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.
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.
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.
No, she plainly said that by “vacant” she meant “vacant of bigwigs.”
That response in no way answers any of my questions, merely asserts the right to ignore questions when they are inconvenient.
I have no legitimate response to your questions, because I don’t believe those things happened.
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.
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.
Gotta an explanation for your distortion yet, Wee Bairn?
I don’t follow. Run that by me again, please.
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.
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?
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.
Your parsing left out an important part:
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.
Good link.
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.
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.