Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

911 conspiracy

Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 6:15:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ok, I was browsing across the old you tube, and the amount of 911 conspiracy videos seem to dominate everything I browsed (choose some new topics to browse next time!)

But basically I would like to ask who here on this site actually believes any of the 911 conspiracy theories?

some of the popular ones are unbelievably stupid, for example. Plane fuel does not burn at high enough temperature to melt the steel girders that supported the world trade centers.

Ughh prehaps it was a 100+ tonne plane flying at over 400 mph that prehaps caused "at least some minor" unstabilty in those girders.

I dunno, some people still think than man has never landed on the moon.

What do you guys think?
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 6:20:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 6:15:29 PM, Nik wrote:
Ok, I was browsing across the old you tube, and the amount of 911 conspiracy videos seem to dominate everything I browsed (choose some new topics to browse next time!)

But basically I would like to ask who here on this site actually believes any of the 911 conspiracy theories?

some of the popular ones are unbelievably stupid, for example. Plane fuel does not burn at high enough temperature to melt the steel girders that supported the world trade centers.

Ughh prehaps it was a 100+ tonne plane flying at over 400 mph that prehaps caused "at least some minor" unstabilty in those girders.

I haven't heard a convincing 9/11 conspiracy yet. Until something more substantial presents itself, it was just a bunch of religious zealots committing suicide to get some p*ssy rather than just going to a bar.

I dunno, some people still think than man has never landed on the moon.

I despise these people. I have nothing against conspiracy theories in general, and questioning every word the government tells you... but come on. This one is as conclusive as it gets.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 6:24:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There was a conspiracy and that's a fact.

From the articles:

"9/11 Commission Counsel: Government Agreed to Lie About 9/11"

"New book from man tasked by government to help investigate attacks unveils how "official story is almost entirely untrue""

"The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack."

http://www.prisonplanet.com...

"Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds says Bin Laden worked for US until 9/11."
http://www.prisonplanet.com...

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 6:27:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 6:20:06 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 8/6/2009 6:15:29 PM, Nik wrote:
I dunno, some people still think than man has never landed on the moon.

I despise these people. I have nothing against conspiracy theories in general, and questioning every word the government tells you... but come on. This one is as conclusive as it gets.

I agree that it is a ridiculous theory, and I don't even see the significance in that if it were true. Though, I will say that it wasn't entirely baseless, considering NASA admitted that the footage was fake because they accidentally had over-written the real footage.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 6:29:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 6:27:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/6/2009 6:20:06 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 8/6/2009 6:15:29 PM, Nik wrote:
I dunno, some people still think than man has never landed on the moon.

I despise these people. I have nothing against conspiracy theories in general, and questioning every word the government tells you... but come on. This one is as conclusive as it gets.

I agree that it is a ridiculous theory, and I don't even see the significance in that if it were true. Though, I will say that it wasn't entirely baseless, considering NASA admitted that the footage was fake because they accidentally had over-written the real footage.

When was this supposed to have happened?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 6:34:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 6:15:29 PM, Nik wrote:
What do you guys think?

Its truth value is irrelevant to me, as I have better arguments against the USFG.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 6:59:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 6:24:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
There was a conspiracy and that's a fact.

From the articles:

"9/11 Commission Counsel: Government Agreed to Lie About 9/11"

"New book from man tasked by government to help investigate attacks unveils how "official story is almost entirely untrue""

"The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack."

http://www.prisonplanet.com...

"Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds says Bin Laden worked for US until 9/11."
http://www.prisonplanet.com...


.

Oh come on! Why would the government plot an attack against the world trade centers? To start a war?

The USA would of started a war if someone threw a bottle against a super market. They didn't need to blow up a structure (two structures) which did more damage to the US economy than any amount of "exploited oil reserves" could ever had benefited the economy.
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 7:07:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 6:59:54 PM, Nik wrote:
At 8/6/2009 6:24:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
There was a conspiracy and that's a fact.

From the articles:

"9/11 Commission Counsel: Government Agreed to Lie About 9/11"

"New book from man tasked by government to help investigate attacks unveils how "official story is almost entirely untrue""

"The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack."

http://www.prisonplanet.com...

"Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds says Bin Laden worked for US until 9/11."
http://www.prisonplanet.com...


.

Oh come on! Why would the government plot an attack against the world trade centers? To start a war?

The USA would of started a war if someone threw a bottle against a super market. They didn't need to blow up a structure (two structures) which did more damage to the US economy than any amount of "exploited oil reserves" could ever had benefited the economy.

Assuming that the USFG was behind the WTC attacks, it would make more sense to start a war with 9/11 than with a bottle in a super market. As for economy,where are we getting this assumption that the USFG cares about the USA's economy?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 7:13:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
"Farmer himself states that "at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.""

I myself state that At some level of Geolaureate's government agency, at some point in time-- there was an agreement to murder Logical_Master for being too logical.

See how that stuff works?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 7:18:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 6:27:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/6/2009 6:20:06 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 8/6/2009 6:15:29 PM, Nik wrote:
I dunno, some people still think than man has never landed on the moon.

I despise these people. I have nothing against conspiracy theories in general, and questioning every word the government tells you... but come on. This one is as conclusive as it gets.

I agree that it is a ridiculous theory, and I don't even see the significance in that if it were true. Though, I will say that it wasn't entirely baseless, considering NASA admitted that the footage was fake because they accidentally had over-written the real footage.

That's interesting. I've never heard that before.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 7:20:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
That's a pretty famous conspiracy. We supposedly landed in Arizona, instead. All the motives are there. Faking a moon landing to cheat a win in the space race...
Nik
Posts: 552
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 7:31:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Lets not get sidetracked by the moon landing conspiracy, all the theory's have been disproved. Check it out for yourself, you tube has all the answers, unfortunately. :P

But going back to the point, the conspiracies of 911 are realy (in my opinion) based upoun people who are so dissatisfied by the government/media/security/everything authority, that they still try to grasp at straws to find some half idea that perhaps, that an international tragedy, MUST of somehow been implemented by the system they hate.

And they are so bullheaded they wont accept that it just might of been how the government said it was.

If the government said black was black and white was white, people still wouldn't believe them.
"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 7:32:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 7:18:34 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/6/2009 6:27:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/6/2009 6:20:06 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 8/6/2009 6:15:29 PM, Nik wrote:
I dunno, some people still think than man has never landed on the moon.

I despise these people. I have nothing against conspiracy theories in general, and questioning every word the government tells you... but come on. This one is as conclusive as it gets.

I agree that it is a ridiculous theory, and I don't even see the significance in that if it were true. Though, I will say that it wasn't entirely baseless, considering NASA admitted that the footage was fake because they accidentally had over-written the real footage.

That's interesting. I've never heard that before.

Maybe I got it wrong, though I thought I saw a yahoo article saying they faked the footage after losing the original film. I guess not. This is what I found.

"The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday."
http://www.reuters.com...

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 7:38:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 7:31:53 PM, Nik wrote:
Lets not get sidetracked by the moon landing conspiracy, all the theory's have been disproved. Check it out for yourself, you tube has all the answers, unfortunately. :P
But going back to the point, the conspiracies of 911 are realy (in my opinion) based upoun people who are so dissatisfied by the government/media/security/everything authority, that they still try to grasp at straws to find some half idea that perhaps, that an international tragedy, MUST of somehow been implemented by the system they hate.

And they are so bullheaded they wont accept that it just might of been how the government said it was.

I think you're bullheaded if you are going to simply ignore the facts.

"The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11"

If the government said black was black and white was white, people still wouldn't believe them.

And again. There is good reason not to trust the government.

