Is it better to engage 9/11 conspiracy theorists, or not?

[LoZoccolo]

On the one hand: if we could compel them to shift their somewhat diligent efforts to something halfway credible and useful rather than down a self-gratifying and self-congratulating time sink, we would have a lot of people who could do a lot for the Democratic Party.

On the other hand: trying to convince them could be a time sink in and of itself, especially considering that there are reasons for conspiracy theorizing which are difficult to overcome with reason (such as the feeling that you know more than is commonly known, etcetera).

What do you think?

[Jed Dilligan]

1. Define "conspiracy theorists," then

Define "halfway credible and useful" with examples based on what you're doing with your time.

[kentjay]

5. i couldn`t define conspiracy theorists,

i believe the govt. was involved either by helping or failing to stop 9/11,does this make me a conspiracists,no,i just don`t trust radical govts.these people are not even republicans.i`m convinced that 19 hijackers could not have pull this act off w/o inside help.

[Jed Dilligan]

13. Welcome to DU

You're in the majority here, LZ in the minority despite the implication of his post.

[peace13]

2. Conspiracy theories are like religion.

Let people think what they want to! Who knows the truth and what gives anyone the right to tell others how to think?! Peace, Kim

[LSK]

16. actually they are quite the opposite of religion

[peace13]

25. How so?

I have my 'ideas' and you have yours. We each believe strongly about something that may our may not ever be proven. The point is, why are so many here so opposed to others having different views? It seems that the thought police are out today. Just saying. Peace, Kim

[LSK]

31. actually I would think CT people are more open to different ideas

and always question things and seek proof. Does that sound like religion to you?

[peace13]

41. I mean that people do not seem to be tolerant of others .

Not talking about proof, simply the right to have a different idea. I agree with your last satement though. Unfortunately the truth or proof is so buried in our world today that I fear we will never know what really transpired. Peace, Kim

[Traveling_Home]

3. Not worth the time

See #1

[CBGLuthier]

4. I think you are about to engage with

some conspiracy theorists. :-)

First of all, we need a new term. Cause for an absolute fact, no matter what you believe, 911 was a conspiracy. By definition.

But that aside, I would estimate that 10 to 30 percent of active DUers do NOT accept the official story. Which makes us (I am among that group) theorists of some kind.

Beyond that, you will never be able to change my mind about the events. And I will never shy away from telling any and all that I am a MIHOP'er.

[John Q. Citizen]

82. We between us Mihopers anf the Lihopers I would put the number at

62 to 67 percent on DU.

Most people I talk to and see posting believe it was an inside job.

[Junkdrawer]

6. We're not worthy of your time. The 9/11 Commission Report...

is the best explanation of 9/11, who gives a shit about WTC7, or military exercises on 9/11.

While our government lied about Iraq and hundreds of thousands are dead as a result, they would never purposely kill 3000 people just to provide a justification for securing the world's remaining oil supplies.

Move along, nothing to see here.

[kentjay]

7. how do you explain operation northwoods sir?

[Junkdrawer]

8. Look, I'm one of those unworthy of LoZoccolo's time...

I think the Operation Northwoods story is frightening as hell. But then, I'm a conspiracy nut.

[Jed Dilligan]

11. He already has us all on ignore anyway

so I wonder what this thread is for, actually? :shrug:

[kentjay]

21. i`m sorry sir,but i have to disagree again,

i believe this gang of thugs,neo-cons,fascist,whatever you want to call them will stop at nothing to wrestle the control of the world,they are nuts,none of them have ever fought in a war,nor do they intend to,they intend to send you and your children.there are 3 things that generate these thugs,power,money and of course sex.sex not in the terms of having sex,but in the terms of using that over people.these people are godless.i mean i`m a deist,but at least i do recognize that there is a supreme being.they think they are the supreme beings.

[Sinti]

75. I couldn't agree with you more. Welcome to DU kentjay :) n/t

[BestCenter]

71. O rly?

If the gov't was willing to kill 3000 people and was so successful in getting a war started, why are they doing so poorly in Iraq? Why are they falling all over the place?

And what about the Brits? Were they in on it too? The Polish? The Spanish? The Japanese? The Dutch? The Italians? The Micronesians?

And don't the oil companies, I don't know, have control of most of the world's oil already?

[Norrin Radd]

88. Whoever said that doing poorly wasn't their objective? n/t

[BestCenter]

98. Ah, so if they were doing brilliantly

You'd say that was their objective as well?

[Norrin Radd]

99. My opinion is that their objective is to stir up the hornet's nest.

In the ensuing chaos, they destabilize the ME, creating conflict, which gives the military-industrial complex a reason to build more weapons, which is lucrative, and allows them to manipulate oil-rich areas that are under dispute.

[Nozebro]

104. Even some OCT'ers would agree, but they'd say the OBL attacks just

made it POSSIBLE for the corporate criminal element to take advantage of the situation.

I think 9/11 was a planned self-attack that was wrongly blamed on Osama bin Laden and I agree with what you said in your post.

[Norrin Radd]

110. Yep--the fact that a coincidental possibility to take advantage of

just happened to rear it's ugly head so soon after the 2000 presidential election coup seems too much like blind luck for a group so hellbent on invading Iraq, yet needing a frightened, paranoid, suggestible population to do so.

[BestCenter]

113. Well, their plan is failing

The war is hugely unpopular, Bush will likely go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever, and the neocon elite have all but been discredited.

So they totally failed completely. Yet they were able to stage 9/11? It seems like that if they were such great strategists, they probably should have give two figs about disbanding the Iraqi Army and doing something during Katrina, shouldn't they?

[Norrin Radd]

116. Their plan isn't failing if their plan was to create a civil war in Iraq,

and to antagonize and destabilize the Middle East. Stir up the hornet's nest.

[Altean Wanderer]

148. Excellent reply n/t

[LSK]

9. how did it work for the Stolen 2004 election CTs?

Yes, they were tinfoilers too at one point.

[IChing]

10. "halfway credible and useful"

Like this post maybe.

