<p>Not really, no.</p>
<p>It sounds callous, but just because one of them thinks that something's fishy doesn't make it so. Even IF they were victimized by the event.</p>
<p>That's just emotional blackmail of sorts.</p>
<p>Yes, that is callous when you have not listened to what they have to say. </p>
<p>It's a LOT more than 'one of them.' </p>
<p>Why don't you just watch it. </p>
<p>I'm outta here - I want to finish watching it. bye bye</p>
<p>Why not watch it?</p>
<p>Better yet, WHY watch it? Because they were victimized by the event? That makes their opinion more valid than mine?</p>
<p>I don't see how this works. Again, it's almost like emotional blackmail.</p>
<p>I'm at 30:00 and they're starting to talk about the media...something about a lot of this info having been presented by the media, but no one connecting all the dots...and sources being provided, documentation from the mainstream media.</p>
<p>The video is not footage of women crying - in fact there is almost none of that at all - it is a documentary and it's very well done. I haven't come across any opinion yet - so far it's been documentary.</p>
<p>And you're saying that documentary always = facts?</p>
<p>I just fast-forwarded to a scene where they somehow suggest that Bush was in the wrong for not responding immediately to the attack.</p>
<p>Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because people initially thought it was an accident? Maybe because he didn't want to crease panic?</p>
<p>Here's another question for you lealdragon: How'd they pay off Al-Qaeda to take credit?</p>
<p>Of course documentary does not always = facts. The PBS documentary comes to mind!</p>
<p>My point was that it's not an emotional 'blackmail' as you say, but an attempt to document some key points in a serious manner. Whether they pull that off is subject to debate (assuming you actually watch it of course).</p>
<p>Well you must be skipping over a lot, because I haven't gotten to that part yet.</p>
<p>There are some key points about that, that I already know: such as bush admitting that he already knew about the 1st plane, in fact saw it on 'tv' before he even entered the classroom, but decided to go ahead anyway. So the time lapse of him reading the children's story is actually after the 2nd hit. The 2nd hit should have made it obvious that it was no accident, yet he continued to sit there as if he were awaiting orders.</p>
<p>When did Al-Qaeda ever take credit? Oh, you mean the bogus bin Laden tape? Surely you knew that was bogus, didn't you? I mean, I noticed it the day I saw it on tv - I told my hubby "that's not him! his nose is much longer than that! How can anyone believe that that's him?"</p>
<p>This was way before I ever thought there was ANY truth to the 911 conspiracy theorists.</p>
<p>Here, look at the pix and see for yourself. No, these aren't doctored. The same pic (with the short, squat nose) was on the cover of Newseek and on tv. You may still have the video you recorded off the tv, or the Newsweek, so you can verify.</p>
<p>right now, right this minute, they're doing a story on cnn (on tv) about the voting machine fraud.</p>
<p>When did they take credit?</p>
<p>I'm sure that Al-Jazeera has HUGE vested interest in defaming Arabs, too. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>I just finished the video. It was good but the 911 Mysteries is the best one, I think, in terms of asking the tough questions without any political speculation:</p>
<p>The one about the victims' families was interesting in that they concluded that there was a cover-up. To what degree remains the focus of the debate.</p>
<p>Here's an example of something from Finland that you might find interesting:</p>
<p>Well I can't comment on that because your link shows only a story about it and not the actual footage.</p>
<p>Anyway, AGAIN, I don't claim to have all the answers! And of course, obviously there really are terrists and there really is an Al Quada. Many of the conspiracy theorists think that the govt. just allowed it to happen or maybe facilitated it by adding the explosives. Anyone who says that there are no terrorists at all is taking it too far, imo.</p>
<p>But, that video of bin Laden is so obviously fake - what does that tell you about the govt. claiming that it's authentic? Just how stupid do they think we are, anyway? Any child can see that's not him.</p>
<p>No one can answer all these questions. That's why they want an independent investigation.</p>
<p>The first step is to ASK QUESTIONS. And that's what I am doing.</p>
<p>Wait...</p>
<p>So this is why Al-Qaeda took responsibility for the attack after 9/11 anyway?</p>
<p>You really are grasping at straws here.</p>
<p>Look. I don't know whether Al-Qaeda took responsibility. As you pointed out about the info on the internet, vidoes are easily doctored. I don't take anything at face value.</p>
<p>Terrorists exist. Suicide bombers exist. duh.</p>
<p>Govt. corruption also exists, and our country is not necessarily immune to it, hello!</p>
<p>It's not like the govt is all bad. It's not so simplistic as that. Terrorism is evil. Any kind of corruption is evil. </p>
<p>Our govt. would have us believe that entire nations fit neatly into either a 'good' or 'evil' category. It's not so simplistic as that.</p>
<p>The truth is probably some blend of all of the above. I think that blindly believing that our govt. is squeaky clean is just as foolish as believing that a conspiracy lurks around every corner.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know whether Al-Qaeda took responsibility.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You also don't know whether or not there's a teapot in orbit around the sun. Whatcha wanna bet there isn't?</p>
<p>Your fictitious teapot didn't kill thousands of people.</p>
<p>Your arguments are degenerating. Night night.</p>
<p>You're missing the point.</p>
<p>Argumenta ad ignoratum aren't an excuse for good evidence.</p>
<p>Then why are you engaging in Argumenta ad ignoratum without providing good evidence?</p>
<p>(ha! couldn't resist!)</p>
<p>Now you will undoubtedly retaliate in another barb at me. <sigh> Ah, UCLAri, at first I thought we could have an intelligent discussion. </sigh></p>
<p>OK, now I really am outta here. I shall resist the temptation to check this thread...I shall resist....</p>
<p>lealdragon,</p>
<p>I've provided you with good evidence that Al-Qaeda took responsibility, and said, based on that evidence, that the MOST LIKELY answer is that Al Qaeda is the cause.</p>
<p>That is not argumentum ad ignorantum. What is, however, is arguing that because you don't know, that it's likely that it didn't. That doesn't fit the data, and is a logical fallacy.</p>
<p>I'd have no problem engaging in discussion with you, but it's very hard to really discuss most of these issues when you're really not resorting to logic and the scientific method.</p>