"100% of the people who were offered the deal, took it."

[greyl]

This is from an ancient article about the truth and its distance from the so-called Truth Movement, written by David Wong. I'm highlighting part of a section about the cost and logistics of making a cover-up of an "inside job" work.

100% of the people who were offered the deal, took it.

After all, we don't have a single person who has come running into the offices of the New York Times, waving a check and saying, "look! Here's a check for ten million smackers that the government gave me to be silent about 9/11! Can you believe these assholes? Now give me my book deal!"

Not one. Even with the lure of fame and fortune and a chance to go down in history as The Guy Who Saved American Democracy, even with the crushing guilt of seeing thousands of bodies hauled out of the rubble, even seeing the horrors of a nation turned inside out by war and paranoia that was completely manufactured as a gruesome hoax, some of these people having their own friends and families and colleagues die in the attacks, not one turned down the money... or took the money and came forward anyway.

And that, is the conspiracy mindset.

It's not a belief in corrupt leaders. Hell, we all believe in corrupt leaders. It's a belief in a corrupt everybody. It's driving around in a world where every single person you see out of your windshield is utterly bloodthirsty and amoral, all except for you and a few, brave friends. What could make you feel more important than that?

(imagine a photo of Alex Jones and his bullhorn here)

You can see the attraction right away. Most people, to feel special, have to actually do something special. But why not do what these guys do, and just make the rest of the world out to be wretched? Hell, once we've painted everyone else as mindless or murderous, all we have to do to feel superior to them is roll out of bed.

Start at the beginning and read all of it: http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

[whatchamacallit]

1. Absurd piece of crap

Debunker straw man douchebaggery.

[William Seger]

3. Or ...

... it hits dead center on the absurdity of "inside job" theories, huh. Ouch. Add to that how completely unnecessary it would have been to concoct such a large, complicated and risky hoax, and is ought to be clear to any rational person why you need some pretty strong evidence to sell that theory.

Why isn't that clear to you?

[BeFree]

10. Ok

So why did bushco ignore the fact that their 'hijackers' were roaming the country?
When by all rights the aliens should have been deported?

Can you clear up that matter which certainly appears to be an inside job?
An inside job which the whole OCT rests upon?

Take your time. We'll be here, waiting, Seger.

[William Seger]

11. Your cognitive dissonance

... is amusing.

[BeFree]

12. So

You don't have any cognition of the fact that bushco allowed their hijackers to roam freely?

And what about Tenet, who's "hair was on fire" and who warned bush that the attack was coming soon?

Your dissonance is NOT amusing.

[William Seger]

13. You asked....

> So why did bushco ignore the fact that their 'hijackers' were roaming the country?

Which "hijackers" do you mean -- the ones who didn't really hijack four planes and hit three of their targets?

[BeFree]

14. How utterly pedantic of you

Their hijackers, upon whom their whole case is built, were known to be roaming the country and were known to be criminals intent on creating destruction and yet they were allowed to roam? And when investigators wanted them rounded up, the investigators were obstructed. And Tenet, the CIA head, knew it.

It had to be an inside job that allowed them to roam, right?

[deconstruct911]

15. Maybe we should ask John O'Neil

Oh right, he died at the world trade center.

[BeFree]

16. His death::: sure was convenient

Fired/resigned from the FBI as the 'hijackers' were roaming the country. Hell of a coincidence, eh?

[William Seger]

36. So, you accept that 19 radical Islamists hijacked four planes?

Let's take baby steps.

[BeFree]

39. Their boogeymen

Their hijackers, upon whom their whole case is built, were known to be roaming the country and were known to be criminals intent on creating destruction and yet they were allowed to roam? And when investigators wanted them rounded up, the investigators were obstructed. And Tenet, the CIA head, knew it.

It had to be an inside job that allowed them to roam, right?

Go ahead, Mr. Seger, Sir, take one little baby step and answer that question. Who let them roam?

[William Seger]

41. You put "hijackers" in quotes...

...implying that you don't accept that they hijacked anything, even though you accept that they "were known to be criminals intent on creating destruction" who were "allowed to roam"... to do what, please?

