No mention yet?

[gj]

Looks like another day of wall to wall 9-11 documentaries on tv today.
Most people I know think differently about the situation now than they
did the first year or so. The level of incompetence, on so many
levels, seems staggering. It was a year later before I even knew Bob
had an album out that day.
I sure would like to see some of the footage of the other cameras that
caught the plane hitting the pentagon.

-GJ 2.0

[Will Dockery]

I'd rather discuss "Love & Theft"... 14 years ago already, amazing.

:D

[M. Rick]

> Most people I know think differently about the situation now than they did the first year or so.

Birthers?

[nate]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:13:24 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
>

> I sure would like to see some of the footage of the other cameras that
> caught the plane hitting the pentagon.
>
> -GJ 2.0

No shit.
This has more forensic evidence of a coverup than the JFK Assassination.

I remember watching the towers fall and thinking how much it looked like a demolition after the planes hit. Then there is building 7.

Let's see Posner's watermelons mansplain this shit away.


- nate

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:13:24 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:

So your post made me warm up my theremin. You know, the whole truther thing fascinates me because I don't understand it at all. Help me out. Is it a political, like left right thing? Illuminati? Tin foil? Tea Party? Occupy? US history is replete with wacky stuff, but this is one of the wackier ones to me. And yet it persists. So, explain what it's all about. I have a leftist friend who told me he was into that and I practically drove the car into a stop sign. I was shocked. I didn't know that "normal" people think that way and I frankly began to privately wonder about him. But I had never associated with leftism so I was surprised. Any honest explanations would be appreciated, not so much about the science but about the motivation behind it. Great.
>
> -GJ 2.0

[Rachel]

OH NO, YOU HAVE A COLD????????? :-((( (wink wink wink)

you could try Mucinex, that always works for me.

ps cvs is now offering flu shots. don't forget! :)

[M. Rick]

> This has more forensic evidence of a coverup than the JFK Assassination.

Is there any evidence that the people on this group are actual people? I can vouch for myself but not anybody else.

[Rachel]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:27:46 PM UTC-7, M. Rick wrote:
> > This has more forensic evidence of a coverup than the JFK Assassination.
>
> Is there any evidence that the people on this group are actual people? I can vouch for myself but not anybody else.

I met dylanstubs (Mark Scalise) and keith gubitz in person! :) (and his girlfriend, sonia g.)

and ron stephens. he took me to ontario and monterey. :)

if there's anyone i'm forgetting, SAW-WEE!!!!!!!!!!

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 2:27:46 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> > This has more forensic evidence of a coverup than the JFK Assassination.
>
> Is there any evidence that the people on this group are actual people? I can vouch for myself but not anybody else.

I'm real of course... everyone else I just take at face value to be real.

:D

[M. Rick]

> I met dylanstubs (Mark Scalise) and keith gubitz in person! :) (and his girlfriend, sonia g.)
> and ron stephens. he took me to ontario and monterey. :)

Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me. Video required, followed by forensic analysis.

[gj]

People are corporations, my friend.

-GJ 2.0

[gj]

If you're asking me, I don't know. I'm not exactly in the 'truther'
camp. I'm just saying I'd like to see more footage of the pentagon
strike. It was clearly captured on what, 80+ cameras? I just find it
odd that they won't release them, seems it would put all the doubts to
rest.

-GJ 2.0

[marcus]

There is a guy in my community who I know on a casual basis only. Our paths have crossed many times, but we don't hang out often. He and I agree politically for the most part, and he has engaged in much admired(by me) activism on the Left. He's smart, rationale, not given to rants or hysteria over issues...except one. He is convinced that the WTC was felled by more than jets flying into it. Back about 12 years or so, he would send me emails about it and website links.

I have read some of the information provided by those who believe that there was much more to the destruction of the WTC and at the Pentagon, but I just don't buy it. Unless, there is some conclusive evidence, or someone admits to being part of the "conspiracy", I think 9/11 unfolded exactly the way most people believe.

btw, I was listening to a live broadcast from a reporter (on my car radio) at the Pentagon when the plane struck...you could actually hear the crash on the radio...the reporter started screaming, it was unreal.

Marc

http://marccatone.webs.com

[luisb...@aol.com]

That's what I'm kind of getting at....put WHAT doubts to rest? It's funny that when you ask people what the actual suspicions are, they get very vague. It isn't that way with JFK conspiracy theory types. If they're leftists, it's CIA. If they're rightists, it's Castro. If they're Cold War liberals, it's the mob. But here, it's just "them." Or maybe it's neo-conspiracy now, where there doesn't actually have to be anybody in particular? By the way, I happen to know what actually happened. And let's just say that it's...eye-opening.

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:067f8a9b-33fe-40af...@googlegroups.com...

> So your post made me warm up my theremin. You know, the whole truther
> thing fascinates me because I don't understand it at all. Help me out. Is
> it a political, like left right thing? Illuminati? Tin foil? Tea Party?
> Occupy? US history is replete with wacky stuff, but this is one of the
> wackier ones to me. And yet it persists. So, explain what it's all about.
> I have a leftist friend who told me he was into that and I practically
> drove the car into a stop sign. I was shocked. I didn't know that "normal"
> people think that way and I frankly began to privately wonder about him.
> But I had never associated with leftism so I was surprised. Any honest
> explanations would be appreciated, not so much about the science but about
> the motivation behind it. Great.

If you find an honest explanation, please let us all know. I don't get
conspiracy theories generally, but this one is so childish: most of its
assertions (they are contradictory to one another) can be de-bunked within 5
minutes using a simple Google search.

I knew people who died at the Pentagon. The guy I knew best, however, was
John Ogonowski, the guy who piloted Flight 11, which is the one that was
crashed into the WTC North Tower. We grew up in the same small MA town
together and went to high school and college together.

This shit offends me, as I'm sure it offends even more the families of those
who died. One of my sisters keeps in touch with John's wife Margaret, who
she says is deeply pained by this nonsense. It's as if the nutters are
making a mockery of those who died on that day.

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2ccfb44e-272e-4d71...@googlegroups.com...

> By the way, I happen to know what actually happened. And let's just say
> that it's...eye-opening.

Oh Jesus. Not you too!

[Earl Browder]

From what I've read over the years since 9/11, "them" boils down to two main groups: (1) "the government," meaning Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, Using a US intelligence agency (either the CIA or some similar agency whose existence is not known to the American public); (2) Jews/Israelis, who were all warned to stay away from the Trade Center on 9/11 so that the Mossad would have a free hand to blow up the towers.

I suppose there are followers of David Icke who'll tell you that it's the lizard-people living among us who did the dirty deed, but most of those blaming Bush/Cheney or the Jews/Israelis think that view is a little too far out.

