"Saddam-did-9/11" theories are a huge embarrassment to official story supporters

posting material that supports a ""Saddam-did-9/11" theory? I must of missed it.

It exists, therefore all supporters of the official story must answer for it, even if they don't agree with it.

Like the "no planes at WTC" theory, "Saddam did 9/11" exists. Therefore everyone who supports any version of the official story must also answer for the "Saddam-did-9/11" variant (pushed at times by no less an official than Cheney).

There is no official Saddam did 9/11 story. Those that hold to the official story being the most complete albeit somewhat lacking story don't need to answer for a Saddam story that is unrelated. Its existence does not make the official story more or less palatable.

There are plenty of CT theories about no planes, DEW, Holograms, Pods, Missles etc that are part of the CT story. Those that advocate CT's that are within the realm of reality get marginalized by them. So CT'er get the responsibility to police their own litter box.

You have your work cut out for you.

It was pushed by Cheney, the most powerful single official in the land.

By the same logic you use to imply that I have to answer for Nico Haupt, you have to answer for Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, and all the guys who pushed the story about Atta meeting an Iraqi agent in Prague (and possibly picking up the anthrax vial while there).

These very same guys also agree with the most important part of the "official official" story of the 9/11 Commission and of LARED - that 19 hijackers pulled off 9/11 as a total surprise attack without any conscious facilitation from U.S. government actors.

If they agree with you about that, you must answer for everything else they say about 9/11.

There are plenty of OCT stories about Saddam links to 9/11, also links between 9/11 perps and groups in Chechnya, Indonesia, Zarqawi, Saudi Arabia and whatnot. By accepting the OCT you have to answer for all of these, whether you agree or not.

Furthermore, Cheney's outrageous conspiracy theory had awesome consequences - it facilitated the invasion of Iraq. So this is much more serious. Your irresponsibility in not devoting every resource to demanding rigorous logic and real evidence from everyone pushing OCT ideas of any kind therefore also contributed to the invasion of Iraq.

You have a lot of work to make up for that!

Show me an US official that said Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

MODS: Link to WorldNetDaily given as an example, definitely NOT an endorsement.

Here's two I find after a minute's search... and a rant!

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35634



Douglas Feith as PNAC man and head of the Office of Special Plans was one of the key Bush admin officials in generating the propaganda preparation for the Iraq war.

WND article continues through many graphs with supposed links between Iraq and Al Qaeda types everywhere, including Saudi and "new information" about the fictional Atta-Al Ani meeting in Prague and also how "The relationship between Saddam and bin Laden continued in the aftermath of Sept. 11. An al-Qaida associate helped to set up 'sleeper cells' in Baghdad beginning in October 2002."

Then, one of the earliest leading official sources on Bin Ladin is cited:



Cheney:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/



Now of course THAT was Cheney's intent: to brainwash Americans into believing that shit. Mission Accomplished. Of course it's a safe guess Cheney knew he was lying, and of course he tried to insinuate the link to 9/11 rather than say it outright, to minimize the chance he might be nailed on it later in a court. But he got what he wanted out of it.

Similarly, most of the people promoting "no-planes at WTC" (and pod/flash/hologram, which were the earlier models) know they are lying. They very consciously stress the parody element. I take that from a reading of their material. (For example when they present the NY1 video with a plane in it and claim no planes can be seen, or when they intentionally use low-resolution images to create an illusion when high-res ones are available.)

They go about it understanding that the point is not to be taken seriously, but to sabotage 9/11 truth. They have no problem when the likes of you arrive to "refute" them, that is the point.

Besides their theories, what else do they do 24/7/365? Do they ever call for disclosure? Do they ever build bridges, to anyone else? No. They attack everyone in the movement as agents or "mind-control assets," including me so yeah I take it personally. But also including Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, the Jersey Girls (!!!), Nafeez Ahmed, Paul Thompson, 911Truth.org, etc. etc. etc. even the Loose Change and Alex Jones guys. That's everyone, without exception, the 95 percent plus who don't accept "no planes at WTC."

