-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Thoughts regarding 9/11
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
If we were playing kickball and I was a team captain... I'd pick @FollowingHim first to be on my team!
#winning
P.S. This BF group rocks for its ability to chat and be civil no matter the topic being discussed.
#winning
P.S. This BF group rocks for its ability to chat and be civil no matter the topic being discussed.
My post was in reference to what you wrote. If you intended something different, p,ease explain.
- In the age of electronic communication, we have ALL gravitated towards mistrust and conflict. Some more than others. I attributed that to a sense of soulessness in anonymity.
- Those of us who disagree on this issue, do agree on our realities of mistrust of government, and they do overlap.
- We who disagree about 9/11 conspiracies do stand in the same place ( mistrust of governments and powers) but we just look in opposite directions for the explanation of this particular event, and several others.
Except OKC, Clintons bungled an attempt at a dramatic last minute arrest of McVeigh.
Yeah, but Clinton bungled a lot of things. He was too busy freeing up his Willy for young interns.
While I love that it's a Jewish auther, Joshua Meyrowitz, I don't love that it's $80 shipped new or $46 used.
Let me know when I can get a used one for $10 and I'll be all over that.
As it stands I'm beating around the bush to get a $35 bible I've been waiting to come out so it's hard to justify a non-bible for more than that.
Is this the same auther as "Überall und nirgends dabei" on TV culture?
Thanks for the book rec. It's on my list
Last edited:
As many of you do, I remember where I was on 9/11 when I heard the news (commuting to work, waking my wife, and telling her "we've been attacked"). I became obsessed with learning everything I could about the event for over a year.
I also still remember the chill that ran down my spine when I saw the footage of the pentagon before the facade collapsed. There was a small hole surrounded by unbroken walls. No 747 could possibly fit inside the hole. I knew instantly and viscerally that something was very wrong with the story.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c7826092fe3.jpg&f=1
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/911_90_11.jpg&f=1
Speaking of Building 7, it doesn't take a bunch of scientists to tell me this is a BIG series of "oops":
Then there was the woman standing in the hole left by the airliner in the South Tower showing that the fires had mostly gone out and were definitely not hot enough to melt steel girders. Jet fuel (which is much like kerosene) simply cannot burn hot enough to weaken structural steel, much less create rivers of molten metal which remained melted for days/weeks.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://web-images.chacha.com/images/Gallery/7402/15-most-mysterious-things-ever-photographed850386066-nov-22-2014-1-600x500.jpg&f=1
For fans of peer-review and hard science, 2950 architects and engineers (so far) have publicly declared opposition to the official story, which to me is much more persuasive than a few uncritical journalists at Snopes or Popular Mechanics. They give several lines of scientific evidence and video, along with a convincing refutation of Popular Mechanics.
http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html
The official 9/11 report, like Groucho Marx, in essence asks, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" For me, the choice is not difficult in the face of several damning lines of hard evidence, of which I've only shared the tip of the iceberg. Anyway, that's my $0.02.
I also still remember the chill that ran down my spine when I saw the footage of the pentagon before the facade collapsed. There was a small hole surrounded by unbroken walls. No 747 could possibly fit inside the hole. I knew instantly and viscerally that something was very wrong with the story.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c7826092fe3.jpg&f=1
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/911_90_11.jpg&f=1
Speaking of Building 7, it doesn't take a bunch of scientists to tell me this is a BIG series of "oops":
Then there was the woman standing in the hole left by the airliner in the South Tower showing that the fires had mostly gone out and were definitely not hot enough to melt steel girders. Jet fuel (which is much like kerosene) simply cannot burn hot enough to weaken structural steel, much less create rivers of molten metal which remained melted for days/weeks.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http://web-images.chacha.com/images/Gallery/7402/15-most-mysterious-things-ever-photographed850386066-nov-22-2014-1-600x500.jpg&f=1
For fans of peer-review and hard science, 2950 architects and engineers (so far) have publicly declared opposition to the official story, which to me is much more persuasive than a few uncritical journalists at Snopes or Popular Mechanics. They give several lines of scientific evidence and video, along with a convincing refutation of Popular Mechanics.
http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html
The official 9/11 report, like Groucho Marx, in essence asks, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" For me, the choice is not difficult in the face of several damning lines of hard evidence, of which I've only shared the tip of the iceberg. Anyway, that's my $0.02.
@IshChayil, Amazon has it at lower prices as well. The entry I chose for the link above just happens to show the original copyright year (1985) and include a couple of well-worded reviews.
ah I see it now, thanks.
They have it on kindle also!
Much of the opposition to the "conspiracy theory nutjobs" comes along the line of "what would their motive have been?" or "how could they have kept it a secret?", rather than hard facts. As was posted above then deleted, some very successful propagandists are remembered for having said "if you keep telling the big lie over and over again, they'll believe it", or something along those lines.
I don't think the general public really 'believe' it as much as they just accommodate themselves to the zeitgeist. If enough people are willing to just not think about it ("at this point, what difference does it make?"...), then somebody with a competing story simply can't get a hearing.
Many competent, qualified individuals have spoken out in this matter—they are simply disregarded. So the argument "how could they have kept it a secret?" is a red herring: it's not a secret. It's an open, on-the-table narrative that is simply being ignored by the majority, for various and sometimes contradictory reasons.
Did Vince Foster kill himself or did someone do that for him? How many people really care, how many are willing to do the research, how many are competent to do the research, how many are motivated to do the research, knowing that the reward they'll get even if they're right is to be dismissed or ostracized or attacked for being a "conspiracy theorist"? Same with 9/11 or many other subjects where the media/plutocracy narrative has holes that raise eyebrows. Few are motivated to make up their own minds; even fewer are willing to become pariahs as outspoken proponents of a minority opinion.
"May you live in interesting times."
I don't think the general public really 'believe' it as much as they just accommodate themselves to the zeitgeist. If enough people are willing to just not think about it ("at this point, what difference does it make?"...), then somebody with a competing story simply can't get a hearing.
Many competent, qualified individuals have spoken out in this matter—they are simply disregarded. So the argument "how could they have kept it a secret?" is a red herring: it's not a secret. It's an open, on-the-table narrative that is simply being ignored by the majority, for various and sometimes contradictory reasons.
Did Vince Foster kill himself or did someone do that for him? How many people really care, how many are willing to do the research, how many are competent to do the research, how many are motivated to do the research, knowing that the reward they'll get even if they're right is to be dismissed or ostracized or attacked for being a "conspiracy theorist"? Same with 9/11 or many other subjects where the media/plutocracy narrative has holes that raise eyebrows. Few are motivated to make up their own minds; even fewer are willing to become pariahs as outspoken proponents of a minority opinion.
"May you live in interesting times."
I think there may be an unintentional misdirect here.
When I for one say "How could they keep it a secret" I have qualified that with the term whistleblowers.
The full question is "How could they keep tens or more of whistleblowers about these classified plans to kill our people from coming out?" not "how could they not make the last building that fell look controlled anecdotally?". This would have been an enormous operation.
Clarification: US gov't could not keep nuclear weapons from being stolen by the Soviets; arguably the most important secret of all time stolen by the worst possible outcome at that time. We are the worst nation at keeping things secret from our enemies still today.
Others here mentioned other much smaller scale gov't cover-ups/screw-ups (fast and furious, etc) in which invariably someone came forward. Now in the era of WikiLeaks and news agencies which will make you rich if you whistle blow on the gov't, especially to make Republicans look bad ... it's not such a red herring to ask "Where's the beef"?
Whether there is an appearance that one of the buildings fell in a way similar to a demolition or not doesn't relieve this huge problem.
Even on this thread I still see people toting the old Michael Moore "Steel doesn't melt at those temperatures" mantras (not you or Sam) which ignore that steel will loose 90% of it's tensile strength at those temps and that's enough.
IF we're saying it's the US gov't that did this. I know folks here are saying "I'm not saying it was the gov't necessarily" but then when some of us reply otherwise the question comes back "really you trust the gov't so much?"
So really that is the default position. Of course the Arabs say it was the Israelis -gulp-
I think what has happened is that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 kind of ruined the chance for open mindedness in this arena.
It's also hard to trust investigations when all the ones I've looked at have dubious ties to Sorros-type organizations with their own leftist agendas and massive budgets or the journalists / scientists themselves are conspiracy buffs in their hobby-time.
After enough iterations of search, read, roll eyes, search read, roll eyes it just becomes exhausting because we live in this age where we can't take fancy videos or charts to be true and unblemished and how much time does one actually want to spend on this ...
(not saying you just I don't want to respond to everyone here so using this space to write this).
In the end, even if we accept the premise that building 7 "looked like a controlled demolition" ... I would shrug and say "and?"
Massive damage ensued still from that building on surrounding buildings so the controllers didn't do a great job.
Then we could say "well that was the plan see, don't do it perfectly or else people will notice". So then we end up stuck with, "it fell in an imperfect way in order to not look like a controlled demolition but still wait .. ahhhhh".
I hope I'm not annoying anyone with this just seems like a bunch of chasing after the wind.
I think you just proved my point for me (in other words, we agree on what I'm trying to get across).
From both sides of the controversy, most of us are reaching (hopefully tentative) conclusions on the basis of what we've seen and heard plus our own preconceptions about the nature of things. None of us has the time, resources, or motivation to become an authority on this subject, so we 'go with what we know' (or what we think we 'know'; with what we 'believe', anyway). Beyond the level of effort needed to feel good about our (hopefully tentative) conclusions, we're just not going to work any harder to develop the case that we're wrong about what we believe. So we settle into opposing camps and throw rocks at the other side from a safe distance.
In this community, I'd like us to be able to have refreshingly unhateful conversations, as time and other boundaries permit, about subjects most other people aren't capable of discussing rationally. For example, IC, I know you're a smart enough guy not to be dismissed as part of the 'delusional sheeple', and you know me well enough to know I'm not a 'conspiracy nutjob'. In theory, we should be able to have an interesting conversation about what we each believe and why we each believe it, and we'd probably both learn something from each other.
But you know what? You're a busy guy, I'm a busy guy, and in the grand scheme of things, I just can't see 'getting to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11' as a higher priority than loving on my family and building relationships with my brothers in this community. So I'm not going to spend any more time on this than I have already (especially like 12-13 years ago...), and I'm 100% okay with agreeing to disagree on this one.
There's actually nothing in my practical life that depends on what the answer to that question is. I'm already up to my ears in the Libertarian Party of Texas, trying to keep this country (or at least this state) from the extremes of falling into chaos or morphing into a dictatorship. Global conflict is just above my pay grade, and if somebody could prove beyond a reasonable doubt who by name was responsible for the 9/11 attack, I can't think of anything I would change in my day-to-day life.
From both sides of the controversy, most of us are reaching (hopefully tentative) conclusions on the basis of what we've seen and heard plus our own preconceptions about the nature of things. None of us has the time, resources, or motivation to become an authority on this subject, so we 'go with what we know' (or what we think we 'know'; with what we 'believe', anyway). Beyond the level of effort needed to feel good about our (hopefully tentative) conclusions, we're just not going to work any harder to develop the case that we're wrong about what we believe. So we settle into opposing camps and throw rocks at the other side from a safe distance.
In this community, I'd like us to be able to have refreshingly unhateful conversations, as time and other boundaries permit, about subjects most other people aren't capable of discussing rationally. For example, IC, I know you're a smart enough guy not to be dismissed as part of the 'delusional sheeple', and you know me well enough to know I'm not a 'conspiracy nutjob'. In theory, we should be able to have an interesting conversation about what we each believe and why we each believe it, and we'd probably both learn something from each other.
But you know what? You're a busy guy, I'm a busy guy, and in the grand scheme of things, I just can't see 'getting to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11' as a higher priority than loving on my family and building relationships with my brothers in this community. So I'm not going to spend any more time on this than I have already (especially like 12-13 years ago...), and I'm 100% okay with agreeing to disagree on this one.
There's actually nothing in my practical life that depends on what the answer to that question is. I'm already up to my ears in the Libertarian Party of Texas, trying to keep this country (or at least this state) from the extremes of falling into chaos or morphing into a dictatorship. Global conflict is just above my pay grade, and if somebody could prove beyond a reasonable doubt who by name was responsible for the 9/11 attack, I can't think of anything I would change in my day-to-day life.
Motive, though, is always a challenge for investigators if they want to find the path to the “who.” You don't win a legal case by proving motive, but it helps to bolster your case (note: I'm not a lawyer) in the court of public persuasion.
