Skip to main content

Le Monde diplomatique asks "Was 9/11 an inside job?" in its Norway edition, also read in Sweden and Denmark:

"9/11TRUTH: More and more people in the USA are convinced that the American authorities are concealing their involvement in the September 11th tragedy. Statements from witnesses, marked confidential for several years, now indicate that controlled demolition may have taken place. The US government had long anticipated such an incident - as the Republican document from 2000, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", indicates. The 9/11 Truth organisation believes that the USA probably orchestrated the catastrophe in order to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the curtailing of civil liberties within the US through the introduction of The Patriot Act. [...]"

Below are links to the pages of this very extensive article, which also has several large illustrative photographs:

http://diplo.no/...
http://diplo.no/...
http://diplo.no/...

The article is highly sympathetic to 9/11 skepticism. According to the editor, the full English version is waiting to be published in the international editions. An unofficial, draft English translation of a part of the article can be found here (alas, the grammar leaves something to be desired):

http://www.gnn.tv/...

The Le Monde article addresses, among other things, WTC 7 - the third skyscraper that was completely destroyed on September 11. Here is a high-resolution video of its speedy, symmetrical demise:

http://www.knowordie.co.uk/...

(The NIST lead investigator said in last March's New York Magazine that they "don't really know" what caused its collapse, that they are having difficulty "getting a handle on Building 7" in their protracted investigation.)

Multi-programme Italian TV coverage provides another recent example of European discussion of the problems in the official 9/11 story:

http://www.matrix.mediaset.it/...

A Finnish TV crew, in turn, were present at the recent American Scholars 9/11 Symposium in Los Angeles, discussed here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/...

It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Many a reader is probably now asking: "Doesn't this ever stop?" The answer is: it will stop when there is a real investigation of what happened on that fateful day. Right now 9/11 skepticism appears to be breaking out worldwide. In my earlier diaries, linked below, I have shown why it is impossible for anyone who thinks critically and open-mindedly to regard the official story, described in the 9/11 Commission report, as little more than a collection of omissions, distortions, and lies.

http://www.dailykos.com/...
http://www.dailykos.com/...

Originally posted to Vesa on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:24 PM PDT.

Poll

Should the work of independent researchers be used to find out what happened on 9/11?

98%2195 votes
1%42 votes

| 2237 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Sigh. (10+ / 0-)

    I like this line of yours:

    I have shown why it is impossible for anyone who thinks critically and open-mindedly to regard the official story, described in the 9/11 Commission report, as little more than a collection of omissions, distortions, and lies.

    Think hard about that line for awhile. Think about why it might be flawed logic.

  •  yes, the 9/11 commission report is woefully (16+ / 0-)

    inadequate and plagued by legitimate concerns from independent researchers.  There are also several conflicts of interest apparant.  But the overall problem with the 9/11 commission report is that it is the account of an administration who has been proven to be consistent and egregious liars, obstructors of justice, and cover-up artists.  Anyone that can lie and conspire to fearmonger a nation into war cannot be given the benefit of the doubt.  There is too much at stake to let all of the unresolved issues go without another investigation.  The government's contention is a conspiracy theory, just like the alternatives being offered by other researchers.  The nation deserves to have the largest crime in its history solved definitively and conclusively, and ALL involved brought to justice.

  •  From the FAQ (18+ / 0-)

    Controversial Diary Topics

    But, what about Freedom of Speech?
    Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?
    No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.
    Controversial 9/11 Diaries
    DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:

    1. refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
    1. refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse

    Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.

    -dms

    •  This is 3rd strike, Vesa should be banned. n/t (8+ / 0-)
    •  Suggested edit (0+ / 0-)

      For point #2:

      refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to directly impacted and nearby buildings and/or any subsequent collapse, including nearby buildings

      Just so there are no loopholes.

    •  During the Spanish Inquisition Gallileo Gallilei (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zzyzx, Hatu, lotlizard, lasky57, nhwriter, casseia

      challenged the orthodoxy of the official Christian doctrine regarding the creation of the universe, at the center of which revolved the home of the self-centered human race, using scientific fact. Neither official church orthodoxy nor the Inquisition's subsequent rough handling of our brave Gallileo overturned the truth he bore.

      Please, since I'm new enough here that I don't know the genesis of the policy, why was it Kos took the trouble to define an official D Kos 9/11 policy position? What benefit is there to shutting off a discussion 42% of Americans want to continue exploring potential US government involvement? Also, since there is extensive documented evidence of the complicity of past US presidencies/governments in founding wars of political convenience, wouldn't the 9/11 question be of significance on that basis alone?

      I am asking to learn, not to trouble earnest D Kos contributors. I respect and cherish this community, and want only to understand what I do not know about this matter. Thank you to all serious respondents.

      When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, and carrying a cross. --Sinclair Lewis

      by Enough Talk Lets Get Busy on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:44:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gallileo (3+ / 0-)

        was a scientist.  The 9-11 "truth" conspiracists are lying hacks. If there was any credible evidence at all, we could talk about it.  But the garbage produced by the 9-11 "truth" movement has been repeatedly debunked.  

        Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful)

        by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:08:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who is scientist, who is lying hack? (0+ / 0-)

          Prof. Stephen Jones, who discovered that the Twin Towers were demolished with the aid of Thermate, an incendiary substance used in cutting structural steel - he is a scientist, a physicist at BYU. (As the inventor of a much improved solar cooker, he knows a lot about heat, by the way.)

          The poster using epithets like "lying hacks" and "garbage" is evidently a lying hack putting out garbage.

          •  Stephen Jones (0+ / 0-)

            could not explain how water boils.  Jones:

            1. faked the peer review of his 9-11 story, and was publicly called out on it by BYU
            1. wrote a paper about how Jesus lived in North America.
            1. Relied on Nazis (yes real live Nazis) and holcaust deniers in his 9-11 article (the one with the fake peer review)

            Stephen Jones is the embodiment of the term "lying hack"  In the scientific community, this loser is an absolute joke.  You embarass yourself by citing him.

            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

            by Mia Dolan on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 09:24:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Recommend (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne, peraspera, dnta, tvb, buhdydharma

        Reading some past diaries on this topic, and taking special note of the (admittedly often exasperated) explanations given for why DailyKos is not permitted to become a home for 911 conspiracy theorists.

        One short version is, IMO, they become like a virus, and replicate relentlessly, with the same arguments, the same links, the same pushing of the same old websites, the same debunked claims.

        They attract the like-minded, the weak-minded, and the maliciously-minded.

        They take up regular residence on this site, beholden to nothing but their own cause, with little attention to physics, logic, common sense, or often enough even reality as we know it.

        The goal of the 911Truth crowd is to exploit DKos for its large audience and the high-level attention it receives. In that regard, they are really nothing more than parasites, seeking to leech credibility from this site without regard to the impact on the host.

        DKos has a stated mission. You can find it in the FAQ. This website is dedicated to that mission. The 911 "truth" movement has its mission, its agenda. And it has any number of websites of its own. The two are really not, at this point, compatible.

        So at some of those sites, people are more than welcome to discuss the role of space vampires on WTC metallurgy, the cloning of terrorist stem cells, and the secret island where witnesses to the "truth" are brought, drugged, brainwashed, and forced into performing an open run of The Pirates of Penzance for an audience of Trilateral Commission members and their friends for the rest of their natural lives. Or any permutation of such theories as you can think up, without providing a shred of solid evidence.

        This site is not one of those.

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

        by BobzCat on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:26:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for clarifying in a civilized tone, BobzCat (0+ / 0-)
          I appreciate D Kos contributors' frustrations with the flacks and loose minds who attempt to steer the blog to their purposes, and agree there are ample alternatives to which they can post their concerns, conjectures and so forth. The quality and maturity of your explanation does you, and Daily Kos, a great deal of credit.

          When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, and carrying a cross. --Sinclair Lewis

          by Enough Talk Lets Get Busy on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:30:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  snort....Pirates of Penzance! (0+ / 0-)
          Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

          reality...is the result of war between two rival groups of Programmers

          by buhdydharma on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:50:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Re: becoming like a virus (0+ / 0-)

          Sincere in dismissing legitimate concerns regarding the 9/11 attacks and the entire ensuing turn of events, over which the fate of ours and other nations has been so radically altered, you must also know what your conviction implies, if you're actually just helping peddle some extremely deadly lies, upon which a huge unstable power bloc justifies its own otherwise unforgivable commission of high-cost war.  

          It's a kind of loyalty 'pyramid scam' now under construction, very much along the lines of that referred to Italian Inquisition over disallowed truth.

          The best strategy for 'dousing' the 9/11 Truth Movement is, yes, to disinherit it, to ban it, to disparage evn references to its possible merit.

          The fact is, with so many enforcers, the retdristubution of wealth brought along with post-9/11 war can turn to marginilazing people who don't accept the official lies - socially, physically, economically.  It can become as taboo as questioning the Holocaust is in Europe, Bob.

          Yes, the idea of enforcing universal acceptance of official lies has deep roots in western culture

          Take the Kennedy Assasination, for example!    

          The money changing hands so furtively before during and after 9/11 has not been followed and we are not only a nation of dweebs!  The implications of truth untold involve stopping an illegal war./

          Did you like Vietnam, too?

          Are you really convinced that beliefs contrary to the governemnt's tightly-controlled account (and its combined secrecy and ostrasizing of doubters, over such starkly obvious anomolies as the WTC7 implosion, free-fall speed collapses, the magic Pentagon crash hole and no air support during the attack on the nation's capital) are founded on psychological malfunction issues?

          If the related social 'problem' won't abate, would you also suggest medical therapy or some other specific 'treatment' for those who won't shut about an officially rigged 9/11 investigation and up and just go away.  

          Surely you realize, it's not until the penalties get written into the legal code that everyone either believes - as you do - the government's last remaining, semi-viable justification for waging a destructive and fultile war on Iraq, which never threatened us, or they at least know better than to speak of it.

          Making life hard for people because of what they believe is a huge part of the current public policy program.  People should realize this too.

          How about looking at the correlation between loyalty to Israel and activist-level propaganda in the form of spite for the 9/11 Truth Movement?

          There's plenty of room to establish binding taboos (with real human life costs) there as well.

          We got the message: "don't go there," still waitng on the "or else".

          •  Listen closely, OK? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bouwerie Boy, tvb

            Take it somewhere else.

            Daily Kos is not going to be appropriated by the "Truth" movement. There are reasons which have beem stated ad nauseum.

            Unless you want to explain to me how allowing unlimited 911 conspiracy theory diaries and commentary on Daily Kos will constribute to Markos' stated mission for this site. Explain to me how making Daily Kos a home for the "Truth" movement is going to help get Democrats elected. Explain to me how this site's credibility is going to be enhanced by an association with ideas posted by anyone who wants to propose utterly unfounded, unsourced, purely speculative allegations.

            Go ahead. I'm willing to listen.

            I know that the "Truth" movement is desperate to get its foot into this door. But they bring nothing to this site, except a damaged reputation, dubious science, and somewhat disreputable backgrounds.

            And now you're alleging a connection between Israel and the "suppression" of 9-11 "Truth"?

            You people are unbelievable.

            "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

            by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:24:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Re: explain to me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kix

              "Explain to me how this site's credibility is going to be enhanced by an association with ideas posted by anyone who wants to propose utterly unfounded, unsourced, purely speculative allegations."

              You're implying, of course, that discussion of the topic is inhenerently intrusive, counterproductive and in vein.  This blanket 'final' judgement of yours is itself highly misleading as to the intent, rationale and legitimacy of inquiry into issues that go above and beyond this blog's statement of purpose, but which still don't actually contradict that statement as you so didactically claim (as utterly unfounded, etc).

              The poll above demonstrates general opinion on the topic, registering over 98% of respondents as doubting the official account and wanting an authentic independent investigation.

              It is worth repeating that this case involves a huge balance of power for a regime proven to engage in offiial misinformation, and that they MUST remove the potential threat of exposure using whatever mean available.  That makes you far more suspicious than people wanting fair answers when the country's charter is being radically revised - especially if you do in fact oppose the current administration.

              The case against purposeful fraudulent failure by the Bush White House to properly investigate the attacks is simply stronger thn you're willing to admit and, despite your blanket denials, does involve bringing voters away from Bush and the Rebublicans and back towards the Democrats.

              It's you who's being irrational, unwilling to admit common eveidence and you who are essentially backing the 9/11 fix.  This anti-movement activism which you represent is a huge part of the problem.

              Do you expect people to believe Mohammed Atta's passport was discovered at 'Ground Zero' by divine providence?

            •  Does anyone see a comparison . . . (0+ / 0-)

              . . . between this "standard of decency" which is gently, patiently, deliberately explained to the unschooled in our midst — and the DLC rejection of Howard Dean, the Swiftboating of his artificially-notorietized scream (a trivial matter in itself until Bob Schrum got hold of it), the tweedle-dee v. tweedle-dum strategy of "We Can Do Better" at electing a Bonesman?

              -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

              by Proud Primate on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:05:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Real nice (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Easterling
        Comparing one of the great minds of history with people who can't wrap their head around the laws of gravity.

        You need to do some research into just what these people are offering as counter-theories to what they call "the official story" (which is more popularly known as "what happened") before you start making such hyperbolic comparisons

        Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

        Feingold for President

        by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:09:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  False Flag Ops are hardly new (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kix

        Does Kos ban discussions of the attempted sinking of the USS Liberty, the stage-managing, baiting, and then pantomiming (when the bait was not taken) of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the nearly implemented Operation Northwoods, the dozens of strikes under the umbrella of Operation Gladio, the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh and 55 other regimes since, all facts that have been declassified?

        Acknowledgement of these makes it a bit easier to suggest that absolute panic-attack knee-jerk rejection of hard evidence might be premature, eh?

        -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

        by Proud Primate on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:52:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let me say thank you ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, peraspera, ChiGirl88

      I almost get physically ill with these diaries -- I have acquaintances and friends who died in New York and in the Pentagon ... I watched the plane go into the Pentagon ...

      These people are not just deluded ... but are evil ... and they sicken me.

      Thank you for taking the fight to them ... because this is a troll war for which I don't have the stomach ...

      4 July 2006, Independence Day ... Day 1757, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

      by besieged by bush on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:13:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And, one other thing (7+ / 0-)

    You've written three diaries (including this one). They've all been on the same thing. You've been told, multiple times, that this material is not welcome here.

    Go away, and don't come back.

    -dms

  •  Is it possible (7+ / 0-)

    That the Bush Administration thwarted the investigation, not because he planned it, but because he's an incompetent dolt who went on vacation when he was supposed to be doing his job?

  •  Uh oh (13+ / 0-)

    You're gonna get in truuuuuble for this diary...

    But if it is any consolation, I think it could have been an insider job.  I'm just not allowed to say so.  

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire

    by poemless on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:32:36 PM PDT

    •  BushCo can barely (5+ / 0-)

      put their pants on in the morning without fucking something up. Theres no way this couldve been pulled off. At best it was willful negligence.

    •  Thanks (6+ / 5-)

      But I think it's a bit hysterical if the Americans shouldn't be even told what media in other countries write about their government.

      I'd think you should be interested in it. Better to be forewarned, you know. The discussion is breaking out worldwide.

      •  Yes be forewarned! (16+ / 0-)

        Its BREAKING out WORLDWIDE!  You can't stop it, DailyKos.  Resistance is futile.  

        Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful)

        by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:52:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why should we care? (11+ / 0-)

        So, the Norewegian edition of a French newspaper reports that some people believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Why should we care? It proves or disproves nothing. Your quote seems to indicate that the article isn't saying that 9/11 was an inside job, just that some Americans (ignorant ones, imho) believe it to be true.

        Lying can never save us from another lie - Vaclav Havel

        by Muwarr90 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:54:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And? (8+ / 0-)

        The discussion is breaking out worldwide.

        It's just as lame abroad as it is here...

        Seriously, this diary is in violation of dKos rules... delete it and find another topic to write about.

        No tears to cry. No feelings left. This species has amused itself to death... - Roger Waters

        by Kevin in Long Beach on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:57:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  wow (9+ / 0-)

          Hello, kevin in long beach. I usually am in close agreement with you, but not on this. I wish there was a place to discuss all this on line at the quality level I expect to find here. I try not to bring it up here very often, but it's hard not to when it involves Rumsfeld, Cheney, Hayden... Why are dkosers, who are so adamant about ferreting out every minute inconsistency in other stories, content to say 'we know something is wrong with this picture, but we are not willing to go see what that is.'
          What about Sibel Edmonds? Can we talk about her or does that become verboten too when it reaches a certain level? Too much reality for kos? It's ALL interconnected.

          "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

          by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:17:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  show me a single (7+ / 0-)

            other diary topic that accuses Americans of killing 3000 other Americans.

            The reason you can't find any credible sites discussing 9/11 inside job conspiracies is because there is NO credible evidence. PERIOD.

            Start a diary about the redacted pages dealing with Saudi Arabia and watch an intelligent discussion take place.

            This Alex Jones bullshit is disinfo designed to marginalize anybody that publishes it, and to deflect attention from the sheer incompetence of Bush's anti terror security pre 9/11, and the stunning complicity with the Saudi's hiding their involvement.

            •  3000 people dead? our government? nawww (0+ / 0-)

              Who would believe it?

              That's the secret weapon they hide behind known as the Big Lie.  In Mein Kampf, the tenth chapter of Book 1, he wrote:

              "All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ..."

              See this page for the original German.

              If the lie is big enough, most people lose the strength to challenge it.  A very astute observation by Der Führer, and a lesson well learned by the son and grandson of Prescott Bush.

              -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

              by Proud Primate on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 11:14:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Re: 'show me a single....' (0+ / 0-)

              "... other diary topic that accuses Americans of killing 3000 other Americans."

              Counter-relevant and off-target.  Yes, it's a uniquely huge question - not worth shunning - but no, "it" accuses the government of failing to properly investigate and report honestly what happened - of both letting 9/11 go down and delivering blame to the wrong quarters.

              Of course, you're not entirely unaware of the implications with people like youself being a big part the actually problem about what communcation is 'allowed', not just for failing to heed to neutral rational arguments viv-a-vis reasonable unanswered questions (which YOU WANT BANNED), but for actively trying to deny the facts with far less reasonable blanket denial.  

              It's that ol' inquisition mentality.

               

          •  Reality (7+ / 0-)

            And I often find that I'm in agreement with much of what you say as well.  The reason I too am so vehement about wishing the CT diaries to the cornfields is simple... we must be concerned with the integrity of this site.  Plain and simple.  As dKos grows in prominence, as we move forward with this movement we are building, we have got to take care with how we are perceived, with what we say and with what we do.  We have got to take care to not allow ourselves to be minimalized or marginalized because we allow CT diaries into the community.  There is nothing new in this diary nor in the thousands of others we've had to tolerate.  It's the same information that's been debunked time and time again.  And it reads like paranoid, hyperbolic garbage.  If we are to be taken seriously as a political force, we have to take ourselves seriously as well.

            That being said, if one day, somebody presented some new, factual evidence that hasn't already been debunked, something conclusive, the CT diary policy may be addressed at that time.  Until that time, it's all speculative, unsubstantiated and paranoid crap.

            Thanks for being so calm in discussing it though... I do appreciate it and hope that we can agree to disagree and find common ground about other things.

            No tears to cry. No feelings left. This species has amused itself to death... - Roger Waters

            by Kevin in Long Beach on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:17:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Too bad. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            middleagedhousewife

            I try not to bring it up here very often, but it's hard not to

            Is it seriously that hard for you to have respect for this community?  If so, refrain from posting when it becomes difficult for you to respect our standards and our mission here.

            But, what about Freedom of Speech?

            Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?

            No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.

            Controversial Diary Topics

            Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", i.e. "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.

            Addendum

            Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned.

            Here is what kos has to say-

            The conspiracists by kos

            Fri Jul 08, 2005

            Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do.

            I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.

            I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.

            So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.

            This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.

            Update: I've been reinstating some of the banned accounts as they email me. Some people wondered why there wasn't any warning. There have been warnings from others -- repeated pleadings for people to ground themselves in reality.

            It's telling that I have NEVER done something like this before. Because this has been an extreme situation. This isn't about disagreeing with what people are saying. If that was the case, everyone would've been banned by now. The myth of the "echo chamber" is just that. A myth.

            But as for warnings, well, this has been my warning. I wanted it clear that I was serious, and I think that has come through. I am reinstating those who ask to be reinstated. But the message has been sent.

            te amo, aja

            ..::::THE IMPEACH PROJECT::::..

            by tlh lib on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:20:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Hey Vera, (7+ / 0-)

        what do they think in the tropics?

        "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

        by Bouwerie Boy on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:58:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I tyhink it's lame that every single diary (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bouwerie Boy, begone, Wbythebay

        that you post is in complete violation of this communities rules and standards.   Yet, even knowing this and having been warned dozens, if not hundreds, of times.... you still continue doing it and wonder why people call you out on it.  

        Have a 0 for the diary.

        te amo, aja

        ..::::THE IMPEACH PROJECT::::..

        by tlh lib on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:17:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hey look at that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tlh lib

        They raised the troll-rating limit to five a day. Good timing too, since it came just in time to help off set the idiots who are recommending you're dumn ass comments.

        Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

        Feingold for President

        by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:12:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Me niether (0+ / 0-)

      I mite git band.

      She was only a moonshiner's daughter, but she always made me liquer - Rev. Billy C. Wirtz

      by gatorcog on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:01:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it is noteworthy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hatu, Vesa, casseia

      how many people polled think "the governmental investigations are not truthful." I can see why kos just doesn't want to go there on a site about how to fix the democratic party. I can't see why he would not want the truth dug out with links, references and intelligent posts at the level of the quality of work that appears here.

      "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

      by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:07:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  bullshit (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, Kevin in Long Beach

        If you've got credible links you are welcome to post them, but there isn't a single credible link on this subject for you to post.

        Instead you repeat crap "pull it" quotes and pretend it means something you are unwilling to prove.

        Please post a single link you think is credible evidence of an inside job.

        Just one.

        •  Please tell me (0+ / 0-)

          why the CIA collects real-time data and then doesn't use a clue when it is handed to them. Or is this not true?  What does it mean? I don't want to believe any of it but it keeps showing up. This is really important and cannot be ignored if it is true. If it is not, I need to know so I can let go of it. Any answers beyond 'we don't like From the Wilderness either'?

          "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

          by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:18:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here's a challenge (0+ / 0-)

            If you accept the challenge I'll humor you and answer your questions once you post the results of my challenge.

            Go here...

            http://www.fromthewilderness.com/...

            Register and ask someone there why the usually diligent and inquisitive kossaks reject FTW and Ruppert as a source.

            Post a link to the responses you get here.

            If after the responses you still think the site is credible I'll answer your question re the cia and insider trading.

            •  I never go to their forum (0+ / 0-)

              it's just a couple articles in particular by Ruppert and Chossudofsky that I read early on and have wondered why they aren't frontpage news.
              Nevermind them, facts are facts. Is this true, or not true?

              On Sept. 6, 2001, the Thursday before the tragedy, 2,075 put options were made on United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the attacks, 2,282 put options were recorded for American Airlines. Given the prices at the time, this could have yielded speculators between $2 million and $4 million in profit.

                   The matter still is under investigation and none of the government investigating bodies - including the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and DOJ  - are speaking to reporters about insider trading. Even so, suspicion of insider trading to profit from the Sept. 11 attacks is not limited to U.S. regulators. Investigations were initiated in a number of places including Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Switzerland and Spain. As in the United States, all are treating these inquiries as if they were state secrets.  

              That's a simple question, unencumbered by accusations or judgements. A benchmark. A place to start. I believe I saw little tiny articles about this and then they went away, but I can't prove that either. Can anyone confirm or deny that an awfully unusual amount of trading went on? Let's start there. Follow the money. If it is not true then I will apologize and drop it, but I have no desire to defend any websites, I just want to know.

              "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

              by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:37:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  no it's not true n/t (0+ / 0-)
                •  says who? (0+ / 0-)

                  where is you're link to real info? The original stories were on AP.

                  "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

                  by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:03:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  oh really? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    letsfight, Bouwerie Boy

                    The matter still is under investigation and none of the government investigating bodies - including the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and DOJ  are speaking to reporters about insider trading. Even so, suspicion of insider trading to profit from the Sept. 11 attacks is not limited to U.S. regulators. Investigations were initiated in a number of places including Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Switzerland and Spain. As in the United States, all are treating these inquiries as if they were state secrets.  

                    prove that with a single link

                  •  stfu (2+ / 0-)

                    Go debate your shit elsewhere.   It is not welcome here.   Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

                    But, what about Freedom of Speech?

                    Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?

                    No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.

                    Controversial Diary Topics

                    Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", i.e. "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.

                    Addendum

                    Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned.

                    Here is what kos has to say-

                    The conspiracists by kos

                    Fri Jul 08, 2005

                    Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do.

                    I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.

                    I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.

                    So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.

                    This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.

                    Update: I've been reinstating some of the banned accounts as they email me. Some people wondered why there wasn't any warning. There have been warnings from others -- repeated pleadings for people to ground themselves in reality.

                    It's telling that I have NEVER done something like this before. Because this has been an extreme situation. This isn't about disagreeing with what people are saying. If that was the case, everyone would've been banned by now. The myth of the "echo chamber" is just that. A myth.

