Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Your Guide to 7 Famous Conspiracy Theories!

Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 6:18:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I will now list the theories and tell you if they are true of false......

1--JFK was killed as a part of a huge government conspiracy....... FALSE. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

2--The Government puts mind-altering (pacifying) chemicals into jet chemtrails....FALSE. (At least within US Airspace on its own citizens. We have used it against enemies.)

3--The Government created the AIDS Virus....TRUE. Around 1980 the CIA set-up free needle clinics in NYC and L.A. They were laced with the HIV, in an attempt to rid the country of druggies and homosexuals and inner city minorities who were one or both. The Project was devised by the Nixon Administration. Nixon has a sort of phobia against these sort of people. calling them "loose cannons" and he feared they posed a serious threat to the integrity of the country. (The monkey blood story is pure cover-up bunkum.)

4--The Government is currently doing Time Travel Experiments. TRUE. We gleaned the technology from the Roswell alien space craft crash back in 1947. The initial reverse-engineering of the technology was called Project Lego, which then morphed into Project Swiss Watch. We have been doing TTE's (time travel excursions) for about nine years now. A few travelers (the gov calls them CI's) have been captured on video or in photos. (SEE: My thread on this matter!)

5--9/11 was an inside job. FALSE. 9/11 was carried out in the exact way that has been reported, and seen on video, and documented with millions of pages of reports and investigations. The worst we can pin on Uncle for this is an intel lapse, as they were told about Saudis taking lessons on flight simulators, but only practicing take-offs and NOT landings.

6--Bermuda Triangle...FALSE. Oh, those planes and ships disappeared all right, but only due to normal crashes and sinking, both from human error and mechanical failure. Hey, the ocean is a huge place. You could take the entire population of the Earth and fit into a cube one-mile across and drop it in the ocean and it would disappear with a small blurp and not raise the sea levels even one inch. Also, ships and aircraft pass through the Triangle on a daily basis, and have for 50 years.

7--We needed to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki so as to prevent enormous casualties from a land invasion of Japan. FALSE. Japan has already conceded to ALL terms of surrender, save one: they wished to keep their Emperor in place. After all that testing and funding, we simply needed to see if the bombs worked. ALSO..Russia was fresh off from sacking Berlin, the war in Europe was over, and they were on their way to Japan. We did not want them to claim Japan for the sphere of influence. Thus, Fat Man and Little Boy were basically the first two shots fired in the Cold War.

Any questions? I will be glad to elaborate on any of my claims here. Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 8:54:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:18:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
5--9/11 was an inside job. FALSE. 9/11 was carried out in the exact way that has been reported, and seen on video, and documented with millions of pages of reports and investigations. The worst we can pin on Uncle for this is an intel lapse, as they were told about Saudis taking lessons on flight simulators, but only practicing take-offs and NOT landings.

You don't know what you're talking about. 911 was an inside job, and now we know how...
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2015 10:55:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:18:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I will now list the theories and tell you if they are true of false......

1--JFK was killed as a part of a huge government conspiracy....... FALSE. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

2--The Government puts mind-altering (pacifying) chemicals into jet chemtrails....FALSE. (At least within US Airspace on its own citizens. We have used it against enemies.)

3--The Government created the AIDS Virus....TRUE. Around 1980 the CIA set-up free needle clinics in NYC and L.A. They were laced with the HIV, in an attempt to rid the country of druggies and homosexuals and inner city minorities who were one or both. The Project was devised by the Nixon Administration. Nixon has a sort of phobia against these sort of people. calling them "loose cannons" and he feared they posed a serious threat to the integrity of the country. (The monkey blood story is pure cover-up bunkum.)

4--The Government is currently doing Time Travel Experiments. TRUE. We gleaned the technology from the Roswell alien space craft crash back in 1947. The initial reverse-engineering of the technology was called Project Lego, which then morphed into Project Swiss Watch. We have been doing TTE's (time travel excursions) for about nine years now. A few travelers (the gov calls them CI's) have been captured on video or in photos. (SEE: My thread on this matter!)

5--9/11 was an inside job. FALSE. 9/11 was carried out in the exact way that has been reported, and seen on video, and documented with millions of pages of reports and investigations. The worst we can pin on Uncle for this is an intel lapse, as they were told about Saudis taking lessons on flight simulators, but only practicing take-offs and NOT landings.

6--Bermuda Triangle...FALSE. Oh, those planes and ships disappeared all right, but only due to normal crashes and sinking, both from human error and mechanical failure. Hey, the ocean is a huge place. You could take the entire population of the Earth and fit into a cube one-mile across and drop it in the ocean and it would disappear with a small blurp and not raise the sea levels even one inch. Also, ships and aircraft pass through the Triangle on a daily basis, and have for 50 years.

7--We needed to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki so as to prevent enormous casualties from a land invasion of Japan. FALSE. Japan has already conceded to ALL terms of surrender, save one: they wished to keep their Emperor in place. After all that testing and funding, we simply needed to see if the bombs worked. ALSO..Russia was fresh off from sacking Berlin, the war in Europe was over, and they were on their way to Japan. We did not want them to claim Japan for the sphere of influence. Thus, Fat Man and Little Boy were basically the first two shots fired in the Cold War.

Any questions? I will be glad to elaborate on any of my claims here. Thanks!

This is less a guide a more a list of assertions.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 8:27:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:18:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I will now list the theories and tell you if they are true of false......

1--JFK was killed as a part of a huge government conspiracy....... FALSE. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

2--The Government puts mind-altering (pacifying) chemicals into jet chemtrails....FALSE. (At least within US Airspace on its own citizens. We have used it against enemies.)

3--The Government created the AIDS Virus....TRUE. Around 1980 the CIA set-up free needle clinics in NYC and L.A. They were laced with the HIV, in an attempt to rid the country of druggies and homosexuals and inner city minorities who were one or both. The Project was devised by the Nixon Administration. Nixon has a sort of phobia against these sort of people. calling them "loose cannons" and he feared they posed a serious threat to the integrity of the country. (The monkey blood story is pure cover-up bunkum.)

4--The Government is currently doing Time Travel Experiments. TRUE. We gleaned the technology from the Roswell alien space craft crash back in 1947. The initial reverse-engineering of the technology was called Project Lego, which then morphed into Project Swiss Watch. We have been doing TTE's (time travel excursions) for about nine years now. A few travelers (the gov calls them CI's) have been captured on video or in photos. (SEE: My thread on this matter!)

5--9/11 was an inside job. FALSE. 9/11 was carried out in the exact way that has been reported, and seen on video, and documented with millions of pages of reports and investigations. The worst we can pin on Uncle for this is an intel lapse, as they were told about Saudis taking lessons on flight simulators, but only practicing take-offs and NOT landings.

6--Bermuda Triangle...FALSE. Oh, those planes and ships disappeared all right, but only due to normal crashes and sinking, both from human error and mechanical failure. Hey, the ocean is a huge place. You could take the entire population of the Earth and fit into a cube one-mile across and drop it in the ocean and it would disappear with a small blurp and not raise the sea levels even one inch. Also, ships and aircraft pass through the Triangle on a daily basis, and have for 50 years.

7--We needed to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki so as to prevent enormous casualties from a land invasion of Japan. FALSE. Japan has already conceded to ALL terms of surrender, save one: they wished to keep their Emperor in place. After all that testing and funding, we simply needed to see if the bombs worked. ALSO..Russia was fresh off from sacking Berlin, the war in Europe was over, and they were on their way to Japan. We did not want them to claim Japan for the sphere of influence. Thus, Fat Man and Little Boy were basically the first two shots fired in the Cold War.

Any questions? I will be glad to elaborate on any of my claims here. Thanks!

Oh pulease, you only believe these things because of all the fluoride in your brain. Fact is, all of these conspiracies are the actual conspiracy, contrived by the shape-shifting Reptiloids in charge as a distraction when it became apparent that the fake moon landing just wasn't enough. The truth for those who have eyes to see, is that the Middle Earth Dwelling Reptilians are in complete control of the Matrix, and ever since they had British Intelligence kill Princess Diana, the Grand Poobah of the Illuminati, they have been led by the primary 33rd degree Freemasons, Elvis and Tupac, who are married and currently married and living on Fire Island.

So get real....or we'll have your brain reprogrammed.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2015 11:02:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2015 8:27:27 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:18:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I will now list the theories and tell you if they are true of false......

1--JFK was killed as a part of a huge government conspiracy....... FALSE. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

2--The Government puts mind-altering (pacifying) chemicals into jet chemtrails....FALSE. (At least within US Airspace on its own citizens. We have used it against enemies.)

3--The Government created the AIDS Virus....TRUE. Around 1980 the CIA set-up free needle clinics in NYC and L.A. They were laced with the HIV, in an attempt to rid the country of druggies and homosexuals and inner city minorities who were one or both. The Project was devised by the Nixon Administration. Nixon has a sort of phobia against these sort of people. calling them "loose cannons" and he feared they posed a serious threat to the integrity of the country. (The monkey blood story is pure cover-up bunkum.)

4--The Government is currently doing Time Travel Experiments. TRUE. We gleaned the technology from the Roswell alien space craft crash back in 1947. The initial reverse-engineering of the technology was called Project Lego, which then morphed into Project Swiss Watch. We have been doing TTE's (time travel excursions) for about nine years now. A few travelers (the gov calls them CI's) have been captured on video or in photos. (SEE: My thread on this matter!)

5--9/11 was an inside job. FALSE. 9/11 was carried out in the exact way that has been reported, and seen on video, and documented with millions of pages of reports and investigations. The worst we can pin on Uncle for this is an intel lapse, as they were told about Saudis taking lessons on flight simulators, but only practicing take-offs and NOT landings.

6--Bermuda Triangle...FALSE. Oh, those planes and ships disappeared all right, but only due to normal crashes and sinking, both from human error and mechanical failure. Hey, the ocean is a huge place. You could take the entire population of the Earth and fit into a cube one-mile across and drop it in the ocean and it would disappear with a small blurp and not raise the sea levels even one inch. Also, ships and aircraft pass through the Triangle on a daily basis, and have for 50 years.

7--We needed to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki so as to prevent enormous casualties from a land invasion of Japan. FALSE. Japan has already conceded to ALL terms of surrender, save one: they wished to keep their Emperor in place. After all that testing and funding, we simply needed to see if the bombs worked. ALSO..Russia was fresh off from sacking Berlin, the war in Europe was over, and they were on their way to Japan. We did not want them to claim Japan for the sphere of influence. Thus, Fat Man and Little Boy were basically the first two shots fired in the Cold War.

Any questions? I will be glad to elaborate on any of my claims here. Thanks!

Oh pulease, you only believe these things because of all the fluoride in your brain. Fact is, all of these conspiracies are the actual conspiracy, contrived by the shape-shifting Reptiloids in charge as a distraction when it became apparent that the fake moon landing just wasn't enough. The truth for those who have eyes to see, is that the Middle Earth Dwelling Reptilians are in complete control of the Matrix, and ever since they had British Intelligence kill Princess Diana, the Grand Poobah of the Illuminati, they have been led by the primary 33rd degree Freemasons, Elvis and Tupac, who are married and currently married and living on Fire Island.

So get real....or we'll have your brain reprogrammed.

LOL.

Now THAT'S Funny!

LOL--is much overused online, myself included. But I really did laugh out loud at your post. Thanks for allowing me to begin my workday with a laugh.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 6:13:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/3/2015 6:18:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I will now list the theories and tell you if they are true of false......

1--JFK was killed as a part of a huge government conspiracy....... FALSE. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

2--The Government puts mind-altering (pacifying) chemicals into jet chemtrails....FALSE. (At least within US Airspace on its own citizens. We have used it against enemies.)

3--The Government created the AIDS Virus....TRUE. Around 1980 the CIA set-up free needle clinics in NYC and L.A. They were laced with the HIV, in an attempt to rid the country of druggies and homosexuals and inner city minorities who were one or both. The Project was devised by the Nixon Administration. Nixon has a sort of phobia against these sort of people. calling them "loose cannons" and he feared they posed a serious threat to the integrity of the country. (The monkey blood story is pure cover-up bunkum.)

4--The Government is currently doing Time Travel Experiments. TRUE. We gleaned the technology from the Roswell alien space craft crash back in 1947. The initial reverse-engineering of the technology was called Project Lego, which then morphed into Project Swiss Watch. We have been doing TTE's (time travel excursions) for about nine years now. A few travelers (the gov calls them CI's) have been captured on video or in photos. (SEE: My thread on this matter!)