[gj]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 11:54:34 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:

>On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 8:00:54 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 22:55:08 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:13:24 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
>> >> Looks like another day of wall to wall 9-11 documentaries on tv today.
>> >> Most people I know think differently about the situation now than they
>> >> did the first year or so. The level of incompetence, on so many
>> >> levels, seems staggering. It was a year later before I even knew Bob
>> >> had an album out that day.
>> >> I sure would like to see some of the footage of the other cameras that
>> >> caught the plane hitting the pentagon.
>> >
>> >So your post made me warm up my theremin. You know, the whole truther thing fascinates me because I don't understand it at all. Help me out. Is it a political, like left right thing? Illuminati? Tin foil? Tea Party? Occupy? US history is replete with wacky stuff, but this is one of the wackier ones to me. And yet it persists. So, explain what it's all about. I have a leftist friend who told me he was into that and I practically drove the car into a stop sign. I was shocked. I didn't know that "normal" people think that way and I frankly began to privately wonder about him. But I had never associated with leftism so I was surprised. Any honest explanations would be appreciated, not so much about the science but about the motivation behind it. Great.
>> >>
>>
>> If you're asking me, I don't know. I'm not exactly in the 'truther'
>> camp. I'm just saying I'd like to see more footage of the pentagon
>> strike. It was clearly captured on what, 80+ cameras? I just find it
>> odd that they won't release them, seems it would put all the doubts to
>> rest.
>>
>> -GJ 2.0
>
>That's what I'm kind of getting at....put WHAT doubts to rest?

Well, clearly you're aware that there are people out there that let
their minds run away with them when they hear things like the
confiscated footage of the pentagon strike. All I'm saying is that
they could stomp out such wild speculation by simply showing some of
the camera footage from a few different angles. I don't think that's
a crazy request.

-GJ 2.0

[gj]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 16:44:17 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

A tragedy for all involved for sure. But I don't think that most
truthers are saying that they died any differently or with any less
dignity, or at least I'm not. Seems to me most doubters only question
where the orders came from and if there was a different motive. I
don't question too much about it personally, but I don't like gaps in
the story either, that offends me. What, they don't think we can
'handle' another camera angle of flight 77? Please. You just can't
have too much information.

-GJ 2.0

[Just Walkin']

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 6:10:36 PM UTC-5, Gemini Jackson wrote:
>
> A tragedy for all involved for sure. But I don't think that most
> truthers are saying that they died any differently or with any less
> dignity, or at least I'm not. Seems to me most doubters only question
> where the orders came from and if there was a different motive. I
> don't question too much about it personally, but I don't like gaps in
> the story either, that offends me. What, they don't think we can
> 'handle' another camera angle of flight 77? Please. You just can't
> have too much information.
>
> -GJ 2.0

Letting something happen is different than making something happen.

The crime is how it was explained afterwards and the political purposes to which such explanations were put. We are still paying the price, as per plan.

[luisb...@aol.com]

I'm sure everyone is 6 or less degrees of separation away from people on those flights...but actually knowing the pilot is something else entirely. It never occurred to me that these theories would offend those poor people, but it makes perfect sense. It is as though the theorists are doing the very thing the they accuse the govt of doing--using the deaths as canon fodder for their political aims. It's absolutely insane. I met someone who was actually in the Pentagon when it got hit. Her side of the building got hit while she was out running an errand in another part of the building so she wasn't killed. But I never heard her or anybody who was inside of these buildings say publicly that they they knew there was a bigger hand at work. Like you say, it's totally offensive to the memories of those people. I would suggest that instead of sitting around asking for the govt to confirm their crazy theories (hey, it would answer a lot of questions, k?), send some money to one of the 9.11 survivor funds.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 4:45:20 PM UTC-4, RichL wrote:
> <luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:2ccfb44e-272e-4d71...@googlegroups.com...

--

> > By the way, I happen to know what actually happened. And let's just say
> > that it's...eye-opening.
>
> Oh Jesus. Not you too!

Wait...seriously?

[Dr_dudley]

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:13:24 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
> Looks like another day

O hi there.

On nine one one i had a noon start at work but was coming in early because we had a new system (hardware&software) being installed so i was listening to WBAI (a Pacifica known leftie commie pinko affiliate).

They were broadcasing at the time from 120 Wall Street, not far from the World Trade Center.

Believe it or notly, the in-studio guest at the time was Bernard Goetz *the subway shooter*.

Now any of you from the NYC area will recall it was a beautiful day, clear blue skies and i'm driving down the Saw Mill Parkway thru Yonkers and then the earliest report that something had happened and that a plane had flown into one of the towers and like many i thought What a tragic thing.

Then shortly later the report of the second plane and the thought process shifted.

For the reason that i get up and go to work, that's all i do, i kept going.

Parked my car in the company garage and watched the tower collapse.

Not that any of that matters.

I still listen to WBAI at times. They are often prone in their fundraising drives to promote the conspiriatorial material "what did Larry Silverman mean Pull it" and what have you.

This is what i take away. Tom Paxton's tribute to the Bravest (NYC firefighters)

http://www.tompaxton.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/13-The-Bravest.mp3

you may have to adjust volume levels and then restart

What helped the ye shall be healed process, at least in NYC:
Mike Piazza's post 9/11 HomeRun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A3hmASpDqg

President Bush's Opening Pitch at Yankee Stadium After 9-11 [High Quality]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxR1tZ08FcI

Willie, Mickey, and the Duke (Talkin' Baseball)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWKA9Zi5-_Y

A Rusty Old American Dream.m4v
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJrexFY0F1c

hope this works for you
\
rdd

[Rachel]

Hi doodles! Thanks for the eye-witness account/recounting.

Mom saw it too, from her 16th floor apt. windows. There was smoke, and everyone was crying (gathering in the lobby), and probably scared.

I put the phone from the floor on the bed next to me, and kept waking up with my internal alarm every half hour on the dot, trying to get through. Finally got through at 11:00, and she was okay, and I went on with my miserable life. :) :(

[Rachel]

Auntie Annie called me at 6:30 AM to cancel tennis, telling me what was going on, and that she wanted to watch it. I turned on the tube, to confirm it was happening, and then thought, "Mom!" turned it off, tried to call, got a busy signal, then went back to sleep, bummed about tennis, etc...

