still posts occasionally. His invaluable research on 9/11:

Timeline?
Check out this thing I made for a very complete answer:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/dayof911.html

Also check out this:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html 
 
BTW, I still miss Ewing2001 !!!

we wouldn't know what time it really is. That's a tremendous accomplishment. And that everything is sourced to "mainstream" references lends it powerful credibility to those disinclined to doubt the official story.

Last summer, I printed the whole thing out, stuck it in a binder and went through it beginning to end, highlighter in hand. Sometimes, the price of informing myself is looking a little obsessive to my wife. ;)

Gosh I did not realize that thread had such an impact. There are many here who have educated me. Franklin was the beginninguntil Truth is all posted 18181. Then ther was a new beginning. A whole new conspiracy to delve into. I wonder how many more I will find in this life. Thanks Minstrel boy for showing me that my words and efforts are not wasted.

:yourock:

What a nice gift you have given me for the beginning of the new year.

Some things are too terrible to believe, and yet are. Thank you for helping me see how awful the awful truth can be. Knowledge can be a burden, but it is power.

:toast:

disinfectant my friend.

-

:shrug:

conspiracy

A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot.

When shapen was all his conspiracy From point to point. --Chaucer.

They made a conspiracy against . --2 Kings xiv. 19.

I had forgot that foul conspiracy

Of the beast Caliban and his confederates. --Shak.

A concurence or general tendency, as of circumstances, to one event, as if by agreement.

A conspiracy in all heavenly and earthly things. --Sir P. Sidney.

(Law) An agreement, manifesting itself in words or deeds, by which two or more persons confederate to do an unlawful act, or to use unlawful to do an act which is lawful; confederacy.

Syn: Combination; plot; cabal.

n 1: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) 3: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose

- The nature of conspiracies: those involved will do anything to prevent them from being discovered...including marginalizing those who get too close to the truth.

for the most thoroughly researched scandal to be completely ignored by the mainstream press.

http://www.loggia.com/myth/cassandra.html

and learned about PNAC-thanks to so many already mentioned and thanks to Admin that allows such discussion within simple rules.

Theories that DU'ers have been onto since the stolen election have proven to be true. And, every thread on a "conspiracy theory" has many who will give documentation both pro AND con. We aren't an easily deceived bunch here.

Bugliosi's point is well taken. :-)'s

there are always a series of events that lead up to the situation.
Some of these can be natural, such as an asteroid strike, or plate movements....It is those that occur under the influence of individuals or groups that bring about conspiracy theories.

Circumstances surrounding 9-11 for instance, It was the decision of the current administration, to completely disregard everything the Clinton Admin told them. Without exception, every Clintonian idea was passed over and shelved. Osama was a known advocate of terrorism and the bush admin was duly warned; the course of action they pursued, was inaction. Therefore, what happened on 9-11 was directly connected to the admin by way of inaction. A very poor decision indeed.

The record for this administration is poor, but as a skeptic, I like to get facts in order before making decisions. Since I believe that things happen in the human arena because of either decisions, (or indecisions), nothing is happenstance. Those that research things, and are labeled as "kooks", "nuts" or "tinfoilhatters" are those that want to get to the bottom of things, and prove theories into fact by putting all the pieces together. These people deserve respect for their efforts.

O8)

Now you're saying it was on purpose?

Of course, me being the cynic, I don't think all our plaintive wailing or screaming into the wind will change much. The fix is in. The people are being conditioned for another attack. Patriot Act II is geared up, ready to go. Martial Law is one more 9-11 away...

Do you think the BFEE is going to sit back and let the Wilson leak scandal, or the 9-11 widows suing scandal, or the BBV scandal, or ANYTHING get in their way?

Something's got to give.

a years supply. :)

to the kooks and tinfoilers. On 9/12/001 I began looking for facts regarding the 9/11 attacks rather than mindlessly believing media propoganda. That search led me here to DU where I have found more factual information than any site on the web. :toast:

... what would be the one thing I could do? What crack-pot appearing scheme could I do that would appear perfectly legitimate when viewed by the many of the rank-and-file, yet I could still be able to call upon the Lush Rimbaugh's and Faux Skews of the world to point in my direction and handcuff a whole party to it?

I have every reason to believe those who are posting the "911/Bush Knew" theories at DU are COINTELPRO agents sent here to mix and mingle with the crowd, make themselves out to be legitimate liberals wanting to "expose" Bushite, but who's true agenda is to post these "theories" in a co-operative and deliberate manner so that their pundits in the corporate media can use these things against our party and our nominee in 2004. This whole thing stinks of a BushCo COINTELPRO scheme. Plant these theories at DU, get their mouthpieces to draw attention to it, say "Do you really want to be part of a party where wingnuts like this spout unfounded theories?", and the damage is done.

