Leave it to Noam to Smackdown the 9/11 Truthers

Maybe some pictures will help make my point.

Blofeld



Bush



lol

Bush should've never been nominated in 2004... not in a country that actually measures the campaign promises against the actions taken after elected. He talked limited govt and free market in 2000... that is exactly opposite of what we saw by 2002.

I'm sure he's a nice enough guy (as is obama)... but I don't think he was bright enough to recognize that the actions he endorsed were prototypical progressive govt intervention. We see that in the results... and now the slope is teflon slippery.

Just the fed actions and govt latitude over the last dozen years are unprecedented... but no one gives a damn.

No, Bob. The real irony is the reaction of people who just don't want to believe that a sitting president could do what was done. As soon as the "c" word is attached, the whole idea is dismissed out of hand because it now has that label, and at the very root of it, the desire to deny is so great that facts no longer matter.

Look at the videos from Senator Bob Graham, who has written two books on this subject...one fiction because of security constraints, and one more recent that is non-fiction. Within those limits, he's all but screaming, "They did it." Wasn't it Bob Graham who was entertaining the Saudi royals on 9/11 before they were allowed to fly out of the country? You're always saying there were no witnesses who disputed the chain of events, but there WERE. It's just that no one listens to them because that would be buying into a "c" theory. Whether or not Bush is an ignorant hayseed is irrelevant, because he was surrounded by Poppy's minions and had Cheney in the driver's seat. Why was the vice-president in charge of our air defenses? Why were people like Colleen Rowley told to back off investigating the Saudi nationals who were in the country taking flying lessons? Why do people talk about the "collapse" of the Towers when it's obvious to anyone that they exploded? What caused the intense heat underground in the buildings' footprints that continued burning for a couple of months? Why did Bush continue sitting in that classroom?

PkrBum wrote:Bush should've never been nominated in 2004... not in a country that actually measures the campaign promises against the actions taken after elected. He talked limited govt and free market in 2000... that is exactly opposite of what we saw by 2002.

I'm sure he's a nice enough guy (as is obama)... but I don't think he was bright enough to recognize that the actions he endorsed were prototypical progressive govt intervention. We see that in the results... and now the slope is teflon slippery.

Just the fed actions and govt latitude over the last dozen years are unprecedented... but no one gives a damn.

Except for the wars of aggression, Bush was delivering exactly as promised...giving tax breaks that favored his wealthiest donors, ignoring common-sense regulations on business...except for the massive expenditures on the war machine, Bush was "free market" all the way...well, maybe the Medicare bill...but that was just to get the older voters, and it was unfunded. I'm sure he's a demon from hell...not a "nice guy" at all, and I find it incredible that you're biggest criticism is that he was too "progressive". Didn't you study economics? Do you really believe that unfettered capitalism is a viable system in a democratic republic? Put down the crack pipe.

Floridatexan wrote:No, Bob. The real irony is the reaction of people who just don't want to believe that a sitting president could do what was done. As soon as the "c" word is attached, the whole idea is dismissed out of hand because it now has that label, and at the very root of it, the desire to deny is so great that facts no longer matter.

Look at the videos from Senator Bob Graham, who has written two books on this subject...one fiction because of security constraints, and one more recent that is non-fiction. Within those limits, he's all but screaming, "They did it." Wasn't it Bob Graham who was entertaining the Saudi royals on 9/11 before they were allowed to fly out of the country? You're always saying there were no witnesses who disputed the chain of events, but there WERE. It's just that no one listens to them because that would be buying into a "c" theory. Whether or not Bush is an ignorant hayseed is irrelevant, because he was surrounded by Poppy's minions and had Cheney in the driver's seat. Why was the vice-president in charge of our air defenses? Why were people like Colleen Rowley told to back off investigating the Saudi nationals who were in the country taking flying lessons? Why do people talk about the "collapse" of the Towers when it's obvious to anyone that they exploded? What caused the intense heat underground in the buildings' footprints that continued burning for a couple of months? Why did Bush continue sitting in that classroom?

The sad thing here is that there is enough empirical evidence that clearly shows (by result) how poorly a large and in charge central govt reacts. I think the bigger issue was how our govt mobilized... and the measures that were clearly unconstitutional.

That is a known. Both parties rushed to squash civil liberties. You can't deny that. You want to make disjointed connections to further some partisan crap... well there are some things we know without doubt. Look at the laws and measures taken.

