Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on March 12, 2010, 04:36:17 PM
-
Former Minnesota governor and one-time professional wrestler Jesse Ventura has run afoul of the Huffington Post's no-conspiracy-theory policy, and he's not happy about it.
"I can't believe the Huffington Post today will practice censorship," Ventura says in astonishment. "I've got news for them. ... I won't ever write for 'em again."
Ventura had posted an item on Tuesday which took note of a recent conference at which "more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11." He also quoted a few paragraphs from his new book, American Conspiracies, to explain why some of those experts see signs of controlled demolition.
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/ventura-youre-allowed-ask-911/
-
Former Minnesota governor and one-time professional wrestler Jesse Ventura has run afoul of the Huffington Post's no-conspiracy-theory policy, and he's not happy about it.
"I can't believe the Huffington Post today will practice censorship," Ventura says in astonishment. "I've got news for them. ... I won't ever write for 'em again."
Ventura had posted an item on Tuesday which took note of a recent conference at which "more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11." He also quoted a few paragraphs from his new book, American Conspiracies, to explain why some of those experts see signs of controlled demolition.
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/ventura-youre-allowed-ask-911/
These thousand architects and engineers are quacks!!!
Never mind once highly respected Physicist Steven Jones and his loony work... The building fell faster than gravity would naturally drag an object to Earth. Forget physics, and forget these loony physicists!
-
I'm sorry but what you posted makes no sense, even if it was a controlled demolition why would that make it fall faster then gravity would drag an object?
Was SAMSON somehow involved?
-
I'm sorry but what you posted makes no sense, even if it was a controlled demolition why would that make it fall faster then gravity would drag an object?
I'm not an engineer, but I guess it would mean a vacuum was created similar to the way the demolish buildings so that they'll come down fast in their own footprint.
From the 9/11 Commission Report: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds"
Look into it, you don't have to be a genius or even an adult to realize that the floors below the impact would have exerted resistance on the collapsing building had 1350 Feet of building "pan caked"...
-
with explosives, there is no oxygen present - hence the building can fall faster than it could with normal air resistance. On 911, if you would have dropped a brick off the top of the building as the collapse started, the brick would have hit the ground 1 to 2 seconds after the building hit the ground.
This means the building (in WTC7 case) failed at both central columns on all 45+ floors, simultaneously, and still managed to hit the ground faster than gravity alone should have allowed.
-
with explosives, there is no oxygen present - hence the building can fall faster than it could with normal air resistance. On 911, if you would have dropped a brick off the top of the building as the collapse started, the brick would have hit the ground 1 to 2 seconds after the building hit the ground.
This means the building (in WTC7 case) failed at both central columns on all 45+ floors, simultaneously, and still managed to hit the ground faster than gravity alone should have allowed.
Ok no oxygen, how much oxygen do you think a fire burning at what 1000 C consumes?
-
with explosives, there is no oxygen present - hence the building can fall faster than it could with normal air resistance. On 911, if you would have dropped a brick off the top of the building as the collapse started, the brick would have hit the ground 1 to 2 seconds after the building hit the ground.
This means the building (in WTC7 case) failed at both central columns on all 45+ floors, simultaneously, and still managed to hit the ground faster than gravity alone should have allowed.
It's insanity, the stuff normal guys like you and I can see on the surface and all the fishy stuff these architects don't understand about the collapse.
The news about the thousand plus architects and engineers signing this petition is great. I hadn't been keeping up with any 9/11 related news. Happy to read this!
-
Ok no oxygen, how much oxygen do you think a fire burning at what 1000 C consumes?
The fire probably consumed a gargantuan amount of oxygen, the top of the building was burning and the plane left a massive hole in the building that fed the fire.
Officially the area near the impact was heated by burning jet fuel until the steel was "weakened" which caused a floor by floor chain reaction (pancake collapse) from the top which was suppose to explain why the floors below any fire gave way.
Why didn't these floors untouched by fire exert any resistance? The fire up top was surely sucking massive amounts of oxygen up through the building.
-
Ok so you are saying that the whole building was wired with explosives? Each floor?
-
Ok so you are saying that the whole building was wired with explosives? Each floor?
No, just like I'm not saying Bush had anything to do with it.
I think we should at least answer these questions though, in a way that at least makes sense to average people, let alone engineers, architects, and physicists.
-
http://911research.wtc7.net/
That's a really well balanced site, lots of interesting papers and as far as I know everything on there is sourced and backed up.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns
Sorry for hijacking your thread 240...
-
Thermate! It is a trademarked product, that serves only one purpose. and this is in its use of controlled demolitions. Thermate, the patteneted thermite derivitive can cut through steel like butter. Thermate traces were found in "large quantities" in the 9/11 rubble. This is not rocket science people. Numerouse Steel I-beams were found in the rubble that had been severered at a perfect 45 degree angle, which is textbook procedure when rigging controlled demolitions. JETFUEL DOES NOT CONTAIN THERMITE AND RANDOM EXPLOSIONs DON'T CAUSE PRECISELY ENGINEERED DEMOLITIONS!!!
-
How many people and how much time would it take to wire a building like the WTC with enough explosives to bring it down?
And how would those people go about wiring the explosives so that no one from the public would see them before they went off?
-
How many people and how much time would it take to wire a building like the WTC with enough explosives to bring it down?
And how would those people go about wiring the explosives so that no one from the public would see them before they went off?
Fucking hard, or impossible? Doesn't change the facts of the collapse, or at least one thousand architects and engineers don't believe it does. :P
-
yeah, no point in arguing it.
I could literally spend the next 30 minutes detailing answers to this kazan, but i dont want to. I'd rather go watch 'the hurt locker' and have some wine. A few hours of research could answer those Qs if you are indeed interested.
a few tidbits... only every 3rd floor was wired - that's how all the steel girders magically fell in 30 foot chunks that fit perfectly on trucks (guarded by men) to be taken to china for recycling. the molten polls at 1600 F for 6 weeks (way above jet fuels peak 1500 F flash peak for a few seconds) below ALL THREE towers for the next 6 weeks are the most telling of all.
