Hey,
I appreciate your response. A video is much cooler than a wiki link, I like it. I very much appreciate your opinion, and cannot disagree that the video you posted refuted the point I made. I maintain that the speed and nature of the destruction of the buildings cannot (in my mind) be described as by the 'official story'. I don't argue that I was right then, but that my premise still stands, that it was not factual as laid out in the official investigation. But on other and larger points than just that one. I would hope none of us make a strict claim without many (what they feel as) solid reasons. I also throw myself at your mercy (in a way) because it is all interpretive. Just like the argument about evidence of God, that it is almost impossible to receive the hearsay information without a bias one way or the other. We are left to make our best assumptions, and disagreeing is certainly a possible outcome. I just can hear all of you already, with the 'he won't conform when given proof'. I would like to try to step past that with the fact that the situation (as we know) is much larger and more complex than the one point that Adrian seems to have scored, and it alone, regardless of validity, cannot be expected to persuade myself to change an idea of such size.
If I may, let me try another way. I knew the morning of the incident that the lies were already bring cooked up. One way or another, regardless of the level of government involvement in any way, that America could only act one way about such an event. I said to people with me that morning that the US would pick a person and a country and punish them both for world spectacle. It was natural. That is what America does, as is so apparent in it's short and unfortunate history. That could start a whole other thread, history...
I knew that the powers that be would try to control, manipulate and benefit from the situation. Again, from the lowest level of post-incident involvement to the highest premeditation, whichever turned out to be true. When seen alone, it is such a crazy moment. But taken along with all of the rest of Americas history with Arab nations, foreign policy, and (both sides of) terrorism, it seems to me that we should be very sceptical of what any official (governmental) information says.
Did David Rovics say it well with "Is it the latest Lusitania, or another Reichstag fire,"?
And again, it is all interpretive. You and I can hold things to be true and argue over them. We are trying to establish a conformity with the truth that is not interpreted at all. That, I think, is an impossible argument to complete, especially with the constraints of our electronic relationship. I can only argue what I think and what I know personally, and speak for no one but myself, and of nothing but interpretation. I would forward it is what we all do.
I doubt anything I can say will save me now.
I am going to sleep, and hoping this makes more sense in the morning. Thanks for your patience at least guys.
-Pip
I appreciate your response. A video is much cooler than a wiki link, I like it. I very much appreciate your opinion, and cannot disagree that the video you posted refuted the point I made. I maintain that the speed and nature of the destruction of the buildings cannot (in my mind) be described as by the 'official story'. I don't argue that I was right then, but that my premise still stands, that it was not factual as laid out in the official investigation. But on other and larger points than just that one. I would hope none of us make a strict claim without many (what they feel as) solid reasons. I also throw myself at your mercy (in a way) because it is all interpretive. Just like the argument about evidence of God, that it is almost impossible to receive the hearsay information without a bias one way or the other. We are left to make our best assumptions, and disagreeing is certainly a possible outcome. I just can hear all of you already, with the 'he won't conform when given proof'. I would like to try to step past that with the fact that the situation (as we know) is much larger and more complex than the one point that Adrian seems to have scored, and it alone, regardless of validity, cannot be expected to persuade myself to change an idea of such size.
If I may, let me try another way. I knew the morning of the incident that the lies were already bring cooked up. One way or another, regardless of the level of government involvement in any way, that America could only act one way about such an event. I said to people with me that morning that the US would pick a person and a country and punish them both for world spectacle. It was natural. That is what America does, as is so apparent in it's short and unfortunate history. That could start a whole other thread, history...
I knew that the powers that be would try to control, manipulate and benefit from the situation. Again, from the lowest level of post-incident involvement to the highest premeditation, whichever turned out to be true. When seen alone, it is such a crazy moment. But taken along with all of the rest of Americas history with Arab nations, foreign policy, and (both sides of) terrorism, it seems to me that we should be very sceptical of what any official (governmental) information says.
Did David Rovics say it well with "Is it the latest Lusitania, or another Reichstag fire,"?
And again, it is all interpretive. You and I can hold things to be true and argue over them. We are trying to establish a conformity with the truth that is not interpreted at all. That, I think, is an impossible argument to complete, especially with the constraints of our electronic relationship. I can only argue what I think and what I know personally, and speak for no one but myself, and of nothing but interpretation. I would forward it is what we all do.
I doubt anything I can say will save me now.
I am going to sleep, and hoping this makes more sense in the morning. Thanks for your patience at least guys.
-Pip