Thus I conclude they are conducting an operation to sow division and brainwash Americans against 9/11 skepticism, just as Cheney conducted an operation to link Saddam to 9/11. I don't care what the motivation of any given one of them is, some of them are no doubt just garden variety morons. It is an operation in all of its mechanics and it's an excellent bet that it originates in some modern COINTELPRO factory. It may also be some kind of freelance or cult phenomenon, doesn't matter one bit. The mechanics of transparent lies and transparent attacks on all other members of the movement (good or bad) reveal it.

Yet by the logic you apply here, when you hold anyone who doubts the 9/11 story responsible for the "no planes" bullshit, then you too should be held responsible for "Saddam did 9/11." Because someone said it somewhere -- someone who, like you, also posits that 19 men acting alone blindsided America.

If I have to answer for "no-planes"--for that matter, if I have to answer for *anything* that I didn't say but someone else said who also agrees with me in rejecting the official story--then by that logic you have to answer for Cheney, Feith and Budansky.

right?

Sid

If you hold me or anyone else who identifies with "9/11 truth" responsible for curtailing or distancing ourselves from the "no planes at WTC" propaganda operation, then you are being completely illogical.

By the same logic, I can hold you responsible for nonsense or lies said by those who agree with you that "19 hijackers surprised America." They don't have to say it here. (Generally they're banned from saying it here, or they would be here saying it.)

to the stuff that's posted HERE.

I don't give a fuck what World Nut Daily says. I'm concerned about what's posted unchallenged here at DU.

Sid

Who is asking you to answer for anything you didn't say?

Here is a closer analogy for what I see in the case of Jack Riddler and HamdenRice. Suppose someone posted a "Sadaam did 9/11" and you and Hammy jumped in his shit for his stupidity. I don't post anything because I think it's just dumb, and you and Hammy did an adequate job of ripping it apart. But then, sometime later in a different post, I give you and Hammy a bunch of crap for debunking that guy but not addressing my own theory, which I haven't even articulated.

The reason that doesn't make any sense to me is that if the guy was spouting bullshit, I'm not going to criticize anyone for simply saying so. You and Hammy seem to make it more of a competition between two teams. Or (much closer to the point, I think), as competition between two political parties -- not a common quest for truth.

My biggest problem with the entirety of the "truth movement" -- you and Hammy included -- is that it is so inappropriately named.

Like post #9 and others. Or you didn't read, or you wanted to miss it. And a lot more besides.

LARED can speak for himself, but it doesn't seem to me that he was holding you "responsible for 'no planes' bullshit," as you put it in your post. The way you phrased it, it sounded like someone was blaming you for it. It seems to me LARED was saying that if you're going to whine about the fact that no-planer bullshit is holding back the "serious truth movement," then it's your responsibility to do something about it yourself. Not quite the same thing, since the other option is to stop whining about it, just ignore it, and let things play out on their own. But as you pointed out elsewhere, a few people in the "movement" have tried to do something about it, and all they got for their trouble was to be branded as disinfo agents of the conspiracy. Of course, you say the same thing about them, so I guess that's fair. Things would be so, so much easier if the "truth movement" had some truth to work with, wouldn't it?

But speaking of missing things, you seem to have missed the rest of my post.

Yet by the logic you apply here, when you hold anyone who doubts the 9/11 story responsible for the "no planes" bullshit, then you too should be held responsible for "Saddam did 9/11." Because someone said it somewhere -- someone who, like you, also posits that 19 men acting alone blindsided America.

If someone came out and said Saddan did 9/11, they I and many other so call OCT'er would certainly call them out on it. Whereas you and most other CT'er seem to take a hands off approach to the numerous 9/11 kooks that dilute any rational questions.

Why?

BTW you should freshen up on the definition of "did", as none of your post above indicates Saddam "did" 9/11.

"Whereas you and most other CT'er seem to take a hands off approach to the numerous 9/11 kooks that dilute any rational questions."

