Another argument against 9/11 being the work of the government is the choice of targets. Okay, presume we have a government that is amoral enough to murder thousands of its own citizens in cold blood in order to sway popular opinion into suporting a foreign war. Why on Earth would you start such a plan with crippling attacks against the hearts of your military and economic systems? How does that make any sense at all? If you’re trying to convince the public at large that they’re being threatened by an organization of inhuman terrorists, don’t blow up an office building. Blow up a school. Blow up a whole bunch of schools. Imagine if on 9/11, a dozen bombs went off in elementary schools around the nation, and the next few months were dominated by footage like this, over and over again, from every corner of the nation. There’s your blank check for starting any war you want, with any nation you can conceivably frame for the attack. And best of all, the actual damage to the national infrastructure is practically nil. Your ability to project a war overseas is undiminished, and the national will to fight is almost indefatiguable.
A coworker is someone in the cubicle next to yours, and chats with you at the water cooler.
A brother, is someone whose life you depend on in the course of your job. Hence the term ‘Brotherhood of firefighters’, etc.
Learn the difference.
Which definition of brother are you even referring to- number 2? Ok, well then my coworkers at my office job are my brothers- whatever. You know when Cheney dismisses the dead in Iraq by saying ‘they volunteered’, well you would find it insulting if I said the same about the firemen right?
And again, this thread was in IMHO, not GQ, no burden of proof required to have an opinion, no matter how lame or bizarre, no matter what you or anyone else says. I’m sure you were quite the bully on the playground though.
What’s the point of the board if everyone agrees? This isn’t Nazi Germany where everyone has to think alike.
But there were no bombs at “the base”. Video evidence of the collapse clearly show them beginning to topple at the point of impact.
And Dubya didn’t invent proof of WMD’s. He lied about the existence thereof, but didn’t bother to conjure any “proof”.
I seem to recall him holding up pictures “proving” his point, or Colin Powell doing so.
My response was to the dictionary reference that said nothing of the sort.
Guys who work on a scaffold team washing windows depend on each other similarly.
And finding bombs at the base wouldn’t prove the US was involved- if anything, it would show the Muslims not only commandeered planes but also placed bombs at the base.
So, are you saying that invading Iraq, and allowing the 9/11 terrorists to carry out their plan, are moral equivalents? Seriously?
Well, we know it’s more than one now, don’t we? Can’t be a proper conspiracy if only one person knows about it. For Bush to get the info, someone had to give it to him. So that’s two right there. Unless you think he did all the intelligence gathering on his own.
I can speculate that it would take considerably more than one person to gather the required intelligence, and that they would report to their superiors. I can further speculate that Bush’s closest advisers had to be in on it. But since I don’t think *anyone *knew about it beforehand, no, I can’t comment on how big it was. I can only respond that my lack of knowledge of how big an imaginary cover-up was, one for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence, is hardly persuasive that such a cover-up actually happened.
Given enough analysis, almost anything looks “absurd”. Think about it:
Some European had to “discover” America, right at the beginning of the greatest colonial expansion era in human history. A bunch of natives had to die off/be killed so that the Europeans could dominate the landscape. Some European descendants had to successfully break away from one of the strongest empires in Europe, then design a political system that attracted immigrants. Then, in the middle of this great immigration period, an Italian guy had to hook up with a German gal in the middle of the North Atlantic, get her in a family way, then settle in West Virginia so that one of their descendants could hook up with a guy who survived some of the bloodiest battles of the Korean war. They adopt a couple of kids, give birth to a couple of more, she dies of cancer, he and the kids move to Georgia.
I wouldn’t believe it if it were written in a novel. Yet here I sit. 
The famous “evidence” that Iraq had WMD’s was taken from satellite photos. Yet once they were in the country, there were no WMD’s. So he lied that they existed, but couldn’t come up with any proof.
So two people can’t share a secret? How many people knew about Watergate and didn’t rat- maybe they would’ve years later, but who knows?
And yes, I SERIOUSLY do not see the difference in (hypothetically) allowing 3000 to die on 911 and allowing 4000 plus a million to die in Iraq- you don’t?
You’re just fucking with me, right?
You are *killing *me dude! Stop it. Watergate and 9/11? Same same? Brilliant!
I don’t what?
Dictionaries don’t cover everything.
Window washers don’t go into situations they don’t completely control. Firemen go into situation of complete chaos.
And would mean that for some unfathomable reason they decided to do something that would increase their risk of being caught or found out by a factor of 10X to 100X!
So is that what you’re saying?
I bet you’re sure of a lot of things that you’re dead fucking wrong about.
I’m an extrordinarily nice guy when people aren’t walking up to me doing this.
Cisco, since you’re so big on dictionary definitions, I present you the one for “opinion”, bolding mine-
a personal belief or judgment **that is not founded on proof or certainty ** (Example: “My opinion differs from yours”) .
Just like my opinion after reading your rantings in this thread is that you are loonier than a shithouse rat.
I give you another chance to do the right thing and apologize to NightRabbit, as the thread was IMHO, O for opinion.
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
Dictionaries don’t cover everything.
That’s the dumbest thing in this thread, and that’s saying a lot.
No, I actually respect people who have such jobs, I just don’t understand the whole “brother” thing.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Fine. Go to any firehouse and tell them all that their fellow firefighters are not brothers, but are merely coworkers. Then tell them that any firefighter who died recently is just a coworker.
Tell me how that works out.
I never said she was a deluded conspiracy theorist; perhaps you are confusing me with other posters on this thread. I simply questioned why she seems so much more ready to believe in a conspiratorial explanation as opposed to one of incompetence.
Regarding post 155: I believe in the basic tenant of this board, which is to fight ignorance. I don’t believe that that tenant should be tempered based on which sub-area of the board a posting is made in. When someone professes a belief in something that is patently, demonstrably absurd, it is the duty of other posters to challenge that belief. I agree that the particular way it was handled in this case was overly heavy-handed, but that doesn’t excuse NightRabbit’s initial espousal of rampant ignorance. Two wrongs still don’t make a right.