New Theories Urgently Needed

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I am surprised at the attempts to shut down the discussion. Maybe it is pointless to argue the same points over and over again, but it is still important that we talk about it because it is the only way to eventually reach a consensus. Also it allows us to refine our points of view, which is helpful in understanding what has happened that day and since. Just saying "enough" and "stop this" indicates a certain discomfort at one's own position and is not a sign of being right.

Second, I take exception at the suggestion that people who disagree with the official version have not been there and thus don't know what they're talking about. That's another easy way out because you don't know what we did or where we were on that fateful day. Similarly, any suggestion that this discussion is an insult to either victims and survivors claims to take a higher moral ground by assuming that neither the victims nor the survivors had any interest in getting to the root of the problem. I personally believe it is an insult to the victims to not ask questions...

Hold on.. I am NOT trying to shut down the discussion. I am all for people discussing anything.. thats whats so great about this country. But I take exception when someone claims what I felt, saw, smelt, breathed in and heard didn't happen. I wasn't being specific towards any one particular poster but in general saying that some consideration needed to be given. Too many posts make comments to the effect that what was seen on tv isn't what really happened. That's insulting. Yes there are a lot of questions to be asked. Thats all well and good. All I said was please take some care in the way things are stated/asked in respect of others. I don't think that puts me on any "higher moral ground".

The first part was not directed at you at all. Sorry, if it seems that way.

The second part wasn't directed exclusively at you, but more at a general tendency that I see in discussions on this topic.

That said, I do understand your point of view but as I said how do you know that other people arguing an opposing side weren't there as well?

As to whether what was on TV really happened assumes that we get unfiltered information from the media which we didn't because the media has to be selective in their reporting.

When you say that we need to word our comments carefully so as to not show disrespect to others, I think that is based on the assumption that we -as a community of survivors- knew what the victims would consider disrespectful. And that in a way is taking a higher moral ground because it deflects criticism in general. I do admit that with my comment I'm taking a higher moral ground but with the intention to keep the discussion open (which of course doesn't make it better)

No offense meant, though. I for one am really interested to read what you and others have to say because it allows me to amend my views and to broaden my perspective.

[crashandcari 0]

I am surprised at the attempts to shut down the discussion. Maybe it is pointless to argue the same points over and over again, but it is still important that we talk about it because it is the only way to eventually reach a consensus. Also it allows us to refine our points of view, which is helpful in understanding what has happened that day and since. Just saying "enough" and "stop this" indicates a certain discomfort at one's own position and is not a sign of being right.

Second, I take exception at the suggestion that people who disagree with the official version have not been there and thus don't know what they're talking about. That's another easy way out because you don't know what we did or where we were on that fateful day. Similarly, any suggestion that this discussion is an insult to either victims and survivors claims to take a higher moral ground by assuming that neither the victims nor the survivors had any interest in getting to the root of the problem. I personally believe it is an insult to the victims to not ask questions...

Hold on.. I am NOT trying to shut down the discussion. I am all for people discussing anything.. thats whats so great about this country. But I take exception when someone claims what I felt, saw, smelt, breathed in and heard didn't happen. I wasn't being specific towards any one particular poster but in general saying that some consideration needed to be given. Too many posts make comments to the effect that what was seen on tv isn't what really happened. That's insulting. Yes there are a lot of questions to be asked. Thats all well and good. All I said was please take some care in the way things are stated/asked in respect of others. I don't think that puts me on any "higher moral ground".

The first part was not directed at you at all. Sorry, if it seems that way.

The second part wasn't directed exclusively at you, but more at a general tendency that I see in discussions on this topic.

That said, I do understand your point of view but as I said how do you know that other people arguing an opposing side weren't there as well?

As to whether what was on TV really happened assumes that we get unfiltered information from the media which we didn't because the media has to be selective in their reporting.

When you say that we need to word our comments carefully so as to not show disrespect to others, I think that is based on the assumption that we -as a community of survivors- knew what the victims would consider disrespectful. And that in a way is taking a higher moral ground because it deflects criticism in general. I do admit that with my comment I'm taking a higher moral ground but with the intention to keep the discussion open (which of course doesn't make it better)

No offense meant, though. I for one am really interested to read what you and others have to say because it allows me to amend my views and to broaden my perspective.

You are right.. I never considered that someone from the "opposing side", as you put it, was not there. I applaud anyone trying to figure things out, be it this or any subject. I suppose I've seen one too many videos offered on ebay "proving" 9/11 never happened that it touches a raw nerve in me. What you and others have said is fair. If there is something being covered up then yes. We ALL need to know for the sake of our country and our futures. I was only saying that some people (and I swear I am not pointing fingers I just don't have the time to search the thread) were making comments that could be considered offensive to them, not to me.

