9/11 : 15 years on

[quidproquo]

Honestly, intellectually I know that it changed the world, but for me it wasn't an emotional hit.

Well, Calax my good man, don't run yourself down. Be it what it would, it's sometimes hard to see big picture problems when the problems in your little picture are all consuming. Do you think every peasant in the medieval times was concerned when his feudal overlord was defeated in battle? It had an impact on his life, but if the crops didn't come in it might not matter who took over the fiefdom, no? Perhaps you had concerns in your own life that overshadowed the big picture. You live in the world that the events have made, but maybe those events aren't always as important to your personal life as events that are more personal. Then again, maybe it's just been a long day and I'm overdue for a meal. Or maybe I saw that written on the wall in the loo.

[Agiel]

I still find it funny people expected steel beams had to melt.

 

This dude agrees:

 

Edited September 12, 2016 by Agiel

[Meshugger]

I am not trying to guilt trip people into feeling something that they never did. I am genuinely interested in the correlation between people not having the same emotional attachment to something abstract (as the idea and symbol of The Towers of New York was something greater than a couple of big buildings, but an extension of Americanism and western civilization at large) and age. The answers in this thread seems to point in that direction.

[quidproquo]

 

I still find it funny people expected steel beams had to melt.

 

This dude agrees:

 

 

If only there were a button for lurve. Instead, I had to quote.

[Blarghagh]

 

That memory is to me nothing but a reminder of how desensitized I truly am. I was doing my homework for high school when the news came on TV, I looked up briefly, said "huh" and continued doing my homework. The next day all the other kids tried to use it as an excuse as to why they didn't do their homework and the teacher gave in, and I thought it was ridiculous.

 

I managed to reconcile at least intellectually why it was a big deal. But emotionally? Meh. Probably too far from home for me - doesn't register any more than an earthquake in Africa.

 

That was interesting. In what year were you born? 

 

I am curious since i've noticed that the emotional attachment seems to be more dim in the younger generation, while for older ones, like me and even older, it was a world-changing event.

 

 

1988. And also not American - in fact because movies and tv shows always said the Empire State Building was the biggest, I didn't know what the twin towers were until they went down.

Edited September 12, 2016 by TrueNeutral

[Meshugger]

 

 

That memory is to me nothing but a reminder of how desensitized I truly am. I was doing my homework for high school when the news came on TV, I looked up briefly, said "huh" and continued doing my homework. The next day all the other kids tried to use it as an excuse as to why they didn't do their homework and the teacher gave in, and I thought it was ridiculous.

 

I managed to reconcile at least intellectually why it was a big deal. But emotionally? Meh. Probably too far from home for me - doesn't register any more than an earthquake in Africa.

 

That was interesting. In what year were you born? 

 

I am curious since i've noticed that the emotional attachment seems to be more dim in the younger generation, while for older ones, like me and even older, it was a world-changing event.

 

 

1988. And also not American - in fact because movies and tv shows always said the Empire State Building was the biggest, I didn't know what the twin towers were until they went down.

 

 

Thanks for the info, it's appreciated.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Meshugger

[Malcador]

 

 

I still find it funny people expected steel beams had to melt.

This dude agrees:

 

That comment section makes my head hurt

[Longknife]

Ya but how is the jet heat supposed to bend the beams if the jet heat doesn't have thumbs to grab them with?

 

Wake up, sheeple!

[Lexx]

 

9/11, a very significant day indeed. It shaped my country.

/edit: ^ also, basically it was an inside job.

Almost thought you were Chilean

 

 

How come? There is a big "Germany" under my name. :>

[Calax]

I am not trying to guilt trip people into feeling something that they never did. I am genuinely interested in the correlation between people not having the same emotional attachment to something abstract (as the idea and symbol of The Towers of New York was something greater than a couple of big buildings, but an extension of Americanism and western civilization at large) and age. The answers in this thread seems to point in that direction.