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). molten steel below towers = impossible without explosives.
again, 240 is retired from 911.... lol shit... again :)
-
It's insane that its almost been ten years and there's been no investigation explaining what the fuck happened...
-
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). molten steel below towers = impossible without explosives.
Not to keep this up, but you're telling me the steel wasn't even melted? ???
Steel that was merely "softened" some how went from a gigantic 1350/60 foot building to rubble in ten seconds? ???
Well I'll be damned... ;D
-
yeah, the official report is that it fell due to softened steel. that's in the 911 report. never melted.
how does softened steel get hotter than anything capable of jet fuel at its split second peak temperature? and stay that hot until mid-december in winter?
kean (911 commissioner chair) said they never looked at the molten steel, but it puzzled him too. they were told if it's not related to al-q, it's irrelevant. go figure.
It's Q's like that which lead men of science, like the thousands of engineers, to wonder why.
-
This all just boils down to credibility. Huffingtonpost wants to be taken seriously. It hasn't nothing to do with the truth.
It was truths are accepted before what truths can be proved.
-
It's Q's like that which lead men of science, like the thousands of engineers, to wonder why.
Most people wonder why.
But flip the coin and answer how anyone could have pulled off wiring all of those buildings with explosives and not get caught and nobody has stepped forward to say they were involved or know any details about it? Don't you think it would take quite a few people to wire those buildings?
-
Most people wonder why.
But flip the coin and answer how anyone could have pulled off wiring all of those buildings with explosives and not get caught and nobody has stepped forward to say they were involved or know any details about it? Don't you think it would take quite a few people to wire those buildings?
and quite a few to tip off ppl that they shouldnt fly etc etc.... ::)
again not one credible CT has ever been laid out about 9/11 just a bunch of internet gurus watching videos on their computers and saying this or that
-
I'm sorry but what you posted makes no sense, even if it was a controlled demolition why would that make it fall faster then gravity would drag an object?
Was SAMSON somehow involved?
No I was not involved...what he should have said it the building fell at FREEFALL SPEED...not faster than gravity could pull it down.
-
The building fell faster than gravity would naturally drag an object to Earth.
the metal melted at a temp lower than disignated for that grade of steel....granted...soo somethings is a fishy BUT
ya cant have anything fall faster than what gravity allows...9.8m/s/s is IT >:(
-
WTC 7 is the smoking gun... anyone that does there reseach on that building and doesnt come to the conclusion there have been lies and coverups are not people with the reasoning skills and logic to form there own opinions anyway...These types will always just take the governments word for it...
-
WTC 7 is the smoking gun... anyone that does there reseach on that building and doesnt come to the conclusion there have been lies and coverups are not people with the reasoning skills and logic to form there own opinions anyway...These types will always just take the governments word for it...
Ok genius, for any part of your CT to hold true, that you need to put forth viable CT's for the penatago and PA as well. What are those?
That is what you guys who believe in the CT dont want to accept, because it blows your whole theory out of the water.
For any part of the CT in one area to be true, the whole thing has to be true.
-
Ok genius, for any part of your CT to hold true, that you need to put forth viable CT's for the penatago and PA as well. What are those?
That is what you guys who believe in the CT dont want to accept, because it blows your whole theory out of the water.
For any part of the CT in one area to be true, the whole thing has to be true.
Have you done the reseach on WTC 7 or not?If yes please explain your thoughts/conclusions...If not please try to restrain yourself from changing the subject & go do the research....
-
Have you done the reseach on WTC 7 or not?If yes please explain your thoughts/conclusions...If not please try to restrain yourself from changing the subject & go do the research....
Ok, lets do this again:
For any part of the CT to be true, the whole thing has to be true. Even assuming WTC7 is your "somking gun" you have to explain away the pentagon and the crash in PA as well, which you cant.
To believe a CT of this magnitude, literally involving hundreds of people according to the theories you guys push, it impossible.
Think about this, in 10 years:
1. Not one whistelblower
2. No one ever talked
3. No one had a crisis on conscience.
4. Not one person ever backed out of the plot and told authorities.
5. Not one person wrote a book or made a movies.
6. not one security camera caught people rigging the building.
7. Not one janitor or security guarde saw anything.
8. Not one worker saw anything.
9. Not one eyewitness.
10. Not one spouse or relative of any plotter ever came forward to turn their spouse in.
11. No accounting for Barbara Olsen
12. No accounting for the hundreds of dead passengers on the planes since some people claim the planes did not bring the building down.
13. No names of anyone you claim involved.
14. No plausible theory incorporating the logistics of all three locations.
Until you can explain the above without crack pot garbage, you will continue to be laughed at.
-
Ok, lets do this again:
For any part of the CT to be true, the whole thing has to be true. Even assuming WTC7 is your "somking gun" you have to explain away the pentagon and the crash in PA as well, which you cant.
To believe a CT of this magnitude, literally involving hundreds of people according to the theories you guys push, it impossible.
Think about this, in 10 years:
1. Not one whistelblower
2. No one ever talked
3. No one had a crisis on conscience.
4. Not one person ever backed out of the plot and told authorities.
5. Not one person wrote a book or made a movies.
6. not one security camera caught people rigging the building.
7. Not one janitor or security guarde saw anything.
8. Not one worker saw anything.
9. Not one eyewitness.
10. Not one spouse or relative of any plotter ever came forward to turn their spouse in.
11. No accounting for Barbara Olsen
12. No accounting for the hundreds of dead passengers on the planes since some people claim the planes did not bring the building down.
13. No names of anyone you claim involved.
14. No plausible theory incorporating the logistics of all three locations.
Until you can explain the above without crack pot garbage, you will continue to be laughed at.
still nothing on WTC 7 huh....your silence on WTC 7 says it all...
-
Again - you are avoiding reality - even I assumed there was something fishy with WTC7 - the rest of everything has to be true and you need to explain those, which you cant.
-
Again - you are avoiding reality - even I assumed there was something fishy with WTC7 - the rest of everything has to be true and you need to explain those, which you cant.
Still nothing on WTC 7 huh...well come talk after you do the research...I wont hold my breath...
-
Still nothing on WTC 7 huh...well come talk after you do the research...I wont hold my breath...
