9/11 loose change.

rebornFixer

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.

he still stands

rebornFixer wrote:

he still stands wrote:

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.

rebornFixer

he still stands wrote:

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.

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

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 ...

rebornFixer

polaris_x wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

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.

ryanevolution

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.

Cliffy6745

ryanevolution wrote:

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.

Did it though?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

I am really not getting involved in this once again though.

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

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 ...

he still stands

Cliffy6745 wrote:

ryanevolution wrote:

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.

Did it though?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

I am really not getting involved in this once again though.

those shots were fabricated by Jeb Bush.

polaris_x

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Did it though?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

I am really not getting involved in this once again though.

i agree - this topic probably doesn't need to be revisited however, that video can easily be "debunked" as well ...

ryanevolution

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...

rebornFixer

polaris_x wrote:

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!

rebornFixer

ryanevolution wrote:

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.

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

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 ...

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

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 ...

rebornFixer

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.

rebornFixer

polaris_x wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

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.

Cliffy6745

ryanevolution wrote:

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.

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

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 ...

polaris_x

rebornFixer wrote:

Debating about this sort of hinges on the a priori view that bombs WERE present, and no one has proved that there were.

you were the one that said "let's say there WERE explosives" ... i was just playing along ...