Skip to main content

I'll be blunt - the no so-called "conspiracy theories" policy on this site has always made me cringe. The very purpose of the pejorative term "conspiracy theory" is to discourage any sort of critical thinking, and it's highly unbecoming of a self-styled "reality-based community" to discourage individuals from offering various interpretations of the meaning and/or origins of inarguably real events. The very notion that the only acceptable discussion of reality must be centered around the accounts which we're spoon-fed by the corporate media and/or corporate puppet government, fully discredits any claim of being "reality-based" that the the powers that be on Daily Kos make.

Specifically, the inanity of this policy is illustrated by story broken by the New York Times today, which very clearly implicates the faux-progressive Obama administration, especially Holder's [In]Justice Department, in their participation in a conspiracy after-the-fact to cover up the Saudi involvement in financing Al Qaeda and, by extension, the tragedy of 9/11. Courtesy Eric Lichtblau's excellent reporting, I'll just let reality speak for itself to prove my point:

WASHINGTON — Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family , but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.

The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

Now, notwithstanding the fact that the Obama/Holder [In]Justice Department's conduct is coming dangerously close to outright treason here, the NY Times report in question clearly shows that it is, in fact, the 9/11 Truthers who hold the mantle of "reality-based," not those who reflexively and irrationally deny the role of criminal conspiracies in the course of human events.

To put it another way:

  • The Saudis funded the Al Qaeda operation which resulted in the attacks on 9/11.
  • The US government and the Bush Administration were at least criminally incompetent, failing utterly to fulfill its/their obligation to protect and defend the nation. This claim requires no more evidence than the fact that the attacks themselves occurred without intervention, and despite having foreknowledge of the impending attacks.
  • It is now conclusively shown that the US government, under the current administration, is fully complicit in a (likely treasonous) cover-up of the involvement of the Saudi royalty in the attack against these United States on September 11th, 2001.
  • Therefore, given the involvement in the cover-up of the financiers of the attacks by the US government, it is totally irrational and entirely delusional not to suspect prior involvement in the coordination of the attacks themselves by the American so-called "government."

I think this is plenty clear, Kos - repeal the irrational and arbitrary policy against discussion of 9/11 "conspiracy theories" on your site, or have it be relegated in status to that of jokery, clownery, partisan hackery, and/or authority-worshiping sycophancy.

The prosecution rests.

Originally posted to TylerFromNE on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:14 AM PDT.

Poll

Is it time for DKos to stop arbitrarily silencing discussion of 9/11 so-called "conspiracy theories," given that the government is now irrefutably involved in a cover-up of the financing of the attacks?

78%707 votes
19%173 votes
1%17 votes

| 897 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

  •  Later (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dnta, ProgressiveTokyo, csquared, jtb583

    take it easy, I hope you find a new site you enjoy.

    •  Yup (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bouwerie Boy, JesseCW, csquared, jtb583

      I was thinking the same, this guy is not long for our lovely site. The ban hammer will rain down soon, destroying the heretic.  

      Even if I agreed with the poster, and even if I had theories of my own, I sure as hell wouldn't be talking about it here.

      Judge me not by the number of my UID, but by the content of my diaries.

      by ProgressiveTokyo on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:25:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Check the poll (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TylerFromNE, ppl can fly

        Heretic?  People who want him to stfu are being outnumbered by those who want the ban dropped by almost 2:1.

        "Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." -- Louis Brandeis

  •  It's you DKos conspirators that are conspiring (5+ / 0-)

    to cover up the government conspiracies trying to muzzle the conspiracy factions in America! Death to The Dictator! God is great!

    "There is no radical change without blood spent"

    by fourthcornerman on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:25:55 AM PDT

    •  No! It's you anti-Dkos conspirators who are.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bouwerie Boy

      ...conspiring to cover up the non-government conspiracies that are trying hide the government conspiracies which are trying to muzzle the conspiracy factions in America! Live From New York! Ralph is Dog!

      This Space For Rent

      by xynz on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:32:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i don't necessarily agree with your deductions, (6+ / 0-)

    but i absolutely agree with your premise.

    silencing discussion harms everybody; your talking about this, harms no one.

    I can break Sean Hannity by giving him a middle seat in coach. -Wanda Sykes

    by jj24 on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:29:34 AM PDT

  •  Wow (9+ / 0-)

    That's about the biggest leap of faith from a bunch of (hyperbolically presented) "facts" all the way to a HUGE "therefore"...

    Not much point in explaining to this soon-to-be-gone diarist why, even granting the validity of the allegations regarding the Saudi's and Al Qaeda, it is still -- how shall I say it? -- Batshit Insane, to believe, even suspect or consider, "prior involvement" of the U.S. Government in the planning of the 9/11 attacks.

    We don't hear that often enough on this issue, I think.  It's not that the site bans "conspiracy theories," per se: it bans Batshit Insanity.

    Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

    by dnta on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:33:27 AM PDT

    •  this site bans batshit insanity? now THAT (9+ / 0-)

      is a joke!  this site is FULL of batshit insanity on any given day, in any given diary, in any given thread.  you really need to hang around the site a little more.

      it's pretty creepy to watch people like you justify censorship - always has been, always will be.  this diary doesn't hurt you; in fact, it helps you - since you seem to want a punching bag, here you go.  you get to unload some demeaning, insulting rhetoric on someone without penalty.

      sure it's a big leap for the diarist from what they observe to some of their "therefores" - but it shouldn't give you carte blanche to insult them.  but this is the way it is here - you should be thanking them for giving you the opportunity to be as rude as you seem to want to be.

      I can break Sean Hannity by giving him a middle seat in coach. -Wanda Sykes

      by jj24 on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:42:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not exactly "censorship" (4+ / 0-)

        The diarist has the whole internet to shit on if he likes.  Neither he, you, or me has any particular right to post here.

        This site, like just about any other site on the wider net, has a site policy.  The diarist is being cute and pushing the envelope on the policy.  He's been around here long enough to know that, too.

        So his freedom to write shit is not restrained.  He just has to do it elsewhere.

        "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

        by mbayrob on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:50:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  speaking ones' opinion isn't "shitting" on (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TylerFromNE

          the net.  really, a flair for the dramatic.  i failed to read the rest of your post because frankly, it's the same old shit.

          I can break Sean Hannity by giving him a middle seat in coach. -Wanda Sykes

          by jj24 on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:59:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Steak Tartare (7+ / 0-)

    INGREDIENTS (Nutrition)
    1 pound finely ground beef tenderloin
    1 teaspoon brown mustard
    1/2 teaspoon hot pepper sauce (e.g. Tabasco™), or to taste
    1 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce
    1 teaspoon brandy
    1 pinch salt, or to taste
    ground white pepper to taste
    1 egg

    In a medium bowl, mix together the beef, mustard, hot pepper sauce, Worcestershire sauce, brandy, salt, pepper and egg until well blended. Arrange the meat in a neat pile on a glass dish, and cover with aluminum foil. Refrigerate for 30 minutes to allow the flavors to blend. Serve as a spread on crackers or toast.

    Judge me not by the number of my UID, but by the content of my diaries.

    by ProgressiveTokyo on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:44:14 AM PDT

  •  You need one of these (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minerva, terrypinder, csquared

    http://zapatopi.net/...

    Wear it shiny side out.

  •  Yawn... (11+ / 0-)

    Gee willikers - Saudi factions financed all the Saudi guys who ran Al Qaeda and hijacked the jets?  

    So there are still people at the NY Times who remember the 1980s?  

    As they said in the 1980s: duh!

    Therefore, 9/11 was obviously an inside job?

    Wish these thunderstorms would pass.  Way too tired to post recipes...

    We must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

    by Minerva on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:49:42 AM PDT

    •  No, please pay attention. (3+ / 0-)

      Saudis finance 9/11 -> Justice Department attempts to cover-up Saudi financing of 9/11 -> Rational person wonders what else the government was involved in vis-a-vis 9/11, and what else they're covering up.

      Got it?

      The Obama Economic Policy: Save The Parasites, Kill The Patient | Blog: The Daily Elitist

      by TylerFromNE on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:05:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yawn again. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueness, csquared

        B-O-R-I-N-G.

        DO something PRODUCTIVE.

        Help us get off foreign oil. Buy a bike, buy a hybrid, start a car pool.

        •  Perhaps the fact that we (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ppl can fly

          still need Saudi crude imports is because of the incestuous relationship between US and Saudi elites? Again I'll cite France, which is a nation that, despite its almost total lack of hydrocarbon reserves, has an arguably higher standard of living than the US, but has only a tiny fraction of our oil imports in absolute, per-capita and percentage of GDP terms.

          The moral of the story? If you want to do something to get us off oil imports, forget the bike - get yourself a degree in nuclear engineering. But that's another story entirely.

          The Obama Economic Policy: Save The Parasites, Kill The Patient | Blog: The Daily Elitist

          by TylerFromNE on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 03:45:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Don't forget the MIHOP version: (0+ / 0-)

        Saudis finance 9/11 -> Justice Department attempts to cover-up Saudi financing of 9/11 -> Insane person wonders what the world's scientists are covering up with the help of the BBC.

  •  Thanks Tyler (5+ / 0-)

    It seems to me that this is the kind of discussion we should be able to have here.

  •  Not sure that the ties to the Saudi Royal (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alizard, pfiore8, TylerFromNE

    family and Al Qaeda constitute conspiracy theory. Is it?

    I do think it is an very interesting article, and I think taking on what constitutes CT is a healthy exercise from time to time. Ultimately, it is of course Kos' decision.

    Seems obvious to me we should definitely be aware of any potential conflicts of interest in the functioning of our Justice Department, and whichever Administration happens to be in charge at the time. Why ban it when the NYT is discussing it?

    So I do agree we should be able to discuss this. Just not sure this discussion need put Kos on the cross for his CT policy.

    The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

    by beijingbetty on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:56:27 AM PDT

    •  oh, kos needs to be put on the cross for the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ppl can fly

      censorship policy alright.  it really goes against everything we say we are as liberals.  if people can't handle real discussion about real controversy, what's the point of having a discussion site in the first place?

      i disagree with the banning of people who talk about this; i disagree with the open season it gives others to be assholes; i disagree with the fundamental censorship it creates.  it's ugly and not worthy of this site.

      I can break Sean Hannity by giving him a middle seat in coach. -Wanda Sykes

      by jj24 on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:14:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We're very pro-kos around here alright (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aggregatescience

        But really, we aren't saying he's Jesus.

        Crucifixion is a little much, I think.

        "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

        by mbayrob on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:37:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you're so hilarious! (0+ / 0-)

          but you know, don't quit your day job.

          that was the metaphor used, and i also used it.  yes, your jumping to literal crucifixion is a little much. you need to read more, and joke less.

          I can break Sean Hannity by giving him a middle seat in coach. -Wanda Sykes

          by jj24 on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 03:11:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  we are saying slightly different things. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gareth, jj24

        i am saying i am not sure the NYT article about ties to the saudi royal family necessarily validate 9/11 conspiracy theories.

        i mean, Farenheit 911 talked about it bushco/house of saud ties. that's not exactly the same as saying we blew civilian aircraft out of the sky and covered it up.

        you are saying that nothing, essentially, should be censored, because we are liberals. can't say i categorically agree with that even in principle, i can think of too many exceptions... and because it is a private site, Kos kinda gets to say where he draws the line. we don't have to like it.

        still, i am open to revisiting the question, every once in awhile, for what counts as conspiracy theory and worthy of banning. that seems quite reasonable to me.

        The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

        by beijingbetty on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:40:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you are right - i am saying nothing should be (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          beijingbetty, TylerFromNE

          censored.  now, i suppose i draw the line at inciting hatespeech, targeted to foment violence.

          on a grander scale, we treat "private" in this corporatist society as if it preempts ourselves.  that, in itself, says a lot that i'm not in favor of.

          i don't give a shit whose party it is, whose house.  it's not personal - it's a point of view about who we say we are.  and i will push for the ultimate freedom to discuss what i want on a discussion site anytime.

          i respect your view as well - and thanks for commenting reasonably. :)

          I can break Sean Hannity by giving him a middle seat in coach. -Wanda Sykes

          by jj24 on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:49:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  First of all, I do not accept that private (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jj24, beijingbetty, ppl can fly

          property entitles one to dictatorial control. That's why, on my site (which, granted, has about 1/1000000th of the traffic of dKos), I don't censor anything unless it's violent, hateful and unproductive, or simple spam. I certainly would never censor a commenter who presents a version of events not authorized or approved by so-called "officials." On the other side, neither I nor anyone else is suggesting that nothing should ever be deleted.

          The Obama Economic Policy: Save The Parasites, Kill The Patient | Blog: The Daily Elitist

          by TylerFromNE on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 03:14:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think the difference is this: (0+ / 0-)

            This is a blog with a specific purpose. That purpose is to get "more and better Democrats elected". I think Kos made a decision that discussion of CT was far too distracting, with too little provable benefit, and decided that it would distract and detract from the raison d'etre of this site. The profile of this site, as you know, is also quite high, and CT diaries could be used detractors as a way of minimizing this site's credibility.

            And anyway, if there is sufficient, provable information such that other sites like TPM and HuffPo would cover it as well --- at that point, it no longer counts as conspiracy theory. Tada! We get to write about it to our hearts content.

            I know, this is imperfect. It means it is hard to break the story first. In principle this bugs the crap out of you. But this satisfies me. It means that good information on something that big will not get lost. The internet is a big place, I can read CT to my hearts' content elsewhere, Kos couldn't stop it if he tried.

            Also, I think having such rules has nothing to do with private in the sense of private property/corporate fascism. In most communist/socialist countries I can think of, you have even LESS say over what you get to discuss. ;-)

            Anyhow, thank you for the discussion. I think your diary is gutzy and I'm glad to see some people supported the exercise, rather than just falling into a dogpile. Sheesh.

            The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.

            by beijingbetty on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:43:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Compltely wrong (0+ / 0-)

        it really goes against everything we say we are as liberals.  if people can't handle real discussion about real controversy, what's the point of having a discussion site in the first place?

        It wasn't always banned.  The general rule is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The truthers provided no evidence, but that rule was too subtle for them, so the ban was enacted.  Discussing 9-11 truth is like debating intelligent design or whether the holocaust occurred.  It isn't a real controversy, its a slap in the fact to those who believe in science and reason, which is what liberals should be all about.

        Get some real evidence, and I am sure Kos will let you discuss it.  Bring the same old garbage, and you'll have to go somewhere else.

        When life gives you lemons, just say 'Fuck the lemons,' and bail

        by Mia Dolan on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 09:36:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Are we allowed to discuss new information (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beijingbetty

      regarding STATE funding of the terrorists?

      if we stick to FACTS and not make any leaps of supposition, isn't that within the bounds of this blog?

  •  First grade deductive reasoning class (4+ / 0-)

    taught you well. Too bad you never continued the class.

  •  HR-ed (14+ / 0-)

    Your history of comments suggests you're a troll.  I don't say that lightly, supporting blatant anti-semitism, praising LaRouche and your insistence on Nazi comparisons is just not ok.  And now you want to engage in 9/11 conspiracy.  Yeah, right.

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

    Next.  (I won't be arguing with you or anyone else about it, the comments are there in hidden comments, for anyone to judge).

  •  The official/government explanation of the (4+ / 0-)

    terrorist attacks stinks. I believe that much of the stench is from people and departments covering up their lack of preparedness and insufficient response. The problem is that this issue is sealed to avoid embarassment for the whole government, so we are left with half truths and fertile ground for conspiracy type theories.

    I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

    by shann on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:28:22 AM PDT

    •  If that is indeed the case (0+ / 0-)

      then why not be honest about the failures, have a real investigation, and put the conspiracy theories to rest for good - maybe not for good, but in very great respect? That they don't is cause to suspect that something else is going on here.

      The Obama Economic Policy: Save The Parasites, Kill The Patient | Blog: The Daily Elitist

      by TylerFromNE on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:36:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Its not your career at stake. (0+ / 0-)

        Even worse, members of both politcal parties made mistakes and it would cost either party a great deal to now come clean. So, cover up time - Tea Pot Dome (before my time), Bay of Pigs, Gary Powers, Watergate (my original scandal), Monica, etc., etc., etc.

        I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

        by shann on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:43:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A multitute of simple mistakes made on every leve (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Big Nit Attack

      seriously now, you accept people into flight school who don't want to land a plane, but only want to steer it?

      What fucking imbeciles!!!

  •  Looks like there's at least one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beijingbetty, TylerFromNE

    other diarist here who isn't a sheep.

  •  Stoned wallabies make crop circles (12+ / 0-)

    Somehow, reading this diary brought this to mind for me:

    Australian wallabies are eating opium poppies and creating crop circles as they hop around "as high as a kite", a government official has said.

    Lara Giddings, the attorney general for the island state of Tasmania, said the kangaroo-like marsupials were getting into poppy fields grown for medicine.

    She was reporting to a parliamentary hearing on security for poppy crops.

    As the CT aficionados around here keep circling round and round and round and round, keep this image in mind :-)

    "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

    by mbayrob on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:33:53 AM PDT

  •  Kos -- it's time to re-evaluate that (3+ / 0-)

    no calling people "stunned cunts" policy.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:37:17 AM PDT

    •  Not to mention "very clever language experts" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fishgrease

      Or for that matter, cunning linguists.

      "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

      by mbayrob on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:41:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Everybody is entitled to their own opinion (6+ / 0-)

    but not their own facts.

    It is so painfully clear to me that many people who don't have the technical, intellectual, or simple common sense filters available to them will believe literally anything.  So even though steel doesn't have to reach its melting point to be as weak as a Tootsie Roll, people will use that concept as a proof.  And WTC7 was clearly undamaged in their minds, despite the fact that 360 degree views of the building showed massive damage.

    That said I think we shouldn't ban CTs.

    We should on the other hand, ridicule them.

  •  If there was a better reason for energy reform (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    that national security minded republicans could understand than documented proof that AQ was partially funded by our own gas money funneled through our allies the Saudi Kingdom, I cannot think of one.

  •  How does the fact that people in Saudi Arabia (5+ / 0-)

    gave money to the terrorists change anything? I had already just assumed they got some money from there anyway seeing as their leader was a Saudi. This is exactly why the topic is banned, people will come up with so many half-cocked ideas to fit this tidbit that the site will lose focus and credibility.  

    "instead of believing in science, we believe in crazy hokus pokus. It's like Kansas" -Prof. Farnsworth

    by last starfighter on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 03:27:21 AM PDT

  •  Sometimes CT people need to STFU (20+ / 0-)

    I'll try to be rational, but I'll end up using the F-word.

    Here's a line from the NYT article:

    Internal Treasury Department documents obtained by the lawyers under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, said that a prominent Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, showed "support for terrorist organizations" at least through 2006.

    Thought #1: There are thousands of people in the Saudi royal family.  Hell, my father was a professor at a small Lutheran college in Minnesota and he had three or four members of the royal family in his classes. It's not like England, where people can name the two dozen or so people in the royal family who are in line to become the next king or queen. In Saudi Arabia, men have multiple wives and dozens of children and there are a zillion people who have some blood connection to the royal family. Maybe half a zillion.

    The Saudi royal family is gigantic.

    Thought #2: Giving money to charity is one of the pillars of Islam. And there's a lot of oil money. So the rich members of the royal family gave some money to charity and some of that money might have gone to terrorists (depending on how you define terrorists). Plus, the predominant version of Islam in Saudi Arabia is Wahabbi, which is an ultra-conservative version of Sunni Islam.

    What if a few Republican Senators donated some money to an anti-abortion group and that anti-abortion group gave some support to that idiot who killed Dr. Tiller in Kansas? Would that mean that all Republicans conspired to kill Tiller?

    Thought #3: I really like Daily Kos rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The NYTimes published this story and there seem to be some facts to talk about. But to jump to the conclusion that the Bush-people and the Obama-people are conspiring to hide the facts about 9/11 is just crazy.

    In fact, the NYT article says this:

    The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

    Also, the Obama Justice department is arguing, in effect, that you can't sue a foreign government:

    The Justice Department said a 1976 law on sovereign immunity protected the Saudis from liability and noted that "potentially significant foreign relations consequences" would arise if such suits were allowed to proceed.

