i was sleeping during the first attack. my friend's girlfriend woke me up for the second attack. if i remember right, i watched the second attack happen on tv.
as for us being justified in retaliation and everything else: i think that it is very disturbing, that after everything has happenend, that bush junior(as well as the countless others who were a part of what happened afterward, and quite possibly during and before) was never put before a jury of any sort. they might have pointed fingers at a choice few, but never the whole group associated with what happened.
even if the u.s. government weren't involved in the attack(highly unlikely), they seemed to find it perfectly ok to use americans' anger over the deaths of so many, to invade a nation that had no ties to the supposed perpetrators of the attack. and all under the lie that they had nuclear weapons, that were never found, as well. the news media, the military, and the government ALL told this lie. i seem to be nearly the only one, who is worried, that such a thing can happen, and no one really answers for what happened. this hasn't been the first time, that people in power have gotten away with such a despicable deed. and it certainly won't be the last.
artu said:This new phase of yours is starting to bore me Ohforfsake.
I guess sharing my opinion on your opinion with a simple "no" isn't very satisfying, I apologize for that.
It's my opinion that any statement requires sufficient proof, not extraordinary.
If we try a statistical approach, we can make some assumptions and then say a statement is true with with a certain likeliness based on those assumptions.
If the statement then e.g. is referring to constructing a bridge, we might demand to be within 1 to 10k, while on the other hand, if it's a question about what color on the walls stimulate our brains the best, we might only require to be within 1 to 10 or so. But in my opinion neither are extraordinary statements, or to say, something which was thought unlikely to begin with, rather it's a matter of importance, here in the form of safety.
artu said:If I tell you, your neighbor is cheating on his wife, you may say "really, shame on him" but if I tell you he buries children in the backyard, you'd ask me to show some bones.
Which is wrong, btw.
____________
Living time backwards
artu said:This new phase of yours is starting to bore me Ohforfsake.
It's my opinion that any statement requires sufficient proof, not extraordinary.
Bullseye. The active word in artu's statements is "extraordinary", it shows his bias and subjectivity. He can virtually dismiss any evidence for not being extraordinary enough for him to believe it. It's a false trail. The sensational has nothing to do with truth matters.
In a dilemma for example, if you prove one option to be impossible, then the other is automatically true even though you have no direct evidence for it. It's called elimination, and is not extraordinary in any sense. Just SIMPLE logic as the others had said.
Just a taste of what you call lack of evidence *spits* :
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 30, 2014 02:57 PM
Ohforf, "technically" you are right, what is expected of any evidence is to be sufficient, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is not a formula, it is an expression which points out the fact that if you claim something that is very unlikely (yet possible), your evidence should be very strong, things that can be circumstantial, explained with other, alternative theories etc. etc. don't count. The more extraordinary the theory is, the more sufficient (hence extraordinary because it contradicts with what people already consider solid according to other existing evidence) your new evidence should be.
Now, the 9/11 attacks arent some counter-intelligence op where 10 civilians accidentally died in a car explosion, for an attack of such magnitude to turn out a conspiracy, imagine the number of people who should be in on it. Not just American officials either, scientist from all over the globe. Yet, when we look at the “evidence” what we see is
a)Pseudo-science (the things about steel melting, spikes etc etc. already explained by experts many times).
b)Circumstantial accuantince (X senator knew Bin Ladin family etc etc, which is perfectly normal since US financed Bin Ladin against the Soviets during the Cold War).
c)Blatant disinformation.
Keep in mind, one of the best ways to tell a lie is blend in some truth in it.
"This feet of bringing a building straight down onto it's footprint requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. Well, what the heck just put some random fires in there, maybe some damage, and you saw the towers they fall straight down!.. Just some random fires in the building, hey, it'll come straight down, it's great! You know, keep paying these companies all this money."
I abandoned that debate long ago. What matters is not how they were blown up, even less so than who blew them up. What matters is why and what has been the effect of it.
If the subsequent administrations and their corporate backers didn't use 9/11 for what they have used it then it wouldn't matter much or there wouldn't be a reason for them to have a hand in it.
____________
Aron said:If the subsequent administrations and their corporate backers didn't use 9/11 for what they have used it then it wouldn't matter much or there wouldn't be a reason for them to have a hand in it.
Now that part is true. If you put the cuckoo stuff aside (I once even read a guy who said the planes didnt exist at all, they were virtual, that was his way of explaining how they made sure the terrorists in the planes wouldnt change their mind and give away US partners: The terrosists on the planes were not real), how they used the attack to manipulate the public into any warfare they want was American pragmatism at its best.
Aron said:What matters is not how they were blown up, even less so than who blew them up.
You can seriously not see your ignorance here? For real?! So thousands of people were killed and you say it doesn't matter how and who did it? Are you out of your EFFING MIND?!
Aron said:I abandoned that debate long ago. What matters is not how they were blown up, even less so than who blew them up. What matters is why and what has been the effect of it.
If the subsequent administrations and their corporate backers didn't use 9/11 for what they have used it then it wouldn't matter much or there wouldn't be a reason for them to have a hand in it.
who blew them up doesn't matter? I doubt the families of the victims agree with you.
Well to begin with if Stevie had respect for them he wouldn't link to a video that suggests that the airplane was a military aircraft, meaning that the greiving families of those who died in the planes are lying.
Secondly at this point you'll never know the truth. The evidence was burried as soon as the event happened, including the steel columns.
Imo the crime that is the death of over a million Iraqis is bigger than this one and there's enough families there to show the intent of that government, or the previous with then secretary of state Madeleine Albright commenting that the sanctions against Iraq are worth hundreds of thousands of dead children. Whether or not we add 3000 to those numbers doesn't matter to much to me personally at this point.
____________
Aron said:It only doesn't matter because the purported guilty party has shown complicity or ill intent through other means anyway.
I don't know of any ppl from the Bush administration to ever acknowledge that. I do know of some other CIS whistleblowers but I don't think that counts. The ill intent is also obvious from the way that joke of an investigation went.
BUT, with all of this, there are still people like artu, Corribus and Dagoth who think it's all a "conspiracy theory".
EVEN MOAR FROM THIS GUY:
Come one, someone! PLEASE! Rebuke this I beg of you. I so do not want to believe the evil government conspiracy theory, but it's the one that makes the most sense!
Please Corribus, I beg of you! You have a Ph.D don't you?! You're a National Geographic literate, right?! Your most precious site is Wikipedia right?!! RIGHT?!
Quote:Secondly at this point you'll never know the truth. The evidence was burried as soon as the event happened, including the steel columns
As I mentioned earlier, the crashes were reenacted using mini-models, by scientists from various countries.
Also, even on a logical basis, (fred, since you hold simplicity dear, you read this part too), if somebody tells me US knew Iraq didnt have weapons of mass destruction from the beginning, I can believe that, it's simple, fits a pattern, reasonable on a skeptical yet also rational level. If somebody tells me US hijacked 4 planes full of El Kaide militants and targeted WTC, Pentagon and D.C. (failed attempt) just to cover up it planted demolition material on these buildings already, I wouldn't believe that. First of all, it's an unneccessarily overcomplicated plan in which soooo many things can go wrong and if you plan such a thing it's pointless unless you make sure nothing can go wrong. The cost would be death penalty and discredition of your country for centuries. And why would I need the planes in the first place if I can put the blame of the demolition on anyone with the media power the conspiracy theorists claim I have? It doesnt hold up in so many levels and there are so many logical loopholes in this, even on a pure speculation basis.
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 30, 2014 07:05 PM
There's not much to discuss, anyway. I think most conspiracy theories exist not because of reasonable doubt but because people have a tendency and wish to believe we live in a world where things are never what they seem. Sometimes they are.
Why did BBC and National Geographic say in their documentaries that steel can't be cut by any type of thermite while a guy shows he can do it in his backyard? Can you please answer me at least this mutch?
This thread is pages long: 
posted April 30, 2014 06:06 AM
I don't know of any ppl from the Bush administration to ever acknowledge that. I do know of some other CIS whistleblowers but I don't think that counts. The ill intent is also obvious from the way that joke of an investigation went.
