Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? (poll)
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="willy279"] The bottom line is that those who disagree with you are not automatically crazy. Even if they are, think of them like mental patients. Do you call bipolar or schitzofrenic people names? No, you consider them handicapped. Some people actually think there are aliens and reptile people. Some of these same folks think there were no planes. Some of these same folks think Osama Bin Laden happens to be a CIA operative, etc. It is all belief, it is all subjective, and it all comes from within. If you're not trying to understand where the disagreement is coming from, you're just being a ****. You're not enlightening anybody by telling them they're wrong and calling them names. If they're not willing to look at evidence, maybe they're ********. Go to bed. Examine your value system. If you're a bully, great, go on in life doing that, but there will be people like me who will call you out on being such a cruel person. I'm part ******** and part bully and part genius, and I can tap into each for whichever interaction I'm looking to achieve. (Lucky me, gloat gloat.) It's all about the utility of communication. Don't be a ****. It's just the internet. Wish me luck on marinating this salmon in vinegar and lemon, if I get it right I get **** tonight. G'night.tycoonmike
Very true, but if you don't bother to question the claims made by the conspiracy theorists either (of which I've debunked several of the major ones using simple high-school level particle physics and chemistry) you're just as foolish as those who don't bother to question the claims made by the government.
Technically, he was. He, among others, was trained and supplied by the CIA to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the eighties.
What does that make you then, someone who doesn't bother to question, logically and empircally, the conspiracy claims?
What you call logic is riddle with subjectivism.
[QUOTE="willy279"] The bottom line is that those who disagree with you are not automatically crazy. Even if they are, think of them like mental patients. Do you call bipolar or schitzofrenic people names? No, you consider them handicapped. Some people actually think there are aliens and reptile people. Some of these same folks think there were no planes. Some of these same folks think Osama Bin Laden happens to be a CIA operative, etc. It is all belief, it is all subjective, and it all comes from within. If you're not trying to understand where the disagreement is coming from, you're just being a ****. You're not enlightening anybody by telling them they're wrong and calling them names. If they're not willing to look at evidence, maybe they're ********. Go to bed. Examine your value system. If you're a bully, great, go on in life doing that, but there will be people like me who will call you out on being such a cruel person. I'm part ******** and part bully and part genius, and I can tap into each for whichever interaction I'm looking to achieve. (Lucky me, gloat gloat.) It's all about the utility of communication. Don't be a ****. It's just the internet. Wish me luck on marinating this salmon in vinegar and lemon, if I get it right I get **** tonight. G'night.tycoonmike
Very true, but if you don't bother to question the claims made by the conspiracy theorists either (of which I've debunked several of the major ones using simple high-school level particle physics and chemistry) you're just as foolish as those who don't bother to question the claims made by the government.
Technically, he was. He, among others, was trained and supplied by the CIA to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the eighties.
What does that make you then, someone who doesn't bother to question, logically and empircally, the conspiracy claims?
To elaborate though, sorry I gave you such a weak response... I'm not sure what you mean by me being somebody who doesn't question. I've been quoting people in these threads and asking them questions to support their claims for pages and pages, now. I understand logic as well as you, but also understand that subjectivity influences the tendency to accept certain claims. For example, when we get into this business of Osama Bin Laden, none of us have observed this person empirically. This "logic" we're basing our claims on our from news or government sources. If from news, you have to understand where the reporters get their information, where the reporters get their income, what kinds of advertising influences certain news publications and so forth. If from a government source, it is important to consider potential motives of an intelligence agency under a certain regime, claims made by governments in the past; it's like doing a character evaluation as a detective. You value an alcoholic's opinion in some contexts less than a sober and healthy persons', simply because alcoholics tend to live in denial, so they may be less honest. Governments just tend to lie. You can refute this claim but I'll go grab links and refute it back - there's not much of a point of arguing about that. The point is, one can make a STRONG case that Osama Bin Laden (this is just one of ANY example pertaining to empirical vs. news vs. governmental information sources) is either responsible for 9/11 or, wildly, that he has and never had anything to do with it. Theo's loud and angry claims that Osama admitted it... well again, Theo's assumption is that one can trust government sources. It comes down to your beliefs. But I do think that skepticism and questioning claims are good calls.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="SNESbeatsps3360"] the sprinklers, and fireproofing alone would prevent the building to collapse plus wtc7 was made in 1987, there is no way it went down from fire aloneSNESbeatsps3360
No they ****ing wouldn't. Sprinklers preventing a massive fire caused by falling debris from other buildings? When it was made doesn't matter at all, and what fireproofing? Buildings full of paper, plastic, cardboard, and electrical equipment can't be made fireproof. :roll:
it's a steel building, no steel building in history has ever collapsed. plus you got the sprinkler and fireproofing = almost impossible for this building to collapse from fire alone. impossible Maybe you forgot - But the towers were over 1300 feet in length. WTC7 was within a 500 foot diameter. I don't think that any of the buildings collapsing in the perimeter should be a shock....let alone start a conspiracy, however I know how much GS users love being different.To elaborate though, sorry I gave you such a weak response... I'm not sure what you mean by me being somebody who doesn't question. I've been quoting people in these threads and asking them questions to support their claims for pages and pages, now. I understand logic as well as you, but also understand that subjectivity influences the tendency to accept certain claims. For example, when we get into this business of Osama Bin Laden, none of us have observed this person empirically. This "logic" we're basing our claims on our from news or government sources. If from news, you have to understand where the reporters get their information, where the reporters get their income, what kinds of advertising influences certain news publications and so forth. If from a government source, it is important to consider potential motives of an intelligence agency under a certain regime, claims made by governments in the past; it's like doing a character evaluation as a detective. You value an alcoholic's opinion in some contexts less than a sober and healthy persons', simply because alcoholics tend to live in denial, so they may be less honest. Governments just tend to lie. You can refute this claim but I'll go grab links and refute it back - there's not much of a point of arguing about that. The point is, one can make a STRONG case that Osama Bin Laden (this is just one of ANY example pertaining to empirical vs. news vs. governmental information sources) is either responsible for 9/11 or, wildly, that he has and never had anything to do with it. Theo's loud and angry claims that Osama admitted it... well again, Theo's assumption is that one can trust government sources. It comes down to your beliefs. But I do think that skepticism and questioning claims are good calls.willy279
The problem being that, while criticizing me and theo for being subjective in our reasoning, you're also being subjective. You immediately assume that the government cannot be trusted, and work from there. The logic I used to determine that the Twin Towers collapsed of their own volition, for instance, was not that which I garnered from the media, but that which I am able to derive from several physics and chemistry courses. Indeed, you've done nothing to debunk my reasoning, thus I can only assume you agree with it, thus invalidating several conspiracies right there.
I've worked from the facts of the scenario:
That four planes crashed into three buildings and one country field, destroying several New York skyscrapers and a fairly large section of the Pentagon.
That Osama bin Laden came out and sent a video to Al-Jazerra, perhaps one of the only reputable (if that means anything) news agencies in the Middle East, claiming responsibility for the attacks.
That no reliable evidence has yet to be revealed that involves the government of the United States, or any government for that matter, in the September 11 attacks.
Considering this, and despite the possibility that it was somehow a government conspiracy is still out there, I feel reasonably confident that Al-Qaeda was the organization that crafted the 9/11 attacks. I don't doubt that the government could have lied, but given the circumstances I highly doubt they did. Like a detective, one must take into account environmental data as well, NOT just the character of the suspect and witnesses. You have not done that. Indeed, if you had (and under the conditions I have) you would come to the same conclusion I have: that it is far more likely, though still potentially wrong, that Al-Qaeda and not the US government is the one who attacked New York and Washington, DC.
Indeed, if you think you're a threat to the government, you're wrong. The only true threats to this government are people who take both them and theorists who don't bother to question the conspiracy theories themselves to task and force them to examine them under the piercing light of science and investigation.
[QUOTE="SNESbeatsps3360"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]it's a steel building, no steel building in history has ever collapsed. plus you got the sprinkler and fireproofing = almost impossible for this building to collapse from fire alone. impossible Maybe you forgot - But the towers were over 1300 feet in length. WTC7 was within a 500 foot diameter. I don't think that any of the buildings collapsing in the perimeter should be a shock....let alone start a conspiracy, however I know how much GS users love being different.No they ****ing wouldn't. Sprinklers preventing a massive fire caused by falling debris from other buildings? When it was made doesn't matter at all, and what fireproofing? Buildings full of paper, plastic, cardboard, and electrical equipment can't be made fireproof. :roll:
RedDraco66
Not to mention that five thousand years of metal working has proven that, when heated to a certain temperature, all metals will begin to lose some structural integrity. Indeed, if it didn't, then why could ancient and modern civilizations alike produce swords, pikes, metal arrowheads, shields, plate and chain armors, and so on?
[QUOTE="MrPraline"][QUOTE="SNESbeatsps3360"] i'm not a sheep like the rest of you.SNESbeatsps3360You follow conspiracy theories blindly. You're as much as a sheep as anyone. the official explanation is the conspiracy theory here
I have to agree with this statement. The 9/11 Commissions explanation of what happened that day is just bad writing. You could literally fly those planes through the holes in the commissions report. I am not saying that this government was responsible but they have definitely hidden information and whitewashed what they didn't want discussed. I think a truthful independent investigation is very much needed but I doubt that will happen with the horrible mass media (propaganda) that we have this day and age. It has magically become un-american to ask questions in this country, and that in itself is total BS.
Ask questions and demand answers!
Also to the people who say "you're hurting the victims families." they should understand themselves that the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 are some of the most fierce supporters of a new investigation, though you will never hear a word of this on your pre-chewed mass media outlets.
No, and trying to convince other masses of people that it was is kinda disrespectful to the ones who lost their lives in the incident.FrozenDragon123
Only if it truly was an inside job.
But just trying to make a conspiracy theory out of it for the sake of making a conspiracy theory of it just for kicks is tactless.
[QUOTE="SNESbeatsps3360"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]it's a steel building, no steel building in history has ever collapsed. plus you got the sprinkler and fireproofing = almost impossible for this building to collapse from fire alone. impossible Maybe you forgot - But the towers were over 1300 feet in length. WTC7 was within a 500 foot diameter. I don't think that any of the buildings collapsing in the perimeter should be a shock....let alone start a conspiracy, however I know how much GS users love being different. Well you can say whatever YOU want about WTC 7 but the official report is that it never happened. By that I mean the commission never reported it happening. After their months of avoiding the investigation, then months or years after studying 9/11, having the Bush regime edit out and have them skew all kinds of information, they decided to leave it out. Bottom line is, nobody actually knows why/how it collapsed. The MOST EVIDENCE WE HAVE, is that it collapsed from controlled demolition, and for that all you have to do is youtube "larry silverstein," who was the leaseholder of the building and has been interviewed about this several times. His first response was that "the fires were so bad we decided to pull it," then he later said something to contradict it since this would imply all kinds of crazy foreknowledge, and in 911 truth bombardments in public forums he has been asked to clarify and he was COMPLETELY IGNORED THE QUESTION. I mean, to me that's not proof, but that's strong evidence that WTC 7 indeed was, "pulled." Stronger evidence than a governmental organization saying "well let's just pretend it never happened! That satisfies the public's curiosity! SETTLED!"No they ****ing wouldn't. Sprinklers preventing a massive fire caused by falling debris from other buildings? When it was made doesn't matter at all, and what fireproofing? Buildings full of paper, plastic, cardboard, and electrical equipment can't be made fireproof. :roll:
RedDraco66
the official explanation is the conspiracy theory here[QUOTE="SNESbeatsps3360"][QUOTE="MrPraline"] You follow conspiracy theories blindly. You're as much as a sheep as anyone.jer_1
I have to agree with this statement. The 9/11 Commissions explanation of what happened that day is just bad writing. You could literally fly those planes through the holes in the commissions report. I am not saying that this government was responsible but they have definitely hidden information and whitewashed what they didn't want discussed. I think a truthful independent investigation is very much needed but I doubt that will happen with the horrible mass media (propaganda) that we have this day and age. It has magically become un-american to ask questions in this country, and that in itself is total BS.
Ask questions and demand answers!
Also to the people who say "you're hurting the victims families." they should understand themselves that the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 are some of the most fierce supporters of a new investigation, though you will never hear a word of this on your pre-chewed mass media outlets.
