Hello thanks for allowing me to be here

DwnWthVwls · 05-18-2015, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Nah what is this book thing you speak of and how can I blame it on the government?

I've seen quite a bit of the literature on 9/11, and none of it has convinced me. Were you duped by the same thing that I read and subsequently wrote off as horse**** or do you have a perspective that's actually based off of evidence that doesn't rely on vague leaps of faith? The fact that you don't want to regurgitate all of the "evidence" for me is enough to suggest that it's the former.

I'm not convinced but I don't think it's really that far of a leap. It's not like we have a clean record, and there is some fishy physical evidence, such as the beam cuts and the rate of collapse. I never really looked much into besides watching Zeitgeist, and a couple other docs.

**Frownland** · 05-19-2015, 12:00 AM

Joke's on you, I live under a rock. Bob Dylan is a decent source for evidence I guess, but instead of having a little ad hominem fun by accusing me of being a sheep maybe you could actually show me the light.

It would be pretty lazy for me to say I've disproved E=MC^2 with the help of Alex Jones, then when people are like "oh ja? Tell me about it because that seems pretty crazy," I tell them that they think it's crazy because of what these here Bob Dylan lyrics have to say about it.

So howabout some actual evidence instead of avoiding the question with fallacies?

DwnWthVwls · 05-19-2015, 12:05 AM

Not exactly a reliable source but the quoted part is interesting. If you wanna do your own research go ahead.

False Flag

Quote:

Is it logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis or Stalin), the U.S. has never done so? Well, as documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO carried out terror bombings in Italy with the help of the Pentagon and CIA and blamed communists in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

Moreover, declassified U.S. Government documents show that in the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan code-named Operation Northwoods to blow up American airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. The operation was not carried out only because the Kennedy administration refused to implement these Pentagon plans.

For lots more on the astonishing Operation Northwoods, see the ABC news report; the official declassified documents; and watch this interview with James Bamford, the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. One quote from the the declassified Northwoods documents states: "A 'Remember the Maine' incident could be arranged: We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

roscoe_the_first · 05-19-2015, 12:13 AM

You're not trying to reason with these people are you?

They can't handle the truth and a psychological condition called Cognitive Dissonance kicks in. Orwell called it Doublespeak. youtube.com/watch?v=8zP0FU46PcE

I've stopped looking at how and looking into who. How the buildings fell etc is no longer an issue with me.

Have you seen the play

Who killed John O'Neil. youtube.com/watch?v=MSyFD51vN_4 One man plays five roles

The Questioner
The Conspiracy Theorist
The Scathing Skeptic
The Computer Surfer.
And does a very good impresion of Kevin Costner in JFK dressed as the courtroom scene.

Alas most people today don't have the necessary attention span to comprehend what's being said. I think some of them are in this thread.

DwnWthVwls · 05-19-2015, 12:14 AM

Reason? No. I'm just talking to them.

**Frownland** · 05-19-2015, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

I'm not convinced but I don't think it's really that far of a leap. It's not like we have a clean record, and there is some fishy physical evidence, such as the beam cuts and the rate of collapse. I never really looked much into besides watching Zeitgeist, and a couple other docs.

Beam cuts: there were thirteen stories left standing after the collapse. Videotaped and ****, the government can't be lying to us about that for sure unless you want to bring in a cool CGI theory (not you personally DWV, but I'm hoping the Beatles documentarian guy will get in on this), it's pretty solid evidence that that was a thing. Did they just pluck them out of the ground? It's a lot more likely that they would cut them down to smaller pieces to send out more easily with the rest of the rubble. It would be so likely that they have videos of volunteers cutting those beams in the cleanup process.

Rate of collapse: You mean the rate of collapse that is conflicting with all of the videos that are put forward? The news shows closer to 12 seconds than the ones purporting conspiracy saying that it's eight seconds or whatever freefall motion or "near free fall motion" is made out to be. It's kind of funny, with the "near free fall motion" being suggested that there was no resistance at all from the ground floors below. As if the bombs were uber precise but not quite precise enough to keep the floors from offering just a little bit of give because hey, the building still fell down. There's kind of a weird reason that the buildings collapsing look like a demolition. Here, I'll write it out for you:

Demolition end result: building collapses
9/11 end result of twin towers: buildings collapse

Interesting.

Zeitgeist and other films: There's quite an industry built around the 9/11 conspiracy, and I blame them for spreading misinformation to further their interests as a main cause for the popularity of the conspiracy. It's similar to global warming in that fashion.

Which do you think is more likely?
Scenario A: that a majority of scientists in relevant fields agree on some subject and a few people paid off by special interests go to great lengths to deny it or disprove it.

Scenario B: the majority of scientists (we're talking hundreds of thousands) are paid to believe said scenario and a few skeptics really show things how they are using their real brain-smarts.

I find the sides pretty easy to pick in the whole 9/11 scenario.

EDIT: I love when Truthers shout cognitive dissonance! It's like a retarded kid shouting down syndrome all the time whenever his parents tell him to do some chores.

DwnWthVwls · 05-19-2015, 12:18 AM

Thoughts on my second post about False Flag operations?

DeadChannel · 05-19-2015, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roscoe_the_first

Hmm I wish right now could post a youtube clip of some psychologists discussing YOUR problem, but I'm stuck on 4 posts. The last people to do that to me were JREF and I blew them away too. They banned me four times such was the strength of my argument in the face of vicious personal attacks that should have gotten those people banned if the forum rules had been adhered to. It only reinforces my conviction when my opponents stoop so low as to run away rather than fight their corner.

See, this is exactly what I was talking about. My post was rational, thought out, and not at all a personal attack. I was merely asking for some evidence, as well as asking you to actually concretely state your thesis in a meaningful (ie. falsifiable) way so that the goalposts aren't moved later on.

If you're gonna accuse me of personal attacks for that post, buddy, you've got a whole other thing coming. You should respond better to people asking for basic evidence before they blindly follow you. You're too emotionally involved to this idea, which is a faulty position to take when searching for the truth.

Now, if you present a coherent thesis, as well as a logical, rational, argument that does not contain this type of reactionary, knee jerk responses, as well as not containing any more meaningless, external ad hominem, we can talk. Of course, you'd also have to be able to show that there aren't any obvious logical fallacies, even under harsh questioning, without breaking a sweat or getting angry. You'll also have to show that your research is from reliable sources, and that you aren't making anything up, or handwaving important parts of the equation.

Maybe your book does all of that, in which case I'd be glad to read it, and be perhaps persuaded by it, but your response to simple, polite questioning suggests otherwise. Now, throw another hissy fit or prove me wrong, your choice. But first you need a falsifiable thesis.

Quote:

It ceases to become a theory when you have proof beyond reasonable doubt.

1) Which you have failed to supply.
2) Actually, no, that's not what a theory is, in anything other than the un-useful colloquial sense. A theory is an idea or set of ideas designed to explain something. Thusly, gravity is a theory, even though it's for all intents and purposes pretty much 100%. But let's not get into semantics here.

Quote:

The problem is that the reasonable doubt threshold is dependent of people's deep seated beliefs they have acquired from being brought up from birth inside the envelope.

Wait, I'm the one asking questions here, you're the one asking for blind faith in an idea that hasn't yet been coherently defined. Yet I'm the one that's been brainwashed? You don't get to 1984 me, yo.

Quote:

You mean like the THEORY that 19 emaciated Arabs took over four planes and flew around for hours unmolested? Like that CONSPIRACY THEORY you mean?

What?

roscoe_the_first · 05-19-2015, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadChannel

See, this is exactly what I was talking about. My post was rational, thought out, and not at all a personal attack. I was merely asking for some evidence, as well as asking you to actually concretely state your thesis in a meaningful (ie. falsifiable) way so that the goalposts aren't moved later on.

If you're gonna accuse me of personal attacks for that post, buddy, you've got a whole other thing coming. You should respond better to people asking for basic evidence before they blindly follow you. You're too emotionally involved to this idea, which is a faulty position to take when searching for the truth.

Now, if you present a coherent thesis, as well as a logical, rational, argument that does not contain this type of reactionary, knee jerk responses, as well as not containing any more meaningless, external ad hominem, we can talk. Of course, you'd also have to be able to show that there aren't any obvious logical fallacies, even under harsh questioning, without breaking a sweat or getting angry. You'll also have to show that your research is from reliable sources, and that you aren't making anything up, or handwaving important parts of the equation.

Maybe your book does all of that, in which case I'd be glad to read it, and be perhaps persuaded by it, but your response to simple, polite questioning suggests otherwise. Now, throw another hissy fit or prove me wrong, your choice. But first you need a falsifiable thesis.

1) Which you have failed to supply.
2) Actually, no, that's not what a theory is, in anything other than the un-useful colloquial sense. A theory is an idea or set of ideas designed to explain something. Thusly, gravity is a theory, even though it's for all intents and purposes pretty much 100%. But let's not get into semantics here.

Wait, I'm the one asking questions here, you're the one asking for blind faith in an idea that hasn't yet been coherently defined. Yet I'm the one that's been brainwashed? You don't get to 1984 me, yo.

What?

Show me evidence for the official story?

No please show me your justification for blowing the arms and legs off kids?

Surely you have some evidence. Don't you?

As for my theory

DUNNO

NEED A NEW INQUIRY.

THAT'S HOW PROOF HAS ALWAYS BEEN ASCERTAINED IN THE PAST.

**Frownland** · 05-19-2015, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Thoughts on my second post about False Flag operations?

Operation Northwoods never went into effect for one, plus how does the existence of false flag events prove that 9/11 was a false flag? Saying that homosexuality exists even among men wouldn't prove that me or you is gay. Hell, the fact that we considered kissing a guy at one point doesn't prove that we went and had buttsex on 9/11. I'm going to need some actual evidence regarding the events of 9/11 itself before I buy into that.

05-19-2015, 12:00 AM	#62 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	Joke's on you, I live under a rock. Bob Dylan is a decent source for evidence I guess, but instead of having a little ad hominem fun by accusing me of being a sheep maybe you could actually show me the light. It would be pretty lazy for me to say I've disproved E=MC^2 with the help of Alex Jones, then when people are like "oh ja? Tell me about it because that seems pretty crazy," I tell them that they think it's crazy because of what these here Bob Dylan lyrics have to say about it. So howabout some actual evidence instead of avoiding the question with fallacies? __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

05-19-2015, 12:13 AM	#64 (permalink)
roscoe_the_first Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 76	You're not trying to reason with these people are you? They can't handle the truth and a psychological condition called Cognitive Dissonance kicks in. Orwell called it Doublespeak. youtube.com/watch?v=8zP0FU46PcE I've stopped looking at how and looking into who. How the buildings fell etc is no longer an issue with me. Have you seen the play Who killed John O'Neil. youtube.com/watch?v=MSyFD51vN_4 One man plays five roles The Questioner The Conspiracy Theorist The Scathing Skeptic The Computer Surfer. And does a very good impresion of Kevin Costner in JFK dressed as the courtroom scene. Alas most people today don't have the necessary attention span to comprehend what's being said. I think some of them are in this thread. __________________ Roscoe Last edited by roscoe_the_first; 05-19-2015 at 12:21 AM.