PDA

View Full Version : Who are 9/11 Truthers? What is the 9/11 Truth Movement?



Tylerdurden
09-10-2009, 06:57 PM
Van Jones (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=46917), an advisor to President Obama signed a 9/11 Truth petition (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633). Charlie Sheen (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/obama-charlie-sheen-911.html) challenges President Obama for a 20-minute discussion for 9/11 Truth. Who are these people? What is their evidence? What do they want?
As a teacher of high school US History courses, I attempted to professionally address this question with an appropriate classroom lesson. BTW, this issue is among the top few historical questions that my high school students want answered. I developed a critical thinking case study on 9/11; one of many lessons for students to vote on among competing supplemental lessons. The lesson has a preamble on critical thinking skills I’ll provide in a subsequent article. Below is the strongest evidence from both the pro-government explanation and counter-government, as compiled by interested colleagues, parents, students, and my examination since 2004. My role in the lesson is to present the evidence (inviting students and parents to contribute) and guide students for their analysis under my motto Res ipsa loquitur, best translated as “the facts speak for themselves.” This worked best when I presented it to the principal and department first, then gave parents the lesson for questions and input, and then directed the lesson for students. Here it is:

9/11: Conspiracy of Terrorists or an Inside Job? In national polls from 2006, about one-third of Americans reported that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government (here (http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll), here (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm), here (http://www.911blogger.com/2006/05/overview-of-new-national-zogby-poll-on.html), here (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/28533)), while up to 84% state that our government is at least covering-up key facts of what happened. A CNN poll (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/cnn_poll2.htm) topped-out at 90% reporting that our government is covering-up elements of 9/11. In a 2004 Zogby poll (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855), half of the residents of New York City reported that our government at least knew of the attacks and consciously did not prevent them, and two-thirds want a new and independent investigation. Half of victims’ family members (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/080706governmentcomplicit.htm) conclude the US government was complicit in the attacks and death of their loved ones, according to the largest family group’s public representative. This “9/11 Truth Movement” is growing: over 1,400 people with impressive professional backgrounds (http://patriotsquestion911.com/) in engineering, architecture, intelligence, military, government, and various Ph.D credentials publicly refute the official explanations.Professional scientists have published literally dozens of peer-reviewed papers (http://www.journalof911studies.com/) in argument that the three World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition rather than fire-induced structural failure.Over 800 professional architects and engineers (http://ae911truth.org/) have compiled impressive visual demonstrations. Professional pilots (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/) have done the same. Professional firefighters (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/), lawyers (http://www.l911t.com/), medical professionals (http://mp911truth.org/), military veterans (http://v911t.org/members.php), scholars (http://stj911.org/), and religious leaders (http://rl911truth.org/) have also created organizations for "9/11 Truth."

This credible collection of expert witnesses is remarkable, with their conclusions reflected in the polling. An example of this expert testimony is Princeton professor of International Law Richard Falk (http://www.911blogger.com/node/18483), who poignantly refutes many aspects of the government’s explanation of 9/11. The rationality of this counter-government position is also reflected in the prestigious literary guide, Publisher’s Weekly, selecting a 9/11 Truth book (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6617001.html?industryid=47159) as its “Pick of the Week” in November, 2008.

That's who they are and openings into their evidence. What they want is an independent investigation into 9/11 that considers their evidence rather than the government's self-study that they claim is a whitewash.

For background, I’ll show portions of “CNN Tribute - America Remembers (http://www.amazon.com/CNN-Tribute-King-Zahn-Brown/dp/B000069503/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7633221-7053625?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1178743238&sr=1-1).” I’ll explain the purpose and conclusions of the 9/11 Commission (http://www.9-11commission.gov/). In support of the government explanation, I’ll remind students that this version is what they’ve learned from mainstream media and their history books, show portions of the DVD from NOVA, “Why the Towers Fell (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Towers-Fell-Exclusive-Investigation/dp/B00006ADG4/ref=sr_1_1/002-7633221-7053625?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1178743788&sr=1-1),” consider and discuss MIT Professor Thomas Eagar’s academic paper (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) on the topic, along with an update published in the December, 2007 (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html) issue of “Journal of Metals, Minerals and Materials.” We’ll discuss the academic and professional standards of peer review and publication for scientific claims. We’ll also look at film clips of Senator John McCain (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/301107_deluded_mccain.htm), and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly interviewing “Popular Mechanics” Editor, James Meigs (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm), for typical government and media responses to counter-government claims, and Presidents Clinton (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c68_1193347304&p=1) and Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLFWhyttlmU)’s (and counter-govt. Bush clip (http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Why_Bush_Lied_At_Town_Hall)) responses to allegations of government conspiracy.