Thank you! And for those of you who don't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission And thank you again! A MAJORITY of the 9/11 families are unsatisfied with the investigation, and so when people try to get you all emotional and feel guilty about these topics, remind them that the people most closely effected have not yet rested. Moreover, there are all kinds of civil servants involved in 911 Truth: firefighters, police, nurses, etc. If you're SCARED of 911truth.org or something, that's your problem. We're not scared of fox news or national geographic, althrough they have their biases. To assume ANYBODY is on a lunatic fringe is just limiting your information input, and a better conclusion forming process."9/11 wasn't an inside job" is what I'd say.
Of course not. Some pissed-off terrorists flew a plane into a tower. Nothing more to it.
[QUOTE="bangell99"]You sound pretty confident! Sounds like you haven't looked into claims or data supporting anything contrary!Of course not. Some pissed-off terrorists flew a plane into a tower. Nothing more to it.
willy279
I have indeed examined the insane conspiracy theory, and it is a load of bollocks, my friend.
99% of me says of course not, its completely ludicrous....but then there's always a tiny nagging doubt. Some things just sound a bit dodgy, although I suppose that's the main aim of the conspiracy theorist..planting those seeds of doubt.DanC1989
That's not their aim; that's their entire mantra. That's all they have; poke holes into the official explanation and suddenly they're right. No evidence necessary.
You sound pretty confident! Sounds like you haven't looked into claims or data supporting anything contrary![QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="bangell99"]
Of course not. Some pissed-off terrorists flew a plane into a tower. Nothing more to it.
bangell99
I have indeed examined the insane conspiracy theory, and it is a load of bollocks, my friend.
How do you think building WTC 7 fell?[QUOTE="DanC1989"]99% of me says of course not, its completely ludicrous....but then there's always a tiny nagging doubt. Some things just sound a bit dodgy, although I suppose that's the main aim of the conspiracy theorist..planting those seeds of doubt.Theokhoth
That's not their aim; that's their entire mantra. That's all they have; poke holes into the official explanation and suddenly they're right. No evidence necessary.
What about those people who poke holes in theories to expose them as being demonstratively incorrect, but don't use that as "proof" that some alternate theory is correct? Do you have a name for those people? Skeptics, or is that too respectful a word for you to use on somebody because it might lend them credibility? There's hardly even a such thing as A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, the term is simply used as a negative and derogatory term, and it negates and invalidates all claims made by someone once they've been given the label. No evidence necessary on your part, then.[QUOTE="Zeromus1337"]Why would you say so?"9/11 wasn't an inside job" is what I'd say.
willy279
The whole theory of it was a controlled demolition, or some different theory along the lines just sounds ridiculous and is completely disrespectful towards the families of those lives lost. Plus, with each conspiracy theory there's a hole in the argument. For example, "Loose Change" had like 4 different versions, that's alot considering it much of the content was changed with each new one. A theory wouldn't have to be edited over and over again if it was so solid. Plus, the conspiracy theories have already been debunked. Most conspiracy theories such as those, in my opinion simply are just presented very well but have no solid ground.
My thoughts. You're free to have your own.
[QUOTE="bangell99"][QUOTE="willy279"] You sound pretty confident! Sounds like you haven't looked into claims or data supporting anything contrary!willy279
I have indeed examined the insane conspiracy theory, and it is a load of bollocks, my friend.
How do you think building WTC 7 fell? How do you? If you think it was the result of a controlled demolition on the behalf of the government, please tell me the rationale behind said demolition.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="DanC1989"]99% of me says of course not, its completely ludicrous....but then there's always a tiny nagging doubt. Some things just sound a bit dodgy, although I suppose that's the main aim of the conspiracy theorist..planting those seeds of doubt.willy279
That's not their aim; that's their entire mantra. That's all they have; poke holes into the official explanation and suddenly they're right. No evidence necessary.
What about those people who poke holes in theories to expose them as being demonstratively incorrect, but don't use that as "proof" that some alternate theory is correct? Do you have a name for those people? Skeptics, or is that too respectful a word for you to use on somebody because it might lend them credibility? There's hardly even a such thing as A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, the term is simply used as a negative and derogatory term, and it negates and invalidates all claims made by someone once they've been given the label. No evidence necessary on your part, then.Skeptics have evidence. Conspiracy theorists have absolutely nothing but conjecture.