[OneBlueSky]

12. the most extreme conspiracy theory is the "official" story . . . n/t

.

[Rex]

14. Wow, a whole thread dedicated to nothing.

What does the Codex of Infinite Knowledge say? :rofl:

[INDIA]

15. I completely agree with you.

They are pretty embarrassing. But hey, a Dem vote is a Dem vote, and I think that they are emboldened on an anonymous blog. They probably aren't espousing MIHOP during Democratic get out the vote campaigns.

Luckily though they really are a small %. DU is pretty far to the left, and if only a fraction of US believe MIHOP, then nationwide it probably is pretty small.

Although you should prepare to be flamed because the errr...."theorists" HATE to be called out and will defend their (in my opinion) indefensible positions till the cows come home.

I think some of them are intelligent people with an overly strong sense of skepticism. Others are just batshit crazy, like they guy who informed me that "one day they will discover that ALL buildings are pre-wired to explode." Needless to say, I didn't run out of my apartment to avoid the impending threat.

Or the guy who said that it was the "explosives" that caused all the dust when the WTC collapsed, as if it had collapsed on its own there wouldn't have been as much dust in the air.
:eyes:

[springhill]

20. The official version of 911?

Believing that is batshit crazy.

[INDIA]

22. Sure it is...

:eyes:

[INDIA]

35. Why don't I believe the "theorists"?????

Because if Clinton or Gore were president during the attacks, 90% of the theorists wouldn't exist.
This is partisan hatred, not legitimate skepticism.

[LSK]

37. Clinton and Gore are members of PNAC???

And have deep ties to big oil???

:shrug:

[INDIA]

45. A bomb went off at the WTC

during Clinton's presidency. Also, embassies were bombed and a warship was attacked. I don't remember any conspiracy theories then.

Bush is certainly guilty of exploiting the 9-11 attacks for political gain and a reason to attack Iraq, but that's as far as it goes. Just because he exploits them doesn't mean he MIHOP.


My mind is open though. If ONE PERSON who was apart of the most widespread, secretive and evil conspiracy in history steps forward to describe their involvment, I'll be happy to change my mind. So far only Bin Laden has claimed responsibiblity. I'm not gonna become a MIHOPer because there was "too much dust."

[springhill]

52. I think one of those reasons might be that.............

he didn't use the attack as a pretense to gain power and initiate wars that have long been in the planning. He didn't try and stymie an investigation. I could go on and on, but you know all this and it doesn't seem to matter.

[Blackthorn]

65. Hehe, you bought the Bin Laden video.

I assume you conveniently forgot the Bin Laden video that was released weeks after 9/11 with a real Bin Laden saying he had nothing to do with it.

And you can be a MIHOPer with far better evidence than too much dust. Are the laws of physics good enough for you?

[INDIA]

68. Could you send me a link

to the video of Bin Laden denying involvment? I've never heard of it or seen it. I've personally viewed two that suggest otherwise.

[INDIA]

80. Still waiting on that link.......

I won't hold my breath. Hehe.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[INDIA]

95. What's up with the deleted message?

Were you so upset that you couldn't find this phantom video that you resorted to name calling?

FOR SHAME!

[gbwarming]

96. Of course there were conspiracy theories surrounding the embassy bombings

Like this one from Aug 24 1998 on the alt.fan.rush-limbaugh newsgroup. It sounds pretty darn familiar in fact:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/browse_thread/thread/a28b9c45fedc5831/bd9faea591c59e93?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#bd9faea591c59e93

I would expect information of this sort that the Administration supposedly
had would be the result of months of undercover work., but we are supposed
to believe that we didn't start infiltrating these groups until AFTER the
embassy bombings. I don't think so. Clinton MUST have known some U.S.
Embassies were targeted if not which specific embassies were targeted.
It is just TOO easy that the bombers were picked up within HOURS after the
bombings. It is just too EASY that we all of a sudden found out where these
terrorists were being trained and the rest of it.

As said previously "It was a godsend to Bill Clinton that these embassies
were bombed to focus the American attention off of Monikagate". I strongly
believe that it was not simply a coincidence, but Bill knew of the plans and
allowed them to be carried out and then has orchestrated the following
apprehension of the bombers and the retaliatory bombings to his own
political advantage.

[oblivious]

103. You don't remember the FBI involvement in the the 1993 WTC bombing?

* * * * *

THE NEW YORK TIMES
Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1

"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"

By Ralph Blumenthal

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.

The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court in that attack.

Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used by the Government to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases: the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the second bombing case, but his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast, he was feuding with th F.B.I.

Supervisor `Messed It Up'

After the bombing, he resumed his undercover work. In an undated transcript of a conversation from that period, Mr. Salem recounts a talk he had had earlier with an agent about an unnamed F.B.I. supervisor who, he said, "came and messed it up." "He requested to meet me in the hotel,"

Mr. Salem says of the supervisor. "He requested to make me to testify, and if he didn't push for that, we'll be going building the bomb with a phony powder, and grabbing the people who was involved in it. But since you, we didn't do that."

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the Bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by an agent identified as John Anticev.

Mr. Salem said Mr. Anticev had told him, "He said, I don't think that the New York people would like the things out of the New York Office to go to Washington, D.C."

Another agent, identified as Nancy Floyd, does not dispute Mr. Salem's account, but rather, appears to agree with it, saying of the `New York people':

"Well, of course not, because they don't want to get their butts chewed."


Paper Says FBI Blocked Plan To Foil N.Y. Blast

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Law enforcement offlcials planned to thwart the bombing of the World Trade Center by substituting harmless powder for explosives, but the scheme was called off by the FBl, a newspaper reported today.

Tape recordings secretly made by an FBI informer reveal that authorities were in a far better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New York's tallest towers, the New York Times reported.

Four men are now on trial for carrying out that bombing, in which six died and more than 1,000 were injured.

The New York Times published conversations the informer, a 43 year-old former Egyptian army officer, Emad Ali Salem, taped with his FBI handlers.

On the tapes, Salem recalls that the FBI had planned on "building the bomb with a phony powder and grabbing the people who were involved in it."

But the informer. who is heard lecturing his handlers, said the powder scheme was called off and "we didn't do that."

Salem also is heard on the tapes criticizing the agents for ignoring his warnings that the World Trade Center was to be bombed.

"Guys, now you saw this bomb went off and you both know that we could avoid that," the newspaper quoted him as saying.

[Nozebro]

105. This kind of info must give OCT'ers a giant migraine headache.

Undercover cops/agents of all stripes regularly engage in creating crimes that they later "solve". I think the figure is something like 99% of ALL alleged murder plots for hire (wife/husband, business owner/partner etc.) are set-ups. Undercover cops do more to ENcourage crimes than to DIScourage them.

[Rex]

42. So if JFK would have been a Republican, there would be no

theorists? Wow, someone must have crowned Sun Yung Moon as the Second Coming of Christ in our nations capitol or sumthin!

[INDIA]

51. I would of thought it would be obvious that...

Kennedy wouldn't engineer his own assassination.

[Rex]

54. What? LBJ didn't exist?

Just Kennedy alone huh? :rofl:

[INDIA]

57. HAHAHAHHAHAH!

You are GREAT!

Enjoy your fantasy world! Don't use the landline, the CIA is listening to you!

[Rex]

64. Amazing

You just can't answer anything! :rofl: CIA? You should try to get a hold of yourself. Seriously. :rofl:

[BestCenter]

72. Er, dude?

Why aren't there any major theories about the assassination attempts on Reagan and Bush I? How do you explain that?

[Thorandmjolnir]

158. Actually there are

Some of the theories are that the Bushes (Bush I) tried to have Reagan taken out.

http://killtown.911review.org/assassinations/reagan.html

[Sinti]

79. Awesome!!! LOL

:rofl:

I still can't burn that damn image out of my brain. I think I need a lobotomy, or maybe just a good strong blow to the head.




http://www.iapprovethismessiah.com/2004/04/rangel-letter-recognizes-far-right.html

[springhill]

49. But you are missing a point.......

the attacks wouldn't have happened because they wouldn't have let it happen so they could invade the middle east.

[Norrin Radd]

100. If the official version is so sound,

why does the Family Steering Committee still have unanswered questions?

http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html

[Nozebro]

106. I'm sure the OCT'ers have a good answer & I'm surprised they haven't

responded to your very reasonable, logical point.

[Norrin Radd]

111. Thanks.

This is the point where they usually post:

"I'm still waiting for your answer..."

[Bryan Sacks]

77. You seem intelligent yourself, India

So let me ask you to help me out, since I'm the embarrassing one:

Since you are so certain of the foolishness of 9/11 conspiracy theories, please offer a few paragraphs containing the best reasons for concluding they are all false. Quite reasonably, I'll expect your reasons will be drawn from your research of the attacks, and they should dispel some of the seemingly well-founded points of skepticism that have been widely reported in the mainstream press.

I don't want to take up a ton of your time, You can ignore all discussion of WTC demolition and 'no plane' theory, since neither of these subjects represents the strongest evidence of complicity in the attacks. Just please focus on the foundational elements of 9/11 skepticism: thwarted investigation, the funding of the plot, suspicious financial activity, existing interagency protocols governing military response, evidence of foreknowledge and evidence of investigative cover-up.

Thanks.

[Bryan Sacks]

81. too busy with other posts, India?

[INDIA]

85. i had about five paragraphs down

and my DU kicked off. I'll write you back tomorrow.

[Bryan Sacks]

89. OK

[Bryan Sacks]

114. I suppose it was too much to ask :(

[freedom fighter jh]

123. There WOULDN'T have been that much dust in the air . . .

. . . if it had collapsed on its own.

That dust was pulverized concrete. It takes energy to pulverize concrete. But the towers fell so fast that most of their potential energy -- their energy of position -- went into accelerating them downward.

What was the source of the energy that destroyed the steel columns that were holding them up and pulverized the concrete?

[buddhamama]

17. yes, ignore conspiracy theorists

there is nothing to see here, there never is, right? ignore the government behind the curtain.

[BestCenter]

73. Ignore the gov't?

So, wait, are you a libertarian now?

[wildbilln864]

18. My Granny always said...

if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
911 was an inside job IMO!

[katsy]

19. Without transparency in government or

the necessary check & balances between the branches of our government, even the most innocuous of events are subject to interpretation and/or imagination.

I say let them fly & take their course. Some are thought provoking. Others have a certain plausibility. A lot of them read like a fucking road map to the mess we're in as a country.

Some challenge reality & common sense, but I would include the lies by the administration in this group (mushroom clouds, N,W,E or S of Tikrit). The difference between the most wacked-out conspiracy theories & this goverments bullshit? The former hasn't killed almost 3,000 troops and 100,000 innocent Iraqis. The former doesn't have the power to strip us of our civil rights.

[Quantess]

117. you claim to be a woman.

in a previous thread, that is.

You are clearly not a woman.

[angstlessk]

23. The case of 9/11 puts you either in the 'Coincidence Theorist'..or

'Conspiracy Theorist' camp. Those are the ONLY two camps...that makes you a 'Coincidence Theorist'

[LoZoccolo]

27. Part of what disconvinces me...

...is the namecalling that happens when you don't believe. Why am I encouraged to question some accounts of what happened on 9/11, but when I question one of the conspiracy theories, I get called names?

[buddhamama]

28. perhaps it is your condescending tone

that sets them off. the phrasing in your opening post for example... :shrug:

[angstlessk]

30. So basically you are saying TRUTH matters not it is the attitude of the

people that makes you 'disconvenced?

[LoZoccolo]

34. No, but they go hand in hand.

When someone comes up to me and gives me little to compel me, and is rude about it, I tend to think they're being manipulative.

It's that old saying about pounding on the table when you can't fight with the facts that I can't quite remember, but you get the idea. I hope.

[Rex]

55. That is exactly what I got from your posts.

How odd.

[IChing]

32. You started the name calling

in your original post

[Big Kahuna]

24. Yesterday's poll on MSNBC

[INDIA]

29. Yeah, an internet poll is completely unquestionable.

:eyes: And there's a huge disconnect between "government involved" and "government placed explosives in WTC and blew up pentagon." I think a lot of people have questions about 93 being shot down to protect DC, which is somewhat reasonable, but I don't believe it.

[Big Kahuna]

43. Don't roll your eyes at me punk-ass!

I'll roll your freekin head :) ha ha

I realize that internet polls are unreliable.. but 59% on a mainstream news website!?! sheesh

[INDIA]

56. I'd be interested to see

How many people, in a real phone poll, actually believe MIHOP. It's probably under 5%......at least I HOPE it would be.

[kentjay]

26. while we are discussing conspiracy theorys

surely your not going to tell me that the only one responsible for kennedys death was lee harvey oswald.you see conspiracies are never solved thats why we keep having them,there is an evil force out there,currently they reside at 1600 pa. ave.

[Jack Rabbit]

33. I don't bother

MIHOP is ludicrous and LIHOP isn't much better.

I've got some questions about what happened that day, and some others about some events leading up to it, but just because I have them doesn't mean there was a conspiracy of one kind or another. It would be wrong just because there are gaps in the story to jump to a conclusion that government agents were reading off of a script written by Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. That would be a little like pointing out that science and the theory of eveolution don't answer all questions and concluding that events discribed in the Book of Genesis are historical facts.

There will always be those willing to read the worst into those they hold in contempt and to project their own Jungian shadows on certain persons or groups. Conspiracy theorists will always be with us, but that doesn't mean I'm ever going to take their ideas seriously.

[angstlessk]

38. Honey, the government theory itself is a Conspiracy Theory...

so you YOU ARE a believer in Conspiracy Theories..though you refuse to admit it...

[Jack Rabbit]

69. Response

There are ample grounds to believe that al Qaida attacked on September 11. I was driving to work the on the West Coast in about 6 am on September 11, 2001 and as the reports of a second plane hitting the other tower of the WTC came in showing that what was going on was not a freak accident. At that point the name "Osama bin Laden" entered my head and I have seen no reason to alter that conclusion, reached before the name was mentioned on the radio.

I also believe that a half dozen or so Roman nobleman talked it over and decided who was going to do what and when before doing in Julius Caesar.

I'm not saying there are no conspiracies. Of course there are. They work best when confined to a small group of individuals with one, simple short term goal in mind. The risks of defections or detection increase with the size of the group. The risks also increase the longer it takes to carry out the plan. Next, a complex plan increases the risk of the ultimate failure of the project. Something is going to go terribly wrong; contrary to what most conspiracy theorists seem to believe, accidents happen. Finally, direct involvement by public personalities almost guarantees failure. These people are living in a fish bowl. They cannot go to the bathroom with everybody knowing if they're standing up or sitting down. We know what they're doing. The only thing a public personality has going for him is that he may have loyal followers who will refuse to believe that he would do anything wrong, no matter how compelling the evidence.

Consider a conspiracy we know failed: the Watergate break in and cover up. First of all, while the break in itself was simple enough, the problem was that it was only one mission in a series of similar illegal activities by those who planned and carried it out. The idea was too complex, not confined to one simple act and and no definite time frame. Sooner or later, they were going to get caught and be exposed, just like any ordinary burglary ring. Second, the cover up involved too many people; even worse was the fact that these people lived in glass houses. It was bad enough that the conspiracy involved John Mitchell. John Ehrlichman and Bob Haldeman, but when Nixon himself got involved, it was doomed. At least before it was a case of the public personalities telling the peons "do this" and leaving the planning and execution to a bunch of nobodies; now the public personalities had to get personally involved and tell lies that would be detected as surely as the sun rises in the east. The conspiracy necessarily widened. Other White House staffers had to know what was going on, and they had to be trusted to keep their silence. The conspirators didn't help their own cause any by volunteering John Dean to be the fall guy without first asking him if it was OK to use him like that. For a while, many people did not believe Nixon would ever do anything illegal. But piece by piece, the case was made and Nixon resigned amid certain impeachment and conviction and a public approval rating so low that one had to go underground to find it.

A similar conspiracy that has utterly failed is the manipulation of intelligence prior to invading Iraq. Bush's staunchest supporters are still denying this, but I don't think there would be any problem putting a case together, presenting to an impartial jury and getting a conviction. Yes, he's still got his partisans, but as the the pop song about the Battle of New Orleans went, "there wasn't quite as many as there was a while ago." We can look forward to the day when presents the "intelligence failures" as honest mistakes will be laughed at; we can even hope that day will come soon enough to impeach and remove from power Bush and Cheney, who were at the center of the conspiracy.

However, the kind of conspiracy theories I'm talking about and that the root poster is talking about are those that hold that a vast number of government agents who are reading off the same page and each is executing his part with split-second precision like a member of the IMF on the old Mission: Impossible TV series. They all sound like a bad TV scripts.

[BootinUp]

74. brilliant comparison (n/t)

[wildbilln864]

36. Watch Cspan 2 now

for the truth!

[Junkdrawer]

44. Thanks n/t

[Evoman]

39. Lol...don't bother...the chemical trails will convince them soon enough!

[FoxOnTheRun]

40. 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-conspiracy10sep10,1,828215.story?coll=la-news-a_section

Europeans are always interested, he said. Engaging New Yorkers is more challenging. After an hour, he and his team left the park, drained.

Behind them, holding the Sept. 11 pamphlets, were three friends in their 20s. They were sitting on a wall in the sun, resting after a film shoot.

"At first, I thought, 'Oh, my God, a kook,' " said Shelley Rogers, 26, a graduate student in education at New York University.

But her friend Antonio Cisneros, 20, was fascinated.

"I think they're too extreme for me," he said, "but there are a lot of questions that need to be asked." He said he was glad someone was doing it.

Asked if they believed the government would murder Americans for strategic reasons, all three, without pausing, said yes.

[undeterred]

46. "them"?

Them is among you. What a weird and inappropriate post.

[leftofthedial]

47. No! It's a waste of your time.

Much better for you to remain silent and go on about your business.

