Political Crossfire Forums

[Reverend_HellH0und]

Timmytour wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Internet rumors and speculation timmy.



Wrong forum.

Can you be more precise? What have I posted that is "internet rumor" or speculation?




My time is much to important to constantly debunk fairy tales and lies. Sorry man. I am not THAT guy.

[LostSoul3412]

"Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid."

:rotf:

[Nathyn]

Dookiestix wrote: Nathyn:

Part of thinking for yourself is realizing that none of this is as black and white as you believe it to be. How lovely you would go right ahead and NOT think for yourself by labeling me with your "San Francisco," "Berkely," "California" knee jerk debating points.

First off, I don't agree with you because I just don't agree with you. It's no because you're conservative. I've agreed with plenty other conservatives on this forum. Unfortunately, the partisan level is rather high right now, and soon to get much hotter as mid-terms approach.

"California Liberalism?" I have no idea WTF you would mean by that other than another attempt at labeling somebody in your black and white world. By California Liberalism, perhaps you mean the 8th largest economy in the world, or maybe the number of Nobel Laureates, or perhaps our role in trend setting for the rest of the nation (global warming now comes to mind). We have plenty of conservatives as well. It is the sum of all our parts that defines our state, not that "California Liberalism" you insist on throwing around as a label.

I had no idea that every day someone runs around the City with their genitals flopping around. Last I looked, everybody is clothed down here in the Financial District amongst the suits who I work with side by side each and every business day.

If you disagree with Conservatives and find their assessments of Liberalism to be totally baseless, then why would you in turn agree with them by throwing around such worthless labels?

It seems as though your "disagreement" with Conservatives about Liberalism is horribly misplaced. In essence, the thing you complain about you just embraced in your last post, especially with the "genital flopping" quip.

Now, before you continue to falsely label me (which you really aren't very good at), I will make myself clear yet again: I believe our government was complicit in regards to the attacks on 9/11. I base that judgement on their ACTIONS, as I follow politics religiously, and have been for YEARS. I have always been under the belief that actions speak much louder than words. And the Bush administration's unbelievable secrecy, as well as their attempts early on to block investigation of 9/11, and coupled with their immediate desire to attack Iraq when it was bin Laden and al Qaeda who killed many Americans on 9/11, are just a few examples of why I have serious doubts regarding the official explanation of 9/11.

I repeat again; if there are those who do not want these conspiracy theories floating out there, than I would suggest demanding more accountability and transparency in regards to your own government. If not, then we are all lost, and the conspiracy theories will only continue. Besides, one way in promoting conspiracy theories is the hope of marginalizing a group of individuals for the sole purpose of distraction and obvuscation from what the truth REALLY is. And NONE of us really know what the truth is at this point in time. And it's been 5 years since 9/11. It seems as though such a tactic has been highly effective, don't ya think? :wink:

I've seen all the "hard" scientific facts, and I could just as well fire off even more "hard" scientific facts that debunk all of YOUR "hard" scientific facts. There are plenty of other experts who have called the official scientific explanation into question. Notice the operative word "official." A term that was also used in describing ABC's mockumentary before they got caught with their pants down.

See what I mean?

I find it utterly hysterical that I should get out of California, not be a Green Party member (of which I won't be soon, as I plan on going Independent), giving up Liberalism. I DO think for myself, and my logic clearly tells me that not all is right with the official explanation of 9/11.

This administration obviously has much to hide, and America is currently being held hostage by their disgusting policies. I hope that Congress changes hands, and we re-open a REAL investigation on 9/11, where we spend more than just a few millions dollars vs. the $70 million spent on investigating Clinton's penis. Republicans have shown throughout the years what their priorities have been, and they are truly screwed up.
I don't make the remarks about viewing you as a radical Californian Liberal out of any superficial judgement, but because of the way that you post, including your assertion of the 9/11 Conspiracy and your criticism of the Path to 9/11 without having seen it. Weren't you also the same one who attacked a Conservative here for criticizing Fahrenheit 9/11 without having seen it or was that someone else?

I don't view things in black-and-white, which is precisely why I can see that there are crazy Liberals and rational Liberals, and crazy Conservatives and rational Conservatives. A close friend of mine, in fact, is literally a Neoconservative. By "Neocon," I don't mean the blanket label put forth by liberals regarding all Bush-supporters, but rather, he's literally an ex-Communist who was a member of the New Left, eventually coming to be a part of the group now called "Neoconservatives." He supports the idea of advancing democracy and liberty through military action and, in terms of his demeanor and ideology, he's not much different from Christopher Hitchens. And yet, despite that, I don't see him as the "enemy," that needs to be shut down at every turn.

Also, some level of discretion is required in national security. For a while, I asked the question, "How could national security function without secrecy?" For a few hours, I believed national security didn't need secrecy at all, but it does for obvious reasons: The damage from terrorist attacks are of such a substantial nature that simple law enforcement doesn't work. In the case of law enforcement, if the police screw up, it's bad, but they would cause more oppression if they were given substantial power of secrecy than the amount of oppression caused by lack of police secrecy, which could necessitate lower quality law enforcement. Terrorism, on the other hand, crosses that threshold. 9/11 caused trillions in damage and one single attacked equated with several years' worth of damage from conventional crime. As a result, in terms of national security, we have to shoot for that unfortunately unachievable "100% success rate," in preventing terrorist attacks. This means that we cannot grant equal rights to potential suspects or have total government transparency. I oppose Bush's intelligence reforms, but some were still necessary and beneficial. To complete repeal the PATRIOT Act totally, without any exception, would put our country at risk, as even John Kerry admitted.

Now, I concede that it's possible giving such power of secrecy to intelligence agencies can be countereffective to our liberty and prosperity. Such secrecy is just begging for a political conspiracy. In time, intelligence agencies could develop a "loop of power," which destroys our checks-and-balances. Because the intelligence agencies could manipulate politics, so that, in turn, politicians are established to support their power. If that's the case, however, then there's no solution to terrorism at all. In the meantime, I think the risk of another NIxon is reasonable if we have no other option other than appeasement and non-response.

WIth regard to scientific facts -- please post a rebuttal to the three links cited by Maddox. Not a separate article, making its own claims, already totally or partially addressed by the three links, but one which addresses at least some of the central points made by the three links.

Not too long ago, in a discussion about intelligent design, a person remarked that the problem with debates with fundie Christians on evolution is that they gather extensive yet erroneous information to support their claims. Rather than arguing with credible sources, their claims are made to the general and ignorant public. And so, on forums like PCF, they expect the average person to act as an expert. But that won't work.