[BeFree]

42. To do what?

Become the bushco boogeymen.

No boogeymen = no hickjackers = no 9/11. Duh!

Who knew they were roaming the country and who kept them from being deported?
Who told the FBI they couldn't investigate? Answer: Insiders. Meaning inside job.

How's that for your first baby step? Was it easy enough?

[William Seger]

43. To "become the bushco boogeymen"...

... by hijacking four planes and hitting three of their targets?

[BeFree]

45. That is your belief, not mine

Now I get ready for your personal attack, which will be your next baby step, right?

I told you: remote controlled planes.

Are ya gonna tell me you don't believe in remote controlled planes.
Are you a ''No remote controlled planer''?

[William Seger]

48. Why

... would the perps need real hijackers for fake hijackings?

Oh yes, I'm definitely a "no remote controlled planer." Why would you need remote controlled planes if you've got 19 radical Islamists willing to commit a suicide attack?

[deconstruct911]

49. & give them a free run at nuclear facilities?

[BeFree]

50. Yeah, right

And fly the planes like professional pilots with very little training?

Sir, Seger, you've lost. You just have the necessary cognitive skills to compete, what with your baby steps and all that.
You are all over the place and not able to follow along. I forgive you.

[zappaman]

55. Heh

Congrats for not addressing the OP in your over a dozen posts.
Or even answering any questions posed to you.
Takes a lot of effort to be that disruptive.
You resting?

[OnTheOtherHand]

67. ROFLMAO

Way to keep it classy, guy.

[zappaman]

2. Good and funny article!

+1!

[BeFree]

6. Funny is right, sick funny

The one image I have is bush standing there with the bullhorn, taking great advantage of the situation.

Thank gawd bush never conspired to fuck over the country, eh?

[zappaman]

7. yes, a nauseating image

actually every picture I see of him makes me nauseous.

[BeFree]

8. yep

It is amazing all the stuff bushco did the the country. And they walked away as if no conspiracy ever occurred.

Thank gawd no one gives them any benefit of doubt, eh?

[FLPanhandle]

4. Conspiracy fans do believe in their pet theories in order to feel "special".

It's part of the allure. They are the few that can "see through the lies", they have done the "research", they are the ones who will one day be vindicated when the government admits...(fake moon landing, aliens in area 51, 9/11, crop circle aliens,....)

They roll out of bed everyday confident they will get to the bottom of things and go to bed each night dreaming of the day they are hailed as heroes when their pet theory is proven to all those skeptics.

[k-robjoe]

5. But of course it never happens

The only "vindication" that I ever got, is when I post something like my thread today about David Kelly, and for a change I´m not met with ridicule and namecalling or psychological analysis of my person.

But of course there´s no vindication, no debunkers giving me any credit. The only "vindication" you can ever hope for, is a brief pause in the ridicule. Then it starts up again, as if nothing had happened.

[FLPanhandle]

26. "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

Claim 1: Someone murdered someone and made it look like suicide.
Not that extraordinary. It happens all the time. A little hard evidence and most people would conclude Kelly was murdered.

Claim 2: WTC were demolished, phantom planes, the government ordered it to happen.
VERY extraordinary. If you go around not only believing this but spouting it with the "evidence" presented so far...well, you should expect ridicule.

[BeFree]

70. So

Ridicule is now a DU trait?

But bashing bushco is a disruption?

You have got to be fucking joking!!

[BeFree]

9. heh

You sure are scairt of them truthers, eh, panhandle?

Bush walks free, and you worry about the minds of conspiracy fans? WTF?

And, you have all the facts about 9/11 and can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the OCT?
Maybe you spend way too much time on what plain citizens do than the big crooks?

[greyl]

17. You have 7 posts in this thread so far, and not 1 is about the OP article.

Maybe you're "scairt" of it, or maybe it "struck a nerve", eh?

If you'd like to invalidate any of the points made in Wong's article, you're gonna need to talk about Wong's article.

[FLPanhandle]

69. Really poor argument

Claiming that I'm "scairt". Are you in the fifth grade?

"Bush walks free, and...<fill in the blank for any point of view>" Another example of a weak argument.

If you disagree with my point of view, fine, but lets see your argument.

[Ohio Joe]

18. It is the elephant truthers do not like to look at

They like to throw out "theories" like CD, mini nukes and no planes based on non-sense but never will they look at the mechanics of how the plot could be done, how many people it would take to pull it off or how they are all kept quiet.

[BeFree]

19. Oh?

Have you just ignored everything? Just flat out closed your mind to everything but the bushco OCT?

The root of our disbelief in the OCT leading to our flowery questions is the complete distrust of bushco.
Now, you wouldn't be trying to tell us we should suspend our distrust would you?
Of course not, only a fool would do that.

So, Joe, wattup?

[Ohio Joe]

20. How many were in on it?

Can you answer it?

[BeFree]

21. Sure

In the OCT there were at least a hundred who participated or knew. Some here, some over there.

Probably just 50 is all it would take for bushco, that and millions of people who ignore everything but the OCT.

[Ohio Joe]

22. 50? What did they need to do?

What is different from whatever it is you term the "OCT", what did these 50 people do?

[BeFree]

23. Huh?

You don't believe in, or even grok OCT?

If you don't believe in the OCT, then you must have personal knowledge of what happened?

Or is it the truth that you only believe what the authorities have told you?

And you continue to ignore anything that comes from sources other than the authorities?

Really, Joe, you need to be clear what the foundation is for your belief system.

Define, in your terms what you think the OCT is or is not.

[Ohio Joe]

24. Again... you play games

You called it, you define it. What did these 50 people do?

[BeFree]

25. Heh

So, you don't believe what the authorities tell you?
Good for you... they do lie a lot, don't they?

There is good reason to question all aspects and not just take what they tell you as the truth. EH?

Anyway, the 50 people flew remote controlled planes, set bombs, planted evidence, and obstructed investigations.

Maybe you have evidence that there are no remote controlled planes, there are no such things as bombs and bushco openly and fully allowed any and all investigations to move forward revealing the TRUTH?

What ya got, Joe?

[Ohio Joe]

27. 50 people did all that? Thanks for proving my point

A complete lack of any type of thought into ones CT.

So these 50 people... How did this go? First they plant the "bombs" in WTC1,2 and 7 I expect.... How long did it take 50 people to rig three buildings? They must be really good people, not a single person noticed them and not a shred of evidence left behind that the buildings were brought down with "bombs".

Then comes the day of the attack... How many of the 50 were required to rig the 4 planes with remote control before they took off? How many of them occupied the maintenance mechanics while they did this? How many of the 50 people were required to fake the maintenance logs of the planes?How many of them kidnapped the pilots and crew so they would not notice the remote control equipment? How many of them distracted the passengers so they would not notice no pilots or crew? How many of these 50 people were required to plant all of the evidence over three sites?

Thats some pretty talented 50 people... Demolitionists so skilled they can rig 3 building without anyone noticing, airplane mechanics so skilled they can rig 4 planes to be remote controlled without anyone noticing as well as fake the logs and distract all of the regular maintenance people and passengers while kidnapping the pilots and crew. These same 50 people can then move out to three far reaching locations and plant tons of evidence without a single person seeing them. 50 people so dedicated they never say a word. All of this without leaving behind a single shred of evidence or a single witness.

Un-believeable... No really, it defies belief.

Thats what ya got BeFree? Really? Thats your "truth"? Good luck with that, let me know how it turns out.

[BeFree]

28. I know

It is hard for you to imagine. Some people are just that way.

But your idea of 19 people (22 including Osama and the sheik dude and the Moussai dude) given that they were all fingered yet totally ignored by NORAD, airport security, FBI, and CIA, deceiving and evading the billion dollar establishment that bushco was in charge of, is the real fantasy.

And you are one of the few that still holds to that fantasy without question.

Or did you have a question? I might have missed it. What ya got, Joe?

[Ohio Joe]

29. At least I have evidence to see and evaluate

Not just silly fantasy with no basis in reality. Hey though, thanks again for proving that CT'er do not look beyond their fantasy into reality.

[BeFree]

30. Yes it is a fantasy

And you can't even fathom a question about the bushco OCT?
Even go so far as to claim you don't know what the OCT is?
Even after all these years?

What evidence do YOU have that doesn't come from the AUTHORITIES?
Your 22 made them look like total fools and yet you won't even question their story?

[Ohio Joe]

31. I won't play that game

You made up this "OCT" but refuse to define it and then expect me to defend it. Your term, you define it then I'll let you know what I believe and what I don't. Please be detailed and have cites for the "authority" it came from... and remember, you eat up some of your 50 people because each "authority" must be in on it.

Such a talented 50 people.

[BeFree]

34. Gawd, Joe. Again:

OCT means the Official Conspiracy Theory

I don't expect you to defend it. I expect you to trash it. Ya know, ask questions.
Blast bushco for the way it went about it and give them NO benefit of doubt.

Is that too much to ask?

[Ohio Joe]

52. I have asked many questions

Unfortunately, truthers have no answers.

[William Seger]

32. Serious question, BeFree, if you will please answer honestly...

How old are you?

[BeFree]

33. Just Smarter, Older and Wiser

You guys can't even think of one question about what the authorities have told you?

Basically, all yall got is personal attacks. That's it.

And it's like water off my back. Bwhahahahaha!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. ROFL

Dude, we've all seen this show before. If you want to convince people that you have something worthwhile to say about 9/11, you'll have to try harder than this.

[BeFree]

37. See? Personal attack

I matter little in the whole scheme. There are others who lead the way and I like their ideas about questioning 9/11.

But when it comes to blasting bushco here in this forum, I might just be up there. Join me, you might like it.

[zappaman]

38. so, what's your point?

Bush was a bad president?
Yes, we know.
Now explain how those 50 people accomplished everything they had to accomplish to fulfill your fantasies.

[BeFree]

40. I would

But you'll have to pay me first. I'm only in it for the money.

How bad do you want it? Can you beg?

[zappaman]

54. so, its just fun and games to you?

Thousands dead on 9/11 and millions more after a bullshit war and you just laugh.
Shameful.

[BeFree]

57. Nah

It's just you. Pretty much everyone else deserves some respect.

[Ohio Joe]

53. So you are only here to disrupt the forum

I am surprised to see you admit it.

[BeFree]

56. Eh?

Blasting bushco is a disruption? Hahahaha. So I am disrupting you by bashing bushco?

Do you realize what it is you type? And how it makes you look?

You seem, elsewhere on DU, like a fine fellow, Joe, but here in the dungeon you seem, well, different.

Blasting bushco is disrupting you?

[Ohio Joe]

58. Are you unaware of the purpose of the forum?

Perhaps you should read the handy link at the top of the forum. I've never seen you actually discuss any CT's, just play games. Now you state your purpose here has nothing to do with the topic of the forum. Why not do that in an appropriate forum, like GD and leave this forum to it's designated topic.

Your tireless insinuations that I support bush is getting very tiresome as well. Wanting to have actual discussions instead of playing games and wanting to stay on topic in the forum is not support of bush. Your unrelenting attempts to paint people here as bush supporters is disrupting IMO.

[BeFree]

59. Again

There are no bush supporters here. They've all been tombstoned.

But as we see, once again, since the OCTers have nothing but the OCT, they resort to personal attacks.
Kinda funny. Kinda weird. No. Really weird.

[Ohio Joe]

63. It is not a personal attack, read your posts

Every time you question why someone is not going after bush in this forum you question... or maybe just wonder why that would be. That is insinuating they support bush, deny it all you want, it is obvious.

That you play games is also not a personal attack, it's a fact, anyone can see by simply reading this thread or any other in which I have tried to engage you. I always answer your questions directly and honestly, yet every single time you refuse to show the same courtesy and instead play your silly games. I expect you get some type of enjoyment from this because you certainly know full well that the way you act does way more harm then good for truthers.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

66. Not really

I'm fine with your decision to not want to show mutual respect, I tried for a long time but am fine with going with your choice.

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. actually, it wasn't a personal attack

Shoot the messenger if you like.

[BeFree]

61. Try harder...

Dude, we've all seen this show before. If you want to convince people that you have something worthwhile to say about 9/11, you'll have to try harder than this.

[zappaman]

62. LOL

"Dude, we've all seen this show before. If you want to convince people that you have something worthwhile to say about 9/11, you'll have to try harder than this."
Ironic post of the week!
Nice job, BeFree
Heh.

[BeFree]

64. Yer welcome

Anytime for you my most attentive fan.

You little jokester you.

Oh, BTW, is there even one question about the OCT that you'd like to ask? Just one?

[deconstruct911]

44. Why give them a check for 10 million smackers, greyl?

Apparently David Wong wasn't a big fan of the SFChronicle which published this article long before his:

SEC wants data-sharing system

Network of brokerages would help trace trades by terrorists


"On Oct. 2, Canadian securities officials confirmed that the SEC privately had asked North American investment firms to review their records for evidence of trading activity in the shares of 38 companies, suggesting that some buyers and sellers might have had advance knowledge of the attacks.

The proposed system, which would go into effect immediately, effectively deputizes hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.

SEC spokesman John Heine told The Chronicle that the agency had thought very carefully about the step it took.

"We felt that it was a prudent decision," Heine said, "in part because we ask people in the securities industry for information all the time. We don't think it's ever been done on this scale, but it's fairly routine for us to ask for information."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/10/19/BU142745.DTL#ixzz1CSHjc7dJ

Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, explains the consequences of this action:

"What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration."

pg 243 "Crossing the Rubicon"


Ahhhh Mr. Wong, in fact in one 9/11 investigation alone, hundreds if not thousands of individuals were ordered by law not to disclose any knowledge of what they knew. Hopefully that clears up some of his rather alarming views on for example, 90% of Germans?:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x306542

[William Seger]

46. WTF?

Is this OP driving "truthers" nuts, or what?

[deconstruct911]

47. Jeez, it was my 2nd post in the OP Seger...

does it drive you nuts or something when I challenge the logic behind some of the OP's you guys embrace?

[William Seger]

51. Please describe the "inside job" you imagine

... where 100% of the people involved could be threatened into keeping silent about a mass murder by the government.

It does appear that your irrationality is not the exact one described in the OP, but I'm not sure that's a serious "challenge" to the conclusion.

[Sancho]

68. Watergate?

If the night guard had not caught them, who would have ever known? I suspect there are times that folks get away with "conspiracies". Even if I'm not convinced 911 was a US gov conspiracy, to assume it is not possible because no one fessed up is a weak argument.

[greyl]

79. There are notable differences between "Watergate" and "9/11". nt

[whatchamacallit]

71. Jason Pargin aka David Wong

I thought I better google this intellectual heavyweight, just to see what we're up against. Alas, although he's presented as some kind of authority worthy of rebutting, I found surprisingly little apart from these two amusing links:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/5_Things_Cracked_Stole_From_Uncyclopedia Something called Uncyclopedia. Scroll to the bottom for a story about a stolen bicycle.

and

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14159 Some kind of atheist board, where it's claimed David Wong is a fundie.



Thanks OCTists for challenging us so.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Dude...

You need to read both your links again before you think you've scored some sort of points.

Too funny.

[whatchamacallit]

73. What about them

I don't vouch for the content or veracity of those links, they're just pretty much all I could find.

[zappaman]

74. *whoosh*!

funny

[SDuderstadt]

75. Dude...

this is as funny as the time I was having a heated "debate" with a RWer and he, no kidding, provided a link to a letter to the editor as "proof" of something. Why do you even bother to post?

Too funny.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

77. "the rest is echoing in the cavern between your ears"

Mumbling to yourself again, dude?

Too funny.

[apocalypsehow]

78. Boy, does this guy ever nail it - especially the part about the seamy, racist underbelly of so much

of the "9-11 Truth" movement. Not all by any means, to be fair, but still quite enough that if I myself were part of the fact-free fanaticism that is "9-11 Truth" I would seriously question my alignment with the "cause" on those grounds alone.

Excellent OP. :thumbsup: