Yes or No ONLY--Do you believe the "Official" 9-11 Story?

[Philosoraptor]

In light of recent 9-11 news regarding the Pentagon's less than truthful accounts of that day, do you believe the official white house version of events?

Please, just a yes or no answer, without getting into too many specifics or debates.

Just curious, because there are many here on both sides of this question.

[peacetalksforall]

1. Does a 100% NO mean 9-11 doesn't have to be hidden in DU?

[helderheid]

2. lately it's being less and less hidden and to the mods I say

:applause:

[Warpy]

8. When they don't tell us the truth, they open the door

to all sorts of conspiracy fantasists. That is the main problem.

Knowing they didn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth opens the door to all sorts of outlandish speculation. Look, folks, we know this was a whitewash, but that is ALL we know. The rest is just speculation.

And that is why the threads are hidden. Knowing somebody lied to you is NOT the same as knowing the truth they should have told.

[dogday]

14. And when they are so deceitful

It is hard to disseminate the truth from the lies, therefore we believe nothing they say....

[HamdenRice]

30. You should read Paul Thompson

I think you are overstating the uncertainty. You don't need to believe in controlled demolition, hologram planes or alien lizard overlords to believe in governmental complicity.

If you open your mind and actually do the research, look at mainstream media reports right after 9/11, available in Paul's cooperative research time line, you will see that there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to conclude that complicity is a more likely theory than pure incompetence.

[Warpy]

44. Please read again

The only CERTAINTY is that the commission was a whitewash and that they were lied to by everyone who testified.

The rest is guesswork.

[HamdenRice]

52. There are no certainties in human affairs

There is a big gap between the level of certainty on which we make political and legal decisions and absolute certainty. My post said that if you do research, especially reading cooperative research, you can come to a conclusion that complicity is the best explanation.

One of the mistakes we make when looking at 9/11 is to demand certainty. Juries do not convict on the basis of absolute certainty; the Congress does not impeach on the basis of absolute certainty; voters to not choose parties on the basis of absolute certainty.

The issue is what is the best explanation, within the limits of human inquiry. After one does research, I think the answer is that complicity is a more likely explanation than incompetence.

Please take a look at this entry in my journal, and let me know what you think:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HamdenRice/8

[dick_eastman]

146. there is certainty here

With 9-11 we are confronted with the "box-cutter" explanation of the crashes, which if true implicates "Islamic Terrorists."

We test this explanation by looking for evidence-established facts that could not possibly be true unless the "box-cutter" explanation was false.

The Pentagon security camera video establishes that the plane that attacked the Pentagon was no longer than half the length of a Boeing 757. This refutes the "box-cutter" story.

The photos of wall damage at the Pentagon establish that whatever kind of plane or missile hit the Pentagon it did not have a starboard wing engine. This also refutes the "box-cutter" story.

Witness accounts establish that the Boeing approached the Pentagon on a path that is everywhere north of the path of destruction left by the plane or missile that actually crashed. The witnesses put the Boeing on a path approaching the Pentagon that does not get near the place where the first lamppost was knocked down (by the real killer craft). One witness who was north of the lamppost saw the Boeing pass by north of him heading east -- so that that plane could not have hit the lamppost south of him. Some witnesses saw both aircraft. This too establishes events happening on 9/11/01 that are incompatible with the "box-cutter" story of a Boeing crash at the Pentagon.

I invite you to look at this quickie proof page if any of this is new to you:


Demonstrated proofs:

I. The security camera pictures released in March of 2002 and officially released in May of 2006 establish that the aircraft or missile that attacked the Pentagon was no more than half the length of a Boeing 757.

1. Photo one.

2. Photo two.

3. Photo three.

4. A Boeing 757 airliner is 155 feet long.

5. The Pentagon is 71 feet high.

6. Purdue scale graphic.

7. Discussion. http://www.bedoper.com



II. The aircraft or missile whose nose struck the Pentagon's west wall at Pillar #14 did not have a starboard wing engine. Had the killer jet been a Boeing 757 then there would have been a hole in the vacinity of pillars #'s 16 and 17 where a starboard wing engine would have had to have penetrated. Direct inspection reveals that no such hole was made.

1. Diagram one

2. Photo one.

3. Diagram two.

4. Diagram three.

5. Photo two.

6. Photo three.

7. Photo four.

8. Photo five.

9. Photo six.

10. Photo seven.

11. Photo eight.

11. essay http://www.bedoper.com/eastman



III. The plane most witnesses saw (although some witnesses saw both planes) was not the plane or missile that struck the Pentagon as established by the line of physical damage. Witnesses saw the American Airlines jetliner approach the Pentagon from directly over the Sheraton Hotel, directly over the Naval Annex and directly over the Citgo gas station where Sgt. Wm. Lagasse was pumping gas when he saw the starboard side window ports of the Boeing as it passed slightly north of him travelling form west to east -- but the damage trail from the first downed lamppost to the entry hole in the west wall at column #14 to the exit hole in the inner "C"-ring is an entirely different path, it passed south of Lagasse and everywhere south of the witness-established path of the jetliner. The plane that passed where the witnesses describe got nowhere near where the first lamppost was downed, nowhere near the line of travel of the killer jet from lampost to entry hole to exit hole.

