How many of you people actually watched Loose Change? (The google vid that was linked by someone in the thread)
I just saw it, and you gotta admit that there are some facts in there that you just can't argue with. One of the most questionable things being how the goverment refuses to even acknowledge many of these facts that are layed out.
But now I'm straying away from the topic, which was Charlie Sheen.. "A mainstay of the attack pieces against Charlie Sheen have been that he is not credible enough to speak on the topic of 9/11. These charges are ridiculed by the fact that Sheen is an expert on 9/11 who spends hours a day meticulously researching the topic, something that the attack dogs have failed to do, aiming their comments solely at Sheen's personal life and ignoring his invitation to challenge him on the facts." -Quoted from http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406mainsuspect.htm
Do you all think that just because a man has used drugs and likes to party, he suddenly looses all the capibility to think and act? Seriously, before you call someone ignorant maybe you should look some things up for yourself first. (And that's not only about Charlie Sheen, alot of people are waaaay to fast to judge others, knowing little or close to nothing of the person in question)
I'm sorry Bennjim, taking info from Alex Jones' website is about as credible as if I were to use Rush Limbaugh to discount it. You could do this for days on end. Post a quote from Jones' (or similar) website and someone else do the same from the opposite side. Honestly, why do people rely on single sources for the filtering of all their "credible" information? Think about it for a bit. Why should you believe Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, Michael Moore and Al Franken any more than Rush Limbaugh, Bernard Goldberg, Matt Drudge, or Ann Coulter? All of the previously mentioned political writers and activists believe they are doing "the right thing" for America. As I suggest to many here, I suggest you take both sides with a grain of salt and formulate your own conclusion based on examining all the slant and facts you can find. Both sides claim that their argument is "common sense", but I submit that there is no such thing in politics anymore. I prefer to find "common ground" in their arguments and work from there.
All I have to say is that we covered all this before in the link I provided in my first post. Nothing new has come out except since then Sheen has decided to come "public" by speaking on the very show that presented the theory to him. Talk about preaching to the choir. There were 7 pages of the same arguments that ended with the ultimate conspiracy numbers game by supernerd.
The 9/11 puzzle is far from being solved by either side. The question is, are we asking the right people the right questions? Are the people that are going public with "new information" really people in a postition to know the truth? And does it truely matter anymore? Even if terrorists didn't do the 9/11 attacks, there are ones that desperately want to now.
I leave you with a little homework: Rather than investigating 9/11 for a few minutes, instead investigate the Warren Commission and JFK's assassination and tell me if you see any similarities with the arguments presented by both sides back then and those about 9/11.
Originally posted by severius I find that most all actresses and actors have no clue about politics. They make a stink, get a blurb in the leftist yellow press and before you know it they have a new movie out. But then again the average IQ of America seems to drop quarterly which is perfect for these hollywood hypocrites.
As an American I must agree. Well stated. Too many people have their heads in a damp dark place.
Come on joebert. Please. Compairing the US to NK is off the wall.
I made no such comparison. Perhaps you should read more carefully.
The context of your NK statement was in reference to the US government's influence over the public. Your basic premise is that the US Gov't has "duped" the public. You followed that statement with a NK analogy. You may not have meant it to be a direct compairison. Perhaps you should type more carefully.
EDIT: And your statement that implies IQ's are dropping is one that has been made about every generation. Do you really think it is true? Personally I think human beings remain at a constant state of ignorance regardless of intelligence. We all exist in our own little worlds where our "common sense" rules, yet that same "common sense" might not apply at all 10 miles down the road. So the question becomes, what is truth? Is it like the X-files "The truth is out there"? Or is it a mythical creature that remains tauntingly out of reach?
Very good find, it's nice to see a mod active in this topic. That video can get catch some people up with some of the things mentioned in the audio clip.
I've been keeping track of this topic since it started - partly to make sure it stays civil and partly because conspiracy theories inerest me. I cannot state what I believe to be true, but I can say yes, Loose Change was a very interesting movie indeed.
Edit: With that said, please continue to keep the conversation civil (addressing this to everyone) and we will continue to see this topic open.
If you are willing to believe that your goverment performed terrorist attacks, you should also be able to believe that 1 person who even links Bush to JFK can lie. You must remember both sides can lie. Both sides have their agenda.
