Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Rufus_1611, Jul 27, 2007.
Why did Cronkite think stating that airplanes hit the Twin towers was ridiculous?
I know I am being stupid for even asking this question... but planes didn't hit them? Everyone was taken in by Clinton/Bush/Rockefeller movie special effects? And my friend who works in the Towers didn't actually see the planes hit or feel the impact and lose some friends? :BangHead:
...because few to none argue that planes didn't hit the two towers.
Planes hit the towers.
Do you not see the direct contradiction here, Rufus? If few to none argue that planes didn't hit the two towers, as you assert, Cronkite would not have said Hines statement was ridiculous.
That is the whole point. It's like saying I don't believe in conspiracy theories because I believe Kennedy was shot. Well, who believes Kennedy wasn't shot? Pretty much no one. Thus, discrediting folks because you believe in something that is obvious as though they don't, is kinda ridiculous.
"Hines, with greasy superiority replied that he is not a conspiracy theorist and as a final dismissal he added that airplanes did hit the Twin Towers."
There is no commonly held "conspiracy theory" that suggests that two airplanes did not strike the two towers.
This would be akin to saying...
Hines, with greasy superiority replied that he is not a conspiracy theorist and as a final dismissal he added that Kennedy was shot.
There is no commonly held "conspiracy theory" that suggests that Kennedy was not shot.
I believe this is a variant of Reductio ad absurdum.
I see your slant, I do not know if it was Cronkite's slant because he is terribly liberal, but I do see what you, Bro. Rufus, meant.
I think you may have cut Cronkite more slack than he is due.
It appears that the article in the op is based on the false aasumption that the conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a fact. He goes on to assert that the Chronicle writer is being ridiculous because he said he does not believe in conspiracy theories and especially not this one. Which he makes clear by stating what sane people know: "he added that airplanes did hit the Twin Towers".
The author goes on to mention conspiracies that have happened in the history of the world so as to prove it is a mistake to dismiss conspiracy theories just because of their nature, since they have in fact been true of other situations in world history.
And I would add that while it is true in our history that fact doen't make denying that airplanes hit WTC any less ridiculous. and conspiracy theories do currently hold a stigma and negative connotation because of the "absurd" unintelligent, and rather immature notion that 911 was accomplished by any one other than extreme Islamists.
Terribly Liberal? How so?
:laugh: I agree, Walter Cronkite is terribly liberal.
Sorry, I feel like a fool. I went back to the OP and saw that it was Al instead of Walter. My bad!
Ain't no thang but a chicken wang. I originally thought we were gonna get into the "anyone who is opposed to the war is a liberal" argument, I actually was relieved and amused it was a first name thang .
It seems that the writer is being purposely obtuse in ignoring the obvious insult by Hines, whose comment implied that only “conspiracy theorists” are in the 9/11 Truth movement and only "conspiracy theorists" would cover their point of view. By pointing out that there have OBVIOUSLY been conspiracies throughout history-- political, social, personal—well-known and well-documented—the writer is attempting to pull the discussion back to the facts of the situation, and off of the personalities of the proponents of “his side” of this debate. Whether one agrees with his point of view or not, his assessment of the facts, or anything he says, it is QUITE intelligent to attempt to bring the focus back on the debate itself. No one wants to be categorized with the moniker “conspiracy theorist”, when in current culture that evokes images of the “tin-foil hats folks” who believe we have little green men running amok amongst us. It is a term that is employed in an attempt to dismiss the person so designated and to derail any debate and cast utter doubt and disdain on the person on “the other side” of the issue.
BTW, I’m still slogging my way through the apparent MILLIONS of bits of information on this debate, and I don’t yet know WHAT to think about it all, whether this writer is right/wrong (in my mind), or whether there is any merit in any of the alternate theories of the events of 9/11, as opposed to the official, commonly-understood mainstream media representation. I just thought I’d throw in my 2-cents on what this writer’s motivation may be here—which I DO find intelligent and sensible—even if I end up disagreeing with him completely on his take on the 9/11 events.
2Timothy, you posted this right as I was trying to get my post typed--we came to a similar conclusion on the writer's motivation for the article. You have concluded, though, that the writer has the false assumption that the 9/11 conspiracy theory IS a fact, and I realize that you may know more about this particular individual than I have read so far.
And that brings me to a question that Rufus' other post brought to mind: Out of the admittedly ONLY FOUR anti-mainstream-theory pages I've read so far on 9/11, ALL of them (sorry I don't have the page names with me) proffered the argument that -- at the very least --the Pentagon was NOT hit by the plane the government claims hit it. But you're saying that "There is no commonly held "conspiracy theory" that suggests that two airplanes did not strike the two towers." So, I'm assuming this means that the 9/11 Truth movement's general consensus, then, revolves around the belief that the PERPETRATORS are not who the govt says, and/or that the govt was actually involved in the execution of the attacks. Does that sum it up accurately?
Not the whole government. Factions within the government. For instance the whole government didn't plan Operation Northwoods, it was just a few powerful high ranking "officials" within the government who planned it.
"Conspiracy" is a word which one applies to people you don't like. Wasn't Christianity origionally a conspiracy?