Any comments ??

[Twist_U_Up]

tis awful silent up there on Greatest..........80 Recs

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2618136

OCT BOTS ANYTHING ???

CAN YOU HEAR ME ?

[LARED]

1. That does not appear to be a story about 9/11

So what's your point?

[Twist_U_Up]

2. Title of Article: 9-11 Cover-Up, Treason and The Bomb

Heres a small snip for ya, very first paragraph as a matter of fact

If a new article just published Saturday in the Times of London based upon information provided by US government whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, is correct, we have not only solid evidence of prior knowledge of 9-11 by high up US government officials, but evidence of treasonous activity by many of those same officials involving efforts to provide US nuclear secrets to America’s enemies, even including Al Qaeda.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29867
any comments ?

[LARED]

3. Yes, that's Dave Lindorff's spin on the article

but the article he links to does not seem to make any connection between the 9/11 attacks and what Edwards is saying.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. Why did you post to that thread saying how nice the quiet was...

...and then post here trolling for a fight?

[Twist_U_Up]

5. No I wasnt trolling for a fight.....

Actually I was looking for your your input on the matter . I didnt see you post on that thread, and Im sure you didnt recommend it even, so I thought I would bring it to your attention in the dungeon because I know you rarely stray far from this forum.
Comon Bolo how bout a K+R for Sibel ??

[Bolo Boffin]

6. You used the offensive term OCT BOTS both here and there.

The hell you weren't trolling for a fight.

[Twist_U_Up]

8. Is oct bots any thing like "troofers"

these terms get thrown around so much I have accepted them as common place. Sorry I hurt your feelings.
No really.....

Still wouldnt mind a comment from the master 911 spinmeister.

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. thus making the point: like hell you aren't trolling for a fight n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

17. I have never used the term "twoofer"

and have only used the term "truther" to people who self-apply. I used it once to refer to JackRiddler, he let me know that he found it offensive, and I apologized.

[Sweet Pea]

7. Before I *Kick* for "Sibel"

I'd just be a little curious how a translator for the FBI goes around playing secret agent and finding moles in places she had no legitimate business being in, for example the US State Department, the Pentagon, and the nuclear weapons establishment. Life ain't a movie and this ain't a movie, either.

[quickesst]

10. The truth is....

outside the dungeon, the oct is overwhelmed by those who do not buy into the government fairy tale. That kind of exposure would be detrimental to their standing in the community as "democratic progressives. The only thing the greatest page post, and similar bring to the oct, is confirmation that they are in the minority when it comes to the events of Sspt. 11, 2001. As long as a post concerning 9/11 is left in GD, the support for a new investigation is overwhelming. Once it is relegated to the dungeon, however, the label of "troofers", "fringe lunatics", etc., deter them from following the thread to it's end. When, and if, the 9/11 truth movement is allowed in GD, and the dungeon is eliminated, the overwhelming support for a new investigation will make the oct insignificant, and their time will be spent trying to figure a way to convince others that they do not represent the government, and really are progressives. One thing is sure. As long as their are DU members such as AndreII, KFJ, SLAD, and others of similar intelligence and insight, the truth movement is in no danger of failing, even in the oct's back yard.(the dungeon)
On another note, the name "troofers" fit's those who demand a new investigation perfectly. The oct's lack of spelling skills can be forgiven. Thanks.
quickesst

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. FWIW

Sweeping, studiously vague phrases like "the government fairy tale" and "a new investigation" tend to impede rational discussion. (Go figure.)

The Times story actually has almost nothing (if anything) to do with 9/11. It certainly has nothing to do with whether the Twin Towers were brought down with thermate, or the other weird ideas that pop up around here.

Are there really people incapable of making such distinctions? I don't know.

[quickesst]

12. Horsefeathers...

"Sweeping, studiously vague phrases like "the government fairy tale" and "a new investigation" tend to impede rational discussion. (Go figure.)"

And the oct have such moral and high standards that they feel no need for such "studiously vague phrases"? That's a pure republican response in the hopes that most are stupid enough not to see the similarities in rhetoric from both sides. Everything I wrote is absolutely on the money. Once exposed to the light of day, the overwhelming belief that a new investigation is called for is a foregone conclusion, and the only thing the government defenders have left will be gone, relegated to the recycle bin for deletion.

"
The Times story actually has almost nothing (if anything) to do with 9/11. It certainly has nothing to do with whether the Twin Towers were brought down with thermate, or the other weird ideas that pop up around here."