                    But as for warnings, well, this has been my warning. I wanted it clear that I was serious, and I think that has come through. I am reinstating those who ask to be reinstated. But the message has been sent.

                    Don't like it?  Start your own site and like it there.

                    te amo, aja

                    ..::::THE IMPEACH PROJECT::::..

                    by tlh lib on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:09:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  See the problem is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nhwriter

        Intelligent posts are never something the 9/11 truthies make. Generally, their posts are, speaking objectively on the meirts of their arguments, the exact opposite.

        Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

        Feingold for President

        by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:17:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If anybody can get to the bottom of this (14+ / 0-)

    it's The Norwegian Press.

    This is not a signature

    by Bohous on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:43:01 PM PDT

  •  Wow (4+ / 0-)

    Stephen Jones? David Ray Griffen?  A link to Prison Planet?  That's all brand new, right?  Oh yeah, its the same old shit these losers have been carting out for years.  Just because it gets translated to French (and back into English) does not mean it still isn't bullshit.

    One structual engineeer is all I ask.  Just one.  And then we can talk about this again.

     

    Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful)

    by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:51:08 PM PDT

  •  The article is newsworthy (8+ / 0-)

    Even if in the norweigan press.

    I have always thought it foolish, and another symptom of Democratic waffling, to accept blindly the government's and commission's version of 9/11.

    It is NOT a conspiracy theory to ask:

    Did Bush's incompetence (proven incompetence at this point) worsen 9/11?

    Instead of flying around like a chickenhawk on Air Force One for several hours (after finishing My Pet Goat), what if Bush... well, we really don't know what Bush did in those several hours.  

    Its not conspiracy theory- its making sure that the people who still back Bush have more to answer for.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:51:08 PM PDT

  •  we all witnessed the event. they used magic??? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kevin in Long Beach

    who killed john john, ken lay, and elvis????
    on the other hand maybe someone who knows something about airplanes and was in the national guard; or someone in corporate texas scandals; or someone who doesn't like lewd displays.

    "welcome to the monkey house" vonnegut

    by realheathen on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 12:53:04 PM PDT

  •  'Civil Disobedience' at Daily Kos? (10+ / 1-)

    I had heard on the Mike Malloy show that Daily Kos was pretty hardcore about not allowing people to post alternative viewpoints on this topic, but what's interesting is that the polls that go along with Vesa's diaries always reflect a large population of dissenters, who evidently feel silenced by the threat of being banned.

    I realize that Kos is privately owned bandwidth, but in this case, I don't think property rights trump freedom of speech.

    I also applaud Vesa for taking an interest in American politics and offering a Finnish perspective.  That's what's so cool about sites like Daily Kos -- that you can have a conversation with someone in Finland, from your sofa in Portland.

    I was a wild child protester in the eighties, and participated in a number of sit-ins, all with the aim of bringing attention to subjects that simply may not be ignored by moral human beings.  Dissatisfaction with the official account of 9/11 events has become such a subject.  If Vesa wants to sit down at Daily Kos and defy the policy of silence because it is simply immoral not to do so, then I feel like taking a seat next to him/her.

    •  Does the concept of trespassing ring a bell? (5+ / 0-)

      What's that law about keeping pro-lifers a certain number of feet away from reproductive health care provider's property?

      What about House Rules as stated in the FAQ?

    •  Bullshit (13+ / 0-)

      There is a big difference between not believing everything in the official account (which the polls measure) and believe the conspiracy crap.  If anything, serial liars like Vesa actually help Bush by discrediting the left and impeding investigation in to Bush's real crimes.    

      Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful)

      by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:00:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So it's not forbidden... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hatu, Vesa, Cat Whisperer

        to talk about not believing the official account?  Just to talk about why you disbelieve it?

        •  Pretty Much (7+ / 0-)

          The problem with Vesa and the other "truth" advocates is that the sources they cite are even less reliable than anything the Bush administration puts out there.  The rule used to be "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but that was to subtle for the dimwits who post the 9-11 conspiracy diaries.  So they just got banned altogether.

          If there was some new credible evidence, I don't think anyone would mind discussing it here.  But Vesa has posted garbage theories that have been discussed and debunked literally hundreds, if not thousands, of times on DailyKos.  

          Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful)

          by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:45:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, I missed it (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            hiley, Easterling

            How did you all debunk FBI translator Sibel Edmonds?

            "I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally."

            and

            "There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized."

            Her website

            Interview

            •  Sibel Edmonds (2+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Ahianne, tlh lib
              Hidden by:
              rhetoricus

              I don't want to mock Sibel Edmonds, because I think whistleblowers should be taken seriously, and I do want to hear what she has to say.  But that's pretty big talk for a low level translator.  If you really had some good shit, you'd figure out a way to get it out.  The fact that the Democrats aren't too interested in helping her out says a lot about her credibility.

              The thing I don't get is how the Sibel Edmonds secret information someone becomes evidence of fake planes and controlled demolition.   I accept that Bush is a liar and a criminal, and is covering things up re: 9-11.  But its a huge leap to get to controlled demolition and fake planes.

              I see that you are recommending comments by Monsieur le Prof, who is Jim Fetzer, the head of "Scholars" for 9-11 "truth."  Here is a link to the website of Eric Hufshmid, one of the members of the "scholars"

              http://www.erichufschmid.net/...

              Read down to the parts about the gas chambers and then see if you want to be sticking up for these guys.  

              Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

              by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:01:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Outing=bad. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mia Dolan

                And is against kos rules. In fact, kos said he would instantly ban the person who did it.

                The GOP is pure Daffy Duck: "It's mine you hear? Mine, all mine! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahahahaha!" --Bill in Portland, Maine

                by rhetoricus on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:56:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  'If you really had some good shit, you'd ...' (0+ / 0-)

                "If you really had some good shit, you'd figure out a way to get it out."

                Apparently you are not familiar with the case.  In point of fact, both Chairman Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Pat Leahy were convinced that Sibel's testimony was substantially accurate and co-signed an open letter to Glenn Fine, I.G. at the Dept. of Justice.

                This is taken from the page at http://www.thememoryhole.org/...  One brief note before the quote:

                "The following three letters were recently declared classified, even though they had been considered unclassified since their creation in summer and fall 2002. They regard Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI translator who charges that the FBI's translation service 1) is incompetent and corrupt and 2) received specific warnings about 9/11 before the attacks."

                Read and Heed! (ahem...)

                June 19, 2002

                The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
                Inspector General
                Department of Justice
                Washington, D.C. 20530

                Dear Mr. Fine:

                The Senate Judiciary Committee has received unclassified information from the FBI regarding allegations made by Ms. Sibel D. Edmonds, a former FBI contract linguist, that your office is currently investigating. We request that, as this investigation progresses, you consider the following questions on this matter:

                (1) Ms. Edmonds has alleged, and the FBI has confirmed, that the FBI assigned a contract language "monitor" to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, contrary to clear FBI policy that only more qualified "linguists" be assigned to Guantanamo Bay. What circumstances led to the contract language monitor being considered qualified for this assignment, and what were the consequences, if any, for the effectiveness of the interrogation of those being detained at Guantanamo?

                (2) Ms. Edmonds has alleged, and the FBI has confirmed, that another contract linguist in the FBI unit to which Ms. Edmonds was assigned failed to translate at least two communications reflecting a foreign official's handling of intelligence matters. The FBI has confirmed that the contract linguist had "unreported contacts" with that foreign official. To what extent did that contract linguist have any additional unreported or reported contacts with that foreign official? What counterintelligence inquiries or assessments, if any, were made with respect to those contacts? Do you plan to interview field office and headquarters counterintelligence personnel regarding this matter?

                (3) The FBI has said that, to review the other contract linguist's work that Ms. Edmonds questioned, it used three linguists in its language division, a supervisory special agent, and special agents who worked on the case that generated the communications under review. Was this a "blind" review by the linguists, or did they know the person whose work was under review? Were the linguists sufficiently independent to make objective judgments about the translations in question? Would it have been appropriate to use linguists from outside the FBI?

                (4) The FBI has said a determination was made by the supervisory special agent that the contract linguist whose work was reviewed made a mistake and that the matter was a training issue. Did this agent's position affect his ability to render an objective judgment? What input did the other special agents provide? Did their involvement in the case that generated the communications affect their ability to make an objective judgement about a person with whom they had worked on the case? Would it have been better to ask other counterintelligence agents to assess the importance of the untranslated information and the reason it was not translated?

                (5) To what extent is the credibility of witnesses regarding Ms. Edmonds' allegations affected by their continuing employment in the same translation unit and under the same supervisor where the contract linguist discussed in question (2) is employed.

                (6) The FBI has said that Ms. Edmonds prepared two classified documents with respect to her allegations on her home computer without authorization and that one witness reported Ms. Edmunds discussed classified information regarding her allegations in the presence of three uncleared members of her family without authorization. Would these actions disqualify her from a security clearance, given the circumstances of her concern about a foreign attempt to penetrate or influence FBI operations at her workplace?

                (7) What guidance is provided to FBI contract linguists as to the steps they should take if they are concerned about a possible foreign attempt to penetrate or influence FBI operations? How well is this guidance understood by contract linguists in the FBI translation centers and other FBI personnel who would handle such matters?

                (8) What improvements, if any, are needed to encourage FBI contract linguists and other FBI contract personnel to come forward with such counterintelligence concerns and to ensure that they are not adversely affected as a result of seeking to assist FBI counterintelligence efforts? Was Ms. Edmunds' case handled in a manner that would encourage such reporting in the future?

                Please let us know the timetable for your investigation and advise us of the results.

                Sincerely,

                PATRICK LEAHY
                Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary

                CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
                United States Senator

                -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                by Proud Primate on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 04:12:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  For Brevity... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... I will quote only salient lines from the other two letters (both also included at the site above named) signed by the Chmn and Rkg Member.

                  "Indeed, the FBI's first internal security action in this case focused on Ms. Edmonds, instead of the allegations that she raised in good faith as a whistleblower and which bore on national security and the war against terrorism."

                  " The FBI has verified that this monitor indeed failed to translate intelligence-related information, but has attributed the failure to a lack of training as opposed to a malicious act. "

                  "Furthermore, we would like your assurance that the Department of Justice, including the FBI, will fully cooperate in all aspects of the inquiry. For instance, we draw your attention to the fact that the FBI currently opposes depositions of the monitor and her husband as part of the investigation into this case. The FBI takes this position despite the fact that the monitor is no longer employed by the FBI, that the monitor's husband never worked at the FBI and even though the military agency that employs the monitor's husband does not oppose a deposition. Moreover, we understand that the monitor and her husband have signed a letter stating they will make themselves available for depositions. It is unclear, then, why the FBI is taking this position in the wake of such important allegations bearing on national security. We hope that you will ensure that the FBI is fully compliant with the Inspector General's inquiry as it proceeds."

                  Anyone who "sincerely" likes truth should read all three letters before sweeping Ms. Edmonds into the oubliette.

                  -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                  by Proud Primate on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 04:22:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                    I guess I thought it was a bigger deal.  My response to the above is a big yawn.  I'm kind of disappointed.

                    Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                    by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 10:38:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Allow me to hotten your cup, drowsy little dame (0+ / 0-)

                      You said:
                      "The fact that the Democrats aren't too interested in helping her out says a lot about her credibility."

                      This was my reason for bringing in Grassley & Leahy.  She's eminently credible.  That's why Ashcroft pulled the outrageous stunt of classifying her testimony before Congress a year after the fact.

                      This from CBS News Transcripts

                      SHOW: 60 Minutes (7:00 PM ET) - CBS
                      October 27, 2002 Sunday
                      TYPE: Leads LENGTH: 384 words
                      HEADLINE: 60 Minutes

                      BODY:

                      CO-HOSTS: Mike Wallace, Morley Safer, Ed Bradley, Steve Kroft, Lesley Stahl

                      EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Don Hewitt

                      (Footage of Sibel Edmonds sitting at desk; Edmonds walking with Ed Bradley; Senator Charles Grassley and Bradley)

                      ED BRADLEY: (Voiceover) She lost her job at the FBI when she charged that people she worked with were more interested in budget concerns than in capturing terrorists. Before telling us the details, she told them to, among others, Senator Charles Grassley, who sits on the Judiciary Committee that oversees the FBI.

                      Did she seem credible to you? Did her story seem credible? Senator CHARLES GRASSLEY (Republican, Iowa): Absolutely, she's credible. And the reason I feel she's very credible is because people within the FBI have corroborated a lot of her story.

                      As far as having "good shit", if you mean Sibel, rather than her defenders (as I assume you do), how's this, from the Vanity Fair interview?

                      In her secure testimony, Edmonds disclosed some of what she recalled hearing. In all, says a source who was present, she managed to listen to more than 40 of the Chicago recordings supplied by Robertz. Many involved an F.B.I. target at the city’s large Turkish Consulate, as well as members of the American-Turkish Consulate, as well as members of the American-Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associates.

                      Some of the calls reportedly contained what sounded like references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes. To a person who knew nothing about their context, the details were confusing and it wasn’t always clear what might be significant. One name, however, apparently stood out – a man the Turkish callers often referred to by the nickname “Denny boy.” It was the Republican congressman from Illinois and Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. According to some of the wiretaps, the F.B.I.’s targets had arranged for tens of thousands of dollars to be paid to Hastert’s campaign funds in small checks. Under Federal Election Commission rules, donations of less than $200 are not required to be itemized in public filings.

                      Hastert himself was never heard in the recordings, Edmonds told investigators, and it is possible that the claims of covert payments were hollow boasts. Nevertheless, an examination of Hastert’s federal filings shows that the level of un-itemized payments his campaigns received over many years was relatively high. Between April 1996 and December 2002, un-itemized personal donations to the Hastert for Congress Committee amounted to $483,000. In contrast, un-itemized contributions in the same period to the committee run on behalf of the House majority leader, Tom Delay, Republican of Texas, were only $99,000. An analysis of the filings of four other senior Republicans shows that only one, Clay Shaw of Florida, declared a higher total in un-itemized donations than Hastert over the same period: $552,000. The other three declared far less. Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Joe Barton, of Texas, claimed $265,000; Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter, of California, got $212,000; and Ways and Means Committee chairman Bill Thomas, of California, recorded $110,000.

                      Edmonds reportedly added that the recordings also contained repeated references to Hastert’s flip-flop, in the fall of 2000, over an issue which remains of intense concern to the Turkish government – the continuing campaign to have Congress designate the killings of Armenians in Turkey between 1915 and 1923 a genocide. For many years, attempts had been made to get the house to pass a genocide resolution, but they never got anywhere until August 2000, when Hastert, as Speaker, announced that he would give it his backing and see that it received a full house vote. He had a clear political reason, as analysts noted at the time: a California Republican incumbent, locked in a tight congressional race, was looking to win over his district’s large Armenian community. Thanks to Hastert, the resolution, vehemently opposed by the Turks, passed the International Relations Committee by a large majority. Then, on October 19, minutes before the full House vote, Hastert withdrew it.

                      At the time, he explained his decision by saying that he had received a letter from President Clinton arguing that the genocide resolution, if passed, would harm U.S. interests. Again, the reported content of the Chicago wiretaps may well have been sheer bravado, and there is no evidence that any payment was ever made to Hastert or his campaign. Nevertheless, a senior official at the Turkish Consulate is said to have claimed in one recording that the price for Hastert to withdraw the resolution would have been at least $500,000.

                      Hastert’s spokesman says the congressman withdrew the genocide resolution only because of the approach from Clinton, “and to insinuate anything else just doesn’t make any sense.” He adds that Hastert has no affiliation with the A.T.C. or other groups reportedly mentioned in the wiretaps: “He does not know these organizations.” Hastert is “unaware of Turkish interests making donations,” the spokesman says, and his staff has “not seen any pattern of donors with foreign names.”

                      The audio interview of her on The Weekend Interview Show told about major "narcotics" [her word] involvement in Turkey of big players including the people who were behind the Plame outing (because Brewster Jennings had discovered major arms dealers with drug money entangled, including OSP plans to "salt" Iraq with WMD.  I'm writing this from memory — I'm not aware if Scott's interview has ever been transcripted.  I've got to go to work, but if it's interest you want, check out this tasty summary at AlterNet:  Turkey, Drugs, Faustian Alliances and Sibel Edmonds

                      -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                      by Proud Primate on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 04:03:09 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                        I'd love to hear the whole thing.  I really would.

                        But I have no idea how that gets you to fake planes and controlled demolition.

                        Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                        by Mia Dolan on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 09:44:49 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Here is the mp3 of Scott Horton's interview (0+ / 0-)

                          and, to my surprise, a transcript, which I would have done well to consult earlier in this thread.  It is at AntiWar.com.  The page is Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds.  You can stream or download it.

                          There is also a top-notch summary with links to depth and to the Vanity Fair piece which was a blockbuster at the time.  

                          But here's the quote I was looking for the other day, as it appears in the transcript (emphases mine):

                          SH: If I remember correctly the quote was something to the effect of "Why are you doing this? You could be putting your family back in Turkey in danger."

                          SE: That's correct.

                          SH: Did anything ever come of this threat?

                          SE: Well yes... I really don't feel like going through that, because that is really hard for me to speak about because my family's life has changed. They had to come to the U.S. They had to apply for political asylum, in fact, the Congress helped them to apply for political asylum based on documents they received from Turkey that had various threats in it. But that is not the point I want to make as far as the country goes, and that's why I usually tell people that I don't think the issue here is about whistleblowing, being fired, being wronged – that is not the most important issue here. The most important issue is: What were these criminal activities, and why instead of pursuing these our government chooses to cover it up and actually issue classification and gag orders so the American public will not know about what is going on within these agencies within their government – and even within the Congress? That is my focus point, and I have been trying – it is what I have written and have said in my interviews – to steer away from the fact that yes, I was fired, yes I was wronged, and they retaliated against me, and how they ruined my life – which is all true. But this is not where I want to focus, and this is not where I want the country to focus, this is not where I want the Congress to focus. I'm not saying, "Look, they did wrong to me, and this is not fair." I'm saying, "I came forward because criminal activities are taking place – have been taking place – some of them since 1997." Some of these activities are 100 percent related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, and they are giving this illusion that they are pursuing these cases, but they are not. If the case touches upon certain countries or certain high level people, certain sensitive relations, then they don't. But, on the other hand, they go and talk about lower-level criminal activity that boils down to people like Atta and Hamdi.

                          This is such a hair-raising interview, it's hard for me to do less than post the whole thing <heh>, but here's another, maybe the most memorable for me:

                          SH: I see. I want to get a promise out of you that when they finally lift this gag order, that I get to interview you first. I have a long list of questions that I can't ask.

                          SE: Sure. And believe me, once they lift the state-secrets privilege and once the court case actually begins and we have the witnesses and we can subpoena documents, it will be public. And it will be major. And it would make the AIPAC case look lame, actually.

                          SH: Oh, it will make the AIPAC case look lame?

                          SE: Correct.

                          SH: I can't wait. Let me go ahead and share with the people some things I know you're not allowed to talk about but are in the Vanity Fair article. Now [David Rose] talked to the debriefers from the different agencies, the FBI, the congressional investigators and, I believe, also the Sept. 11 commissioners, and they shared with him some interesting allegations that Sibel is not allowed to talk about or she'll go to prison. Most importantly that Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives, at least is implicated, in cooperating on some very important issues with the ATC, and that one of the phone calls overheard was that one of the ATC officials bragging that they bought the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert for $500,000, they gave him half a million in order to change his vote on an Armenian genocide resolution. I think we all know the genocide against the Armenians by the Turks in the 19-teens, and various states around the world have passed resolutions condemning that, and the Americans were about to pass a resolution – in fact, there's a pretty substantial Armenian population in California and the press all the time that this was happening pointed out that it was pretty obvious that Dennis Hastert was pushing this condemnation of Turkey for the genocide of the Armenians was in order to help some Republicans in California get reelected. But then, at the last minute he changed his mind and withdrew the resolution – right as a major helicopter deal was going through – this resolution that would have made Turkey look really bad. And according to David Rose in Vanity Fair, Dennis Hastert got paid $500,000 to change his position on that. Am I going off the story anywhere Sibel? Can you comment either way?

                          SE: No, but as I said, the reason I went to the Congress and to the 9/11 Commission had to do with criminal activities and the criminal activities I provided information on had a lot to do with 9/11. And it's very interesting for example this latest development with the 9/11 Commission and this information from the Department of Defense that had to do with Atta, right?

                          SH: Able Danger.

                          SE: And the main media is treating it as if "here's one piece of information the 9/11 Commission didn't include." I had this press conference last summer and together with 25 national security experts. These sort of people from NSA, CIA, FBI. And we provided the public during this press conference with a list of witnesses that had provided direct information, direct information. Some had to do with finance of al-Qaeda. These are people from NSA, CIA, and FBI to the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 Commission omitted all of this information, even though some of this information had been established as fact. One of them had to do with certain informants in April 2001. This informant provided very specific information about the attacks. The other had to do with certain information the FBI had in July and August 2001, where blueprints and building composites of certain skyscrapers were being sent to certain Middle Eastern countries, and many more information was just omitted. With my case they just said, "Refer to the inspector general's report," even though I had provided the commissioners with the documents and names of witnesses. So now today you're seeing the press talk about "Oh, one piece of information," which right now the Commission is denying: "We don't recall seeing that information." Well, I can put out 20 other cases. These are agents who worked for agencies such as FBI, CIA, some of them for 20 years, some for 18 years. I have their list, I have their affidavits that provided documents, and they were all omitted. But the media is treating it as if "oh, look, this one piece of information was omitted" from the 9/11 Commission report.

                          SH: And as you pointed [out], some of this information has been confirmed in the public. I know when you speak about the Iranian informant...

                          SE: Correct.

                          SH: ...who warned in April of 2001 – that was even confirmed by Mueller, the director of the FBI.

                          SE: Absolutely there was actually an article in the Chicago Tribune in July 2004 saying that even Mueller expressed surprise that during the hearings, the commissioners didn't ask about this. And guess what, nobody reported all these omissions. What would happen if you hit them with 20 cases? And I'm talking about 20 affidavits from experts and veteran agents

                          SH: This is all about the question of prior knowledge and who knew what, when before the attack.

                          SE: And also what happened afterward. I started working three days after Sept. 11 with a lot of documents and wiretaps that I was translating. Some of them dated back to 1997, 1998. Even after Sept. 11, covering up these investigations and not pursuing some of these investigations because the Department of State says, "You know what, you can't pursue this because that may deal with this particular country. If this country that the investigation deals with are not one of the Axis of Evil, we don't want to pursue them." The American people have the right to know this. They are giving this grand illusion that there are some investigations, but there are none. You know, they are coming down on these charities as the finance of al-Qaeda. Well, if you were to talk about the financing of al-Qaeda, a very small percentage comes from these charity foundations. The vast majority of their financing comes from narcotics. Look, we had 4 to 6 percent of the narcotics coming from the East, coming from Pakistan, coming from Afghanistan via the Balkans to the United States. Today, three or four years after Sept. 11, that has reached over 15 percent. How is it getting here? Who are getting the proceedings [sic] from those big narcotics?

                          SH: Perhaps the same people who make it illegal [in order] to drive up the price? Maybe not, I don't know. Now listen, when you talk about the State Department cites diplomatic ties to foreign countries they would prefer not be stepped on. I'm sorry, but the word "Israel" is just screaming inside of my head here. I guess you can't give me any indication "yes" or "no" if that's what you're talking about?

                          SE: Well, one of the interesting things about the Vanity Fair article... I don't know how many people picked up on that. But they're saying Turkish countries. It's plural people. And to say OK, we're looking at this region of the world that nobody is referring to [in] the War Against Terror. OK, you're looking at Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and these are the countries that now we are busy establishing bases in. And a large portion of their GDP depends on narcotics, and there is a huge al-Qaeda presence in their countries. We don't hear anything about Balkan countries, and again, their direct ties and direct relevance to al-Qaeda. They are not even naming these countries. The role that Pakistan played before and the role that Pakistan is playing today. So, as I have said before, there are several countries, there are several organizations, and you can't just isolate one country or one organization.

                          SH: I want to get to your appearance on Democracy Now! earlier in the week, referring to officials at the State Department, you used the word "treason." And I wonder whether this is specifically referring to the Sept. 11 attacks and whether you have information that indicates complicity on the part of American elites who are part of these semi-legit organizations that funded Sept. 11, or are we talking seven degrees of Kevin Bacon here?

                          SE: Again, it's hard to talk about this around the gag order, but this is what I have been saying for the past three years, that's why I refer to the transcript of CBS 60 Minutes. These people who call themselves Americans and these people are using their position, their official position within these agencies – some of them in the Department of Defense, some of them in the Department of State – and yet, what they are doing with their position, with their influence is against the United States' national security, it's against the best interests of its people, and that is treason. Be it giving information to those that are either quasi-allies – and I would underline quasi, who one day will be another al-Qaeda – and who are already are engaged in activities that are damaging to our country, its security and its interests – and that is treason. So that's what I was referring to. And what would you call someone who, let's say if they were to go after Douglas Feith, and if they were to establish that Douglas Feith with his access to information, willingly, intentionally used the information he had and gave it to those that would one day use it or maybe right now are using that information against the United States. Would you call that treason?