Nobody disputes WAT happened: destruction
Nobody disputes WHEN it happened: 9/11/01
Nobody disputes WHERE it happened: downtown Manhattan
Nobody disputes HOW it happened: some combination of fire/explosion (not a laser beam from planet Zorg)
In the case of 9/11, EVERYONE agrees that it was a conspiracy. It wasn't a lone, schizophrenic rampage.
The official report was Islamic terrorists related to Al Quaeda. Now, if you don't believe the official report, and blame others than the highjackers and their conspiracy, then you have to offer up an alternative, or offer up that the Islamic highjackers were part of an even more elaborate, grand conspiracy than even they were unaware of.
If you want others to believe your alternative, motive is a HUGE piece of investigation and persuasion.
That leads us to the profession of the criminal Profiler. Each of us has a huge amount of data in our brains, that comes from past experiences, to help us form our reality (some call it our gut intuition). The Profiler uses a similar pattern of hard data and statistics, then psychology to form a "profile" of WHO might be responsible for a crime. Whether we are a "sheeple or nut job" or profiler, we take past reality and try to form a present explanation. But that isn't always so reliable. Sometimes the "profile" just doesn't match, no matter how convinced we are based on past experience.
Example 1)
Unibomber and DC Sniper.
Everyone could tell the what, where, how, when. The elusive part was "who". To find the "who", there was a whole lot of asking "why". I don't think it's unreasonable to ask "why" if someone hasn't exactly got a "who".
In the end, both the Unibomber and DC Sniper were not who the experts had predicted.
Relying on what we think a structure should do based on design, engineering, and past evidence, is no guarantee that it will always perform the same way, regardless of unique conditions.
Examples 2 and 3)
Kobe, Japan Earthquake (1990s)
Japanese Tsunami (2000s)
2) This quake killed over 6,000 people in a city and country that swore by the engineering of "quake proof" buildings. The experts' calculations, designs and tests were said to be flawless, but it wasn't so.
3) Tsunami walls were designed to withstand intense tsunami waves and nuclear reactors were placed near shorelines with a guarantee that they would be safe, but it wasn't so.
Structural Engineering is not an exact science (not trying to insult structural engineers).
My purpose for this long post (I'm on record for disliking longish posts) is to speak to those predisposed to distrust of government (that includes me). We know the government is dishonest and we hate most of our politicians. But realizing that, there doesn't always have to be ..."the rest of the story." There doesn't always have to be a coverup, dark state conspiracy, CIA operation, or covert strategy to explain tragedies, or strange occurrences. There are plenty of examples of that; I don't believe this is one of them. I'm not saying it is outside the realm of possibility, but the evidence given to me isn't convincing enough. Lack of definitive motive is a strong detractor, and lack of proof that falling structures that look like controlled demolitions are always 100% controlled demolitions, without exceptions to the rule.
Now, who wants to start a Flat Earth post???
Nobody disputes WAT happened: destruction
Nobody disputes WHEN it happened: 9/11/01
Nobody disputes WHERE it happened: downtown Manhattan
Nobody disputes HOW it happened: some combination of fire/explosion (not a laser beam from planet Zorg)
In the case of 9/11, EVERYONE agrees that it was a conspiracy. It wasn't a lone, schizophrenic rampage.
The official report was Islamic terrorists related to Al Quaeda. Now, if you don't believe the official report, and blame others than the highjackers and their conspiracy, then you have to offer up an alternative, or offer up that the Islamic highjackers were part of an even more elaborate, grand conspiracy than even they were unaware of.
If you want others to believe your alternative, motive is a HUGE piece of investigation and persuasion.
That leads us to the profession of the criminal Profiler. Each of us has a huge amount of data in our brains, that comes from past experiences, to help us form our reality (some call it our gut intuition). The Profiler uses a similar pattern of hard data and statistics, then psychology to form a "profile" of WHO might be responsible for a crime. Whether we are a "sheeple or nut job" or profiler, we take past reality and try to form a present explanation. But that isn't always so reliable. Sometimes the "profile" just doesn't match, no matter how convinced we are based on past experience.
Example 1)
Unibomber and DC Sniper.
Everyone could tell the what, where, how, when. The elusive part was "who". To find the "who", there was a whole lot of asking "why". I don't think it's unreasonable to ask "why" if someone hasn't exactly got a "who".
