I'm not trying to change your opinion on the subject, just merely saying it's been discussed to death on this forum and if you do a simple search in this site for it, you could read it and discuss it there.
search what? All this proves its an inside job. Not one thing has been debunked.
Ok Mr.Thread Police officer sir. Will u now go around telling all to stop talking about tour dates and boots as well. This thread was started, I jumped in, got an ignorant response, and came back with facts. Whats the problem?
It seems anyone who accepts the "official" story. "Doesn't want to hear it" or "we've talked about this enough". And more importantly, the "official" story peddlers do not offer any evidence that supports their claims. Again I challenge anyone who supports the "official" story/myth to back it up.
Evolution Music Studios presents:
DO THE EVOLUTION - a 20th Anniversary Tribute Celebration
of PEARL JAM - WORLD CAFE LIVE PHILLY JUNE 19th 7pm
Silly board rules... 6. Please do a search first for a topic that interests you instead of creating a new thread. That'll help prevent 10-20 threads on the same subject and you'll catch the discussion you may have missed. We'll be merging duplicate threads as we find them. http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=91525
Also, I already stated I do not care to discuss the topic..it's got nothing to do with "denial" or similar.
Ok Mr.Thread Police officer sir. Will u now go around telling all to stop talking about tour dates and boots as well. This thread was started, I jumped in, got an ignorant response, and came back with facts. Whats the problem?
It seems anyone who accepts the "official" story. "Doesn't want to hear it" or "we've talked about this enough". And more importantly, the "official" story peddlers do not offer any evidence that supports their claims. Again I challenge anyone who supports the "official" story/myth to back it up.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
It seems anyone who accepts the "official" story. "Doesn't want to hear it" or "we've talked about this enough". And more importantly, the "official" story peddlers do not offer any evidence that supports their claims. Again I challenge anyone who supports the "official" story/myth to back it up.
To use just one example, firefighters saying that a bomb went off in the basement does not make it so, because presumably anyone in a position to truly know this for certain would have had to have been in the basement itself. Circumstantial evidence (e.g., (the example from wikipedia) a witness who testifies that she watched the defendant stab the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence). Direct evidence = a fireman sees a bomb in the basement. Circumstantial evidence = a fireman hears a loud explosion in the basement and infers that a bomb was present. Same thing with the alledged non-recovery of black boxes. How on earth is that good evidence of the inside job theory? There are MANY possible explanations for how or why black boxes haven't turned up. Heck, its entirely possible that the government DID recover the black boxes and has lied about that, but was still not responsible for the attacks themselves! As for the physics ... I saw a TV program (I think it was on the Discovery channel) that included an interview with a structural engineer who DID support the pancaking account. So, we have some "experts" saying one thing and other "experts" saying something else, which is altogether too common.
If all the evidence for the official account is circumstantial, and all the evidence for the other accounts is similarly circumstantial, why take the conspiracy account to be the truth? Might as well flip a coin. Ultimately, its going to come down to your views of the government, IMO.
It seems anyone who accepts the "official" story. "Doesn't want to hear it" or "we've talked about this enough". And more importantly, the "official" story peddlers do not offer any evidence that supports their claims. Again I challenge anyone who supports the "official" story/myth to back it up.
To use just one example, firefighters saying that a bomb went off in the basement does not make it so, because presumably anyone in a position to truly know this for certain would have had to have been in the basement itself. Circumstantial evidence (e.g., (the example from wikipedia) a witness who testifies that she watched the defendant stab the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence). Direct evidence = a fireman sees a bomb in the basement. Circumstantial evidence = a fireman hears a loud explosion in the basement and infers that a bomb was present. Same thing with the alledged non-recovery of black boxes. How on earth is that good evidence of the inside job theory? There are MANY possible explanations for how or why black boxes haven't turned up. Heck, its entirely possible that the government DID recover the black boxes and has lied about that, but was still not responsible for the attacks themselves! As for the physics ... I saw a TV program (I think it was on the Discovery channel) that included an interview with a structural engineer who DID support the pancaking account. So, we have some "experts" saying one thing and other "experts" saying something else, which is altogether too common.
If all the evidence for the official account is circumstantial, and all the evidence for the other accounts is similarly circumstantial, why take the conspiracy account to be the truth? Might as well flip a coin. Ultimately, its going to come down to your views of the government, IMO.
Thank you for the reply. It was a good attempt.
1st. There is video footage when the first responders arrive at the trade center. The entire first floor is blown out. Walls are blown out, glass is shattered, in all appearances, something explosive went off. This is on video. The first step in controlled demolition is to blow out the basement and first floor.
2nd. No black boxes recovered. Even YOU had to admit this is way beyond the norm and that the govt may have indeed found them and is lying about. And honestly, what other conclusion can anyone make anout that. One perhaps. ALL 4, imfuckngpossible.
3rd. The rate of speed of the building falling really cannot be disputed. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY in KNOWN PHYSICS that all those floors hitting each other and pancaking could happen THAT QUICKLY. They used that theory to explain how the tower fell STRAIGHT DOWN, and didn't tip. Because at that point people were skeptical of simply HOW it fell.
I am talking about the rate of speed. It dropped in 9 seconds or less. The rate of FREE FALL, moving with NO resistance (this means no pancaking) This PROVES it was a controlled demolition at THE LEAST. It means the core of the building was entirely laced with demo explosives. Like the most in history. Do you get it yet?
Evolution Music Studios presents:
DO THE EVOLUTION - a 20th Anniversary Tribute Celebration
of PEARL JAM - WORLD CAFE LIVE PHILLY JUNE 19th 7pm
1st. There is video footage when the first responders arrive at the trade center. The entire first floor is blown out. Walls are blown out, glass is shattered, in all appearances, something explosive went off. This is on video. The first step in controlled demolition is to blow out the basement and first floor.
2nd. No black boxes recovered. Even YOU had to admit this is way beyond the norm and that the govt may have indeed found them and is lying about. And honestly, what other conclusion can anyone make anout that. One perhaps. ALL 4, imfuckngpossible.
3rd. The rate of speed of the building falling really cannot be disputed. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY in KNOWN PHYSICS that all those floors hitting each other and pancaking could happen THAT QUICKLY. They used that theory to explain how the tower fell STRAIGHT DOWN, and didn't tip. Because at that point people were skeptical of simply HOW it fell.
I am talking about the rate of speed. It dropped in 9 seconds or less. The rate of FREE FALL, moving with NO resistance (this means no pancaking) This PROVES it was a controlled demolition at THE LEAST. It means the core of the building was entirely laced with demo explosives. Like the most in history. Do you get it yet?
All easily disproved by numerous scientific journals and independent (unbiased) studies... so no need to rehash.
But... WHY? This would be by far the most sophisticated cover up of all time by ANY government or organization. What is the payoff? A war? Destroying information? Come on... this is just ridiculous.
I can't understand the truthers who think "we did it." The truthers who think we knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen... that is only mildly less confusing to me.
The easiest answer is usually the right one... a bunch of crazy dudes sacrificed themselves to fly planes into buildings in an attempt to destroy the capitalist and deplorable western culture.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
That's your response to any point that you don't agree with, though ... "That's a common technique used to .... (insert term like ostracize, marginalize, etc.)". So, the basic notion is that using a descriptor is a way to foreclose discussion? Assuming this is true, how exactly does one criticize or take issue with someone's view of the facts, then? Taken to the extreme, no debate is possible for fear that someone is being excluded or marginalized. Might as well shut down the board.
i have said this before because it's a problem ... there are a gazillion ways of disagreeing with someone ... similar to not having to resort to calling someone an idiot - i'm sure you are capable of figuring out a way of voicing an alternative opinion without using marginalizing terms ...
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
The easiest answer is usually the right one... a bunch of crazy dudes sacrificed themselves to fly planes into buildings in an attempt to destroy the capitalist and deplorable western culture.
Indeed. Occam's razor. Is the government entirely blameless in all this? I'd argue no, but that is a complex topic that would require its own thread. All kinds of issues pertain to government responsibility (state of awareness, poor responding at the higher-up government levels, post-attack secrecy), but at the end of the day, how do you have an attack like this without guys whose ideology supports this kind of behavior? It wasn't a bunch of white dudes in business suits flying those planes.
i have said this before because it's a problem ... there are a gazillion ways of disagreeing with someone ... similar to not having to resort to calling someone an idiot - i'm sure you are capable of figuring out a way of voicing an alternative opinion without using marginalizing terms ...
Paranoid is a thinking style, and while I would not say that "truthers" are idiots, I would question/highlight the lack of critical thinking skills that can go into these ideas. Not a personal shot at ryan, whom I don't know from Adam. Just saying that it makes no sense to accept an account that is based on purely circumstantial evidence and that (in addition!) evokes complex notions of government conspiracies. All this to justify a war that could have been justified in myriad other ways seems far-fetched to me, sorry. Show me direct evidence and I'll revise my view.
Oh, and by the way, polaris, if we are thought policing, there's a lot of work for you to do in the numerous Israel threads that involve name-calling, labelling, and dichotomous thinking that is intended to foreclose discussion.
The easiest answer is usually the right one... a bunch of crazy dudes sacrificed themselves to fly planes into buildings in an attempt to destroy the capitalist and deplorable western culture.
Indeed. Occam's razor. Is the government entirely blameless in all this? I'd argue no, but that is a complex topic that would require its own thread. All kinds of issues pertain to government responsibility (state of awareness, poor responding at the higher-up government levels, post-attack secrecy), but at the end of the day, how do you have an attack like this without guys whose ideology supports this kind of behavior? It wasn't a bunch of white dudes in business suits flying those planes.
Yeah I guess the government is not totally blameless but I don't think they committed any crimes, either. If we're looking to point fingers... I think we should look at WHY they hate the US/western culture so much. Maybe if we didn't wage wars in their country in order to set up satellite states and enforce "regime change" in their countries they wouldn't have done this. Maybe if we didn't impose our despicable culture of consumerism on them they wouldn't be so angry. Maybe if we just left them the fuck alone... if the people are oppressed IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to revolt... not our responsibility to police the world. I think if our governments weren't so greedy and opened up their books... were honest... were respectable... this sort of thing would have never happened. Instead of fixing the symptoms... lets fix the root cause.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
Yeah I guess the government is not totally blameless but I don't think they committed any crimes, either. If we're looking to point fingers... I think we should look at WHY they hate the US/western culture so much. Maybe if we didn't wage wars in their country in order to set up satellite states and enforce "regime change" in their countries they wouldn't have done this. Maybe if we didn't impose our despicable culture of consumerism on them they wouldn't be so angry. Maybe if we just left them the fuck alone... if the people are oppressed IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to revolt... not our responsibility to police the world. I think if our governments weren't so greedy and opened up their books... were honest... were respectable... this sort of thing would have never happened. Instead of fixing the symptoms... lets fix the root cause.
Exactly. Arguing that US foreign policy fuels terrorism does not strike me as a conspiracy theory. There's more than a little logical reasoning behind this thinking. The truther folks probably acknowledge this, but not as their main focus. Letting them the fuck alone seems pretty reasonable to me. People lose me when they try to argue that Islamic terrorism plays no role here whatsoever. Why argue that? One can speculate on the ultimate cause of terrorism, and yeah, I think we in the West need to assume our share of the responsibility. But arguing that Dubya holds all reins is as extreme a position as arguing that governments in the West bears zero responsibility.
Paranoid is a thinking style, and while I would not say that "truthers" are idiots, I would question/highlight the lack of critical thinking skills that can go into these ideas. Not a personal shot at ryan, whom I don't know from Adam. Just saying that it makes no sense to accept an account that is based on purely circumstantial evidence and that (in addition!) evokes complex notions of government conspiracies. All this to justify a war that could have been justified in myriad other ways seems far-fetched to me, sorry. Show me direct evidence and I'll revise my view.
the reality is that there are a plethora of unanswered questions with regards to 9/11 ... the report into what some say is the biggest terrorist attack on US soil was a joke ... like i said earlier - you nor i nor anyone on this board knows what happened and why ... your perception of paranoia is purely subjective to your own biases ...
and i would have to disagree that the US could wage two wars without the events of 9-11 ... name me one of your myriad of ways they could have justified this?
as for thought policing - that's not my goal ... but if you are so taken back by it ... feel free to respond accordingly ...
Paranoid is a thinking style, and while I would not say that "truthers" are idiots, I would question/highlight the lack of critical thinking skills that can go into these ideas. Not a personal shot at ryan, whom I don't know from Adam. Just saying that it makes no sense to accept an account that is based on purely circumstantial evidence and that (in addition!) evokes complex notions of government conspiracies. All this to justify a war that could have been justified in myriad other ways seems far-fetched to me, sorry. Show me direct evidence and I'll revise my view.
the reality is that there are a plethora of unanswered questions with regards to 9/11 ... the report into what some say is the biggest terrorist attack on US soil was a joke ... like i said earlier - you nor i nor anyone on this board knows what happened and why ... your perception of paranoia is purely subjective to your own biases ...
and i would have to disagree that the US could wage two wars without the events of 9-11 ... name me one of your myriad of ways they could have justified this?
as for thought policing - that's not my goal ... but if you are so taken back by it ... feel free to respond accordingly ...
I am not taken aback, I just feel that you pipe up about the use of marginalizing terms only when you happen to disagree with the person or position in question. A lot of what you describe as marginalization occurs in these threads, and if someone wanted to, they could spend days pointing it out in most of these Israel threads and many others besides.
I don't disagree with your point about unanswered questions. There are unanswered question surrounding most or all major historical events. Does that mean we need circumstantial conspiracy theories to plug the gaps? I'd argue that we need concrete and direct evidence, not more speculation.
Lastly, 9-11 probably directly lead to Afghanistan, and justifably so, IMHO. One can certainly question the wisdom of continuing to fight there, especially given the near complete lack of results, but yes, 9-11 was going to launch a war. Oil and other motives would not seem relevent to Afghanistan. Did Bush then take advantage of this to enter Iraq next? More than a little possible. But again ... That means he and his cronies deliberately engineered it!? Maybe he was just opportunistic? Of course I am speculating too. And that's all this is, in the absense of real evidence.
Reborn - if you say "circumstantial" one more time....
Look! Let's throw everything out except this one DIRECT piece of evidence. The building fell in 9 seconds. We can all watch any video of this. This means the building fell at free fall. It means it fell as it would in a "controlled demolition". This means the fire did not melt the joints and floors collapse on each other. Do you not get this?
And how am I not being as rational as possible here. Where is my flawed thinking? And furthur more I put no blame anywhere. Just that the official story is bullshit.
Evolution Music Studios presents:
DO THE EVOLUTION - a 20th Anniversary Tribute Celebration
of PEARL JAM - WORLD CAFE LIVE PHILLY JUNE 19th 7pm
Reborn - if you say "circumstantial" one more time....
Look! Let's throw everything out except this one DIRECT piece of evidence. The building fell in 9 seconds. We can all watch any video of this. This means the building fell at free fall. It means it fell as it would in a "controlled demolition". This means the fire did not melt the joints and floors collapse on each other. Do you not get this?
And how am I not being as rational as possible here. Where is my flawed thinking? And furthur more I put no blame anywhere. Just that the official story is bullshit.
I am not taken aback, I just feel that you pipe up about the use of marginalizing terms only when you happen to disagree with the person or position in question. A lot of what you describe as marginalization occurs in these threads, and if someone wanted to, they could spend days pointing it out in most of these Israel threads and many others besides.
I don't disagree with your point about unanswered questions. There are unanswered question surrounding most or all major historical events. Does that mean we need circumstantial conspiracy theories to plug the gaps? I'd argue that we need concrete and direct evidence, not more speculation.
Lastly, 9-11 probably directly lead to Afghanistan, and justifably so, IMHO. One can certainly question the wisdom of continuing to fight there, especially given the near complete lack of results, but yes, 9-11 was going to launch a war. Oil and other motives would not seem relevent to Afghanistan. Did Bush then take advantage of this to enter Iraq next? More than a little possible. But again ... That means he and his cronies deliberately engineered it!? Maybe he was just opportunistic? Of course I am speculating too. And that's all this is, in the absense of real evidence.
in regards to slander - you are absolutely right ... but the marginalizing comments tend to come from a certain side ... for example - the tin foil hats or kooks comments tend to fly for the most part one way ...
afghanistan is where all the major pipelines for oil must run to reach open water but whether or not that is relevant is secondary ... what is key here is (as you said) there are unaswered quesions and that you and i don't really know ... if ryan has done substantial research and comes to the conclusion that it's an inside job - where is the paranoia?
we can only digest the information that is available to us ... for me it comes down to this - who has benefitted the most from these wars ... and that is the same people that benefit from other US imperialistic actions ... what i do also know is that wmd and all that bullshit is harder to believe than many conspiracy theories ...
Reborn - if you say "circumstantial" one more time....
Look! Let's throw everything out except this one DIRECT piece of evidence. The building fell in 9 seconds. We can all watch any video of this. This means the building fell at free fall. It means it fell as it would in a "controlled demolition". This means the fire did not melt the joints and floors collapse on each other. Do you not get this?
And how am I not being as rational as possible here. Where is my flawed thinking? And furthur more I put no blame anywhere. Just that the official story is bullshit.
Your video proves my point. Science is the truth here. Ok so the buildings fell at "NEAR" free fall speed. Haahahahaha! Exactly, this proves the point. Do you know what it takes to acheive the WTC towers falling at "NEAR" free fall speed. A controlled demolition.
The OBVIOUS GLARING FACT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS VIDEO is:..>>>>>>>>>>
What would be the time of pancaking floor collapsing fall. The answer. OVER 90 SECONDS!!!!!! Their times using every "audio" (laughable, honestly) and means possible is 22 seconds. Not even close. This video only furthur proves the scientific truth. They completely ignore, and thus, fail at ever proving their point of a collapsing structure. Wake up.
......and also, saying a fraction of the core stood for a millisecond before collapse is a complete insult. We all know the towers fell to nothing. Their was no standing core. The show a still frame of a video to try and say "here it is standing." hahahhaha no. you did try though, a limited you tube search though it was...
Evolution Music Studios presents:
DO THE EVOLUTION - a 20th Anniversary Tribute Celebration
of PEARL JAM - WORLD CAFE LIVE PHILLY JUNE 19th 7pm
we can only digest the information that is available to us ... for me it comes down to this - who has benefitted the most from these wars ... and that is the same people that benefit from other US imperialistic actions ... what i do also know is that wmd and all that bullshit is harder to believe than many conspiracy theories ...
You and I must have different evidentiary thresholds, as Iraq having WMDs is not a huge stretch. They used chemical weapons on Iranian troops and on the marsh Arabs in the 1980s. As some are so fond of pointing out, American components helped the Iraqis to make these things. As it turns out, evidence suggests that Iraq had no more WMDs when the Americans launched their invasion. Did Bush outright lie? Quite possibly. All that said, how is Iraq having WMD less believable than Bush et al. deliberately conspiring to murder thousands of Americans so that they could launch two wars?? In one case, the offending party did in fact possess WMD in the form of chemical weapons at one point in time, whereas in the other case, there isn't even a clear historical precedent!
Reborn - if you say "circumstantial" one more time....
Look! Let's throw everything out except this one DIRECT piece of evidence. The building fell in 9 seconds. We can all watch any video of this. This means the building fell at free fall. It means it fell as it would in a "controlled demolition". This means the fire did not melt the joints and floors collapse on each other. Do you not get this?
And how am I not being as rational as possible here. Where is my flawed thinking? And furthur more I put no blame anywhere. Just that the official story is bullshit.
As i said earlier, I saw a program where an engineer outlined how the joint melting hypothesis could apply. Maybe he was lying. One more quick thing ... Let's say there WERE explosives planted in the buildings. How does that make it an inside job? Terrorists can't plant explosives in a building, only U.S. nationals? Don't hate me, but yeah ... Circumstantial. Place a Bush flunky in the buildings, planting shit, and then you got real evidence.
You and I must have different evidentiary thresholds, as Iraq having WMDs is not a huge stretch. They used chemical weapons on Iranian troops and on the marsh Arabs in the 1980s. As some are so fond of pointing out, American components helped the Iraqis to make these things. As it turns out, evidence suggests that Iraq had no more WMDs when the Americans launched their invasion. Did Bush outright lie? Quite possibly. All that said, how is Iraq having WMD less believable than Bush et al. deliberately conspiring to murder thousands of Americans so that they could launch two wars?? In one case, the offending party did in fact possess WMD in the form of chemical weapons at one point in time, whereas in the other case, there isn't even a clear historical precedent!
every UN inspector said Iraq didn't have WMD's from Clinton onwards after Bush 1 went through iraq ... and to that point - the position that iraq was an immediate threat to anyone let alone the US ... the two wars have resulted in the loss of how many lives? ... 1 million innocent victims is not a stretch ... what is 3,000 in the grand scheme of things? ... these people make decisions they know will result in mass suffering ... this is the same country that used agent orange on innocent women and children while their skin burned ... these same people sell guns to african countries knowing they will be used to kill innocent people, rape women, enslave children ...
there are plenty of historical precedents - heck eisenhower wrote about it 61 to warn the nation about these people ...
look at all the major players: halliburton, exxon, all the defence contractors ... how much money have they made on this one single event? ... ultimately, it comes down to the disbelief that anyone would be willing to sacrifice innocent lives for the sake of the profit motive ... but that in essence is what many companies do ... you don't think monsanto knows it's fucking people making their shit, or arms manufacturers ...
As i said earlier, I saw a program where an engineer outlined how the joint melting hypothesis could apply. Maybe he was lying. One more quick thing ... Let's say there WERE explosives planted in the buildings. How does that make it an inside job? Terrorists can't plant explosives in a building, only U.S. nationals? Don't hate me, but yeah ... Circumstantial. Place a Bush flunky in the buildings, planting shit, and then you got real evidence.
if the terrorists did plant explosives ... why didn't they just blow it up? - they would have killed more people and it would have been easier to do if the bombs were already there ...
Hey dude, I oppose the Iraq war just as you do, and I am not blind to American abuses. I just firmly believe in charging folks with the right crimes, on the basis of firm evidence. Loose Change is not convincing to me, and is probably more of a sociological barometer than anything else. People do have a right to be concerned with where the West is (and has been) heading.
As i said earlier, I saw a program where an engineer outlined how the joint melting hypothesis could apply. Maybe he was lying. One more quick thing ... Let's say there WERE explosives planted in the buildings. How does that make it an inside job? Terrorists can't plant explosives in a building, only U.S. nationals? Don't hate me, but yeah ... Circumstantial. Place a Bush flunky in the buildings, planting shit, and then you got real evidence.
if the terrorists did plant explosives ... why didn't they just blow it up? - they would have killed more people and it would have been easier to do if the bombs were already there ...
Debating about this sort of hinges on the a priori view that bombs WERE present, and no one has proved that there were.
Your video proves my point. Science is the truth here. Ok so the buildings fell at "NEAR" free fall speed. Haahahahaha! Exactly, this proves the point. Do you know what it takes to acheive the WTC towers falling at "NEAR" free fall speed. A controlled demolition.
The OBVIOUS GLARING FACT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS VIDEO is:..>>>>>>>>>>
What would be the time of pancaking floor collapsing fall. The answer. OVER 90 SECONDS!!!!!! Their times using every "audio" (laughable, honestly) and means possible is 22 seconds. Not even close. This video only furthur proves the scientific truth. They completely ignore, and thus, fail at ever proving their point of a collapsing structure. Wake up.
......and also, saying a fraction of the core stood for a millisecond before collapse is a complete insult. We all know the towers fell to nothing. Their was no standing core. The show a still frame of a video to try and say "here it is standing." hahahhaha no. you did try though, a limited you tube search though it was...
It is the most studied building collapse in the history of structural engineering. Thousands of studies have been done but yes, a couple kids with questions are definitely right about a massive consipracy.
Please kindly give it the fuck up. It is beyond annoying.
Hey dude, I oppose the Iraq war just as you do, and I am not blind to American abuses. I just firmly believe in charging folks with the right crimes, on the basis of firm evidence. Loose Change is not convincing to me, and is probably more of a sociological barometer than anything else. People do have a right to be concerned with where the West is (and has been) heading.
i never watched loose change or zeitgeist or any of the films ... for me - it's a dead end street ... it's just observation from 30,000 feet ... i don't need to know if insurance was taken out on the buildings the week before ... those thing in the end are very hard to prove anything ... all i know is that the gov't is controlled by big corporations and certain big corporations only care about making more money and being more powerful ... the loss of innocent lives is inconsequential to them ... the evidence is before our very own eyes ...
Comments
+1
Ok Mr.Thread Police officer sir. Will u now go around telling all to stop talking about tour dates and boots as well. This thread was started, I jumped in, got an ignorant response, and came back with facts. Whats the problem?
It seems anyone who accepts the "official" story. "Doesn't want to hear it" or "we've talked about this enough". And more importantly, the "official" story peddlers do not offer any evidence that supports their claims. Again I challenge anyone who supports the "official" story/myth to back it up.
DO THE EVOLUTION - a 20th Anniversary Tribute Celebration
of PEARL JAM - WORLD CAFE LIVE PHILLY JUNE 19th 7pm
6. Please do a search first for a topic that interests you instead of creating a new thread. That'll help prevent 10-20 threads on the same subject and you'll catch the discussion you may have missed. We'll be merging duplicate threads as we find them.
http://forums.pearljam.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=91525
Also, I already stated I do not care to discuss the topic..it's got nothing to do with "denial" or similar.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
To use just one example, firefighters saying that a bomb went off in the basement does not make it so, because presumably anyone in a position to truly know this for certain would have had to have been in the basement itself. Circumstantial evidence (e.g., (the example from wikipedia) a witness who testifies that she watched the defendant stab the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence). Direct evidence = a fireman sees a bomb in the basement. Circumstantial evidence = a fireman hears a loud explosion in the basement and infers that a bomb was present. Same thing with the alledged non-recovery of black boxes. How on earth is that good evidence of the inside job theory? There are MANY possible explanations for how or why black boxes haven't turned up. Heck, its entirely possible that the government DID recover the black boxes and has lied about that, but was still not responsible for the attacks themselves! As for the physics ... I saw a TV program (I think it was on the Discovery channel) that included an interview with a structural engineer who DID support the pancaking account. So, we have some "experts" saying one thing and other "experts" saying something else, which is altogether too common.
If all the evidence for the official account is circumstantial, and all the evidence for the other accounts is similarly circumstantial, why take the conspiracy account to be the truth? Might as well flip a coin. Ultimately, its going to come down to your views of the government, IMO.
Thank you for the reply. It was a good attempt.
1st. There is video footage when the first responders arrive at the trade center. The entire first floor is blown out. Walls are blown out, glass is shattered, in all appearances, something explosive went off. This is on video. The first step in controlled demolition is to blow out the basement and first floor.
2nd. No black boxes recovered. Even YOU had to admit this is way beyond the norm and that the govt may have indeed found them and is lying about. And honestly, what other conclusion can anyone make anout that. One perhaps. ALL 4, imfuckngpossible.
3rd. The rate of speed of the building falling really cannot be disputed. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY in KNOWN PHYSICS that all those floors hitting each other and pancaking could happen THAT QUICKLY. They used that theory to explain how the tower fell STRAIGHT DOWN, and didn't tip. Because at that point people were skeptical of simply HOW it fell.
I am talking about the rate of speed. It dropped in 9 seconds or less. The rate of FREE FALL, moving with NO resistance (this means no pancaking) This PROVES it was a controlled demolition at THE LEAST. It means the core of the building was entirely laced with demo explosives. Like the most in history. Do you get it yet?
DO THE EVOLUTION - a 20th Anniversary Tribute Celebration
of PEARL JAM - WORLD CAFE LIVE PHILLY JUNE 19th 7pm
All easily disproved by numerous scientific journals and independent (unbiased) studies... so no need to rehash.
But... WHY? This would be by far the most sophisticated cover up of all time by ANY government or organization. What is the payoff? A war? Destroying information? Come on... this is just ridiculous.
I can't understand the truthers who think "we did it." The truthers who think we knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen... that is only mildly less confusing to me.
The easiest answer is usually the right one... a bunch of crazy dudes sacrificed themselves to fly planes into buildings in an attempt to destroy the capitalist and deplorable western culture.
i have said this before because it's a problem ... there are a gazillion ways of disagreeing with someone ... similar to not having to resort to calling someone an idiot - i'm sure you are capable of figuring out a way of voicing an alternative opinion without using marginalizing terms ...
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Indeed. Occam's razor. Is the government entirely blameless in all this? I'd argue no, but that is a complex topic that would require its own thread. All kinds of issues pertain to government responsibility (state of awareness, poor responding at the higher-up government levels, post-attack secrecy), but at the end of the day, how do you have an attack like this without guys whose ideology supports this kind of behavior? It wasn't a bunch of white dudes in business suits flying those planes.
Paranoid is a thinking style, and while I would not say that "truthers" are idiots, I would question/highlight the lack of critical thinking skills that can go into these ideas. Not a personal shot at ryan, whom I don't know from Adam. Just saying that it makes no sense to accept an account that is based on purely circumstantial evidence and that (in addition!) evokes complex notions of government conspiracies. All this to justify a war that could have been justified in myriad other ways seems far-fetched to me, sorry. Show me direct evidence and I'll revise my view.
Yeah I guess the government is not totally blameless but I don't think they committed any crimes, either. If we're looking to point fingers... I think we should look at WHY they hate the US/western culture so much. Maybe if we didn't wage wars in their country in order to set up satellite states and enforce "regime change" in their countries they wouldn't have done this. Maybe if we didn't impose our despicable culture of consumerism on them they wouldn't be so angry. Maybe if we just left them the fuck alone... if the people are oppressed IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to revolt... not our responsibility to police the world. I think if our governments weren't so greedy and opened up their books... were honest... were respectable... this sort of thing would have never happened. Instead of fixing the symptoms... lets fix the root cause.
Exactly. Arguing that US foreign policy fuels terrorism does not strike me as a conspiracy theory. There's more than a little logical reasoning behind this thinking. The truther folks probably acknowledge this, but not as their main focus. Letting them the fuck alone seems pretty reasonable to me. People lose me when they try to argue that Islamic terrorism plays no role here whatsoever. Why argue that? One can speculate on the ultimate cause of terrorism, and yeah, I think we in the West need to assume our share of the responsibility. But arguing that Dubya holds all reins is as extreme a position as arguing that governments in the West bears zero responsibility.
the reality is that there are a plethora of unanswered questions with regards to 9/11 ... the report into what some say is the biggest terrorist attack on US soil was a joke ... like i said earlier - you nor i nor anyone on this board knows what happened and why ... your perception of paranoia is purely subjective to your own biases ...
and i would have to disagree that the US could wage two wars without the events of 9-11 ... name me one of your myriad of ways they could have justified this?
as for thought policing - that's not my goal ... but if you are so taken back by it ... feel free to respond accordingly ...
I am not taken aback, I just feel that you pipe up about the use of marginalizing terms only when you happen to disagree with the person or position in question. A lot of what you describe as marginalization occurs in these threads, and if someone wanted to, they could spend days pointing it out in most of these Israel threads and many others besides.
I don't disagree with your point about unanswered questions. There are unanswered question surrounding most or all major historical events. Does that mean we need circumstantial conspiracy theories to plug the gaps? I'd argue that we need concrete and direct evidence, not more speculation.
Lastly, 9-11 probably directly lead to Afghanistan, and justifably so, IMHO. One can certainly question the wisdom of continuing to fight there, especially given the near complete lack of results, but yes, 9-11 was going to launch a war. Oil and other motives would not seem relevent to Afghanistan. Did Bush then take advantage of this to enter Iraq next? More than a little possible. But again ... That means he and his cronies deliberately engineered it!? Maybe he was just opportunistic? Of course I am speculating too. And that's all this is, in the absense of real evidence.
Look! Let's throw everything out except this one DIRECT piece of evidence. The building fell in 9 seconds. We can all watch any video of this. This means the building fell at free fall. It means it fell as it would in a "controlled demolition". This means the fire did not melt the joints and floors collapse on each other. Do you not get this?
And how am I not being as rational as possible here. Where is my flawed thinking? And furthur more I put no blame anywhere. Just that the official story is bullshit.
DO THE EVOLUTION - a 20th Anniversary Tribute Celebration
of PEARL JAM - WORLD CAFE LIVE PHILLY JUNE 19th 7pm
Did it though?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4
I am really not getting involved in this once again though.
in regards to slander - you are absolutely right ... but the marginalizing comments tend to come from a certain side ... for example - the tin foil hats or kooks comments tend to fly for the most part one way ...
afghanistan is where all the major pipelines for oil must run to reach open water but whether or not that is relevant is secondary ... what is key here is (as you said) there are unaswered quesions and that you and i don't really know ... if ryan has done substantial research and comes to the conclusion that it's an inside job - where is the paranoia?
we can only digest the information that is available to us ... for me it comes down to this - who has benefitted the most from these wars ... and that is the same people that benefit from other US imperialistic actions ... what i do also know is that wmd and all that bullshit is harder to believe than many conspiracy theories ...
those shots were fabricated by Jeb Bush.
i agree - this topic probably doesn't need to be revisited however, that video can easily be "debunked" as well ...
The OBVIOUS GLARING FACT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS VIDEO is:..>>>>>>>>>>
What would be the time of pancaking floor collapsing fall. The answer. OVER 90 SECONDS!!!!!! Their times using every "audio" (laughable, honestly) and means possible is 22 seconds. Not even close. This video only furthur proves the scientific truth. They completely ignore, and thus, fail at ever proving their point of a collapsing structure. Wake up.
......and also, saying a fraction of the core stood for a millisecond before collapse is a complete insult. We all know the towers fell to nothing. Their was no standing core. The show a still frame of a video to try and say "here it is standing." hahahhaha no. you did try though, a limited you tube search though it was...
DO THE EVOLUTION - a 20th Anniversary Tribute Celebration
of PEARL JAM - WORLD CAFE LIVE PHILLY JUNE 19th 7pm
You and I must have different evidentiary thresholds, as Iraq having WMDs is not a huge stretch. They used chemical weapons on Iranian troops and on the marsh Arabs in the 1980s. As some are so fond of pointing out, American components helped the Iraqis to make these things. As it turns out, evidence suggests that Iraq had no more WMDs when the Americans launched their invasion. Did Bush outright lie? Quite possibly. All that said, how is Iraq having WMD less believable than Bush et al. deliberately conspiring to murder thousands of Americans so that they could launch two wars?? In one case, the offending party did in fact possess WMD in the form of chemical weapons at one point in time, whereas in the other case, there isn't even a clear historical precedent!
As i said earlier, I saw a program where an engineer outlined how the joint melting hypothesis could apply. Maybe he was lying. One more quick thing ... Let's say there WERE explosives planted in the buildings. How does that make it an inside job? Terrorists can't plant explosives in a building, only U.S. nationals? Don't hate me, but yeah ... Circumstantial.
every UN inspector said Iraq didn't have WMD's from Clinton onwards after Bush 1 went through iraq ... and to that point - the position that iraq was an immediate threat to anyone let alone the US ... the two wars have resulted in the loss of how many lives? ... 1 million innocent victims is not a stretch ... what is 3,000 in the grand scheme of things? ... these people make decisions they know will result in mass suffering ... this is the same country that used agent orange on innocent women and children while their skin burned ... these same people sell guns to african countries knowing they will be used to kill innocent people, rape women, enslave children ...
there are plenty of historical precedents - heck eisenhower wrote about it 61 to warn the nation about these people ...
look at all the major players: halliburton, exxon, all the defence contractors ... how much money have they made on this one single event? ... ultimately, it comes down to the disbelief that anyone would be willing to sacrifice innocent lives for the sake of the profit motive ... but that in essence is what many companies do ... you don't think monsanto knows it's fucking people making their shit, or arms manufacturers ...
if the terrorists did plant explosives ... why didn't they just blow it up? - they would have killed more people and it would have been easier to do if the bombs were already there ...
Debating about this sort of hinges on the a priori view that bombs WERE present, and no one has proved that there were.
It is the most studied building collapse in the history of structural engineering. Thousands of studies have been done but yes, a couple kids with questions are definitely right about a massive consipracy.
Please kindly give it the fuck up. It is beyond annoying.
i never watched loose change or zeitgeist or any of the films ... for me - it's a dead end street ... it's just observation from 30,000 feet ... i don't need to know if insurance was taken out on the buildings the week before ... those thing in the end are very hard to prove anything ... all i know is that the gov't is controlled by big corporations and certain big corporations only care about making more money and being more powerful ... the loss of innocent lives is inconsequential to them ... the evidence is before our very own eyes ...
you were the one that said "let's say there WERE explosives" ... i was just playing along ...