Not that the rest of your arguments have any validity, but the fact that you couldn’t get a simple detail like this right says a lot.

Answers for the victims, amnesty for the guilty in our own government, and REFORM of the dysfunctional institutions whose members plotted and executed the attacks (I’m lookin’ at you, military-industrial complex).

I have other priorities, not the least of which is to get Ron Paul elected. I understand that you agree with me on that point. I also think that if you rationally examine your position today and your goals for tomorrow, you will find that the prospects of achieving your goals will be better served by setting aside your theories for the next 14 months and putting all of your energy towards getting Dr. Paul elected.

Once that happens, you’ll have the necessary transparency to demonstrate your claims conclusively.

Denial is a powerful tool, but the interesting psychological mechanism behind this mass brainwashing of intelligent people involves post-traumatic programming.

After a shock trauma, whether experienced personally (like an unexpected physical assault) or vicariously (like 9/11 for most of us), a person becomes psychologically vulnerable — not only because of the physical harm they experienced, but because their notion that they live in a moral and rational universe has been violated.

If a person(s) is there to offer both physical safety and psychological safety during this period of vulnerability, their words and actions become part of our new sense of living in a moral universe again.

Rumsfeld, Cheney and the gang were ready with a quick and clear explanation in the days after the attacks, good guys vs. bad guys story we were all ready to hear, myself included, and a plan of action for the good guys to win.

Bin Laden was the bad guy, he had hurt us, but here’s a plan of action for making sure it doesn’t happen again. We live in a moral universe.

Funny how that restorative plan of action coincided so nicely with what the PNAC demanded a year before — a “New Pearl Harbor” leading to huge military budgets and a plan to snatch oil and natural gas from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The psychological kicker? Once the vulnerable party has accepted the post-traumatic explanation for the trauma and the plan of action to bring the world back to moral order, *any challenge to that plan triggers the same feelings of helplessness and anger the original trauma caused*.

This is why intelligent people, like those on this board, can’t connect dots that are very easy to connect, as with Cheney’s obvious culpablity.

And don’t think the plotters didn’t know all this. They had their stories ready. Psy-ops is an entire field of study, you know.

Everyone keeps saying they were fair-minded and thorough, but no one can give me specifics.

Just to pick one point, Dick Cheney: don’t you find it odd that 1) he was in charge of NORAD from the PEOC on 9/11/01 2) that was the FIRST day EVER when generals in Nebraska were not in charge of NORAD 3) Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified before the 9/11 Commission that he heard Cheney repeatedly give a stand-down order not to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon (youtube link upthread) 4) Cheney’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission was private, with no transcript, and not under oath and 5) he and his Halliburton colleagues have made billions of dollars off the war 6) Cheney was in charge of war exercises on that morning (“Vigilant Warrior”) that just happened to include terrorists taking over airplanes and flying them into buildings?

Can someone tell me why this is NOT a smoking gun? I’m really interested to know.

This is the case with the 9/11 arguments. I have considered some of the arguments, found them unconvincing, and rejected the hypothesis. The fact that I will not expend additional time considering further arguments in no wise suggests that I am close-minded or unfair.

Mr. Buckwheat, I would advise you to carefully organize your arguments so that only the very best arguments, the really bullet-proof ones, are presented first. If you present obviously flawed arguments at the outset, then you deserve the rejection you receive.

We truthers get a lot of this from the falsers. They’re impervious to data and evidence

No, I’ve listened to a few truthers before. I’ve examined the data. Listened to counter-arguments. Listened to counter-counter-arguments. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Then I rejected the “truth” as very unlikely. Since that point, I’ve focused my attention on other matters.

We truthers get a lot of this from the falsers. They’re impervious to data and evidence, and do not apply one-hundredth the scrutiny to the government’s official story as they do to alternative theories.

Because if they did, they’d see what really happened on 9/11: a false flag operation.

The fact that Buckwheat hasn’t been silenced by the government proves that even they think he’s a whack job.

DISCLAIMER: I don’t agree with Buckwheat. In fact, I haven’t even taken the time to read his posts in this thread, but I still feel comfortable in stating that I disagree with his analysis.

Having said that, Mog’s logic is faulty. Assuming for a moment that Buckwheat is actually on to something, the government would only silence him as an absolute last resort. It’s so much easier to just discredit him and his arguments.

1) on 9/11, war games were being held nationwide that simulated terrorist attacks involving hijacked planes being flown into buildings;

2) Dick Cheney was in charge of those war games, directing them from the PEOC in the basement of the White House;

3) 9/11/01 was the first day in NORAD’s history when NORAD generals were not in control of America’s skies;

4) That Dick Cheney claimed he got to the PEOC at 10:00 that morning, but Transportation Sec. Norman Mineta told the 9/11 commission that he himself got there at 9:25 and that Cheney was already there?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

5) Mineta testified in detail that Cheney gave a freakin’ STAND-DOWN ORDER not to shoot down the plane approaching the Pentagon?

Eric, there isn’t much room between these dots I’m asking you to connect. We have a clear window on how the crime was committed, including motive, means, and opportunity, and it’s all on freakin’ YouTube.

But you won’t look at it. Why not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttM3oUrNmE

Need another? Here’s Larry Silverstein admitting that 7 WTC went down by controlled demolition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs&mode=related&search=

I don’t know how many smoking guns people need…

Got any specifics? We talked about metal. Where are these other “serious factual errors”?

The author of that site is Jim Hoffman, BTW, who is a very well-known science writer…who knows the official 9/11 story is BS.