9-11 was an inside job

[KBCraig]

Kevin,
Just curious. Have you read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education?

I've read it online. Or, to be more accurate, I've read most of it, taking it in chunks, limited by my patience and the medium. A book-length work really doesn't lend itself to reading via a website. I do appreciate Gatto putting it online, and I've recommended it to others in debates about public/private/homeschooling.

Kevin

[KBCraig]

Well, Kevin, I apologize to you for the ad hominem attack too.  I wasn't trying to demean you.  I get sick of old, worn out, debunking sites, that are based on very old information that has been discredited.

Just as I grow weary of dealing with "truth" sites that are based not just on old and discredited information, but information that is plainly implausible on its face at best, and downright lies at worst.

So... enough.

Good job, Peyton!

Kevin

[AlanM]

Kevin,
Just curious. Have you read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education?

I've read it online. Or, to be more accurate, I've read most of it, taking it in chunks, limited by my patience and the medium. A book-length work really doesn't lend itself to reading via a website. I do appreciate Gatto putting it online, and I've recommended it to others in debates about public/private/homeschooling.

Kevin

Good, you've read it.
Don't you think a government, composed of the Elitists he describes, who are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of children into intellectual slavery, all in the name of the common good, also capable of doing the same (sacrificing the lives, in this case) to the workers in the WTC? Again for a public policy objective it sees as being for the greater good?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Hi Alan

[AlanM]

Hi Alan

Hi Lloyd. 

[Russell Kanning]

Patriotism surge now is slipping
Copyright 2006 Deseret Morning News

By Lisa Riley Roche
Deseret Morning News
      Most Utahns continue to consider themselves more patriotic as a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States ? but a growing number no longer share that feeling, according to a new poll.
      While 72 percent of residents surveyed statewide for the latest Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV poll said they have a deeper sense of patriotism post-9/11, nearly one-fourth said they don't.
      The poll, conducted for the newspaper and television station by Dan Jones & Associates, was conducted Aug. 28-31 of 425 Utahns and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent.
      The results are a significant change from the first time Utahns were asked that question, in October 2001. Then, an overwhelming 92 percent considered themselves more patriotic with just 8 percent saying the attacks hadn't affected their level of patriotism.
      "Immediately after, we really were a united country," said Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. "So there really was that strong feeling of America and sticking together. We didn't yet have the baggage."
      Concerns raised about some of the methods used by the Bush administration to counter terrorism ? such as questioning the patriotism of anyone opposed to war ? has caused conflicting feelings among many Americans in the past five years, Jowers said.
      "That whole mentality of, 'either you support the war or you're not patriotic' was a turn-off to people," he said. "We all want our government to protect us, but we're very divided on how it does that and what measures we will accept. Utah is no exception."
      Pollster Dan Jones agreed. "More people are starting to question the war," he said, even in Utah. Jones said it would take something on the scale of capturing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden "for the people to become more united and feel we are starting to win the battle."
      The divide created over whether dissent can be considered patriotic was evident in the reaction to protests surrounding President Bush's visit to Salt Lake City last month to deliver the first in a series of speeches intended to boost lagging support for the war in Iraq.
      Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson's involvement in an anti-war rally during the visit attracted both cheers and jeers from Utahns, and some of his critics went so far as to challenge his patriotism.
      But even as the president warned during his speech to the American Legion that giving up the fight overseas would mean facing terrorists here at home, he made a point of describing those who want to end the country's involvement in Iraq as both sincere and patriotic.
      "Bush finally realized there can be patriotic protesters," Jowers said, something that could eventually help reverse the trend identified in the poll results as people decided they couldn't call themselves patriotic "in the sense it was being defined by their government."
      That drop in patriotic feeling does not mean, however, that Utahns feel the administration's efforts haven't been effective. The poll found that 73 percent believed the country's anti-terrorism efforts have made the United States safer than it was on Sept. 11, 2001.
      And 60 percent of Utahns polled said they did not believe it was likely they or someone they know would someday become a victim of a terrorist act on U.S. soil. Around one-third of respondents over the past three years have said their anxiety levels have decreased.
      "Utah still supports its president more than any other state in the country, and this poll seems to bear out that it has faith in the way he's protecting us from terrorism," Jowers said. "But as in the rest of the country, there are people here who have issues."
      That's inevitable, he said, in the long-term aftermath of the attacks.
      "Nobody wants another 9/11 attack to occur, and yet we are conflicted about how far the administration has to go to protect us. Every step the administration takes in the name of keeping us safe will cause questions."


http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199937,00.html

[mvpel]

Good, you've read it.
Don't you think a government, composed of the Elitists he describes, who are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of children into intellectual slavery, all in the name of the common good, also capable of doing the same (sacrificing the lives, in this case) to the workers in the WTC? Again for a public policy objective it sees as being for the greater good?

Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to equate sending kids off to public schools with brutally killing 3,000 people?

And you're missing the point - whether they were "capable" of doing so, either intellectually or practically,  has little bearing on whether they actually did except in the fever-swamps of the 9/11 "Truth" movement.

There are actually people who postulate that there were no airplanes, just missiles wrapped in "holograms." Does anyone here find that theory to be plausable, or are there limits to the absurdity?

Once I was passing a semi truck in a little blue Ford Escort, when a piece of the truck's tread flew off.  It smacked into the pavement and bounced, and sounded like a rifle shot right next to the car.  And after reading that, I have no doubt that the 9/11 theorists would be looking for bullet holes.

[Russell Kanning]

I think the government used planes to kill people on 9/11.
The government also pushes vaccinations on kids in schools that can kill them.

[AlanM]

Good, you've read it.
Don't you think a government, composed of the Elitists he describes, who are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of children into intellectual slavery, all in the name of the common good, also capable of doing the same (sacrificing the lives, in this case) to the workers in the WTC? Again for a public policy objective it sees as being for the greater good?

Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to equate sending kids off to public schools with brutally killing 3,000 people?

And you're missing the point - whether they were "capable" of doing so, either intellectually or practically,  has little bearing on whether they actually did except in the fever-swamps of the 9/11 "Truth" movement.

There are actually people who postulate that there were no airplanes, just missiles wrapped in "holograms." Does anyone here find that theory to be plausable, or are there limits to the absurdity?

Once I was passing a semi truck in a little blue Ford Escort, when a piece of the truck's tread flew off.  It smacked into the pavement and bounced, and sounded like a rifle shot right next to the car.  And after reading that, I have no doubt that the 9/11 theorists would be looking for bullet holes.

I'll ask you the same question. Have you read Gatto's book?

[mvpel]

Yes, I've read parts of it.

I'll ask you the same question, again:  SO WHAT?

[AlanM]

Yes, I've read parts of it.

I'll ask you the same question, again:  SO WHAT?

Well, MV, the original question was addressed to Kevin. You haven't read it all, so there's no reason to continue discussing this with you.

[lildog]

Wow, lildog, so many errors in just a tiny little post.  Where to begin?

Not knowing what theories you buy into I made a general statement about the theories I?ve read so far.

I appreciate the link as until now I haven?t heard ANY theories as how everything suggest could have been pulled off without thousands of people involved.

Now since you believe these theories, would you be willing to go through fact by fact with me and see which we can identify as true facts and which are just theories?  Being an engineer, I always believe to look at the facts and see what they point too? most theorists I?ve found come up with a theory then look for the facts to support it.

For instance, most theorists believe the buildings were taken down by explosives.  I haven?t seen ANY facts to support this, only theories.  Can you work with me listing some of the facts surrounding the buildings?

For instance, you can agree that one plane hit each of the towers is fact yes?

[mvpel]

Well, MV, the original question was addressed to Kevin. You haven't read it all, so there's no reason to continue discussing this with you.

Uhh... wait.  I thought we were discussing 9/11?

Did you even see my response above, where I said that a willingness to do something like that does not constitute evidence that they did it?

[Kat Kanning]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/110906Jones.htm

Good interview with Professor Steven Jones.

[Caleb]

Now since you believe these theories, would you be willing to go through fact by fact with me and see which we can identify as true facts and which are just theories?

Not really, because there is no way to persuade you.  For instance, I could agree to the terms, with the caveat that you would have to apply the same techniques to the government's theories.  Unfortunately, as we've been told, your opinion is that "the fact that the government lies doesn't implicate them".  So there is no way for me to win. I've already told you that I don't know, exactly, how every detail was pulled off.   I can tell you that the governments theories are BS.  The framework for the debate, therefore, has been set up by you in this way:

I POKE A HOLE IN YOUR THEORY = MEANINGLESS

YOU POKE A HOLE IN MINE = CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT COMPLICIT.

Sorry, but I don't like the terms of the debate, unless you can come around to some reasonable way in which you would accept damage to your theory as evidential that the underpinning assumptions might be false.

For instance, most theorists believe the buildings were taken down by explosives.  I haven?t seen ANY facts to support this, only theories.  Can you work with me listing some of the facts surrounding the buildings?

For one, the existence of thermate in structural steel residue from WTC.