Photo: The Boeing came over the Naval Annex and so could not have hit the pole to the right of the overpass shown.

1. Diagram one

2. Photomap two.

3. Photo one.

4. Lampost diagram.

5. Photo three (lamppost location)

6. Photo four -- gas station vs. lamppost location 9-11-01

7. Photo five -- gas station vs. lamppost location 2000

8. Photo six -- lamppost and taxi

9. Photo seven -- taxi and lamppost

10. Photo eight -- lampposts



IV. Witness accounts

1. Essay one. http://www.bedoper.com/eastman/witnesses/index.html

2. Essay two. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm



V. The famous piece of debris photographed on the lawn north of the crash about ten minutes after the crash came from the starboard side of a Boeing 757 all right, but the starboard side of the killer jet that hit the Pentagon faced south, not north. The piece was planted on the wrong side of the crash.

Photo essay. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm

port side (note door) -- no bare stretch of aluminum following the "n"

starboard side -- bare stretch of aluminum follows the "n"

Photo one.

Photo two.



VI. Jacob Roginsky and Dick Eastman Debate Pentagon 9-11

How the debate came about:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/17927

#1 Roginsky-Eastman debate (preliminary questions)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/17939

#2 Roginsky-Eastman debate ("white explosion" not a proof I am defending -- merely incriminating)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18073

#3 Ronginsky- Eastman debate (debate format discussed)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18075

#4 Roginsky-Eastman debate (was the initial white explosion jet fuel?)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/17972

#5 Roginsky-Eastman debate, (questions about the security cam video)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/17977

#6 Roginsky-Eastman debate, #6 (the killer jet carried jet fuel too)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/17985

#7 Roginsky -Eastman debate, #7 (the plane behind the pass reader box)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18074

#8 Roginsky- Eastman debate, #8 (tail fin or blot?, smoke trail or nose?)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18076

#9 Roginsky- Eastman debate, #9 (Dick's images are fake, etc.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18151

[dick_eastman]

147. correction -- missing diagram supplied, explained

I see I included on photomap twice, instead of including this one



Which shows where Sgt. Lagasse was standing at the Citgo gas station and where he saw the Boeing pass him (slightly north of him so he sould see the starboard windows as he looked up) (yellow path marked "Boeing 2" -- but the actual killer jet travelled a different path -- a path marked by downed lamppost at the overpass, the entry hole in the outer wall of the Pentagon (E-ring) and the exit hole in the inner wall (C-ring). As you can see from the following the killer jet was everywhere south of Lagasse.



The plane most witnesses saw (although some witnesses saw both planes) was not the plane or missile that struck the Pentagon as established by the line of physical damage. Witnesses saw the American Airlines jetliner approach the Pentagon from directly over the Sheraton Hotel, directly over the Naval Annex and directly over the Citgo gas station where Sgt. Wm. Lagasse was pumping gas when he saw the starboard side window ports of the Boeing as it passed slightly north of him travelling form west to east -- but the damage trail from the first downed lamppost to the entry hole in the west wall at column #14 to the exit hole in the inner "C"-ring is an entirely different path, it passed south of Lagasse and everywhere south of the witness-established path of the jetliner. The plane that passed where the witnesses describe got nowhere near where the first lamppost was downed, nowhere near the line of travel of the killer jet from lampost to entry hole to exit hole.

Photo: The Boeing came over the Naval Annex and so could not have hit the pole to the right of the overpass shown.

Anyone who responds to this please notify me at [e-mail] I do not check democratic underground 9-11 boears that often.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

[Nitty-Gritty]

148. Very convincing. I sure can't refute your argument. Thanks. EOM

NT

[John Q. Citizen]

99. Yes, but guesswork is much of life. 100% certainty, about anything,

is rare.

We were/are being lied to.

So the obvious question is why are we being lied too?

While there are probably more than 3 choices, however the 3 that seem most likely to me are:

1. To cover up Gov. incompetence

2. To cover up Gov. complicity in the attacks.

3. To cover up incompetence and complicity.



I'm going with #3, because it seems the facts and evidence from that day add up to a preponderance of evidence to my mind at this point.
There are three main reasons why I believe

1.Air defense was disabled on 9/11.

2. Three separate steel buildings/shy scrappers on the same day all exhibited the staged collapse and near straight down free fall associated with controlled demolitions.

3. The manipulation of the stock market associated with 9/11 and the apparent complete lack of interest by the Gov. to follow that up.

4. The lack of hard evidence to connect the presumed guilty parties to the crime.

5. The lack of a criminal investigation into the crime. This perhaps is the most damaging evidence that the crime had insider sanction. This can't be brushed aside as incompetence. Nobody is that stupid.

I would love to see a grand jury with subpoena powers investigate the crimes of 9/11 . My bet is it won't happen, or if it does it will be years down the road after the evidense is very old and any perps are dead and gone.

[mhatrw]

66. So why is this thread now hidden?

Where did it purport to "knowing the truth they should have told"?

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[Amonester]

31. 9-11 is underground of democratic underground?

Why? :shrug:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. Because racist conspiracy theories are incompatible with...

...the progressive agenda.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. Deceitful?

Sorry, but putting a pretty face on bullshit from Rense, Hospicker, etc doesn't make it any less vile.

So the answer is that it uses racist conspiracy theory sites whenever it feels the need. Is that a yes? I'm not sure. Gullible isn't necessarily racist.

[HamdenRice]

47. Yes or no? You didn't answer. QED nt

[mhatrw]

68. What is racist about "Hospicker"?

Just wondering ...

[HamdenRice]

76. There's nothing racist about Hopsicker --- it's just another smear. nt

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

46. What's utterly depressing...

...is that the missile pod gibberish and the holographic plane gibberish are still being discussed in the dungeon.

[Amonester]

48. Otay.

Moved underground now.
Sorry. :blush:

[HamdenRice]

49. mostly by you, greyl, boloboffin, etc nt

[greyl]

74. Your post isn't truthful. nt

[HamdenRice]

75. Haa Haaa Haaa! You really crack me up!

Using the word "untruthful". You're a laugh a minute!

[greyl]

78. I didn't use the word "untruthful".

In your own words, "Please learn to read"

[HamdenRice]

80. Haa Haa Haa! Again, man you're on a roll!

Did you hear the one about the difference between "isn't truthful" and "untruthful"? The first phrase describes a nun in a bathtub saying "no soap, radio" and the second one describes a reporter discussing the glorious opening of Tractor Factory No. 117 in Stalingrad!

We're all about relevant meaningful distinctions today, as usual!

[greyl]

83. Your apparent attempt to smear a few posters here isn't

supported by evidence. I'd think someone interested in relevance would probably either
1. provide support for their accusation or
2. stick to the subject of the thread.

[HamdenRice]

89. Oh man, I'm rolling on the floor! You used the word ...

"smear"! Your irony today is just too much! Please stop -- you're killing me!

[greyl]

94. Are you choosing not to provide evidence, or does it not exist?

I presume it's the second choice.

[HamdenRice]

95. No, I'm choosing not to waste my time

Why don't you provide the evidence since you know what you guys write. I'm on vacation, but getting "evidence" of the obvious for you is too much of a waste of time even on a day off.

[greyl]

96. That doesn't make any sense.

You've spent 4 posts sharing your laughter instead of evidence for your accusation?
Why bother to reply at all if you aren't going to address the issue?

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

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

[greyl]

131. Hamden, your question Was answered

by the involved party:
"So the answer is that it uses racist conspiracy theory sites whenever it feels the need. Is that a yes? I'm not sure. Gullible isn't necessarily racist.

You still haven't provided any support to your accusation that missile pods and holographic planes are discussed "mostly by you{yibbiehobba}, greyl, boloboffin"

The reason no evidence has been provided for your accusation is that it doesn't exist.

[HamdenRice]

133. Show me

I assume he is talking about the 9/11 forum; otherwise he has simply lost his mind and doesn't make sense.

Where does cooperative research rely on Rense?

You guys have probably never even read cooperative research if you believe that.

[greyl]

134. Hey, I didn't make the statement, why ask me?

It's not a good idea to lump together everyone who disagrees with you one issue in order to try to smear them as a group.
Especially when there's a lack of evidence.

[mirandapriestly]

97. Your usage of "truthful" isn't truthful

I've noticed you guys playing the game where you call people liars by using semantics. Since it is against the rules to call people liars you try to use phrases that mean the same thing, but aren't that word. What you are trying to do is discredit people so that others reading the board will associated that poster with being a liar or dishonest; clever marketing idea.

[greyl]

100. Oh lordy.

:eyes:

According to your reasoning, you're calling me a liar, eh?
Good grief.

[Grateful for Hope]

101. This post is a good example

of what is being pointed out in Post #97.

[greyl]

103. Your post is an accusation without supporting argument or evidence.nt

[Grateful for Hope]

106. Good grief

Anyone with half a brain can see what you were inplying in your post.

Geesh.

[greyl]

107. I meant to be clear, not make an implication.

If you see a problem with the logic I used to reach the conclusion stated in my post, go ahead and express it. Till then, you've only made an unsupported allegation.

