Harry Vest
Refugee
I made a mistake...it was you Dreadsox, not Melon, who I was referring to. Let's NOT discuss JFK right now. I think we're forever going to disagree on that.
Jesse Ventura questions official 911 story
- Thread starter Harry Vest
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
I made a mistake...it was you Dreadsox, not Melon, who I was referring to. Let's NOT discuss JFK right now. I think we're forever going to disagree on that.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
Do I think that there were some people in high levels of the US government who knew "something big" was going to happen and might well have known it would involve hijacked airplanes and would result in the deaths of hundreds of people? Do I believe these people would then allow that event happen because it would enable then to more easily wage a "War on Terror" without being seriously questioned? Yes, I believe these things are possible.
Do I think the 911 attacks were carefully planned and carried out by some super secret US government group and include the planned, controlled demolition of the WTC? No, I don't. I do think the small group of religious zealots who did carry out the attacks essentially got lucky and did far more damage -- especially to the WTC -- than they ever expected.
Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.
Do I think the 911 attacks were carefully planned and carried out by some super secret US government group and include the planned, controlled demolition of the WTC? No, I don't. I do think the small group of religious zealots who did carry out the attacks essentially got lucky and did far more damage -- especially to the WTC -- than they ever expected.
Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.
2861U2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
And you got your degree in physics from where?
My father is an engineer and has incredible knowledge in the engineering and physics fields, and he doesn't buy into any of this nonsense.
Harry Vest
Refugee
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Hogwash? Really, with your expertise in structural engineering can you explain to me exactly why it's hogwash?
Harry Vest
Refugee
Nope. Can't do it. I'll leave it to people like Dr. Steven Jones.
First of all, you need to calm down. It's hard to take you seriously when you're yelling and screaming in response to posts.
Secondly, it's hogwash according to you and a select few experts who are of the minority opinion in their field of experts. Which means that there are countless more experts who disagree with you. So excuse me if I don't take "That's utter HOGWASH!!!" all that seriously.
Thirdly, if you want to actually have a nice debate and get people to take you more seriously, how about posting some of the evidence you're talking about, or at least posting more than a name of a guy you agree with.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
See, I think this is where you lose so much credibility in here. You find one source, so you therefore call everything else "hogwash".
Dr. Jones was a pretty well respected physicist, but there are some issues, one he doen't have an expertise in structural engineering and didn't have anyone who does to back up his theories. In fact he didn't have much peer review at all, he does have supporters but the support for a truly peer reviewed paper just isn't there. Jones has made a few appearances speaking about his theories but mysteriously enough has never engaged in a debate with other physicist and engineers that don't agree with him.
Not enough to blindly believe or call anything "hogwash". But hey a professional wrestler/actor/politician is on his side, so he has that going for him...
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
And how exactly does this distinguish your own thinking on the topic from the HOGWASH!!!-swallowing "nuts" and "absolute lunatics" you're railing against? Nonconformity merely for nonconformity's sake, is that it? If you "can't do it" then how are you actually deciding whom to believe?
Harry Vest
Refugee
It's funny that no one has responded to William Rodriguez. If anything, when you watch footage of Mr. Rodriguez you know in your soul he is NOT lying or making anything up. He heard explosions in the sub-basement of WTC 1 and proceeded to rescue possibly hundreds of people. In fact, he was one of the last people to leave the building. If you believe Mr. Rodriguez then you MUST admit something happened that is NOT a part of the official explanation. If you insist that the official explanation is THE TRUTH then you are calling this true hero a LIAR!!!
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
So that's how you're going to proceed? I show you how your source is questionable and not worthy of the dismissal hogwash attitude you have so you move to another more emotional piece of "evidence". Weak debate, not only that but maybe posting some links every once in awhile would help your already weak argument.
The fact that Rodriguez was brave doesn't automatically make his witness credible. When did Rodriguez hear these "explosions"? What is his expertise? Does he know for sure this wasn't the sound of structure buckling?
Harry, once again, cool it with the yelling.
I took a look at William Rodriguez's site. He sure does seem to like all the attention.
I also searched the net for his story, and so far, there doesn't seem to be anything in his story that directly contradicts the official explanation. Could you cite some sources, Harry?
I took a look at William Rodriguez's site. He sure does seem to like all the attention.
I also searched the net for his story, and so far, there doesn't seem to be anything in his story that directly contradicts the official explanation. Could you cite some sources, Harry?
Harry Vest
Refugee
Last edited by a moderator:
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
I'm sorry, but that just about sums up your style and manner of posting in FYM: a little hysterical, extra punctuation, and a dash of hair-pulling frustration that no one here seems to respond to your topics in the way you want them to.
It's great you're an active participant here, and want to have discussions and introduce new topics. But if you want people to respond to you differently, you might want to take a look at the way you present your comments and/or arguments.
RedRocksU2
Blue Crack Addict
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Because you entered a capital "o" instead of a zero. The link works now.
Is there some reason why you can't just cut and paste URLs instead of manually typing them out? That way you're guaranteed no typos.
Harry Vest
Refugee
I'm a dinosaur, sorry. Guess I've got to learn to do that.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Heres a neat video that lots on FYM could benefit from Here Be Dragons: An Introduction to Critical Thinking
It is so very important to be critical and skeptical, especially of political groups and those that wield any power, but going out on wild tangents, gut feelings and reaffirming your initial biases by seeking out evidence that supports them is a mistake. From an outsider perspective I view 9/11 truthers as deluded and infantile, I think that they want there to be an overarching conspiracy so much that they get divorced from reality; and that discredits them further. I would take a South Park view that truthers only play into the hands of "the powers that be" (namely the large bureaucracies like the CIA and FBI that dropped the ball, out of human error and institutionally reinforced groupthink not sinister participation) there needs to be more scrutiny and accountability and that goal isn't served by accusing "the government" or orchestrating one of the mass murders it isn't responsible for. With such a vocal and contemptible lot of conspiracy loons out there at every anti-war rally who routinely crash speeches it is so very simple to dismiss well grounded criticisms that have nothing to do with fake planes, Arabs hired by Mossad or sinister puppeteers.