5--9/11 was an inside job. FALSE. 9/11 was carried out in the exact way that has been reported, and seen on video, and documented with millions of pages of reports and investigations. The worst we can pin on Uncle for this is an intel lapse, as they were told about Saudis taking lessons on flight simulators, but only practicing take-offs and NOT landings.

6--Bermuda Triangle...FALSE. Oh, those planes and ships disappeared all right, but only due to normal crashes and sinking, both from human error and mechanical failure. Hey, the ocean is a huge place. You could take the entire population of the Earth and fit into a cube one-mile across and drop it in the ocean and it would disappear with a small blurp and not raise the sea levels even one inch. Also, ships and aircraft pass through the Triangle on a daily basis, and have for 50 years.

7--We needed to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki so as to prevent enormous casualties from a land invasion of Japan. FALSE. Japan has already conceded to ALL terms of surrender, save one: they wished to keep their Emperor in place. After all that testing and funding, we simply needed to see if the bombs worked. ALSO..Russia was fresh off from sacking Berlin, the war in Europe was over, and they were on their way to Japan. We did not want them to claim Japan for the sphere of influence. Thus, Fat Man and Little Boy were basically the first two shots fired in the Cold War.

Any questions? I will be glad to elaborate on any of my claims here. Thanks!

An observation - clearly you haven't done your homework about 9/11, or the alleged moon landing in 1969. I'm curious as to why you bypassed this obvious hoax.
My question - in a form such as this, why would you post such claims based on conjecture?

JD
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 6:08:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 6:13:32 AM, JohnDenning wrote:
At 6/3/2015 6:18:15 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I will now list the theories and tell you if they are true of false......

1--JFK was killed as a part of a huge government conspiracy....... FALSE. Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

2--The Government puts mind-altering (pacifying) chemicals into jet chemtrails....FALSE. (At least within US Airspace on its own citizens. We have used it against enemies.)

3--The Government created the AIDS Virus....TRUE. Around 1980 the CIA set-up free needle clinics in NYC and L.A. They were laced with the HIV, in an attempt to rid the country of druggies and homosexuals and inner city minorities who were one or both. The Project was devised by the Nixon Administration. Nixon has a sort of phobia against these sort of people. calling them "loose cannons" and he feared they posed a serious threat to the integrity of the country. (The monkey blood story is pure cover-up bunkum.)

4--The Government is currently doing Time Travel Experiments. TRUE. We gleaned the technology from the Roswell alien space craft crash back in 1947. The initial reverse-engineering of the technology was called Project Lego, which then morphed into Project Swiss Watch. We have been doing TTE's (time travel excursions) for about nine years now. A few travelers (the gov calls them CI's) have been captured on video or in photos. (SEE: My thread on this matter!)

5--9/11 was an inside job. FALSE. 9/11 was carried out in the exact way that has been reported, and seen on video, and documented with millions of pages of reports and investigations. The worst we can pin on Uncle for this is an intel lapse, as they were told about Saudis taking lessons on flight simulators, but only practicing take-offs and NOT landings.

6--Bermuda Triangle...FALSE. Oh, those planes and ships disappeared all right, but only due to normal crashes and sinking, both from human error and mechanical failure. Hey, the ocean is a huge place. You could take the entire population of the Earth and fit into a cube one-mile across and drop it in the ocean and it would disappear with a small blurp and not raise the sea levels even one inch. Also, ships and aircraft pass through the Triangle on a daily basis, and have for 50 years.

7--We needed to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki so as to prevent enormous casualties from a land invasion of Japan. FALSE. Japan has already conceded to ALL terms of surrender, save one: they wished to keep their Emperor in place. After all that testing and funding, we simply needed to see if the bombs worked. ALSO..Russia was fresh off from sacking Berlin, the war in Europe was over, and they were on their way to Japan. We did not want them to claim Japan for the sphere of influence. Thus, Fat Man and Little Boy were basically the first two shots fired in the Cold War.

Any questions? I will be glad to elaborate on any of my claims here. Thanks!

An observation - clearly you haven't done your homework about 9/11, or the alleged moon landing in 1969. I'm curious as to why you bypassed this obvious hoax.
My question - in a form such as this, why would you post such claims based on conjecture?

JD

What is your position on 9/11?
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 5:13:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
: What is your position on 9/11?

I have no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside job, that the motivation was war and money and that the innocent thousands who died in the towers were collateral damage to the US government. Dubya was clearly a puppet in the whole thing, and that he got to such a high government position in the first place proves that money is power.

What about yourself?

JD
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 6:30:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think 9-11 may have been convenient, but I don't think it was in an inside job. There would have been cheaper and easier ways to achive the goal, and the damage done if it was ever discovered would surely put anyone off such as plan.

I don't know how badly people wanted a war with Saddam, but I no matter how much they wanted it, the risks of being found out would mean they'd find a safer way.

I think people like conspiracy theories because such theories give the impression that things aren't random - that there is some grand plan behind it all even if they are not sure what that plan is.

For the conspiracy fan there are unseen forces operating behind the scenes, controlling our fates for a purpose we cannot fathom (only guess at).

In many ways, such unseen forces are very much like a god, who is also imagined as an unseen power who works in mysterious ways towards an ineffable plan. So I wonder if conspiracy fans also believe in god. I'd guess they don't as a rule as they have replaced faith in in one unseen power with another.

I don't suppse for a minute that governments and institutions are honest. I just don't think thety are nearly clever enough to beat Lincolns dictum : "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:35:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 5:13:30 AM, JohnDenning wrote:
: What is your position on 9/11?

I have no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was an inside job, that the motivation was war and money and that the innocent thousands who died in the towers were collateral damage to the US government. Dubya was clearly a puppet in the whole thing, and that he got to such a high government position in the first place proves that money is power.

What about yourself?

JD

With all due respect, I think all of the 9/11 inside job theories are nonsense. They are all based on one logical fallacy after another, most notably argument from ignorance (I don't understand X, therefore Y) and a shifting of the burden of proof. Then there is also the false dichotomy of "100% official story" or "inside job".