    I don't think the DOJ is trying to cover up anything, they're just trying to enforce the law (which says, in effect, you can't sue a foreign government in American courts).

    Thought #4: The 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists remind me of this guy named Jim.

    About 15 years ago, I had to spend about 30 hours in a car with Jim. We were stand-up comics, driving long distances in western Canada, going from one gig to another. Jim was a nice guy, very smart, and generally pleasant to be with. Until you got him talking about UFOs.

    Jim had read dozens of books, full of "facts" and "theories" (often contradictory) about cattle mutilations, crop circles, anal probes, mysterious abductions, Atlantis and Mu, the hollow earth theory, computer chips implanted in brains, secrets of the pyramids, and much much much much more. He thought "The X-Files" was a documentary. I couldn’t argue with him. He’d say he’d only listen to my opinions after I had read ten books and watched half a dozen videos. He was a true believer, in the religious sense of the word.

    After an hour or two of listening to him talk, I told him to shut the fuck up (STFU) about UFOs. I told him we could talk about any other topic. After that, things were fine. If I hadn’t told him to STFU, I would have spent 30 hours trapped in a car hearing his theories about why aliens do anal probes and who really built the pyramids.

    Thought #5: A STFU rule is sometimes a good thing, especially if you're going to be sharing a car for 30 hours. The Daily Kos rule about conspiracy theories is like my rule about "Would you fucking just stop fucking talking about the fucking cattle mutilations and the goddamn anal probes? Maybe you're right (although I don't think so), but I don't want to hear about it for 30 hours."

    Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But, there they are.

    by Dbug on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 03:45:50 AM PDT

    •  Despite agreeing with much of what you say, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, TracieLynn, beijingbetty

      I'm compelled to point out that the DOJ is using an entirely novel understanding of Sovereign Immunity.

      The victims of the Libyan Backed boming over Lockerbee, for instance, sued the Libyan government in US courts and got a Judgement in their favor.

      Crush the Horror.

      by JesseCW on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 04:02:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point, but.... (2+ / 0-)

        Here are some paragraphs from a 2001 BBC story:

        In 1997, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that Libya could not be the subject of a civil lawsuit, saying that a foreign government has sovereign immunity shielding it from such suits.  

        However, due to pressure from the families of Lockerbie victims, the United States amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in 1996, opening the way for civil suits against foreign governments in certain cases - including acts of terrorism.  

        Following the passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996, many families of Lockerbie victims renewed their suits.  

        In 1999, the US Supreme Court heard another case involving a civil suit against Libya in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, and based on the change in the law, the court ruled that families of the Lockerbie victims could proceed with their case seeking damages from Libya.

        Then, here's a 2008 Reuters story in which the Libyan government worked out something with the State Department:

        The legislation would also create a mechanism for the U.S. secretary of state to select an entity to receive funds from Libya that would then be used to compensate the victims.

        It would also require the U.S. government to certify to Congress that Libya had turned over sufficient funds.

        The deal has been structured to respect Libyan sensitivities about making a large payout to compensate victims of incidents for which it has not taken responsibility.

        "By careful orchestration of these steps we can ultimately provide that these claimants would receive what are really unprecedented payouts," said the senior official.

        "Libya ... doesn't have to accept any responsibility," he added. Making the payments to the victims indirectly, through the designated entity, "provides a way for them to (get some) distance from it."

        It seems to me that Libya paid the victims because of a diplomatic agreement, not a lawsuit. But I might be wrong.

        Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But, there they are.

        by Dbug on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 04:52:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, winning a suit doesn't mean (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          terrypinder

          one has the means to enforce collections.

          In 1999, the US Supreme Court heard another case involving a civil suit against Libya in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, and based on the change in the law, the court ruled that families of the Lockerbie victims could proceed with their case seeking damages from Libya.

          Seems to me, although not a lawyer, that the people filing the suit against Saudi Arabia are filling a suit that would likely fall under that ruling.

          Crush the Horror.

          by JesseCW on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 05:06:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  well said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness

      too many are incapable of such reasonable thought. you should write a diary.

      (+0.12, -3.33) I didn't vote for the Unitary Exec. Not sure what some of you folks voted for!

      by terrypinder on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 05:07:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  History is rife with conspiracies (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karenc13, TylerFromNE, ppl can fly

    In fact, it's the status quo.

    It is mental illness or cowardice to look the other way.

    That said, believing in conspiracies doesn't mean you are sane; most of the "Infowarriors" are kooks.

    The Bill of Rights is universal.

    by Paul Goodman on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 03:51:46 AM PDT

  •  Not going to happen (2+ / 0-)

    But thanks for playing.

    (People have been asking this for years and the answer has always been a firm and resounding "no".)

  •  Shorter diarist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    musing85, The Creator

    Because I can construct a non-loony theory that actually made the Rec List yeterday with no negative repercussions, the site should be open to the looniest of theories.

  •  There are theories of Conspiracies... (4+ / 0-)

    And then there are Conspiracy Theorists.

    The trick is to intellectually feed one while starving the other.
    It becomes trickier with a topic like 911, because it encompasses more issues with each passing day.  The current concernt about a possible U.S./ Saudi cover-up is just one example. There are ongoing debates over the possibility of cover-ups concerning the health issues among rescue workers, sub-code building practices within the towers and poor follow-up planning after the 1993 attack. In fact,  hundreds of large and small issues have been engendered by 911 - and each issue comes with someone or some ones who would like their negative connection to the event to just go away.

    Somewhere, an intellectual line must be drawn to separate real issues and real possibilities of cover-ups from the non-science and non-truth-based rantings of nuts.  For instance, it would appear a simple task to separate those who fear that Obama has conspired to protect his own power base and therefore won't press torture prosecutions or investigations into Saudi Arabia's dirty laundry (intellectually rational) and those who believe Obama was born in Kenya and was primed for the Presidency ever since birth  (an irrational rant from idiots). Unfortunately, not all issues are that clear cut.  There are many shades of gray , and without the advantage of investigative journalism with saaried and professional people (and a budget) many of these issues never move past the wild fantasy and into the realm of reality - at least in this format.  No. we're a Democracy but not the perfect muckraking medium to put down or prop up every conspiracy theorist who writes a Diary.

    So yes, the Kos edict against Conspiracy debates is probably Draconian, but to rescind it without inviting damage to the credibility of the community would demand a great deal of self-restraint and self-policing by individuals and the larger Kossack family.
    It's a tempting goal because it does open debate on heretofore unassailable topics, but we've also seen the failures of industries that push aside their overseers and attempt to police themselves.

    One thing's for sure - it's a complicated decision and I don't fault Markos for setting a seemingly arbitrary limit to conspiracy discussions. However, the call for an intellectual revisiting of that decision should not be cause for shooting the protesters in the streets.

    •  good stuff and thoughtful. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      beijingbetty, wbramh

      I'm with you on this: there are "conspiracy theories" in the conventional legal sense, and there are CTs in the nutjob sense.  

      Seems to me that the viable place to parse the 9/11 theories is on the basis that the more extraordinary the claim, the greater the amount of supporting evidence required.

      For example the claim that Bush "knew and let it happen" is hardly as extraordinary as the claim that a few plane-loads of people were mysteriously disappeared so their planes could be fitted with radio-controlled flying gear and large bombs and then flown remotely by black ops characters.  The claim that WTC3 was deliberately demolished by explosives after the attack (e.g. to get a complete loss for insurance purposes) is less extreme than the claim that WTC1 and 2 were done likewise in advance of the attack.  And un-answered questions about the Pentagon attack are less extreme than the claim that a missile was used.  

      The way I would handle this is to give a few key people a "quasi-smite" button to edit diary titles and tags in a manner that the diarist can't undo.  Thus, a diary that wasn't nutty enough to get fully smitten (e.g. "It was The Jews!" --> diary deleted) could have "CT" added to the beginning of its title and have its Rec button frozen and have "CT" added to the beginning of its tag list and have the tags frozen.  Another option is to try letting people who have been here at least a year but as active members rather than idle userIDs, post some material that's not too outrageous.  Another option is to allow a maximum of one such diary altogether per each 8 hour period of time (not one per diarist, but one diary on this subject during each 8-hour block of time; this in order to accommodate different time zones and work shifts).  

      OTOH, the reason Markos make a hardcore rule about this subject is that CT diaries were taking over at one point and squeezing out other content.  That's a valid reason to keep the stuff banned: it multiplies and takes over to a degree that nothing else does (not even Republicans' wayward sex lives).

      As for the Saudi thing: that's a legitimate conspiracy theory in the sense that the phrase is used in the law.  And that should be pursued on its own ground.  But it has exactly nothing to do with other claims such as that the buildings were pre-wired with explosives or that Bush had specific advance knowledge of the AQ plan.  

      Though, ultimately, the solution to Saudi sponsorship of terrorism is the same as the solution to energy security and the climate crisis:  stop using fossil fuels, and build renewables and nuclear as fast as possible.  

      •  Some very good solutions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek

        Thoughtful and insightful words.
        Your comments take the issue past philosophy (my post) and into the nuts and bolts job of problem-solving.
        I hope Kos follows up on your ideas.

        And thanks for the kind words.
        W

    •  Very difficult to do with denial movements (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mia Dolan, blueness, wbramh

      The trick is to intellectually feed one while starving the other.

      The problem is that you have an ideological movement with the explicit goal of pushing an anti-science denial movement.  And they are jonesing for attention like an oxygen-starved fire.  You try to explore anything even remotely tangental to them and they flare up like hemorrhoids, if you will pardon the multiple analogies.

      That's part of the reason Ron Paul got such a huge and phenomenal following.  He was moderately responsive to all the fringe groups that were starving for representation (moderately responsive in the sense that he talked a little bit like them and didn't tell them to STFU.)

      We saw that same kind of flare-up with the Palin-Letterman phenomenon.  That whole thing was basically pushed by people who were drowning in irrelevance--Palin herself, as well as PUMA groups---and with a marginal opportunity they blow up all over the place.

      •  Ouch. (0+ / 0-)

        "You try to explore anything even remotely tangental to them and they flare up like hemorrhoids..."

        beautifully (and uniquely) put.

        And I'm glad that somebody else sees the phenom that was Ron Paul in the same light that I saw it.