First, this is your direct and immediate contradiction to your post 31, in which you agree with Seger's post 29 that golly, you're not trying to pin the no-planes folks on the 9/11 truth movement, you're not trying to hold me responsible for things they said but I didn't, etc.

Of course you are! Of course many of the OCTists here love doing that, that's why there are several threads running right now doing that.

Second, this statmement is untrue, since I do not take a hands-off approach. If you mean that I don't bother to kick the threads of no-planes theorists or to engage them directly -- like you might in a way that gives them the legitimacy of being part of the 9/11 truth movement -- then generally, I don't.

Perhaps you engage them as a form of encouragement because they provide a quasi-pornographic confirmation of your own prejudice that 9/11 "CTs" are wrong.

Their transparent strategy of promoting a parody theory discredits the 9/11 truth movement by design. So I should engage them with what? Rational argument?

And what will happen then? Will people who only pretend they believe there were no planes at the WTC suddenly pretend they saw the light of rationality?!

I have many times denounced the no-planes ideas and the behavior of their practitioners, here and on other boards, on the radio, in a variety of forums... but in the manner that I choose as the most effective: by alerting people to the high likelihood (based on the internal evidence of disingenuity and the attack strategems employed) that "no-planes" is either a form of COINTELPRO or a freelance/cult operation modeled as COINTELPRO.

(Never mind. My correct response would have been simply to ask you, "who are these CTers you refer to"?)

in 2004 when he suddenly claimed he'd never said there was a 9/11 connection to Iraq?

"Rely on a complete lack of memory."

You said, "Nice try. Except there is no Saddam did 9/11 story," basically mimicking the defense that the neocons now put out with their claims they didn't say the things we all saw them saying live on TV.

You said, "Show me an US official that said Saddam was responsible for 9/11." I showed you a bunch, in fact the two most important US officials pimping the Iraq war lies (Cheney and Feith) in Post 15.

Why no answer, no self-correction?

Show me an US official that said Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

You showed me US officials that implied a relationship between Hussein and OBL, none of them said Hussein was responsible for 9/11. I certainly agree with you that, that real or imagined relationship was used to further an agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3758344

I do think the truth WILL come out concerning Cheney's guilt. In addition, there definitely was a high-level official who directly linked Hussein to 9/11.

karen huge, kindasleezy rice, rummie, cowlick wolfowitz, dick perle et al aren't (or weren't) "official"?

hmmm.

Bush officials were accused of playing politics while 9/11 skeptics were accused of being unpatriotic conspiracy nuts.

And I do so on the same basis that I reject many alternate conspiracy theories about 9/11 - there is absolutely no evidence that suggests Saddam did 9/11. People who argue otherwise can be shown to manipulate the things they use to support such a false idea.

Therefore, to an supporter (like myself) of evidence-based theories, the "Saddam-did-9/11" theories are no embarrassment at all.

Cheney and a few of his associates and employees insinuated it. Hundreds of them, in fact. On television. That's evidence.

After all, you accept the word of Cheney and a far smaller sampling of his associates and log-book keepers as evidence in the question of what time it was on Sept. 11 when he entered the PEOC, as against the contrary accounts of Clark and Mineta and the internal logic suggested by "plane is 30 miles out... 20... 10..." (which can be AA 77 but can't be UA 93). So Cheney's word must count somehow as evidence to you.

What a small number of officials said to the 9/11 Commission constitutes most of the evidence on the present-day official story, in fact. Even when they conflict with each other. Any witnesses who were inconvenient were ignored or tossed into the footnotes.

Now add a few printed transcripts of the alleged confessions of torturees who may or may not have existed, may or may not have been KSM and crew, may or may not have been the masterminds, may or may not have told truth under torture, may or may not have had their accounts transcribed faithfully, may or may not have been taped while tortured... That's your evidence. Voila, The 9/11 CR.

