Shitty title.. I used that because I just went blank with a title..
Anyways.. I got to thinking about the notion that government or people within government or even private citizens would never be willing to kill citizens for profit or other reasons.. Take 911 as an example..
The argument is that there's either no motivation or too much standing in the way, but consider this.
We have a nation of people willing to arm themselves to the teeth out of fear someone might break into our homes to swipe our lawn mower or whatever. Oh! Someone will knock you over the head for 20 bucks so I need to be armed..
The very same person might also tell you that nobody in government, etc. would be willing to kill say..3000 people for money or power..
I don't see the logic. If someone is willing to kill you over 20 bucks just imagine the motivation to kill for a few million or more.. maybe a few billion.. It's not as if street thugs have the monopoly on greed and violence.
I'm not trying to start a 911 conspiracy theory argument, just using this as a lousy example..
I've had this argument before about people in power who supposedly wouldn't kill fellow citizens for profit. Put enough money on the table and a good enough plan to get away with it and there is motivation enough..
I'm not pointing fingers or trying to get any conspiracy things going, just trying to get it through people's minds that a billion dollars is a hell of a bigger motivation to murder people than the lousy 20 bucks in your wallet..
The problem of the 9/11 conspiracy are their innacurate portrayals of the reality of the collapse. The MIT study about it pretty much sealed the argument there. The thing about conspiracy theories is the assumption of overly evil intent to the point of being unpragmatic. Their statements about reality do not coincide with it they are far too paranoid. What usually happens instead is mutually beneficial interests coinciding and creating a large effect that impacts the world. Like the military spending linked with the military industry pushing in the same direction to benefit each other. I think this might be a secondary effect of the clever trick of capitalism that makes you help other people by actually benefitting yourself. That is called the free market and legal tender. As ultimately we are primarily selfish and only protect our kin the market makes mutually agreed trades a great way to share resources around the population without having to force them into communism by force. The problem is when certain individuals get so much money they bend the rules of the market in their favor through corruption which apparently is legal in the US and called lobbying. And when enough big money interests coincide your country can go to war. It's more of a prospiracy than a conspiracy.
Unlike our previous history culminating in Kent State and perhaps Waco, the government has shown little hesitation to kill us. I think this is a lot harder to do. Social media has ripped open the very idea that nameless soldiers can stand in single file in front of a library and open fire on students. Moms and Dads and sisters and brothers are at both ends of the encounter, quite easy to see too. Within seconds people can call out someones name in either side. Familiarity may breed contempt but its a little harder to shoot someone that teaches your child, or operates a soup kitchen you used to go to.
As far as "secret governmental ops" yeah, I can see that. I could see a plane being shot out of the sky. But there are so many levels to go through to keep it secret. Every pilot probably assumes once he hits the trigger that someone behind him is lining him up right now, and that pilot as well, and the captain…I don't know, its a harsh realization that normal people go about killing others for no gain.
The medical and pharma may be suspect but all those tech and lab rats weren't born in a test tube, they have people they care for as well. Stack a few Dick Cheney's in line and now you got me looking for a big ole cave.
I don't buy into any conspiracy "theories" as that word is used in the layman's sense of "wild-ass idea". I buy into it when it becomes conspiracy fact, backed by documentation and real evidence.
A conspiracy theorist is a person who puts forth a malicious and fallacious set of stories about a person or group with the intentions of causing that person or persons harm. The stories take the shape of a set of theories that explain the REAL REASON an event occurred. This is termed a conspiracy theory.
I'm not pushing conspiracy theories, just saying that violence and robbery are not limited to the shady character hanging out by the ally way.. The bigger the prize the more likely that someone is going to spend some time plotting to take it from you and that plot very well may involve violence.
I just don't get that people are just fine if a guy in a suit swindles them vs a guy in a tshirt.. It's somehow ok if the clean cut, well dressed guy takes all your money, but a guy in a tshirt should be killed on the spot for even thinking about it?
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 07, 2016, 06:30:51 PM
I'm not pushing conspiracy theories, just saying that violence and robbery are not limited to the shady character hanging out by the ally way.. The bigger the prize the more likely that someone is going to spend some time plotting to take it from you and that plot very well may involve violence.
I just don't get that people are just fine if a guy in a suit swindles them vs a guy in a tshirt.. It's somehow ok if the clean cut, well dressed guy takes all your money, but a guy in a tshirt should be killed on the spot for even thinking about it?
Who are the people who are just fine with being swindled?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2016, 06:33:21 PM
Who are the people who are just fine with being swindled?
Almost all people are rubes ... swindled every day or at least every other day. Nobody, particularly the rube, wants to admit what an ass-hat they are. In capitalism and politics, you are either the con artist or the mark. Choose wisely ;-)
Quote from: widdershins on March 07, 2016, 05:34:01 PM
I don't buy into any conspiracy "theories" as that word is used in the layman's sense of "wild-ass idea". I buy into it when it becomes conspiracy fact, backed by documentation and real evidence.
This is why most will remain speculations, either plausible or implausible. We still don't know who all were behind the Lincoln assassination. There is evidence that Sec of War Stanton was involved. Lincoln's surviving son, carefully burned all his parent's correspondence (no Presidential Library back then) ... young Teddy Roosevelt visited him one night, while he was doing so, Teddy asked him what he was doing, and that is what Lincoln's son said.