"New book from man tasked by government to help investigate attacks unveils how "official story is almost entirely untrue""

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 7:41:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 7:20:33 PM, mongeese wrote:
That's a pretty famous conspiracy. We supposedly landed in Arizona, instead. All the motives are there. Faking a moon landing to cheat a win in the space race...

see

http://www.lewrockwell.com...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:03:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think the Pentagon conspiracies are legit. I don't know if the USFG did it, but I know for sure it wasn't a plane. Looks like a missile.

Watch both videos. They are really really good.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:12:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 7:38:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/6/2009 7:31:53 PM, Nik wrote:
Lets not get sidetracked by the moon landing conspiracy, all the theory's have been disproved. Check it out for yourself, you tube has all the answers, unfortunately. :P
But going back to the point, the conspiracies of 911 are realy (in my opinion) based upoun people who are so dissatisfied by the government/media/security/everything authority, that they still try to grasp at straws to find some half idea that perhaps, that an international tragedy, MUST of somehow been implemented by the system they hate.



And they are so bullheaded they wont accept that it just might of been how the government said it was.

I think you're bullheaded if you are going to simply ignore the facts.

"The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11"

John Farmer says it, therefore it's fact?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:18:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think when examining this issue, it's best not to lose yourself amidst the questionable politics of such a conspiracy (which certainly are improbable) and look at the physical reality of the event itself. All of the data from the collapse of the 3 WTC towers suggests that they were brought down via explosives.

The most important single piece of evidence for this, I think, is the one that is most often ignored or forgotten: the collapse of WTC 7, a building that was NOT struck by a plane, but merely "falling debris." It fell without warning, suddenly rather than gradually, without provocation, and most importantly: it collapsed from the bottom rather than the top, when no structural damage could have plausibly done to the bottom by "raining debris" nor the fire which was atop the building.

Observe the nature of it's collapse (from the bottom) in this video. Notice that it is almost indistinguishably different from a controlled demolition. It fell straight down, right into it's base, with minimal damage to surrounding buildings.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:26:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 9:12:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/6/2009 7:38:04 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/6/2009 7:31:53 PM, Nik wrote:
Lets not get sidetracked by the moon landing conspiracy, all the theory's have been disproved. Check it out for yourself, you tube has all the answers, unfortunately. :P
But going back to the point, the conspiracies of 911 are realy (in my opinion) based upoun people who are so dissatisfied by the government/media/security/everything authority, that they still try to grasp at straws to find some half idea that perhaps, that an international tragedy, MUST of somehow been implemented by the system they hate.



And they are so bullheaded they wont accept that it just might of been how the government said it was.

I think you're bullheaded if you are going to simply ignore the facts.

"The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission – John Farmer – says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11"

John Farmer says it, therefore it's fact?

George Bush said there is no conspiracy, therefore it's a fact?

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:37:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Fact: WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. Though fires may have been reasonable (though really, it's pushing the limit), WTC brought down by fires is just not possible.
Fact: The plane crash in pennsylvania or whatever is crap. There's a big black scar on the ground. A bit of trash here and there, but no bodies, no engines, no fuselage.
Fact: The Pentagon was not hit by a plane. Unless the Pentagon has energy shields that burn things up, it's not possible for there to be just about nothign left, just like at the pennsylvania site.
Conclusion: Something about 9/11 is not being told to us by the government.
Moral: ?

Fundamentally, people only believe something if it supports something else they already believe or want to start believing. What do you (Harlan, Nags, Geo) get out of showing that 9/11 is a conspiracy?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:39:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Can someone tell me why BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center 7 TWENTY minutes BEFORE it collapsed?

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:49:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 9:37:53 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Fundamentally, people only believe something if it supports something else they already believe or want to start believing. What do you (Harlan, Nags, Geo) get out of showing that 9/11 is a conspiracy?

The truth? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather know the truth than be ignorant.

Rezz- why do you care about anything?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:50:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 9:39:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Can someone tell me why BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center 7 TWENTY minutes BEFORE it collapsed?



.

