How do the people you know feel about 911

Originally posted by maxella1
I forgot to ask you if you tell your friends about it or are you only telling them about space lasers, fake planes and controlled demolition theories?

Yeah, I tell my friends about it. Overall though, they tend to be uninterested. Like I've said, they think I'm silly for arguing about it online. I agree sometimes, and that's why I occasionally take a hiatus from the forum.

I shows a conflict of interest. And therefor it discredits it in my book.

That's under a number of assumptions, and in my opinion, it's the equivalent of the debunker side saying that everything Alex Jones says is wrong because of who he is and associates with. Both arguments are bad, and shouldn't affect whether a person is saying truth or lies. The substance of what is said and reported should be analyzed, not the character of who is saying it.

reply to post by exponent

You asked for an original source, I gave you the original source.

But that original source could be making it up...

That's nice but it doesn't change the fact that it was told to the commission, not by them.

It was told to me by the commission.

You didn't present any evidence of that, and it takes a hell of a lot more than a single lie for me to discount hundreds to thousands of people.

You don't know that the government lie pretty much about everything they do? But I am not going to list all the lies they got caught with.
And what Hundreds of thousands of people are you talking about ?

reply to post by exponent

You wish to dismiss every facet of the reports because someone was friends with Bush?

Whatever went into the final report had to go through a good friend of the President of the United States. I'm not saying that field investigators were lying. I'm saying that Whatever was going to be released to the public had to be approved by the Presidents friend. And i don't think that Bush and Cheney would appreciate anything that they didn't want to explain to be in the report. That's my opinion, you don't have you agree with it.

Originally posted by Varemia
That's under a number of assumptions, and in my opinion, it's the equivalent of the debunker side saying that everything Alex Jones says is wrong because of who he is and associates with. Both arguments are bad, and shouldn't affect whether a person is saying truth or lies. The substance of what is said and reported should be analyzed, not the character of who is saying it.

I'm not saying you should ignore what Alex Jones says becuase of who he associates with. I'm saying you should ignore what Alex Jones says becuase he's a crackpot. Do I really need to post that Youtube video of Alex Jones made up like the Joker and throwing papers around his studio while laughing like a lunatic again?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Varemia
That's under a number of assumptions, and in my opinion, it's the equivalent of the debunker side saying that everything Alex Jones says is wrong because of who he is and associates with. Both arguments are bad, and shouldn't affect whether a person is saying truth or lies. The substance of what is said and reported should be analyzed, not the character of who is saying it.

I'm not saying you should ignore what Alex Jones says becuase of who he associates with. I'm saying you should ignore what Alex Jones says becuase he's a crackpot. Do I really need to post that Youtube video of Alex Jones made up like the Joker and throwing papers around his studio while laughing like a lunatic again?

Yes I think you should post it

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm not saying you should ignore what Alex Jones says becuase of who he associates with. I'm saying you should ignore what Alex Jones says becuase he's a crackpot. Do I really need to post that Youtube video of Alex Jones made up like the Joker and throwing papers around his studio while laughing like a lunatic again?

In my opinion, we're all a little crazy sometimes. Even I have some youtube videos where I'm just being a loon. It still doesn't mean that he should be ignored. If he's saying things that are misleading or false, then that should remain apparent. If he is saying things that are true, that should also be apparent.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Do I really need to post that Youtube video of Alex Jones made up like the Joker and throwing papers around his studio while laughing like a lunatic again?

Dressing up like the Joker, by itself, is not cause for regarding a person as insane.

While I sense that we are drifting away from the topic, I have, over time, reached the conclusion, that Alex Jones is simply a business person. He sells a specific product, that being the type of news programs and digital video discs which he produces, and said material is consumed by its' target audience, who in various respects feel that he meets a psychological need in them.

I recently made the decision that I was not a member of his target audience; and as a result, for the most part I am no longer a viewer of his material.

Originally posted by maxella1
But that original source could be making it up...

So could every original source? Could it be that you just really don't want to believe that they set up a collapse zone for the whole building?

It was told to me by the commission.

Of no relevance. You can't seriously be advocating shooting the messenger?

You don't know that the government lie pretty much about everything they do? But I am not going to list all the lies they got caught with.
And what Hundreds of thousands of people are you talking about ?

No, the government doesn't lie about 'pretty much everything'. That's just an excuse to ignore information under your nose. If you assume bad faith, you'll only ever believe what you've already convinced yourself of. This is faulty reasoning.

