9/11 - I'm not convinced...

Lerxst said:
Neutral, 3rd party evidence is non-existent. The only thing we have, is hearsay from our government and for those of us who don't trust our government to tell us 100% of the truth, hearsay isn't enough. We need hard evidence and that's the one thing there's none of.
Click to expand...

We have a free press that is continually rooting around in all the dark, dirty corners of government and industry. The press is always exposing dirty secrets, corruption, and graft. For example, don't you think that George Bush and his administration would have done anything to prevent the press from exposing Abu Ghraib? Why was this not suppressed but the putative 9-11 "conspiracy" was? One need not invent conspiratorial fantasies when all the evidence points to a simpler explanation with fewer assumptions. Occam's Razor, again.
 
Until you work in government intelligence, you can believe what you wish. They don't care. It is not their job to inform you of specifics, and rightfully so ... it would hinder future investigations. All the while in your pondering, there are individuals working hard behind the scenes to make sure your security is protected. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.

I'm certainly glad that I live in a country where it is not illegal to express my concerns, even if it is against my government. There is absolutely no other country in which I would want to live. How often I have heard folks from other countries quickly scrutinize the USA, b/c so many of them see the USA as the bully of this earth. It's almost as though they bask in our misery, pondering our failures. I have heard so many times "we don't hate the people, we hate the government." Ok Sherlock, do you have a better plan? Can you please figure out how to free us financially from China? :D

Back on topic, Europeans are finally having to introspect on their own relaxed immigration policies for refugees b/c for the first time they are dealing with massive amounts of crime associated with Muslims (i.e. France making it illegal to wear a burqa.) I'm not just talking about Middle Eastern decent, but also African decent. Extremists believe they are above the law anywhere they go. They do as they wish ... they do not adhere to "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" policy.

So in your efforts to pick apart how the government has failed to protect, please ALSO look into how Muslims are changing other European countries and how they are failing to protect their own citizens. You will find consistency.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Neutral, 3rd party evidence is non-existent. The only thing we have, is hearsay from our government and for those of us who don't trust our government to tell us 100% of the truth, hearsay isn't enough. We need hard evidence and that's the one thing there's none of.

As for the likelihood of the public gaining access to an NSA report... the NSA doesn't even share its intel with other government agencies. If anything ever did "leak out" skeptical wouldn't even be the word to describe a sane reaction to it.

What if some of this alternative theory was true and Bin Laden was actually captured alive?! How many heads on Capital Hill would be rolling if they uncovered even a fraction of what these theories suggest? You ever wonder why we were able to get Saddam alive and up on trial yet Bin Laden was killed instantly?
Click to expand...

I would like to see evidence that is more impartial, particularly since interrogations were carried out under torture and other conditions not known to be effective in getting true statements, but, ultimately, evidence for any alternative theory, 3rd party or otherwise, is even more non-existent.

The strike on Bin Laden was a small team within a sovereign nation. Saddam was recovered during a war where we had tens of thousands of troops and could take all the time we wanted. Why Bin Laden could not be captured alive and put on trial has still not be answered to anyone's satisfaction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu
Sriracha said:
Until you work in government intelligence, you can believe what you wish. They don't care. It is not their job to inform you of specifics, and rightfully so ... it would hinder future investigations. All the while in your pondering, there are individuals working hard behind the scenes to make sure your security is protected. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces.

I'm certainly glad that I live in a country where it is not illegal to express my concerns, even if it is against my government. There is absolutely no other country in which I would want to live. How often I have heard folks from other countries quickly scrutinize the USA, b/c so many of them see the USA as the bully of this earth. It's almost as though they bask in our misery, pondering our failures. I have heard so many times "we don't hate the people, we hate the government." Ok Sherlock, do you have a better plan? Can you please figure out how to free us financially from China? :D

Back on topic, Europeans are finally having to introspect on their own relaxed immigration policies for refugees b/c for the first time they are dealing with massive amounts of crime associated with Muslims (i.e. France making it illegal to wear a burqa.) I'm not just talking about Middle Eastern decent, but also African decent. Extremists believe they are above the law anywhere they go. They do as they wish ... they do not adhere to "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" policy.

So in your efforts to pick apart how the government has failed to protect, please ALSO look into how Muslims are changing other European countries and how they are failing to protect their own citizens. You will find consistency.
Click to expand...

I'll refer again to the Crusades. We (the "West") have given Muslims every right in the world to be pissed off at us. I don't blame them, and if the tides were turned, I'd probably be right there in their shoes as well.
 
bickelz: "be well" is an expression that simply means I wish good things for you. Sometimes I tag it onto the end of a paragraph to let the other person know that while I may be stating facts or an opinion that goes against their grain, that it is NOT PERSONAL. I try to disagree agreeably.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
All these conspiracy theories have one thing in common: they assume that the US government is capable of a conspiracy's organization and secrecy. I visit the DMV and realize that our government is far too disfunctional to carry out a conspiracy. So, no, I don't beleive Kennedy was assassinated by our own government, no I don't believe in Reptilian Shapeshifters being hidden by the government, no I don't believe in the NWO conspiracy, and no, I don't believe the US attacked itself on 9-11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
Norton said:
We have a free press that is continually rooting around in all the dark, dirty corners of government and industry. The press is always exposing dirty secrets, corruption, and graft. For example, don't you think that George Bush and his administration would have done anything to prevent the press from exposing Abu Ghraib? Why was this not suppressed but the putative 9-11 "conspiracy" was? One need not invent conspiratorial fantasies when all the evidence points to a simpler explanation with fewer assumptions. Occam's Razor, again.
Click to expand...

Blindly following another person's opinions without examining the facts is what's led to most of the major conflicts this country has become involved in. I will outline this again for you:

Lusitania - America's excuse for entering WWI under false pretenses.

Pearl Harbor - Shows the US had all the Intelligence they needed to at least prepare and defend against an attack. Yet we did nothing.

Gulf of Tonkin - Is pretty much common knowledge now that it never happened; that the entire reason America got involved in Vietnam was falsified.

Just to name a few of the more historic ones. These aren't crackpots wearing foil hats we're talking about. These are journalists, congressmen and military officers verifying the non-existence of these stories we were fed.

So, with history providing us the background we need, who are the more gullible ones? Are they the people that believe what the government tells them, or the ones that look beyond the surface for more likely answers?
 
Lerxst said:
Blindly following another person's opinions without examining the facts is what's led to most of the major conflicts this country has become involved in. I will outline this again for you:

Lusitania - America's excuse for entering WWI under false pretenses.

Pearl Harbor - Shows the US had all the Intelligence they needed to at least prepare and defend against an attack. Yet we did nothing.

Gulf of Tonkin - Is pretty much common knowledge now that it never happened; that the entire reason America got involved in Vietnam was falsified.

Just to name a few of the more historic ones. These aren't crackpots wearing foil hats we're talking about. These are journalists, congressmen and military officers verifying the non-existence of these stories we were fed.

So, with history providing us the background we need, who are the more gullible ones? Are they the people that believe what the government tells them, or the ones that look beyond the surface for more likely answers?
Click to expand...

The evidence for what happened on 9/11 and how it was planned and carried out is far more extensive than it was for any of the incidents you mentioned. (You didn't include the USS Maine as pretext for the Spanish American war, which is up there with the Gulf of Tonkin on the false-o-meter.) I don't see this as a case of whether or not to trust the government (which I personally do not) but whether the facts make sense. The most likely answer is the official one as far as I can tell. It's interesting that you mention Pearl Harbor. The Japanese did actually carry that one out didn't they? That's all we're really saying here: it was Al Qaeda in a "surprise" attack. I fully agree that we should have seen both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 coming.
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
I'll refer again to the Crusades. We (the "West") have given Muslims every right in the world to be pissed off at us. I don't blame them, and if the tides were turned, I'd probably be right there in their shoes as well.
Click to expand...

Ok, but the tides aren't turned. You are here right now. History shows us our failures, but it also shows us that we can learn to not repeat them. Just as slave owners created treacherous conditions for their slaves, the descendants of those slaves today cannot hold me responsible if my ancestors were slave owners. It's important to not lose focus of the good ... societies constantly changing and evolving.

GracieRuth said:
All these conspiracy theories have one thing in common: they assume that the US government is capable of a conspiracy's organization and secrecy. I visit the DMV and realize that our government is far too disfunctional to carry out a conspiracy. So, no, I don't beleive Kennedy was assassinated by our own government, no I don't believe in Reptilian Shapeshifters being hidden by the government, no I don't believe in the NWO conspiracy, and no, I don't believe the US attacked itself on 9-11.
Click to expand...

OMG LMAO ... you crack me up!!! :D
 
Norton said:
It's important to be consistent in how one collects information and acts on it. Presumably, you've come to your opinion about Tony Blair by what you've read, be that his autobiography, opinion pieces by his opponents, the BBC, articles in the Times and the Guardian, etc. Regardless of how accurate the weather report is, most of us tend to carry an umbrella when the forecast is rain. Similarly, when we read political articles and formulate our opinions of the candidates, we vote accordingly. When we read about the discovery of a Nova 23 million light years away, and this is covered in multiple news sources and media, we don't feel the need to question the veracity of the science reporters. So, why do some people suspend their usual way of collecting, sifting, and evaluating information when it comes to something momentous like 9-11 (or the moon landings, JFD's assassination), etc.? It's true that eyewitness accounts of the same event can widely differ. But, when diverse, competing news interests seem to agree on the general facts and turn of events, why invent some conspiracy? Because one distrusts government, the powerful elite or a particular ethnic group? "Occam's Razor" argues that we adopt the simplest conclusion given the facts, and the facts are best identified by the general consensus of competing interests. It's fine, indeed, imperative, to change one's mind when new information or data are found. Like science, in the long term, journalism tends to be self-correcting.
Click to expand...

I think you've made some sound points. To those may get upset or frustrated by criticism of official govt explanations, I think I'd say that I'm glad that in the west we are able to speak freely, whereas in other countries people would be in prison, at best. As for Tony Blair, sadly I think he's told so many lies he is deeply unpopular and discredited in the uk. He pretty much arranged for the sacking of the bbc chief Greg Dyke for giving unbiased coverage of criticism of the govt during the build upto and early stages of the iraq war. Following the death of Dr Kelly in the UK (which I and many others believe was deeply suspicious) the enquiry afterwards was so totally uncritical of the govt it was seen as a whitewash by most of the country. I don't say any of that from any political bias, I unfortunately voted for Blair initially.

I don't know if you've caught much of the UK news about murdoch and the phone hacking scandal?

Certainly in the uk with the notable exception of the bbc there has been something of a stranglehold on the british media. I guess I have less faith in the ability of the media when things become very serious. As I recall during the Florida recount etc in 2000, until the bbc covered the issue none of the major US networks ran the story?

I take your point about occams razor, but personally I'm always cautious about believing anyone when they may have something to gain by not telling the truth. As for your view about journalism and science being self correcting, thankfully I think that's generally true.
 
Last edited:
Mainstream media/tv is pure propaganda. Independent journalism is not what we see on the tele.

As was mentioned before, if 9-11 was an inside job, the story would not get out so easily. This sort of thing might shut down the gov't as we know it.

I want peace and sanity for all. I'd like our servants in the government to be guided by wisdom, not fear.

Seems we have been dragged into so much conflict because of fear, and the desire for power.

Whether or not 9-11 was staged, it was not a good reason to go to war. I didn't see it at the time, but I see this clearly now.

Our govt knows how to lay an entire country to waste, but does that truly show strength?

So if we could all grow out of the old way and move on to the next, the world would be a better place, as far as I can tell.

Fear mongering is brain washing. Emotional manipulation is the business of media. They make more money, they have more control this way.

Sensationalist media will keep the masses confused, angry, happy, sad... whatever is helpful for the powers that be.

Anyhow...

I simply see reason to be skeptical in these times.

If I am proven correct, and a massively corrupt gov't is exposed, I don't wish to see heads roll.

I believe it'd be best to initiate peace and end the age of senseless violence. It has got to happen at some point, right?
So all you gov't people can go rehabilitate in Hawaii and swim with the dolphins as far as I'm concerned.
Same goes for all the folks doing real dirty work, selling their souls, spreading fear and lies.

This kind of thing might be a hundred years off, or just around the corner... who knows?
I'd like to see it happen in my life time.
This is my dream, anyway : )

So, there are those of us aligned with the desire for a new operating system, and there are those who fearfully cling to the old.

I wish I knew how to help the process along... you know... the positive change thing...

This is at the heart of the issue, in my view.

Time will tell.
 
myself said:
Mainstream media/tv is pure propaganda. Independent journalism is not what we see on the tele.
Click to expand...

Just as a matter of interest and not debate, what do you mean by "Mainstream media/tv" and how do you know that it "is pure propaganda." Are PBS and the BBC mainstream media? Are the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Manchester Guardian, Le Monde, and Le Devoir mainstream media and are they feeding us pure propaganda? If so, what are their motives and how do you know? Presumably, you have sources that you believe more reliable than "mainstream media" and are pure of motive, free of propaganda and inculcated in the ethics of journalism. And, these sources presumably have sufficient resources to dig deep, interview widely and observe firsthand.
 
Lerxst said:
I'll refer again to the Crusades. We (the "West") have given Muslims every right in the world to be pissed off at us. I don't blame them, and if the tides were turned, I'd probably be right there in their shoes as well.
Click to expand...
Actually, until farely recently, the muslim world felt the crusades like a small gnat to slap. They were a huge empire and europe was all these itty bitty nobodies. However, in recent times as Muslims have enrolled in Western Higher Education, they got a taste of our glorifying the crusades, and NOW they make a big deal about it in return.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Europe had every right to protect itself from invaders bent on world domination. Now, if the crusaders just hadn't stopped to kill all the Jews along the way, it would be completely justifiable.
 
when did the word "protection" come to be synonymous with the word "aggression"? the concepts that are usually connected to these words always seemed to be very different things to me. if we're going to say that someone was correct to attack someone else, mightn't we just as well say it, as pussyfooting around with euphemisms? unless one has aspirations to propaganda, what is the point of saying one thing when really meaning another thing entirely? i'm confused.
 
GracieRuth said:
bickelz: "be well" is an expression that simply means I wish good things for you. Sometimes I tag it onto the end of a paragraph to let the other person know that while I may be stating facts or an opinion that goes against their grain, that it is NOT PERSONAL. I try to disagree agreeably.
Click to expand...

excuse me, but you told bickelz he couldn't be reasoned with, and then to "be well". neither of those things bore any necessary connection at all to respectfully responding to the discussion at hand. so of course it was both personal and condescending. interpersonal attitudes don't get much more superior or dismissive than that.
 
Norton said:
Just as a matter of interest and not debate, what do you mean by "Mainstream media/tv" and how do you know that it "is pure propaganda." Are PBS and the BBC mainstream media? Are the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Manchester Guardian, Le Monde, and Le Devoir mainstream media and are they feeding us pure propaganda? If so, what are their motives and how do you know? Presumably, you have sources that you believe more reliable than "mainstream media" and are pure of motive, free of propaganda and inculcated in the ethics of journalism. And, these sources presumably have sufficient resources to dig deep, interview widely and observe firsthand.
Click to expand...

Mainstream media/tv = the press and the tv

PBS and BBC only seem to cater to those people with greater attention span.

It serves to make the BBC/PBS followers feel as if they are getting the real story, more intelligent/informed... another layer of separation.

The illusion of intelligent journalism is there, but it still seems to me to be heavily censored/spun.

The system in place is quite clever, as it effectively serves to keep people divided.

Same thing with our politics. Our 2 party system is a joke. The whole thing is in place to distract us from taking responsibility ourselves.

All of it distracts us from realizing our power, because we are always provided with someone else to praise or blame for the state of things.

I'm not interested in attacking the current system. I've been caught up in that before.
It serves neither of us to argue about anything.

The problems are self evident, if one cares to take an honest look at things.

Our leaders have not been chosen for being wise or for having great character, but for their charisma.
The folks we see in power are simply good at raising money.

This is just how I see it. Is it not obvious?
Do we need to have CNN or the Washington Post spell it out for us?
These organizations aren't going to do it, because they can't. It isn't their function.

While NPR and BBC will provide 'excellent coverage' of the political circus and the failing economy, do the masses even care to tune in to these sources? Again... as far as I can tell, this system works to divide classes and distract more than anything.

I don't wish to be a part of any radical movement.
I only want a system that works efficiently, without all the need for secrecy, without the manipulation, without all the ridiculous sociopaths, without the politicking, senseless wars, patriot act, etc...

I believe that something better is possible, and indeed inevitable.
The veil will be lifted and all will be exposed, this is certain.

I think it sometimes helps to talk these things out, but I do not intend to argue or debate.
I'm excited for this time. I think great things are happening.
 
I'm convinced that if you sing the US national anthem backwards a portal to heaven opens in the sky.
 
That's a very nice WTFEXPLOSION.

Sriracha said:
Haters gonna hate. :shrugs:
Click to expand...

What? What? Just what? JUST WHAT?! How? Actually no, just no.
 
GracieRuth said:
Actually, until farely recently, the muslim world felt the crusades like a small gnat to slap. They were a huge empire and europe was all these itty bitty nobodies. However, in recent times as Muslims have enrolled in Western Higher Education, they got a taste of our glorifying the crusades, and NOW they make a big deal about it in return.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Europe had every right to protect itself from invaders bent on world domination. Now, if the crusaders just hadn't stopped to kill all the Jews along the way, it would be completely justifiable.
Click to expand...

That is like saying the descendents American Slaves didn't care about the slave ships until they read about them in history books.

The wars of the middle ages need to be understood in the perspective of their time. In their time it was considered moral to kill those who do not accept, to the letter, your beliefs. ( this is where the Modern "Jihadists" loose me every time )

be well.....(or at least better)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top