I always trust a Community College dropout for well-reasoned opinions about matters that are highly technical.

i'm not a truther at all, but i haven't ever seen anyone prove that the truthers are 100% wrong. a little nutty? probably. wrong about the facts? likely. wrong that the official story doesn't add up? who knows.

Originally submitted with tag. >:(

burndtdan: i'm not a truther at all, but i haven't ever seen anyone prove that the truthers are 100% wrong. a little nutty? probably. wrong about the facts? likely. wrong that the official story doesn't add up? who knows.

thats what i came in here to say.

Jesse Ventura: "Government not telling the truth about 9/11 I haven't gotten enough attention lately". With video goodness.

burndtdan: i'm not a truther at all, but i haven't ever seen anyone prove that the truthers are 100% wrong. a little nutty? probably. wrong about the facts? likely. wrong that the official story doesn't add up? who knows.

Exactly. There was INDEED a government during the day of 9/11/01. Therefore, they MUST have done it.

SilentStrider: i'm not a truther at all, but i haven't ever seen anyone prove that the truthers are 100% wrong.

There actually were terrorists who took over planes on 9/11, but their assignments were merely to hijack them and fly them to Mexico and hold everyone hostage. However, a splinter group of invisible leprechauns aided by a Fred Phelps had learned of the plan and, working in secret with the Mossad and MI-6, they developed a mind control device that required only for the leprechaun to sit on its victim's shoulder. Each terrorist had one such leprechaun on his shoulder on 9/11, and they caused the attacks to place. George Bush had learned of these attacks during breakfast, when a leprechaun counter operative spelled out plans of the attack in his daily bowl of Lucky Charms, but unfortunately the president saw the message and thought it was just a cool arrangement of marshmallows to eat in order.

Prove me wrong.

Truther-bashing aside, I'd like to know why the most heinous crime ever committed on US soil has never been the subject of a criminal investigation. The white house has stonewalled all requests for such, and the "investigation" that was finally allowed was led by Bush cronies and completely hamstrung from the start. Members were denied access to material that they'd requested, and the whole thing proceeded from a factually unproven premise.

I think it's crazy to not consider that at least odd, and probably suspect.

nekom: burndtdan: i'm not a truther at all, but i haven't ever seen anyone prove that the truthers are 100% wrong. a little nutty? probably. wrong about the facts? likely. wrong that the official story doesn't add up? who knows.

Exactly. There was INDEED a government during the day of 9/11/01. Therefore, they MUST have done it.

the government not telling the truth != the government behind it.

and you know what? i DO know the government did not tell the truth about a lot of stuff in the months before and after 9/11, so i see no reason whatsoever to assume that the bush administration was telling the truth about everything that event.

I'm not saying I'm a Truther. 19 assholes hijacked 4 planes. 2 were flown into the twin towers of the WTC. 1 was crashed into the Pentagon, and 1 crashed in a field in Western PA. I stipulate to that.
Then the loss of the floors below the top floors caused the floors above to pancake down one on top of another, collapsing both towers.
Again, I'll stipulate that.

But if you would trust any government's, especially THIS government's official version of events to be what happened, you're crazier than the Truthers.

Pocket Ninja: Prove me wrong.

i meant their premise. i actually specifically said they were probably wrong on the facts. but the premise that the white house under george bush lied about something and the story doesn't add up?

that's not crazy, that's practically the mission statement of the bush administration.

Pocket Ninja: when a leprechaun counter operative spelled out plans of the attack in his daily bowl of Lucky Charms

There's a pickle in there somewhere. I just know there is.

Anybody who believes Bush isn't criminally negligent for 9/11 is a Bush apologist carrying water for the Republicans. The FBI KNEW that crazy farkers were learning how to fly planes, but not land them in Florida. People at the top just didn't want to connect the dots. It's well documented at this point, that days after 9/11, all Bush's buddies in the White House were trying to figure out how they could pin 9/11 on Saddam, rather than go after who was truly responsible.

IT WAS ALIENS

I remember when Jesse Ventura appeared on Opie and Anthony a few months ago. God damn was that guy the definition of a pompous dick. He steam-rolled over anyone who talked, even when they agreed with him on something. he would ask a question, and not even give people 1 second to respond before you screamed about why they weren't answering him. I had to turn off the radio because I couldn't stand him anymore. Such an arrogant rude belittling asshole.

HowlingFrog: Truther-bashing aside, I'd like to know why the most heinous crime ever committed on US soil has never been the subject of a criminal investigation. The white house has stonewalled all requests for such, and the "investigation" that was finally allowed was led by Bush cronies and completely hamstrung from the start. Members were denied access to material that they'd requested, and the whole thing proceeded from a factually unproven premise.

I think it's crazy to not consider that at least odd, and probably suspect.

