You know, I just spent a couple of hours reading through the entire thread.
Congrats. It's certainly a long one.
First of all, while I do appreciate some of the conversations on the site, I was pretty disappointed with the majority of the debate between fellow skeptics.
I must say, I find the tone of many to be condescending. If not at first, it sure gets there pretty quickly. I understand that that is part of human nature but very few of the many who participate as such will admit it (I am not leaving myself out of that equation either).
Without going into agreement with Alex’s' views or not, I am going to observe that he apologized when he felt he was wrong, he admitted that he had been mistaken when he felt so and managed for the most part to not be drawn into what I considered to be baiting from some as well as some attempts to intellectually bully him.
I'm not making excuses, but in my few years here, I've engaged in and lurked over numerous discussions of these types. It all pretty much comes down to a simple request: please show evidence. Not evidence against something, but evidence
for it. Of course, debunking the "whatabouts" (as in "Well, whatabout this? Whatabout that?) that predominate in, say, the moon landing hoax debates can be jolly fun, but it ultimately gets frustrating in that it seems sometimes so many are ready to believe the most fanciful things rather than the simple. So I can see where long-time contributers here might be a bit testy when yet another Dread Pirate Conspiracy comes along like clockwork and, once again, it lacks proof.
If you propose that the destruction of 9/11/2001 was due to something other than what is commonly accepted, you must prove it, not just play at poking holes in other theories.
...I get what Alex was feeling for the most part though I do not necessarily agree with all of it but why should it be unthinkable that our, or any other government should lie to us when we know for a fact it has happened in the past?
Who says anything is "unthinkable?" I don't. But that's hardly enough to hang one's hat on, much less a series of events such as what occurred on 9/11.
What has happened that would dissuade them from that practice? His idea that it might be a Psy-op is not totally out of hand especially since it is a military principle that wars should be fought using these types of methods more and more in the future.
"Might be?" As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." Please present your proof.
If 911 is truly an extraordinary event in world history, does it not deserve exploring honestly the extraordinary context and possible beginnings it might have had? if not, why not?
Calling something an "extraordinary" event colors it with dramatic overtones that may impede rational discussion.
As I suggested earlier in the thread, it ended up being catastrophic, but not so much as perhaps intended. Fanatics, no matter their origins, will strike out in unconventional ways in order to promote their cause. If 9/11 hadn't happened, something like it would've (as it did prior) eventually, and likely will again. (It could be argued that such events are ongoing, though some manage to be more headline-worthy than others, making 9/11 less "extraordinary" when viewed within the overall narrative.) In that way, the WTC destruction wasn't "extraordinary," except that it was visually spectacular and witnessed by so many, therefore making a significant impression.
