Have at it "debunkers," "OCTers," "OCTabots": Post any part of officials story you disagree with

[HamdenRice]

I am prompted to post this after reading a post by Hope. She said it was curious that the so-called "debunkers," "OCTers," "OCTabots," and members of the church of fundamentalist "OCTabarnacalism" never, ever actually post critiques of the official narrative, yet at times bleat that they are not unquestioning of the official story.

So have at it "debunkers," "OCTers," "OCTabots," "OCTabarnacles," and members of the church of fundamentalist "OCTabarnacalism" -- please post any aspects of the official Bush administration account with which you disagree, here: ----->

[AZCat]

1. Will you be posting what parts of the various "alternative" conspiracy theories...

you disagree with? Why are we held to a different standard? Why do I have to meet some sort of requirement in order for people like you and Hope to accept me as a Democrat (or as anything else)?

[HamdenRice]

17. I've done so many times on these boards

in particular my disagreement with no planers. I was in lower Manhattan on 9/11/01, heard the plane roar over my office and in the panicked evacuation of Manhattan by foot over the Manhattan Bridge heard many people talking about having seen the planes.

[AZCat]

24. I'd forgotten about that - my apologies.

My problems with the so-called "official story" are rather mundane, and typically don't extend into the area generally covered by "conspiracy theories" (in the connotative sense, of course). Are you really that interested in hearing my criticisms of the NIST reports? (which I have posted before) Because that's where my interest lies. Money trails, shadowy connections between covert and intelligence operatives - that's just not very interesting to me (or at least not as interesting as building systems analysis).

[Subdivisions]

23. Are you going to answer the goddamned question or not? n/t

[greyl]

2. I'm doubtful that this thread will be helpful to you in any way.

I know you and others have seen this several times before, but I guess you must repress the memory for some reason.

edit: Btw, why weren't you present in that thread, HamdenRice? It must be because you didn't agree with the OP!

edit2: The newwartimes link in the thread I linked to doesn't work anymore, so here's a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x44648">DU thread from 2003 with the content of the link preserved.

[HamdenRice]

3. Once again your writing is so preposterously opaque...

that it's impossible to divine what you are attempting, ever so unsuccessfully, to talk about. Why not just spell out what you are trying to say, including your objections to the official story, right here, rather than post a link to a thread in which your posts don't even appear?

[greyl]

5. "a link to a thread in which your posts don't even appear" Falsehood from HamdenRice.

*fainting with shock because HamdenRice posted something that is untrue.*

My post in the thread I linked to is #8. Feel free to read it for comprehension.

I hope I didn't jynx you by expressing my doubt of this thread's helpfulness to you.

[HamdenRice]

6. Wrong again -- as usual

Where is your post in this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x44648

Unless you can point to a post by you in this thread, you really should shut up. Posting blatant falsehoods damages your already nearly non-existent credibility.

Nota bene: I did not say your posts did not appear in both threads you linked to.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[greyl]

7. Oh, you're playing word games to distract from what you perceive as a defeat.

Sorry, you caught me being optimistic about you. My bad.

[HamdenRice]

8. You admit you were lying then?

So where is your post in that thread?

[greyl]

9. You're ever so flirtatious this evening.

Following, is a link: >>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=102569&mesg_id=102584

<<< The preceding is a link.

[William Seger]

11. I wonder if HamdenRice...

... will now admit that he completely misread your post, and was looking in the second link for your post.

[William Seger]

16. Hmm, guess not... n/t

[greyl]

20. Why start now? nt

[Grateful for Hope]

10. greyl

I read the thread, and, I don't see that you are specifically stating anything about the official narrative that you disagree with. You do, however, do a great job ramming Condi et al.

Perhaps I am wrong, and, if so, I apologize in advance.

[greyl]

21. You'll have to explain how the lies I point to, and the info that isn't common wisdom

amongst Repubs and the MSM isn't part of the official narrative.

I think the facts I pointed to are the very basis of the official narrative.

[HamdenRice]

22. Rather than post links, 50% of which are utterly irrelevant ...

and then write an indecipherable tortured sentence like this:

"You'll have to explain how the lies I point to, and the info that isn't common wisdom ...amongst Repubs and the MSM isn't part of the official narrative ..."

Why not just come out and say precisely what it is about the official narrative you disagree with? Your inability to state any proposition directly and inability answer questions directly has always been the worst aspect of your participation in any of these debates.

On edit: The sentence above is so tortured that it cries out for analysis. Perhaps this will help you understand why so many of us become so frustrated with your bad writing and evasions.

"You'll have to explain..."

No, of course not. The question was posed to you. On what conceivable grounds can you turn this around to an obligation of someone else to "have to explain" anything -- and more bizarrely, to "have to" explain something about your own position to you? This is a common rhetorical strategy of yours -- demanding that some sort of burden of persuasion is on the other party when the question has been put to you.

"how the lies I point to..."

What are they? Half of the 2 links didn't even have a post of yours in it and the other simply copies dubious statements by Mueller and Rice without explaining exactly why you think they are lies. Many people -- especially OCTabots -- still agree with these statements by Mueller and Rice. Unless you state what they say and then say what you think they are lying about, you haven't pointed out any "lies."

So how can anyone "have to explain" anything about "lies" you "point to"?

"and the info that isn't common wisdom ...amongst Repubs and the MSM isn't part of the official narrative ..."

Well what "info" is that? How can anyone "explain" any of this "info" or "common wisdom" if you haven't stated it. Also the double negative makes it virtually comprehension proof, while the "MSM isn't part..." makes it sound like you are saying that "the mainstream media isn't part of the official narrative...," a nonsensical phrase.

In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

Seriously, I hope this helps you understand why your posts are so frustratingly opaque.

[wildbilln864]

4. that's not criticizing the official narrative...

it's criticizing Bush, Condi, etc. Are there any more instances?
And your unfounded assumption as to why HR didn't participate in that thread is more evidence of your lack of credibility than anything else.

[Realityhack]

12. Read the fucking forum. There is plenty of criticism of all kinds of things.

Though I suspect some are over your head.

[LARED]

13. So let me see if I understand

All the times I've been called a Bush shill and defender of the OCT, was all just a crazy mistake. If I've never critiqued the official story how in the world can anyone know I am defending it. Or is this some sort of weird guilt by silence fallacy.

[Flatulo]

14. I'll bite...

For the sake of argument, let's separate the Official Story into at least two components... the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report on the building failures. I'll deliberately omit the comments of Bush and Rice, as they have been proven to my satisfaction to be lies (No one imagined...).

Taking the 9/11 CR first, it is my impression that they authors never explored the existence of intelligence snippets that indicated that al Qaeda was planning something big. The stated purpose of the report was not to place blame, but I think this was a grave oversight. If criminal negligence is ever to be established, there needs to be a new investigation that delves into who in the intelligence community knew what, when they knew it, and why it was not acted upon.

As to the NIST WTC tower report, I do not think they've adequately addressed the issue of the molten metal seen dripping before the collapse. The NIST FAQ argues that it was molten aluminum contaminated with other materials, but Dr. Jones has shown that debris quickly separates to the top of the melt and burns off immediately. Others have argued that molten aluminum indeed glows orange at elevated temperatures, but that the emmissivity is too low to be seen in bright daylight (the side of the tower that the leak was observed from was in shadows). While I feel that it was most likely molten aluminum, NIST did not do a very good job of demonstrating this.

These issues in no way convince me that there was a government sponsored conspiracy to knock down these buildings. I do believe there was an active effort to create the perception that the government was in no way to blame for allowing the attacks to occur.

As always, I am happy to be corrected if I am factually mistaken in any of my comments.

[Realityhack]

15. I will post a more serious response here.

I think Flatulo is correct to divide the official story into at least two components. The physical failures, and how/what people did before and during the attacks.

I will also admit a level of ignorance here. I have NOT read the full complete NIST reports. I am not an engineer. And I have not read the full 9-11 commission report.

I agree with Flatulo that the issue of molten material exiting the WTC before collapse has not been adequately explored. I am not sure it can be determined what this was to any reasonable degree of certainty, but a better exploration is in order.
I also think that AZCats questioning of how sensitive the WTC7 models were to initial inputs is a good area to explore, however I am not qualified (both by lack of reading and lack of knowledge) to comment on wither any mistakes or shortcomings actually exist on this point.

In general however I think that the NIST reports do a fairly good job explaining what happened physically on 9-11.

I think there is a lot more in the 9-11 commission report that is arguable. Because so many events in the report are based on witness recollection (not to mention potential dishonesty) the commission report is a lot 'softer'. As I said I have not tried to make myself an expert on it. However, my understanding is it most likely contains a bunch of inaccuracies, I just can't name them off the top of my head.
I do not think it is nearly as flawed as many in the 'truth' movement think. I try to explore criticisms as they come up (one of my reasons for hanging out here) and in general the criticisms raised are factually questionable at best when explored.

Obviously Bush and the rest of the administration lied repeatedly about all kinds of things related to the attacks, while their retarded claims are technically part of the 'official' story I won't address them except to say they are largely bullshit.

[HamdenRice]

18. Thanks for the serious response

I'm surprised by your interest in the molten metal angle.

[Flatulo]

19. I find it somewhat off-putting that NIST would treat the question with such disinterest.

I don't believe for a moment that the molten metal was from 'cutter charges' or other CD phenomenon, but if NIST could perform some of the most sophisticated computer modeling ever performed, why could they not get to the bottom of this?

It helps feed the more far-out theories, which in turn distracts attention from the real question of how this whole fiasco could have happened.