That is not evidence that Saddam did 9/11. That is many assertions of Saddam doing 9/11 and the evidence has completely refuted those assertions.

Re: Your absymal R-E-A-C-H



Now explain to us all how the tower manager at Dulles is an associate or employee of Dick Cheney. Explain to us how the FAA and military radar data came to be fixed. Explain how the notes taken at the actual time things were happening were forged. Explain how the Secret Service's records were altered. Explain how multiple interviews with many different people interviewed seperately resulted in the same story in this regard.

And when you can show me a similar set of evidence in the "Saddam did 9/11" CT, then you might have a point. But right now, you just got a bad case of sweaty desperation.

The point of course is not that I believe there is evidence of Saddam doing 9/11, but that the "evidence" presented for it - that Cheney and Co. said so - has the same validity as that presented to suggest Cheney arrived at the PEOC long after the Pentagon crash.

In fact, the government presented many more pages on behalf of its Iraq lies than its 9/11 lies, lots of pictures, video, models, graphics, many more cites. Finally Tenet and Negroponte right behind Powell at the UN to announce to the world that it was so. If there was actually no evidence to support what so many people were presenting, then it only proves that you can coordinate hundreds of people in a lie, let alone half a dozen.

Your quoting pages on end from the same 9/11 CR we both read won't make a difference.

Your main technique seems to be to highlight a name as though this name is a source supporting the 9/11 CR's claims about Cheney's PEOC arrival time. But usually this is not the case.

1) Reagan Tower supervisor - irrelevant. Okay, so he called at 9:33 am, and maybe that was the first he heard about a flight approaching the Pentagon. The say-so for the relevant fact here -- that this was the first time info about AA77 reached WH -- is still "Secret Service," i.e. Cheney's SS entourage (the guys who are actually there). And did he talk to Cheney, or know whether Cheney was upstairs or downstairs?

2) Gregory LaDow - Says he found out about the two later hijackings soon after 9:03 and passed it on to others. Good for him. But what follows, the key info to support the 9/11 CR conclusion about PEOC arrival time, is not sourced to him! It is vaguely sourced: LaDow's info "either was not passed on or was passed on but not disseminated; it failed to reach agents assigned to the Vice President..." So it's not LaDow saying that, but unnamed "agents assigned to the Vice President."

3) Garabito, Steenbergen - the agents? Listed as though in support of above, but no detail of who's saying what. Are these interviews available?

4) FAA and military data determining AA77's route - good for them! Completely irrelevant to the question, unless they also had Cheney on their radar screens. Your bolding it doesn't change that.

5) Bush and Cheney holding hands at secret joint "interview" in WH with 9/11 Commission in Apr. 2004 - this is a source?! Which one's the ROFLMAO smiley again?

So, having pruned away your protective brush, what's actually left as the sources for Cheney's arrival time?

Cheney. Mary Matalin. Lynne Cheney. And Cheney's probably hand-picked SS bodyguards, about whom we know nothing, including Mr. Delmonico. The latter would have also filled out the PEOC log, that is if it wasn't Cheney himself. Assuming the WH even bothered to present its Commission-plaything with the real PEOC log.

That is all. Tight crew. Associates and employees.

The first three of those names already "live in infamy" for a multitude of crimes, lies and corruptions. Cheney, his wife, and his long-term spin doctor. They might as well all three be married. (Ugh I just had an image of Carville added to the foursome.)

As I said, a much smaller group on the whole than the several hundred Cheney associates deployed on behalf of the operation to link Saddam to 9/11. And in both cases: the evidence is their say-so.

Now: Why did the "exhaustive" CR leave out the other sources, whose say-so conflicts with the Cheney group's say-so?

Clark and Mineta are the only ones saying anything relevant to Cheney's PEOC arrival time that isn't coming from Cheney and Co., and they tell a different story: they both have Cheney there well before the Pentagon crash. Mineta has him communicating orders relating to the incoming Flight 77 as it comes closer and closer, orders which are interpretable as standdown orders and about which the CR says nothing.

