haggis:

I am absolutely for more investigation. It's really unfortunate that there are people who turn the notion of looking into it as though it somehow bad. I think the 9/11 commission themselves have pretty much acknowledged that their scenerio for why the building collapsed is only the best they can come up with, and not necessarily even likely.

I was especially disgusted with the calls, in particular by politicians, to get rid of professors just because of the position they took on 9/11. It shows a total lack of respect for the academic freedom, which protects research no matter how controversial. If we disallow people to investigate things just because they are controversial, we will only regress as a society.

theo: Heh, wrestling does suck, but there are some good wrestling games, at least, there were like 10 or 15 years ago.

SnakePlissken:

You are taking truthiness to a new level. I can only say fact number 1 is true, but you'd be hardpressed to find many people who could say your other points are facts, with perhaps the exception of point 4.

Now, how to explain how fast the towers collapsed? I can't, but that I can't doesn't mean that the building was demolished. I'm not an architect, nor a physist, and I don't have the means to make such an assessment, and I suspect neither do you. I can only look to experts on this, and as far as I know there is no consensus.

Certainly there are experts who have said what you are implying, but conspiracy theorists are specifically looking for such experts. You already have a conclusion, and are now looking for evidence based on that conclusion. Doing this, you can find 'proof' of nearly anything you want. I'll take this sort of evidence more seriously when an indepenent group of scientists can come to similar conclusions.

In terms of WTC7, I don't know any of the details on that. I do remember on 9/11 while watching the news, there was mention that one of those smaller buildings was purposely demolished. I don't know what the current story people are saying about this now, nor if the news got it wrong it the time. If I remember correctly the other building collapsed after at least one of the main towers went down, perhaps both, and was hit by lot of debris.

Snake: I think she is more liberal than she puts on. It seems like that she has pushed herself to the right because she thinks that will somehow help her win the presidency. Whether that is true, well, it's hard to say for sure. I'd rather have almost anyone else run for the democrats (besides Lieberman).

Accoustics are probably good. The lecture hall is designed so that people in the audience can hear the speaker, and not quite by design the reverse is true, that is, the speaker can hear the students. The camera appears to be near the bottom so they don't necessarily need a mic, though they may have one.

tgeff: There is a huge industry that benefits from any military action. As well, neo-cons who have been wanting to boost america's power in the middle east used this to push for the war in Iraq.

I don't agree with the argument this documentary is making, but many did perversly benefit from 9/11.

Noam Chomsky speaks the truth. Just because many people in power have benefitted due to 9/11, making the move to say they caused it doesn't work. Even if you believe these guys are evil enough to do something like this, the risks involved if were to ever get out would be astronomical.

I'm very open to evidence of a conspiracy, but all the evidence that has been incredibly weak. Chomsky specifically deals here with the physical evidence, which I think fools a lot of people. Just because you can't explain what happened physically does not mean what everyone thought happened did not. It could just as well mean we don't know. Similarly, just because a scientist says 'x couldn't happen because we saw y' also doesn't make it true. Scientists are human, and as individuals they do make mistakes. Thus, you shouldn't take the word of a few scientists as fact.

Unless you really have the scientific backing to make your own assessment, the best you can do is look at what the scientific consesus is. As far as I know, there is none, though I do think it's good for people to explore these issues further. My guess is the vast majority of lay people who think they understand because they took a physics course in high-school or university are not qualified to make a realistic assessment.

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be described by incompetence.

This is very circumstantial evidence. It essentially takes one statement he made and blows it way out of proportion. If you haven't noticed, Bush is a horrible speaker. He gets nervous. He easily could have meant to say he saw the wreckage. Or he might not have remembered exactly what he saw, and made something up. You can't extrapolate from that and say he knew beforehand what was going to happen.

Now, why he stayed in the room after hearing that second plane had hit? I don't think it was because he didn't want to scare the children. I think it was because him and his handlers were too dumbfounded to realize how serious the situation was, and that it required immediate action. That was essentially the argument Michael Moore had in his movie, and from the look of it he's probably right.

To those who are into these conspiracies, let me just suggest that you critically think about any evidence you see. Bush may be a liar, and 9/11 certainly helped his neo-con friends push the war on Iraq forward, but that doesn't mean he planned or knew it was coming. Being able to keep such a huge secret as people are accusing him of would be difficult, and no one credible has come forward speaking of such a conspiracy. Also it assumes that Bush was willing to let thousands of Americans die so that he could push a war an Iraq, which I find really hard to believe.

I think if you want to really analyze the situation, you have to start from the position that there was no conspiracy, and then build up from there. Certainly you can find pieces here and there that might suggest a conspiracy, but evidence as circumstantial as this tells us virtually nothing.

I like this...

(feeding the troll... )

quantumushroom:

What a rediculous strawman argument. You are confusing economic and authoritarian issues together. The left in the U.S are anti-authoritarian, an obvious example being those against the patriot act. The last thing liberals want is a government that usurps people's individual rights. It's republicans (at least those in power) that want to plow through individual rights to force their views on everyone else.

quantummushroom:

Here's the thing. Everyone knows Saddam was bad, along with his regime. I'm sick of people claiming that any sort of judgement of how American soldiers act means you are 'with the terrorists'. That not a debate, but is instead an attempt to avoid debate.

Many war hawks like to push the argument that any actions our soldiers do can essentially be excused because Saddam is evil and responsible for mass murder. Well, I dunno about you, I'm not impressed with the notion that U.S. is right because they are better than a mass murder. The U.S. shouldn't be about being better than the lowest common demonitator. Abuse, such as that seen in this video, torture at Abu Gharib, keeping people locked up with no rights in secret prisons, is not what people would have expected from the U.S. until recently.

What those of us who question the government want to see true accountability. We want soldiers who abuse their positions to be punished without requiring a whistle blower to come out and expose them. We want those whose orders are responsible for such abuse to be accountable, all the way up to and including the president. Without accountability, people will continue to abuse their power, harming the image of the U.S. both abroad and at home.

There is also a second part to this, though I'm not sure if it's on youtube.

Yeah, it was uncensored. It was also uncensored when shown on CNN.

These kinds of ads are the type of thing that cause me rush for the remote to change the channel. Perhaps before allowing such advertisements tv stations should consider the loss of viewers they will cause.

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww....