I can't believe some of the conspiracy theory garbage I am reading in these pages. I had to go back and watch a video of those planes fly into the towers to remeind myself of the horrors of that day. There were children on those planes for godsake. I think there were even a few infants. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear people saying that our government had anything to do with it. :evil:
2 wars have spawned from that fateful day ... wars which have killed thousands upon thousands of innocent children ... the truth may not be what you want to hear ... but the truth is what will prevent this from happening again ... i'm not saying you are wrong in your beliefs - only that to simply just accept the official story will do nothing to prevent innocent lives from dying in the future ...
yeah, I know, that is sad too. But I never just 'accepted the offical story'. I have heard all the theories and read up on them. These theories that the speed of the buildings falling proves that the govt put explosives in the buildings is what I find utterly idiotic and ridiculous. The 'worst attack on US soil in history' and people will desperately look for stupid little holes and pick them to pieces just to find a way to make more drama.
yeah, I know, that is sad too. But I never just 'accepted the offical story'. I have heard all the theories and read up on them. These theories that the speed of the buildings falling proves that the govt put explosives in the buildings is what I find utterly idiotic and ridiculous. The 'worst attack on US soil in history' and people will desperately look for stupid little holes and pick them to pieces just to find a way to make more drama.
at the end of the day - the people who are looking at the stupid little holes want exactly what you want ... and that is that 1. this tragedy doesn't happen again and 2. the people responsible are held accountable ...
Well I don't whole-heartedly agree with that point polaris. There's a difference between seeking truth and being cynical, skeptical or even not coming to a full conclusion on an issue or matter, compared to swinging 180% in the other direction.. and in my opinion that is what many people have done with this issue. Take a leap in 180% in a direction there's not full proof or fact of...and when you question them about this, they say everyone is in denial? Perhaps, some of us are seeking all the facts before making such a distinction or belief.
but the problem is that it's hard to get the facts on so many things ... the truth is being hidden from us ... there are a lot of unanswered questions and considering the scope of this event - it is troubling to say the least that people of power aren't interested in trying to answer them ...
i don't know what exactly happend that day - what i do know is what happened afterwards and that has been the biggest tragedy of em all ...
yeah, I know, that is sad too. But I never just 'accepted the offical story'. I have heard all the theories and read up on them. These theories that the speed of the buildings falling proves that the govt put explosives in the buildings is what I find utterly idiotic and ridiculous. The 'worst attack on US soil in history' and people will desperately look for stupid little holes and pick them to pieces just to find a way to make more drama.
at the end of the day - the people who are looking at the stupid little holes want exactly what you want ... and that is that 1. this tragedy doesn't happen again and 2. the people responsible are held accountable ...
I totally agree. But once those holes are understood, let's stop making asinine asumptions. Sometimes I just get sad over the fact that so many people died that day (and probably even up until today in afghanistan) and there are still people that think George W decided it was a good idea to load it up with explosives and that hundreds of people mysteriously vanished into thin air over pennsylvania.
I dont think all these people that over-analyze this thing want the same thing that I want. sOme might, but I think there are a few whack-os that want to sing and dance and say 'I told you so' or just fuel the drama in some sick twisted way.
I do appreciate the people who analyze the shit out of it that ultimately want to realisitically prevent it from happening again.
Yes it is hard to get facts, but at the same point should we automatically leap to some extreme conclusion because we some random aspects of that day's events aren't 100% clear? ie... we don't have all the details or can't clearly without a 100% say we know some specifics, it automatically means the government planned, or had their hands in this matter, especially when we actually have zero proof of these claims other than what amounts to hearsay, or the application of separate events or occurrences? This is not a rational or legitimate claim to make, and in all honestly if it does come to light it is true, then so be it, but making that leap on what we now know is merely nonsense.
but the problem is that it's hard to get the facts on so many things ... the truth is being hidden from us ... there are a lot of unanswered questions and considering the scope of this event - it is troubling to say the least that people of power aren't interested in trying to answer them ...
i don't know what exactly happend that day - what i do know is what happened afterwards and that has been the biggest tragedy of em all ...
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
Yes it is hard to get facts, but at the same point should we automatically leap to some extreme conclusion because we some random aspects of that day's events aren't 100% clear? ie... we don't have all the details or can't clearly without a 100% say we know some specifics, it automatically means the government planned, or had their hands in this matter, especially when we actually have zero proof of these claims other than what amounts to hearsay, or the application of separate events or occurrences? This is not a rational or legitimate claim to make, and in all honestly if it does come to light it is true, then so be it, but making that leap on what we now know is merely nonsense.
that's what people do ... they take the information given to them and they make decisions based on it ... why is it nonsense to think that things aren't what they say they are? ...
knowing full well, the kind of organizations that benefited from this war have no problems sacrificing lives - it's not a huge stretch for me ...
i don't see why it's irrational or illegitimate ... what i don't understand from your point of view is that you say that if it ever comes to light that there was a conspiracy - you'd be fine with it then but yet for someone to have that belief currently is nonsense ... in order for it to be nonsense - you have to know with absolute certainty that there was no conspiracy whatsoever ... and i know you cannot answer that question definitively ... no one can just as no one can say that there is a conspiracy with full certainty ...
No one is saying people aren't allowed to wonder, question or investigate things, but when you make a leap on things which are not fact, which are merely you assuming or inventing possibilities, well that's a bit of a stretch at best case scenario.. and on top of that, to be so argumentative that saying others are blind, stupid or not seeking fact/truth, cause they don't accept your outlandish leap and hypothesis is ridiculous. My main point is, in any issue or subject in life, find out as much as possible (facts) before rushing to an absolute result/judgment. I find the same problem with devout religious people, I do not sit here without beliefs, thoughts or opinions, but if you don't allow yourself the opportunity to admit you could be wrong, you're really not being honest, fair, just or even rational about the issue at hand. Thinking in absolutes is merely another form of extremism, which in the end is shutting down your mind because you already made up your determination regardless of what you may find out which could heavily sway your mind and the facts.
that's what people do ... they take the information given to them and they make decisions based on it ... why is it nonsense to think that things aren't what they say they are? ...
knowing full well, the kind of organizations that benefited from this war have no problems sacrificing lives - it's not a huge stretch for me ...
i don't see why it's irrational or illegitimate ... what i don't understand from your point of view is that you say that if it ever comes to light that there was a conspiracy - you'd be fine with it then but yet for someone to have that belief currently is nonsense ... in order for it to be nonsense - you have to know with absolute certainty that there was no conspiracy whatsoever ... and i know you cannot answer that question definitively ... no one can just as no one can say that there is a conspiracy with full certainty ...
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
No one is saying people aren't allowed to wonder, question or investigate things, but when you make a leap on things which are not fact, which are merely you assuming or inventing possibilities, well that's a bit of a stretch at best case scenario.. and on top of that, to be so argumentative that saying others are blind, stupid or not seeking fact/truth, cause they don't accept your outlandish leap and hypothesis is ridiculous. My main point is, in any issue or subject in life, find out as much as possible (facts) before rushing to an absolute result/judgment. I find the same problem with devout religious people, I do not sit here without beliefs, thoughts or opinions, but if you don't allow yourself the opportunity to admit you could be wrong, you're really not being honest, fair, just or even rational about the issue at hand. Thinking in absolutes is merely another form of extremism, which in the end is shutting down your mind because you already made up your determination regardless of what you may find out which could heavily sway your mind and the facts.
i agree except you called someone's opinion here nonsense, irrational and illegitimate ... not words of someone who says they should keep an open mind ...
i do agree that calling others blind and stupid isn't gonna help their cause either ...
I use those words based on the facts we know... we have no legitimate proof whatsoever of an inside job other than people having unanswered questions and inserting their own hypothesis's instead. that is not fact or legitimate.. its no different from me saying big foot caused 9-11.
and just to be clear, there are some conspiracy theories which do have some merit albeit not proven, cause we have legitimate proof (like jfk), besides actual motive or inserting our own hypothesis. it's all about facts.
i agree except you called someone's opinion here nonsense, irrational and illegitimate ... not words of someone who says they should keep an open mind ...
i do agree that calling others blind and stupid isn't gonna help their cause either ...
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
I use those words based on the facts we know... we have no legitimate proof whatsoever of an inside job other than people having unanswered questions and inserting their own hypothesis's instead. that is not fact or legitimate.. its no different from me saying big foot caused 9-11.
and just to be clear, there are some conspiracy theories which do have some merit albeit not proven, cause we have legitimate proof (like jfk), besides actual motive or inserting our own hypothesis. it's all about facts.
but you have no proof that there was no conspiracy ... again - you draw your own conclusions based on the information you've gathered and others do the same ... what makes your opinion (especially on a subject so complex as this) any more legitimate?
are you saying that it is impossible that there was a conspiracy of some sort?
but you have no proof that there was no conspiracy ... again - you draw your own conclusions based on the information you've gathered and others do the same ... what makes your opinion (especially on a subject so complex as this) any more legitimate?
are you saying that it is impossible that there was a conspiracy of some sort?
First off, I don't think that's what he's saying. But I'll add that it makes no sense to assume a conspiracy in the absence of evidence. The burden of proof is firmly on the shoulders of the people who espouse these theories. It makes no sense to say "Bigfoot exists, and its up to the scientists to prove he doesn't". Rather, the Bigfoot believers need to acquire convincing evidence. Similarly, its not up to everyone else to prove that the US government is not guilty. Before guilt should even be DISCUSSED, you need evidence.
I am not the one saying some extreme, case open then closed version on this subject. I have no interest in swaying the truth, facts or details to point to some larger conspiracy or truth. If Bin Laden and others did it, so be it, we have some details and actual facts currently pointing to this... if the government had a hand in it, so be it, but we have nothing of detail or actual fact of this. Inserting our own hypothesis is not a substitution or replacement of fact, nor should it be accepted as such, yet this key point seems to be unacknowledged by most, and especially by those in extreme viewpoints. So if you're willing to accept inside job as a legitimate opinion which is based on no fact, then please include big foot in potential culprits as well. It is based on the same exact logic, rational and notion.
but you have no proof that there was no conspiracy ... again - you draw your own conclusions based on the information you've gathered and others do the same ... what makes your opinion (especially on a subject so complex as this) any more legitimate?
are you saying that it is impossible that there was a conspiracy of some sort?
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
First off, I don't think that's what he's saying. But I'll add that it makes no sense to assume a conspiracy in the absence of evidence. The burden of proof is firmly on the shoulders of the people who espouse these theories. It makes no sense to say "Bigfoot exists, and its up to the scientists to prove he doesn't". Rather, the Bigfoot believers need to acquire convincing evidence. Similarly, its not up to everyone else to prove that the US government is not guilty. Before guilt should even be DISCUSSED, you need evidence.
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
I am not the one saying some extreme, case open then closed version on this subject. I have no interest in swaying the truth, facts or details to point to some larger conspiracy or truth. If Bin Laden and others did it, so be it, we have some details and actual facts currently pointing to this... if the government had a hand in it, so be it, but we have nothing of detail or actual fact of this. Inserting our own hypothesis is not a substitution or replacement of fact, nor should it be accepted as such, yet this key point seems to be unacknowledged by most, and especially by those in extreme viewpoints. So if you're willing to accept inside job as a legitimate opinion which is based on no fact, then please include big foot in potential culprits as well. It is based on the same exact logic, rational and notion.
according to you it is the same as saying big foot did it ... i myself think that is an "extreme" correlation ...
in any case - it appears that within your own rational mind, it is possible that there was a conspiracy ... if that is the case - someone having that opinion doesn't have a nonsensical opinion ... that is my only point ...
we have a lot of details and facts ... they don't all point to the same conclusion ... this whole sordid affair is very complicated even if one were to believe the "official" story ... no one can answer definitively what happened that day ...
There's as much proof of Big foot as the government. I myself do not like big foot and think he is fully capable of pulling this off regardless of how there's no actual fact of such...so simply because you find it outlandish, you can't prove I'm wrong either - can you? Now you kinda see why Reborn and I are arguing in this thread... burden of proof is on the one making the claims.. not just assumptions.. .and if we are seeking truth, facts should be the determining factor to which viewpoint and "truth" we hold most valid. And for you to say all opinions which are based on zero fact are to be taken seriously or not called nonsense, then you at the same point should be willing for the potential conspiracy that big foot is responsible.
according to you it is the same as saying big foot did it ... i myself think that is an "extreme" correlation ...
in any case - it appears that within your own rational mind, it is possible that there was a conspiracy ... if that is the case - someone having that opinion doesn't have a nonsensical opinion ... that is my only point ...
we have a lot of details and facts ... they don't all point to the same conclusion ... this whole sordid affair is very complicated even if one were to believe the "official" story ... no one can answer definitively what happened that day ...
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
There's as much proof of Big foot as the government. I myself do not like big foot and think he is fully capable of pulling this off regardless of how there's no actual fact of such...so simply because you find it outlandish, you can't prove I'm wrong either - can you? Now you kinda see why Reborn and I are arguing in this thread... burden of proof is on the one making the claims.. not just assumptions.. .and if we are seeking truth, facts should be the determining factor to which viewpoint and "truth" we hold most valid. And for you to say all opinions which are based on zero fact are to be taken seriously or not called nonsense, then you at the same point should be willing for the potential conspiracy that big foot is responsible.
soo ... in your opinion - you think bigfoot being responsible for 9-11 is the same as any other conspiracy?
burden of proof? ... where is the proof that bin laden did it? ... a former guy on the cia payroll who for some reason has evaded capture despite the efforts of everyone? ...
again - facts are hard to come by for this particular event ... if what is currently available to you is suffice - fine, but i dare say ridiculing people who don't share your opinion doesn't make them wrong in my mind ...
In my opinion, just about anything is possible, but just because something is possible or could potentially happen, doesn't mean it will or has nor should we jump to conclusions or extreme views without facts backing these views. I like to think I'm open in most opinions to what we learn, experience and facts. To sum it up, I do not rush to judgment simply because of motive.. if 9-11 was a court case, the entire inside job is nothing more than motive, but no actual substance to back it. albeit there's lots of unknown or unanswered questions, bin laden and company have motive and actual substance to provide guilty as charged.
Let me ask you this much, why rush to extreme and final judgment on something you admit we don't know everything on or about? Doesn't this seem rash or even misleading to determine?
soo ... in your opinion - you think bigfoot being responsible for 9-11 is the same as any other conspiracy?
burden of proof? ... where is the proof that bin laden did it? ... a former guy on the cia payroll who for some reason has evaded capture despite the efforts of everyone? ...
again - facts are hard to come by for this particular event ... if what is currently available to you is suffice - fine, but i dare say ridiculing people who don't share your opinion doesn't make them wrong in my mind ...
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
In my opinion, just about anything is possible, but just because something is possible or could potentially happen, doesn't mean it will or has nor should we jump to conclusions or extreme views without facts backing these views. I like to think I'm open in most opinions to what we learn, experience and facts. To sum it up, I do not rush to judgment simply because of motive.. if 9-11 was a court case, the entire inside job is nothing more than motive, but no actual substance to back it. albeit there's lots of unknown or unanswered questions, bin laden and company have motive and actual substance to provide guilty as charged.
Let me ask you this much, why rush to extreme and final judgment on something you admit we don't know everything on or about? Doesn't this seem rash or even misleading to determine?
again - you are the one who calls it an extreme conclusion ... i don't see it as extreme ... my point is that it is completely reasonable to me that there was a conspiracy for 9-11 ... i'm not saying it was definitely one or definitely not ... like i've been saying - there is just so much uncertainty ...
i just don't see how you can call someoene's opinion nonsense when we've agreed here on several posts that there remains a plethora of unanswered questions ...
It's nothing more than jumping to an extreme conclusion without fact or legitimate data. Should every claim be considered legitimate and be taken serious? Should I contest and stomp my feet until you admit my belief of bigfoot doing 9-11 as possible or reasonable? My main point is that these people rush to extreme judgment and conclusion based on things that are not facts.. and you've yet to acknowledge this. You say there's so many unanswered questions, yet at the same time say we must accept an absolute conclusion? Which is it?
again - you are the one who calls it an extreme conclusion ... i don't see it as extreme ... my point is that it is completely reasonable to me that there was a conspiracy for 9-11 ... i'm not saying it was definitely one or definitely not ... like i've been saying - there is just so much uncertainty ...
i just don't see how you can call someoene's opinion nonsense when we've agreed here on several posts that there remains a plethora of unanswered questions ...
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's nothing more than jumping to an extreme conclusion without fact or legitimate data. Should every claim be considered legitimate and be taken serious? Should I contest and stomp my feet until you admit my belief of bigfoot doing 9-11 as possible or reasonable? My main point is that these people rush to extreme judgment and conclusion based on things that are not facts.. and you've yet to acknowledge this. You say there's so many unanswered questions, yet at the same time say we must accept an absolute conclusion? Which is it?
who's saying you have to accept an absolute conclusion? ... where have i said that?
if you can provide me circumstantial reasoning and proof that bigfoot did it ... great - i'll listen ... the foundation by which conspiracy theorists are speculating on isn't grounded in 100% certainty but there is more than a reasonable amount of doubt to the official story ...
all i'm saying is it isn't unreasonable to think there was a conspiracy based on all the information and lack of information out there ... if you want to call it extreme or ridicule it ... that's your perogative i suppose and my effort here to have you see it otherwise has proven fruitless ...
I can't believe some of the conspiracy theory garbage I am reading in these pages. I had to go back and watch a video of those planes fly into the towers to remeind myself of the horrors of that day. There were children on those planes for godsake. I think there were even a few infants. It makes me sick to my stomach to hear people saying that our government had anything to do with it. :evil:
2 wars have spawned from that fateful day ... wars which have killed thousands upon thousands of innocent children ... the truth may not be what you want to hear ... but the truth is what will prevent this from happening again ... i'm not saying you are wrong in your beliefs - only that to simply just accept the official story will do nothing to prevent innocent lives from dying in the future ...
But if the whole point of the supposed conspiracy was to start a war, why not plant some WMD's in Iraq to justify the war? They could have done that before 9/11 and it would have been a lot easier then planting explosives in the towers and rigging them to blow up after the towers got hit by planes. And doing it after the Iraq invasion would have been even easier.
And considering how much of a mess the Iraq invasion was I find it hard to believe that the same people who planned it also planned such an intricate and for them successful conspiracy.
To say it is an inside job is an absolute conclusion of 9-11. That the government for whatever the reasons, carried out or participated in this plan. That is an absolute conclusion on the question to who did/carried out 9-11. This viewpoint is not based on fact, merely hearsay, assumption and hypothetical motives and after the fact occurrences. So why jump to such an opinion when the verdict on this matter is still unknown or many issues and matters relating to this case are uncertain? That is my point. It's throwing a guilty plea before hearing the evidence, and in this scenario, before having factual evidence backing up your argument wholly.
who's saying you have to accept an absolute conclusion? ... where have i said that?
if you can provide me circumstantial reasoning and proof that bigfoot did it ... great - i'll listen ... the foundation by which conspiracy theorists are speculating on isn't grounded in 100% certainty but there is more than a reasonable amount of doubt to the official story ...
all i'm saying is it isn't unreasonable to think there was a conspiracy based on all the information and lack of information out there ... if you want to call it extreme or ridicule it ... that's your perogative i suppose and my effort here to have you see it otherwise has proven fruitless ...
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's a seriously low act, though, to attack your own country in order to justify a war. Personally, it's almost beyond comprehension that someone could do this.
I know there's a lot of information and back-up material on the 'net to substantiate this claim, but I choose not to read it. This is not out of ignorance or my own stubborn opinion, it's because facing the reality that this actually MIGHT have happened is just horrific.
In a situation like this, it may be better not to know.
To say it is an inside job is an absolute conclusion of 9-11. That the government for whatever the reasons, carried out or participated in this plan. That is an absolute conclusion on the question to who did/carried out 9-11. This viewpoint is not based on fact, merely hearsay, assumption and hypothetical motives and after the fact occurrences. So why jump to such an opinion when the verdict on this matter is still unknown or many issues and matters relating to this case are uncertain? That is my point. It's throwing a guilty plea before hearing the evidence, and in this scenario, before having factual evidence backing up your argument wholly.
why the heck are we going around in circles here ... like i've said a few times ... no one is gonna get all the facts - people have to draw their own conclusions ... there are no absolutes here ... can you absolutely say for certain it wasn't an inside job? ... i doubt it ... so, you draw your conclusions and others will draw theirs ...
and got a hard hard head - i said that a long time ago ... guilt is a bitch
You say there are no absolutes here and that people must draw their own conclusion, but actually and fully believing there was an inside job is an absolute conclusion.
why the heck are we going around in circles here ... like i've said a few times ... no one is gonna get all the facts - people have to draw their own conclusions ... there are no absolutes here ... can you absolutely say for certain it wasn't an inside job? ... i doubt it ... so, you draw your conclusions and others will draw theirs ...
and got a hard hard head - i said that a long time ago ... guilt is a bitch
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
You say there are no absolutes here and that people must draw their own conclusion, but actually and fully believing there was an inside job is an absolute conclusion.
then saying it isn't is an absolute conclusion in your view ...
really - are we having a conversation about semantics?
Well the main point is, perhaps you should relay this comment to those 9-11 truthers who post on this board ad nasseum as if it is absolute. I never made an absolute claims.
then saying it isn't is an absolute conclusion in your view ...
really - are we having a conversation about semantics?
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
Well the main point is, perhaps you should relay this comment to those 9-11 truthers who post on this board ad nasseum as if it is absolute. I never made an absolute claims.
soo ... what it boils down to is that you are tired of hearing that 9/11 was an inside job - so, instead of entering into a neverending debate based on a plethora of links - you're gonna go with this ...
I merely stated my opinion which was that there's no proof to jump to that final conclusion. The conversation then lead me to explain my belief in absolutes. Nothing more, nothing less.
soo ... what it boils down to is that you are tired of hearing that 9/11 was an inside job - so, instead of entering into a neverending debate based on a plethora of links - you're gonna go with this ...
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
Comments
yeah, I know, that is sad too. But I never just 'accepted the offical story'. I have heard all the theories and read up on them. These theories that the speed of the buildings falling proves that the govt put explosives in the buildings is what I find utterly idiotic and ridiculous. The 'worst attack on US soil in history' and people will desperately look for stupid little holes and pick them to pieces just to find a way to make more drama.
at the end of the day - the people who are looking at the stupid little holes want exactly what you want ... and that is that 1. this tragedy doesn't happen again and 2. the people responsible are held accountable ...
but the problem is that it's hard to get the facts on so many things ... the truth is being hidden from us ... there are a lot of unanswered questions and considering the scope of this event - it is troubling to say the least that people of power aren't interested in trying to answer them ...
i don't know what exactly happend that day - what i do know is what happened afterwards and that has been the biggest tragedy of em all ...
I totally agree. But once those holes are understood, let's stop making asinine asumptions. Sometimes I just get sad over the fact that so many people died that day (and probably even up until today in afghanistan) and there are still people that think George W decided it was a good idea to load it up with explosives and that hundreds of people mysteriously vanished into thin air over pennsylvania.
I dont think all these people that over-analyze this thing want the same thing that I want. sOme might, but I think there are a few whack-os that want to sing and dance and say 'I told you so' or just fuel the drama in some sick twisted way.
I do appreciate the people who analyze the shit out of it that ultimately want to realisitically prevent it from happening again.
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
that's what people do ... they take the information given to them and they make decisions based on it ... why is it nonsense to think that things aren't what they say they are? ...
knowing full well, the kind of organizations that benefited from this war have no problems sacrificing lives - it's not a huge stretch for me ...
i don't see why it's irrational or illegitimate ... what i don't understand from your point of view is that you say that if it ever comes to light that there was a conspiracy - you'd be fine with it then but yet for someone to have that belief currently is nonsense ... in order for it to be nonsense - you have to know with absolute certainty that there was no conspiracy whatsoever ... and i know you cannot answer that question definitively ... no one can just as no one can say that there is a conspiracy with full certainty ...