In the end, both the Unibomber and DC Sniper were not who the experts had predicted.
Relying on what we think a structure should do based on design, engineering, and past evidence, is no guarantee that it will always perform the same way, regardless of unique conditions.
Examples 2 and 3)
Kobe, Japan Earthquake (1990s)
Japanese Tsunami (2000s)
2) This quake killed over 6,000 people in a city and country that swore by the engineering of "quake proof" buildings. The experts' calculations, designs and tests were said to be flawless, but it wasn't so.
3) Tsunami walls were designed to withstand intense tsunami waves and nuclear reactors were placed near shorelines with a guarantee that they would be safe, but it wasn't so.
Structural Engineering is not an exact science (not trying to insult structural engineers).
My purpose for this long post (I'm on record for disliking longish posts) is to speak to those predisposed to distrust of government (that includes me). We know the government is dishonest and we hate most of our politicians. But realizing that, there doesn't always have to be ..."the rest of the story." There doesn't always have to be a coverup, dark state conspiracy, CIA operation, or covert strategy to explain tragedies, or strange occurrences. There are plenty of examples of that; I don't believe this is one of them. I'm not saying it is outside the realm of possibility, but the evidence given to me isn't convincing enough. Lack of definitive motive is a strong detractor, and lack of proof that falling structures that look like controlled demolitions are always 100% controlled demolitions, without exceptions to the rule.
Now, who wants to start a Flat Earth post???
Mojo, you are killing me....
"Destruction"? Really? That's all you have to say about what happened?
"Some combination of fire/explosion"? That's it?
The entire controversy is based on the self-evident LACK of agreement on those points.
Government story: Some Muslim terrorists flew some planes into some buildings and they fell down. The end.
Everything from there that is disputed has to do with what actually caused the collapse of the buildings, particularly Bldg 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, and whether that tiny hole in the side of the Pentagon with no damage to the yard in front of it was really caused by a crashing commercial jet.
The people asking credible questions about what happened are basing it on the evidence, primarily photos and videos of the event or its aftermath. Motive is in a sense a no-brainer. If the event was perpetrated exclusively by Muslim terrorists, then their motive was to harm the US. If the event was any kind of false flag, using Muslims as patsies, then the motive was to drag the US into an endless war, and profit (including vanishing gold, stock market gains, insurance proceeds, cover-up of Pentagon financial mismanagement, and lucrative defense and homeland security contracts) was almost certainly the motive behind that. IF some Israelis were involved (note to IC: I'm just reporting here and being logical, not taking a position, and even if it were true it would not be a reflection on all Israelis, let alone all Jews, just as involvement by any individual Americans would not be a reflection on all Americans), you get the added bonus of "let's you and him fight", with the US being provoked to whup ass on Israel's historical enemies.
It's like what I said above about "secrets" and whistleblowers. There is no secret, and there's no confusion about what the motives would have been if it were a false flag operation. There's just a lot of stuff out in the open that people are willing to consider or they're not. [Note: Those that consider the evidence can obviously come to different conclusions. I am not arguing that all who consider the evidence are 'truthers' and all who believe the government are refusing to look at the evidence. I'm just saying that none of this is hidden. "The truth is out there", as we say, and none of this is particularly hidden or hard to figure out. We either accept it and believe it or we don't.]
Motive is not the issue or the question. The only questions, and all of the disputes, center around the physics of building demolition and the strange discrepancies in the evidence or the behavior of the government (like why won't the govt release the video of whatever hit the Pentagon?...).
I'm hoping this thread will die a natural death. Anybody with a 3-digit IQ can run their own research and come to their own conclusions. It is interesting, and fun if you're in the right frame of mind, to find out who believes what among our little band of brothers. We're still brothers, though, and have to love each other anyway.
This is simplistic to the point of absurdity.
"Destruction"? Really? That's all you have to say about what happened?
"Some combination of fire/explosion"? That's it?
The entire controversy is based on the self-evident LACK of agreement on those points.
Government story: Some Muslim terrorists flew some planes into some buildings and they fell down. The end.
Everything from there that is disputed has to do with what actually caused the collapse of the buildings, particularly Bldg 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, and whether that tiny hole in the side of the Pentagon with no damage to the yard in front of it was really caused by a crashing commercial jet.
