What's your ultimate endgame?

Just wondering what the ultimate purpose is for those of you still clinging to the notion that 9/11 was...whatever...you think it was.

We're coming up on eight years gone by. Do you expect a definitive smoking gun to emerge that will finally allow...whomever...to be prosecuted? Are you trying to be Truther missionaries to just spread the word of...whatever...to as many people as possible?

At what point do you hang it up if you're a wily Truther veteran?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLJ&q=jfk+assassination+conspiracy&aq=1&oq=JFK+Ass&aqi=g10

This is no endgame for 9/11 Truthers

Favorite OCT smear: "All truthers are rabid lunatics who subscribe to any and all conspiracies theories" {international bishop beating gesture}

Can you point to even one poster who has said anything even close to your claim? Just one will do. Thanks.

but it's clear Lared said nothing of the sort. Thanks for the strawman.

haven't you guys been posting articles lately, examining "the mindset of the conspiracy theorist"? IMO there's been an pervasive effort to tar us all with the same brush whenever possible. Chem-trails, UFOs, Bigfoot, 9/11 skepticism... it's all the same to you. Just like how governments attempt to convert their various adversaries into a monolithic evil (evil empire, axis of evil, evil doers...). It makes it easier to carpet bomb the fuck out of a people if they're all evil. Likewise, it makes it easier to dismiss "truthers" if they're all crazy.

seriously. What you are talking about is a perfect symptom of that particular group of 9/11 theorists.

Reminds me of an editorial headline I once read in the Wash. Post about some renovation work on the U.S. Capital building:

"It Takes a Heap To Make a Home For The House"



And it takes a heap of help to tamp down efforts to expose the truth about 9/11.

we simply keep calling you on your lack of evidence. When you develop that "smoking gun", let us know. I'll be all ears.

Well yeah, if you're a disinformation agent, it's called job security. LOLZ!

Do you honestly think you can just go around impugning other members' motivation?

I wasn't talking about any one member specifically.

and isn't this a personal attack? I was told not to use "you"?

Some people around here sure do use references like that a lot. Sometimes their entire posts are made up of just that.

it really doesn't fool anyone.

"crazy".

If there are 1.4 million Google hits regarding the RFK assination from over 40 years ago, I can only imagine that 40 years from now 9/11 CT's will be going strong.

In other words there is no endgame only a game.

get the message out to average, ordinary people, that 9/11 wasn't a plot by longtime CIA asset, Osama bin Laden. Too many special interests in the military/security complex are benefiting as the direct result of the 9/11 lie.

It's easy to be cynical and wag your finger if you don't know the truth or don't care to know it. The MSM has been asleep
at the 9/11 wheel, if not outright complicit - so they're no help. Because of (understandable) commercial interests, other
media outlets don't want to have anything to do with stories about 9/11 except for an occasional flag-waving story.

The perpetrators of 9/11, like those of the JFK assassination, know that it's crucial to sell their story to the public first.
Using friendly sources in the media, in less than one day, the same meme was sold to the American public: crazy lone-nutter
carries out dastardly deed because he hates our way of life.

Combine all of the above with the fact that most Americans are patriotic and don't want to believe that their government
would ever do anything so horrible as carry out a 9/11 false flag operation. Furthermore, that understandable patriotism
drives many people to want to express their opinion about 9/11, and the easiest way to do that is to simply attack those
who don't believe the government's version. That's especially true of those who know very little about the issues, other
than what they heard on television. Remember: most people only believe what they already know, and to them, what they
already know, pitifully little though it might be, is plenty enough for them to believe what they espouse.

So, there's a huge number of people who don't yet know the truth about 9/11, and a certain percentage of them DO want to know,
but for whatever reasons (too busy with their daily lives) they simply don't get around to doing any digging on their own.

There's also a large number of people who have become convinced thru shared research that the government's version of 9/11
isn't and couldn't possibly true, and they want to become even more informed about what exactly happened. Many people find that
it's intellectually stimulating to try and piece together what happened.

Sharing knowledge is something that many people enjoy doing. What about you? Do you feel that you already know all you wish
to know about what happened on September 11, 2001?

POST!!!

No, you're not.

It looks like you made yourself up a reason to dismiss the OP out of hand without giving it any thought.

LOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!

Why pretend not to know that?

Again, are you of the belief that there is still a smoking gun out there just waiting to be found? No rest until that happens?

with subpoena power would undoubtedly reveal smoking guns. That's why we haven't had one.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:oDGLaEANMrEJ:www.9-11commission.gov/press/pr_2003-11-20.pdf+9/11+commission+subpoenas&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

This is just another red herring (bullshit) from the "truth movement"

:rofl:

let alone all the staff notes....

I've read enough about it to know it was not a real investigation. Don't pretend it was.

somehow that's not real convincing. Since you profess to want to find the "truth", wouldn't actually reading the report be a good starting point? Essentially, you're admitting that you've primarily read CT critiques of the report. Why do you let them do your thinking for you?

What truth about that is found in the 9/11 Commission report?

if you want to find out why WTC 7 collapsed, read the NIST report. The starting point for getting a better understanding in both cases 99/11 and subsequent building performance) is to start by actually reading the reports, not depending on someone else to do your thinking for you.

My own thinking is fine, thanks. If I want to know the truth, why would I need to read a report that suppresses information about the WTC 7 collapse? Why would I read a report by a hand-picked commission that allowed the president to "testify" privately, and without being under oath or recorded? Why would I read a report that includes information resulting from torture? Why was it necessary for "minders" to be present during witness testimony? Why do you think the 9/11 Commission report itself is not "information" that someone else wanted you to think???

to testify the same way. Did you know that? Why do you think that was? Do you think, perhaps, that some of the questions dealt with highly classified matters? More importatnly, do you know how the Democratic members of the Commission were picked?

What specific information about the WTC 7 collapse was "suppressed"? Do you think any onformation regarding the collapse of WTC 7 would have been produced by torture? Why would you expect the 9/11 Commission to deal with engineering matters. That's what NIST is for. BTW, now that OBAMA is President, do you think NIST is trustworthy? Do you think that most of the personnal have, in fact, served not only under Obama, but also under Buish as well as previous administrations? Can you posit a really good reason why NIST would not want to get to the bottom of the collapses? Do you think Bush just signed some document and compromised the integrity of dedicated public servants?

for the truth about events of 9/11. Even the commissioners themselves admit that. It was "set up on November 27, 2002 'to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks,'" so, at bare minimum , a mention (not an explanation) of the WTC 7 collapse should have been included.

A partial summary of criticism of the report:

"The commission was criticized for significant alleged conflicts of interest on the part of commissioners and staff.<10> Further, the commission's report has been the subject of much criticism by both the commissioners themselves and by others.<11><12>

"The commission members were appointed by George W. Bush as well as Congress, which led to the criticism that it was not a commission truly independent from the U.S. government whose actions it was supposed to review. The commission stated in its report that " aim has not been to assign individual blame," a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics.

"In addition, commissioners believed that key agencies of the U.S. government, including The Pentagon, the FAA and NORAD were deliberately deceiving them,<12> and that the CIA was deliberately impeding the work of the commission.<13> On the whole, the chairmen of the commission believed the commission was set up to fail."<14>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11_Commission

that doesn't mean they actually failed.

Again, why wou;d you expect the 9/11 Commission to address engineering issues?

Why won't you believe the commissioners themselves? I didn't say the 9/11 Commission should address engineering issues--just to mention the collapse, which was a significant omission.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

An explanation of the 'Set up to fail' quote is also provided.

In context, Hamilton said the commission did reasonably well considering the constraints it faced. Read the entire interview. Hamilton repeatedly answers "I don't know," "I'm not an expert," or "I don't recall."

Why was one of Bush's criteria that his "testimony" NOT BE ON THE RECORD? Of what value is testimony that is not recorded? That's not testimony, that's a farce. And why NOT UNDER OATH? That's like saying, I'M GOING TO LIE AND DON'T WANT IT UNDER OATH SO I CAN'T BE PROSECUTED FOR IT LATER. Why else would you specify that?

subpoena power isn't worth squat if testimony is not under oath and on the record.

and do you really think just because someone has a D after their name that means they can't be corrupted?

Never mind the fact that the co-chairs of the commission stated afterwards that they were "set up to fail" and that they had actually considered bringing charges of obstruction against Pentagon employees and other government employees...

I still find the discussions interesting but it is clear that there will be no "smoking gun" and that the perpetrators (whoever they may have been) of this horrific crime will never be apprehended and prosecuted. While there is abundant evidence to raise questions there simply isn't enough to provide answers. At the very most we can expect is that in the future there might be an inquiry concerning criminal negligence on the part of the Bush Administration because that is all that can be justified by the evidence. If a real inquiry had been conducted eight years ago it might be a different story. If the real perpetrators been revealed and held to account history would be very different. But as it stands 911 occupies the curious realm of enigmatic and influential events like the sinking of the Maine that were used provoke the public's emotions and ensure their support for war.

There's plenty enough to provide answers, it's just being suppressed.

but I agree with the rest of your statement

If the evidence needed to prove your goofy claims is " being suppressed" aren't you, in effect, admitting that you are drawing conclusions with no evidence?


L0LZ!!!! (oh, sorry. I was channeling you for a moment!)


ROFLMAO!!!! (oops... I did it again, although I'm not sure I got enough exclamation marks in).

that you have a fixation on the word "goofy" as a weapon to disparage and ridicule a fellow DU member who, in my opinion,
continually displays a high level of intelligence, critical reasoning skills, and a level of civility that should make even
most True Believers blush.

The only actual goofy claim is the conspiracy theory that a longtime CIA asset who lives a nomadic life in a cave in Afghanistan, was able to defeat the entire U.S. military and national security defense systems. THAT really IS one goofy claim.

I am disparaging his claims, which ARE goofy, in that they are literally 9/11 myths that have repeatedly and roundly debumked. You can believe them if you want, but they just don't stand up to scrutiny.

You can believe he has critical reasoning skills if you want. But relying upon a fellow "truther" such as yourself to assess the quality of those skills is like walking into McDonald's and asking, "Does anyone here like fast food?". Frankly, I don't take you ot him seriously and I'd be surprised if many here do.

are you actually claiming that no evidence has been suppressed?

otherwise, it's just another rationalization from the "truth movement". Again, if the evidence has been "suppressed", what in the world is the "truth movement" relying upon to draw conclusions? Supposition? Conjecture? Speculation? That would be my guess.

For the most part, only you and other OCTists claim to know what happened on 9/11. Where is your "proof"?

The President says so.

Obama Warns not to challenge Official 9/11 Story

click for video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuASoVK8f9c

would have emerged by now if there was any substance to 9/11 skepticism?

It's been over seven years. Why does official secrecy continue?

Are you saying 9/11 isn't relevant? Cheney continues to make his case for police state powers--all based on 9/11. Bin Laden tapes keep coming out.

given that secrecy and inertia are inherent in any government bureaucracy, I think you are going to have show that the truth movement is being singled out with a special level of secrecy. I don't think you can.

BTW, the birthers are complaining about the same thing.

The Families closest to the situation are quite upset at being kept in the dark and all the secrecy. Are the Families being singled out of what you call the truth movement?

And relating the birthers to us in any way shape or form, is evidence of an agenda that is losing.

I suspect that no one in the government really cares anymore. Official indifference. All those new Obama appointees are focused on the President's agenda. I am sure that they are sympathetic to the 911 families but from all the things that can and need to be done, 911 is not high on the list.

On edit: Phillip Berg thought that the Birther cause was good enough to jump ship for.

is a pretty good indication that the government is not indifferent on the issue of 9/11 transparency. Too many files are either classified or pending classification review (which is a stalling tactic considering how long those files have been at NARA).

Actually the ones who are the most strident, pervasive and continuously frequent are the OCTers.

Most every forum I go to they are always there 24-7, year in year out.

It's one of the 8 traits of the disinformationalist.

So Seen, how come your question doesn't equally apply to them?

What's their ultimate endgame? They don't want it to end cuz it's their livelihood.

Personally I've come and gone more than once, but seem to gravitate back, it was the biggest inside job in the history of man.

And it will end up just like the Kennedys. Unresolved as long as the same powers that be remain in position. And they are some of the same ones, and have some of the same reasons and goals, as when the Kennedys were killed.

At some point, people who study history on how others in the world live, why wars are started and how the media helped start wars through more modern times begin to see a pattern.

Once you stop believing what is clear bullshit in the lame 911 report, who was in charge, who bankrolls wars, and how fucking gullible people are, you do what many people in the progressive movements do. You question, probe refuse to believe the lame follow up and omissions and lies.

However long it takes and for as many generations that it takes, is my answer.