After combing through all of these theories I have concluded that if there were any reason to believe it was an inside job we would have seen something much better than what has been presented. I think the government fell asleep and then covered it's tracks afterward to make sure the country was focused on those who actually attacked us as opposed to those who screwed up and failed to stop it, which is exactly what they should have done.
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 5:42:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 6:30:40 AM, kp98 wrote:


For the conspiracy fan there are unseen forces operating behind the scenes, controlling our fates for a purpose we cannot fathom (only guess at).


I prefer to use the term 'truth seeker', rather than conspiracy theorist or conspiracy fan. Trying to find out what actually happened because the official story simply doesn't add up makes sense, if you consider that the only alternative is to sit back and say 'okay, the government told me this happened this way so it must be true.' When you consider that governments lie to the masses, and that corruption is rife in most if not all governments the world over, why should we believe what they tell us?

In many ways, such unseen forces are very much like a god, who is also imagined as an unseen power who works in mysterious ways towards an ineffable plan. So I wonder if conspiracy fans also believe in god. I'd guess they don't as a rule as they have replaced faith in in one unseen power with another.

I don't believe in god. Religion is a tool designed to control the masses based on an imaginary entity that watches over all of us. It makes even less sense that the 9/11 official fairy tale.

I don't suppose for a minute that governments and institutions are honest. I just don't think they are nearly clever enough to beat Lincolns dictum : "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."


With 9/11, all evidence of everything was hastily removed, something that should not have been allowed to happen. A thorough, independent investigation was therefore denied. Hell, I've seen more effort put into investigating code of conduct breaches. The mantra wasn't Lincoln's dictum, it was "Move on, everyone! Nothing to see here!"

JD
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 5:58:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

With all due respect, I think all of the 9/11 inside job theories are nonsense. They are all based on one logical fallacy after another, most notably argument from ignorance (I don't understand X, therefore Y) and a shifting of the burden of proof. Then there is also the false dichotomy of "100% official story" or "inside job".


I disagree, to me it means X makes no sense, or X defies the laws of physics, or X is implausible, or X defies the laws of aerodynamics, therefore Y needs to be considered. I'll concede that some of the alternate theories out there don't make sense, but one also has to wonder about the source of those theories.

I think the government fell asleep and then covered it's tracks afterward to make sure the country was focused on those who actually attacked us as opposed to those who screwed up and failed to stop it, which is exactly what they should have done.

The only one who nearly fell asleep as I saw was Dubya when he went into a trance-like state whilst reading My Pet Goat. Only a chosen few knew what was going to happen is my belief. Everyone else just got caught up the chaos and confusion, including those who were responsible for action in response to mass hijackings of commercial airplanes. Oh but hang on, there was a large scale exercise taking place that morning which involved simulated attacks. I guess that explains why they were asleep at the wheel.

JD
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 6:14:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 5:58:00 PM, JohnDenning wrote:

With all due respect, I think all of the 9/11 inside job theories are nonsense. They are all based on one logical fallacy after another, most notably argument from ignorance (I don't understand X, therefore Y) and a shifting of the burden of proof. Then there is also the false dichotomy of "100% official story" or "inside job".


I disagree, to me it means X makes no sense, or X defies the laws of physics, or X is implausible, or X defies the laws of aerodynamics, therefore Y needs to be considered. I'll concede that some of the alternate theories out there don't make sense, but one also has to wonder about the source of those theories.

"X does not make sense" = "X does not make sense". That's as far as you can get with that argument. To suggest that "Y must be considered" you need to have a basis in Y itself. And if Y does not make sense then you have literally gotten nowhere.

It also always amuses me when people claim that X defies the laws of physics when relatively no one in the industry seems to have reached that conclusion.

I think the government fell asleep and then covered it's tracks afterward to make sure the country was focused on those who actually attacked us as opposed to those who screwed up and failed to stop it, which is exactly what they should have done.

The only one who nearly fell asleep as I saw was Dubya when he went into a trance-like state whilst reading My Pet Goat. Only a chosen few knew what was going to happen is my belief. Everyone else just got caught up the chaos and confusion, including those who were responsible for action in response to mass hijackings of commercial airplanes. Oh but hang on, there was a large scale exercise taking place that morning which involved simulated attacks. I guess that explains why they were asleep at the wheel.

I am curious what your theory actually is, and how you reconcile this with the idea that only a select few knew what was about to happen. If 9/11 was an inside job it would have required hundreds to thousands depending on the theory, any attempt to drag that number down to a reasonable level would necessarily require you to accept the explanations for mostly everything conspiracy theorists point to as "evidence" for an inside job.
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 5:24:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"X does not make sense" = "X does not make sense". That's as far as you can get with that argument. To suggest that "Y must be considered" you need to have a basis in Y itself. And if Y does not make sense then you have literally gotten nowhere.

No, because access to the Y alternative was denied from the outset. This is the part that gets me most about the events of 9/11. Terrible things happened, and we the people were told very quickly, within days, in fact, who, why, where, and how. Those who dared to question the information were denied the right to view their arguments on air, which raises a question - why the censorship? The investigative process should not have been shrouded in secrecy, and evidence being so hastily removed was a disgrace, not to mention highly illegal. Again, access to Y was denied by the removal of evidence and the denial of free speech, leaving conjecture only as a means to oppose X which is also, for the record, only afforded any credence because of the government sanctioned sources of the claims.

It also always amuses me when people claim that X defies the laws of physics when relatively no one in the industry seems to have reached that conclusion

So are you saying that the demolition and aviation experts who have expressed their contradictory views have done so without having reached conclusions?

I am curious what your theory actually is, and how you reconcile this with the idea that only a select few knew what was about to happen. If 9/11 was an inside job it would have required hundreds to thousands depending on the theory, any attempt to drag that number down to a reasonable level would necessarily require you to accept the explanations for mostly everything conspiracy theorists point to as "evidence" for an inside job.

All evidence was removed and destroyed, remember? No one will ever know exactly what happened, but there are many unanswered questions. I dare anyone to bring down a 47 story steel-structured building at free fall speed using fire alone. It can't happen. It will never happen. But most significantly, it has never happened before. Unless, of course, one chooses to believe the official fairy tale. Given the time that has now passed, and with all evidence of everything long since removed and destroyed (evidence destroyed - think about that) trying to unravel the events of 9/11 is no longer possible. Which, of course, is what those who orchestrated the whole thing wanted to be the case. It's sad but true, but then again, we are dealing with human beings here.

