gristle
Senior Member
They are a mixed bag of items, but do any of the sources conclusively prove a conspiracy, or do they just enable a claim of a conspiracy and then allow individuals to fill in blanks regarding who they imagine is responsible?
|
|
|
September 11th: Real or Fraud?
- Thread starter kettal
- Start date
- Status
They are a mixed bag of items, but do any of the sources conclusively prove a conspiracy, or do they just enable a claim of a conspiracy and then allow individuals to fill in blanks regarding who they imagine is responsible?
Kamuix
Active Member
It points to one thing for sure, that the government has been lying to us and that things are being covered up.
It seems hen you ask for proof you ask for more then what it takes for a reasonable person to know that it's obviously a cover-up. All things point to that yet you want "conclusive proof". It's all there... Did you even read it all? I don't understand how you can read all of it and still not believe it.
Or even to watch Jesse's investigation and not be convinced or at least skeptical of what happened.
So gristle are you at least skeptical about it?
It seems hen you ask for proof you ask for more then what it takes for a reasonable person to know that it's obviously a cover-up. All things point to that yet you want "conclusive proof". It's all there... Did you even read it all? I don't understand how you can read all of it and still not believe it.
Or even to watch Jesse's investigation and not be convinced or at least skeptical of what happened.
So gristle are you at least skeptical about it?
gristle
Senior Member
Yes, the documents that were posted suggest some sort of conspiracy, but that is largely their intent - and the intent for posting them - isn't it? For that reason alone you ought to be taking them with a grain of salt.
There is already a clear chain of events and involved individuals who are responsible for what happened on September 11th. The conspiracy theories - of which there are a large number - don't offer up any conclusive evidence or a plausible chain of events or persons involved. What they offer is only allegations and hanging questions.
In other words, you expect others to answer your questions - all the while offering no conclusive proof regarding an assertion of a government-controlled conspiracy. You can't offer up a shell of a theory and conclude it to be true because no one can question the substantive evidence that you have not provided - nor intend to provide.
Kamuix
Active Member
Ok so you say it suggests a conspiracy then you say but it's their intent, implying that their doing it for another reason other then getting the truth out... why might you assume their doing this for other reasons other then the exposing the truth?
Not if you look closely at the investigation that took place, it was full of unanswered questions and lies so... whatever clear chain of events you mean could just be a deception obviously used as an excuse to go to war and other sick profits. After looking at everything and the way the government responds back to everything, it's clear to me who really is behind everything.
Yes they do, it all makes sense when you take a look at everything rather then just a few flaws. I mean like.. everything the governments been doing makes perfect sense for what they want.. To go to way? Money? Profits? Deception? Power? Please... don't underestimate how bad and criminal these powerful people could be, I BEG YOU!
The only unanswered questions are the ones that the government refuses to discuss. And trust me if the government was generally good, they would discuss things like this, and other conspiracies. If they have nothing to hide then it makes no sense not to.. right?
Again.. it's all there. It all points to how corrupt the government is and that their lying and covering things up. what else do you need to know?
Think about it
Last edited:
Dan416
Senior Member
Can we lock this thread already? And all of Kamuix's threads? Or is that just asking too much for Christmas?
Kamuix
Active Member
Don't be silly.
MERRY CHRISTMAS! except for you Coruscanti Cognoscente you!!
EDIT: yes it's asking too much because i have freedom of speech something that is slowly being taken away.
MERRY CHRISTMAS! except for you Coruscanti Cognoscente you!!
EDIT: yes it's asking too much because i have freedom of speech something that is slowly being taken away.
Last edited:
gristle
Senior Member
It's not all there. You believe that it is all there. Even if there were valid reasons to assume "lies" even that does not automatically indicate the existence of a conspiracy.
Just as the assertions you so readily believe in could also be the mere conjectures of someone who desperately wants to believe in government involvement. You won't accept the fact that a group of organized individuals already identified were the people who carried out these acts for their own ends. Instead, you claim a massive government cover-up for which there is no evidence beyond doubt.
Have you ever entertained the idea that the reason why there are no answers to your questions (or the questions being asked of the government) is because the questions are actually irrelevant? You have operated entirely on the assumption of a conspiracy, go on to claim that it is true, and then demand that the government provide the evidence that you can't. When no such "evidence" is forthcoming (because there is none) you automatically claim a conspiracy.
In essence, what you are doing is asking those who you are accusing of a conspiracy to make your case for you. You then invoke the existence of a conspiracy when it turns out that the questions are irrelevant, poorly phrased or loaded. If you want to prove a case of a conspiracy, you have to provide actual physical evidence, a clear motive and the names and actions of the agents involved in the conspiracy. An unanswered set of questions is simply not indicative of the existence of a conspiracy. It simply does not cut it as a form of proof.
Aaron
Active Member
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened beforeâ€.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened beforeâ€.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Kamuix
Active Member
Oh common there is enough is there to convince someone that they're hiding things and need to be exposed and questioned. Not to mention they refuse to discuss anything so that's what we're pushing for. And no it doesn't but if you look at all of the evidence you'll be shocked to see what's really going on.
To be honest i don't desperately want to believe in government involvement at all. I've just taken a step back and looked at all the evidence and know that the government is more corrupt then you know. You'll eventually find out the same thing.
These were lies put our by the government. Remember deception? I suggest you take the time to watch 9/11 loose change then say that there is no evidence
WHAT! are you kidding lol? irrelevant? there were huge disputes about whether a plane actually hit the pentagon. That was one big important question. 3 cameras that were facing the pentagon would have answered that question easily.. but the FBI came in and confiscated them right after it happened and refused to release them or discuss it. except for a 4 frame thing that shows no plane whatsoever. see a problem? why wouldn't the government show the videos to prove that? that's just one of so many unanswered questions and extremely suspicious and obvious problems that easily point to that it was staged. Trust me if you've seen what have you'd know.
Here.. watch 9/11 Loose Change when you get the chance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
You won't be able to watch this and at the end still believe that it was not staged. Try to be open minded! I promise you, you won't regret it! don't get caught on the official story and please do NOT underestimate how corrupt the government has become. It's about power and control.
G
gabe
Guest
I couldn't watch more than 10 mins of that garbage, but i did find the YT comments amusing
Agent: One problem Mr. President......
Mr. Bush: What?
Agent: How will we get thousands of FBI Agents, firefighters, demolition experts, scientists, CIA, rescue personnel, police, airline pilots, NSA, the majority of the House, air traffic control, the military, and the ENTIRE Administration to keep this quiet?
Mr. Bush: I dunno, but they misunderestimate me......
9/11 CONSPIRACY = FANTASY
Agent: One problem Mr. President......
Mr. Bush: What?
Agent: How will we get thousands of FBI Agents, firefighters, demolition experts, scientists, CIA, rescue personnel, police, airline pilots, NSA, the majority of the House, air traffic control, the military, and the ENTIRE Administration to keep this quiet?
Mr. Bush: I dunno, but they misunderestimate me......
9/11 CONSPIRACY = FANTASY
Kamuix
Active Member
lol why did you find the video to be garbage? it's extremely reveling. you may just be to close minded to consider it. so in that case you reject all information as lies due to already having given into the official story. So the only way you could reject the video as garbage is because you reject all information as lies.
If i wasn't 100% sure that this was an inside job i wouldn't be posting like this. Watch the whole video and see what you think.
It's always easy for a deceived person to remain deceived based on these:
-Propaganda
-Lies taught to you in school(global warming)
-The general publics understanding
-The illusions like for example the illusion that all scientists agree on GW.
-The fact that it's been a general belief for so long
-The unimaginable idea that the government could be that corrupt/bad
-The Media
-etc
But until you've emotionally opened yourself up to consider that what these things say may not be true, you won't be able to give it a chance. It's also possible that you've pre judged the people who you believe to be "Conspiracy Theorists" as something negative, therefor rejecting the idea even further if you know what I mean.
If i wasn't 100% sure that this was an inside job i wouldn't be posting like this. Watch the whole video and see what you think.
It's always easy for a deceived person to remain deceived based on these:
-Propaganda
-Lies taught to you in school(global warming)
-The general publics understanding
-The illusions like for example the illusion that all scientists agree on GW.
-The fact that it's been a general belief for so long
-The unimaginable idea that the government could be that corrupt/bad
-The Media
-etc
But until you've emotionally opened yourself up to consider that what these things say may not be true, you won't be able to give it a chance. It's also possible that you've pre judged the people who you believe to be "Conspiracy Theorists" as something negative, therefor rejecting the idea even further if you know what I mean.
gristle
Senior Member
Proving the existence of a conspiracy is not about your emotions. Evidence of a conspiracy is not defined by questions. A conspiracy is defined by a range of facts that actually uphold such an assertion.
You can't have evidence of a conspiracy if you have no evidence. Why is this so difficult to understand?
SlickFranky
Active Member
Nice find Aaron. Hopefully that makes the upcoming DSM-V...I think we may have a textbook case here.
Kamuix
Active Member
Episode 5 of Jesse Ventura's latest episode about the bilderberg group. good episode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VyC-5Cx9gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VyC-5Cx9gg
Canuck
Active Member
Maybe the best advice is to not feed the trolls.
Let them crawl into caves and cannibalize one another.
Let them crawl into caves and cannibalize one another.
- Status