Ozmo, why on earth would you reply to my thread on the level of the terror threat with doubtfull maybes when you had your own similar doubts. Why on earth would you not say: I had the same thoughts but we should look at a few things before we can conclude something? Your approach to what I posted is a 180 from your own post. To me, it says you have a bias in how you approach what I post.
There's a difference between the written word and the spoken word and i often fail at making a correct transition and end up writing in a way that can be taken incorrect to what i meant.
When i wrote "maybe" in those 2 questions, i probably was trying to propose the question or idea in way that raises the question in the readers mind without immediately eliciting dismissal. Those weren't doubtfull "maybes" instead, they were designed to be "possibility maybes". 240 used to do it all the time in our 9/11 debates, but in a different way.... he would ask something like: "do you at least agree it's possible that.."
i very much believe in what i said, in fact i even have a sat pic of the portland, Oregon airport to show where a big gaping hole in security is allowing virtually anyone to destroy a airliner by themselves easily. that was a big reason why i believe exactly in what i was asking. I still believe it. I travel quite alot. I see holes in airport security every so often, i think, if there was really a threat on our soil as much as they say it was we'd have seen another attack already. i think we did our job in Afghanistan but our administration can't do 2 things. 1. admit the threat is lower. 2. let their guard down.
You seemed set on insisting I had my mind made up in essence saying I'm just lying.
I accept you were only questioning the McCain thing especially now that you explained why you said rigged elections.
and this stuff of wanting a new investigation on 9/11. Let's be real, this is only about an investigation. It's not that you believe one single item is suspicious and you even think they haven't done a new investigation because it would reveal mistakes made by the government. You have at every turn called 240 and others nuts for their points and I'm not just talking the hologram. You have said everything has been throughly debunked. You have said 240's opinions "lack ANY weight"
If you look at my debates with 240 on this i think some things are suspicious in regards to them knowing it was going to happen, such as Bush's reaction in the school and intelligence reports. I don't think this will ever be proved.
240's instance on supporting and debating the hologram theory was the catalyst for me calling him nuts. (that was something that was said at the time as he knows i respect his views even though i don't agree some of them) Some of his opinions did lack weight becuase he was speculating on incomplete info or expertise such training exercises versus the logistics preceding real war. The hole in the pentagon is another one, even though i showed a similar crash by a c-130 into a building in Tehran that did little damage and practically disentigrated the plane, it was dismissed and the question of the hole not matching the plane persisted. I'd like all those vids released just to see why they won't release them. It doesn't make sense to me, but that's not enough to for me to believe there wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon.
WTC7 for example, you have to ask why pull it in the first place? What's the point? It was a government building housing offices of the FBI and CIA right? Well they every reason to close it off to anyone if it didn't fall. Also as many like to say it wasn't damaged, to this day we do not have a photo of the front side of the building, so we don't really know.
Another thing, 240 sometimes did it, others did it more, but they would bend little facts like: "The top pentagon brass canceled their flights the day before." insinuating all the top brass....where the real truth was a "group" of top pentagon brass canceled their flights. these are just a few of the reason why i don;t buy into it.
You are right, i do believe an investigation would uncover incompetence, but it would also help Conspiracy theories that are really false. allowing us to get to the real truth what ever that is, be it 95% of the official story or 5% of it. If you can remember about the time all this 9/11 started i really was with an open mind. My own investigations, motivated by 240 questions, into the facts caused me to dismiss much of it. And he's flip flop a few times, he's made statements that he doesn't believe the same. We all do that from time to time.
on your bias, I also remember you making a post where you state that you increasingly don't believe in the plausibility of any conspiracies. Something about that you use to believe in JFK but now don't even believe that one. I can't find that post, not sure if you deleted it or if I missed it.
i didn't delete it. i probably made that statement about the time i bought that book. Because it used real common sense and real facts with many aspects of the JFK conspiracy theory. And i wanted to apply some of those approaches to other CT theories to see if they hold up.
I really believe Berserker, the more possibilities you can eliminate the closer to the truth you can get. And i just don't think some things are a complicated as a CTs lead us to believe. i remember reading Noam Chompsky long ago when someone asked him if all his ideas point to a conspiracy and he answer saying no, it just the nature of the system. he was talking about capitalism i think and it's effect on 3rd world countries.
plus, also, Berserker, do you remember how recently responded to your red cross pearl harbor thing you posted a few weeks back? check it out. you see that i was very open to that (still am and have done some research into it asking for some opinions about what a president would say and not say, but i'm still very undecided one way or another) and then decker made some comment about reading about it in hustler. I wasn't coming at you in any way.