JD
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:21:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
All of these conspiracy theories rely on a huge fallacy that our government is good at keeping secrets, no way, our government is terrible at keeping secrets, Dick Morris couldn't even keep getting his toes sucked on a secret. Nothing is ever kept secret.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 5:46:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sidewalker wrote:
All of these conspiracy theories rely on a huge fallacy that our government is good at keeping secrets,

Are you saying that governments are always truthful to the people?

JD
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 6:04:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That is a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' sort of question! Goverments do have secrets from their own people, and they do things that they'd rather people didn't know too much about. But in general, democratic (or ostensibly democratic) goverments tend to rely on 'spin' and euphemisms rather than downright lies in their day-to-day operations.
There a quantum leap between accepting that goverments are routinely 'economical with the truth' and accepting that they would deliveratey kill 3000 people destroy billions of dollars worth of real estate and trash their own military nerve centre just to provoke a minor war.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 8:02:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 5:24:40 AM, JohnDenning wrote:
"X does not make sense" = "X does not make sense". That's as far as you can get with that argument. To suggest that "Y must be considered" you need to have a basis in Y itself. And if Y does not make sense then you have literally gotten nowhere.

No, because access to the Y alternative was denied from the outset. This is the part that gets me most about the events of 9/11. Terrible things happened, and we the people were told very quickly, within days, in fact, who, why, where, and how. Those who dared to question the information were denied the right to view their arguments on air, which raises a question - why the censorship? The investigative process should not have been shrouded in secrecy, and evidence being so hastily removed was a disgrace, not to mention highly illegal. Again, access to Y was denied by the removal of evidence and the denial of free speech, leaving conjecture only as a means to oppose X which is also, for the record, only afforded any credence because of the government sanctioned sources of the claims.

It makes no difference whether access to the Y was denied. If you are implying Y, you need to present rational justification for it. It's called the burden of proof and we take it seriously for a reason. The fact that you do not have the access you would like is no one else's problem. If I claimed that the gov was hiding little green men in area 51, not having access to area 51 does not make my claim justified.

Regarding censorship, the gov played almost no role in that. That was the work of society. If you had walked into ground zero and started shouting this stuff in the early years after 9/11 it is not police officers that you would have needed to be worried about. The fact that no one else wanted to hear your unsupported conspiracy claims is not some mystery, it is a common sense expectation when considering what the people in this country were going through.

It also always amuses me when people claim that X defies the laws of physics when relatively no one in the industry seems to have reached that conclusion

So are you saying that the demolition and aviation experts who have expressed their contradictory views have done so without having reached conclusions?

I am pointing to the fact that relatively no one in the industry shares your conclusions. As far as the conclusion... pick a field of expertise. For example AE911truth has thousands of engineers who signed the petition for a new investigation. Sounds impressive until you recognize that the number they have amassed amounts to a minuscule 0.065% of the industry. Considering the claims that what was said to have happened defies the laws of physics, that is not a very impressive number at all.

I am curious what your theory actually is, and how you reconcile this with the idea that only a select few knew what was about to happen. If 9/11 was an inside job it would have required hundreds to thousands depending on the theory, any attempt to drag that number down to a reasonable level would necessarily require you to accept the explanations for mostly everything conspiracy theorists point to as "evidence" for an inside job.

All evidence was removed and destroyed, remember? No one will ever know exactly what happened, but there are many unanswered questions. I dare anyone to bring down a 47 story steel-structured building at free fall speed using fire alone. It can't happen. It will never happen. But most significantly, it has never happened before. Unless, of course, one chooses to believe the official fairy tale. Given the time that has now passed, and with all evidence of everything long since removed and destroyed (evidence destroyed - think about that) trying to unravel the events of 9/11 is no longer possible. Which, of course, is what those who orchestrated the whole thing wanted to be the case. It's sad but true, but then again, we are dealing with human beings here.

Yet neither you nor anyone in the 911 truth movement has given us any reason to believe any of it is true. Arguments from ignorance do not change that, such as implying that there must be a government conspiracy and then backing that statement up by pointing to the idea that there are unanswered questions. You cannot assert that they are unanswered and then proceed to answer them.
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 4:08:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
kp98 wrote:
: That is a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' sort of question! Goverments do have secrets from their own people, and they do things that they'd rather people didn't know too much about. But in general, democratic (or ostensibly democratic) goverments tend to rely on 'spin' and euphemisms rather than downright lies in their day-to-day operations.

You're giving the impression that you trust completely what your government tells you is the truth. Didn't you learn anything from the bayoneted babies and the WMDs? Those claims to justify wars went far beyond spin and euphemisms. They were outright lies designed to anger and incite the masses, and to make the people scared so that they would turn to their government for support. I'm seeing a pattern of behaviour here. Aren't you?

There a quantum leap between accepting that goverments are routinely 'economical with the truth' and accepting that they would deliveratey kill 3000 people destroy billions of dollars worth of real estate and trash their own military nerve centre just to provoke a minor war.

No. There is denial after the event. It could not have happened that way, therefore it did not happen that way. It happened the way the government told everyone it happened, and everyone accepts that, because it must be the truth. Right?

JD
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 5:58:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 5:46:19 PM, JohnDenning wrote:
Sidewalker wrote:
All of these conspiracy theories rely on a huge fallacy that our government is good at keeping secrets,

Are you saying that governments are always truthful to the people?

JD

Of course not, I'm just saying they suck at keeping secrets.

Central to most of these conspiracy theories is the idea that "the government" is some kind of monolithic entity that is a single personality, and that person is devious, deceitful, sneaky, conniving, and most of all, great at keeping secrets. That psycho-dramatic depiction may suit paranoid conspiracy theory agendas, but it isn't the least bit realistic. "The government" is 2.7 million people, people with families, friends, neighbors, living, loving, and making a living by working for the government, and as you would expect, and history has shown, they are absolutely terrible at keeping a secret.

