off topic rant about being insulted, feel free to skip to the next quote which is on topic/
In regards to one of Paul's statements, it is quite insulting that people constantly target the US government as the center of all conspiracy. I live in an incredibly free nation, one that has provided it's citizens with great resources, constantly provides the world with foreign aid, and constantly sh*t on because a blogger on the internet can convince idiots that their statements are facts, even if they are clearly demonstrated to be blatant lies. I'll repeat: It's incredibly insulting.
Beyond oxy's comment, people seem to be blind to how history has unfolded. For the first 150 years of their existence the USA had an isolationist policy and stayed out of world politics. They only got involved after 2 world wars and the utter destruction of all of Europe caused by European hatred. Let's take a look at the history of international cooperation:
The League of Nations was originally proposed by
Woodrow Wilson. For those who may not know, he was the president of
the USA during WWI. When this failed to the keep the European powers from destroying each other, the UN was proposed by
Franklin Roosevelt in 1942 and held a meeting in
Washington, DC between the major Allied powers. The UN was subsequently signed by the 50 member states in 1945 in
San Francisco.
During WWI and WWII, 77 million people lost their lives. After the US began its involvement in world policy and most specifically human rights, the death toll has been less than 4m. The US has regularly been involved in preventing human rights violations and genocide, often times while the UN and European countries have stood idly by. None of this means I agree with every US policy or believe it justifies it. But the ridiculousness of many criticisms is just over the top and often times even childish. It's incredibly easy to criticize from the sidelines. It's much harder to actually act.
Just putting a blue box to give a break in my essay where my comments are actually on the original topic.
More on topic to 9/11, there have been mentions of the Bin Laden family and their involvement with prominent Americans. Another demonstrated lack of research or conscious ignorance of facts is that Osama Bin Laden was disowned by his family in 1994 for his radical views. The members of the family that had left the US after 9/11 departed 6 days after the flight restrictions were lifted, only after being screened by the FBI and the Saudi government. They weren't escorted or flown out on private jets. They left of their own accord without help from the US government. The Bin Laden family is involved with the Saudi royal family and owns a conglomerate corporation that is involved in oil, finance and construction. A last name doesn't make you a terrorist.
In regards to my comments about the cleanup of WTC, there is a difference between a plane crash in rural PA and a terrorist attack in the middle of a major city, especially given that it was obviously caught on tape. Piecing together how a plane crashes with no evidence except the debris is drastically different than watching an incident happen. The voice recording was recovered from the PA flight on September 14. Feel free to look up the transcription. I'm not sure you need 4 years to piece together what happened when you acquire definitive evidence within 3 days.
I realize 8.5 months can be deceiving. Again though, saying "rapidly" still means nothing if you fail to report numbers. It becomes a regurgitated statement originating from poor writing and/or research that becomes skewed by the telephone game. It demonstrates a lack of knowledge, research and evidence. Here
IS a number. Fires from the WTC were burning until December 20. It took
3 months to be able to clean up specific areas. How exactly does that mean everything was cleaned up 'rapidly'. New York is also the financial capital of the world. Taking 4.5 years is simply not practical, nor does it actually contribute to any explanation of the situation. Within that time period the actual 9/11 commission was released.
Less than 20% of deaths are autopsied. It's drastically lower when the death is witnessed and the cause is known. The entire world witnessed 9/11. I'm not exactly sure what it is anyone would be hoping to find out by taking a look at some hot steel or crumbled concrete. Engineers determined how and why it collapsed and provided the physics behind it. Fact is, they DID investigate it (see below). Again, maybe I'm just failing to understand what evidence it is that you are seeking unless it's just to confirm your viewpoint.
Quote from ISRI, government certified steel recycling institute promoting ethical business practices:
"
Most of the recyclable metal at ground zero is being sent to the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island where law enforcement authorities survey the material for evidence. Only then is it released to a scrap processor under an existing long-term contract with the New York City Department of Sanitation to purchase and then recycle scrap metal...
ISRI has issued an urgent notice to its members in the New York City metropolitan area, which explains that all scrap metal from the World Trade Center is crime scene evidence, and only those under contract with the City are authorized to haul it away from the site. The notice also explains where the various types of metals are going.
ISRI is also telling its members in the New York City area, who do not have contracts with the City to recycle metal from the World Trade Center, to contact law enforcement authorities immediately should they suspect that material hauled to their facilities originates from that site. "This is part of ISRI members continuing efforts to work with law enforcement agencies to make certain that recyclable materials are properly handled," said Wiener. "
In regards to the comment "most of the metal is being sent to...", this means the majority of the material is sent to that specific recycler, not that only part of it is investigated.
Uninvestigated and rapidly recycled? I'm not sure why I bother repeating this, but... Researching before making statements provides for an intelligent discussion. This doesn't mean you can't state an opinion. This means make your opinion worth something other than wasting all our time.
You cannot teach the mass how to read/write with a particular method, everyone will read/write in their own way and make their own conclusions. If one insists that others read/write in a particular way those others might actually tell you to bugger off and let them do what they like. It is totally fine to read/write different from someone else, there does not need to be a single way. That doesn't mean one is better than the other or anything else.
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=41550.0
That link supports my point in entirety.
You clearly seem to misunderstand my point. I don't expect to teach people how to write in a particular method. I'm not discussing whether to underline or italicize a book title, which citation method to use or to use color vs colour. I'm talking about how to form intelligent points that actually support the opinions you are trying to convey. I was pointing out logical
fallacies. They are called fallacies for a reason. It means they use incorrect logic while claiming to be a logical support of an opinion. It means nothing in regard to whether or not their opinion is correct.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I've never stated differently. Anyone is entitled to tell me to bugger off about what my opinion is. But stating that gives no merit to the formation of their argument. My comments were solely about making an argument that actually contributes meaningfully to a conversation. Those points were not HOW to support an opinion, but how NOT to support an opinion. If you don't understand what a fallacy is, then there is no point in having a discussion about how something tangible actually happened. Forming logical arguments to support a theory is the only way to give valid support to your opinion on tangible events, regardless of whether or not it's correct.
Tangible event requiring solely logical arguments: "This person was shot in the head".
(Currently) Intangible event where logic can contribute while emotional arguments are perfectly acceptable: "God exists".
Neither of us can prove our opinions on the second statement. Any argument is fair game unless you claim a logical support to your argument which actually violates the laws of logic, i.e. "God exists because you can't disprove it".
Again, it's not about correct vs. incorrect opinions. It's about claiming correct vs. incorrect logical arguments. "The US government is evil, therefore it hid evidence which obviously means it attacked itself" is not logic. "A memo signed by Bush ordered a US pilot to fly a plane into a the WTC. This pilot was seen boarding the aircraft and can be heard on the flight recorder" would be logic. This statement would directly prove that theory. But a non-conclusive but factual statement can support a theory, it just doesn't prove it. conclusively disproving is significantly easier than proving.
Topic: Did the United States of America attack itself? 911