9/11 what do you think!

[Scuba Steve]

I agree with everything you just said except your second point.

By first agreeing with your third point we can say that your second point cannot be taken seriously, if you are suggesting what the government found to be "fact" then we cannot agree with your third point.

If we agree with the third point we cannot agree with the second point, they are pretty much opposites

[DarthMall]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Openness to alternatives is definitely a virtue, especially in the beginning of an inquiry. Nobody is saying that it isn't.




After an inquiry has been made, and facts are gathered, some alternative theories will naturally be excluded.

Bob died. How did he die? Did he die from suicide? Was he murdered? Did he die of naturally causes?

Oh there's a video? There's a video of him struggling with an assailant, being stabbed and then shot in the head? And a thousand people were witness to it?

At this point, entertaining the alternative that he died in bed of cancer it no longer a virtue. It's just stupidity.

I can definitively say that anybody entertaining that alternative should be dismissed.



Nobody that I know of is trusting the gov't to tell them the truth. Just because the truth they have arrived at is also the truth that the gov't arrived at doesn't mean that the gov't is the source of that opinion.

The example of Bob's death supports your argument. I do not disagree with your logic, however, it does not apply to the 9/11 issue. It is true that many people did witness the plane crash, as it did happen. The buildings did fall. No one is saying this is not true. The issue being debated lies withing the motive. If it was a pack of suicide terrorists, what made them do it? Did they act alone, were they part of a terror cell, or were they carrying out a mission for a secret governmental group? You could raise countless questions on this issue. Unfortunately, we as average citizens do not have access to secret intelligence. All we can base our assumptions on is the information available. There may be more to the story than we will never know. It is unlikely, but possible. I have spent much time investigating arguments for both sides of the issue, and still find that both use selective information to make their points. I have yet to see the one article that answers all of the questions. I do not think there ever will be a definitive answer. There can not be any more investigations because evidence was destroyed.
What is keeping me from saying the whole thing (conspiracy theories) is hogwash are the events that followed the attacks. Many people in high levels of government profited from the war. This is a sad fact. There was a document issued before the 9/11 attacks titles "post-invasion Iraq" that had the country divided up based upon the concentration of oil. The first boat that left an Iraqi port after the invasion was full of oil and was headed for Houston, Texas. I'm not saying that the ends justifies the means, but it is enough to raise some suspicion.

-The official information available on the subject is only what the public is allowed to see
-There was a lack of independent investigations following the attack
-The result of the attack allowed for the President to gain authorization to invade a sovereign nation.
-Oil is at an all time high and oil companies are making record profits
-Big oil is tied to top level officials of our government (not to mention open contracts for reconstruction companies, also tied to government officials)

The popular opinion that terrorists were solely responsible is the most logical answer. I just think that there is more to the story than we will ever know. Something with Saudi Arabia, maybe? Oil? I don't know. Saying that there is NO possibility for an alternate explanation is irresponsible thinking.

God exists.
How do you know he exists?
The Bible says God exists.
How do you know the Bible is true?
It has to be true, God wrote it!

This is the same line of thought, sort of. I hope you get my point.
(please, I do not want to open a debate on religion)

[John Scott]

The example of Bob's death supports your argument. I do not disagree with your logic, however, it does not apply to the 9/11 issue. It is true that many people did witness the plane crash, as it did happen. The buildings did fall. No one is saying this is not true. The issue being debated lies withing the motive.

Actually, no. The motive is not the main point of debate. Method would be the candidate for main point. The conspiracy theory folks think that remote control planes were flown into the buildings, and explosives caused them to fall.

It's kind of hard to discuss motive when they don't agree on the basic truth of the events themselves.

If it was a pack of suicide terrorists, what made them do it?

I believe they are demanding that we withdraw support for Israel. It's rather humiliating to be an Arab and have your ethnic countrymen defeated time and again by a tiny nation of your sworn enemies. They blame the US for their defeats at the hands of the Jews.

You could raise countless questions on this issue.

Most of which are readily answered by information in the public domain.

-The official information available on the subject is only what the public is allowed to see

You seriously only listen to official US news sources? There are tomes of information available from non-governmental sources, and from other nations, and from Al-Qaeda itself, with a history of terror acts in dozens of nations throughout the world.

God exists.
How do you know he exists?
The Bible says God exists.
How do you know the Bible is true?
It has to be true, God wrote it!

This is the same line of thought, sort of. I hope you get my point.
(please, I do not want to open a debate on religion)

The argument above, parsed, suffers from a logical fallacy called argument by authority. The very authority being debated cannot be used to support a truth claim.

The argument that most people base their belief on, however, is not the authority of a single source, but on the correspondence of the theory with observed facts and a multitude of sources, including the accused himself, and the history of the accused in claiming responsibility in numerous other acts of terror, and the consistency of those acts with his stated goals, and the history of the hijackers and their documented involvement with the Osama bin Laden. The evidence, a good part of it coming from the Islamic militants themselves, is overwhelming and independent of the authority of the US gov't.

[John Scott]

Parsing my own points:
1. At the beginning of an inquiry all alternatives must be considered.
2. As evidence is considered, alternatives which are contradicted by evidence should be dismissed.
3. Many of us reached our conclusions regarding the truth of 9-11 independent of government sources. Just because Bob says that 2 plus 2 equals four and I say 2 plus 2 equals four doesn’t mean that I relied on Bob for my knowledge of 2 plus 2 equaling four.

Originally Posted by Scuba Steve

I agree with everything you just said except your second point.

Why would you agree with such a self evident truth? On the basis of what reasoning do you suppose that we should impute validity to theories which are contradicted by evidence?

Originally Posted by Scuba Steve

By first agreeing with your third point we can say that your second point cannot be taken seriously, if you are suggesting what the government found to be "fact" then we cannot agree with your third point.

Of course we can, and do, suppose that people reach the same conclusion independent of each other.

Originally Posted by Scuba Steve

If we agree with the third point we cannot agree with the second point, they are pretty much opposites

Not at all. Would you like to share with the class your reasoning for concluding that they are opposite?

[Scuba Steve]

If we are saying that it is possible that the government is not supplying all the facts or that some of them are missing, then we cannot possibly come to the conclusion in the second point (unless we believe that the government has supplied all of the facts)

[DarthMall]

John, there is not just one conspiracy theory. There are many. I think they are all flawed. The problem is that there are too many disputed issues in the arguments on both sides. Motive may not the the main issue, but it certainly remains a debatable one.

Do you think there is an Arab conspiracy? There may be some truth to this too, but it was probably just a pack of suicide terrorists who were assigned to the "job." I don't believe that they were acting for all Arabs, just serving the orders of their extremist religious leaders.

My beef is that Osama Bin Laden was trained by the US. Maybe he stabbed us in the back by exploiting a weakness, maybe he was carrying out a US sponsored mission. Who knows?

I'm sure you are familiar with the Contra operations. CIA selling cocaine to fund a militia in south america (Nicaraguan, I believe). That's shady business. The taliban put in place strict obstruction of poppy cultivation. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan allied with the US in fighting the Taliban. Since the Taliban was defeated and taken out of power, the poppy cultivation exploded. Maybe the proceeds are funding some other secret operation. I'm not connecting this to 9/11, but it is an interesting occurrence.

Anyway, just to clarify my position, I am open to alternate explanations. I enjoy reading information regarding various conspiracy theories and reading about accounts that support mainstream beliefs. I do not feel there is enough evidence or any rock-solid investigations that would lead me to feel confident enough to argue for or against 9/11 being a set up. I am open to hearing other arguments, and I would like to see other people be a little more open-minded.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Scuba Steve

If we are saying that it is possible that the government is not supplying all the facts or that some of them are missing, then we cannot possibly come to the conclusion in the second point (unless we believe that the government has supplied all of the facts)

Does the government have to supply you with all the facts for you to reach the conclusion that 2 plus 2 equals 4?

[Scuba Steve]

No, but the point was that what you said made a single investigation sound like the be all and end all.

[ggmedia]

I think it's pretty clear the US government uses tactics like this previously in history as well as to over throw other governments around the world. Question to you Americans...how many of you know how many foreign governments they have overthrown in the last 100 years? I imagine not many but hey Britney Spears did something new today..go read cnn quick!

[DarthMall]

Originally Posted by ggmedia

I think it's pretty clear the US government uses tactics like this previously in history as well as to over throw other governments around the world. Question to you Americans...how many of you know how many foreign governments they have overthrown in the last 100 years? I imagine not many but hey Britney Spears did something new today..go read cnn quick!

HAAAA HAAAA! So true. More people care about garbage. People love gossip, more so than current affairs. As for your question of how many governments were overthrown... too many. Overthrowing a government is difficult. Doing it successfully is even more difficult. I don't think the US has done this alone in the past. Oh wait....the revolutionary war, we did that by ourselves. And Iraq, basically we were alone on that one too. Most conflicts involved allies, but your point is well taken. Most Americans are too dumb to know how government works or too lazy to even care.

[ggmedia]

well I wouldn't say they're dumb..just what information is put forth to the American people is somewhat lacking. Thank "god" for the internets!

[DarthMall]

I love the internets and the youtubes. If it wasn't for my computer machine I would be stuck believein what Fox and CNN tell me to believe

[cldnails]

Originally Posted by DarthMall

I love the internets and the youtubes. If it wasn't for my computer machine I would be stuck believein what Fox and CNN tell me to believe

Every source is deceiving in some way, since everyone has an agenda. Please take your dose of interwebs with a grain of salt please, just like everything else.

[DarthMall]

If its on the internets it has got to be true.
Im done here

[Atom]

Originally Posted by DarthMall

... There can not be any more investigations because evidence was destroyed. ...

I disagree. I believe the reason that there cannot be any more investigations is due to bogus clauses in our constitution that protect our president from prosecution.

[KeithCash]

[quote=John Scott;777739]The loads of hype are coming from a few whacked out Internet crazies who refuse to think with their heads.
/quote]

First I am not an Internet crazy.

From the evidence I have seen and gone over from video and plane experts, shows that the plane that hit the Pentagon would have left a larger hole.

2nd: the plane was full of fuel no fire, nothing was burning.
3rd: If the planes fuel did not catch on fire and dumped to the ground the EPA would block off that area of pentagon for 25 years while digging the fuel up out of the ground.
4th: There was was no plane wreckage. Just show me the wreckage.

These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered.

LOL

[South]

[quote=KeithCash;800225]

Originally Posted by John Scott

The loads of hype are coming from a few whacked out Internet crazies who refuse to think with their heads.
/quote]

First I am not an Internet crazy.

From the evidence I have seen and gone over from video and plane experts, shows that the plane that hit the Pentagon would have left a larger hole.

2nd: the plane was full of fuel no fire, nothing was burning.
3rd: If the planes fuel did not catch on fire and dumped to the ground the EPA would block off that area of pentagon for 25 years while digging the fuel up out of the ground.
4th: There was was no plane wreckage. Just show me the wreckage.

These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered.

LOL

All of those questions have been answered exhaustively and conclusively. I didn't realize there were any people left still clinging to conspiracy theories on this one.

[Unigold]

I am not American and I believe Terrorists did not bring down the twin towers. - I'm not sure but i think near to its, and also maybe American politics also are not connected to it.