9/11 Conspiracy theory? or Facts?

[Ambiguity]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

i hope i didn't scare people off, cause all of this needs to be talked about

No it doesn't. People are just too stubborn to accept that terrorists caused 911.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

[Sentinel]

*sigh*


Gh0zt was the only person who actually responded directly to my post. The rest of you decided to not read any of the thread, ignore this

I'm looking for intelligent discussion here, and some debate. I am not inviting people to link to Youtube videos or single-minded websites. If you want to use an outside source to back up your claim, that's fine, as long as you actually have something to say about it for yourself, and the outside source isn't the heart of your argument.

and then you just repeat posts that were posted in this thread or other conspiracy theory or 9/11 threads.


wanderer, what am I supposed to get out of your post? Like I haven't seen Loose Change, which has been mentioned multiple times in this thread? Like that's an OBJECTIVE video?

quetzalcoatl, your first post was the epitimy of what I didn't want, but your second post is legitimate.

Yellowfin, you know that was a useless post.

Ambiguity, although you didn't really get to the point of the thread, you at least responded to a previous post.

I know this isn't my thread. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but seriously, how hard is it to give serious discussion a chance?

And ya, I know I'm being a total hyppocrate by not adding anything to this thread of value, but I think I'll wait for a few more replies, so I actually have some ideas to think about and respond to.

[wanderer]

perhaps you're expectations were too high

[quetzalcoatl]

Originally Posted by Sentinel

Gh0zt was the only person who actually responded directly to my post. The rest of you decided to not read any of the thread, ignore this

true, sorry about that

sentinel, you will find this interesting: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ypnosis%2C+911

watch and we may discuss intelligently

[Yellowfin]

I liked the article in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 8th that addressed the issue of political division. It basically states that the real problem is people squabbling over party power (opposition accomplishing nothing other than whining over being not in power, party in power doing little other than make noise as well) and blame game rather than being united to stop the actual enemy. Ross Perot once said on the topic of solving problems "When I see a snake I kill it right there. When I was at GM, they would just appoint a committee to do research on snakes."

[quetzalcoatl]

^on partisan politics, republican/democrat is jsut a front, the ones in power own both parties




this here is just a small video showing people in the streets on 9/11/06... unfortunately it's jsut video set to music but it should at least give you the idea that a lot of people think the way i do
http://911blogger.com/node/3104



(and if you feel like sitting through a professor's hour presentation, here you go: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...id+ray+griffin )

[Ambiguity]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

true, sorry about that

sentinel, you will find this interesting: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ypnosis%2C+911

watch and we may discuss intelligently

How can you watch that? It's a computer reading an essay, why not just link directly to the article.

http://www.mujca.com/apocalypse.htm

Why is it that every website promoting some type of conspiracy idiocy looks as if it were designed by an eight year old on PCP?

Either way, as sentinal said, he wants discussion. So stop posting videos and start discussing something.

Here's an idea:

You list your top 5 reasons why 9/11 was all the government's doing, and then those of us that think differently will post a response to each of the 5 points.

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by Ambiguity

How can you watch that? It's a computer reading an essay, why not just link directly to the article.

http://www.mujca.com/apocalypse.htm

Why is it that every website promoting some type of conspiracy idiocy looks as if it were designed by an eight year old on PCP?

Either way, as sentinal said, he wants discussion. So stop posting videos and start discussing something.

Here's an idea:

You list your top 5 reasons why 9/11 was all the government's doing, and then those of us that think differently will post a response to each of the 5 points.

Thank You!

So I read the essay and I'm still debating whether or no not spend an hour tearing it to shreds; I can probably spend my time better. The two most obvious problems with the essay are that it plagerizes like a mother****er, not citing sources, and that it makes an assload of assumptions, most of which are assuming too much.

Yellowfin, that's an interesting idea, but do you have anything to add? Why is it that you believe that party power squabbles are so detrimental to this country when quetzalcoatl says that both parties are in line?

I would say that the parties are in fact independent of each other but there are different levels of political power within the parties, where the top levels are similar but separate.

Did you notice how I didn't back up anything I said? That's bad. Referring to people who don't back up their claims is worse. You don't have to outsource to back up your ideas; a logical pattern of reasoning is enough - empirical deduction.

I really don't know much about the political parties other than their platforms and voting patterns.

On the topic of 9/11, I don't believe that everything was so delicately planned out, as many of the theories propose. For example, why is it that all of these theorists make mention of a mass enlightenment where all the truths will be revealed? If they have enough information to deduce that the government planned, aided, and sought out 9/11, then why not just get a large newspaper, say the New York Times, to publish something. The New York times would love to write such a sensational story; remember the wiretapping story?

The New American Century? What is new about imperialism? How did 9/11 change anything? It's not like the US wasn't heavily involved in foreign affairs before 9/11...

So ya, let's keep the videos to a minimum.

[gillie017]

Originally Posted by Ambiguity

People are just too stubborn to accept that terrorists caused 911.

I think Ambiguity summed it up quite nicely.

Putting aside discussion of the supposed evidence of a conspiracy and its debunking, why is it so abhorrent for people to believe that 9/11 was an act of terrorism?

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by gillie017

I think Ambiguity summed it up quite nicely.

Putting aside discussion of the supposed evidence of a conspiracy and its debunking, why is it so abhorrent for people to believe that 9/11 was an act of terrorism?

Define terrorism.

Who is terrorizing who?

I believe the main reason that people believe that there was more to 9/11 than simple terrorism is because terrorism is never simple. Say it was an attack by Al Queada; now look at the causes/motives and then look at the results.

From what I gather, Al Queda's motives are to disrupt American life, scare people, and to make a name for themselves. Let's take a tally: yup, that's 3 for 3. Now look at some of the other results: paranoia, difficulty in doing things as compared to the past: traveling, getting official documents, banking, etc. Also, 9/11 drove the US into two wars (or was a major contributing factor) and helped squelch some American rights via the PATRIOT Act and new policies regarding law enforcement, state secrets, and intelligence. Furthermore, the US's actions, after being led on bu Al Queda, have led the US to be viewed negatively by the international community.

When you inspect all of this, you get three possibilities.
1. Al Queda operatives are highly intelligent and planned much of the resounding effects of their attack.
2. People in the US govt. planned the whole thing so that they would be in a position of power.
3. The attack had many unintended consequences, combined with the US govt.'s actions, that led to the current state.

Most people would never believe that Al Queda could plan such a thing because most people in the US have no idea what foreigners are like, aside from Mexicans or the odd immigration. The US govt. taxes people and passes laws that people don't like; therefore, they are evil. Most people will not believe in a world where chaos reigns: see religion.

Well, I guess you could say this was God's doing too...

basically, it seems like many factors contributed to the current situation. The US govt. has done a lot to **** things up after 9/11, so it is not totally random to think that they had a hand in 9/11 itself. Really, people just underestimate terrorists.


You can repeat this process with other possible 9/11 scenarios.

[Ambiguity]

There are conspiracy theories for anything that disrupts daily life. People are for some reason unable to accept that truly evil people exist. They are unable to accept that unlike in the movies, the bad guys win sometimes.

Instead of grieving like the rest of us, their reaction is to question if it actually happened, because if it didn't happen as said, they have no reason to grieve.

[Pb]

Originally Posted by Ambiguity

People are for some reason unable to accept that truly evil people exist.

It's not that they don't believe "truly evil people exist". The question is: who are these evil people? And then, who else are also evil? Why are they considered evil? What else do we _not_ know?

It's very easy on our brains to follow the simplest explanation packaged and fed to us -- we've been trained to do that since young. And of course, psychologically, we're comfortable with the thought that others think the same way as us -- herd mentality.

[its-exit]

Only when you ask the right questions will you get the right awnsers.

What could be the US Goverments motive for 9/11?
What did the administration gain from it?

We'll start with those.

Honestly, I don't know enough to really provide a valid discussion. However, I think some of the benefits of 9/11 are a bit obvious.

The republican party has pretty much been able to do anything they want. Before 9/11 the patriot would never have been passed. The administration also used 9/11 to of the country to start a war in Afghanistan (if you even want to call it a war) and eventually into Iraq.

[Pb]

Originally Posted by its-exit

What could be the US Goverments motive for 9/11?
What did the administration gain from it?

Hegemony. -- Norm Chomsky

[quetzalcoatl]

sorry sentinel my friend, i know you want discussion, but right now is not the right time for me to say what i want to say

the only thing i can do now is guide your thoughts, although i'm not saying i'm any good at that

my goal is to show people what's being said by people just like us so that you individuals may make up your own mind. it's not up to me to convince you, it's up to yourself

pop mech on the radio:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ular+mechanics

9/11 press for truth:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ress+for+truth

9/11 mysteries:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=911+mysteries


what i enjoy more than finding and watching these videos is read the comment discussions on the right of those pages. i encourage you to read people's comments as well

again, sorry about my lack of discussion

[Yellowfin]

Blah, hegemon = Jamaican shrub trimmer or offspring of Sonic and Pikachu.

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl

pop mech on the radio:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ular+mechanics

Ya.... I just listened to that, and I have to say it strengthened my resolve against dumb people and their access to media outlets: stupid propaganda.

The interviewer kept pushing the guy from Pop Mech on irrelevant topics. Apparently, the interviewer doesn't understand the concept of copyright. Also, he refused to listen to the guy from Pop Mech. At one point, while discussing the phrase "pull it," the Pop Mech guy says that it might have been in reference to a fire brigade or unit, and the interviewer discounts this by saying "ya, that's how people talk..." and cuts to commercial. Hypocritically, he refused to listen to the dictionary definition of pull, and he cut the Pop Mech guy off at every opportunity. But, it seems like the Pop Mech guy messed up when he mentioned DNA. I don't blame him because he was under a lot of pressure. Unfortunately, this slight error turned into an ordeal that overshadowed the relevant issue of whether or not the terrorists are alive.

The worst part about the entire interview is that people will leave it thinking that Pop Mech is invalid, and the interviewer will get higher ratings. Don't people realize that they are being spoon-fed thoughts. Somehow, people believe that only fascists use brainwashing propaganda. I'd like to submit this as exhibit A for stupid people propaganda. I gained nothing from this interview; none of my questions were answered, and I want to raze the entire state of Arizona for supporting that dumbass of a radio host.

best quote: "Seven year-old kids can ask why."
"But I'm not a seven year-old."
Don't you get it? He's saying that you're no smarter than a seven year old.

I'm getting ****ing tired of all the pro-conspiracy arguments that are totally single faceted. They need to take a class in argumentation. Yes, it is important to counter any possible objections that the opposition might have, but it is FAR more important to provide your own evidence and counter examples. What's the ****ing point of discussing why the other guy's argument doesn't add up if you don't have your own argument to augment your attack?

For ****'s sake...

P.S. Yellowfin - what are you trying to do to this thread?

[quetzalcoatl]

Originally Posted by Sentinel

I think these conspiracy theories are annoying, and I was really bothered by the heavy rhetoric in the video(s). I forget who it was that explained the points of rhetoric (Plato or Aristotle), but these people followed it to a T. They would make a conclusion, provide evidence, then restate the conclusion in a more general way. And they kept doing this, building on their conclusions with shambles of evidence (sorry if I'm not conviced by your "experts"), until they could reach their final conclusion. I sent the link to a friend as Exhibit A of High Quality Propaganada.

this was post #2 of this thread... here i see you're saying that these 'conspiracy' videos have only one structure conclusion>evidence>repeat .. but to me, as the first posted video is entitled "9/11 revisited" (no conclusion implied) it imediately asks the question "were explosives used" while actual news footage and interviews are displaying people's first thoughts of what they heard and saw... to me this video is going question>evidence>conclusion

maybe you and others feel that the conclusion came first because you first concluded the video's conclusion, which is understandable given the nature of the very first post #1 and the title of the thread




(now i meant to go post by post and respond to them but your point of propaganda is post #2.. i feel this is more difficult to discuss but i think i must discuss it now)

propaganda from dictionary.com:
1.information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2.the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. 3.the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement

propaganda from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

hopefully by reading the wikipedia page, you'll get the idea that propaganda is everywhere and has been everywhere for longer than we have been alive.. we grew up on tv, the propaganda machine

so how are these 'conspiracy' videos different? well, i would be incorrect to say that these are not propaganda, when clearly these videos meet the definition of propaganda

however, you must ask yourself, who is producing this propaganda? and for what purpose is this propaganda being made?

is the government making this? so they want us to distrust them and revolt against them?

or are there people, americans, that feel they've been lied to by their government, that have sought and found the truth, that feel it is their duty to make the truth known to their fellow americans, and that have decided that the only way for this truth to be known is to make a video and put it on the internet (since no mainstream media as aired it on TV) even at the risk of being labeled as 'propagana' with a negative connotation?

and what possible purpose would this propaganda have? all propaganda has an agenda right? what do the videos want us to conform to? do they want us to get the idea that we the people the body of these united states are not in control of our own country? do they want us to take more responsibility in the fate of ourselves and the world we share? do they want want us to think that a game involving vasts amounts of money is responisble for the war the death the suffering the fear the feeling of hopelessness in the world?


you decide

[quetzalcoatl]

Originally Posted by Sentinel

When it comes down to it, I really don't care who or what caused 9/11. But I do care about the after-effects. The PATRIOT act, secret CIA prisons, warrentless searches, the NSA's monitoring of wire communications, wars, economic collapse.... I expect better from "the leader of the free world."

Originally Posted by Ambiguity

The one that confuses me is the pentagon...the hole looked too small for a plane, there wasn't even any wreckage from a plane except a cog wheel of sorts. One would think they should have at least found the black box... there also weren't any holes where the wings of the plane hit. And the government won't release the footage of the plane hitting. The video released wast quite poor in quality. It's the pentagon, I'm sure they must have hundreds of cameras around it.

sounds like you two almost joined the 'conspirators' side... what happened?

[quetzalcoatl]

sentinel, this is the real propaganda you were looking for

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eQuIhJId1JY (bill maher)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-4xAucZod6w (south park,part one of three)