                          SH: Well, if it's an overt act to benefit an American enemy then yes, that's treason.

                          SE: Correct, and I as I said, those lines are so blurry because there are certain countries that we call allies but I wouldn't call them allies, these people are, these countries are, quasi-allies.

                          SH: Okay, I'm going to go ahead and name some people whom I suspect inside the State Department and the Pentagon, and I suppose you won't be able to answer affirmative or negative on any of these, but I'm very curious when I read about this kind of corruption going on in the State Department, I immediately think of John Bolton and David Wurmser. Do those names mean anything to you?

                          SE: Well, first of all, I'm not going to answer that question at all, but also you should pay attention to the fact that some of these people have been there for a while, and some of these people had their roots in there even in the mid-1990s.

                          SH: So more career officials rather than political appointees.

                          SE: Or maybe a mixture of both.

                          SH: Maybe a mixture of both. Thank you very much for your time Sibel. I sure wish they'd let you talk.

                          SE: Thank you, Scott. Maybe one day.

                          -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                          by Proud Primate on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 07:17:25 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Just as an adjunct to this from her ... (0+ / 0-)

                          To avoid overkill, I will supply links only on request for most of this.

                          The book that has taken my greatest interest recently is "Die CIA und der 11. September. Internationaler Terror und die Rolle der Geheimdienste."  by Andreas von Bülow, Defense Minister of Germany under the previous regime of Gerhard Schroeder.  I'm up to page 52.  He delineates the history of Osama and the structure of the system that created him.  It's a vitiating treatise.  Here's an example:  

                          "Die bedeutung der Duldung des Drogenhandels als Lohnersatz für die weltweit operierenden Hilfstruppen der CIA ergibt sich aus der Aussage Dennis Dayles, der ehemaligen Leiters der strategischen Drogenbekämpungseinheit der Drug Enforcement Agency, wonach ihm in seiner dreißigjährigen Amtzeit kein größerer Drogenfall untergekommen sei, bei dem er nicht auf die lenkenden und abwehrenden Machenschaften der CIA gestoßen sei, die seine Arbeit zunichte gemacht hätten.

                          Wie zur Bestätigung hat denn auch die Drug Enforcement Agency während des CIA-Einsatzes in Afghanistan, als bis zu 80 Prozent des Heroinangebots in der Welt aus diesem Gebiet kam, ihre Vertretung in Pakistan schlicht geschlossen.  Seinerzeit wurde die CIA-Station in Islamabad zür größten der Welt ausgebaut."

                          Which I make out to mean:

                          "The significance of the connivance of drug trafficking as alternative source of funds for the auxiliary forces of the CIA operating worldwide is made clear by the testimony of Dennis Dayles, the former leader of the strategic War-on-Drugs over-body [known as] the Drug Enforcement Agency, wherein he [states that] in his thirty-year tenure, no greater incidence of drug proliferation had found accomodation, wherein he was not was bumped by the controlling and defending chicanery of the CIA, which had brought his work to nothing.

                          "The DEA had as confirmation, also during the CIA presence in Afghanistan, while up to 80% of heroin offers in the world issued out of this region, their office in Pakistan being summarily closed.  At the same time, the CIA-Station in Islamabad was built up to the largest in the world."

                          As an alternative source on this, here's a quote from  :

                          "In my thirty year history with the DEA," said Dennis Dayles, who spent the 1980s as that agency's chief of enforcement in Central America, "the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA."

                          OK, so that still doesn't get you to controlled demolition.  Let's leave fake planes out for now, because, as Alex Jones says, they may be hiding something up their sleeve.  He's careful to avoid talking about the Pentagon, or do so only loaded with caveats.  Now the massive coverup and lockdown of all the surveillance videos that are known to exist of the Pentagon event (Marriott rooftop, gas station rooftop, Interstate tollbooth rooftop, just to name 3 that were seized within minutes by the FBI) is not a big confidence builder with me; I mean, what is it that the terrsts are going to learn from them that they don't already know?

                          But the Big Guys may have something up their sleeve, and could slap it on the table at a given moment and unseat someone who swears it's not a 757, because it could be.  From what I understand, radio control is possible on airliners already.  But there's millions of pages of interesting stuff, but stick to the better case: WTC7, the one that NIST and the 9-11 ©Omission simply refused to comment on.

                          The strongest single bit of evidence that I have seen to date is the pool of red-hot, still semi-molten iron that existed in the basements of WTC 1, 2 & 7 weeks after the event.

                          The second greatest bit is the recent revelation that, much to our joy, the structural steel from the towers was not, as we thought, all carted away under guard to be melted down in China, but some actually survives in "Peace Parks" in Japan and the US, where welders have assembled bits of them into scuptures and memorial structures.

                          The importance of this is, chemical tests as well as general inspection of these artifacts (FROM A CRIME SCENE,AS GIULIANI WELL KNOWS) caqn be performed.  The most notable scientist working on the project is Prof. Steven Jones of BYU, formerly of the JPL at Stanford.  He has received a bucket of "dirt" that a woman "cleaned off" one of these, in an undisclosed but certified location, when she heard he wished to analyze it.

                          Just as expected, the perfect signature of pure iron (not steel: no chromium) with Sulfur, Potassium, and Manganese, the signature of Thermate, a refinement on the older product, known as Thermite, which is a mixture of finely divided Aluminum with Iron Oxide.  When ignited it burns with an extremely hot fire, hot enough to raise structural steel to the point of evaporation.  Thermate, by comparison, has the addition of Sulfur and Potassium Permanganate, both of which assist the operation by lowering the melting point of steel, sort of like soap lowers the surface tension of water, improving its penetration.

                          This is quite simply the stuff that buildings are brought down with.  Dr. Jones also stated that the steel is not distorted thru massive general heat, it's still straight and clean, except for this line of shearing by Thermate, and the line of separation is at a steep angle, say, 45°, so the building wouldn't just sit there, but would slide off itself.

                          -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                          by Proud Primate on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 07:58:07 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                            You show me a picture of the pool of molten steel.  

                            Stephen Jones is probably the least credible scientist on earth.  He was called out by BYU for faking his peer review on this subject, something that BYU did not do for his prior papers which proved cold fusion, and also that Jesus lived in North America. This assclown couldn't explain how water boils.

                            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                            by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 06:53:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The video I showed you the link to (0+ / 0-)

                            in Prof. Jones's paragraph is not something I can embed in a post so far as I know.  And I cannot force you to click on it.

                            But if you do, you will see inescapable testimony, unquestionably filmed at Ground Zero, unquestionably the words of a Captain of the NYFC, saying

                            1.  It's weeks later
                            1.  It's red hot

                            -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                            by Proud Primate on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 09:18:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  The third-best bit of evidence is (0+ / 0-)

                          the fact that, not only on 9-11, but on 7-7-05 in London, and on 4-19-95 in Oklahoma City, major "fire-drills" were in progress, exactly matching the times and places of the real events.  Here, I'm going to give you some links to audio from the BBC, from CBC (Canada) and Dan Rather, interviewing people involved in these drills, only to "find" (believably in the dark in some cases, less so in others) themselves in the "real thing".

                          Here are the links:

                          Brief version of London Interview

                          Longer Version of Same

                          Video of ITN interview with same man

                          Video of Mr. Alex Jones showing press printouts declaring drills on 9-11, other commentary.

                          The evidence Alex Jones presents is not controversial in its provenance.  These are AP reports, Yahoo News web pages.  These things are known.

                          I'm getting tired, but — you know, I could type till Christmas and not cover all the hard evidence there is out there.

                          The noose is tightening.  The only question that remains is, "Will Bush declare Martial Law and suspend the Constitution before it can all be brought out?"

                          It's an election year, and already the patsies are being fed thru the cattle chutes into Terrst headlines, like those poor bastards in Florida, who were excited about receiving uniforms and boots from the FBI agent.  Reminds me of Amos 8:4-6

                          [4] Hear this, O ye that swallow up the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail,
                          [5] Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?
                          [6] That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat?

                          -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                          by Proud Primate on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 08:20:20 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Spam (0+ / 0-)

                            Now that you've tagged this site with your "Truth" graffiti, run along and soil someone else's rug.

                            Apparently "bearing witness to the truth" absolves people from showing common respect.

                            "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                            by BobzCat on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 08:23:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bouwerie Boy, BobzCat

                            You are so full of shit you must be on the RNC payroll or something.

                            Alex Jones?  You are citing Alex Jones?  That right-wing asshole is one of the biggest nut jobs out there.  You are doing nothing but helping Bush by promoting this garbage.

                            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                            by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 07:01:42 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They can't answer his evidence (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            BlueInARedState

                            so they slander his name, in hopes YOU, DEAR READER, won't check out the evidence for yourself.

                            If you do, they are toast.

                            -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                            by Proud Primate on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 09:20:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Welcome at Democratic Underground.... (13+ / 0-)

      e.g.9/11 Experiment, but not here -- simple enough, ain't it?

      Free Donuts + Beer Tax Repeal = Landslide Victory '08!

      by PhillyGal on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:00:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  blah3 (4+ / 0-)

      Fuck malloy, you, and vesa.

      I like comming here to read diaries by Jimmy Carter.

      I hate people like Malloy that want us to marginalize ourselves.

      Take your 92k user id back to DU, or prison planet.

      •  or you could go (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hatu, hiley, casseia

        read a different thread.

        "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

        by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:25:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  umm (6+ / 0-)

          no.

          If you 9/11 losers get your way, Malloy included, the all-star diarist won't post here.

          I know that's the goal for many of you but it aint happening on my watch.

          •  My goal is to find the truth (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anniethena, Monsieur le Prof, casseia

            about a crime in which the evidence was quickly carted away.

            I saw Larry Silverstein on PBS say that he thought it was time to "pull it." I want to know how you can "pull" a building that has not been PRE-wired. Until someone shows me that NY law says all buildings over a certain height must be built with preparations for the day they are torn down, this is still an open question.

            On the other hand, we seem to be dropping the ball on some other important issues related (or not) to why we are in Iraq, too.

            "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

            by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:07:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  NotThisShitAgain (8+ / 0-)

              How about you show me a single source that says "pull it" is a standard demo term.

              Just one.

              •  okay, you're right (4+ / 0-)

                I never met anyone in the demolition field. I am a complete amateur who did not find this out from prison planet. I saw it on tv the first time they showed it, and I understood from the context that that was what they were talking about. Later, when I went looking for sources, to be absolutely sure I had heard what I did before I told anyone else, I could not find it for several years. [Same with Rumsfeld's Devils' handshake photo] Then when I did it was on prison planet, but I knew they were not making it up because I saw it myself. Perhaps it is only a layman's term, but those were the terms he was using, and at the time it was one of those red flag items to me which meant, either that was an accidental slip and there's something going on here more than meets the eye, or, they better explain that because it sounded incriminating. I did NOT start out with doubts about the official "story"- it was bits like this that led me to have them.
                    This is also how I feel about the Pentagon. I was watching a channel for almost half an hour, and I could see an intact wall with a round hole in it. The other stations got bored with this and had all gone back to the towers and then had to switch back in a hurry when the Pentagon wall caved in. I have none of this on tape, as I said, I'm only an amateur at this point. I can't even upload pootie pics. But I do know that I approach this stuff with my mind wide open, because I know that perception and reality are not always the same.
                   But to say that I know what the Pentagon Wall looked like for the first few minutes after it got hit, whereas a large number of people only have the point of view of the BIG Charred Mess, is not the same as saying Yikes! A missile hit the Petagon and the airplane went poof over the ocean.
                    What did you see happen at the Pentagon? What do the videos say, why can't we air them on national tv, and how did the FBI snag them all so quickly?
                    Let's talk. about. it.

                "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

                by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:25:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Talk. about. it. (0+ / 0-)

                  somewhere. else.

                  Why. can. you. not. understand. that.

                  "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                  by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:43:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Just ignore him then (0+ / 0-)

                    No one has to read about subject matter that does not interest them.  No one imposes their views on you.  You knew what this diary was about; if you don't care for this sort of thing, then why did you bother coming in?

                    As I said elsewhere, this has nothing to do with "people not wanting to hear about it".  Rather, it has to do with folks wanting to expunge offensive views from their midst.  How democratic is that?

                    •  It really seems to me (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      tvb

                      as though you should find another forum where you can be as "democratic" as you think this site isn't.

                      The BS you're pitching is old.

                      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                      by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:24:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Okay, how about this? (2+ / 3-)
                Recommended by:
                Monsieur le Prof, pkbarbiedoll
                Hidden by:
                tvb, jay23, MTmofo

                Hello, is this Controlled Demolitions Inc.?

                A transcript:

                Female receptionist; Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI): Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
                Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
                CDI: Yes it is.
                Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
                CDI: Well what kind of question?
                Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
                CDI: Ok, what type of term?
                Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
                CDI: "Pull it"?
                Jeff: Yeah.
                CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
                Jeff: Thank you.
                CDI: Sir?
                Jeff: Yes?
                CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
                Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
                CDI: Ok.
                Jeff: Bye.
                CDI: Bye.

                •  Total Crap (2+ / 0-)

                  Do you have any concept of peer review?

                  Where is the phone number, location, or contact info for the company supposedly called?

                  Have you even looked at the site you are linking to here in the reality based community?

                  Please check the links page.

                  http://www.pumpitout.com/...

                  Please note the American Free Press link among many other shady ass liars linked to by this site.

                  Did you realize that almost every 9/11 bullshit video lists the AFP as the only source for many fantastic claims and quotes?

                  I think you need to check out who and what the AFP is all about.

                  They really hate Hollywood, and money lenders.

                •  Any TU's have a troll rating left for Casseia? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tlh lib, AnonymousArmy, BobzCat

                  He has been playing concern troll throughout this CT diary. He has recommended this conspiracy theory diary. He has been recommending CT comments. He has been repeatedly uprating troll rated comments by TU's and thus wasting 0's that might be needed elsewhere. He has blatantly violated the site rules. All in all a pretty irresponsible new member who should be troll rated and banned from the site. Has anyone contacted the admins about this person yet?

                  "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

                  by Bouwerie Boy on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:42:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Okay, how bout this? (2+ / 0-)

                  Go debate your shit elsewhere.   It is not fucking welcome here.   Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

                  But, what about Freedom of Speech?

                  Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?

                  No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.

                  Controversial Diary Topics

                  Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", i.e. "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.

                  Addendum

                  Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned.

                  Here is what kos has to say-

                  The conspiracists by kos

                  Fri Jul 08, 2005

                  Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do.

                  I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.

                  I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.

                  So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.

                  This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.

                  Update: I've been reinstating some of the banned accounts as they email me. Some people wondered why there wasn't any warning. There have been warnings from others -- repeated pleadings for people to ground themselves in reality.

                  It's telling that I have NEVER done something like this before. Because this has been an extreme situation. This isn't about disagreeing with what people are saying. If that was the case, everyone would've been banned by now. The myth of the "echo chamber" is just that. A myth.

                  But as for warnings, well, this has been my warning. I wanted it clear that I was serious, and I think that has come through. I am reinstating those who ask to be reinstated. But the message has been sent.

                  Don't like it?  Tough shit.

                  te amo, aja

                  ..::::THE IMPEACH PROJECT::::..

                  by tlh lib on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:28:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  You can't handle the truth (7+ / 0-)

              Why do you think that whether or not a building is "pre-wired" makes a difference?  "Pull it" is not a demolition term.  If Larry Silverstein said "pull it" the demolition people would not know what he's talking about.  

              The only people who think "pull it" is a demolition term are the 9-11 "truth" advocates.  Well, they are lying about this just like they are lying about a lot of things.  And if you are reading those sites and spreading their misinformation, I would say your goal is not to find the truth, but to spread lies.  

              Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful)

              by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:42:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Bye Bye Then (12+ / 0-)

      If Vesa wants to sit down at Daily Kos and defy the policy of silence because it is simply immoral not to do so, then I feel like taking a seat next to him/her.

      I don't mean to be overly harsh, but there is a damn good reason to ban 9/11 diaries from this site.  When we're posting, we have got to keep the integrity of this site in mind.  All eyes are on this blog and if we are to be credible, to be taken seriously, these wild, far-flung, completely unsubstantiated and thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories have got to go.

      There are rules at this site and this is NOT a freedom of speech issue in the least.  So if you want to throw in with Vesa, who is in clear violation of established rules, then don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

      No tears to cry. No feelings left. This species has amused itself to death... - Roger Waters

      by Kevin in Long Beach on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:12:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree (4+ / 0-)

        Rules at this site impinge on freedom of speech.  In many cases, that may be appropriate (i.e. I don't particularly want to see porn here.)  In this case it is not appropriate.

        •  That lame horseshit is (6+ / 0-)

          specifly addressed in the FAQ.  Read them and abide by them or leave.

          •  or, with enough polite dissent (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musing85, gatorcog, anniethena, Vesa, casseia

            perhaps the rules may change...? Time brings out new evidence, and an acceptance of open discussion (yes, still requiring the same level of links as other subjects do) could be the quality breakthrough America needs to put this to bed once and for all.

            ps, to the powers that be at this site,
            we appreciate today's brief deviation into this discussion...thanks.

            "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

            by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:30:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's the key (5+ / 0-)

              Time brings out new evidence ...

              Get some new evidence, and we'll spend all day talking about this.  But Vesa is just spewing the same psuedo-scientific bullshit that the 9-11 "truth" movement has been pushing for years.  

              Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful)

              by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:57:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I was recently surprised to hear (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Monsieur le Prof

                the 9/11 scholars for truth people getting air time on NHPR. In fact I thought it was Terry Gross's Fresh Air show but I can't find it. amateur. Anyway, there are just so many things that don't add up that I simply think the case is not closed. There is already plenty of evidence that is not being looked at. Some stuff you don't know you are looking for until you've already started the journey. Mostly, I think there are some people that we still haven't talked to, and the one I really want to see on Oprah's couch is Marvin. And I think Margie Burns deserves some credit for her work, because I read this in it's early days, another thing I ran across by myself without having it shoved at me with the fancy graphics of the nuttier sites.

                "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

                by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:58:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't mean NHPR had new evidence, (0+ / 0-)

                  I meant that to say, yes, today's diary addressed a new trend that I had noticed too: suddenly we're talking about this in public. That was why I opened this diary to read in the first place. Because someone else on dkos agreed it was important as a story that is starting to come out.

                  I also noticed that on Fox news's morning show where three people sit around and make fun of the news they were actually talking to someone about Diebold, one of the three people was working to make sure the person they were interviewing meant what he said because it was a serious charge, and another of the three trying desperately to make jokes undermining the whole thing but one of them actually heard the news she was being part of. I was really surprised to witness that, too, and was hoping the times are a-changing on that too. Just now, as I write this, I think I remember, is this one of those no-no topics too? Oops. Any discretion there was unintentional, but I'm leaving it in because this is what think and what I think I saw. IMHO.

                  "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

                  by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:07:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  You might want to read the FAQ (7+ / 0-)

          Specifically, the section on free speech. I posted the relevant bit further up in this comment.

          Briefly, the First Amendment doesn't apply here, since Kos isn't the government.

          -dms

          •  I didn't say it did. (0+ / 0-)

            I think there's an underlying natural right to free speech that is reflected in the First Amendment.  This right is limited by different entities in different contexts, and as I said, sometimes that's perfectly appropriate.  In this case, I don't think it is.  

            •  Thankfully, your opinion on whether it is (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              begone, middleagedhousewife

              appropriate that the person who OWNS this site does not allow CT junk here.... is completely and totally irrelevant.

              Thanks for playing though.

              te amo, aja

              ..::::THE IMPEACH PROJECT::::..

              by tlh lib on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:08:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  p.s....... (5+ / 0-)

              But, what about Freedom of Speech?

              Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?

              No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.

              Who are you to be a judge of what is or is not appropriate in terms of what somebody allows people to talk about on their own site?   That's absurdity to its core essence.   Anyone who doesnt like what Kos allows here is more than welcome to start their own site where they can discuss whatever they'd like.  

              In fact, for those who can't follow the rules here (and no, it's not civil disobedience....it's complete and total disrespect for the community) it would be appropriate that they STFU at dailykos and start their own blog.

              :-)

              Controversial Diary Topics

              Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", i.e. "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.

              Addendum

              Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned.

              Here is what kos has to say-

              The conspiracists by kos
              Fri Jul 08, 2005

              Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do.

              I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.
              I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.

              So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.
              This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.
              Update: I've been reinstating some of the banned accounts as they email me. Some people wondered why there wasn't any warning. There have been warnings from others -- repeated pleadings for people to ground themselves in reality.

              It's telling that I have NEVER done something like this before. Because this has been an extreme situation. This isn't about disagreeing with what people are saying. If that was the case, everyone would've been banned by now. The myth of the "echo chamber" is just that. A myth.

              But as for warnings, well, this has been my warning. I wanted it clear that I was serious, and I think that has come through. I am reinstating those who ask to be reinstated. But the message has been sent.

              The FAQ is your friend and anyone who has a problem following this really simple concept and rule.... should refrain from posting until they can respect the community standards.  It's really simple.

              te amo, aja

              ..::::THE IMPEACH PROJECT::::..

              by tlh lib on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:14:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Want free speech? Start your own blog. (4+ / 0-)

          No one will stop you. And few will care.

          Slap those goddam hogs away from the trough. They've had enough.

          by perro amarillo on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:21:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Who the hell (2+ / 0-)

          Put you in charge of telling us what is and is not appropriate? You've been here all of what? Two weeks?

          Hah hah, and hah.

          Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

          Feingold for President

          by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:41:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Which Banned 9-11 troll do you think this is? n/t (0+ / 0-)

          Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

          by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:42:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  'Large population'? (6+ / 0-)

      When the choices are "believe in it" or "not believe in it," and Vesa gets maybe 150 max people believing in it.... Realize that's out of almost 100,000 UIDs.

      That's not significant of ANYTHING.

      Math's awesome.

      "If more parents home disciplined [their kids] there would be fewer people I have to smack in public." --Wilzerd Balefire.

      by TheBlaz on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:04:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Except that 'freedom of speech' (9+ / 0-)

      doesn't enter into the equation. The First Amendment does not apply on dKos, as dKos is not an agency of the government. A point, I might add, which has been made approximately 6.022 × 1023 times on CT diaries like this steaming pile of low-grade fertilizer.

    •  Take a seat then. For a ride on the autoba(h)n. (3+ / 0-)

      Slap those goddam hogs away from the trough. They've had enough.

      by perro amarillo on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:05:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What total bullshit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JR, middleagedhousewife

      Mike Malloy's half-baked attack on this site was made with a deep misunderstanding of what this rule is about, or about the people who caused it to be made. People with no facts, who accused anyone who challenged them of being either a shill or a suckers, and using the most dishonest rhetorical tactics to try to prop up outlandish theories that revolved around redefining the laws of physics, and ignoring the laws of gravity! (not to mention frequent incidents of subtle racism, and hysterical claims backed up with evidence that disproved themselves)

      If you want to lay down with these creeps out of some misguided moral imperative, go right ahead. But I will not let you take us back to the back to the days of nightly pod diaries (do you even know what I’m reference?), just so you can indulge your flaky, masturbatory urge to defy convention, without evaluating if that convention is just.

      For aiding and enabling this dishonest chump, you get a troll rating, as you will get any time you get behind someone so clearly in the wrong.

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:33:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ach-tung! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    casseia

    Diss 9/11 shtuff iss VERBOTEN!

     -  Herrmann Goering

  •  Pootie can't take the 9/11 (11+ / 0-)

    stuff anymore.  Stop it, I'm not listening...lah lah lah

     title=

  •  Sheesh (13+ / 0-)

    You people are just as bad as the Intelligent Design crackpots.  Find someplace else to waste time.

    We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25, -7.18)

    by DH from MD on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:11:10 PM PDT

  •  another former Reagan official went public (6+ / 0-)

    sure it was on a forum that doesn't have much credibility, but is it his fault?  You can't even talk about this on dailykos, it's not like CNN will take your calls:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/...

     title=

    The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it "the dog that doesn't hunt."

    The Colonel detailed historical examples of the use of false flag operations carried out by the US government, in particular Israel's attempted sinking of the USS Liberty, which LBJ allowed to happen in an effort to blame Egypt and kickstart a war.

    Ray espoused his complete distrust of the legitimacy of the official story behind 9/11.

    "I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate," he said.

    Ray highlighted the existence of Project Bojinka and the fact that Bush administration officials claimed ignorance of a plot to attack the World Trade Center with planes despite limitless precursors to suggest otherwise.

    Ray dismised the validity of the assertion that the Bush administration is fighting a genuine war on terror.
    [...]

    Ray expressed his disgust at how the current batch of crooks had twisted the conservative movement and wrapped themselves in it like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    "This neo-conservative takeover of the government in the last six years is the destruction of the things that Barry Goldwater would have been running for in '64 and even the things that Ronald Reagan said he supported," said Ray.

    •  Jeez (3+ / 0-)

      I hope that guy never was in charge of anything to terribly important. He seems to be logically impaired.

      The existance of previous false flag operations does not prove that any current act is a false flag operation.

      Lying can never save us from another lie - Vaclav Havel

      by Muwarr90 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:17:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that's right! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Easterling, anniethena, Vesa, casseia

      Nobody could have predicted Project Bojinka...
      Except, would you call this source from Georgetown reputable?