Most conspiracy theories involve "us/them" thinking run amok, and that "us/them" thinking is usually projected onto the "them" of their paranoid thinking, whether it's "the government", "the Jews", "the Freemasons", "the Illuminati", or some other contrived "Secret Society" that is great at deception and out to get us, it just isn't a very realistic view.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:18:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
JD - The investigative process should not have been shrouded in secrecy, and evidence being so hastily removed was a disgrace, not to mention highly illegal. Again, access to Y was denied by the removal of evidence and the denial of free speech, leaving conjecture only as a means to oppose X which is also, for the record, only afforded any credence because of the government sanctioned sources of the claims.

It makes no difference whether access to the Y was denied.

It makes a lot of difference. It"s called being denied access to facts and evidence that determines the truth.

If you are implying Y, you need to present rational justification for it.

But that is not possible if access to the facts and evidence is denied.

It"s called the burden of proof and we take it seriously for a reason.


If it (the burden of truth) is/was an issue taken as seriously as you claim, access to facts and evidence would have been allowed.

The fact that you do not have the access you would like is no one else's problem.

Actually it is - it"s the problem of everyone - of those who have been denied access to the truth but have accepted it as being the truth anyway, and of those who are actively seeking the truth.

If I claimed that the gov was hiding little green men in area 51, not having access to area 51 does not make my claim justified.

That makes no sense at all, sorry. In order to claim that area 51 was home to little green men, one would have to have had access to area 51 already in order to make such a claim. What you"re saying is not even a conundrum, because there is no logic in what you are saying. Respectfully, I think you are drifting a little off the track here. You cannot both claim and suppose simultaneously.

Regarding censorship, the gov played almost no role in that.

Do you say this with any authority, or is it just your opinion? If it is just your opinion, then how can you claim this to be the truth?

The fact that no one else wanted to hear your unsupported conspiracy claims is not some mystery, it is a common sense expectation when considering what the people in this country were going through.

You"re speaking for others now? How can you do this? How do you know that 90 percent of the people "going through" the aftermath of what happened that day, initially believed what they were being told was the truth, but then analyzed things and began silently questioning that what they were being told was the truth by their government made no logical sense?

AE911truth has thousands of engineers who signed the petition for a new investigation. Sounds impressive until you recognize that the number they have amassed amounts to a minuscule 0.065% of the industry. Considering the claims that what was said to have happened defies the laws of physics, that is not a very impressive number at all.

My thoughts on this are that everyone with industry authority knows the truth, but no one wants to become visible, for 'obvious' reasons.

You cannot assert that they (questions) are unanswered and then proceed to answer them.

9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses. "Explosions in the lobby and sub levels", "Firefighter explosions", "Barry Jennings", "William Rodriguez"

Why would they be barred from giving evidence? Doesn't this constitute the basis and formation of an unanswered question?

JD
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 9:18:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 6:18:43 AM, JohnDenning wrote:
JD - The investigative process should not have been shrouded in secrecy, and evidence being so hastily removed was a disgrace, not to mention highly illegal. Again, access to Y was denied by the removal of evidence and the denial of free speech, leaving conjecture only as a means to oppose X which is also, for the record, only afforded any credence because of the government sanctioned sources of the claims.

It makes no difference whether access to the Y was denied.

It makes a lot of difference. It"s called being denied access to facts and evidence that determines the truth.

If you are implying Y, you need to present rational justification for it.

But that is not possible if access to the facts and evidence is denied.

It"s called the burden of proof and we take it seriously for a reason.


If it (the burden of truth) is/was an issue taken as seriously as you claim, access to facts and evidence would have been allowed.

The fact that you do not have the access you would like is no one else's problem.

Actually it is - it"s the problem of everyone - of those who have been denied access to the truth but have accepted it as being the truth anyway, and of those who are actively seeking the truth.

If I claimed that the gov was hiding little green men in area 51, not having access to area 51 does not make my claim justified.

That makes no sense at all, sorry. In order to claim that area 51 was home to little green men, one would have to have had access to area 51 already in order to make such a claim. What you"re saying is not even a conundrum, because there is no logic in what you are saying. Respectfully, I think you are drifting a little off the track here. You cannot both claim and suppose simultaneously.

John, what I have said makes no sense to you because you are not paying attention. You've gone into nit pick mode, where instead of listening and responding to the point of what I am actually saying you zero in on trigger words and phrases, causing you to respond sentence by sentence losing all context. The fact of the matter is that I was really only making one point above and yet you responded to five, which means we're talking past each other. That's not a great way to have a productive discussion. So let's try this again...

The point I was making above was about the burden of proof - not the legal burden of proof, the philosophic burden of proof. And the burden is always on the person who makes the claim. If I for example tell you that your house is haunted and ghosts will eat your children tonight while they sleep, you would have no intellectual obligation to accept my claim as true, and no moral obligation to act on my claim until I shoulder my burden and provide you sufficient evidence. If I do not meet my burden then you are fully justified in walking away, hence the saying; "those who do not take their burden seriously relieve others of the responsibility of taking their claim seriously".

The fact that you do not have access to the evidence that would make your claim believable is your problem because you are the one making the claim. You expect others to accept what you are saying and probably expect others to act upon it, yet when pressed to provide us with a valid reason to take your claim seriously you instead make excuses for not having such evidence. That is not how rational discourse works. If the evidence is necessary to justify your claim, then you are by definition unjustified for believing your claim without it. So if there are valid reasons why you believe the government was behind these attacks then by all means. present them and stop focusing on what you do not have.

One other thing is that I notice that you really seem to think that the government has a responsibility to refute your conspiracy claims, which is not the case. You may not like the fact that the vast majority of the country does not see what you see, but you cannot pretend that it doesn't matter. Anyone can make a claim, and if you saw someone making what you think is a completely ridiculous and unsupported allegation then you would not expect that the party being accused to be forced into a legal responsibility of refuting the allegations. That is how our system works, and there is nothing suspicious about it.

AE911truth has thousands of engineers who signed the petition for a new investigation. Sounds impressive until you recognize that the number they have amassed amounts to a minuscule 0.065% of the industry. Considering the claims that what was said to have happened defies the laws of physics, that is not a very impressive number at all.

My thoughts on this are that everyone with industry authority knows the truth, but no one wants to become visible, for 'obvious' reasons.

John, with all due respect, that's just plain stupid. Do you really think all of the experts out there are all in agreement and yet afraid to talk about it? What experience with human nature has ever taught you that this is what people do, especially in large numbers?

