-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I can't stand 9/11 conspiracy debunkers
- Thread starter dfnj
- Start date
Planes hit buildings. We have that on video. I watched the buildings come down. I remember the second leaning a bit before it collapsed.
The conspiracy videos *uniformly* have the science badly wrong.
Why are people so biased that they can't see the truth in front of their eyes? There *was* a conspiracy on 9/11. There are 19 people who hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. That *is* a conspiracy. They managed damage beyond their wildest dreams.
The conspiracy videos *uniformly* have the science badly wrong.
Why are people so biased that they can't see the truth in front of their eyes? There *was* a conspiracy on 9/11. There are 19 people who hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. That *is* a conspiracy. They managed damage beyond their wildest dreams.
There may be a number of reasons for that. For one thing, the loss of life from 9/11 and all the grief that it entailed - that would certainly be a reason for such strong emotional reactions. It's not like we're digging up a bunch of ancient bones and arguing over what kind of animal it might have been.
This is more of a "whodunit," more in the realm of politics, espionage, and law enforcement than anything that can be regarded as "pure" science. That's where all the arguing and consternation comes from, in my opinion.
Even if we accept the official version of events, it can still be argued that "9/11 was an inside job" in the sense that it was committed using American airplanes by people who were inside the country legally for years. It wasn't missiles from North Korea or anything like that. And it certainly wasn't missiles from Afghanistan.
Essentially, this was an example of domestic terrorism, and yet, the government used it as a justification to not only invade Afghanistan, but also capitalized on the existent war fever at the time to invade Iraq as well.
Some people blamed immigrants, particularly Muslim immigrants, and that, too, has continued to be an ongoing issue of contention in the public debate over that topic. It also becomes quite an emotional argument on both sides.
It's similar to how we backed Hitler, & provided him with money,
weapons, & gas chamber technology so that we could enter WW2.
And then we backed the USSR, so that we could wage the cold war.
Then Reagan ended that, switching to fomenting long term violence
in the middle east, thereby setting the stage for our government's
blowing up the towers.
The above is not disprovable. Does this make it true?
True or false: Were the towers blown up using domestic airliners? If so, then what part of what you quoted is untrue?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
For one thing your weak attempt at an equivocation fallacy.
Well, according to the conspiracy theorists, the airliners were a ruse.
Magical (undetectable by building occupants & management) explosives
&/or incendiaries did the job. Everything I quoted isn't even false.
Please elaborate.
I was asking you, not the conspiracy theorists. I never bought the notion that the airliners were a ruse, so I don't know why you're telling me this.
Were they domestic airliners that caused the explosions or were they magical missiles flown all the way from Afghanistan?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You tried to use the same phrase of "an inside job" as the conspiracy nuts. You had a different meaning but your tried to imply that there was still some foul play going on from our government.
I intended it to be more ironic, using the same phrase but without any implication that there was foul play by our government (but still not precluding the possibility). The point was that it was done by people who had been living in the USA legally for years, using domestic airliners.
Even assuming that the official story is true and that the US government is innocent, it's still questionable whether it justifies making war on the other side of the planet. Even if it was done by foreign immigrants. If MS-13 commits a crime of violence on US soil, we concentrate our efforts on dealing with criminals within our own land. It wouldn't justify bombing or invading El Salvador.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, the wars in hind sight may not have been the best moves. Though once committed we should have finished them. ISIS arose more due to Obama's incompetence than George Bush's. Though bombing can pay off if the leader hits the right target and shows that he is crazy enough to do it again. Reagan and Momar Khadafi comes to mind.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
There were a lot of predictions that were quite spot on in Europe, which is why nearly the whole continent was against the wars. Of course the French got called surrender monkeys and you had freedom fries, because they didn't want to be part of a disaster. Yet now they are still paying for it. Lots of educated folks in Europe knew that it would cause chaos both in Iraq's vicinity and here. Perhaps Bush knew he was swatting two flies at the same time, his father's failure in Iraq and handing a strengthening Europe a blow.
Before the war Bush tried to get Finland to join the invasion in secret, leaks of which caused quite a lot of public anger and luckily kept us out of the war!
Of course finishing the wars after a conquest would require continued occupation, it's a sort of a plan to incur a generation long debt or perhaps longer. Saddam was a terrible man and removing him was both good and bad. Like opening the Pandora's box, they just had to see what happens.
Something like ISIS was easily within predictions, but there was of course a kind of blind optimism and I dare say the torture scandals and various ways Bush admin handled the war created so much anger, it's hard not place blame on him for ISIS. He also alienated much of Europe with how detainees were treated and secretly moved to countries. The shadiness of it all helped feed extremism and conspiracy theories.
Of course those guys who made the mess that can't be cleaned are still the same as they were back then
I think the country was gripped by war fever after 9/11, and there was also a strong undercurrent of anti-immigrant sentiment as well. I recall a case here in Arizona where some guy, angry over 9/11, attacked and murdered a Sikh man because he was wearing a turban.
The context of my earlier point was in response to dfnj's question as to why there's so much emotionalism surrounding this issue and why people become upset about 9/11 conspiracy theories. It hits too close to home for a lot of people.
As it turned out, we did finish them quite quickly, at least as far as destroying the governments of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. But for whatever reason, we failed at gaining the hearts and minds of the inhabitants of those countries.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Another year gone and the 9/11 debunkers always get a free-pass:
The people who think 9/11 may have been an 'inside job'
Why is it when anyone questions that something that has never happened before can so easily be explained by the simple statement, "Subsequent investigations made it clear that the tower structures were weakened by the inferno from the planes and felled by the weight of collapsing floors."
This is pure fabricated fantasy. No computer model was ever released by NIST showing how they came to the conclusions on how the towers fell. Building 7 explanation is complete hand waving. And no building ever before or since has collapse as result of fire. If it were possibly true terrorists would be using fire to take down buildings everywhere around the world. There is no scientific explanation for how the buildings collapsed on 9/11. The official story is the real conspiracy theory.
All you have to do is say, "made it clear" and debate ends.
The people who think 9/11 may have been an 'inside job'
Why is it when anyone questions that something that has never happened before can so easily be explained by the simple statement, "Subsequent investigations made it clear that the tower structures were weakened by the inferno from the planes and felled by the weight of collapsing floors."
This is pure fabricated fantasy. No computer model was ever released by NIST showing how they came to the conclusions on how the towers fell. Building 7 explanation is complete hand waving. And no building ever before or since has collapse as result of fire. If it were possibly true terrorists would be using fire to take down buildings everywhere around the world. There is no scientific explanation for how the buildings collapsed on 9/11. The official story is the real conspiracy theory.
All you have to do is say, "made it clear" and debate ends.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Pretty obvious why you didn't gain the hearts and minds. Most people dislike being invaded.
I prefer the dryer aged cheeses to the soft ones.
exchemist
Veteran Member
So you prefer pâte cuite to pâte molle.
The thing is that the latter do not travel well and the French are really the masters of them. We get quite good ones in the UK, but when I lived in Houston it was impossible to get decent soft cheese from France. Some of my favourites are things like Livarot and Pont l'Eveque.
I prefer good upstanding moral English to depraved swishy ferring lingo.
"Soft cheeses for soft people"
- Albert Einstine.
exchemist
Veteran Member
My paternal grandfather, when he served in the navy in WW1, was on a boat with man who never took a bath, because he said it weakened your back.