On the face of it, Mineta's account makes more sense than the idea that 1) the SS doesn't know shit due to crossed lines, even though Mr. LaDow learned about the second pair of hijackings, that 2) the evacuation from upstairs was later than in initial reports, and 3) that the same guys who practically carried Cheney by his armpits then paused to spend as much as 20 minutes with him watching TV in the corridor (!!!) and were still there long after the Pentagon attack was carried out.

If Clark and Mineta are wrong, why doesn't the 9/11 CR clarify? Conflicting accounts potentially indicate perjury, or dire incompetence.

If the CR doesn't have the guts to cite and treat contrary evidence, especially such as was presented to it in public testimony, it has no academic value or integrity.

Finally, why does Mineta repeat his story in documentaries and insist, when asked, that he is right and the CR is wrong? Clearly, his initial testimony was not merely "misremembered." He stands by it. You should just come out and restore some dignity to the man: Call him a liar.

Done.

WARNING: WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THIS BEFORE.

Despite your track record I bother sometimes because I take sport in it. But we have epics to write! Lovers to woo! Etc. etc.

If you once again avoid the questions and flood this thread with more cut-and-paste volumes that are clearly irrelevant, I am unlikely to answer. Let the reader engage in the exercise of deconstructing your subsequent posts.

Only one of us read the 9/11 CR for comprehension, I see. Gregory LaDow is the Secret Service agent who talked to Dulles. This began the procedure to evacuate Cheney. It did not happen until Flight 77 was close enough to begin its spiral descent. This time is easily discovered by the FDR recovered from Flight 77, but it is also available in the phone logs from the towers and the Secret Service. The 9/11 CR cites just the interview, as it was sufficient for this point.

Therefore, the evacuation of Cheney could not have begun until 9:36, the time that Flight 77 began to turn back toward Washington. This is why "FAA and military flight data" is important to understand when Cheney was evacuated. Cheney was evacuated because of the behavior of Flight 77. That unusual behavior has specific times established in the data. That makes it corroborating data.

Right now, Mineta's story is against the Dulles tower records and the Secret Service records. Clarke's account is simply being spun (he left the Vice President in his office and neither he nor Rice in the Situation Room had any real knowledge of when Cheney might be going down).

Aside: Garabito was likely with the President in Florida, and Van Steenbergen with the Vice President. See, the note about the tower call cites to LaDow, and there's a period after Ladow's citation. The endnote then continues with the story about the President's detail learning of possible hijacks, but no one telling the Vice President's. Then they cite Garabito, and then, "see also" Van Steenbergen. Since the smaller account in the footnote concerns itself with mostly the President's detail, the major following citation is probably who they got that information from (Garabito), and the side information from the other. That's how citations work, Jack. I hope you were taking notes.

You dismiss these and others solely on the basis of your personal incredulity, so that you can play "evil gubmint" with the account of Norman Mineta, a wonderful human being who is simply wrong here. Many separate accounts that hang together, verified by the records and the data, against someone with no real knowledge of what was not happening in front of his face and a man with two sons who were commercial pilots on a day in which planes were being flown into buildings.

You give the man back his dignity, Jack. Stop using his account to attack his government.

PS: And how the fuck you get off saying I'm "flooding" the board with irrelevancies when you BROUGHT THE FUCKING SUBJECT UP is something I'll never understand. Very likely you did so precisely so you could accuse me after I responded to it. Tacky, tacky.

LaDow: Ah, serves me right for not whipping out the book at 3AM and relying instead on your cut and paste. So I ended up confusing text with endnotes. My fault.

Fine, Gregory LaDow is not the SS fellow who talked to the FAA shortly after 9:03 am. He is, as you say, "the Secret Service agent who talked to Dulles" -- you mean, of course, Reagan Airport, which called at 9:33 am and which is said to have prompted the Cheney evacuation, according to La Dow, who is part of Cheney's direct entourage. (While LaDow would have known where Cheney was, Reagan of course would have only been on the other side of the phone.)

Now, please don't ignore that a "senior agent" in the SS (not LaDow, as I mistakenly thought, and not a member of Cheney's direct entourage) is still reported by the 9/11 CR as having talked to the FAA at the earlier time (soon after 9:03), and to have found out about the two additional hijackings (i.e., after 9:03 and well before 9:33).

Except, according to CR: "Though the senior agent told someone to convey this information to the Secret Service's operations center, it either was not passed on or was passed on but not disseminated; it failed to reach agents assigned to the Vice President, and the Vice President was not evacuated at that time."

The man who had the good information soon after 9:03 is kept anonymous. He's not cited by name or allowed to voice detail. The people who supposedly fucked up and didn't convey the good information are not named. Only those in Cheney's entourage are taken as conclusive -- and if they say they didn't get the good information from the FAA and thus didn't evacuate before their discussion with Reagan at 9:33, then by golly they didn't!

This is what I find unbelievable, because the CR "discovered it" only after years, in a way that conveniently allowed them to ignore the early reports, to ignore the Mineta, Clarke and Bohrer accounts, and thus to avoid the tough questions that an early PEOC arrival raises about Cheney's response to AA77.

So, you want us to believe Cheney, Matalin and Lynne Cheney.

Meanwhile:

Clarke, Mineta, and Bohrer -- What do they have in common?

a) They are the three named sources from outside Cheney's entourage who give information about the time that Cheney arrived at the PEOC. Two of them were in the PEOC as outsiders, with him and his entourage.

b) Their accounts are altogether left out by the 9/11 Commission Report.

c) They are denigrated as unreliable by you, as compared to Cheney's direct entourage -- which you legitimate by calling it "the government."

d) They all conflict with Cheney and place him in the PEOC early enough to deal with Flight 77.

Interesting!

Try as you might, you cannot disguise that the information placing Cheney in the PEOC later than the Flight 77 crash comes only from Cheney's direct, hand-picked entourage: his Stalinist wife, his ideological whore Matalin, and his bodyguards. To call the latter "Secret Service" or "White House staff" is accurate insofar as they are employees of these departments, but still, they speak as Cheney's entourage (that is why they were in the PEOC).

The sources for Cheney's movements are always in his direct entourage, except for Clarke, Mineta and Bohrer.

The only outsiders to the entourage do not agree with the entourage.

And that's enough!

The earlier thread will do for the rest:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x145485

I am satisfied with what I wrote in the above thread STARTING FROM POST 47,

I'm done with this subthread, and I'll leave you to essay some kind of "last word" and claims to victory, I hope without the sad personal insults you insist on injecting as though they confirm you.

"serves me right for not whipping out the book at 3AM and relying instead on your cut and paste."

Everybody in the thread is welcome to go back and look at my "confusing" cut and paste, which reproduced four paragraphs of the 911CR and the endnotes associated with each, all completely labeled. Your confusion is squarely between your own ears, Jack. How you make me laugh!

You continue to dismiss the tower evidence itself by simply not ever considering it. How do you do that? Necessity is the mother of invention.

Cheney was evacuated because of actionable intelligence in the form of Flight 77's flight behavior. That occurred after 9:30. End of match. All other evidence corroborates this except for Mineta and Bohner (who are demonstrably mistaken).

Clarke is not in the PEOC, Jack. Repeat after me: CLARKE IS NOT IN THE PEOC. He was in the Situation Room. He knew that there was a Secret Service detail outside the door when he left. They were where, Jack? OUTSIDE THE DOOR. They were not in the office picking up Cheney. He did NOT see that. Clarke's testimony about what happens behind walls is junk.

According to ABC, Bohner the White House photographer (and thus immune to Cheney's corruption, :eyes: ) says the Secret Service came in "just after 9 AM." He's wrong. If that's so, Clarke could not have talked to him. Clarke was there right after 9 AM. Where were the Secret Service agents, Jack? OUTSIDE THE DOOR, AFTER Clarke speaks to Rice and Cheney in Cheney's office. They weren't rushing in, they were OUTSIDE. OUTSIDE is different than INSIDE. Maybe we can get Cookie Monster in here to explain that to you.