9/11 conspiracy theories work the same way. To the average person, often conspiracy theories may seem appealing because, from the perception of the average person, there are so many conspiracy theorists and so few actual experts. Conspiracy theories are presented in a simple and easily understood fashion, but experts' claims are presented in complicated ways that require knowledge of the subject being discussed. And conspiracy theorists put forth so much effort into compiling information to support their claims, whereas experts often simply ignore them. That's something else you need to consider regarding "hard evidence," you've come across.

[Reverend_HellH0und]

Good post Naythan.

[Timmytour]

Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Timmytour wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Internet rumors and speculation timmy.



Wrong forum.

Can you be more precise? What have I posted that is "internet rumor" or speculation?




My time is much to important to constantly debunk fairy tales and lies. Sorry man. I am not THAT guy.

I'm not asking you to debunk fairy tales and lies.

If you're upto to being able to comment on my post, you should be upto explaining your comments.

I'm not looking to you to answer the questions I posed, just to point out which of these occurences in your mind that I mentioned in my post is just ...

Quote: internet rumor

Quote: speculation

Quote: fairy tale

Quote: lie

To help you out I'll list them out for you...

1/ One of the hijacker's passports was found by a passer by and handed over to a law enforcement officer after the towers were hit and before they collapsed.

2/ The plane that hit that Pentagon flew in on a remarkably low trajectory, hitting the building while avoiding the ground.

3/ Five Israelis who worked for a company called Urban Moving Systems were arrested after being reported videoing the towers as they burned and dancing and celebrating.

4/ Rumsfeld said that Flight 93 was shot down in a speech he made to the troops.

c'mon Reverend, which is which of the labels you have provided?

It's Put up or Shut Up time I fancy....

[lilwolf]

Timmytour wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Timmytour wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Internet rumors and speculation timmy.



Wrong forum.

Can you be more precise? What have I posted that is "internet rumor" or speculation?




My time is much to important to constantly debunk fairy tales and lies. Sorry man. I am not THAT guy.

I'm not asking you to debunk fairy tales and lies.

If you're upto to being able to comment on my post, you should be upto explaining your comments.

I'm not looking to you to answer the questions I posed, just to point out which of these occurences in your mind that I mentioned in my post is just ...

Quote: internet rumor

Quote: speculation

Quote: fairy tale

Quote: lie

To help you out I'll list them out for you...

1/ One of the hijacker's passports was found by a passer by and handed over to a law enforcement officer after the towers were hit and before they collapsed.

2/ The plane that hit that Pentagon flew in on a remarkably low trajectory, hitting the building while avoiding the ground.

3/ Five Israelis who worked for a company called Urban Moving Systems were arrested after being reported videoing the towers as they burned and dancing and celebrating.

4/ Rumsfeld said that Flight 93 was shot down in a speech he made to the troops.

c'mon Reverend, which is which of the labels you have provided?

It's Put up or Shut Up time I fancy....

So can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that a conspiracy is at hand here? Can you prove 100% that each of your points is 100% accurate?
For every single of your 4 points any body here can come up with at least 2 ideas of what caused each of your points.
I would say it is time for you to prove your little conspiracy so...as you said ..."put up or shut up ,I fancy". :lol: :lol:

[thefranzkafkafront]

Nice one naythn steal my jokes :lol:

Maddox is correct as usual though.

[IHateAmerica]

Why do videos of debates between Loose Change and Popular Mechanics get relegated to the ATF, while silly cartoons insisting that the government could have assassinated Dylan Avery prior to him posting Loose Change online and the damage having been done, if there was government complicity?

[Timmytour]

lilwolf wrote: Timmytour wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Timmytour wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Internet rumors and speculation timmy.



Wrong forum.

Can you be more precise? What have I posted that is "internet rumor" or speculation?




My time is much to important to constantly debunk fairy tales and lies. Sorry man. I am not THAT guy.

I'm not asking you to debunk fairy tales and lies.

If you're upto to being able to comment on my post, you should be upto explaining your comments.

I'm not looking to you to answer the questions I posed, just to point out which of these occurences in your mind that I mentioned in my post is just ...

Quote: internet rumor

Quote: speculation

Quote: fairy tale

Quote: lie

To help you out I'll list them out for you...

1/ One of the hijacker's passports was found by a passer by and handed over to a law enforcement officer after the towers were hit and before they collapsed.

2/ The plane that hit that Pentagon flew in on a remarkably low trajectory, hitting the building while avoiding the ground.

3/ Five Israelis who worked for a company called Urban Moving Systems were arrested after being reported videoing the towers as they burned and dancing and celebrating.

4/ Rumsfeld said that Flight 93 was shot down in a speech he made to the troops.

c'mon Reverend, which is which of the labels you have provided?

It's Put up or Shut Up time I fancy....

So can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that a conspiracy is at hand here? Can you prove 100% that each of your points is 100% accurate?
For every single of your 4 points any body here can come up with at least 2 ideas of what caused each of your points.
I would say it is time for you to prove your little conspiracy so...as you said ..."put up or shut up ,I fancy". :lol: :lol:

You misunderstand lilwolf. In fact read my original post in which I listed the points and you'll see that I don't really subscribe to the "conspiracy theories", so I'm not trying to prove that one exists!

I've a theory that there are significant numbers that do believe in them because there are so many unanswered questions relating even to the official version of events.

I simply took four facts and stated that these were ones I found there to be no plausible explanation around that I had seen.

Now the Reverend put up what I call a "block post". He labelled the points internet rumor and speculation, but could not rise to the challenge of specifying exactly what he meant.

I don't pretend that there are not explanations not indeed assert that the governemnt was in some way behind 9/11. But I keep an open mind.

I guess if the Reverend were a 150 year old man he'd still believe it was the Spanish who had bombed the USS Maine in 1898 to pave the way for a US invasion of Cuba, and he'd still believe that American destroyers came under attack by the North Vietnamese on 4th August 1964 paving the way for America to officially enter the fray on the side of South Vietnam.

[Dookiestix]

Nathyn wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Nathyn:

Part of thinking for yourself is realizing that none of this is as black and white as you believe it to be. How lovely you would go right ahead and NOT think for yourself by labeling me with your "San Francisco," "Berkely," "California" knee jerk debating points.

First off, I don't agree with you because I just don't agree with you. It's no because you're conservative. I've agreed with plenty other conservatives on this forum. Unfortunately, the partisan level is rather high right now, and soon to get much hotter as mid-terms approach.

"California Liberalism?" I have no idea WTF you would mean by that other than another attempt at labeling somebody in your black and white world. By California Liberalism, perhaps you mean the 8th largest economy in the world, or maybe the number of Nobel Laureates, or perhaps our role in trend setting for the rest of the nation (global warming now comes to mind). We have plenty of conservatives as well. It is the sum of all our parts that defines our state, not that "California Liberalism" you insist on throwing around as a label.

I had no idea that every day someone runs around the City with their genitals flopping around. Last I looked, everybody is clothed down here in the Financial District amongst the suits who I work with side by side each and every business day.

If you disagree with Conservatives and find their assessments of Liberalism to be totally baseless, then why would you in turn agree with them by throwing around such worthless labels?

It seems as though your "disagreement" with Conservatives about Liberalism is horribly misplaced. In essence, the thing you complain about you just embraced in your last post, especially with the "genital flopping" quip.

Now, before you continue to falsely label me (which you really aren't very good at), I will make myself clear yet again: I believe our government was complicit in regards to the attacks on 9/11. I base that judgement on their ACTIONS, as I follow politics religiously, and have been for YEARS. I have always been under the belief that actions speak much louder than words. And the Bush administration's unbelievable secrecy, as well as their attempts early on to block investigation of 9/11, and coupled with their immediate desire to attack Iraq when it was bin Laden and al Qaeda who killed many Americans on 9/11, are just a few examples of why I have serious doubts regarding the official explanation of 9/11.

I repeat again; if there are those who do not want these conspiracy theories floating out there, than I would suggest demanding more accountability and transparency in regards to your own government. If not, then we are all lost, and the conspiracy theories will only continue. Besides, one way in promoting conspiracy theories is the hope of marginalizing a group of individuals for the sole purpose of distraction and obvuscation from what the truth REALLY is. And NONE of us really know what the truth is at this point in time. And it's been 5 years since 9/11. It seems as though such a tactic has been highly effective, don't ya think? :wink:

I've seen all the "hard" scientific facts, and I could just as well fire off even more "hard" scientific facts that debunk all of YOUR "hard" scientific facts. There are plenty of other experts who have called the official scientific explanation into question. Notice the operative word "official." A term that was also used in describing ABC's mockumentary before they got caught with their pants down.

See what I mean?

I find it utterly hysterical that I should get out of California, not be a Green Party member (of which I won't be soon, as I plan on going Independent), giving up Liberalism. I DO think for myself, and my logic clearly tells me that not all is right with the official explanation of 9/11.

This administration obviously has much to hide, and America is currently being held hostage by their disgusting policies. I hope that Congress changes hands, and we re-open a REAL investigation on 9/11, where we spend more than just a few millions dollars vs. the $70 million spent on investigating Clinton's penis. Republicans have shown throughout the years what their priorities have been, and they are truly screwed up.
[quote="Nathyn"I don't make the remarks about viewing you as a radical Californian Liberal out of any superficial judgement, but because of the way that you post, including your assertion of the 9/11 Conspiracy and your criticism of the Path to 9/11 without having seen it. Weren't you also the same one who attacked a Conservative here for criticizing Fahrenheit 9/11 without having seen it or was that someone else?
Your judgement in regards to how I post cannot be anything other than superficial, for it was your superficial labeling of California and her beautiful cities in the first place which obviously revealed your true nature. It is the duplicity of your argument here which belies any presumed consistency in what you are trying to say.[/quote]

Nathyn wrote: I don't view things in black-and-white, which is precisely why I can see that there are crazy Liberals and rational Liberals, and crazy Conservatives and rational Conservatives. A close friend of mine, in fact, is literally a Neoconservative. By "Neocon," I don't mean the blanket label put forth by liberals regarding all Bush-supporters, but rather, he's literally an ex-Communist who was a member of the New Left, eventually coming to be a part of the group now called "Neoconservatives." He supports the idea of advancing democracy and liberty through military action and, in terms of his demeanor and ideology, he's not much different from Christopher Hitchens. And yet, despite that, I don't see him as the "enemy," that needs to be shut down at every turn.
So, based on that argument and your prior postings, I can only conclude that you are labeling me as one of those "crazy liberals." How else to describe your unbelievable ignorance in labeling anything that comes from San Francisco as "genital flopping," as well as your obvious demonizations of such cities as San Francisco, Berkeley and/or California. You are the exact thing you presumably are attempting to rail against. In that, I see no logic whatsoever.

Nathyn wrote: Also, some level of discretion is required in national security. For a while, I asked the question, "How could national security function without secrecy?" For a few hours, I believed national security didn't need secrecy at all, but it does for obvious reasons: The damage from terrorist attacks are of such a substantial nature that simple law enforcement doesn't work. In the case of law enforcement, if the police screw up, it's bad, but they would cause more oppression if they were given substantial power of secrecy than the amount of oppression caused by lack of police secrecy, which could necessitate lower quality law enforcement. Terrorism, on the other hand, crosses that threshold. 9/11 caused trillions in damage and one single attacked equated with several years' worth of damage from conventional crime. As a result, in terms of national security, we have to shoot for that unfortunately unachievable "100% success rate," in preventing terrorist attacks. This means that we cannot grant equal rights to potential suspects or have total government transparency. I oppose Bush's intelligence reforms, but some were still necessary and beneficial. To complete repeal the PATRIOT Act totally, without any exception, would put our country at risk, as even John Kerry admitted.
Nobody is completely against the Patriot Act. The problem with the Patriot acts as it stands right now was how it was shoved through Congress before anyone could really read it. And then it became political fodder for both sides rather than an opportunity for them to work together. And why? Because Bush as so thoroughly politicized 9/11 and terror for the Republican's advantage. And when that happens, they only have themselves to blame for the current political climate today. Just go ask a disillusioned Republican who's had it with Bush and his endless war cries and terror, terror, terror. If they were more effective about combating terrorism and less political about it, I would imagine Bush's numbers would be much higher, and Republicans would be held in higher regard. But such is not the case. And of course, invading Iraq is the big 800 lb. Gorilla on the backs of every Republican running for Congress. The invasion was wrong from the very beginning, and many of us "genital flopping, crazy liberal San Franciscans" were saying this before Bush dropped the first bomb on Baghdad. Now how crazy is that?