      Ramsey Yousef, World Trade Center and Manila Air bombings. Ramsey Yousef was part of the international terrorist group responsible for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993 and a Manila Air airliner in late 1995. When his laptop computer was seized in Manila, the FBI found that some of the files were encrypted. These files, which were successfully decrypted, contained information pertaining to further plans to blow up eleven U.S.-owned commercial airliners in the Far East [Freeh 97]. While useful to the investigation, much of the information was also available in unencrypted documents. Also, because Yousef and others were arrested, decryption was not essential to averting the scheduled catastrophes.

      This seems to imply that Louis Freeh knew, by 1997, that terrorists did have plans like that.

      IMHO- the USS Liberty and the Operation Northwoods are exactly the kind of thing to lead one to believe if they've done it before they would have no qualms about doing it again.

      "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

      by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:47:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I always get a kick (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lisa Lockwood, BlueInARedState

    at watching the tags on diaries like these.

  •  WTF? (11+ / 0-)

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Must cover my eyes from this crap!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

    by allmost liberal european on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:32:00 PM PDT

  •  No problem seeing the diary in print, Pierre (0+ / 0-)

    What amazed me was that according to the voting, so many people here are paranoid enuf and gullible enuf to believe that the USG was behind the attacks.

    Their real God is money- Jesus just drives the armored car.

    by oblomov on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:48:06 PM PDT

  •  good as place as any (3+ / 0-)

    But thanks to our Finnish tinfoil peddler, I just realized that we have been alloted a few extra daily troll ratings.  Long nap...maybe I am just dreaming.

    A rabid lamb bowing to Dear Kingpin in the land of the Lilliputians

    by tvb on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:48:38 PM PDT

  •  Jumping fucking Jesus (15+ / 0-)

    Another one of these stupid things?

    How many times must you be told, Vesa? You do this shit all the time, offer nothing of value, then you get a few clueless fuckos to recommend your diary and try and support your crack-pot nonsense.

    These are the points you all need to get through your tin-foil addled little minds:

    1. It's against the rules of the site to post diaries like this one.
    1. Kos's site, Kos's rules.
    1. Posting here is not a RIGHT. You don't have the RIGHT to post any sort of piece of shit nonsense you want on this site.

    FOLLOW THE FUCKING RULES, JACKASSES.

    Vesa, the personification of 31-flavors-of-dumbass, will hopefully be banned soon, and I'd argue for the banning of people recommending these fucking diaries.

    If you people can't even respect and follow simple little rules, why the fuck are you here?

    Get lost, Vesa. None here shall mourn your banning, for:

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    "If more parents home disciplined [their kids] there would be fewer people I have to smack in public." --Wilzerd Balefire.

    by TheBlaz on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:48:52 PM PDT

  •  Hey! (3+ / 0-)

    I have 5 fucking donuts! Thank you for more bullets. And i have a target too..

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

    by allmost liberal european on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 01:58:44 PM PDT

  •  One time (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pmc1970, Muwarr90, Mia Dolan

    My take on the Tinfoil hat stuff

    1.  Bush, Cheney, et al, were directly involved in planning and executing 9/11.  Discounted for the common reasons--Too many people would have to have knowledge, They're not smart enough to pull it off, etc.
    1.  Bush, Cheney, et al intentional ignored the warnings to create an excuse for invading Iraq, NSA spying, increased spending on Defense.---More likely, but only slightly.
    1. Bush, Cheney, et al. ignored the warnings through incompetence and inertia (much like current ignoring of Global Warming).---Likely enough to be almost certain.

    Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility. --Ambrose Bierce

    by JaketheSnake on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:03:22 PM PDT

  •  Vicious (6+ / 0-)

    What really blows my mind is the number of people who are using the most hostile language towards Vesa - while s/he has been rather reserved.  This is one unfortunate quality of DKos.  People who espouse ideas that run counter to the received wisdom are vilified.  As for Kos, if this site devolves into a mutual admiration society, it will lose all relevance.  Instant kiss-o-death on the blogosphere.  I would venture to guess that Kos would much rather have an engaging website even if that means some "civil disobedience" on occasion.  And if you are really THAT upset, why do you have to post on this diary at all.  Just leave it with 1 entry.  There are plenty of other diaries to choose from.

    •  Well (6+ / 0-)

      The diarist posted on a topic that is a flagrant violation of the rules, after being warned many times previously.  He cites right-wing homophobes (Alex Jones) and groups with holocaust deniers (Scholars for 9/11 truth) and makes arguments that are the scientific equivalent of intelligent design.

      Vesa's diary is the blogging eqivalent of going to someone's house and taking a crap on the floor.  If anything, people have been very gentle with this loser.  

      Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful)

      by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:11:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No (5+ / 0-)

      No matter what your interpretation of waht Kos wants this site to be is, it has been made completely clear in the FAQ that 9/11 conspiracy diaries are NOT welcome. Period.

      Vesa is well aware of this. His diary is hostile to the expressed wishes of Kos.

      Lying can never save us from another lie - Vaclav Havel

      by Muwarr90 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:11:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If you had to deal (5+ / 0-)

      With as many of these fucking things as we all have, you'd be cranky too when another one shows up here wasting diary list space.

      There was a time when the hostility you see here was not the nearly universal reaction to these diaries. There was a time when good nature Kossacks attempted to engage this nutbags in a free and open debate, politely pointing out the logical fallacies, and factual omissions in their theories. For their trouble, such Kossacks received shrill accusations of being naive and clueless at best, agents of the government bent on spreading misinformation at worst. It wasn’t long before those kind and brave souls stopped trying. Some of them became part of the very people you decry here. More of them simply started avoiding these diaries like the plague.

      Others, like myself, who started as simply amused by these idiots antics have since come to find them disruptive, disrespectful (to us, to this community, and to the dead), and simply incapable of any sort of rationality. For these reason, we each came to the conculsion that the best way to deal with them was with the most potent derision we could muster, as they are not people to be respected or debated with, but ruthlessly mocked until they finally go the fuck away.

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:54:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  See the comment from Kos; he banned Vesa n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera, middleagedhousewife
  •  Resistance is Futile /snark nt (2+ / 0-)

    Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.

    by Sleeps in Trees on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 02:13:56 PM PDT

  •  Clearly many posters here are scared of the truth (4+ / 4-)
    Recommended by:
    hiley, nhwriter, pkbarbiedoll, casseia
    Hidden by:
    Ahianne, peraspera, dnta, BobzCat

    Many spend all their time throwing insults and discussing whether or not to ban or supress someone's point of view.

    What happened to freedom of speech?

    Somebody should consider class action, considering even in private spaces Americans are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech.

    Many shopping centers and stores are privately owned. What if owners decided you couldn't use certain brand names or talk about certain products while in their stores? If it's an area where anyone is allowed to come and shop, how would it be possible to forbid what you discuss in their stores? It's not "yelling fire in a crowded theatre," if there is indeed a fire. Freedom of speech is a guaranteed freedom.

    And the sidebarring about whether or not it can be discussed takes away from the real issues of course.

    Most of the arguments refuting all the articles and facts coming out say there is no one "credible" behind the evidence.

    I'd recommend, if you have doubts, taking a look at http://www.st911.org for starters.
    Then you can decide if these professors, scientists, engineers, veterans and former government officials are doing it for the money, or because they care about their country.

    Or you can believe the Bush Administration.

    Then you can "debunk" World Trade Center building 7, a 8 second free-fall collapse of a 47 story building. Yeah, you know, it happens every day, right? Nothing to see here, keep moving!

    So now please label me a looney too, along with 93% of the people visiting this page! Attack me personally! C'mon! Ban me! Limit my freedom of speech! Hell, put me in a camp and shoot me in the head! DO YOU THINK THAT WILL MAKE THE FACTS GO AWAY?

    •  Blah Blah Blah (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RunawayRose, Bouwerie Boy

      Do you know who the biggest 9-11 fraud of them all is?  Jim Fetzer, that nutjob professor from Duluth.  That guy is so full of shit he must be on the Bush/Cheney payroll. I even wonder if he figured out how much of that City Pages article was making fun of him.  What a loser.  

      Hey Monsieur, you forgot to include holocaust deniers in your list of people in the scholars for truth.  Did you read Eric Huffschmid's article on how the gas chambers were used for for cleaning and de-lousing people?   Almost as believable as the Jones theories on 9-11.  Are you still hanging out with Christopher Bollyn and his Nazi friends?  

      Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

      by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:25:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Comparing researchers to Nazis ... (3+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        nhwriter, pkbarbiedoll, casseia
        Hidden by:
        Goldfish

        I see the Bush junta's disdain for academics has got you by the balls, too.

        You know, there is a reason I didn't include holocaust deniers ... because I don't believe that bullshit and it has nothing to do with 9-11. And if you can't understand that, it's pretty obvious why you still believe the official story, too.

        Can you refute the facts now? Why did building 7 collapse? Have you seen the footage? Who bought the put options on the airlines days before the attacks? Who silences Sibel Edmunds and the other FBI agents in Minneapolis? Have you heard of Able Danger? Where is the debris at the Pentagon?

        I know ... fingers in ears. Don't want to hear it! Childish insults easy ... truth ... HARD!

        •  Fetzer you dirty liar (1+ / 3-)
          Recommended by:
          Goldfish
          Hidden by:
          Rita in DC, Bouwerie Boy, middleagedhousewife

          You know that your Scholars group has holocaust deniers in it.  

          Building 7 collapsed because it was hit with debris from other other buildings and burned all day.

          I have seen the footage.

          You don't know what you are talking about with regard to the airline stock.

          The government silences Sibel Edmonds, and Colleen Rowley has nothing to say about controlled demolition or any of the garbage that the peddle.  

          I have heard of able danger.

          I'm sure the debris was cleaned up and taken away.

          None of that shit gets you anywhere near your fake planes and controlled demolition bullshit.  What are you going to show me the findings of a physicist who discovered cold fusion, proved Jesus lived in North American and conducted a secret peer review?  Whose paper relies on Nazis like Hufshcmid and Bollyn.  Nice.

          Fetzer, you are a true dirtbag.  How much does Dick Cheney pay you to spread disinformation for him.

          Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

          by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:49:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wow that's a lot of hatred (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            nhwriter, pkbarbiedoll
            Hidden by:
            middleagedhousewife

            against someone who's trying to do honest research.

            To respond to a few of your points:

            Put options. You simply discard the idea by saying I don't know what I'm talking about. So you're denying that put options were bought on United and American days before the attacks, betting the value of the stocks would decrease? That is from the 9-11 Commission Report itself. Are you saying you don't believe the report?

            Able Danger exposed Mohammed Atta as a probable terrorist who was taking flying lessons. Hmmmm ... Nothing to see here.

            And the government report claimed Building 7 collapsed due to fire, not debris. So even you don't believe the official story! Lmao!

            And please quit the apples and oranges crap with the "fake planes." I don't buy it either, I'm just trying to get to the truth behind it, minus the hatred which you so obviously spew ...

            •  Honest Research? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              middleagedhousewife

              What a joke.  And a lot of the losers on your 9-11 site are into fake planes, so you had better get your shit straight.  

              Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

              by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:04:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you knew anything about it (0+ / 0-)

                and had read some of the litterature (for example, David Ray Griffin) you would know that's simply not true.

                There are a few people trying to advance no-plane theories, and they have met with a lot of skepticism. I already said I don't buy into those theories either, and neither do 99% of people who question 9-11. So please stop throwing everyone in the same basket.

                (For example, you're American, so you must be overweight, white, drive an SUV, speak loudly and not have a passport? - See how distracting it is to use ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with anything?)

                •  So what hit the Pentagon (0+ / 0-)

                  Dishonest David Ray says it a missile because some people heard a missile, but he ignores that fact that literally hundreds of people saw an airliner hit the Pentagon.  Plus the dna of the people on the missing plane was found there.  Do you buy into that bullshit?  Dishonest David Ray does.

                  Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                  by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:28:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Well, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              middleagedhousewife

              You're a pretty contemptable person. I think you pretty well earned that hatred.

              Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

              Feingold for President

              by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:11:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yep, I'm the asshole (1+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                nhwriter
                Hidden by:
                Geekesque

                because here I am trying to present some evidence, defend this diary, and make a conclusion based on facts available to me.

                And I get slandered from every angle for it, so that certainly makes me a contempable person.

                (To understand better, or just for fun, go to wikipedia and look at the term "cognitive dissonance.")

                •  hahahah (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MikeB, tlh lib, Bouwerie Boy

                  Okay, I get it now. You're suffering from cognitive dissonance, and that's why you act this way. I thought that might be the case, but I didn't want to say anything about. But thanks for cluing me in to why you're the way you are.

                  Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

                  Feingold for President

                  by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:29:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Hey genius.... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MikeB, middleagedhousewife

                  What you are doing is something that is not acceptable in this community.   Don't like it?  Tough fucking shit.   Go debate conspiracy theory on your own website.  This site exists to get Democrats elected, not to spar over conspiracy theories.

                  This diary is a bannable action in this community.  You are defending it and, as such, you are defending the complete and blatant disrespecting of the community you think should be giving a shit about what you say.  That's precious.

                  te amo, aja

                  ..::::THE IMPEACH PROJECT::::..

                  by tlh lib on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:00:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  'You don't know what you are talking about ' (0+ / 0-)

            "with regard to the airline stock."

            Do you? Who does?

            Mia, please prove that with a link. That is my number one question and you think "you don't know what you're talking about" equals a refutation.
            That is bunk. Please de-bunk it or lay off saying we don't know when you don't either.

            "...yet didn't Mr Windrip speak beautifully about pure language, church attendance, low taxation, and the American flag?" Don't Let It Happen Here

            by nhwriter on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:20:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Why are you talking to (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RunawayRose, tvb

            Monsieur le gasbag? Why not just feed him donuts?

          •  Mia (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rita in DC

            Please don't identify users, no matter how egregious their opinions or disruptions.

        •  No, sorry (0+ / 0-)
          It's you who has a disdain for acidemics. Acidemics care about things like, you know, facts and evidence. Acidemnics care about intllectual honesty, and not misrpersenting sources. Academics use good logic, and don't resort to fallacies like red herrings and begging the question to try to prop up an argument that can't stand on it's own.

          Don't you stand here and accuse us of being anti-academic sir, not when everything you fight for falls under that lable.

          Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

          Feingold for President

          by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:07:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly which is why there is a movement (1+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            nhwriter
            Hidden by:
            Geekesque

            called Scholars for 9-11 truth.

            http://st911.org

            Could you point me to the group called "Rednecks for 9-11 truth?"

            •  That doesn't even make sense n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tlh lib

              Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

              Feingold for President

              by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:18:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Holocaust deniers for 9-11 truth (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tlh lib

              is more like it.  

              Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

              by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:52:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Quel tasteless smear! (0+ / 0-)

                Learn some manners, honey.  Smearing an opponent does not reflect well.  "Denier"! As Jimmy would say: "Oh, come on."  

                How does that expression about patriotism and scoundrels go again?

                •  No (0+ / 0-)

                  Its only a smear if its not true.  The collection of losers in the "truth" groups includes known holocaust deniers.  Part of the reason this topic is banned on DailyKos is that its leading advocates are not progressives, but are among the most vile people on earth.  I can't believe that there a links to a guy like Alex Jones, who is a right-wing nut and raging homophobe.  Sorry, but I stand by my statement.  

                  Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                  by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 05:43:22 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You sound like Dershowitz here. (0+ / 0-)

                    You sound a little like Dershowitz here, yes, the same Derchowitz who was reported by CNN as having been found howling at the moon, bug-eyed and ranting in a back alley in one of the less upscale parts of trenton, NJ.    Apparently, the meds had run out.  Later, he was reported to have been admitted to a leafy, bucolic  and most pastoral clinic in NH to unwind a little.

                    Notwithstanding all your sturm und drang here, I really haven't heard you offer one substantive objection to any alternative theory.  Just smear by association and general invective.  If 9/11 CTs are banned, then surely gratuitous smears towards adherents might be equally banned?

                    Or would you like to talk shop?

                    •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                      My comments are not smears, because they are true.    And when your "scholarly" group includes holocaust deniers and you cite Nazis (real Nazis, mind you) in your "scholarly" works, there is nothing gratuitous about calling them out.

                      I'll make two substantive points.

                      First, with regard to controlled demolition, it would take thousands of charges (weighing thousands of pounds), and months of planning to get any of the three buildings (1, 2, 7) wired to be demolished.  These buildings were used by tens of thousands of people every day.   Not one person saw explosives being placed in the buildings.  

                      Second, with regard to the plane hitting the Pentagon, the "truth" advocates often claim that the eyewitnesses accounts of what hit the building are mixed.  Well, sort of.  Two people who were not near the building thought it was a small plane.  Several people inside the building "heard" a missile.  But literally hundreds of people, most of whom were in cars on the freeway adjacent to the building, gave statements that they saw an airliner hit the pentagon.  They were also able to match the DNA of something like 46 out of the 47 people on board the "missing" airliner to the remains at the crash site.  

                      I bring up the qualifications of the "truth" advocates because they are such a joke. The NIST scientists, who all have relevant degrees from good univerisities, and independent reserachers from places like MIT and Purdue have all studied the building collapses and believe that the plane impacts were the root cause, and not controlled demolition.   Steven Jones, the "brains" behind the controlled demolition theory, got called out by his university, BYU, for doing a fake peer review.  Jones is also known for his previous academic work in proving that Jesus actually lived in North America.  Oh, and he also proved cold fusion.  While the experts for the NIST and MIT have degrees in things like structual engineering, Jones is just a physicist.  There is nothing in his background that qualifies him to write on building collapses, much less get right what the MIT guys got wrong.  Finally, where does Jones get some of his information for his paper?  Bingo.  Holocaust deniers and Nazis.  Guys who just make shit up.

                      Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                      by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 10:35:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Doing a dershowitz (0+ / 0-)

                        means trying to silence debate by associating someone's position with a distinct but socially disgraceful position or person.  It amounts to an ad hominem attack.  This is precisely what you are doing, Mia.

                        I don't care two whits about Jones.  What I do find interesting is debate about the molten metal that persisted for weeks at the base of the collapse.  

                        Isaac Newton also held some pretty loopy ideas.  Does this mean we throw away calculus and mechanics?

                        Any enquiry into the events of 9/11 must be done on the basis of evidence and reason.  You have shown little of either.

                        So please: 1) No more smears; 2) Give me one other example of a steel skyscaper to collapse from fire alone, or, as I am feeling generous yet again, from fire and "falling debris."

                        •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

                          The molten metal is a funny story.  No one has any pictures of it.  There are references to "molten metal beams," which is hilarious if you understand what the word "molten" means, which many of the assclowns in the "truth" groups apparently don't.

                          And fuck you with the claims that I am making ad hominem attacks.  The people in these groups are disgraceful.  I can't help if you want to throw your lot in with some of the most vile people on earth. The problem with using holcaust deniers to support your arguments is not only that they are vile disgusting people, its that they are liars.  There is no credibility there.

                          I agree that 9-11 must be investigated using evidence and reason.  And that is precisely why the claims of the "truth" groups have been rejected by me, by this site, and by mainstream scientists.  Get one structural engineer -- just one -- to get on board with the controlled demolition theory.  I'll even accept a structual engineer who is a holocaust denier, since that is the area from which you seem to draw your evidentiary support.  But your holocaust denying source has to be a structural engineer.

                          Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                          by Mia Dolan on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 09:43:29 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Brownshirts for democracy! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lilabella

                            Mia, it is not controversial that there was molten steel at the base of the towers.  Do we need to go through the exercise that we went through with WTC 7?  Remember when you said there were other buildings that have come down by fire "and falling debris"?  You laid an egg here and if you stand by the "no molten metal" theory, you will lay another egg.

                            If you want to talk about the events of 9/11, Mia, make a little effort to get some facts straight, yes?

                            And to continue to patrol boards like this, ringfencing what do you deem to be acceptable debate, and enforcing your personal views with the tenacity and self-righteousness of a brownshirt, you only drag your party down another notch.

                          •  Hey fuckstain (0+ / 0-)

                            Its not my version of events that is banned here, its yours.  You go find me a picture of some molten metal.  

                            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                            by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 06:48:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You claim you want the truth, but ... (1+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kix
                            Hidden by:
                            BobzCat

                            we have to spoof-feed it to you.  OK, OK, here ya go, dearie.  Look I cut your meat up for you nice & small.

                            MOM: Oooh this is really good, honey, try some — just taste the juice, OK?

                            This is from BYU professor Steven Jones's peer review paper on the web, Oh yes, very high class.

                            We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings:  the Twin Towers and WTC7.  A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero:  http://plaguepuppy.net/... . The photographs below by Frank Silecchia  show chunks of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble on September 27, 2001 (according to photographer's aid).  Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal -- this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see.

                            Go ahead, honey, click the link!  Watch the video.  No it's real, honest, just watch it, you'll see!

                            Ooh, look!  Here's some stills that are even better, not included in the video clip!

                            Oooh, that's hot, huh?  Here's another one:

                            DAD: Ah!  Ya wastin ya time on that kid.  Next thing she'll be sayin that fire captain and the set behind him was all done on a sound stage in Hollywood.

                            -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                            by Proud Primate on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 10:11:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  uh, make that 'spoon-feed' (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            BobzCat

                            although it might be good as is. <heh>

                            Also, I should have included the URL of Prof. Jones's paper itself:

                            http://www.physics.byu.edu/...

                            -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                            by Proud Primate on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 10:20:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ha Ha (0+ / 0-)

                            That is hilarious.  You are perhaps the stupidist motherfucker I have run into on this site.  Dick Cheney would be proud of your work.

                            Stephen Jones is renowned joke who couldn't explain how water boils.  I see you site his like from Jeff King's website.  Jeff King is a guy who claims to be an MIT engineer, but who is not associated with MIT and has not practiced engineering in 25 years.  He claims to be working as a doctor in California, but he is not licenced there, so he is probably making that up too.

                            I should give you a prize for being the 10,000th person to link to Stephen Jones' paper on this site.  No one here has ever read that piece of shit before.  Assclown.

                            Seriously, dude, if you want to go around spreading disinformation for Bush, do it on another website.  That garbage has been exposed here.

                            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                            by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 06:59:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  S.T.F.U. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              middleagedhousewife

              Go debate your shit elsewhere.   It is not fucking welcome here.   Is that too difficult for you to comprehend?

              But, what about Freedom of Speech?

              Doesn't the First Amendment give me the right to talk about whatever I want here?

              No. Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.

              Controversial Diary Topics

              Diaries on certain topics are likely to generate angry responses. Most of these topics fall under the general heading of "conspiracy theories", i.e. "JFK was killed by Martians". The rule for posting such diaries is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The more extreme the claim, the higher the burden of proof that commenters will demand. If you can't provide evidence to back up your claim, it is best not to post the diary. This guideline also applies to recommending extraordinary-claims diaries. If a diary makes an extreme claim with little or no evidence to back up that claim, it shouldn't be recommended, no matter what that claim is.

              Addendum

              Some people have been confused by the above discussion. Let me make it perfectly plain. Diaries advancing 'Conspiracy Theories' are subject to ridicule and derision from the community at the very least. Repeat offenders can and will be banned.

              Here is what kos has to say-

              The conspiracists by kos

              Fri Jul 08, 2005

              Today I did something I've never done before (not even during the Fraudster mess), and wish I'd never had to do.

              I made a mass banning of people perpetuating a series of bizarre, off-the-wall, unsupported and frankly embarassing conspiracy theories.

              I have a high tolerance level for material I deem appropriate for this site, but one thing I REFUSE to allow is bullshit conspiracy theories. You know the ones -- Bush and Blair conspired to bomb London in order to take the heat off their respective political problems. I can't imagine what fucking world these people live in, but it sure ain't the Reality Based Community.

              So I banned these people, and those that have been recommending diaries like it. And I will continue to do so until the purge is complete, and make no mistake -- this is a purge.

              This is a reality-based community. Those who wish to live outside it should find a new home. This isn't it.

              Update: I've been reinstating some of the banned accounts as they email me. Some people wondered why there wasn't any warning. There have been warnings from others -- repeated pleadings for people to ground themselves in reality.

              It's telling that I have NEVER done something like this before. Because this has been an extreme situation. This isn't about disagreeing with what people are saying. If that was the case, everyone would've been banned by now. The myth of the "echo chamber" is just that. A myth.

              But as for warnings, well, this has been my warning. I wanted it clear that I was serious, and I think that has come through. I am reinstating those who ask to be reinstated. But the message has been sent.

              Don't like it?  Start your own site and like it there.

              te amo, aja

              ..::::THE IMPEACH PROJECT::::..

              by tlh lib on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:10:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, please (3+ / 0-)

      Take your holier-than-thou attitude and shove it.  This isn't about someone's point of view, it is about making false claims on someone elses private property.  You aren't entitled to your own facts.

      We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25, -7.18)

      by DH from MD on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:00:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I fully expected the personal attacks (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nhwriter, casseia

        If I know a lot about a subject, it automatically makes me arrogant, of course ... very clear logic there.

        Would that work in a courtroom?

        "Your honor, the plaintiff clearly knows the details of the case, and has a lot of credible evidence that has not been scientifically disproven, but we think he is arrogant, and the case should therefore be dismissed."

        You have said I have made false claims. Would you care to give an example?

