The W
Views: 100049578
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.14 1559
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Government Conspiracy of 9/11 (Page 2)
This thread has 34 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.54
Pages: Prev 1 2
(586 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (37 total)
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter








Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2539 days
Last activity: 2426 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.37
Alright aftershock, you don't want GZ to insult your intelligence. Well I will.

I know CRZ frowns upon this type of thing, but...

You are an imbecilic, gullible ignoramus.

There, I said it.

Point and case, you spelled "awfully" as "offly".

Now onto the substance of your argument. You claim that it is extremely obvious that the government is lying and that we are all stupid for being duped.

Would you agree with me that the USA is not a popular country right now and that international media (and domestic media) despises Bush and would use anything they could to take him down?
Then if said conspiracy were so obvious, why haven't they been called on it by any credible news agency (and I will even count Reuters as credible even though it kills me to do so).

Why have so many countries sent troops abroad to help our effort? Why would the Germans, French, Italians and Canadians send troops to Afghanistan if it were so obvious that everything post 911 has been drummed up by Bush/Cheney?

We aren't hunting Bin Laden "at all"? Can you please provide me with a cite? That would be very helpful, thank you.

You claim that it would be impossible for 12 people with boxcutters to take over 3 planes. Why? Pre 9/11, virtually no one envisioned terrorists using planes as missiles. Nearly everyone aboard thought that they were to be used as hostages and had a good chance of being freed. Therefore, once the plane was taken over, they did their best not to piss off the terrorists in efforts to save their own lives.

I read through your post and have some trouble following your "logic". You throw out sentences like, "What about the plane that crashed in Harlem late 2001 out of nowhere?" You don't follow this sentence up with anything.

Bad syntax hurts good arguments, but bad syntax kills bad arguments.
I guess I would sum up my post by saying that I will listen to anything you say if you provide us with some evidence. You cannot just throw out unsubstantiated claims and expect people to accept them.

Lastly, this thread won't last 2 more days.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.58
    Originally posted by aftershock14520
    No Secondary Explosives? Heh?


Don't know if you've ever been in a large building, but I have been. I was controls manager for Sears Tower for 11 years. Assuming Sears did experience some stress and fall down somehow, I would expect a lot of things to blow up either before or after it falls. I assume similar things were in place in the WTC as in Sears. I had many discussions with their Fire guys after '93 and we seemed to have very similar buildings, controls-wise.

For example, there are a series of 16 inch pipes carrying thousands of gallons of treated water from the 29th floor to the roof under high pressure. Those pipes bursting might be a huge explosion - once one had a small pinhole and the liquid escaping under pressure cut through 9 inches of concrete. On our 29th floor, we have (I might get all past tense, I have now been gone from Sears 11 years) 5 very large chilled water generators, also called chillers, that are under heavy pressure and filled with refrigerant. Unrelief of the pressure of the refrigerant would certainly cause an explosion.

Sears Tower is mostly an electric Building, but we still had huge numbers of cubic liters of natural gas in our pipes at any time. WTC was not an exclusive electric building, so I would expect they had lots and lots of NG for their hot water generating systems. That stuff is terribly explosive when not contained, and of course, it too is under high pressure. The electrical stuff also could cause explosions. The 4160 Three phase delivered to the chillers, could, for example, cause some very visible nastiness when connected to ground before the circuits blow.

Not to mention all the air conditioning fan units, elevators, escalators, especially if some of the estimated 163,000 lbs of jet fuel was not initially burnt and made its way into elevator shaft pits, or into Fan ductwork and into the fan chambers. When the building collapsed, I could see that non-burned jet fuel igniting and blowing up.

And of course, don't forget the retail mall underneath. Lots of stores and eating place, all with potential for nastiness. And the train station below.

Oh, there's plenty of possibilities for secondary explosions without the CIA setting up a few bombs.


(edited by AWArulz on 10.4.06 0526)



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 481 days
Last activity: 481 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.39
Do you have a fiduciary interest in this film? At least that would explain the blind loyalty to it.
Now, if you want to claim conspiracy, these are items that could be discussed:
Stock market had been in a 16 month decline since the Microsoft Judgement of March '00 that burst the tech bubble. The Dow Jones had dropped approximately 700 points in the week prior to 9/11. If you want to go conspiracy theory, did people know what was coming, or was what occurred an excuse to fuel patriotic stock purchases to level the markets, as the market did drop 500 plus points on the first day of trading post 9/11, but it stabilized and probably did not drop as much as it was appearing to be heading pre-9/11.
Whatever became of the car bombs that were supposedly set off in front of the State Department on 9/11 and were being reported on news broadcasts. Were those car bombs not set off because panic had already been achieved, yet the stories were already planted and thus reached the airwaves?

Now, here is the greatest flaw in the conspiracy theorists beliefs: If 9/11 was a goverment conspiracy to create a totalitarian state, why wasn't martial law declared that day? I actually lost 20 bucks that night because I bet that 72 hour martial law would be declared (there was nothing else on TV, had to bet something. Fortunately, the liquor store near campus had free home delivery). If ever there was situation where the goverment could do it under emergency measures, that was it.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.82
All I can really add is WOW. I personally would like to thank this nutcase for pulling both extremes of this board together.



Perception is reality
aftershock14520
Cotto
Banned








Since: 4.4.06
From: Connecticut USA

Since last post: 3114 days
Last activity: 3108 days
AIM:  
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.22
You know what, most of you just respond to the facts I provide, meanwhile you all don't provide stable facts at all. The sears tower dosn't have anything to do with the World Trade Centers and ShotGunShep it is impossible that 12 terrorist took over 3 planes, especially when there was 4 planes, AA77, AA11, UA175, UA93, and then there was another plane that dissapeared and a couple months later that same plane crashed in New York in residential neighborhoods. Most of them terrorist are proving to be still alive and well by BBC television, which US media won't ever question. So your just full of shit, political ass puppet. Even the victim's family's of 9/11 believe that our government screwed us. Now if your going to tell me that fire buring only on 3 floors of one of the Towers is going to cause over 100 floors to free fall, your out of your fucking mind especially when the steel put into that building had a melting point of 3000 degrees, jet fuels dosn't burn at 3000 degrees and jet fuel vaporates as soon as it's burned. So 3 floors caused the whole tower to free fall? Sure.

(edited by aftershock14520 on 10.4.06 1025)
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.33
I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Grimis right about now. He'd be adding some awesomeness to this bizarro thread. I can't wait for the random quotes that will come out of this baby as it is.

Geez Charlie Sheen Jr., what is your point? You sound like you'd try to convince us that we live in the Matrix, too, just because you can say we can't NOT prove it. Are you anti-Bush? Anti-government? Anti-EVERYTHING? What?

You point to "facts", but people are providing their own facts, WITH sources, and you are doing nothing but spewing pro-conspiracy rhetoric, with poor grammar and massive spelling mistakes.

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Aftershock - it's the tool for modern times.


Not "it". "He".



"You know what you need?
Some new quotes in your sig.
Yeah, I said it."
-- DJFrostyFreeze

BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2843 days
Last activity: 2571 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.85

    Now if your going to tell me that fire buring only on 3 floors of one of the Towers is going to cause over 100 floors to free fall, your out of your fucking mind especially when the steel put into that building had a melting point of 3000 degrees, jet fuels dosn't burn at 3000 degrees and jet fuel vaporates as soon as it's burned. So 3 floors caused the whole tower to free fall? Sure.


Can I suggest reading this (popularmechanics.com)? It's an article from Popular Mechanics debunking a lot of this wonderful "how did the steel melt" hocus pocus. For example:

    Originally posted by the article
    "Melted" Steel
    CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

    FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

    "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800 it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

    But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832F.

    "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them dow


Very illuminating.

    Originally posted by AwaRulz
    Your post (when I read it) was your post 9/11. To keep that true, I suggest not posting again.



This one was too good Awa.

(edited by BigSteve on 10.4.06 1044)

(edited by BigSteve on 10.4.06 1048)
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
The other 7 dudes on those planes must be peeved that they keep getting left out with just "12 terrorists".

As for how they took them over...amazing what people will do when you tell them you have bombs, which according to those folks who were able to call out of the planes told folks on the ground.

