[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
The US not actually comitting the act, yes. The US knowing it was going to happen and did nothing cannot be disproven.
[/QUOTE]
Whether or not it did is nevertheless a matter of fact. Either it did or it didn’t. I really don’t think you are trying very hard here. I’m not trying to be a smartass. But you aren’t even responding to what people actually say.
[QUOTE=Roadfood]
But the statement, “The US government was involved in bringing down the twin towers” is a statement whose truth value absolutely, positively does NOT depend on whether you actually believe that. If you believe it with all your heart and soul, it’s still totally false.
See the difference?
[/QUOTE]
NightRabbit didn’t say that, though.
She said
- hardly a ringing endorsement of 9/11 conspiracy theory. She went on to say:
[my parsing]
Again, a far cry from what she’s been/being accused of.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
If she had not dismissed the 184 who died at the Pentagon so cavalierly, and had not linked to truther cites, and had not continued to debate while claiming not to, and had not mealy-mouthedly hidden (as do you) behind her right to an opinion, she may not have been Pitted. But she did, and she was.
[/QUOTE]
She didn’t dismiss them. She didn’t know they were there. That may speak poorly of her reading comprehension, but she’s hardly earned the group tar-and-feather treatment she got.
Before Watergate was proven, someone holding the theory that it was true could have been labled an idiot for believing something incredible, as at one point there was no credible evidence that it was anything other than a break-in. Then credible evidence surfaced. See why that’s not a good argument?
And she erred about the dead, but did not disparage them. She said they were unimportant, and of course that was miscontrued- most correctly took that to mean unimportant to the top brass, same as the Iraq soldiers are personally unimportant- no Bush family members on the frontline. Just pawns in the game, same as any dead on 911 would THEORETICALLY be.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
She didn’t dismiss them. She didn’t know they were there. That may speak poorly of her reading comprehension, but she’s hardly earned the group tar-and-feather treatment she got.
[/QUOTE]
No, she plainly said that by “vacant” she meant “vacant of bigwigs.”
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Post 243 has a paragraph addressed to you, sorry for not linking your post 
[/QUOTE]
That response in no way answers any of my questions, merely asserts the right to ignore questions when they are inconvenient.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
That response in no way answers any of my questions, merely asserts the right to ignore questions when they are inconvenient.
[/QUOTE]
I have no legitimate response to your questions, because I don’t believe those things happened.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Before Watergate was proven, someone holding the theory that it was true could have been labled an idiot for believing something incredible, as at one point there was no credible evidence that it was anything other than a break-in. Then credible evidence surfaced. See why that’s not a good argument?
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry to say this, but fuck you for misrepresenting my words yet again, you worthless bag of shit. I said had no credibility, not *no *credible evidence. Have you no shame at all?
It is almost incredible to me that you continue to compare the Watergate break-in with the idea that our government allowed 9/11. The comparison is moronic.
Anyone who starts spouting about how we have been ‘spoonfed’ information about 911 and then cites some of the worst crank-prone websites is hardly ‘agnostic’ about the situation.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
No, she plainly said that by “vacant” she meant “vacant of bigwigs.”
[/QUOTE]
And given that she is clearly arguing her point from the position of the Administration/conspiracists, what does that tell you about her opinion of Pentagon underlings?
It’s pretty obvious that if there were some great conspiracy at play, the conspirators would need to kill a few innocents in order to inflame the public.
[QUOTE=Mr. Miskatonic]
When the fuck did “complete chaos” = “impeding collapse”? How did you get to that end of things? Is this your level of logic?
You have implied that I was an idiot for saying something I did not say. I’d like an apology, please.
[/QUOTE]
Gotta an explanation for your distortion yet, Wee Bairn?
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
And given that she is clearly arguing her point from the position of the Administration/conspiracists, what does that tell you about her opinion of Pentagon underlings?
It’s pretty obvious that if there were some great conspiracy at play, the conspirators would need to kill a few innocents in order to inflame the public.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t follow. Run that by me again, please.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I don’t follow. Run that by me again, please.
[/QUOTE]
Okay.
She was suggesting that the conspirators (presumably the Administration) lost no critical assets (to their way of thinking) in the Pentagon crash, just some “expendables”- again, “expendables” to their way of thinking, not her own.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
NightRabbit didn’t say that, though.
[/QUOTE]
But Wee Bairn, in making the analogy between what she did say and the statement of preference of Van Halen over Van Hagar, implied that one should be entitled to hold any opinion about the facts of 911, just as one is entitled to hold any opinion about the relative merits of one rock group over another.
That is simply not the case. One is entitled to hold any opinion about music because opinions about music reside solely in the realm of personal judgment.
However, one does not not have the same entitlement to hold any opinion about something that lives in the realm of fact.
“The Earth is flat, that’s my opinion, and I’m entitled to it.” No, sorry, I’m not, because “the Earth is flat” is factually wrong.
NightRabbit did not merely say she had some doubts about the facts of 911, she went on to enumerate some of those doubts. And those enumerations are factually incorrect, therefore her doubts have no basis in fact, and therefore her doubtful opinion is not one she is entitled to hold.
I’m not saying she can’t have that opinion, since she obviously does, but what Wee Bairn refers to as her opinion can be shown to be wrong, in a way that an opinion that Van Halen is better than Van Hagar cannot. That’s what I mean by “not entitled to hold the opinion”. The opinion is just wrong, period.
Is the difference between an opinion about music and an opinion about facts really that hard for you to distinguish?
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Okay.
She was suggesting that the conspirators (presumably the Administration) lost no critical assets (to their way of thinking) in the Pentagon crash, just some “expendables”- again, “expendables” to their way of thinking, not her own.
[/QUOTE]
Has she offered that as an explanation? If so I missed it. And if in fact that was her meaning, I apologize for misconstruing it.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
[my parsing]
Again, a far cry from what she’s been/being accused of.
[/QUOTE]
Your parsing left out an important part:
[QUOTE=NightRabbit]
at the bottom of it, I really don’t trust that, if the Bush administration could send 4000 troops off to die for their agenda in Iraq, I don’t see how it’s so impossible that they would sacrifice however many more that died in the WTC in order to predicate a reason to go into the area to begin with. All the evidence that the government was warned about air attacks into NYC years before the attacks happened and yet still didn’t realize or respond to what happened until the planes actually hit. The fact that the guys who hijacked the planes were educated at US air bases. The fact that a plane could be flown into an important office building in washington and happen to hit the newly constructed area that isn’t yet fully staffed or operational.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine. As I’ve said before, that seems to me to very clearly indicate that she believes a) that the government absolutely knew, without a doubt, about the attacks beforehand, and b) people in the government consciously choose to let it happen.
As opposed to the reality which is that a) some parts of some intelligence agencies may have had some hint of the possibility of some kind of an attack, and b) either suffered from the normal problem of which of the hundreds of reports to believe, or just had trouble believing that such a plan could be reality.
In other words, she can more easily believe a grand conspiracy than simple human fallibility.
[QUOTE=ouryL]
Argument from ignorance
[/QUOTE]
Good link.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
You can prove who won the 1975 Super Bowl…
[/QUOTE]
Hell, for all anyone knows the Vikings really beat the Steelers back then and there’s been a massive conspiracy to hide the truth. Granted, it makes no logical sense, there’s no evdience for it and there’s a truckload of evidence against it, but those minor considerations don’t seem to bother you regarding 9/11.
[QUOTE=Roadfood]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Consider how important the censuses are to government planning. Consider how less accurate the census would be if people knew that could be published with names attached. While I can accept a little gentle chiding in IMHO about goofy views, this over the top reaction here actively disables any “fight against ignorance” by making it hide away.
These retards who believe in the “kaplin method”, or whatever the fuck, of trying to scare people into hiding their beliefs are completely deluded. Do they really think “quiet” racists/bigots/conspiracists are neutralized? Do they really think pretending/faking these people aren’t actually out there is a good intelligent thing? Fuck those shitheads. And as I implied in my comments to Cisco, a bunch of them are really just a bunch of jackasses looking for a safe subject to feel superior about.