        (Response: No, because you are a troll, and it's no worth my time.)

        We can turn in circles like this forever ... I'm used to it.

        You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
        You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

        •  So... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85

          Where is the "credible" evidence you speak of?  Produce something credible and maybe you can move the conversation forward.  Until then, you're a CT junkie troll.  Oh, and nice job with the martyr complex there... you're so fucking persecuted.

          No tears to cry. No feelings left. This species has amused itself to death... - Roger Waters

          by Kevin in Long Beach on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:15:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here are some links for starters (3+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Horace, nhwriter, casseia
            Hidden by:
            dnta

            http://www.st911.org

            http://www.911blogger.com

            http://www.unsungwar.com/

            Those sites contain links to many others.

            You can google "World Trade Center Building 7" also, if you haven't seen the footage.

            Also check out the Tucker Carlson interview from November 2005 on MSNBC, it's available on YouTube (9-11 is always one of the most popular in the politics category).

            It's not easy waking up to what happened that day, but I assure you I am not doing this for my own personal glory. I'm doing it because I love my country and to move forward we have to have closure.

            (And if that makes me a troll, looney, nutbag whacko then so be it).

        •  I'm a troll? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, Kevin in Long Beach

          That's rich considering your entire history consists of commenting in 9-11 diaries and spreading so much tinfoil that Reynolds could open up a market in Antarctica.

          We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25, -7.18)

          by DH from MD on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:39:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Funny (0+ / 0-)

          your shit would never see the light of a courtroom.   It would all be excluded as unreliable bullshit via Daubert or Frye/Mack in your home state.  

          Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

          by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:53:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Clearly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, Bouwerie Boy

      You're a fucking pathetic joke.  Move along now...

      No tears to cry. No feelings left. This species has amused itself to death... - Roger Waters

      by Kevin in Long Beach on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:11:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The owner of this website just banned the diarist. (4+ / 0-)
      If you don't approve of the way he runs his website, visit or start another website.

      Posters who scream "Ban me!" often get their wish. If participating here is of value to you for other reasons, be careful what you wish for.

      •  Banning people who know how to use a computer ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cat Whisperer

        ... doesn't tend to keep them away very long.

        You can only ban facts and such inconvenient details as  truth for so long.

        •  One can always hope that a banned user (3+ / 0-)

          responds to being banned with a modicum of maturity and a modicum of regard the wishes of someone other than himself/herself.

          Markos has not found "truth" or "facts" in any of the 9-11 conspiracy theories, nor has he found them to be germane to the mission of his website. If you disagree with his assessment, again, visit or start a different website.

          •  Correction: 'regard for the wishes' (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cat Whisperer
          •  The 'mission' of this website (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            casseia

            is obviously not to pursue the truth, if the response to a legitimate post about a legitimate subject with legitimate links is to ban users and respond systematically with insults.

            And by the way, if he hasn't found "truth" in any conspiracy theories, then are you saying he doesn't believe Osama Bin Laden was behind 9-11?

            Because that is the biggest conspiracy theory of them all! (Look it up, if you have a dictionary around)

            •  The mission of this website (2+ / 0-)

              dumbass is to get Dems elected...your bs isn't helping.

            •  Nice spin (0+ / 0-)
              On the fallacy of equivocation. I think it deserves a name all it's own.

              Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

              Feingold for President

              by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:27:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The mission of the website (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rita in DC, musing85, Bouwerie Boy

              From the FAQs plain as day:

              What is the purpose of this site?

              (Condensed from this diary written by kos in late 2004)

                 This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together. We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama. Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory. And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog. The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable

              •  But as long as the Dems avoid 3rd rail topics (0+ / 0-)

                you'll drink backwash.  This Party is like a chick who thinks she's too fat.  Here you have the fast bulk of the electorate against the War and a guy like Lieberman, under your banner, runs without even a snick of contrition and with the support of Dem heavyweights.  You let obvious electoral fraud thwart your efforts over not one, but two presidential cycles.  And now you have the European press running circles around the local opposition (that's you, duh!) on what, at the root, is the central issue of the day all while you folks ban the discussion as being heretical.  

                Stop worrying about what your ass looks like and start hustling the crowd.  

                •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Bouwerie Boy

                  Have you been reading this site lately?  Are you under the impression that the majority of Kossacks are pro-Iraq-war?  Are you under the impression that we support Joe Lieberman?  Perhaps you haven't noticed the "support Ned Lamont" buttons that appear several times a day.  Check out the front page or the diaries (other than the troll diaries) sometime.
                  Are you being snarky?

                  •  Sure, Kos talks talks (0+ / 0-)

                    but look where you are!!!  The last six years have seen the most corrupt, venal, and manipulative crowd take over a country as has been seen in the West in 50 years -- and the Dems can't even get a party consensus on the fuckin' war!  Save for sparse pockets, the entire world condemns this and you, the folks on the frontline, the official opposition, dither.  That it's not a lock to take back Congress this Fall is shocking.  Truly, bloody, amazing.

                    My theory that you guys are all just pussies.  Your opponents are smarter, more ruthless and far, far more shameless and will continue to kick your ass until you wise up.

                    Banning discussion uncomfortable topics is not a step in this direction.

                  •  Read Lamont's ditty from MoveOn (0+ / 0-)

                    Yes, ok, you guys are trying.  Lamont is not a pussy.   Point taken.

                •  hmmmm (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musing85

                  "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

                  by Bouwerie Boy on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:12:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What other topics are banned? (0+ / 0-)

                    Simple question.  Is there a list?  Pls do advise...

                    •  Here you go. Happy reading! (0+ / 0-)

                      FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

                      (By the way, women aren't known as "chicks" anymore. Don't date yourself.)

                      •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                        It appears that the only banned discussion is 9/11 skeptic talk.  

                        Wow.

                        I would rather Kos (and yourselves) be honest about the reasons.  9/11 skeptic talk has been banned not because you guys are sick and tired of hearing about it (no one forces anyone to read a diary) or because you've debunked the various alternative theories (notwithstanding Mia's heroic claims) but rather because the braintrust here sees the topic as being embarassing.  To tolerate such seditious talk is tantamount to farting at the dinner table.  And farting at the dinner table is not the way to get respect on the national stage, is it?  

                        Doesn't this remind you of when Dems were afraid to admit they were liberals?

                        •  Discussion of other kinds of conspiracy theories (0+ / 0-)

                          is subject to the caveat "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There is some site history involving certain categories of conspiracy theories, such as "stolen Ohio election" theories.

                          No, banning discussion of 9-11 conspiracy theories does not remind me of when Dems were afraid to admit they (we) were liberals.

                          •  Definition of a conspiracy theory (0+ / 0-)

                            Well, it begs the question: "What is a conspiracy theory?"  You suggest "Extraodinary claims" that require "extraordinary evidence."  I am not sure this works, because, well, many will differ as to what constitutes an "extraordinary claim."  (Better to not go into it, yes?)  

                            I think a more accurate definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory, functionally speaking, is: "A theory with highly antisocial implications; in particular, a theory that suggests authorities are engaged in deceptive practices  against the public at large."

                            Hence, the official theory behind 9/11 (which certainly involves some extraordinary claims) is not a conspiracy theory, while alternative theories are.

                            It also accommodates the Ohio election vote tampering incident.  These too were dismissed as conspiracy theories, not because the claims were extraordinary, but because they implicated the authorities.

                            I think we can now agree that the dismissive attitude towards those arguing the '04 election was stolen were misplaced.  The theories haven't changed, but because it is now socially acceptable to make these allegations -- poof! -- they are now longer deemed conspiracy theories.  

                            Kos was a little late on the uptake here and his reticence to stand up when it mattered doesn't reflect well.

                            Until the Dems learn to ask hard, awkward questions that may or may not be socially acceptable and damn the consequences, you will be playing the game by the other side's agenda.

                          •  Whatever, dude (0+ / 0-)

                            You've been comparatively civil. I suggest that you learn more about this site and various kinds of Democrats--here and elsewhere.

                          •  Cheers. I was a huge fan of Dean (0+ / 0-)

                            He was a guy who was not afraid to mention the uncomfortable. Very inspriring.  Pitty what the sausage making machine did to him.  

                          •  You are wasting peoples' time (0+ / 0-)

                            which seems to be the main idea, far as I can tell.

                            "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                            by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:54:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If Kos had not been such a pussy (0+ / 0-)

                            when it came to the stolen election in '04, maybe the whole world would not be suffering under the junta now entrenched in Washington.  

                            Or what about the yellow cake docs?  A recent Vanity Fair piece shows that this these were likely planted by advocates of the war.  Is this a conspiracy theory?  It would have been at the time, which is probably why no one said anything.  But now you can probably get away with it.  Yet the entire press corps acted like pussies here too.  

                            I can go on with more examples, but I think you see where I am coming from.  Your political opponents, I believe, are engaged in a deliberate campaign of misinformation.  The examples are legion.  Forget 9/11.   If Dems want to toss these folks out, they'd better be prepared to cut through the taboos and call a spade a spade.

                            Is this fair?

                          •  You are talking to yourself (0+ / 0-)

                            I hope you don't do this at home. The neighbors may get worried.

                            "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                            by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 09:49:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You do not contribute anything of substance (0+ / 0-)

                            All you do is hector.  Go away.  

                          •  You have constirbuted nothing but (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bouwerie Boy

                            the same tired song and dance I've seen performed much better by your predecessors. You persist with the little soft-shoe "daily kos censors truth" and then move on to "what are you all afraid of" and throw in a little "this is why you lose" to boot.

                            You say you've been around a while, and yet play dumb about so many aspects of this site, including its past debates on this and other subjects.

                            I feel safe in my assessment that you're a troll, here merely to smear this site, its efforts, and its policies. YOU have nothing to offer except misplaced criticism, laughable hyperbole, and willfully obtuse misreadings of what people have patiently posted for you.

                            All YOU want to do is irritate. Go away, indeed.

                            Oh, wait. Nobody cares what you say anymore, anyway.

                            OK, carry on.

                            "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                            by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:12:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  When I was twenty (0+ / 0-)

                          in 1966, a lot of people used to say, "I like 'Blowin in the Wind', but I'd rather hear it by Peter Paul & Mary".

                          Some of us learned to appreciate the original, undiluted version of reality in subsequent years.

                          Republican Lite is going nowhere.  Take a taste of the real stuff for a change.  (Better siddown first)

                          -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                          by Proud Primate on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 04:34:22 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  Hey Rita (0+ / 0-)

            How much are you -- not Kos, but you, personally -- invested in the necessity that the 9-11 attacks have been carried out by (and only by) Arabs and Muslims?

            And do you, personally, actually believe the Official Story?  Do you believe that the Kean Commission was composed of people who would fearlessly pursue the truth where it might lead, that they had no conflicts of interest as might lead skeptics to believe they had contained or covered up the truth, and that they made their own, complete, and independent investigation of even the fundamentals of 9-11 (by which I mean, not just so-called "intelligence failures," but what actually transpired on the day of 9-11, who carried out the attacks, and on whose orders?

            Never mind what Kos thinks.  What do you think?  And were the truth to be that it was not Arabs and Muslims, but Americans and neo-cons, who sponsored the attacks, would you, personally, admit as much at least absent trials, convictions, and the exhaustion of their appeals?

            "While they are saying PEACE and SECURITY then sudden destruction comes upon them . . . " (1 Thess. 5:3)

            by Take Me to Tango on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:53:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Good thing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, middleagedhousewife

          You don't have any. That way, when you get banned, you'll stay banned... at least by the logic you just posted. I'm sure in reality you'll be back again.

          Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

          Feingold for President

          by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:21:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I hope (3+ / 0-)

    everyone who rec'd this diary makes a whole bunch of new friends.

    And I'd have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids.(-8.50\-7.13)

    by kestrel9000 on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:25:54 PM PDT

  •  Gawd you people are uptight! (4+ / 0-)

    264 comments minus eight recommenders equals 256 of you people need to get a hobby. Some of us consider this newsworthy. The links DO go to Le Monde Diplomatique, in the Norwegian language version. It's not that hard to decipher what the subject of the article is, and I don't speak Norwegian.

    I find it significant that a respectable, major,  mainstream news journal would front-page this story. Not to mention refreshing.

    Maybe it's against the house rules. Ok fine. Some folks beat Vesa up for that. Mostly, I see a lot of folks trying to discredit Vesa's work, obviously without even exploring it. That's very ostrich-like. The 9/11 Commission Report has so many holes in the story that it puts swiss cheese to shame. Why does highlighting that inflame you otherwise open-minded progressives so?

    Al Gore had the goods on global warming in 1992. Read "Earth in the Balance".

    by Civil Defiance on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 05:33:49 PM PDT

    •  Ah, fuggitaboutit...I'm havin' a beer and (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, dmsilev, MHB, Bouwerie Boy, begone

      a smoke...

       title=

    •  Yes, never mind the fact (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, Bouwerie Boy

      The diary's author misrepresented the contents of the news story he linked to. Saying a number of Americans don't believe that the whole story about 9/11 has come out is a far cry from saying they believe in the gravity-defying theories this author and his supporters peddle. It’s also misleading, since depending on the exact question, a number the people who have attacked this diary and it’s idiot friends could be counted among the number who don’t think we know the whole story.

      The conflict here is that having doubt about certain details, or thinking the 9/11 commission didn’t always do its job isn’t good enough for the 9/11 revisionists. Unless you’re willing to believe in controlled demolition’s and a new set of the laws of physics, you’re a chump or a misinforming to them. And to try and make their case, they’ll resort to the most dishonest, manipulative tactics to get their message out. Fuck that, fuck them, and fuck you too if you think that kind of conduct is acceptable.

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:37:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  STFU (0+ / 0-)

      This bullshit has been explored many times over.  That's why its banned.  Its bad science and misinformation -- it has nothing to do with open-minded progressives.  Its a bunch of holocaust deniers who found a new group of people to exploit and some people here are stupid enough to fall for it.  

      Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

      by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:02:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Remember the Antrax attacks? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nhwriter, Monsieur le Prof

    "The DIA announced at a press briefing that they had created a “new generation” of anthrax as part of Project Jefferson on September 9, 2001, on orders of Secretary Rumsfeld. In less than a month anthrax fitting this description was mailed to specific people, some of whom influence national perspective and policy and also opposed the current administration’s policies and the emerging Patriot Act, up to that point."

    http://www.911citizenswatch.org/...

    PNAC straussians are crazy.

    •  One Comment (0+ / 0-)

      This is the only comment you have ever made on DK.  Why?

      Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.

      by Sleeps in Trees on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:10:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps they care about the subject (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe you should respond to the topic, instead of questioning their motives.

        This is a repeated comment that you make over and over. Why?

        •  Perhaps (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bouwerie Boy

          You should let them answer for themselves. I asked the poster a polite question with the intention of receiving a civil answer.

          I was honestly curious to the motives of why one would register with a site that promotes the progressive democratic objective ONLY to comment once for a 9/11 post.

          The reason I did not ask you is because your motives are very obvious:  You are hell bent on being  a self important fucktard whos only objective is to further your tinfoil asshat beliefe regardless of facts.

          Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.

          by Sleeps in Trees on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 06:31:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Because you are a boor...n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bouwerie Boy, Sleeps in Trees
        •  Perhaps (0+ / 0-)

          you should get together with your "scholar" friends and talk about how the holocaust didn't really happen.

          Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

          by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:03:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  wrong .. click archive (0+ / 0-)

        although it has been months since his/her last post

        Journalistic standards aren't just for 'journalists', anymore.
        We're all journalists, now.- 8.69, - 9.69

        by shpilk on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:31:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Check the archives (0+ / 0-)

        You click the little box that says "search archive". It spits out all my commenting history, against which you can issue your eminently qualified summary judgments.

        Go ahead. I'll wait. Christ, how long have you been driving this thing? I have to tell you how to search archives??

        Al Gore had the goods on global warming in 1992. Read "Earth in the Balance".

        by Civil Defiance on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 09:16:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Did! (0+ / 0-)

          Read the comment above.... and if you actually read the archives they all are related to 9/11 conspiracies.

          Go ahead I'll wait.  Christ, how long have YOU been driving this thing?  Do I have to tell you how to follow a thread?

          I was NOT rude to the poster and I don't expect YOU to be rude to me.  

          Don't be such an asshole.

          Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.

          by Sleeps in Trees on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:34:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry for late reply (0+ / 0-)

        No it's not the only one. I read more than I debate, since debating is too time consuming.
        ________
        "It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11

        "All right, you've covered your ass"

        • George W. Bush,

        response to "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." briefing.

        Cui bono?

        The PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.

        Expose the Straussian neocons. NO ONE can deny that they benefitted from 9/11! No one!

        "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." Dubya
        _______
        Ten Questions and Answers
        An interview with Karen Kwiatkowski (people should know who she is):
        http://www.lewrockwell.com/...

        "Q.  There exists controversy surrounding the events of 9/11/01 both as to cause, responsibility, and American responses. Have you any theories as to who is responsible for 9/11/01 and how American government responded to the attack?

        A. I am not sure who is truly responsible for 9-11, or for our ostensible response to it domestically (PATRIOT Act) and internationally (toppling the Afghan and Iraqi governments). Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were publicly blamed for the attack, but I don’t recall that they actually claimed credit – and one would think something that “successful” against the “Great Satan” would be claimed by someone.

        I am personally curious about the dynamics of the nearly identical collapses on 9-11 of all three towers (1, 2, and 7), the lack of the expected amount of aircraft debris in front of the Pentagon at or near the point of impact, and the nature of the Israeli groups around the country prior to 9-11 known to be spying on Drug Enforcement Agency operations and coincidentally being counter-spied upon by our own law enforcement in many of the same locations around the country as the hijackers in training. None of these aspects have been thoroughly explained by the government yet.

        I am curious about the lack of a functional FAA/NORAD response to the simultaneous hijack of four commercial airliners, regardless of the fact that there was a FAA/NORAD exercise scheduled for the morning of 9-11. In the military when we did exercises, we always had ways of recognizing and adapting immediately to real-world crises that might have arisen during the simulation or scenario play.

        If the hijackers were Saudis and Egyptians, I find it interesting that we instead went immediately after Afghans and Iraqis, and then placed permanent military bases in both countries. I am curious as to why the war plans for Afghanistan were apparently actually put together in the summer of 2001, and why our bases in Afghanistan and our handpicked Afghan President Hamid Karzai are both linked to UNOCAL pipeline plans in that country. I don’t have a theory yet. I am waiting for my curiosity to be satisfied on these technical issues.

        I have commented on the government’s 9-11 official report, and believe it is fatally flawed. "

        •  lewrockwell.com (0+ / 0-)

          Now there is a great progressive website.

          Fucking asshole.  

          Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

          by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 03:47:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  whaaa (0+ / 0-)

            Personal attacks... real mature.

            The dems can't really be trusted on the Patriot Act and other assaults on civil liberties. And they too are in bed with the military industrial oil complex. So much profit.

            Country before party is my motto.

            Alright, how do you feel about Cynthia McKinney? a democrat who has questioned the official story.

            Here are some videos for you to download featuring McKinney among others:
            http://www.question911.com/...

            •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

              lewrockwell.com is a right-wing website.  Criticizing someone for citing a website like that is not a personal attack.

              Cynthia McKinney is just a nutcase.  And she has backed off her 9-11 comments.  

              Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

              by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 06:43:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  think about it... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nhwriter, Monsieur le Prof
    Who benefitted the most from 9/11? Cheney and the halliburton? How about w. bush and the carlyle? All of whom have done very well profit-wise from the war in the middle east. So why do you think the security on 9/11 was a failure when in fact the bush administration saw it as an opportunity?

    June 2001 The decade-old procedure for a quick response by the nation's air defense was changed. NORAD's military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/...

    Where was rumsfeld on the morning of 9/11?

    June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

    ``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.''

    http://www.bloomberg.com/...

  •  387 poll votes ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nhwriter, Monsieur le Prof

    96% YES. It is evident that the governmental investigations are not truthful.

    3% NO. The governmental investigations are truthful.

        Granted the diary title drew a certain ideological group that would be prone to vote yes but none the less the results are very interesting. As far as the rules I have to agree that diarist was out of line.

    •  The results show that there is interest (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      nhwriter
      Hidden by:
      Geekesque

      in pursuing the subject, and that certain commenters and site monitors were dispatched here to discredit those who would comment in favor of the diary.

      45% of Americans want to re-open the 9-11 investigation. That's a lot of loonies out there! And that's with the MSM painting them all as wackos!

      As far as the rules of the US Constitution go, the diarist has every right to ask questions of his government. (Sorry, but the US Constitution has a little more credibility to me than Kos does ...)

    •  I find it amusing that... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hiley, nhwriter, Monsieur le Prof
      A whole lot of you bought into the lie that the 19 hijackers with $3.98 boxcutters from home depot, 4 amateur pilots including, were able to defeat the 1.4 trillion dollar defense system in the US...get real!!!

      Do you not find it a bit suspicious that not a single fighter jet were deployed to protect the skies in DC during the time of the pentagon strike exactly 35 minutes after the second hit in NYC?

      •  No (0+ / 0-)

        but maybe you can site some shit that has been debunked on this site 5000 times.  

        Asshole troll.

        Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

        by Mia Dolan on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:06:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who pissed in your wheaties? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          josephk, Easterling

          I appreciate you don't want to lead these guys on, but the best way to do that is to ignore them.  Or ask them to take it outside, so to speak.

          But contending that the Kos community has resolved all the discrepencies in the official 9/11 theory (i.e. "debunked" the "conspiracy theories") is just plain horseshit.  You haven't.  Open questions remain.  You may not want to deal with it, but the contempt you show to those who do hardly reflects well on you or your position.

          •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

            The "discrepencies" these guys come up with have all repeatedly been debunked.  

            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

            by Mia Dolan on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 05:12:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Mia gets a job at the NIST? (0+ / 0-)

              Mia ventures:

              The "discrepencies" these guys come up with have all repeatedly been debunked

              So Mia has figured out all the discrepencies, but, wait, the NIST has not?  Huh?  See here:

              Of the many mysteries surrounding 9-11, few have been of as much interest to as broad a range of people as the fate of World Trade Center 7, the 47-story office building that was the last to fall and appears to have been the first steel-framed skyscraper to collapse due solely to fire. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which this fall issued its final report on what happened to the Twin Towers, was supposed to report on WTC 7 at the same time. But that got pushed to December, then to this spring, and lately to the end of 2006. Now, NIST is soliciting a contractor to try to come up with the best explanation for why the building came down.

              Mia, oh, do share....

              Or accept that there are legitimate questions surrounding the events of that day that have yet to have been fully explained.  

              •  Maybe (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bouwerie Boy

                But the holocaust deniers and other scumbags in the "truth" groups aren't asking legitimate questions.  

                Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 05:28:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Legitimate questions include (0+ / 0-)

                  how WTC7 came down without being demolished.  No steel highrise has ever come down by fire alone.  Combine this with numerous accounts (from the NYFD, no less) that they heard noises they characterized as "explosions", along with the manner in which the building came down (namely, straight into its own footprint) and asking whether or not WTC 7 was brought down by explosives is entirely legitimate.  

                  You may be offended by some of the implications that flow from this question, but that does not make the question any less legitimate.

                  I think it is important that Dems not be shy about asking incendiary questions.  The GOP, if they had the evidentiary ammo you guys have, would go to town with it, hounding you at every turn and creating seeds of doubt across the public spectrum.  You guys seem more concerned with being accepted and respectable than getting to the guts of the matter of putting these clowns back where they belong.  

                  •  Well (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bouwerie Boy

                    WTC 7 did not come down by fire alone -- it was damaged by falling debris.  And there have been other steel frame buildings that have collapsed from fire alone - that is a lie perpetrated by the 9/11 "truth" crowd.  And the idea that things exploded in a burning building should be a surprise to no one.  

                    You know what though? The NIST people are puzzled as to the exact reason it collapsed and the collapse did look funny - it was odd that it looked so uniform.  So, yes its ok to ask.  But when the questions go to controlled demolition, or Larry Silvrstien admitting he blew it up ("pull it" is not a demolition term) then the questions are no longer legitimate.  These 9/11 "truth" groups have no interest in the truth -- they are just interested in promoting their conspiracies.

                    Horace, you have a userID number much lower than mine, but I don't recognize you so I don't know how active you are.  But there have been literally hundreds, if not thousands of discussions about this on DailyKos.  The banning of this topic occurred only after it was beaten to death.  Its like whack a mole or something.  The evidence gets refuted and the "truth" crowd just comes back with more bullshit.

                    The mantra used to be "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" but that was apparently to subtle for the 9/11 "truth" crowd, so the topic was just banned.  I am sure if new credible evidence (extraordinary evidence, if you will) came out on this topic, there would be no problem in discussing it here.  But we just get the same crap from the same group of conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers over and over.  This topic has been banned not because it makes DailyKos unrespectible (which it does) but because the people pushing this stuff have severely abused this site in promoting their theories.

                    Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                    by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 11:13:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No ill-will intended. (0+ / 0-)

                      WTC 7 did not come down by fire alone -- it was damaged by falling debris.  And there have been other steel frame buildings that have collapsed from fire alone - that is a lie perpetrated by the 9/11 "truth" crowd.  And the idea that things exploded in a burning building should be a surprise to no one.

                      Please provide us with one example of a modern sky scraper collapsing from fire.  Or from fire and "falling debris."  

                      Horace, you have a userID number much lower than mine, but I don't recognize you so I don't know how active you are.  But there have been literally hundreds, if not thousands of discussions about this on DailyKos.  The banning of this topic occurred only after it was beaten to death.  Its like whack a mole or something.  The evidence gets refuted and the "truth" crowd just comes back with more bullshit.

                      Nah, I am not that active.  I understand you guys not wanting to have this site taken over by this crowd.  But the best way is just to ignore them.  That you don't makes me think something else is at play.

                      I intend no ill will here.  I just want to poke a stick at you folk.  I think you spend too much time trying to get accepted and fear speaking up on unpopular issues.  Someone else is always setting your agenda.  It's time to do better.

                      •  I know what you are saying. (0+ / 0-)

                        Here is the other building: Windsor tower collapse

                        As far as I know no other buildings have collapsed from falling debris because this was such a unique situation.  Frankly, just about all of the questions raised with 9-11 can be answered with the fact that it never happened before.  Things like where the planes were, or why the hijacked planes were not shot down fall under that category.  While there had been drills, it had never happened before and the 9-11 attacks took place within an hour or something.

                        Trust me, the banning of 9-11 conspiracy theories on DailyKos is well deserved.  People have tried to explain why they are wrong, and they won't listen.  If you ignore them, they multiply and people get sucked in.  Its a pretty sexy topic - I'll admit when I first read about the 9-11 conspiracies I was very curious.  Then I read all the stuff (and I mean all of it) and figured out it was complete shit.  The 9-11 truth groups really do have holocaust deniers in them, and their leading members (who themselves have not denied the holocaust) cite  the "research" of people like Eric Huffshmid (a 9-11 "scholar" who also maintains this site) and Christopher Bollyn, who writes for a pro-Nazi publication, the American Free Press.  These people are really the scum of the scum.  And their anti-scientific conspiracy crap does absolutely nothing to further the goal of this site -- electing Democrats.   Its not that DailyKos does not want the controvery - you misread the reason for the banning.  Its that this is just crap.   Again, if there was some real evidence, or a credible academic who came forward, I am sure the ban would be lifted.  But its just the same old shit over and over.  DailyKos is not suffering at all, and it in fact benefitting, by keeping the shit out.

                        Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                        by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 10:15:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Windsor Tower Did Not Collapse - Touch&#233;! (0+ / 0-)

                          This was a fire of a steel building in Madrid in 2005 that burned so hot that all that was left was the steel skeleton.
                          Of course, it did not collapse, since steel doesn't burn or weaken at those temperatures, in fact, it had less of a load to bear after the fire than before.
                          So much for Mia's debunking!
                          Here you saw her debunking thoroughly debunked.

                        •  Mia, Mia, Mia! (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          kix

                          The Madrid Tower incident supports those who question the standard account of the events 9/11.

                          You are perfectly entitled to hold the view that what happened at WTC 7 was something other than bizarre.  I differ here.  I have few professional credentials, but I am a trained engineer and I did take thermo and statics and, well, WTC7 did not come down by fire and "falling debris" alone.  The NIST can't figure it out either.  But you can?  Oh Mia!

                          Look, you don't like this line of questioning because you are uncomfortable with the implications; 9/11 skepticism clashes with your self-image.  These are social issues, Mia, and have nothing to do with a sober analysis of the events of that day.  

                          Let's make a deal: until you can cite a single other skyscraper that came down by fire alone, or even one that came down by fire and "falling debris", you stop going around and smearing people with the holocaust denial libel, would you?  I think this is fair.

                          •  No (0+ / 0-)

                            You can interpret the Madrid tower however you want. And maybe no other buildings collapsed that way, but so what.  The bullshit reasoning from known frauds like Stephen Jones gets you from that to controlled demolition?  Fuckin A, dude.

                            And go fuck yourself with the self-image crap.  That oft-repeated bullshit is the lamest argument coming from the "truth" crowd.

                            And I won't stop talking about holocaust denial.  In addition to being hack scientists, the "truth" crowd is full of holocaust deniers and nazis.  These people are on the record with these things.  Its not a smear, again, because its true. And its important to note because the implication of these theories is that AIPAC or Israel was behind it.  As usual, blame it on the jews.  A lot of the 9-11 "truth" movement is nothing more than anti-semitism.  

                            So Horace, why don't you just come out and admit what you are struggling with:  you don't like jews.   Once you do that, we can have an honest discussion.

                            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                            by Mia Dolan on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 09:33:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Mia's love of thruthiness (0+ / 0-)

                            Mia,

                            You say:

                            You can interpret the Madrid tower however you want. And maybe no other buildings collapsed that way, but so what.  The bullshit reasoning from known frauds like Stephen Jones gets you from that to controlled demolition?  Fuckin A, dude.

                            What happened to the Madrid Tower is not a matter of interpretation.  It burned all night long and, in the morning, was left standing.  It did not collapse.

                            See here for a picture of the building the next day.here    

                            Does this look like WTC7 to you?

                            An scrapbook to the whole incident is here.

                            What gets us to a controlled demolotion is that it is by this mechanism and only this mechanism that steel framed skyscapers have been found to collapse.  I have repeatedly asked you for a counter example yet you have failed to provide one.  

                            This being so, the question to you is this: how can you come to any other conclusion that demolition?

                            Thruthiness is the domain of the other party, right?  You guys are on the reality-based side of the faith fence, aren't you?

                          •  WTF (0+ / 0-)

                            Just because something has never happened before doesn't mean it couldn't happen.  

                            How could I come to any other conclusion?  Are you fucking retarded?  Seriously, did you have a head injury or something?  The fact that it never happened before means it was controlled demolotiion?  That is horribly tortured logic.  A controlled demolition of a building that size requires months of planning and thousands of pounds of explosives.  Which wasn't there.

                            Horace, at one point I thought you were engaging in good faith argument, but I now see that you are just a blathering idiot.  You pretend you don't care and then you trot out the most ludicrous bullshit.  Dick Cheney would be proud of you.

                            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                            by Mia Dolan on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 11:52:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •   I should not have said (0+ / 0-)

                            How can you get to any other conclusion? -- this is too strong.  

                            But you asked how does any one get to a controlled demolotion?  Well, 1000 buildings collapse in this fashion and they are all the result of controlled demolition.  The theory bats 1000, so to speak.  Then, the 1001st building collapses in the identical manner.  

                            I am sorry, dear Mia, given such a fact pattern, but the onus is on you to justify why it was NOT a controlled demolition.  Please, give me one tiny piece of evidence to the contrary.  I am all ears.

                            In fact, the only reason you apparently feel it was not a controlled demolition is because your government says it was not a controlled demolition.  (I do not sense you have the technical aptitude to come to any conclusion yourself.) This is the same government that gave us WMDs, Yellowcake, and the Patriot Act.  

                            So, on the one hand you can believe what your eyes clearly tell you, along a rich and consistent case history; or you can beleive what Bush & Cheney tell you.

                            You guys are of the latter school?  Oh, fearless Democrats!  The country will be saved after all.  

                          •  Moron (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bouwerie Boy

                            In all of those other 1000 buildings, they spent weeks or months planting thousands of pounds of explosives. Here, that didn't happen.  The buildings were open up until the time the attacks started. There has never ever been a "secret" controlled demolition, where people didn't know that the explosives had been placed in the building.

                            You honestly would have to be retarded to think that these buildings came down by controlled demolition.  Its just too stupid to even consider.  And by pushing this theory, you help Bush and Cheney hide the truth, by painting 9-11 critics as nuts and taking attention away from their real crimes.

                            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                            by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 07:05:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Mia (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan

                          That last paragraph nails it.

                          And it's telling that whenever one of us tries to politely explain the reasoning behind the ban on this shit, it's routinely ignored by the hyperventilating truth crowd, who immediately change the subject, or seize on another part of the comment in order to sustain a conversation they know they should be taking elsewhere.

                          Frankly, this entire thread is proof enough why this ban exists. If I need to demonstrate to anyone how self-absorbed, malicious, deceitful, and obnoxious the "truth" crowd can be, I'll just link them here and let them see how these clowns respond to facts, plainly put, and the little respect they have for a community and its rules.

                          Thanks.

                          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                          by BobzCat on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 09:31:22 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

    •  Easterling Poll Results (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85

      Good point but, the poll is purposefully vague.

      To ask someone if this  government is being truthful about anything that has occurred during their tenure is in itself going to get a negative answer.

      Further, many would like to know what and/or when the government knew there was a threat and why they did not do their job in protecting Americans.

      These questions do not constitute a conspiracy theory but, (for loss of a better word) an ass covering.

      Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.

      by Sleeps in Trees on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 07:12:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  An independent investigation will never happen... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pkbarbiedoll

    Whomever is really behind the 911 atrocity will not be brought to justice.  Constitutional government in the United States is really a thing of the past.  So much power is now concentrated in the executive branch that the other two branches of government are irrelevent. My feeling is that our government has become an organized crime syndicate and will only yield power in the event of successful violent revolution or economic collapse.  

    BTW, one doesn't need a physics degree to understand that objects (or building roofs) that fall at freefall rate, fall with no resistance.  Resistance that would necessarily be encountered in a pancake collapse scenario would preclude such a rapid decent of the top floor of WTC1,2 and building 7.

    Freefall rate of collapse can only be achieved if all supporting structures were to fail simultaniously.  Now, what would cause such a instantaneous obliteration of all the support structures in those buildings?  It is certainly not burning jet fuel and gravitational forces.

    This argument has yet to be successfully countered.

  •  Did Kos also get squeamish re CTs on Ohio '04? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Civil Defiance, LodinLepp

    As I remember, (perhaps incorrectly, I grant you), Kos came out the morning after the 2004 election and did his best to cool talk of all the inconsistencies that had become apparent even at that early date.  Again, I may be remembering incorrectly.  If not, however, we can see how once-forbidden subjects become more acceptable over time.  

    I find it a little bizarre that entire topics are banned on this site; the rather vicious response to the poor schmuck who posted this diary takes me aback.  I know, I know -- the 9/11 crowd has a way of taking over and there are lot's of other spots to discuss these things.  But the reaction here has been quite amazing.  It's like the diarist accused members here of all sleeping with their sisters.  The social dynamic is all very interesting.

    •  Yes a fascinating social dynamic (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85

      isn't it. Why don't you write a dissertation. Oh, and while you're at it consider this...

      Horace
      uid 39335, first posted comment 5/30/06,
      8 comment ratings, all posted in last two days,
      13 total comments in 3 diaries (most in this one),
      0 Diaries

      Yes Horace, fascinating.

      "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

      by Bouwerie Boy on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 01:37:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What's your problem? (0+ / 0-)

        Why the ad hominem's?  Why the petulant finger pointing?  

        "This is my water fountain so fuck off!"

        Oh - and I have been posting here, very intermittently, for years.

        •  I would hardly describe my observation (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85

          about your previous participation here as an ad hominem attack. Horace, did you know that any users past statistics, including archived comments, can be searched and viewed by any other member? Your first posted comment at the Daily Kos was on May 23, 2006, just 43 days ago. It seems that you have not been posting here for years. You rated your first comment just 3 days ago on July 3, 2006. Each one of these, recommend comments which support various conspiracy theories. As I'm sure you are aware, uprating such comments is seriously frowned upon here. No horace, I'm not attacking you. Just identifying a rather disingenuous concern.

          "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

          by Bouwerie Boy on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:51:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's hardly likely (2+ / 0-)

          Unless this is a new or sockpuppet UID. I joined this site in February of 2004, if memory serves--and your userid is about 33,000 higher than mine. That suggests to me that you've been here perhaps a year, maybe less.

          •  Not sure how it works. (0+ / 0-)

            But I first started coming here as the war got underway.  I was certainly here for the '04 elections.  I rarely, rarely post.  

            Notwithstanding my rant here the last couple of days, it's great site.  

            •  Impossible (0+ / 0-)

              If you had registered here in March 2003, you'd have a lower UID than I do. Meaning that unless you're already on your second (third? fifth?) userid, you haven't been here that long.

              •  Again, I don't know how it works (0+ / 0-)

                I know I have been lurking since '03 (bumped into Atrios at the same time) and that I have been posting, very intermittently, for "awhile".  (At least a year, but I had thought longer.)

                I am sure I forgot my username at least once.  But when I tried to re-register it said I was already there.  And sent me a new password.  Or something like that.  Could that have re-jigged the system?

                Anyway, this one ain't worth a bunfight.    

  •  Integrity of site (0+ / 0-)

    Just wanted to point out that you folks who are obsessed with this site and how important it is to maintain it's credibility sound like a bunch of dick-wads. I have never posted here before, never will again and hope I get banned.  Nobody cares what you say here.  Get it? Nobody.

  •  Same shit, different assholes (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, Bouwerie Boy, tvb
    Hidden by:
    pkbarbiedoll

    Haven't we been through this again and again and again and again?

     title=

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

    by BobzCat on Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 10:02:02 PM PDT

    •  What does this say about the Democratic Party? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LodinLepp

      This board has effectively banned the diarist as a heretic.  Heresy was, I had thought, a concept left behind in the more enlightened communities.  But not here.  The manner in which this topic is being dispatched speaks volumes about the mindset of the Democratic Party these days.

      In a word, you're all pussies.  Your political opponents, as you surely have seen, will stop at nothing to advance their cause and here you guys are fretting over the political equivalent of table manners.  An uncomfortable topic comes up?  You wring hands and obsess over how it will play to a broader audience.  No wonder your lunch gets eaten.

      •  Just a bunch of pussies, huh? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, tvb

        No, the owner of this web site kicked user vesa out for violating his published rules of behavior.

        "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

        by Bouwerie Boy on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:51:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Markos also banned election CTs (0+ / 0-)

          So far as I can remember, and look where that got you!  

          Until you folks take off your blinders and your gloves your adversaries will continue to eat guys like Kos ("Such a nice boy!") for lunch.

      •  Here's an idea (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bouwerie Boy

        Try reading, and comprehending, and perhaps even understanding why this policy exists for this website.

        Can't do that? Well, then, I can't help you.

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

        by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:00:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What other discussions have been banned? (0+ / 0-)

          Besides apparently sedetious talk of stealing elections?  (Kos at one point, if not banned, discouraged that too.)  Oh - way 2 go.

          My God if the tables were turned, if the GOP were in opposition while the War On Terror ™ took place, do you think their activists would let all this slide?  Shit, their stormtroopers would be planting the story amongst the mainstream set and swift boating you into oblivion, whether there was a kernal of truth to the affair or not.

          And what do you guys do?  You post pictures of cats.  Fuckin pathetic.

          •  Bye bye n/t (0+ / 0-)

            "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

            by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 12:27:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's obvious to me, Horace (0+ / 0-)

            that the DLC, whose house this is, let's face it, has much more invested in the status quo than in a Democratic majority in either house.

            They represent the Infiltrated Wing of the party.  The subverted wing.  The rubber stamp wing.  The window-dressing wing.

            Hey!  Don't raise that window-shade!  Whadaya think you're doin'?  Wait till I get my coffin lid shut before you do that, you idiot!  I can't stand that awful light coming in here — AAAAAGHH!

            -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

            by Proud Primate on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 06:01:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Republican Tool (0+ / 0-)

              is what you are.  My personal theory is that this garbage is put out by the Bush administration to discredit the left.  By pushing this shit and ranting about the DNC, you are actually doing Bush and Cheney's work for them.  Focus on the real crimes of the Bush administration?  No, lets talk about fake planes and controlled demolition?   Reasoned discourse on DailyKos?  No, lets have wild theories by career hacks and holocaust deniers.  Great ideas.

              Bush and Cheney thank you for all your help, douchebag.  

              Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

              by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 10:50:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  DLC I said, not DNC (0+ / 0-)

                Democratic Leadership Council, not the Democratic National Committee.

                Wikipedia defines it thus:

                The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation[1] that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. Moderate and conservative Democratic party leaders founded the DLC in response to the landslide victory of Republican candidate Ronald Reagan over Democratic candidate Walter Mondale during the 1984 Presidential election. The founders believed the United States Democratic Party needed to shift to the center to remain viable during the Reagan era. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story. Critics contend that the DLC is effectively a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party that acts to keep Democratic Party candidates and platforms sympathetic to corporate interests and the interests of the wealthy.

                The DLC's affiliated think tank is the Progressive Policy Institute. Democrats who adhere to the DLC's philosophy often call themselves New Democrats.

                The DLC's current chairman is Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Al From and its president is Bruce Reed.

                Since and including 2000, the DLC mentality has given us lots of consolation prizes, while we sat back and watched two if not three stolen elections.

                All this time the best we had to say was, "America can do better", as if it were a clip from "That's good, GOP, but we Dems can do what you're doing Better than you can".

                When we should have been raising a hue and cry about CRIMINAL behavior, we pussy-foot around and lose.

                Kerry should have challenged the election fraud in Ohio, using the proof that existed then, which is most of the proof now brought to bear in the incisive Rolling Stone piece by RFK, Jr.  But Bob Shrum (never heard of him, right?  You need to dig a little deeper, dear) advised Kerry "Oh, don't say that [sharp stage whisper] "they'll brand you as a SORE LOSER".  The evidence is overwhelming that the election was stolen in Ohio in 2004, just as it was in Florida in 2000.

                All ten of these "indignant Floridians" are out of staters, all ten are in the pay of either GOP Congressmen or the Party itself.  

                If you think Rove and Co. are capable of using dirty tricks to torpedo the Left, you are correct.  And, according to the principle of "The Big Lie", to which I have referred already in this thread ("Diary"?) holding actual truth about outrageous brazen "shoot the moon" crimes to be "conspiracy theories" with the intent of discrediting the messenger is indeed textbook Fascism, so, yeah, I suppose that it's possible by telling you the truth I'm exposing that flank to the swiftboaters.  You could be right about that.  The danger of not telling that truth is greater. Siehst du?

                Ooops!  I did it again, huh?  Another "Conspiracy Theory".  Sorry about that.

                -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                by Proud Primate on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 03:27:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  LMD (0+ / 0-)

    The article in Le Monde Diplomatique is interesting reading. I'm not saying it's good, but it's interesting. There's a lot of information in that article that really is worthy of discussion; not necessarily info about the events of 9/11, in that respect the article is pretty much a rehash, and it's not a very good one.

    However, if this and all other 9/11 "discussions" on dkos were less a celebration of feces and masturbation, there could interesting things learned, f.i. with respect to how the (international) media is covering this (as well as different aspects of US foreign policy) and the actors that are involved.

    I realize of course that it won't happen, as this site, which enjoys its privileged position in the public sphere largely due to the thousands of ordianry contributors, is purely a Democratic blog without any free speech obligations, guided by financial as well as partisan interests primarily.

    Anyway, the LDM article and the way it's written raise a lot of questions, which would be interesting to debate in a large forum which shared dkos' structure, its reach and its oftentimes serious discussion, but not its philosophy.

    Now slap me with some good -1s, after all, that's what they're there for.

  •  Ban the Heretic! Ban the Witch! (2+ / 3-)
    Recommended by:
    Hatu, pkbarbiedoll
    Hidden by:
    musing85, tvb, BobzCat

    Dear god.  You people are seriously out of your heads.  What a gang bang of ever faithful brownshirts at DKos.

    Don't care what people think in Norway?  Why don't you try banning Norway?

    You may think you're liberals, but I don't think so.  You're a lot more like an ugly mob.

    Questions about the attacks on 9/11 are pertinent to the foundation on which this criminal administration is built.

    And you sycophant cowards are so trained to fear banning or disapproval you attack like Freaks.  (Reference the movie.)

    One of us.  One of us.  One of us.

      •  Then go to his website (0+ / 0-)

        and discuss all you want.

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

        by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:04:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I totally didn't think of that -- thanks!!!! (0+ / 0-)
        •  Fear not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kix

          I don't think there's much here to keep us.  But "Daily Kos" has a name that, in effect, holds title to a significant piece of turf, namely, the "Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party".

          Help me out here, folks, do that have that reputation?

          It's clear to me that this is unwarrented, undeserved, and downright fraudulent.

          So, it's probably not you guys that need to hear that, because you seem pretty much settled on your lees.

          But the rest of the world needs to know that you are a bunch of stuffed shirts and self-congratulators, essentially the DLC in tights.

          There may be a few here that are not infected with this whatever it is, but that will sort itself out.

          Hopefully they blog more places than one.  If not, they're toast.  

          You can consider our visit to your site a "fact-finding mission".

          -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

          by Proud Primate on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 06:20:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My god (0+ / 0-)

            are you a douchebag!

            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

            by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 10:51:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  DLC in tights? Or free republic in drag? (0+ / 0-)

            You're right, man. There's zip here. It's so riddled with shills and smelly old trolls, why should any thinking person spend their time here?

            More progressive blogs? Hmm... how about Democratic Underground, that isn't a totalitarian regime yet, is it?

          •  DLC in tights? Or free republic in drag? (0+ / 0-)

            You're right, man. There's zip here. It's so riddled with shills and smelly old trolls, why should any thinking person spend their time here?

            More progressive blogs? Hmm... how about Democratic Underground, that isn't a totalitarian regime yet, is it?

          •  DLC in tights? Or free republic in drag? (0+ / 0-)

            You're right man. There's zip here. It's so riddled with shills and smelly old trolls, why would any thinking person spend time here?

            More progressive blogs? How about Democratic Underground - it isn't a totalitarian regime yet, is it?

            Bravo Machiavelli.
            Just like Barnum said - The American people love a humbug.
            And there's a sucker born every minute.

            •  I think I picked up a flu bug reading all the ... (0+ / 0-)

              all the invective being heaped upon sincere knowledgeable posters.

              It's not my habit to blurt out such a strong dismissal as the one you reply to here.  I'm sort of disappointed in myself at being drawn into that.  I need a bath.

              But it is discouraging, to see such a mean-spirited and self-satisfied smugness, especially by a community that purports to speak for the whole Progressive movement.

              Glad your Italian is functional though.  Yeah, the sheep are plentiful, and make nice costumes for wolves.

              -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

              by Proud Primate on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 04:09:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  DKos, love it or leave it. (0+ / 0-)

                Proud P,
                The mentality on display here is the spitting image of a redneck in an SUV yelling at the first criticism of any shortcoming in this republic, "If you don't like it, go back to Russia."
                Maybe "Freepers in drag" is too kind. It's been a while since I had a tussle over there, but I don't think you get banned for it.
                The freepers just smother you with browbeating insults and profanity, ad hominem arguments and other rhetorical rubbish. Sound familiar?
                (Funny, there is an excellent write-up of rhetorical fallacies on their site. It figures, they are offensive experts at it. From an Army Psyop manual, if I remember correctly.)

                Plus here you have the bountiful little witch-hunters, spying on their neighbors to get them banned to the Gulag.
                The Democrats are going to take back America? I wouldn't bet on it, looking at this blog, the Dems are brainwashed and braindead.
                Or maybe I don't suffer blinkered fools gladly enough?

                BTW please excuse the triple posting, it was accidental. I had a slow connection on this page.

                •  multiple posts -- I know the feeling (0+ / 0-)

                  I've taken to closing the browser after posting ( on Raw or HuffPo where I spend my time) because a mere F5 screen refresh (to see it posted, right?) RE-posts it.

                  You can see from my archive here that I'm a regular poster -- about once a year!

                  As bad as I hear Sam Seder rip the DLC, I'm curious about his standing appt with Kos one day a week.  I'm going to look into that.

                  I mean, what is it with controversy?  "If the other side denies it, then you can't talk about it.  If they proclaim it publicly, then you can disagree with them."

                  Whadaya do with a lie machine as tall as the WTC and as wide as Texas?  Oh, no, can't talk about election fraud.  Have they backed off of that?

                  See, this thread ("Diary"?) is the first I've heard of this controversy.  But it's plain shocking to me.

                  Randy Rhodes used to be stand-offish about 9-11, but she is becoming so familiar with the litany of undeniables that they come facilely to her now.

                  Thom Hartmann is still not convinced, but he's open-minded about it.

                  I think the secret is their "shoot-the-moon" strategy.  "Assume nobody would assume anybody would" (very few, that is).  But it is not working — except here of course.

                  -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                  by Proud Primate on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 06:53:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Welcome to DailyKos (0+ / 0-)

                  After lurking here for quite some time, it's good to see you've found a topic worthy of comment. Is this the only subject of interest?

                  Perhaps you'd like to compose a diary on this topic.

                  "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                  by BobzCat on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 10:50:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Lies as tall as the WTC and as wide as Texas (0+ / 0-)

                    9/11 and the stolen election were 2 major events, political earthquakes, that opened a huge gash, an abyss showing the truly incredible depth of corruption in this country.

                    Anyone who wants to paper over these two huge craters, you have to wonder if they are on the take in some way, tangible or otherwise.

                    Look at Lopez Obrador in Mexico. I believe he is going to demand a recount. If he does, then he is a real opposition. If he doesn't, then it means he cut a back-room deal.

                    The USA is really a one-party system, of course. There is no major opposition party. So Kerry didn't protest the Ohio outrage. Kerry is a Skull & Bones brother with Bush.

                    Before 911 I gave conspiracy theories short shrift. But the 911 inside job is not a theory. It is a conspiracy, but it's not a theory. It's been proven as fact a zillion times over.