Watch this fool.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b3_1200065998
-
Watch this fool.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b3_1200065998
I'll will when you do your WTC 7 research and post up your views/thoughts/& conclusions on the subject...
-
I'll will when you do your WTC 7 research and post up your views/thoughts/& conclusions on the subject...
Again - you so desperatately want this stupid theory to be true that you avoid the 800lb gorilla in fron of your face which I listed above.
Is Popular Mechanic's engineers in on the CT now too?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
-
Again - you so desperatately want this stupid theory to be true that you avoid the 800lb gorilla in fron of your face which I listed above.
Is Popular Mechanic's engineers in on the CT now too?
So..still nothing huh...I could match you video for video or cut & paste as much as the next man...
-
Again - you so desperatately want this stupid theory to be true that you avoid the 800lb gorilla in fron of your face which I listed above.
Is Popular Mechanic's engineers in on the CT now too?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
thousands and thousands of people are in on the CT 3333, and they are all held to silence by the NSA and CIA.
-
Watch this fool.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b3_1200065998
Good link. It's a shame people actually have to spend time and money debunking such nonsense.
-
Again - you so desperatately want this stupid theory to be true that you avoid the 800lb gorilla in fron of your face which I listed above.
Is Popular Mechanic's engineers in on the CT now too?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
From the link (regarding debris):
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
-
Look, I have said from day 1, I have no doubt that many inside this country would like to do a 911 style attack, but so far, the evidence, stupid CT's, etc put forth by the "Truthers" is embarassingly bad and pathetic.
I have asked 240 for over a year to give me but one logistically plausible CT that incorporates everything and all three locations and I am still waiting.
-
Look, I have said from day 1, I have no doubt that many inside this country would like to do a 911 style attack, but so far, the evidence, stupid CT's, etc put forth by the "Truthers" is embarassingly bad and pathetic.
I have asked 240 for over a year to give me but one logistically plausible CT that incorporates everything and all three locations and I am still waiting.
I agree. I've had the same conversations. The government is capable of doing bad, even evil, things, but this one is just dumb. It would have to span multiple administrations, involve the military, the private sector, secret cooperation with terrorists, the secret landing and destruction of two airliners, the murder and deposal of hundreds of bodies, complete silence by everyone involved, etc., etc. It really makes no sense at all. This just shows the level of gullibility by so many.
-
I agree. I've had the same conversations. The government is capable of doing bad, even evil, things, but this one is just dumb. It would have to span multiple administrations, involve the military, the private sector, secret cooperation with terrorists, the secret landing and destruction of two airliners, the murder and deposal of hundreds of bodies, complete silence by everyone involved, etc., etc. It really makes no sense at all. This just shows the level of gullibility by so many.
The best part is that they get all pissed off when you point out basic facts and inconsistencies of their CT's, which arent even CT's since they dont even put for an alternative theory in the first place.
I am still waiting to hear from them an explanation where Barbara Olsen is and if they thinkt he then Solicotor General of the USA, Ted Olsen is also in on this CT.
-
The best part is that they get all pissed off when you point out basic facts and inconsistencies of their CT's, which arent even CT's since they dont even put for an alternative theory in the first place.
I am still waiting to hear from them an explanation where Barbara Olsen is and if they thinkt he then Solicotor General of the USA, Ted Olsen is also in on this CT.
You haven't heard? I asked the same question years ago and I believe it was 240 who said Barbara Olsen was secretly released overseas.
-
I agree. I've had the same conversations. The government is capable of doing bad, even evil, things, but this one is just dumb. It would have to span multiple administrations, involve the military, the private sector, secret cooperation with terrorists, the secret landing and destruction of two airliners, the murder and deposal of hundreds of bodies, complete silence by everyone involved, etc., etc. It really makes no sense at all. This just shows the level of gullibility by so many.
I don't think gullibility. Even very smart people will occasionally believe in CT's. I think its a need to give a complex, greater than ordinary, explanation to tragic events.
-
I don't think gullibility. Even very smart people will occasionally believe in CT's. I think its a need to give a complex, greater than ordinary, explanation to tragic events.
All i ever asked for were plausible alternative theories and so far, 9 YEARS LATER, nothing.
-
I don't think gullibility. Even very smart people will occasionally believe in CT's. I think its a need to give a complex, greater than ordinary, explanation to tragic events.
True. Probably a combination. With some exceptions, things are usually as they appear to be.
The very smart people I know who believe in CTs can at least give a plausible explanation for most of what they believe.
-
True. Probably a combination. With some exceptions, things are usually as they appear to be.
The very smart people I know who believe in CTs can at least give a plausible explanation for most of what they believe.
This is wht that 911 "Truthers" refuse to understand. Poking a hole here or there is fine, but for any part of their CT to work, the whole thing has to work, and that is where it usually collapses under its own weight.
Ozmo posted a article about CT's a few months ago which fit the truthers to a tee.
-
Dawg:
when you can dispute this paper on WTC7 come talk to me. It addresses every crackpot theory on WTC7 you claim. BTW did you know I am self employed?
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
-
This is wht that 911 "Truthers" refuse to understand. Poking a hole here or there is fine, but for any part of their CT to work, the whole thing has to work, and that is where it usually collapses under its own weight.
Ozmo posted a article about CT's a few months ago which fit the truthers to a tee.
Was it this one?
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
-
Was it this one?
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
This is right on the money. They're all true, especially no. 3 (inability to answer questions).
-
we have a bunch of flat-earth idiots jerking each other off here.
"oooh baby. that's the spot, brotha! round earth? haha oh yeah right... the media lies and covers up Obama's lies and a secret NWO agenda, but they told us the truth on 9/11.... oh yeah, that's the spot bro..."
-
This is right on the money. They're all true, especially no. 3 (inability to answer questions).
I have to give Samson Major props on #2. I have never seen anyone as relentless as him, EVER.
-
Was it this one?
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
Jesus. This list fits a number of Getbiggers PERFECTLY. Scary, really.
-
I have to give Samson Major props on #2. I have never seen anyone as relentless as him, EVER.
No. 7 is a big problem too. One of the true signs of a smart person is the ability to admit mistakes.
Remember the hologram debates? :)
-
we have a bunch of flat-earth idiots jerking each other off here.
