Justice. And Revenge?

[BeFree]

We all want justice for what happened on 9/11. Some want revenge,too, maybe all of us do.

So far we've had neither. So far, justice has not been served and revenge was taken out, it seems, on all the wrong parties.

Had several government employees who it seems to us either helped cause the events or at best through negligence and malfeasance allowed the events to occur, had several paid the price for their actions after a full and impartial hearing in our justice system, then maybe we could say some justice had been served. As it is we can say justice has not been served.

Had revenge been applied to those who it is said planned the events and had their people carry the events to the close, had revenge been applied to them and theirs, then maybe our need for revenge would have been satiated.

As it is Osama, or whoever, remains free.

So we have, after nearly eight years of terrible times, not had our desires fulfilled; we've no justice and no proper revenge.

That, my friends is why we struggle. We must have justice for what happened on 9/11. Until then, the fight and the struggle for justice continues.

[BeFree]

1. I have been asked

"But what, exactly, does that have to do with promoting 9/11 bullshit? "

Promoting? While some of the 'truthers' here do post some seemingly smelly bullshit, (and there are some suspicions they do so on purpose) for the most part the 9/11 bullshit comes from the Bushco OCT. We are fighting Bushco. Well, most of us are.

Not only do we not trust Bushco, but we also distrust the OCT. And we have good reason for that distrust. And frankly, I haven't read a whole lot here, or anywhere else, to increase any trust I might have ever had. Basically, that means that promoters of the OCT have failed to convince hardly anyone.

Too, what we have witnessed about the course of action over the last seven years is that the defense of the OCT has been caught up in a whirlwind of lies, obfuscation, and other basically undemocratic actions. Actions that any true patriot should have major problems with. And we have finally got some OCT supporters to admit that they do have some problems with the Official Theory.

That's another reason to discuss this.... to help others see their problems. To bring them out into the sunshine. To help put a final nail in the Bushco coffin. We don't want Bushco ever coming back, do we?

[Kalun D]

23. You have to be careful

and not fall into their traps.

"And we have finally got some OCT supporters to admit that they do have some problems with the Official Theory."

It's called "limited hangout". Admit something relatively benign and inconsequential. Meanwhile your getting away with the real crime.

"To help put a final nail in the Bushco coffin"

I hope you're just using Bushco as a convenient name. Because this crime comes from higher up.

[BeFree]

32. Higher up

Indeed. Bushco is just the public face of those who, given the chance, would make slaves of us all.

What surprises me is that far too many people don't have a clue as to what Bushco represents, and as long as that remains true, then Bushco can get everything they want.

Bushco goes clear back to the 30's, maybe even farther. Indeed they are a part of the 'royals as kings' tradition that America did so well to end.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Wonderful.

More facts. More evidence. More logical arguments.

Less discussion of motive of fellow DUers.

[Twist_U_Up]

3. Care to discuss the motive of this thread, you conveniently avoid ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=247659&mesg_id=247659

[William Seger]

5. LOL

> "Lack of response to this post from the usual distractors is telling."

But according to you, a response from the "usual distractors" is also "telling," isn't it?

So, what are those little voices telling you, Twist?

[BeFree]

7. Maybe

You should take Bolo's advice and stick to the facts and quit personal attacks?

[William Seger]

9. But I am! I'm just trying to get Twist to share these "telling" facts (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

10. No, I'm not going to discuss the motive of that thread.

Please stop discussing why you think I'm avoiding it.

I'm actually looking forward to that book. It's from an insider who knows what he's talking about.

Here are a list of a few things you won't find in his book:

Any evidence leading to the conclusion of controlled demolition of the WTC towers.
Any evidence leading to the conclusion of faked planes in the attacks.
Any evidence leading to the conclusion of faked passengers on those planes, whether victims or hijackers.
Any evidence leading to the conclusion of planes flying north of the Citgo.
Any evidence leading to the conclusion of nuclear bombs or destructive rays being using to melt the towers.


None of those idiotic hangers-on (some of which you promote incessantly) are going to be documented and supported by this book. Farmer's going to deal with facts and with evidence. I welcome such a discussion.

[William Seger]

4. "Promoting bullshit"

Just to put that question back into its original context -- i.e. that you think it's okay for "truthers" to spread lies as long as they're anti-BushCo lies -- what you're saying is that the end justifies the means? And that's what you mean by "justice?"

[BeFree]

6. I answered that

Unlike you who evades the questions and refuses to be honest with answers, I'll say it again: Some of the 'truthers' posts do seem to be bullshit (maybe on purpose) but nearly every OCT post IS BUSHSHIT. Fuck the OCT.

[William Seger]

8. That was simply the part where you acknowledged that you know it's bullshit

No, you didn't answer my question at all.