Yeah, I know why. The mouth and words don't match up. It's a fake.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:52:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
and most importantly: it collapsed from the bottom rather than the top
Things tend to break at the weakest available point. It is possible to have a poor foundation you know.

George Bush said there is no conspiracy, therefore it's a fact?
George Bush says there is a conspiracy, a conspiracy of Al Qaeda members. But this does not make it fact. The airplanes running into buildings piloted by Al Qaeda members, by Al Qaeda's admission, IN ADDITION to the testimony of passengers at the scene who were about to die and had no conceivable motive to lie nor a conceivable ability to conspire to make their stories corroborate, IN ADDITION to black box recordings, exposed to a sufficiently high number of people that there would be dissenters on those specific accounts leading to a necessity of leaking, makes several facts and several matters that are strongly evidenced enough to be treated equivalently.

This does not technically prevent a government conspiracy from occurring in cooperation with it-- but such a scenario is implausible, and I have not seen evidence for it. Those asserting a given conspiracy have the burden of evidence for it. Even if Harlan's arguments meant something to me, for which I would either have to be a demolitions expert or he would and I would have to trust him, they don't establish a government conspiracy. They simply establish someone somewhere would input explosives. There are lots of motives for such a thing-- who has the means? An employee of the buildings accepting a bribe, or even someone who can just sneak in. The government does not have the apparatus to keep something like that secret nor to believe it can do so, even under Bush's low standards of evidence. Present CIA and military recruiting standards do not permit someone to screen for the kind of assurance of a disloyal agent that would be needed to make such an operation even remotely practical.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:52:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 9:37:53 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Fact: WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. Though fires may have been reasonable (though really, it's pushing the limit), WTC brought down by fires is just not possible.
Fact: The plane crash in pennsylvania or whatever is crap. There's a big black scar on the ground. A bit of trash here and there, but no bodies, no engines, no fuselage.
Fact: The Pentagon was not hit by a plane. Unless the Pentagon has energy shields that burn things up, it's not possible for there to be just about nothign left, just like at the pennsylvania site.
Conclusion: Something about 9/11 is not being told to us by the government.
Moral: ?

Fundamentally, people only believe something if it supports something else they already believe or want to start believing. What do you (Harlan, Nags, Geo) get out of showing that 9/11 is a conspiracy?

To reveal the 911 conspiracy, is to expose how the global elites manipulate events to centralize power and suppress freedoms. It's not country vs. country like many believe, but rather global elites vs. the people. They manipulate events through a Hegelian Dialectic called Problem-Reaction-Solution. First they create a problem (WMDs, 9-11, economic crisis, etc.), then put the people into a desperate position where they ask "what are they going to do about it," then they can impose their "solution" (Patriot Act, high "security" measures that take away our rights, bailout, and NWO) to a problem they created. You know the Freemasonic motto is Ordo ab Chao, Order out of Chaos.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 9:55:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 9:49:00 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/6/2009 9:37:53 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Fundamentally, people only believe something if it supports something else they already believe or want to start believing. What do you (Harlan, Nags, Geo) get out of showing that 9/11 is a conspiracy?

The truth? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather know the truth than be ignorant.
Right, me too, but certain truths just don't matter to me. Like how Geo is currently saying in another forum how aliens exist? I really don't care if they're real or not, because they don't affect me. If I was lied to all my life and somehow every single map I'd ever seen did not have Australia on it, and then I suddenly saw one with Australia on it, yeah, I'd be a little more than pissed. But eventually, I really wouldn't care, because it just doesn't change anything for me.

Rezz- why do you care about anything?
You're going to have to specify what you mean by that. Do you mean why I care to ask why you care, or why I go on facebook, or why I believe the things I do, or what?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 10:00:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 9:52:53 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/6/2009 9:37:53 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Fact: WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. Though fires may have been reasonable (though really, it's pushing the limit), WTC brought down by fires is just not possible.
Fact: The plane crash in pennsylvania or whatever is crap. There's a big black scar on the ground. A bit of trash here and there, but no bodies, no engines, no fuselage.
Fact: The Pentagon was not hit by a plane. Unless the Pentagon has energy shields that burn things up, it's not possible for there to be just about nothign left, just like at the pennsylvania site.
Conclusion: Something about 9/11 is not being told to us by the government.
Moral: ?