[Grateful for Hope]

108. Well, I guess it is up to the reader

to intepret what you meant.

[greyl]

112. LOL

So, 3 posters making accusations that they don't provide evidence for in one little subthread?
I doubt the effectiveness of that technique.

[Grateful for Hope]

118. The evidence is in your post.

nothing else is needed just because you say so.

[Uppanotch]

119. Exactly right, but what is the poster "marketing"? EOM

n/t

[Make7]

115. It is within the rules to point out when your posts are untrue.

If it bothers you when people do this, might I recommend that you simply post things that are true. That way if someone challenges you on it, you would simply be able to state your case and show that what you are saying is actually true.

- Make7

[Make7]

143. For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=102250&mesg_id=102476

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=102250&mesg_id=102477

Sometimes it IS acceptable to call things exactly what they are.

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

92. straw man du jour

and it's not nearly as "depressing" as 19 hijackers with boxcutters...

[HamdenRice]

55. Got me! I usually avoid absolutes! nt

[mirandapriestly]

57. The Official story is racist!!!

and it has lead to genocide in the Middle East!

[Make7]

59. How is it racist?

Just wondering.

- Make7

[mhatrw]

69. "Muslims hate us for our freedoms."

[greyl]

73. I didn't realize "Muslims hate us for our freedoms" was

part of the "official story".

[mhatrw]

109. I didn't realize that questioning the Bush administration on 9/11 was

racist.

By any objective measure, the Bush administration's story of 9/11 is far more racist. There is not even any comparison. That is my point.

[greyl]

114. Naw dude, red herring. You came to the defense of the statement:

"The Official story is racist!" by claiming "Muslims hate us for our freedoms." is how the official story is racist.

1. "Muslim" isn't a race.

2. "Muslims hate us for our freedoms" isn't part of the official story, afaik. It may be the opinion of some ignorant non-Muslim fundamentalists, but it was never part of the 'official story' like "Saddam had a hand in it" was.

[Make7]

77. All the people practicing the Islamic faith are now one race?

The black Muslims from Africa, the asian Muslims from Indonesia, and the white Muslims in the United States are all the same race? Weird.

- Make7

[greyl]

79. Sharp point.

How could anyone miss that? ;)

[Grateful for Hope]

86. All the people practicing the Jewish faith are now one race?

n/t

[Make7]

90. I am going to guess no.

Do I win a prize if I am right?

:) Make7

[mirandapriestly]

91. touche' excellent point.

[Make7]

110. How is the "official story" racist? ( n/t )

[mirandapriestly]

121. It's been part of a propaganda effort

to characterize Islamic people in an unfavorable way which culminated in the invasion of Iraq. People are receptive to the story because of a misrepresentation of the people from that region.
The whole thing is made possible because of racial stereotypes which do not exist with such severity in Caucasian countries.


It is noted how you did not ask yubbadubba-do why "CT's" are "racist", because, sure there are antisemitic 9-11 accusations on the internet, but I never see that from posters on this forum, yet you say nothing about yubba's claim.

Two airline attendants died (supposedly) on flight 77. They were known as "Kennifer" because of their closeness. They had a friend in the military who arranged to have the inscription "To Osama from "KENNIFER" LEWIS" & underneath the inscription was written: "Because Peleliu cares to send the very best." (It was aboard the The USS Peleliu...)
That missile was not headed toward Osama's cave, it probably ended up wiping out several civilian families. Had the "hijackers" been , say, Swedish not on your life would you be seeing that.

[Make7]

135. I don't know if that makes the "official story" itself racist.

mirandapriestly wrote:

It's been part of a propaganda effort to characterize Islamic people in an unfavorable way which culminated in the invasion of Iraq. People are receptive to the story because of a misrepresentation of the people from that region.
The whole thing is made possible because of racial stereotypes which do not exist with such severity in Caucasian countries.

I see where you are coming from - Middle Eastern Muslims definitely were not portrayed accurately. But I think a lot of it was the use of people's fears to equate Islamic extremists with being terrorists, insisting that something needed to be done about the terrorists. (i.e. kill them)

There is another side to all of this though. The Taliban and Al Queda were portrayed as evil when the US invaded Afghanistan, but there was (token) humanitarian assistance because the people of Afghanistan were of course good.

Saddam and the Baathists were evil, but the US was going to liberate the Iraqi people who would greet their liberators with open arms because they were not evil.

Syria is bad because they are on the State department list of supports of terrorism. Same with Iran, one of the "axis-of-evil" countries. But Saudi Arabia is our closest friend in the region. And of course the Kuwaitis are fine people. We freed them from Iraq back in the first Gulf War, and they let us use their country as an army base to invade Iraq this time.

My feeling is that it has been more a painting of radical Muslims as bad and likely terrorists, not everyone in the Middle East.

The real themes for the propaganda leading up to the invasion of Iraq were the WMD claims and the Saddam is as bad as Hitler idea. Why would we liberate the Iraq people if all Muslims are bad?

It's mostly just about the oil anyway. The people living there happened to be born into the circumstance of living too close to it.

All that being said, I still don't believe the "official story" itself is racist, even though I see your view that it was used to portray the people in the Middle East in a negative light.

mirandapriestly wrote:

It is noted how you did not ask yubbadubba-do why "CT's" are "racist", because, sure there are antisemitic 9-11 accusations on the internet, but I never see that from posters on this forum, yet you say nothing about yubba's claim.

You've been here long enough to know where a lot of that comes from. People used to post articles and links from rense and whatreallyhappened much more often because they were one of the few places that were putting up some of the stories. You also know that those sites have Holocaust revisionist information posted as well. That is why that accusation is still around. I never thought one story on those sites had anything to do with the other, but some people feel that there is a link. I don't really care much about it, so I don't comment on it.

- Make7

[Make7]

117. "Anti-Semitism is a specific case of racism..."

Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is a specific case of racism targeting the Jewish people, although scholars argue whether it should be considered a sui generis specie or not. For example, in the Russian Empire, official segregation of the Russian Jews in the Pale of Settlement since the early 1800s was compounded by the 1882 May Laws. Waves of anti-Semitic pogroms, in many cases state-sponsored, were launched in the 1881-1884, 1902-1906 and 1914-1921.

Scholars distinguish traditional, Christian anti-Semitism, which derives from the Biblical account of the deicide accusation, with 19th-20th centuries racial anti-Semitism, which ultimately lead to the Holocaust. At the Second Vatican Council in 1965, the Roman Catholic Church cleared the Jews from the allegations of deicide. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

[Uppanotch]

120. Always trust wikipedia....when wikipedia supports you.

N/T

[Make7]

124. Are you saying that what I posted is incorrect? Please explain. ( n/t )

[Uppanotch]

125. YES, I'm saying some people cite widipedia if it supports their view.

Otherwise, they would try to smear the author/messenger by challenging their credentials and making use of whatever other tactics that come to mind or that they see in your notebook at the time.

[Make7]

136. Is the information I posted from wikipedia inaccurate? ( n/t )

[mirandapriestly]

137. Yes, wikipedia is very supportive indeed.

:)

[Make7]

140. Last week you used wikipedia as a source in one of your posts.

mirandapriestly wrote on Thu Jul-27-06 04:05 AM:

Interesting speculation.., I would like to find the name of McGinnis boss. It is interesting that he was expecting a conference call and had to be done by 8:30, which is just like what Groves said about Marsh, only the CEO was conveniently at home. The services Clearstream provided sound like they would use the Silverstream software:
"So a bank can just order a transaction between its own account and the other bank's account, in lieu of less secure methods such as carrying a case full of currency or securities around on the street; the bank merely transmits an order to Clearstream to credit/debit one of its own accounts and the other bank's account(s). This general system is in use between regular companies, and governments, and banks around the world."
from wikipedia.

Also, Bin Laden's Bahrain International Bank used Clearstream clearing house for its financial activities.

And Clearstream had connections to Nelson Rockefeller, Chase Morgan, Citibank, & Credit Lyonnais.

The heavy financial activity during 9-11 reminded me of what Clearstream is useful for.
"The purpose of Clearstream is to facilitate money movements around the world'''" (Wikipedia)

It was bought by Deutsche Borse, I don't suppose that is related to Deutsche bank.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=100059&mesg_id=101923

Here is the link to the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearstream#Clearing

Interesting..... is it okay for you to use wikipedia, but it's somehow suspect if I use it?

:) Make7

[Grateful for Hope]

132. An article that might interest you

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engEUR030012002!Open

The recent increase in anti-Semitic attacks has unfolded in the wake of the Middle East crisis. They follow a general rise in racist and xenophobic violence in Western Europe, particularly against Arabs and certain ethnic and religious minorities, which rose sharply in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks in the United States. The international human rights organisation condemns these attacks, which have included verbal abuse, physical assaults and attacks on mosques -- and express alarm that they continue.

BTW, Wikipedia is by no means an authoritative source.

[Make7]

138. Would the United Nations be an acceptable source?

United Nations A/53/PV.86
General Assembly Official Records
Fifty-third Session
86th plenary meeting
Thursday, 10 December 1998, 10 a.m.
New York

  < snip >

Rights have been asserted where regimes once ruled; justice has been delivered where impunity once reigned; memory has been honoured where crimes had gone unpunished; and, yesterday, this Assembly reaffirmed that all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism, must be defeated in the struggle for human rights. Truly, this year has been worthy of the anniversary we mark today and has proven to all that human rights cannot be denied where human beings live and breathe.

