atheists and "conspiracy" theories

[Christi]

Well, if I had a loved one that died or died myself, I think I'd want people to be asking questions. I mean if there are people in the government that corrupt, I'd want to think people were trying to uncover the truth and get those behind it. Not that we will be able to do anything here, but just saying.

I don't feel my thinking that things don't add up and that the government is not being honest with us in some way dishonors those that died. In fact, there are many that lost loved ones asking the same questions we are. None of us here are saying in any way that we think any of the victims had anything to do with it.

So you're basically saying that it's just impossible for the Air Force to really protect the United States from hijacked planes, and we should just accept that as a weakness and move on? So with all of the people working to protect the United States not one of them has thought of this scenario nor have they put safeguards in place to automatically alert the Air Force if 4 planes go off course at the same time? Either they are really stupid or we are. I'd think there would be something that would automatically alert the Air force if even one or two go off course. Nope, all that money spent, and we are just sitting ducks.

[Bgood]

'Shell B' wrote:
How is the big picture more important than the details?

Wow, I hope you are being facetious on that one!!! It is just something called perspective!

The big picture is made up of the details.

True. The whole is made up of parts. But if you don't know how to put these parts together, then all you have is a scattered and fragmented mess of "details".

Those unwilling to "parse sentences" are, to my mind, those unwilling to actually sort through the facts.

That is a false assumption. I think most atheists are very willing to sort thru facts. I just don't want to waste effort squibbling over petty crumbs.

It is easy to have a preconceived notion and a preference for the outcome.

You could not have said it better. This statement goes BOTH WAYS does it not?

It is, again to my mind, very uncool to make wide-sweeping claims based on these notions and preferences and then refuse to acknowledge the details that really make up the entire scenario.

You are assuming that I am coming from a place of ignorance because I disagree with you. Trust me, I never wanted to believe that 911 was a conspiracy. For a long time, I believed what everyone else did. Not until I was open to the idea, did it hit me like a ton of bricks. I served 4 years in the USAF and was always patriotic. Now I question governments, and NWO theories which a few years ago I would have laughed at.

"Hey, who cares if the details don't match up? The governments is mean! That's the big picture and I'm sticking to it." Fuck that.

I don't feel that way. That is extremist. There is a lot of good that gov. provides and I believe it is necessary in the modern world. But... historically all powerful governments get too big and hungry and want to control everything. Just read world history and see.

[Shell B]

Well, if I had a loved one that died or died myself, I think I'd want people to be asking questions. I mean if there are people in the government that corrupt, I'd want to think people were trying to uncover the truth and get those behind it. Not that we will be able to do anything here, but just saying.

Sure, but I wouldn't want them believing nonsense based on conjecture.

So you're basically saying that it's just impossible for the Air Force to really protect the United States from hijacked planes, and we should just accept that as a weakness and move on?

No, I am saying this is not the typical job of the USAF. If the flights were longer, the USAF likely would have been able to do something, but that something would have been to take out the planes.

So with all of the people working to protect the United States not one of them has thought of this scenario nor have they put safeguards in place to automatically alert the Air Force if 4 planes go off course at the same time? Either they are really stupid or we are. I'd think there would be something that would automatically alert the Air force if even one or two go off course. Nope, all that money spent, and we are just sitting ducks.

There are safeguards in place now, but still. You have to account for the simple logistics of it and the time frame in which it occurred. It wasn't as if there were several hours in which to communicate what was happening. Furthermore, people did not know what was happening.

[Bgood]

@Bgood
Wow..., I don't think you understood one word I said. It wasn't the fire which melted the inner column. It was pure heat(more like an explosion from within the building is a better way to describe it) from the impact:jet fuel+heat+kinetic energy = very bad day.

What evidence do you have that would stand up in even an "unbiased" as you would say, court of law?

I have WAY too much evidence, you'll look it up yourself.

This doesn't explain WTC7. And what is the difference between 'pure heat' and fire? Isn't the heat caused from the fire.

You also say:

It was pure heat(more like an explosion from within the building is a better way to describe it) Oh... like an explosive. I get it.

[Shell B]

Wow, I hope you are being facetious on that one!!! It is just something called perspective!

We're not talking about an abstract painting. We are talking about a very complicated process. Not taking a closer look is pure folly.

True. The whole is made up of parts. But if you don't know how to put these parts together, then all you have is a scattered and fragmented mess of "details".

If you don't know all the details, all you have is an assumption. The people here have not naysayed based on details. We have put the whole picture together or, at least, most of it.

That is a false assumption. I think most atheists are very willing to sort thru facts. I just don't want to waste effort squibbling over petty crumbs.

If you consider the details of the facts involved to be petty crumbs, I don't think I will bother with this conversation anymore. If you don't want to understand the how and why, that is your problem. Don't waste my time asking me to look at a "big picture" assertion while ignoring the brush strokes that make up the picture.

You could not have said it better. This statement goes BOTH WAYS does it not?

Indeed. I have no preconceived notions about it. The bad guys died that day, so I have no reason to seek more bad guys. I'm just looking at the scenario as it stands. You, on the other hand, want a bad guy to blame, in my mind.

You are assuming that I am coming from a place of ignorance because I disagree with you.

I'm afraid I reached that conclusion once you started dismissing details because they were too detailish for you.

I don't feel that way. That is extremist. There is a lot of good that gov. provides and I believe it is necessary in the modern world. But... historically all powerful governments get too big and hungry and want to control everything. Just read world history and see.

Hehe, you told me to read world history. Name a single government that attacked its own people and covered it up in order to start a foreign war. Give me one that was proven. Just one.

The fact of it is, and history will show you, governments don't need to do shit like that to wage war. They could fear monger and make up heaps of lies that would have the same effect. Propaganda is very, very good at that and far more cost effective. I'm also going to go ahead and add that shithead leaders and governments that attack their own people are always found out. You can't cover that shit up. History will show you that too. Russia, on numerous occasions, is an excellent example. China, nearly every country in Africa, Germany and even the United States (internment camps anyone?) are more examples. More often than not, they get away with it. The government of the U.S. has no reason to do it now, though. This system is such that attacks, forced labor, etc. are useless. America is much more lucrative to officials when its people are working hard for war. World War II is an excellent example of that. Give me motive that stands up. Come on.

Want to talk history some more?

[Bgood]

Shell B wrote

No, I am saying this is not the typical job of the USAF. If the flights were longer, the USAF likely would have been able to do something, but that something would have been to take out the planes.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. I was in the Air Force. They were ordered to stand down on 911. There were also several training execises simulating terrorists flying planes into the WTC towers on the morning of 911. These "training" exercises confused FAA and air traffic control which allowed the planes to enter unauthorized air space. BUT THATS JUST ANOTHER COINCIDENCE RIGHT!!!!!!

[simplexity]

@Bgood
Wow..., I don't think you understood one word I said. It wasn't the fire which melted the inner column. It was pure heat(more like an explosion from within the building is a better way to describe it) from the impact:jet fuel+heat+kinetic energy = very bad day.

What evidence do you have that would stand up in even an "unbiased" as you would say, court of law?

I have WAY too much evidence, you'll look it up yourself.

This doesn't explain WTC7. And what is the difference between 'pure heat' and fire? Isn't the heat caused from the fire.

You also say:

It was pure heat(more like an explosion from within the building is a better way to describe it) Oh... like an explosive. I get it.

Yes, a fast burning fire = explosive. Same thing
Fire is not heat.
Fire releases heat and other chemical products.
My wording was off, yes.
Most fires are slow burning and produce relatively small amounts of heat, unlike this one which had enough heat to melt the metal in the center columns of both buildings, apparently.
As for WTC7 I'm not sure how it collapsed straight down as it did but making up other explanations for something you simply don't know is not good enough. I do admit it is a little strange.
I have looked up a lot of this "evidence" and although it is somewhat compelling most if not all of it is assumption and conjecture and not enough for me to believe either way.
I still think the original story is at least mostly true although I do have to admit some things are "off".

[Christi]

The actuality of it is that the Air Force did know those planes were off course, and normally, they would have taken out the planes before they got into a populated area. However, that day, they were told not to do anything. They were made to believe that everything was due to training exercises.

You know darn well that the Air Force and US Military would never allow some flight traffic controllers to be in charge of national security. I mean seriously, the Pentagon?

However, it's much easier to tell people that the Air Force just didn't know than to tell them the truth. They didn't think people would understand how the pilots that were supposed to protect the Pentagon were off on some training exercise and the others were told that there would be training exercises and not to act on the alerts. What's interesting is that no one comes forward to ask about the millions spent on national security yet the Air Force says that they just didn't know 4 planes had been hijacked. BTW, it took time to reroute those planes and go back to New York. It wasn't just a matter of minutes or seconds.

(Sorry, was making this post B4 I saw BGood's)

[Bgood]

Shell B wrote:

If you don't know all the details, all you have is an assumption.

What if I already have all the details, then what do I have? I already know the details, that's why I'm not interested in arguing over them. I am beyond collecting details, I am at the next level of piecing them together coherently.

Maybe you assume too much, like perhaps thinking that you know everything. Maybe what you think you know is false information. Why could that not be possible? Because you are some genius? Because what you think is more socially acceptable? So what?

[Shell B]

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. I was in the Air Force. They were ordered to stand down on 911. There were also several training execises simulating terrorists flying planes into the WTC towers on the morning of 911. These "training" exercises confused FAA and air traffic control which allowed the planes to enter unauthorized air space. BUT THATS JUST ANOTHER COINCIDENCE RIGHT!!!!!!

Yes, of course. I don't know what I am talking about. You were in the Air Force? Big fucking whoop. I'm sure they told you all about this too because Air Force peons who "were," so presumably weren't career higher ups are told everything that goes on. They understand the complete workings of the entity. They don't put air traffic controllers in charge of national security. We're talking about domestic flights. By your logic, we put small town police in charge of national security every day by letting them be traffic cops and not letting the national guard handle it.

Don't pretend you're debating with a dipshit.

---

What if I already have all the details, then what do I have? I already know the details, that's why I'm not interested in arguing over them. I am beyond collecting details, I am at the next level of piecing them together coherently.

Tough titty. This conversation is not based on your collective knowledge. If you aren't here to debate it and you're just collecting your thoughts, don't engage in a debate about the details. By the way, coherently does not mean sloppily and without regard.

Maybe you assume too much, like perhaps thinking that you know everything. Maybe what you think you know is false information. Why could that not be possible? Because you are some genius? Because what you think is more socially acceptable? So what?

Attack the argument, not me. I don't think I know everything nor do I think I am genius.

Maybe what you think you know is false. Isn't that a two way street? I'm not assuming you think you are a genius because you are standing by what you believe. Don't waste my time with your assessment of my personality again, please.