@bareboards2

Why are you incapable of addressing the context of situation?

In nearly every exchange with anyone on vs, you nitpick our literal words and avoid the issue.

" I don't agree with everything but I agree with some things. "
" You know, there's a lot here to look at and I can't draw a full conclusion. "
" I really just don't feel comfortable responding to your sincere inquiries into the logic which supports my beliefs because I had heard you wore white shoes after labor day a few years back. "

Focus on the main idea Bareboards, the buildings and rituals and uniforms and weapons and "authority" which is bestowed to nearly any mofo who's passed a GED test..

1 - Was all that stuff invented & perpetuated out of a sincere need to protect you?

2 - Do you sincerely believe that 95% of police wake up yearning to prevent every citizen, as much as possible, from being robbed or raped or murdered?

Those are simple questions you've refused to address so far. Here's your chance.

Question 1 & 2. A simple YES or NO is all that's required. You can explain later.

If you can't give a simple answer to those simple questions then you've obviously been ducking this whole time for fear of admitting to your own cognitive dissonance.

[Seriously don't even bother replying, here or in pm, if you're not gonna give a simple yes or no. Like i said, i can wait for an explanation. thanks]

>> ^bareboards2:

I was saying that the police officers behaved badly. You know that, right?
I wasn't "scrutinizing" -- I asked a simple question. What happened?


Well apparently they were dancing. I don't know what else you're looking for. Is there something that could've happened before hand that would have gave the cops some rationale for their actions? If that was the case, then why was the first cop giving them a warning about demonstrating/dancing? Clearly to him whatever you're looking for (if it exists) is irrelevant.

I was saying that the police officers behaved badly. You know that, right?

I wasn't "scrutinizing" -- I asked a simple question. What happened?

We have been here before, mr blank. We approach the world differently. I want all the facts. I want the whole story. I am not interested in propaganda, no matter what the source. I try to be intellectually honest in all my dealings, even if it is uncomfortable for me personally.

And I just don't dehumanize these public safety officers (who risk their lives daily) so utterly as to think that they will behave perfectly in all situations.

Something happened, don't you think? Why did the park cops go talk to them in the first place? Something happened and we don't know what it is.

I have no idea of how it started. It ended badly. I think it is likely that this will be used in training vids in the future, of how not to react when you, as a public safety officer, feel ... what? Disrespected? Disrespected is not a reason to arrest someone.

We're all on a learning curve. I believe cheap accessible video cameras are going to be the most democraticizing force in the world. With those cameras will come some costs that we aren't going to like, but there are some great benefits. Keeping cops honest is number one on the list.

And I think we all agree, being a smart ass is not a reason to arrest someone. Good thing, huh, blankie? (that was meant as a gentle joke, sweetie.)

>> ^blankfist:

I'm always curious why we scrutinize those engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience, no matter how benign and disinteresting, when it's the laws that are the problem not the protest itself.

This is a faulty way of looking at it. Agnostic is not the middle road between atheism and theism.

Theist is a actively believed belief, that means that anything that is not theism is not theism aka atheism. Gnosticism and agnosticism is a completely different field.

Because I have seen no evidence or even heard compelling testimony that they universe would be created by a supreme being, I don't think it was. Furthermore, there is compelling evidence that the world can logically exist without a creator. Why would you want to insert a creator where it makes no sense?

>> ^shinyblurry:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://talks.videosift.com/member/MaxWilder" title="member since November 7th, 2007" class="profilelink">MaxWilder
Hehe your definitions leave something to be desired. How is any of that a lack of belief, btw? I think the reason you're getting frustrated is because you don't even know how to define your belief. Lets try to make this simple for you. Strip all of your religious ideas about God out of your mind. Here is a simple question for you to define your belief: How you answer this question will tell you what your belief is
Was the Universe designed and created by a supreme being IE God?
Yes = Theist
No = Atheist
Don't know = Agnostic
Does that make sense to you?

@MaxWilder

Hehe your definitions leave something to be desired. How is any of that a lack of belief, btw? I think the reason you're getting frustrated is because you don't even know how to define your belief. Lets try to make this simple for you. Strip all of your religious ideas about God out of your mind. Here is a simple question for you to define your belief: How you answer this question will tell you what your belief is

Was the Universe designed and created by a supreme being IE God?

Yes = Theist

No = Atheist

Don't know = Agnostic

Does that make sense to you?

He is the president its a pritty simple question you dont need prep time thats the whole issue with polatics is that polatitoins can just say smarmy bullshit and get away with it. noone has a clue as to what or who abama is or what he realy wants to do .

