posted on Nov, 30 2012 @ 07:18 AM
I am sure for many what I am about to say is obvious but I can’t help but feel that to some members are still unaware about this very important and
certain fact when it comes to what has turned into the 9/11 argument.
I say the 9/11 argument because that is what it has turned into; to me it is no longer an intellectual debate to seek out the truth it is a petty
argument between two opposing sides. On one side we have the people who are adamant that the official story to 9/11 is truth and on the other we have
those who are certain that the government or some other tool of the “elite” was directly involved in some kind of false flag that resulted in
countless deaths. Now yes I know there are some who might say that they don’t entirely subscribe to one argument or the other pointing out the
merits and flaws of both sides of the argument but fundamentally we all fall into one of two groups, people who believe in a cover up of some kind and
those who believe the official story.
Both groups have stopped the debate now and started the argument, both groups strongly believe they are right and both groups have their reasons for
believing they are right and within each group there is conflict but at the end of the day neither of these two side will ever agree.
I cannot understand why we are continuing with this stupid argument, we have people who believe the official story banging their heads against an
impenetrable wall as they desperately try to show the conspiracy theorists how very wrong they are. And on the opposite side of that wall we have
those who believe that there is some kind of conspiracy or cover up behind 9/11 on some kind of odd crusade to force their own brand of “truth”
down everyone else throats. Both sides have their “evidence” and openly mock there opposite’s in this argument because they don’t accept their
evidence be it the 9/11 commission or evidence of a controlled demolition. This inevitably turns into two groups of people frustrated at each other
because neither can understand why the other cannot subscribe to their believes on the basis of their evidence and in the end we get a school yard
The problem is that both sides have their unique bodies of knowledge that rarely cross the same path and each group has a very strong critique of the
others body of knowledge. For example a OSer will tell a truth about the bias of their source, it only looks a one side, out to make money and so on.
The same goes for the other side with truthers insisting on pointing out that everybody is in on it form the whole Bush administration to the
“MSN” all the way to your grandmother.
The point I am making hear is that the two sides are intellectual opposite’s, they have turned into something similar to two groups of sports fans
arguing one team is better than the other. Neither of these groups is ever going to agree, submit or negotiate to reach consensus of what happened so
why don’t we stop trying in vain to force the other group into our way of thinking because its not going to happen. By continually forcing “9/11
truth” or the “official account” down people’s throats all your going to do is piss people off and end either banned or looking like a fool.
I personally believe the official story, I have my evidence as to why I believe it to be true if I engage in a debate on 9/11 with a “truther” I
will present my reasons for by believe but if Mr. Truther does not want to believe what I have to say then I really don’t care. It makes no
difference to me if he chooses to bath in pool of what I perceive to be as ignorance. Likewise if one takes a conspiracy view of 9/11 why does it
matter to you that I say I hold a different opinion than you despite you showing me your evidence. Why do we need to then get into these petty
arguments where we accuse each other of lying, being stupid, flaming posts and resorting to bully tactics such as all ganging up on the truther or
We are all guilty of this, myself included but really the petty argument about 9/11 has to stop and we need to get back to the intellectual debate