More on Mineta: http://slate.msn.com/id/2063935/



Fifteen minutes after Monte Belger's ground stop order was when, Jack? Right around 10:00 AM. That's when Mineta was in the PEOC, giving the order. It was right after the South Tower had fallen. It was completely in accordance with the Cheney version. Mineta then hears the shootdown discussion (including a closer helicopter) and attributes it to Flight 77 later in the day.

The accounts fit together when you let the physical evidence (the FAA and military radar evidence) be the touchstone for the rest of the accounts. The seams become visible, and the outliers become explainable. It's not the dark corrupt conspiracy you see reaching out to official logs and scattered interviews of many people. It's the confusion and the occasional overreach by people on a very confusing day.

I'm sure they'd be ridiculed just as much, and by the same people, as the no-planers are.

Sid

and every few days I'd wonder why you don't have any posts disavowing "Saddam did 9/11."

That nobody is posting what you're suggesting they're posting?

Tell you what. You give links to "OCTers" advocating that Saddam did 9/11, and I'll give links to truthers advocating no-plane theories about 9/11.

And then we'll see why your foolish argument is nothing more than a strawman.

Sid

posting rebuttals in every Saddam-did-911 thread would be a fruitful comparison as well.

Some people who support the official story and the war on terrrrr also believe that Bush is guided by, and talks to, Jesus.

Therefore, all DU OCTabots must also believe Bush talks to Jesus, and need to defend this theory.

What's yer point? :wtf:

so what kind of bot are you?

(go ahead and finish the sentence, Nick)

Go, go, logic team!

Go, go, 9/11 Truth Industry Marketing Team!

Like, there is no Official Story Industry, no Bodanskys and Lawrence Wrights and Terry Whatsisname (LATimes) cashing in, no fraudulent terror shills on CNN, no Oliver Stone WTC and "United 93" and Fucken' Cloverfield, no goody-two-shoes apologia for torture and the CIA in "Alias" and the like, no propaganda exploitation of 9/11 to wage war and raise military budgets, no Rudy 9/11-iani, no Homeland profiteers, no duct tape panics, no Global War on Terror Panic Industry. No no no no no! You're going to get those kids for selling Loose Change t-shirts on the bones of our sacred victims. They're the ones exploiting 9/11!!!

Or wait, are you going to attack the widows next? I think it's time for another round of that.

Your canards do not age like wine, you know, they only curdle.

Clearly, to adopt the logic of certain posters on this board, since Nico Haupt and his CGI at the Towers theories are equivalent to the September 11 widow Lori Van Auken and her reasoned rejection of the 9/11 Commission (fill in your own examples), the OCT supporters are just going to have to own Dick Cheney and the neocons and their conspiracy theory that saw Saddam behind 9/11.

Why would they fake videos of Osama, when a few faked videos of Saddam would have worked so much better? For me, this is a fatal problem with the inside job scenario.

Cheney tried repeatedly - remember the Chech connection?
Much easier to frame someone on the payroll - Al Qaeda the terrorist network/intelligence asset.

to justify the Iraq invasion. The later exposure of those particular lies about Saddam doesn't change a thing thanks to the "now we're there, we have to stay" logic shared by Democrats as well.

Why frame Saddam? 9/11 worked for Iraq, and it's still good for more mileage today. It's much better to blame Enemy Unseen Who Could Be AnybodyAnywhereAnytime. That's been good for two invasions, a "global war on terror," a refurbished police state, domestic transformation, trillions in business, six years worth of fear politics and counting...

Besides, Saddam wouldn't have been a willing patsie, a role for which fundamentalist nuts are uniquely suited. The OCT has no shortage of supporters in the Islamofundamentalist world, you can be sure.

I wonder what the figure is now for number of US citizens who think Saddam was complicit?
I know it used to be more than 50% .

during the "run-up" to the March 2003 initiation.

"33 percent of all Americans, including 40 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats, say Saddam Hussein was personally involved."
http://www.prwatch.org/node/6427

There are plenty of morons out there, although not all believers of this lie are morons (IMO) - some are just woefully misinformed (painfully so).

It doesn't matter that Cheney generally insinuated rather than said something that would leave him legally exposed. He talked about how "we think" Atta had a meeting in Prague with in Iraqi. The point was obvious: to create the certainty of a direct link in the public mind. Not just an al-Qaeda-Saddam link, but a direct Saddam-9/11. That was the obvious intent, and it worked. But on this thread you've actually got LARED, in the style of the later neo-con apologia, trying to deny this example of Big Lie politics by the regime, and grant them the wiggle room that they kept for themselves when they avoided saying flat-out that "Saddam did 9/11" but basically drew a picture in which that was exactly what they wanted everyone to understand. With success.

They can depose the guy from power and HANG him, but can't plant evidence?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And of course, if you believe the OCT, because there are others who believe the OCT who also believe Bush talks to Jesus, then you must also believe Bush talks to Jesus.

QED according to OCTabarnacle logic.

:sarcasm:

I can't vote, but I was trying to think of a funny "embarrassment" to OCT thread and this is a good one.

Embarrassing.

Sid

They should also be taken as a warning against ANY type of theory that implies that because a leader is evil, he must also have been involved in crimes such as 9-11. Whether this is Saddam, Bush, or whoever.

'The problem is that not believing the government line doesn't automatically lead to LIHOP/MIHOP

The government line is that 9-11 was handled as well as possible in the light of then-existing knowledge; that it was a terrorist outrage supported in some way by the Saddam government; and that war in Iraq is essential in the fight against 'terra'.

*One* alternative is that Bush organized it with assistance from Saudi Arabia and possibly other countries; that Blair assisted him in covering up this plot; and, in its uglier versions (which I realize that you yourself don't subscribe to), that a Jewish conspiracy was involved.

However, it's possible to believe neither of these things!'

And one on Feb 21st, 2007:

'The right put forward official and semi-official conspiracy theories that led to utter disaster: "WMD!"; "Saddam MIHOP!" Surely this should make the left even more cautious about promoting and believing conspiracy theories until proven. I am all for further investigations of 9-11, but not for accepting accusations without proof.'

Unless ... do you suppose ... maybe the reason they are so surly
is not just that they are frustrated, but that they are embarrassed?

Ah, nostalgia...

Does that make you all warm and fuzzy, or what?

The shame that people have been tombstoned from here mainly because of their deep passion for the subject is just that, a shame.

Who among us has not broken some rules?

They are tombstoned because they have broken the rules. Period.

Have you not broken any rules?

And, yes, I have broken rules, as have you. Here we both are.

The OGCTers are true patriots defending some of the most vital myths and deceptions of the previous administration. I'm sure that Cheney, Dubya, Rumsfeld et al are very grateful for their hard work and support.

Let's see . . . 19 Russian hijackers used their crystal ball and planned hijacking

of four planes simultaneously in America -- coincidentally on a day when the Pentagon

had systems turned off and sent NORAD off to the Canadian border while they ran

simulations of ..... hijacking of American planes and flying them into skyscrapers!!!!

The Russians were kind enough not to simply blow up all of Wall Street -- they only

wired the WTC buildings -- doing Enron and other Wall Street/corps a service by

destroying evidence and information on investigations! -- and dropped each building

neatly into its footprint.

We're not sure when the Russians wired the buildings for demolition, probably one day

when Marvin Bush/Security was at lunch!!

The fact that the WTC changed ownership just before 9/11 -- and just before 9/11 was

insured to cover "terraism" should not be given a second thought!

The Russians are coming!
The Russians are coming!
The Russians are coming!