Pretty basic. I was expecting something more substantial.

Yes its basic but it works and a lot of people use it- even when not thinking about it, its a basic of science too.

A basic of science?

Well it relies on the logical assumption that the simplest thing that fits an explanation without complicating things, is often the right thing. Its like evolution really, the theory that animals pass on traits to its offspring is a simple idea and although there might be some complicated science behind it, it is simpler than the verbal linguistics that some creationists and intelligent design theorists come up with.

I dunno, some of the shit the teachers were telling the kids at the zoo in some documentary about ID I saw was pretty simple too.

"Does anyone know why the leopards look the way they do?"
-No answer-
"Because God liked to see an animal with a bright colour pattern in its fur."

True story! Well, or something very similar to that anyway.


I'm just messing with ya, of course. Occam's Razor ftw! Schopenhauer for teh ultim4te w1n tho.

And a priest came up with that one- Occam about 12th century

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... change+2nd

New updated version with new intro. You know the old saying " follow the money". Its a better intro than before with new evidence thats is NOT in the form of missles.

1) That music severely pisses me off.

2) The proposal of Operation Northwoods was probably rejected. The guy said is was a Terror plan, but there there are contraditions as to whether it actually is "Terrorism". Infact, the proposal WAS rejected and the guy responsible for proposing it was smoked. What a fucking waste of time, that intro was just as shit as the other one.

Again, i got to an 8th of the movie and closed it. I got bombarded with events that had little to no credible support.

Same shit, different asshole.

Yea, you should probably stick to memorising your symbols and coming up with even more boring things to do.

Damn you! You are like a "X" with a squared circle!

LOL, complete and utter bollocks.

I just dont understand. Really there is no strong evidence to support either side, although I believe the evidence against the US government is more thick. So, with such a lack of evidence how can you totally rule out one or the other. What makes the, "official" evidence so convincing other then its supposed to be the government's "official" report. BTW! I might add the 9/11 commission was made up of politicians. Can you truly believe in politicians so much that you total discredit any rebuttal? What piece of evidence is so strong that you know without a shadow of a doubt the explanation given by the US government total rules out any other evidence? Im curious. I think at least, given both sides, its at the very least a coin toss between who is right and who is wrong. Given how much governments lie to their people, how much the US lied to the world, the actions it has taken, it just seems pretty damn realistic that whats claimed in the video could be true. Do you think Nazi Germany every thought for a minute that Hitler and his Nazi crones where behind the Reistag fires? Think about the US torturing in Iraq. Before the story broke if you would have ask any American if they though the US military was torturing people what do you think they would have said. "No", but it happened. And information was twisted and bent into getting people to believe "we need to torture to get information".

I know what youre saying and it is entirely possible, i do not deny that. But i dont think its likely given my personal basis of information i have of both sides of the argument. The civilian can only have an opinion based on what information he's been told, what he's seen, and what he believes.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. "

Hanlon's Razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_Razor

The government is so incapable of doing things right that I don't think they could've pulled this off. That's my main reason I'm more apt to follow the government explanation. It may be a lie and incomplete, but I find it more likely than if they actively did it all themselves.

*edit* goddamnit phpbb is getting unreliable

@ Satis

If the scenario (as 11b explores) is true, i think it would be more likely that a small group of government insiders would have been planned and executed this, not the government as a whole (or large part).