Fundamentally, people only believe something if it supports something else they already believe or want to start believing. What do you (Harlan, Nags, Geo) get out of showing that 9/11 is a conspiracy?

To reveal the 911 conspiracy, is to expose how the global elites manipulate events to centralize power and suppress freedoms. It's not country vs. country like many believe, but rather global elites vs. the people. They manipulate events through a Hegelian Dialectic called Problem-Reaction-Solution. First they create a problem (WMDs, 9-11, economic crisis, etc.), then put the people into a desperate position where they ask "what are they going to do about it," then they can impose their "solution" (Patriot Act, high "security" measures that take away our rights, bailout, and NWO) to a problem they created. You know the Freemasonic motto is Ordo ab Chao, Order out of Chaos.



.

I have seen that exact video before, and I understand your point - but if the point is to go against these Global Elites, wouldn't it be better to just get rid of the system that they use to control us? If the fundamental reason is freedom, wouldn't it be much more effectively done by delivering solid moral arguments for getting rid of the government, instead of using a truth movement that has developed a stigma in the eyes of many as a "conspiracy theory"?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 10:00:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 9:50:54 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/6/2009 9:39:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Can someone tell me why BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center 7 TWENTY minutes BEFORE it collapsed?


.

Yeah, I know why. The mouth and words don't match up. It's a fake.

Wrong. You can look at the banner on the bottom, and it says Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) collapsed, yet you can see WTC7 in the background still standing. Look again at this footage. The audio is matched up properly in this one. This is a real BBC broadcast.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 10:01:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 9:55:35 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/6/2009 9:49:00 PM, Nags wrote:
Rezz- why do you care about anything?
You're going to have to specify what you mean by that. Do you mean why I care to ask why you care, or why I go on facebook, or why I believe the things I do, or what?

You asked me (and Geo/Harlan) why we wanted to expose 9/11.

So, Rezz, why do you want to expose anything? By debating, you are doing what me, Geo, and Harlan are attempting.

I was just demonstrating how stupid your question was.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 10:12:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/6/2009 10:01:27 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/6/2009 9:55:35 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/6/2009 9:49:00 PM, Nags wrote:
Rezz- why do you care about anything?
You're going to have to specify what you mean by that. Do you mean why I care to ask why you care, or why I go on facebook, or why I believe the things I do, or what?

You asked me (and Geo/Harlan) why we wanted to expose 9/11.

So, Rezz, why do you want to expose anything? By debating, you are doing what me, Geo, and Harlan are attempting.

I was just demonstrating how stupid your question was.

Right, but that doesn't mean we have the same motivations. Yes, my question is fairly basic, but I think it's one that's important. Why do I want to expose anything... well, it doesn't really show on the forums since I don't start threads and I just refute things, but the debates I do are value debates, so it's pretty explicit. My debate with wjm is an example: the value was individual liberty, so it's pretty clear that my anarchist position is because of individual liberty.

I'm not the journalist type, I don't want to tell people the truth simply because it's true. I only tell people what I think is the truth if I think it really matters in some fundamental way. Atheism to me is the dispelling of superstitious mythology, which enslaves people and causes quite a few problems. Anarchism is making explicit that the government is nothing more than violence, which I think most people are opposed to and am opposed to myself.

Generally speaking, I only point out inconsistencies in other people's arguments because on a debate site, I think it's a fair assumption to take that people don't like it when their contentions are internally inconsistent. Basically in most cases, I care because I think other people care.

If you guys are what I called "the journalist type", that's entirely fine with me. I was just curious about you guys in particular. I'm sorry if you think my question was stupid, but I don't. If you think it's stupid, then I will take care to not direct questions like that to you in the future...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?