I didn’t ask for proof, only a scenario where such a belief might make sense. You might hold the opinion that women are inferior to men, but if so, you should be prepared to take a little heat for it unless some defense can be mounted.
The thread was started, among other things, because the 184 people who died were of so little significance to NR that she referred to that section of the Pentagon as “vacant.” And because “truthers” need to be confronted when they spew their bullshit.
What if I approached the familes of Jeffery Dahmer’s victims and said, "Dahmer didn’t kill your loved one . . . *the US Government did! . . . * and I’m selling DVDs, t-shirts, and books to prove it!
Would that be offensive?
Actually, Unidentified Flying Objects do exist. People see flying objects that they can’t identify all the time. Whether any of those objects are alien craft, however, has never been proven.
Sorry; pet peeve. Carry on.
So let’s get this straight: you are basically saying your anger is based on being a 9-11 survivor/family member? Or what? Because if not then a better analogy would be "What if I posted on some random message board ‘Dahmer didn’t kill those people . . . *the US Government did! . . . *’ (since I didn’t see NightRabbit selling anything, I thought snipping that bit would help too)
So are you a 9-11 survivor or would you get your panties in a twist over the Dalmer denier?
You may have a point here, if it were aimed at conspiracy theorists who helmed sites and made T-shirts to this effect- NR doesn’t seem to be doing anything pubically to promulgate her beliefs though. And anyway, my guess is at least some of the relatives of the decased from 911 believe in the theory too, if 16% of the country or whatever does, so maybe they are offended when they hear people say the US was not involved?
And excuse the expression, but why the hard-on for the decased from 911?
Here’s the main problem I have with people like NightRabbit:
She says she doesn’t trust our government. That’s fine, who does trust it?
But then, all her “doubts” about 9/11 boil down to a choice between two explanations:
or
Really, every “doubt” she listed back in post 45 can be explained by either #1 or #2.
WHY ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH is it easier to believe #1 than #2???
I just don’t get it. I don’t trust our government, but I trust that it’s incompetent. And that the people in it can and will make mistakes.
Why didn’t they know about the 911 plot beforehand? Because our government is a huge bureaucracy, filled with people and organizations that don’t communicate very well, and/or are out to boost their own careers.
Why didn’t they shoot down the planes? Because only hindsight is 20/20. It’s just so damned easy to forget – as NightRabbit has demonstrated repeatedly – that BEFORE 9/11, the idea that someone would hijack a plane and deliberately fly it into a building was just flat out unbelievable. So when someone in a position to do something about it hears that it’s happening, and that the only way to stop it is to shoot down a planeload of innocent US citizens, is it really so hard to believe that that person would hesitate? Only to find out, to their horror, that – this time – the mistake was in NOT shooting down a planeload of civilians?
NightRabbit: If you’re still reading, can you explain to me why it’s easier for you to believe that #1 is possible, than to believe that #2 is possible?
ffs, where did she say that she believed one more than the other? You say her “doubt” leaves her with two choices then you ignore the fact that she is in doubt and make the choice for her. You retards are so desperate to re-fight this argument you are fraudulently equating her with the makers of “Loose Change” and their ilk.
There are two basic types of people who espouse conspiracy theories and/or nutty health-related ideas (i.e. fluoride/vaccines kill).
One type is the overt crazy who travels between message boards spewing out nonsense, with no interest in debate.
Another type is a bit subtler. He/she typically comes on with “well, I don’t necessarily believe all this stuff but really, isn’t this odd and disturbing, and even though all of you are debunking it right and left, here’s a couple websites with a lot more drool you haven’t debunked yet, and besides a bunch of my friends believe it and someone talked about it on Oprah just the other day, and…”
Type two can be even more irritating and potentially dangerous, as well as impossible to convince, whether he/she is ridiculed or reasoned with.
This expresses how I feel about hatemongering bigots. I’m not sure conspiracy nuts deserve quite the same level of ostracism, but in some cases it’s likely justified.
Yes, they’re useful that way.
Then why post about it at all?
The remark quoted here implies that your “facts” would support your doubts. So, I guess you fall into the CT camp after all.
It was in IMHO and meant to be a poll for honest answers. If you guys keep being major fuckheads and if Czarcasm gets to arbitrarily move threads out of there into the Pit so he can insult respondents,then you are going to start to get a lot less honest answers/opinions in that forum.
Quoting Nightrabbit (if I can do it right)
“My original post was a valid reply to the OP, who asked why, if everyone knows what happened in 9/11, are there so many conspiracy theories about it? I said that not everyone is content with the popular knowledge of “what happened” and I happen to be one of them. I didn’t come into this thread to engage in a debate about either 9/11 or my sanity.”
Wow, I love the leaps of logic in this thread.
Leap of logic 1: If you have doubts about an accepted theory, then you give every offensive, opposing scenario the same weight of belief, and all more belief than the accepted theory.
Leap of logic 2: Every debate can be boiled down to a dichotomy. If you’re not WITH us on every point, you’re FOR every/any crazy concoction of ideas that oppose it.
Leap of logic 3: Expressing a general opinion in IMHO means you should be ready to debate any minuscule point of it at any time with anyone who asks, otherwise you’re disingenuously cutting and running.
Corollary to LoL3: There is no way to politely abstain from a messy or drawn-out debate without your abstention being regarded as proof that your opinion is untenable and/or based in inaccuracy.
I really don’t understand why this is continuing!
Because you have yet to tell us which parts of the 9/11 story that you believe and which you have “doubts” about.
:smack:
Someone tell me this is an April Fool’s joke! No one can possibly be this dim.
What’s dim about this? You keep saying you have “doubts” about the official story. What doubts? Where does the official story diverge from your story?
And don’t say you don’t know, because that’s a load of crap. 9/11 was one of those defining moments that people will always remember where they were. Our parents had the moon landing and JFK’s assassination, we have OJ and 9/11. Hmm, all of those things are rather connected to conspiracy theories aren’t they?
And if you don’t know which parts of the official story aren’t the truth then I think you don’t really believe any of this bullshit and you’re just pushing this thread along for the attention.
Yeah, I love this sort of attention in the pit :rolleyes: OK, I think I’m officially done.
I’d say this board is rife with the ‘I’m smarter than you and will insult you until you agree’ and hard-core fun-police types both. This board is tolerant, unless you disagree with the status quo in which case someone is sure to come along and attempt to beat you back into submission for daring to depart from the mainstream groupthink.
A wise move.As you can see, apologies aren’t accepted without a few limbs and a pint o’ plasma to wash them down.
I doubt Oakminster would have deigned piss on this pitting.
Lump me in with the people who think the vitriol is way out of proportion with the level of the offense.
She said something stupid. Big deal.
If that’s the rationale for Pitting I should have as many Pit threads as lekatt…
Looks like I missed all the action. Still want to address these, though:
The government was warned about the possibility of hijacked planes being used as missiles. They were also warned about possible attacks on Federal buildings, tourist icons, and an unspecified location in America’s heartland.
That one side is the easiest to approach from the air. It has the least number of obstacles; basically all one has to do is find Columbia Pike and follow it in, which is exactly what Hanjour did.