>> ^Morganth:

This was supposed to be a fund-raiser. Then someone jumps him with an unexpected question and everyone whips out their camera phones to put this on the internet. If you think Obama is being short and blunt, it's because he is and it's intentional. His every word will be scrutinized by CNN, FOX, MSNBC and plenty of foreign news agencies.
Imagine being invited to a party and while you're there someone pulls out a camera to ask you your position on controversial issue x. You have no prep time and what you say can't be taken back because it's going to be available for the world to see within minutes.
As for Manning, he's not being held indefinitely and he's not in some secret holding cell. He's in Kansas. And his pre-trail hearing is in May. For those of you who think he's some sort of reincarnated Rosa Parks, here are his own words, "If you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?" or how about, "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s Telephone while exfiltratrating possibly the largest data spillage in american history...i could’ve sold to russia or china, and made bank?"
He did it simply because he was bored, he could, and he hated his crappy job with the Army sitting in front of a computer all day in the middle of a freaking desert. He ended up getting caught because he bragged about it wanting hacker fame.
Assange hasn't broken any US law. Manning's lucky that the prosecution isn't seeking the death penalty, which 'Aiding the Enemy' (one of the 23 charges against him) carries.

>> ^VoodooV:

I like how she keeps trotting out the whole Mother of Five thing. Is it somehow impossible to be a mother of five and also to know of anyone wishing to harm others/property
Sorry...but the woman is a dick the way she was treating those guys. They came to her peacably and asked a pretty simple question. She refused to answer and they acknowledge that she had that right. They left peacably. In return, she treated them like shit and complete disrespect. How is she the hero in all this? On the other hand, the agents were completely respectful and professional and didn't stoop to her level.
I saw the intro to the video and half expected to see a gun pointed at her when she opened the door the way she hyped it up and made it all doom and gloom sounding.


Well, she expressed her opinion in public and the FBI knocked on her door - how would you feel if the FBI knocked on your door due to something as simple as making your post on the internet, would you feel it was necessary?

I like how she keeps trotting out the whole Mother of Five thing. Is it somehow impossible to be a mother of five and also to know of anyone wishing to harm others/property

Sorry...but the woman is a dick the way she was treating those guys. They came to her peacably and asked a pretty simple question. She refused to answer and they acknowledge that she had that right. They left peacably. In return, she treated them like shit and complete disrespect. How is she the hero in all this? On the other hand, the agents were completely respectful and professional and didn't stoop to her level.

I saw the intro to the video and half expected to see a gun pointed at her when she opened the door the way she hyped it up and made it all doom and gloom sounding.

1)Money. Lots and lots of money. See Iraq/Afghanistan. War is a racket.
2)If you look closely at the first shot in this particular video you can clearly see them. Pause the video at 0.17
3)You might want to look into who the residents of WT7 were. That's a very easy question to answer.
4)Small amounts of collateral damage are enough to wake the sleeping giant. Plus the trade centre building had just been re-insured.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
You seem to have some kind of obsession with making people who don't believe the "official story" look like idiots for some reason.
Not quite, I find the controlled demolition theories to be idiotic, so yes, I DO work to make believers in it look stupid. Disbelieving the "official story" isn't as big a problem for me. So no, nothing personal about you behind any of this Duckman33, you just walked into a discussion on thermite being the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings. I'll be beating up on anyone taking that stance because the evidence against the notion is absolutely overwhelming, and the arguments in favor of it are beginning to border on the moon landing hoax scale.

The problem is, I never stated that I believed that. You ASSUMED I believed that because I asked a question about thermite particles found in the dust, and then proceeded to belittle and speak to me in a condescending manner. Well, we both know what happens when we assume, correct?
Taking a stance? I never took any stance other than asking a simple question, period.

Here's your first post again that I responded to:
No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.
That's either you taking sides, or simply you having not made any effort what so ever to find an answer to your own question, or to confirm your statement about evidence being whisked away never to be studied or seen again. When I provided answers that made the question look stupid you didn't say oops, I never knew that. Instead you accused me of trolling and dug in your heals googling for supporting evidence of the conspiracy. You then got even more upset when I pointed out the faults in that evidence and provided far more detailed and reliable counter evidence.
If my aggressive initial response offended you I'm sorry for that. From your posts I had every belief you were supporting and defending the controlled demolition theory. Why don't we bury it and you tell me straight out if you are for, against or on the fence?


Look, all you provided was a link with information to the contrary of the link I posted nothing more or less. It proved nothing and neither did mine. You're problem is you think so highly of yourself that you also think all the information you provide is fact and the end all of proof, when quite frankly it's not any more factual or proof positive than any links I can provide. So get over yourself already.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
You seem to have some kind of obsession with making people who don't believe the "official story" look like idiots for some reason.
Not quite, I find the controlled demolition theories to be idiotic, so yes, I DO work to make believers in it look stupid. Disbelieving the "official story" isn't as big a problem for me. So no, nothing personal about you behind any of this Duckman33, you just walked into a discussion on thermite being the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings. I'll be beating up on anyone taking that stance because the evidence against the notion is absolutely overwhelming, and the arguments in favor of it are beginning to border on the moon landing hoax scale.

The problem is, I never stated that I believed that. You ASSUMED I believed that because I asked a question about thermite particles found in the dust, and then proceeded to belittle and speak to me in a condescending manner. Well, we both know what happens when we assume, correct?
Taking a stance? I never took any stance other than asking a simple question, period.


Here's your first post again that I responded to:
No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

That's either you taking sides, or simply you having not made any effort what so ever to find an answer to your own question, or to confirm your statement about evidence being whisked away never to be studied or seen again. When I provided answers that made the question look stupid you didn't say oops, I never knew that. Instead you accused me of trolling and dug in your heals googling for supporting evidence of the conspiracy. You then got even more upset when I pointed out the faults in that evidence and provided far more detailed and reliable counter evidence.

If my aggressive initial response offended you I'm sorry for that. From your posts I had every belief you were supporting and defending the controlled demolition theory. Why don't we bury it and you tell me straight out if you are for, against or on the fence?

>> ^bcglorf:

You seem to have some kind of obsession with making people who don't believe the "official story" look like idiots for some reason.
Not quite, I find the controlled demolition theories to be idiotic, so yes, I DO work to make believers in it look stupid. Disbelieving the "official story" isn't as big a problem for me. So no, nothing personal about you behind any of this Duckman33, you just walked into a discussion on thermite being the cause of the collapse of the WTC buildings. I'll be beating up on anyone taking that stance because the evidence against the notion is absolutely overwhelming, and the arguments in favor of it are beginning to border on the moon landing hoax scale.


The problem is, I never stated that I believed that. You ASSUMED I believed that because I asked a question about thermite particles found in the dust, and then proceeded to belittle and speak to me in a condescending manner. Well, we both know what happens when we assume, correct?

Taking a stance? I never took any stance other than asking a simple question, period.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


1.what is to gain from it?
this is the question that really stood out to me.
my friend.look up "false flag operations".
read bryzenski's "the grand chessboard" or chalmers johnson "blowback" and naomi klein's "shock doctrine" for more insight in to what might be gained from any fear-inducing crisis situation.
why?
because governments lie...thats why.
this is not my opinion but historical pattern.

as for the rest of your inquiry,i tend to agree with you and is one of the reasons i am not a "truther" but to suggest that somehow asking questions of a seriously flawed "conspiracy theory" put forth by the american government somehow makes people "dumb-fucks",is dis-ingenuine at best.because just as many 9/11 truther theories fail under scrutiny,so does the version put forth by our government.

so lets keep asking those questions and understand that the government is not our buddy,our pal or our friend and governments lie.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


lol although there are defintly mental conspircy things holographic planes and totaly weard shit there are a whole bunch of things that everyone would want and agree with , it seems the ultra conservatives and people who made money out of 911 benofit the most out of verbaly atacking truthers.

evan if a % of truthers come out with stupid shit i think the vast majority of people actually have legitimate questions which Evan outside of 911 would serve well to be anserd/investigated.

The 911 official report has sections missing and dosent realy shine a light on blatant governmental faileors.

the other weird stuff like how american government wont admit they shot the other plane down ,I guess if they admited to that it puts more questions on there reluctance inactivity to shoot down th eplanes that hit WTC and pentagon.

What i really dont understand is the truthers that make shit up or focus on details that could never be proven disproven and dont realy serve any benofit to know the ansers to.

In the end ultimetly bush administration/ whoever funds them and who ever owns us government right now will pritty much do whatever the fuck they want it seems that some "truthers" think some how knowing the full story behind 911 will fix politics result in those responsible going to jail in the end evan if a photograph was found with bush presing a button that said blow up wtc nothing would happen.

there are loads of strange things with the London bombings as well , but if annything what the terrorist atacks go to show is that we cannot realy do annything to stop them , and its actualy a realy low risk to be killed in one , if for example 4k people died every year from terrorism that still way way way less people that get run over by cars. If you spent evan a fraction of the war money used to fight terrorisum on car safty then u wud save more people do more good in the world , i mean evan put that money into clean water forest restoration, redusing malaria . thats whats obsurd about the situation

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?


I enjoy the dissenting viewpoints for 9/11. Most of them are probably wild accusations, but that doesn't make the official 9/11 commission's report the open-and-shut gospel. What I find interesting is the amount of varying opinions from that day, and I think that deserves our attention. I'm not sure I buy the official story, but that doesn't mean I believe Bush was the mastermind behind 9/11.

It's not like government hasn't ever lied to us. Gulf of Tonkin incident took the US into Vietnam, remember?

1. War? Which means profits. Investing in improbable insurance to cover the buildings? I simply do not know, but smarter men than me probably could come up with some reasons.
2. Some physicists claim the explosions are visible during the collapse, as concrete is blown outwardly and reduced to dust.
3. Exactly the kind of question that should be asked. I did watch some people interviewed who work in the building say the security was on hiatus for that month while a construction crew moved in a week or so before the incident.
4. Meh. Not sure even if this was an "inside job" if they'd want that to happen.

I find the whole debate fascinating!