I am surprised at the attempts to shut down the discussion. Maybe it is pointless to argue the same points over and over again, but it is still important that we talk about it because it is the only way to eventually reach a consensus. Also it allows us to refine our points of view, which is helpful in understanding what has happened that day and since. Just saying "enough" and "stop this" indicates a certain discomfort at one's own position and is not a sign of being right.

Second, I take exception at the suggestion that people who disagree with the official version have not been there and thus don't know what they're talking about. That's another easy way out because you don't know what we did or where we were on that fateful day. Similarly, any suggestion that this discussion is an insult to either victims and survivors claims to take a higher moral ground by assuming that neither the victims nor the survivors had any interest in getting to the root of the problem. I personally believe it is an insult to the victims to not ask questions...

Hold on.. I am NOT trying to shut down the discussion. I am all for people discussing anything.. thats whats so great about this country. But I take exception when someone claims what I felt, saw, smelt, breathed in and heard didn't happen. I wasn't being specific towards any one particular poster but in general saying that some consideration needed to be given. Too many posts make comments to the effect that what was seen on tv isn't what really happened. That's insulting. Yes there are a lot of questions to be asked. Thats all well and good. All I said was please take some care in the way things are stated/asked in respect of others. I don't think that puts me on any "higher moral ground".

The first part was not directed at you at all. Sorry, if it seems that way.

The second part wasn't directed exclusively at you, but more at a general tendency that I see in discussions on this topic.

That said, I do understand your point of view but as I said how do you know that other people arguing an opposing side weren't there as well?

As to whether what was on TV really happened assumes that we get unfiltered information from the media which we didn't because the media has to be selective in their reporting.

When you say that we need to word our comments carefully so as to not show disrespect to others, I think that is based on the assumption that we -as a community of survivors- knew what the victims would consider disrespectful. And that in a way is taking a higher moral ground because it deflects criticism in general. I do admit that with my comment I'm taking a higher moral ground but with the intention to keep the discussion open (which of course doesn't make it better)

No offense meant, though. I for one am really interested to read what you and others have to say because it allows me to amend my views and to broaden my perspective.

You are right.. I never considered that someone from the "opposing side", as you put it, was not there. I applaud anyone trying to figure things out, be it this or any subject. I suppose I've seen one too many videos offered on ebay "proving" 9/11 never happened that it touches a raw nerve in me. What you and others have said is fair. If there is something being covered up then yes. We ALL need to know for the sake of our country and our futures. I was only saying that some people (and I swear I am not pointing fingers I just don't have the time to search the thread) were making comments that could be considered offensive to them, not to me.

[yabasta 0]

I have never heard a 9/11 video claim that 9/11 didn`t happen. I have heard conflicting reports to what exactly happened though. So in case any of your comments mean me then i wanted to make it clear that i didn`t ever say it didn`t happen or that you did not go through it.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

I am surprised at the attempts to shut down the discussion. Maybe it is pointless to argue the same points over and over again, but it is still important that we talk about it because it is the only way to eventually reach a consensus. Also it allows us to refine our points of view, which is helpful in understanding what has happened that day and since. Just saying "enough" and "stop this" indicates a certain discomfort at one's own position and is not a sign of being right.

Second, I take exception at the suggestion that people who disagree with the official version have not been there and thus don't know what they're talking about. That's another easy way out because you don't know what we did or where we were on that fateful day. Similarly, any suggestion that this discussion is an insult to either victims and survivors claims to take a higher moral ground by assuming that neither the victims nor the survivors had any interest in getting to the root of the problem. I personally believe it is an insult to the victims to not ask questions...

Hold on.. I am NOT trying to shut down the discussion. I am all for people discussing anything.. thats whats so great about this country. But I take exception when someone claims what I felt, saw, smelt, breathed in and heard didn't happen. I wasn't being specific towards any one particular poster but in general saying that some consideration needed to be given. Too many posts make comments to the effect that what was seen on tv isn't what really happened. That's insulting. Yes there are a lot of questions to be asked. Thats all well and good. All I said was please take some care in the way things are stated/asked in respect of others. I don't think that puts me on any "higher moral ground".

The first part was not directed at you at all. Sorry, if it seems that way.

The second part wasn't directed exclusively at you, but more at a general tendency that I see in discussions on this topic.

That said, I do understand your point of view but as I said how do you know that other people arguing an opposing side weren't there as well?

As to whether what was on TV really happened assumes that we get unfiltered information from the media which we didn't because the media has to be selective in their reporting.

When you say that we need to word our comments carefully so as to not show disrespect to others, I think that is based on the assumption that we -as a community of survivors- knew what the victims would consider disrespectful. And that in a way is taking a higher moral ground because it deflects criticism in general. I do admit that with my comment I'm taking a higher moral ground but with the intention to keep the discussion open (which of course doesn't make it better)

No offense meant, though. I for one am really interested to read what you and others have to say because it allows me to amend my views and to broaden my perspective.

You are right.. I never considered that someone from the "opposing side", as you put it, was not there. I applaud anyone trying to figure things out, be it this or any subject. I suppose I've seen one too many videos offered on ebay "proving" 9/11 never happened that it touches a raw nerve in me. What you and others have said is fair. If there is something being covered up then yes. We ALL need to know for the sake of our country and our futures. I was only saying that some people (and I swear I am not pointing fingers I just don't have the time to search the thread) were making comments that could be considered offensive to them, not to me.

Glad we agree on this!

Edited May 17, 2006 by Fischkoepfin

[crashandcari 0]

I am surprised at the attempts to shut down the discussion. Maybe it is pointless to argue the same points over and over again, but it is still important that we talk about it because it is the only way to eventually reach a consensus. Also it allows us to refine our points of view, which is helpful in understanding what has happened that day and since. Just saying "enough" and "stop this" indicates a certain discomfort at one's own position and is not a sign of being right.

Second, I take exception at the suggestion that people who disagree with the official version have not been there and thus don't know what they're talking about. That's another easy way out because you don't know what we did or where we were on that fateful day. Similarly, any suggestion that this discussion is an insult to either victims and survivors claims to take a higher moral ground by assuming that neither the victims nor the survivors had any interest in getting to the root of the problem. I personally believe it is an insult to the victims to not ask questions...

Hold on.. I am NOT trying to shut down the discussion. I am all for people discussing anything.. thats whats so great about this country. But I take exception when someone claims what I felt, saw, smelt, breathed in and heard didn't happen. I wasn't being specific towards any one particular poster but in general saying that some consideration needed to be given. Too many posts make comments to the effect that what was seen on tv isn't what really happened. That's insulting. Yes there are a lot of questions to be asked. Thats all well and good. All I said was please take some care in the way things are stated/asked in respect of others. I don't think that puts me on any "higher moral ground".

The first part was not directed at you at all. Sorry, if it seems that way.

The second part wasn't directed exclusively at you, but more at a general tendency that I see in discussions on this topic.

That said, I do understand your point of view but as I said how do you know that other people arguing an opposing side weren't there as well?

As to whether what was on TV really happened assumes that we get unfiltered information from the media which we didn't because the media has to be selective in their reporting.

When you say that we need to word our comments carefully so as to not show disrespect to others, I think that is based on the assumption that we -as a community of survivors- knew what the victims would consider disrespectful. And that in a way is taking a higher moral ground because it deflects criticism in general. I do admit that with my comment I'm taking a higher moral ground but with the intention to keep the discussion open (which of course doesn't make it better)

No offense meant, though. I for one am really interested to read what you and others have to say because it allows me to amend my views and to broaden my perspective.

You are right.. I never considered that someone from the "opposing side", as you put it, was not there. I applaud anyone trying to figure things out, be it this or any subject. I suppose I've seen one too many videos offered on ebay "proving" 9/11 never happened that it touches a raw nerve in me. What you and others have said is fair. If there is something being covered up then yes. We ALL need to know for the sake of our country and our futures. I was only saying that some people (and I swear I am not pointing fingers I just don't have the time to search the thread) were making comments that could be considered offensive to them, not to me.

Glad we agree on this!

me too.. but do not take offense when i stay from this topic.. i got way too much stress these days for this lol

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am surprised at the attempts to shut down the discussion. Maybe it is pointless to argue the same points over and over again, but it is still important that we talk about it because it is the only way to eventually reach a consensus. Also it allows us to refine our points of view, which is helpful in understanding what has happened that day and since. Just saying "enough" and "stop this" indicates a certain discomfort at one's own position and is not a sign of being right.

Second, I take exception at the suggestion that people who disagree with the official version have not been there and thus don't know what they're talking about. That's another easy way out because you don't know what we did or where we were on that fateful day. Similarly, any suggestion that this discussion is an insult to either victims and survivors claims to take a higher moral ground by assuming that neither the victims nor the survivors had any interest in getting to the root of the problem. I personally believe it is an insult to the victims to not ask questions...

Wow 8 pages now...

I agree - asking questions about our government is an essential part of our democracy.

On this particular issue, however, I honestly think that the support of any conspiracy theory with regards to 9/11 requires a broad lack of education and simple common sense.

I just don't understand how someone can see 'pre-meditated intent' being a more likely cause of the disaster than 'bureaucratic incompetance". That's wishful thinking IMO...

There is simply no historical precedent for this that would suggest that the government (or part of the government) conspired to murder thousands of its own people, and were prepared to do massive damage to the infrastructure of the economy simply to justify a war. Its ridiculous - even if it were true we would be living in a much more authoritarian world than we currently do.

The Bush administration has made many bad decisions, Iraq - yes, domestic spying - sure, but they are far from the omnipotent entity that such a conspiracy theory would require. Someone who can 'secretly' collude to destroy the WTC should have no trouble getting their bills through congress.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Wow 8 pages now...

I agree - asking questions about our government is an essential part of our democracy.

On this particular issue, however, I honestly think that the support of any conspiracy theory with regards to 9/11 requires a broad lack of education and simple common sense.

I just don't understand how someone can see 'pre-meditated intent' being a more likely cause of the disaster than 'bureaucratic incompetance". That's wishful thinking IMO...

There is simply no historical precedent for this that would suggest that the government (or part of the government) conspired to murder thousands of its own people, and were prepared to do massive damage to the infrastructure of the economy simply to justify a war. Its ridiculous - even if it were true we would be living in a much more authoritarian world than we currently do.

The Bush administration has made many bad decisions, Iraq - yes, domestic spying - sure, but they are far from the omnipotent entity that such a conspiracy theory would require. Someone who can 'secretly' collude to destroy the WTC should have no trouble getting their bills through congress.

omg...did hell freeze over? i just found myself agreeing with what fishdude said above.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Except for Iraq being a bad idea right?

[dalegg 143]

There is simply no historical precedent for this that would suggest that the government (or part of the government) conspired to murder thousands of its own people, and were prepared to do massive damage to the infrastructure of the economy simply to justify a war. Its ridiculous - even if it were true we would be living in a much more authoritarian world than we currently do.

And along these lines, why in the world would anyone think they would have to go through such elaborate measures to justfify a war in Afghanastan? If we could do all of the things possible to pull off this great conspiracy, we couldn't trump up some phony ####### in Afghanastan, like just filming some Taliban look-a-likes assasinating 500 U.S. missionaries or we claim they kidnapped from Pakistan or something? Maybe doctor up some pictures of them arming weopons of mass destruction or something.

[Fuzzness 2]

well lets look at the facts. two planes hit the wtc and a lot of people died. i dont think anyone is disputing that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There is simply no historical precedent for this that would suggest that the government (or part of the government) conspired to murder thousands of its own people, and were prepared to do massive damage to the infrastructure of the economy simply to justify a war. Its ridiculous - even if it were true we would be living in a much more authoritarian world than we currently do.

And along these lines, why in the world would anyone think they would have to go through such elaborate measures to justfify a war in Afghanastan? If we could do all of the things possible to pull off this great conspiracy, we couldn't trump up some phony ####### in Afghanastan, like just filming some Taliban look-a-likes assasinating 500 U.S. missionaries or we claim they kidnapped from Pakistan or something? Maybe doctor up some pictures of them arming weopons of mass destruction or something.

Yep. And I would hazard a guess that economically speaking, the US got less $$$ out of Afghanistan than the economic fallout of 9/11.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Except for Iraq being a bad idea right?

your limit of one a day has been reached. beep! please try back tomorrow.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

well lets look at the facts. two planes hit the wtc and a lot of people died. i dont think anyone is disputing that.

Sure, but the balance of probability makes 'direct intent' on the part of the US government or some sort of affiliated agency extremely unlikely. There is simply no precedent in existence to justify that claim or give it a single shred of validity.

Neither is there any precedent for a massive structure like the WTC being hit by 2 fully laden passenger planes running at full speed. This is where chaos theory comes in, there are simply so many variables that noone can definitively know what would happen. 1000+ feet of composite materials. Hmmm.....

Edited May 18, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

well lets look at the facts. two planes hit the wtc and a lot of people died. i dont think anyone is disputing that.

Sure, but the balance of probability makes 'direct intent' on the part of the US government or some sort of affiliated agency extremely unlikely. There is simply no precedent in existence to justify that claim or give it a single shred of validity.

Neither is there any precedent for a massive structure like the WTC being hit by 2 fully laden passenger planes running at full speed. This is where chaos theory comes in, there are simply so many variables that noone can definitively know what would happen. 1000+ feet of composite materials. Hmmm.....

nor do i think any here on vj are qualified to offer an expert opinion on such. although some do try

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yep. And I would hazard a guess that economically speaking, the US got less $$$ out of Afghanistan than the economic fallout of 9/11.

Though one would have to admit that certain entities fared and still fare rather well from all of this. And those entities do happen to be rather closely linked to those running the show at this point in time and have at that point in time. Does that create some sort of correlation? Not really. I'd see this as taking advantage of an opportunity rather than creating one. But that's just me.