DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Jango:
Are any of the currently seated members of government ones you voted for?
Are any of the currently seated members of government ones you voted for?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread Criticisms of 9/11 Commission Report
- Thread starter Childlike Empress
- Start date
Jango
Graduate Poster
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
There's a lot of non-real evidence on the internet. You do agree, yes?
Jango
Graduate Poster
Jango
Graduate Poster
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
It's important because it shows that (US) government consists of a wide variety of individuals. There are some we might not agree on but the mix balances it out and also regulates the control. This is part of the essential oversight. Understand?
By posting one of the dumbest videos on 911, you are making fun of 911 truth.
Jango
Graduate Poster
On a small scale, yeah. The conglomeration of power doesn't change. We won't see a freshmen member of Congress leading an important committee like the Armed Services or Intelligence. If the power structure between the two parties change, like it did last year, the ranking member becomes the Chairperson I.e. no real change since the Ranking Member was read-in already.
Jango
Graduate Poster
By all means then, debunk every second of it and every claim that it makes, that is, if you feel that you can.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Give me a time scale. Are you saying views and policy doesn't change over time? It certainly has in my life (so far).
What, can't you support any of the claims with some evidence; it is the one of the dumbest 911 truth videos around. In fact, is is so stupid, it seems to mock the 911 truth followers.
The best part, you can't take one thing in the video and back it up with evidence. The failed video starts with a lie before it starts - incredible stupidity. And you can't back up anything in it. Go ahead, it will be like your failure to figure out Flight 175's impact was moving the smoke; but dumber.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
This is the exact same "defense" employed by countless other defenders of nonsense on this site and others. "You haven't debunked every single stupid claim individually. Therefore, you must give it some weight."
Stop.
Jango
Graduate Poster
I admitted as much -- there is change. I would be quite historically wrong to say otherwise, which I didn't. I said 'rarely'. U.S. History has recorded more status quo upkeep than transformative change. And there has been more transformative change in matters of populism than in matters of the state, like security.
The appropriate time frame would be 238 years.
* It took 89 years for slavery to be outlawed.
* It took 144 years for women to have the right to vote.
Those are populist changes that occurred before our births (I'm assuming on your part, at least). We've seen gay marriage become a thing within the last few years after President Obama "evolved" his view on it because VPOTUS Biden beat him to the punch. The government will cave to popular demand if it is sufficiently strong enough, even pulling out of war, as was seen with the Vietnam War.
In terms of national security though, U.S. History records far more status quo than change. This is where 'rarely' really applies, as does the continuance of previously enacted policy. While President Obama ended torturing at offshore black sites (that is, until an onshore torture black site in Chicago was revealed), he continued the policy of extraordinary rendition (started by Clinton) and the assassination of American citizens without due process of law (started by Bush 43) and also indefinite detention (also started by Bush 43).
Go back now to the Church Committee. President Ford went against the grain and discontinued and outlawed certain practices, like assassinations of world leaders, which President Carter followed. President Reagan, however, did not. Ford had also worked to curtail domestic spying done by the security services, though it never did stop, and it has been a part of the U.S. national security paradigm since before J. Edgar took over at the F.B.I. But every POTUS denies allegations of domestic spying. They have to. "Yes, we're spying on Americans..." isn't going to win hearts and minds here, for as President Kennedy said: "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment."
But it happens and happened during his heyday nonetheless. It has too. There is too much money and power at stake for it not to.
Jango
Graduate Poster
Why should I? It is demanded that I back up every *********** word I type, should that same process not be applied to you's?
"Stupid" is such an easy way to debunk something though, right? Glad to see that you support it.
Jango
Graduate Poster
In case you didn't read it the first time:
Please make my night and double-down. Please!
You support a video based on delusional BS, you can't take one claim and support it. Like the smoke, you can't correct your errors, or stand by your non-existent support for one of the dumbest 911 truth videos.
Which claim can you support in the video? None.
The video is BS, any skeptic and see it; why can't you.
Last edited:
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Because the burden of proof exists, and is on you. Pretending otherwise only wastes everyone's time, and serves to make you look rather silly.
Yes and yes.
The difference is that we (not meaning me specifically, as I tend not to post in this section, but other posters who share my views) can, have, and actively are pointing out flaws in this video. These are large, glaring flaws which call the conclusions made therein into question.
You answer by saying you want a play-by-play, or it doesn't count.
You're trying to run out the clock rather than making any sort of argument.
There is no clock.
Well, no. It's just a rather apt descriptor to apply to something that has already been debunked.
What happens?
You keep falling in holes, the ones you keep digging.
Holy quote mining, Jango.
Guess what Kennedy was talking about. Need some help. Do you try to research your sources before making up BS? No.
Last edited:
Jango
Graduate Poster
Funny how that works out. Whenever I say something, the burden is on me. Whenever your crew, including the government, says something, the burden is on me. That's fine. Don't want to debunk the video, then don't. Want to call it stupid and move on, fine by me. Cyber ink is cyber ink and it doesn't go away.
Jango
Graduate Poster
How so? Any clue? More gibberish? I will say though, I surely hope to meet you one day in person
Edited by Agatha:
Edited to remove breach of rule 12
Last edited by a moderator: