Hal Bidlack a 9/11 Truther?

[Dave Rogers]

Just in case anyone thought they'd never see it again, I thought I'd just ask:



Dave

 

[WildCat]

I don't think Hal is a truther, but the organization he belongs to sure have drunk the truther kool-aid.

 

[Puppycow]

the section quoted had 15 yays, 11 abstains and 6 nays.

Pretty amazing that only 6 of 32 voted no.

I'd be willing to bet Hal's wasn't an affirmative vote.

Probably so, but too bad he couldn't talk them out of it.

Also, the last bit of the section quoted reads "so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future." This doesn't sound like asking about an inside job, it sounds like review of security and investigation techniques.

Sorry, but a "Grand Jury" is not a body convened for the purpose of thinking of ways to prevent terrorist attacks. It is a body that is supposed to determine whether there is sufficient basis to try someone for a crime. It's like saying let's convene a football team for the purpose of building a house.

And I object to the premise, which is that an adequate "public investigation" has not been conducted. A "public investigation" has already been conducted "so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future." And they made recommendations therefor. They are saying that we need to do that again because the 9/11 commission "consciously ignored" "many disturbing facts." It's an insult to the 9/11 commission.

 

[WildCat]

They are saying that we need to do that again because the 9/11 commission "consciously ignored" "many disturbing facts." It's an insult to the 9/11 commission.

And I would bet anything the "facts" which were "consciously ignored" were that WTC 7 collapsed despite being hit by no planes, free-fall, "pull it", etc.

We do know that before they added this plank to their platform the committee members were lobbied by idiots from AE911truth, Richard Gage's nutball group.

This controversial plank was added to the State Democratic Party Platform after evidence supporting the critical need for a new investigation was presented at several caucuses in 2004, 2008, and 2010.

The citizens who presented arguments for a new investigation at their precinct caucuses are signatories to the Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth organization (www.ae911truth.org) which calls for a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.

http://colorado911visibility.org/20...ty-calls-for-grand-jury-investigation-of-911/

Now, you could claim that the Colorado Dems were duped by a slick sales pitch, but they cannot claim ignorance and/or haste now.

Only 6 objections?!

 

[MRC_Hans]

We must accept the fact that even if you weed out the obvious cranks, there is still a widespread meme that "an inside job is a possibility", and it does not seem to go away by itself.

This in a country where a large proportion of the population believes in creationism of some form.

So, if a new investigation could defuse some truther talk, it might be worth the cost. And for the true skeptic, additional info should always be welcome; if it supports the current version, fine! - And if it doesn't, we sure wanna know!

Hans

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I hope is that Hal Bidlack's giving the truther advocates in that group hell for that. I never knew him, but from others here say about him, and from his own posts on the topic of 9/11, there's no way he can be happy that this was even presented, let alone voted into the platform.

But, let's be honest: How many times are platforms simply detailed lists to make people happy? I'm willing to bet that affirming the platform is the last act taken by any candidate towards truther sorts of actions, and that nothing gets done about it afterwards.