Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dougolat

(716 posts)
10. Ahh yes we love us some skeptics -
Tue Sep 22, 2015, 03:35 PM
Sep 2015

Last edited Thu Sep 24, 2015, 07:38 PM - Edit history (1)

especially those who are more skeptical of the criticisms of the hare-brained tales used to lead the US into illegal, disastrous, and profitable wars than the preposterous and unverified tale itself: the "untruthers", one could say. Their diligent tag-team mockery, denial, belittling, obstinence, and defense of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" (hallowed be it's name- though hollowed be it's substance), indicates a disturbing allegiance.
The "Amerithrax" saga? no ceegar.
The war-games recipe? no ceegar.
The explosion evidence? no ceegar.
The structural engineers? no ceegar, (but the "low likelihood" mist from NIST, based on tortured scenarios and not addressing the actual collapse gets an OK, I guess because it's "Official", doncha know?)
The groundbreaking CIT (backed up the analysis from OSS on P4T)? no ceegar.
Kevin Ryan's "Another Nineteen"? nary a whisper of doubt.
The lack of proof of actual hijacker boardings? shrugs.
The disturbing fate of air traffic controllers' tapes? nothing.
The financial skulduggery of the day? "no tie to Al-qaida..."
The financial skulduggery of the following days? nada.
The rewards and promotions handed out to those who spectacularly failed their duties? SOP
The contradiction between supposed Pentagon plane recovered DNA evidence and "burned away" plane debris, even the titanium parts? poo-poo.

There's more, lots more; but the point is :

Yeah, that's Skepticism alright, IN BONDAGE, BLINDERS, & A LEASH!

Are you talking about the "official conspiracy theory" promoted by zappaman Sep 2015 #1
it isn't supported by science and facts! You just think it is. wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #2
Ever ask yourself why this 100% bullshit is only allowed in this nutty forum? Think about it. nt Logical Sep 2015 #16
That's nice. A lifetime hobby is a good thing. nt hack89 Sep 2015 #3
indeed! wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #4
With the end of the truth movement hack89 Sep 2015 #5
well i might think you're right... wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #6
Around here you are hack89 Sep 2015 #7
Repeating lies over and over again does not make them truth nationalize the fed Sep 2015 #8
I think hack89 is welcome here, considering that... AZCat Sep 2015 #9
Ahh yes we love us some skeptics - dougolat Sep 2015 #10
Oh you're a Pentagon no-planer? Wow... AZCat Sep 2015 #11
OH heavens! Imagine the temerity of actually intervewing the witnesses, dougolat Sep 2015 #12
Yeah, that's not really how it goes. AZCat Sep 2015 #13
Look who's talking, a believer in disappearing titanium engines! dougolat Sep 2015 #14
I think this is the real issue. AZCat Sep 2015 #15
Thank you, I'm sympathetic. And to continue with the Tonkin anology... dougolat Sep 2015 #17
The "real issue" is whether or not some of our so called leaders... wildbilln864 Oct 2015 #30
notice how he/she skirts that issue... wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #18
Skirts what issue bill? AZCat Sep 2015 #19
two engines/one hole! n/t wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #20
There was a 90 foot hole in the building hack89 Sep 2015 #21
90 foot hole in what building!? wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #22
You need to look beyond CT sites hack89 Sep 2015 #26
we have "talked about this for years." wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #27
"disintegrating on impact" wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #23
ah... wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #24
does your bedroom wall look like this? snooper2 Oct 2015 #28
pic! wildbilln864 Sep 2015 #25
Hey! Remember the subject if this thread was Alternative Theories? dougolat Oct 2015 #29
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»I support an alternative ...»Reply #10