So tell me all you prominent "911/Bush Knew" theorists on here, how is everything at Langley AFB today?

GOP operatives to quash the kind of talk that could one day get them into SERIOUS trouble would be for them to come to a board like DU and call those who ask the questions "kooks" or "conspiracy nuts" and tell them to shut up 'cause they are "embarrassing the party".

Yup, COINTELPRO cuts both ways....

Unless you've been a target of COINTELPRO methods like I have, you can't begin to understand what they do.

I was a victim of your COINTELPRO agents back in the 70's. Of course, you're probably already aware of that since you've got the information right in front of you on a screen along with the information of everyone here at DU. I'll tell you this, I didn't do anything that Fred Hampton didn't do and you know it, but your people shot him through the wall. The only reason he's dead and I'm not is because I'm white.

I've seen exactly what your agent provecurs did during the protests earlier this year in SF and DC. So you've gone to dressing up in black like anarchists and using blac bloc methods to round up your unsuspecting victims? Nice touch.

My guess is you'll be quite successful at pulling off your little scheme here. These people will never guess it could happen to them, until it does. I know your methods.

:tinfoilhat:

Claiming not be be COINTELPRO. Nice roundup of those young kids in SF back in February and March. They walked right into your trap.

I got you pegged. I'll send up the alarm but you have too many unsuspecting victims willing to buy what you sell here. Here's one that doesn't.

How's everything at Langley?

...and do their best to disrupt a thread and try to discredit that with which they disagree. Hey...aren't you one of the DUers who doesn't want 9-11 discussed in this forum? That couldn't be your real motivation...could it?

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

Just ordinary people...



demanding an everyday thing:



the truth, and nothing but.

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

then COINTELPRO truly has beaten you, and you have my sympathy.

And I intend to sound the horn long and loud. Maybe it will wake-up some to your methods.

For those who don't know about Fred Hampton, do a Google search. That will tell you a lot about the methods of these COINTELPRO agents.

In this case, they have every reason to promote these things so they can turn it to their favor. And they will. At this point, there's no stopping what they already got in place. Besides, they're entrenched, they have the backing of BushCo, and they're armed to the teeth. The best we can do at this point is to be aware of their methods, what they are capable of doing, and to make sure it doesn't happen to you or your friends.

spring to mind.

http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-344/epid-2444/

Must be another coincidence.

Or...did I?

:evilgrin:

(Wow, these guys are Hellava stupid...)

:evilgrin:

by BushCo to spread conspiracy theories about 9/11...such inverted, twisted logic.

Yes, we know about Cointelpro in the 60s. That was a Hoover FBI op to disrupt MLK and the civil rights and the peace movements. How do you explain the hundreds of unanswered questions on 9/11 and that BushCo has fought the investigation every step of the way?

And what about BBV? Are you even aware that we got the ball rolling here at DU when no on ewould even consider that BushCo stole the 2002 senate? Did you even know about Diebold until a year ago? Do you know that 16,022 Gore votes in Volusa county (FL) which were spread around to third party candidates was discussed by Diebold employees (we have the E-mails, thanks) as something that could not be explained except for hacking?

Don't get me started on JFK. I have many threads which fully discuss that one.

You had better do your homework.

It's real. It's COINTELPRO. And yes, by placing information on DU and making it appear as though the Democratic Party is made up of "wing-nut conspiracy theorists", they can and will use it against us. I've done my homework. I know how COINTELPRO works. What's going on here at DU is right by the script they've always used.

sort of like stirring up a hornets nest.

Some of these folks are getting a bit irrational? I think as the empire crumbles we will be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing.

I'm coming out of the closet and admitting that yes, I am a Bush COINTELPRO agent!

Boo!


:eyes:


I am actually one of those who has said repeatedly that these boards are being used by operatives - of BOTH parties -- of that I have no doubt.

And I have no doubt that The Men in Black are participants as well.


There is no way to tell who is playing what side. But don't throw COINTELPRO at someone just because they have some very serious questions about what is going on and want to discuss those questions in depth.

I can say that the original 9-11 "Bush Knew" posts were quite genuine. However, right around the time of the US publishing of "The Forbidden Truth", several "tinfoil copy cat" books and a new type of poster appeared that seemed to me to try to discredit the whole "Bush Knew" genre.

So, in some ways, I think you may have something there... :evilgrin:

BTW: Here's the Colleen Rowley memo that started it all for me:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

the hard part is knowing who.

and imo it is a waste of time even trying to indentify let alone weed them out since only others will take their place.

this is an open forum to discuss ALL the issues and it is up to each one of us to verify and use our OWN judgment to determine what makes or doesn't make sense.

we are fortunate to have a place in this country STILL were we CAN discuss these things and i am damn proud of all the DU contributers from the admin and mods right down to us 'end users' for ALL that has been contributed here over the past 3 years.

we can all feel PROUD for we all collectively have had an IMPACT.

way too much has gone down for folks to be quite, shoot even the folks running for president of this great country of our are speaking truth to the people these days... Kerry PROMISES no more wars for OIL :wow:

if it wasn't for DU you can BET that harsh attacks would NOT be in the ads.

bet


peace

I just don't think the Bush folks have enough imagination to think of some of these things.

"Bush caused the Iran Earthquake" hits a whole new level of Conspiracist imagination.

We await the next theory with bated breath.

Well, maybe not.

It has been brought to my attention by the powers that be that the mere mention of the name “COINTELPRO” and any references having to do with the methods of its agents causes individuals to hit the “Alert” button. Apparently, there are some here who wish this subject would go away. I wonder why?

and why don't you distinguish between completely unfouded theories, and theories for which there actually is evidence?

It's not a "conspiracy against DU" per se. They are using DU as a vehicle to give people a reason to believe the Democratic party has gone off the deep end. It's not the only thing they'll do, but all of them added up together add up to victory for them in 2004. Failing to recognize or acknowledge what they are doing only allows them to continue. Unless someone is one of them, they should be doing what they can to get rid of them. One way would be to stop them altogether from using this website to post things that make DU (a website recognized as promoting the Democratic Party) look like it's full of kooks. But if we can't do that, at least place these postings where they can't be as easily seen.

truth is just one big conspiracy, isn't it?

And right wing anti-Clinton conspiracy mongers sure took down GOP, didn't they?

Have a wonderful New Year. Let's all hope for no more war in 04.

:toast:

continually contribute - not surprising to see so many on this thread: Bpilgrim, Q, Elsewhere's Daughter, RBHam - thank you for your brilliant minds, heart and intellect. We have done a great service for America and the families of 9/11 by questioning and looking for answers. Hopefully some day the truth will come out and be exposed - every last disgusting ounce of it. I'm looking forward to one day seeing and hearing all those that called all of us "kooks, nuts, headcases, etc." eating shit - or at least something that is going to taste a lot like shit.

Yea, COINTPLO - all of us everyday men and women, working people - yea, we're all definitely working for the FBI - NOT. I would recommend a doctor. Thank God Americans aren't all as stupid as Bush - and the dumbasses who believe in him.

:hi:

http://www.zpluspartners.com/zblog/

Scroll down to "The Information Architecture of Evil"

And I'm sort of miffed because I haven't been mentioned as a tinfoilhatter for bringing up David Icke a few times. :hi:

and we hope everyone has a better New Years. Let's hope that we can go into the 2004 elections with a voter verified paper ballot. Let's hope that we have more robust and random audits of our voting systems.

Bev Harris definitely deserves a great big shout out too!

HAPPY NEW YEAR DU!

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

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

would only show me 30 posts.

Somehow, I don't think finding the others would have made much of a difference in the outcome. :shrug:

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

Makes a lot of sense to me. SOMETHING in this mess has too. ;)

some people love kicking a dead horse

from that one thread.

I though we all agree that it is not so that conspiracies do not and cannot exsist.
Yet most of the nay-sayers seem to think that simply pointing out that some idea is a conspiracy theory, is equivalent to debuking it, and that by discreditig one such theory, all conspiracy theories are discredited.

:toast::tinfoilhat::toast:
:toast::tinfoilhat::toast:
:toast::tinfoilhat::toast:

The "conspiracy" posts on DU are the only ones worth reading and posting to.

I hate all the candidate stuff because it's a waste of time. As a true conspiracist, I know there are no REAL elections anyway, nor have there been for quite awhile - even Clinton's. You see Pamela Harriman backed Bill with all her wealth, and then she mysteriously died in a plane crash.

But, that's another story....AHHAAAAAAA!!!

Happy and Safe New Year to all DUers!!

Count me in

:bounce: :toast:

Happy New Years!!!

:party: :tinfoilhat: :party:

May 2004 be a DEM victory!!!


:dem:

"One man's conspiracy theory is another man's business plan."

- I'd still like to know why this is going on? Is it now an official policy of DU?

Now come along, auntie. Leave the nice people alone....

...of grist for the mill of particulars:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone%20Gunmen/The_Lone_Gunmen_Episode_1.htm

a TV show could tell the story of the US government's intention to stage a terrorist act on American soil in order to create an enemy, and that it would do so by assuming remote access of a passenger jet and crashing it into the World Trade Center.

What is weirder, nobody remembers it. Sure, the Lone Gunmen wasn't that popular, but the fact it ever aired seems wiped from memory.

Weirder still in light of Condi's already debunked claim that nobody could have predicted hijacking jets and flying them into buildings. Perhaps, if only she'd been a more faithful Fox viewer....

and just collapsed. That one thread about building #7 is just amazing

WT7 Collapse Caught on Video ---------------------------MPEG PART 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=219680

...but since it's New Years I'll give you a break.

- It's noted that you're among those who participate in these threads only to discourage and discredit.

- You may think you're 'clever' and have won some sort of battle to have these threads removed out of your sight...but it's obvious a majority of posters don't want that to happen.

- I still haven't received word from the administrators about this 'new' policy. Perhaps they'll respond after the celebrations are over and done with.

- The idea of a 'general discussion' is that you can discuss any subject...other than candidates and campaigns...which have been temporarily moved to accomodate the traffic. It would be a shame if 9-11 became yet another topic that can't be discussed in GD...while being thrown into some obscure forum hidden within another forum.

..that to seems to have changed, and it comes across as very un-DU-like.

I know that I am certifiably one, but the crap that happened on 9/11 is way past strange. All of the motive was there but even stranger is the total silence by 95% of the population.

They seemed to have lapped it up without even a gurgle. Like it was planned that way 50 years ago to happen just as it did. In plain daylight without any real plausible explanation of what really did take place once one gets beyond the party line(their explanations.

I am sure its possible to be a conspiracy nut and a skeptic at the same time, for that's the only possibility I can come up with. Something or someone is way beyond it and hiding in plain sight

We feel exactly the same way toward DU and what it means for bringing down the BFEE. Instead of the pen, we have keyboards; instead of a printing press, we have Gore's Internet. And we have the Truth on our side. And that is is precisely why they fear DUers — including a whole bunch more who haven't checked into this thread, but many of whom have been here for almost three years now.

BTW: Minstrel Boy's no slouch when it comes to finding where the pieces fit in.



Klaus Kinski as Aguirre, Official Icon of the Tin Hat Club.

my favorite geopolitical site is fromthewilderness.com

so much information there! pull up a chair and feast on the truth!

thanks, Minstrel Boy. you're one of the best here...

:hi:

..for occasionally being right, like with the black box voting, but otherwise giving the Democratic party a bad name, in the case of the Wellstone crash. Wouldn't know what we'd do without ya!

- I hear this time and again 'round here. It simply doesn't make sense. No one here 'represents' the Democratic party. We represent ourselves and nothing more.

- Let's stop the broad generalizations and get on with exposing Bush* corruption and kicking his ass out of office.

period.

you're welcome :hi:

peace

...that being outspoken and even yes, *angry*, is somehow terribly rude and out of place in US politics?

Were any of you around while the Repug thugs spent eight years tearing Clinton a new asshole? Every day of the week the meanstream media was pushing truly zaney conspiracies with much less supporting evidence and never seemed to worry about losing credibility. But suddenly with their guy it power it's no more investigations, no following up on embarassing stories, only deep respect for authority and desire to be in its good graces.

And we're all admonished to be very, very polite, and not frighten away the poor rubes who might want to sign on to defeat Bush through "the system," as if that was ever really an option.

possibly have been thinking when I realized that the widely proclaimed and universally disseminated "Magic Icing" theory of Wellstone's crash was completely full of shit?

:kick: :toast::toast::toast:

I've been following your posts, as you tirelessly try to raise the alarm. Thanks to all those you mentioned, also.

I'll line up with the "kooks" and "tinfoilers". :toast:

We Stand Passively Mute - By U.S. Senator Robert Byrd

February 12, 2003

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

...

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

more...
http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_feb/news_2003_february/news_2003_february_9.html

some ask WHY would they do something so TERRIBLE as 911 and I say it is our DUTY to ANSWER these BURNING questions.

Happy New Year fellow AMERICANS! :bounce: :toast:

peace

I found this at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=3996&mesg_id=4013&page=

J outdoes us all:
http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime@bbs.thing.net/msg00099.html

This author beats me by orders of magnitude in the paranoid cast to his thinking. It is also the single most unique conspiracy theory I have ever read (and extremely odd). I've never even seen his arguments hinted at before & I've been reading conspiracy theories for years.

Be aware that it is not remotely PC and is guaranteed to cause agita. At least I found myself having violently conflicting emotions throughout. However I have found it to be very thought provoking.

The floors of his BFEE house of cards is bound to be a crowd pleaser. The "no 757 at the Pentagon" crowd will also love the F77 section. He also gives a new interpretation of the Bush Nazi ties. Actually he includes almost all conspiracies wrapped into one, his attempt is essentially a "Unified field theory of post-WWII conspiracies."

But essentially he says we should all be proud to appear paranoid.

That was another heroic attempt at a Grand-Unification Conspiracy Theory, pretty good for the one season it lasted.

More material for the Big Ball of tinfoil - some very close-up views of the south tower collapse:

"A huge explosion raining debris on all of us..."
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/010912collapse1._high.avi (18mb)

And two shorter clips from this:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/south_1.avi (0.5mb)

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/south_2.avi (1.8mb)

Just wanted to be part of the club.