For the government “inside job” argument, we’ll see the first 5 chapters of the DVD, “Loose Change 2nd Edition (http://loosechange911.com/),” review photographic evidence from Shanksville, PA (http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html), review the flight recorder data from flight AA77 into the Pentagon (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html), consider and discuss Dr. David Ray Griffin’s academic paper (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html), consider the aforementioned expert testimony from over 1,400 professionals in related fields, and examine the current status of peer-reviewed papers (http://journalof911studies.com/) on scientific analysis.We’ll consider a compendium of the evidence from professional journalists (http://www.wanttoknow.info/911information). We’ll also watch the last scene from the DVD, “Fahrenheit 9/11” and President Bush’s press conference after his 9/11 Commission testimony (sorry - no link), about 5 minutes of President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address commenting on the “military-industrial complex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU),” and about 5 minutes of President Kennedy’s speech (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1710662559138481080) to the press against secrecy in government. We’ll also view testimony in Japan’s Parliament (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7803) where the leading opposition party leader questioned their Prime Minister (http://www.prisonplanet.com/yukihisa-fujita-questions-911-in-japanese-parliament-oct-22-2008.html) regarding the lack of evidence the US has presented regarding 9/11 relevant to Japan’s funding for refueling US warships. A worthy video that we will not see is a 2008 documentary that was shown on national television in Italy and Russia, “Zero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI),” available for viewing on the Internet.


(http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d10-Who-are-911-Truthers-What-is-the-911-Truth-Movement)

Tylerdurden
09-10-2009, 06:57 PM
After the presentations of both positions’ arguments and class discussions, students will have a choice of assessments. One is a test where I’ll assign five of the following short-answer questions. We will discuss these questions and answers, and students will have opportunity to take notes:

1.Explain the 9/11 Commission’s purpose and conclusion. Explain two criticisms of this report.
2.Explain the 9/11 Commission version of why the three WTC buildings “collapsed.” Explain a criticism against this argument.
3.Explain two details of the photographic and/or film evidence that challenge the 9/11 Commission findings. Explain a criticism against each of the two details.
4.Explain two details of the circumstantial evidence that support US government involvement in the attacks. Explain a criticism against each of the two details.
5.Explain two details of the individual terrorists, Al Qaeda, and/or Osama bin Laden that challenge the 9/11 Commission findings. Explain a criticism against each of the two details.
6.Explain 2 details of the argument that elements within the US government had the means, motive, and opportunity to cause the 9/11 attacks. Explain a criticism against each of the two details.


Students may also choose to respond to the following essay topic or create their own, give a talk to the class, give a PowerPoint presentation, or create some other project (see me for my approval). The essay or alternate assessments are due within one week of the written test. Students may do more than one assessment for extra credit. Essay topic:

Explain how the 9/11 attacks happened with at least three details of independently verifiable evidence. Choose the opponent’s strongest argument and refute it.


That's the lesson. Below is a 3-minute preview of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's DVD with their presentation of the evidence, and Bill O'Reilly's 4-minute interview with Popular Mechanic's editor James Meigs to debunk 9/11 Truth claims.


http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m9d10-Who-are-911-Truthers-What-is-the-911-Truth-Movement (http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner%7Ey2009m9d10-Who-are-911-Truthers-What-is-the-911-Truth-Movement)

Tylerdurden
09-10-2009, 07:01 PM
On Sept. 6, 2001, the Thursday before the tragedy, 2,075 put options were made on United Airlines and on Sept. 10, the day before the attacks, 2,282 put options were recorded for American Airlines. Given the prices at the time, this could have yielded speculators between $2 million and $4 million in profit.
SUPPRESSED DETAILS OF CRIMINAL INSIDER TRADING
LEAD DIRECTLY INTO THE CIA'S HIGHEST RANKS

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/illegaltades.html

Tylerdurden
09-10-2009, 07:05 PM
Richard Falk: "9/11: More Than Meets The Eye"


(http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye)
9/11: More than meets the eye (http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye)
Richard Falk
Sunday 09 November 2008, The Journal Issue 13
Every so often attention is called anew to the doubts surrounding the true character of the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Recently, the report of the collapse of Building 7 represented such an occasion. Any close student of 9/11 is aware of the many serious discrepancies between the official version of what took place and the actual happenings on that fateful day in 2001. David Ray Griffin and others have analyzed and assessed these discrepancies in such an objective and compelling fashion that only wilful ignorance can maintain that the 9/11 narrative should be treated as a closed book, and that the public should move on to address the problems of the day.
To accept such a view is to acquiesce in what can be described at best as governmental evasiveness and irresponsibility, a resolve to leave the discrepancies unexplained. It is not paranoid under such circumstances to assume that the established elites of the American governmental structure have something to hide, and much to explain. What has not been established by the “9/11 Truth Movement” is a convincing counter-narrative – that is, an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction, and outright complicity.
For democratic government to work, citizens must never refrain from seeking answers to the most difficult questions. Here, what is at stake is enormous. It is not only the memory of those killed and deprived by the attacks, but also the fashioning of a climate of opinion that gave rise to international wars, as well as led to widespread denial of rights under the pretext of “homeland security” and counter-terrorism. There is also a profound challenge to the legitimacy of a governing process that stands accused of letting such crimes take place, if not aiding and abetting their commission and subsequent cover-up.
It might be asked whether it is not just an expression of morbid curiosity for non-Americans to harp on this issue of finding out the truth about what happened on 9/11. My response is that what takes place in the United States often has global reverberations, and never more so than in this instance. The US is the first truly global state in history, with its military presence established worldwide by more than 700 overseas bases, by navies in every ocean, and by the military domination of space.
The brighter side of US influence was revealed recently by the sense of peoples around the world that the election of Barack Obama as the new American president was a global event, and not just a national election. But what should be obvious is that the 9/11 experience has been relied upon to wage bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to underwrite a disastrously conceived “war on terror” that should be concern of everyone on the planet.
From this perspective, and given the dark cloud of doubt that lingers over the official 9/11 narrative, why was the issue not even discussed during the many months of presidential campaigning? As far as I know it was never mentioned. And the explanation is not the urgency associated with the widening economic crisis or the tactical interest of the Democrats to avoid offending Republicans in their search for support across party lines. The truth is deeper, and far more disturbing.
As far as I can tell, the real explanation is a widely shared fear of what sinister forces might lay beneath the unturned stones of a full and honest investigation of 9/11. Ever since the assassinations in the 1960s of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X there has been waged a powerful campaign against “conspiracy theory” that has made anyone who dares question the official story to be branded as a kook or some kind of unhinged troublemaker. In this climate of opinion, any political candidate for high office who dared raise doubts about the official version of 9/11 would immediately be branded as unfit, and would lose all political credibility. It is impossible to compete in any public arena in the United States if a person comes across as a “9/11 doubter.”
A few talk show hosts, investigative citizens, and publishers have kept a low flame of controversy burning sufficiently to sustain a large and growing grassroots constituency that shares the view that the truth about the 9/11 events is not yet known, or more radically, that the truth is known but being actively suppressed. These doubters are determined to continue their difficult quest for truth, and this could possibly result in disclosures at some point that are sufficiently dramatic to force the issue onto the public stage – where it belongs.
The persisting inability to resolve this fundamental controversy about 9/11 subtly taints the legitimacy of the American government. It can only be removed by a willingness, however belated, to reconstruct the truth of that day, and to reveal the story behind its prolonged suppression. What exactly that truth would be is certainly unknowable at present, and even an honest, collaborative effort might never altogether remove doubts. But that honest effort is just what should be demanded and expected by persons of good will everywhere.
Richard A. Falk is Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University, and an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories


http://www.911blogger.com/node/18483

Tylerdurden
09-10-2009, 07:06 PM
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Tylerdurden
09-10-2009, 07:08 PM
http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/2540/20081124055320/www.publishersweekly.com/articles/images/PWK/20081124/tstar2.gif The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
David Ray Griffin. Interlink/Olive Branch, $20 (386p) ISBN 9781566567299
Author and professor Griffin (9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press) knows his work is referred to by officials and the media as conspiracy theory, and he has a rebuttal: “the official theory is itself a conspiracy theory.” In this companion volume to 2004's The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, Griffin provides corrections, raises new issues and discusses “the two most important official reports about 9/11,” the 9/11 Commission Report and the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the Twin Towers, both “prepared by people highly responsive to the wishes of the White House” and riddled with “omission and distortion from beginning to end.” Griffin addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical impossibility of the official explanation of the towers’ collapse to the Commission's failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST’s contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific testimony in direct opposition to official claims. Citing hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, Griffin's detailed analysis is far from reactionary or delusional, building a case that, though not conclusive, raises enough valid and disturbing questions to make his call for a new investigation more convincing than ever. (Oct.)

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6617001.html?industryid=47159

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-10-2009, 07:09 PM
Looks like you are going down that same looney path again.
Time for some pavlovian stimulation.

huisjen
09-10-2009, 07:11 PM
One of the keys to convincing people of something is to come across as sane.

Dan

Tylerdurden
09-10-2009, 07:12 PM
One of the keys to convincing people of something is to come across as sane.

Dan

How's that working out for you?

Joe (SoCal)
09-10-2009, 07:14 PM
Looks like you are going down that same looney path again.
Time for some pavlovian stimulation.

You forgot to add disgusting timing :mad::confused::(

Tylerdurden
09-10-2009, 07:16 PM
You forgot to add disgusting timing :mad::confused::(


Well they are running all the histrionics 9/11 propaganda films on TV, could you post a copy of the letter you sent to the networks to complain?

George Ray
09-10-2009, 08:46 PM
Keep up the good work.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 08:26 AM
Keep up the good work.

Doing my best

huisjen
09-11-2009, 08:39 AM
How's that working out for you?

Pretty well, actually. We got the ripuplicans out.

For most of human history, we've been ruled by kings and warlords while living in squallor on the edge of starvation. Just now we're doing a lot better than average. Sure, that could change, but it hasn't quite yet.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Dan

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 08:44 AM
Pretty well, actually. We got the ripuplicans out.

For most of human history, we've been ruled by kings and warlords while living in squallor on the edge of starvation. Just now we're doing a lot better than average. Sure, that could change, but it hasn't quite yet.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Dan

It doesn't seem like that from here. You still think their is a diff between the party's. And guys you guys think I am delusional?

huisjen
09-11-2009, 09:15 AM
Ouch. That's gotta sting.

Dan

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 09:20 AM
Ouch. That's gotta sting.

Dan

Next time use lubricant Dan.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 09:23 AM
No. I think you're exactly like Ish. You just use a slightly different technique to attract attention to your pitiful self.