With the US government producing 100% propaganda non-stop ... I doubt any official story of the past 75 years. Truth is the first fatality in war, and the US government has been at war against everyone, including the US population, for 75 years now.
Right now the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson and probably many others are doing their best to manipulate government in elections and changing opinions with misinformation. The news media outlets in this country are altogether owned by six different different corporations. It is safe to say that these corporations have political opinions. Just look at how Rupert Murdoch took over National Geographic, a major science related periodical and started a "new chapter" in their history.
Not saying there are conspiracies but the means is certainly there. The Illuminati conspiracy theories started with a real organization, Adam Weishaupt and the Bavarian Illuminati. which was an "enlightened" group of Masons. They did in fact make efforts to control politics in Bavaria and nearby countries.
The Catholic church got away with centuries of horrific acts because of their power and their political connections. It is certainly possible. Nothing wrong with examining shit to see what is behind it. The Order of Knights Templar was abolished by the Catholic Church in a sweep of several countries. There are still shows on now about what happened to Templar gold; they were supposedly at one time a vastly wealthy group. The supposed gold is still missing. That is a conspiracy with some fact behind it.
I've worked to debunk a few conspiracy theorists on here; some of you will remember the long running 9/11 mess we had. But I don't discount the possibility, and I will study it before I deny it.
If I were President at the time, and I want war in Iraq, I'm letting the twin towers get knocked down. It's the smart move. Can anyone here propose a better way to get the American population to support war all over the Middle East for decades to come, and for them to have less of a problem with a bunch of their rights starting to disappear? I can't think of a better way to do it. Bush and Cheney did the smart thing and things went down flawlessly. Hatred and fear of Muslims is still so strong in so many Americans because of that day that you even have the majority of Americans now supporting a ground invasion of Syria.
The biggest joke is when people say they don't think the people in power were evil enough to do something like this, or let something like this happen. What a joke. The same people who were fine with over a million dying in Iraq? They weren't evil enough? When you have no issue with millions of deaths, three thousand is a drop in the bucket and is fuck all in the big picture. You don't get to be President if your morals aren't all screwed up. Yeah, it might be easier for you to get by thinking that your government cares about it's people and wouldn't let something like that happen, just like it might be easier for a theist who thinks god cares about them and is watching their back. I don't need that false sense of security.
I don't think it matters if the Bush administration had anything to do with 9/11. I don't know if 9/11 was an inside job, and I do not care if it was. It's pretty much irrelevant to me. Invading all these countries in the Middle East and taking away Americans rights is the big evil act. Letting 9/11 happen is pretty minor, and it's only smart to have 9/11 happen if your plan is already to go into Iraq. Bush gets called a moron all the time for not being bright enough to stop 9/11 even when he had warnings... I think if Bush and Cheney were truly morons, they would have stopped 9/11 from happening.
Quote from: Baruch on March 07, 2016, 06:37:05 PM
Almost all people are rubes ... swindled every day or at least every other day. Nobody, particularly the rube, wants to admit what an ass-hat they are. In capitalism and politics, you are either the con artist or the mark. Chose wisely ;-)
That's different from being fine with it.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 07, 2016, 06:52:06 PM
If I were President at the time, and I want war in Iraq, I'm letting the twin towers get knocked down. It's the smart move.
Actually, it's idiotic.
I didn't create the evil flying monkeys or the Wicked Witch of the West. So don't complain to me about how reality is a scary children's movie from 1939.
If I am not OK with the tides, then like King Canute, I will use my kingly power to make them stop!
That's quite a bur you have under your saddle.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2016, 06:54:43 PM
Actually, it's idiotic.
How so? It worked out brilliantly, like I said. People were so blinded with hate and fear of Muslims that they were going to support going into any country Bush wanted to go into. All he had to do was make up some crap about WMDs and the people were on board. The American government had it's people in a state of fear, so they could do whatever they wanted. That's another thing I don't quite understand... people have no problem admitting that Bush lied about WMDs to get into Iraq, but then they turn around and say there's no way he lied to get into Afghanistan as well to get this whole "War on Terrorism" started. Apparently it's ridiculous to think that Bush would have lied to get the War on Terrorism started, yet these same people admit that he lied to get other wars started. Why is it then so out there to think that he might have lied to get the Afghanistan war started?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 07, 2016, 06:54:43 PM
Actually, it's idiotic.
Yep, even if the twin towers had not been attacked, the Iraqi war would have happened anyway. It was in the cards the moment that Bush was elected with Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neo-cons in charge of the agenda. 9/11 provided the excuse to get the American people on board.
Quote from: widdershins on March 07, 2016, 05:34:01 PM
I don't buy into any conspiracy "theories" as that word is used in the layman's sense of "wild-ass idea". I buy into it when it becomes conspiracy fact, backed by documentation and real evidence.
Which is exactly the point. Speculation built on political distrust is not a valid argument for any suggested scenario in itself. And political distrust in combination with self inflicted ideological and social isolation is rampant in the mothercountry of conspiracy theories (and also increasingly in other countries) causing distressing dumbing down of the public at large. Where 9-11 is concerned, yes, going to war with Iraq was a bad idea. A really bad idea. Which only shows that it was probably conjured up as a result of the 9-11 event and not the other way around. Conspiracies happen at times, but most so called conspiracy theories are bunk.