"oooh baby. that's the spot, brotha! round earth? haha oh yeah right... the media lies and covers up Obama's lies and a secret NWO agenda, but they told us the truth on 9/11.... oh yeah, that's the spot bro..."
No one is saying that the official story is perfect, but what we are saying is that most of the claims of the "truthers" like yourself are insanely pathetic.
-
Haha, the hologram theory was absolute gold. The sticking point for me with most of these retards is that when one theory becomes so absurd as to not be remotely plausible (a la holograms of airplanes) they just move right on to the next one, which only proves that they have nothing whatsoever supporting their argument and are only clinging to straws.
Everyone claims this government is as incompetent as they come and then they turn around and argue that they're capable of orchestrating (and covering up) an event of this magnitude. So which is it? ::)
-
No. 7 is a big problem too. One of the true signs of a smart person is the ability to admit mistakes.
Remember the hologram debates? :)
lol yeah i remember. To someone's credit I did have the hologram debate with, they did eventually withdraw. :)
-
lol yeah i remember. To someone's credit I did have the hologram debate with, they did eventually withdraw. :)
Like when you or someone asks the question where are the passnegers and are their family members in on the CT too?
-
'truly pathetic'?
You CANNOT list 1000 physicists who have signed a piece of paper saying the 911 physicists are crazy. 1000 to 3000 saying it's bullshit, and how many signing a petition saying the official story is correct? hint: none.
Now, what's pathetic is your continuing claims that some "NWO" secretly runs the govt, the media, our money supply, etc. You cannot name ONE of them, their address, etc - but you just "know" they exist.
You're a loony CTer about these NWO silly theories, man. You claim all the media news stations are in bed with obama, hiding this massive govt theft of the trasury - but you have zero proof.
Zero proof. And you don't even have 3000 signatures from anybody about your NWO nonsense. You just have a few nutjobs on messaeg boards whining about it. yourself included.
So please, continue to shit on the engineers who say the official 911 story is impossible, all the while spouting your nonsense about some impossible secret group that runs the world.
-
I think the NWO theories are even more ridiculous than the 9/11 CTs.
-
again, we have 5 people who can't tell you the basic beliefs of these 911 physicists, calling them crazy.
it's insane to think guys with their law degrees here, are that blind and stupid.
But hey, I respect your right to be ignorant on any topic :)
I'm sure I'm wrong on a lot of topics too - Beach Bum knows his shit on law and religion, as evidenced by his posts. 33 knows his shit on finance/economy/obama. Ozmo knows a lot about a lot of topics and to his credit, has actually read a book on 911, unlike the other guys.
-
Getting mad, 240? You and the other CTers here tick every box on that list describing CTers.
-
Actually, something interesting that made me change my perspective on things. I still think a lot of ppl knew about 911 and didn't do shit to stop it, and I still think WTC7 stinks... but this is a pretty honest way to look at things. Yes, some CTs are very real, and yes, the TV tells us lies every day. Anyone who denies that is just a fool. But this is good:
There will be no global pandemic. Millions will not die.
I have been around on planet Earth long enough to know this. I remember the millenium bug, the Nostradamus predictions of 1999, SARS, Bird flu. I remember newspaper headlines shouting about a third world war during the first Gulf war. Non of it ever happened. There will be no apocalypse in 2012, there will be no global killer flu pandemic.
You see folks, the fact is there is no global conspiracy. All we have are a bunch of highly evolved monkeys on a rock floating in space and nobody has a clue what the hell is going on. Even the world leaders don’t have a clue. They are just like us, they are monkeys too. They masturbate, eat, shit, get depressed and are scared of dying just like the rest of us.
The truth is that the reason we listen to people like Alex Jones is because our lives in the west are highly structured and organised. This makes us bored. Are lives are mundane. We get up, go to work, buy birthday presents, go to parties, pay our bills. There is no excitement, no epic struggles to be had like we see in the movies and like we play in videogames.
You see in a perverse way many of us secretly want something big to happen. We want to be part of an epic struggle. A struggle where people come together as brothers, where we can play at being the hero, where we can bravely protect our loved ones. We want to live out the movies we see and the videogames we play. That is why we listen to this crap. We secretly want there to be a global conspiracy, we want a matrix to escape from, we want a pandemic to survive and fight through, to beat the evil secret societies and come out the other side into a global era of peace and love.
These are just the imaginative dreams of the children in all of us. We cannot cope with the idea that we are born, get a social security number, work, have children, retire and die. We want more. We want the excitement, we want the rush, but instead we have traffic jams, bills to pay and TV.
Well my advice is simple. If you want the excitement go out and find it! Look for a new job, go and work in a poor country as an aid worker, join the police and work your up to being an undercover agent busting drug cartels or solving murder cases. Go and travel the world, getting odd jobs as you go along the way to survive. Go out and find the excitement that is missing from your life. But please don’t sit on your backside daydreaming about some great global conspiracy that will never happen to fill that void. Go out and do it, because seriously, non of this conspiracy stuff will ever happen. If you want to live on your wits, experience challenges and struggles and if you want to escape your little matrix life, you have to go out and do it yourself.
-
I've said the very things that guy has before, albeit not as articulately as it's Getbig afterall. People need CTs to be true to justify their meaningless and mundane existence on this planet.
-
again, we have 5 people who can't tell you the basic beliefs of these 911 physicists, calling them crazy.
it's insane to think guys with their law degrees here, are that blind and stupid.
But hey, I respect your right to be ignorant on any topic :)
I'm sure I'm wrong on a lot of topics too - Beach Bum knows his shit on law and religion, as evidenced by his posts. 33 knows his shit on finance/economy/obama. Ozmo knows a lot about a lot of topics and to his credit, has actually read a book on 911, unlike the other guys.
240 - I ask you basic questions and you start melting down. I think you fit perfectly into one of the above topics. BTW - I provide evidence for my beliefs and try to back them up.
I ask you simple questions and you start crying like a baby.
-
nah, your knowlege, I'm sorry, is just too low to discuss 911.
If I can't prove the pentagon questions, then it's impossible WTC7 was brought down? Your logic is weak on that one dude.
neither of us knows what happened that day. Stick with "NWO" conspiracy theories, you have done your research on those.