You just help muddy the water and take focus off the systemic and metastatic errors in the direction we are headed.

Perhaps that's the larger conspiracy.

No, Bob.  The real irony is the reaction of people who just don't want to believe that a sitting president could do what was done.

It's not that I don't believe a sitting president could get away with blowing up the World Trade Center and creating fake muslim hijackers and fly a missile into the Pentagon and fool eyewitnesses into believing it was an airliner and get into cahoots with some of the largest insurance companies and convince them to pay off $7 billion on a fraudulent insurance claim,  a claim that's so fraudulent that you tell me it's so obvious to anyone that the WTC was blown up.  
It's that I don't believe ANYONE could get away with blowing up the World Trade Center and creating fake muslim hijackers and fly a missile into the Pentagon and fool eyewitnesses into believing it was an airliner and get into cahoots with some of the largest insurance companies and convince them to pay off $7 billion on a fraudulent insurance claim,  a claim that's so fraudulent that you tell me it's so obvious to anyone that the WTC was blown up and get away with all of it.  
Not a sitting president,  not Dick Cheney,  not Ernst Blofeld,  not "an illuminatti",  not a "New World Order",  not ANYONE.
I don't believe it for a hundred reasons.  And some of those reasons are because every claim you refer to in the next quote has all been totally debunked...


 Why was the vice-president in charge of our air defenses?  Why were people like Colleen Rowley told to back off investigating the Saudi nationals who were in the country taking flying lessons?  Why do people talk about the "collapse" of the Towers when it's obvious to anyone that they exploded?  What caused the intense heat underground in the buildings' footprints that continued burning for a couple of months?  Why did Bush continue sitting in that classroom?

PkrBum wrote:Bush should've never been nominated in 2004

Bush was nominated in 2004 for the same reason every incumbent president regardless of party is always nominated for the 2nd term election unless he himself voluntarily chooses not to run.  It's because that's just how our politics operates in it's present form.

The election when he shouldn't have been nominated is the first one in 2000.
It was freakish.  Of all the republicans who could have received the nomination,  it's now truly a mystery to me how that one ever got in that position.  

But even though I don't really know why it happened,  I do know this.  That it was just another symptom of how our nation and our society was entering into a downward spiral of decline which it's still experiencing.

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:No, Bob.  The real irony is the reaction of people who just don't want to believe that a sitting president could do what was done.  As soon as the "c" word is attached, the whole idea is dismissed out of hand because it now has that label, and at the very root of it, the desire to deny is so great that facts no longer matter.  

Look at the videos from Senator Bob Graham, who has written two books on this subject...one fiction because of security constraints, and one more recent that is non-fiction.  Within those limits, he's all but screaming, "They did it."  Wasn't it Bob Graham who was entertaining the Saudi royals on 9/11 before they were allowed to fly out of the country?  You're always saying there were no witnesses who disputed the chain of events, but there WERE.  It's just that no one listens to them because that would be buying into a "c" theory.  Whether or not Bush is an ignorant hayseed is irrelevant, because he was surrounded by Poppy's minions and had Cheney in the driver's seat.  Why was the vice-president in charge of our air defenses?  Why were people like Colleen Rowley told to back off investigating the Saudi nationals who were in the country taking flying lessons?  Why do people talk about the "collapse" of the Towers when it's obvious to anyone that they exploded?  What caused the intense heat underground in the buildings' footprints that continued burning for a couple of months?  Why did Bush continue sitting in that classroom?

The sad thing here is that there is enough empirical evidence that clearly shows (by result) how poorly a large and in charge central govt reacts. I think the bigger issue was how our govt mobilized... and the measures that were clearly unconstitutional.

That is a known. Both parties rushed to squash civil liberties. You can't deny that. You want to make disjointed connections to further some partisan crap... well there are some things we know without doubt. Look at the laws and measures taken.

You just help muddy the water and take focus off the systemic and metastatic errors in the direction we are headed.

Perhaps that's the larger conspiracy.

WHO wants to take away our freedom? Answer that, and you may be on the way to some kind of enlightenment.

Floridatexan wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:No, Bob.  The real irony is the reaction of people who just don't want to believe that a sitting president could do what was done.  As soon as the "c" word is attached, the whole idea is dismissed out of hand because it now has that label, and at the very root of it, the desire to deny is so great that facts no longer matter.  

Look at the videos from Senator Bob Graham, who has written two books on this subject...one fiction because of security constraints, and one more recent that is non-fiction.  Within those limits, he's all but screaming, "They did it."  Wasn't it Bob Graham who was entertaining the Saudi royals on 9/11 before they were allowed to fly out of the country?  You're always saying there were no witnesses who disputed the chain of events, but there WERE.  It's just that no one listens to them because that would be buying into a "c" theory.  Whether or not Bush is an ignorant hayseed is irrelevant, because he was surrounded by Poppy's minions and had Cheney in the driver's seat.  Why was the vice-president in charge of our air defenses?  Why were people like Colleen Rowley told to back off investigating the Saudi nationals who were in the country taking flying lessons?  Why do people talk about the "collapse" of the Towers when it's obvious to anyone that they exploded?  What caused the intense heat underground in the buildings' footprints that continued burning for a couple of months?  Why did Bush continue sitting in that classroom?

The sad thing here is that there is enough empirical evidence that clearly shows (by result) how poorly a large and in charge central govt reacts. I think the bigger issue was how our govt mobilized... and the measures that were clearly unconstitutional.

That is a known. Both parties rushed to squash civil liberties. You can't deny that. You want to make disjointed connections to further some partisan crap... well there are some things we know without doubt. Look at the laws and measures taken.

You just help muddy the water and take focus off the systemic and metastatic errors in the direction we are headed.

Perhaps that's the larger conspiracy.

WHO wants to take away our freedom? Answer that, and you may be on the way to some kind of enlightenment.

Lol... take a look at the big votes. Patriot act, iraq war, afghan war, bailout, stimulus, ndaa, obamacare...

(ops the aca was partisan).

I've been seeking a plausible answer to one question for almost ten years now.   And so far no one anywhere on the internet can provide an answer.

If there is overwhelming evidence as conspiracy bluffs believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition,   then why would some of the largest insurance companies want to pay off $7 billion on a criminally fraudulent claim without putting up any challenge to it?  The same insurance industry that tried to beat thousands of hurricane claimants out of a few thousand dollars even when the claimaints were in the right.

Of course the ONLY answer anyone could ever have is that these insurance companies were "in on the plot".
And the reason no one anywhere has ever said that is because they themselves know how preposterous and implausible and far-fetched it would be.  lol

Case closed.

Bob wrote:No, Bob.  The real irony is the reaction of people who just don't want to believe that a sitting president could do what was done.

It's not that I don't believe a sitting president could get away with blowing up the World Trade Center and creating fake muslim hijackers and fly a missile into the Pentagon and fool eyewitnesses into believing it was an airliner and get into cahoots with some of the largest insurance companies and convince them to pay off $7 billion on a fraudulent insurance claim,  a claim that's so fraudulent that you tell me it's so obvious to anyone that the WTC was blown up.  
It's that I don't believe ANYONE could get away with blowing up the World Trade Center and creating fake muslim hijackers and fly a missile into the Pentagon and fool eyewitnesses into believing it was an airliner and get into cahoots with some of the largest insurance companies and convince them to pay off $7 billion on a fraudulent insurance claim,  a claim that's so fraudulent that you tell me it's so obvious to anyone that the WTC was blown up and get away with all of it.  
Not a sitting president,  not Dick Cheney,  not Ernst Blofeld,  not "an illuminatti",  not a "New World Order",  not ANYONE.
I don't believe it for a hundred reasons.  And some of those reasons are because every claim you refer to in the next quote has all been totally debunked...


 Why was the vice-president in charge of our air defenses?  Why were people like Colleen Rowley told to back off investigating the Saudi nationals who were in the country taking flying lessons?  Why do people talk about the "collapse" of the Towers when it's obvious to anyone that they exploded?  What caused the intense heat underground in the buildings' footprints that continued burning for a couple of months?  Why did Bush continue sitting in that classroom?

Are you telling me that Cheney was NOT in charge of air defense? Are you saying that Colleen Rowley is lying about being told to back off? Are you saying that the flying debris that lodged in other buildings and consisted of pulverized concrete and molten steel was just the result of the planes hitting the buildings, which defies the basic principles of physics?

Sure, there are plenty of sites on the internet that appear to "debunk" the facts surrounding this man-made tragedy...and there's Noam Chomsky, who couldn't be obfuscating because he's supposed to be a lefty. The facts don't fit the official version of events...and where there's even one big lie, there are dozens more lies. Look at the video of Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld...ALL LYING about the need to attack Iraq...and then reversing their previous statements. That alone points to more lies...going back to the source of the supposed reason for invading Iraq...9/11.