I have seen the Loose Change movie, and it doesn't cut it. It mostly presents allegations without any proof. Like in the last bit of the movie it says that many of the 19 dead terrorists are alive, without giving any proof of them being alive. Also words like blast/explosion are automaticly linked to bomb. Something can explode without a bomb causing it. The "controlled demolition" theory is also very shallow and one sided. The narrator comes to one conclussion without checking all sides of the story. What about the massive amount of air that would have been pushed down through the building, when that amount of debris comes down? Couldn't that have caused the "blow outs" when it collapsed. He just jumps straight on the bomb conclussion without checking all sides. None of this would ever stand up in court, hell even get to court. I'm not saying it can't be through or that anything "fishy" could have happened 9/11, but the way "Loose Change" presents it it's not confinsing at all.
Said by someone, President Bush calls a terrorist.
I watched trough all that, seen some things on thoose lines before but, you can not watch that thin and not start to ask questions, its just impossible.
No matter were your political or philosophical view lays, that is some hard cold facts in that movie.
Even if Saddam himself would have been the maker of that movie it would still be enough to at least start to wonder.
I have worked in construction for 11 years and the pure physical facts alone are enugh to convince me something more is behind this, no matter who done it, there just is no building fire ever, that can melt steel, you can pore jet fuel on steel and let it burn for a month and it still would not melt, or even weaken much.
Pretty sure that even if you actually filled the entire buildings with jet-fuel and set fire to it you would still have the steel skeleton standing when the fire had died down by itself, it just do not compute.
I have no doubt that any of these power hungry men that runs the large corporations of the world, not just in America, would easily kill 3000 people to sell 50 billion$ worth of military material, and to top it of secure a valuable oil source, I do not even think they would skip a heartbeat if they though they could get away with it.
But can they?
Did they?
Charlie Sheen might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but you do not have to be to see something is wrong here.
"From children and fools will you hear the truth" sort of thing.
"The emperors new clothes" is another one that comes to mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only that Umbrood but now they can take away our Constitutional rights for more "security". They already have too, I already mentioned it in a previous post. Infact Bush broke the law when he did the spying and did not let Congress authorize it, what was He afraid of?
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Honestly, my biggest complaint about the whole 9/11 "theory" fiasco is that literally everyone assumes that only 2 possibilities exist: 1) the government reported findings and 2) the "conspiracy theory". Even though there are many sites and literally pages of documents on the WTC, the bottom line is that they all fall into one camp or the other. Most of them cite the same video clips (yes I know there are only a few in existance), same interviews, same "experts," etc and come to the exact same conclusions. All of these (I include the government report) theories fail at critical thinking. Both sides of the arguement start with a hypothosis and formulate their argument around only the data which clearly supports their points.
My own personal opinion is that there is a third explaination for what happened on 9/11. No, I don't have it formulated yet for publish, but I am continuing to research. My biggest problem is missing information or unverifiable "facts" from each side at this point.
For anyone wanting to know the theory behind why I don't believe either side, you can search "critical thinking" and find several good articles and publications about how good theories are formulated and then proven. You can start here if you wish.
i have this to say to anyone who believes that theory is or could be true.
it is by no means unreasonable to believe any government can turn on its people
however one of my problems with this theory is this.
A. We have a two party system, our whole government is divided the senate is divided, house of representitives, and everything except the executive branch. That being said the FBI, CIA, Military officers, are all from different presidential administratrative era. so that being said all of those officers, officials, in the arms of government who enforce the power will be a split of democrats and republicans.
thus any real attempt by any executive branch to commit an act of this caliber would certainly require those men, and if not it would require men of those caliber, and it would be damn near impossible to keep all of those officers in the dark.
and there would be real hard evidence that happened, or at least evidence that the administration tried.to do that and was stopped.
no administration in the US past the unrest of the 1960's has had the power to pull that off.
that is why this is a ludicris theory to me.
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
Boozbaz made a good point. This is not a theory anymore. There are facts that support the government was in on it. Now its possible they did it.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by AlexAmore Boozbaz made a good point. This is not a theory anymore. There are facts that support the government was in on it. Now its possible they did it.
I submit that the facts can only lead you to believe that the government was incompetent, unresponsive, unprepaired, infiltrated, compromised, or whatever adjective you choose. The reality is that there are no facts that the US Government actually had any direct connection to the crashing of 4 planes resulting in the death of American citizens on 9/11. Right now there is only coincidence and conjecture. You are falling into a trap with this mode of thought. Notice that I chose my words carefully. I did not say the US Gov't was not "in on it." Just that what you are taking as fact are not proof of direct involvement. The facts you are looking at lead you to assume that such action could not happen without the US Gov't involvement. This may or may not be the case.
Originally posted by daeandor Originally posted by AlexAmore Boozbaz made a good point. This is not a theory anymore. There are facts that support the government was in on it. Now its possible they did it.
I submit that the facts can only lead you to believe that the government was incompetent, unresponsive, unprepaired, infiltrated, compromised, or whatever adjective you choose. The reality is that there are no facts that the US Government actually had any direct connection to the crashing of 4 planes resulting in the death of American citizens on 9/11. Right now there is only coincidence and conjecture. You are falling into a trap with this mode of thought. Notice that I chose my words carefully. I did not say the US Gov't was not "in on it." Just that what you are taking as fact are not proof of direct involvement. The facts you are looking at lead you to assume that such action could not happen without the US Gov't involvement. This may or may not be the case.
yes that may or may not be true.
but there is more evidence that high ranking US government officials deliberately failed to stop Pearl Harbor then there is the US government did anything of the like with 9/11
the fact is hindsight is 20/20 but if it wasnt we really wouldnt see so much of a problem with the US government.
but that is what makes us different we look back and correct ourselves, continually not every time all the time but more regularly then any nation on earth.
Japan doesnt publish about the rape of man king and other such travesties, germany nearly cycles over the holocaust and the racism in their history books. and a long list of nations do the same thing.
but the US doesn't, we criticize our past, our racism, our military failures, and we learn from them
that is why we maintain a seat of world power that is argueable the strongest
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
Originally posted by Vergeltung the fact is hindsight is 20/20 but if it wasnt we really wouldnt see so much of a problem with the US government.
I think you will find that many people would dispute that statement to some degree. I'm not trying to relive discussions already had, but if we truly had 20/20 hindsight, there would be no debate on Constitutional Law, expansionism by US vs Mexico and the Indians, Lincoln's assassination, Pearl Harbor, JFK's assassination, Roswell, and 9/11 to name a few. I do agree that the further removed we are from the actual event in time, the closer we tend to come to the truth.
Originally posted by daeandor Originally posted by Vergeltung the fact is hindsight is 20/20 but if it wasnt we really wouldnt see so much of a problem with the US government.
I think you will find that many people would dispute that statement to some degree. I'm not trying to relive discussions already had, but if we truly had 20/20 hindsight, there would be no debate on Constitutional Law, expansionism by US vs Mexico and the Indians, Lincoln's assassination, Pearl Harbor, JFK's assassination, Roswell, and 9/11 to name a few. I do agree that the further removed we are from the actual event in time, the closer we tend to come to the truth. my response to that would be hindisight is 20/20 but we all still have our perspectives.
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
Germany nearly cycles over the holocaust and the racism in their history books. and a long list of nations do the same thing.
but the US doesn't, we criticize our past, our racism, our military failures, and we learn from them
that is why we maintain a seat of world power that is argueable the strongest
That is completely wrong. We take our past very serious. I think there are few countries in the world where it's people is so ashamed over their past. And if you look at Germany as a country today, you see it. We aren't exactly the most war hungry country in the world today.
For that other statement I believe you are wrong too. Just look at some of the posts on this forum. People that defend absolutly everything USA does. And many of your actions in the world today doesn't exactly look look like you have learned of your past. Your seat of world power is certainly built on something else than learning from your past.
I have to agree with the guy above me, I don't think there is a nationality on earth that has faced it's past as the German's have done, certainly not the British where 90% of the population no nothing about the numerous genocide's they have commited in past centuries, the perposeful starving to death of 24 million Indians for example. All Britons are taught is a glorious past of being the world's good guy, it's sickening & it's the reason we decided to join the US on the latest disasterous adventure.
I must admit I thought I was going to take a flaming for my post yesterday and I feel a great deal of optimism and a sense of relief that Americans are trying to uncover the facts and are questioning the official line. I hope that November delivers what it promises and you impeach the brainless, murdering criminal you call a president.
Originally posted by -exo did i just read "stupidest" in the title? ... is that even a word o.o ...just curious >.>... i cracked up whle reading it. HA
Originally posted by Bennjim I have to agree with the guy above me, I don't think there is a nationality on earth that has faced it's past as the German's have done, certainly not the British where 90% of the population no nothing about the numerous genocide's they have commited in past centuries, the perposeful starving to death of 24 million Indians for example. All Britons are taught is a glorious past of being the world's good guy, it's sickening & it's the reason we decided to join the US on the latest disasterous adventure.
I must admit I thought I was going to take a flaming for my post yesterday and I feel a great deal of optimism and a sense of relief that Americans are trying to uncover the facts and are questioning the official line. I hope that November delivers what it promises and you impeach the brainless, murdering criminal you call a president.
Although I feel compelled to comment on your emotional statements, I will refrain and keep to your main comment, which I highlighted. Although I stated it in a previous post, I would like to point out that I don't feel Americans are trying to uncover the facts as a whole. I think most are trying to pursue evidence which merely supports their own personal hypothosis or debunks the hypothosis of their opposition. While questioning the "official line" is good, it does not mean that all the information contained within the "official line" is false. The same, of course, goes for the "unofficial theory." Both sides make several errors in academic logic. This is particularly evident when they use "If, then" statements. Here are two small examples (which I have paraphrased) from each side that I have added in just a few questions that are unanswered:
If steel melts at X temperature, but aviation fuel can only reach 0.6X and molten metal was found in the rubble, then explosives have been used. Is the molten metal found in the rubble structural steel from the floors exposed to aviation fuel or is it something else? Were other metals exposed to the aviation fuel which had a lower melting point? Was there something present in the WTC that could melt steel other than explosives?
The weakening of the floor beams in the area struck by the planes and aviation fuel flame resulted in undue load on the floors below and the core support structure. Over time the continued weakening of the floor beams resulted in collapse of the buckling support (the beams themselves) for these floors and the floors collapsed on the already overloaded floor below. This resulted in a chain reaction of collapsed floors. [If the floor beams are weakened and fail on one floor, then the other floors below will do the same.] If the method of collapse was loss of buckling support, then why is there no visible (in the film footage) evidence of each floor's vertical steel beams buckling? For those that don't know, the beams that are "supposed" to be buckling are the ones that are on the outer shell of the building. You can see what that would look like HERE. If the only floors effected by outside influence (impact and flame) had weakened support beams, why did the other floors collapse? Why did the core support structure (the center of the building with steel and steel reinforced concrete) collapse? Was there a substance in the WTC that accelerated the collapse of the support beams or the core support? Was the collapse of the support beams the result of design flaw?
How embarrassing! Why don’t people in this Country first get educated on a subject before spouting ignorant opinions? Then, those same people make an attempt to argue their point as if it was factual. Is it just plain laziness, or the lack of concern for the real truth? Most of the world is laughing at us (USA) because of so many uneducated people spewing their idiotic rhetoric because their opinion is more important to them, than what’s actually best for this Country. And by educated / uneducated, I’m referring to getting knowledge on a subject, not how much schooling they have. What's even more frustrating is that people listen to moron's such as Mr. Sheen.
Originally posted by Vergeltung i have this to say to anyone who believes that theory is or could be true. it is by no means unreasonable to believe any government can turn on its people however one of my problems with this theory is this. A. We have a two party system, our whole government is divided the senate is divided, house of representitives, and everything except the executive branch. That being said the FBI, CIA, Military officers, are all from different presidential administratrative era. so that being said all of those officers, officials, in the arms of government who enforce the power will be a split of democrats and republicans. thus any real attempt by any executive branch to commit an act of this caliber would certainly require those men, and if not it would require men of those caliber, and it would be damn near impossible to keep all of those officers in the dark. and there would be real hard evidence that happened, or at least evidence that the administration tried.to do that and was stopped. no administration in the US past the unrest of the 1960's has had the power to pull that off. that is why this is a ludicris theory to me.
In many ways our "two party system" is becoming less distinct and more of a blend in many areas. I suggest the dividing lines are no longer as sharp as they once were.
I wish I could agree with you Vergeltung and years ago I may have but can't in today's environment. As ONE example, check out this site and compare the various ways of sorting the data. SurveyUSA
Alex Jones lives here in Austin and has a public access television show that I catch while flipping through channels every once in a while. His radio show is on a more regular schedule, but I never have heard it. (except from that clip)
To say the least, he poses questions and arguments that can make a person seriously consider their assumptions about the state of our Government and the motivations of relelvant authorities. What seems to separate him from the most other conspiracty theorists is that he substantiates the majority of his claims with news stories / articles, quotes, interviews, etc.
On flip side, I've seen shows where he gets so mentally and emotionally caught up in the subject(s) that he flys off the handle and viciously attacks those who are the supposed conspirators. (think rabid)
While I can see that kind of passion coming from someone who has seen the ugly truth and is trying to fight it, I can also see that kind of passion coming from a person is so emotionally involved that they can lose objectivity and accuracy.
Heh, oh yah. And he was at Luby's a couple years ago ( a buffet restaurant ). While he and his wife were eating, a couple of cops came over and asked for his autograph.
Comments
(The google vid that was linked by someone in the thread)
I just saw it, and you gotta admit that there are some facts in there that
you just can't argue with. One of the most questionable things
being how the goverment refuses to even acknowledge many of these
facts that are layed out.
But now I'm straying away from the topic, which was Charlie Sheen..
"A mainstay of the attack pieces against Charlie
Sheen have been that he is not credible enough to speak on
the topic of 9/11. These charges are ridiculed by the fact that Sheen is
an expert on 9/11 who spends hours a day meticulously researching the topic,
something that the attack dogs have failed to do, aiming their comments
solely at Sheen's personal life and ignoring his invitation to challenge
him on the facts." -Quoted from http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406mainsuspect.htm
Do you all think that just because a man has used drugs and likes to party,
he suddenly looses all the capibility to think and act?
Seriously, before you call someone ignorant maybe you should look some things
up for yourself first. (And that's not only about Charlie Sheen, alot of people
are waaaay to fast to judge others, knowing little or close to nothing of the person in question)
~~ The one and only from the sundsvall elite ~~
I'm sorry Bennjim, taking info from Alex Jones' website is about as credible as if I were to use Rush Limbaugh to discount it. You could do this for days on end. Post a quote from Jones' (or similar) website and someone else do the same from the opposite side. Honestly, why do people rely on single sources for the filtering of all their "credible" information? Think about it for a bit. Why should you believe Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen, Michael Moore and Al Franken any more than Rush Limbaugh, Bernard Goldberg, Matt Drudge, or Ann Coulter? All of the previously mentioned political writers and activists believe they are doing "the right thing" for America. As I suggest to many here, I suggest you take both sides with a grain of salt and formulate your own conclusion based on examining all the slant and facts you can find. Both sides claim that their argument is "common sense", but I submit that there is no such thing in politics anymore. I prefer to find "common ground" in their arguments and work from there.
All I have to say is that we covered all this before in the link I provided in my first post. Nothing new has come out except since then Sheen has decided to come "public" by speaking on the very show that presented the theory to him. Talk about preaching to the choir. There were 7 pages of the same arguments that ended with the ultimate conspiracy numbers game by supernerd.
The 9/11 puzzle is far from being solved by either side. The question is, are we asking the right people the right questions? Are the people that are going public with "new information" really people in a postition to know the truth? And does it truely matter anymore? Even if terrorists didn't do the 9/11 attacks, there are ones that desperately want to now.
I leave you with a little homework: Rather than investigating 9/11 for a few minutes, instead investigate the Warren Commission and JFK's assassination and tell me if you see any similarities with the arguments presented by both sides back then and those about 9/11.
I made no such comparison. Perhaps you should read more carefully.
Never heard of it much less watched it.
I made no such comparison. Perhaps you should read more carefully.
The context of your NK statement was in reference to the US government's influence over the public. Your basic premise is that the US Gov't has "duped" the public. You followed that statement with a NK analogy. You may not have meant it to be a direct compairison. Perhaps you should type more carefully.
EDIT: And your statement that implies IQ's are dropping is one that has been made about every generation. Do you really think it is true? Personally I think human beings remain at a constant state of ignorance regardless of intelligence. We all exist in our own little worlds where our "common sense" rules, yet that same "common sense" might not apply at all 10 miles down the road. So the question becomes, what is truth? Is it like the X-files "The truth is out there"? Or is it a mythical creature that remains tauntingly out of reach?
I've been keeping track of this topic since it started - partly to make sure it stays civil and partly because conspiracy theories inerest me. I cannot state what I believe to be true, but I can say yes, Loose Change was a very interesting movie indeed.
Edit: With that said, please continue to keep the conversation civil (addressing this to everyone) and we will continue to see this topic open.
You must remember both sides can lie. Both sides have their agenda.
I have seen the Loose Change movie, and it doesn't cut it. It mostly presents allegations without any proof. Like in the last bit of the movie it says that many of the 19 dead terrorists are alive, without giving any proof of them being alive. Also words like blast/explosion are automaticly linked to bomb. Something can explode without a bomb causing it. The "controlled demolition" theory is also very shallow and one sided. The narrator comes to one conclussion without checking all sides of the story. What about the massive amount of air that would have been pushed down through the building, when that amount of debris comes down? Couldn't that have caused the "blow outs" when it collapsed.
He just jumps straight on the bomb conclussion without checking all sides. None of this would ever stand up in court, hell even get to court. I'm not saying it can't be through or that anything "fishy" could have happened 9/11, but the way "Loose Change" presents it it's not confinsing at all.
Said by someone, President Bush calls a terrorist.
I watched trough all that, seen some things on thoose lines before but, you can not watch that thin and not start to ask questions, its just impossible.
No matter were your political or philosophical view lays, that is some hard cold facts in that movie.
Even if Saddam himself would have been the maker of that movie it would still be enough to at least start to wonder.
I have worked in construction for 11 years and the pure physical facts alone are enugh to convince me something more is behind this, no matter who done it, there just is no building fire ever, that can melt steel, you can pore jet fuel on steel and let it burn for a month and it still would not melt, or even weaken much.
Pretty sure that even if you actually filled the entire buildings with jet-fuel and set fire to it you would still have the steel skeleton standing when the fire had died down by itself, it just do not compute.
I have no doubt that any of these power hungry men that runs the large corporations of the world, not just in America, would easily kill 3000 people to sell 50 billion$ worth of military material, and to top it of secure a valuable oil source, I do not even think they would skip a heartbeat if they though they could get away with it.
But can they?
Did they?
Charlie Sheen might not be the sharpest tool in the shed but you do not have to be to see something is wrong here.
"From children and fools will you hear the truth" sort of thing.
"The emperors new clothes" is another one that comes to mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Honestly, my biggest complaint about the whole 9/11 "theory" fiasco is that literally everyone assumes that only 2 possibilities exist: 1) the government reported findings and 2) the "conspiracy theory". Even though there are many sites and literally pages of documents on the WTC, the bottom line is that they all fall into one camp or the other. Most of them cite the same video clips (yes I know there are only a few in existance), same interviews, same "experts," etc and come to the exact same conclusions. All of these (I include the government report) theories fail at critical thinking. Both sides of the arguement start with a hypothosis and formulate their argument around only the data which clearly supports their points.
My own personal opinion is that there is a third explaination for what happened on 9/11. No, I don't have it formulated yet for publish, but I am continuing to research. My biggest problem is missing information or unverifiable "facts" from each side at this point.
For anyone wanting to know the theory behind why I don't believe either side, you can search "critical thinking" and find several good articles and publications about how good theories are formulated and then proven. You can start here if you wish.
EDIT: A shorter link is here: http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/reason/papers/Teaching_CT_Lessons.pdf
i have this to say to anyone who believes that theory is or could be true.
it is by no means unreasonable to believe any government can turn on its people
however one of my problems with this theory is this.
A. We have a two party system, our whole government is divided the senate is divided, house of representitives, and everything except the executive branch. That being said the FBI, CIA, Military officers, are all from different presidential administratrative era. so that being said all of those officers, officials, in the arms of government who enforce the power will be a split of democrats and republicans.
thus any real attempt by any executive branch to commit an act of this caliber would certainly require those men, and if not it would require men of those caliber, and it would be damn near impossible to keep all of those officers in the dark.
and there would be real hard evidence that happened, or at least evidence that the administration tried.to do that and was stopped.
no administration in the US past the unrest of the 1960's has had the power to pull that off.
that is why this is a ludicris theory to me.
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
yes that may or may not be true.
but there is more evidence that high ranking US government officials deliberately failed to stop Pearl Harbor then there is the US government did anything of the like with 9/11
the fact is hindsight is 20/20 but if it wasnt we really wouldnt see so much of a problem with the US government.
but that is what makes us different we look back and correct ourselves, continually not every time all the time but more regularly then any nation on earth.
Japan doesnt publish about the rape of man king and other such travesties, germany nearly cycles over the holocaust and the racism in their history books. and a long list of nations do the same thing.
but the US doesn't, we criticize our past, our racism, our military failures, and we learn from them
that is why we maintain a seat of world power that is argueable the strongest
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
my response to that would be hindisight is 20/20 but we all still have our perspectives.
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you''re one of the 2% who hasn''t, copy & paste this in your signature.
Germany nearly cycles over the holocaust and the racism in their history books. and a long list of nations do the same thing.
but the US doesn't, we criticize our past, our racism, our military failures, and we learn from them
that is why we maintain a seat of world power that is argueable the strongest
That is completely wrong. We take our past very serious. I think there are few countries in the world where it's people is so ashamed over their past. And if you look at Germany as a country today, you see it. We aren't exactly the most war hungry country in the world today.
For that other statement I believe you are wrong too. Just look at some of the posts on this forum. People that defend absolutly everything USA does. And many of your actions in the world today doesn't exactly look look like you have learned of your past. Your seat of world power is certainly built on something else than learning from your past.
I must admit I thought I was going to take a flaming for my post yesterday and I feel a great deal of optimism and a sense of relief that Americans are trying to uncover the facts and are questioning the official line. I hope that November delivers what it promises and you impeach the brainless, murdering criminal you call a president.
www.roxstudiodesigns.com
Although I feel compelled to comment on your emotional statements, I will refrain and keep to your main comment, which I highlighted. Although I stated it in a previous post, I would like to point out that I don't feel Americans are trying to uncover the facts as a whole. I think most are trying to pursue evidence which merely supports their own personal hypothosis or debunks the hypothosis of their opposition. While questioning the "official line" is good, it does not mean that all the information contained within the "official line" is false. The same, of course, goes for the "unofficial theory." Both sides make several errors in academic logic. This is particularly evident when they use "If, then" statements. Here are two small examples (which I have paraphrased) from each side that I have added in just a few questions that are unanswered:
How embarrassing! Why don’t people in this Country first get educated on a subject before spouting ignorant opinions? Then, those same people make an attempt to argue their point as if it was factual. Is it just plain laziness, or the lack of concern for the real truth? Most of the world is laughing at us (USA) because of so many uneducated people spewing their idiotic rhetoric because their opinion is more important to them, than what’s actually best for this Country. And by educated / uneducated, I’m referring to getting knowledge on a subject, not how much schooling they have. What's even more frustrating is that people listen to moron's such as Mr. Sheen.
In many ways our "two party system" is becoming less distinct and more of a blend in many areas. I suggest the dividing lines are no longer as sharp as they once were.
I wish I could agree with you Vergeltung and years ago I may have but can't in today's environment. As ONE example, check out this site and compare the various ways of sorting the data.
SurveyUSA
that I catch while flipping through channels every once in a while. His
radio show is on a more regular schedule, but I never have heard it.
(except from that clip)
To say the least, he poses questions and arguments that can make a
person seriously consider their assumptions about the state of our
Government and the motivations of relelvant authorities. What seems to
separate him from the most other conspiracty theorists is that he
substantiates the majority of his claims with news stories / articles,
quotes, interviews, etc.
On flip side, I've seen shows where he gets so mentally and emotionally
caught up in the subject(s) that he flys off the handle and viciously
attacks those who are the supposed conspirators. (think rabid)
While I can see that kind of passion coming from someone who has seen
the ugly truth and is trying to fight it, I can also see that kind of
passion coming from a person is so emotionally involved that they can
lose objectivity and accuracy.
Heh, oh yah. And he was at Luby's a couple years ago ( a buffet
restaurant ). While he and his wife were eating, a couple of cops came
over and asked for his autograph.
-- I need a nerf --