[BeFree]

11. Good job.

Making the supporters of the OCT look like idiots.

[William Seger]

12. Since there don't seem to be any...

... "supporters of the OCT," as you define it, around here, I fail to see your point. And third dodge of my question duly noted.

[BeFree]

13. No supporters of the OCT around here?

What planet are you on?

Or are you just being a comedian? A joker?

[William Seger]

14. I'm not responsible for your inability to comprehend

... what people keep telling you over and over and over.


(ETA: Fourth dodge duly noted.)

[BeFree]

15. If

You are trying to destroy the creds of the OCTers, good job. Keep it up, I'm loving it! You've played right into my hand.

[William Seger]

16. What "hand" is that?

Liars poker?

[BeFree]

17. Lets get this straight

You are not a supporter of the OCT?

[William Seger]

18. Again?

I'll be more than happy to answer your question -- again -- as soon as you answer mine. My first question was: Why is it okay to promote bullshit as long as it advances "9/11 truth?" So far, your answer is because anything anti-BushCo is okay in your book. Then, you post this OP talking about "justice" and refer back to that question, so my question is: Does the end justify the means in your book? If you think so, please provide your definition of "justice."

[BeFree]

19. Ok

So do you support the OCT?

As for your question (s):
"Why is it okay to promote bullshit as long as it advances "9/11 truth?" So far, your answer is because anything anti-BushCo is okay in your book."

I don't promote the bullshit. You keep asserting I do, but that is your problem. If you can back up your assertion, go ahead.. As for anything anti-bushco, yeah, pretty much ok by me, as long as it's not bullshit.

"Does the end justify the means in your book?"

Yeah, pretty much. If we can drive a stake through the heart of Bushco and be rid of it once in for all, hell yeah, get out your hammer. Ya know, you are acting like we have committed some crime. If you think I, or we, have, tell it. Lets hear it. Quit beating around the Bushco. The way you go about trying to say whatever it is you are saying is quite the bale of straw.

Be a man and say what's on your mind.... and answer the question: Are you now, or have you ever been, a supporter of the Bushco Official Theory? Spit it out son. Yes, or no.

[William Seger]

20. Not surprising

... and not surprising that you don't see how that attitude undermines your own credibility, as well as that of the "truth movement."

As for "supporting the OCT," I believe that 19 Arab Islamists hijacked four planes and managed to hit three targets, while a passenger revolt led to the fourth one crashing in Shanksville. I believe that the collapse of both towers and WTC7 were a result of the damage and fires, and that all "controlled demolition" theories are idiotic. As for what I don't believe, what I said to you http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=249029&mesg_id=249116">in this post is pretty much the same thing I've been saying as long as I've been posting here.

> "Be a man and say what's on your mind."

Good idea: Your continued flogging of that "support the OCT" bullshit is childish, pointless, and annoying, but your inability to understand what people say to you over and over, or to discuss any topic in any depth or with any maturity shows clearly why you do it: You can't do any better.

[BeFree]

21. Do you support the OCT?

That is not a bullshit question.

As for your question I answered above, and your continued stance of not discussing my answer - only cussing it, calling it bullshit, I have to wonder if there is anything at all in the 'truthers' arguments that you find does indeed rightly contradict the Bushco story.

Surely you are not here to argue that the OCT is complete and perfect?

[achtung_circus]

22. A huge problem

is that the CT stories are SO full of obvious and complete total crap defying logic and physics, that it's almost impossible to weed out any scintilla of actual truth the CT community may propound.

It's all poisoned by being in the same septic well, it's all fruit of the poisoned tree. It's all bullshit. (as is your question)

[BeFree]

24. Fruit of poisoned tree?

And what is the OCT if not the fruit of a poisoned tree?
Is that why no one will claim they support the OCT? Because it is the Bushco tree that it has fallen from.

Fact is that the OCT is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq, while there is no stench of such evil from any of the alternative theories.

Rather odd that there is no honest representation of the OCT. Of course, to be honest would mean that one would have to recognize the bullshit in the OCT by the followers thereof. But since individually they can get away with just trash talking that's all we get. That and thousands of innocent deaths that Bushco shows no remorse for.

I don't blame you for not coming out and supporting the OCT. You know it is full of bullshit. It would be nice to see a try at an honest representation just for debate purposes and for the pursuit of justice. As it is your representation here leads away from both. It makes the OCT side look even worse.

[Marksbrother]

25. Exactly what part of the "OCT" is BS?

You said: "Rather odd that there is no honest representation of the OCT. Of course, to be honest would mean that one would have to recognize the bullshit in the OCT by the followers thereof".

I thought that at the heart of most objections to the "OCT" is the notion that planes crashed into the WTC, yet you've written
that you don't deny that planes crashed there and at the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania, so exactly what is BS about the "OCT"?

[BeFree]

26. What is BS?

"Who could imagine they would use planes"

"Somehow they evaded the FBI and CIA"

The way the buildings fell and the videos of explosive squibs.

The lack of plane parts and the lack of black-boxes from the WTC planes.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

There are a lot of other smelly bs findings throughout the OCT. If you are comfortable doing the research you can easily find the source of the stench and it leads right to Bushco who, we all agree, is the crookedest bunch of politicians we have ever seen.

[Marksbrother]

27. Those seem very trivial and they don't refute the basic "OCT"

I thought from your loud and frequent comments about "Bushco BS" that you dispute that the "OCT" is a true account
of the events of 9/11. Correct me if I'm misstating your position, but I get the impression that you only have
some concerns about incomplete evidence to support all of the details of the attacks.

If I'm correct about your position, then wouldn't you agree that the "perfect" case is almost never heard in court and
therefore while it is legitimate to want to pursue complete and perfect evidence for all of the details of the events,
you are on a lonely quest that is unlikely to ever be completed?

You already feel that you know enough about "Bushco" to justify describing "them" as the "crookedest bunch of politicians we have ever seen" - is that not enough in your book? And, aren't you being a little harsh on the former president? After all, you
appear to embrace the most critical parts of the "OCT". The parts that you feel are yet to be supported by acceptable
evidence are so minor, it just seems a bit of "overkill" to me.

[BeFree]

28. Overkill?

Funny you use that term. I killed nothing. Bushco is the killer.

I am a poor representative of the counter Bushco theories, that is why the suggestion that you do your own research was made.

What I did list was the basics of why no one should take the OCT as a true account of what happened. If you find it trivial and in the same breath ask: "...aren't you being a little harsh on the former president?" then I have to presume that your allegiance lies in a polar opposite of mine.

My focus is to help end the unquestioning defense of Bushco's OCT and help people feel comfortable examining all the available evidence with the full knowledge that when one does do a proper examination they too will come to see the OCT as full of bullshit.

[Marksbrother]

29. That's how it appears

You said:

"Who could imagine they would use planes

Somehow they evaded the FBI and CIA

The way the buildings fell and the videos of explosive squibs.

The lack of plane parts and the lack of black-boxes from the WTC planes."



You DON'T dispute the basic claims of the Bush administration's explanation of the events.

1. Commercial airliners on scheduled flights were hijacked by young Arab men (your only complaint has to do with missing plane parts and the lack of black-boxes from the WTC planes)

2. Two of those flights crashed into WTC buildings

3. One crashed at the Pentagon

4. One crashed in Pennsylvania

5. WTC buildings collapsed as a result of the crashes and fires (you only dispute the "way" the buildings fell and what you claim are squibs produced by "explosives")

6. WTC 7 collapsed due to structural damage and fires

[BeFree]

31. Yeah

I seen all that before, and I do not support it and do dispute the basic facts. There is a lot of contradictory evidence supporting that the OCT story line as told is not accurate.

Too, given where the story comes from - Bushco, makes me know better than to support it. Not many people here do support the OCT, so I am in a majority. In fact, it seems nearly no one here will fess up to supporting the OCT. That's a good thing, eh?

Of course, the question of the day seems to be: "What is the Oct?"
Have any answers for that question?

[Kalun D]

33. What is BS about the "OCT"?

so exactly what is BS about the "OCT"?

in rough order of importance

1. the 19
How were they ID'd so quickly? How come 7 of those ID'd were still alive, and the FBI admitted they were possible false ID's? How come there's ZERO vid of them boarding? How was it established they were in the cockpits?

2. Total lack of quick and credible investigation. Evidence removed from ground zero. No NTSB investigations/re-assemblies. No video ever presented of hijackers or Pentagon. 4 black boxes "lost" at ground zero. 2 years before sham investigation was even started.

2. Approx 1 hr from first strike (or was it first sign of hijack?) till Pentagon hit, with scramble jets 5 min away at Andrews.

3. ZERO credible vid of pentagon strike

4. Penn crash site does not match description of plane intact crash.

5. 3 or 4 military exercises on that day with similar scenarios to the actual event, at least one of them re-scheduled to be on that day, which has since been re-scheduled back to it's original date.

6. Sham investigation, behind closed doors, Neocon members and all members vetted by neocons. "Testimony" allowed behind closed doors, off the record and not under oath.

7. President stayed inside a public classroom for several minutes after it was apparent to all it was a "terror" attack.

8. SEC investigations initially reported and pursued on put options, leads to a CIA bank. Is quickly hushed and no longer reported.

[BeFree]

35. F'n stinks

And then, given the history of the way Bushco handled all other aspects of governing.....

2+2 = 4. Seems like some are having a hard time doing the math, eh?

[vincent_vega_lives]

45. Yup the Bushco

Fucked up the economy, fucked up Iraq, fucked up Afghanistan, fucked up Katrina, but they flawlessly executed the most hairbrained, complicated and risk-adverse plot since we covered up the crash of those UFO's at Roswell and shipped them to Area 51.

Gotcha.

[BeFree]

47. Heh

And they profited mightily from all those actions. With Bushco it is about money, power and oil. They were a great success. They hit the 'trifecta'.

A minor number of Bushco employees actually took part in 9/11. Of course Bushco supported their actions all the way because they made money from it. They gained immense power but they would have failed if they let the truth come out - they didn't fail.

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. Hell they were allready rich

and now? Where is all this "immense power"?

Oh I SEE. Only YOU have the truth. :eyes:

[BeFree]

51. Thanks

All the proof anyone needs to see that OCTers have their heads up somewhere that makes no sense at all, is exemplified by your posts here.

To actually argue that Bushco did not amass immense power is just plain ludicrous. But so it goes with the OCTers, sad to say.

[vincent_vega_lives]

52. immense power

but not enough to plant WMD in Iraq, and remain in power thru the last election.

[achtung_circus]

30. I believe

that you conflate what happened on September 11, 2001 with the purposes to which * misused the worldwide support for the US after said attack.

Was Afghanistan initially immoral?
No.

Was this adventure badly bungled?
Initially, no. Subsequently, yes.

Was the Iraq invasion immoral?
Yes

Did that invasion have a fucking thing to do with 9/11?
No. Other than the above mentioned American misuse of goodwill and support.

Did 19 Arab men hijack and crash 4 commercial aircraft killing about 3,000 people?
Yes. I haven't seen a fucking thing other than tinfoil bullshit to indicate otherwise.

Have a nice day.

:hi:

[Kalun D]

34. Video

Did 19 Arab men hijack and crash 4 commercial aircraft killing about 3,000 people?
Yes.

There should be proof, it's never been presented. All they have is the FBI saying it's so.

there should be video footage of ever single one of the 19 boarding the planes. But we don't have footage of one single one of the them boarding the planes. Airports have extensive video surveillance. Where is that video?

the fact it has been with-held is a huge red flag screaming out LIARS.

I haven't seen a fucking thing other than tinfoil bullshit to indicate otherwise

You haven't seen any hard evidence other than some of them being false ID's.

so after they didn't establish the 19 even boarded the planes, how did they establish they were piloting them?

[BeFree]

36. And

The very idea that any of them could so accurately fly those planes is simply incredible. Pilots are well recognized as saying that only very experienced pilots could have pulled off some of the moves made that day and not always successfully.

They could not have been piloting those planes, no matter what the FBI says.

[Marksbrother]

38. Then who was?

"They could not have been piloting those planes, no matter what the FBI says."

[achtung_circus]

39. Sweet...

Pilots are well recognized as saying that only very experienced pilots could have pulled off some of the moves made that day and not always successfully.

and pilots are recognized as saying that the manoeuvres were simple yaw, pitch and roll type manoeuvres not requiring the skill level of something like, oh say, landing a plane.

So; if not who the "OCT" says were flying the planes, then who? Or are we into "no planes" woo?

[BeFree]

40. You are clueless?

You really don't have any ideas as to how those planes could have been flown? I don't believe it. I believe you are just ignoring any alternative possibilities.

[achtung_circus]

41. No I am not...

nice try, though.

And speaking of ignoring alternative possibilities:



You seem a little tied to your foregone conclusions.

[greyl]

37. Video was released in 2004, before the 9/11 CR.

The video was released by a law firm representing families of the victims.
It's on YouTube, fercrisakes.

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. Lets get THIS straight

You are not a supporter of...

No aircraft at the Pentagon, WTC, Shanksville?

Controlled demolition of the WTC?

[BeFree]

43. Right

I do not support the OCT. Do you?

[vincent_vega_lives]

44. Nope

Nor am I a supporter of controled demolition or no-planes either.

I am an athletic supporter however.

[BeFree]

46. Ya know

When I started asking that question I thought one or two people would say they supported the OCT. WRONG!

But I can see why. There's no justice in the OCT. It lacks what America stands for: innocent until proven guilty. Since there has been little evidence presented by the OCT that has had a fair and impartial hearing, how could anyone say it resembles true justice? So, nobody supports it.

That's a good thing. We're getting somewhere.

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. Not really

As long as people keep making up evidence based on silly-science we are getting no where.

I would argue that "innocent until proven guilty" is hardly the thing America stand for.

[BeFree]

50. You would argue?

That innocent until proven guilty is hardly something America stands for?

First: Are you an American?

Second: Have you any sense of American history and its judicial system?

Third: I would like to see your argument so I could (deleted)