Gerard
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 07, 2016, 07:23:15 PM
Yep, even if the twin towers had not been attacked, the Iraqi war would have happened anyway. It was in the cards the moment that Bush was elected with Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neo-cons in charge of the agenda. 9/11 provided the excuse to get the American people on board.
The US government had a hard enough time keeping support for the Iraq war up, even with the 3000 dead Americans on 9/11. Imagine how much quicker the people would have started protesting the war in Iraq without 9/11 causing them to fear/ hate Muslims. The people wouldn't have supported the war in the first place. The neo-cons knew that they needed their own Pearl Harbor. The neo-cons said that absent a new Pearl Harbor, the process of transformation would be painfully slow. They admitted it themselves, so why do you now deny it? They said themselves that they couldn't achieve what they wanted without a new Pearl Harbor. Do you really believe they would have been able to achieve their goals without 9/11? That's crazy. Even the neo-cons weren't crazy enough to believe something like that. Come on now.
And how do you rip up the Constitution/ Bill of Rights by bringing in the Patriot Act without 9/11? How? You don't. You need 9/11 to get people on board with having their rights taken. They want the people to be on board with having their own rights taken if possible, and they have achieved that with a lot of people happy to give up their rights.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 07, 2016, 07:41:58 PM
The US government had a hard enough time keeping support for the Iraq war up, even with the 3000 dead Americans on 9/11. Imagine how much quicker the people would have started protesting the war in Iraq without 9/11 causing them to fear/ hate Muslims. The people wouldn't have supported the war in the first place. The neo-cons knew that they needed their own Pearl Harbor. The neo-cons said that absent a new Pearl Harbor, the process of transformation would be painfully slow. They admitted it themselves, so why do you now deny it? They said themselves that they couldn't achieve what they wanted without a new Pearl Harbor. Do you really believe they would have been able to achieve their goals without 9/11? That's crazy. Even the neo-cons weren't crazy enough to believe something like that. Come on now.
And how do you rip up the Constitution/ Bill of Rights by bringing in the Patriot Act without 9/11? How? You don't. You need 9/11 to get people on board with having their rights taken. They want the people to be on board with having their own rights taken if possible, and they have achieved that with a lot of people happy to give up their rights.
Which is emphatically not a valid argument supporting the veracity of a conspiracy theory concerning 9-11. Just a politically motivated rationalization.... I'm sorry to say.
Gerard
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 07, 2016, 07:41:58 PM
The US government had a hard enough time keeping support for the Iraq war up, even with the 3000 dead Americans on 9/11. Imagine how much quicker the people would have started protesting the war in Iraq without 9/11 causing them to fear/ hate Muslims. The people wouldn't have supported the war in the first place. The neo-cons knew that they needed their own Pearl Harbor. The neo-cons said that absent a new Pearl Harbor, the process of transformation would be painfully slow. They admitted it themselves, so why do you now deny it? They said themselves that they couldn't achieve what they wanted without a new Pearl Harbor. Do you really believe they would have been able to achieve their goals without 9/11? That's crazy. Even the neo-cons weren't crazy enough to believe something like that. Come on now.
And how do you rip up the Constitution/ Bill of Rights by bringing in the Patriot Act without 9/11? How? You don't. You need 9/11 to get people on board with having their rights taken. They want the people to be on board with having their own rights taken if possible, and they have achieved that with a lot of people happy to give up their rights.
I believe you don't understand the difference between cause and effect, so I won't waste any more of my time answering your post.
Quote from: Gerard on March 07, 2016, 07:38:20 PM
Which is exactly the point. Speculation built on political distrust is not a valid argument for any suggested scenario in itself. And political distrust in combination with self inflicted ideological and social isolation is rampant in the mothercountry of conspiracy theories (and also increasingly in other countries) causing distressing dumbing down of the public at large.
This plus a thousand!
Conspiracy theories are an exceptionally lazy, moronic, and untrustworthy way of making sense of events. Pinning something horrific on some untrusted boogeyman simply because it vibes with one's way of viewing the world and not because of actual data leading to a conclusion is the domain of cranks and fools, not skeptics.
QuoteWhere 9-11 is concerned, yes, going to war with Iraq was a bad idea. A really bad idea. Which only shows that it was probably conjured up as a result of the 9-11 event and not the other way around.
The W Bush administration planned the Iraq War before 9/11 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/). That event just gave the administration the opportunity to go through with it with a lot less fuss.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 07, 2016, 08:12:43 PM
This plus a thousand!
Conspiracy theories are an exceptionally lazy, moronic, and untrustworthy way of making sense of events. Pinning something horrific on some untrusted boogeyman simply because it vibes with one's way of viewing the world and not because on actual data leading to a conclusion is the domain of cranks and fools, not skeptics.
The W Bush administration planned the Iraq War before 9/11 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/). That event just gave the administration the opportunity to go through with it with a lot less fuss.
Interesting link there. I always had the impression that, pre 9-11, Bush was holding back because he obviously didn't win a popular mandate, although he did become President, and was therefore more keen on winning some domestic points. 9-11 all changed that (and not for the better).