You cannot assert that they (questions) are unanswered and then proceed to answer them.

9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses. "Explosions in the lobby and sub levels", "Firefighter explosions", "Barry Jennings", "William Rodriguez"

Why would they be barred from giving evidence? Doesn't this constitute the basis and formation of an unanswered question?

No, it doesn't. There were thousands of people there that day, thousands of people who walked away with stories to tell. To be hung up over the testimony of two guys, one who made money selling his story to conspiracy theorists and another who flat out denied what the conspiracy theorists alleged, while having no interest in the thousands of other stories out there, demonstrates a level of confirmation bias that makes psychologists gasp in disbelief.
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 5:24:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Of course not, I'm just saying they suck at keeping secrets. Central to most of these conspiracy theories is the idea that "the government" is some kind of monolithic entity that is a single personality, and that person is devious, deceitful, sneaky, conniving, and most of all, great at keeping secrets. That psycho-dramatic depiction may suit paranoid conspiracy theory agendas, but it isn't the least bit realistic. "The government" is 2.7 million people, people with families, friends, neighbors, living, loving, and making a living by working for the government, and as you would expect, and history has shown, they are absolutely terrible at keeping a secret.

I"m surprised you've gone down this line. Obviously I can't speak for others, but when I use the term government, I do so because I cannot comfortably use the term 'leaders', in fact it makes me feel ill using that terminology for the heads of government who are empowered, generally it seems through either family connections or because of how rich they are, to make decisions that determine the way in which we all are required to live our lives. I'm not talking about the guy who delivers the mail every day, and I thought that would have been obvious. One thing that cracks me up about these 'leaders' is that they truly seem to believe in their own importance.

Most conspiracy theories involve "us/them" thinking run amok, and that "us/them" thinking is usually projected onto the "them" of their paranoid thinking, whether it's "the government", "the Jews", "the Freemasons", "the Illuminati", or some other contrived "Secret Society" that is great at deception and out to get us, it just isn't a very realistic view.

Says who?

JD
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 9:21:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Double_R (RR if that"s okay with you?) said...You've gone into nit pick mode, where instead of listening and responding to the point of what I am actually saying you zero in on trigger words and phrases, causing you to respond sentence by sentence losing all context. The fact of the matter is that I was really only making one point above and yet you responded to five, which means we're talking past each other. That's not a great way to have a productive discussion. So let's try this again...

Actually, RR, what you stated... "It makes no difference whether access to the Y was denied. If you are implying Y, you need to present rational justification for it. It's called the burden of proof and we take it seriously for a reason. The fact that you do not have the access you would like is no one else's problem. If I claimed that the gov was hiding little green men in area 51, not having access to area 51 does not make my claim justified."...represents five statements, not one.

I'm fine to go on with this because I do enjoy intelligent discussions, but let's go one step further and play nicely, huh? Your comment, "John, what I have said makes no sense to you because you are not paying attention." ...comes across as...well, I'll let you consider how the words come across. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way. Anyway, agreed, let's try this again...

The point I was making above was about the burden of proof - not the legal burden of proof, the philosophic burden of proof. And the burden is always on the person who makes the claim. If I for example tell you that your house is haunted and ghosts will eat your children tonight while they sleep, you would have no intellectual obligation to accept my claim as true, and no moral obligation to act on my claim until I shoulder my burden and provide you sufficient evidence. If I do not meet my burden then you are fully justified in walking away, hence the saying; "those who do not take their burden seriously relieve others of the responsibility of taking their claim seriously".


Okay, so therefore because I consider so many aspects of the 9/11 Official Story to be either fabricated or completely unrealistic, I have no obligation to accept the Official Story claim as being true because it does not, in my opinion, shoulder the burden of proof to raise such a claim. It's also not possible for me to shoulder the burden of proof to counter the 9/11 Official Story claim, because it is not possible for me to gather or assess evidence. End of story, it would seem. The burden of proof on both sides of the argument cannot be achieved.

But then you go on to say that that is not how rational discourse works, and that if the evidence is necessary to justify my claim, then I am by definition unjustified for believing my claim without it. In other words, you are saying that the 9/11 Official Story does shoulder the burden of proof; that the claims cannot be contested, even though what was put forward, to many, is considered to be a lie.

You may not like the fact that the vast majority of the country does not see what you see, but you cannot pretend that it doesn't matter. Anyone can make a claim, and if you saw someone making what you think is a completely ridiculous and unsupported allegation then you would not expect that the party being accused to be forced into a legal responsibility of refuting the allegations. That is how our system works, and there is nothing suspicious about it.

Whoa, hold up a second, RR. For starters you are speaking for others. You can't do that for one very simple reason, being that you are not a mind reader. A person can say one thing yet think another. I'm wondering if perhaps you are testing me on this point, because of my claim that others have come out publicly and questioned various aspects of the official story, i.e. aviation and demolition experts. But that's different. Saying that the majority of the country does not see what I see is a claim you are not qualified to make. It's an unqualified assumption. Agreed?

I said, 'my thoughts about your comment ( that the thousands of engineers who signed the petition for a new investigation sounds impressive until you recognize that the number they have amassed amounts to a minuscule 0.065% of the industry.) was that everyone with industry authority knows the truth, but no one wants to become visible, for 'obvious' reasons.'

You said, "John, with all due respect, that's just plain stupid. Do you really think all of the experts out there are all in agreement and yet afraid to talk about it? What experience with human nature has ever taught you that this is what people do, especially in large numbers"?

Experience has taught me a lot, RR. This no big mystery, in fact it's perfectly understandable. It's called 'survival instinct'.

To be hung up over the testimony of two guys, "Barry Jennings", "William Rodriguez" one who made money selling his story to conspiracy theorists and another who flat out denied what the conspiracy theorists alleged, while having no interest in the thousands of other stories out there, demonstrates a level of confirmation bias that makes psychologists gasp in disbelief.

I'm not 'hung up' at all on this matter. In fact I accept it completely. Once again, survival is a basic human instinct. And are you really speaking for all the psychologists out there?

RR, I can understand that you are trying to apply a philosophical argument to the matter of 9/11, but I don't believe it to be possible. We are not talking about orbiting teapots; we are talking about factual events. The Trade Center Buildings exploded and collapsed, and thousands of people died as a result. These are tangible occurrences.