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
i agree except you called someone's opinion here nonsense, irrational and illegitimate ... not words of someone who says they should keep an open mind ...
i do agree that calling others blind and stupid isn't gonna help their cause either ...
and just to be clear, there are some conspiracy theories which do have some merit albeit not proven, cause we have legitimate proof (like jfk), besides actual motive or inserting our own hypothesis. it's all about facts.
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
but you have no proof that there was no conspiracy ... again - you draw your own conclusions based on the information you've gathered and others do the same ... what makes your opinion (especially on a subject so complex as this) any more legitimate?
are you saying that it is impossible that there was a conspiracy of some sort?
First off, I don't think that's what he's saying. But I'll add that it makes no sense to assume a conspiracy in the absence of evidence. The burden of proof is firmly on the shoulders of the people who espouse these theories. It makes no sense to say "Bigfoot exists, and its up to the scientists to prove he doesn't". Rather, the Bigfoot believers need to acquire convincing evidence. Similarly, its not up to everyone else to prove that the US government is not guilty. Before guilt should even be DISCUSSED, you need evidence.
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
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
according to you it is the same as saying big foot did it ... i myself think that is an "extreme" correlation ...
in any case - it appears that within your own rational mind, it is possible that there was a conspiracy ... if that is the case - someone having that opinion doesn't have a nonsensical opinion ... that is my only point ...
we have a lot of details and facts ... they don't all point to the same conclusion ... this whole sordid affair is very complicated even if one were to believe the "official" story ... no one can answer definitively what happened that day ...
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
soo ... in your opinion - you think bigfoot being responsible for 9-11 is the same as any other conspiracy?
burden of proof? ... where is the proof that bin laden did it? ... a former guy on the cia payroll who for some reason has evaded capture despite the efforts of everyone? ...
again - facts are hard to come by for this particular event ... if what is currently available to you is suffice - fine, but i dare say ridiculing people who don't share your opinion doesn't make them wrong in my mind ...
Let me ask you this much, why rush to extreme and final judgment on something you admit we don't know everything on or about? Doesn't this seem rash or even misleading to determine?
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
again - you are the one who calls it an extreme conclusion ... i don't see it as extreme ... my point is that it is completely reasonable to me that there was a conspiracy for 9-11 ... i'm not saying it was definitely one or definitely not ... like i've been saying - there is just so much uncertainty ...
i just don't see how you can call someoene's opinion nonsense when we've agreed here on several posts that there remains a plethora of unanswered questions ...
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
who's saying you have to accept an absolute conclusion? ... where have i said that?
if you can provide me circumstantial reasoning and proof that bigfoot did it ... great - i'll listen ... the foundation by which conspiracy theorists are speculating on isn't grounded in 100% certainty but there is more than a reasonable amount of doubt to the official story ...
all i'm saying is it isn't unreasonable to think there was a conspiracy based on all the information and lack of information out there ... if you want to call it extreme or ridicule it ... that's your perogative i suppose and my effort here to have you see it otherwise has proven fruitless ...
But if the whole point of the supposed conspiracy was to start a war, why not plant some WMD's in Iraq to justify the war? They could have done that before 9/11 and it would have been a lot easier then planting explosives in the towers and rigging them to blow up after the towers got hit by planes. And doing it after the Iraq invasion would have been even easier.
And considering how much of a mess the Iraq invasion was I find it hard to believe that the same people who planned it also planned such an intricate and for them successful conspiracy.
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
Definitely a self-inflicted wound.
I know there's a lot of information and back-up material on the 'net to substantiate this claim, but I choose not to read it. This is not out of ignorance or my own stubborn opinion, it's because facing the reality that this actually MIGHT have happened is just horrific.
In a situation like this, it may be better not to know.
why the heck are we going around in circles here ... like i've said a few times ... no one is gonna get all the facts - people have to draw their own conclusions ... there are no absolutes here ... can you absolutely say for certain it wasn't an inside job? ... i doubt it ... so, you draw your conclusions and others will draw theirs ...
and got a hard hard head - i said that a long time ago ... guilt is a bitch
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
then saying it isn't is an absolute conclusion in your view ...
really - are we having a conversation about semantics?
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
soo ... what it boils down to is that you are tired of hearing that 9/11 was an inside job - so, instead of entering into a neverending debate based on a plethora of links - you're gonna go with this ...
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