Terrorist Bombings at 2013 Boston Marathon today...

[Skykid]

I genuinely don't know what you're so pissed off about.

[Vyxx]

http://imgur.com/a/Nx8EU

If you don't mind a bit of gore.

Not that I ever met a conspiracy theorist who did.

[Skykid]

http://imgur.com/a/Nx8EU

If you don't mind a bit of gore.

Not that I ever met a conspiracy theorist who did.

I don't even... "bottle of fake blood"

[Ed Oscuro]

What don't you get? You send me off on a wild goose chase, and give me the equivalent of a "just kidding, I'm not going to pay attention to anything you say and I'm going to keep pretending that I didn't see anything.


If you're going to take a shit on the ol' US of A, find something sensible to complain about at least. There's plenty of things to complain about. But Larry Silverstein and the soldiers who hope they get good orders? What's next, are we going to take a dump on nurses and nuns too? I'm happy to talk about the many things the Administration did that were quite obviously flat-out insane, like trumping up evidence to go to war against Iraq and ignoring evidence that didn't fit their narrative...hey, that sounds kind of familiar. And I have to say that as much as I think it was an obvious failure, some measure of the deference afforded "the man in the arena" applies here. What makes the naysayers think they would do any better when they believe things that are actually laughable? At least the Bush Administration could often point to real uncertainty about what was actually going on. Ten years on, with what we know now, that excuse holds a lot less water, and in any case you should be aiming higher than that.

Looking at the Osama-related sites earlier, it was interesting to note how so much is being made of so little. While these people think they have a completely different temperament, it reminded me of nothing so much as the propaganda style pioneered by the Nazis: Take one or two sticking points, and then swirl them around and get really revved up about a bunch of other things that aren't actually warranted by the reading of the facts, and pretty soon everybody has their pitchforks out. I haven't looked over the whole list Skykid gave earlier - I'm sure I'll be kind of depressed at the mundane shit some people think is really important - but this was one of the main things that impressed me. Even if I agree that I couldn't say with all the certainty I want that it was Osama in that video, at the end of the day I can't see how it could represent an important exception to the 9/11 narrative.

You know, get your shit together, guys.

[Ganelon]

Back to the case.

Apparently, the bombers' mother was also on Russia's "caution" list to the US due to her allegedly having discussed a potential jihad with her sons. Of course, that's in addition to the fact that she is a convicted thief. And still denies her sons' involvement. And wasted thousands of US taxpayer dollars supporting her extremist family. Unbelievable. Shouldn't terrorists at least have some measure of pride and self-respect in what they do? If the evidence is there and if there's ever a movie on this awful act of terrorism, then "The Scorpion and the Frog" would be an apt title.

[BryanM]

Shouldn't terrorists at least have some measure of pride and self-respect in what they do?

I'm sure a fair number of abortion clinic bombers were on the dole, so no.

Being willing to kill to change a country; more than willing to take its money. Fundamentalists gonna fundamental.

[BulletMagnet]

Pfft, please. From the sickeningly entitled string-pullers to the ignorant dirt-poor anyone who wants to dismantle anything is always the first in line to take advantage of whatever it is they're dismantling...y'know, while they can.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yeah, I was wondering about that mentality when we first heard that the younger suspect went to parties and tried to get along just as normal after the bombing. I guess the possible involvement of the mom makes this seem more possible.

[Skykid]

@Ed, sorry for the hiatus, all work and no laptop makes Jack a dull boy.

What don't you get? You send me off on a wild goose chase, and give me the equivalent of a "just kidding, I'm not going to pay attention to anything you say and I'm going to keep pretending that I didn't see anything.

I didn't send you on any wild goose chase.

The incident is not unprecedented in its important facets. It's "unprecedented," apparently, only in a way that supports your biased process of non-logic: When I point out that nobody had demolished a building like the World Trade Center buildings before, so that the pet theory of controlled demolition must be interpreted with the same skepticism that the fire theory gets from truther communities, apparently that counts for nothing. There's a mountain of evidence and you're just throwing my work back in my face.

I told you I've already read the official report many years ago, soon after it came out. I have no issue with the science used in that report, I just question the report's validity based on the leaseholder's comments.
I don't dispute the application of said science in the North and South tower, they were hit by two planes and doused in jet fuel. WTC7 wasn't.

I said to you a building dropping in freefall within 7 hours due to internal fires was unprecedented. You said 'O rly', and I said yes, you won't find an equivalent case. Not 'non-logic', it's fact. That's not a red flag telling you to go on a special mission. I don't know at which point you think I hired you for your investigative skills. I told you, I already looked for an equivalent case, and it doesn't exist. Your use of your time is of your own volition.

Now please start doing your own damn research. I'm not paid enough for this shit.

I didn't ask you to do any research.

If you're going to take a shit on the ol' US of A, find something sensible to complain about at least.

No-one's shitting on anyone. We're discussing instances of dubious activity related to government, and there has always been dubiousness surrounding 9/11, some more farfetched and unreasonable than others. I also shat on the BBC and German news corps in my first post addressing the subject. No need to read into anything.

But Larry Silverstein and the soldiers who hope they get good orders? What's next, are we going to take a dump on nurses and nuns too?

I won't repeat this again, so read it good this time. Silverstein is not being accused of being anything by me. You seem to think I'm a conspiracy theorist, even though every single post I've made moves against the lack of rationality CT's crow. Silverstein simply stated, casually, as the leaseholder for the building, that (paraphrasing) "After all that had happened that day, we decided in the end the best thing to do would be to pull it. So that's what we did."

Never re-questioned, never denied. For me, that brings the WTC7 official report into question. I never said anything else, I don't understand why you think I'm denying the science of the report. I'm not, I'm simply questioning the validity of the report.

Even if I agree that I couldn't say with all the certainty I want that it was Osama in that video, at the end of the day I can't see how it could represent an important exception to the 9/11 narrative.

It simply serves to highlight the lengths that are prepared to be taken to lie to the general population. One must assume that if one such grand lie occurs, there are more to compliment it. This begs the question, what is there to hide?

[Ed Oscuro]

Funny you don't have anything more to say about the building research (more reading: #1, "the first [...] tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires") - where I was fully justified in saying you apparently weren't interested in what I had discovered. I don't particularly care if you want to give me thanks for doing your work for you, and you don't even need to acknowledge it. However it seems to me that you at least should not keep coming at me with the exact same inaccurate facts and innuendoes and then try to fall back on the excuse of the disinterested party looking for the truth, when you are spreading offensive and nearly libelous disinformation, especially when you stoop, although this is just following the lead of conspiracy theorists who should know better, as attacking Larry Silverstein for deciding not to put any more firefighters in danger for the sake of his property.

Let's talk about the Silverstein quote. Pretend that you repeat this careless half of a quote in front of Silverstein himself, adding, of course, "WHAT DOES IT MEAN? We report, you decide" - I will hopefully explain to you why I find it so obnoxious. Of course, you would not dare say such a thing in front of him, and your face would burn up as you realized that he would be able to give you the perfectly good explanation (if he remembered what your out-of-context fragment of his speech was from, that is; otherwise he might just be completely puzzled) after you tried to make him look like he was hiding something...especially as you realized the answer was so blindingly obvious. You would feel like an ass, and hopefully next you will see why this would be so, so you may be spared this insult to your intelligence.

Once again, we unsurprisingly find that there isn't anything sinister about Silverstein's comments when you put them in their proper context. Once again you need to go no further than Wikipedia to get a citation:

Larry Silverstein - September 11 attacks

Silverstein stated in a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds', "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Conspiracy theorists claim this saying meant actively demolishing the building using explosives presumably stored in advance in the building. The mainstream understanding, however, is that this was understood as a call to simply stop the fire fighting efforts and watch the building collapse due to the fires with no people in the building at the time.

Wikipedia's editors are very diplomatic about saying "only dipshits would think this means Silverstein is talking on a highly visible documentary about his plan to blow up a building, especially when we know that there were people trying to fight the fires, we know a lot of firefighters died and more would have been in risk if they had stayed in WTC7, and when he is talking directly about worrying about lives lost, and when he is talking about how they - the fire department - made a decision to pull...they surely were not talking about pulled pork sandwiches, I think."

If you want to fall back on saying "well I just meant it means that he just decided not to fight a fire anymore and that's suspicious, jeez," all I can do is congratulate you for almost figuring out that somebody owning a very damaged building right next to the site of the worst terrorist attack in US history, on the day of thousands of deaths, decided to collect the insurance money. Or maybe, as would be even more reasonable to assume, he was giving some thought to all of the thousands of dead in those other buildings and deciding that, come what may of that insurance money, enough was enough and the building wasn't worth more than saving some lives.

With the possible exception of a single video with (fake?) bin Laden, every single last thing you've said - and which I took the time to research - has been an "UNEXPLAINED FACT" only on account of your not doing very basic research to figure out what's going on; and in the case of Osama, there's no obvious relevance. You complain about me characterizing you as a conspiracy theorist, yet it is abundantly clear that you prefer we go look for convoluted explanations and sinister readings, instead of going for simple explanations and - by the way - assuming that other people may actually act in good faith sometimes. You can call it "looking for the truth" all you want; but you're not looking for the truth if you're not willing to give the facts their due, and when it is all clearly driven by a conspiracy-minded agenda. Conspiracy theorists whine about the world's hidden, evil dictators, and contribute greatly to poisoning the trust between peoples and diverting attention away from real problems.

Now please leave us in peace.

[Skykid]

Honestly, you're surprisingly rude.

You complain about me characterizing you as a conspiracy theorist, yet it is abundantly clear that you prefer we go look for convoluted explanations and sinister readings, instead of going for simple explanations and - by the way - assuming that other people may actually act in good faith sometimes.

All I can say to that is, if I'm a conspiracy theorist, I'm a pretty shitty one. I'd be expelled from the secret league for lack of commitment.