But seriously, this is arguing with the crazy dude who walks around any major city mumbling to himself. Any further attempts to thrust logic into this argument would be a waste of everyone's time.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
ICQ:  
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.85
Aftershock, I'm at work right now, so I can't say much. What I will say is the following;

- Proper typing and grammer makes posts easier to read.
- Don't insult the adimns.
- When using quotes, use some which, you know, are actually reputable. or somewhat reputable.
- During 9/11 I was in class. TV-Broadcasting class. We studied the coverage. From my education (and other traiing from other places) I can see/read between the lines when it comes to the media. I saw no coverup, no conspirices. I still don't see any. These days, the mdeia STILL don't use 9/11, but rather people focus on Iraq (or Afganistan if you're in Canada).


I'd add more (and will probably add more later) but I'm at work. I will say thank you though to Aftershock. You've provided me with ample material for my "Troll Moment of the Week".

(edited by El Nastio on 10.4.06 1052)


To celebrate the passing of the Troll Amnesty (and for otherwise no reason at all), I present to you the very best of Trolling here on The W. This Troll Moment of the Week is brought to you by;

"los_ortega" , who brought us such pieces as wisdom as: "what do you think?Hogan commerial sucks, and so does CRZ. i didn't know grammer was a big thing here at the "W". fuck this site, i'm out"

Click Here (The W) to read the rest of it!

BXVI
aftershock14520
Cotto
Banned








Since: 4.4.06
From: Connecticut USA

Since last post: 3114 days
Last activity: 3108 days
AIM:  
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.22
    Originally posted by BigSteve

      Now if your going to tell me that fire buring only on 3 floors of one of the Towers is going to cause over 100 floors to free fall, your out of your fucking mind especially when the steel put into that building had a melting point of 3000 degrees, jet fuels dosn't burn at 3000 degrees and jet fuel vaporates as soon as it's burned. So 3 floors caused the whole tower to free fall? Sure.


    Can I suggest reading this (popularmechanics.com)? It's an article from Popular Mechanics debunking a lot of this wonderful "how did the steel melt" hocus pocus. For example:

      Originally posted by the article
      "Melted" Steel
      CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

      FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

      "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800 it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

      But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832F.

      "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them dow


    Very illuminating.

      Originally posted by AwaRulz
      Your post (when I read it) was your post 9/11. To keep that true, I suggest not posting again.



    This one was too good Awa.

    (edited by BigSteve on 10.4.06 1044)

    (edited by BigSteve on 10.4.06 1048)


This was published in 2005, in 2001 the distributer who provided the steel for that building admitted that there was no way that just a fire on 3 floors buring at 700 degrees caused the steel to melt, causing the building to free fall. Your article is very good, but if it was correct, there was no way the building did a free fall in 9 seconds. Also, after the world trade centers were already collapsed, there was severe hot spots at the site for months that were over 1000 degrees, and jet fuel and regular fire does not do that. World Trade Center 7 was imploded, and the owner of the building admitted it, so go figure that.

JayJayDean, Spelling errors and grammar you can pick on me for, I don't care at all. If you want the source, then watch Loose Change DVD, or go on Youtube and watch it, they have all the source and information, I don't anymore then that. All of it fits together like a puzzle, and all this other official stuff that happened does not fit together well at all, and it takes common sense to realize that, not a perfessor in english. The End.


(edited by aftershock14520 on 10.4.06 1059)

(edited by aftershock14520 on 10.4.06 1104)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
OK Aftershock, let's take this another direction.

You trust the Loose Change people more than all of us, the entire government, the army, and all scientists who have talked about this issue.

Why do you trust them more than everyone else in the world?

Do you currently know anything about the two men behind Loose Change other than they made a movie which was very compelling to you?

What are their qualifications? What is their financial stake in this movie? How do they benefit from putting this information out there?

If you can't answer those questions, maybe you should stop trusting them implicitly until you can answer them. After all, they disagree with just about everyone on this issue.

//edit: And I'm not ignoring Jim Smith - I'm taking my rant tangent over to a private message or a new thread.

(edited by Guru Zim on 10.4.06 0916)


Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 9 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.81
I know politics was relatively quiet lately, but two pages of this?

Scientific American also has a short but decent article debunking some of this conspiracy stuff:

Fahrenheit 2777

Shermer is the editor over at Skeptic Magazine. They only had book review by Richard Morrock.

I think it's also interesting that no respectable left-wing pundit or publication, that I know of, has given any of this an ounce of time. These conspiracies have been debunked to such an extent that even the left won't touch them. Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Nation Magazine, Amy Goodman, Alternative Radio, Z Magazine, Mother Jones Magazine, Bill Moyers, etc, have all kept a significant distance from 9/11 conspiracy theories. The only place I've heard them "seriously" discussed was on zany, new age talk shows, where "next week we'll interview a pet psychic".

Lastly, the main reason I don't think the administration could pull this off is simple. They couldn't keep wire tapping, Abu Ghraib, or the Valerie Plame leak from getting out (just to name a few), yet they were able to pull off the grandest conspiracy of all time without a single person spilling the beans. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

    Originally posted by aftershock14520

    ...not a perfessor in english.



Either you're really that oblivious to the spell check, or you are doing this on purpose. Either way, I still found that pretty funny.



"Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do."
David Brent, The Office

"Oedipus ruined a great sex life by asking too many questions."
Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report
rinberg
Boudin rouge








Since: 30.1.02
From: South Georgia

Since last post: 1020 days
Last activity: 1 day
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.01
I really have nothing to add due to the fact that you guys have covered it really well. However I will observe that, when this thread is closed, Mr. aftershock will not be persuaded that he could be wrong.

After all, everybody knows that what you see on youtube has to be true....


edit: prufreedin is yer frend. (fixed grammatical error)

(edited by rinberg on 10.4.06 1422)

"A study in the Washington Post says that women have better verbal skills than men. I just want to say to the authors of that study: Duh."
--Conan O'Brien
too-old-now
Bockwurst








Since: 7.1.04

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 226 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.50
I don't believe aftershock has presented his argument in a clear nor compelling manner, nor do I think he will change his opinion based on what I or other wieners have to say. I'll try to give him the benefit of the doubt on whether he was just trolling or not, based on his statement that he served our country. And let me thank you for that service, aftershock.

This whole 9/11 issue has troubled me, not because I believe in a vast government conspiracy to carry out the events of 9/11, but because I believe there were more people who knew or had a very good idea of what was going to happen. I don't beleive the whole truth about 9/11 will come out, certainly not likely in my lifetime.

There is a difference in being a conspiracy nutcase and simply wondering about things that just don't seem to add up. I am certainly no expert in this area, nor have I spent a lot of time researching answers to my concerns that may be out there.

I'll admit that I start with a distrust of the government to tell us the whole truth. There are several instances throughout history where the government has lied to the public, there is no reason to beleive they are completely forthright at the present time. I believe the government manipulates the information it provides, so that the story they want to be told gets told. I don't know if that distrust should apply here or not.

With that in mind, I questioned the following about 9/11:

The secret service allowed the President to keep reading to schoolchildren when the country was presumably under attack. It would seem to me that they would have (or should have) whisked him away in a heartbeat, if they didn't know how big a scale of attack we were under.

The collapse of the towers, and building 7 don't make sense to me. Especially building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane either. It didn't have the force of impact to remove the heat resistant coating that was presumably the reason the towers themselves collapsed.

The article in Popular Mechanics (2005), seeking to debunk what it calls some of the most prevalent myths about 9/11 fabricated by conspiracy theorists, completely ignores the suddenness, verticality, rapidity, and totality of the collapses and also fails to mention the testimonies about molten steel, demolition rings, and the sounds of explosions http://www.st911.org/

I don't necessarily know what to believe about this, but it is a rather interesting discussion. Presumably Charlie Sheen has read this, or something like it.

Another question I have relates to the reports of unnamed sell short trades of thousands of shares of Airline stocks. I recall hearing about these immediately following the attacks, and thinking it'll be easy to find out who knew as they can track the trades. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to believe it's possible to anonymously sell short any shares of any stock, without SOMEONE keeping a record of who was involved. Since these orders have never been realized, who profits on them?

There are several more questions, I don't know if any of it adds up to a government conspiracy or not. The attitude of lumping all of these theories together as if they are all a byproduct of UFOs and alien abductions, to me at least, is as foolish as beleiving the official story.

Lastly, I believe I have to go back and find my tinfoil hat now...

aftershock14520
Cotto
Banned








Since: 4.4.06
From: Connecticut USA

Since last post: 3114 days
Last activity: 3108 days
AIM:  
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.22
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    OK Aftershock, let's take this another direction.

    You trust the Loose Change people more than all of us, the entire government, the army, and all scientists who have talked about this issue.

    Why do you trust them more than everyone else in the world?

    Do you currently know anything about the two men behind Loose Change other than they made a movie which was very compelling to you?

    What are their qualifications? What is their financial stake in this movie? How do they benefit from putting this information out there?

    If you can't answer those questions, maybe you should stop trusting them implicitly until you can answer them. After all, they disagree with just about everyone on this issue.

    //edit: And I'm not ignoring Jim Smith - I'm taking my rant tangent over to a private message or a new thread.

    (edited by Guru Zim on 10.4.06 0916)


Yes, correct, I trust the loose change people more then the government, because they "lie" and that's obvious. Bush lied about Katrina, but lied about wire tapping people, the government lies when they want to. The Loose Change documentry is personal, people that were there personal are a part of that documentry and also scientific facts (not government paid scientists paid to convince us to believe lies). You believe what you want to believe. The people who made that documentry encourage people to pass the film around for free and spread the word, money is not a deal. There information makes much sense unlike the official reports. I'm not in the position to defend this topic really, you know obviously, but it takes only common sense to realize that "hey... if world trade center 7 was imploded, and the twin towers looked like they were, maybe they were?" and you can get all the facts in the world to prove that wrong, but there is just so much more facts to just prove it right. Pwnd.

too-old-now, thank you for your support because your can present the situation better then I can, and I agree with you with your information.

(edited by aftershock14520 on 10.4.06 1746)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 22 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.89
    Originally posted by aftershock14520
    You believe what you want to believe.
Boy howdy.



CRZ
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
Did you just turn to "pwned" as a method of argument?

You really just disqualified yourself from talking at the adults table, but I'll humor you for a little bit longer. If you think I'm just being a dick to you, you don't know me and it's much worse when I'm doing that outright. I really am trying to explain this to you because I'm hoping that you can review the facts and have a rational opinion of things.

I say this, because just like me, you get one vote in this great democracy that we live in, and I'd like to believe that you want to be as informed as you can before you cast that vote.

People lie all of the time. Individual people lie all of the time. Kenneth Lay wasn't part of the government, Martha Stewart wasn't part of the government, Rush Limbaugh wasn't part of the government. All of them were caught in major lies that had to do with their self interest. (Lay for example was involved with Enron, Martha lied about her inside trading tips, and Limbaugh initially lied about Dr. shopping and the accusations of his drug use).

So - being a private person doesn't keep you from being a liar.

The government has lied in the past. We can all point to examples where this is true. However, the fact that the government has lied to us in the past does not mean that everything they tell us is a lie.

You don't appear to be equating things rationally. It seems to me that if someone disagrees with what you are saying, that you call them a government paid liar. Let me try to explain.

All government offices are made up of people. These people come from all areas of life - Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party, etc. Not all of these parties are aligned together- many of them are very against each other. Even if you can possibly rationalize that the Republiblicans and Democrats are functionally equal (which I am not saying, but I'm anticipating the argument) in an organization as large as the U.S. Army, Air Force, NORAD, the Pentagon -- there must be at least 5% independent people who are not affiliated. If this conspiracy is as large as you want me to believe that it is, surely one of these people would have said "Fuck it. I knew everything, here's the evidence". The fact of the matter is that this kind of whistle-blowing happens all of the time in Washington. You can't go a week without a press leak from one place or another. Why in the last 4+ years haven't these leaks happened?

I have a healthy distrust of the government, by the way. I give money to the EFF and support legislature to limit corporate controls of intellectual property, etc. when I have the chance. I'm not a patriotic, pro Bush, pro Christian majority person. You're probably talking to the most likely conspiracy believer on the board, and I'm just not even remotely close to giving you credence.

Fact: Each of the points that you bring up have been previously refuted in this thread.

Fact: People on the spot, making snap decisions on the day of an event, often talk out of their ass to get themselves on TV.

Fact: Computer modelling shows that the trade center should fall as it did, without the use of explosives. Sure, this could be faked, but why is that a more plausible explanation than that it is the truth? In order to assume that everyone is lying to you, you better have more evidence than a couple of yaks on the street.

If you could stop for a minute and actually assess the information here without coming at this again and again from the position that you are correct, no matter what, you might begin to see how foolish some of the things are that you are supporting.

It comes down to this: No matter what you believe, there is the truth and then there is everything else. Do we have the complete picture of the truth? For most of the events as they unfolded, I think we do. Who knew what before hand - that's awfully hard to predict. Maybe people knew, maybe they didn't. A warning isn't always heeded - look at the 911 dispatcher who didn't believe the kid when he called for his mom. There was a credible warning, we knew- someone should have acted - but the a-hole that got the call didn't believe it or didn't do their job, and shit happened. Don't think that the CIA, FBI, NSA, and government doesn't occasionally have people like this as well - sometimes people fuck up and the best information is wasted. It doesn't meant that the government killed the kids mom or that the government effected 9/11 on the WTC -- it could just be that the right person didn't do their job.

It was still 19 terrorists on planes that caused the damage.

I'd love for you to look at the facts and understand the truth. The fact is that when you use the scientific method to examine something, all opinions don't come out as equals. One ends up being the "truth" - or the closest thing that anyone has come to explaining it at the time. The others are dismissed.

Right now, your opinions are wrong and are not backed by science. They should be dismissed, because you don't have any proof. You have constantly been shown proof which you choose to disregard. Unfortunately, you are showing that you lack the ability to discern truth from lies -- you don't make the correct decision when looking at facts.

This isn't a personal attack on you, believe it or not. Lots of people make bad decisions. I call them on it too. I bet you are actually a pretty stand up guy if you have actually been in the service - most of my friends and acquaintences in the military have been.

If you choose to believe something, no matter what proof is offered otherwise, then you aren't being rational about it. I understand wanting to feel like it wasn't just 19 or 20 terrorists plotting against us - that it couldn't be that easy. The problem is that it was that easy.

Unfortunately, as we've seen time and time again in workplace shootings, school shootings, water tower shootings - our system just isn't set up to catch one crazy motherfucker at a time. We're really good at monitoring rogue states and catching countries at trying to sneak in submarines, but we don't do so good at catching Jimmy sneaking in a pound of marijuanna in his surf wagon. The problem is that the one guy could be smuggling anything - drugs, bioweapons, etc. It's a bad deal, and its scary. I think its easier to believe that the government was behind it and that we dont need to worry about one guy at a time.

As someone who believes in civil liberties, it bothers me to acknowledge that we have to worry about crazy bastards one guy at a time, because it means we will probably lose more and more of our rights as we tighten down against this.

So.

I don't hate you, but I think you are misled. I think you are gullible, and you have trusted the wrong people. I advise you to find smart people that you trust, and talk to them - whether it is your minister, college professor, or anyone like that. Ask them if you are right or if there is a better explanation.

It hasn't worked with me doing it, but maybe someone you know can reach you.

With this I'm closing this thread. You can PM me specifically if you have parts of this that you want to talk about.

Science - it proves that there was nothing crazy. Look at the earlier links.

Thanks,

Aaron



Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 4.54
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: The Government Conspiracy of 9/11 Part 3
Next thread: Immigration Marches/Reform
Previous thread: New Red, Blue Rings found on Uranus
(586 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Having had two close friemds and my favorite author die from pancreatic cancer and my PhD advisor have severe pancreatitis, I wish him a speedy recovery and good pain medication.
- DrDirt, Ashcroft hospitalized (2004)
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Government Conspiracy of 9/11 (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.129 seconds.