You don't need any evidence to believe the things you believe? That's a very telling position you've backed yourself into. I have nothing else to say if you don't think you need to back up any of your claims.
An agenda would be supported by a group of powerful people...ie a conspiracy. Agendas are forwarded by people. Put two or more of them together and it is called a conspiracy. You can play semantics all you want to, but the tin foil helmet remains the same. No, we are not being given the full truth. Not because it is being hidden, but because it is beyond the scope of human knowledge at this point. Lower sperm counts and cancer can be caused by many things we are unaware of. It is a matter of great scientific debate whether cell phones cause brain cancer, or if keeping a cell phone in your front pocket can cause lower sperm count. The low level radiation from your computer monitor has been speculated to cause it as well. Proximity to power lines? Maybe. Not everything in life is a conspiracy...errrr...agenda. It is best to leave playing cloak & dagger to Dabney Coleman.
It's just like taking the red pill. Once you see it you can never go back. I hope that some of you see through the facade of 'craziness' that I am projecting and do your own research nevertheless.
Who gains from telling the entire population the whole truth? Would they stand to gain more by giving us a false sense of reality?
Dont even try to convince them red chocolate its a waste they believe what they want and were left out as the "crazy" people who just dont eat the spoon full of crap the media feeds them.
I don't get why the govt. doesn't release certain evidence that pertains to 9/11. I was watching that video "Loose Change 9/11" and they showed all the evidence that the public was entitled to but there was also a lot of that couldn't be shown because the national govt. is keeping it as a matter of "national security" which is BS. I don't get why they don't just release it... it'd help throw some of these conspiracies down if there's nothing for them to hide. Hope I'm not a loner on this.
You mean like the scientists who got paid tons of money by the tobacco industry for decades to say that smoking was good for you? You mean the scientists who got paid tons of money by the oil industry for years to argue against Global Warming? There has been tons of money backing minority viewpoints and you have to consider that at one time things like smoking was bad for you and global warming were the radical minority viewpoints with little money behind them. First off you don't seem to know much about the history of science but more importanly you are admitting that the facts don't matter only your perception. That is Orwellian.
I have to say that you being that eager to deny it makes you seem like one of the morons as well.. Always consider both sides of an argument.
And this is really all you need to know about 9/11... who cares if it was conspiracy or not (for the record, I believe it was planned).. the result they wanted was the result they got, they being the government.
I would point to your own posts as one example. Your arguments, as you admit, aren't predicated on factual evidence supporting the position itself but just on the argument that such and such is the minority opinion that is being oppressed. That doesn't justify the opinion just skirting the issue. Consider how much money the oil industry makes and how much they put into advertising and lobbying against Global Warming regulations. Al Gore is rich no doubt about it but his wealth pales many of those involved with the oil, coal and other industries. This argument that all the money is on the side of Global Warming just isn't supportable. And what is the evidence that supports the minority opinion? You are doing exactly what I am saying. You are saying the majority opinion is the big lie while offering scant support to the other opinion other than by saying its oppressed. Have you considered why that is the case?
Why are you guys arguing semantics? How is this relevant to what actually happened that day that you will probably never know about?
Semantics are important as language is how we structure thought. Also I will agree too with Red Chocalate on one thing in that what we are discussing goes beyond just what happened on 9/11 but really how one views the World. Frankly I would just ignore Red Chocalate and others who indulge in conspiracy except that this attituded seems to be getting more prevalent and one that I don't think is a good thing. Consider this What he is saying here is more than just skepticism, which I totally agree that we need, but pretty much saying that he can make up his own logic and nothing really matters except for his own perceptions. It creates a situation where anything that doesn't fit your own notions you can dismiss since you have decided to decode it according to your own set of rules. That is why I said such thinking is escapists as it removes you from having to essentially work within any mode of thought other than your own. Anything that doesn't make sense you just dismiss as elitist, The Big Lie, or any other code words you choose to apply. There is nothing inherently wrong with this on the individual level but as a social phenomenom what it does is it removes any responsibility that you have to society as a whole and instead turns the focus on shadowy forces that are beyond your control. It is both narcissistic and cynical as while it empowers you as being the one who knows more than the sheeple it absolves you from any responsibility.
Just to tie what I just wrote back to the main topic of the thread. The issue of 9/11 being a government conspiracy or not has been debated ad nauseum. From what I have seen of those on the conspiracy side is that the facts are cherry picked while the arguments tend to not understand building construction and often basic physics. We can rehash those but I find it more productive to look at why such conspiracy beliefs are held in the first place.