As I see it, the presentation of supposedly 'irrefutable', but at the same time 'questionable' so-called 'facts' negates philosophical analysis because of the obvious and disturbing associated contradiction.

JD
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 10:24:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/17/2015 9:21:06 PM, JohnDenning wrote:
Okay, so therefore because I consider so many aspects of the 9/11 Official Story to be either fabricated or completely unrealistic, I have no obligation to accept the Official Story claim as being true because it does not, in my opinion, shoulder the burden of proof to raise such a claim. It's also not possible for me to shoulder the burden of proof to counter the 9/11 Official Story claim, because it is not possible for me to gather or assess evidence. End of story, it would seem. The burden of proof on both sides of the argument cannot be achieved.

I'm perfectly fine with this. If you don't accept the official story then you don't accept it. But so what? We were not discussing whether the official story was true, we were discussing whether your claim that there was a conspiracy is reasonable to accept. And like I pointed out to you in the very beginning, this is one of the fundamental fallacies 911 truthers make, it's called a false dichotomy. There are other options between "Official Story" and "Government Conspiracy", so falsifying the official story does not = conspiracy.

As far as saying that the burden of proof (BoP) of the official story has not been satisfied, this is really a meaningless statement from pretty much any conspiracy theorist I have ever discussed this with. A BoP can never be met when someone challenges every single piece of evidence presented, and that seems to be all they do. When evidence is presented, they challenge the evidence. Then when evidence to support the evidence is presented, they challenge the evidence to support the evidence, and on it goes. This is nothing more than abuse of infinite regress, and it's not an impressive strategy.

But then you go on to say that that is not how rational discourse works, and that if the evidence is necessary to justify my claim, then I am by definition unjustified for believing my claim without it. In other words, you are saying that the 9/11 Official Story does shoulder the burden of proof; that the claims cannot be contested, even though what was put forward, to many, is considered to be a lie.

I never talked about the official story. I was pointing out that your claim that there was a government conspiracy has not shouldered it's burden.

Whoa, hold up a second, RR. For starters you are speaking for others. You can't do that for one very simple reason, being that you are not a mind reader. A person can say one thing yet think another. I'm wondering if perhaps you are testing me on this point, because of my claim that others have come out publicly and questioned various aspects of the official story, i.e. aviation and demolition experts. But that's different. Saying that the majority of the country does not see what I see is a claim you are not qualified to make. It's an unqualified assumption. Agreed?

No, not agreed and I am not about to drag this discussion down to that level. If all you are going to do is pretend that you do not live in the world that you live in where your conspiracy theories have not gained any credibility then there is no reason to continue. If you do not agree with my statement then provide a reason why, don't just sit there and act like I need to have some special qualifications to talk about what goes through the minds of the average person.

You said, "John, with all due respect, that's just plain stupid. Do you really think all of the experts out there are all in agreement and yet afraid to talk about it? What experience with human nature has ever taught you that this is what people do, especially in large numbers"?

Experience has taught me a lot, RR. This no big mystery, in fact it's perfectly understandable. It's called 'survival instinct'.

How on earth does "survival instinct" apply to this? Were talking about how an entire industry of experts would knowingly and willingly decide not to talk about the facts of their own industry and apparently you think it is because they are all afraid of the U.S. government? Is this seriously what you are proposing? Please explain to me what I am misunderstanding

RR, I can understand that you are trying to apply a philosophical argument to the matter of 9/11, but I don't believe it to be possible. We are not talking about orbiting teapots; we are talking about factual events. The Trade Center Buildings exploded and collapsed, and thousands of people died as a result. These are tangible occurrences.

As I see it, the presentation of supposedly 'irrefutable', but at the same time 'questionable' so-called 'facts' negates philosophical analysis because of the obvious and disturbing associated contradiction.

John, philosophy is not some alternative means of evaluating the events. Philosophy, or more specifically epistemology, is the very study of how we gain knowledge from the events. You are, whether you admit it or not, using methods of reasoning to reach your conclusions. How on earth can you tell me that evaluating the methods you are using to reach your conclusions is irrelevant to discussing your conclusions?

You call these facts irrefutable, how did you determine that they are irrefutable? Do you not think that is a relevant question to discuss?

You say that the Twin Towers exploded... How are you defining "exploded" and how did you determine that this is what actually happened? Is that not relevant?

This is always what I find to be the most irritating thing about arguing with 911 truthers. They want to discuss the premise of their arguments, and they want to discuss their conclusions, but they don't want to discuss how they got to their conclusions from their premises. That step is called logic, and when we agree on the premises (as we often do) that is the only relevant discussion we can possibly have. If you are really interested in truth, then the question of how you go about determining what is true or likely true becomes extremely important. However it does not seem to be important to anyone claiming 911 was an inside job, and the fact that this part of the conversation always gets shoved away is a demonstration of that.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 10:49:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Doesn't anybody else think that the US destroying their own military HQ - and very nearly also the capitol or white house - was probably going a bit far for a 'false flag' operation ? Wouldn't the twin towers have been enough?
JohnDenning
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 2:17:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 10:49:29 AM, kp98 wrote:
Doesn't anybody else think that the US destroying their own military HQ - and very nearly also the capitol or white house - was probably going a bit far for a 'false flag' operation ? Wouldn't the twin towers have been enough?

As I see it, the false flag operation had to appear spectacular in order to gain the support of the masses the world over, or at least from within western nations, for a full scale retaliatory war against the middle eastern countries comprising the axis of evil, which sounds like something out of a horror story. Despite being strong, WTC1 and 2 were aging, asbestos ridden monoliths that would have cost a fortune to make compliant, so bringing them down saved the owner the hassle, in fact Lucky Larry made over 4,500,000,000.00 as a result of the collapses just a few months after leasing them so he was a happy man indeed. We'll never really know why WTC7 was demolished, but I'm sure someone made money out of it , the Pentagon crash, for which all CCTV and video footage was hastily confiscated before it could be released to the public and for which no airplane wreckage was actually found as far as I can tell, involved as I understand it the destruction of records relating to an audit investigation into trillions of missing dollars, and as for the airplane that crashed into a field, that it was supposedly en-route to the white house makes about as much sense as the rest of the official fairy tale, but I'm sure that because they told us that's where it was headed then it must have been.

JD