[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="bangell99"]How do you think building WTC 7 fell? How do you? If you think it was the result of a controlled demolition on the behalf of the government, please tell me the rationale behind said demolition.I have indeed examined the insane conspiracy theory, and it is a load of bollocks, my friend.
-Sun_Tzu-
Or how they magically transported explosives into the building without anyone noticing. Or how no explosives have been found.
Why would you say so?[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="Zeromus1337"]
"9/11 wasn't an inside job" is what I'd say.
Zeromus1337
The whole theory of it was a controlled demolition, or some different theory along the lines just sounds ridiculous and is completely disrespectful towards the families of those lives lost. Plus, with each conspiracy theory there's a hole in the argument. For example, "Loose Change" had like 4 different versions, that's alot considering it much of the content was changed with each new one. A theory wouldn't have to be edited over and over again if it was so solid. Plus, the conspiracy theories have already been debunked. Most conspiracy theories such as those, in my opinion simply are just presented very well but have no solid ground.
My thoughts. You're free to have your own.
In fact, scientific theories change all the time. The theory of evolution has changed every few years based on new evidence in the archaeological record, studies in genetics, and so forth. The Loose Change guys shouldn't be disrespected because their theories are riddled with problems; on the contrary they should be treated with respect for questioning the official story. After all, the official story is questionable. There are architects and engineers out there (not a majority of sorts, but some fairly credible individuals with a scientific background involving high level understanding of mathematics, physics etc) who have been questioning the official story for years. You can read about them HERE http://www.ae911truth.org/. Moreover, this business about THE FAMILIES. Read this quote: "An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation." It's from HERE http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633. I had heard recently that the MAJORITY of families' victims don't believe the official story but I would have to dig that up. Lastly, the "conspiracy theories" have been rebutted, they have not been debunked. Stating as such only demonstrates your faith in one side of the debate. Your allegiance is toward the government's side. (Well, in fact, there are hundreds of government officials who have come out and said the government they worked for LIED about many issue regarding 9/11. That may be another issue though?) This guy Theo, who will surely insult the hell out of me in this thread, again and again, linked to a National Geographic "debunking" piece. If you don't look at REBUTTLES TO THE REBUTTLES, then you're not following a debate. You're getting a machine like stop on one end, and you're lending faith to the last spoken side of the "debate." Here's a link that rebuts the rebuttle made by National Geographic http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/NationalGeographic/index.html So yeah, there's your opinion, then there's a slough of information that contradicts it. And before you go on tearing my opinion apart, I don't have one yet. I tend to distrust government, but I don't feel comfortable saying 9/11 was an inside job with confidence, especially for how crazy it makes a person sound, and because there is no smoking gun evidence to it. I am in support of a better investigation, but I also think government has more important things to do with its time, like hurry up and start putting less carbon in the atmosphere...How do you? If you think it was the result of a controlled demolition on the behalf of the government, please tell me the rationale behind said demolition.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="willy279"] How do you think building WTC 7 fell? Theokhoth
Or how they magically transported explosives into the building without anyone noticing. Or how no explosives have been found.
I just want to know the rationale behind it. I already know that facts and reality are vacant from conspiracy theories, but they are usually created to make some sense out of confusing, chaotic events. The 9/11 conspiracy theories don't offer any of that. Kinda leaves me dissapointed, to be honest.[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="bangell99"]How do you think building WTC 7 fell? How do you? If you think it was the result of a controlled demolition on the behalf of the government, please tell me the rationale behind said demolition. Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0XwfDXHjlQ It's only 24 seconds. It's Larry SIlverstein saying "we made the decision to PULL IT, then we watched the building collapse." I know that this word PULL is interpretive, but then there's all this other stuff about Silverstein's background with the complex, including billions of dollars of profits he made from investing in terrorism insurance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0&NR=1 Now, turning the question back on me "how do you?" is legitimate, insofar as you're not being rude, but you still haven't answered my question. The 911 Commission Report didn't report on WTC 7 AT ALL. That's suspicious. Period. If you don't think that's suspicious, I'm curious what your explanation to that is. No mention of the building falling. I don't have to go on making up incentives for the government, because I could be as creative as possible. It's like arguing for that pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon. There are plenty of reasons for it being there (well maybe not, but you know what I mean). In sum, I don't have an explanation, but I also fall in the middle of the debate thinking maybe it was Islamists and maybe it was conducted by parts of the US Government. That's fair, right? Not being sure?I have indeed examined the insane conspiracy theory, and it is a load of bollocks, my friend.
