The Great Debate

Here’s the start of the thread…

“The actual news footage of the buildings falling down shows close-ups of the walls literally exploding outwards, with random explosions up and down the buildings. The entire buildings ‘seemingly,’ appear to fall from the top downwards, with what in my opinions looks highly similar to a controlled demolition. Plus, the buildings burned for a little over and a little under an hour, then collapsed in free-fall speed. Other buildings have burned for hours, some even close to a day, and not collapsed. Even buildings, that have indeed, been hit by planes.”

“I’m obviously no expert, but the footage is to say the least, convincing.”

Here is part of my first response…

“My guess is that that phenomenon can be explained. There are all kinds of explosive liquids and reactions that might explain it. Seems I heard the actual explanation. Of course there are always “explanations;” as in government financed. They, for some odd reason, always seem convenient to those who decided… often quite reluctantly… to finance them. Kind of like when the boss hires an efficiency expert. You know even if that expert were to find out the boss is the real problem that will never be reported… or at least known to the workers. That expert might also have a few problems getting paid.”

“That avenue is a dead end, I fear; no matter how appropriate it may or may not be.”

“But, again, ‘Inside job?’ Depends on how loosely you define it. I think knowing something’s coming and ignoring it could qualify. And the fact that we gave the Taliban a lot of money about six months before 9/11, without a smidgen of accounting for where it went. Into bin Laden’s pocket and then financing some of the attack?”

“We’ll never know any of this.”

For which I was rewarded with a direct attack on me, personally…

“First thing you should do is seriously check your facts. You know little about 9/11 given what you’ve written in this post as you and everyone else will see.”

After which I was accused of being a “Truther,” a “Denier,” and the claim made there are only 3 types of people when it comes to this debate… and I had to be a member of the worst kind. Not so odd, I guess, when a person would rather slap labels than discuss as an adult: with respect. But, it is hard sometimes. I don’t claim purity; by any means. And to paraphrase myself on that very thread, “When shoved, I shove back.”

But that’s mild compared with simple sentences calling people turds and such. Doesn’t seem to be any one-sided copyright on the tactic.

The maturity level of our debates these days suffers, in part because I don’t believe my generation and every generation after mine have, as a general rule, matured to the point of being able to do so. I make no claim that any side of the political divide owns that kind of “debating style.”

The debate continued, and still does… HERE.