[dogday]

48. I guess conspiracy theorist are asking themselves

the same question about you?

It works both ways, just cause the administration and MSM say this or that, doesn't make it true anymore... You know they have lied, why not about this? We know for a fact they knew a threat was coming, they had been warned by France, GB and others before 9-11....

So tell me again why I should believe every word they say? :tinfoilhat:

[hughee99]

50. I guess it depends on how much time and energy you have

and you're beliefs as to the plausibility of a particular theory. Did the US government have some involvement in 9/11, even if only by neglect or incompetence? Personally, I would find it hard to argue against that. Were they specifically responsible for the attacks? I, myself am not a MIHOP guy.

But this really holds true for any conspiracy theory. How much time and energy are you willing to put into it, and given the starting point, how likely do you think your chances are of changing anyones mind, or having your mind changed?

For example I avoid getting into the discussion of how the Yakuza's Russian made, cold-war era, weather control machine caused Hurricane Katrina in retaliation for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[AlwaysQuestion]

53. Let me tell you what I think, but first, a question........

How do you know that the real conspiracy theory is not the one being foisted on the public by the U.S. administration? Your red flag should immediately be unfurled the moment the prez fights vigorously against a full fledged investigation of 911. Then after several months of public entreaty he finally allows that an investigation can take place, albeit dramatically underfunded. Send up another red flag. Finally, when you can pile one coincidence upon another upon another upon another and so on and so forth of all the things that happened and didn't happen on 911, there should be at least a few bells resonating in your ears.

So I ask you what is it about this administration that makes you believe for a NY second that they're giving you the real goods? I think NOT to strenuously question the administration's version of what went down on 911 is sheer folly.

The people of your country and mine (among others) are continually conspiring against the people; otherwise, do you think in nations as rich as ours we should have unbridled poverty, huge prison populations, high unemployment, foul water and air, poor health care delivery, and so on and so forth if elected officials are doing their jobs ethically on behalf of the people? Most of government is chocked full skulduggery.

Sounds like you've been bamboozled by putting faith in the very people who are in the best positions to screw you.

Until the administration can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, theirs can equally be labelled a conspiracy theory.

[LoZoccolo]

62. He probably didn't want any incompetence put on display. n/t

[Spigot]

130. Incompetance is a red herring

Can you imagine a more convenient excuse?? Whenever something happens that could indicate sinister activity by the government, the response among many dems like you is "oh, they couldn't do that, they're incompetant!" It's perfect!!!

You should examine whether they are truly incompetant. Look at all they've accomplished.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

58. I think they should be thrown in Gitmo along w/other freedom haters

lol!

[pinto]

59. Any discussion which isn't saddled with a preordained conclusion

is worth having, imo. It's when a discussion starts at a conclusion and has to work it's way backward that it gets pointless.

[T Town Jake]

60. Been there; done that. The CT'ers don't listen so well...

...and here is how a typical post of their's goes:

A massive "data dump" consisting of link after link after link, broken up by paragraphs of staccato, "just so" arguments purporting to "support" whatever the previous link is to.

If one actually invests the time to click and then thread through each of the links offered, one almost always finds the following:
1. 1/3rd of their links are broken or simply lead nowhere.
2. 1/3rd of their links are to sources of an, ahem, very dubious sort, i.e., far-right "Bill Clinton is hovering above my house in a black helicopter!!!" sort, or outright anti-semitic/"The Jews did it!!!" garbage.
3. 1/3rd of their links are to source that are innocuous enough in and of themselves, but the OP has almost always chosen to willfully misinterpret the data offered, and then insist that, A-HA!!!, here, at last is mainstream authentication for whatever CT that is being peddled.
What proceeds to happen is that when one assertion is decisively refuted, the CT'ers angrily insist "but what about this other one over here!!!," and pretty soon, as one by one their shibboleths are run aground and their oxes gored, they start shrieking "whose payroll are you on?," or "we're just trying to get the data out there; why are you against free speech?"
Lather, rinse, repeat.
It can, I'll admit, be great sport--about the first fifteen times. But it soon becomes tiresome refuting the same old CT'er hogwash over and over and over; and they NEVER listen, just become more and more convinced that the world that seems so much against them has just yielded up another "enemy" in their "quest for truth"--namely the one who has engaged them and their claims on an adult level (which is more than what most of their claims are entitled to in the first place).

That said, I'm proud of those who stick with engaging the CT'ers: they've got more patience and intellectual endurance than I do, and I salute them.

[SidDithers]

120. Well said...nt

Sid

[patrice]

61. I want what truth they have to receive support but

I've met a few who scared me pretty bad - and it wasn't just their wild conspiracies that did that - ideas and theories, even wild ones, I don't mind - they were just *scarey* ANGRY.

[Nozebro]

63. It's okay to if you know for sure they aren't Disinfo Agents. The problem

is how to know whether they sincerely believe the conspiracy theory promoted by Bush or are they pretending to because they get paid to support the Official Conspiracy Theory.

[undeterred]

66. Pure snide arrogance.

Is it better to hide the thread or try to engage someone of such breathtaking arrogance?

[LostInAnomie]

67. Don't bother.

Conspiracy theories are like religion, completely unfalsifiable.

[BootinUp]

70. I'm back and forth on it

as my return demonstrates.

[LoZoccolo]

76. Oh great, put my thread into a place full of 9/11 conspiracy theorists...

...when it's decidedly not a thread for 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

[Kingshakabobo]

83. It's a conspiracy. I tells ya!

[Nozebro]

91. WHICH conspiracy do YOU support? The Cavemen Did It Conspiracy?

Do you have a dictionary at home or on your computer. Do YOURSELF and the world a favor and get a little education. You obviously don't know what "conspiracy theorist" means and you should have at least a clue about what words mean whenever you use them to try and smear a large group of intelligent people who are willing to put up with the kind of nonsense in your posts.

[LoZoccolo]

92. I don't support any conspiracy.

I do have a preference as to which conspiracy theory I believe though.