Why invent a conspiracy when there is mountains of human error and stupidity to criticise? When it comes to the US state apparatus you can never be so wanting for crimes that you have to invent them.
It takes more than ranting "truth to power" to be a skeptic, it demands a consistent approach to issues, reappraisal of what you think and an open mind to possibilities while retaining the capacity to discriminate bad ideas. We are all flawed, we are all prone to bias, I think that people can only benefit by learning how to think critically (that goes for political issues, health issues and religious issues).
It is so very important to be critical and skeptical, especially of political groups and those that wield any power, but going out on wild tangents, gut feelings and reaffirming your initial biases by seeking out evidence that supports them is a mistake. From an outsider perspective I view 9/11 truthers as deluded and infantile, I think that they want there to be an overarching conspiracy so much that they get divorced from reality; and that discredits them further. I would take a South Park view that truthers only play into the hands of "the powers that be" (namely the large bureaucracies like the CIA and FBI that dropped the ball, out of human error and institutionally reinforced groupthink not sinister participation) there needs to be more scrutiny and accountability and that goal isn't served by accusing "the government" or orchestrating one of the mass murders it isn't responsible for. With such a vocal and contemptible lot of conspiracy loons out there at every anti-war rally who routinely crash speeches it is so very simple to dismiss well grounded criticisms that have nothing to do with fake planes, Arabs hired by Mossad or sinister puppeteers.
Why invent a conspiracy when there is mountains of human error and stupidity to criticise? When it comes to the US state apparatus you can never be so wanting for crimes that you have to invent them.
It takes more than ranting "truth to power" to be a skeptic, it demands a consistent approach to issues, reappraisal of what you think and an open mind to possibilities while retaining the capacity to discriminate bad ideas. We are all flawed, we are all prone to bias, I think that people can only benefit by learning how to think critically (that goes for political issues, health issues and religious issues).
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I "laugh it off" because it's laughable. Not to mention an insult to those who were murdered on that day. I choose to spend my time focusing on them and never forgetting them rather than on some half-baked conspiracy theories.
Harry Vest
Refugee
Yep, it's sure laughable for William Rodriguez who lost dozens of friends and co-workers that day. I'm sure it's really laughable for the families who have come to question the events as well. And while we're at it I'm sure it's hilarious to the Firefighters who heard explosions throughout the building. Yep, just one big laugh.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Who flew the planes?
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
That's complete rubbish, I'm afraid. It is most certainly is not insulting to the victims to research these issues, and it's quite wrong of you to say that. You should do more research before posting such stupid comments.
I would assume that if you had lost someone in 9/11, you would want to get to the bottom of what happened, right? I certainly would.
It's people that want to censor debate that insult the victims, so cut the sanctimonious horseshit.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
^ What's your problem? Several posters in here have managed to convey that they find Harry's 'shouting' and calling other posters 'nuts' and 'lunatics' offputting without resorting to labeling his comments "stupid" or "horseshit." If you find an openly dismissive attitude towards alternative 9/11 theories objectionable, fine, but you're not likely to get anyone to reconsider anything by getting that hostile in response.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
It's this forum that's out of step, not the likes of me or Harry Vest. Every other forum I contribute to or browse has had a decent, free-ranging, discussion about this issue. FYM is the only one that has not.
Excepting posters like A_Wanderer, Indra and one or two others, who at least discussed the issue in a thoughtful mannner, most of the posts in the thread did not even pretend to make a serious attempt to deal with and discuss the issues raised by Harry Vest, but rather resorted to trollish, dismissive remarks.
You didn't object to any of the trollish comments from the left wing side, but you did object to my comment - which was purely a response to Mrs Springsteen's remarks.
Shouldn't that indicate something to you, Yolland?
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Damn, I'm not being standoffish enough 
nm
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
I thought this thread was considerably more constructive--it helped that the 'inside job' advocate in question obviously knew his stuff and focused on laying it out, rather than getting worked up because people failed to say "Wow great topic, thanks for posting this, nice thought-provoking links there." (He had, however, registered here solely for that purpose, as several posters surmised.)
You're correct that few in here take 'inside job' theories seriously; however, that's not my problem or concern. I'm not bothered by Harry's take on 9/11 in the slightest (nor yours, though to be fair you haven't really offered one). What I did notice was that your reply to MrsS stood out as especially hostile. Yes, virtually the whole thread is snarky, from beginning (and I mean beginning) to end; some topics just are like that. That isn't license to directly call another poster's comments "stupid" and "sanctimonious horseshit." I don't think I can really make it any clearer than that.
Not really sure what you're getting at here...this isn't a 'left wing'/'right wing' topic at all. Harry is obviously not a 'right-winger'; 2861U2, who was as hard on him as anyone else, is clearly not 'left-wing'. In the US at least, no one sees 9/11 'inside job' theories as 'conservative,' nor disregard of them as 'liberal.' Perhaps your intent was to suggest that everyone else (including Harry) whose snarky comments in the course of the thread managed to pass my acceptability test are somehow my friends in some way that you're not? No. You were just ruder, and not at all posting in the vein of the posters you correctly identified as having offered thoughtful comments.
That this thread has zero chance left of yielding anything constructive?
Good idea.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
-
-
