9/11 conspiracy

[gnomon]

funny? then we should break down and cry now. the truth is, dear gnomon, 9/11 was horrible. you don't need to be an American to shed tears. ever since it happened, lots of information was added to net. both right and wrong. we call that dirt of information. who's gonna come up say for sure why it happened? i personally think that it is truly incomplete if people take 9/11 as a single incident. i mean, if you investigate 9/11 on its own, your perception would be narrow. it is part of something else.

do you know that a few guys in Istanbul attacked USA embassy? do you know the details about that day or your media just told what happened and then let go? let me give you details from Turkish newspapers. that day, American Embassador, used back door instead of the door she passes through everyday. she leaves the building every day for lunch in the noon, but that day, she preffered to stay inside. above all, those killers attacked with a few guns to a highly protected building. while Turkish policemen and killers were shooting each other, all the doors were locked and American gun men watched entire scene from window. now, here nobody believes that that attack was done to USA. however it looks like that, doesn't it?




.

What relevance does this response have to my assertion that those who follow and believe in the conspiracy theories do not bother reading the research done by those organizations and individuals who investigate and debunk claims made by the conspiracy theorists?

The easiest response to my post is that I do not have evidence of the number of CT followers who only read one side of the issue. Which would be true and I only have a hunch.

The day someone posts on a forum regarding the issue and follows up on their own with evidence presented by other investigating parties will blow my mind.

 

[.lava]

What relevance does this response have to my assertion that those who follow and believe in the conspiracy theories do not bother reading the research done by those organizations and individuals who investigate and debunk claims made by the conspiracy theorists?

The easiest response to my post is that I do not have evidence of the number of CT followers who only read one side of the issue. Which would be true and I only have a hunch.

The day someone posts on a forum regarding the issue and follows up on their own with evidence presented by other investigating parties will blow my mind.

let's not blow your mind . i am just saying, if there are tones of information, conspiracy theories or ideas about 9/11, it is because one of them is true. the rest of them were said to make truth look as shady as possible. that is the purpose of garbage. IMO, if someone really wants to know what's really happened, he should not focus on one incident. there is a chain and keeps growing. 9/11 was meant to be big, big enough to leave everything small next to it. for that matter it is successful and people keep talking about it. maybe people should focus on what happened after 9/11 to have an idea on what was 9/11.



.

 

[gnomon]

let's not blow your mind . i am just saying, if there are tones of information, conspiracy theories or ideas about 9/11, it is because one of them is true. the rest of them were said to make truth look as shady as possible. that is the purpose of garbage. IMO, if someone really wants to know what's really happened, he should not focus on one incident. there is a chain and keeps growing. 9/11 was meant to be big, big enough to leave everything small next to it. for that matter it is successful and people keep talking about it. maybe people should focus on what happened after 9/11 to have an idea on what was 9/11.



.

If such focus includes reasonable study I concur. The recent Russian/Georgian conflict is another where people immediately grabbed one side and ran with it.

I do not discredit reasonable inquiry into events. When people wondered about how the buildings fell that is a reasonable inquiry. When individuals run with a documentary that fails to address that question and use it instead as a false premise to support a conclusion based on a political agenda then that is irrational. It happens with just about everything.

edit: For others, additional information just released:NIST and the World Trade Center

 

[.lava]

If such focus includes reasonable study I concur. The recent Russian/Georgian conflict is another where people immediately grabbed one side and ran with it.

i would not call that Russian/Georgian conflict. it is between USA and Russia. Georgian government is supported by USA. it was not without a reason why many Georgian people stood up against and condemn Sakaashvili (sorry for wrong typing)

I do not discredit reasonable inquiry into events. When people wondered about how the buildings fell that is a reasonable inquiry. When individuals run with a documentary that fails to address that question and use it instead as a false premise to support a conclusion based on a political agenda then that is irrational. It happens with just about everything.

why? saying that there is no political agenda is equal saying 9/11 was done without a purpose. would it be rational to say that? it did not simply over when airplanes crashed towers. on the contrary it looks like something has begun. Middle east of today is not apart from 9/11. what do you think?



.

 

[gnomon]

i would not call that Russian/Georgian conflict. it is between USA and Russia. Georgian government is supported by USA. it was not without a reason why many Georgian people stood up against and condemn Sakaashvili (sorry for wrong typing)



why? saying that there is no political agenda is equal saying 9/11 was done without a purpose. would it be rational to say that? it did not simply over when airplanes crashed towers. on the contrary it looks like something has begun. Middle east of today is not apart from 9/11. what do you think?



.

I think you are confusing my statement about a political agenda. I'm pointing out the difference between the use of skepticism and critical inquiry as opposed to blind acceptance.

 

[.lava]

I think you are confusing my statement about a political agenda. I'm pointing out the difference between the use of skepticism and critical inquiry as opposed to blind acceptance.

sorry if i confused things
are you saying there must be undoubted evidence for 9/11 to know who's behind it?



.

 

[gnomon]

sorry if i confused things
are you saying there must be undoubtful evidence for 9/11 to know who's behind it?



.

There must be a strong preponderance of evidence before I would hold belief in anything. In understanding all events there will exist some level of doubt or some acceptance of one's ignorance of the totality of the event. Too many people confuse this with not holding that their could exist certain possibilities.

I'm speaking generally about understanding all sides of an issue and a willingness to look at all sides for oneself.

 

[.lava]

There must be a strong preponderance of evidence before I would hold belief in anything. In understanding all events there will exist some level of doubt or some acceptance of one's ignorance of the totality of the event. Too many people confuse this with not holding that their could exist certain possibilities.

I'm speaking generally about understanding all sides of an issue and a willingness to look at all sides for oneself.

IMO that is very smart and humane. also difficult. because each event that comes after one another are related. by looking at one of them, you can only be confused. in last decade specially, definition of terrorism evolved. it used to come from minority of nation against that nation. enemy of the same nation started using those small group of people as their weapon. they trained them, gave them guns and shared their intelligence with them. but it all happened inside one nation. now it is global. terrorism today is a global organization. IMO that is what makes it difficult to reach preponderance of evidence on single event. there is someone behind 9/11. but there is another one behind who's behind it. that is the problem. therefor i would not believe in finding determinant evidence on 9/11. you'd find evidence for both sides because they both have their parts as terrorism is international now. however this is what i personally see. therefor as a person, i prefer to try to see bigger picture. tracing many incidents give me a clue. because there is a certain pattern used. anyways, that was my point. i wish you guys could speak Eastern languages. that might be helpful. now you read what your media choses for you to read. i don't mean to offend anyone





.

 

[Neo-Logic]

This reminds me of a recent South Park episode. The premise is that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually apart of a government conspiracy to make everyone think the government intricately designs every single thing that happens so the world thinks they're super powerful.

When asked why, the Bush character goes: "Because 1/4 of Americans are retarded"

 

[cardero]

The premise is that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually apart of a government conspiracy to make everyone think the government intricately designs every single thing that happens so the world thinks they're super powerful.

Either that or the government wants us to think that they are completely ignorant and incompetent. Which of these premises do you think the public will forgive our government freely for? Which do you think the government is more likely to count on?

 

[Neo-Logic]

Either that or the government wants us to think that they are completely ignorant and incompetent. Which of these premises do you think the public will forgive our government freely for? Which do you think the government is more likely to count on?

I reject your premise that there are only two choices.