Loose Change....

sonicreducer

farfromglorified wrote:

This sums it up quite nicely.

not fair.

farfromglorified

sonicreducer wrote:

i agree. but, the purpose of me saying what i said about loose change is that it does bring up valid ideas and questions. take it for what it is worth, but don't believe it to be absolute truth. that is why i said is was up to him/her to make their best judgement and i gave them a pretty good link. jlew can say what he wants about jim hoffman, but there are things on that site that will make you question the official explanation.

See...here's what I mean about equal standards. I've heard the following a million times on this board:

"The information at XXXXXXXX will make you question the official version"

What I've never, ever, ever, ever heard is this:

"The information in the official version will make you question the information at XXXXXXXXX"

Seemingly everyday someone posts a piece of information that is contradicted by dozens of other sources and, when confronted, hides behind the "questioning" label, despite the fact that the conclusions are typically what the information is dedicated to.

i am particularly interested in building #7 and the way the towers fell. i think that neither the commission report nor the nist report did a good job pertaining to either. they made just as many assumptions as the credible alternative theories have to come to their conclusion. granted, there are wackjob conspiracy theories and wackjob theorists who don't help the alternative views. someone had a good statement the other day about all dissenters being marginalized based on claims made by the most outlandish dissenters. it's the same stuff here, though i would expect someone like you to look past that. along similar lines, there are wackjobs who won't even consider the possibility of corruption because they don't want to hear it. it's not that easy to dismiss.

This is all cool.

anyhow, would you agree that there should be an investigation into the more credible alternative theories?

Sure! People should be free to investigate whatever they'd like.

sonicreducer

farfromglorified wrote:

See...here's what I mean about equal standards. I've heard the following a million times on this board:

"The information at XXXXXXXX will make you question the official version"

What I've never, ever, ever, ever heard is this:

"The information in the official version will make you question the information at XXXXXXXXX"

Seemingly everyday someone posts a piece of information that is contradicted by dozens of other sources and, when confronted, hides behind the "questioning" label, despite the fact that the conclusions are typically what the information is dedicated to.

i was looking at the overall idea. i thought we were talking about why people should question the official theories. im not hiding behind the 'questioning' label. i guess i could have worded it better, but what i meant by 'questioning' is that there are holes in the official explanations and there are also questions that they left unanswered or even worse, plainly avoided. if you want to debate theories in depth with sources, id be glad to. the person who started this post seems to have recently been pissed off by loose change, like many others. all i was doing was trying to set them up with some good links. forgive me if im wrong, but im pretty sure jim hoffman's site states both sides on a lot of the issues. if it is one sided on that site, it is because an 'official' theory hasn't answered the question that he is giving his opinion on. a lot of the alternative theories have clearly been debunked, but that doesn't answer the laundry list of other questions.

farfromglorified

sonicreducer wrote:

i was looking at the overall idea. i thought we were talking about why people should question the official theories. im not hiding behind the 'questioning' label. i guess i could have worded it better, but what i meant by 'questioning' is that there are holes in the official explanations and there are also questions that they left unanswered or even worse, plainly avoided. if you want to debate theories in depth with sources, id be glad to. the person who started this post seems to have recently been pissed off by loose change, like many others. all i was doing was trying to set them up with some good links. forgive me if im wrong, but im pretty sure jim hoffman's site states both sides on a lot of the issues. if it is one sided on that site, it is because an 'official' theory hasn't answered the question that he is giving his opinion on. a lot of the alternative theories have clearly been debunked, but that doesn't answer the laundry list of other questions.

The purpose of an "alternative theory" is not to shoot holes in the "accepted theory". It is to address the issue completely and clearly, regardless of other theories.

9/11 conspiracy theories are often much like Intelligent Design theories. They are structured to address incompleteness or unaddressed issues in parts of the dominant theory and, in doing so, become dependent on that dominant theory. In the absence of the "official version", these alternative theories would look completely ridiculous to nearly everyone. But since they are able to capitalize on weaknesses or absences in the official theory, they can have a very coercive effect on people.

Look, there are some very good questions about the events of 9/11 like the collapse of building 7. People should feel compelled to ask questions and to investigate. But they should do so in the name of finding objective answers, whatever those answers should be.

sonicreducer

farfromglorified wrote:

The purpose of an "alternative theory" is not to shoot holes in the "accepted theory". It is to address the issue completely and clearly, regardless of other theories.

point taken, and i am guilty of that to an extent. i think a lot of that might be due to a limited amount of evidence that i can see for myself. that is why im pissed that these reports rejected investigating explosives. i know they dismissed the ideas based on assumptions (it's in the report) and i think it was also because what it was implying, corruption.

farfromglorified wrote:

9/11 conspiracy theories are often much like Intelligent Design theories. They are structured to address incompleteness or unaddressed issues in parts of the dominant theory and, in doing so, become dependent on that dominant theory. In the absence of the "official version", these alternative theories would look completely ridiculous to nearly everyone. But since they are able to capitalize on weaknesses or absences in the official theory, they can have a very coercive effect on people.

well put, like usual,... but,...

i don't see what is wrong with addressing the incompleteness considering the amount of damage on so many levels caused by 9/11. if they didn't answer certain questions, they should be held liable to answer them. there is evidence of corruption, but nobody wants 'officially' address it because they are still in a state of denial, imo.

id also like to say that these are very specific and limited number of questions. i think what you say has more legitimacy on the irrational conspiracy theories.

farfromglorified wrote:

Look, there are some very good questions about the events of 9/11 like the collapse of building 7. People should feel compelled to ask questions and to investigate. But they should do so in the name of finding objective answers, whatever those answers should be.

i agree, though i think it goes both ways. if you read the 2 official reports, you would have to conclude that a lot of those answers were not objective. and i don't think it will ever happen. the new investigation would need a massive amount of cooperation which i personally feel it wouldn't have the capacity to demand. unfortunately, i think this mystery will never be fully solved.

farfromglorified

sonicreducer wrote:

point taken, and i am guilty of that to an extent. i think a lot of that might be due to a limited amount of evidence that i can see for myself. that is why im pissed that these reports rejected investigating explosives. i know they dismissed the ideas based on assumptions (it's in the report) and i think it was also because what it was implying, corruption.

Perhaps, I really don't know.

well put, like usual,... but,...

i don't see what is wrong with addressing the incompleteness considering the amount of damage on so many levels caused by 9/11. if they didn't answer certain questions, they should be held liable to answer them. there is evidence of corruption, but nobody wants 'officially' address it because they are still in a state of denial, imo.

There isn't anything wrong with addressing the incompleteness! It's important to do so. But when someone addresses an incompleteness and then use that to push a theory that is even less complete, I'm not really going to believe them when they tell me they're only interested in "the truth".

i agree, though i think it goes both ways. if you read the 2 official reports, you would have to conclude that a lot of those answers were not objective. and i don't think it will ever happen. the new investigation would need a massive amount of cooperation which i personally feel it wouldn't have the capacity to demand. unfortunately, i think this mystery will never be fully solved.

Sure. There are elements to this event that will never be known barring the invention of a time machine.

sonicreducer

oops

sonicreducer

farfromglorified wrote:

There isn't anything wrong with addressing the incompleteness! It's important to do so. But when someone addresses an incompleteness and then use that to push a theory that is even less complete, I'm not really going to believe them when they tell me they're only interested in "the truth".

agree.

jlew24asu

JamMastaE wrote:

9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!no one cares if you "THINK" people in this gov. would do such a thing,THEY DID!!pull your dumb,Apathetic head out of your ass and do some research!!not an hour or three but weeks,months and years like me.the future of your freedom is much more important than even Pearl Jam!!there is so much info if you look for it.there are agents all over the net with an agenda of disinformation,maybe some right here on this site.They try to make it look like your some tin-foil hat wear'n kook if you don't believe the gov.s story of these events,don't fall for that shit.ever hear of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"?very intelligent people share these kooky thoughts,also many gov. insiders have come forward to say they think it was an inside job.funny how all these arm-chair political "experts" come out of the woodwork now,sorry assholes,go back to watching football and porn,your ignorant ass is'nt doing america any good,mr. joe six pac who has disconnected himself from our political system and doesn't have a clue as to whats going on in this country who thinks cuz he drags his dumb ass to the poles to vote on election day is actually taking part and making a difference in the system,fuck you too!! the right and the left is a control mechanism!!both parties are corrupt and no matter who you vote for,they are not gonna save you or change anything for the better of the people.Fuckn Bush just killed the constitution and Habeas Corpus,what do ya know about that?!

go here and start your journey down the rabbit hole!or see ya in the gulags.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

where have you been all my life? now I truly see the whats going on. I am so excited to start my journey on the path of truth. Thank You

jlew24asu

Hope&Anger wrote:

Well, most of my post was about the mainstream media, not about Fox, but whatever.

And enlighten me -- who on Fox offers alternative perspectives? And no fair counting Alan Colmes. Nervous giggling is not opinion!

thats the problem. you think everyone, excpet colmes, on fox only offers perspectives from the right. I dont. I'm not going to go search youtube for videos about (IMO) fair and balanced interviews. we just disagree.

Ahnimus

Some music and pictures to put it all together

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4087260609752688346&q=immortal+technique+bin+laden

Feat. Immortal Technique, Mos Def, Eminem

moeaholic

JamMastaE wrote:

9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!no one cares if you "THINK" people in this gov. would do such a thing,THEY DID!!pull your dumb,Apathetic head out of your ass and do some research!!not an hour or three but weeks,months and years like me.the future of your freedom is much more important than even Pearl Jam!!there is so much info if you look for it.there are agents all over the net with an agenda of disinformation,maybe some right here on this site.They try to make it look like your some tin-foil hat wear'n kook if you don't believe the gov.s story of these events,don't fall for that shit.ever hear of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"?very intelligent people share these kooky thoughts,also many gov. insiders have come forward to say they think it was an inside job.funny how all these arm-chair political "experts" come out of the woodwork now,sorry assholes,go back to watching football and porn,your ignorant ass is'nt doing america any good,mr. joe six pac who has disconnected himself from our political system and doesn't have a clue as to whats going on in this country who thinks cuz he drags his dumb ass to the poles to vote on election day is actually taking part and making a difference in the system,fuck you too!! the right and the left is a control mechanism!!both parties are corrupt and no matter who you vote for,they are not gonna save you or change anything for the better of the people.Fuckn Bush just killed the constitution and Habeas Corpus,what do ya know about that?!

go here and start your journey down the rabbit hole!or see ya in the gulags.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

lol, funny stuff.

Abookamongstthemany

Exactly which parts of the alternate theories do you guys take issue with just so we can be clear and actually debate it? Just saying you disagree and then not going into why doesn't say too much.

Commy

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Exactly which parts of the alternate theories do you guys take issue with just so we can be clear and actually debate it? Just saying you disagree and then not going into why doesn't say too much.

you want them to actually get into an issue? Good luck with that.

Abookamongstthemany

Commy wrote:

you want them to actually get into an issue? Good luck with that.

Yeah, I know it's asking a bit much.

I guess is always more fun to just call something crazy and never have to actually express why.

jlew24asu

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Exactly which parts of the alternate theories do you guys take issue with just so we can be clear and actually debate it? Just saying you disagree and then not going into why doesn't say too much.

ok i'll bite.

I do not believe bombs were planted in the building.
I do not believe the government knew of these exact attacks.

I do believe the planes hitting the tower caused the collapse

jlew24asu

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Exactly which parts of the alternate theories do you guys take issue with just so we can be clear and actually debate it? Just saying you disagree and then not going into why doesn't say too much.

just so I know where you are coming from. what exactly do you believe. as opposed to just not believing the offical story.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Exactly which parts of the alternate theories do you guys take issue with just so we can be clear and actually debate it? Just saying you disagree and then not going into why doesn't say too much.

Here is just a sampling:

1. Motive = complicity (the government caused 9/11)
2. Available information = foreknowledge (the government knew 9/11 was going to happen)
3. Jenga = WTC (the world trade center would have fallen to it's side)
4. Supporting eyewitness = truth, contradictory eyewitness = irrelevancy
5. Questioning the official version = quest for truth, questioning the alternative versions = brainwashed

Each of these fallacies is based on the application of assumption as fact. Furthermore, each creates a contradiction.

Abookamongstthemany

jlew24asu wrote:

ok i'll bite.

I do not believe bombs were planted in the building.
I do not believe the government knew of these exact attacks.

I do believe the planes hitting the tower caused the collapse

But why? What makes you so certain?

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

you want them to actually get into an issue? Good luck with that.

feel free to add to the discussion. good luck to you