I didn't wanna be like all those people during the LA riots, who all went to the supermarket to buy chips and soda, the shelves were raided and empty, and go home and watch it all on TV.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 7:00:28 PM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 11:54:34 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 8:00:54 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 22:55:08 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:13:24 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
> >> >> Looks like another day of wall to wall 9-11 documentaries on tv today.
> >> >> Most people I know think differently about the situation now than they
> >> >> did the first year or so. The level of incompetence, on so many
> >> >> levels, seems staggering. It was a year later before I even knew Bob
> >> >> had an album out that day.
> >> >> I sure would like to see some of the footage of the other cameras that
> >> >> caught the plane hitting the pentagon.
> >> >
> >> >So your post made me warm up my theremin. You know, the whole truther thing fascinates me because I don't understand it at all. Help me out. Is it a political, like left right thing? Illuminati? Tin foil? Tea Party? Occupy? US history is replete with wacky stuff, but this is one of the wackier ones to me. And yet it persists. So, explain what it's all about. I have a leftist friend who told me he was into that and I practically drove the car into a stop sign. I was shocked. I didn't know that "normal" people think that way and I frankly began to privately wonder about him. But I had never associated with leftism so I was surprised. Any honest explanations would be appreciated, not so much about the science but about the motivation behind it. Great.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> If you're asking me, I don't know. I'm not exactly in the 'truther'
> >> camp. I'm just saying I'd like to see more footage of the pentagon
> >> strike. It was clearly captured on what, 80+ cameras? I just find it
> >> odd that they won't release them, seems it would put all the doubts to
> >> rest.
> >>
> >> -GJ 2.0

--

> >That's what I'm kind of getting at....put WHAT doubts to rest?
>
> Well, clearly you're aware that there are people out there that let
> their minds run away with them when they hear things like the
> confiscated footage of the pentagon strike. All I'm saying is that
> they could stomp out such wild speculation by simply showing some of
> the camera footage from a few different angles. I don't think that's
> a crazy request.

Wait...stomp out wild speculation? Is the government's job to stomp out every weird theory that comes along? The govt don't need an alibi. I think I get it now..it was the Jews. And the neo-cons. As a Jewish neo-con, I find that very interesting since I got no emails about any plan of action for that day. I mean, none that I should discuss. I was planning to go to the AIPAC prayer breakfast, go to work, stop at the CVS for my wife and then come home--with one extra stop that it's irrelevant to all this. What's that sciency line that's been going around for a while, co-relation is not causation? Exactly so. Read any interview from that period with either Richard Perle or Wolfie or Bill Kristol and it's pretty easy to understand how Iraq happened. It's one thing to say they seized 9.11 as an excuse or a pretext. But it's a vast leap over the Grand Canyon to say that they had a hand in killing these people so they could then seize it as a pretext. That's where things start getting gaga. I think Allan Bloom must've been right after all.


>
> -GJ 2.0

[marcus]

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 8:54:44 PM UTC-4, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
>.
>
> Wait...stomp out wild speculation? Is the government's job to stomp out every weird theory that comes along? The govt don't need an alibi. I think I get it now..it was the Jews. And the neo-cons. As a Jewish neo-con, I find that very interesting since I got no emails about any plan of action for that day. I mean, none that I should discuss. I was planning to go to the AIPAC prayer breakfast, go to work, stop at the CVS for my wife and then come home--with one extra stop that it's irrelevant to all this. What's that sciency line that's been going around for a while, co-relation is not causation? Exactly so. Read any interview from that period with either Richard Perle or Wolfie or Bill Kristol and it's pretty easy to understand how Iraq happened. It's one thing to say they seized 9.11 as an excuse or a pretext. But it's a vast leap over the Grand Canyon to say that they had a hand in killing these people so they could then seize it as a pretext. That's where things start getting gaga. I think Allan Bloom must've been right after all.
>
>
> >
> > -GJ 2.0

We all know how it happened, and it wasn't some crazy conspiracy as the truthers would have us believe.

However, the tragedy about 9/11 is that it could have been prevented. Bush received many warnings, but the folks who had his ears were concentrating on Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

[M. Rick]

>However, the tragedy about 9/11 is that it could have been prevented. Bush received many warnings, but the folks who had his ears were concentrating on Iraq.

Since Nader voters threw the election to Bush, what do they care about "war prevention"? The catastrophes of the Bush Presidency were predicted and even embraced. Ironically, they weren't catastrophic enough.

[M. Rick]

Any holocaust deniers here?

[luisb...@aol.com]

Looking at this article that says the Bush government could have prevented the attacks if they'd acted on the intelligence, I come to this sentence at the end: " Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react."

The writer just leaves this "dots connected" line hanging there without further explanation.

[RichL]

"gj" <geminij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29b9vah6l6nu9h6tc...@4ax.com...

What is the source of this assertion that there are "confiscated videos of
the Pentagon strike"? As far as I know, this assertion is part of the 9/11
"truth" nuttery and that there is no other video, confiscated or not, that
originates from a government source and that shows the strike. See more
here, which explains the actual situation in gory detail:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

There is no footage from the Pentagon showing the strike from different
angles, period.

Big picture: plenty of people saw the strike. Some eyewitnesses even
reported seeing the American Airlines markings on the plane just before it
hit. Two people aboard the plane had made calls describing the situation
after the plane was hijacked. Debris from the plane (including the two
"black boxes") were found inside the Pentagon.

People who believe that there was no strike, or that a different plane
struck the Pentagon, or that it was a missile, flying saucer, deliberate
detonation, or whatever are not going to be dissuaded by video from another
angle (assuming one existed), period. These folks still claim that (a)
there was no debris from the aircraft (despite a plethora of photos showing
otherwise), (b) contradicting (a), one of the engines located on the ground
was not from a 757, etc. etc. No amount of evidence is sufficient to
dissuade them, once they've spotted what they believe to be some sort of
inconsistency, no matter how tiny. They simply can't see the forest for the
trees.

This is like the "Birther" conspiracy in this sense. Release of the
President's actual birth certificate did nothing to shut them up; instead,
they became instant Photoshop "experts", and the conspiracy simply wandered
farther out into never-never land.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Exactly right. And even if somebody were to release video of the AA plane flying over rush hour traffic into the Pentagon, the truthers wouldn't be satisfied. In certain circles, the conspiracy is seen in a more sophisticated way--not that the govt committed the acts, but that they knew about the plan to attack American civilian targets, and knowing about, did nothing to interfere with it. Man, post-modernism is creepy in American minds.

[Just Kidding]

The most likely explanation isn't all that hard to figure out based on
what we know about how the government worked at that time. It's pretty
well established that the various intelligence agencies didn't
communicate and share information with each other very much, partly
due to the lack of any effective coordinating person/body, and partly
due to interagency jealousies and rivalries. Homeland Security was
supposed to correct that; I suppose to some extent it has since we've
suffered no major attacks since 9/11.

[gj]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 19:43:13 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marc...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

This was what I meant by the levels of incompetence on so many levels.
You guys took this to la-la land.

>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=0

The only *real* conspiracy that I'd put my name on is the actions of
the administration after the incident. Since there's no solid
evidence to the contrary of the official explanation, I have to go
with it, like the good little sheep I am. But I've never felt that we
took the attack as anything other than a reason to begin to rape and
plunder, and that may end up doing more damage than the actual attacks
did.

-GJ 2.0

[gj]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 17:54:42 -0700 (PDT), luisb...@aol.com wrote:

>> Well, clearly you're aware that there are people out there that let
>> their minds run away with them when they hear things like the
>> confiscated footage of the pentagon strike. All I'm saying is that
>> they could stomp out such wild speculation by simply showing some of
>> the camera footage from a few different angles. I don't think that's
>> a crazy request.
>
>Wait...stomp out wild speculation? Is the government's job to stomp out every weird theory that comes along? The govt don't need an alibi.

The gov always needs to have an alibi, this ain't China.