Nathyn wrote: Now, I concede that it's possible giving such power of secrecy to intelligence agencies can be countereffective to our liberty and prosperity. Such secrecy is just begging for a political conspiracy. In time, intelligence agencies could develop a "loop of power," which destroys our checks-and-balances. Because the intelligence agencies could manipulate politics, so that, in turn, politicians are established to support their power. If that's the case, however, then there's no solution to terrorism at all. In the meantime, I think the risk of another NIxon is reasonable if we have no other option other than appeasement and non-response.
There is a solution to fighting terror, and you just nailed it. But then your offered alternative is appeasment and non-response. This is the central problem with Conservatives who argue against their critics. Until the labels you insist on prescribing are put aside and replaced by more reasonable debate, you will accomplish nothing but the same, which has been abject failure on the part of the Bush administration and the Republican party.

Nathyn wrote: WIth regard to scientific facts -- please post a rebuttal to the three links cited by Maddox. Not a separate article, making its own claims, already totally or partially addressed by the three links, but one which addresses at least some of the central points made by the three links.
I've posted tons of links ad nauseum. I have no desire to get into a p!ssing match regarding scientific facts because that's not the central issue here. But you knew that, right? :wink:

Nathyn wrote: Not too long ago, in a discussion about intelligent design, a person remarked that the problem with debates with fundie Christians on evolution is that they gather extensive yet erroneous information to support their claims. Rather than arguing with credible sources, their claims are made to the general and ignorant public. And so, on forums like PCF, they expect the average person to act as an expert. But that won't work.
Unlike ID, evolution is born out by geological and SCIENTIFIC facts. I have yet to see either ID or Creationists offer something to counter what emperical evidence already exists. And science is also constantly changing, because science has the ability to change their theories as their perceptions become more astute. It happens all the time. We build better space vehicles to explore our Solar System, and we therefore are discovering new things all the time. The "science" behind 9/11 is somewhat along the same lines of reasoning. The longer this all goes on, the more Americans are going to have serious doubts about the "official" explanation behind 9/11.

Nathyn wrote: 9/11 conspiracy theories work the same way. To the average person, often conspiracy theories may seem appealing because, from the perception of the average person, there are so many conspiracy theorists and so few actual experts. Conspiracy theories are presented in a simple and easily understood fashion, but experts' claims are presented in complicated ways that require knowledge of the subject being discussed. And conspiracy theorists put forth so much effort into compiling information to support their claims, whereas experts often simply ignore them. That's something else you need to consider regarding "hard evidence," you've come across.
Much of the "hard evidence" you refer to has been buried and/or kept from the public eye. Therefore, that last narrative paragraph is rather moot. As this administration and our government in general have still kept quite a bit from the public eye, and as the Bush administration was so adamently against a 9/11 Commission, I naturally assume that the truth is still out there. I find it amazing that those who rail against conspiracy theorists on this forum have become so adament about moving them to another category or getting rid of them all together as we remember what happened 5 years ago yesterday. What they don't understand is that there is a real reason to suspect those we are supposed to trust with our government. And when Hurricane Katrina happened, America's distrust grew even more.

In order for one to connect the dots, one must be willing to look beyond what the "official" account of 9/11 presumed to be. Problem is, Bush and the GOP were counting on Republians to get all fired up after the televised premiere of "Path to 9/11," despite the obvious mistakes regarding the official historical acount of the event, even though they offered a disclaimer in the 11th hour (which obviously stunk of liability). Why stick to that disclaimer when they were touting this program as the official accounting of what happened? And why such a cryptic disclaimer at that?

I choose to remain in San Francisco despite the "genital flopping" individuals you presumably see everyday, and I will forever remain in California, the state that I love and was born and raised in, for probably the rest of my life. At least here we are free to think and make our voices heard.

We made our voices heard days before Bush invaded Iraq. We foretold exactly what is taking place today. Therefore, I will stay with my like-minded San Franciscans who seem to know alot more than this administration or our government does when it comes to foreign policy blunders.

And as long as this administration continues to not be forthcoming and further politicizes 9/11 for their own political gain on the graves of thousands who died 5 years ago, I will be highly doubtful as to their official story of 9/11. It's that simple.

They've had 5 years to put the official account to rest, and so far just the opposite has happened.

[Reverend_HellH0und]

Timmytour wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Timmytour wrote: Reverend_HellH0und wrote: Internet rumors and speculation timmy.



Wrong forum.

Can you be more precise? What have I posted that is "internet rumor" or speculation?




My time is much to important to constantly debunk fairy tales and lies. Sorry man. I am not THAT guy.

I'm not asking you to debunk fairy tales and lies.

If you're upto to being able to comment on my post, you should be upto explaining your comments.

I'm not looking to you to answer the questions I posed, just to point out which of these occurences in your mind that I mentioned in my post is just ...

Quote: internet rumor

Quote: speculation

Quote: fairy tale

Quote: lie

To help you out I'll list them out for you...

1/ One of the hijacker's passports was found by a passer by and handed over to a law enforcement officer after the towers were hit and before they collapsed.

2/ The plane that hit that Pentagon flew in on a remarkably low trajectory, hitting the building while avoiding the ground.

3/ Five Israelis who worked for a company called Urban Moving Systems were arrested after being reported videoing the towers as they burned and dancing and celebrating.

4/ Rumsfeld said that Flight 93 was shot down in a speech he made to the troops.

c'mon Reverend, which is which of the labels you have provided?

It's Put up or Shut Up time I fancy....




1-4 need links.

[Nathyn]

Dookiestix wrote: So, based on that argument and your prior postings, I can only conclude that you are labeling me as one of those "crazy liberals." How else to describe your unbelievable ignorance in labeling anything that comes from San Francisco as "genital flopping," as well as your obvious demonizations of such cities as San Francisco, Berkeley and/or California. You are the exact thing you presumably are attempting to rail against. In that, I see no logic whatsoever.
Until this thread, you said you usually agree with most of what I post. San Francisco and Berkeley are great cities. I just wouldn't want to pay taxes there.

Dookiestix wrote: Nathyn wrote: Also, some level of discretion is required in national security. For a while, I asked the question, "How could national security function without secrecy?" For a few hours, I believed national security didn't need secrecy at all, but it does for obvious reasons: The damage from terrorist attacks are of such a substantial nature that simple law enforcement doesn't work. In the case of law enforcement, if the police screw up, it's bad, but they would cause more oppression if they were given substantial power of secrecy than the amount of oppression caused by lack of police secrecy, which could necessitate lower quality law enforcement. Terrorism, on the other hand, crosses that threshold. 9/11 caused trillions in damage and one single attacked equated with several years' worth of damage from conventional crime. As a result, in terms of national security, we have to shoot for that unfortunately unachievable "100% success rate," in preventing terrorist attacks. This means that we cannot grant equal rights to potential suspects or have total government transparency. I oppose Bush's intelligence reforms, but some were still necessary and beneficial. To complete repeal the PATRIOT Act totally, without any exception, would put our country at risk, as even John Kerry admitted.
Nobody is completely against the Patriot Act. The problem with the Patriot acts as it stands right now was how it was shoved through Congress before anyone could really read it. And then it became political fodder for both sides rather than an opportunity for them to work together. And why? Because Bush as so thoroughly politicized 9/11 and terror for the Republican's advantage. And when that happens, they only have themselves to blame for the current political climate today. Just go ask a disillusioned Republican who's had it with Bush and his endless war cries and terror, terror, terror. If they were more effective about combating terrorism and less political about it, I would imagine Bush's numbers would be much higher, and Republicans would be held in higher regard. But such is not the case. And of course, invading Iraq is the big 800 lb. Gorilla on the backs of every Republican running for Congress. The invasion was wrong from the very beginning, and many of us "genital flopping, crazy liberal San Franciscans" were saying this before Bush dropped the first bomb on Baghdad. Now how crazy is that?
It's crazy because even though we were given credible info that Hussein had WMDs and was seeking nukes, you still thought diplomacy was the best course of action. Granted, Bush lied, but that's not the point: had what he said been the truth, you still would've advocated a suicidal foreign policy.

Dookiestix wrote: Nathyn wrote: Now, I concede that it's possible giving such power of secrecy to intelligence agencies can be countereffective to our liberty and prosperity. Such secrecy is just begging for a political conspiracy. In time, intelligence agencies could develop a "loop of power," which destroys our checks-and-balances. Because the intelligence agencies could manipulate politics, so that, in turn, politicians are established to support their power. If that's the case, however, then there's no solution to terrorism at all. In the meantime, I think the risk of another NIxon is reasonable if we have no other option other than appeasement and non-response.
There is a solution to fighting terror, and you just nailed it. But then your offered alternative is appeasment and non-response. This is the central problem with Conservatives who argue against their critics. Until the labels you insist on prescribing are put aside and replaced by more reasonable debate, you will accomplish nothing but the same, which has been abject failure on the part of the Bush administration and the Republican party.
But we can't stop terrorism by simply giving them money and asking them nicely to stop killing us. That isn't diplomacy, that is appeasement.

Dookiestix wrote: Nathyn wrote: WIth regard to scientific facts -- please post a rebuttal to the three links cited by Maddox. Not a separate article, making its own claims, already totally or partially addressed by the three links, but one which addresses at least some of the central points made by the three links.
I've posted tons of links ad nauseum. I have no desire to get into a p!ssing match regarding scientific facts because that's not the central issue here. But you knew that, right? :wink:

Nathyn wrote: Not too long ago, in a discussion about intelligent design, a person remarked that the problem with debates with fundie Christians on evolution is that they gather extensive yet erroneous information to support their claims. Rather than arguing with credible sources, their claims are made to the general and ignorant public. And so, on forums like PCF, they expect the average person to act as an expert. But that won't work.
Unlike ID, evolution is born out by geological and SCIENTIFIC facts. I have yet to see either ID or Creationists offer something to counter what emperical evidence already exists. And science is also constantly changing, because science has the ability to change their theories as their perceptions become more astute. It happens all the time. We build better space vehicles to explore our Solar System, and we therefore are discovering new things all the time. The "science" behind 9/11 is somewhat along the same lines of reasoning. The longer this all goes on, the more Americans are going to have serious doubts about the "official" explanation behind 9/11.
I've yet to see 9/11 conspiracy theorists put forth any relevant scientific facts to support their claims, which is why the "9/11 Truth Movement" is about as large as the intelligent design crowd. SUre, polls say around 1/3 of Americans believe the government involved, but polls say the same regarding evolution and the morality of gay marriage. Mass ignorance of the general public isn't proof of anything.

Dookiestix wrote: Nathyn wrote: 9/11 conspiracy theories work the same way. To the average person, often conspiracy theories may seem appealing because, from the perception of the average person, there are so many conspiracy theorists and so few actual experts. Conspiracy theories are presented in a simple and easily understood fashion, but experts' claims are presented in complicated ways that require knowledge of the subject being discussed. And conspiracy theorists put forth so much effort into compiling information to support their claims, whereas experts often simply ignore them. That's something else you need to consider regarding "hard evidence," you've come across.
Much of the "hard evidence" you refer to has been buried and/or kept from the public eye. Therefore, that last narrative paragraph is rather moot. As this administration and our government in general have still kept quite a bit from the public eye, and as the Bush administration was so adamently against a 9/11 Commission, I naturally assume that the truth is still out there. I find it amazing that those who rail against conspiracy theorists on this forum have become so adament about moving them to another category or getting rid of them all together as we remember what happened 5 years ago yesterday. What they don't understand is that there is a real reason to suspect those we are supposed to trust with our government. And when Hurricane Katrina happened, America's distrust grew even more.
Oh god, and now you're going to assert that you believe Katrina was racially-motivated too? Hurricanes don't discriminate. Statistics also show that more non-blacks died than blacks. Katrina faced a ridiculous amount of race-baiting and demagoguery.

Jesse Jackson said it looked like a "slave ship." In addition to having never SEEN a slave ship because slavery hasn't existed in America for well over a century, Jesse Jackson's assertion is proven wrong by mere statistics. And then there's Wolf Blitzer's remark that Katrina victims were, "So poor... and so so black." I mean, come on.

There were a great deal of buses waiting for evacuees. There's a photo out of there of several hundred buses in New Orleans that just sat underwater as the city was flood. One main reason why people died was because they simply chose not to evacuate. There were even still crazy people out there who didn't want to leave because of their pets.

If you can make it to a government office to apply for welfare, then you can get on a bus to evacuate a hurricane. I don't believe that anyone there was "incapable," of leaving. If anything, it was encouraging dependence on an inefficient government which led to the casualties of Katrina.

