World Trade Center Attacks: A Hoax?

[Silvanoshei]

I know what you're thinking. That's bullmalarkey. There's no way the attacks were planned by the American government. However, there are some very compelling points in these articles, and, if nothing else, is a good read, and even better discussion.

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html

If you want the condensed, but not as complete version, then here.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/911_a_hoax.htm

This is a discussion topic. Don't dismiss this or the article without reading it, please.

[Silvanoshei]

I managed two typos in the topic title and didn't notice.

*annoyed*

Can someone fix that?  

[Darwin]

Whoever made that site is a fork tard.

[Silvanoshei]

This is a discussion topic. Don't dismiss this or the article without reading it, please.

[Darwin]

There is no way I would accept that.

I vote lock topic.

[Newbie]

Why so harsh Darwin? It's open for debate, not hate.

I found it pretty interesting, though I don't believe alot of it.

[Silvanoshei]

The implications of this analysis are disturbing, but to ignore them (or the evidence itself) would be an attempt at denial which would constitute a surrender to evil.  In this matter anyone with any degree of moral awareness will want to know the truth, however unpalatable or unflattering to national leaders.  Continued willful ignorance on the part of the American people may result in slavery for all people everywhere, following death and destruction of a magnitude far greater than that of World War II.

That was from the article.

[-RPG-secretagnt]

There is no way I would accept that.

I vote lock topic.

I vote that you're an idiot. That was a truely assholish and close minded post. You should be killed by the government, asap.


Anyways, I find much of it convincing and interesting. But, I don't care really. I have no real opinion on this matter, mostly because:

A: It's not my ass out there fighting.
B: This isn't taking anything away from me.
C: I'm not the one being raped.
D: Neither I or any family members/other people were killed in 911.
E: Humans will be humans.

So in conclusion:
If the government wants to come and try to take something from me, I'll give them my address (shut up, no one say anything), and they can come and try to take it. If not, I hope they have fun doing whatever it is they like doing, ie molesting little boys, bombing countries, blowing up buildings, etc.

[Lidge Farkley]

The implications of this analysis are disturbing, but to ignore them (or the evidence itself) would be an attempt at denial which would constitute a surrender to evil. In this matter anyone with any degree of moral awareness will want to know the truth, however unpalatable or unflattering to national leaders. Continued willful ignorance on the part of the American people may result in slavery for all people everywhere, following death and destruction of a magnitude far greater than that of World War II.

Yeah... and just because someone says it, regardelss of their degree of considered "intelligence" doesn't mean it's true.

Because someone says ignoring something is an attempt at denial does not make it so.

I know this sounds heartless, but I really don't give a malarkey about the whole situation on "who done it."  To me it makes no difference as to who cause what happened, and it makes no difference to me how that is allegedly to be solved.  Does this mean I fit the condition of "attempt at denial which would constitute a surrender to evil" when in fact I just don't really care about who how or what on the matter?

As far as a "surrender to evil" goes... wtf is that supposed to mean?  "Evil" is a very broad term, and saying I surrender to it because I am "in denial" because I "ignore the analysis"  that in reality I am not concearned with not because of ignorance, but because I don't feel any of it has anything to do with me on a level that I am concearned with.

It is absolute bullmalarkey when someone writes an article and makes some asshole "if you ignore my points, then you're a ..." statement, especially if it's a topic on which you can ignore it out of uncaring for the whole situation period.


Of course, if I went and got phillosophical on this I could say;
Yeah, thought of it, see it, still don't care.
or
OFN
or
Because we could just be the enzimes of an organisim's body intent on destroying this food particle called earth, we are only doing what is natural and what we should be doing; destroying the earth.

In any case, this topic has not intrigued me, and the article is written like a political-debate of modern era.  fork it. :-p


//harsh... sorry about that, but it really bothered me a bit.

[Lidge Farkley]

holy forking malarkey! !

I typed out a long ass post debunking some of the basic flaws in the artilce and when I hit respond it said "the page cannot be displayed" and my post wasn't sent! :-(


//edit
OH YEAH! I also added to the top that I could not resist responding to the article... just minutes after I had said I wouldn't, I changed my mind so that I could attempt to inform you all of this articles error and your possible seduction by its mass of flaws.. read my whole post first. thanks ;-)
//edit

Ga!!!


None of the response was aimed in anger or cruelty to any of you on here, but only at the article in the light of harsh criticism.


In short; The person who wrote the article has no postings of citations, "scientific" evidence from an outside source, and no apparent personal achievement of degree oor education posted a long with their article.  That's not a good sign of "evidence" in an atricle, that's a good sign of contrived evidence which means; not evidence.

In any case, the whole point of my now gone post was to make you aware that because someone makes a string of claims, and supports them with "evidence" doesn't mean that the "evidence" is true or "scientific" in nature.

I quoted several bits... but as it's gone I'll just say that the article contradicts itself in many areas.  One being the "mysterious undergournd fires which burned exactly 100 days as a means to destroy the buildings" and the "obvious use of quick detonating explosives used to destroy the buildings."  Those two ideas are opposite.  One is long buring fuel, and the other is instant detonation, not to mention that the cloud of smoke was gone after less than 3 weeks of the colapse (negating the fuel for 100 days claim) and the excatly 100 day long burning of fuel in what they claim to be "three" towers.

I mean, the article is riddled with ALL CAPS contradictions and errors.

I honestly think the article is a joke; meant to dupe the unknowing, and meant to piss off the analytical.

//there was plenty more, but I say again I lost it, and it was much more convincing... but I am so damn tied that I can't think strait enough to remember even half of it.  Hope this is taken as an understanding rather than a rant.

Adios!
Peace!

[Silvanoshei]

I'm guessing you only read the condensed version, because in the actual article, he's citing his sources all of the time. He also uses plenty of photos and data to explain what he's talking about, so I have no idea what you're talking about unless, again, you only read the condensed version.

But there are a few contradictions, more than what you've mentioned, but I'm arguing for the article, for debate's sake, so I'll keep them to myself.  

[-RPG-secretagnt]

Did the government ever give us it's sources used when writing their reports? Did they give us scientific explanations, or other places they found their info? I don't think so.

[Silvanoshei]

Exactly, secretagnt. "Experts" say this. "Experts" say that.

[Darwin]

Oh, and dont think I was closed minded.  I read the entire article.  I wont accept it unless I see proof from the media (the kind that is very critical of our gvmt, not the cheesy flag-waving media).

[Silvanoshei]

You contradicted yourself in two sentences. Let me ask you this. Why won't you accept it? I'm willing to bet it's not because you can dispute their arguments.