                    Since 911 I wouldn't put anything past them, the clandestine clique.

                    When I say "incredible depth of corruption" that implies, yes, that it is hard to believe. And of course, I wasn't quickly persuaded at first either that such a horror is possible. So maybe I should be a bit more patient.
                    Or maybe not. Because you all have had plenty of chances by now to get familiar with the most important fact now facing us and the human race: that we have been taken over by a totally corrupt, criminal, murderous, enormously dangerous clique that is capable of almost anything, using fake terror as pretext.
                    And you prefer to snooze on, all the while claiming to be active in progressive politics.

                    So for this diary you want me to write, what would be worthwhile news for the snooze crew?

                    •  Why don't you write (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rita in DC

                      about how Daily Kos should allow the 9-11 Truth Movement a Front Page slot, which will keep the issue burning brightly on a daily basis, until the "truth" can be ignored no longer by the sad lambs here who are actually asleep and only pretending to be involved in progressive politics, or hold progressive positions.

                      Enlighten us. Bestow upon us your wisdom. Extend to us the blessings of your pure understanding.

                      Write a diary.

                      Leave a tip jar.

                      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                      by BobzCat on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 11:48:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  And you are a rude guest (3+ / 0-)

      at a website that has asked you to take this particular discussion elsewhere. Why can you not simply respect that?

      What's your agenda?

      "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

      by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:05:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hatu

        That was a little rude.  I apologize.  I could have said that better.

        But don't you see the similarities between the America, love it or leave it crowd and the Dkos, love it or leave it crowd?

        •  You're being rude? (0+ / 0-)

          Banning the diarist is one thing, but subjecting various posters to blood smears goes beyond the pale.  I mean, one Mia Dolan goes around equating someone who can't figure how a building falls down all by itself to a Holocaust Deniers.  What's else will Kos tolerate?  Calling folks pedophiles?  

          This has been a shameful episode that does not reflect well on this site.

        •  No (2+ / 0-)

          and you are either willfully obtuse and woefully ignorant of this site's function, or you have come here merely to smear this community with bogus allegations and bad analogies.

          Which is it?

          "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

          by BobzCat on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 10:34:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Tossing the idiots (0+ / 0-)

    IMO, Kos more or less had to toss the idiots.

    Look, we've watched the rise and fall of various idiotic theories about 9.11 long enough to know that there are some serious idiots promoting, oh, death rays and the like.

    We need to continue saying, over and over, no, of course, the towers weren't bombed by aliens BUT at the same time the Commission's report is deeply flawed. Just reading this week's NYer piece on the Cole investigation is enough to know that the commission didn't get anything like the real story.

    And speaking of the NYer story--did anyone else notice what was missing from that article? How about the context? Sure, a few agents were running around with their hair on fire but at the same time someone was deploying significant counterterrorism resources, for example Delta Force to NY harbor in July 2001, some that had to be authorized by the WH. It just doesn't add up.

    Stupid conspiracy shit: no.

    Real questions, unanswered questions: Bring it on, as they say.

  •  Why believe them? (0+ / 0-)

    What's most fascinating to me are those who are so quick to discuss the laundry list of legitimate questions surrounding 9/11.

    Maybe I'm just too skeptical, but's it's not enough for my taste to just repeatedly say "this has been debunked" without actually linking to anything or answering any actual questions.

    For the record, I do not advocate any theory of what happened that terrible day. But I also do not believe that we should accept anything that this administration tells us at face value. They have lied about just about everything else they have done, so why should we believe them on this one issue?

  •  9/11 truth debunked? really? (0+ / 0-)

    When?
    Where?

    Can someone point me to this alleged debunking?

    Many people would love to see that, including the academic members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I'm sure.

    Bear in mind that ad-hominem attacks against those who question the official conclusions adopted by the government and MSM do not constitute a debunking.

    Also remember, we're not talking about questioning that anything hit the WTC or Pentagon.  The academics in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are more than happy to agree that planes loaded with passengers did indeed hit these buildings.

    I have seen no such debunking of the scientific analysis these academics have been doing, and I have actually been looking to see if there is any.

    If anyone HAS seen a scientific refutation of their work, please point me to it ASAP.

    Please do not cite the NIST report, since that report is what is being challenged due to its glossing over of the issues in question, and thus it is not adequate for any such debunking of the work done by Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

    Please forward any responses to eehret@hotmail.com.

    Thanks.

    •  wow (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bouwerie Boy

      Only a small handful of posts back in the beginning of January and all of a sudden, here you are and coincidentally the same day you post a make-believe story on your own blog.  The coincidence...the conspiracy.

      I guess the smoke signals were high and clear this time?

      A rabid lamb bowing to Dear Kingpin in the land of the Lilliputians

      by tvb on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:18:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is that what you guys do? (0+ / 0-)

        Do back and prowl through past posts, vetting records, and otherwise look for un-American activities?

      •  This is evidence? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kix

        Rants and insults must take the place, dear reader, of serious debunking that cannot be supplied.

        If it could be it would flood in here.  There would be a link to a page that finished the matter with one hand tied behind its back.

        -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

        by Proud Primate on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 06:06:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Holocaust deniers for 9/11 truth (0+ / 0-)

      The "scholars" for 9-11 "truth" are not scholars, but a collection of assclowns who couldn't figure out how to boil water, much less analyze building collapses.  They are a collection of maringal academics, conspiracy nuts, and of course, holocaust deniers.  There are no serious academics.  Just guys who fake the peer reviews of their articles.  Real scientists don't even acknowlege them.  

      Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

      by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 03:26:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a member of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, (0+ / 0-)

      and I'll be the first to admit that there are some within the 9-11 Truth movement, not the scholars group necessarily, who are total nut cases.  Either that, or they've been sent in to discredit us all.

      I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

      by gabbardd on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 09:04:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Holocaust deniers for 9-11 Truth (0+ / 0-)

        There a plenty of nutcases right within your little group.  And raging bigots.  Here is what your colleague Eric Hufschmid is up to:

        The HoloHoax is not a secret

        I suppose some Jews are panicking as they read this; they are probably worried that I am letting out the secret about the HoloHoax.
        I would like to point out that the HoloHoax is not a secret! People -- including Jews! -- have been complaining about this hoax since before I was born. The entire hoax has been in front of everybody's face for decades, but only a few people will look at the evidence.

        It seems that every scam is exposed by somebody. The people who get away with the HoloHoax, the 9-11 attack, and other scams are not getting away with them because they are so clever that nobody can see the scam. Rather, they get away with them because the majority of people have no desire to face problems, think, learn, or be responsible.

        Two chapters in my book about the September 11th attack discuss the Warren Report, and I am often asked why I included material about the Kennedy assassination when the book is about September 11th. One reason I included that material is to show you that you can determine that the Kennedy assassination was a scam simply by reading a small portion of the Warren Report.

        I am not exposing a secret when I say that the Kennedy assassination was a scam. In fact, people were complaining about that scam long before I realized it was a scam.

        The same is true of the HoloHoax. The evidence of the hoax is in front of our faces; all we have to do is open our eyes. Unfortunately, most people refuse to open their eyes. They run and hide, and call people a conspiracy nut, or a Holocaust denier.

        How scholarly!  You might think that he is a marginal guy in the group, but your senior nutcases Fetzer, Griffen and Jones all cite Hufschmid in their own writings.   Scholarly!  

        Fucking losers.  
         

        Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

        by Mia Dolan on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 10:59:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You paint with a very broad brush. (0+ / 0-)

          I'd agree that Hufschmid's holocaust denial is vile. Michael Green addresses my feelings on the matter.

          Your reference to the rest of us as "nutcases" and "fucking losers" crosses the line.

          If Fetzer, Griffin, and Jones cite Hufschmid, I'd be very surprised. I'd have to examine the context in which they cite him before passing judgement.

          You create the impression that Fetzer, Griffin, and Jones must also be holocaust deniers. Is that your intent?

          I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

          by gabbardd on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 07:38:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't take my word for it (0+ / 0-)

            Go read the work of Fetzer, Griffen and Jones and you will see Hufschimd cited.  You will also see Christopher Bollyn, who writes for the pro-Nazi publication the American Free Press, cited by each.

            I have argued with Fetzer about this, and he seems to take the position that its really only one guy (I don't know because most of the "scholars" don't get published) that's a holocaust denier and its his business.   Well, how many holocaust deniers is too many?  5?  10?  These guys have not publicly advocated holocaust denial themselves, but have not called out Hufschmid for his.  They don't have a problem with what Hufschmid says, and it fact, have given Hufschimd a platform (via access through the scholars) to spread his anti-semitic lies.  So technically Fetzer, Jones and Griffen are not holocaust deniers, but their conduct with regard to others in their group is shameful.  

            The bigger problem with relying on holocaust deniers is not the offensive nature of their views, but the fact that these guys are known liars.  When you rely on a source that has no credibility, it destroys your credibility as well.

            gabbardd, I am glad to hear that you don't approve of Hufschimd's views.  But by being a member of that group, you give them credence.  You give them credibility.  These guys aren't interested in the truth.  A guy like Griffin still thinks a plane didn't hit the Pentagon because some people inside the building "heard" a missle.  Litterally hundreds of people, most of whom on the adjacent freeway, went on record as witnessing the airliner hit.  Griffin is too dishonest to include this information in his "analysis."

            So I implore you, as a decent human being, and someone who purports to be interested in the truth, to find another vehicle for your curiosity about 9-11.

            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

            by Mia Dolan on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 09:59:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Mia Dolan, I do appreciate everything you say (0+ / 0-)

              here.

              Some things done by those cited by members of Scholars for 9-11 are morally repugnant to any decent human being.

              I get your point, but I've always held suspicions about US gov't involvement in 9-11. Having served in the military, I know something of our defense capacities. The idea that 19 Arabs could board planes with box cutters and, even with little or no skill in flying aircraft of any size, crash commerical jets into those targets strikes me as being the biggest "conspiracy theory" of them all.  Add to that, the collapse of 3 (not 2) WTC buildings, and it's all too incredible for me.  This piece, in my view, says it all.

              In short, I do not know what the truth is on 9-11, but I seriously doubt that the official version of the story represents that truth.

              Thanks

              I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

              by gabbardd on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 11:36:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I read that piece (0+ / 0-)

                And that is probably the worst thing I have seen on this from an argument stanpoint.  The logic involved there is atrocious and embarassing.

                I have friends who fly commerical aircraft.  Taking off is hard.  Landing is hard.  Flying the plane on a beautiful clear day is not hard.  Crashing the plane into the tallest building in New York and the biggest office building in the world in D.C. is not hard.  There is a guy in the scholars group who professes to be a pilot who talks about using IFR and how hard that is.  But you wouldn't need instruments on a clear day and he knows that.  ITs a totally dishonest argument, and like many others in the scholars group, this guy is not seeking the truth, he is lying to promote his conspiracy theories.

                You are a victim of bad information.  If you are really interested in the truth, you will leave these losers behind.  

                Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                by Mia Dolan on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 11:58:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So, what's your view on 9-11? (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm curious to know. I'm not trying to waste your time or pick a fight.

                  If you think I'm a victim if bad information, which I don't rule out, please enlighten me. And I'm not being sarcastic.  I'm genuinely interested.

                  Also, are you the same Mia Dolan, the psychic?

                  I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

                  by gabbardd on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 12:54:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BobzCat

                    I am not the psychic Mia Dolan - any knowledge I have about 9-11 comes from reading and watching, and not psychic visions.

                    People are right not to take the administrations statements at face value.  Bush is a liar, and is clearly trying to cover some things up.  The fact that he wanted NO investigation into 9-11 is completely ludicrous.  And the parts of the commision report that came from Bush are pure horseshit.  And the fact that it was a bipartisan (and therefore political) document probably watered down some things as well.  

                    I also think that Bush may have the capacity for evil that he would plan something like this.  Its a lot to say that someone would murder 3000 people for political gain, but I wouldn't put it past him.  He (and Cheney and their cronies) are bad, bad people.  Some people claim that the anti-conspiracists are afraid of the truth.  I don't think that is the case.  I would have no problem believing Bush MIHOP, I just need to see some evidence.

                    That being said, the physical evidence for controlled demolotion is simply not there.  While the NIST is a government agency, the people doing the work are scientists, not Bush's political hacks.  They have appropriate degrees from prestigious universities.  There is a lot of pointing to the fact that these guys can't really get their heads around WTC as evidence of conspiracy.  If anything, I see it as evidence of the NIST scientists approaching things from a scientific, non-political basis.  They could have wrapped it up two years ago, but being scientists and not having figured out all the answers, they are still looking.  I have seen the video for WTC 7 falling and it does look wierd, and I am sure the NIST guys think so too.  But its a huge leap to get from a wierd collapse to controlled demolition with no other real evidence.

                    The problem I have with the Griffins and the Joneses is that they start with the premise of controlled demolition - they ignore evidence they don't like, and take wild leaps with the evidence they do like.  
                    I'm not a scientist, but I'm a laywer, and I spend a lot of time dealing with experts and the admissibility of evidence.  And basically, what the "scholars" put out there is just crap.  

                    What do I think happened?  I think that Bush took all the memos regarding Al Queda from Clinton and threw them out, fired or ignored anyone from the Clinton administration who knew something about it, and appointed incompetent people like Condi Rice to fill the positions.  From the get-go, Bush was politicizing all agencies of goverment, thus drastically reducing their effectiveness.  Bush, in effect, let down our guard and Al Queda smacked us as a result.  I don't rule out the idea that Bush was complicit - its possible, it really is - but I need to have real evidence before I go there. And there just isn't any.  

                    Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                    by Mia Dolan on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 01:11:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Fair enough. Thanks. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mia Dolan

                      I'm not a scientist either, which is why I keep my writings focused on established lies. Thusfar, I've written nothing suggesting that I "know" what happened.

                      I really respect your demands for evidence.

                      I love the smell of impeachment in the morning!

                      by gabbardd on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 01:25:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Mia's evidence is Cheney's word (0+ / 0-)

                      The problem I have with the Griffins and the Joneses is that they start with the premise of controlled demolition - they ignore evidence they don't like, and take wild leaps with the evidence they do like.

                      What evidence conflicts with the theory that a controlled demolition took down WTC7 such that it must be "ignored" by skeptics?  In other words, what evidence are the jones' and the Griffins' ignoring?

                      You will be hard pressed to find any such evidence, Mia.  It's just not there.  

                      The only thing that a demolition theory for WTC 7 conflicts is the government's version of events.  This is not to say the government's experts' version of events -- the NIST currently has no theory either way -- but rather, the version that comes out of the front office.

                      Thought experiment: If front office came out tomorrow and said it was in fact a controlled demolition, would you believe them?

                      •  I would believe it (0+ / 0-)

                        if there was evidence to support it.  

                        Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                        by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 07:06:15 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  But evidence has not factored into your analysis (0+ / 0-)

                          so far.  To wit, what evidence can you provide which supports the theory that fire and "falling debris" took down WTC7?  

                          This is your position, yes?  That fire and "falling debris" took down WTC7?  And you say you will assume a position if and only if it is supported by evidence.  Then what evidence are you basing your theory on?

                          Apart from the fact that Bush and Cheney have told you that's what happened?

                          •  NIST report (0+ / 0-)

                            has preliminary findings on WTC 7, which were prepared by real scientists.  Not assclowns like Stephen Jones.

                            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                            by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 07:50:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  NIST does not know how WTC7 came down (0+ / 0-)

                            Have you read the report?  

                            Now, please, provide us with some evidence -- any evidence! -- that WTC7 came down by fire and "falling debris."  Crib notes from the NIST report would work just fine.  

                          •  I have (0+ / 0-)

                            and the preliminary findings are fire and falling debris.  

                            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                            by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 08:15:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, the the jury at the NIST remains out (0+ / 0-)

                            But here is what FEMA said:

                            “Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.” (Chapter 5, pg 31.)

                            What is interesting is that FEMA says more study is needed, the NIST says more study is needed, yet Mia Dolan - lawyer - says that more study is not needed, that the current explanation "fire and falling debris" is a satisfactory explanation.

                            Are the good folks at FEMA and the NIST also Holocaust deniers?

                          •  No (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ahianne

                            I think more study is needed, and they are continuing to study it.  I don't think that more bullshit by the fake scientists in the 9-11 "truth" crowd is needed.

                            As far as I know, no one from FEMA or NIST is a holocaust denier.  You see, credible scientific organizations (or any type of credible organization) don't have holocaust deniers among their members.  Its only lying shitbag groups like the 9-11 frauds you cite that include people like that.  

                            Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                            by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 10:21:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Le Monde diplomatique and Le Monde not the same (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bouwerie Boy, Mia Dolan

    Please do not spread this silly, ignorant confusion.

    Rapture, n. - When pigs fly.

    by philslade on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 08:10:07 PM PDT

  •  Either this thread has turned (0+ / 0-)

    into sockpuppet city, or else there are a lot of registered lurkers who have nothing to say on any subject other than 9-11 conspiracy theories.

    They are a determined bunch, true-believers indeed, feeling quite proud of themselves, surely.

    Unfortunately, the purity types are here not to further the cause of the site, but to tear it down for being "too conservative" or "too afraid of the truth" or simply not ideologically pure enough for their tastes. The whole 9-11 debate is another flame for them to torch themselves in.

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

    by BobzCat on Sat Jul 08, 2006 at 09:54:02 AM PDT

    •  Registered non-resident (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lilabella

      As you can see from my archives here, I've been registered since at least 10-08-05, and previous to this thread (30 and counting) I posted 8 times.

      Why so few?  I found the MUCH TOUTED Daily Kos disappointing.  It was the time of figs, and I looked and behold, nothing but leaves. [paraph. Mk 11:13]

      Why come back?  "I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead."  Rev. 3:1

      You have a name, that you are the standard for the progressive movement, but you are in fact a bunch of gatekeepers.

      You are reflecting on the rest of us.  You don't have a proper title to the position that you hold in the eyes of the nation at large.

      I'm here to see WTF! as well as WTC, whether you are, as I fear, in lockstep, or as I hope, include a mixture of intransigents, shrinking violets, and reasonable people who just never caught much sun.

      In any case, this gated community is not without duty to the good name it bears.

      -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

      by Proud Primate on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 10:54:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If you don't like it, then don't come here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bouwerie Boy

        simply to dump on it.

        But maybe you're just incontinent, and can't help yourself. Glad you feel so superior, though. How does that work for you?

        In any event, clearly nobody cares what you say. Just thought you'd like to know.

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

        by BobzCat on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 11:40:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No surprise, your non-answer (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lilabella

          and you are certainly not the object of my labors of love.  You are clearly incorrigible.  

          But I am here for a witness to the truth, and whether here or elsewhere, I will bear witness to what I have seen, as will others who have a conscience.

          I'm still recovering from the shock of what I have read from the likes of you.

          I've got too much to do in the Snowe Removal campaign to spend much more time here.  I secretly hope nobody answers these posts so my yearly visit can come to an end quickly.

          Be advised, this experience I will not keep to myself.  The Progressive Community is not yours to gate off, and most of them, like me, were not aware that it was locked.  That is going to change, sir.

          Au revoir.

          -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

          by Proud Primate on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 11:50:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  'bear witness to the truth' (0+ / 0-)

            Man, you guys and your "hiolier than thou" crap.

            You really need to grow up, emotionally and politically. You give the progressive community a bad name, son.

            "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

            by BobzCat on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 12:15:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Aaan' another thing! (0+ / 0-)

      I've got plenty to say about subjects other than 9-11, but the important ones are all related to a long-standing fraudulence in our (and all) government(s), of which 9-11 is the capstone.

      The book that changed my life was All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer.  My life did a 180° turn on the day (7-28-03) I heard Kinzer interviewed on Fresh Air

      I have since read War Is A Racket (read it here for free, by Maj. Gen. Smedley Darlington Butler, the most highly decorated Marine General ever (twice Medal of Honor), who said, in another piece, “Time of Peace,” [Common Sense, Nov. 1935], of which I haven't yet found a complete source (there's more research worthy of doing than there is time to do it, right?  I said RIGHT??)

      "There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its ‘finger men’ (to point out enemies), its ‘muscle men’ (to destroy enemies), its ‘brain men’ (to plan war preparations), and a “Big Boss” (super-nationalistic capitalism).

      It may seem odd for a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to.

      I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.

      I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers* in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested....

      I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket.... I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on three continents....

      Our exploits against the American Indian, the Filipinos, the Mexicans, and against Spain are on a par with the campaigns of Genghis Khan, the Japanese in Manchuria and the African attack of Mussolini. No country has ever declared war on us before we first obliged them with that gesture. Our whole history shows we have never fought a defensive war."

      *  Brown Brothers - Harriman: the company thru which Bush's grandpa Prescott Bush made his forture trading with the Nazis and got busted for it under the Trading With The Enemy Act in 1943, but managed to keep his domestic holdings which was most of the loot.  PP.]

      Then I read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, and bought copies for my dear old ex, my son, and my brother-in-law.  Perkins's blockbuster tells essentially the same story as Butler's comments above, but with powerful credibility.

      I now understand from many, many sources, among them William Blum, a reference work called Killing Hope : U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II-Updated Through 2003 that the overthrow of Mossadegh (Oh, did I ask you if you know who Mossadegh was?  See Kinzer, op.cit.) was only the start of some 56 legitimate, democratically elected governments in the world overthrown by the CIA since WWII.  Why?  because they wouldn't play ball with the multinational corporations who want to steal everything of value and debt-enslave the people, labor being the largest cost in business hands down.  After all, the elected officials would have been handsomely rewarded for selling out justice, truth, righteousness, conscience, pity, self-respect.  But some people just don't get it, eh?

      This is well attested in Perkins, op.cit., as he actually was personally involved in the threat & pressure phase leading up to the assassination of Omar Torrijos of Panama, and Jaime Roldos of Ecuador, by "the jackals", the shooters/bombers who take over if the target refuses the bait.

      So now, you tell me, BobzCat (a nice domestic icon for this gated community, that!) if these are Conspiracy Theories or not.

      Most of this, and The Gulf of Tonkin fraud, and Operation Northwoods, and
      the attempted sinking of the USS Liberty, and the overthrow of Mossadegh, and the overthrow of Allende, &c., &c., ad infin. are currently available in declassified form, although I would expect you to know that the Bush crowd are doing their best to re-classify everything from Dr. Suess to Joy of Cooking.  Then you can take off those shades, guy.  I know the light bothers your eyes, poor fellow.

      -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

      by Proud Primate on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 11:40:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why is it that you and your ilk (0+ / 0-)

        pride yourselves on seeing beneath the surface of things, and yet cannot grasp the most simple truths, or the most obvious realities.

        Somehow, you make this logical deduction:

        Daily Kos does not allow conspiracy theory speculations to be posted or go unchallenged,

        therefore

        the community at large (and, apparently, me in particular) is "afraid of the light" or "won't accept the truth" or are "gatekeepers of the status quo" and "support the administration" or "are in bed with corporate interests" or are "tools of the right" or pick whatever colorful metaphorical construction with which minions of the left and right choose to label this place.

        Now, with that kind of logic at work, those kinds of grand leaps of reasoning, this kind of obsessively blinkered reading of what people are trying to say to you, with varying degrees of politeness, why would I give credence to any of your "opinions?"

        Simple truth: Discussion of conspiracy theories related to 9-11 are not welcome here. Discuss them anywhere else you choose, with whomever you choose. You might find quite a few of these so-called "gatekeepers" joining you, somewhere else.

        But you all just can't get that through your heads.

        Your cause is so pure, so noble, so right, so important, your understanding so superior, your character so much more courageous, that you feel it necessary to come to a place that has, for reasons cited ad nauseum, requested that such conversations not take place here.

        You're like children who've been told not to enter a room. You just have to keep running in, squatting on the rug, and running away again.

        For those reasons, and for the fact that you have admitted to trolling from the "ideologically purer" left, I could give a flying fuck about you or your interests.

        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

        by BobzCat on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 12:12:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's all well and good (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lilabella

          "For those reasons, and for the fact that you have admitted to trolling from the 'ideologically purer' left, I could give a flying fuck about you or your interests."

          I didn't come here to talk to you.  In fact (if you can believe it) I didn't even know you were here before I got here.

          And I am not interested in convincing you, but I'm answering these empty non-answers for the benefit of innocents who might read them.

          -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

          by Proud Primate on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 12:38:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And someone will continue to return here (0+ / 0-)

            to respond to your myopic statements, and not allow them to be archived here, unchallenged.

            So that the "innocents," as you so pastorally put it, have a clear view of how this site apprehends reality.

            But if you are really gone (at least under this ID) then good riddence, but good luck in your pursuits elswhere.

            "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

            by BobzCat on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 02:57:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They ARE unchallenged, unless (0+ / 0-)

              you call "nyaah-nyaah" a challenge.  I don't.

              In a challenge you match force with force, in this case, documentation.

              When you say, in effect, "we're afraid to have this stuff on our site" because the bad man Karl Rove will make fun of us, I say you should be afraid not to have it, because if we don't stop them, the last shred of Constitutional Government will soon go over the falls.  And don't tell me you aren't aware of the danger.  

              You're just afraid of making it worse by challenging them on the big enchilada.  THAT'S THEIR STRATEGY: THEY HIDE BEHIND THAT FEAR.  Their hero Hitler pulled it off at the burning of the Reichstag, and they are hoping to do the same.

              The only thing Bush has to fear is not enough fear.

              That's the difference between us.  You're afraid to talk about it, and while I (believe me) am also afraid of that, I am more afraid not to talk about it.

              PS: I never use any other sig, since I adopted this one.  Previously I was jscieme.

              -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

              by Proud Primate on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 05:06:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How's the view from there? (0+ / 0-)

                You are either a willful idiot, or are so full of yourself you can't see out your own eyeballs.

                Another possibility is that you simply don't read, or have serious comprehension issues.

                Your generalities about this site are no longer amusing, they are pathetically, pathologically misguided.

                I can't help you anymore. Whether you are an idiot, or are just playing one so that you don't have to face reality, or just another true-believer, there's obviously no discussing any topic with you.

                Sorry, but you're a troll.

                "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                by BobzCat on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 08:15:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here's the deal, Bub (0+ / 0-)

                  You don't want this kind of debate here?  Here's how you fix it: don't say things like "other steel buildings have collapsed from fire and 'falling debris'", because that is horseshit.  Do not say that Ms. Edmonds is of dubious credibility, because that is horseshit.  Etc., etc.  If the guardians of good manners that man this site do not want this sort of debate, they should not post horseshit that they can't support and don't really want to talk about anyway.

                  Doesn't this seem sensible?

                  •  What seems sensible (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rita in DC

                    is what the owner of this site has requested, and which you cannot bring yourself to respect.

                    It seems you just refuse to understand why this policy is in place, and have therefore decided to ignore it, because... honestly, I don't know what your thinking is with this. Is it just rudeness?

                    Here's my take on it.

                    With a few individual exceptions, this "movement" you and others here are a part of doesn't give a shit about this site, its members, the prospects of Democratic candidates, or the framing of and communication about issues that will make the left more successful in coming elections. That's a fact. As has been often admitted, all other issues are subservient to the only one that matters: 911 "truth."

                    And the only thing that matters to you is that your "truth" gets out to the biggest possible audience. And this is a big site, with a huge membership, and a high profile.

                    Therefore, this is an opportunity. It's all about getting the truth to the people, right? So, fuck common courtesy, to hell with matters of respect, let's crash the gates, push the "truth" down their throats, power to the people, right on.

                    I totally understand that. Wrap it all up in Gandhi quotes and in the fervor that you are the only ones doing the only thing that matters for this country, and you can justify any trespass.

                    OK, now, think of the reasons why 911 speculation isn't welcome here, at this blog.

                    You can do it. Go ahead.

                    No, not the one about Markos being a CIA plant. Nor how the pro-Israel lobby is keeping the "truth" from appearing at DKos. The one about how the NSA has infiltrated DKos and is engaged in a psy-op against the 911 "Truth" movement is tempting, but no, not that one either. And no, it's not about DKos being "establishment gatekeepers" that truly pure progressives now have to crash in on, nor is anyone here "afraid" of anything.

                    You guys are so good at figuring things out, why is this one such a poser?

                    My explanations probably won't help you to understand, because your eyes are closed, but maybe it will help clarify things for others.

                    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                    by BobzCat on Sun Jul 09, 2006 at 11:28:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's easy - without 911 truth you're dead ducks (0+ / 0-)

                      Can't you see you the progressive left doesn't stand the chance of an icicle in hell unless you turn the 911 tables on the perps?

                      Know what happened to German communists after the Reichstag fire?

                      911 is the most powerful weapon on the contemporary political scene.
                      The one that can start wars, or stop them.
                      We can turn it around and blow the fascists out of the water.
                      Why do you insist on keeping it turned on us?

                      Look at how they've ruined the country since 911 in the name of War on Terror.
                      Is more tyranny what you desire?

                      BTW it is true as you say that the 911 truth movement has people from all over the political spectrum, but it's still made up mostly of left or progressive leaning people.

                      Yes, we ARE in the same boat. And your half of the boat is the one that's sinking.

                      •  Why not (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Rita in DC

                        turn this site into "Daily 9-11 Truth"?

                        Would that satisfy you? I mean, how much is enough?

                        It seems to me that, by your reasoning, anything short of full appropriation of this site's resources for the purpose of revealing the "9-11 Truth" is failing America and giving it to the fascists.

                        If this site is NOT fully dedicated the the "911 Truth" movement, then it must be supporting the corporate fascists who have taken over the country, right? Or, at best, everyone is just clueless, lazy, afraid, compromised, or asleep, right?

                        The way you've put it, and by the reasoning of your cohorts who post right alongside you, anything short of raising this to the highest profile is tantamount to collaboration.

                        Hey, I have a better idea. Forget the diary. Write an e-mail to Markos, explaining your position. He owns the site. Explain your plans for using the "9-11 Truth" movement to "blow the fascists out of the water" and elect progressives in November who will steer this country back to democracy.

                        Really, sounds great. Go for it.

                        At least, be straightforward with your intentions to hijack this website and turn it into a 9-11 forum. I'm sure he'll understand.

                        And if he doesn't, write a diary about it. And get your friends to recommend it. And leave a tip jar.

                        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                        by BobzCat on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 12:27:50 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  And, of course, you answered the wrong question (0+ / 0-)

                        You answered the one you wanted, which was why you thought Daily Kos needs "9-11 Truth" and not the question I asked. Pretty typical of the reasoning found on some of those websites you link to, and typical of your friends here, who also have difficulty with reading comprehension.

                        I asked, why do you think Kos does NOT want a proliferation of 9-11 "truth" diaries and comments at his website? In what ways can you imagine that NOT being a good thing for this particular blog?

                        Read it slowly.

                        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                        by BobzCat on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 12:34:47 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  If it were true - still expedient to ban it then? (0+ / 0-)

                      You ask about "framing of and communication about issues that will make the left more successful in coming elections."

                      Well, that’s all the 911 truth movement does 24/7 – work on the key issue that has real potential to bring the left a sweeping success.

                      Without a breakthrough on the fake war on terror, you can frame issues by the dozen til doomsday, and the rotten lot in power will continue to corrupt your primaries and hotwire the elections. November will tell.

                      But they know you cringe every time Karl Rove or Clear Channel sneer "tin foil hat," so they’ll keep doing that, and you’ll never have the guts to grab the 911 weapon away from them.

                      There are people in the 911 movement like that, too. Spend more time attacking 911 theories that embarrass them, than on political work outward.

                      Then there is Bob Bowman, a 911 truth candidate running for Congress in Florida as a Democrat, he has great positions on almost all the issues, not just 911. He is careful on 911 though, just calls for an investigation. Art of the possible etc.

                      So okay, let's grant for argument's sake that in the short term until the November election, you can elect more progressive Democratic candidates by keeping mum on 911 than by squawking about it, OK?

                      Let's accept that as a first hypothesis, for argument's sake.

                      You have expressed concerns that allowing discussion of unfounded conspiracy theories could damage the credibility of your site, that it exposes you to ridicule.  

                      Fine, accepted. After all, there are plenty of examples of such ridicule on this page.

                      But now let's break that down analytically for argument's sake into two sub-sets.

                      Condition A. It exposes you to ridicule, and the theories are in fact unfounded, even ridiculous.

                      Condition B. It does expose you to ridicule, but the core theory of "911 truth" is in fact true.

                      You believe condition A, that "911 truth" is disreputable disinformation, and this seems to justify a ban against it.

                      But what if condition B holds?

                      Then it gets nasty. Indeed, I am surprised myself how nasty the outcome is, but I guess that's the power of analytical reasoning.

                      Under Condition B, the Dkos orthodox are currently accessories after the fact to a crime against humanity, by helping cover up for the real perpetrators of the 911 crimes.

                      Wow. All I really wanted to say is that it's hypocritical and corrupt, but the above is the result of reasoning from premises given.

                      So maybe it's better to think twice before you look at the collapse of Bldg. WTC 7. While keeping the same political compromise constant, that knowledge could graduate you from an accessory through negligence, by not being informed about the issue, to an accessory with guilty knowledge and intent.

                      Nasty stuff - even if it obviously doesn't bother hard-boiled Washington types.

                      But Bush and Rove have brought a liberating message for you. There is no need for conflicts of conscience, dear friends. The fascist neocons have made it clear: they are not interested in compromise, and will beat the stuffings out of you as long as they hold the 911 club to beat you with.

                      So it's easy. You don't need to make compromises of conscience. Our new Nazi leaders have made sure it won't work anyway.

                      Kapiert?

                    •  You are not listening to a reasonable suggestion (1+ / 2-)
                      Recommended by:
                      kix
                      Hidden by:
                      Rita in DC, Bouwerie Boy

                      It seems you just refuse to understand why this policy is in place, and have therefore decided to ignore it, because... honestly, I don't know what your thinking is with this. Is it just rudeness?

                      Reach for the Q-Tips and clean out some of the ear wax.  You're not hearing me.  I suggested that if you want to rid this site of us skeptics, you should target ALL discussion of these matters.  But you fail to do that.  Rather, you allow (encourage) one side of the argument.  You fail to tell little brownshirts like Mia that "Kos does not allow discussion of 9/11 theories here!".  Etc.  And in this way you allow falsehood after falsehood to get posted.  And then you feign exasperation when folks move in to correct this garbage.  Uh?  

                      If Kos does not want to host this discussion, then that's fine.  I can respect this.  What is more difficult to respect is when the site takes an editorial position, backs it up with a small army of ideologues, and then says: "Discussion is forbidden!"

                      That's hypocrisy.  Yes?

                      •  Let me put this as politely as I can (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Rita in DC

                        Fuck you.

                        You throw terms like "brownshirts" around and you lose any shred of credibility you might like to have. And no, I'm not going to explain why, because you just will not get it. I think you enjoy the term a little too much.

                        And hypocrisy? Listen to you:

                        If Kos does not want to host this discussion, then that's fine.  I can respect this.

                        He doesn't. Look here, here, as well as the FAQ, if you don't believe me.

                        DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:

                        refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks

                        refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse

                        Authoring or recommending these diaries may result in banning from Daily Kos.

                        So respect it. Don't keep trying to squeeze through imaginary loopholes.

                        This has been explained to you so many times, you must be getting a perverse glee from other peoples frustration with you.

                        Sorry, but on this this score, you are a loser. You and your dittohead friends Primate and kix have nothing to add to this site except empty verbiage on a long dead thread.

                        "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                        by BobzCat on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 08:43:53 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Fix the problem at source (0+ / 0-)

                          Going around and smearing people as "Holocaust deniers", as Mia has so disgracefully done, for questioning things that even Federal agencies deem worthy of further study, yes, this is the activity  of brownshirts.  You don't like it?  Tough shit.  I was not the first to engage in incendiary name-calling.  If you want to maintain a civil conversation, fix the matter at source.

                          Let's review Kos' proscribed lines of discussion that you just posted:

                          DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:

                          refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks

                          refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse

                          I am not in violation of anything here.  Right?  Please show me a post suggesting otherwise.

                          Or wait a minute: Does Kos proscribe reference to claims that WTC7 collapsed because of something other than planes flying into it?  Help me here, 'cause that might be my crime.  Is the official line of DailyKos that WTC7 came down because a plane flew into it? Do clarify.

                          •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

                            You're looking for loopholes, to avoid facing the fact of your own hypocrisy.

                            Sorry, can't help you.

                            "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                            by BobzCat on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 09:37:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No - what is Kos' position on WTC7? (0+ / 0-)

                            Are folks allowed to explore how that building came down?  No reference is made in the "rules and regs", here.  All we hear about is that (paraphrasing) "Kos accepts that planes brought down the WTC buildings."

                            Of course, that no plane hit WTC7 gives rise to ambiguity in these rules and regs.

                            Clarification requested.  Are folks allowed to explore how WTC7 came down?  And before you post a rash answer, do note that the NIST is exploring precisely the same thing, right now, as we speak.

  •  Every truth passes through three stages (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kix

    before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is violently opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident” - Arthur Schopenhauer

    for Vesa ;)

    •  Here's a sockpuppet (0+ / 0-)

      Which banned troll are you?  

      Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

      by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 06:49:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Quote Schopenhauer, get smeared! (0+ / 0-)

        You folks are a piece of work.

        •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

          You are smearing Schopenhauer by associating that quote with your lies.

          Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

          by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 07:41:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dear Mia Dolan, (0+ / 0-)

            you know nothing about me, but, you are already ready to attack, denounce, and vilify me. You only win enemies that way. One positive thing I can say about you is that you're dedicated to your belief.

            Forgive me, if this post is long. I am not a "sockpuppet," as you say. I was actually living in Washington,DC on the morning of 9/11 attacks. I was also there for the subsequent anthrax attacks. It greatly affected me then, and still scares me to this day. I knew people who personally lost loved ones in the Pentagon attacks. At first, myself and others believed the government's official account wholeheartedly. I even, as a lifelong liberal, supported Bush and gave him the benefit of the doubt. But, now,  after years of learning about the egregious lies surrounding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well the unmitigated criminality of this current administration, I'm wary enough to admit that even I do not know everything that took place on that horrendous day.

            Philosopher Socrates, who was one of the world's wisest men stated that, "I know I know nothing." Wisdom and knowledge begins, as the Buddhists say, with a beginner's mind. Like a tabla rasa, a person must start their quest of knowledge as if they're a blank slate. They must admit that they do not -- in fact, cannot -- know everything about a topic. Once a person assumes an arrogance -- assuming complete, "total" knowledge about a topic, little factual knowledge can be learned.

            Scientists, astronomers, physicians, historians, archaelogists, inventers, psychologists do not even do this. They are constantly making new discoveries about the world around us by posing hypotheses. They subject each one to experimentation and examination. As new knowledge is revealed, theories are altered. Yes, these theories are subjected to a peer review. This may take years. Even "official" hypothesis that are accepted by a wide-range of scientists are constantly being scrutinized. Hence, even Charles Darwin's theories are now beginning to be "revised" and re-examined. (See "The Red Queen Theory by Matt Ridley.) And Newtonian physics -- which has dominated for centuries -- can eventually be overturned by the likes of Albert Einstein's theories on relativity and electromagnetism and other scientists' -- like David Bohm's, Neil's Bohrs, Heisenberg's (and others), theories on quantum physics.

            Posing a question is the first step toward real knowledge. It is only then that one may proceed to find the answers. Yes, many of those questions may take you down strange paths, wrong turns, or to dead ends. But, invariably, some of those questions will lead you closer to the truth.

            It's in fact more courageous, in my opinion, to question than to silence all discussion. The Catholic church and its supporters centuries ago once believed that the world was flat. They also believed that the sun and the rest of the planets revolved around the earth. These same people argued that the earth was only less than a few thousand years old. They threatened anyone who disagreed with these contentions with death, including men like Galileo, who argued otherwise. Centuries later, Galileo was proven correct.

            I am not saying that Vesa's version of the truth will be the "correct" one. I just feel he is courageous to be willing to ask at all. I'm savvy enough to realize that I don't know everything there is to know about that day. And if you were honest with yourself, and with others on the site, you'd be courageous enough to admit the same. None of us do. We haven't interviewed every single witness. We haven't personally talked to airline employees, passengers on the plane, or individuals and rescue workers in the Twin Towers. Nor know all the actors. We directly talked to Osama Bin Ladin, or know who his financeers were. We haven't examined all of the FBI paperwork, CIA documents, nor studied the international financial money trail before and after the attacks. Nor have we talked to people like Sibel Edmonds. Ms. Edmonds was interviewed by CBS' 60 Minutes, years back. When she threatened to tell the public about what she knew about the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld silenced her with a States Secret Privilege clause. His actions are enough to make me suspicious that there's more to know about 9/11 than the government has previously admitted.

            I realize, you'll argue that it is Vesa's and others' responsibility to present their case factually. That is understandable. However, it would be wonderful to see your own arguments. I have yet to see them. Please, for those of us who are searching for answers, provide a point/counterpoint summation of for your argument about why Vesa is wrong. Repeating vacuous, vituperative rhetoric makes you resemble the "sock puppets" you call others, because you aren't providing a cogent argument to the contrary, and makes you appear to be arguing from faith and feeling rather than logic. Saying that "everything that needs to be known has been debunked" doesn't tell me why Vesa is wrong.

            The "swift boating" tactics -- i.e. calling Vesa, and others like myself "sock puppets" may be extremely effective, Mia. Everyone, who is fearful, rather side with the "bullies" or "popular opinion." It doesn't mean it's mature, however. Shouldn't liberals, like yourselves, hold themselves to a higher standard than Republicans? If Vesa's beliefs are wrong, then eventually history and the facts will prove them as incorrect. Name calling (i.e. calling them nuts, etc;) isn't necessary. It only makes your "arguments" -- which I've yet to see -- to appear sophomoric.

            You can dismiss me as a mere "Holocaust denier," however, my long-time boyfriend is Jewish. Yes, the Holocaust took place. It was horrific and a crime against all human beings. You have a right to be angry at thse bigots. I am not, however, associated with this so-called 9/11 Truth Movement. I've never visited their sites. I am not familiar with any of their "membership."  And I do not condone, would not, any of these bigots you speak about.

            But, just because one is for an independent investigation of 9/11, does not mean that one is a bigot. Nor does it mean those of us who do, are all "nuts," "conspiracy theorists," or the like. Not even my boyfriend believes that the official account  is completely accurate. Then again, you have the right to your opinion, Mia Dolan. Everyone does. Thanks for providing a spirited debate, anyway. Have a pleasant day Ms. Dolan.

            •  My god (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BobzCat

              That was the longest comment I have ever read.  But it was the same sorry ass whining shit that has been posted here a million times before.

              Vesa was a troll, who consistently posted false information, and was banned from this site for repeatedly breaking the rules.

              Its hilarious for you to come in your first week of DailyKos and have it all figured out.  Do you know what?  You don't have the slightest fucking idea what you are talking about.  

              I still bet that you are a sockpuppet.

              Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

              by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 05:28:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If some impresario had hired you to play the part (0+ / 0-)

                that Lilabella wrote the script for, he'd find nothing in your performance to complain about.

                "She's got the part", he said.  "Call the paper and cancel the ad."

                -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                by Proud Primate on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 05:46:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Mia Dolan = Ann Coulter? (0+ / 0-)

                Who knew?

              •  Hey Mia (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Rita in DC, peraspera, Mia Dolan

                as long as these ingrates lurk in the darkness of a long-dead thread, they cause little trouble. Kinda like a minor cockroach infestation. They seem to delight in tagging DKos with their quasi-religion, bringing the "light" to readers through links from other blogs.

                They might snare the weak-minded, which is a shame, or the already-inclined, which is ineveitable. This movement is all about cherry-picking arguments and selling them to the gullible, who in turn get excited and feel validated by the thought of having an edgy position. Cherry-picking readers is, I suppose, is more of the same, kinda like the way they cite slanted, wildly unscientific polls here as evidence of support for their movement.

                It's snake-oil, it's shameless, and the real problem is that it obscures the legitimate questions by surrounding them with dubious research, disreputable backgrounds, questionable motives, and wild, unsupported speculation.

                But the critical thinkers will examine what they're peddling and recognize it for the cottage cheese industry that the "truth" movement has become.

                Separating this site from the pod purveyors, the missile mongerers, the IDF-MIHOP crowd, the controlled demolitioners, and the "if you look at it this way, it's all so clear" evangelists is more important than ever, now that visibility has been raised after Las Vegas.

                Unfortunately, that just means the tinfoil groupies will be all the more determined to piss on our carpet every chance they get. And they will, all summer long. This is another "means justify the ends" crowd. They don't care about DKos, Democrats, liberalism, progressivism, or politics at all. It's all about them. They will do whatever it takes, by any means necessary. And they'll be urged on from the wings by people whose shadows are as dark as the villains they purport to fight.

                Fucking wankers.

                It's infuriating, but as I said, they're basically emasculated and marginalized here, on this thread. Anyone wandering in here will see them for the trolls they are.

                "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

                by BobzCat on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 08:25:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I care a lot about the opposition in Wash. (0+ / 0-)

                  They don't care about DKos, Democrats, liberalism, progressivism, or politics at all.

                  Not true.  I just find it painful to see you guys get your ass kicked over and over and over.  You got snowed on the planted evidence that got you into Iraq, snowed on domestic spying, and snowed over not one but two election cycles.  If had stood up before any of these contentions were socially acceptable and said: "You're being snowed!", you'd have come back at me, presumably, in the same manner you are here - with invective and derision: "Conspiracy theorist!", you'd say, spittle flying.

                  Frankly, it is not a lot of fun debating what are in fact technical issues with folks who wouldn't know a truss if they were impaled on one.  I am not a blog junkie and should be doing other things.  But to see this dog not hunt, all while pheasants dance gleeful circles around it, almost mockingly, well, you just shake your head.

                  (Fwiw, even though I am sure you won't believe me, this is the first time I have ever said anything on the topic on any site.  It is only because you are a political site that I care enough to say something.  Even then, if you had just ignored the dude instead of shrieking at him, well, I could have saved five hours of my life doing better things.)

                  •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                    Horace, you've been busted saying first you don't care, and then vehemently arguing the most ridiculous bullshit theories.  You are a fucking liar and you know it.  You traffic in the lies of the fake scientists and holocaust deniers.  You shill for Dick Cheney and contribute nothing to the causes supported by this website.  Don't pretend your not a troll, because everyone knows you are.  

                    Tämä Mia Dolan on ihan hirveä (That Mia Dolan is just awful or This Mia Dolan is made of Moose )

                    by Mia Dolan on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 10:39:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, I s'pose -- (0+ / 0-)

                      Horace, it's starting to look like this is a waste of time.

                      Nice meeting you, and you too, Kik.

                      I feel like a dog that caught his first skunk.  I hope my owner knows about the tomato juice.

                      Here's to a better world —

                      PP

                      -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

                      by Proud Primate on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 07:39:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah, this has been bizarre (0+ / 0-)

                        I am just a normal guy with left-leaning politics and a distrust for the current regime.  I am also an engineer with an appreciation of the some of the technical issues.  I could understand why Kos might not want to host thses sorts of conversations here and I could respect that.  What I find frightening was the rabid reaction of certain members.  Bizarre.  I don't believe a single substantive issue was addressed.  Which again is fine so long as there is no invective and personal assaults.  But the derision, invective and preposterous claims just kept coming.  All specious, all on superficial grounds.

                        You know, it reminds me of high school and the various cliques.  "Don't wear red!  Like, Cynthia wears red.  And as everyone knows, Cynthia is, like, such a slut.  I hear that she slept with Josh and Andrew on the same night.  And this is after she gave Dave a handjob in the stairwell the previous day.  Like, ick or what?  And her neighbour says she doesn't even wash. So, like, don't, you know, wear red 'cause if you do you might as well be, like, Cynthia."

                        But hey - it ain't my country.  

                        Is this getting archived?  It would be nice to be able to retrieve this conversation down the road.  Kos also banned election CTS (or at least discouraged them) and that doesn't look too bright a move now, does it?  Who knows where this issue will be a year or two or five down the road, but it would be nice to be able to loop back here at some point.  We might all get a chuckle.

                        Hugs and Kisses --Horace.

              •  If Vesa was banned, how come his/her comments and (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                hind, Bouwerie Boy

                diaries are still here? Definitely a troll — but not banned, as far as I can tell.

                † † † † 2,544 U.S. military † † † † 38960 - 43397 Iraqi civilians † † † †

                by Wbythebay on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 08:49:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Has anybody here seen 'Ice Age'? (0+ / 0-)

          Remember the Dodos that had their melon stolen by Stan the Swift, uh, Sloth?

          That's who these guys remind me of.

          -e sono tanto semplici li uomini, e tanto obediscano alle necessità presenti, che colui che inganna troverrà sempre chi si lascerà ingannare. -- Machiavelli

          by Proud Primate on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 09:26:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  A wonderful thing about carrots (7+ / 0-)

     title=

    is their benefit to an individual's health.

    Do carrots have magical powers? Do they allow people to witness things which did not occur? Do they give sight to the blind? Do they turn idiots into savants? Base metals into gold? A steaming pile of fresh canine excrement into a delightful souffle? I don't fucking think so.

    However, as the good people at the World Carrot Museum well know, carrots are an excellent source of vitamin A. This important antioxident helps the immune system stay healthy by neutralizing those pesky and unproductive free radicals which do nothing but contribute to degenerative decay, cancer, and cataracts.

    Now, while everyone knows that carrots are a source of beta carotene, did you know that also found in carrots is alpha carotene? Early studies suggest that alpha carotene may actually inhibit tumor growth, and otherwise put the kibosh on out-of-control mutating cells that just want to cause trouble.

    And do you know what the best thing is? Carrots are in season all year round. You can always enjoy a fresh carrot, whether the weather outside is frightful or delightful.

    Fresh Carrot Juice

    1. Wash fresh, whole carrots. Trim off the ends.
    1. Following instructions for your model, push carrots through juicer, catching juice in cup as directed.
    1. Clean pulp from strainer as you go along, if necessary.
    1. Drink juice immediately or within a few days. Carrot juice does not keep for long and tastes best when fresh.

    It is my hope that you have found this minor digression both entertaining and informative.

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." -- Groucho Marx

    by BobzCat on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 02:48:23 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site