Who cares what you think? That's you major malfunction.

Prom queens care about what others think.

huisjen
09-11-2009, 09:27 AM
And you don't care, which is why nobody cares what you think either. It's that human reciprocity of emotion that you're missing. And that's your major malfunction. And I mean Major.

Dan

BrianY
09-11-2009, 09:27 AM
. The lesson has a preamble on critical thinking skills I’ll provide in a subsequent article.

I hope that in this preamble you go over the common logical fallacies - particularly the fallicies of appeals to authority and the "bandwagon" fallacy and that you make it clear that from a critical thinking persepctive, the popularity of an idea should not be considered a valid indication of the truth of that idea. You students will then be able to discern that your entire paragraph on "9/11: Conspiracy of Terrorists or an Inside Job?" really has no relevance to the subject - that is, if one is truly operating under the guideline of Res ipsa loquitur

If you're truly interested in having the kids think critically and evaluate the evidence on its merits, you should have them study and write about logical fallacies and have them examine their own baises BEFORE you delve into the evidence so that they are sensitized to how their evaluations of the evidence can be swayed by irrelevant factors.

For example, what you posted here in this thread exposes your personal views . You should be entirely honest and up front about your personal bias and beliefs on this subject so that the kids can see how that colors your selection of materials and what you say about them. In doing so, however, the difficulty will be in avoiding the "Argument from Authority" fallacy and allowing your position as a teacher to have undue influence over their own opinions.

Excellent lessons on critical thinking and logical fallacies can be found at http://www.skepdic.com/ and http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 09:38 AM
I hope that in this preamble you go over the common logical fallacies - particularly the fallicies of appeals to authority and the "bandwagon" fallacy and that you make it clear that from a critical thinking persepctive, the popularity of an idea should not be considered a valid indication of the truth of that idea. You students will then be able to discern that your entire paragraph on "9/11: Conspiracy of Terrorists or an Inside Job?" really has no relevance to the subject - that is, if one is truly operating under the guideline of Res ipsa loquitur

If you're truly interested in having the kids think critically and evaluate the evidence on its merits, you should have them study and write about logical fallacies and have them examine their own baises BEFORE you delve into the evidence so that they are sensitized to how their evaluations of the evidence can be swayed by irrelevant factors.

For example, what you posted here in this thread exposes your personal views . You should be entirely honest and up front about your personal bias and beliefs on this subject so that the kids can see how that colors your selection of materials and what you say about them. In doing so, however, the difficulty will be in avoiding the "Argument from Authority" fallacy and allowing your position as a teacher to have undue influence over their own opinions.

Excellent lessons on critical thinking and logical fallacies can be found at http://www.skepdic.com/ and http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

Can be applied to anything, everyone has bias. Its ridiculous to use it as an argument.
If one uses Critical thought it should become obvious we don't know the whole story of 9/11. I am sure many questions and observations are false in the search for truth just as there are in the offical story. If history is any indication years from now we will see it differently than we do right now.

Chris Coose
09-11-2009, 09:38 AM
Ahhhhh! Jesus!!!

I've got to get these 7 posts up to the thread quick so's I can hammer these guys with the truth.
Oh the frenzy!!! Woops I've got to delete this one in the middle because it got screwed up in the posting!!!

Ahhh Jesus!! 8 years later and they still don't get it. I mean the stupidity! The ignorance! it's all there for them to see!!! I wonder if I should post the images of the jumpers to really set the case solid?

This is set aside as a day of saddness. The frenzy, the madness, the false invasions, the goddamned fear is set aside and what we are left with is sadness for the victims and their families.

Just shut up.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 09:41 AM
And you don't care, which is why nobody cares what you think either. It's that human reciprocity of emotion that you're missing. And that's your major malfunction. And I mean Major.

Dan

If you seek reciprocity of emotion on an internet forum is is you who are twisted. I get mine from family and dear friends as they have shown themselves to be trustworthy. I don't get it from TV. the internet or acquaintances.

Like I said, Prom Queens.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 09:47 AM
Ahhhhh! Jesus!!!

I've got to get these 7 posts up to the thread quick so's I can hammer these guys with the truth.
Oh the frenzy!!! Woops I've got to delete this one in the middle because it got screwed up in the posting!!!

Ahhh Jesus!! 8 years later and they still don't get it. I mean the stupidity! The ignorance! it's all there for them to see!!! I wonder if I should post the images of the jumpers to really set the case solid?

This is set aside as a day of saddness. The frenzy, the madness, the false invasions, the goddamned fear is set aside and what we are left with is sadness for the victims and their families.

Just shut up.

What are you Bill O' Riley? He jumped on the jersey widow's for wanting an open investigation of 9/11 and not being satisfied with the commission.
When hundreds of 9/11 family's are calling for the truth you have the balls to say that?

Yep, you are just like Bill O.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 10:02 AM
Norman, Over half of those on the 9/11 commission have stated publicly they only scratched the surface and were deliberately misled and lied to. Of every other major attack hearings and investigations were conducted within weeks of the events from the Maine through Peal Harbor etc. It took 14 months of demands especially by the Jersey Widows to get that started.

All I have ever said is that we need open investigations by grand jury's with subpoena powers to actually get to the bottom of this.
I am in the dark as you are. Its just my level of trust is much lower than yours and history bears it out on my side most every time, from the Maine, Pearl harbor to the Gulf of Tonkin.
What we are seeing with Lockerbie and the 7/7 bombings as well.

Why so easy to accept what is clearly not the whole truth?

BrianY
09-11-2009, 10:16 AM
Can be applied to anything, everyone has bias. Its ridiculous to use it as an argument.

I'm not using it as an argument. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and taking your assertion that you really want the kids to consider the evidence and reach their own informed decsions as a sincere intention. If you really want the kids to think critically, they have to be made aware of their own baises and their own logical flaws so that they can see them in others and understand how such things influence perception and evlauation of "facts" and "evidence".


If one uses Critical thought it should become obvious we don't know the whole story of 9/11. I am sure many questions and observations are false in the search for truth just as there are in the offical story.

There you go again, betraying you personal bias. If you present the materials to the kids like this, they will not be able to do what you claim to want them to do: think critically and evaluate the evidence on thier own using your (supposed) motto Res ipsa loquitur. Your rejection of the importance of the understanding of bias in regards to critical thinking leads me to belive that you are not really interested in having the kids think critically and reach their own independent conclusions. Rather, for all your apparent nods to crtical thinking and the unbiased presentation of boath sides of the argument, it is increasingly obvious that you intend for the kids to reach a conclusion that conforms to your own biased views. If you were really interested in and capable of critical thinking, you'd realize this and either drop the pretense and admit your true intent or abandon the effort altogether.

There's nothing wrong with having opinions, beliefs and biases. There is, however, a great deal wrong with misleading people - especially kids - with lesson plans that claim to teach critical thinking and encourage independent thought while actually doing the opposite.

I would hope that someone - a principle or a parent - would be smart enough to see this lesson plan for what it is - indoctrination of your own views on your students under the guise of "critical thinking" - and rasie loud and long objections.

Please note that my objections to the plan have nothing to do with the views of the truthers or the government reports. I am objecting specifically to your pretense of objectivity and your sham presentation of "critical thinking". This could be a worthwhile lesson subject if it was handled properly. Unfortunately you do not seem to be willing to do so.


If history is any indication years from now we will see it differently than we do right now.

obviously... so what?

Chris Coose
09-11-2009, 10:22 AM
When hundreds of 9/11 family's are calling for the truth you have the balls to say that?

You holler at us with frenzied urgency for victim families on 9/11?
You've got the wrong audience pal.
Go holler at them.

Shut up and go away. You are the psycho minister who stands on the soldier's funeral grounds hollerin about the homos. Or the little punk who hollers fire in the theater.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 10:28 AM
You holler at us with frenzied urgency for victim families on 9/11?
You've got the wrong audience pal.
Go holler at them.

Shut up and go away. You are the psycho minister who stands on the soldier's funeral grounds hollerin about the homos. Or the little punk who hollers fire in the theater.

You never served scumbag so don't tell me about hollering at soldiers funerals. Your desperation is far to freakin' obvious. Funny you never called me a punk in person?

Chris Coose
09-11-2009, 10:34 AM
It is a guarantee that I shall do what is necessary to not cross paths again.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 10:39 AM
Have you got a reference or link for that?



It isn't an issue of 'acceptance'.... it has more to do with an issue of 'justification'. Our legal system works the same way: in order to indict someone for a major felony, one has to bring credible evidence before a grand jury... only then can an indicment proceed.

I'm not an expert (in any field other than my own), so I couldn't, were I to be a juror (deciding whether to further investigate 9/11), pass judgment on the proclamations of the experts, other than to weigh their testimony, and the testimony of the conflicting experts... and from what I've seen, there isn't a compelling case to be made. It seems that, for every 9/11 Truther 'expert', there's another one (or two, or three) contradicting the testimony.

In order to agree that further investigation would be needed, I'd need to have something approaching an overarching theory of the case.... something that makes sense, even if the dissenting expert testimony were to be hypothetically considered to be true.

Over the past eight years, I've heard all sorts of crazy theories: Bush was responsible... it was the TriLateral Commission... the Masons did it.... and so on. NONE of those theories had any factual support. From everything I've read, including the Truther dissents, it does appear that what happened was indeed the obvious: a group of 19 fanatical Muslims planned the hijacking and crashing of four airliners.

If I ever hear someone advocate an overarching theory that 1) makes some sense, 2) has factual evidence in support of it, and 3) isn't clearly discounted by conflicting evidence, then I'll be standing beside you, demanding that the investigation be reopened.

So, far, I've heard NOTHING like that.

Same ****e Norman, You come back her for what reason?

Look it up yourself or type it in Megaphone and one of your buddy's can do it for you. But quickly I will post some links for you to debunk, deny of disinfo.
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new

Louis Freeh Charges 9/11 Commission Cover-Up
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/17/122900.shtml
Book: Sept. 11 Panel Doubted Officials


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/08/04/national/w124141D43.DTL&type=printable

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first draft" of history (http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/CBCSunday_20060910.wmv).

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ." (http://salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index4.html)


9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting" (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-11panel.pentagon/index.html)


Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal" (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/11/21/cleland/index.html?pn=1); "This investigation is now compromised" (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/13/911_panel_to_get_access_to_withheld_data/); and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up" (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/23/1546256).

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html)

But let's back up and look at the 9/11 Commission in more detail. Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to "intelligence failures" (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/), so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved.

The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml). Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow), who was involved in pre-9/11 intelligence briefings, and who was one of the key architects of the "pre-emptive war" doctrine. This executive director, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this article (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_D._Zelikow) and this article (http://911blogger.com/node/3418)).

The administration then starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html), failed to provide crucial documents (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/27/bush.911/)(and see this article also (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/national/26KEAN.html?ex=1123128000&en=2c2dbdd5fa5a2e1a&ei=5070&ex=1101358800&en=12b0b7aa3a5a2e14&ei=5070&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=&oref=login)), refused to share much information with the Commission, refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4862296/).

More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration's official version of events. As stated by the State Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government's international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, "there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/10/02/BL2006100200537.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns)

For example, the 9-11 Commission report fails to mention the CIA director's urgent warnings to top administration officials in July 2001 of an impending attack (indeed, the 9-11 Commission was briefed on these warnings (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15662785.htm), but denied they knew about them (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01cnd-book.html?_r=2&hp&ex=1159761600&en=797d904aeadd4206&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) until confronted with contrary evidence). Moreover, numerous veteran national security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 commission, even though they had information directly relevant to the commission's investigation (http://www.nswbc.org/Reports%20-%20Documents/Veteran%20National%20Security%20Experts.pdf). And the 9/11 Commission Report does not even mention the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 or any explosions in the buildings (the word "explosion" does not appear in the report). There are literally hundreds of other examples of entire lines of evidence which contradict the government's account which were ignored by the Commission.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 10:40 AM
A very well-documented book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566565847/qid=1120623441/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-5910915-8313462?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)by a distinguished professor shows that the 9-11 Commission was a whitewash. According to law professor Richard Falk of Princeton, the author of this book "establishes himself, alongside Seymour Hersh, as America's number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths" (Seymour Hersh, as you might know, is the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal). See a synopsis of the book here (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404); and a summary of a portion of the book here (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051205150219651).

Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now "question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report" (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Group_of_widows_claim_911_Independent_0804.html), and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and "suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050721082040972) official story on many fronts" (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050721082040972).

Moreover, the former head of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, who is a professor of fire protection engineering, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=BS&p_theme=bs&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_label-0=Section&s_dispstring=allfields%28Quintiere%29%20AND%20sect ion%28*%29%20AND%20date%28%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=%28%22Quintiere%22%29&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no). He has called for a new investigation (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm).

And a leading firefighters' trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a "half-baked farce" (http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&%20;PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225). In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.html).

Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html).

And the government agency tasked with examining the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies in the collapse of the buildings, failing to even examine any of the following evidence: the buildings’ impossible near free-fall speeds and symmetrical collapses; the unexplained fact that the core of the North Tower failed first; the apparent demolition squibs; the fact that the buildings turned to dust in mid-air; the presence of molten metal in the basement areas in large pools in all of the buildings; the unexplained presence of unusual compounds in the steel; the unexplained swiss-cheese like holes in the steel; and the unexplained straightening out of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf).

Indeed, an article from a respected civil engineering trade journal states:

"World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers". (http://www.nceplus.co.uk/fastsearch/ArchiveArticleAssetPT/?AID=22081)

The article goes on to state "a leading U.S. structural engineer said 'By comparison [to the modeling of fires] the global structural model is not as sophisticated' . . . The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls . . . it would be hard to produce a definitive visualization from the analysis so far.'” (http://www.nceplus.co.uk/fastsearch/ArchiveArticleAssetPT/?AID=22081). In other words, the government refused to release a visual model of the collapses, and even the non-visual computer models which the government used to examine why the trade centers collapsed are faulty.

The same journal points out that "Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism." (http://www.nceplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=6937&report_num=0&channelid=6)

See also this question and answer exchange at a recent government press conference (http://www.iian.ibeam.com/events/thom001/13858/browser/player.jsp?eventid=13858&mediachoice=RMP300K&et=od&folder=13858)(skip to 1 minute and 23 seconds into the video). And this short video on building 7 and the subsequent investigation (http://reopen911.org/video/Reopen911_part_8.wmv) (you may wish to disregard brief partisan portion).

And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/11/con05439.html)the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House? (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/11/con05439.html)

Or that a former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible (http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/edmonds_letters.htm), and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis -- has stated that "this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated" (http://antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=2960)?

Or have you heard that the FBI long ago found and analyzed the "black box" recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found? (http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff12202005.html)

Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F0091FFE3C580C748CDDAC0894DC4044 82&incamp=archive:search?) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times (http://web.archive.org/web/20040509021515/http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-nws-tape07.html)?

And amazingly, many years after the FBI stated it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11 (http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47109,00.html), that agency apparently [I]still does not have hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime (http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html).


Still think the government really investigated and disclosed what happened on 9/11?

Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/crooked-cops-and-9-11.html) to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.


NEXT: But no high-level officials question the official story, right? (http://911proof.com/7.html)

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 10:44 AM
I am waiting for the graph to show it wasn't 60% but 59.5%.;)

huisjen
09-11-2009, 10:49 AM
What a loony.

Dan

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 10:50 AM
What a loony.

Dan

Documented.:D

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 10:54 AM
I am objecting specifically to your pretense of objectivity and your sham presentation of "critical thinking". This could be a worthwhile lesson subject if it was handled properly. Unfortunately you do not seem to be willing to do so.



obviously... so what?

I didn't write the article you question so I agree with you on the bias part. I am saying there is bias on all sides and all views.
The truth lies in between there somewhere.
Calling for an open investigation though, is there bias in that?

ishmael
09-11-2009, 11:12 AM
Mark,

Keep asking questions, and don't be surprised when people just want to leave that day behind.

There are genuine questions about that day. For example, I've never heard a reasonable explanation for building seven going down. Peripheral to the main hits, it got hit by minor debris, but nothing that should bring down a big skyscraper like that. Almost fifty floors. It imploded, for all the world looking like it was done with explosives. Hinky. Hinky as all get out, but bring it up and people will label you a conspiracy nut. I say, just look at the film and explain that building going down.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 11:15 AM
Jack, all I ever did was call for open investigations. If that's what one gets for that can you imagine if it does happen and it is investigated?

Coose and Foster will probably take up arms:D

huisjen
09-11-2009, 11:17 AM
Hey Mark, maybe you'd better set your egg timer so you don't forget to bump this thread every three minutes.

Dan

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 11:22 AM
Hey Mark, maybe you'd better set your egg timer so you don't forget to bump this thread every three minutes.

Dan

I am happy for you that you have Moved On.org from this but in history could you show me where anyone who has Moved On.org got a new investigation or any closer to the truth?

I always was led to believe that the way to get to the truth was to not shut up about it.

huisjen
09-11-2009, 11:26 AM
Does anyone else hear a mosquito?

Dan

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 11:31 AM
Does anyone else hear a mosquito?

Dan

Yeah, A welfare fleet go a long to get along mosquito.;)

Acceptance is wonderful.

BrianY
09-11-2009, 11:36 AM
I am saying there is bias on all sides and all views.

True.

The truth lies in between there somewhere.

I do not think that there can be any "truth" that lies somewhere between "There was a grand conspiracy to bring down the builidings and hide the truth" and "the buildings were brought down as a result of deliberate actions of terrorists"or between "intentional detonations" and "melting steel". There may be quibbles about the exact sequence of events or who said what to whom and when or why people did what they did, but there is no middle ground between "9/11 was a deliberate act of our government or other extra-govenrmental organization" and "9/11 was a deliberate act of middle eastern terrorists." It's an either/or situation



Calling for an open investigation though, is there bias in that?

No. Well...there could be if the call is made by people who refuse to accept the findings of the investigative body simply because the findings do not agree with their pre-conceived beliefs and biases. I find that many folks involved in the 9/11 Truther movement (as well as other conspiracy movements - UFO's, Apollo Moon Landings, etc.) fall into this category.

Again, my issue is not with the information or people's opinions. It is with your attempt to masquerade your projection of your personal baises and opinions on high school students as a lesson in "critical thinking"

ishmael
09-11-2009, 11:41 AM
Mark,

I'm saddened, deeply, that people no longer trust the government and others in power. Somehow, the machine keeps churning, but with a cynicism never too far from hand. The US has momentum, coming out of WWII, but that's reaching an end.

I think you can date the modern cynicism to November 1963. I'm sure you've watched the Zapruder film of JFK's murder. If that kill shot came from the right front I'm Daffy Duck. It's been investigated more than any other murder in history, and the Church Commission back in the seventies found it was likely a conspiracy, not a lone nut with a five dollar rifle. Did anything change? Were the people responsible brought to justice? Hell no, so it's difficult not to be cynical.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 11:44 AM
No. Well...there could be if the call is made by people who refuse to accept the findings of the investigative body simply because the findings do not agree with their pre-conceived beliefs and biases. I find that many folks involved in the 9/11 Truther movement (as well as other conspiracy movements - UFO's, Apollo Moon Landings, etc.) fall into this category.

Again, my issue is not with the information or people's opinions. It is with your attempt to masquerade your projection of your personal baises and opinions on high school students as a lesson in "critical thinking"

Your bias is showing Brian.

And again, I had nothing to do with the first article and High School students. Is there a reason you keep missing this?

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 11:49 AM
Mark,

I'm saddened, deeply, that people no longer trust the government and others in power. Somehow, the machine keeps churning, but with a cynicism never too far from hand. The US has momentum, coming out of WWII, but that's reaching an end.

I think you can date the modern cynicism to November 1963. I'm sure you've watched the Zapruder film of JFK's murder. If that kill shot came from the right front I'm Daffy Duck. It's been investigated more than any other murder in history, and the Church Commission back in the seventies found it was likely a conspiracy, not a lone nut with a five dollar rifle. Did anything change? Were the people responsible brought to justice? Hell no, so it's difficult not to be cynical.

I think the reason for that is explained on this thread. People have very short attention spans unless it affects their well being directly.
Those posters above are as much to blame for that as those who pull the trigger in my book as they teach complacency in times of great need. My words are wasted on them but not their children.
They will bear the brunt of it and it is my hope they never let those who cared not forget it.

canoes
09-11-2009, 12:06 PM
Hi,
I watched perhaps 10 mins of the 9/11 thruthers show. I can have a open mind about any topic really, but whenever a theory was spun,and a scientist or specialist had a answer. These guys had some bizarre follow up.

It would have taken huge amounts of explosives and prep work to bring the building down,,the truthers,,,, it was special top secret explosives that left no trace.

The they did a test with thermite,, same thing,, lots of prep work huge amounts,, thruthers,, it was special top secret thermite that you paint on.

I could not watch it any more as it was like watching kids that would come up with some clever and expect everyone to call it icecream and ask for more.

Larry

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 12:12 PM
Larry, most of it is bull crap and disinfo to direct you away from the obvious discrepancy's. The problems with 9/11 go far beyond what brough the towers down. The events leading up to it, the put options,
The stand downs and exercises running at the time of the event to name a few. Its easy to pick on the video you watched and let you mind say its crap but to be honest one needs to read, not watch.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 12:17 PM
I actually took some time and went through about 2 dozen of the clickable links that you posted. In them, I found huge numbers claims made by 'undisclosed sources'.... but no hard data. Some of the articles were actually self-contradictory, like the article which seemed to claim that the Flight 11 stewardess who was on the phone to AA might have actually given information to the authorities to evacuate the second tower.... a claim which defies even simple logic and reason. NONE of them even bothered to hypothesize an overarching theory of the case.

If you want to argue that the commissioners didn't get the whole story from the President, the FBI, the Pentagon, the CIA, etc... I'll wholeheartedly agree with you. They had LOTS of motivation to suppress many things, seeing as how permitting this to happen, failing to take precautions, even after the briefing memo stating 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"....

...but that points to a CYA situation, which, while disgusting and dishonorable, is NOT any basis to make wild accusations that any of them participated in the attack, knew specifically it was coming, or intentionally permitted it.

For THAT kind of accusation, you either need utterly indisputable evidence, and not just 'unnamed sources'.... OR, a tinfoil hat.

Again for the fiftieth time, I seek an open investigation.

All the disinfo just cloud the issues you pointed out. At the minimum it was CYA and concealment of the truth which should be brought out and those responsible held accountable.

canoes
09-11-2009, 12:19 PM
Hi again,
I wasnt saying that its not possible, my point is if those guys want to be taken serious they should not sound like morons.

Anything is possible I am sure.

Chris Coose
09-11-2009, 12:22 PM
And all the secrets, Canoes, have been held by the thousands of perpetrators all this time w/o a leak. How many undetected guys does it take to rig a trades tower X's 2, you might ask? Rig all the buildings?

Hundreds and they used a top secret invisible powder avaliable from Walmart.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 12:26 PM
Hi again,
I wasnt saying that its not possible, my point is if those guys want to be taken serious they should not sound like morons.

Anything is possible I am sure.

A NSA officer came out a while back to state there is a department dedicated to 9/11 and cointellpro type operations. I will try and find the news story for you.

If anyone remembers the FBI's black panthers coloring book they will clearly understand the madison avenue tactics of clouding and issue to the point of most common men's eyes glazing over and stopping open discussion.

This is nothing new and we have a poster here on the thread that actively participates in those tactics.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 12:27 PM
And all the secrets, Canoes, have been held by the thousands of perpetrators all this time w/o a leak. How many undetected guys does it take to rig a trades tower X's 2, you might ask? Rig all the buildings?

Hundreds and they used a top secret invisible powder avaliable from Walmart.

Go away Coose and take you wanabee lackeys with you.;)

canoes
09-11-2009, 12:27 PM
hi Chris,
Yup that was pretty much how the show was,, back and forth with one sily answer after another,,, ughhhhhh

BrianY
09-11-2009, 12:42 PM
Your bias is showing Brian.

yes...so? I am not making any claim to being unbiased. As you said, everyone is biased.


And again, I had nothing to do with the first article and High School students. Is there a reason you keep missing this?

Ahh...I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were putting this forth as your work - that you were the one who designed this course. So whose work is it? (just curious...)

I'm not at all clear then why you posted it. If your point is that you want another investigation into the events of 9/11/01, wouldn't it be much clearer just to come out and say that from the get go? Or do you support the creation of such a course in the schools? Or is it some other thing?

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 12:45 PM
I'm not at all clear then why you posted it. If your point is that you want another investigation into the events of 9/11/01, wouldn't it be much clearer just to come out and say that from the get go? Or do you support the creation of such a course in the schools? Or is it some other thing?

Its an article. Go figure someone posting and article?

Chris Coose
09-11-2009, 02:45 PM
What did the little Truther boy ask the little Birther girl out back in the woods?

I'll believe yours if you believe mine?

Thought that up as I was tearing down the front hall ceiling and framing for the bath above. I should surely stick to my day job.

Tylerdurden
09-11-2009, 02:55 PM
I should surely stick to my day job.

Showing compassion and understanding without judgment to your patients?;)