Odigo says workers warned of 9/11 two hours before it happened

rebornFixer

polaris wrote:

how is it close-minded if no one can prove they were NOT involved? ... ultimately, as it pertains to 9/11 - people form their opinions based on what they know (hopefully as opposed to what they hope - that goes both ways) ...

so, assuming it is ok to question the gov'ts account - why is there then some sociological symptom being suffered by 9/11 truthers? ... just as some people call others sheep and blind ... calling people kooks or satisfying some psychological dysfunction really doesn't help either ...

One cannot support a theory as being true by pointing towards a lack of evidence of non-involvement. That is horrid science, first off, and it's not morally appropriate either (IMO).
If something is true, one must be able to point towards tangible evidence. I don't know ... I'm not the thought police. People can believe whatever they'd like, and use whatever evidence they'd like. When they put their stuff out there as truth, though, that's when people are allowed to hold them accountable. That's all that's happening in this thread, and its a healthy process. Deleting the thread and not permitting the discourse would be unhealthy.

slightofjeff

reborncareerist wrote:

One cannot support a theory as being true by pointing towards a lack of evidence of non-involvement. That is horrid science, first off, and it's not morally appropriate either (IMO).
If something is true, one must be able to point towards tangible evidence. I don't know ... I'm not the thought police. People can believe whatever they'd like, and use whatever evidence they'd like. When they put their stuff out there as truth, though, that's when people are allowed to hold them accountable. That's all that's happening in this thread, and its a healthy process. Deleting the thread and not permitting the discourse would be unhealthy.

I can't prove i wasn't with O.J. when he killed Nicole and Ron. Therefore, I must be an accomplice to murder.

polaris

slightofjeff wrote:

Any 9/11 conspiracy just makes no sense to me. What would be the point? And, if the conspiracies are true, then it means the U.S. government had no qualms about killing 4,000 of its own citizens, but suddenly sprouted a conscience when it came to planting fake WMD in Iraq? "Fake WMD?!? We're not going to do that. THAT would be wrong."

And what of bin Laden? Why would he take credit for something he didn't do? It would seem his life/operations were a hell of a lot easier before he told everyone he blew up the World Trade Center towers.

bin laden of whom was previously on the cia payroll? ... bin laden who has yet to be caught while thousands die in iraq and afghanistan?

rebornFixer

slightofjeff wrote:

I can't prove i wasn't with O.J. when he murdered Nicole and Ron. Therefore, I must be an accomplice to murder.

Precisely.

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

One cannot support a theory as being true by pointing towards a lack of evidence of non-involvement. That is horrid science, first off, and it's not morally appropriate either (IMO).
If something is true, one must be able to point towards tangible evidence. I don't know ... I'm not the thought police. People can believe whatever they'd like, and use whatever evidence they'd like. When they put their stuff out there as truth, though, that's when people are allowed to hold them accountable. That's all that's happening in this thread, and its a healthy process. Deleting the thread and not permitting the discourse would be unhealthy.

absolutely ... so, do you think your post saying that truthers are satisfying some sociological need is healthy or unhealthy to the process?

slightofjeff

polaris wrote:

bin laden of whom was previously on the cia payroll? ... bin laden who has yet to be caught while thousands die in iraq and afghanistan?

There we go ... he's probably kicking it in Maui somewhere on the government dime, drinking daiquiris, eating hummus and chasing skirts.

rebornFixer

polaris wrote:

absolutely ... so, do you think your post saying that truthers are satisfying some sociological need is healthy or unhealthy to the process?

Healthy, in that my goal was not to shut them up. My goal was to make people think about why they hold the beliefs they do.

rebornFixer

slightofjeff wrote:

There we go ... he's probably kicking it in Maui somewhere on the government dime, drinking daiquiris, eating hummus and chasing skirts.

He probably wears a Speedo ...

polaris

slightofjeff wrote:

There we go ... he's probably kicking it in Maui somewhere on the government dime, drinking daiquiris, eating hummus and chasing skirts.

there we go what?

is anything i wrote not a fact that most people on this thread would agree on?

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

Healthy, in that my goal was not to shut them up. My goal was to make people think about why they hold the beliefs they do.

i would say your result was similar to the tin-foil hat comments

rebornFixer

Even the term "truther" has an a priori flavour to it ... More like "the decided". We seek "the truth" .... This stance does not allow for the possibility that you might already have it!

slightofjeff

reborncareerist wrote:

He probably wears a Speedo ...

sporting the rarely pulled-off "Speedo and turban" look ...

rebornFixer

polaris wrote:

i would say your result was similar to the tin-foil hat comments

Maybe I did fumble the attempt, sure. I probably injured my credibility with the jokes. Truly, though. Its worth thinking about, truthers and otherwise.

Commy

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Julius Caesar.

Open

reborncareerist wrote:

Even the term "truther" has an a priori flavour to it ... More like "the decided". We seek "the truth" .... This stance does not allow for the possibility that you might already have it!

I would think you would like that; labeling makes it much easeier to be dismissive.

Through the course of this thread my2hands started arguing with me about things i never said, i guess he thought i was a "truther".

RolandTD20Kdrummer

slightofjeff wrote:

My point exactly ...

I can see your agruments so far....

uuhhh I just don't understand it all....the gov't is honest gosh darnit...those 9/11 people are crazy...so ima gotta be right.

yeap...

try again..

rebornFixer

Open wrote:

I would think you would like that; labeling makes it much easeier to be dismissive.

Through the course of this thread my2hands started arguing with me about things i never said, i guess he thought i was a "truther".

Nope, I hate labels. They are often unhelpful. And for the record, are you not dismissing me as we "speak" (type)?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Commy wrote:

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Julius Caesar.

Such conspiracy...

history lies...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

So why lie about WMD's if you're not going to plant WMD'S

anyone?

ledvedderman

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So why lie about WMD's if you're not going to plant WMD'S

anyone?

I've often wondered that myself Roland...