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      The decision was neither complicated nor arbitrary.  A bunch of idiots were too stupid to follow the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" rule so she just shitcanned them.  I am sure that Markos is not reconsidering the decision and could give a shit about these people.  

      When life gives you lemons, just say 'Fuck the lemons,' and bail

      by Mia Dolan on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 09:42:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •   but... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        barbara318

        To play Devil's Advocate,
        Ordinary claims are a by nature anchored by extraordinary evidence.
        Extraordinary claims are based on no more than ordinary evidence.
        If this site dealt in ordinary claims, what would we debate?
        My point being that almost everything we discuss here deals with the undecided, the raw opinion and often, pure conjecture based on the possible over the probable. When we're fortunate, we give birth to  onsite epiphanies and near-universal agreement - but they are rare.
        And lest we forget, not too many centuries ago, the concept of a flat World was once universally agreed on (these days, only Tom Friedman believes that shit).
        Philosophers (as well as Astrophysicists) spend a lot of their time putting forth extraordinary claims and most of their time seeking evidence to repudiate those claims. We've spent a century since Einstein's extraordinary theory waiting for mechanical tools to prove or disprove with extraordinary evidence. Which brings up another question - what is a reasonable wait time to back up one's extraordinary claims? Perhaps that should be determined by the urgency of an answer (like following a hot lead in a murder case). Of course, in reality the answer is claims are fed by human interest - and often that interest is ignorant or prurient.

        So here's the someday famous wbramh Maxim:

        To not waste ones time on Extraordinary claim first requires some reasonable empirical evidence to suggest the possibility that there is extraordinary evidence lurking somewhere in support.

        As with the Hume/ Sagan/ Dolan Maxim - "Its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."

        I don't know about Dolan, but I believe Hume and Sagan would both approve of the wbramh Maxim without extraordinary effort.
        (Of course, both of those guys are dead so my claim is based on the most ordinary to zero evidence in support of that last statement)

        But I get your point and it is reasonable... if not extraordinary.
        There I go again - sorry.

        •  I Rec'd you because (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wbramh

          I have no idea what you just said.
          But it was definitely extraordinary.
          Also entertaining, funny, clever, satirical and dare I say, smart?
          b

          •  Go ahead take your own dare! (0+ / 0-)

            However, had you taken an extra minute to really chew on (rather than swallow) my remarks, you would have realized what a blithering idiot I actually am.
            But Kossacks are lovers - they're much more forgiving than Wingnuts and that's why call them "my family."
            Although I've never really called them that before right now.
            Such extraordinary claims demand... oh - fuckit!

            Thanks (again),
            w

  •  you lost me at the second sentence (5+ / 0-)

    The very purpose of the pejorative term "conspiracy theory" is to discourage any sort of critical thinking....

    I do admire the elegance of CT about the phrase "CT," but it isn't very persuasive. For many people who refer to "conspiracy theory," the clear purpose is to defend critical thinking.

    If you're so confused about what kinds of diaries are banned here and why, put down your squirt gun and do some more reading. Honestly, it's not that hard.

    •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mia Dolan, blueness

      Banning truthers is like banning creationism:  I have a hard time buying that this somehow discourages critical thinking.

      Given the countless truther diaries that repeat the same bullshit propaganda, I have a far less charitable opinion of them.

  •  A strength and weakness of humans (0+ / 0-)

    is that we do not want to think people (the US gov't) can be that evil.  We look at questioning what we are told as being tin foil hat wearers.  Should we not question the official story?  Should we believe that 19 arabs/persians/pakistanis/saudis/whatever were able to hijack 4 airplanes with box cutters and fly them into three landmarks?  Should we then believe that after learning how to fly a cesna they were able to maneuver a 747 or 737 perfectly into the pentagon, manipulating speed and accuracy that takes even seasoned pilots years to accomplish?  I don't know but to me the explanation we were given sounds more like the conspiracy theory.  Lets rememeber, this administration lied about torture to get us into Iraq and had it not been for 9/11 the American public would not have supported it.  I'm not saying this was orchestrated by Bush but even the 9/11 report said there were warnings.

    •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Caj

      Should we then believe that after learning how to fly a cesna they were able to maneuver a 747 or 737 perfectly into the pentagon, manipulating speed and accuracy that takes even seasoned pilots years to accomplish?

      Uh yes?  It really isn't hard to CRASH a plane into a gigantic building.  I also would rely on the fact that hundreds of people saw it and that the remains of the "missing" people from the "missing" plane were found at the crash site.  

      I hope your comment was snark, because otherwise it is simply ridiculous for you to talk about people not asking questions and getting fooled.  

      When life gives you lemons, just say 'Fuck the lemons,' and bail

      by Mia Dolan on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 09:20:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was actually referring (0+ / 0-)

        to the pentagon and there are pilots out there who have said that this is extremely difficult at those speeds.  My comment was not a snark and I have every right to form an opinion about matters as you do.  I never said it was fact, I just look at everything that took place under the last administration and question the official story.  I mean look at how Obama admitted in Cairo that the CIA  helped overthrow Iran's gov't in I believe it was 1953.  I do not think it is far fetched to believe a gov't will turn on it's people.  This is not about getting fooled.  It is about people not wanting to believe that American gov't can not commit acts upon it's own only abroad.

    •  "perfectly" (0+ / 0-)

      You're exaggerating, and obscuring the facts of that day.  The plane was not flown "perfectly" into the Pentagon.  It was crashed into the building, and actually hit the ground before it hit the wall.

      I've read some pilots saying that it wasn't an easy stunt to pull off; however, they didn't consider it so difficult as to doubt that it happened.  Also, pilots must restrict their manuevers to those that do not threaten the integrity of the plane; the hijacker didn't have to.

      It's all besides the point anyway, because there were numerous eyewitnesses confirming that there was a real plane that hit the building; remains of both plane and passengers at the scene; and phone calls from passengers describing what was going on.  Consider the insanity of someone who points at the bank turn before the crash, argues that it is difficult, and then concludes that maybe the whole thing was faked from the phone calls to the witnesses to the DNA.

  •  This may not be funny. It's not intended to be. (0+ / 0-)

    Why not instead branch out with a new site for conspiracy talk...

    ConspiracyKos.com

    Just a thought.

  •  Nice knowing you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DemocraticLuntz, jtb583
    Hope you enjoyed the ride.

    "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." - President Barack Obama, April 5, 2009

    by justmy2 on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 06:22:40 AM PDT

  •  Ugh (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Caj, Treg, Mia Dolan
    Hidden by:
    Derfel

    The "Conspiracy Theory" label is not designed to silence dissent.  It is designed to accurately described the idiotic ravings of paranoid morons.

    Take your childish drivel somewhere else.

  •  you give legit questions about this a bad name (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, beijingbetty

    in two ways

    first, your rhetoric. "injustic department", "faux-progressive". it contributes nothing and labels you a nut before you even made your point.

    second, if you have a legit question, ie. "why can't we see what's in the docuements", ask it without stringing assumptions together. immediately assuming that the only reason for blocking releasne of the documents is that they prove knowing saudi involvement and participation is a leap you have no justification for. there are many political and dipmatic reasons while an allied government, especially one as important to the US as the Saudis, can expect our help in covering up their embarrassments. they don't necessarily mean something uglier. if you expect Obama/Holder to change any of this, then the very nature of the relationship, i.e our reliance on their oil, their influence over the general oil market, and their purchases of our debt all has to change first.

    these docs may show a lot of things that Saudis don't want anyone to know about, but that doesn't mean they were in on 9/11. its pretty well understood that they were paying these guys. but its completely plausible that it was because they feared them as a threat to their own regime. though that doesn't mean they were on it, it might mean they were in a position to know more than they and the Bush administration were willing to admit.

    were my suspicions come up is, given the closeness of the Saudi connection with these guys, did they know more about the attacks they we know at this point, did they tell us, and did the neocon hawks in the W administration sit on the info in order to exploit the attacks afterwords.

    that arguement can be made without discrediting it or the Obama administration.

  •  The logical problems with your ideas. (8+ / 0-)

    The problem with your conspiracy scenario is that you overlook several obvious logical problems.  You make leaps far beyond available evidence and insist on singular explanations when these are not the only (or even the most credible) ones available.  Let's go through the most obvious ones from your diary:

    1. You assume that Lichtblau's article is the first we've heard of the Saudi-terrorist group connection, when this is far from correct.  Lichtblau himself is quite clear that this has been in the wind for years now, and many others have documented the general fact of Saudi support for several groups, including al-Qaeda in the past (especially during the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan.)  Of course, the same can be said of the U.S. government in that period, as Lawrence Wright pointed out three years ago in The Looming Tower.  But that in itself does not equate to involvement in the 9/11 attacks themselves.  Funneling money is not the same as planning operations.
    1. It is also clear from evidence gathered by Wright and others that the Saudis stopped funding al-Qaeda (though not other groups that we deem "terrorists")before 9/11 because they had become a threat to the Saudi government itself.  This flys in the face of your assertion that: "The Saudis funded the Al Qaeda operation which resulted in the attacks on 9/11."  They certainly funded al-Qaeda in the past, but the direct link to 9/11 is dubious at best and not even claimed by the victims lawyers in the Lichtblau article.  In this, you exceed your own sources.
    1. From that point on, you begin to make claims that are not supported by evidence, to wit:  "This claim requires no more evidence than the fact that the attacks themselves occurred without intervention, and despite having foreknowledge of the impending attacks." [emphasis mine]  This is an unsupported inflation of what we actually know.  BushCo certainly had intelligence warning of domestic attacks by al-Qaeda (thus making the charge of gross incompetence absolutely correct) but no specific warning of what or when the attack(s) would be.  Thus we can hardly point to them as active conspirators, as you go on to do.
    1. The next point you lay out takes this trend to go beyond evidence even farther.  What the Obama administration has done so far (per Lichtblau) is to seek to suppress leaked classified documents relating to this and supported that Saudi government claim of sovereign immunity, which is technically correct under U.S. law (i.e., they're following what the law demands of them.)  This also ignores the fairly obvious point that the U.S. government might well not want its sources inside the Saudi government that provided this financial intelligence to be compromised, which rather argues against any conspiracy.  You then go on to repeat and strengthen your still-baseless assertion that the Saudi government (essentially the same as the "royal family" term you use in this instance) was directly involved in 9/11, still with no evidence in sight.
    1. In you last point you finally go completely over the top and throw any pretense of following evidence to the wind with your assertion that:  "it is totally irrational and entirely delusional not to suspect prior involvement in the coordination of the attacks themselves by the American so-called "government." [emphasis yours]  This can only follow if you have proven you previous assertions, which you most certainly have not done.