More horsefeathers. You just interjected that subject in hopes of turning the discussion to something more manageable from an oct's respect. It would help however, if there was an indication of any practical experience in construction. Architects and engineers can draw the blueprints, but it usually falls to the man in the field to make it practical. Drywall, metal stud framing, fireproofing, ceiling work, and elevator shaft construction has been my bread and butter for over twenty years, and I am sure a more thourough knowledge of the construction field would be beneficial to those who desire to use it in their arguments, either for or against demolition. That knowledge is easily accessible on the many commercial construction sites that dot the country, and one will probably be surprised at the number of blue-collar construction workers who find many problems with the official account. As far as the op, and Sibel Edmunds in concerned, all I see is an attempt to keep the connections from being made to 9/11, and the desparation is starting to show as the subject gains momentum in the msm and elsewhere. We'll see how it plays out. Thanks.
quickesst

On edit: Please understand, I do not dismiss the oct outright, as I believe some things brought up are relevant. It's the wholesale belief in what they espouse, with no serious thought to the other side's arguments in most cases that bother me. Whether true or not, the talking points of the oct, with their obsession for nitpicking details to throw a thread off subject does nothing to improve the credibility of what they are saying, and pretty much reinforces the image of "gubment shill" to the public at large. Thanks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. I think the whole idea of an "oct" is a crock

that people like you propound in order to have something to feel self-righteous about. Have fun with that.

ETA: That's the generous interpretation. The less generous interpretation is that it's conscious agitprop.

[quickesst]

14. "people like you propound in order to have something to feel self-righteous about."

Sorry, but your attempt to one-up me is only that. An attempt. Simply put, if your defense of the government's version of events is anything other than a theory at this point, please offer proof of factuality. That way, we can all move past this and get on with other matters. You do yourself no favors using the same rhetoric you chided me on in your first response, and your non-response, other than an attempted personal insult, to my previous post is one of the main reasons people feel OCT is appropriate. My overall impression of the OCT is that of someone who is desperate to just forget the whole thing. Let it go. Nothing to see here folks. Let's move on. Let the history books reflect what the Bush administration deems appropriate. Is that the goal of the oct here at DU? Perhaps not, but it's the impression I get. Thanks.
quickesst

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. what "defense" is that?

You wouldn't happen to be making stuff up about me, would you?

ETA: Do you really not see that you are supporting my point about why the idea of an "oct" is a crock?

[quickesst]

23. You're here...

trying to dissuade others from asking questions that beg answers. That, in my mind, constitutes defense of a yet proven theory. That nineteen arabs hijacked four commercial aircraft, and despite the most advanced defense system in existence, managed to hit three out of four targets. I really don't consider any one individual as oct, but rather one body, a collective, if you will, so there is no personal animosity with any individual. There can only be one "official story", not two or three, or even four, just one. On the other hand, because of a botched investigation, coverup, and criminal misconduct, the truth movement has the unenviable task of separating truth form fantasy, which naturally involves some speculation. I just don't see why it's so important to "everyday, ordinary citizens", if a group of varied individuals choose not to believe the events laid out by the government, and set out to prove their theories. If there is nothing to the truth movement, why not kick back, and let it die the natural death inconsequential conspiracy theories usually fall prey to. I don't understand why the oct quite literally begs for someone to "just let a thread die", or complain to the mods about a thread that is heavily posted on the subject in GD. I just don't understand a lot of things, but one thing I do know. A new, independent investigation would put all the arguments to rest, one way or the other, hence my confusion as to the concentrated effort to stop said investigation. I have wished before, that in the end, it was all due to gross incompetence, and that our country and constitution were still intact. The problem is, the government, and the more vocal message board defense(effort to quash the truth movement, however you prefer to put it), have not done a very good job of convincing people otherwise. Maybe silence would be the oct's best route. Thanks.
quickesst

[AZCat]

24. Bullshit.

Nobody here is trying to stop people from asking questions. It's the providing of stupid or wrong answers that get us riled up.

[quickesst]

29. The dictionary......

is your friend.

dis·suade (d-swd)
tr.v. dis·suad·ed, dis·suad·ing, dis·suades
To deter (a person) from a course of action or a purpose by persuasion or exhortation

Change your written statement with one word, the word I actually used, and someone looks kind of silly.

"Nobody here is trying to DISSUADE people from asking questions. It's the providing of stupid or wrong answers that get us riled up."