I'm talking about hundreds to thousands of engineers that worked on the NIST report. If they concluded controlled demolition was likely but it was removed from the final report, do you think they'd remain quiet?

Whatever went into the final report had to go through a good friend of the President of the United States.

You have no evidence of this.

I'm not saying that field investigators were lying. I'm saying that Whatever was going to be released to the public had to be approved by the Presidents friend. And i don't think that Bush and Cheney would appreciate anything that they didn't want to explain to be in the report. That's my opinion, you don't have you agree with it.

It's nonsense though, there's no evidence for it, and common sense alone fights against it. Why would the engineers cooperate? Why has it been 7 years without any of them speaking out?

reply to post by exponent

So could every original source? Could it be that you just really don't want to believe that they set up a collapse zone for the whole building?

An original source would be the chiefs letter with his signature or at least if that letter was published somewhere that people actually know about like a newspaper. That would at least have a chance to be real since he could sue them if they faked it.

I know they set up a collapse zone around the building. They also set up collapse zones around other buildings.

Of no relevance. You can't seriously be advocating shooting the messenger?

How do I know who lied to them? They should have revised it once they found out it wasn't true. Their executive director is responsible for the lies in it, and he got a new job at the White House after the Commission closed.

No, the government doesn't lie about 'pretty much everything'. That's just an excuse to ignore information under your nose. If you assume bad faith, you'll only ever believe what you've already convinced yourself of. This is faulty reasoning.

If this is what you really believe I got nothing to say except that in my eyes you trust the government way too much.

I'm talking about hundreds to thousands of engineers that worked on the NIST report. If they concluded controlled demolition was likely but it was removed from the final report, do you think they'd remain quiet?

I already said that I don't think the field investigators were lying, but i don't believe that if they found explosives Bush would allow his friend to print it. We all seen what happens to people when they speak out about 9/11 publicly. I'm not interested in convincing you. We can agree to disagree.

You have no evidence of this.

I have reasonable doubt of credibility of this report based on a conflict of interest.

It's nonsense though, there's no evidence for it, and common sense alone fights against it. Why would the engineers cooperate? Why has it been 7 years without any of them speaking out?

There you go again... Why did the staff working for the Commissioners cooperate?

reply to post by Varemia

That's under a number of assumptions, and in my opinion, it's the equivalent of the debunker side saying that everything Alex Jones says is wrong because of who he is and associates with. Both arguments are bad, and shouldn't affect whether a person is saying truth or lies. The substance of what is said and reported should be analyzed, not the character of who is saying it.

Wow that's great... I wonder who would be equivalent to being associated with the US President at the time of war ?

Originally posted by maxella1
An original source would be the chiefs letter with his signature or at least if that letter was published somewhere that people actually know about like a newspaper. That would at least have a chance to real since he could sue them if they faked it.

Do you know Daniel Nigro's signature enough to tell a fake? No. Therefore a letter in a newspaper or a letter on a forum is no different. The moderators there have confirmed the origin, and you could contact him yourself if you felt strongly enough about it.

I know they set up a collapse zone around the building. They also set up collapse zones around other buildings.

What does this prove other than caution? Your whole argument seems to be 'but they never said complete collapse of WTC7' but it seems irrelevant. They cleared a large collapse zone and knew WTC7 was moving and creaking. This doesn't point to any sort of suspicious foreknowledge, just caution, which is exactly what I have been saying.

How do I know who lied to them? They should have revised it once they found out it wasn't true. Their executive director is responsible for the lies in it, and he got a new job at the White House after the Commission closed.

Like you said, the commission closed. They do not have unlimited power, and could not force people to testify as far as I am aware. Would you really throw out the baby with the bathwater? It seems to me that the commissioner did the best possible thing, he himself is confident in the report but he publicly stated his concerns about some of the testimony. This seems exactly the right thing to do. Where is your criticism?

If this is what you really believe I got nothing to say except that in my eyes you trust the government way too much.

It's easy to assume people are lying. It only results in you believing your personal bias above all else. That is irrational and essentially religious.

I already said that I don't think the field investigators were lying, but i don't believe that if they found explosives Bush would allow his friend to print it. We all seen what happens to people when they speak out about 9/11 publicly. I'm not interested in convincing you. We can agree to disagree.

You contradict yourself. If they found explosives but it was not in the field report, then they would be lying by omission for not reporting it. If you do believe that the reports were modified to remove any argument for explosives, then either the engineers and scientists or the investigators are lying.

I have reasonable doubt of credibility of this report based on a conflict of interest.

I can easily make the same argument for the conspiracy side. Every major conspiracy group solicits funding and sells tickets and merchandise. Could you ask for a more direct conflict of interest?

There you go again... Why did the staff working for the Commissioners cooperate?

Because it was only later that it became clear? Because they had a job to do and couldn't compel people or punish them? Because they wanted to stop the same thing happening again? Why do you think?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Varemia

 

That's under a number of assumptions, and in my opinion, it's the equivalent of the debunker side saying that everything Alex Jones says is wrong because of who he is and associates with. Both arguments are bad, and shouldn't affect whether a person is saying truth or lies. The substance of what is said and reported should be analyzed, not the character of who is saying it.

Wow that's great... I wonder who would be equivalent to being associated with the US President at the time of war ?

You seem to have completely missed my point. Someone being friends with the prior president does not invalidate everything he said, did, and worked with. That's just dumb. NIST is run by way more than one man, and people are constantly fact-checking them to keep them relevant to building codes. To dismiss everything they put out just because one guy was friends with Bush does not make sense.

Originally posted by maxella1
Yes I think you should post it

Very well...



My question is, just what part of "The joke is on them ! HA HA HA ah it's getting warm in here!" is an indication that Alex Jones is a credible person to listen to?

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
I think it was our era's Pearl Harbor. Not caused by us, but not prevented by us because someone up at the top had an agenda.

This is exactly my take on it. It was Bush's excuse to get into Iraq, even though none of the hijackers were from Iraq. The whole country was bent on vengeance that no one questioned it. On top of it, 9/11 only gave governmental agencies like FBI, CIA, & NSA more justification to impede on American rights and freedom. All in the name of national security. What a farce.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
This is exactly my take on it. It was Bush's excuse to get into Iraq, even though none of the hijackers were from Iraq. The whole country was bent on vengeance that no one questioned it. On top of it, 9/11 only gave governmental agencies like FBI, CIA, & NSA more justification to impede on American rights and freedom. All in the name of national security. What a farce.

edit on 8-7-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)

I agree entirely, but the question is: if the government orchestrated 911, why not fill the plane with Iraqis instead of Saudis?

The war on Iraq was entirely based on lies, and I don't think you'll get many debunkers disagreeing with that.

reply to post by exponent


I'd say because although the government didn't orchestrate the attacks, they did, however, used our fears and paranoia to instigate the second Iraqi war. Let's face it, we are Americans...we are easily moved by emotion, easily motivated by the MSM, and we believe what our government tells us because the opposite is too frightening to conceive. And it worked. I didn't question the events of 9/11 for almost 8 years. Americans may be easily and quickly motivated but we wane just as fast. The government knows this...we bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
I'd say because although the government didn't orchestrate the attacks, they did, however, used our fears and paranoia to instigate the second Iraqi war. Let's face it, we are Americans...we are easily moved by emotion, easily motivated by the MSM, and we believe what our government tells us because the opposite is too frightening to conceive. And it worked. I didn't question the events of 9/11 for almost 8 years. Americans may be easily and quickly motivated but we wane just as fast. The government knows this...we bought it hook, line, and sinker.

I'm actually a Brit, but many of these attributes are shared across the pond.

Couldn't agree with your post more. I don't think there's much to question about the physical actions on 911, but there's an awful lot to question about how it was used as a political motivation for war.

reply to post by exponent



I hope you at least understand how ridiculous you look when you make up excuse after excuse for something that is so clearly inexcusable. Or maybe you really believe your nonsense. In any case I'm done arguing .

Originally posted by maxella1
I hope you at least understand how ridiculous you look when you make up excuse after excuse for something that is so clearly inexcusable. Or maybe you really believe your nonsense. In any case I'm done arguing .

What exactly is inexcusable? You've failed to respond or rebut and now you're trying to claim victory? Perhaps you should consider your own biases. I responded in good faith and without any misrepresentation.

This makes me wonder, how do the people you know feel about 911?

My friends, acquaintances etc. are saying: ''It happened long ago and there is no point to munch it over and over again.'' Apparently, a lot of people I know, here in UK, moved on. Folks say that they have too much problems of their own, to think about ''911''. That is how it is, now.