    Basically, you've constructed a house of cards on a base of illogical vapor and misunderstood evidence.  If that doesn't qualify as conspiracy theory, then nothing does.

    Conservito delenda est pro is deleo orbis terrarum!

    by Stwriley on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 06:26:10 AM PDT

  •  I've never been a fan of the ban either (0+ / 0-)

    But I accept the rules as they are and I expect you to be banned for this diary.
    Personally I'd like to see a "hide this diary" button for TU's. As with reccomends and hides for a comment, a ratio of rec's to hides would determine if the diary in question gets to stay.
    If a particular poster acquired a set number of hidden diaries, then they would be banned.
    That system would seem to me to be more in keeping with the idea of this being a self-policed site, and a real community. As a strong believer in the benefits of free speach, I find the whole idea of outlawed topics to be distasteful, while also realizing that really stupid diaries don't help the site's impact.
    So, why not let the community have a voice at the diary level and not just at the comment level?

  •  Here's a conspiracy theory (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Treg, blueness

    passed through the centuries, conspiracy theorists have their roots in anti-semitism and catholic bashing, were brought into the glorious twentieth century by such great men as Adolf Hitler and Father Coughlin whose torch was carried by the Lyndon Larouche, Charles Mansons and David Koresh's of the world, to be passed on to the modern day Islamo & Christo Facists, Taliban and Talibangelical alike.  The fact that anyone remotely progressive, liberal or even possessed of a functioning brain involves themselves in this garbage is frankly embarrassing, discrediting and counterproductive.

    There are plenty of facts, re: 9-11 and other historical and current events to discuss and debate, but EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.  Starting with the conclusion you want and giving credence to any so called 'evidence' that gets you there isn't theorizing, it's creationism.

  •  The reason why the CT ban should endure. (0+ / 0-)

    An abhorrent action taken for political reasons - e.g. the Saudi royals' financial ties to OBL being glossed over so as not to undermine the strategically-important-but-unsavory relationship with Saudi Arabia - is being used to open the door to every crackpot theory about 9/11 being a so-called "inside job".

    That's bullshit, it's illogical, it's irrational. One does not lead to the other.

    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

    by raptavio on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:54:50 AM PDT

  •  You are suspended from Daily Kos for ... (7+ / 0-)

    ...one week. Posting another 9/11 conspiracy diary will result in a permanent ban.

    Some people would be better off not reading diaries they comment on, since they already have all the answers.

    by Meteor Blades on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:32:44 AM PDT

  •  You are soooo getting banned! (0+ / 0-)

    When you see the SEIU ad, do a shot!

    by djtyg on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 05:07:59 PM PDT

  •  Matt Taibbi really set the standard (0+ / 0-)

    for debates with Truthers that everyone here seems to follow.  Laugh at them and ignore the evidence.  

    I vote to repeal the ban.  Open debate.  Real investigation.

       

    "The statistical chance of the only 3 steel framed buildings ever to collapse [due to fire], owned by the same person, with a special clause for terrorist act, occurring in the same day, is just too remote for anyone to grasp!"

    -Lt. Commander Rolf Hustad, Royal Norwegian Navy – Former weapons specialist and artillery officer.

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/...

    •  Tabbi was right (0+ / 0-)

      !"

      The statistical chance of the only 3 steel framed buildings ever to collapse [due to fire], owned by the same person, with a special clause for terrorist act, occurring in the same day, is just too remote for anyone to grasp

      Hilarious.  That is seriously the dumbest thing I have ever read.  

      When life gives you lemons, just say 'Fuck the lemons,' and bail

      by Mia Dolan on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 09:23:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  er, and why is it dumb? (0+ / 0-)

        any logic or reasoning behind you scorn?  no, i didn't think so.  thanks for proving my original point.  nothing like a (pulverized) concrete example.

        •  Just think about it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          beijingbetty

          You have a terrorist attack that takes down a group of buildings in midtown manhattan.  Of course they're all going to collapse on the exact same day.  They were attacked on the same day!  It was the same attack!  And of course they're going to collapse from the same basic cause, and there's a good chance they'll be owned or insured by the same people.  They are adjacent buildings.

          Apparently some truthers are treating the building collapses as independent events, and then arguing that for three of the exact same improbable thing to happen is incredibly unlikely.  Surely you can see what's wrong with that argument.

          Nevermind that this dude has no actual clue what "the statistical chance" is of the buildings collapsing after attack.  What is it?  10E-9?  10E-6?  10E-4?   10E-1?  

          •  I have (0+ / 0-)

            3 ASYMMETRICAL events:

            1. first plane strike
            1. second plane strike (not looking up flight#s now, you know what I'm talking about)
            1. WTC7 -- whatever you want to label this event, most salient fact is that it's not even the closest building to the towers...

            result in 3 SYMMETRICAL collapses.  

            a steel building has never collapsed to due to fire (steel buildings have never collapsed to due anything except explosions), BEFORE OR SINCE (this is what is meant by ON THE SAME DAY), never mind symmetrically.  it takes a precision skill to bring down a building this way (only a few companies can do this) and yet this happens three times that day. In light of the unprecedented nature of the event (a structural failure of buildings built to withstand airplane impacts...and fire) you would think it would be imperative that the remaining steel be forensically examined (what you would expect at a crime scene) to determine why, but instead it's rushed out of the country and melted down into Priuses or whatever.  Perhaps you have a valid and logical national security reason why the collapsed steel would be such a risk to the defense of the U.S. (what could terrorists or other foreign enemies possibly gain from it?) that it had to be spirited away and destroyed before anyone could look at it.  I don't.  

            That they are owned by the same person (only since July of that year) who insured all those buildings for such an event certainly ratchets up the odds, though admittedly I couldn't calculate by what factor.

            But I commend you for at least engaging. I mean that sincerely.

            I would respectfully ask that you turn your skepticism around for one minute:  what actual evidence do YOU have, what evidence have YOU been provided with, besides the govt's say-so and some govt-provided testimony from people we now know were tortured, to make you accept THEIR version?  You'll recall that the Taliban asked for the same thing:  "Give us evidence OBL did it and we'll turn him over."  The govt. refused.  And OBL then disappeared, never to be found. Hm.

            •  And now for some horseshit words (0+ / 0-)

              ...result in 3 SYMMETRICAL collapses.  

              Oooh, not SYMMETRICAL collapses!  How unlikely is that?

              Hay wait, what the hell does that even mean?  In what sense were the collapses "symmetric?"  In the sense that they fell straight down?

              It must freak you out when you drop a plate, and suddenly realize you have witnessed another SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE.  Holy shit they're in your kitchen right now!

              And now for the usual bogus arguments debunked hundreds  of times before:

              a steel building has never collapsed to due to fire

              Skyscraper collapses are rare in general.  How many skyscrapers have ever collapsed ever, for any reason?  

              Basically you're arguing that the collapses were anomalous because they never happened before.  If you think about it, it's a silly and sophomoric line of reasoning.  Should we doubt the 2008 election because a black man was never elected president before?

              (steel buildings have never collapsed to due anything except explosions)

              Actually, no building this large has ever been demolished by explosives.  

              Oddly, truthers are sure the collapses look like controlled demolitions; have they ever actually seen a 40-story skyscraper taken down by demolition?  Well, sure, there was the end of Fight Club, right?

              it takes a precision skill to bring down a building this way (only a few companies can do this)

              ...and it requires sawing through a building's structural members and installing tons of explosives that the office workers would have heard and seen, oh and it generates a kaboom that you'd hear in New Jersey.  Did any of that happen?

              Of course, it does not take any precision skill to make a building come down; it only takes precision to do so without damaging surrounding buildings.  That obviously didn't happen here.

              I would respectfully ask that you turn your skepticism around for one minute:  what actual evidence do YOU have, what evidence have YOU been provided with, besides the govt's say-so and some govt-provided testimony from people we now know were tortured, to make you accept THEIR version?

              You mean, what evidence do I have to accept the say-so of the scientific community?  Why do truthers insist on calling scientists "the government"?

              I guess the most undeniable evidence is the utter absence of explosive shock waves in any seismograph recording in that area.  On top of that there was no explosive report:  truthers say that some dude heard "explosions" in the basement, but if it was a demolition I would have heard explosions from across the Hudson river.

              Usually we can't pony up evidence that a crazy theory isn't true--that's proving a negative, which is difficult.  In this case we actually can, because we have a physical record that shows there were no high explosives going off at that time in that area.

              •  thanks for the response (0+ / 0-)

                I guess if I had two stacks of 110 plates, fired two incendiary bullets and hit one stack perpendicularly around the 90th plate and the other stack at an angle somewhere around the 80th and both stacks came crashing straight vertically down, I guess that would freak me out, yeah.  If another 47-plate stack nearby wasn't hit by a bullet but imploded straight down anyway, I would say that was even more odd, yes.

                To carry your analogy further, if a video showed the top of the stack falling at an angle and yet the plates miraculously righted themselves again before hitting the ground, well, then I'd be sure something was up.  How does a pancake theory explain how the top of the building falls at angle and instead of the equivalent of a 10 story building crashing down onto the street it rights itself and pulverize before reaching the ground?  I'm sure you think this is a silly thing to wonder about.

                And you have it all wrong about proving a negative.  It is not truthers who ask that a negative be proved, but the other way around.  Why does the govt say OBL did it?  How do they know?  How do we KNOW these 19 hijackers did it?  Are they clearly identified in ANY video from any airport that the planes actually took off from?  Do JFK, Dulles, Logan not have video cameras everywhere?  Why is the only image we have is that of Atta in Portland (where he supposedly drove up the night before from Boston to catch a plane BACK to Boston and risk screwing up a supposedly meticulously planned operation and which resulted in his luggage not making the flight so it can be opened where -- whattdya know? -- they find a Koran and a suicide note).  These are not NEGATIVES.  These are the govt positing certain "facts" and offering no proof.  Again, the Taliban asked for proof that OBL did it (this is hardly belligerent.  It is SOP in ANY EXTRADITION PROCEDURE) and the U.S. could or would not provide it.

