Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? (poll)

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

They were aware of the hijackings, the problem was that the hijackers turned off the tracking devices so they had a hard time figuring out where the planes were. Also, the airforce was mobilized....

[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.willy279

Or how they magically transported explosives into the building without anyone noticing. Or how no explosives have been found.

Yes, in your imagination, anything is possible. They sprinkled fairy dust into the bombs and they turned invisible. Then they had some dudes dressed up like mailmen go in and fuse them (magically) with the walls while none of the thousands of employees were looking. They did this over the span of several months with several tons of explosives.

This all with the help of Harry Potter and friends.

Ooh, 800, as opposed to the tens of thousands saying they're full of ****.

Not quiet sure. If it wasn't it's incredibly sad.

If it was, F**K DA POLICE!

[QUOTE="Zeromus1337"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] 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.

willy279

My response is above.

I was making more of a general statement, not one towards the families, but towards everyone who doubts the official story. No I don't think the families of those lost are crazy.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

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?

DanC1989

I am not talking about the aftermath here of what would happen, what I'm talking about is how come the entire event went unnoticed for so long, it's not as if the planes were hijacked and crashed into the towers seconds after.... but yea I know you were challeging what I said anyway :P.

[QUOTE="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 :|Theokhoth

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.

We don't have to resort to cursing.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

I don't see how that's disrepectful. Care to enlighten me?

willy279

Preaching over and over about how they were killed with magic in a conspiracy that Occam's Razor alone utterly destroys is slightly disrespectful.

When two theories attempt to explain the same phenomenon, the one with the fewest assumptions is to be preferred until further evidence arises. Conspiracy theories make tons of assumptions (lol, "use your imagination") whereas the official explanation explains the most data with the most evidence.

I think I'm a little sick of conspiracy theorists and their bullcrap after 8 years.

Yes, in your imagination, anything is possible. They sprinkled fairy dust into the bombs and they turned invisible. Then they had some dudes dressed up like mailmen go in and fuse them (magically) with the walls while none of the thousands of employees were looking. They did this over the span of several months with several tons of explosives.

This all with the help of Harry Potter and friends.

Ooh, 800, as opposed to the tens of thousands saying they're full of ****.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Or how they magically transported explosives into the building without anyone noticing. Or how no explosives have been found.

Theokhoth

Yes, in your imagination, anything is possible. They sprinkled fairy dust into the bombs and they turned invisible. Then they had some dudes dressed up like mailmen go in and fuse them (magically) with the walls while none of the thousands of employees were looking. They did this over the span of several months with several tons of explosives.

This all with the help of Harry Potter and friends.

Ooh, 800, as opposed to the tens of thousands saying they're full of ****.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Yes, in your imagination, anything is possible. They sprinkled fairy dust into the bombs and they turned invisible. Then they had some dudes dressed up like mailmen go in and fuse them (magically) with the walls while none of the thousands of employees were looking. They did this over the span of several months with several tons of explosives.

This all with the help of Harry Potter and friends.

Ooh, 800, as opposed to the tens of thousands saying they're full of ****.tofu-lion91

Aw, I love me too. :oops:

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?

willy279

Couldn't possibly be in reference to pulling the firefighters already dispatched to the building to attempt to save it out so that they would be in relative safety in case the building did collapse?

And yet, the 2008 NIST report did. How odd that you could have forgotten that one...

You can easily say you don't have an explanation, yes. I've done so already. What I have also done, though, is provide evidence that both gives credence to the official explanation and debunks several of the most commonly held conspiracies. You have given no evidence (because the lack of evidence isn't, in and of itself, evidence) for your theory that the buildings were demolished professionally, or that the government had a hand in the attack.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] 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.willy279

Yes, in your imagination, anything is possible. They sprinkled fairy dust into the bombs and they turned invisible. Then they had some dudes dressed up like mailmen go in and fuse them (magically) with the walls while none of the thousands of employees were looking. They did this over the span of several months with several tons of explosives.

This all with the help of Harry Potter and friends.