Bob wrote:I've been seeking a plausible answer to one question for almost ten years now.   And so far no one anywhere on the internet can provide an answer.

If there is overwhelming evidence as conspiracy bluffs believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition,   then why would some of the largest insurance companies want to pay off $7 billion on a criminally fraudulent claim without putting up any challenge to it?  The same insurance industry that tried to beat thousands of hurricane claimants out of a few thousand dollars even when the claimaints were in the right.

Of course the ONLY answer anyone could ever have is that these insurance companies were "in on the plot".
And the reason no one anywhere has ever said that is because they themselves know how preposterous and implausible and far-fetched it would be.  lol

Case closed.

You miss the conclusion of where the money went. The fed reacted... the govt reacted... there were interventions.

Bob wrote:I've been seeking a plausible answer to one question for almost ten years now.   And so far no one anywhere on the internet can provide an answer.

If there is overwhelming evidence as conspiracy bluffs believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition,   then why would some of the largest insurance companies want to pay off $7 billion on a criminally fraudulent claim without putting up any challenge to it?  The same insurance industry that tried to beat thousands of hurricane claimants out of a few thousand dollars even when the claimaints were in the right.

Of course the ONLY answer anyone could ever have is that these insurance companies were "in on the plot".
And the reason no one anywhere has ever said that is because they themselves know how preposterous and implausible and far-fetched it would be.  lol

Case closed.

You don't have to discuss this with me if you don't want to. But this case is far from closed. I doubt Silverstein had more than one insurer on the WTC, and he had to go to court to get paid for what he claimed were two separate attacks. All he had to do there is buy a judge.

"I doubt Silverstein had more than one insurer on the WTC, and he had to go to court to get paid for what he claimed were two separate attacks.  All he had to do there is buy a judge."

You really should get better informed about the thing,  tex.
It's common knowledge that the WTC was insured by an amalgamation of insurance companies (to spread the risk) all under the larger umbrella of Swiss Re.
Swiss Re is a re-insurer based in Switzerland.  The 2nd largest in the world.

What I'm telling you about never got to a judge.  What I'm telling you about has nothing to do with the insurance dispute about the two plane collisions being separate incidents which would make for two separate insurance claims doubling the payoff.
What I'm talking about is some of the world's largest insurance companies rolling over for a $7 billion illegal fraudulent claim.  And I mean totally rolling over because no one from any of these insurance companies ever raised an eyebrow over all this "evidence" you keep talking about.

The reason is not because Dick Cheney is so convincing that he convinced them to go along with the worst treason and mass murder plot in history and their reward would be losing $7 billion.  They would never have any motive whatever to go along with such a preposterous thing.  

The reason is because there is no actual evidence.  Just that crazy loony stuff those tinfoilers have spun up all of which has been debunked.

Floridatexan wrote:Are you telling me that Cheney was NOT in charge of air defense?  Are you saying that Colleen Rowley is lying about being told to back off?  Are you saying that the flying debris that lodged in other buildings and consisted of pulverized concrete and molten steel was just the result of the planes hitting the buildings, which defies the basic principles of physics?

Cheney in charge of air defense

http://www.911myths.com/html/cheney_in_charge_of_norad.html

Colleen Rowley told to back off

I googled that search string and can't find anything about Colleen Rowley "backing off".  So what is that about...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Colleen+Rowley+was+told+to+back+off&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=Coleen+Rowley+was+told+to+back+off&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1

Are you saying that the flying debris that lodged in other buildings and consisted of pulverized concrete and molten steel was just the result of the planes hitting the buildings, which defies the basic principles of physics?

There is no actual evidence of any "molten" steel.  Only the photographs of burning molten material misidentified as "steel".  

The flying debris which resulted from the airplane collisions was airplane wreckage and chunks of the building which were propelled outward.
The flying debris which resulted from the buildings collapsing was the gigantic amount of material comprised of the building themselves and all their contents.

Nothing about the buildings collapsing as a result of the collisions "defies the laws of physics".  That's all been exhaustively studied and debunked.

Floridatexan wrote: Why were people like Colleen Rowley told to back off investigating the Saudi nationals who were in the country taking flying lessons?

I just googled that search string too.  Can't find one mention of it.
All I can find is this which has Rowley whistleblowing on FBI incompetence.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0526-04.htm

So you'll have to give me at least one obscure internet mention of it so we can even know what the silly claim is.

