Reply With Quote
Mouse doesn't believe it was a conspiracy, he just wants proof it wasn't.
I don't believe in spontaneous combustion, but I won't be 100% until someone proves to me there is no such thing. Get to work, es.
No kidding. He seems to have all the answers already so why not enlighten all of us to "The Truth"?
Mouse doesn't believe it was a conspiracy, he just wants proof it wasn't.
I don't believe in spontaneous combustion, but I won't be 100% until someone proves to me there is no such thing. Get to work, es.
A typical response rejecting flatly the opposing point of view is to belittle the issue and your interlocutor.
If you don't have any questions about WTC or 9-11 then it necessesarily means you have an unhealthy amount of trust in the governing power, authority, "official report" etc... -- it actually suggests a blind trust, something that is cripling to the duty of a free and informed American citizen.
There is nothing "stupid" about asking intelligent, sincere, and important questions.
And btw -- thanks for the model of intelligent conversation.
Translated: "You obviously don't know how to think properly, So I will tell you what and how to think."
Thanks for that, Il Duce.
I can't believe this thread is still going........so sad.........I blame it mostly on Mouse, or whatever the that bags name is.
By the way, I heard Mouse is much less funny then Mencia.
Even if the official explanation is fireproof and infallible -- if you have no questions about it, either you are the smartest person on the planet (you aren't,) or you don't have a critical mind (translated: "gullible; overly trusting.") Since when is encouraging people to ask questions and to use their brains telling people how to think? Is that really the kind of thing that you relate to mussolini? I think he would much rather have an unconcerned and gullible population than one that asks questions.
First, no matter how many questions are answered, these nutburgers come up with more. Second, gullible is as gullible does.
To lend credence to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I have to suspend all critical thought.
It's always been interesting to me that the 9/11 interlocutors are obsessed with anecdotal evidence that, at least in some cases, has been later debunked. It's essentially contending that the government is corrupt because you heard one time from one person that this one guy said something that seemed kind of su ious.
I think some of the questions posed are borderline comical: why did the passengers on three planes use the term "boxcutters" to describe the hijackers weapons? My guess -- and it's just a guess -- is that such a coincidence arose because the groups that hijacked the planes each used boxcutters (among the few potentially lethal objects that could be passed through security at the time) and the passengers who reported their observations described the weapons as such. It might be that those who are retelling the stories have subs uted the word "boxcutter" for some other description that the passengers gave, but frankly, the term boxcutter strikes me as the most likely description of the objects the hijackers wielded -- assuming there were hijackers, of course.
Why are there no photos or video of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon? Probably for the same reason that there are no photos or video of Flight 93 crashing into the Pennsylvania countryside. Probably for the same reason that there are no photos or video of virtually any other plane crash that occurs anywhere in the world. But for the coincidence of the French cameracrew following around a fire station crew in Lower Manhattan at the time, there likely wouldn't be any video of Flight 11 striking WTC 1 -- but the absence of video or photographs wouldn't change the fact that a plane crashed into the building.
How did they come up with the culprits, find their cars, remove their names from passenger manifests, raid their hotel rooms, and all sorts of other things so quickly? My guess -- off the wall as it might be -- would be that the manifests were turned over to intelligence agencies who were able, very quickly, to identify their suspects. Since it appears that all of these guys operated under their given names -- or at least didn't stray from the names they used in purchasing plane tickets (consider the traffic ticket to Ziad Jarrah in Maryland in September 2001) -- retracing their steps to discover which hotels they stayed in and which cars they rented wouldn't be terribly difficult. Finding a particular car in, for instance, a parking lot at the Portland, Maine airport, also doesn't strike me as being a terribly complex manuever, even for federal agents. It would stand to reason that if the government had identified those people as the likely hijackers, good taste would dictate that those names not be listed in the manifest distributed to the public. Why combine the names of the innocent with those of their killers? The same thing tends to be done in reporting, for instance, the names of those who die at the hands of other murderers. I don't see why that's somehow noteworthy here.
I could go on and on. I'm sure I'll be called a simpleton hack for the government or other such things. Whatever. I'm content to believe that my government, however much I might dislike the President and his policies, isn't involved in some far-flung conspiracy to kill me or my loved ones.
So no one is going to tell me what really happened?
Best post in this thread......well, next to my rolling stones article.
Sorry.
We're just too naive.
We just can't handle the truth -- especially when it isn't told to us.
It's the government's own fault for creating and feeding all these conspiracy theories. If the government would be more transparent about it's investigation into events leading too and conspirators involve in 911 then we can clean some of these lower issues up, but the government has chosen to mucky-muck the 911 waters with mis and dis-information, classifying do ents, and just plain lying.
about what? I'd like to hear that the government lied about some specific and material issue, with proof of that lie in terms of objective proof and not just hearsay statements or isolated conjecture.
Now it's your and mouse's fault for not telling me what really happened.
"If only the government would admit to the theoretical conspiracy, then we could dispense with the conspiracy theories."
Well, I can't speak for Mouse, but I think that Muhamed Atta was a spook.
And?
Government doesn't hide the truth for nothing.
The fact that the government won't admit to monitoring my brain waves with satellites proves that they are monitoring my brain waves with satellites. That is why I wear this tinfoil hat.
I bet this is another one of those government "flash in the pants".
Flash Pants?
Both sides are guilty of feeding these theories. A good conspiracy has to have just enough of what their base would want to believe is true, and argue to the end against anything that resembles evidence to the contrary. Neither side is trying to persuade the other to change bases, it's just to stir the venom and inspire each side to stand firm.
Racist!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