Ooh, 800, as opposed to the tens of thousands saying they're full of ****.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Gee, I don't know, every single engineering firm in America and the United Kingdom?

And I'm not more rational than everybody else. Just you and your fellow conspiracy theorists.

[QUOTE="DanC1989"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

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

I am not talking about the aftermath here of what would happen, what I'm talking about is how come the entire event went unnoticed for so long, it's not as if the planes were hijacked and crashed into the towers seconds after.... but yea I know you were challeging what I said anyway :P.

[QUOTE="willy279"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Preaching over and over about how they were killed with magic in a conspiracy that Occam's Razor alone utterly destroys is slightly disrespectful.

Theokhoth

When two theories attempt to explain the same phenomenon, the one with the fewest assumptions is to be preferred until further evidence arises. Conspiracy theories make tons of assumptions (lol, "use your imagination") whereas the official explanation explains the most data with the most evidence.

I think I'm a little sick of conspiracy theorists and their bullcrap after 8 years.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] Occam's Razor doesn't do **** in this case, who the **** do you think you are?

willy279

When two theories attempt to explain the same phenomenon, the one with the fewest assumptions is to be preferred until further evidence arises. Conspiracy theories make tons of assumptions (lol, "use your imagination") whereas the official explanation explains the most data with the most evidence.

I think I'm a little sick of conspiracy theorists and their bullcrap after 8 years.

Besides, you're making things up. NIST discussed WTC7 in great detail.

[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Yes, in your imagination, anything is possible. They sprinkled fairy dust into the bombs and they turned invisible. Then they had some dudes dressed up like mailmen go in and fuse them (magically) with the walls while none of the thousands of employees were looking. They did this over the span of several months with several tons of explosives.

This all with the help of Harry Potter and friends.

Ooh, 800, as opposed to the tens of thousands saying they're full of ****.

Theokhoth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Gee, I don't know, every single engineering firm in America and the United Kingdom?

And I'm not more rational than everybody else. Just you and your fellow conspiracy theorists.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] Occam's Razor doesn't do **** in this case, who the **** do you think you are?

willy279

When two theories attempt to explain the same phenomenon, the one with the fewest assumptions is to be preferred until further evidence arises. Conspiracy theories make tons of assumptions (lol, "use your imagination") whereas the official explanation explains the most data with the most evidence.

I think I'm a little sick of conspiracy theorists and their bullcrap after 8 years.

And I suppose you'll just ignore NIST's investigation and report on the collapse of WTC7, then?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man You should work for Fox News. Where are the tens of thousands? This is not a sardonic tone, I'm asking as an intelligent person, like you. Except I'm being nice to you, Oh More Rational Than Everyone Else Guy!willy279

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Gee, I don't know, every single engineering firm in America and the United Kingdom?

And I'm not more rational than everybody else. Just you and your fellow conspiracy theorists.

[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

When two theories attempt to explain the same phenomenon, the one with the fewest assumptions is to be preferred until further evidence arises. Conspiracy theories make tons of assumptions (lol, "use your imagination") whereas the official explanation explains the most data with the most evidence.

I think I'm a little sick of conspiracy theorists and their bullcrap after 8 years.

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="willy279"] The official story is that WTC 7 didn't collapse. The commission report did not include it in the report.willy279

[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Gee, I don't know, every single engineering firm in America and the United Kingdom?

And I'm not more rational than everybody else. Just you and your fellow conspiracy theorists.

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="willy279"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Maybe the Commission Report didn't discuss it because WTC7 didn't matter? Because nobody cared? It wasn't the same kind of landmark as the two towers were, and nobody was killed in the collapse. Besides, you're making things up. NIST discussed WTC7 in great detail?PannicAtack

Of course they were. Everybody knows the FDNY keeps in close contact with Hogwarts.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="willy279"] Where's your evidence that every engineering firm in the US/UK agree with the official story? I'm just giving you the 800 that have signed on to the AE group, not even the ones affiliated with other groups. There could be more, and I don't see how these numbers are all that important, but do you have evidence of 10,000+ engineers backing the official story? And I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Mr. O'Reily.willy279

Oh, please, do you honestly think you're fooling anybody?

[QUOTE="willy279"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Maybe the Commission Report didn't discuss it because WTC7 didn't matter? Because nobody cared? It wasn't the same kind of landmark as the two towers were, and nobody was killed in the collapse. Besides, you're making things up. NIST discussed WTC7 in great detail?PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="willy279"] Where's your evidence that every engineering firm in the US/UK agree with the official story? I'm just giving you the 800 that have signed on to the AE group, not even the ones affiliated with other groups. There could be more, and I don't see how these numbers are all that important, but do you have evidence of 10,000+ engineers backing the official story? And I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Mr. O'Reily.willy279

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="willy279"] Good call, NIST for sure, but the Commission Report didn't. I don't understand this "nobody cares," thing though. That's invalidating everybody who does care, and there are a quite a lot of people who do care. The question a lot of people asked themselves was "how did a third building fall if no plane hit it?" Which is a valid, and not paranoid question. And the asking of the question in itself does not carry with it the assumption that aliens or whatever did it, it simply asks for an explanation. Fires in the building, moreover, seems pretty unlikely as there have been buildings in history that have been on fire for days and weeks and never collapsed, so again, the curiosity and inclination to think there may be something else going on is fairly natural. Disrespecting those who question is as good as censorship. In the end, being mean is just mean anyways.

willy279

Yes. Because the idiots doing the questioning didn't get the answers they wanted. They're asking the same questions over and over again, and they'll keep doing it until you tell them what they want to hear.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="willy279"] Where's your evidence that every engineering firm in the US/UK agree with the official story? I'm just giving you the 800 that have signed on to the AE group, not even the ones affiliated with other groups. There could be more, and I don't see how these numbers are all that important, but do you have evidence of 10,000+ engineers backing the official story? And I'm not a conspiracy theorist, Mr. O'Reily.willy279

The preconception you have already named: that the government is inherently untrustworthy. That preconceived notion is what prevents you from being taken seriously.

[QUOTE="willy279"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] You're a conspiracy theorist for thinking that an organization run by someone who brings out cardboard boxes in a debate has any credibility over a large body of reputable physicists and engineers who came to a conclusion that greatly clashes with your preconception.Theokhoth

Oh, please, do you honestly think you're fooling anybody?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="willy279"] Good call, NIST for sure, but the Commission Report didn't. I don't understand this "nobody cares," thing though. That's invalidating everybody who does care, and there are a quite a lot of people who do care. The question a lot of people asked themselves was "how did a third building fall if no plane hit it?" Which is a valid, and not paranoid question. And the asking of the question in itself does not carry with it the assumption that aliens or whatever did it, it simply asks for an explanation. Fires in the building, moreover, seems pretty unlikely as there have been buildings in history that have been on fire for days and weeks and never collapsed, so again, the curiosity and inclination to think there may be something else going on is fairly natural. Disrespecting those who question is as good as censorship. In the end, being mean is just mean anyways.

willy279

The Twin towers? Nah, I doubt it. The Pentagon however I got a theory that it was more likely a security breach by a individual with some kind of high explosive rather then a air plane crashing into it, due to the lack of air plane parts shown as the "crash site" Treflis

For the love of Christ. . .

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_debris

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] What's my preconception? I'm dropping links to an alternative organization of engineers and I'm a conspiracy theorist all of a sudden? Which era are you from man? You're the one preconceiving. . . it's so hard to talk to you guys when you argue like it's a freaking TV show.

willy279

Oh, please, do you honestly think you're fooling anybody?

Yes, and then you proceeded to argue with anyone saying "No" and agreeing (or adding to the points of) everyone who said "yes." Almost every post of yours has linked to some 9/11 conspiracy website, you've gone so far as to use that ridiculously out-of-context Silverstein quote as "proof" of a controlled demolition.

You're pretending to be reasonable when it's quite obvious you do have preconceptions.

[QUOTE="willy279"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] You're a conspiracy theorist for thinking that an organization run by someone who brings out cardboard boxes in a debate has any credibility over a large body of reputable physicists and engineers who came to a conclusion that greatly clashes with your preconception.tycoonmike

The preconception you have already named: that the government is inherently untrustworthy. That preconceived notion is what prevents you from being taken seriously.

I didn't know Alex Jones had a Gamespot account?

[QUOTE="Treflis"]The Twin towers? Nah, I doubt it. The Pentagon however I got a theory that it was more likely a security breach by a individual with some kind of high explosive rather then a air plane crashing into it, due to the lack of air plane parts shown as the "crash site" Theokhoth

For the love of Christ. . .

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_debris

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

I TEND to think this way. Because of all the government scandals of the last few decades, growing up downtrodden communities, and much of the leftist literature I've consumed in my mid to late teens. If I did say that government is -inherently- trustworthy that was a mistake definitely. A government that has been known to be untrustworthy from lying, distorting information, and taking violence and global capitalism over sociological and anthropological perspectives. And so on. DO you know anything about the US's involvement in South America during the 1980s? I can hardly take anyone seriously who supports this kind of involvement, so touche if it means anything.willy279

1. Thus proving your bias.

2. I know much about what the United States did in South America during the 1980's. I also know a bit about what they did in Central America, the Middle East, and Africa in the name of fighting Communism. That doesn't mean I inherently consider the government untrustworthy. All that means is that I consider trust on a case-to-case basis, and in the case of 9/11, I find their report fairly reliable.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Treflis"]The Twin towers? Nah, I doubt it. The Pentagon however I got a theory that it was more likely a security breach by a individual with some kind of high explosive rather then a air plane crashing into it, due to the lack of air plane parts shown as the "crash site" Treflis

For the love of Christ. . .

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_debris

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Welcome to the meanie side, where irrational stupidity is only tolerated for a year or so before people start getting annoyed.

[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

Oh, please, do you honestly think you're fooling anybody?

PannicAtack

Yes, and then you proceeded to argue with anyone saying "No" and agreeing (or adding to the points of) everyone who said "yes." Almost every post of yours has linked to some 9/11 conspiracy website, you've gone so far as to use that ridiculously out-of-context Silverstein quote as "proof" of a controlled demolition.

You're pretending to be reasonable when it's quite obvious you do have preconceptions.

[QUOTE="willy279"]I TEND to think this way. Because of all the government scandals of the last few decades, growing up downtrodden communities, and much of the leftist literature I've consumed in my mid to late teens. If I did say that government is -inherently- trustworthy that was a mistake definitely. A government that has been known to be untrustworthy from lying, distorting information, and taking violence and global capitalism over sociological and anthropological perspectives. And so on. DO you know anything about the US's involvement in South America during the 1980s? I can hardly take anyone seriously who supports this kind of involvement, so touche if it means anything.tycoonmike

1. Thus proving your bias.

2. I know much about what the United States did in South America during the 1980's. I also know a bit about what they did in Central America, the Middle East, and Africa in the name of fighting Communism. That doesn't mean I inherently consider the government untrustworthy. All that means is that I consider trust on a case-to-case basis, and in the case of 9/11, I find their report fairly reliable.

[QUOTE="Treflis"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

For the love of Christ. . .

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_debris

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Theokhoth

Welcome to the meanie side, where irrational stupidity is only tolerated for a year or so before people start getting annoyed.

[QUOTE="Treflis"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

For the love of Christ. . .

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Pentagon_debris

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Theokhoth

Welcome to the meanie side, where irrational stupidity is only tolerated for a year or so before people start getting annoyed.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] Fooling people? I don't have a preconceived idea any which way. I've admitted my bias of distrusting government, but I don't think it was an "inside job." I enjoy the process of questioning peoples assumptions, and the act of debate in general. You can believe what you want, but it's just easier to combat people like you because you're so confident about being right so I've picked most of my fights with you. Otherwise it's nice to see what happens when you quote somebody and tell them to elaborate or provide sources. I've done this with people who have answered yes and no to the debate. Thanks for noticing.willy279

Yes, and then you proceeded to argue with anyone saying "No" and agreeing (or adding to the points of) everyone who said "yes." Almost every post of yours has linked to some 9/11 conspiracy website, you've gone so far as to use that ridiculously out-of-context Silverstein quote as "proof" of a controlled demolition.

You're pretending to be reasonable when it's quite obvious you do have preconceptions.

I'm glad you finally admitted it. People playing Devil's Advocate don't agree with them on every single point, nor do they constantly go "look at all these people -- how can they all be wrong?!"

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] Fooling people? I don't have a preconceived idea any which way. I've admitted my bias of distrusting government, but I don't think it was an "inside job." I enjoy the process of questioning peoples assumptions, and the act of debate in general. You can believe what you want, but it's just easier to combat people like you because you're so confident about being right so I've picked most of my fights with you. Otherwise it's nice to see what happens when you quote somebody and tell them to elaborate or provide sources. I've done this with people who have answered yes and no to the debate. Thanks for noticing.willy279

Yes, and then you proceeded to argue with anyone saying "No" and agreeing (or adding to the points of) everyone who said "yes." Almost every post of yours has linked to some 9/11 conspiracy website, you've gone so far as to use that ridiculously out-of-context Silverstein quote as "proof" of a controlled demolition.

You're pretending to be reasonable when it's quite obvious you do have preconceptions.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="willy279"]I TEND to think this way. Because of all the government scandals of the last few decades, growing up downtrodden communities, and much of the leftist literature I've consumed in my mid to late teens. If I did say that government is -inherently- trustworthy that was a mistake definitely. A government that has been known to be untrustworthy from lying, distorting information, and taking violence and global capitalism over sociological and anthropological perspectives. And so on. DO you know anything about the US's involvement in South America during the 1980s? I can hardly take anyone seriously who supports this kind of involvement, so touche if it means anything.willy279

1. Thus proving your bias.

2. I know much about what the United States did in South America during the 1980's. I also know a bit about what they did in Central America, the Middle East, and Africa in the name of fighting Communism. That doesn't mean I inherently consider the government untrustworthy. All that means is that I consider trust on a case-to-case basis, and in the case of 9/11, I find their report fairly reliable.

Whereas I try to approach something as objectively as possible, you seem to want to flaunt your subjectivity. Indeed, I have not once said that the government can be fully trusted. I may have said that in light of the evidence the government report seems fairly reliable, but I've always stopped short of saying they can always be trusted.

[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

Yes, and then you proceeded to argue with anyone saying "No" and agreeing (or adding to the points of) everyone who said "yes." Almost every post of yours has linked to some 9/11 conspiracy website, you've gone so far as to use that ridiculously out-of-context Silverstein quote as "proof" of a controlled demolition.

You're pretending to be reasonable when it's quite obvious you do have preconceptions.

Theokhoth

I'm glad you finally admitted it. People playing Devil's Advocate don't agree with them on every single point, nor do they constantly go "look at all these people -- how can they all be wrong?!"

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] You got me, dude. I'm just an unreasonable conspiracy theorist. I'm not playing devil's advocate in the face of a majority who trust's the official story. That would be ... paranoid of you to assume. willy279

I'm glad you finally admitted it. People playing Devil's Advocate don't agree with them on every single point, nor do they constantly go "look at all these people -- how can they all be wrong?!"

Yes, I made it up. . .NIST and everyone else; they're part of the illusion generated by Hogwarts. Ya caught me.

Really? Because every post I see, when somebody explains why they think it was NOT a coverup, you respond with "how do you explain this and that and this and that" followed by at least one link to a conspiracy website. When somebody explains why they think it WAS a coverup, you respond with "yeah, that's right, and there's also this and that and this and that," followed by at least one link to a conspiracy website.