-
nah, your knowlege, I'm sorry, is just too low to discuss 911.
If I can't prove the pentagon questions, then it's impossible WTC7 was brought down? Your logic is weak on that one dude.
neither of us knows what happened that day. Stick with "NWO" conspiracy theories, you have done your research on those.
No its not 240 - the entire 911 CT is built on a house of cards and all one has to do is take one away and the whole house falls down.
-
240 - I ask you basic questions and you start melting down. I think you fit perfectly into one of the above topics. BTW - I provide evidence for my beliefs and try to back them up.
I ask you simple questions and you start crying like a baby.
Typical pattern. That's part of the reason I quit debating this issue a long time ago.
-
Typical pattern. That's part of the reason I quit debating this issue a long time ago.
What 240 and the others dont realize is that the 911 CT is built on a house of cards and all I have to do is prove one aspect wrong to discredit the entire "govt inside job" theory.
If you want to convince me of gross negligence, etc, fine I am very apt to believe that things fell through the cracks, but to believe the 911CT's we have seen thus far is worse than asking adults to believe in Santa Claus.
-
You cannot even define a single 911 CT, 333386.
LIHOP vs MIHOP - two different CTs, two different explanations and burdens of proof.
When you say 'these 911 Cts', you are grouping in those who say aliens did it, with those who think bush purposefully ignored the august memo because his team wanted the war they wrote about in 2000. Two entirely different beliefs, two extremes. And you can't tell them apart.
I like you man, and you know your shit on other topics. You just don't konw shit about 911, that's all :)
-
33, you say you believe alien life is out there, somewhere. There are people who think aliens walk among us, visit weekly, and anally probe toothless people in backwoods towns. both are alien CTs, but are a tad different.
By your 911 logic, you and those alien wackjobs are both CTers.
That's why you can't just lump in the "wow, looks like some people know those 19 pricks were gonna do this and didn't sotp it" with "Bush had a plunger and planned it all and the aliens helped him with holograms and secret weapons!!!".
If you can't even separate the various shades of 911 CT, you shouldn't try to speak authoratively on the topic.
-
What 240 and the others dont realize is that the 911 CT is built on a house of cards and all I have to do is prove one aspect wrong to discredit the entire "govt inside job" theory.
If you want to convince me of gross negligence, etc, fine I am very apt to believe that things fell through the cracks, but to believe the 911CT's we have seen thus far is worse than asking adults to believe in Santa Claus.
Definitely a house of cards.
-
33, you say you believe alien life is out there, somewhere. There are people who think aliens walk among us, visit weekly, and anally probe toothless people in backwoods towns. both are alien CTs, but are a tad different.
By your 911 logic, you and those alien wackjobs are both CTers.
That's why you can't just lump in the "wow, looks like some people know those 19 pricks were gonna do this and didn't sotp it" with "Bush had a plunger and planned it all and the aliens helped him with holograms and secret weapons!!!".
If you can't even separate the various shades of 911 CT, you shouldn't try to speak authoratively on the topic.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
Great list Ozmo. :)
-
33, you say you believe alien life is out there, somewhere. There are people who think aliens walk among us, visit weekly, and anally probe toothless people in backwoods towns. both are alien CTs, but are a tad different.
By your 911 logic, you and those alien wackjobs are both CTers.
That's why you can't just lump in the "wow, looks like some people know those 19 pricks were gonna do this and didn't sotp it" with "Bush had a plunger and planned it all and the aliens helped him with holograms and secret weapons!!!".
If you can't even separate the various shades of 911 CT, you shouldn't try to speak authoratively on the topic.
Some and mirrors like everything else at best. As soon as you CT'ers latch on to one theory and its gets blasted out of the water, you move to another, then another, then another, because everything you guys push is half baked nonsense that ignores massive gapes in logic and reality.
So again - for the 2,000,000,000th time, what is the most plausible 911 CT other than the official story that you believe?
-
Given all the flaws in the original investigation (as admitted by the some of the people involved) I see no reason why Congress shouldn't do it's own investigation. That is one of their roles after all and they certainly have no problem spending our money on truly frivolous topics like steroid in baseball and professionl wrestling so why not the worst terrorist attack on our country
-
Given all the flaws in the original investigation (as admitted by the some of the people involved) I see no reason why Congress shouldn't do it's own investigation. That is one of their roles after all and they certainly have no problem spending our money on truly frivolous topics like steroid in baseball and professionl wrestling so why not the worst terrorist attack on our country
That sums it up well, good job!
Case closed
-
Given all the flaws in the original investigation (as admitted by the some of the people involved) I see no reason why Congress shouldn't do it's own investigation. That is one of their roles after all and they certainly have no problem spending our money on truly frivolous topics like steroid in baseball and professionl wrestling so why not the worst terrorist attack on our country
With ya there!
-
Check this one out.
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5633
-
boom!... wtf why doesn't anyone reply to my posts?
-
boom!... wtf why doesn't anyone reply to my posts?
I really didn't feel like listening to audio. Any of that written down?
Or maybe a point by point summary?
-
boom!... wtf why doesn't anyone reply to my posts?
I like your avatar...
-
Check this one out.
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5633
BTW, MB, cool forum site. I sit and read through that stuff soon.
-
I really didn't feel like listening to audio. Any of that written down?
Or maybe a point by point summary?
nope sorry.
I wish he had transcripts or something
-
BTW, MB, cool forum site. I sit and read through that stuff soon.
thank's it's about as rational as a CT'er forum can get imo. I don't take it as gospel but it's fairly spot on with many things
-
boom!... wtf why doesn't anyone reply to my posts?
welcome to my world.
-
BTW, MB, cool forum site. I sit and read through that stuff soon.
hahahahfuckinghahaha right, you'll love that site ::)
-
welcome to my world.
hahaha ;D thanks for the laugh!!
hahahahfuckinghahaha right, you'll love that site ::)
who knows, he might like it. ;D
-
nope sorry.
I wish he had transcripts or something
The problem with listening to lengthy audio is that to truly analyze it you have to have a transcript. Otherwise it's too easy to pass off false premises as fact.