>I think I get it now..it was the Jews. And the neo-cons. As a Jewish neo-con, I find that very interesting since I got no emails about any plan of action for that day. I mean, none that I should discuss. I was planning to go to the AIPAC prayer breakfast, go to work, stop at the CVS for my wife and then come home--with one extra stop that it's irrelevant to all this. What's that sciency line that's been going around for a while, co-relation is not causation? Exactly so. Read any interview from that period with either Richard Perle or Wolfie or Bill Kristol and it's pretty easy to understand how Iraq happened. It's one thing to say they seized 9.11 as an excuse or a pretext. But it's a vast leap over the Grand Canyon to say that they had a hand in killing these people so they could then seize it as a pretext. That's where things start getting
>gaga.

I generally agree, then why did you take this thread there? I never
said the government had a hand in it, never said that at all. Stop
with the knee-jerk reactions.




-GJ 2.0

[gj]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 02:09:42 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Well, there likely is. They even showed some unreleased footage at
the Moussaoui trial (that revealed nothing). I also very clearly
recall watching CNN in real time and they said the FBI (?) was seizing
several camera's footage of the flight 77 hit to analyze. Wondering
about the other tapes isn't the same thing as saying I don't think a
plane hit the damn building. *Period*.

>Big picture: plenty of people saw the strike. Some eyewitnesses even
>reported seeing the American Airlines markings on the plane just before it
>hit. Two people aboard the plane had made calls describing the situation
>after the plane was hijacked. Debris from the plane (including the two
>"black boxes") were found inside the Pentagon.
>
>People who believe that there was no strike, or that a different plane
>struck the Pentagon, or that it was a missile, flying saucer, deliberate
>detonation, or whatever are not going to be dissuaded by video from another
>angle (assuming one existed), period. These folks still claim that (a)
>there was no debris from the aircraft (despite a plethora of photos showing
>otherwise), (b) contradicting (a), one of the engines located on the ground
>was not from a 757, etc. etc. No amount of evidence is sufficient to
>dissuade them, once they've spotted what they believe to be some sort of
>inconsistency, no matter how tiny. They simply can't see the forest for the
>trees.

Who exactly here is saying that?

>This is like the "Birther" conspiracy in this sense. Release of the
>President's actual birth certificate did nothing to shut them up; instead,
>they became instant Photoshop "experts", and the conspiracy simply wandered
>farther out into never-never land.

Don't you copy and paste this same speech every year? Regardless of
the subject of the actual conversation? Relax, everyone by now knows
that you went to the same high school and college as one of the
pilots. And no one I'm aware of is saying anything about UFOs hitting
the pentagon (except, oddly enough, you). I agree with most, nearly
all, of what you say, but you need to stop implying that everyone with
a mild curiosity about an isolated incident within the attacks is
denying there was a flight 77 or that Bush had a hand in this.

-GJ 2.0

[Just Walkin']

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, M. Rick wrote:
> >However, the tragedy about 9/11 is that it could have been prevented. Bush received many warnings, but the folks who had his ears were concentrating on Iraq.
>
> Since Nader voters threw the election to Bush, what do they care about "war prevention"? The catastrophes of the Bush Presidency were predicted and even embraced. Ironically, they weren't catastrophic enough.

In fact, the wars served, and continue to serve, their promoters' own best interests.

Dang, there's that "best interests" line again...

Out damn spot, out with you!

A form of

[nate]

What about the famous line in the energy czar meeting, which actually took place even before the 2000 election, where Cheney argued "What we need is another Pearl Harbor" ???


- nate

[marcus]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 12:24:04 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> >However, the tragedy about 9/11 is that it could have been prevented. Bush received many warnings, but the folks who had his ears were concentrating on Iraq.
>
> Since Nader voters threw the election to Bush, what do they care about "war prevention"? The catastrophes of the Bush Presidency were predicted and even embraced. Ironically, they weren't catastrophic enough.

As I recall, the Supreme Court threw the election to Bush.

But why quibble...we know you're above it.

[marcus]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 12:28:06 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> Any holocaust deniers here?

Nope, only people who deny that Gore paved the way and caused his election defeat in 2000.

btw, there was some talk last week abut Gore throwing his hat in the ring for 2016.

However, he said he wouldn't run unless there was a Green Party candidate he could blame for defeat.

[marcus]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 8:12:46 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:
0

>
But I've never felt that we
> took the attack as anything other than a reason to begin to rape and
> plunder, and that may end up doing more damage than the actual attacks
> did.
>
> -GJ 2.0

Definitely.

[Just Walkin']

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 7:12:46 AM UTC-5, Gemini Jackson wrote:
>
> The only *real* conspiracy that I'd put my name on is the actions of
> the administration after the incident. Since there's no solid
> evidence to the contrary of the official explanation, I have to go
> with it, like the good little sheep I am. But I've never felt that we
> took the attack as anything other than a reason to begin to rape and
> plunder, and that may end up doing more damage than the actual attacks
> did.
>
> -GJ 2.0

I've always contended that the only *real* conspiracy is the conspiracy of men to make money. There is no telling what they'll do in furtherance of their accumulative quest. And therein lies the problem of finding evidence: It's all over the place.

The problem for us here today is a metabolic one and cannot be parsed out issue by issue, as both simulated ideological poles and their presumed media critics tend to do. This conspiracy of men to make money is both the engine and the metabolic control of our system's process and the utmost replication of this process at every sector of life has been on-going since (at least) the days of Bernays.

The mechanics of how this works at the level of the truthers' concern is fairly simple. Since the fall of Nixon administration, the age of the mastermind president has since passed and given way to the era of plausible deniability, exemplified by Reagan's know-nothingness and perfected by George W. Bush easy-to-portray imbecility. In this era, no single individual could ever be accountable for anything that ever happens because the decision-making process has been made to become so diffuse. As a result, it is controlled not directly as, the antiquated views of the truthers and their harshest critics suggest, but through the orchestration of multiple interests to assure metabolic control of the outcome. Hence to say "Cheney ordered the bombing" of this or that is both absurd and misleading. If anything, the process was managed by objective, not by directive.

Consequently, it would be more appropriate to say that in the course of securing its own best interest, the financial formation that sponsored the Bush-Cheney administrative agenda required the orchestration of interests that assured the outcome needed to invade Iraq, secure its resources and, at the same time, conduct a vigorous campaign of removal of obsolete intelligence assets in the field that had long outlived their Cold War usefulness. These assets included bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Moe Qaddafi and many others, including many, if not most, of the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay such as KSM. We can dispute this all you want but the evidence of their collusion with US interests is documented and very real. Some say that in this regard, while regime change and assassination effectuated these changes at the top, torture at Guantanamo was used to keep rank and file prisoners from talking rather than trying to get them to talk!

But that harkens to even another conspiracy theory, the details of which I take issue with completely! Suffice it to say, Bush and admin consigliere Cheney have a lot to answer for, if we can only frame the questions properly.

[marcus]

There's a lot of meat in there to digest, JW.

And, as you know from our past discussions, we agree on the basic premise if not the totality of your views. And I respect your P.O.V. However, over the years, I have been accused in this newsgroup, and more so in the rapidly disappearing Beatles newsgroup, of being a "conspiracy nut". When, as you said, there is really no conspiracy...it's all there, no secrets, for all to see.

My iron in the fire (as opposed to your overall Post WWII commodification condemnation) is the concerted effort by a combination of forces (corporate, evangelical, right wing extremists)to reverse the positive strides made, both politically and culturally, during the Sixties. But, they said they were going to do it, vis-à-vis the Powell memorandum and the creation of the Business Roundtable(late 1960s-early 1970s), and they did. And part of that thrust was to discredit the generation that came of age during the Sixties, and engage in revisionism history of that era.

[JD Chase]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 1:14:05 PM UTC-4, Just Walkin' wrote:

In regard to people such as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld... Don't you wonder about the state of their soul? How they can go to their grave after leading such greedy, murderous, mendacious, nihilistic lives??? Not that they will go to hell, Becuause hell doesn't exist, but surely their souls will not be free and peaceful after their bodies depart from this Earth...

[Just Walkin']

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 12:55:46 PM UTC-5, JD Chase wrote:
>
> In regard to people such as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld... Don't you wonder about the state of their soul? How they can go to their grave after leading such greedy, murderous, mendacious, nihilistic lives??? Not that they will go to hell, Becuause hell doesn't exist, but surely their souls will not be free and peaceful after their bodies depart from this Earth...
>

You forget, they are all acting on behalf of a covenant nation. They excuse, if not believe, all they do, to be in the name of god. Hence, whether they are religious, or atheistic, none of them believes they are going to hell. Hence, their conscience is quite clear, I'm afraid.

[marcus]

Well, Hitler needs someone to play chess with.

Yeah, yeah, I know, Godwin's Law...blah blah blah. ;-)

[marcus]

Dick Cheney is living proof of the expression, "only the good die young"

[Will Dockery]

Seriously, I'd vote for Al Gore again if he ran... I feel like he gave up too quickly the last time he was elected President.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 11:17:14 AM UTC-4, nate wrote:
> What about the famous line in the energy czar meeting, which actually took place even before the 2000 election, where Cheney argued "What we need is another Pearl Harbor" ???
>
>
> - nate

I need to watch the "W." movie again, I'm sure that scene must be in there.

[marcus]

There is a whole new voting group who doesn't remember him.

[Will Dockery]

That's probably not good, is it?

[luisb...@aol.com]

Yes. Isn't it important to find out how this wall of separation was established? And by whom? And for what purposes? Wouldn't that go a long way to explaining why law enforcement wasn't being updated on these Arabs at flying schools?

[luisb...@aol.com]

That's exactly how I took the original post...that the govt had a hand in it. That's why all the truther stuff was brought up...which you weren't exactly shooting down. But okay, whatever.


>
>
>
>
> -GJ 2.0

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 8:46:44 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 02:09:42 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>

> I agree with most, nearly
> all, of what you say, but you need to stop implying that everyone with
> a mild curiosity about an isolated incident within the attacks is
> denying there was a flight 77 or that Bush had a hand in this.

This is a little weird. So what is your "mild curiosity" about? You keep denying you're a "truther," but then you throw out all these truther questions. Like having mild curiosity and the govt needing to come forward because there are two many unanswered questions. Make up your mind. So I'm mildly curious about you are mildly curious about.


>
> -GJ 2.0

[Earl Browder]

It's called "stovepiping" and it was never actually established in any sense that involves conscious creation of such a system. Stovepiping developed over time, primarily as an outcome of the interaction of bureaucratic politics and human frailties. Knowledge is power, so the people heading up the various federal, state, and local intelligence bureaucracies sought to accumulate knowledge and then to dispense it, for example to presidents, secretaries of state, and defense secretaries, in ways that would maximize their personal power and the power of the bureaucracies they led.

Stovepiping may have started with the way J. Edgar Hoover's FBI gathered, hoarded, and deployed intelligence (though I wouldn't be surprised if Pinkerton was doing pretty much the same thing with his Union Intelligence Service during the Civil War). As each new government intelligence service was created it rather quickly realized that to sustain its own power and authority, it needed to provide something the other intelligence agencies could not. It's that competition among agencies for intelligence (and the secrecy required to hoard it and dispense it as is useful to the agency) that produced the stovepiping now blamed for allowing 9/11 to happen. And it turns out that, despite the creation of a Director of Central Intelligence and a Department of Homeland Security, it's been much harder to eliminate than most people ever imagined.

[RichL]

"gj" <geminij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:jjqavadhld6ughjsn...@4ax.com...

Did you even bother to look at the link I posted?? Jeez. It explains the
findings derived from the footage from MANY cameras. Trouble is, none of
them captured the instance of the plane hitting the Pentagon. This includes
the stuff that was revealed at the Moussaoui trial, and much more in
addition to that.

Beyond that, I'll echo what luisbuniel said. I asked you where the
allegation of "confiscated videos of the Pentagon strike" came from. You
didn't answer that. The only places I've seen it are truther web sites.
Based on the link I posted above and other legitimate sources, it's not
true.

And no, I didn't copy and paste what I wrote.

[M. Rick]

>Becuause hell doesn't exist, but surely their souls will not be free and peaceful after their bodies depart from this Earth...

I guess that means more waterboarding in the after-life.

[gj]

Yep, in their minds it's survival of the fittest, and they're simply
doing better than everyone else. Victors!

-GJ 2.0

[gj]

Rereading the original post would do you good. I believe you've
interpreted "Most people I know think differently about the situation
now than they did the first year or so." as something other than my
intention that no one really believes we're doing this for our
'freedom' anymore. And if I think it's odd that one of the most
heavily defended and secure buildings in the world didn't have a
camera or 2 on it, while my own little home has 3, then sue me. It's
more interesting to me that you and Rich immediately began vomiting
out anti-conspiracy rants, I was thinking I'd missed a post by someone
else. What was it? You brought up the jews and he brought up aliens?
You're a solution looking for a problem.

-GJ 2.0

[gj]

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 18:44:24 -0400, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com>

Not to hurt your feelings, but I have access to the same Internet you
do. You can justify most any belief with a site to back it up. As I
mentioned in my reply to him, I merely find it odd that the freaking
pentagon was literally under NO surveillance. I respect your devotion
and blind acceptance of all the official explanations and such, but
simply disagree that this obscure camera was likely the only one to
catch the plane hitting. Do I think it changes anything? No, not
really. Some people like myself like to ask questions, others like
yourself, prefer the easy answers so they can move on. I don't berate
you for it, I don't actually give a damn what you think one way or the
other. Have I tried to sway you into thinking anything? I'm a
'numbers' guy, by nature and professionally, when things don't add up
correctly I question it. It's a good trait, even if it doesn't always
lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

>Beyond that, I'll echo what luisbuniel said. I asked you where the
>allegation of "confiscated videos of the Pentagon strike" came from. You
>didn't answer that. The only places I've seen it are truther web sites.
>Based on the link I posted above and other legitimate sources, it's not
>true.

Interesting, I've never been to a 'truther' website. Maybe you should
stop going to those. As I mentioned above, they were discussing the
tapes shortly after the incident itself. I recall quite clearly a lot
of people waiting to see the footage, then it just kind of fell off
the map. Also, I think you're taking this a bit too personally.

And listen, I know you girls like to do these endless bitchfest
threads, I don't really do that, or think I have anything more to add
regarding this. But I'll make sure to bring it up again next year
just so you can all lose your shit again.


-GJ 2.0

[gj]

That was a crappy movie overall.

-GJ 2.0

[luisb...@aol.com]

Someone else brought up the Jews who happened not to be at work that day. However, you wrote, "If you're asking me, I don't know. I'm not exactly in the 'truther'camp. I'm just saying I'd like to see more footage of the pentagon

strike. It was clearly captured on what, 80+ cameras? I just find it
odd that they won't release them, seems it would put all the doubts to

rest." Any reader would say, "Oh, he's got doubts he needs put to rest, most likely truther doubts. He needs to see the the cruise missile fired at the Pentagon, and hell,with 80 cameras, we'll probably be able to see the markings and exactly what plant it came from in Illinois, etc, etc. I mean, he's got 10 CCTVs on his house but the whole eff-ing Pentagon has only 3? There's something funny going on here, I can just feel it in the air." What you seem to have a hard time owning is that you're not exactly in the truther camp, but then again you're not exactly not in the truther camp. And either way is fine with me. Yeah, I think it's absurd, but this is the USA, you think and say what you want and bully for you if you can actually turn up some evidence or find the smoking Jamie Gorelick memo. It's the whole left wing association with the truthers that caught me up short. I realized that they're "wingers" just the same as the people they spend 3/4 of their days attacking. Peas in a pod.

>
> -GJ 2.0

[Just Walkin']

Yep. And the insinuation by others that truthers' quest is to find a "Zapruder film" smoking gun of 9/11 events is both insulting and misrepresenting the grave issues at hand. In so doing, it trivializes the main points of legitimate arguments.

[gj]

I kind of follow you, and I kind of don't. I know you're trying to be
witty, but it's too much pseudo-intellectual drivel. Seriously, read
that nonsense above and then slap yourself for it. I don't dwell on
9-11 at all. When it makes it's yearly appearance I'll see the
coverage, maybe make an observation or two, and go about my day. Just
so happens that friday I caught them playing the pentagon footage
looped as they discussed it, it struck me as funny since it doesn't
actually show anything, so it was fresh on my mind when I posted. Read
into that what you will, it means nuthin' to me. And you and Rich
seem to know a lot more about truthers, birthers, jews, aliens, and
now wingers, than I do. We need to figure out a way to throw in the
nazis, jesus, and GMOs, then we have ourselves a movie!

Oh, and the Federal Reserve! Which actually is a bit of a scam I
think. (there's some ammo fer ya).


-GJ 2.0

[gj]

Apparently there are no legitimate arguments. Disobedience and any
skepticism at all is blasphemy. People in this country ask too many
questions anyway. This is not the way to raise happy young soldiers.

-GJ 2.0

[luisb...@aol.com]

Let me assure you that in this post there was no attempt to be witty. See other posts for that. It was deadly serious. But if you follow me somewhat, that's a start. Rich L is rather sanely asking you to produce evidence about these cameras that you were led to believe were there. You brought them up, not him. And where I get a little lost is with this clinging to the cameras. I seriously doubt most people are looking for this "lost" footage so that their doubts can be put to rest. So I believe that puts you in the minority. If you want to be part of that crowd, by all means do. If you see them as sheep who accept whatever the govt tells them so they can move on, then do. But the truthers actually seem more like sheep here, wouldn't you say? Oh, and I did not bring up the Federal Reserve. But I hope you're not seriously going to tell me that the truthers might have something but all the anti-Fed stuff is baseless, right?


>
>
> -GJ 2.0

[gj]

Oh, I have no evidence of the sort to share. And really neither does
he or you. I clearly explained what would make me think there should
be some more footage, and that's all I have. You're both just 2 very
trusting, button-up kind of guys, nothing wrong with that. And yes,
it does seem odd (which is about the most wild statement I've made
here) that there is no additional footage. I find it really weird
that my speculation of there possibly being some footage draws such a
passionate, slightly smartass, defense from you on the State's behalf
claiming that you really feel you have the uncontested, absolute,
definitive answer, because that's what you were told. And fair
enough.

Can truthers be sheep? Sure. It's easily done, just take anyone. All
it takes is not thinking for yourself. But you're using very broad
strokes on a very small detail. And you seem to like to blow stuff
out of proportion. There's no need to feel threatened, I'm not trying
to change anyone's mind about anything. You just don't like it that I
don't agree with you. You're going to have to get over it eventually.
But I don't quite think you can. Feel free to prove me very wrong on
that one.

>But I hope you're not seriously going to tell me that the truthers might have something but all the anti-Fed stuff is baseless, right?

I haven't tried to tell you anything. Again, you're a solution
looking for a problem.

-GJ 2.0

[Willie]

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 4:44:28 PM UTC-4, RichL wrote:
> <luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:067f8a9b-33fe-40af...@googlegroups.com...

>
> > So your post made me warm up my theremin. You know, the whole truther
> > thing fascinates me because I don't understand it at all. Help me out. Is
> > it a political, like left right thing? Illuminati? Tin foil? Tea Party?
> > Occupy? US history is replete with wacky stuff, but this is one of the
> > wackier ones to me. And yet it persists. So, explain what it's all about.
> > I have a leftist friend who told me he was into that and I practically
> > drove the car into a stop sign. I was shocked. I didn't know that "normal"
> > people think that way and I frankly began to privately wonder about him.
> > But I had never associated with leftism so I was surprised. Any honest
> > explanations would be appreciated, not so much about the science but about
> > the motivation behind it. Great.
>

> If you find an honest explanation, please let us all know. I don't get
> conspiracy theories generally, but this one is so childish: most of its
> assertions (they are contradictory to one another) can be de-bunked within 5
> minutes using a simple Google search.
>
> I knew people who died at the Pentagon. The guy I knew best, however, was
> John Ogonowski, the guy who piloted Flight 11, which is the one that was
> crashed into the WTC North Tower. We grew up in the same small MA town
> together and went to high school and college together.
>
> This shit offends me, as I'm sure it offends even more the families of those
> who died. One of my sisters keeps in touch with John's wife Margaret, who
> she says is deeply pained by this nonsense. It's as if the nutters are
> making a mockery of those who died on that day.

Rich's post strikes a chord for me. I've never paid much attention to the theories that 9/11 wasn't just an Al Queda attack. I, too, Rich, had a good friend there--Howie Kestenbaum, who went down with the second tower. His last moments were chronicled in the NY Times, because he was in the lobby on the 78th floor where people changed elevators when plane #2 came through. A woman he worked with was with him, talking with him, and survived to tell of that horror.

But I confess that after Nate's post about Building 7, which I had forgotten about, I looked into that. The first site I went to felt the tall building collapse hadn't been Building 7's undoing. But this site argues it was:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Inconclusive, I guess.

I wonder, were he elected, how Trump would respond to such an attack. Hey, maybe he'll choose Cheney as his running mate. (Someone must have speculated that already.)

[Earl Browder]

There was also a comprehensive report in 2008 from the National Institute of Standards and Technology that made a point-by-point rebuttal of the World Trade Center conspiracy claims, including those regarding Building 7.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

[M. Rick]

The essential "truther" claim is that the plane strikes could not have caused the WTC to collapse. So I think the objective here is to use the truthers to assert a neo-con agenda. Truther idiocy doesn't absolve Bush administration.

>I wonder, were he elected, how Trump would respond to such an attack. Hey, maybe he'll choose Cheney as his running mate.

Perhaps Jesse Ventura, another master of the infomercial. The Birther and the Truther.

[RichL]

"gj" <geminij...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:s7fdvahhb38l75i97...@4ax.com...

I just find it odd that a guy who says he's "curious" about a particular
aspect of the 9/11 attacks and who says he's a "'numbers' guy, by nature and
professionally", dismisses a web site that contains volumes of information
about the attacks and about the Pentagon cameras specifically. What I would
do, as a "numbers" guy and as a scientist, would be to read through the
material and attempt to rebut anything that seemed fishy. You seem to have
chosen snark instead in your response.

The page I linked to describes the 84 "missing" videos. It lists in detail
what each video contains. It's the result of a response by the FBI to a
Freedom of Information Act request. It includes the original document from
the FBI.

You chose not to look at it; either that, or you've dismissed it as
government propaganda. But you were wondering about what happened following
the CNN reports, and it provides the answer. I suspect you were unaware of
it. Fine, not everyone follows this thing in detail. But don't pretend
that the question is still out there: it isn't. If you want to question the
veracity of the FBI's response, that's a different matter. Go for it, if
you can back it up.

The freakin' Pentagon is huge. At the time of the attacks, the vast
majority of the cameras were aimed to capture ground-level traffic entering
the facility, not airplanes coming in from the sky, because at that time
people thought that wasn't a likely scenario. If I recall correctly, the
one video from Pentagon cameras that actually captured the plane had two
frames showing the aircraft. Simply put, the cameras weren't intended to do
the job that needed to be done. That's been fixed since.

Truther web sites: the only reason I've seen them is in the course of
de-bunking cockamamie bullshit that some people come up with. And I
research it thoroughly, I weigh the pros and cons, and I arrive at a
conclusion. That's a far cry from "blind acceptance", especially given the
fact that I'm not the kind of guy who was or is willing to give the Bush
administration a pass and that initially I thought that there was a lot more
to this than what it appeared to be. But through it all, I've never found a
claim that holds water compared with the official explanation.

Look, in the grand scheme of things, what you said is minor compared to some
of the shit I've seen and heard, and I apologize for going off the deep end.
Generally, I think you're a likeable sort, and I don't expect the two of us
to agree on everything. I just get irritated - sometimes excessively so -
when I see stuff being recycled about this that I thought was laid to rest
long ago.

[RichL]

"Earl Browder" <earl.bro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af77baae-419e-42e2...@googlegroups.com...

The NIST folks did a great job with that one.

[RichL]

"Willie" <williamg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:041d608e-a9a5-4674...@googlegroups.com...

Yeah, I think those of us who knew someone who died there see this thing a
little bit differently.

[luisb...@aol.com]

Getting personal now. Running out of gas. Of course, I always feel threatened by any attempt to subvert the truth? Blowing things out of proportion...you mean me? Seriously? Not truthers, but me? Uh huh. Sho' thing. You'll recall that I was a person in search of a motive for the trutherness, no more and no less. Then I got interested in your vagueness. I began to ask myself whether this isn't a truther trait--the vagueness, I mean. Since you and my leftist friend are the only truthers I know, I can draw a sort of incomplete conclusion that the vagueness is there mainly in mixed company. But one thing I've learned from your comments, which is new to me, is the accusatory aspect of trutherness, calling someone a sheep of state because he don't buy into the truther line--and doing so without a hint irony. I wish I could get a better fix on truther motives because it does interest me, but I'm afraid my rejection of trutherness has made you too defensive to satisfy my needs. This is surprising because you speak with so much dedication about the importance of openness having the the full story.


>
> -GJ 2.0

[luisb...@aol.com]

They moved all the 9.11 debris by truck to the NIST campus, where it stayed for a very long time so they could study it. People who work there drove past the twisted towers everyday on the way into work. I have to imagine they studied it pretty deeply...the scientists who work there are a pretty serious bunch. Not as smart as the truther, of course, but close.

[RichL]

<luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b155300b-c79f-404e...@googlegroups.com...

> Getting personal now. Running out of gas. Of course, I always feel
> threatened by any attempt to subvert the truth? Blowing things out of
> proportion...you mean me? Seriously? Not truthers, but me? Uh huh. Sho'
> thing. You'll recall that I was a person in search of a motive for the
> trutherness, no more and no less. Then I got interested in your vagueness.
> I began to ask myself whether this isn't a truther trait--the vagueness, I
> mean. Since you and my leftist friend are the only truthers I know, I can
> draw a sort of incomplete conclusion that the vagueness is there mainly in
> mixed company. But one thing I've learned from your comments, which is new
> to me, is the accusatory aspect of trutherness, calling someone a sheep of
> state because he don't buy into the truther line--and doing so without a
> hint irony. I wish I could get a better fix on truther motives because it
> does interest me, but I'm afraid my rejection of trutherness has made you
> too defensive to satisfy my needs. This is surprising because you speak
> with so much dedication about the importance of openness having the the
> full story.

They always tip their hands. Interesting, to say the least, that simple
"curiosity" about a particular of the event, when confronted with factual
information rebutting a supposed claim, results not in follow-up debate
drilling down on the details of that rebuttal but rather accusations of
blindly following the party line.

I find that this accusatory aspect and defensiveness that you find to be new
is generally characteristic of the conspiratorial mindset. I see it in
holocaust deniers (of which there was in days past a particularly notorious
case that used to post to rec.music.beatles) and the anti-vaccination folks,
just to name a couple. To get back to your post way back there at the
beginning, I don't think the truthers (or the anti-vaxxers, for that matter)
are primarily driven by politics, left or right, but rather by an inherent
distrust of authority of all sorts (scientific, political, whatever) taken
to the extreme.

Once the idea that the authority, be it government or science, is trying to
hide something takes hold, confirmation bias, which has been illustrated
here in spades, takes care of the rest.

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 1:14:55 AM UTC-4, RichL wrote:
> <luisb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:b155300b-c79f-404e...@googlegroups.com...

