Do you beleive 9\11 was a inside job/? (616)

Are you looking forward to watching the new Atlas Shrugged movie, staring...well...what's-their-names?

I don't recall seeing explosions going off just before the collapses ..........

Perhaps because you weren't watching the news that day (because explosions were mentioned several times on major news channels). Fortunately, you can remedy that lapse by watching some Youtube videos.

I would say that applies precisely to those who believe the government agitprop-sound bite absent impartial critical analysis.

Even former 9/11 commissioners, as well as the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, have stated that many of the facts as we know them are false. I'm not saying that they're claiming a direct Bush Administration involvement/planning, but they have firmly opened the door to the notion much has not been revealed about the events of that day, as well as much of what we know is false.

The bottom line is that no one who makes blanket statements of the "anything contrary to the Bush Administration conspiracy theory is the product of nutcases" variety has performed anything resembling an in-depth study of 9/11 events. The vast majority of those who makes such statements, in my observation, have simply made some deductions from a few newspaper and/or internet blurbs - deductions based largely, it would seem, on certain a priori assumptions (e.g., "...a consp of this magnitude is just way too complex to pull off..."

This despite - as anyone with a modicum of historical reading knows - that governments, most notably in this instance the USG, have maintained conspiracies for decades if not longer. Also, this claim ignores the contrary claim that evidence disputing the mainstream conspiracy theory does in fact exist - in rather large abundance, as it turns out - which forms the basis for rational skepticism of the Bush et al assertions.

Exactly, T.

First, I'd like to point out the obvious: the legions of ex-intelligence personnel, government officials (Christ, even former presidential John Kerry openly acknowledged his doubts about the fall of WTC 7, saying "demolition" was a possibility, in his view!), professional people (architects, engineers, physicists, etc.), and even former 9/11 commissioners who question the Bush Conspiracy Theory are not "crackpots" or "nuts" by and large. To suggest so is to indulge in crass silliness.

I'm not going to argue the specifics about what happened (or I believe may have happened) on 9/11. Instead, I'm going to ask those who believe most or all of the Bush Administration claims while dismissing opposing claims as "nonsense" or "crackpottery": To what degree is your dismissal based on an even-handed consideration of the arguments/evidence both pro and con as opposed to certain a priori assumptions based on minimal reading/study?

possibly who knows what those people are sayin now about it!!

osama is probably watching us now..

Who said he was in there?

I'd agree that the big lie is a "conspiracy theory," but would suggest that applies to the mainstream theory).

Well, Garden, I'd ask you the same question that I asked above about a priori-based versus impartial empirical analysis. Shall I assume that you've performed a thorough overview of the arguments and counterarguments for the mainstream conspiracy theory? Because surely it would be impossible to rationally hold a strong opinion on the matter sans such a thorough overview, correct? Which is why I personally did perform such an overview - reading both supporters (e.g., Popular Mechanics/Skeptical Inquirer) and critics.

Personally, I think anyone who doesn't question the Bush Administration conspiracy theory is part of a queue of non-critical thinkers who have little interest in or knowledge of the events in question.

Gas and electrical explosions happen when a building of that size goes down....