Can you point to some concrete posts in the forum that contain good arguments. I looked at few, they didn't seem good, with things like "i don't see a fire" in this WTC pic insinuating there was none.
-
LMAO
-
lol I'm not getting into concrete facts. hahah
-
listen to the audio's from that thread and you'll understand the forum direction.
here's an interview from '07 - transcript , scroll down and you'll see it ;)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17857
-
I'm just asking for concrete posts, good stuff.
But hey, if its too much for you never mind then. Refer to this:
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
-
I'll take some things out of that interview from FD. the things Im posting is in relation to what you seem to have "beef" with. here we go.
JIM: They're geniuses at public relations and the politics of distraction -- Fintan, that's absolutely right. This is Karl Rove's area of specialization, so I couldn't agree more. We were just beginning to talk about your take on the role of disinformation in the research community, and I really want to give you ample opportunity to lay out your take, because it seems to me you have a very distinctive point of view.
FINTAN: We've covered one of the 'legs' of the stool I've got here, it's a five-legged stool... and I'd like to lay out the basis of this information analysis so we can understand where it's coming from, and then apply that to the 9/11 issue. Across the political manipulation of free elections, across this spin-meistering that Karl Rove is using, 'total news management', across the use of psychological warfare, across 'fake politics' and globalization, and the 'globalization agenda'. And if we examine each of those areas, we see them coming together, and giving us an understanding of where we've got to in these totally media mis-led days -- where information warfare is everything, and disinformation is all over the 9/11 issue.
JIM: Okay, we have talked about globalization during our first interview, perhaps enough has been said for the moment, that we know in your view, that is the ultimate goal here... where the G8 and the World Trade Organization really create a scenario under which corporations are ruling the world, but in order to get there lots of things have to happen, and it looks -- I take it -- in your view 9/11 was a 'key' event in order to manipulate the situation; in order to lead the world, but especially the United States in that direction.
FINTAN: Yes, and one of the key pieces of disinformation within the 9/11 issue is that it's designed to smear the blame across the neocons, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, and portray this as some kind of grand military neocon adventure which was engineered into place by the 9/11 event.
Whereas in fact, it's much deeper than that. In fact, this is designed to be suspected by people internationally, that those were the people behind it. when there's a much broader agenda which has to do with demonizing the US government, breaking the confidence of the people of the United States in their own government and system of government. And then 'sheparding them' in the direction of good-cop bad-cop -- where the good cop is going to be Hillary Clinton, perhaps with Barack Obama as vice presidential candidate -- ushering us into this new era of globalization.
So there are patsies all over the place on this one Jim, and the neocons are some of the biggest patsies going. So 'key' disinformation of the 9/11 has just been to smear them---
JIM: ---in the direction of believing that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Donald [?] and Paul Wolfowitz and General Richard Meyer and Condeleeza Rice and Rudy Giuliani and Larry Silverstein were the principals here -- with the possibility of out-sourcing perhaps the destruction of the World Trade Center to some Israeli operatives... that's the way it's shaped up in terms of my own research, so I'm very interested in learning why you think that might be a superficial account -- or only barely skimming the surface.
....
JIM: We're discussing disinformation in relation to 9/11 research, and related aspects. What's really going on, the underlying significance of the events of 9/11, with Fintan Dunne from Ireland. Fintan, I'd like you to pick up where we left off for the break.
FINTAN: We see there that the first leg of that stool is political manipulation of free elections and we're already talking about the subversion of democracy -- because you're not supposed to be doing that. And an example of how that is disinformation is the 'stolen election issue' -- in which we think we're on to something that tells us something about what's going on -- is in fact simply being used to drive potential Democratic voters into the hands of the Democratic party, by reminding them that hey, your election got stolen before, don't let it happen again! Get out and vote for Hillary next time in '08.
So the second leg of the stool then is the emergence of this whole era of spin-meistering, a [?] type era, it's typified by being able to spin the news cycle to a particular political advantage. And I think they've developed that forward to the point now that you don't just try to spin on a day-to-day basis, you're spinning to a 'news agenda', something I call total news management.
So what comes out of the major media -- and if you get the major media on board maybe you're talking about the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times -- and you've really got it all in the bag. What happens is, they're generating so-called 'news' which as actually custom designed by operators behind the scenes. Who are making sure that instead of the danger of us talking about real issues that we care about, they will feed us a relentless tide of prepared news items. So that's a very important skill that they have, which they add to this other skill of the manipulation of political activists, including 9/11 activists.
Then the third leg of the stool is psychological warfare, and the revolution in military affairs, which really is a total re-think of military affairs -- by the military themselves -- and indeed, by the people who manipulate the political process in the US and 9/11. So that they're oriented towards 'information warfare' all the time. They're focusing on that, and that's their key paradigm all the time, is the psychological effect they're having on the 'target' audience.
And once again, these were skills developed for deployment abroad which have been turned on the people of the United States themselves.
When you take those three legs together, you end up with a fourth one. You end up with the potential of adding this political manipulation, total news management, and psychological warfare control -- to create fake politics.
Completely, totally fake politics, where you have at Republican and Democratic senior levels, who are working hand in hand, and they're simply batting back and forward the electors between the two parties, alternating over long cycles of perhaps 8-10, 12 years, between the two parties, and that's totally engineered. And all of the politics is totally fake!
And I would include in that as a classic example of that, "the Plame Affair', which I see as a totally fake, contrived scandal. One designed to fill the news pages with -- well, something 'fake' -- because they're in control of that. And my illustration of how 'in control' of that they are, is just take a look at some of the players -- take a look at, say Patrick Fitzgerald. He played a role in the prosecutions in relation to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. He prosecuted Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. Patrick Fitzgerald. He shows up again relation to the 'Plamegate' affair.
Another guy who shows up is a judge looking after the case, Reggie Walton. He was appointed by Reagan and by George Bush Sr. Curiously, that same judge also shows up in a 9/11 related case, which is the Sibel Edmonds case, he was the one overseeing the right of the government to 'gag' Sibel Edmonds in that case. And there are other people who seem to show up in relation to this, and who seem to keep coming back into the same story. We've got for example, that same Judge Reggie Walton showing up as the presiding judge in the Hatfield case -- on the anthrax issue.