Dookiestix wrote: In order for one to connect the dots, one must be willing to look beyond what the "official" account of 9/11 presumed to be. Problem is, Bush and the GOP were counting on Republians to get all fired up after the televised premiere of "Path to 9/11," despite the obvious mistakes regarding the official historical acount of the event, even though they offered a disclaimer in the 11th hour (which obviously stunk of liability). Why stick to that disclaimer when they were touting this program as the official accounting of what happened? And why such a cryptic disclaimer at that?
In order to "connect the dots," on 9/11, you have to be able to look well beyond reason and evidence.

Dookiestix wrote: I choose to remain in San Francisco despite the "genital flopping" individuals you presumably see everyday, and I will forever remain in California, the state that I love and was born and raised in, for probably the rest of my life. At least here we are free to think and make our voices heard.
Don't pretend even for a minute that left-wing extremists have any regard for the free speech of dissents anymore than right-wing extremists do. Case in point: the attempt by the Democrats to censor Ann Coulter's book "Godless."

Ann Coulter is an idiot and her book is garbage. But still, don't pretend that the left-wing is any less partisan or anymore open-minded and tolerant than the right-wing.

[callous]

Trying to defeat a point of view by speculating as to the "probable" things that a government would do is typical for a teenage mind.... he's just another egotistical history class teachers pet...... with wet dreams of being MC Paul Berman.....

Fact is, the government need not take action against single people, even if they come up with footage of the war room with the president saying " I think we should take down the two towers"

Why?

Because the problem is too large. 911 is too socially catastrophic for americans to comprehend. Thats why it hasn't been investigated by more than a token panel of paid-off fat men. Because no one can actually believe that a group of people would do this to achieve their aims.

Well welcome to ultracapitalism my friends....

[Reverend_HellH0und]

Conspiracy bunk.



I think it was the chupacabera and bigfoot who did it.

[jher]

Reverend_HellH0und wrote: MajorWoody wrote: I stated this on another thread but never heard any response on it so I will state it again;

One thing I never understood about those conspiracy theorists that believe the Bush administration was behind 9/11 is why wouldn't they also just have fabricated some WMD's in Iraq? If they were clever enough to fool 99% of the US population in to believing OBL was behind 9/11 then why couldn't they have "placed" some sarin gas in Baghdad? I think that would have been the best way to "fool" voters into voting Republican for many years.


Major

Of course they can have more lies. But the problem with lies is the more you lie, the easy it is detected by others. So if they are smart they know the limit.

[jher]

Revenant wrote: Nathyn wrote: Divinity11 wrote: No offense, Nathyn. I usually agree with a lot of what you post, but I have to say that I think Maddox is the moron.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with all the "speculation" (aka: conspiracy theories), but I also don't believe what our government has told us. The truth is out there, and perhaps, one day will be discovered.

However, the premise of Maddox's "theory" is extremely weak. Allow me to illustrate:

Quote: Here's why:

1. The man in the picture above is Dylan Avery. To be more precise, the fact that Dylan, his friends, and family are alive, is proof that "Loose Change" is bulls**t. He, along with a couple of his friends, created a 9/11 conspiracy video claiming that the US government and the military caused 9/11. Take a closer look at the last part of that last sentence: he's claiming that the US government, for whatever ends, killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives in the conflicts that ensued because of it.

2. Since Dylan's arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true, and we've established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?
Whatever reason it may be that the government supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy, it must have been worth it to them to cause so much suffering and loss of life. So if there's any truth to this, then you can bet your ass that the government wouldn't let a couple of pecker-neck chumps with a couple of Macs and too much time on their hands jeopardise their entire operation by letting this stupid video float around on the Internet. I can picture you morons emailing me now: "BUT MADOX, MAYBE DYLAN POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT HAD A CHANCE TO REMOVE IT LOL." Yeah, too bad this rebuttal is inconsistent with the premise of Dylan's s**t-festival of a movie: that the WTC was brought down "in a carefully planned and controlled demolition ... and it was pulled off with military precision." Now we're expected to believe that the same government that was able to commit the largest terrorist operation in history--with military precision no less--is suddenly too incompetent to sniff out and shut down a little website set up by some college losers within days, if not minutes of its creation? The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to nix this kid long before his video ever became popular?

I win. There is no conspiracy. Eat my s**t, losers.

No Maddox, you didn't win. It's not that black and white.

What, you don't think if Dylan and or his friends/family suddenly "disappeared", no one would notice or ask questions? What, the local police would learn of their "disappearance" a few days after our government shut down thier website with a video saying our government was behind 9/11, and not find this "suspicious"?

It's a little too obvious, Maddox. Here in America, we have the freedom of speech and expression. If the video is total bullsh*t, the truth will come out.

Your whole premise lies with "the fact that this guy and his family are still alive proves the whole video is conspiracy garbage, because if it were true, our government would have them killed." That's your argument, right Maddox?

You sir, are the moron.
His rebuttal to that, though, is that if the government can get away with destroying the WTC, why couldn't they make a few people disappear?

You ask, "No one would notice or ask questions?" well, my counter point is: Wouldn't anyone notice a controlled demolition of the WTC?

All of the hard scientific facts are linked to at the bottom.

The same reasoning you're using right now is the same reasoning Conservative fanatics use to argue for the Liberal media -- can't you see that? Whenever glaring corporate or conservative bias is in the media, they simply say, "Oh, they're just keeping up with appearances, so nobody will suspect anything."

Dookiestix wrote: Yep, old news. Meanwhile, back in reality:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5097

I would imagine this number could grow, as Bush and his rightwing operatives (including ABC/Disney, of course) continue to exploit 9/11 for political gain at a time when Republicans look to lose big at the polls. They do this on the graves of close to 3,000 who died on that day.

We've seen enough the number of times the Bush cabal have dropped the ball in capturing bin Laden up front in the hills of Torra Borra; we've seen his incompetence on practically every level for that matter. And now we are stuck in a horrible situation in Iraq, with no exit strategy to speak of and no clear mission, as our resources are dwindling in truly fighting terrorism.

And then the Bush administration has the nerve to try and put all the blame on another administration while their policies are destroying America.

Despite all the screaming from the likes of Maddox (I had no idea he was trying to be funny), there is still plenty of doubt to go around, and it's all the administration's/Bush apologists fault. If there was more forthcoming evidence to debunk all those 9/11 conspiracy theorists, than this would be a non-issue. But the images and the actions by this administration in obstructing the 9/11 Commission and running a government in such intense secrecy should make it clear that they still have plenty to hide. Meanwhile, they continue to foment fear in the electorate with the hopes of getting them to vote Republican.
You don't agree with me, partially because I'm not a Liberal, but a Libertarian Socialist and I'm anti-ideology. Having an ideology promotes collective thought, in a particularly dangerous way that's contrary to progress.

