4 ms·

To be honest, if he believes that 'proofs are lacking on both sides' then I've just lost quite a significant amount of respect for the man. If the 'truthers' a

To be honest, if he believes that 'proofs are lacking on both sides' then I've just lost quite a significant amount of respect for the man. If the 'truthers' are correct then many hundreds, if not thousands, of people decided to conspire to murder thousands of innocent civilians and, somehow, managed to prevent any leaking of this whatsoever. On this basis alone, the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy is insane, before we get to the fact that, as with all other conspiracy theories, there is just no evidence whatsoever (though the 'truthers' require an unattainable standard of proof from reasonable people, despite requiring none for their own beliefs) then the idea that there is 'no proof' on either side is equally unhinged. If you can't think clearly on something so clear and obvious then it really draws into question your reliability on any subject, especially if you are 'preaching' on the subject. I'm sorry, you just have to draw the line when you're talking about the murder of thousands of innocent people. Seriously.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
rdouble 15y ago
If you can't think clearly on something so clear and obvious then it really draws into question your reliability on any subject, especially if you are 'preaching' on the subject. I agree with your other point. However, the point I quoted is often brought up in these sorts of discussions and is totally wrong. Great minds throughout history have believed all sorts of crazy and incorrect shit at the same time they were doing great work.
muyuu 15y ago
That always happens with people who voice their opinions on everything. There is always going to be a deal breaker. We all have extremely conflicting opinions with others. You have to consider every issue and not the man so much. He's the way he is. I agree with him in many points. In some very impopular issues I agree with him (not the "inside job" thing though). What I wouldn't do is come out in lectures with that kind of stuff. Political correctness is sadly a need when you stamp your real name on something. Now, I think the FSF is right about basically every single point it's active on. That's what matters to me. I agree it's approach might be sometimes lacking, and I think RMS himself should step down and go back to writing software. Which is why I donate to the EFF instead, and I think it's pretty awesome.
Joeri 15y ago
OK, hundreds would be impossible and silly, but why would it take hundreds? Suppose Cheney decided by himself to let the attacks happen, could he have, without anyone catching on? If not he alone, who else would be needed? No more than five surely. Discounting a conspiracy as impossible is just as silly as arguing a conspiracy of hundreds. Improbable, yes, impossible, no.
- scott_s 15y ago
  Suppose Cheney decided by himself to let the attacks happen, could he have, without anyone catching on? If not he alone, who else would be needed? No more than five surely. No, because the people at the top are not the ones who do the work. They set policy, and sometimes directly tell people what to do - but, more often, they tell people who then tell other people what to do. If a conspiracy is going to involve the top of the chain - and it should be pointed out that the VP is technically not in the chain of command - then it's going to involved dozens, if not hundreds of others if the conspiracy is actually going to do something effective. And in that case, there will be enough written down that eventually it will out. See, for example, the Iran-Contra affair. An excellent account of both what the critical points for intervention were, and what happened on the day is "The Ground Truth": http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/B0043RT9A8/ http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/... The title has unfortunate "truther" connotations, but it comes from a term the aviation industry uses to establish what happened after a crash. They use first-hand material and evidence to establish the "ground truth" of the crash, and from there try to extract lessons. The author does exactly that, using primary sources exclusively - such as recorded conversations between air controllers - to determine the sequence of events.
- tygorius 15y ago
  It seems to me that you're conflating two assertions: 1) the original, "the US was behind the 9/11 attacks", and 2) your offered alternative, "the VP and a handful of others had specific, actionable information on al Qaeda's attack and did nothing to stop it". The two are not the same, and the preceding comments were made regarding the first. In either case discounting a conspiracy as impossible isn't silly if there's no evidence of said conspiracy nor even a plausible hypothesis of how such a conspiracy could have worked. The onus of proof is on those proposing a conspiracy, not on everyone else to prove a conspiracy didn't occur.
pointclick 15y ago
if we're talking about the murder of thousands of innocent people, investigating about this thing matters all the more.. just because it's not likely, doesn't mean it's impossible.. 'proofs are lacking on both sides' isn't conclusive to rule out that possibility.. saw an interesting documentary about this 9/11 stuff from zeitgeist: 4 videos in youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECMJ2LBK90Q&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECMJ2LBK90Q&feature=relat... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSW1x_h4Kfo&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSW1x_h4Kfo&feature=relat... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeSDOb7NcgE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeSDOb7NcgE&feature=relat...
wil2k 15y ago
You can say what you want, but many strange things happend that day. Like the free-fall speed of the buildings: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html The odd 'toasting' and sometimes sudden rusting of 1400 cars about 7 blocks away.. sometimes even engine blocks are missing?!? http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html And what about the 'dustification' of http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image43.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image43.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image44.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image44.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image45.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image45.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image46.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image46.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image47.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image47.jpg Animation: http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/dustspire.gif http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/dustspire.gif More 'dustification': http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html You can say what you want, but I find seeing the type of massive steel beams used in those building turning to dust and blowing away in the wind in just seconds very, very odd. Were does the energy come from? Especially because the steel to which this is happening is 'standing alone', seemingly untouched, suddenly going 'poof'..!?! Not saying that I agree with the described causes on that web page.. but I am quite certain it isn't caused by a plane crash an hour or so earlier.
- singular 15y ago
  Sigh. No disrespect intended, but you could spend the rest of your life arguing this stuff, just like any other conspiracy theory. But I'll bite this once so it doesn't look like I'm 'ignoring' your 'evidence'. I won't respond beyond this. You can't argue against the fact of what would be required for this to actually be a conspiracy, that is concrete and vital to the contention that it wasn't what it appeared to be. You have to explain that, or otherwise we have nothing to talk about. Remember - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 'This is weird' does not count. But... I'll carry on for the sake of it. Saying things looking 'weird', or 'how do you explain x?' is meaningless - yeah, weird stuff happened, so what? In many scientific experiments 'weird' stuff happens that can't be explained, that's the way it is - nature is just a strange beast and weird stuff happens, despite us being able to determine the truth of the core matter. Ask any experimental scientist about this. That is, of course, assuming there is any truth or validity in the 'evidence' provided which I really can't be bothered to look at, as I have n number of seconds left to live in my life, 0 of which I want to spend reading crank bullshit. A brief few seconds of googling got me this - http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/dr-jones-reanimates-the-corpse-of-the-dustification-lady-dr-judy-woods/ http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/dr-jones-reanimat... I recommend in future you google both for and against ridiculous claims made with little to no evidence. The crux of the matter is - did planes strike the buildings and cause them to collapse? The answer is yes, unless you believe the vast majority of competent engineers (note there are many engineers + architects who are also conspiracy theorists - also note my reference to 'competent' - there are plenty of incompetents and nuts in every walk of life, engineering + architecture being no different) and scientists out there who accept the cause of collapse are conspiring to lie too, in which case you may as well abandon any attempt at reason whatsoever because the whole world is just utterly one endless conspiracy. On a personal note - I am a Civil Engineering graduate from one of the best CivEng departments in the world (Imperial College, London). I remember discussing the collapse with a professor of structural mechanics and he had no problems with the mode and cause of collapse whatsoever. I make this, not as a resort to authority, but rather pointing out that you, yes you have to explain why he could not work out what this internet randomer could. The simple fact is that you can cling on to all sorts of 'weird' goings on as evidence of all sorts of strange theories, however several points remain the case:- 1. To prove point X, you don't need to explain every weird apparent occurrence Y and Z, you only have to prove point X. If this was not the case, experimental science wouldn't really have made much progress over the years. 2. If you make an extraordinary claim that utterly contradicts point X, you need to provide overwhelming evidence to back that up - saying 'oh isn't Y and Z weird?' isn't really sufficient. 3. Random shit off the internet doesn't count as 'evidence'. I'd ask you to consider what we're talking about here - the murder of thousands of innocents, and I'd like you to ask yourself whether your not having even bothered to google for opposite points of view (took me all of 10 seconds), or considering whether that evidence is valid or sufficient to discredit the 'mainstream theory' is in good taste, or actually in essence quite offensive. Note that a hell of a lot of the 'evidence' these sites mention is flatly false. Practical Mechanics gave a good overview - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842 http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/122... Okay, that's it on this subject. I'm not interested in responding further to this.
wakeup 15y ago
You are just plain retarded I hope you know that now! Your definition of truth is based on self deception...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

rdouble 15y ago

If you can't think clearly on something so clear and obvious then it really draws into question your reliability on any subject, especially if you are 'preaching' on the subject. I agree with your other point. However, the point I quoted is often brought up in these sorts of discussions and is totally wrong. Great minds throughout history have believed all sorts of crazy and incorrect shit at the same time they were doing great work.

muyuu 15y ago

That always happens with people who voice their opinions on everything. There is always going to be a deal breaker. We all have extremely conflicting opinions with others. You have to consider every issue and not the man so much. He's the way he is. I agree with him in many points. In some very impopular issues I agree with him (not the "inside job" thing though). What I wouldn't do is come out in lectures with that kind of stuff. Political correctness is sadly a need when you stamp your real name on something. Now, I think the FSF is right about basically every single point it's active on. That's what matters to me. I agree it's approach might be sometimes lacking, and I think RMS himself should step down and go back to writing software. Which is why I donate to the EFF instead, and I think it's pretty awesome.

Joeri 15y ago

OK, hundreds would be impossible and silly, but why would it take hundreds? Suppose Cheney decided by himself to let the attacks happen, could he have, without anyone catching on? If not he alone, who else would be needed? No more than five surely. Discounting a conspiracy as impossible is just as silly as arguing a conspiracy of hundreds. Improbable, yes, impossible, no.

scott_s 15y ago
Suppose Cheney decided by himself to let the attacks happen, could he have, without anyone catching on? If not he alone, who else would be needed? No more than five surely. No, because the people at the top are not the ones who do the work. They set policy, and sometimes directly tell people what to do - but, more often, they tell people who then tell other people what to do. If a conspiracy is going to involve the top of the chain - and it should be pointed out that the VP is technically not in the chain of command - then it's going to involved dozens, if not hundreds of others if the conspiracy is actually going to do something effective. And in that case, there will be enough written down that eventually it will out. See, for example, the Iran-Contra affair. An excellent account of both what the critical points for intervention were, and what happened on the day is "The Ground Truth": http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/B0043RT9A8/ http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/... The title has unfortunate "truther" connotations, but it comes from a term the aviation industry uses to establish what happened after a crash. They use first-hand material and evidence to establish the "ground truth" of the crash, and from there try to extract lessons. The author does exactly that, using primary sources exclusively - such as recorded conversations between air controllers - to determine the sequence of events.
tygorius 15y ago
It seems to me that you're conflating two assertions: 1) the original, "the US was behind the 9/11 attacks", and 2) your offered alternative, "the VP and a handful of others had specific, actionable information on al Qaeda's attack and did nothing to stop it". The two are not the same, and the preceding comments were made regarding the first. In either case discounting a conspiracy as impossible isn't silly if there's no evidence of said conspiracy nor even a plausible hypothesis of how such a conspiracy could have worked. The onus of proof is on those proposing a conspiracy, not on everyone else to prove a conspiracy didn't occur.

pointclick 15y ago

if we're talking about the murder of thousands of innocent people, investigating about this thing matters all the more.. just because it's not likely, doesn't mean it's impossible.. 'proofs are lacking on both sides' isn't conclusive to rule out that possibility.. saw an interesting documentary about this 9/11 stuff from zeitgeist: 4 videos in youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECMJ2LBK90Q&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECMJ2LBK90Q&feature=relat... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSW1x_h4Kfo&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSW1x_h4Kfo&feature=relat... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeSDOb7NcgE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeSDOb7NcgE&feature=relat...

wil2k 15y ago

You can say what you want, but many strange things happend that day. Like the free-fall speed of the buildings: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html The odd 'toasting' and sometimes sudden rusting of 1400 cars about 7 blocks away.. sometimes even engine blocks are missing?!? http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html And what about the 'dustification' of http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image43.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image43.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image44.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image44.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image45.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image45.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image46.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image46.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image47.jpg http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image47.jpg Animation: http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/dustspire.gif http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/dustspire.gif More 'dustification': http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html You can say what you want, but I find seeing the type of massive steel beams used in those building turning to dust and blowing away in the wind in just seconds very, very odd. Were does the energy come from? Especially because the steel to which this is happening is 'standing alone', seemingly untouched, suddenly going 'poof'..!?! Not saying that I agree with the described causes on that web page.. but I am quite certain it isn't caused by a plane crash an hour or so earlier.

singular 15y ago
Sigh. No disrespect intended, but you could spend the rest of your life arguing this stuff, just like any other conspiracy theory. But I'll bite this once so it doesn't look like I'm 'ignoring' your 'evidence'. I won't respond beyond this. You can't argue against the fact of what would be required for this to actually be a conspiracy, that is concrete and vital to the contention that it wasn't what it appeared to be. You have to explain that, or otherwise we have nothing to talk about. Remember - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 'This is weird' does not count. But... I'll carry on for the sake of it. Saying things looking 'weird', or 'how do you explain x?' is meaningless - yeah, weird stuff happened, so what? In many scientific experiments 'weird' stuff happens that can't be explained, that's the way it is - nature is just a strange beast and weird stuff happens, despite us being able to determine the truth of the core matter. Ask any experimental scientist about this. That is, of course, assuming there is any truth or validity in the 'evidence' provided which I really can't be bothered to look at, as I have n number of seconds left to live in my life, 0 of which I want to spend reading crank bullshit. A brief few seconds of googling got me this - http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/dr-jones-reanimates-the-corpse-of-the-dustification-lady-dr-judy-woods/ http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/dr-jones-reanimat... I recommend in future you google both for and against ridiculous claims made with little to no evidence. The crux of the matter is - did planes strike the buildings and cause them to collapse? The answer is yes, unless you believe the vast majority of competent engineers (note there are many engineers + architects who are also conspiracy theorists - also note my reference to 'competent' - there are plenty of incompetents and nuts in every walk of life, engineering + architecture being no different) and scientists out there who accept the cause of collapse are conspiring to lie too, in which case you may as well abandon any attempt at reason whatsoever because the whole world is just utterly one endless conspiracy. On a personal note - I am a Civil Engineering graduate from one of the best CivEng departments in the world (Imperial College, London). I remember discussing the collapse with a professor of structural mechanics and he had no problems with the mode and cause of collapse whatsoever. I make this, not as a resort to authority, but rather pointing out that you, yes you have to explain why he could not work out what this internet randomer could. The simple fact is that you can cling on to all sorts of 'weird' goings on as evidence of all sorts of strange theories, however several points remain the case:- 1. To prove point X, you don't need to explain every weird apparent occurrence Y and Z, you only have to prove point X. If this was not the case, experimental science wouldn't really have made much progress over the years. 2. If you make an extraordinary claim that utterly contradicts point X, you need to provide overwhelming evidence to back that up - saying 'oh isn't Y and Z weird?' isn't really sufficient. 3. Random shit off the internet doesn't count as 'evidence'. I'd ask you to consider what we're talking about here - the murder of thousands of innocents, and I'd like you to ask yourself whether your not having even bothered to google for opposite points of view (took me all of 10 seconds), or considering whether that evidence is valid or sufficient to discredit the 'mainstream theory' is in good taste, or actually in essence quite offensive. Note that a hell of a lot of the 'evidence' these sites mention is flatly false. Practical Mechanics gave a good overview - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842 http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/122... Okay, that's it on this subject. I'm not interested in responding further to this.

wakeup 15y ago

You are just plain retarded I hope you know that now! Your definition of truth is based on self deception...