FBI agent claims 9/11 was controlled by our government.

I'd like to discuss with civility the myriad of points raised in each of these 6 minute videos, and one for 45 seconds. One is a former FBI agent aligning himself with the truth that many anti "official" BS story folks grey areas we share.

http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2012/03/911-oddities-that-official-story-cant.html


Intelligent, short and to the point responses only please. (and leave the insult and name calling at home).

 

Just curious: did you intentionally link to a holocaust denial site? Were they the only ones that agree with you?

I ask this in all sincerity and civility. Is this really what you want to be associated with?

 

The information relative to 9/11 is what the focus should be...not anything else.

 

Sources are important, don't you think?

Perhaps not to you? Would it be fair to say that as long as they agree with you, you don't care what they stand for, up to and including Holocaust denial?

 

No, that would not be fair to say. I don't need anyone to agree with me as I've formed my own conclusions and am just looking for something you guys might accept (since we're having an honest discussion and all).

 

Ted Gunderson was a well known nutjob.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gunderson

 

Well known nutjob....thank you for your input. Enjoy your conversation with another such as yourself. I withdraw from further conversation to you. Good day.

 

It is the truth, like it or not.

 

Then why bring such tainted sources to the table?

 

You know the government has sprayed chemicals in the air, right? And that people are actively trying to create a one-world government? Not every conspiracy theory is wrong. Nor does it make a person a nutjob. Censor yourself, man, before you speak of things you know little of.

 

Give me a break...

 

How about "four thousand ritual human sacrifices are performed in New York City every year"?

Is that the quote of a rational man?

 

No. I was mostly giving what's his face a hard time. Jeez.

And since when did we start using Wikipedia articles?

I believe the slave auction one though. (*)(*)(*)(*)e like that happens, even in America. Human trafficking. How depressing...

 

You may consider them tainted. I consider them relevant.

 

You only consider them relevant because they're agreeing with you. If the same site was supporting the "official story", you'd be the one calling them tainted and your opponents would be calling them relevant.

You're not seeking to discuss and debate the subject, you're looking to preach the doctrine of a definitive conclusion you've said you've already reached. Since many of your opponents are doing the same from the opposite direction, I don't see space for anything other than the insults and petty arguments that typically fill these threads.

What is unquestionably true is that none of you have ever presented anything that has been convincing enough to shift my general view bases on the balance of probabilities.

 

I'll bet that you guys consider The X Files a documentary.

 

It is still a free country Sir, and you have the right to believe whatever you choose to. Dig for the evidence and draw your own conclusions then if you find these threads insufficient. Google, learn and decide.

 

Not me....I don't watch Fox.....EVER

 

Not me!

 

I certainly have. Gunderson is not a credible source.

 

You're starting from a fundamentally flawed position. Nobody chooses to believe anything. Belief is an automatic function of the brain in response to observations.

I have a conclusion, though not a definitive one. I've checked out a couple of things as I've become aware of them but I've not been presented enough to convince me that it's worth my time doing any kind of general digging.

All these debates are about a handful of stubborn people going in circles around the same old unsupported claims and counter claims. My only interest, beyond the car-crash fascination, is a mild concern at the actions some people may take in response to the more extreme claims and beliefs involved here.

 

Any port in a storm defense?

 

Such as?

 

I don't know, but if someone in convinced that the government was willing to murder hundreds of people for political advantage, it's not beyond the realms of possibility for them to react in kind.

 

Especially since a lot of these theories are projections of the theorist's own motivations. In short, they are describing how they would handle these situations, and what they would do, given the power to accomplish the goals they think the government wanted to accomplish. They are working backwards from a goal and establish their narrative based on what they would do to achieve that goal.

That's why some of these theories are so harebrained.