[QUOTE=NightRabbit]
And completely writing a threat to the country off as the stuff of movies doesn’t seem to be a rational decision. I could be wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Do you know how many threats are made against the president (any president, and that includes Saint Jack Kennedy) and against the US government in a given day? Month? Year? A hell of a lot, that’s how many. Yes, there are people whose job it is to evaluate them. But they’re not clairvoyant.
[QUOTE=Rilchiam]
Do you know how many threats are made against the president (any president, and that includes Saint Jack Kennedy) and against the US government in a given day? Month? Year? A hell of a lot, that’s how many. Yes, there are people whose job it is to evaluate them. But they’re not clairvoyant.
[/QUOTE]
Couple that with an Administration which only seems to listen to people saying what it wants to believe and you have a recipe for disaster, as we found out. (Twice!)
Yeah, I agree with that. It’s either one or the other.
[QUOTE=Garfield226]
Bull. Shit.
Please see my previous post with all the assertions you made in the other thread.
You believed that section of the Pentagon was vacant of ANY employees. You believe it’s a little too “convenient” that section was hit. You believe the government should have known it was going to happen.
You’re lying through your teeth.
[/QUOTE]
I already said I DIDN’T REMEMBER MY FACTS and I APOLOGIZED. What else do you want me to say? It’s be a LONG TIME since I’ve even thought about this at all!
[QUOTE=NightRabbit]
I already said I DIDN’T REMEMBER MY FACTS and I APOLOGIZED. What else do you want me to say? It’s be a LONG TIME since I’ve even thought about this at all!
[/QUOTE]
You probably shouldn’t say you don’t believe anything, you’re just uncertain when you clearly post things which say you believe things and give little or no whiff of uncertainty.
Edit: I especially wouldn’t post things making assertions like that when it’s been a “LONG TIME” since you’ve even thought about it.
[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
Once more, with emphasis…
What. Do. You. Think. Happened. On. Nine. Eleven?
[/QUOTE]
I. Don’t. Know. Is that slow enough for you? I don’t trust the media. I don’t trust the conspiracy sites. I don’t trust any of it. That’s my whole friggin’ point. I’m not trying to preach/convert/mislead/etc. I’m not in a position to POSIT ANY THEORIES. I am NOT positing any theories. I’m saying, from what I have read/seen, it’s POSSIBLE that there was governmental involvement in 9/11. That’s it! I think it’s POSSIBLE! I didn’t say it was PROBABLE, I didn’t say it was LIKELY, I didn’t say it HAPPENED. Jesus christ. I said I mistrusted the information we’ve been given, and I mean it. And that’s ALL I mean.
[QUOTE=NightRabbit]
I’m not in a position to POSIT ANY THEORIES. I am NOT positing any theories.
[/QUOTE]
More bullshit. You clearly did.
You are dishonest.
[QUOTE=Garfield226]
You probably shouldn’t say you don’t believe anything, you’re just uncertain when you clearly post things which say you believe things and give little or no whiff of uncertainty.
Edit: I especially wouldn’t post things making assertions like that when it’s been a “LONG TIME” since you’ve even thought about it.
[/QUOTE]
Where was I making assertions? I never made assertions. I never wanted to turn into some spokesperson. I don’t know my facts, I’m not a spokesman, and I admitted that I only even STARTED saying misinformation in haste in the other thread b/c I felt cornered and attacked and immediately on the defensive. I tried to give people some sites where they could go and see the doubts others have instead of asking me. I’m agnostic. I don’t have a website or a handy collection of facts. I am not prepared to debate this and I DON’T WANT TO.
[QUOTE=Garfield226]
More bullshit. You clearly did.
You are dishonest.
[/QUOTE]
Please tell me where I “clearly” posted a “theory”.
AFAIK, I was listing some areas about 9/11 that I’m unclear or suspicious about. I said I suspected the government MIGHT have been involved. That doesn’t add up to a theory, bucko.
[QUOTE=NightRabbit]
I. Don’t. Know. Is that slow enough for you? I don’t trust the media. I don’t trust the conspiracy sites. I don’t trust any of it. That’s my whole friggin’ point. I’m not trying to preach/convert/mislead/etc. I’m not in a position to POSIT ANY THEORIES. I am NOT positing any theories. I’m saying, from what I have read/seen, it’s POSSIBLE that there was governmental involvement in 9/11. That’s it! I think it’s POSSIBLE! I didn’t say it was PROBABLE, I didn’t say it was LIKELY, I didn’t say it HAPPENED. Jesus christ. I said I mistrusted the information we’ve been given, and I mean it. And that’s ALL I mean.
[/QUOTE]
Then why say anything? If you don’t have an agenda to push forward (and you don’t trust the conspiracy sites), why link to the conspriacy sites?
And on top of that, how can you not know what you think? Have you lived in a cave since 9/11? Did you not watch the planes crash into the Towers? Did you not see the names of proven terrorists on the flight manifests? Did you not hear any of the recorded phone calls of the people on United 93?
And again, why would the government do this? It didn’t gain them anything.
Sorry, I was just posting my questions regarding your dishonesty. I really don’t have all the facts and I don’t want to debate.
[QUOTE=NightRabbit]
I’m saying, from what I have read/seen, it’s POSSIBLE that there was governmental involvement in 9/11. That’s it! I think it’s POSSIBLE!]
[/QUOTE]
You need to quit while you’re behind. Asserting that it is POSSIBLE that our government was involved in 9/11 still requires you to construct some scenario where it makes sense. Unless you mean it is POSSIBLE the same way it is POSSIBLE that we are all in the Matrix.
Seriously. Just quit posting about this. You do yourself no favors.
You know what, I’m done with this. I’ve said all that I can say, and you guys are picking it apart like a two-year-old eating shepherd’s pie. I speculate and you accuse me of intentionally lying. It’s bullshit! I have yet to be criticized by a member of the board who I like and respect, and you guys seem to have an agenda that didn’t begin with me. I apologized for the misinformation of the other thread, where I DID get it wrong, and no one seems to accept it. Really, other than recanting on the things I DO and WILL still entertain doubts over, we seem to be at a stalemate. I’m not going to sit here and be pecked to death despite trying my damnedest to be forthright about what I think, what I know, and what I don’t. Once again! I’m not trying to mislead, I’m sorry if I got mixed up in my defensiveness in the other thread, and I won’t play sinner to Cisco’s god complex.
[QUOTE=Rilchiam]
Do you know how many threats are made against the president (any president, and that includes Saint Jack Kennedy) and against the US government in a given day? Month? Year? A hell of a lot, that’s how many. Yes, there are people whose job it is to evaluate them. But they’re not clairvoyant.
[/QUOTE]
Not to mention our executive departments regarding defense don’t talk to each other (hence the reason for the Dept. of Homeland Security’s establishment), we had all the nescessary info, it’s just because of pathetic beauracracy and iron triangle crap we couldn’t piece all the obvious data points together in time to mount any sort of effective defense (not that I have faith the American public would have nescessarily praised the defense we mounted and we may be sitting here bitching about how they “mounted a defense against nothing, the fucktards” if that happened, but hypothesis contrary to fact and such).
My disbelief of 9/11 conspiracy theories not only comes from evidence, but I also don’t have enough faith or respect in the Bush Administration to think they could so flawlessly orchestrate such a large-scale event and keep it so damn secretive for this long. Especially with the current hatred of Bush, you’d think ten people in on it would’ve had minutes from a meeting or documents or something waiting to become the biggest American heroes of the century for ratting out Bush’s Big Scam™ to the New York Times or something.
Now that’s not to say I think the official account is 100% accurate, I’m just saying I believe the things that are “off” aren’t the giant gaping holes that proves it was all an elaborate reptoid-illuminati-bush-stanic cult conspiracy many seem to think they do. They may be “yeah, we made a very costly mistake” or “we failed to analyze this correctly” or “we didn’t communicate as well as we should have” rather than meaning “we put bombs in the towers! Jokes on you!”
