Obama's second term

[rainforests1]

From what I've read people have looked up the names on the flights, and no Arabic names at all. It depends on what you read. Why don't they show us all of the surveillance footage from the flights, and what evidence is there Hani Hanjour could fly an airplane when all reports indicate he couldn't? There may be 30-40 questions that are asked, and very few of them are answered because for most there is no answer.

 

[Dave in MPLS]

From what I've read people have looked up the names on the flights, and no Arabic names at all.

What you've read probably was written by people who read lists of VICTIMS which don't include the hijackers (for obvious reasons). Apparently mistaking victim or memorial lists for full passenger manifests is how people who make the "no arabs" claim reached that erroneous conclusion. Look here.

 

[Dave in MPLS]

And Hani Hanjour? "All reports indicated that he couldn't"? Again, there are plenty of answers for this unanswerable question.

How about you save me the effort of linking to www.911myths.com and just read the site? I don't know if it will answer all your questions, but there it is.

 

[FortyTwo]

From what I've read people have

^ People

 

[kibbleforlola]

1) I'm sure the U.S. government recieves tons of vague 'intellegence' on possible terrorist acts all the time. How is the Government supposed to know which ones are real and which are just crazies?

2) Bush isn't smart enough for it to have been an inside job. Unless it was his handlers. But once again: really don't think any of them were smart enough.

3) All this talk about immigration seems vaguely racist to me. But, hey, what do I know?

 

[Envy]

2) Bush isn't smart enough for it to have been an inside job. Unless it was his handlers. But once again: really don't think any of them were smart enough.

 

[rainforests1]

And Hani Hanjour? "All reports indicated that he couldn't"? Again, there are plenty of answers for this unanswerable question.

How about you save me the effort of linking to www.911myths.com and just read the site? I don't know if it will answer all your questions, but there it is.

I've read claims like that before. I actually read both sides of the story before drawing my own conclusions. Even the sources on that site acknowledge he was still struggling with his flying in the Summer, so that doesn't help your side. The problem with Hanjour is what he allegedly did requires a lot of flying ability, much more than the other alleged hijackers. His family thought there was no way he could have been a terrorist. Probably because he wasn't.

I'd still love to know why no surveillance footage has been found that's dated from September 11 that shows hijackers were in the airports. Even including footage that's not dated I think there's only the footage from Dallas and even that you can't tell if it's one of the hijackers. If I was the government and I wanted to prove the terrorist attacks happened, the surveillance footage would be the first thing I'd show.

 

[Dave in MPLS]

If I was the government and I wanted to prove the terrorist attacks happened, the surveillance footage would be the first thing I'd show.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to say if it was all a government conspiracy that it would follow that survellience footage would therefore be the first thing they'd fake, so they could support the story? Or are you saying a government capable of this vast conspiracy is somehow incapable when it comes to video trickery?

See, that's the beautiful thing about conspiracy. It is impossible to debunk to the satisfaction of true believers. No camera footage? Obviously it doesn't exist. Camera footage gets released? Obviously faked. There's no way to convince those who want to believe.

 

[FortyTwo]

See, that's the beautiful thing about conspiracy. It is impossible to debunk to the satisfaction of true believers. No camera footage? Obviously it doesn't exist. Camera footage gets released? Obviously faked. There's no way to convince those who want to believe.

This, exactly. People will go with whatever story makes the government evil.

 

[rainforests1]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to say if it was all a government conspiracy that it would follow that survellience footage would therefore be the first thing they'd fake, so they could support the story? Or are you saying a government capable of this vast conspiracy is somehow incapable when it comes to video trickery?

See, that's the beautiful thing about conspiracy. It is impossible to debunk to the satisfaction of true believers. No camera footage? Obviously it doesn't exist. Camera footage gets released? Obviously faked. There's no way to convince those who want to believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta
You scroll down and they have surveillance footage of Atta at Portland International Jetport. It's dated too. There's footage of him in Portland but not in Boston. Why would this be? If there was footage of him in Boston, you'd think they'd show us the footage. Of course they could fix a video tape. With modern technology you're in a no-win situation. In one of his books David Ray Griffin asked something like 60-80 questions. It's a lot more than just the lack of surveillance footage that I have issues with. It's many, many different issues rolled into one that lead me to believe there's a 99% chance it was an inside job.

If you're a society that openly debates history which shows you have nothing to hide, conspiracy theories are likely to be false. If you're a society that refuses to debate history and shows it has something to hide, conspiracy theories are much more likely to be true. The United States is obviously much more the latter. There are obvious reasons why many Americans believe conspiracy theories and the reasons make sense.

 

[mlp]

The people who are in a no-win situation are those who try to engage conspiracy theorists in a rational manner, because they simply aren't rational.

 

[Spang]

Hurricane Isaac is an inside job.

 

[mlp]

Hurricane Isaac is an inside job.

True that - there have been reports available for days, and yet no action has been taken to stop it. Disgraceful.

 

[kibbleforlola]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Atta
You scroll down and they have surveillance footage of Atta at Portland International Jetport. It's dated too. There's footage of him in Portland but not in Boston. Why would this be? If there was footage of him in Boston, you'd think they'd show us the footage. Of course they could fix a video tape. With modern technology you're in a no-win situation. In one of his books David Ray Griffin asked something like 60-80 questions. It's a lot more than just the lack of surveillance footage that I have issues with. It's many, many different issues rolled into one that lead me to believe there's a 99% chance it was an inside job.

If you're a society that openly debates history which shows you have nothing to hide, conspiracy theories are likely to be false. If you're a society that refuses to debate history and shows it has something to hide, conspiracy theories are much more likely to be true. [bold]The United States is obviously much more the latter. [/bold]There are obvious reasons why many Americans believe conspiracy theories and the reasons make sense.

Says who? Sure there are stupid people who will believe anything you tell them (likewise, there are stupid people who will disbelieve anything you tell them), but there is nothing actively discouraging us from questioning history. There are plenty of people in this country who have made carreers out of questioning and sussing out the real truth of the matter (in an academic setting; not with tinfoil hats), and I've yet to see or hear of the government trying to shut them up.

 

[rainforests1]

Says who? Sure there are stupid people who will believe anything you tell them (likewise, there are stupid people who will disbelieve anything you tell them), but there is nothing actively discouraging us from questioning history. There are plenty of people in this country who have made carreers out of questioning and sussing out the real truth of the matter (in an academic setting; not with tinfoil hats), and I've yet to see or hear of the government trying to shut them up.

All I ask for is a debate featured on all the major networks. Both sides would try to refute the opposing side in the same way a debate usually happens. All historical events would be featured. History classes would show this to their students. There's no reason why something like this can't happen unless those in power have something to hide.

 

[Dave in MPLS]

There's no reason why something like this can't happen unless those in power have something to hide.

Other than the fact that the major networks like to air programs that have an outside shot at having viewers. Helps with ad sells. There's your reason.

Oh, and the Lizard People might get ******.

 

[rainforests1]

Other than the fact that the major networks like to air programs that have an outside shot at having viewers. Helps with ad sells. There's your reason.

Oh, and the Lizard People might get ******.

They can show debates during the Summer when ratings are lower. It would just be one two hour debate one time per year. I'm sure the networks would suffer greatly from it. The good thing about debates is you can't ignore statements the opposing side has made as has happened several times in this thread with comments I've made. You'd have to answer them or just acknowledge you don't have an answer.

 

[das_nut]

All I ask for is a debate featured on all the major networks. Both sides would try to refute the opposing side in the same way a debate usually happens. All historical events would be featured. History classes would show this to their students. There's no reason why something like this can't happen unless those in power have something to hide.

This should be great.

We can have some white supremacists come in and explain how the Europeans were justified to steal land from the Indians and how slavery was good for blacks. Then we can have some neo-Nazis talk about how the Holocaust was a hoax. Oh, and some communists come in and talk about how the Holodomor was just a big mistake. Then some Imperial Japanese apologists come in and explain how Japan was really trying to help out China and stuff like the Rape of Nanking was just a newspaper error. Then we can get some conspiracy wackos in to explain how the US engaged in vast drugging conspiracies in the 50s by fluoridating water. Then some other wackos to explain how the moon landings are fake. Just imagine all the fun we can have.

But why limit it to just history? Lets apply it to all subjects. In health classes, lets have equal time for those new age types who believe in the healing power of crystals, as well as time for Christian fundies who think that condoms won't protect against anything. When it comes to history, we can have bible literalists come in and explain how the bible explains everything. When it comes to physics, lets have every crank come in and explain how the *real* laws of the universe supports their perpetual motion machine.

Wait, did I say this would be great? I meant horrible.

 

[rainforests1]

This should be great.

We can have some white supremacists come in and explain how the Europeans were justified to steal land from the Indians and how slavery was good for blacks. Then we can have some neo-Nazis talk about how the Holocaust was a hoax. Oh, and some communists come in and talk about how the Holodomor was just a big mistake. Then some Imperial Japanese apologists come in and explain how Japan was really trying to help out China and stuff like the Rape of Nanking was just a newspaper error. Then we can get some conspiracy wackos in to explain how the US engaged in vast drugging conspiracies in the 50s by fluoridating water. Then some other wackos to explain how the moon landings are fake. Just imagine all the fun we can have.

But why limit it to just history? Lets apply it to all subjects. In health classes, lets have equal time for those new age types who believe in the healing power of crystals, as well as time for Christian fundies who think that condoms won't protect against anything. When it comes to history, we can have bible literalists come in and explain how the bible explains everything. When it comes to physics, lets have every crank come in and explain how the *real* laws of the universe supports their perpetual motion machine.

Wait, did I say this would be great? I meant horrible.

Only historians would be allowed so most of your examples are not likely to happen. If one side can't answer many questions they'll look bad and the truth would win out. Debating is by far the best way to determine who's right. We may finally hear about American businesses that aided Germany in World War 2, a million German POW's dying in Allied camps, and Churchill starving 1-3 million people in India. Stuff that most people aren't aware of.

 

[kibbleforlola]

Erm, I thought that most people who are aware of history already knew that history is written by the winner and some deeper delving may be neccissary. Are you implying that historians can't be extremists of some sort?