  < snip >

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/866/62/PDF/N9886662.pdf

Now, as for the quote you posted. I think you are giving it a somewhat generous interpretation, which is fine, but it could be interpreted differently. The point is not exactly worth arguing about though, let's just call it a draw.

- Make7

[Grateful for Hope]

139. A draw it is. n/t

[mhatrw]

67. You mean, like "Muslims hate us for freedoms"?

If not, whatever are you talking about?

[Henny Penny]

128. That is an outrageous comment! n/t

[greyl]

3. In light of Recent news?

Good grief, it's been clear for years that the bush admin has been lying.
www.newwartimes.com/warnings.html

One problem is that the actual lies have been distracted from by baseless speculation.

[mhatrw]

70. About almost everything EXCEPT what happened on 9/11?

So they've lied about everything EXCEPT the justification for all of their worst crimes and most heinous policies. That's what you want us to believe. Right?

[greyl]

82. BY putting words in my mouth,

you're creating a straw argument.
www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Cowan_Iraq-13Myths.htm

Do you see anything wrong with the two links I've provided?

[mhatrw]

113. True or false.

"The Bush administration has lied about almost everything EXCEPT the basis for all of their worst crimes and most heinous policies."

Is this statement true or false, in your opinion? Why?

[greyl]

116. That's a pretty nebulous question, but I'd say false.

Do you have a problem with the substance in post #3? Here it is again:

In light of Recent news?

Good grief, it's been clear for years that the bush admin has been lying.
www.newwartimes.com/warnings.html

One problem is that the actual lies have been distracted from by baseless speculation.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[electron_blue]

4. For the record, what are you saying is the official white house version

I've lost track - who does the White House officially say was behind the attacks?

[Philosoraptor]

5. I ain't sayin', I'm askin'

I too have lost track. I don't believe any part of the official story, or the Warren Commission either.

[sexybomber]

33. At this point, probably the Iranians. (n/t)

[sinkingfeeling]

6. I don't believe ANYTHING this government tells me!

[Cleita]

16. Amen! n/t

[AngryOldDem]

24. Another amen n/t

[mirandapriestly]

58. AMEN III.eom

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MallRat]

9. Not a conspiracy... just a massive cover-up of incomptence. (eom)

[unpossibles]

15. isn't a massive cover-up of anything still

a conspiracy?

For the record, I think it largely went down as it seemed, but there are too many questions that make me wonder why they (I won't say "we" because I do not consider this administration my legal representatives) dropped the ball so badly on this one. So badly that it seems purposeful to me.

covering up is a crime, and a conspiracy is nothing but several people committing a crime.

[MallRat]

22. I meant the LIHOP/MIHOP conspiracies... I don't subscribe to them. eom

[titoresque]

23. Yeah

it is easier to subscribe to bullshit isn't it.

[Lerkfish]

27. but that wasn't the question.

[petgoat]

85. You don't subscribe

Probably because you haven't investigated.

[CJCRANE]

28. A good way of looking at.

But it's not like there isn't a precedent though for criminal complicity. The Republicans have done secret deals with rogue nations and terrorists before (the first one that comes to mind is Iran/Contra).

[izzie]

10. Som e parts seem off to me.

It maybe that I was in the middle of military living during so much of the Cold War so the lack of a doing any thing on 911 seems way off the mark.

[Zynx]

11. I think there have been efforts to conceal incompetence.

I don't for one moment believe the government was in any way responsible for the attacks.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. Poll: Do you believe in the 9/11 forum?

In light of recent 9/11 posts in GD, do you believe that the Democratic Underground 9/11 forum actually exists?

1) YES - IT EXISTS

2) NO - IT IS A LIE PROPOGATED BY THE IJE CONSPIRACY.

[Make7]

13. Would the 9/11 Commission Report be considered the "official" story?

Outlined in the first chapter are the "Pentagon's less than truthful accounts of that day":

More than the actual events, inaccurate government accounts of those events made it appear that the military was notified in time to respond to two of the hijackings, raising questions about the adequacy of the response. Those accounts had the effect of deflecting questions about the military's capacity to obtain timely and accurate information from its own sources. In addition, they overstated the FAA's ability to provide the military with timely and useful information that morning.

In public testimony before this Commission in May 2003, NORAD officials stated that at 9:16, NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA.¹⁷⁵ This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time.

In this same public testimony, NORAD officials stated that at 9:24, NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77.¹⁷⁶ This statement was also incorrect. The notice NEADS received at 9:24 was that American 11 had not hit the World Trade Center and was heading for Washington, D.C.¹⁷⁷

In their testimony and in other public accounts, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77,¹⁷⁸ United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well. The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records. Yet this response to a phantom aircraft was not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense. The inaccurate accounts created the impression that the Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked aircraft.

In fact, not only was the scramble prompted by the mistaken information about American 11, but NEADS never received notice that American 77 was hijacked. It was notified at 9:34 that American 77 was lost. Then, minutes later, NEADS was told that an unknown plane was 6 miles southwest of the White House. Only then did the already scrambled airplanes start moving directly toward Washington, D.C.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

Notes:

175.William Scott testimony, May 23, 2003.

176. Larry Arnold testimony, May 23, 2003.

177. See DOD record, NEADS MCC/T Log Book, Sept. 11, 2001.The entry in this NEADS log records the tail number not of American 77 but of American 11:"American Airlines #N334AA hijacked." See also DOD record, Surveillance Log Book, Sept. 11, 2001.

178.William Scott testimony, May 23, 2003; DOD briefing materials,"Noble Eagle; 9-11 Timeline," undated.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

The "official" story means different things to different people. I think a brief explanation of what you meant would have been helpful.

- Make7

[CJCRANE]

20. Good point.

Just like a lot of "christians" have never actually read the Bible, most of us (on all sides of the 9/11 argument) don't even know what the official version is.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there's info in the 9/11 commission report that would shock the OTCers.

[Make7]

37. I don't know what "official" version this poll is asking about.

Is it the Condi Rice "no one could have imagined..." version? Or the 9/11 Commission Report (that describes pre-9/11 warnings) version? Or the military officials version based on their contradictory testimonies? Or the corporate media version? etc., etc.

From the wording of the original post I would have to say the "official" version being discussed is the Pentagon version that has already been proven to be incorrect. What were my choices for this poll again?

You're not actually suggesting that people should read the 9/11 Commission Report, are you? :)

- Make7

[petgoat]

87. Why shouldn't they read the 9CR? It's a good a place to start.

Of course anyone reading it should understand that the information about al Qaeda
was largely waterboarded out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the Commissioners never
actually had a chance to interview him themselves. They relied upon transcripts
provided by US intelligence.

Does that sound like Nazism or what?

[Make7]

105. I wish they would.

I put the smilie at the end of the question in my previous post to indicate I was not being entirely serious.

US intelligence agencies have a long history of facilitating and participating in the use of torture. It's not exactly new, but the "War on Terror" has certainly allowed them to increase its use without having to be nearly as discrete about it.

I don't know about the particular circumstances of KSM, but the commission did use material that is still classified - do you believe the information in the final report about Al Queda was mostly derived from the KSM interrogation transcripts?

- Make7

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. It's easy.

"Official story" is code for "that with which I do not agree."

[Make7]

38. I don't agree with things I don't agree with. So I must vote no. ( n/t )

[Canuckistanian]

17. dupe

[Canuckistanian]

18. I'm waiting for a non-fiction version of the 9/11 Commission Report

I just can't suspend my disbelief over the present one.

[bridgit]

19. clearly no...

[glitch]

21. What else from the Bush administration do those 11 yes voters believe?

Just curious.

[titoresque]

25. Perhaps the moon is made out of cheese? n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. Maybe they're tired of being push-polled by conspiracy theorists...

...with an agenda that could hardly be described as benign.

I didn't vote at all. The question is too vague.

[mhatrw]

71. In contrast, those pushing the "9/11 Changes Everything" meme

only want the best for all.

[bloom]

26. With a third of Americans believing it -

it's not surprising that most DUers would.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1798650&mesg_id=1798650

[CJCRANE]

29. DUers are usually ahead of the curve.

Most of DU was the 10% who disapproved of * on 9/12/01.

Now disapproving of * is mainstream.

[bloom]

51. yes

It helps that most of us do not rely on Corporate media.

[marions ghost]

32. one of the only positives

about the Iraqi disaster is that we might find out what really happened on 9-11 and how the government covered this up with the most diabolical set of lies ever foisted on the American people. If the Iraq war had gone well, people would not be asking so many questions.

There is a lot of skepticism about 9-ll.

[Bluerthanblue]

40. no- absolutely no. period.

[ComerPerro]

42. Jesus Christ NO!

[Taxloss]

45. No. The official story is a whitewash to cover up scandalous

examples of failure and incompetence throughout the government, starting at the top. The American government was asleep at the wheel.

[salvorhardin]

53. Precisely my thoughts on the matter n/t

[bloom]

50. So it was 94% "No" with about 227 votes when this was moved to the 911

forum.

[HamdenRice]

54. Don't you get it? 94% shows ...

that we're a tiny minority, fringe element of tin foil hat conspiracy theorists.

[greyl]

64. You're exaggerating the meaning of the results of the poll.

You may notice upthread that the misinterpretation (hasty generalization) was expected by several people.

Fyi, I voted no.

[mirandapriestly]

56. Considering that poll

I still don't understand the percentage of OCTS on this forum :shrug:

[Grateful for Hope]

60. The percentage isn't that high, really

It's just that they post and post and post and post.

[mirandapriestly]

98. Yes, almost like it's a job or something;)...eom

[Grateful for Hope]

102. Not sure I would go that far

but, there surely are some very busy posters here. I need much more sleep than some here apparently do.

[mirandapriestly]

104. Round the clock

24/7 , and then some ;).

[Make7]

61. Perhaps you don't understand that someone can disagree with more...

... than one thing.

Some of your ideas and also parts of the "official story".

- Make7

[SidDithers]

62. Answered No...

and I don't believe many of the crackpot PCT theories put forward by the denizens of this particular dungeon either.

I believe that the most uninteresting, boring scenario is the one closest to the truth. That the Bush government is a complete bunch of fuckwits, got caught with their pants down, and have tried to lie and cover up their incompetence so that history won't judge them harshly.

Sid

[mhatrw]

72. So who answered yes?

Joe Lieberman, are you here with us?

[petgoat]

88. Has it ever occurred to you that every single "idiotic" decision

W made has benefited himself, his cronies, or his program?

Even Katrina. Who benefited from the destruction of the Port of New Orleans?










The Port of Houston!

[mirandapriestly]

111. Funny how fast they became "competent" when it came to

reaping their rewards from 9-11. Unprecedented power in the executive branch (from an "incompetent" president?", the whittling away of liberties and rights of the American public (in the name of "security"), billions of dollars in profits to defense contractor buddies (who will be more than happy to repay administration members as soon as they leave office), no pressure for accountability (it's unpatriotic to question the president during a time of "war"), approval that went from 30 to 90+, and strange how that Patriot Act was sitting there ready to go, just for the occassion, (almost as if the whole thing had been planned).

(Never thought about the Port Of Houston,well, well, well,....)

[greyl]

130. Today, Hillary accused Rumsfeld's execution of the Iraq invasion

of being "incompetent". In your post, you appear to be arguing that the bush admin is competent.
In other posts, you accuse me of arguing in support of the bush admin.
Odd.

[KJF]

63. I voted no

The NSA intercepted some of the hijackers' calls, but transcripts (or even summaries) have never been made public. What were they saying? How come nobody (not even the 9/11 Commission) has heard them?

Also, it's a bit much to believe that it's just a coincidence that the hijackings took place just before scheduled hijack exercises at NEADS/NORAD and it isn't even worth investigating this.

[mirandapriestly]

123. I didn't know about the

NSA intercepting calls. I'd be interested in hearing your take on the recently released tapes, too..How it adds to what was already known or if it does.

[KJF]

141. The NSA thing is here

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/KJF/13

One of the calls (made from San Diego) is mentioned in the FBI OIG report. The 9/11 Commission glossed over it and just said Almihdhar was calling his wife (who lived at the Al Qaeda communications hub - nice family!). AFAIK they didn't see the transcripts. Even if nothing with said, the NSA knew he was a terrorist and they knew he was in the US, so why did they sit on their hands? Apparently, the FBI had a standing request for everything from the Yemen number from 1998, but the NSA ignored it.

Re the VF article: most of this is a year or two old, although this was kind of startling:
"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.

Basically, the MSM has just picked up something that's been around for a year or two and starting talking about it now for seemingly no reason. This happens all the time, IMO the media is very herd-like. In a bit they'll get bored and move onto something else (either 9/11 truth-related or not). The Moussaoui document-dump (with the Al Suqami's famous passport) is more interesting.

[mirandapriestly]

150. thanks, I'll read both.eom

[RethugAssKicker]

65. 9/11 Threads are hidden???... by whom?

[dailykoff]

81. Only 14 OCTers left, LOL.

But they sure know how make a racket.

[seemslikeadream]

84. NO!!

[seatnineb]

93. I voted YES!...using the logic of the trolls........

After all parts of the official story are true......

Like ...um ...the WTC and the Pentagon having been attacked on 9/11!

Gee...I agree with parts of the official story.....

Therefore I am voting yes!

[Nitty-Gritty]

142. Interesting way of looking at it. Makes sense, too. EOM

nt

[Make7]

144. Welcome to DU Nitty-Gritty!

:hi: Make7
Plan on staying long?

[Nitty-Gritty]

145. Tongs very much. EOM

N/T

[Make7]

149. Gone so soon Uppa... er, ah .... I mean Nitty-Gritty? RIP Buddy.

Nitty-Gritty
Much too Young to die.

In the future, try to remember not to respond in the first person when talking about a post that you made under another username. It must be difficult to keep them straight at times, but you really must make more of an effort.

Bye, bye <insert latest tombstoned username>!

:hi: Make7

[sabbat hunter]

126. no because

the official story doesnt tell how incompetant the administration is. how they missed a ton of warnings about OBL determined to attack within the US

a simple yes or no for the poll is too vague IMHO.

[greyl]

151. .