9/11 Conspiracy Video.

Are the questions they ask valid or not?

What's that supposed to mean? Any question is valid, even if it's totally idiotic. I do, however, question their motivations as much as I question those of the government.

More than that, the video falsified much of the official version. The ball is in the government's court to counter the falsification.

It's assanine to attack the questioner when the authority refuses to answer the question with anything but obvious bullshit.

and no --not all questions are valid questions. Stop playing at your silly semantic games. It's boring already.

ding ding ding --we have a winner

You say "either" and I say "either"
You say "neither" I say "neither"
"either" "either", "neither"
"neither"
Let's call the whole thing off

You say "potato" I say "patattah"
You say "tomato" I say "tomatah"
Let's call the whole thing off

Oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part and
Oh, if we ever part
That would break my heart

I say "ursta" you say "oyster"
I'm not gonna stop eatin urstas
Just cause you say oysters,
Let's call the whole thing off

I say "pajamas" you say "pajamas"
Sugar, what's the problem?
For we know we need each other so
We'd better call the calling off off

Oh let's call it off, oh let's call it off
Oh let's call it off, baby let's call it off

Sugar why don't we call it off,
I'm talking baby why call it off
Let's call the whole thing off

Yes, all questions are valid. You're wrong there as well.

So it's OK to question the motives of the government, but not private citizens? How does that work again? Speakling of obvious bullshit, here's a good debunking of most of the 9/11 theories from the Anti-Defamation League:
http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/9-11conspiracytheories.pdf

Many of the debunked theories there come directly from www.911truth.org, by the way. So yes, I question their motives. I question everyone's motives.

question motives all you want --it doesn't change the questions.

Where did I write that it did? The only point that I've been making all along is that I don't automatically believe anyone, regardless of what they're writing.

who the hell is asking you to believe the speculations?

The important part is the questions. When will the Government answer all the goddamn questions.

Have they ever?

Unfortunately, no matter the type of system, I don't believe there has ever been an accountable government in human history. Maybe because it's the people with all the candy (usually men) who have always held the reigns.

Of course they haven't --though this present administration has taken it to a whole new level. Doesn't mean we should stop questioning them.

Nobody - the point that I was making was that it's not wise to automatically believe anyone, government or otherwise. I made that point in response to the initial very enthusiastic post regarding the video.

You didn't even watch it did you.

Why does everything have to be about sexism? Or racism? It seems you would like to blame all white men for societies ills. Maybe I'm just reactive because I hear it so much...

No, you're right of course, and I wasn't suggesting we stop questioning.

I guess I am just at a point of futility right now. I just can't fucking wait for '08.

Right now, I'd take just about any administration over this one. I think a high-school debate team or student council could do a better job. This administration has less knowledge of what politics is really about than an 8th grade Polysci class.

They all fuck up to be sure, especially since WWII, but as you said, it is at an all new level.

'06 is around the corner. And we NEED a House and Senate committed to impeachment of the President and Vice President.

Kevn, you simply can't deny that men have run the show for eons.

There have been some recent advancements, but it's historically quite rare that women start wars. It's quite rare that they are in a position to do so.

Yeah, I know -- there are a few exceptions -- The Iron Lady, and Cat the Great (and even she was reluctant to commit troops, and favored diplomacy in many instances), but those are exceptions to the norm.

Historically, men are agressive. What's sexist about admitting that fact?

Men are different than women? What you say. For shame! Any feminist worth her weight in salt would slap you for saying that.

Now, for reality....

Men are different. Men have more testosterone. But those horrible men are the children of women, husbands of women, brothers, fathers, etc etc.

Do women seek to be over their men? Not very often, you are right about that. Is it evil of men to play the part they were designed to play? Not to me.

Are all men guilty of the crimes you place on our shoulders? Are there any heroes who happen to be white males? Nah, they are all evil and should be destroyed....

Again with the magical mindreading!
What, if I watch it I must believe?

Ummm, you're just saying what I said in other words, which belies your indignance.

Except for the last part about white males. There have been PLENTY of non-white male despots in history, and there still are.

I made no such allusion, so here is a picture for you:

It's not magical mind-reading, hon. It's your lack of issues specific to this video that tips me off. Are you frightened of watching it?

The only thing I'm frightened of is people who respond to my posts without understanding them.

I did watch it. I'm not trying to debunk it. You do get that, do you?

Just because I watched it doesn't mean I believe it. Do you understand that?

I've read just as many, just as convincing, articles debunking almost all the points they made. And no, I'm not going to cite them for you - I don't have to; I'm not saying either is necessarily right or wrong. I'm just saying that neither is entirely convincing.

whatever.

Yet another brilliant, well-reasoned response. Well done.