                This last is not about science, but just about evidentiary proof.  Not of a negative.  But proof to what is being posited as fact.  See the difference?

                And if you want to talk about science, well, NIST, FEMA and the "scientists" on the Nova program were all working to fit data to a conclusion.  Real science would simply begin with the evidence, test hypotheses and draw whatever conclusions were warranted.

                Nor is it just these questions. I understand reality unfolds chaotically.  However, with 9/11 every way you look at the event it comes up smelling like BS (how the 'hijackers' got into the country, how they overwhelmed the most expensive defense establishment in the world, how the failed Cessna pilot maneuvered the plane 270deg down to hit the opposite side of the Pentagon where Rumsfeld was sitting, to the side whose walls had just been reconstructed and which contained the bookkeeping that might explain where $2billion missing Pentagon funds were, and on and on).  But sure, it's stupid to ask questions about these things.  We should just believe what we're told.

                BTW, is Max Cleland a looney tune?  He quit the 9/11 commission and said it was a sham.  He was Diebolded out of Congress in the next election.  Other commission members now say they were not given the evidence to properly do their jobs.  But still, the govt's version of 9/11 is gospel.  No sane person dare doubt it.

                Again, despite the scorn in your last post, I appreciate your willingness to engage.  I understand you think I'm a tin-hat loony.  That's OK.  I think deep down you're scared of the truth.  But what we think of each other is neither important nor relevant.  That we allow open debate is.

                "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- M. Gandhi

                •  this is a common misunderstanding of physics (0+ / 0-)

                  I guess if I had two stacks of 110 plates, fired two incendiary bullets and hit one stack perpendicularly around the 90th plate and the other stack at an angle somewhere around the 80th and both stacks came crashing straight vertically down, I guess that would freak me out, yeah.

                  Then if you really want your mind blown, drop a matchbox car from the top of your 110-plate stack.  It survives without a scratch!  Yet somehow a real car can't fall off a skyscraper without being completely crushed.  

                  This is because strength-to-weight ratios drop inversely with height.  A stack of plates is pretty strong, but a 110-story skyscraper is barely able to hold itself up.  For example, you can stack another 110 plates atop your 110 plates without crushing any of them; can you place a second WTC-1 on top of WTC-1?

                  The physics of the collapses has been analyzed to death, and it predicts exactly what you saw:  the impact forces from the initial collapse are a good 30 times stronger than the underlying structure was able to handle.  It may not satisfy your scale model intuition, but the laws of physics predict the precession of Mercury and your intuition doesn't.

                  And if you want to talk about science, well, NIST, FEMA and the "scientists" on the Nova program were all working to fit data to a conclusion.  Real science would simply begin with the evidence, test hypotheses and draw whatever conclusions were warranted.

                   
                  You're just committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy by pointing at all the scientists who analyzed the collapses and saying they weren't real scientists.  
                   
                  But if that was true, wouldn't I hear from the rest of the scientific community?  Where's the statement from the NAS or NAE calling bullshit?  Or are we all in on it?

                  Besides, if you begin with the evidence, what other conclusion could one possibly draw?  The seismic evidence conclusively show the utter absence of explosive shock waves, and the detonation required would produce a massive report for miles and miles that nobody heard.  If you accept the physical evidence and the laws of physics, demolition is impossible.

                  •  not really (0+ / 0-)

                    "This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers."

                    Kevin Ryan (chemist, lab manager) of UL Labs was fired in 2004 for writing this email.

                    Steven Jones (physicist) for put on leave after he published his research at BYU.  Then the editor of the Open Chemical Physics Journal is forced to retire after that journal publishes his work.

                    Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged person in U.S. history.

                    So I guess it's kind of like saying after General Shinseki was canned for saying we'd need more troops in Iraq than Rumsfeld said we would need, we didn't hear from anyone in the 'military community' saying the troops requirements in Iraq were not sufficient.

                    Go have a look at Project Censored's website (are they conspiracy looniess too?)and see how many 9/11 stories make their Top 25 list.

                    Here, I'll help you.

                    http://www.projectcensored.org/...

                    http://www.projectcensored.org/...

                    http://www.projectcensored.org/...

                    http://www.projectcensored.org/...

                    Here's a general article from them about 9/11 and censorship:

                    http://www.projectcensored.org/...

                    And since you criticize deflating scientist with government, perhaps this would be of interest.

                    http://www.projectcensored.org/...

                    •  conflating, I meant to say, not deflating (0+ / 0-)

                      minor English usage point, but people do nitpick.

                    •  But what's your point? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Bouwerie Boy

                      Are you arguing that this censorship is so widespread that it explains the silence of the entire scientific consensus??

                      Climatologists endured more censorship than this, and that didn't somehow silence the scientific community on global warming.  There used to be actual laws with actual jail time for teaching evolution in some states; did the world's scientists meekly shut up about evolution?

                      Perhaps you underestimate the sheer number of physicists and engineers in the USA and world; if there was something genuinely wrong with the physics of the collapses (and remember, truthers insist that the physics is so wrong that it's obvious even to laypeople by looking at a video clip) no amount of government censorship is going to stop hundreds of thousands of people from speaking up, including scientific bodies like the NAS.

                      Your denial movement has no adequate explanation for the profound silence of scientists.  The obvious explanation, that they simply don't agree with truther claims or propaganda, is the only sane one I've seen.

                        •  btw... (0+ / 0-)

                          I believe the law you're talking about referred to schoolteachers, not scientists.  Big diff.

                        •  That's a laughably small group. (0+ / 0-)

                          These web sites list somewhere between hundreds and thousands of professionals who doubt 9/11.  

                          To put this in perspective, a global warming denial group amassed a petition of 31000 "scientists."  These are people they verified as having a degree in the sciences and a career in the sciences.  

                          They produced this petition simply by sending out blanket form letters with SASEs attached.  I know because my department received a wave of their letters; the came with a bogus journal article published in a journal that they invented to publish their own stuff--you know, like the "journal of 911 studies" or the "journal of historical review."  Standard tactic of denial movements:  make a propaganda piece that mimics a real source of information, and accumulate a list of people to give the false impression of some kind of scientific support to their ideas.
                           
                          They present this as some sort of argument that there is a controversy over global warming.  In truth, 31000 is a tiny percentage of scientists, and most of them are in irrelevant fields anyway.  All it really means is that you can always get a fraction of people to sign a petition.
                           
                          In contrast, the relative handful of scientists listed on truther web sites are a joke and a half.  Even creationists have more support from scientists than you guys do.  

                          •  i see (0+ / 0-)

                            now we've gone from 'why aren't there any?' to 'why aren't there enough?' (scientists, that is). I guess that's a small victory. I wonder what you'd consider a non-arbitrary critical mass that would suddenly make the debate not absurd in your opinion?  I mean, will you ever look at what they have to say, or will you just keep raising the bar of proof?

                            Secondly, a minor point, you are fuzzy with your terms.  It's not global warming that they are listed as denying (which has a very high degree of consensus), but MANMADE global warming (still, a high degree of consensus, though not as; I personally believe man is heating up the planet but I suppose if somebody really had a compelling argument why that might be wrong, I might hear them out).  

                            Third, more importantly, the 31000 is just names.  There is no way to find those people (they are nowhere paired with their affiliated institutions; you couldn't look them up and be sure it wasn't another Ralph Smith Ph.D. who signed the card).  You have no way of knowing, say, how they interpreted the word "convincing" in the card that says "convincing scientific evidence."

                            The scientists doubting 9/11 have put their names, their affiliations and even added their own statements of what their expertise and experience is and their specific reasons for doubting the story.  Big difference.  

                            Both creationism and anti-global warming have well-endowed ideologically-based institutions backing them.  Creationists (Intelligent Design/whatever), in particular, send students to schools with the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of creating credentialed professionals to support their cause.  They also support these professionals so they risk little sticking their neck out.  

                            There's no great corporate or religious entities supporting truthers as their are with intelligent design and anti-global warming (evangelical church for ID and all the big money polluters from the oil companies, auto companies, coal companies, etc. for anti-global warming). Almost all of them attained their positions BEFORE 9/11 EVEN HAPPENED. They have seen others suffer repercussions for speaking out.  And still they put their names to it. In many cases, it's career suicide.

                            But there's more reasons why your analogy is silly.  Unlike evolution/natural selection and climate change, the official version of 9/11 does not represent the culmination of a century or so of scientific study. It is not science going after the dominant truths (not really truths, technically, but theories that have demonstrated very high robustness, predictability and repeatability) of their discipline.  The 9/11 story is a version of events put out by our government, one that has demonstrably lied about almost everything else of any import that one can think of.  It should be vigorously questioned not only by scientists, but by journalists.  It isn't.  It accepted as gospel. That alone should frighten you.  Those who doubt any aspect of the story are relegated to the fringes of discourse.  Thus their regular appearance on Project Censored lists.

                            And yet, it's not just the scientists doubting the science.  It's cops, pilots, military personnel, government whistleblowers, many with extremely intimate knowledge of some aspect of the 9/11 story.  They are all calling BS on the official version.  None of them were invited to testify before the commission.

                            And yes, I've seen plenty of videos of controlled demolitions.  Please visit your local youtube.  They look more like the collapse of WTC-7 than the computer model on NIST's website. BTW, NIST, in it's report of WTC itself admitted that fires have never brought down a steel high-rise.  Ever. That should qualify WTC7's collapse due to fire as an 'extraordinary circumstance' requiring an extraordinary proof.  

                            But I guess the fact that no one in New Jersey reported hearing the explosions (even though people in NY did) is extraordinary proof enough for people like you.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            I wonder what you'd consider a non-arbitrary critical mass that would suddenly make the debate not absurd in your opinion?

                            I know I'd certainly be liable to change my mind if the NAS, NAE, or ASCE made some statement in support of trutherism.  

                            In general, if I heard from any major scientific body (an existing one, not one that was made up by truthers just to fake support from a scientific body) I'd probably be less dismissive.  Ditto with creationism and moon-landing denial, though I strongly doubt any such thing will happen.

                            Both creationism and anti-global warming have well-endowed ideologically-based institutions backing them.

                            Good point.  I guess that's a fair reason why their farcical scientific bodies are bigger than truthers' farcical scientific bodies.

                            The 9/11 story is a version of events put out by our government, one that has demonstrably lied about almost everything else of any import that one can think of.

                            A vapid exaggeration.  The plane parts and DNA evidence were not put out by our government.  The seismic record was not put out by our government.

                            The reason this is a scientific issue is that there was a body of physical evidence.  It's not just a story issued by a government office.

                            BTW, NIST, in it's report of WTC itself admitted that fires have never brought down a steel high-rise.  Ever.

                            Truthers keep repeating this as if it is some kind of damning evidence.  But why's it so strange that it never happened before?  How many times do you expect it should have happened before?

                            How many out-of-control fires this huge ever burned this long on a skyscraper before 9/11?  Ten?  Five?  One?  How often do the circumstances even arise?  
                            Skyscrapers are rarely ever at risk of collapse; so that it hasn't happened before 9/11 isn't at all strange.

                            And of course we have extraordinary evidence that it actually happened.  People saw and photographed the out-of-control fires, the firemen withdrew from the building suspecting that it would collapse.  We have photos of the partial collapse of the building before the bulk of it fell.  We have video of the gradual collapse that truthers dishonestly crop to under 7 seconds to make it look like a demolition.  And NIST analyzed the whole thing in excruciating detail.

                            But I guess the fact that no one in New Jersey reported hearing the explosions (even though people in NY did) is extraordinary proof enough for people like you.

                            Wait, so people in NY heard a giant detonation and it didn't appear on any of our video feed from that day?  

                            I think you misunderstand:  the kind of detonation needed to take down the towers would be heard by everyone on the damn island.  Not just some dude in the basement.

                          •  are you an explosive expert... (0+ / 0-)

                            or are you just repeating what the NIST guy said?

                            oh, and it wasn't just some dude in the basement.  many people heard explosions.  but nice try.

                            http://www.youtube.com/...

                            BTW, I would appreciate an answer to this question:   Do you think the 9/11 Report was an honest thorough appraisal of the events leading up to and occurring on September 11?  If not, would you (or why would you not) support another investigation?

                          •  Oh, and DNA evidence not govt? (0+ / 0-)

                            Funny, because I happened to come across this:

                            "Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory was a participant or observer in the following events:"

                            http://www.historycommons.org/...

                            In what universe are the Armed Forces not part of our govt?  

                            What's up with you Coincidence Theorists* that you have to resort to disinfo?

                            *what else would be the opposite of "truther," "liar?"

                          •  Essentially you are arguing... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...that the physical evidence was faked.

                            This is a common theme among conspiracy theorists:  the evidence pyramid is reversed, and a giant pile of actual plane parts and DNA evidence is dismissed because someone in the OMG GOVERNMENT!!! had something to do with its collection or analysis.
                             
                            If you are not even going to accept that the physical evidence is real, then we are basically shouting at each other from opposite sides of the universe.

                          •  I think you are being deliberately obtuse. (0+ / 0-)

                            oh, and it wasn't just some dude in the basement.  many people heard explosions.  but nice try.

                            Did the entire island hear explosions?  Did the whole world hear them because there were cameras on at the time?
                             
                            I think you just don't comprehend how loud an explosive charge is.

                            And nice job calling the scientific analysis of WTC-7 "the NIST guy."  Like physics is just made up by some dude sitting on his barca lounger.

                          •  keep shifting... (0+ / 0-)

                            I see.  First you say, 'no scientists,' then I  show you scientists, and you say 'not enough scientists.'  You then say 'nobody heard,' then I show you people who heard, and then you say that the "whole island" didn't hear (btw, did you measure the decibel level in NYC with all the sirens wailing and helicopters hovering, etc.? Where was the camera that picked up the collapse of WTC7? How far away was it zooming in from?  what is the acoustic effect of the intervening buildings, particularly the one behind which you see WTC 7 disappear?).    

                            Furthermore, you say the DNA scientists aren't the govt and I show you they  ARE the govt.  And now, it's about the absurdity of not trusting the govt.  

                            But yeah, it's me being deliberately obtuse.

                            Thanks for playing.  And let me know when you find all of Saddam's WMDs the govt said he had, n'kay?

                          •  Now you're deliberately misreading. (0+ / 0-)

                            I never said "no scientists."  Every fringe cause has some scientists on its side.  Creationists have Michael Behe just as you guys have Stephen Jones.  But obviously none of this constitutes some kind of scientific consensus, or even a marginal challenge to the scientific consensus.

                            Nor did I say 'nobody heard.'  People did hear loud noises---but obviously there wasn't a massive detonation, or else we'd all have heard it.  It would have been on the live camera footage of the collapses.

                            As for all this dancing around the evidence, you can go ahead and pretend the DNA was somehow faked because the gov't was obviously involved in the crime scene investigation.  But that doesn't somehow erase the seismic evidence, photographs of plane parts, and the views of eyewitnesses, including people who were actually on the planes and called the ground.  There is no way you can talk this evidence out of existence by picking at one bit or another, or making vague arguments that THE ZOMG GOVERNMENT was involved.

                          •  oh dear (0+ / 0-)

                            anybody can read the thread and see that i'm not misreading.  you even put the damn words "nobody heard" in italics, for christ's sake. Funny how people can convince themselves that things that they just saw, didn't happen.  All it takes is a bit of propaganda, I guess.  

                            more reasons why you're wrong: I CAN pick at any bit, because if ANY building shows evidence of demolition, the whole 9/11 official story comes pancaking down (save a last-minute explanation of how Osama managed to do that, too, after they spent 8 years denying explosions even happened.  Hey, it wouldn't be the first time they changed their story).  If the pancake theory is dependent on inner of the WTC being hollow and it wasn't, that too blows the whole thing.  Ditto the molten metal.  It's just like JFK. If the single bullet theory is BS, then the whole Oswald Acted Alone is BS.  If a shot his Kennedy from the front, ditto.  You follow?

                            Be that as it may, it's not me who's shifting the debate, anyway. it's you. now, you want to talk seismic data. frankly, i don't know too much about it and unlike you, i won't pass off bluster as fact.

                            I did, however, come across this:

                            "A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away."
                            -- Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City

                            So I'm not too impressed with your seismic debunk.  But hey, maybe .5 ton is 'not enough,' huh?  I admit I'm no expert. But I seriously doubt you are, either.

                            OK, it was fun running down all these 'facts' you've been throwing out only to find that they don't pan out, but now your credibility has fallen to the level of a 9/11 commission.

                            So here's a little homework for you, seeing how you implicitly trust government scientists.  Ever hear of Dr. George Ricaurte?  He's a Johns Hopkins neurologist.  He doesn't work for the govt, per se, but he sucks quite a bit on the grant tit of the DEA for whom he supplied the data ammo against MDMA.

                            I used to have arguments with people just like you about him back in late 2002.  An editor of a large metro newspaper yelled at me saying no respected John Hopkins scientists would fudge data just to justify the War on Drugs.  See, I was listening to the "holocaust denial/creationist/global warming" folks who were forced into their own academic ghetto.  They were demonstrating that his data was, indeed, false. And I found their arguments and research compelling.

                            Have a little google with his name.  Just for laughs, you know?

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            you even put the damn words "nobody heard" in italics, for christ's sake.

                            Now you're just being dishonest.  I said that nobody heard a massive detonation audible for miles and miles.  And nobody did:  if there was such a detonation it would be on every camera recording of the event.  

                            I did, however, come across this:

                            "A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away."
                            -- Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City

                            So I'm not too impressed with your seismic debunk.  But hey, maybe .5 ton is 'not enough,' huh?

                            Not even remotely close to enough.  Which shouldn't surprise you, given that the bomb in 1993 didn't actually take down any building.

                            If the pancake theory is dependent on inner of the WTC being hollow and it wasn't, that too blows the whole thing.

                            If that was the case, wouldn't it simply mean that that particular theory is incorrect?  How would that overturn everything else?

                          •  oh, i suppose... (0+ / 0-)

                            the pancake theory could 'just' be incorrect, since you're such a fan of counterintuitivity. it's only that they claimed that the inner core (that word was missing in my post) was hollow when the design called for them to be filled and there was no reason to suppose that they were hollow in the first place, except to make this bullshit theory work in the first place (a true Scotsman wouldn't make the evidence fit the conclusion, right?).  When the UL guy (Ryan) challenged the 'heat of the jet fuel' portion of the theory, he was not refuted by evidence, he was fired.  See?  That's how it works.

                            my understanding of demolition is that while enough explosive force could take down anything (e.g. airbursting a 12-kiloton nuke, say might vaporize a building the size of the WTC) the trick is placing smaller charges strategically. but sure, I'm not an expert.  The things is, YOU haven't come remotely close to proving that controlled demolition MUST AND ALWAYS produce a seismic wave distinct from the collapse of the building and that furthermore such a seismic signature was absent. My reading was that there WAS seismic activity.

                            http://www.journalof911studies.com/...

                            Also, in the video i linked to, a fireman (i believe it was) describes an explosion very much like a CD explosion. (compare him recalling the sound to a youtube vid of a controlled demo). But now you're no longer arguing absence of audio witnesses anymore, but lack of enough or insufficient volume or something like that.  In any case, I'm sure you could take this question up with the author of the paper above.  Or Dr. Jones.  They are very eager for men of letters like yourself to challenge their results.  Few have taken them up it. Better yes, take it up with J. Marx Ayres, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council, an original believer in the official version, who came to look at the data and change his mind and now signed onto AE911.  Or does someone who was in charge of the effects of earthquakes on buildings in California not know anything about seismic activity?

                            Here's his quote:

                            "I support the work of Dr. Steven Jones. He has provided a scientific foundation for the collapse of the three World Trade Center (WTC) towers. I read the FEMA September, 2002 report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and initially accepted their theory of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. As more information became available on the web, I was motivated to research the subject in a more rigorous manner. I have carefully studied the Jones 2006 paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" and concluded that it is a rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research. His critical reviews of the FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission reports are correct."

                            Mr. Ayres continues, "Steven Jones’ call for a ‘serious investigation’ of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned "cutter-charges" must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out."

                            http://www.ae911truth.org/...

                            Apparently, he doesn't see much contradiction between the available seismic evidence and the use of "cutter charges." But you can ask him.  Or maybe you'd prefer to ask Dr. Ricaurte.

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            My reading was that there WAS seismic activity.

                            http://www.journalof911studies.com/...

                            That's because you're reading a truther pamphlet.  Which they decided to call a "journal" in a cynical effort to fool the most gullible of Internet users.

                            Ask yourself:  if there was seismic evidence of explosives, why aren't we hearing about it from the world's geologists?  Why is it only the fringe group that cries foul, even though they claim their ideas are physically obvious and should have wide scientific support?

                            I think there's no point in continuing this argument:  you have your own in-movement sources of facts and information, and if that doesn't work just retreat to your own gut feeling, with seems-to-me and mays and mights and "but I'm not an expert."

                            But check this out:  despite all that rhetorical wrangling, the scientific consensus has not changed, nor have the laws of physics been discredited.  We might as well have been arguing about whether the sun would rise this morning.  

                          •  fine... (0+ / 0-)

                            obviously, you didn't google Ricaurte.  But that's OK.  Don't deal with the information as presented.  Just impugn the source.

                            Now slink back into your comfort zone.  I'm sure it's all cozy there.

                            Have a nice day.

  •  The Poll, Boss, the Poll ! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beijingbetty

    68% say YES

    Open the gate.

  •  The World According to dKos... (0+ / 0-)

    ...is a tightly constructed mass of wires and logic that is completely incapable of protecting and defending itself from, "the Big Lie."

    Someone, somewhere, missed the class on the difference between "reason" and "logic."

    It is not logical to presume that Xeno's arrow will reach its intended target.  However, it is perfectly reasonable.

    Similarly, it is not logical to conclude that there was inside involvement in the felling of the Twin Towers based on evidence that can be discredited.  But it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that there is a strong probability of inside involvement in the felling of the Twin Towers based on evidence that in only some cases can be discredited -- provided that there is some evidence in the mix that simply cannot be discredited.

    To defeat the "Big Lie" one has to be willing to accept that it is a system of logic -- reason -- that can be used to prove or disprove the soundness of an argument.  Focusing purely on technical validity in the discrimination between good and bad arguments is an overreliance on pure logic and represents and error in judgment.

    For example, the law that, "an argument is valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false," is a law for determining the validity of a logical argument.

    However, while this law works in every case where the argument is both "valid" and "sound," it does not guarantee soundness.  As follows,

     The Moon is made of blue cheese.
     The Moon is not made of blue cheese.
     Therefore, the Moon hangs in the sky.

    This is not a very sound argument.  It is, however, technically valid because it is NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE PREMISES TO BE TRUE.  And the conclusion can be understood to be quite true as well.  So this is an example of an unsound, but technically valid, argument.

    Alot of the debunking that goes on here is of this variety -- technically valid, but wholely unsound.
    A veritable cornucopia of "Xeno's Arrowesque" argumentation and refutation abounds.

    Fact is...you can't MOVE 110 stories of steel and concrete out of the way fast enough to enable the collapse as we saw it videotaped that day WITHOUT the use of prepositioned explosives.  The fact that WTC 7 was clearly felled on the same day as the felling of the Twin Towers by prepositioned explosives only underscores the point.

    So, we can show that the arrow does, in fact, reach its destination.  What is wrong with all the argumentation that refutes that insider foreknowledge and government complicity were a part of the felling of the Twin Towers?  The Big Lie?

    The debate that 911 CT should be excluded is not at all reasonable.

    If ya'all wanna hang with people who get to define for everyone else what's reasonable and what's real, you're more than welcome.  It's just not my cup'o tea.  There's a reason why there WAS a Bill of Rights -- a set of fundamental rules -- attached to the Constitution that everyone had to agree to play by in order to be invited to the party.

    For me it's pretty obvious: if the fundamental rule to be invited to the party is that you be an ignorant jackass, I ain't comin' over.

    •  ignorant jackass might be overstating (0+ / 0-)

      but "you have to turn off a large part of your brain" I think hits the mark.

    •  Oh, come on (0+ / 0-)

      Okay, first this:

      It is not logical to presume that Xeno's arrow will reach its intended target.  However, it is perfectly reasonable.

      It is actually perfectly logical to presume Xeno's arrow will hit its target.

      Xeno's paradoxes only cause a problem if you assume all distances are whole numbers of some minimum quantity, a theory promoted by Pythagoras.  Indeed the paradoxes were invented as a response to Pythagoras; between Xeno and, Hippasus proving the irrationality of sqrt(2), one of the main religious beliefs of the Pythagoreans was torn apart.

      To defeat the "Big Lie" one has to be willing to accept that it is a system of logic -- reason -- that can be used to prove or disprove the soundness of an argument.

      We do not decide what happened based on some PHIL 101 mental masturbation; we decide based on physical evidence.

      The physical evidence of that day completely rules out the use of explosives, and establishes that a plane really did hit the Pentagon.  On top of that we have eyewitness reports both from the ground and from even from passengers on the planes.

      Fact is...you can't MOVE 110 stories of steel and concrete out of the way fast enough to enable the collapse as we saw it videotaped that day WITHOUT the use of prepositioned explosives.

      If that was such an obvious fact, why aren't we hearing about it from, say, the National Academies of Engineering?

      Just as I tell creationists:  if there really was an obvious hole in evolution, wouldn't I hear about it from biologists, rather than some dude on the Internet?

      The skeptical compass always points in the direction of the scientific consensus.  It may not always be right, but you can't find a group who is right more often.  And when some dude tells you that it's obvious the moon landing was physically impossible, the first thing you do is ask why you're not hearing that from the world's physicists.

      •  AE911Truth good nuff? (0+ / 0-)

        Richard Gage, AIA e.g.?

        Aside from expert opinions and research, it's really quite obvious. No degree in Rocket Science needed.

        •  Of course it isn't good enough. (0+ / 0-)

          That's just a truther web site listing a paltry few hundred self-proclaimed professionals.    
          Creationists have bigger lists than that.  So do global warming denial groups (the global warming petition project has a list of 31000 scientists.)  So do you doubt the "official government story" of evolution or global warming?

          It's a common tactic among denial movements to create lists, groups and even fake journals to give the false impression that their claims have some scientific acceptance.  Holocaust deniers created the Journal of Historical Review and corresponding Institute for Historical Review.  Global warming deniers created the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.  Truthers invented the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" and numerous "blankety blank for 9/11 truth" groups.  

          It's just the same tactic over and over again:  create the fake impression of scholarly support, and hope that nobody will realize how insignificantly small your numbers are.

  •  Saving the Daily Kos From Becoming Irrelavent (0+ / 0-)

    Last year I stopped reading News (even so-called alternative news) where I already knew what was not going to be allowed. Daily Kos has been on that list due to what appears to be a willful belligerence to reject dissident questions that bring the government's story of 9/11 under critical review.  But now I'm back to plead the case.  

    The most recent poll agrees that KOS should consider a "CHANGE" in policy -- a change that could prevent DK from becoming irrelevant as the mushrooming social awareness of the 9/11 issue gains global acceptance.  After all, 9/11 was the pretext for all the war crimes. inhumanity and constitutional assaults that followed. It's time to take off the blinders and remove the gags.  

    I'm not alone when I believe it to be nearly "un-American" and complicit for honest journalism to ignore scrutiny and investigation of the terror of 9/11 - an event increasingly acknowledged as a government cover-up with too much hard evidence to reject. The tin foil hats are now on the heads of the chronic deniers while 9/11 Truth has gone nearly mainstream.

    Anything less than 9/11 will lose out to media complicity. Here's why:

    Informing the American people about the Bush/Cheney orders to torture detainees alone has not worked.  Instead, the defendants have used the media to seduce Americans into a state of complicity.  

    Cheney was allowed to brainwash viewers on corporate TV with repeated lies about the effectiveness of torture.  As a result, a poll taken during Cheney's successful speaking marathon concluded that over half of the American people believe "torture is at least sometimes justified to thwart terrorist attacks".  

    Actually, the poll revealed numbers that implied something even more disturbing:  Only 29% responded with "never justified", the only answer that agrees with the rule of law forbidding torture as a punishable war crime!.  Perhaps we  shouldn't go quite so far as to conclude that 70% of Americans actually approve of lawlessness in government.   But we should probably admit that the crime of torture has been - so far - settled in the court of manipulated public opinion, allowing Eric Holder's DOJ to keep the over-due prosecution of Bush/Cheney "off the table" ... likely forever.

    The prime suspects of torture and mass murder have successfully remained free by pleading guilty to a lesser charge:

    INQUIRY:  Actionable Intelligence. Bin Laden determined to strike inside USA?
    WHITEHOUSE:  Information overload. Nothing specific enough.  Sorry.
    INQUIRY:   Weapons of Mass destruction?
    WHITEHOUSE: Bad intelligence...shame on the CIA.  Cheap satellite images.
    INQUIRY:  Taxpayers' Star War Defense System massive failures to stop 9/11 and mass murders in 2 States?
    WHITEHOUSE: Simultaneous military exercizes confused NORAD. We'll work on it. No accountability needed this time.
    INQUIRY: The Whitehouse ordered illegal torture of detainees? Shouldn't we prosecute?
    WHITEHOUSE: This is a post-9/11 world.  Our lawyers said it was legal.  Besides most of the the American people agree with Cheney.
    INQUIRY:  Why was Congress told to stop investigating the crimes of 9/11 in 2002.?
    WHITEHOUSE: Bush and Cheney warned Tom Daschle that embarrassing questions about 9/11 would interfere with the War on Terror.

    Let's look at how Congress was ready to investigate 9/11 back in 2002 before they were ordered stop by Bush and Cheney.

    We demand that Congress resume the investigation that was denied in 2002 in order to bring long overdue justice to the 9/11 families and all Americans who deserve a criminal trial of the biggest crime of mass murder in American History.

    Sources:

    History - 2002 9/11 investigation denied by Bush and Cheney.
     http://dir.salon.com/...

    AP POLL Source: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/...

    Poll Media Spin:  http://www.foxnews.com/...

    Legislative History of Torture ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/...

    "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have" Thomas Jefferson

    by hsaive on Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 03:05:45 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site