Who's Responsible For 9/11?

[Trichome_Dense]

... well you did fall into that one mate ...

as for you making wanking signs over your keyboard, i expect that from those who cannot think of a comeback...

on-topic: I told you your points/arguments were weak, also said i'll expose your flawed mentality on this thread... job done!

btw, take it easy there buddy long john, that place you live in don't exist... shows how paranoid you really are. Which is why you're mentality is flawed... heh heh

[squiggy]

Love ur thinking TD

[Trichome_Dense]

Thanks Squiggy, thing is I've got a lot of love for intelligent debate, but moronic commentary coupled with abuse?... well, you seen what I done to Worzel Gummidge already... Poor sod.

[Hammy]

Has no one else seen Loose Change? Makes some very compelling arguments against it being a terrorist attack... but I suppose that's the case with most conspiracy theories, focusing only on what they want to believe. However, I don't think it was solely terrorists, so I voted collaboration.

For anyone who's interested:

Loose Change, Final Cut:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8768610598

[echc1]

all i know is 9/11 left me stranded over there and really messed my plans up and i didnt appreciate looking down the wrong end of assault rifles at the airport....plus side was i got 4 extra days staying on a medical marijuana grow until i could get a flight......the horror the horror

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

Has no one else seen Loose Change? Makes some very compelling arguments against it being a terrorist attack... but I suppose that's the case with most conspiracy theories, focusing only on what they want to believe. However, I don't think it was solely terrorists, so I voted collaboration.

For anyone who's interested:

Loose Change, Final Cut:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8768610598

The problem is contrasting sceptical thinking and consipry theorist thinking. Those who claim to be sceptical rather than a consipiry theorist while promoting an alternative squence of events other than a terrorist attack are consipiry theorists rather than sceptical thinkers, being sceptical implies taking a viewpoint consistent with the most plausible evidence available. Now that would lean to terrorist theroy, as it is the most plausible and obvious, with JFK the contrasting theroy to the offical explanation of events was sceptical rather than Conspiry related. Purely because the idea of someone planting explosises on every floor without being noticed, and the sheer number of people who would have to of been involed for the consipiry theory to work, is not a plausible chain of thought. This is a problem with consipiry thinking, it claims to look for the logical and correct answers, while actually dismissing the logical evidence as being a mass lie constructed by the Government. Conspircy theroy is at it core therefore flawed when applied to the 911 disaster. I cannot base an conculsion on a argument flawed at its basis, that way usually lies in-correct answers.

It is good to question the Government, it keeps our world and society close to ideals of a democratic system. But it is important to keep a clear mind when entering any type of thinking, it seems that this is forgotten with those who put forward an alternative description of events than a terrorist attack, it seems to always be based on a assumption the Government is firstly capable of pulling it off and secondaly is so manipulative it would want to. The second assumption could be argued to be true, i cannot see how the first assumption could be argued to anywhere near the same validity. Yet again showing a flawed basis for an argument. Its akin to the whole creationist theroy of existence, it does seem logical, as we as humans naturally assume everything has to be created. When exaiming to basis of the argument, that a supernatural God exisits, the theroy can fall down. A basis of an argument is vital, i cannot see the truth involed in the basis of alternative versions of the 911 attacks.

It is human nature to find someone to blame, combine that with a assumption that the government is corrupt and capable of such attacks, it is simply obvioious that such consipicy theories will emerge. But in doing this we simplify the issue, ingoring complex issues to do with past american attitudes to forgein policies and actions taken by the US aboard. Plus the clashes of Easten and Western culture, and all the assumptions of moral and cultural superiourity which exists on both sides.

[Trichome_Dense]

Sir Niall, I so agree with your post here - and am commending the fact that you took the time to explain this, and explaining it so well...

bottom line - ones who are responsible for 911 are total shits... utter total shits - who threw the globe into panic, and caused neighbour to question neighbour, colleague to distrust colleague etc etc etc...

As for the official story - In My Honest Opinion - I never heard there was an official "story" - just speculation and damage reports.

As for intelligence claiming they knew of the plot - yeah, which is why they pretended they were powerless to stop it LMFAO... this world is mayhem, the only safe haven we can find is the one we create for ourselves, and even then - we aint that safe really... With crime rife and socio/moralic standards dropping with every passing decade, the situation can only get worse...