No one is held responsible under Bush for anything, unless there is no other way out. It doesn't matter what the government did, did not do, screwed up, fell asleep, whatever. The bare minimum level will be held accountable. Out of everything Bush did wrong, this is probably the worst and most insidious. And the people will go on happily watching American Idol, and the media will be happy to keep on doing the bare minimum to "inform" the public. No questions asked.

SilentStrider: I'm not saying I'm a Truther.

-------

But if you would trust any government's, especially THIS government's official version of events to be what happened, you're crazier than the Truthers.

A "Truther" is somebody who disbelieves the Official Story(TM), and wants the truth about what really happened. Hence, TRUTHer.

Cue Jeff Foxworthy: "If YOU believe that there were too many convenient coincidences that day, and that the explanations smell fishier than a boatload of tuna... you might be a truther."

burndtdan: the government not telling the truth != the government behind it.

and you know what? i DO know the government did not tell the truth about a lot of stuff in the months before and after 9/11, so i see no reason whatsoever to assume that the bush administration was telling the truth about everything that event.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to patronize, but come on. The only lies the government told were to cover different department's asses for dropping the ball. Lots of people were caught with their pants down, any lying about that occurred long after the fact.

burndtdan: i'm not a truther at all, but i haven't ever seen anyone prove that the truthers are 100% wrong. a little nutty? probably. wrong about the facts? likely. wrong that the official story doesn't add up? who knows.

it's not up to everybody else to prove a nutbar wrong. it's up to the nutbar to prove his theory.

no official story about 9/11 or the kennedy assasination or last night's trip to the bar will add up 100 percent because it's impossible to know everything that happened, how it happened, the exact timeline, etc. to demand 100 percent knowledge about anything that happens in this world is naive.

I always trust a professional wrestler for well-reasoned opinions about matters that are highly technical.

PC LOAD LETTER: No one is held responsible under Bush for anything, unless there is no other way out.

I completely agree. Those who supposedly "dropped the ball" have been rewarded, rather than prosecuted (or at least fired).
But I really don't think that the "we're protecting people who screwed up" explanation holds water. Why? Because the public would understand that, and probably even sympathize. After all, the lie was put out from the very beginning that "nobody expected terrorists to fly jetliners into buildings".

And the people will go on happily watching American Idol, and the media will be happy to keep on doing the bare minimum to "inform" the public. No questions asked.

Yes. :(

/cranks up Rammstein's "Amerika" video

Anybody willing to believe that the Administration, unable to plant a few nukes in a bunker in Iraq in an effort to validate the past 6 years, somehow pulled off the greatest hoax in the history of the planet on live TV, in front of tens of millions of people, and they somehow did this with the cooperation of hundreds or thousands of people and, 7 years later, not one person has uttered a word is off their rocker.

nekom: I'm sorry, I don't mean to patronize, but come on. The only lies the government told were to cover different department's asses for dropping the ball. Lots of people were caught with their pants down, any lying about that occurred long after the fact.

you mean like the letter they had the CIA forge between one of the 9/11 planners and saddam hussein, so they could tie 9/11 to iraq?

you mean like after the anthrax attacks when they went out and blamed it on iraq before they had any idea what happened, so they could tie terrorism to iraq?

and why am i supposed to believe the details that came out of the federal government about 9/11?

it's not a conspiracy theory, because i don't suspect a conspiracy. a conspiracy would require multiple complicit actors, while i'm simply talking about the executive branch of our government, which all answer to the same people, doing something that they have been caught doing many times before and since.

if you don't question every word that comes out of the bush white house, you're retarded.

There's something wrong with you if you don't have at least a part of your cynicism in reserve for anything that the Bush admin says. If they happen to say the sky is blue you have good reason to check it against a pantone chart. I see no reason that shouldn't apply to an event 'of the magnitude and type of pearl harbour*' any less than questions about Cheney's role in the high price of fuel.


_{*just like PNAC said it required in order to dominate the Middle Easy.}

burndtdan: if you don't question every word that comes out of the bush white house, you're retarded.

I think there is an important distinction to be made between an Administration that took advantage of a situation (much like the PNAC playbook describes) and an Administration that planned the situation to further their agenda.

bulldg4life: burndtdan: if you don't question every word that comes out of the bush white house, you're retarded.

I think there is an important distinction to be made between an Administration that took advantage of a situation (much like the PNAC playbook describes) and an Administration that planned the situation to further their agenda.

i agree. that's why i said

the government not telling the truth != the government behind it.

bulldg4life: Anybody willing to believe that the Administration, unable to plant a few nukes in a bunker in Iraq in an effort to validate the past 6 years

Don't assume that they were "unable to" when there was no reason to.

We're IN Iraq, mission accomplished. Why risk getting caught planting evidence when the "but our intelligence said..." line works just fine?