Why were people like Colleen Rowley told to back off investigating the Saudi nationals who were in the country taking flying lessons?

Wait just a dadgum minute here. It just hit me. You're telling me that Saudi nationals were in the country taking flying lessons.
But the conspiracy theory is there were no muslim hijackers, just Dick Cheney and his illuminatti blowing up the buildings. So why would muslims be in the country taking flying lessons when the muslims in the airplanes were just made up?

lol

Bob wrote: Why were people like Colleen Rowley told to back off investigating the Saudi nationals who were in the country taking flying lessons?

Wait just a dadgum minute here.  It just hit me.  You're telling me that Saudi nationals were in the country taking flying lessons.  
But the conspiracy theory is there were no muslim hijackers,  just Dick Cheney and his illuminatti blowing up the buildings.  So why would muslims be in the country taking flying lessons when the muslims in the airplanes were just made up?

lol

So now you're defining the "conspiracy theory", as if there aren't multiple theories and multiple facets to be addressed. That's one of the major problems with following through on this investigation...which needs to happen...there are 3 separate sites, 3 distinct sets of events, many analyses to be performed. Who said there were no Muslims? The Muslims were Saudi. No one said they were made up...but some of them who are supposed to be dead are not dead. Question: Why did you research 9/11...extensively, as you have claimed?

Here's a video of Colleen Rowley:

Floridatexan wrote:
So now you're defining the "conspiracy theory", as if there aren't multiple theories and multiple facets to be addressed.  That's one of the major problems with following through on this investigation...which needs to happen...there are 3 separate sites, 3 distinct sets of events, many analyses to be performed.  Who said there were no Muslims?  The Muslims were Saudi.  No one said they were made up...but some of them who are supposed to be dead are not dead.  Question:  Why did you research 9/11...extensively, as you have claimed?  

That's basically two questions.  Let's take the last one first.

I first got interested in 2004 after seeing Dave von Kleist's internet documentary called "In Plane Site"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911:_In_Plane_Site#Reviews

Then a year later,  a kid named Dylan Avery created his internet movie called "Loose Change".  That's what propelled the "truther" movement into the internet stratosphere.    Avery was a college film student who had intended to make a fictional movie about 9/11.  But he was working construction at a bar owned by James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano) in Manhattan.  After a conversation with Gandolfini,  Avery decided to present the fictional movie as fact.

After seeing that I was hooked.  The internet was crawling with websites telling us the U.S. Government itself engineered the greatest case of treason and mass murder in history and blamed it on ragheads so the government could get popular support for an invasion of Iraq.

Why wouldn't anyone be interested in such a thing.  It was one of the most fascinating things I'd ever heard about.
Because of that,  I then absorbed everything I could find about it on the internet.  Both from truthers and from skeptics.  And I debated it for years on three internet forums which have international participation.   One, the "Loose Change Forum" which was created by Avery.  The other two forums frequented by skeptics.

Now to this question...

Who said there were no Muslims?  The Muslims were Saudi.  No one said they were made up

That is totally incorrect.  The conspiracy theory is not one theory.  It's dozens of different theories.  And some say there were no hijackers that the airliners were controlled by remote control.  Others say the airliners were not even airliners,  they were military planes under the control of the conspirators.  And whenever I've asked the question "why would military pilots commit suicide and be accomplices to the worst mass murder and treason in history?",  the only answer I've ever received is "they did it out of patriotism because the government/military convinced them it was the right thing to do to in order to defeat Saddam Hussein".  Which of course is the most preposterous claim anyone could ever make.

"No one said they were made up".  Bull fucking shit.  A large part of the truther faction says the named hijackers are still alive.  You just said the same damn thing only because you've seen that claimed on so many truther websites.

So how in blue blazes does it make sense for you to believe that the government was covering up Saudis taking flying lessons,  when it wasn't even the Saudis piloting the airliners?  Because if what you just said is true and those people are still alive,  how in hell could they have been the ones piloting the airliners?  Were they in the pilot's seats and flying the airliners into the towers at 500 mph and still lived through it and took the elevator down and then went on their merry way?

The "theory" is all so bizarre and convoluted and juvenile and far-fetched that none of it even makes any sense,  Tex.  But people WANT to believe it no matter how bizarre and convoluted and far-fetched it is,  so they WILL believe it.
That's all it is.