I've heard many interesting takes on this 911 malarky, all of which sound plausible - yest I refuse to aknowledge any single theory, because it will make me a concpiracy theorist... I grant that most of you have voted one way or another - and that is your right, I'm not calling you conspiracy theorists... Far from it in fact!

I refuse to vote simply because I have not dwelt on the subject long enough to think it will adversely affect my life in the future. The world has come back from bigger disasters and scandals (Hiroshima, Watergate, etc) and will keep on turning regardless...

So - after months of speculation on this thread - I haven't voted, my stance remains unchanged!

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

No stress TD.

Again a couple of points just to discuss with you.

The offical story i meant was the terrorist attack was carried out by a group called Al-Queda, not that it was related to the Iraqie government etc because i think that can be argued logically, and more importantly under a true Sceptical viewpoint, to a convincing stage of certainity.

The point about intelligence knew about it, they may of. However i think the important thing to establish is how much they knew about it. Was it intercepted apparent ' rumours ' over heard, or did they have concrete evidence. It is perfectly likely the Bush administration fucked up the intelligence tbh, before theres an outcry at this, i would like to remind those who disagree the history of the Bush's ability to deal with intelligence post 911. WMD's etc. But that is precisely why i dont think the Bush admin. was to blame, because they imho were not capable of carrying out such an complecated plan.

I did not mean to call anyone a conspiry theorist, i was jsut commenting on flaws found in conspiry theorist thinking. In relation to the film above, the arguments seem very logical, but again we must look at the premis of the argument, which when exaimed, falls to bits. This is not me saying that your wrong if your a conspircy theorist in anyway, im just encouraging you to closely evaluate your logic.

The world has indeed come back from bigger diasters, thats not taking away from 911, but the human nature has a remarkable abilty to overcome.

[Max Flower]

I blame the French.

[Boner]

I blame the French Canadians

[Sir Niall of Essex-sire]

I blame the French Canadians

[TwoCanucks]

I blame the French Canadians

They easily could have been American if the french had any ability to win any kind of war. then napoleon would have sold that province when he dished off louisiana. of course, i love quebec and all its rich culture and history, but i'm just saying.

[hardboiled]

easy on the Canadians. We certainly don't think of the french as Canadians.

Adjust your tinfoil hats theorists - this is the good stuff:

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memor ... ntagon.php

[bankhog207]

this thread is bullshit.

[Fat Freddie]

Sir Niall, I so agree with your post here - and am commending the fact that you took the time to explain this, and explaining it so well...

bottom line - ones who are responsible for 911 are total shits... utter total shits - who threw the globe into panic, and caused neighbour to question neighbour, colleague to distrust colleague etc etc etc...

As for the official story - In My Honest Opinion - I never heard there was an official "story" - just speculation and damage reports.

As for intelligence claiming they knew of the plot - yeah, which is why they pretended they were powerless to stop it LMFAO... this world is mayhem, the only safe haven we can find is the one we create for ourselves, and even then - we aint that safe really... With crime rife and socio/moralic standards dropping with every passing decade, the situation can only get worse...

I've heard many interesting takes on this 911 malarky, all of which sound plausible - yest I refuse to aknowledge any single theory, because it will make me a concpiracy theorist... I grant that most of you have voted one way or another - and that is your right, I'm not calling you conspiracy theorists... Far from it in fact!

I refuse to vote simply because I have not dwelt on the subject long enough to think it will adversely affect my life in the future. The world has come back from bigger disasters and scandals (Hiroshima, Watergate, etc) and will keep on turning regardless...

So - after months of speculation on this thread - I haven't voted, my stance remains unchanged!

I find this an interesting point, It seems to me people are loathe to admit they don't know. Refusing to draw a conclusion in the absence of some the facts makes sense to me rather than leaping to a conspiracy theory like so many seem to want to do.
If the was any complicity by the US gov it is very unlikely they will want us to know and we prob will never know unless there is another Watergate moment.
We should not be afraid to say we don't know the answer to an issue as I think it is better than claiming knowledge based on partial information or misleading information. You have to wonder at the agenda of those who do claim to be sure without being in full possesion of the facts.
While I have no real knowledge other than what the media has released of the facts and the images we all saw that day and cannot state with any confidence who is to blame I do know what is at least partially to blame...





Human Stupidity

FF