"9/11 = Inside Job" is all good regardless

by **stickdog99** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:33 am

Even if you wholeheartedly believe that 19 ragtag Arabs led by an ex-CIA asset on a dialysis machine hiding in a cave halfway around the world pulled off the biggest, most complicated and most successful terrorist strike ever all by themselves despite the best efforts of the trillion dollar a year mil/intel/justice/customs/law enforcement organizatons of the most powerful nation in world history, whose interests are you serving by promulgating this notion and cautioning those who speculate otherwise? This is why I've never understood how any well-meaning individual could possibly spend hours a day, day after day policing those who question the events of 9/11 in ostensibly progressive discussion groups. Even if 9/11 was not an inside job, we're far better off treating it as if it were -- because, despite the dubious official "narrative" of that day, the "9/11 changes everything" mantra has been successfully used to justify: 1) an insane invasion and occupation, 2) an Orwellian state of neverending warfare, 3) an all-out assault on our Bill of Rights and our Constitutional separation, balance and oversight of powers, 4) rampant and bald faced war profiteering and a huge increase in dubious mil/intel/security expenditures, 5) an insane doctrine of military pre-emption, 6) torture and rendition, 7) a culture of authoritarian secrecy, 8) the persecution of political dissent, 9) enraging the Muslim world and alienating the rest of the world, 10) etc., etc., etc. while doing little or nothing to enhance our security or address the root causes OR symptoms of Islamic terror. Our ports are no more secure than they were on 9/11, and they are being sold to an Arab government that recognized the Taliban. Our nuke plants are just as vulnerable as ever. The CAPPS II no-fly list supposedly protects us against a non-existent threat (when was the last time a US domestic flight was hijacked by a US citizen?) while actually HELPING any terrorist cell with the resources to do a few test runs before the big event. Finally, not one individual has been publicly held accountable for his or her failures on 9/11, and Homeland (Pork Barrel) Security proved its "worth" during the Katrina debacle. All of this disgusting shit and much more has gone down in the name of an incredibly dubious conspiracy theory worthy of Doctor Evil and containing far more plot holes than any Ed Wood feature. And even assuming that this official conspiracy theory is remotely true, the problem of a few thousand hardcore fundamentalist Islamic terrorists would quite obviously be best addressed with a small but expertly trained team of covert infiltrators and special operations forces. How can anyone with any parapolitical interests other than advancing elitist hegemony even further possibly find merit in policing those who rationally draw attention to dubious elements of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory -- regardless of their personal beliefs concerning the events of that day? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/14/06 3:34 am

by **thoughtographer** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>How can anyone with any parapolitical interests other than furthering elitist hegemony could possibly see merit in policing those who rationally draw attention to any dubious elements the official 9/11 conspiracy theory -- regardless of their personal beliefs concerning the events of that day?<hr></blockquote> Because as much as you crow about "the truth", you really only seem concerned with aligning those who disagree with your narrow views with the "other"; in this case "the elitist hegemony", an entity so amorphous as to be comparable to water. Yes, there are dubious elements in all of the stories, "official" or otherwise, but I guess if we're not with you, we're against you, right? It's attitudes like this that start wars, and I don't want to be a part of any war, regardless of the cause behind the ignorance that started it. Fuck you for telling me what I stand for by not towing the line for you, you fucking fascist. When you start actually using reason to draw attention to inconsistencies, then I'll listen -- I really haven't seen much of it yet. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/14/06 1:54 am

by **stickdog99** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:06 am

Exactly. "Moral" outrage is the only possible response. Might I suggest that in our disinformation society that The Truth you claim is so sancrosant is as or more amorphous than the elite hegemony that I'd rather not see advanced any further at the (at least seemingly obvious) expense of the greatest happiness principle? Might I also suggest that I've only read a handful of threads here over the last couple days and that therefore it was a tad presumptuous for you to assume that my purpose in posting this discussion header was to personally attack you? I mean, just because one finds one's shoes rigid and uncomfortable, it doesn't necessarily follow that one's cobbler is a fucking fascist. Finally, if you are actually serious about not finding any inconsistencies vis a vis 9/11, I'd suggest starting here: <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html">rigorousintuition.blogspo...o-911.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/14/06 2:24 am

by **robertdreed** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:20 am

"How can anyone with any parapolitical interests other than advancing elitist hegemony even further possibly find merit in policing those who rationally draw attention to dubious elements of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory -- regardless of their personal beliefs concerning the events of that day?" Yes. And if somebody wants to say- or insinuate- that the WTC was destroyed by an Insider terror plot conspiracy consisting of a three-pronged synchronization of decoy jetliner holograms, HAARP-induced mass hypnosis, and Godzilla under the influence of Invisibility Serum administered to him personally by Dick Cheney, no one should dare offer any attempt at refutation in response, lest they run the risk of "splitting the movement"...truly, who but a shill for the Elitists would do such a thing? After all, one of those things has already been alleged by a "911 Truth" adherent...why not, say, the other two? Anyway, how could anyone, rationally and logically, prove beyond all doubt that this wasn't exactly what happened? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/14/06 2:32 am

by **thoughtographer** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:28 am