Gerard
It's a worrying thing how conspiracy theories become ever more popular. I say blame the internet.... No... not really, but blame political polarization and the fact that people somehow feel entitled not to be confronted with opinions that are not to their liking. Which deprives them of "food for thought", which you need to keep an open mind that is not so open that your brain falls out! So yes. The internet is partly to blame. And the polarization within other media that don't behave like professional news organizations anymore but as political hacks that are only interested in viewing numbers and commercials (sorry about the rant)... Anyhow, the most popular conspiracy theories of the last decennium can, in my opinion, mostly not stand up to informed inductive scrutiny. 9-11, moon hoax, birth hoax (Obama), JFK assassination, Ted Cruz is a Canadian (the Trump hoax as I call it), Hidden History, Forbidden archeology, Planet X and all the Zecharia Sitchin stuff about Annunaki, and generally the whole UFO experience Roswell..... all substandard BULL!
Gerard
Don't forget Elvis, HIV/AIDS deliberately spread by some government or made up altogether, and autism-causing vaccines. :P
A few of the reasons for the ascendancy of denialism that I've noticed:
1) the truth is psychologically uncomfortable. Chalking it up to some group that you already dislike and "know" is responsible gives people a sense of control. 9/11 is a big contender there, as is global warming denial.
2) distrust of official sources (the government/media/scientist is lying! I just know it!)
3) anti-intellectualism ("my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - the false equivalency between expert knowledge and non-expert hunches)
Gerard ... when I want to consume bull, I consume only the good stuff ;-)
Ok going use multiple quotes because you're covering a lot of ground here. Sorry for that, just the best way to do it I think.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 07, 2016, 04:01:04 PM
Shitty title.. I used that because I just went blank with a title..
Anyways.. I got to thinking about the notion that government or people within government or even private citizens would never be willing to kill citizens for profit or other reasons.. Take 911 as an example..
The argument is that there's either no motivation or too much standing in the way, but consider this.
First off, you're right that this argument is bogus. But you're wrong about a lot of the other stuff so I'll get into that a bit and then I'll come back to this if I can remember to do so.
QuoteWe have a nation of people willing to arm themselves to the teeth out of fear someone might break into our homes to swipe our lawn mower or whatever. Oh! Someone will knock you over the head for 20 bucks so I need to be armed..
The very same person might also tell you that nobody in government, etc. would be willing to kill say..3000 people for money or power..
I don't see the logic.
Ok first off, a gross misconception or two. I now know quite a few people who do indeed arm themselves to the teeth and aren't the least bit ashamed of that fact. I do not know one single solitary person, armed or otherwise, who loses a moments rest over the thought of someone swiping their lawn mower or $20 or $20,000 much less has any kind of willingness or desire to kill over such trivial things. I know you probably won't believe what I've just said, but I'm here to tell you believe it because it's absolutely true. If the criminal in question makes if obvious that they only intend to steal stuff and have no intent to harm anyone, every single gun owner I personally know will let them take the stuff and keep their weapon holstered. I am by no means saying every person will do that. I am only saying that everyone I know would do it and therefore my assumption is most (but probably not all) gun owners would do it.
The people I know who arm themselves for protection do so because they fear bodily harm and that is all. Their stuff is insured. So stealing it just means they get to shopping with someone else paying the tab which is something just about everyone loves to do. Their fear is a criminal who is intent on doing physical harm to them and that is all. Not one person I know enjoys the thought that they could potentially put someone in their grave. But they all are willing to pick themselves and their loved ones as the unharmed survivors of such a scenario over the alternative of a memorial service in their honor.
So in short yeah, you're a little wrong about your assumptions here. Next.
QuoteIf someone is willing to kill you over 20 bucks just imagine the motivation to kill for a few million or more.. maybe a few billion.. It's not as if street thugs have the monopoly on greed and violence.
Again, you're absolutely right. A few million dollars is definitely more than enough motivation for tons of people to willfully kill any number of strangers and even non-strangers. People are greedy and ruthless. No doubt about it. And that right there is the place where the wheels come off the tracks for pretty much all conspiracy theories. Because pretty much all of them require a large number of individuals (i.e. more than say 4) to have knowledge of what is going on AND keep their mouths shut tight about it. That is just never going to happen because as we've just established, people are just far too greedy and far too ruthless. Once the scheme is large enough that it requires more than about 4 people to have knowledge of its existence, you have to expect that someone will be willing to take the money offered to any who will talk.
Case in point: TWA flight 800. There are MANY who believe that plane was brought down by a shoulder fired rocket or some such which was launched by some faction of our own military or government. Lots of people genuinely believe this. But here is what that conspiracy requires. The wreckage resulting from that accident was investigated by teams from both the FBI and the NTSB. Large teams of scientists and engineers and experts. Most of these folks hold down salaries south of $100k per year and most will be lucky if they can afford to retire in one of those god-forsaken Florida gated golf cart communities (no offence intended to those who desire or enjoy that lifestyle). So if there were any plausible evidence that a rocket of any sort was involved in the accident scenario, most of the experts who had their hands on the wreckage would know it. And the law of averages alone says at least one of them would be willing to pad their retirement with the large amounts of easy money that would come their way by speaking up about whatever they were inevitably required to keep quiet about.
If only two individuals had access to the wreckage? If only two individuals had access to the results of all the testing? Then yes, it would be completely plausible that a cover-up could take place. But far more people had access to everything and tons of them will never retire wealthy no matter what they do. So tons of people would have more than enough incentive to talk if there were anything to talk about.