> To get back to your post way back there at the
> beginning, I don't think the truthers (or the anti-vaxxers, for that matter)
> are primarily driven by politics, left or right, but rather by an inherent
> distrust of authority of all sorts (scientific, political, whatever) taken
> to the extreme.

That's what I was attempting to get at oh so many words ago. Frankly, I previously believed it was a right wing thing. Then I thought left. Now I see it's neither. That interests me as sociology. I didn't follow the anti-vaccine thing but remember this as something going pretty far back, at least to the early 2000s.

>
> Once the idea that the authority, be it government or science, is trying to
> hide something takes hold, confirmation bias, which has been illustrated
> here in spades, takes care of the rest.

That's how it sounds. I don't tend to look for secrets because most of what alarms me is in plain sight.

[M. Rick]

>I didn't follow the anti-vaccine thing but remember this as something going pretty far back, at least to the early 2000s.

You forgot fluoride. And chemtrails. And the biggest conspiracy theory of all, Christianity. T'was God felled the towers.

[gj]

You mean me? Are you new here? I've made it a point NOT to be
personal or rude throughout your entire tantrum. I'm not even taking
your bait of calling me a truther. I think it's quite clear who's
being overly defensive here.

>Of course, I always feel threatened by any attempt to subvert the truth? Blowing things out of proportion...you mean me?

In this case, no doubt.

> Seriously? Not truthers, but me?

I'm assuming both.

>Uh huh. Sho' thing. You'll recall that I was a person in search of a motive for the trutherness, no more and no less. Then I got interested in your vagueness. I began to ask myself whether this isn't a truther trait--the vagueness, I mean. Since you and my leftist friend are the only truthers I know,

"Since you and my leftist friend are the only truthers I know"

This is what I mean by your defensiveness and feeling threatened. Very
childish. You're making up your own argument and then agreeing with
it claiming some kind of victory. Nothing I've said remotely
resembles a 9-11 truther theory. My only statement was that it's odd
and unusual that no cameras caught anything. And that it's certainly
possible that something is out there. I readily admit that it's just
as possible that there's not. I haven't said the gov is hiding
anything or is behind anything. Yes, I've glanced at Rich's links,
it's all plausible explanations and all and not difficult to find,
even without having his gift of prowess with a browser. For some it's
still possible to speculate unusual situations without coming to a
conclusion or even (believe it or not) having a motive. If you've
turned this into a study into the minds of truthers, you're pumping a
dry well. I'm not sure why I'm even bothering with this anymore. You
certainly lack some listening skills when your own opinion is so loud.

>I can draw a sort of incomplete conclusion that the vagueness is there mainly in mixed company. But one thing I've learned from your comments, which is new to me, is the accusatory aspect of trutherness, calling someone a sheep of state because he don't buy into the truther line--and doing so without a hint irony. I wish I could get a better fix on truther motives because it does interest me, but I'm afraid my rejection of trutherness has made you too defensive to satisfy my needs. This is
>surprising because you speak with so much dedication about the importance of openness having the the full story.

I'm really not sure how I can help you with any of that, or what your
endgame in this is. You're both seeing this the way you want to
despite my repeated unnecessary explanations as to my intentions and
meaning of my statement (what you interpret as defensiveness). I have
nothing to sell, and you have nothing to offer except some very wild
speculative, accusatory remarks. Very immature behavior IMO. Good
luck in your investigation, since you're so interesting in getting to
the bottom of it, but again, I have nothing more to offer you.

I should get a medal for being this patient with both of you.

-GJ 2.0

[luisb...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 8:34:01 AM UTC-4, Gemini Jackson wrote:

> Nothing I've said remotely
> resembles a 9-11 truther theory. My only statement was that it's odd
> and unusual that no cameras caught anything. And that it's certainly
> possible that something is out there. I readily admit that it's just
> as possible that there's not.

And you wonder why people put you in this camp?

[gj]

Nope, because they don't.

-GJ 2.0

[gj]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 04:59:56 -0700 (PDT), "M. Rick"
<insomn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>And the biggest conspiracy theory of all, Christianity. T'was God felled the towers.

I hear there are some cave drawings of that. They say there isn't,
but I bet there is.

-GJ 2.0

[James Zadok]

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 7:59:57 AM UTC-4, M. Rick wrote:
> >I didn't follow the anti-vaccine thing but remember this as something going pretty far back, at least to the early 2000s.
>
> You forgot fluoride. And chemtrails. And the biggest conspiracy theory of all, Christianity. T'was God felled the towers.

Or a frenemy thereof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16bPTlsf1Fc

[gj]

Ha! I thought he meant Babel.

-GJ 2.0

[DianeE]

"Earl Browder" <earl.bro...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:412a3d3e-3e8a-4d90...@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, 13 September 2015 15:00:02 UTC-4, luisb...@aol.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 7:38:41 AM UTC-4, Just Kidding wrote:
> >
> > The most likely explanation isn't all that hard to figure out based on
> > what we know about how the government worked at that time. It's pretty
> > well established that the various intelligence agencies didn't
> > communicate and share information with each other very much, partly
> > due to the lack of any effective coordinating person/body, and partly
> > due to interagency jealousies and rivalries. Homeland Security was
> > supposed to correct that; I suppose to some extent it has since we've
> > suffered no major attacks since 9/11.
>
> Yes. Isn't it important to find out how this wall of separation was
> established? And by whom? And for what purposes? Wouldn't that go a long
> way to explaining why law enforcement wasn't being updated on these Arabs
> at flying schools?

It's called "stovepiping" and it was never actually established in any sense
that involves conscious creation of such a system. Stovepiping developed
over time, primarily as an outcome of the interaction of bureaucratic
politics and human frailties. Knowledge is power, so the people heading up
the various federal, state, and local intelligence bureaucracies sought to
accumulate knowledge and then to dispense it, for example to presidents,
secretaries of state, and defense secretaries, in ways that would maximize
their personal power and the power of the bureaucracies they led.

Stovepiping may have started with the way J. Edgar Hoover's FBI gathered,
hoarded, and deployed intelligence (though I wouldn't be surprised if
Pinkerton was doing pretty much the same thing with his Union Intelligence
Service during the Civil War). As each new government intelligence service
was created it rather quickly realized that to sustain its own power and
authority, it needed to provide something the other intelligence agencies
could not. It's that competition among agencies for intelligence (and the
secrecy required to hoard it and dispense it as is useful to the agency)
that produced the stovepiping now blamed for allowing 9/11 to happen. And it
turns out that, despite the creation of a Director of Central Intelligence
and a Department of Homeland Security, it's been much harder to eliminate
than most people ever imagined.
------------------
I recently read the book "Enemies: A History Of The FBI" by Tim Weiner, and
although I don't think he used the word "stovepiping" (which I've never
heard before), he does pretty much confirm your explanation. It's a good
book, and there's a lot of shocking shit in it that was going on even before
we were born. I recommend it.

DianeE