Pwolf wrote: I'm really not trying to attack you or anyone's belief in what happened but I really don't like it when people use these films as a bases for what they believe and then recommend other people to watch them to become "enlightened" about what "really happened".
No harm done, I don't think you attacked me I actually think it's a good thing people are still as passionate about this subject as you seem to be, regardless of what side of the fence they're on. My only gripe was that (with the exception of flight 93) I flat out said I do not believe the claims, I do not know which side to believe for most of it and flat out said when I dropped the link to the video that their experts may in fact be biased. I don't pretend to know what happened but I do like to listen to both sides of the argument so I can best make up my own mind on what seems most plausible to me.
Pwolf wrote: if there's one thing I do believe in that these films suggest is that I believe 9/11 was used to invade Iraq and bring down Saddam. I think we missed our chance to get Bin Ladden because of that and now 9 years later we are still fighting a war and still don't know where the guy is. I think after the dust settled, the Bush administration had preconceived ideas about Iraq way before 9/11 and thought 9/11 would be the perfect thing to push their agenda.
And that is one subject I touched on in my first post and I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's clear that they used 9/11 and 'terrorism' to the utmost of their advantage in convincing the american people to invade a country I personally don't think we had any right to go near. But after it happened people had bloodlust, people wanted revenge and Bush used that to justify a war he was looking to start before 9/11 ever happened, and really from what I have read (which who really knows whats true or not these days) had very little if anything to do with the actual attack.
godix wrote: You probably mean this footage from a security camera of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Which, I might point out, was officially released to the public by the government...
You sir are absolutely correct. The confiscated gas station video tape was from the pentagon what I was thinking of with flight 93 was the audio tape from the cock pit I confused the two. My mistake.
godix wrote: I linked to it earlier, but read the 9/11 commission report. That is the official statement of what our government says happened, and reading it would immediately disprove half of the common conspiracy claims. You may or may not think the report is true, but come on, at least read the stupid thing before making up your own mind.
I live 45 minutes away from where the world trade center stood and was still in high school when it happened along with when the commission was being held. Pretty much all we did in school was watch that and go over the reports as they came out, so I can assure you though it may have been years ago, I have read it.
And again, though hopefully for the last time, I never said I believed the theories. I never said one was right and one was wrong. (though however the commission report wouldn't really work as 'evidence' if you are one of the people who believe there was a cover up going on) I think there is a chance for certain possibilities but I don't pretend to know what happened and with the amount of conflicting reports out there I don't think I'd be able to ever say for certain that I firmly and unequivocally believe the wtc went down due to 'situation X'. If I had to bet on one I would sway more to the Governments take on it, but with all the conflict that would only be by about a 65/35 spread. I can only offer my opinion and how I interpreted the events along with the conflicting experts and examination of evidence. And since I myself have yet to form a definitive opinion I certainly cannot try and sway someone else to try and agree with an opinion that has not even been made.
I think the amount of back and forth on the issue is really a sign of the times. While there have always been conspiracy theories this is the first major event to occur in america since the internet boom. While in years past we got our news from 'professionals' sitting at a news desk or by reading a paper, now anybody and their mother can be an investigative reporter. Or fabricate stories entirely as news and pull evidence out of a hat and pass it off as truth. So while some of these theories may be plausible I think with the amount of muddled internet water they've been passed through we might never know. Who is the investigator that actually took their time to sift through the evidence and which one just fabricated a wiki page? Did even the investigator that sifted through the evidence read and cite the fabricated wiki page as a reference believing it to be true? Where we once were given a definitive story (whether it was the true one or not it was the only one there) we are now being bombarded by conflicting reports over the internet that is like a world wide version of the telephone game. If you had three papers in front of you one saying Joe Smith died of a heart attack, one saying he was poisoned and another saying aliens from mars abducted him and removed his heart the best you can do is just read all three and try to decide for yourself what is bullshit and which one is most likely closest to the truth. But like we have here, certain people will believe one to be more accurate while another group will believe a different one. But personally due to the conflicting reports I don't think I'd ever be completely sure unless I had a medical degree and examined the body myself.