It was 9/11 that enabled this administration to invade Iraq.
Important point.

bulldg4life: Anybody willing to believe that the Administration, unable to plant a few nukes in a bunker in Iraq in an effort to validate the past 6 years, somehow pulled off the greatest hoax in the history of the planet on live TV, in front of tens of millions of people, and they somehow did this with the cooperation of hundreds or thousands of people and, 7 years later, not one person has uttered a word is off their rocker.

I have to agree. You can't say that he is dumb as a bag of hammers and in the same breath claim that he is some evil mastermind genius.

HowlingFrog: It was 9/11 that enabled this administration to invade Iraq.
Important point.

No doubt.

But, I would say that IF nukes had been found in Iraq to the level of an imminent threat to the US, the elections in 2004 and 2006 and this election would look unbelievably different.

I mean, the GOP could've locked up 2 branches of the government at least through 2012.

bulldg4life: But, I would say that IF nukes had been found in Iraq to the level of an imminent threat to the US, the elections in 2004 and 2006 and this election would look unbelievably different.

but the odds of that being the case, without hindsight, were incredibly low. not only did the administration have no credible evidence there were weapons, they had a ton of credible evidence that there weren't any weapons.

so really, that could only have happened if bush was the luckiest bastard on earth.

albo: no official story about 9/11 or the kennedy assasination or last night's trip to the bar will add up 100 percent because it's impossible to know everything that happened, how it happened, the exact timeline, etc. to demand 100 percent knowledge about anything that happens in this world is naive.

Certainly.
But it IS highly suspect when data and information is withheld from a commission that was established to get as close to that unreachable 100% as humanly possible. Don't you agree?

NeverDrunk23: I have to agree. You can't say that he is dumb as a bag of hammers and in the same breath claim that he is some evil mastermind genius.

I don't think anybody is talking about Bush here.
If anything, he was sent off to Florida to read with children to keep him out from underfoot.

burndtdan: so really, that could only have happened if bush was the luckiest bastard on earth.

I'm not saying it as a hindsight what if...I'm saying it as "if they were somehow complicit in 9/11 to further their agenda, then planting a few nukes to validate the Iraqi war isn't a stretch of imagination"

bulldg4life: burndtdan: so really, that could only have happened if bush was the luckiest bastard on earth.

I'm not saying it as a hindsight what if...I'm saying it as "if they were somehow complicit in 9/11 to further their agenda, then planting a few nukes to validate the Iraqi war isn't a stretch of imagination"

ah. then i can't really say much, i've already said i don't think they were complicit in the event, i just question if they were honest in any elements of the telling of that event they had a part in.

basically, i'm saying i think they were looking for something to enable them to go to iraq and really implement the neoconservative agenda in the greater middle east long before 9/11, and don't doubt for a minute that they took any opportunity to promote those goals in any way they could while dealing with the attack.

burndtdan: i'm not a truther at all, but i haven't ever seen anyone prove that the truthers are 100% wrong. a little nutty? probably. wrong about the facts? likely. wrong that the official story doesn't add up? who knows.

They don't need to be 100% wrong to still be wrong enough that they deserve to be ignored and you don't risk losing anything important. Ventura and other truthers ask why the towers fell at the rate of gravity. That's because gravity was an active force in the collapse. They ask why the steel support beams fell when kerosine doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. That's because at the temperature jet fuel burns, steel loses about 50% of its tensile strength, and considering how much weight those beams had to support, 50% loss of strength is too much. Then they ask what about eye-witness reports of melted steel at the collapse site. I would respond by asking how many of those who reported melted steel at the collapse site know what the difference is between melted steel and steel that is so hot it's incandescent and were calm enough in the situation to figure out what they were seeing (as opposed to, I don't know, looking for survivors to pull out of the wreckage).

Truthers are wrong on enough that while we should always be questioning our government, the proposed explanation of the Truthers is a bunch of bullsh*t that can be and their supposed arguments against the official story can be refuted with simple Google searches.

I'm watching an program on Russia Today right now there Giulietto Chiesa (member of EU parliament) is saying the same thing.

I don't place enough faith in the US government's ability to actually pull something off like that, and then keep it quiet all this time, to boot. It's unfathomable.

It's pretty simple really, planes got hijacked and amateurishly flown into buildings. The buildings fell because of the damage and the heat. Not tough to believe that the cigar is just a cigar there. Maybe not as fun as a conspiracy theory, but still.

Kome: Truthers are wrong on enough that while we should always be questioning our government, the proposed explanation of the Truthers is a bunch of bullsh*t that can be and their supposed arguments against the official story can be refuted with simple Google searches.

you even quoted me saying "wrong about the facts? likely."

Kome: and their supposed arguments against the official story can be refuted with simple Google searches.

Simple Google searches can also lead you to believe that the Holocaust never happened. Welcome to teh intartubes, where anybody can claim anything.
Simple Google searches will NOT explain the Official Reason why Bush and Cheney had to be dragged kicking and screaming to testify before the 9/11 Commission, and then ONLY together and ONLY while not under oath and ONLY with no written or otherwise recorded transcripts of their testimony.
What does Popular Mechanics say about that?

burndtdan: Kome: Truthers are wrong on enough that while we should always be questioning our government, the proposed explanation of the Truthers is a bunch of bullsh*t that can be and their supposed arguments against the official story can be refuted with simple Google searches.

you even quoted me saying "wrong about the facts? likely."

I was responding mostly to the i haven't ever seen anyone prove that the truthers are 100% wrong part by showing it's more than likely they have their facts wrong - they have basic facts about physics and chemistry wrong.

HowlingFrog: Simple Google searches can also lead you to believe that the Holocaust never happened.

So you're a Holocaust denier as well. Good to know.

make me some tea: I don't place enough faith in the US government's ability to actually pull something off like that, and then keep it quiet all this time, to boot. It's unfathomable.

The government? That's a big word.
A faction. A small faction inside and outside the government.
And I'll tell you this.
If McNamara and Kennedy hadn't rejected the Northwoods plan in 1962, you and the vast majority of Americans would believe today that we invaded Cuba because of their heinous attacks on US military installations, and the "fact" that they shot down an airliner filled with schoolchildren on their holidays. And anybody who questioned it would be ridiculed.
The Joint Chiefs had no doubts that precisely this would be achieved.
Why do you?

Kome: HowlingFrog: Simple Google searches can also lead you to believe that the Holocaust never happened.

So you're a Holocaust denier as well. Good to know.

You're a moran with zero reading comprehension skills. Good to know.

Kome: burndtdan: Kome: Truthers are wrong on enough that while we should always be questioning our government, the proposed explanation of the Truthers is a bunch of bullsh*t that can be and their supposed arguments against the official story can be refuted with simple Google searches.

you even quoted me saying "wrong about the facts? likely."

I was responding mostly to the i haven't ever seen anyone prove that the truthers are 100% wrong part by showing it's more than likely they have their facts wrong - they have basic facts about physics and chemistry wrong.

and i'm not arguing that point. i'm not talking about the theory they constructed on top of their premise. i'm talking about their premise. and that premise is that the bush administration is not trustworthy enough to believe about anything, not even 9/11.

yes, the nutty ones (i said that too) would take that and start building a narrative on top of it, with no real evidence. i mock their insanity in that regard. but i don't mock their belief that the white house would distort or withhold information about what actually happened if it would promote their very clear goals toward the middle east.

scrape off all the years worth of conspiracy theory, and you have a very reasonable assertion at the bottom of all of it.

HowlingFrog: Kome: HowlingFrog: Simple Google searches can also lead you to believe that the Holocaust never happened.

So you're a Holocaust denier as well. Good to know.

You're a moran with zero reading comprehension skills. Good to know.

You seem to think there's a controversy over gravitational pull and the strength of steel alloys at various temperatures, or else you wouldn't have compared my suggesting to Google either of those demonstrable facts to Googling the Holocaust.

If you're that goddamn stupid, there's no reason to take anything you say seriously. And if you're that goddamn stupid, you're probably only one drink of Kool-Aid away from being a Holocaust denier anyway.

However, a splinter group of invisible leprechauns aided by a Fred Phelps ...this is where the milk shot out of my nose.

burndtdan: scrape off all the years worth of conspiracy theory, and you have a very reasonable assertion at the bottom of all of it.

Yes, I agree, but if you have to scrape off "years worth of conspiracy theory" to get to anything reasonable, you're better off ignoring the entire thing. You can find the reasonable assertion without the crazy elsewhere.

HowlingFrog: A faction. A small faction inside and outside the government.

To hear you truthers talk about it this 'small faction' appears to include ABC, BBC, NIST, JPL, NOAA, NATO, FDNY, CIA, FBI, and the Illuminati.

Kome: burndtdan: scrape off all the years worth of conspiracy theory, and you have a very reasonable assertion at the bottom of all of it.

Yes, I agree, but if you have to scrape off "years worth of conspiracy theory" to get to anything reasonable, you're better off ignoring the entire thing. You can find the reasonable assertion without the crazy elsewhere.

no, you can't.

to wit, that's exactly what i've been saying in every single post i've made in this thread, and look how quick everyone was to label me a truther (when the very first thing i said was a flat refutation of that, because i wanted to make it clear i was not in any way in agreement with their conspiracy).

you can't make that assertion anymore without being called a conspiracy theorist.