So I'm suggesting that we've got a number of key players... here's somebody else who shows up in this -- Mark Zaid, who is a lawyer representing Sibel Edmonds. He also shows up in the Tony Schaffer case, in relation to the alleged travails of Mohammad Atta.
So I'm pointing to a short list of 'key' characters who are showing up in a number of 'key' cases. And I'm saying that's happening because they are safe hands in which the establishment places these issues, knowing that they're safe. Knowing that the individuals who are prosecuting or judging those cases will not take the case anywhere they don't want it taken. And so they can have a totally fake story. So those are the key tactics which can be applied in order to create fake stories around the 9/11 issue. Based on the skills they have built up in creating a completely 'fake' political structure. And that's the background, Jim.
...
JIM: Fintan, for clarification: when you're talking about 'they' we may need a little more commentary there. I know ultimately you think G8 and the bankers and so forth, and the big corporations are responsible... but is there an intermediate entity? Something like the Council on Foreign Relations, or some comparable entity that you would attribute with the role of planning these things out... and casting roles for these different characters to play?
FINTAN: A central role has got to be played by some elements who are either in, or have left, U.S. intelligence. There's no doubt about that. But I wouldn't see the operational control of that level of the 'script' as coming out of what you'd practically define as the CIA.
Even though I call this the 'CIA Fakes', and you can Google that term and find the article... that's just a shorthand. I believe that many of the key players at the operational level are extra-governmental, but would have a track record within organizations such as the US and British intelligence services. However, if you like, certain objectives are desired by the international corporate elite. And certain other people make certain those objectives are met. And nobody likes to go home and kiss their daughter good night and tuck them in, really wants to know the details. And they don't have to -- because the details are handled by the guys who really don't mind getting their hands dirty with that kind of work.
...
FINTAN: A key tactic then is getting us reacting emotionally and pointing us in the wrong direction, towards the cardboard cut-out characters. The bad guys.
Then, divide and conquer. Split the movement up at all, at every opportunity, and at each opportunity, into 'MIHOP' and into 'LIHOP', into every way -- into 'the Jews did it' and 'the Jews didn't do it', and any other way you can cut the movement up, it all helps.
Another key objective of the disinformation is, contaminate the evidence. Get us to take on board evidence that is flimsy, or evidence that is totally fake. And in that I would include the insertion of false evidence. This is something that many 9/11 activists have missed out on. That it's not a question of, that you might 'spot' things that happened on 9/11, in which you're getting on to something they didn't want you to find out. It's more a question ambiguous material is deliberately inserted into it. In order to throw you off the track. In order to feed you a red herring which takes you down a route that leads you nowhere. That's also tied to a military objective which is, to waste your time. Simply waste your time, to get you to spend time, energy and interest on so-called 'evidence' which actually leads nowhere.
...
FINTAN: It's certainly possible to engineer in the flight control systems into standard aircraft, which would essentially enable you to turn it into a cruise missile, you have an override system which would use a combination of normal cruise missile terrain based tracking, followed by switchover to a homing beacon as soon as you got in range of the Towers...
This information content arises people in the 9/11 movement don't seem to have considered the possibility that the government might deliberately insert flashes, insert ambiguous content into some of the video footage which was released about that day, in order to deliberately feed what are essentially diversionary issues.
^^this part, i don't know but it is an interesting pov.
...
ozmo this is where you seem to be nitpicking ...
JIM: I agree with that Fintan, that's the whole purpose of research. The whole point in founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth a year ago December was to bring together experts in different areas to sort these things out. I created a research group back in 1992 to study the death of John F. Kennedy and we discovered that most, not just a lot but most of the evidence in this case was phony, fake or fabricated. So believe me -- I understand exactly the point you're making. But it can only be sorted out on the basis of objective scientific research.
FINTAN: I agree, let me just cover other areas and maybe come back to this issue of 'evidence', one of the other clues we have, and I'm sure you'll be aware of it as well, is that the media then cherry-pick what they want to cover out of all the evidence that is available. So traditionally they will pick some of the weakest points that are available... and the danger for us is, is that elements in the 9/11 movement have made a big play of issues which are essentially weak.
One of the problems for us is, there is no central 9/11 movement administration -- so anybody can go out there with information. The danger is, some of that information's very flaky, and we'd also be much better restricting ourselves to what we can or cannot prove, or establish beyond reasonable doubt. Instead of broadening our case out, so much so that when the mainstream media finally ambushes, big time, on prime time TV, they'll pick some of the flakiest stuff that's out there and they'll ignore the good quality evidence. Whereas if we restrict ourselves to good quality, demonstrable evidence -- we'd be in a much better position.
JIM: If one is convinced, as I am convinced, that conventional explosives such as thermite, thermate, even if it were supplemented by something like RDX, cannot possibly account for the destruction of the Twin Towers... much less the other buildings at the World Trade Center, then you are of necessity obligated to look at alternatives that may involve non-conventional explosives -- things like nuclear weapons, whether atomic or hydrogen, maybe mini-nukes or maybe lasers or masers or plasmoids -- now, this is an indispensable aspect of scientific research, Fintan.
It's not a matter of being 'flaky', it's a matter of considering all the possible explanations that might be involved here. And having done quite a bit in this area, and having been attacked quite a few times on this ground, I just must tell you that if you understand the nature of science you appreciate that sometimes you've got to look at hypotheses that may seem implausible or speculative in the beginning, and yet it may be necessitated by the evidence.
I think if anyone wants to go to my discussion of these matters from 17 February I was in Columbus and then the 24th in Phoenix, they can find on the website 911scholars.org four 'youtubes', they're all quite brief, where I am laying out the reasons why the kind of explanations that have been offered by Steven Jones for example -- can't possibly be adequate, and why we have to look elsewhere.
And now, that makes us vulnerable to the kind of cherry-picking or distortion you're talking about, but its an essential part of science. I don't see how science can proceed if you don't consider all of the available alternative hypotheses.
FINTAN: Well I'm in agreement with you there, and we've actually looked at the issue of whether there were esoteric or unknown (in the public domain) weaponry used, in our own investigation at breakfornews.com... we just haven't reached any conclusion on that definitively. But I certainly defend anybody's right to examine those issues. In terms of making definitive conclusions, you've got to be careful until you have sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm still going
-
Thanks, I been reading through it. Some fascinating paragraphs.
-
JIM: But Fintan, just bear in mind that the Scholars for example spent a huge amount of time on this... I have two dozen reasons that are based in physics principally, that disprove the government's account. Maybe that's where you want to draw the line, I mean all this gets into the melting point of steel, the highest temperature a jet-based fuel based fire can attain, the steel was certified by Underwriters' Laboratories, such a temperature for such a period of time, that the fires were at much lower temperature for much briefer time, the rate of time that was consumed in the destruction of these buildings versus free-fall, all that sort of thing has been laid out in spades.
So that's one issue and I tend to agree and I frequently said that activists ought to emphasize all of our 'disproofs'. All of our evidence that the government's account can't possibly be correct. Then there's the other alternative of trying to explain what actually happened. This is where thermite, thermate, RDX, lasers, masers, plasmoids, all that come in to play -- so I take it what you're suggesting is basically the same point I have made to 9/11 activists, namely, focus on the disproofs, the refutation of the government's account. And then acknowledge of course we're trying to figure out what happened, but that's a very difficult messy business... and we haven't quite sorted it out yet. Is that basically your position?
FINTAN: I take the OJ Simpson case as a classic case in point. Where somebody seems to have walked, after committing a crime. But if you go into a court of law, and you have some dodgy evidence such as 'somebody planted a glove'... well unfortunately a whole lot of your case ends out being thrown out by the jury.
And that's the danger for us, that any time we depart from firm ground we start compromising our own position and that's precisely the areas the mainstream media will concentrate on. But I'd like to say here as well that I'm not here to take sides in the division in the former-unified organization, as to 9/11. That's not my place -- and in fact, I think it's evidence of a 'divide and conquer mechanism' at play -- and I'm not saying who pulled the divide and conquer stunt, but -- I think that 9/11 activists have got to be more focused on their own resources and analyzing the evidence themselves... and less reliant on the so-called---
JIM: Do you agree that figuring out what happened, in fact, is a legitimate objective of 9/11 research?
FINTAN: I think it is, yes. It's just that I wouldn't regard it as the primary stuff we should go to the mainstream media with... we go with the good 'hard' stuff where we've got a good basis.
...
For example, when I find a guy like General Ivashov appearing at an 'Axis of Peace' meeting in Brussels, and this is a guy who's former head of the Russian armed forces -- just to put it in context -- he's sitting there alongside 9/11 skeptics. And I'm just wondering to myself -- if you really get, for example, a former US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a 9/11 truth meeting. Then you'd have the picture that I'm trying to put together in my brain, how it could possibly by that this extremely dubious looking individual who headed the Russian armed forces -- is supposedly a 9/11 skeptic. And which informs my view that a number of key political, and in this case military figures are running 'cover' for the G8.
To ensure that if there is to be discussion of the 9/11 issue, they'll steer it in the 'correct' direction. And so I just question it when I see people sitting down with the likes of General Ivashov -- or Wayne Madsen, I don't care whether he's still NSA or ex-NSA, if I can see that he's been putting out bad information about for example, the Iran attack, which has got to be 'imminent' now for about four years, or at least 3-1/2 years...! I mean how imminent is imminent, Jim?
When do you reach the point where you start to put two and two together and realize that this is part of the 'total news management' cycle that these people have -- and they've beaten us to death[ with this Iran invasion issue... when there's substantive reasons to believe that the whole reason they went into Iraq in the first place, in confidence, knowing the Iranians were on-[?] and weren't going to ambush them in the South of the country, leaving them only the Sunni in the North to deal with... and that's the political reality behind the scenes -- and all of this Iran invasion stuff is completely dubious.
Because the Iranian leadership are 'on board'! And have been on-board ever since the Iranian Revolution was engineered by Western intelligence. Knowing that the Shah was about to fall.
So that's a clear substantive position, and those are the kind of bases I'm using to reach my determinations on this. All I can do is say to people, check it out for themselves and make their own conclusions -- but follow the logic I'm using: Who's pointing you in the wrong direction? Who's dividing and conquering? Who's contaminating the evidence? Who's wasting your time? Who's dragging you into 'loopy' 9/11 areas? And then draw your own conclusions from that.
-
Certainly an interesting way to look at things MB. The problem i have with some of it, is that it makes many assumptions about people's intentions. I tend not to get too caught up in that because it hard to determine these things without knowing for sure.
But it is interesting reading and thought provoking.
This paragraph:
Yes, and one of the key pieces of disinformation within the 9/11 issue is that it's designed to smear the blame across the neocons, Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, and portray this as some kind of grand military neocon adventure which was engineered into place by the 9/11 event.
Whereas in fact, it's much deeper than that. In fact, this is designed to be suspected by people internationally, that those were the people behind it. when there's a much broader agenda which has to do with demonizing the US government, breaking the confidence of the people of the United States in their own government and system of government. And then 'sheparding them' in the direction of good-cop bad-cop -- where the good cop is going to be Hillary Clinton, perhaps with Barack Obama as vice presidential candidate -- ushering us into this new era of globalization.
I look at 9/11 much differently than you i guess. I don't look at these so much:
Who's pointing you in the wrong direction?
Who's dividing and conquering?
Who's contaminating the evidence?
Who's wasting your time?
Who's dragging you into 'loopy' 9/11 areas?
Mainly because its too easy to draw false conjecture out of it.
I try an look at the tangible elements and then apply them to the big picture and ask if it's possible, likely, or far fetched.
Some examples:
Did the government know about the attacks before it happen and let them happen? "Possible"
Did a missile hit the pentagon? "Far Fetched" ( i can get into it, but i have many times here)
PS thanks for pulling up that info and not just blowing me off. I appreciate it.
-
PS thanks for pulling up that info and not just blowing me off. I appreciate it.
...
NP :)
-
:)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5712
-
Lets see,he has a book talking about it,a show talking about it,brings it up on every show hes on.Yes,good point Jesse,still think the Road Warriors wont make it in pro wrestling,dope.