One of the oct's glaring flaws is to insert or replace actual quotes with words that fit your agendas. This is a good example. Usually a little more subtle than this, but you get my drift.

If I had written "stop", then yes, I would be in error, but dissuasion is the oct's bread and butter, no matter how you choose to define it. Thanks.
quickesst

[AZCat]

33. It makes no difference what word you use.

If you'll notice, I wasn't quoting you. It's called paraphrasing.

Get this straight - we don't give a fuck if you can't figure out why the buildings collapsed, we just don't like it when you begin to lie in order to support your predetermined conclusions.

[quickesst]

41. That's .....

WE, as in a collective, right?:)

"we just don't like it when you begin to lie in order to support your predetermined conclusions."

and "you" is me? Thanks
quickesst

[AZCat]

44. "You" would be speaking generally.

Just as "we" is also.

I am not accusing you of lying, but the truth movement certainly has supported lies - repeatedly - when they have been proven wrong and are aware of it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. no, I'm not

You're here... trying to dissuade others from asking questions that beg answers.

That's bullshit. Sometimes I think this sort of thing is funny, but mostly I actually do resent it. I imagine, if our positions were reversed, you would feel the same way.

But I concede that I don't actually know why you are posting fantastic misinformation about my motives with respect to some "oct." I can only speculate. I try to return no more than nine-tenths-tit-for-tat, but I long ago wore out on letting people make stuff up about me ad lib.

I have no problem with people engaging in some speculation, as long as it is identified as such. Presumably you've noticed that a lot of the "questions" here aren't posed as such at all. If you interpret informed critique of e.g. no-plane theories as an "effort to quash the truth movement," maybe you should set aside your assumptions, check your reasoning, take a stroll in someone else's moccasins, and all-around reconsider.

Weirdest of all, this thread started with the observation that the supposed devotees of the "oct" were making no effort whatsoever to post to or intervene in a thread. How insidious! how devious! how -- umm, consistent with the alternative hypothesis that no one is trying to dissuade you from asking questions. :shrug:

[quickesst]

30. If you....

insist on making this about you, then I cannot stop, or dissuade :loveya: you from doing so.

" Weirdest of all, this thread started with the observation that the supposed devotees of the "oct" were making no effort whatsoever to post to or intervene in a thread. How insidious! how devious! how -- umm, consistent with the alternative hypothesis that no one is trying to dissuade you from asking questions."

Wow, twice in one thread so far. First the lack of understanding the difference between dissusion, and stopping, and now this. The op of course, was referring to threads on the subject of 9/11, that remain in GD for any period of time. That the oct avoids those threads is obvious if you have followed the subject and this forum for any length of time. Once relegated to the dungeon however, it's like watching a pack of ravenous wolves who have been tethered without food for a week.

Once again, I have no animosity toward any one individual. My arguments are addressed to the collective, but, as stated earlier, I cannot stop, nor dissuade your premise that this is a personal attack. Thanks.
quickesst

On edit: I have been laid off work for two months, hence my extended involvement in this thread. I am going back to work tomorrow, and due to my huge lack of computer skills, and speed with which I type, my involvement will probably be short-lived, but my daily observation of this forum will continue. If I fail to respond to a post, this is why. If anyone cares to address any of my statements, I will take time to answer a pm. Thanks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

37. well, it must be about SOMEONE (not just me)

Have you given any thought to a possible difference in content between posts that "remain in GD for any period of time" and those that don't? Does it seem conceivable to you that this might have some bearing on how people react? (Also, have you noticed that many of the people you tar as "the oct" -- now it's not just a theory, apparently, but a sect -- also "ignore" certain threads on this board? Again, could it have anything to do with the content of the posts? If so, would that be because "the oct" fears those threads, or could there be other reasons?)

Think outside your box.

[quickesst]

42. Actually...

there have been quite a few threads directly related to 9/11 that have remained on the greatest page, and gd for a considerable time. They were there to comment on by any DU member. As for content, and a desire to respond to any one thread, I suppose that would be up to the individual, and what he/she deems important enough to respond to. Thanks.
quickesst

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

40. Thank you for your contributions -- good luck with the job...

...and I hope you'll jump back in here where you can find time.

