reply to post by alinost
OK, I watched your video and have to say it was very funny
It's a nice break, but IMO, it's off topic. Rather than posting videos that, though admittedly fun to watch, are intended to insult the intelligence
of people who ask questions, why not just find answers to the questions posed in the 2 serious videos? It seems to me there must be logical
explanations for them, but when people use ad hominem arguments against facts, it usually implies the lack of any counter-argument.
The facts do not seem to fit the official story, so why does anyone asking questions get ridiculed?
Unless the steel did not melt, which it did, or there is an explanation of why weeks later the heap of waste from a fallen building was over 1000
degrees, or the fireman saying they'd be able to quench the two isolated fires was mistakenly viewing a blast-furnace level inferno, or the
explosions that everyone there heard and registered on richter scales prior to collapse did not occur, or Rudy Giulliani could have known within
minutes of collapse that the first steel frame building in history to collapse from fire was about to, or the engine found at the Pentagon was a
757's, which evidently it wasn't, or a plane could almost entirely vaporize while leaving behind remains of 184 people, or people weren't fired for
disagreeing with the official story, or people weren't ridiculed endlessly for asking questions, or lots of other seeming questions/paradoxes raised
by these videos can be explained by the official story, then there is likely more to learn. Who knows what the real answer is? What's wrong with
trying to understand?
The only reason we found out about Abu Ghraib and subsequently a network of prisons where all reasonable people now agree that "enemy combatants"
are/were being tortured was because they were outed by a small number of people out of the thousands who were involved, likely the least trained and
indoctrinated of the bunch. Even general Janet Karpinski, a reservist who was made the patsy for Abu Ghraib, said these issues went to the top in
spite of complete denial, denial which we later learned was untrue. We were told then that Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident, that no one knew,
etc., which now we all know was not true either. Of course, Karpinski was just another casualty of the machine, like Valerie Plame and the CIA field
agents and programs likely seriously damaged by deliberate outing of a covert agent working on WMD because her husband told the truth.
Yesterday, FEMA was caught staging fake press conferences with FEMA employees (agents?) pretending to be press and asking old soviet style softball
questions designed to make people feel better about the fires than they did when Blackwater was aiming guns at people like Anderson Cooper during
Katrina and mortally threatening them to not enter certain areas or film any bodies. Why should we not ask questions? Because we are scared, or
because we are ridiculed?
Why not just try to understand how to make sense of the facts? Perhaps Survivor is more interesting? Maybe another celebrity gets arrested for drunk
driving? Is what happened at WTC an important enough question to investigate until the facts match the explanation? I knew people working at the WTC.
I also talked to a senior government official who worked there and he was very lucky not to have gone to work on time.
I grew up believing in a country that respects freedoms, that safeguards them. When I was young, we were not afraid of the authorities or speaking our
minds. Our neighbor on the police force was as much part of the community as anyone. Now we have people concerned that just by asking questions,
they'll get on a list? Is that just an irrational fear? One of many? If we haven't explained what happened, how can we be sure our response
[edit on 27-10-2007 by lifestudent]