"9/11 = Inside Job" is all good regardless

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:24 am

Way too much ad hominum stuff in this thread. There was some analysis of data in the 'in my defense' thread. Sorry to butt in. Commence swinging. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/15/06 10:26 pm

by **thoughtographer** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:36 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Way too much ad hominum stuff in this thread.<hr></blockquote> I thought this was in "Open Discussion #2". Your analysis of data isn't exactly everyone's style. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **stickdog99** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:10 am

I want to understand what you're saying, thoughtographer, but I don't. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>You don't understand how you can also be viewed as a deluded fanatic, only reacting to what you perceive as an inappropriate response to the use of a meme like "9/11 Changes Everything." Like, somehow, you're taking it the right way, and everyone else isn't.<hr></blockquote> What I perceive as an inappropriate response to the use of a meme like "9/11 Changes Everything"? How in the hell is a Orwellian state of perpetual war that allows the executive branch to suspend the Bill of Rights at its whim without any oversight an appropriate response to anything, much less a few thousand putative suicidally angry Muslims, 98% of whom live on the other side of the Earth and have no means whatsoever to get here? Please explain how my "self-righteous perception" of this could possibly be in error because, just as you state, I can not apprehend that possibility. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>By claiming righteousness by virtue of protecting yourself and your loved ones from chance harm at the hands of extremists, you're really acting on base preservation instincts, which are primitive at best to suit the needs of the desired results you seem to want to achieve.<hr></blockquote> No. The situation is the opposite of what you are describing. Conventional, mainstream political and corporate media propaganda (which I am fighting) is telling me that I need to trade essential liberty for temporary safety on every available channel. I am rejecting that idiocy and saying that I am prepared to fight for my and my fellow citizens' liberty at the ostensible expense of my and my personal community's safety. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm not so sure that's the right perspective for someone advocating carte-blanche for people who would like to see the current system overhauled regardless of the facts, which, given the current state of affairs would most likely be at the hands an angry, confused and vengeful horde.<hr></blockquote> Now you lost me completely. What are you trying to say in plain English? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's not like I can't see your perspective at all, because I honestly think I can. I don't like being hurt or seeing others hurt, especially not my loved ones. I just don't want to see the world turn to shit because too many people listened to the wrong person, who, despite sounding like a ranting fool, suddenly started making sense in spite of the truth, or worse -- in spite of humanity. It's happened before, will happen again, and is happening now. How do you think we got to the point where we're even discussing this?<hr></blockquote> I still don't get it. Are you trying to say that no one should fight for his or her rights and those of his or her fellow citizens because the Greater Truth of Everything is unknowable? If not, exactly what are you trying to say? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/15/06 11:31 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:20 am

Thoughtographer- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I thought this was in "Open Discussion #2". Your analysis of data isn't exactly everyone's style.<hr></blockquote> So there! lol. (on edit: I'm crossposting this back over at 'in my defense' where Qutb put the links to the 'bombs debunked' website which I found to be unconvincing at best and disinfo at worst.) Hey, how 'bout those firefighters? Now they are interesting. I noticed when I started reading their oral histories that they were taken over space of several months (10/01-2/02) and had different officials present at different times, frequently high-up officials in the fire department. Bosses. I also noticed that the lengths of their descriptions went from the early ones being longer and detailed to the later ones being more perfunctory. Much shorter.  I also noticed that some of the pdf files have redacted sections, lines, names, or entire paragraphs. I also noticed that some of the pdf files didn't open to visible text, just a grey page. I was able to transfer them to another software program and get text out of those, however. When you add in the terse, ominous pronouncements from the one firefighter briefly interviewed in the recent...New York....hell, I forgot the periodical...I get the impression that the firefighters might have been told to cool it on the unexplained explosions/controlled demolition angle. Just a hunch. That happened at the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, too. Rescues were stopped for a while to remove unexploded bombs. The physics of the building's destruction don't match a truck bomb. And that was all hushed up and brushed under the media rug with some reports of whistle blowers even getting violent retribution. Hmm. Consider that the same dynamic of not rocking the boat after the JFK shooting ("nuke war threat") and other disasters is pretty common, I'd expect the same thing might kick in or be imposed with 9/11. "We're at war and the herd is freaked. Shut up!" Notice that you don't hear Air Force people screaming about Operation Vigilant Warrior/Guardian in the press, either. That website Qutb posted by the anonymous "Mike I'm just a UK software guy Williams" was pushing the total cover story and spending lots of energy to do so. The effort to portray the firefighter's as "not seeing controlled demo" was extremely lame and manipulative with conclusions by the website not borne out by the quotes. Exactly what 'Mike' was supposedly debunking. Hmm. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/15/06 11:38 pm

by **thoughtographer** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:36 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I want to understand what you're saying, thoughtographer, but I don't.<hr></blockquote> Then why rush to comment if I'm so unclear? In plain English: Based on the views you so freely express regarding minority populations, each inciting and perpetuating a type of violent revolution of their own; can you, or can you not see how panic and lies in the face presumptuousness have lead to the very situation we now face? Answer that without a knee-jerk response, if possible, because I'm being dead serious. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I am rejecting that idiocy and saying that I am prepared to protect my liberty at the ostensible expense of my and my community's safety.<hr></blockquote> Then you are essentially saying that you don't care about me, or anyone else you don't choose to value. Why should I care about you so much? I am prepared to protect my liberty, even at my own expense. The golden rule is "golden" for a reason; to dismiss it by refusing to apply it in critical thinking is often to dismiss the foundations of civilized human culture and most beautiful part of most world religions. It's an ideal to strive for, and once you give that up, you're might as well be functioning like an insect as far as I'm concerned. The zealots of the world make so much clatter, they often lose the good signals in all the noise for anyone paying attention to them, so it's no wonder to me that the world's religions are collapsing onto themselves. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **stickdog99** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Can you, or can you not see how panic and lies in the face presumptuousness have lead to the very situation we now face?<hr></blockquote> I must confess that I still don't get it. What elliptical analogy are you trying to make? Please be explicit. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Then you are essentially saying that you don't care about me, or anyone else you don't choose to value.<hr></blockquote> Now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth in an utterly sophistical manner. First, you erroneously contended that I was only trying to protect my own life and that I was being primitive by primarily concerning myself with my own self-preservation. Now you say that I'm selfish and thoughtless for putting my liberty and that of all my fellow citizens above my safety and that of my personal community. So what are you actually trying to convey other than my viewpoint must always be gainsaid in some sophistical manner or another? In terms of the golden rule, I am doing for my fellow citizens EXACTLY what I wish they would do for me -- putting preserving their essential freedoms above (perhaps) slightly enhancing their safety. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The zealots of the world make so much clatter, they often lose the good signals in all the noise for anyone paying attention to them, so it's no wonder to me that the world's religions are collapsing onto themselves.<hr></blockquote> In what manner am I endorsing zealotry in any way, shape or form? Please be specific.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>so much clatter, they often lose the good signals in all the noise <hr></blockquote> Agreed. At the point a discussion board thread becomes personal between and only about two users and leaves out the rest of the party, signal has been lost. Not that dialogue isn't a good thing as a process of road-testing views with a sounding board of opposition. And discussing how we discuss things is a useful topic. But as soon as harsh judgemental language is introduced the self-justifications and counter-accusations are quite predictable. Lots of bandwith and energy eaten up... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/16/06 11:11 am

by **greencrow0** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:56 pm

Hi all: Here is some artwork I did for my own blog on 9/11. I just used my Word Paint program: <a href="http://greencrow.iuplog.com/default.asp?mode=photoalbum&item=166191">greencrow.iuplog.com/defa...tem=166191</a> I am wondering...where I can get a 9/11 bumper sticker...anybody know? Regards, GC

by **thoughtographer** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I must confess that I still don't get it.<hr></blockquote> No shit, Mr. Sophistricator. Carry on with your normal routine. Hugh, I agree with you, in spite of your misappropriation of my words. Though I do disagree with your finer points, I can't argue with your calm this time, so... (ellipsis) "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **robertdreed** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:20 am

It's all good regardless.

by **stickdog99** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:39 am

The point isn't the Truth about 9/11 (criminal negligence at BEST, IMHO). The point is the Consequences of 9/11 -- which anybody other than a regressive moron must admit have been inarguably HEINOUS. As I stated in my original post, the "9/11 changes everything" mantra has been successfully used to justify: 1) an insane invasion and occupation, 2) an Orwellian state of neverending warfare, 3) an all-out assault on our Bill of Rights and our Constitutional separation, balance and oversight of powers, 4) rampant and bald faced war profiteering and a huge increase in dubious mil/intel/security expenditures, 5) an insane doctrine of military pre-emption, 6) torture and rendition, 7) a culture of authoritarian secrecy, 8) the persecution of political dissent, 9) enraging the Muslim world and alienating the rest of the world, 10) etc., etc., etc. while doing little or nothing to enhance US security or address the root causes OR symptoms of Islamic terror. My point is not whether some members of the US government had something to do with 9/11, whether they are covering up their criminal negligence that day or whether they are just covering up their embarrassing incompetence. My point is simply this: Considering all the horrible crap that has gone down in the name of the official 9/11 narrative -- even IF you still believe it, why in the world would you strive to defend it against rational questioning? Nobody has answered this point other than with a bunch of nonsensical and meaningless mumbo-jumbo spliced together with a few wink-wink ad hominems.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:53 am

"Considering all the horrible crap that has gone down in the name of the official 9/11 narrative -- even IF you still believe it, why in the world would you strive to defend it against rational questioning?" I'm not necessarily defending the official 9/11 narrative. I just don't think every question directed at it is rational. The result has been known to resemble the equivalent of ruining a perfectly made mince pie with a few discreetly placed "rabbit pellets". And I don't care for having the chefs- or their acolytes- hovering over me saying "delicious, right?" Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/17/06 2:22 am

by **stickdog99** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:16 am

As I said, that's a different issue. If anyone's 9/11 speculating is not rational or is way out on a weak limb, I'm all in favor of knocking it down. Of course, I realize that I'm playing the "generalization game" to a certain extent here. But I'm sincere in trying to determine why and when others might legitimately think diffferently. While I often act too certain of myself, I'm merely trying to provoke discussion with anyone here who disagrees with me in order to understand why.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:25 am

I think the "official" or msm version of what happened to 9-11 could aptly be compared to an ENTIRE pie of rabbit pellets, with a few scraps of real food thrown in on the top. Sure Muslims hate us, sure Jihadists exists; everything else is a fantasy: the impossible aviation, the smooth take over of four jets at the exact same time along with the wrestling of militarytrained crews out of their very snug seats by barely armed teenagers, the unexplained building collapses etc etcetc. etc. we all know the rest. We have the means, motives and the opportunity resting with forces within our own government. Yet some people seem endlessly intent on picking the mote out of the 9-11 researchers eye, while leaving the whole beams in the eyes of the mainstream media version. Why, Robert?

by **robertdreed** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:42 pm

I'll speak to the first half of the particular scenario you're posing. Because someone put the motes in there to be picked out. It's possible to see much clearer without them. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/17/06 11:45 am

"9/11 = Inside Job" is all good regardless

Re: "9/11 = Inside Job" is all good regardless

Re: "9/11 = Inside Job" is all good regardless

Re: Charley Sheen on TV again to push for 9/11 truth researc

Re: "9/11 = Inside Job" is all good regardless

Re: Charley Sheen on TV again to push for 9/11 truth researc

Re: Charley Sheen on TV again to push for 9/11 truth researc

Re: Charley Sheen on TV again to push for 9/11 truth researc

9/11 art...a new genre?

...

it's all good regardless

Re: "9/11 = Inside Job" is all good regardless

Re: "9/11 = Inside Job" is all good regardless

Re: "9/11 = Inside Job" is all good regardless

on rabbit pellet pies....

on false choice dilemmas

Who is online