[quickesst]

43. Thanks Mr_Jefferson_24

Starting a remodel on a good sized hotel. With the holidays and all, it was a decent vacation. Got to spend a lot of time with the grandkids.
Had some time, so I thought I'd offer a fraction of my two cents. More in support for what you and others do in this forum. That, and a little bit me being an argumentative son-of-a-bitch, who admittedly derives a little guilty pleasure in pushing a few buttons.:shrug: Anyway, I'm outta here for awhile. Keep hammerin'. Thanks.
quickesst

[HamdenRice]

16. Great post!

It's really not about them anymore. They've become irrelevant.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. WTF? n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

20. Poof, that's WTF. nt.

[OnTheOtherHand]

21. review DU rules n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

22. Gee, dad, do I hafta? Billy's comin over and we were gonna...

...go shoot some hoops.

[OnTheOtherHand]

26. nope, you can have as many posts deleted as you want

And bitch about it, too.

[seemslikeadream]

25. By shear chance things just happen repeatedly and coincidentally to benefit their interests

:hug:




IMPEACH CHENEY




They Thought They Were Free - Read by Dave Emory

The Germans, 1933-45

Excerpt from pages 166-73 of "They Thought They Were Free" First published in 1955

By Milton Mayer

But Then It Was Too Late

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

....

"Yes," I said.

"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’



Michael Parenti - Terrorism, Globalism & Conspiracy

"Coincidence Theory: By shear chance things just happen repeatedly and coincidentally to benefit their interests without any conscious connivance by them, which is most uncanny. There is also: Stupidity Theory, Innocence Theory, Momentary Aberration Theory, Incompetence Theory, Unintended Consequences Theory and Innocent Cultural Proclivities Theory."

- Michael Parenti

[quickesst]

31. Simply put......

If there is no substance to the truth movement, as claimed, why is there such rabid opposition? If, as the oct contends, the truth movement is made up of people who live in a delusional world concerning an outrageous conspiracy theory, why do they care? The question answers itself. Something is not kosher, because if it was, I wouldn't be here right now, writing this post, and the entire debate would have been over years ago. The truth movement, in this forum, is in more than capable hands, and I am probably out of my depth when it comes the technical, and behind the scenes machinations, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that oddities, coincidences, lies, and coverup begs further investigation. Thanks.
quickesst

[AZCat]

32. There would be no opposition to the "truth movement"...

if it actually gave a shit about the truth, rather than swallowing any wild theory promoted by crackpots and scam artists.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Anarcho-Socialist]

28. I've looked at it

The author basically mentioned that "OMG 9/11 is an inside job" in the first paragraph and then started to talk about the Times Sibel Edmonds story. He applied "9/11" into the title despite the Times article having nothing to do with 9/11. It is poor journalism on Lindorff's part, but I suppose useful propaganda for reeling in those who don't know better.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

34. Here's the first paragraph of Lindorff's piece:

If a new article just published Saturday in the Times of London based upon information provided by US government whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, is correct, we have not only solid evidence of prior knowledge of 9-11 by high up US government officials, but evidence of treasonous activity by many of those same officials involving efforts to provide US nuclear secrets to America’s enemies, even including Al Qaeda.

Here's your summation:

Anarcho-Socialist: The author basically mentioned that "OMG 9/11 is an inside job" in the first paragraph and then started to talk about the Times Sibel Edmonds story. He applied "9/11" into the title despite the Times article having nothing to do with 9/11. It is poor journalism on Lindorff's part, but I suppose useful propaganda for reeling in those who don't know better.

What a bizarre and misleading use of quotation marks: "OMG 9-11 is an inside job" -- and you're accusing Lindorff of spreading propaganda?


Anarcho-Socialist: ...the Times article having nothing to do with 9/11.

From the Times piece: Intercepted communications showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy.

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks.

The results of the espionage were almost certainly passed to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece


Here's a little primer on quotation marks and their use -- you might want to take a look:

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


Here's one on propaganda -- yours needs work:

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

[Anarcho-Socialist]

38. Look at the first paragraph

"we have not only solid evidence of prior knowledge of 9-11 by high up US government officials..." a spin on the Times article.

There is nothing in the Times story which says that.

The story is about great corruption in the US government. The propaganda effort here is by Truthers who wish to twist it for their own purposes.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

39. Congratulations, you're using quotation marks to...

...actually quote a part of the first paragraph, at least that's an improvement.

There may be hope for you yet, Anarcho.

FYI: 9-11 is a story about great corruption in the US government.

[SidDithers]

35. Does Lindorf say it was on the front page...

of the Sunday Times too?

Sid