I don’t have any specific idea on whom or what originated it. I’m closer to believe that it has a lot to do with Internet and new modern day mass paradigms that I’m having real difficult time to comprehend myself. I should look up Alvin Tofler if he wrote of any mega-trend similar to what we experience now. But that’s not the point and you should probably let it go in your line of debating as it seems you’re looking for gotcha moment as in - my day is fulfilled I kicked a@@ of another Truther.
However, what I’m trying to articulate is the net result of the question asked. How is it that American public has the lowest confidence in their elected officials – and that include Congress and Senate and, I suppose, by extension all associated standing or temporary committees – how is it possible that to have such a low general confidence on almost everything these entities touch yet, very specific high confidence that what they are saying about 9/11. I’m having very hard time reconciling the two. The only explanation I can come up is that having ability to hold two contradictory and mutually exclusive ideas in one’s head is much more prevalent than I thought.
You know, when I saw a tower fall on 9/11 on TV, that was the first thought that crossed my mind.
Not that it was an inside job or TEH JEWS or anything like that, but I thought there were bombs in addition to the hijackings. It was crazy that day. I heard a news report that a car bomb went off at the state department. Who the fuck knew what was next, or how many different attacks were going on?
So, when the building went down all at once, like a demolition, instead of the top floors crumbling off and the floors below still standing like I would have guessed, I thought ‘explosives just went off.’
However, when structural engineers explained it, I didn’t decide that I knew more than them.
No, there is nothing mutually exclusive about believing the official explanation of how the 9/11 and not trusting Congress in general. Just because some person or group is generally untrustworthy doesn’t mean that they lie about everything all the time.
Faith in government has nothing to do with whether the explanation is true or not. To figure that out, you just need a few base facts like knowing which planes were hijacked, who hijacked them, how they hijacked them, and were they ended up. The rest is just basic science. Independent evidence is both obvious and incontrovertible for each of those things.
I’d never ordered liver in a restaurant, but if someone served it to me as a meal I’d eat it. That’s about as contradictory as your example of mistrusting politicians, but agreeing with their version of events. There are coverups out there; 9/11 isn’t one of them.
Interesting.
Do you have any specific examples of the reasonable alternate explanations which have been drowned out by the “Truther” woo-woo misdirection?
In a court of law, a person found to be “generally untrustworthy” is always dismissed as untrustworthy as it relates to the specific court proceedings. In fact, that’s one of the most common techniques of a defence lawyers. I hope you are not a judge or serve in a jury.
Hmm. I thought the judge typically instructed jurors to consider only the facts in this case and not to consider any previous convictions as guilt in this particular case, or something like that. Anyway, wouldn’t this be the strategy of the prosecution, not the defense?
It’s not easy. For me, English is a 3rd language and no formal language education so writing about high-level concepts (and use of articles :o ) escapes me on ocassion.
Perhaps your point would be a decent one if Congress was the only entity that made those claims about 9/11. But they weren’t. All the main organizations of engineers and structural scientists analyzed the evidence and determined that yes, the impact from the planes brought the buildings down. And the perpetrators, (chiefly OBL), have publicly admitted that they planned the event. And all the evidence points to them. And there is no direct evidence for any other theory.
So why should we believe any other story besides “Al Qaeda executed a plan to have people posing as flight students hijack planes and fly them into the WTC and Pentagon (and another failed attempt that crashed in PA), causing the WTC to come down”? That one has tons and tons of evidence- and no other explanation has any evidence.
Paradigm I was talking about in full bloom - I guess you read the thread and picked up on keywords and then let the paradigm in your head argue on and on and on that nobody asked for.
Go back and re-read the thread again (with comprehension switch “ON”) to find where is it that I argued a position that required you referring to “structural engineers” and “structural scientists” as a counter-argument.
On the issue that you see about the confidence level that people have in Congress versus the general consensus that they got the 9/11 story right, I think that most of the facts regarding the events of that day were known to the public before the 9/11 Commission was even formed, which was more than a year after the attack. The one controversial finding that came out in the report, as I recall, was that they placed a fair amount of blame on the FBI and the CIA for not having prevented the attack. Maybe that was subterfuge?
Thread re-read; perhaps I misunderstood you- I thought you were expressing surprise that an American public with a low opinion of Congress seemed quick to trust Congress’s explanation for 9/11. I was pointing out that the American public wasn’t just trusting Congress- they were trusting these engineering and scientific organizations as well. This is the post I’m referring to:
General announcement to all participants in this thread: please discuss this topic without ragging on each other. If you all don’t tone it down, there are going to be full-fledged insults flying soon, and we don’t want that now, do we?
Also, there is plenty of eyewitness accounts and video of flashes of light and explosions right before the buildings collasped. Reports huge explosions in the basement and lobby, from people that were actually in the buildings.
Add to that the fact that the government just plain lied in regard to the resopnse of our national defenses. I mean, not a single one of these planes was even intercepted, but we all were told that they tried, they just couldn’t make it in time. However, if one looks at the facts of what was known and when, it becomes quite clear that the did not try to get to these planes.
The moon hoax theroies or alien coverup theories are not really in the same leauge as 911. There is plenty of evidence that the moon landings were real, and there is no evidence of alien encounters. People that bring this kind of stuff up are just trying to shut down any kind of debate.
I was baited on this board to give a theroy of what happened on 911, but that was a mistake on my part. I don’t know and cannot say what the real story is.
All I can say, without a doubt, is that there is plenty of evidence that the 911 story we are supposed to believe is a pack of lies.
Since English is your third language I’ll assume you are not from the US. You do realize that Congress is not a monolithic organization? About half of it always disagrees with the other half and is very happy when they fail. If there was any evidence at all that the Republicans in power at the time had anything to do with it the democrats would have been all over it. It would have ensured democrat victory for the foreseeable future. Your point makes no sense. I will chalk it up to a language barrier.
I think this article is relavant.For all the people that think our government wouldn’t murder 3,000 citizens,this is the kind of thing our government does.
I don’t find it to be that much of a leap to go from things like this in the '50’s and '60’s to 911.
Totally incorrect. Ever use explosives? I have. Do you have any idea how much would be needed to take down a building like you say? Explosives just don’t work that way. In order to place a steel cutting charge you have to place it right up against the beams. When they do demolition they half demolish the inside of the building to get to the structual steel. There is no way to place thousands of pounds of demolition charges in a working office building while people are working in it. You would have to tear down all the interior walls. I have a feeling this guyand others would have noticed. Then you have to ask, Why? Why ram planes into the building if you are going to set off explosives? They blew up a bomb in 1993. It would not have been a stretch to say it again. But somehow these ninjas got into the buildings, knew exactly which floors the planes would hit, planted the explosives in the walls without anyone in those offices knowing, and set off the explosions after the plane hit. You are not just throwing out Occam’s Razor, you just threw out the entire shaving kit.
And no they could not intercept the planes. For one, we were no longer on a Cold War footing. The days of having flight crews waiting on the runway to scrammble were over. Cuts in budget took care of that. And at the time it was still the assumption that hijackers would make demands, not crash the planes. And the only thing they knew was the planes were no longer in communication, not what they were doing. Thispage shows you what the typical military response times to intercept aircraft. They simply did not have enough time. They had around 40 minutes to intercept planes going 500mph. Even at supersonic speeds you better be lucky to have an armed plane in the exact place to intercept on time. I’ll let you in on a little secret, all Air Force planes are not armed all the time.