-Sun_Tzu-
How do you? If you think it was the result of a controlled demolition on the behalf of the government, please tell me the rationale behind said demolition. Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0XwfDXHjlQ It's only 24 seconds. It's Larry SIlverstein saying "we made the decision to PULL IT, then we watched the building collapse." I know that this word PULL is interpretive, but then there's all this other stuff about Silverstein's background with the complex, including billions of dollars of profits he made from investing in terrorism insurance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0&NR=1 Now, turning the question back on me "how do you?" is legitimate, insofar as you're not being rude, but you still haven't answered my question. The 911 Commission Report didn't report on WTC 7 AT ALL. That's suspicious. Period. If you don't think that's suspicious, I'm curious what your explanation to that is. No mention of the building falling. I don't have to go on making up incentives for the government, because I could be as creative as possible. It's like arguing for that pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon. There are plenty of reasons for it being there (well maybe not, but you know what I mean). In sum, I don't have an explanation, but I also fall in the middle of the debate thinking maybe it was Islamists and maybe it was conducted by parts of the US Government. That's fair, right? Not being sure?[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="willy279"] How do you think building WTC 7 fell? willy279
He could have been talking about "pulling" the firefighters out of the building, and the building just happened to colapse shortly after.
[QUOTE="Zeromus1337"][QUOTE="willy279"] Why would you say so?willy279
The whole theory of it was a controlled demolition, or some different theory along the lines just sounds ridiculous and is completely disrespectful towards the families of those lives lost. Plus, with each conspiracy theory there's a hole in the argument. For example, "Loose Change" had like 4 different versions, that's alot considering it much of the content was changed with each new one. A theory wouldn't have to be edited over and over again if it was so solid. Plus, the conspiracy theories have already been debunked. Most conspiracy theories such as those, in my opinion simply are just presented very well but have no solid ground.
My thoughts. You're free to have your own.
In fact, scientific theories change all the time. The theory of evolution has changed every few years based on new evidence in the archaeological record, studies in genetics, and so forth.Understandable.
The Loose Change guys shouldn't be disrespected because their theories are riddled with problems; on the contrary they should be treated with respect for questioning the official story. After all, the official story is questionable.
There are some aspects I question myself but those are relatively minor ones, in stark contrast to what The Loose Change guys present.
There are architects and engineers out there (not a majority of sorts, but some fairly credible individuals with a scientific background involving high level understanding of mathematics, physics etc) who have been questioning the official story for years.
I know of that, but there are individuals who have the same sort of credentials you have already specified who have already torn apart said theory you present.
You can read about them HERE http://www.ae911truth.org/. Moreover, this business about THE FAMILIES. Read this quote: "An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation." It's from HERE http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633. I had heard recently that the MAJORITY of families' victims don't believe the official story but I would have to dig that up.
National events, even tragic ones always have people doubting the official story, and or criticizing the story as to what actually happened, no disrespect towards the families.
Lastly, the "conspiracy theories" have been rebutted, they have not been debunked. Stating as such only demonstrates your faith in one side of the debate. Your allegiance is toward the government's side. (Well, in fact, there are hundreds of government officials who have come out and said the government they worked for LIED about many issue regarding 9/11. That may be another issue though?) This guy Theo, who will surely insult the hell out of me in this thread, again and again, linked to a National Geographic "debunking" piece. If you don't look at REBUTTLES TO THE REBUTTLES, then you're not following a debate.
On the contrary. I used to be a supporter of the conspiracy theory that the loose change guys, and other present about 9/11. But I (And this is my opinion, no offense intended), I saw how ridiculous those theories were. I mean, where are those bombs anyway? I have already formed my opinion, listening to both sides, good sir.
You're getting a machine like stop on one end, and you're lending faith to the last spoken side of the "debate." Here's a link that rebuts the rebuttle made by National Geographic http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/NationalGeographic/index.html So yeah, there's your opinion, then there's a slough of information that contradicts it.
I'll look at it, but I don't think my mind is going to back towards it's original state of believing the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
And before you go on tearing my opinion apart, I don't have one yet. I tend to distrust government, but I don't feel comfortable saying 9/11 was an inside job with confidence, especially for how crazy it makes a person sound, and because there is no smoking gun evidence to it.
When you say it like that, some people might think you already have a pre-determined bias. :P
I am in support of a better investigation
Don't know and or think such a thing would happen, though.
Bbut I also think government has more important things to do with its time, like hurry up and start putting less carbon in the atmosphere...
Well, the government isn't the only force(s) responsible for doing so.
My response is above.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] How do you? If you think it was the result of a controlled demolition on the behalf of the government, please tell me the rationale behind said demolition.-Sun_Tzu-
Or how they magically transported explosives into the building without anyone noticing. Or how no explosives have been found.
I just want to know the rationale behind it. I already know that facts and reality are vacant from conspiracy theories, but they are usually created to make some sense out of confusing, chaotic events. The 9/11 conspiracy theories don't offer any of that. Kinda leaves me dissapointed, to be honest. Are you familiar with Project for a New American Century?How do you? If you think it was the result of a controlled demolition on the behalf of the government, please tell me the rationale behind said demolition.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="willy279"] How do you think building WTC 7 fell? Theokhoth
Or how they magically transported explosives into the building without anyone noticing. Or how no explosives have been found.
Transporting explosives into a building wouldn't be that difficult. Use your imagination. I see your point that there were no witnesses, but there have been dozens of witnesses who heard explosions from inside and outside of the buildings, before the planes hit the buildings. Just youtube it if you don't believe me. These witnesses were never interviewed by the 911 Commission. I don't think explosives can be found after skyscrapers are blown up by them and then fall to the ground, but I could be wrong. I know that since 800 architects and engineers are a part of a movement that lectures around the world to question the official story, they probably have an explanation better than "der der CONSPIRACY THEORY," but again I haven't read through their tomes of publications QUITE YET.Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0XwfDXHjlQ It's only 24 seconds. It's Larry SIlverstein saying "we made the decision to PULL IT, then we watched the building collapse." I know that this word PULL is interpretive, but then there's all this other stuff about Silverstein's background with the complex, including billions of dollars of profits he made from investing in terrorism insurance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0&NR=1 Now, turning the question back on me "how do you?" is legitimate, insofar as you're not being rude, but you still haven't answered my question. The 911 Commission Report didn't report on WTC 7 AT ALL. That's suspicious. Period. If you don't think that's suspicious, I'm curious what your explanation to that is. No mention of the building falling. I don't have to go on making up incentives for the government, because I could be as creative as possible. It's like arguing for that pink unicorn on the dark side of the moon. There are plenty of reasons for it being there (well maybe not, but you know what I mean). In sum, I don't have an explanation, but I also fall in the middle of the debate thinking maybe it was Islamists and maybe it was conducted by parts of the US Government. That's fair, right? Not being sure?[QUOTE="willy279"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] How do you? If you think it was the result of a controlled demolition on the behalf of the government, please tell me the rationale behind said demolition.DarkGamer007
He could have been talking about "pulling" the firefighters out of the building, and the building just happened to colapse shortly after.
Yes, could have been. So there we have this allegiance to a preconceived idea. Did you watch the second video?All I want to know is wtf was going on with air traffic control, 4 planes going off course in 1 day and you didn't notice anything? 1 I could understand.. 4? Seriously? The country with the world's greatest airforce was allowing aircraft to fly over thier airspace, unchecked and unchallegened? Not even a why are you going off course from them?
In fact, scientific theories change all the time. The theory of evolution has changed every few years based on new evidence in the archaeological record, studies in genetics, and so forth.[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="Zeromus1337"]
The whole theory of it was a controlled demolition, or some different theory along the lines just sounds ridiculous and is completely disrespectful towards the families of those lives lost. Plus, with each conspiracy theory there's a hole in the argument. For example, "Loose Change" had like 4 different versions, that's alot considering it much of the content was changed with each new one. A theory wouldn't have to be edited over and over again if it was so solid. Plus, the conspiracy theories have already been debunked. Most conspiracy theories such as those, in my opinion simply are just presented very well but have no solid ground.
My thoughts. You're free to have your own.
Zeromus1337
Understandable.
The Loose Change guys shouldn't be disrespected because their theories are riddled with problems; on the contrary they should be treated with respect for questioning the official story. After all, the official story is questionable.
There are some aspects I question myself but those are relatively minor ones, in stark contrast to what The Loose Change guys present.
There are architects and engineers out there (not a majority of sorts, but some fairly credible individuals with a scientific background involving high level understanding of mathematics, physics etc) who have been questioning the official story for years.
I know of that, but there are individuals who have the same sort of credentials you have already specified who have already torn apart said theory you present.
You can read about them HERE http://www.ae911truth.org/. Moreover, this business about THE FAMILIES. Read this quote: "An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation." It's from HERE http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633. I had heard recently that the MAJORITY of families' victims don't believe the official story but I would have to dig that up.
National events, even tragic ones always have people doubting the official story, and or criticizing the story as to what actually happened, no disrespect towards the families.
Lastly, the "conspiracy theories" have been rebutted, they have not been debunked. Stating as such only demonstrates your faith in one side of the debate. Your allegiance is toward the government's side. (Well, in fact, there are hundreds of government officials who have come out and said the government they worked for LIED about many issue regarding 9/11. That may be another issue though?) This guy Theo, who will surely insult the hell out of me in this thread, again and again, linked to a National Geographic "debunking" piece. If you don't look at REBUTTLES TO THE REBUTTLES, then you're not following a debate.
On the contrary. I used to be a supporter of the conspiracy theory that the loose change guys, and other present about 9/11. But I (And this is my opinion, no offense intended), I saw how ridiculous those theories were. I mean, where are those bombs anyway? I have already formed my opinion, listening to both sides, good sir.
You're getting a machine like stop on one end, and you're lending faith to the last spoken side of the "debate." Here's a link that rebuts the rebuttle made by National Geographic http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/NationalGeographic/index.html So yeah, there's your opinion, then there's a slough of information that contradicts it.
I'll look at it, but I don't think my mind is going to back towards it's original state of believing the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
And before you go on tearing my opinion apart, I don't have one yet. I tend to distrust government, but I don't feel comfortable saying 9/11 was an inside job with confidence, especially for how crazy it makes a person sound, and because there is no smoking gun evidence to it.
When you say it like that, some people might think you already have a pre-determined bias. :P
I am in support of a better investigation
Don't know and or think such a thing would happen, though.
Bbut I also think government has more important things to do with its time, like hurry up and start putting less carbon in the atmosphere...
Well, the government isn't the only force(s) responsible for doing so.
My response is above.
It seems like you're negating this 40 families thing to some sort of mental condition, as if they're just screwed up because their families died. Did you read the article? There are people as a part of this petition like Ralph Nader, who is just obviously not crazy, but more on the side of genius than anything else.....
I think the excuse for that was that the system in place was more for outward threats, ie threats away from the American mainland rather than over their cities. And in any case, what could they do..shoot them down and let them impact into other buildings/innocent civilians? You do raise a good question none the less.All I want to know is wtf was going on with air traffic control, 4 planes going off course in 1 day and you didn't notice anything? 1 I could understand.. 4? Seriously? The country with the world's greatest airforce was allowing aircraft to fly over thier airspace, unchecked and unchallegened? Not even a why are you going off course from them?
Espada12
And it was NORAD's job to shoot the planes down, as in writing.All I want to know is wtf was going on with air traffic control, 4 planes going off course in 1 day and you didn't notice anything? 1 I could understand.. 4? Seriously? The country with the world's greatest airforce was allowing aircraft to fly over thier airspace, unchecked and unchallegened? Not even a why are you going off course from them?
Espada12
[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]No of course not. I think it's utter disrespect to those who died to believe that the gov did it :|Espada12
I don't see how that's disrepectful. Care to enlighten me?
Preaching over and over about how they were killed with magic in a conspiracy that Occam's Razor alone utterly destroys is slightly disrespectful.
I don't see how that's disrepectful. Care to enlighten me?Espada12Because instead of mourning them respectfully, you're sat around making up conspiracy theories. Just leave it be and give a minutes silence every year. People read way too much into things and it clouds what's really important. It's like the falling man. No-one knows his identity and nobody is desperately seeking it out because it doesn't matter who he was, what mattered was what he stood for.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment