^^^ I haven't read any post yet here from a troofer. One poster feels that the official information isn't transparent enough. That does not make him a "9-11 was an inside job" proponent.

As for relevancy to this thread....I've seen other interviews with Ventura on this subject....and to my recollection, he never laid claim that 9-11 was an absolute inside job.

^He all but said it today on ESPN"s First Take.

"One poster feels that the official information isn't transparent enough."

LOL the only thing the poster said was nothing....it was just more "well I'm not sure I agree with "X", but I'm not going to say "Y""

Have the stones to say "Y". I went to 3 funerals as a result of 9/11. If there is an alternative explanation, I want to hear it, not just more wishy-washy crap.

Footwedge wrote: ^^^ I haven't read any post yet here from a troofer. One poster feels that the official information isn't transparent enough. That does not make him a "9-11 was an inside job" proponent.

If not, it just makes him someone who thinks the event is less straightforward (the what if not the why) than I believe it was. Was it a huge event? Yes. A complicated one? Not really.

I agree the government is lying about something, but I don't believe they were behind it. The "let it happen" people have a far more credible argument.

Before I can buy into the conspiracy I need a couple of questions answered that Troofers usually ignore.

1. What is the motivation?
2. How did it stay so quiet?

You also have to define the conspiracy. Did a missile hit the Pentagon and did they pull the towers all need to be answered.

Anyone that believes the government was behind 9-11 is a fool. How do people believe a government that can't even run simple programs effectively could actually pull something like this off and not have anyone involved be exposed?

It is an idiotic theory. US Customs failed and allowed known terrorists with expired visas in the country.

I wouldn't be shocked if another attack happens. Homeland Security failed 10 out of 10 security checks.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "One poster feels that the official information isn't transparent enough."

LOL the only thing the poster said was nothing....it was just more "well I'm not sure I agree with "X", but I'm not going to say "Y""

Have the stones to say "Y". I went to 3 funerals as a result of 9/11. If there is an alternative explanation, I want to hear it, not just more wishy-washy crap.

Maybe because neither X or Y doesn't explain all the details? I never read the 9-11 commision report, have you?

Many intelligent people have questioned several issues as to the events that occurred on 9-11. Because someone wants further explanation on certain events, that person does not by default become a "9-11 was an inside job" believer.

bigdaddy2003 wrote: ^He all but said it today on ESPN"s First Take.

All but saying it is not saying it. I've seen Ventura on this subject on a few occasions. To my knowledge, he has never stated that "9-11 was an inside job".

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Footwedge wrote: ^^^ I haven't read any post yet here from a troofer. One poster feels that the official information isn't transparent enough. That does not make him a "9-11 was an inside job" proponent.

If not, it just makes him someone who thinks the event is less straightforward (the what if not the why) than I believe it was. Was it a huge event? Yes. A complicated one? Not really.

I would disagree. 9-11 was a very complex operation that probably took 5 years or so in the planning stage.

I never read the official 9-11 commission report. But the government has a long history of publishing events that are greatly lacking in accuracy....much of which falls under the category of CYOA.

One example that pops up...the "official" report on the Gulf of Tomkin resolution.

dwccrew wrote:Anyone that believes the government was behind 9-11 is a fool. How do people believe a government that can't even run simple programs effectively could actually pull something like this off and not have anyone involved be exposed?

It's like you're reading my mind! I wholeheartedly agree.

In fact if our government played any role at all in the events of 9/11 it's the role of court jester.

Footwedge wrote: All but saying it is not saying it. I've seen Ventura on this subject on a few occasions. To my knowledge, he has never stated that "9-11 was an inside job".

All but saying it means he wants to say it, but lacks the courage to do so.

Footwedge wrote:

bigdaddy2003 wrote: ^He all but said it today on ESPN"s First Take.

All but saying it is not saying it. I've seen Ventura on this subject on a few occasions. To my knowledge, he has never stated that "9-11 was an inside job".

The difference being that he's now trying to pump up the buzz for his TV show. It's kinda like the newscast where the newsbabe says "Coming up, we have the most shocking story you will ever see....right after Skip's weather forecast."

I voted "Yes", just because I get tired of always dispelling these 9/11 the US government was involved conspiracy theories.

I don;t really believe the US government was involved, but for this poll I voted yes.

do your own research, Manhattan. Then tell me if it's simple enough to sum it all up in one post this thread...

I'm not arrogant enough to say that I know one way or another, or another or another.....

But i do know that "conspiracists" have raised some poignant questions on the events of 9/11 and I'm not sure what to think.....

If had some extravagant theory of my own I'd make my own thread and tell everyone all about it.....

Maybe it'd be "couragous" of me to come here spouting some half-baked bullshit on the subject like every other a-hole, but I can't. Because I simply don't have any ideas that I've enough confidence in to call the truth...And that includes the "official" account.

I'm not embarrassed to say I don't know what happened.....

You all are so skeptical of the gov't ability to pull something of that scale off...But do you really believe they tell us the whole truth about everything?????

there are separate accounts of what may have happened. You can't tell me why I should just trust the government, without question...What makes them any more genuine than another organization????

Strapping Young Lad wrote: But i do know that "conspiracists" have raised some poignant questions on the events of 9/11 and I'm not sure what to think.....

Really? All the ones that I've seen are nutbag theories that can be demolished with common sense or three minutes research online. If you have links to some that aren't, I'd love to take a look.

I'm just asking you to nut up and tell us what you think. To make an analogy, I went to work at my office today.....that was a "true" statement, I did go to my office. That doesn't mean there are arguments that I wasn't in my office, for instance I didn't drive to work. Someone could say I didn't go to work because they saw my car in front of my house...true, but irrelevant because I walked to work.

If someone is trying to prove I didn't go to work they could easily pose that argument, doesn't make it right, but more importantly it isn't relevant.

To take it back to the point at hand, anyone can say "I don't believe the government or whoever with respect to this event.."...and it ends.

Where is the relevance? Where is the motive? Where is the evidence? Where is anything remotely applicable?

Why do you seem offended that I don't buy everything the gov't tells me without questioning it???

I don't really care if you want me to "nut up" or any other macho bullshit you want throw out there...

I just told you what I think and that is some interesting questions have been raised about the events and I'm not sure that any "official" explanation account for those questions....

If you want to read more into it, feel free....

As for my motive not to trust every word we're told by the govt???? Maybe because they've been caught lying to us before.....

Strapping Young Lad wrote: I just told you what I think and that is some interesting questions have been raised about the events and I'm not sure that any "official" explanation account for those questions....

Name one specific example.

Strapping Young Lad wrote:

But i do know that "conspiracists" have raised some poignant questions on the events of 9/11 and I'm not sure what to think.....
I'm not embarrassed to say I don't know what happened.....

Please give us just one "poignant question" they brought up that isn't easily dismissed with real science. Being a scientist myself I'd love to hear it as I've had this discussion numerous times with some conspiracy theorist people.

My favorites are the "fire wasn't hot enough" ones to do whatever, some say melt steal, some say make the building collapse, some say different things that prove there was something else (explosives) that made the building fall.

I love disproving their assertations with the real chemistry and physics behind combustion instead of some single persons AVERAGED calculations across a whole building floor (yes, I have read that site and his "science" is crap).

jmog wrote:
My favorites are the "fire wasn't hot enough" ones to do whatever, some say melt steal, some say make the building collapse, some say different things that prove there was something else (explosives) that made the building fall.

I'm partial to the one that says no plane crashed into the Pentagon. Every time I see that, I walk down the hall to my co-worker who witnessed it and call him a liar.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Strapping Young Lad wrote: But i do know that "conspiracists" have raised some poignant questions on the events of 9/11 and I'm not sure what to think.....

Really? All the ones that I've seen are nutbag theories that can be demolished with common sense or three minutes research online. If you have links to some that aren't, I'd love to take a look.

I don't remeber the title of the book or author, but it was written by a professor of theology at some university, so if you want to look it up for yourself, I'm sure it won't be hard to find (I'm sure not many theologians have written on the topic)...

He has sources, of course, and good information....And I'm sure you can find rebuttles to many of his findings, as I have.

But when you have two engineers/scientists giving facts to back up both POV's, respectively, about what would cause the manner of the collapse of the towers, which do you believe???? i'm no engineer nor am I a physicist....Maybe you are.

How would I know whether or not numerous flights are intercepted each year, when I have experts saying "yes,there are" and others saying "no, There aren't"...

How would I know if there were fighters that could have been scrambled in time to intercept the next planes to show signs of being hijacked....Some authorities say there were, some say they could not have.....

How do I know if the gov't would actually carry out "another pearl harbor" in order to give us a reason to put ourselves in the Middle East, as the Project for the New American Century, actually suggested. I mean this group did influence the Bush Admin., to what extreme I'm not sure....

So, like I said I'm not arrogant enough to say that I know one way or the other....I'm no physicist, I'm not in the military, I wasn't close to the situation, like some of those who discount the "official" account of 9/11 and the rest who promote it....I won't pretend to know more than those people, even if you will.

"I'm partial to the one that says no plane crashed into the Pentagon. Every time I see that, I walk down the hall to my co-worker who witnessed it and call him a liar. "

I don't have that witness, but one of my best friends, a roommate in law school and all-around great guy is the son of the one of the contractors that was hired to clean up the Pentagon (he's based out of Oakton)....The father attended our wedding and is undeniably an honest and hardworking American...that was one of the hardest contracts they had to perform and he still doesn't like discussing it......if this was anything other than a plane (aside from other evidence which is plentiful), he'd tell me.

Strapping Young Lad wrote: I don't remeber the title of the book or author

IOW, you can't back up anything you've said.

jmog wrote:
Please give us just one "poignant question" they brought up that isn't easily dismissed with real science. Being a scientist myself I'd love to hear it as I've had this discussion numerous times with some conspiracy theorist people.

My favorites are the "fire wasn't hot enough" ones to do whatever, some say melt steal, some say make the building collapse, some say different things that prove there was something else (explosives) that made the building fall.

I love disproving their assertations with the real chemistry and physics behind combustion instead of some single persons AVERAGED calculations across a whole building floor (yes, I have read that site and his "science" is crap).

That's nice, but not all of them deal with science, so I doubt you'll be able to weigh in, as much as you like to think you could....

i'll ask again, why are guys so offended that I will question things the gov't says....Is it thatI'm questioning the Bush administration or something else.

I'm guessing you guys are conservatives and you do question your government, just not the administrations you voted for...

Am I close???

queencitybuckeye wrote:

Strapping Young Lad wrote: I don't remeber the title of the book or author

IOW, you can't back up anything you've said.

You're right, because I've said nothing except that I'm not willing to say I know what happened...

if you're so curious I'm sure you can find the title with the info I gave you....I'm also pretty sure the title included something about the New Pearl Harbor. Had a picture of Bush on the cover....