The people asking credible questions about what happened are basing it on the evidence, primarily photos and videos of the event or its aftermath. Motive is in a sense a no-brainer. If the event was perpetrated exclusively by Muslim terrorists, then their motive was to harm the US. If the event was any kind of false flag, using Muslims as patsies, then the motive was to drag the US into an endless war, and profit (including vanishing gold, stock market gains, insurance proceeds, cover-up of Pentagon financial mismanagement, and lucrative defense and homeland security contracts) was almost certainly the motive behind that. IF some Israelis were involved (note to IC: I'm just reporting here and being logical, not taking a position, and even if it were true it would not be a reflection on all Israelis, let alone all Jews, just as involvement by any individual Americans would not be a reflection on all Americans), you get the added bonus of "let's you and him fight", with the US being provoked to whup ass on Israel's historical enemies.
It's like what I said above about "secrets" and whistleblowers. There is no secret, and there's no confusion about what the motives would have been if it were a false flag operation. There's just a lot of stuff out in the open that people are willing to consider or they're not. [Note: Those that consider the evidence can obviously come to different conclusions. I am not arguing that all who consider the evidence are 'truthers' and all who believe the government are refusing to look at the evidence. I'm just saying that none of this is hidden. "The truth is out there", as we say, and none of this is particularly hidden or hard to figure out. We either accept it and believe it or we don't.]
Motive is not the issue or the question. The only questions, and all of the disputes, center around the physics of building demolition and the strange discrepancies in the evidence or the behavior of the government (like why won't the govt release the video of whatever hit the Pentagon?...).
I'm hoping this thread will die a natural death. Anybody with a 3-digit IQ can run their own research and come to their own conclusions. It is interesting, and fun if you're in the right frame of mind, to find out who believes what among our little band of brothers. We're still brothers, though, and have to love each other anyway.
Homicide? No, that's what the terrorists who brought down the buildings did.
If you're dying, check your water. The government may have put too much fluoride in it. See a doctor soon.
I won't hash out the rest of this issue other than to say that if my post was simplistic, then the previous post was Pollyannish. "The truth is out there....follow your heart, click your heels, think happy thoughts, brush your teeth every day...and you will figure it out". Or something like that.
No, you will never find out the complete truth to this issue. Pieces of it, conjecture, fabrication, dead ends, and on are what you will find.
I never claimed my side knows EXACTLY what happened. I'm glad you are so confident the other side knows the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth is out there to be discovered. That's a whole lot of Faith.
Oh, and ignoring the fact that structures do strange things under unique circumstances is a good dodge.
I'm done.
I've got to earn some bread.
If you're dying, check your water. The government may have put too much fluoride in it. See a doctor soon.
I won't hash out the rest of this issue other than to say that if my post was simplistic, then the previous post was Pollyannish. "The truth is out there....follow your heart, click your heels, think happy thoughts, brush your teeth every day...and you will figure it out". Or something like that.
No, you will never find out the complete truth to this issue. Pieces of it, conjecture, fabrication, dead ends, and on are what you will find.
I never claimed my side knows EXACTLY what happened. I'm glad you are so confident the other side knows the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth is out there to be discovered. That's a whole lot of Faith.
Oh, and ignoring the fact that structures do strange things under unique circumstances is a good dodge.
I'm done.
I've got to earn some bread.
Not sure what's going on here, other than it appears that I offended you by saying that your statement that everyone agrees what happened and how it happened is simplistic and assumes away the real dispute, but it doesn't look like you and I are reading the same posts. I didn't say any of the things you appear to be responding to above.
The entire thrust of my posting thus far in this misbegotten thread is that none of us has all the answers and we shouldn't think in terms of "sides", that our time is spent better on other matters than on trying to hash this out, and we're all going to have to stay friends even if we never agree on what happened and how it happened.
The entire thrust of my posting thus far in this misbegotten thread is that none of us has all the answers and we shouldn't think in terms of "sides", that our time is spent better on other matters than on trying to hash this out, and we're all going to have to stay friends even if we never agree on what happened and how it happened.
Most people when they are confronted with hard truths go into cognitive dissonance unfortunately. When I first saw it saw it was professional demolition and bad CGI. But, if you see what interests control most media, our windows to news..
The deep state empire needed to have normie support all over the planet. Well, they certainly got away with it right?
Wickeedness in high places.