[Nozebro]

78. We engage with OCT'ers every day. It's fun & they need the workout.

nt

[Kingshakabobo]

84. Bring it ON! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!

:)

[Norrin Radd]

101. Phoenix force in the avatar of Jean Grey. Far more powerful than The Hulk

in the Earth-616 Marvel Comics multiverse. Bring it on?

;)

[Kingshakabobo]

108. Ruh-Ro! nt

[hpot]

115. They actually help us refine our arguments

I can't imagine a 9/11 movement without the OCTers.

[Sinti]

86. Not, LoZoccolo. They will merely frustrate and irritate you.

You're time is better spent herding cats elsewhere. :evilgrin:

[mirandapriestly]

87. I definitely recommend against it , since those who

question the government's role in 9-11 seem to be in the majority on DU.

[Nozebro]

90. The majority of informed people know the OCT is a fairy tale, so you've

been duly warned. Take on THAT conspiracy theory if you wish, but don't waste your time trying to undermine the truth about 9/11.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[AZBlue]

97. NOT.

There's no way to combat the kool-aid.

[Norrin Radd]

102. Which is harmless, because the original beverage was Flavor Aid. n/t

[MervinFerd]

109. Carefully.

There's no hope for the Flavor-ade users, but leaving the field completely uncontested just lets nonsense spread to the sane.

OTOH, the "Truth Movement" has moved into such absurd territory that it has become a self-parody. You don't want to interfere with that.

[dailykoff]

107. Your friends on Madison, Wall and Pennsylvania Avenues

would prefer that you didn't.

[greyl]

112. Things are much better.

One is rarely sure of the integrity that an internet conversation with a particular stranger has, but on the Johnny Appleseed side, nobody ever knows which of the hundred seeds will take root.
Plus, people who sit on fences like a juicy apple. ;)

[Grateful for Hope]

118. Nice to see that you are on a mission

but, it does seem to be quite patronizing.

:eyes:

[Nozebro]

119. Here at DU, we have no choice but to "engage" 9/11 CT'ers. They keep

trying to sell the absurd notion that a caveman and 19 young cokeheads are responsible for 9/11.

[SidDithers]

121. Better to leave them alone...

With a few excellent exceptions, they're generally too far gone to engage in discussion. According to many of them, if you don't agree with "Loose Change" or Steven Jones, then you're either a paid infiltrator or you just haven't taken the time to properly study the evidence.

As T Town Jake posted above, the debate can be fun the first 15 times, but the repetition eventually wears you down.

Sid

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[freedom fighter jh]

124. It is divisive but worthwhile.

9/11 is the defining issue of our time. It may be the basis for a person's political perspective and action.

I had to hear alternative theories several times, from several different people, before I was able to open my eyes. Those people could have felt they were wasting their time talking to me, but they kept going until I was able to see the picture.

Engage. It's too important to miss.

[Beam Me Up]

125. Threads like this turned me against DU

There was a time when I hung out here a lot. I don't any more because of this kind of crap.

9/11 was an 'inside' job. We do not know who did it. We do not know precisely how it was done. Doesn't matter. A building can not fall through itself at near free-fall speed. That is physically impossible -- without the use of timed demolitions removing the resistance of the underlying structure. Therefor the official version is false. Period.

This lie has been used by the Bush administration to JUSTIFY all that we hate -- and yet a lot of people here refuse to get it. Refuse to grasp the significance of what has been done by "W" or the "Secret Government" or who the hell ever is responsible. Instead, you'd rather turn my attention and the attention of other people like myself to "something halfway credible".

This whole thread is an insult and makes me despise "liberals" who haven't the courage to grasp just how out of control this situation really is. Seriously, it makes me so angry I want to throw things and say things that would get my post deleted. I'm holding back because I want everyone to know how this makes me feel.

How dare you insult me and people like me when you, yourself, have obviously not studied the evidence? How dare you take an intellectually superior attitude toward me and people like me?

[Bryan Sacks]

126. beautifully put n/t

[Nozebro]

127. I understand how you feel, but RWers & Disinfo agents are most likely

responsible, NOT some lazy "liberal".

[Beam Me Up]

128. This has not been my experience.

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. All of my friends identify as left of center. However, all in all, I've found it much easier to get middle of the road and right leaning people -- even people who voted for Bush -- to 'get it' about 9/11 than I have liberals. Of course this is not universally true, I'm just saying there are a lot of people I know who won't even look at the evidence or, even if they do, they reject it out of hand because they, themselves, aren't "experts". I have one friend who actually said to me he will not even consider the demolition theory unless not one, not two, but an overwhelming percentage of structural engineers support that theory. He takes the position that neither he nor individuals in the field are qualified to evaluate the evidence. He will only embrace the CD theory if it is subscribed to by the majority of scientists and engineers. This is a person who strongly opposes the "W" -- neoconservative -- empirical agenda. I regard his position as intellectual cowardice. Either a building can fall through itself at the same rate it would fall through air or it can not. If it can not then the official theory is false because on 9/11 that is what happened, not once but three times.

[Nozebro]

129. Your post shows the futility and danger of focusing on demolitions as

evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. You'd be a whole lot better off, in my opinion, if you avoid trying to engage people by focusing on technical matters which they are unlikely to be able to grasp. Why do you think the shills here do that? They do so because it's easy to find an expert who is willing to give an opposite opinion about something technical. What you SHOULD be doing, I believe, is focusing on whether or not 9/11 was an inside job (i.e. a False Flag operation). Besides, it could be argued that EVEN if the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives, that isn't proof of the culpability of booshco, rather than Osamaco. Most people don't know very much about anything, aren't curious about learning new things, and only believe what they already know. So, it's not realistic to expect they will be competent enough about the basic facts to begin to see the logic of demolitions as being a key to 9/11 as an inside job.

[Spigot]

132. That's what Mike Ruppert has argued

Others have too.

It's a valid argument in some ways, but I think different people will find different evidence compelling. All of it should be examined, pursued, and explained. Those with scientific backgrounds will probably find that most compelling, others will find the paper trail compelling, and for the average folk, the videos of the collapse might be most compelling.

I don't think any type of evidence is necessarily more compelling than any other. I find it ALL compelling.

[Nozebro]

134. What evidence can you cite that proves the alleged terrorists could not

have carried out the demolitions and were not responsible for them? Proving that demolitions or explosions caused the buildings to collapse doesn't prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Spigot]

135. Lots, I'll try to remember all I can

First, common sense. How could Islamic terrorists have carried thousands of pounds of explosives into the world trade centers, set them up precisely, and detonated them in precise order using computers, without being caught??

Able Danger comes to mind. This program had been tracking guys like Mohammed Atta for years. They had reams of evidence on him and a couple of the other hijackers. How could he have done this whole plot without being noticed??

Also, you may be aware that none of the hijackers appear on the flight manifests or are caught on video boarding the planes in question. How would this have happened under the official story?? How could Islamic terrorists have flown the planes if some weren't actually in the planes?? They couldn't have remote controlled the planes.

NORAD has changed its story 4 or 5 times. First it said it was never notified, then it said it was notified at a certain time, and since it has changed the times it was notified to attempt to retain some plausibility as to why fighter jets didn't intercept the 4 planes. It's story makes no sense. For instance, some buildings on Flight 93's flight path were evacuated before NORAD says they notified air force planes about the hijackings (according to it's current story). In the year before 9-11, fighters were scrambled something like 65 times, and it took them an average of 17 minutes or something (probably less; I don't have my sources in front of me). On 9-11, flight 77 that hit the Pentagon should have been intercepted almost an hour before it impacted the building. Why wasn't it?? There were a huge number of drills taking place on 9-11 when the attacks took place: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Vigilance, Northern Guardian, Tripod II, and others. The first four were NORAD drills which involved sending numerous fighter jets to Canada, over the Atlantic, and west chasing phantom hijacked planes. Tripod 2 was a FEMA drill scheduled for September 12 which conveniently was housed right near the WTC buildings. Are all these drills simply coincidental?? There's alot more to get into here.

We could also get into Larry Silverstein's comments. If Islamic radicals somehow snuck into the three buildings and planted all the explosives, how did Silverstein know about building 7??

There's also the matter of what it would have taken to bring the buildings down. The explosives aren't easy to obtain. For the twin towers to come down as they did, pulverizing the inner core of 40+ steel columns, many have speculated that a nuclear device would be needed to superheat the steel. Islamic terrorists couldn't have obtained such a device, much less get it into the country. Plus they would have needed 2 or more of them.

None of it makes sense from that angle. It's completely implausible. I understand why you might want to believe that though.

[John Q. Citizen]

136. No, but it would indicate a cover-up of the cause. It would also open

up the question of access by foreign agents.

The 19 suspected hijackers?

Would it have been on a timer? Or who would have detonated it? Would the security breach have invalidated the insurance?

Naw, it would be perceived by the public as pure inside job. IMHO.

[Beam Me Up]

137. You have got to be joking.

Building 7 was a text-book example of a masterfully executed demolition: Straight down and neatly folded on itself in 6.2 seconds. It takes months to plan such a demolition, not to mention expertise and virtually unlimited access. Very few people on the planet could have pulled it off. But the real telling point is the tenant list:

Financial institutions
Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
Standard Chartered Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
First State Management Group
TT Hartford Insurance Group
American Express Bank International
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)

Government agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
US Secret Service

Clearly, Seven World Trade would have been one of the most secure buildings on the planet. If terrorists can penetrate that security then none of us are nor ever will be safe.

[Beam Me Up]

138. You do not know me or were I focus.

You do not know that I've been focused on every angle of this since 9/11 itself -- which I was expecting -- and that based on following policy trends that have been unfolding for decades. I knew the day it happened that it was a false-flag operation and I knew what was going to come as a result of it in terms of both domestic and foreign policy. I began arguing on internet forums with people THAT DAY that it could not possibly have happened as was being presented by government and media -- and got a lot of flack for it, too.

In terms of getting other people to see the truth I use whatever arguments seem most cogent. However, that said, talking, for example, about the relationships between the various intelligence organizations and CIA, ISI and so forth gets very complicated. One has to be willing to wade through a lot of time lines and 'persons of interest' and their connections. It doesn't take a degree in physics to understand certain basic principals, such as the time it takes bodies to fall in a vacuum or through the air. Demonstrating that the official story can not be true can be done in a matter of seconds if you get people to think about this. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have to provide an alternative explanation for how the towers 'fell' -- only that the official story is impossible. I have found this works a high percentage of the time from the point of view of causing doubt to arise in the mind. Beyond that, I'm not interested in 'convincing' or 'converting' anyone to any particular hypothesis. I believe people should do their own research -- and there are resources aplenty for that.

[John Q. Citizen]

139. Yes, and if people get that seed of doubt, then doing their own looking into

the facts is much more lasting and self empowering than having someone else connecting all (or many) of the dots for you.

In the Kennedy assassination their was the magic bullet Official theory, and in 9/11 there is the magic buildings Official theory. I also agree with you that the onus of proof is on those who promote the official theory, not on those who can reasonably demonstrate that the Official theory is bogus.

But as with all painful events, there are always some who would prefer not to know just as a matter of personal preference/individual personality make up. Some people can't handle the truth.

[petgoat]

141. Explosives don't prove Bush complicity

It's an important point.

Many CTers push CD because they think it does; others reject it
out of hand because they think it would.

I wasn't able to consider CD dispassionately until I took a hint
from Hugo Bachmann and imagined an "explosive tenant" in the WTC
that rented office space, moved explosives up the freight elevator
(some tenants used their offices as warehouse space), and installed
them in the elevator shafts late at night, using the tops of the
elevator cars as movable staging.

I found Professor Bachmann's thesis in Webster Tarpley (see p. 9)

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:c4SKNriFRpIJ:www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf+explosive+tenant+swiss+tarpley&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1


Only by delinking the technical issue from inappropriate political
baggage could I think about it clearly.

[Beam Me Up]

143. "Bush" makes many myopic. One of the reasons they put him there.

The real persons of interest are those who own him.

[Spigot]

131. Exactly...Intellectual Cowardice

Anyone who thinks they need to have someone else explain something to them can be easily duped.

Sure, nobody can know everything, but hopefully we can all evaluate factual assertions from different sources and come to a conclusion ourselves. Some things are harder to understand than others, but throwing one's hands up and saying "I don't get this, can someone please tell me what the truth is??" is disturbingly stupid behavior.

IT doesn't even take expertise to know the official story is complete crap. It only takes common sense and the courage to actually look at the evidence. Unfortunately, that's more than most people can muster, it seems.

[dailykoff]

133. Well put.

I was going to make a comment on CD but I think you put your finger on it. People who claim not to have the technical background to get why the buildings couldn't have collapsed without explosives are probably just denying the most obvious contradiction so they can go on believing the rest of the lie.

[petgoat]

140. Your experience with center-rightists v. leftists suggests that

righties on the whole are more rational than lefties.

[Beam Me Up]

142. I would say it differently.

Denial comes in all collors and political persuasions. The important thing is, 9/11 isn't a right/left issue, it is a right/wrong issue. Either laws have been broken or they haven't. Either the perpetrators are known or they are not. If they are not, then a thorough investigation is needed. Either the "War on Terror" (tm) is based on factual intelligence or it is not. If it isn't, then it is a travesty of justice verging on madness if not outright treason.

It is my contention that if you're going to have a "War on Terror," shred the Constitution and international law in the process, then you'd better know who the real terrorists are and why they are terrorizing you. I don't know about you but I know who scares me and who has the most WMD on this planet, and their organization doesn't rhyme with Onida, you might'a or arachnidae.




edit typo

[Daneel]

144. you are a nice example of the topic starter

Mechanically we know precisely how it was done. Buildings can fall trough itself with freefall speed. That is physically possible, even obvious.

If you firmly believe what you wrote and no evidence or healthy dose of physics will change your mind, I do say you are intellectually inferior.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

147. "Buildings can fall trough itself with freefall speed."

lol

[ima_sinnic]

145. is it better to engage those who accept an obvious cover-up w/out question?

EVERYTHING about 9/11 SCREAMS cover-up!

if everything is "as they say" and according to the "official report," why does * do everything in his power to resist an investigation? why did he have to "testify" before the 9/11 Commission sitting on dick's lap and behind closed doors? why did he delete 28 pages? what took him so long and why did he resist releasing any real info without extreme pressure? why wouldn't he INSIST that no stone be unturned to get to the bottom of it instead of throwing out the convenient but unsubstantiated "oh, Osama did it," with a smirk? why were bin Laden's relatives rushed out of the country while US citizens were grounded?

why did FBI seize every videotape within minutes of whatever hit the Pentagon? why was a tape cut up and the pieces thrown into several different trash cans? why won't they show us what's supposedly wrreckage of a plane laid out in a hangar somewhere?

why has Sibel Edmonds been silenced? why are 9/11 widows totally unconvinced?

why are there so many gaping holes in the "official story" you could drive a Mack truck through them?

unfortunately, for some it is important to ridicule, mock and denigrate those who see through this for the obvious fraud/cover-up that it is. it is almost as if it were ... their ... JOB ... or something ...
their zeal and ardor in doing so just lend credence to and perpetuate the FACT that there is SOMETHING we're not wanted to question.

the closer we get to their stinkiing snakepit of lies, the more we are "swiftboated" right here on this board. OP's tactic is same old same old shit--we've seen it a million times in the last 6 yrs.

[Nozebro]

146. You couldn't be more right, and I've often wondered about those folks, too.

booshco CT'ers who try to shut down Truth Seekers.


"it is almost as if it were ... their ... JOB ... or something ..."

[Lasthorseman]

149. Go ahead engage me

Card carrying MIHOP.
Lord, I have learned and bonded with a horse. We talked about a ride, the last ride, the one before the Apocalypse. You can smite em all Lord, and start all over again.

http://www.scl.cc/home.php
While your at it, peruse that one!

[William Seger]

150. Not

It's a noble thought, but it's like trying to save someone after he's already been bitten by the vampire.

[Infernal Optimist]

151. Which conspiracy theory?

The theory that 19 Muslim fundamentalists, with no other support group within the USA, conspired to pull off 9/11?

The people you denigrate as conspiracy theorists may not even HAVE a theory regarding the execution of 9/11. They should more properly be called "official conspiracy theory skeptics".

A sizable group of these people would just like an investigation into the crime worthy of an average drive-by shooting (much less the murder of 2000 people)

[petgoat]

152. It is difficult to overcome with reason someone's feeling that (s)he knows more than is

commonly known if (s)he has read a few books and thus does in fact know
more than is commonly known.

Your claim that this feeling is fallacious is itself fallacious.

Maybe if you think through your logic a bit more you'd make better
headway with Truthists.

[MervinFerd]

153. Not.

And this need a bump.

[softwarevotingtrail]

154. Some people are motivated by truth and not politics

It's a fact that the official version of events is a conspiracy theory and that the main suspects in this conspiracy have never been charged with a crime, let alone brought to justice.

It's also a fact that based on the empirical evidence at hand, the official version of events just doesn't add up.

There are people who are motivated by politics, i.e. getting to the bottom of what happened that dreadful day isn't a "good talking point."

There are people who really couldn't care less either way.

And then there are the truth seekers: People who just want to know what the hell happened that day.

I am a student of history. On the one hand, I am curious to know what really happened on Sept. 11. On the other, I wonder what the net result of revealing the truth would be.

[betherenow]

155. question: what do YOU think will be the net result of the truth being revealed? nt

nt

[Make7]

156. Welcome to DU 'betherenow'!

 
:hi: Make7
Would you prefer I call you Americus, BuddyYoung, Uppanotch, Nitty-Gritty, Artdyst, Nozebro, or betherenow?

[toadaway]

157. thankya. thankya very much. proud to be here. n/t

n/t

[EFerrari]

159. I avoid conversations with the Bush Administration.

They are too out of touch with reality to reach.