Also, I have to post this in 9/11 related discussions, it’s like… a law or something.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
Note this was written when loose change wasn’t considered stupid even by conspiracy buffs, the still applicable more interesting second page is much better:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_p2.html
Edit: And guys, stop being so hard on NightRabbit. It was an honest mistake and NightRabbit has freaking acknowledged it. Argue on the merits of the argument instead of hitting confrontational buttons at every possible sentence, please it’d make progress in these debates so much easier if we didn’t mudsling every other word because people may actually, you know, respect your argument more?
[QUOTE=NightRabbit]
I apologized for the misinformation of the other thread, where I DID get it wrong, and no one seems to accept it.
[/QUOTE]
Could you please post the link where you apologize for the assertions you made in the other thread, especially regarding the section of the Pentagon that was hit being devoid of any employees? I’ve looked at both threads and just can’t seem to find it anywhere!
So, who’s taking odds on weather NightRabbit’s actually done with this thread this time, or if she’ll be back yet again to post more disreputable links and page-long descriptions of suspicions that she “doesn’t really know or care about?”
[QUOTE=Jragon]
And guys, stop being so hard on NightRabbit. It was an honest mistake and NightRabbit has freaking acknowledged it. Argue on the merits of the argument instead of hitting confrontational buttons at every possible sentence, please it’d make progress in these debates so much easier if we didn’t mudsling every other word because people may actually, you know, respect your argument more?
[/QUOTE]
I’m with Garfield - when did she apologize? I keep seeing her say she’s agnostic out of one side of her mouth while saying she doesn’t trust the “official story” out of the other. Nowhere did I see her apologize for her Pentagon remarks or completely disavow the conspiracy sites she posted.
[QUOTE=Miller]
So, who’s taking odds on weather NightRabbit’s actually done with this thread this time, or if she’ll be back yet again to post more disreputable links and page-long descriptions of suspicions that she “doesn’t really know or care about?”
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I would like her to post the link where she supposedly apologized for her assertions. She’s said a couple times now in this thread that she’s apologized for them, I just can’t find where that post is.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Sorry for all the erratic posting but I’m running errands and doing yardwork and posting in between.
She didn’t think anyone died at the Pentagon. The conspiracists want you to believe this. They want to take the focus off the victims and put it on the government. I have no doubt she read on some conspiracy site that no one died there because that would be a little too convenient, mmmm? (which was her exact argument in the other thread.)
That’s why it’s pissing on the graves.
Many conspiracy arguments implicitly or explicitly require FDNY cooperation. Many of them involve no plane or an empty plane hitting the pentagon. Many of them involve United 93 landing in Cleveland, or some other undisclosed location. This is all grave-pissing.
[/QUOTE]
Wow. I don’t know why it surprises me that some people actually believe all of that, but it does. And it definitely qualifies as pissing on their graves. Thanks for explaining.
[QUOTE=Garfield226]
Could you please post the link where you apologize for the assertions you made in the other thread, especially regarding the section of the Pentagon that was hit being devoid of any employees? I’ve looked at both threads and just can’t seem to find it anywhere!
[/QUOTE]
Post #27 of this thread (snipps and bolding of course by me)
[QUOTE=NightRabbit]
[…]FWIW, I did mean “bigwigs”. Obviously I was wrong that the pentagon section hit was “vacant”, but I meant vacant of anyone in a well-known and high-level position of power. It’s because I am not heavily into this. I don’t know all the facts by heart. If I had really wanted to debate, I would have looked up all my facts. As it was, I remember hashing it out with people a while ago, came to no conclusion one way or another, but I remember having my doubts. And then I went on to live my life.[…]
[/QUOTE]
It may not be a cut and dry “I’m sorry” but it is really an apology, she says she didn’t know the facts well and apologizes for the misinformation (the fact that iirc there were bigwigs there notwithstanding because she could’ve missed that too).