In any case, as it seems to me, "Californian Liberalism," is an ideology in its own right. It seems like every day in San Francisco and Berkeley, somebody's running around with their genitals flopping around, starting fires, and shaking well-crafted paper-machiete figures and screaming that Bush is Hitler and Satan.

I strongly disagree with Conservatives and find their assessments of Liberalism to be totally baseless. But such radical Liberals, particularly those in California, serve as perfect anecdotal examples for Michelle Malkin to blog about, and say, "Hey, look at these crazy people!"

In other words, Californian Liberals are to Liberalism what Fred Phelps is to Christianity.

There is no 9/11 conspiracy. 99.9999% of all of the scientific experts regarding engineering can explain precisely how the WTC collapsed. Those in the "9/11 Truth Movement," are a rag-tag band of left-wing extremists and though there are many educated scholars, half of them are in the humanities and the other half are scientists, but not structural engineers.

Dookiestix, you and several other Liberals here are virtually identical to the Conservative posters here who post out of activism. You can't see anything more to an issue other than what the left-wing presents and are willing to assert that virtually any claim is true, provided that it supports you, ideologically.

And it's a result of both partisanship and collective thinking as a result of ideology. Give up the Green party and the Democrats. Give up "Liberalism," and the "left wing." And get out of California. Think for yourself and this 9/11 conspiracy theory will seem like absolute nonsense.

Well put.
We won't know for sure the exact reason. But one possibility is they felt that no one would believe the video Dylan Avery made.

[jher]

Timmytour wrote: People seem so paranoid these days about those claiming there was a conspiracy on 9/11.

I've even seen someone practically begging for a thread to be moved to another forum.

What is it? What's happened lately that posters no longer feel they can just ignore such threads but feel they must act to either remove them from the most popular forum or question the sanity of the posters in question?

I'll confess to not really believing anything happened other than the way its been officially told, though I do keep an open mind. I'm not so much into composing my own theories but I do wonder, and have yet to be given convincing explanations for..

1/ How come not only was one of the hijackers passports found a couple of blocks away from the towers after they'd been hit but before they fell down, but with all that was going on what on earth was the person who found it doing looking through all the rubbish accumulating on the streets and also, how on earth did he deduce it was something relevant to what was going on? How many other law enforcement officers were handed bits of paper that passers by had found and thought might be a clue while the towers were blazing away in full sight of the world! and why have neither the passer by nor the law enforcement officer involved ever been identified?

2/ Just incredible! To hit the Pentagon with that degree of accuracy coming in so low and being so close to, but hardly marking the lawn.
An "accomplishment" that would severely test any highly experienced pilot let alone an amateur with barely a few lessons under his belt. Extremely unlikely but possible...but to happen on a day of so amny other extraordinary coincidences? And why did the Pentagon, of all places, not have highly sophisticated security cameras covering it from all angles instead of one obviously obtained in a Walmart "seconds" sale with the wrong day and wrong time programmed in and p*sspoor definition? And how come no news crews were on the scene at the time filming? One would have thought that the news agencies would have stuff on standby near the Pentagon and would have gone ruhing into action upon hearing the earler news....

3/ Why hasn't the video been released that was taken by the five Israelis who were reported for dancing and celebrating within sight of the towers as they burned? I've seen videos made by "terrorist cells" within the US who turned out to be nothing more than guys who'd made a video of their trip to Disneyland. So why hasn't the "Urban Moving Five" video been released?

4/ Why did Rumsfeld make that "slip of the tongue" about Flight 93 being shot down? It's hard to understand how an incident so ingrained on the mind can make such a slip....unless of course there's more than one picture in his mind for some reason of how it happened.

Like I say, not conspiracy theories, just questions about what actually was supposed to have happened...
This is the most interesting part. To me it shows that Israel was aware of it. Remember taht 2 of the 5 Israelis are agents.

[Medius]

MajorWoody wrote: I stated this on another thread but never heard any response on it so I will state it again;

One thing I never understood about those conspiracy theorists that believe the Bush administration was behind 9/11 is why wouldn't they also just have fabricated some WMD's in Iraq? If they were clever enough to fool 99% of the US population in to believing OBL was behind 9/11 then why couldn't they have "placed" some sarin gas in Baghdad? I think that would have been the best way to "fool" voters into voting Republican for many years.


Major

Just to address the WMD point from an objective position, I would think that the two wouldn't be equivalent. The problem is that moving any kind of WMDs trigger foreign intelligence. While we like to think the CIA is the only one out there, that simply isn't the case. It wouldn't look good to have Brittish or Chinese intelligence surface showing the US transporting WMDs to Iraq while trying to find WMDs.

The other issue is that WMDs tend to have a signature. The technology used, the grade of plutonium and/or the complexity of the nerve agent. To build something convincing would take time and resources and possibly set off even more flags as controlled substances start turning up missing.

Assuming intelligence was faulty and the administration actually believed there were WMDs in Iraq, by the time they were investigating and finding none, it would have been much harder to bring them in as people would be watching more closely.

This isn't to say that 9/11 conspiracy are right, just to say that I don't believe planting WMDs was ever an option. In fact, even if I were to accept as fact that engineering a 9/11 event would be considered highly immoral by this administration (meaning I felt that they would never willingly take american lives for political gain), I still wouldn't put it past them to plant WMDs if it were at all possible for them to do so. It is an action that would have caused no phyiscal harm to anyone (wrong of course, but no harm).

[Dookiestix]

Nathyn wrote: Ann Coulter is an idiot and her book is garbage. But still, don't pretend that the left-wing is any less partisan or anymore open-minded and tolerant than the right-wing.
And yet you speak from a position of authority that it is only the left, us radical liberals in California, who should perhaps leave the state.

At least you can come around to admitting that Bush lied. Unfortunately, thousands had to die needlessly because of it.

Fortunately, 9/11 families are calling for new investigations. And that will continue to grow I believe. Hopefully, that will happen relatively soon, because the politicizing of 9/11 by Republicans, especially as of late, has been one of the sickest things I think I've ever seen.

Nathyn wrote: It's crazy because even though we were given credible info that Hussein had WMDs and was seeking nukes, you still thought diplomacy was the best course of action. Granted, Bush lied, but that's not the point: had what he said been the truth, you still would've advocated a suicidal foreign policy.
What was crazy was the fact that there was plenty of intel to put enough doubts in people's minds that Saddam had WMDs OR nukes. Therefore, the "credible" info you refer to WASN'T so credible afterall, and Bush and Cheney knew that. But it was presented as being credible by Bush and Cheney in the lead-up to the war. I know you've seen the report about Saddam and the 9/11 connection. It should be obvious the enormous amount of lies that are still being revealed here. And yet Cheney and Bush continue to discount it. Who the hell are you still willing to believe at this point?

This I believe is the "lying" part that I think you were alluding to earlier, but I could be wrong.

Nathyn wrote: But we can't stop terrorism by simply giving them money and asking them nicely to stop killing us. That isn't diplomacy, that is appeasement.
Now, now, Nathyn, don't put words in my mouth. I NEVER suggested for a MOMENT that we just give out money and ask terrorists to stop killing us. That simplistic form of debate serves no purpose other than to continue labeling those who disagree with Bush's policies. You seem to miss the part about all the POLITICIZING of terror by Republicans in order to keep them in power. How in hell do you think that could ever be an effective way to deal with this murderous ideology?

Nathyn wrote: I've yet to see 9/11 conspiracy theorists put forth any relevant scientific facts to support their claims, which is why the "9/11 Truth Movement" is about as large as the intelligent design crowd. SUre, polls say around 1/3 of Americans believe the government involved, but polls say the same regarding evolution and the morality of gay marriage. Mass ignorance of the general public isn't proof of anything.
Mass ignorance of what truly happened on 9/11 is what fuels these flames. As I've said before, there are plenty of unanswered questions, as you've already pointed out the intense secrecy by this administration in regards to your prior statement. The 9/11 Commission report is by no means complete. The Commisions members themselves have attested to that. That is why families of 9/11 are demanding a new investigation. They invested a measly $3 million on investigating the worst mass murder of Americans in recent memory. But Republicans spent over $70 million on investigatin Clinton's penis. I fail to understand why those who rail against these conspiracy theories cannot see this. It is partly WHY these conspiracy theories propogate. Personally, there is much within those conspiracy theories that I DON'T prescribe to. That is what many on the other side fail to realize. The overall aspect of all of this is what HASN'T been forthcoming from the Administration that is the real issue here, and that the enormous number of unanswered questions persist.

We saw the politicizing of 9/11 just last Sunday and Monday, and many people are justifiably upset. They even made more sh!t up outside of the 9/11 Commission report. Then Bush gets to chime in with his speech on Monday, shamelessly using 9/11 to justify his actions in Iraq. I mean, how blatant is that? How political is that? This is just another reason why conspiracy theorists are emboldened, and why those who believe the "official" story from our very own government are more and more perplexed by the enormity of these conspiracies. Perhaps this is also why this subject remains in the political category vs. the conspiracy category today.

Nathyn wrote: Oh god, and now you're going to assert that you believe Katrina was racially-motivated too? Hurricanes don't discriminate. Statistics also show that more non-blacks died than blacks. Katrina faced a ridiculous amount of race-baiting and demagoguery.

Jesse Jackson said it looked like a "slave ship." In addition to having never SEEN a slave ship because slavery hasn't existed in America for well over a century, Jesse Jackson's assertion is proven wrong by mere statistics. And then there's Wolf Blitzer's remark that Katrina victims were, "So poor... and so so black." I mean, come on.

There were a great deal of buses waiting for evacuees. There's a photo out of there of several hundred buses in New Orleans that just sat underwater as the city was flood. One main reason why people died was because they simply chose not to evacuate. There were even still crazy people out there who didn't want to leave because of their pets.

If you can make it to a government office to apply for welfare, then you can get on a bus to evacuate a hurricane. I don't believe that anyone there was "incapable," of leaving. If anything, it was encouraging dependence on an inefficient government which led to the casualties of Katrina.
There you go again with the rightwing argument of a hurricane racially descriminating. Please, I'm much smarter than that. It wasn't Mother Nature who was on a racial bent here; it was the unbelievable suffering by many people who had to wait for days before help could be on the way. It was about FEMA not doing their part in preparing for such a catastrophic event. It was the incompetence on ALL levels of government. And it was ALSO the fact that many people did not evacuate. But many couldn't because the were too poor to drive out of there in the first place. It was also about how most of the impoverished who were effected in NO were African American, and the disproportionate response in regards to saving them. I mean, it took DAYS. And the ONLY agency that had the manpower and was presumably competent enough to pull in major resources was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It was also the photo-ops of the Bush administration rather than actions that really dinged them on this one. And MOST of all, it was the fact that a terrorist attack of such catastrophic force could not be answered by our government, and that the American people are realizing that they really aren't that safe when you look at the situation as a whole (border security, port security, increased terrorism around the world because Bush invaded Iraq, etc.). Americans feel less safe, and Bush says America is safer, but not yet safe. Boy, that makes ME feel a whole lot better...

Nathyn wrote: In order to "connect the dots," on 9/11, you have to be able to look well beyond reason and evidence
That is why we need to open a new investigation, look deeper into these theories, and actually have our public officials testify under oath.

What are they so afraid of?

Nathyn wrote: Don't pretend even for a minute that left-wing extremists have any regard for the free speech of dissents anymore than right-wing extremists do. Case in point: the attempt by the Democrats to censor Ann Coulter's book "Godless."

Ann Coulter is an idiot and her book is garbage. But still, don't pretend that the left-wing is any less partisan or anymore open-minded and tolerant than the right-wing.
I agree that there are extremists in both camps. In that you'll get no argument out of me. The nation is more polarized then ever, so it just makes sense that there is much less centrism in our society. I am merely explaining why conspiracies exist regarding 9/11. I am not suggesting that I buy into every aspect of these conspiracies. What I DO buy into is the fact that because they continue to propogate only suggests that many questions have yet to be answered. The politicizing of 9/11 without a more thorough investigation into the event allows those in power to play loose with the facts for political advantage. I commend those who I may not entirely agree with regarding their conspiracy theories, but DO agree very much with their passion to demand the truth from our government.

You should (I hope) feel the same. It is what partially drives these conspiracy theorists to begin with.

[00timh]

LostSoul3412 wrote: "Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid."

:rotf: I'm going to pretend I don't know what that means :wink: :lol: