abcgroupdocumentation wrote:I'll never understand why you would chose to read something over and over again that you know is gonna chap your ass???

Because I don't feel the need to only read things that confirm what I already "know". If you don't read things that challenge what you believe, then your mind is essentially closed.

I read all sorts of things that I find distasteful, stupid, racist, politically wrong, difficult, insane, bent, whatever, etc. It's always good to know what's out there.

I don't go through life expecting to not be offended, and being surprised if I am. I kind of expect to be offended at some point.

Mark Hansen wrote:I read all sorts of things that I find distasteful, stupid, racist, politically wrong, difficult, insane, bent, whatever, etc. It's always good to know what's out there.

Hear, hear.

big_dave wrote:
If you follow any of the biggies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_ ... acy_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Wo ... bertson%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons_disease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_recruitment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Segal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Beam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement

You can see where they all head back to, profiteering alternative medicine, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny and fear of sex, antisemetism and lots and lots of pop science swill peddling the same obsessions over and over. Perhaps the greatest dominator is the habit of forming "science" "theories" over frames of footage, photographs and the like. Whether it be looking for the Loch Ness monster in a grainy field, or looking for inward dust clouds on 9/11 footage, the methodology speaks volumes. There isn't a theory, much like the guys looking for Nessy don't know the shape of the animal they're looking for, they're just hunting for anomalies to tag as proof of "something".

Baby Jesus have mercy on my soul for posting in this thread.

It's really ignorant to lump all conspiracy theorists into one category. These topics are varied, and most of them have nothing to do with each other.

To link the 9/11 topic to David Icke is a giant disservice to the friends and families affected by 9/11, and who only want the truth, not some official story with holes as big as the Grand Canyon.

Icke mixes topics together like a child making a smoothie. His lame "Reptile" theory just makes the doubters look like crazies. That's the point.

History shows us what kind of shit we can expect in the future, political deals, the ways people are manipulated, and it's not a far fetched idea that the government either orchestrated and/or helped in the execution of the attack.

Bob had some very appropriate words for the naysayers:

clocker bob wrote:Truth passes through three phases:

* First it is ridiculed.

* Second it is fiercely and violently opposed.

* Third, it becomes self-evident.

This:

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:this is the first time i've ever read one of your threads.

Is what is keeping you from knowing this:

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:what do YOU believe happenend and who do you think is responsible for this event?

Not trying to be a jerkoff, but I can't stop and retype old posts for you because you don't want to sift through all the crap surrounding the existing posts.

There are better guides to 9/11 than me, if you're sincerely interested. The fundamentals are:

Learn the 9/11 Commission report ( it's a free download ).

Go to a site like 9/11blogger.com, which will take you to just about any opposing view you need.

There is homework involved. I can't give you an 'objective' primer on 9/11, because I'm doing advocacy, not offering a curriculum.

Mark--don't be silly. I read things that challenge my world view. Certain things are just not worth reading, not b/c they offend, but b/c they offend certain senses that we have but ultimately don't do anything for us.

For instance, I'm a sucker for a debate with a Xtian fundamentalist...but to no avail. It's just stupid to engage in a conversation that is over before its began. In the same way, certain articles, threads, or books are simply not worth my time. Just being honest.

Bob...could you be a little more thoughtful in your construction of pericopes? your post makes little sense.

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:Bob...could you be a little more thoughtful in your construction of pericopes? your post makes little sense.

Sure, no problem. I'll try a larger font and more color:

clocker bob wrote:This:

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:this is the first time i've ever read one of your threads.

Is what is keeping you from knowing this:

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:what do YOU believe happenend and who do you think is responsible for this event?

If you read the threads, you wouldn't have to ask the question. Or, if you ask the question, that means you haven't read the threads.

If you ask the question again, I'll assume that you either can't find the threads or that you don't know how to read.

i know how to read. i just figured it would be nice for you to articulate your ideas in a simple manner. is that hard to do? you're good at fonts, blanket statements, and insulting folks...but how 'bout a simple concise view in YOUR own words?

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:i know how to read.

In the time you have spent making 12 replies to this thread, you could have read fifty of my posts on 9/11. There is something very wrong with you if you can't understand that.

What is taking you so long to get going on 9/11?
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... 095#120095

abcgroupdocumentation on september 23, 2005 in reference to Flight 93 wrote:I haven't seen the documentary but have heard a lot on both sides. Clearly I don't "know" in with any real epistemic certainty what actually happened, but I tend to think that it was shot down.

Now...I think the power of belief is huge and most Americans don't want to think that our government would do that. Nor do they like to think of their loved ones dying like that. Acts of heroism are much more satiating for us and somehow provide meaning in an event that really has none.

'An event that really has none'?? You're one of those pseudointellectual types, aren't you? Friend of Nerbly Bear's by chance?

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:I won't rain on someone's parade though if in fact they do believe that.

I lost my uncle in WTC 2 so I know how shitty it is to think of such meaningless shit to happen to people who were just going to work.

You have an extremely bizarre attitude about 9/11. 'an event that has no meaning'? 'meaningless shit'??

I'm thinking you have a lot of deep-seated issues regarding 9/11, and I'm thinking that a public forum may not be the place for you to settle them, if that's your real objective. If you're trying to spark some 'debate' with me as a way to confront your own confused thoughts on 9/11, sorry, I could not be less interested.

That post on UAL93 was 19 months ago. Why did you claim to have 'heard a lot from both sides' back then? What's taking you so long to begin your research into 9/11, if you have a personal connection?

of course i have issues with 9/11, most people do...and yes, i have a personal connection but just b/c of that, i don't need to buy into 9/11 conspiracy theories.

i'm not trying to work through anything on here. there's nothing to work through. people died. it was a horrible meaningless act of violence (there's not "meaning" in murdering thousands of folks if you ask me). i'm just curious as to what your idea is of these events...and no, i don't want to read those threads? why? b/c like the earlier part of this thread...these things turn into mud slinging forums.

again bob...i'm interested in YOUR ideas, not cut and paste ideas from this site and that site.

in terms of the pseudo intellectual type...sure...if you say so. i like to think of myself as a smart fella...but you're entitled to your opinion.

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:In the same way, certain articles, threads, or books are simply not worth my time.

You can tell by their covers.