Suggest all you want. Just because I respond with from a perspective anchored in personal opinion doesn't mean that I interpret your views as a personal attack. I have been reading this board for a while, and have read pretty much every post that Jeff has made regarding the events of September 11th, 2001. Your assumption that I haven't read them indicates even further that you tend to jump into an alien territory with both guns blazing, completely disregarding the ley of the land. Go ahead and hang your hopes on Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, "physics professors", or whoever else backs your cause. I've read and listened to enough drivel and watched enough "exposées" from people like Alex Jones to know just how wrongheaded they really are. I know the source material they're drawing from well enough to know that the judgments made in their final analyses tend toward oversimplification and fear mongering. Their enthusiasm is understandably infectious, and that's what's so fearful and dangerous about them. They jump to conclusions as a result of their fear and ignorance, and will stop at nothing to gather a mass of mindless sycophants around a banner of righteousness that stinks like a religious crusade; the very thing they claim to oppose. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I mean, just because one finds one's shoes rigid and uncomfortable doesn't mean that the cobbler is a fucking fascist.<hr></blockquote> Indeed. It probably really means that the cobbler is incompetent, presumptuous and could care less for the needs of the person for whom he's making shoes. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/14/06 2:30 am

by **stickdog99** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:29 am

Here is what I posted: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>How can anyone with any parapolitical interests other than advancing elitist hegemony even further possibly find merit in policing those who rationally draw attention to dubious elements of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory -- regardless of their personal beliefs concerning the events of that day?<hr></blockquote> And here is what comes out when you enter this into babelfish's new "argument to straw man" translation algorithm: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And if somebody wants to say that the WTC was destroyed by an insider terror plot conspiracy consisting of a three-pronged synchronization of decoy jetliner holograms, HAARP-induced mass hypnosis, and Godzilla under the influence of Invisibility Serum administered to him personally by Dick Cheney, no one should dare offer any attempt in refutation in response, lest they run the risk of "splitting the movement"...truly, who but a shill for the Elitists would do such a thing?<hr></blockquote> Pretty slick, eh?

by **robertdreed** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:32 am

That's an unsatisfactory abridgement of my argument. Here's the rest: _________________________________________________________ After all, one of those things has already been alleged by a "911 Truth" adherent...why not, say, the other two? Anyway, how could anyone, rationally and logically, prove beyond all doubt that this wasn't exactly what happened? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/14/06 2:34 am

by **thoughtographer** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:34 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And here is what comes out when you enter this into babelfish's new "argument to straw man" translation algorithm:<hr></blockquote> Where did you get your sense of humor? Slashdot? "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **stickdog99** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:34 am

Who mentioned Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen or "physics professors" other than you, thoughtographer? And by all means, please point me to your learned critique of <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html">rigorousintuition.blogspo...o-911.html</a> because I'm dying to read it. BTW, nice retort ability. Are you practicing to be Larry the Cable Guy's understudy or something? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/14/06 2:37 am

by **thoughtographer** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:35 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Who mentioned Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen or "physics professors" other than you, thoughtographer?<hr></blockquote> A whole shit-ton of people, just like you. You're playing the generalization game, so why shouldn't I? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>And by all means, please point me to your learned critique of rigorousintuition.blogspo...o-911.html because I'm dying to read it.<hr></blockquote> Just because I post on Jeff's board doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. I'm not doing any fucking homework for you. You're dying no matter what. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>BTW, nice retort ability. Are you practicing to be Larry the Cable Guy's understudy or something?<hr></blockquote> You know I'm right. I mean, making reference to an imaginary babelfish "straw man" translator? Come on... "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=thoughtographer>thoughtographer</A> at: 4/14/06 2:40 am

by **stickdog99** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 4:57 am

What generalization game am I playing? I think it's great fun to eviscerate stupidity and inanity in all its forms. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is stuff like <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html">rigorousintuition.blogspo...o-911.html</a> and <a href="http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=808">inn.globalfreepress.com/m...toryid=808</a> and <a href="http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php">www.septembereleventh.org...1pglie.php</a> . I'm talking about highlighting the valid questions about the event because regardless of whether we're talking about the Big Lie or a lot of smaller cover ups, it's good to get people questioning 9/11 in rational ways, if only to force the government to finally release the information and clear up the myriad inconsistencies it should have in the first place! Furthermore, with all the crap that's happened in the name of "9/11 changed everything," I fail to understand why anybody (other than a dyed-in-the-wool regressive) still believing the official mythology wouldn't at least have the common decency to keep quiet about it. I'm talking about asking, why did the WTC-7 building fall anyway? Why was NIST unable to recover A SINGLE SCRAP of metal from WTC-7 for their recently released metallurgical analysis? And why did the only WTC-7 metal ever studied (two pieces examined by FEMA metallurgists) show unexplained signs of high temperature sulfidation? Why wasn't Bush evacuated from that school? Why did he keep reading about a pet goat for a good 10 minutes AFTER Card (supposedly) told him "America is under attack"? Why did he stay there for another 15+ minutes and even hold a press conference there, sitting like a duck just 5 miles from the Sarasota International Airport at a widely publicized photo op surrounded by a bunch of at-risk toddlers? What was the Secret Service doing -- picking their noses? What was Rumsfeld doing in the 75+ minutes after 9:05 EDT that it took for him to arrive at his command post that morning? Why did General Myers have such a cloudy memory about the events of 9/11 when he testified to the Senate just two days later? Why did he give two contradictory stories about when the military first got planes up in response to 9/11 during this same Senate hearing, stories that were later contradicted by NORAD twice and then rewritten again by the 9/11 Commission? What caused the seismic explosion signature in the vicinity of Shankstown at 10:06 EDT even though the 9/11 Commission swears that ALL other physical evidence proves that Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 EDT? Why did Jeb Bush and federal agents seize records from Huffman Aviation -- the Florida flight school of Mohammed Atta and other purported 9/11 hijackers -- in the middle of the night following the attacks of September 11th and load them onto a C-130? And how did Jeb Bush know just hours after the attack exactly where to look? How can simply asking all of these 100% legitimate questions possibly hurt anyone but those who were, at best, criminally negligent on 9/11 and in their response to it? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/14/06 3:40 am

by **thoughtographer** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:14 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>How can simply asking all these 100% legitimate questions possibly hurt anyone but those who were, at best, criminally negligent on 9/11?<hr></blockquote> At least you admit the possibility of criminal negligence, which is more than I see from a lot of people lately. I don't have the time to fill out your questionnaire at the moment, but you're right, those are valid questions. Just because they're valid questions doesn't mean it's right to accept or haphazardly spread someone else's answers because they make sense to you, and that's really at the core of my concerns. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **rothbardian** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:48 am

Stickdog99-- to try to answer your original question: I think the concern is that there are disinformation websites out there that are working to deliberately set up the "9/11-was-an-inside-job" community, for a knock out punch. In his most recent essay, Jeff seemed to be possibly suggesting that Morgan Reynolds (nomoregames.net) is such. I don't know if that is the case but...the concern some of these posters here at RI have is that government creeps will pick an advantageous moment to release video footage of a jet liner crashing into the Pentagon (as one possible example)....and that this will then cement it in the general public's thinking, that we conspiracists are a bunch of discredited 'nutters'. Now I could be misunderstanding you, but from some of your comments, it sounds like you haven't fully extracted yourself from mainstream media propaganda--- you say we need "to enhance our security" and "address the root causes Islamic terror"(?). There is no such thing as Islamic terror. If you realize (as it seems you do) that 9/11 was an 'inside job', then why would you pay any attention to the media's baloney about "Islamic terror"? But maybe I missed something there. Anyway...there may very well be a major discrediting blow that is struck, some time in the near future. That's why it may be ill-advised to go out on too many (crazy?) limbs in theorizing. And that's why I wish people would stick with the simpler aspects--- skyscrapers don't collapse (particularly evident with WTC7) at near freefall speed, except by deliberate design. I believe this is easily grasped by the average person, ONCE they stop and take a brief look. That's how it worked for me. It simply never occurred to me to stop and TAKE that second look at 9/11...until someone pointed it out for me. At that point, I quickly realized (even as a layman) that you can't get a skyscraper to collapse in virtually perfect straight-down precision...and at near freefall speed, by accident. Sooner believe monkeys can type dictionaries by accident. It was certainly easy for me to conclude that all the building's critical supports needed to fail with precision timing. --- On the other hand, I partially agree with you in that there are some folks who seem committed to being 'eternally inconclusive' (although..I have no particular individual in mind). At this stage of the game, I wish there could be at least some 'working conclusions' so that things could move forward, in a more practical way. We're never going to get DNA evidence, fingerprints, videotaped footage of workers placing the explosives etc.

by **stickdog99** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:10 am

Concerning the Muslim bogeyman, I was speaking from the hypothetical point of view of someone who BELIEVES the official 9/11 account. Furthermore, I was not discussing outing the disinfo agents and useful fools whose less persuasive (and sometimes utterly idiotic) memes, speculations and "evidence" are quite obviously running amok in the "9/11 Truth Movement" for the purposes of popular debunking. My point is simply this: Considering all the heinous shit that has gone down in the name of the official 9/11 narrative -- even IF you still believe it, why in the world would you want to defend it? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/14/06 5:26 am

by **rothbardian** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 6:38 am

I have to confess, I can barely understand what you're saying. You're using some very complex sentence structuring. If I am understanding you're question correctly then...the answer is pretty simple-- Most of the people who buy wholesale into all the government's official explanations are FoxNews fans. They believe in the "Islamic threat". If you're asking about LIBERALS who still believe the official government version of 9/11-- I suppose if they believe the Islamic threat is real, they wouldn't want to see us lower our defenses against this perceived onslaught of terrorism...no matter how much they might despise Bush/Cheney's opportunism in pushing through a fascist agenda. They would say "Let's be vigilant against another 9/11..but let's also resist fascism in America." In fact, that pretty much sums up mainstream left thinking.