Ableton Forum

look here :

http://www.drjudywood.com/

I'm in line with this guy on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbg ... re=related
So the other answer that makes sense is "Even if it were true, who cares?"
I agree with him not because I think the US government is guilt free, but because the chase to prove their guilt is obviously going to lead nowhere.
Fact is we'll never know, and debating it won't get us anywhere, as it just further divides people into camps who otherwise hold the same position,
that US policy in the middle east is wrong and causing more damage than good.

33tetragammon wrote:look here :

http://www.drjudywood.com/

She's got a face I can trust.

Cheers for the link though, it's been a looooooooooooong time since I've read any kind of (whacky or otherwise) 911 material, so I'll definitely give it a looksie for the sake of curiosity.

Any other links... ?

Machinesworking wrote:You left out IMO the most likely scenario, that people high up had been given the intelligence information that 9-11 was going to happen, and decided to do nothing.

Machinesworking wrote:I'm in line with this guy on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoDqDvbg ... re=related

Noam Chomsky wrote:did [the bush administration] plan it in any way or know anything about it ? this seems to be extremely unlikely. I mean for one thing they would have had to have been insane (...)

which part of that clip are you in line with ? just the 'who cares?' bit I guess...

Machinesworking wrote: I agree with him not because I think the US government is guilt free, but because the chase to prove their guilt is obviously going to lead nowhere.
Fact is we'll never know, and debating it won't get us anywhere, as it just further divides people into camps who otherwise hold the same position,
that US policy in the middle east is wrong and causing more damage than good.

Sure, don't waste too much time chasing your tail trying to prove the unprovable. But beliefs don't always require conclusive proof, and people often act and make decisions based on their beliefs. It's not really a discussion on proving it one way or the other, although that's fine if the thread wants to go that way, but the OP is simply about gauging beliefs.

dum wrote:

Machinesworking wrote: I agree with him not because I think the US government is guilt free, but because the chase to prove their guilt is obviously going to lead nowhere.
Fact is we'll never know, and debating it won't get us anywhere, as it just further divides people into camps who otherwise hold the same position,
that US policy in the middle east is wrong and causing more damage than good.

Sure, don't waste too much time chasing your tail trying to prove the unprovable. But beliefs don't always require conclusive proof, and people often act and make decisions based on their beliefs. It's not really a discussion on proving it one way or the other, although that's fine if the thread wants to go that way, but the OP is simply about gauging beliefs.

I'm not really a fan of beliefs that don't have conclusive proof. Again they cloud real issues with peoples superstitions and half truths.
Facts are that 911 would never have happened had our own government not pursued aggressive and sloppy policies in the middle east with only the securing of governments conducive to our acquisition of their oil at low prices in mind. This led to an environment ripe for religious fanatics and terrorist activity to thrive. So we continue to talk about whether the government was responsible when it doesn't matter, our continual support of dictators like the Sha of Iran led to the current government in Iran, period. Our support of the corrupt and universally hated regime in Saudi Arabia, and the continual disregard we show for Israel's brutality towards the Gaza Strip doesn't win any fans either.
We don't need an inside job, or anything like that to look around and know that we've been convinced by people with vested interests to pursue aggressive policies that will eventually create suicide bombers in areas of the world where that has been considered OK by some of the people there.

What we need is to care about this stuff, but I don't think 911 theories do a good job of making people care, it IMO shuts people off.

Machinesworking wrote: I'm not really a fan of beliefs that don't have conclusive proof.

That's good. Unfortunately MW, you don't need to be a fan of holding beliefs without conclusive proof for it to be a widely accepted practise.

Machinesworking wrote: Again they cloud real issues with peoples superstitions and half truths.
Facts are that 911 would never have happened had our own government not pursued aggressive and sloppy policies in the middle east with only the securing of governments conducive to our acquisition of their oil at low prices in mind. This led to an environment ripe for religious fanatics and terrorist activity to thrive. So we continue to talk about whether the government was responsible when it doesn't matter, our continual support of dictators like the Sha of Iran led to the current government in Iran, period. Our support of the corrupt and universally hated regime in Saudi Arabia, and the continual disregard we show for Israel's brutality towards the Gaza Strip doesn't win any fans either.
We don't need an inside job, or anything like that to look around and know that we've been convinced by people with vested interests to pursue aggressive policies that will eventually create suicide bombers in areas of the world where that has been considered OK by some of the people there.

What we need is to care about this stuff, but I don't think 911 theories do a good job of making people care, it IMO shuts people off.

That's a sensible post,
But I'm still not sure exactly what your stance is on the OP.
Can you please address the part of my previous post where I highlighted you contradicting yourself

dum wrote: But I'm still not sure exactly what your stance is on the OP.

It doesn't matter, and we likely will never know anyway if it was an inside job, so why bother pursuing it?

Can you please address the part of my previous post where I highlighted you contradicting yourself

See the post above, my personal "feeling" is that some higher ups very likely knew something, but a "feeling" is nothing to bass a strong opinion on.
Nothing contradictory about a hunch, and also the conclusion that Chompsky is very likely right, especially when the whole thing is quite literally based on zero knowledge of what actually went on.

What we do know is far more important than our hunches. This thread is beneath you, this is starving student cyclic conversations that go nowhere level discussion.
My question for OP is what are you hoping to gage here? American ambivalence towards the wars and Bush government now that a new more 'liberal' face has been put on the war? If that's the case I get it I suppose.

Machinesworking wrote:

dum wrote: But I'm still not sure exactly what your stance is on the OP.

It doesn't matter, and we likely will never know anyway if it was an inside job, so why bother pursuing it?

I'm not pursuing it. It's a poll just to see what loungers believe. BELIEVE. belief. Buh-leaf.
You're free to reflect on the issue further if you like, but don't get the OP twisted. Everyone else who's voted so far seems to have found participating in the poll pretty straight forward.

Machinesworking wrote:

Can you please address the part of my previous post where I highlighted you contradicting yourself

See the post above, my personal "feeling" is that some higher ups very likely knew something, but a "feeling" is nothing to bass a strong opinion on.
Nothing contradictory about a hunch, and also the conclusion that Chompsky is very likely right, especially when the whole thing is quite literally based on zero knowledge of what actually went on.

I dunno man, you seem to be adjusting your statements as you go along. Certainly your recent posts are sensible and I share those views, but what you said initially is pretty hard to misunderstand and it's totally at odds with the Chomsky clip you said you're in line with.

No biggie, just a little confusing.

Machinesworking wrote: What we do know is far more important than our hunches. This thread is beneath you, this is starving student cyclic conversations that go nowhere level discussion.
My question for OP is what are you hoping to gage here? American ambivalence towards the wars and Bush government now that a new more 'liberal' face has been put on the war? If that's the case I get it I suppose.

Eh, I think patently contradicting yourself is beneath you so I guess that makes us even ?
I don't endorse beliefs just by asking folks if they hold those beliefs. Your criticisms of the thread premise are pretty shit buddy! Comprehension failure methinks. But sure, what you've been saying in the most recent posts make sense even if a little obvious (to me at least).

911 being an inside job has to be one of the greatest (as in biggest) conspiracy theories of the 21st century so far. And ya before we go round and round, I get it, there's no need to be distracted by proving it one way or the other - there's plenty to chew on in plain view. Never the less, I'm curious how many folks (still) believe in an inside job (active or passive). It's not the forum hot topic as it used to be, it's the anniversary soon, it's an event that's constantly pimped, I like to know what others believe (whether they're rational or not), this is the lounge, and you can blow me if the premise of this thread is too esoteric for you to grasp!

what the hell happened on the 9th of november anyway?

Shit................
Dum's still breathing.

You're an asshole for bringing up the idea that the government would've just looked past the possibility that thousands of people would be murdered and decided to do nothing.

And seriously, go fuck yourself!!!

Do us all a favor and keep your dumbass theories and questions to yourself. In fact, you might as well stop posting altogether since it seems your mission in life is to be as idiotic as possible.

Someone start a poll on whether or not the right to free speech should apply to Dum.

McQ714 wrote:You're an asshole for bringing up the idea that the government would've just looked past the possibility that thousands of people would be murdered and decided to do nothing.

this is the US we are talking about here.

McQ714 wrote:*still foaming at the mouth*

I got news for you pal, I didn't start the 'inside job' theory.


On the topic of beliefs it was pretty educational/shocking to hear the beliefs of americans post-911 replayed this evening on a news broadcast. I got the distinct impression that 'conclusive proof' wasn't at the heart of their statements.

funky shit wrote:

McQ714 wrote:You're an asshole for bringing up the idea that the government would've just looked past the possibility that thousands of people would be murdered and decided to do nothing.

this is the US we are talking about here.

This.

and then this ---> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

dum wrote:

Machinesworking wrote: my personal "feeling" is that some higher ups very likely knew something, but a "feeling" is nothing to bass a strong opinion on.
Nothing contradictory about a hunch, and also the conclusion that Chompsky is very likely right, especially when the whole thing is quite literally based on zero knowledge of what actually went on.

dum wrote:I dunno man, you seem to be adjusting your statements as you go along. Certainly your recent posts are sensible and I share those views, but what you said initially is pretty hard to misunderstand and it's totally at odds with the Chomsky clip you said you're in line with.

No biggie, just a little confusing.

Eh, I think patently contradicting yourself is beneath you so I guess that makes us even ?
I don't endorse beliefs just by asking folks if they hold those beliefs. Your criticisms of the thread premise are pretty shit buddy! Comprehension failure methinks. But sure, what you've been saying in the most recent posts make sense even if a little obvious (to me at least).

The part in bold. I out of habit wrote bass instead of base, but you get it. I do not have strong beliefs about 911 just mild hunches, I do however think the thought process on whether or not it was an inside job clouds the real issue, which is our governments hawk like gain, and subsequent recharging of military aggression in the middle east, and whether that does any good at all. Hawks and conservatives in general will avoid the obvious fact that going in with our military to combat insurgents who are angry because of our military presence in the middle east does nothing to stop them from being angry, it's a waste of time, and they eventually will try extracting revenge, again. So the obvious answer is that it's about securing pipe lines and oil. <--- All of that gets lost in the discussion when we start arguing about whether or not there were covert ops in the US government that had something to do with 911. It becomes a discussion about religion in the sense that proof isn't available so people believe what they want to about it.

^^^^That, is why I thought/think it was odd that you brought it up, it IMO reeks of a distraction from real issues, but like you said it's the lounge.