Probably because to me (and other like me) it wasn't specifically a giant Icon of 'Murica! I was young enough that "Two Big Buildings" was all they were. And there was no specific thing within that building that contained something that I would relate to America specifically. Empire State Building, Sears Tower and the Statue of Liberty (and to a lesser extent the Chrysler Building) were each a larger icon of 'Murica to me than the Twin Towers ever were, because they were more utilized as a "This is American City!" buildings than the twin towers.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

9/11, a very significant day indeed. It shaped my country.

/edit: ^ also, basically it was an inside job.

Almost thought you were Chilean

How come? There is a big "Germany" under my name. :>

Well normally people mention Chile as the other 9/11. And hey immigration is a thing

[Orogun01]

 

 

9/11, a very significant day indeed. It shaped my country.

/edit: ^ also, basically it was an inside job.

Almost thought you were Chilean

 

 

How come? There is a big "Germany" under my name. :>

 

Because you live in Chile, Germany? Hola.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

i had to work all day

 

but i was home in time for the controlled demolition

Anyone who seriously thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy theory is either

 

• anti-Western and bitter
• Uninformed and ignorant
• Dillusiuonal or suffering from dementia
• Someone who just believes stupid conspiracy theories 

 

At this point in history anyone who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories is just misinformed. With all the information that has been leaked and all the awful things that government do you still trust them? 

I can understand skepticism and asking for evidence but just denying them on the merits of being a conspiracy theory... just go back to the MSM and vote for Hillary you chump.

 

i honestly dont believe in any conspiracy theories.....well none I can think of?

 

CS are just excuses where people become lazy and aren't interested in the truth. Why what CS should I consider?

 

conspiracy theories depend on an absence of proof.  therefore, while it can be amusing to debate conspiracy theories, it is, by definition, irrational to believe 'em.

 

...

 

is particular strange given that conspiracy theorists tend to see themselves as skeptics.  lack o' faith in media sources and governments is understandable and even laudable.  however, is perplexing when the skeptics turn to crackpots, lunatics and rt for guidance.  most perplexing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

i had to work all day

 

but i was home in time for the controlled demolition

Anyone who seriously thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy theory is either

 

• anti-Western and bitter
• Uninformed and ignorant
• Dillusiuonal or suffering from dementia
• Someone who just believes stupid conspiracy theories 

 

At this point in history anyone who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories is just misinformed. With all the information that has been leaked and all the awful things that government do you still trust them? 

I can understand skepticism and asking for evidence but just denying them on the merits of being a conspiracy theory... just go back to the MSM and vote for Hillary you chump.

 

i honestly dont believe in any conspiracy theories.....well none I can think of?

 

CS are just excuses where people become lazy and aren't interested in the truth. Why what CS should I consider?

 

conspiracy theories depend on an absence of proof.  therefore, while it can be amusing to debate conspiracy theories, it is, by definition, irrational to believe 'em.

 

...

 

is particular strange given that conspiracy theorists tend to see themselves as skeptics.  lack o' faith in media sources and governments is understandable and even laudable.  however, is perplexing when the skeptics turn to crackpots, lunatics and rt for guidance.  most perplexing.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Its a good point you raise, yes CS do have a absence of proof. I never thought about it like that because typically when you challenge a CS acolyte  they send you a  video from a some website called  " Farmer Bob's Truth " ....and these videos are always the same if you can actually force yourself to watch it

 

They always have some truth which sets the foundation and then the rest is nonsense or gross hyperbole. For example one of the classic ones

 

• " the USA is responsible for 9/11"

 

• " We know this because the CIA trained Bin Laden "

​

Yes the CIA did train Bin Laden but that was only because the enemy was the Soviets and this was during the Afghanistan War in the 1980's, no one could predict what Bin Laden would do in the future. This is always left out from normal CS views 

[quidproquo]

Its a good point you raise, yes CS do have a absence of proof. ...

 

Yes the CIA did train Bin Laden but that was only because the enemy was the Soviets and this was during the Afghanistan War in the 1980's, no one could predict what Bin Laden would do in the future. This is always left out from normal CS views

This is the crux of the problem, mate. It's not that Conspiracy Theorists (or CSes as you call them) are completely counterfactual. It's the shortcut they take. For example, I kith you and I don't agree about HRC. However, before the video of her losing muscle tone and literally being lifted into a van, I would have said that conspiracy theories about serious conditions and 4the whatnot were not founded. I still don't for the exact reason that you state. That she's been less than forthcoming about her health is not in question, but specifics about her health are not known. She might be in perfect health considering her known history and age. The problem that people should have about her isn't her health. It could all be explained rationally given the evidence.

 

Point isn't to poke at you over the health issue. It's to agree with you that conspiracy theories are simply no way to conduct public affairs. If people want to vote against HRC because she's dishonest about her health or against The Donald because of his taxes, that's fair. Those are areas in which they've engaged in political double speech or outright deception (take the choice). Voters can and *should* vote with their minds, hearts, and guts so to speak a word. However, beyond the gutinstinctometer of the voter there is what we call truth, and that requires more than torturing facts to point to a desired outcome. Aw hell, I've been reading the walls of the loo too much lately. I don't know anything and so cannot give advice.

[BruceVC]

 

Its a good point you raise, yes CS do have a absence of proof. ...

 

Yes the CIA did train Bin Laden but that was only because the enemy was the Soviets and this was during the Afghanistan War in the 1980's, no one could predict what Bin Laden would do in the future. This is always left out from normal CS views

This is the crux of the problem, mate. It's not that Conspiracy Theorists (or CSes as you call them) are completely counterfactual. It's the shortcut they take. For example, I kith you and I don't agree about HRC. However, before the video of her losing muscle tone and literally being lifted into a van, I would have said that conspiracy theories about serious conditions and 4the whatnot were not founded. I still don't for the exact reason that you state. That she's been less than forthcoming about her health is not in question, but specifics about her health are not known. She might be in perfect health considering her known history and age. The problem that people should have about her isn't her health. It could all be explained rationally given the evidence.

 

Point isn't to poke at you over the health issue. It's to agree with you that conspiracy theories are simply no way to conduct public affairs. If people want to vote against HRC because she's dishonest about her health or against The Donald because of his taxes, that's fair. Those are areas in which they've engaged in political double speech or outright deception (take the choice). Voters can and *should* vote with their minds, hearts, and guts so to speak a word. However, beyond the gutinstinctometer of the voter there is what we call truth, and that requires more than torturing facts to point to a desired outcome. Aw hell, I've been reading the walls of the loo too much lately. I don't know anything and so cannot give advice.

 

No you raise good points, I wonder how much the creation and usage of the Internet has lead to the numerous examples of how some  people unintentionally believe or propagate CS ?

 

In some ways even though the Internet is the greatest source of information mankind has access to so easily it also has created a culture where some people have become lazy and lack the ability to discern or filter what should be valid information or applicable 

 

So we tend to dismiss large groups of websites because " they represent the media which is biased " yet we will support another website, lets say Breitbart, because they support our view of a certain narrative 

[Fenixp]

At this point in history anyone who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories is just misinformed.

*sigh*

I wish we had a government capable enough to partake in conspiracies. Right now they have trouble getting as far as to agreeing where did all the money mysteriously vanish, let alone where to build a new highway or how to chip all the people.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Fenixp

[Meshugger]

 

At this point in history anyone who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories is just misinformed.

*sigh*

I wish we had a government capable enough to partake in conspiracies. Right now they have trouble getting as far as to agreeing where did all the money mysteriously vanish, let alone where to build a new highway or how to chip all the people.

 

 

Well, you can't fail them for trying their best and effectively ruining public trust. Such things actually takes effort!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVmG5X40ic

[Meshugger]

 

I am not trying to guilt trip people into feeling something that they never did. I am genuinely interested in the correlation between people not having the same emotional attachment to something abstract (as the idea and symbol of The Towers of New York was something greater than a couple of big buildings, but an extension of Americanism and western civilization at large) and age. The answers in this thread seems to point in that direction.

Probably because to me (and other like me) it wasn't specifically a giant Icon of 'Murica! I was young enough that "Two Big Buildings" was all they were. And there was no specific thing within that building that contained something that I would relate to America specifically. Empire State Building, Sears Tower and the Statue of Liberty (and to a lesser extent the Chrysler Building) were each a larger icon of 'Murica to me than the Twin Towers ever were, because they were more utilized as a "This is American City!" buildings than the twin towers.

 

 

Thank you.

 

The Twin Towers were though very strong symbolic significance, bigger than the Empire State Building actually, because otherwise they wouldn't have been a target. The plan, according to Bin Laden himself, was to strike into and undermine the very foundations of western power, namely

 

- Financial Power: The Twin Towers

- Military Power: The Pentagon

- Political Power: The White House (failed as we all know, and crashed into a field)

 

Not of course to mention how ingrained they were in the classic New York skyline and in pop culture as well. Still though, i appreciate that you told me about you and your friends view, it was interesting in how different people percieved them and the attack at large.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Meshugger

[quidproquo]

stuff

Ken this thoroughly, but I would also say that someone could watch, read, listen to that testimony and draw conclusions from it and, even more, a the same person should also know that forensic science has advanced in a way to minimize such methods of desception. I'm *not* saying these things don't happen. What I'm saying is that, for the purpose of policy, these things should be taken with a grain of salt, as most things should, but that for the voter's purpose, these things might be still part of the deliberation. This is not equivocating. One is akin to a trial while the other is more like whether you trust you buddy to handle your finances. Conspiracies might exist, and if you think this guy over here isn't on the up and up, don't vote for him. However, a higher standard should be set for affirmatively saying that something is an actual conspiracy. Then again, might be that it's too just a bit too early in the morning for me. Need some coffee.

[Malcador]

Forget where I read it but was a theory that people believe in conspiracies in order to make sense of events. A conspiracy is order when the event is something chaotic and random, which is more frightening.

 

Not always applicable mind you.

[Gfted1]

^And thats why were saddled with religon.

[BruceVC]

Forget where I read it but was a theory that people believe in conspiracies in order to make sense of events. A conspiracy is order when the event is something chaotic and random, which is more frightening.

 

Not always applicable mind you.

I can believe that but why do people need to make sense of 9/11 when we know why it happened? There is no need to make sense of certain events because the reason is documented and can be referenced by basically anyone

 

It would be like getting upset everyday because you afraid the sky might fall on your head....we know the sky cant fall on our heads so why would that truly concern someone 

[Gromnir]

^And thats why were saddled with religon.

 

much terrible pain has been caused in the name o' religion, but am personal tending to think that religion ain't the problem.  human fear and greed would be same w/o religion as an inspiration for horror.

 

and inspiration works both ways, no?

 

 

 

 

our perspective is skewed.  as with most first year university students, we became skeptical o' religion and governments and the nutrition labels on packaged food.  skeptical o' everything. nietzsche had a profound influence 'pon us, though as with so many young would be nihilists, we ignored how friedrich lamented the death o' God. the thing is, as we has gotten older, we has seen so much terrible pain. have watched too many die slow, painful and agonizing.  have watched many more need live slow, agonizing and painful.

 

...

 

our opinion 'bout religion took a decided shift when we began to actual spend time volunteering at homeless shelters and soup kitchens rather than just debating 'bout such stuff at the University pub.  in abstract we could (can) look at religion as a crutch for the weak and sneer. see the realities and we thank God so many has a crutch to help them endure sufferings. am still ambivalent 'bout religion, but am gonna guarantee  it is much harder dismiss religion as a shackle or burden after you sit at bedside of a stage 4 cancer patient or terminal aids victim and the dying woman reads from psalms and takes comfort from her unshakable faith in the divine.

 

thank God.

 

thus ends our once-per-year post bout religion... 'cause as we said, we is ambivalent, and such is off-topic regardless.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 15, 2016 by Gromnir

[pmp10]

 

Forget where I read it but was a theory that people believe in conspiracies in order to make sense of events. A conspiracy is order when the event is something chaotic and random, which is more frightening.

 

Not always applicable mind you.

I can believe that but why do people need to make sense of 9/11 when we know why it happened? There is no need to make sense of certain events because the reason is documented and can be referenced by basically anyone

 

Denial.

There is a quasi-religious belief that we have no greater evil than the US government.

In that case it cannot possibly be a victim of forces beyond its control.

(with possible exception of Jews, mossad and Israel if you ask in the right circles)