QuoteI've had this argument before about people in power who supposedly wouldn't kill fellow citizens for profit. Put enough money on the table and a good enough plan to get away with it and there is motivation enough..
Again, true. Again, the good enough plan part is where the wheels fall off and fall off hard. Get more than 4 individuals involved (as all conspiracy theories do) and you simply cannot hope to keep everyone quiet. No way no how.
I don't buy into any conspiracy theories in which the proponents use the word "sheeple".
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 07, 2016, 07:15:42 PM
How so? It worked out brilliantly, like I said. People were so blinded with hate and fear of Muslims that they were going to support going into any country Bush wanted to go into. All he had to do was make up some crap about WMDs and the people were on board. The American government had it's people in a state of fear, so they could do whatever they wanted. That's another thing I don't quite understand... people have no problem admitting that Bush lied about WMDs to get into Iraq, but then they turn around and say there's no way he lied to get into Afghanistan as well to get this whole "War on Terrorism" started. Apparently it's ridiculous to think that Bush would have lied to get the War on Terrorism started, yet these same people admit that he lied to get other wars started. Why is it then so out there to think that he might have lied to get the Afghanistan war started?
If you want to start a religious war you start by attacking religion. Ten light airplanes loaded with explosives fly into ten major churches in the US. National Cathedral, Crystal Cathedral, etc., are destroyed. Religious fervor sweeps the nation. And you don't have to hijack large airliners, you buy the light planes outright. Given that they weren't sure the Twin Towers would actually go down or that the hijackings would actually work the IOTL attacks were idiotic.
"and you simply cannot hope to keep everyone quiet. No way no how." ... this is why the 9/11 guys had giggle fits, and one of them told President Shrub what they were doing before 9/11 ... right? People only have to be quiet until after the act. After that dead men tell no tales. This is why we had Osama confess to everything after we captured him alive ... right?
Don't think there is much doubt that a dead Osama is way better than a live one. No one wanted to give the man a voice after the fact anyway. Obama had cross hairs on him when the first plane hit the tower. And you can tout conspiracy theories about how he was sitting in a Syrian jail and we could have disposed of him prior to 9/11 and didn't. I never thought the U S intelligence community had much going on between the ears.
All conspiracy theories are after the fact based on some erroneous, doesn't fit the pattern information. Human nature is one of suspicion and doubt, so you will always have conspiracy theories. I will still examine them because of my curious nature, but by and large they are bunk.
Quote from: stromboli on March 08, 2016, 10:51:28 AM
Don't think there is much doubt that a dead Obama is way better than a live one. No one wanted to give the man a voice after the fact anyway. Obama had cross hairs on him when the first plane hit the tower. And you can tout conspiracy theories about how he was sitting in a Syrian jail and we could have disposed of him prior to 9/11 and didn't. I never thought the U S intelligence community had much going on between the ears.
All conspiracy theories are after the fact based on some erroneous, doesn't fit the pattern information. Human nature is one of suspicion and doubt, so you will always have conspiracy theories. I will still examine them because of my curious nature, but by and large they are bunk.
Did you mean "Osama"?
My bad. I changed it.
Lol. Acto fallido, amigo.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 07, 2016, 06:30:51 PM
I'm not pushing conspiracy theories, just saying that violence and robbery are not limited to the shady character hanging out by the ally way.. The bigger the prize the more likely that someone is going to spend some time plotting to take it from you and that plot very well may involve violence.
I just don't get that people are just fine if a guy in a suit swindles them vs a guy in a tshirt.. It's somehow ok if the clean cut, well dressed guy takes all your money, but a guy in a tshirt should be killed on the spot for even thinking about it?
You hit on one of my biggest pet peeves in our "justice" system. Forget the fact that there are 3 levels of punishment, depending on who you are. And forget the fact the justice is very much for sale. If one person has vastly more money than another, the one with more money will either win or utterly financially destroy the other. The fact that the punishment doesn't fit the crime is much, much worse. Corporations have no incentive to be "good guys" because when they're not they can steal an amount of money and, when caught, pay back a paltry percentage of what was stolen along with fines, often totally less than a quarter of what they actually stole. And the guy who made the decisions on who to steal from and how, bringing home multi-million dollar salaries each year, his assets are untouchable because "he" didn't commit the crime, the corporation did. He just ordered it done.
Throw in the outrageous disparity between how the rich are treated compared to ordinary people and our justice system is nothing but a joke. If you're poor and charged with a crime, you sit in jail until you are proved innocent. If you are rich and charged with a crime, the "arrest" is a formality and you're free until you're proved guilty, sentenced and then given a few months to get your affairs in order...IF you get any jail time at all, at which time you are expected to personally report to "very much not" the same jail the poor people are in. It's a disgrace, a sickening product of our for-profit prison system where money can buy a better prison experience.
Case in point, Stewart Parnell of Peanut Corporation of America knowingly shipped salmonella tainted peanuts. The plant was shut down in 2009 after a massive outbreak. It took 4 years before Parnell was even charged with a crime. It took nearly another year and a half before the trial began. 4 more months before he was convicted. Another year before he was sentenced. Another 5 months before, just last month, he started serving that sentence. And all that time, he walked free. 7 years to the month of extra freedom his money bought him, and a 28 year sentence (admittedly, effectively life) of a possible 803 year sentence for killing 9 people and sickening hundreds more in reckless profiteering with no concern for public safety. He blatantly violated health laws. There were holes in the roofs of some of his buildings and birds flying around inside, crapping on conveyor belts. Products which tested positive for salmonella were retested again and again until the test was negative so they could be shipped, though the law clearly stated that ONE failed test meant the product had to be destroyed. None of his plants had ever been inspected by health officials because he had purposely mis-classified them as facilities that did not require health inspections. And when officials finally shut him down, his response was to ask them to just let him "turn the product on the floor into money". And this from a man who served on the US Department of Agriculture Peanut Standards Board, responsible for the very standards he violated routinely. And when he was sued, it was the
company which went bankrupt. He's still rich.
The there's ex-congressman Mark Foley, a champion of online safety for children...then caught texting teenage boys for sex. But what happened to Parnel, that's not what happened to Foley. Parnel was using the rules for the "rich". Foley fell under the rules for the "powerful". No charges. Resign and it's done.
I could go on and on about the problems with our corrupt and out of control justice system, but that's not the topic and I'm sure nobody wants to read me bitching for 5 more paragraphs.
People tend to disregard conspiracy theories mainly because the term has become associated with crackpots. The ones which are actually believable are just called theories.
Here is an example: The government could impose additional capital controls on your 401k/IRA/pension money. It is already under government control. They could increase that control. They could prohibit you from taking any money out (including under current rules) ... because they got up one morning and decided that.
So if I say they will increase capital controls, or they will do it on 7/4/16 ... then that is a speculation, not a theory. A theory has to have backing. I would have to know someone in Treasury who told me this in confidence. The US and every other government, has complete control of your checking and bank accounts, and all other electronic financial assets ... because they control every institution (including banks) that allow you access or control. This is a theory, because it is backed by evidence. So they could do this ... and if they do, I don't know when. So does that make me a crackpot? Depends on if you need access or control ... and if you expect that your financial institution or government ... is looking out for your interests ;-)
On a related point ... a little bird told another little bird, that right now, the IT department at Bank of America is reworking their software (like the year 2000 issue) to allow negative interest rates. That isn't the same as the President coming out and saying it. But if any President came out and said that ... I would think it highly unlikely, rather than more likely, because all Presidents are tools, and pathological liars.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 08, 2016, 11:16:16 PM
People tend to disregard conspiracy theories mainly because the term has become associated with crackpots. The ones which are actually believable are just called theories.
I think it's more than that, though for many it may not be on a conscious level. In my early evolution as an atheist I used to be open to ideas about just about anything. Alien visitation, ghosts, bigfoot, God, you name it. I didn't necessarily believe in any of it, but let's say I hoped there was something truly magical out there. But I had just come out of a religion which I had ignorantly taken on "faith" (because that's how it's done) and, realizing I had been wrong, I was fully aware that faith was stupid.
Long story short, I spent a lot of time looking into claims and tracking down stories for a couple of years, and conspiracy theories were among the things I looked into. Not one of them panned out, of course, but more than that, I noticed the attitudes of the claimants, how they would change when a favored theory was shot down. They wouldn't. Not one bit. They would simply drop the discussion entirely and move on to the next claim. They were never phased, never slowed, never dissuaded. To them, it was "proof" until you proved it wasn't. And if you did, forget about it. There was plenty more "proof" to fawn over. I got to know the psychology of the claimant and I realized they tend to have similarities. There is the basic, urgent need for there to
be a conspiracy, and it really doesn't matter what it is, though they all have their favorites.
So I don't think it is so much that the term has been associated with crackpots as it is that only crackpots use the term and, on a subconscious level anyway, we all tend to be able to spot them pretty easily if we're not blinded by that self-same need. Some of them speak desperately, some of them speak eloquently, but all of them speak vaguely, offering "suggestive evidence" instead of real evidence. Nobody is calling Snowden a conspiracy theorist. Why? Because he speaks directly, offering actual, real evidence, not some vague connect-the-dots "theory", but reality. Because the laymen calls it a "theory" when they have no proof, and I think, at least on a subconscious level, we all kind of recognize that and, unless we choose to ignore it (as many do, again, subconsciously) to entertain a fantasy with which to occupy our minds with mystery we just dismiss them outright unless they have proof, which is natural, honest and intellectual.
It's one of those things where crackpot theory uses crackpot evidence. Hard to penetrate through...
The thing about the kinds of things that might arise to the level of a conspiracy theory or actual conspiracies is they're usually committed by people who will go to extraordinary lengths to keep anyone from finding out up to and including murder which in turn has to be covered up. It's hard to fathom for most people those kinds of concepts and for those involved they always have the ace in the hole of simply saying that it's just a conspiracy theory. Once the public believes that it's simply a conspiracy theory the odds of anyone following through and actually investigating it diminishes greatly. After all, who wants to be the high profile conspiracy theory investigator? There really are two sides to the coin.
We know that conspiracy exist and so do theories, but put the two together and whalah! It's like magic and goes away..
My problem is not with people accepting the official 9/11 story. That's all fine and well. My problem is when people act like questioning the official story makes you an idiot. You can pretend that any questions have been "debunked", but nothing that I've said about 9/11 has been debunked. It can't be debunked, so all this debunked talk you hear is nothing but nonsense. We don't know exactly what happened that day, and anyone acting like they know exactly what happened acts like they know more than they do. You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. You pretend to know everything about everything. I don't pretend to know everything.
Yes, most truthers are morons. That goes for anything in life. Most consevatives are morons and most liberals are also morons. Most human beings are morons. Most human beings make claims that can not be backed up by evidence. I try to make sure not to do that, and that's why my take on 9/11 can't be debunked. Dick Cheney and George W Bush, two of the most evil men to ever live, had the power to shoot planes down. No planes were shot down. One decision destroys their Presidency and fucks up everything they want to accomplish (shoot the planes down), and the other possible decision gives them everything they want on a silver platter. If you're one of the most evil men to ever live, what is your decision? What do you do? Hard choice, eh? Sure, it's possible that they didn't catch the planes in time to shoot them down. I accept that that's possible. If they did catch the planes in time though, which choice are two of the most evil men ever more likely to make? One that's going to ruin their Presidency, or one that's going to benefit their Presidency more than anything has ever benefited a Presidency before? If you answer that question by saying you think two of the most evil men doing something to benefit them in a huge way is as likely as Jesus rising from the dead, I can not take your opinion seriously even a little bit. When I see someone say something like that, it seems like you've just heard Bill Maher compare people who question the government to Christians or something so you're just repeating that crap even though it makes little to no sense. Those who act like they are certain nothing sketchy went on behind the scenes... they are the ones acting like know-it-all Christians.
Conspiracy theories thrive on unknowns. Just that should tell you plenty about their veracity.
Sent from my ST23i using Tapatalk
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 09, 2016, 11:12:44 AM
It's one of those things where crackpot theory uses crackpot evidence. Hard to penetrate through...
Just pay attention to the speakers. Are they there to get the facts or are they there to attack someone or some group? Are they impervious to fatal flaws in their theory? Do they claim that anybody who uses the term conspiracy theorist is a tool of some shadowy force you've probably never heard of before?
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 09, 2016, 03:07:32 PMIf you answer that question by saying you think two of the most evil men doing something to benefit them in a huge way is as likely as Jesus rising from the dead, I can not take your opinion seriously even a little bit. When I see someone say something like that, it seems like you've just heard Bill Maher compare people who question the government to Christians or something so you're just repeating that crap even though it makes little to no sense. Those who act like they are certain nothing sketchy went on behind the scenes... they are the ones acting like know-it-all Christians.
There actually are parallels between conspiracy theorists and religious people. The most obvious ones are a reliance on personal conviction instead of hard facts and a tendency to hang onto disproven claims, either ignoring disconfirming evidence or obstinately denying that their claims are disproven at all.
Official inquiries though, are usually political/commercial coverups. The inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic, completely exonerated the Cunard Line and the captain at the helm ;-) So unfortunately, there was an official inquiry into 9/11 ... so we will never know. There was an official inquiry into the Challenger failure ... but fortunately a general poked a physicist into telling the truth ... Feynman. Without that nudge, and Feynman, NASA and Morton Thiokol would have been ... found innocent.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 09, 2016, 06:13:19 PM
There actually are parallels between conspiracy theorists and religious people. The most obvious ones are a reliance on personal conviction instead of hard facts and a tendency to hang onto disproven claims, either ignoring disconfirming evidence or obstinately denying that their claims are disproven at all.
That is absolutely true. Most conspiracy theorists are whacked out and believe some really dumb stuff.. There's no denying that. That is true for most people in the world. Most people in the world are theists afterall.
Nothing I've said on 9/11 has been disproven. Al Qaeda being involved we can agree on. The Bush Administrations involvement or lack of involvement is a separate matter from the Al Qaeda question. This question is still up in the air, while the Al Qaeda question is not still up in the air. It's been settled. Al Qaeda did it, or at least hihacked the planes. It's still up in the air whether the Bush Admin allowed it to happen, so let's not pretend that this is all one question rather than two separate matters. You don't just get to say, Al Qaeda did it, so end of story. It's not the end of the story. Knowing that Al Qaeda did it only answers part of the story, not the entire story.
I have no problem with the idea that the official story of 9/11 is correct. I have no problem with the idea that it's unlikely that the Bush Admin would have let 9/11 happen. I have no problem with "truthers" being called out or compared to Christians when these people make claims that can't be backed up, and this is something that they absolutely do all the time. There's no doubt about that. Truthers are mostly too sure of themselves, just like most other people are too sure of themselves. What does this prove though? Does it tell us one way or the other whether the Bush Admin allowed the attacks to happen? It doesn't tell us anything about that. This is still a legitimate question, no matter how many truthers make asses out of themselves.
Why mirror the truthers who act like they know everything, by acting like you yourself know everything? This is what we always say about Christians. That they are afraid to say "I don't know". Why can't we just say "I don't know" when it comes to the Bush Administrations involvement in 9/11? If your response to me is that I haven't proven anything about 9/11, you would be right. I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just making a case to say that it's ok to doubt the government. So to recap, I'm fine with the idea that 9/11 happened as they say it did. I'm fine with the idea that it's unlikely that the Bush Admin had anything to do with it. If you're going to say I'm the same as a flat earther or something like that for even raising questions and saying maybe just maybe Bush let it happen, then I'm sorry, but you are acting like you have knowledge that you can't possibly have. We are all going by the same facts here. You don't have that knowledge, so don't pretend you do. None of us do. All we can do is speculate, one way or the other. You speculate one way, and I the other. Again, I'm not trying to say that most conspiracy theorists aren't morons, and I'm not trying to prove anything about 9/11. That was never the point for me. I'm just defending those who say "maybe, just maybe". These people are not the same as flat earthers. If someone makes a claim that can't be backed up, go ahead and call them on that.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 09, 2016, 03:07:32 PM
and that's why my take on 9/11 can't be debunked.
And what exactly is your take? If its what you wrote in the above post then yeah, it can be debunked. Pretty easily actually.
Quote from: Johan on March 09, 2016, 07:19:22 PM
And what exactly is your take? If its what you wrote in the above post then yeah, it can be debunked. Pretty easily actually.
My take is that Bush and Cheney may have let it happen. Go ahead and debunk.
There's a ghost in my attic. I dare anyone to disprove that.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 09, 2016, 07:30:54 PM
There's a ghost in my attic. I dare anyone to disprove that.
Why bring in the supernatural? That would only make sense if ghosts were already known to exist. My claim was that Bush and Cheney may have lied to get into a war. They have been known to lie to get into war. That is reality. All I'm saying is maybe they did once more, what we already know they have done and were willing to do, because they did it in Iraq. Lie to go to war. I'm proposing they may have done something we know they have done before. That's not something farfetched like a belief in ghosts. Not even close. You think Bush didn't let it happen, and that is speculation on your part. I am speculating just the same as you are. We are doing the same thing, so don't act like you are going by the facts and I am denying any facts, because that's not the case.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 09, 2016, 07:27:34 PM
My take is that Bush and Cheney may have let it happen. Go ahead and debunk.
With advanced knowledge of the event or without?
Quote from: Johan on March 09, 2016, 08:00:38 PM
With advanced knowledge of the event or without?
I don't know exactly what the Bush admin knew. Maybe Bush knew exactly what was going on, what time it was going to happen, etc. Maybe he knew less than that. I don't know.
They had a shitload of warnings that Bin Laden was determined to attack. I don't know if they knew all the specifics. The WTC and Washington should have been obvious targets though. Muslims went after the WTC before, so those buildings should have been protected if the government didn't want them to be hit. PNAC said shortly before 9/11 that there was consensus among those in power. They wanted to see a "transformation" with the US military. They said this transformation would be painfully slow without a Pearl Harbor like event. So, shortly before 9/11, PNAC is admitting that those in power can't accomplish what they want to accomplish as is. Something big needs to happen, they say. Shortly after that, Bush is elected, and something more than big happens. The neo-cons get their Pearl Harbor. Now, that doesn't show that they made it or let it happen, but what it shows is that those in power benefit from 9/11 in a big way, and this is why I say maybe, just maybe they let it happen.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 09, 2016, 07:27:34 PM
My take is that Bush and Cheney may have let it happen. Go ahead and debunk.
Been done, FDR let Pearl Harbor happen. Then Hitler also declared war on the US ... and this was a good thing that the American people were opposed to. Americans were pro-German but anti-Japanese ... because racism.
But there will be no paper, signed by FDR in his own blood ... saying that this was so. But then we have no paper, signed by Washington in his own blood ... that the Constitution of 1787 was a coup ... though it was. There was no authority for the convention. But then Americans are traitors.
Of course one can say that the public existence of the PNAC is proof of intent ... and others would say that the PNAC shows intent, but that doesn't convict anyone in court ... you have to have blood on your hands, not just intent to kill.
Denial or agreement ... regarding FDR or Shrub ... is a matter of politics. And no ... Lincoln didn't let the South start a war ... snicker! All politician's ethics are as white as the driven snow ... and I am in kindergarten still wearing pull-ups ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2016, 06:57:58 PM
Official inquiries though, are usually political/commercial coverups. The inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic, completely exonerated the Cunard Line and the captain at the helm ;-) So unfortunately, there was an official inquiry into 9/11 ... so we will never know. There was an official inquiry into the Challenger failure ... but fortunately a general poked a physicist into telling the truth ... Feynman. Without that nudge, and Feynman, NASA and Morton Thiokol would have been ... found innocent.
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 10, 2016, 08:09:04 AM
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.
Tell me how the Titanic investigation or the Pearl Harbor commission etc all went down. The government always tells the truth (and they know it, they know all things) and so do corporations. Tide really is new and improved ... hallelujah!
Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2016, 06:57:58 PM
Official inquiries though, are usually political/commercial coverups. The inquiry into the sinking of the Titanic, completely exonerated the Cunard Line and the captain at the helm ;-)
How can anyone realistically be blamed for not wanting to run headlong into an iceburg? Or thinking that the best-built and compartmentalized ship to sail to that date could afford to skimp a little on the safety?
Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2016, 06:57:58 PM
So unfortunately, there was an official inquiry into 9/11 ... so we will never know.
:lolhitting:
Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2016, 06:57:58 PM
There was an official inquiry into the Challenger failure ... but fortunately a general poked a physicist into telling the truth ... Feynman. Without that nudge, and Feynman, NASA and Morton Thiokol would have been ... found innocent.
Bullshit, as anyone who had read Feynman's account of his role in the investigation would know (
What Do You Care What Other People Think?).
Quote from: Baruch on March 10, 2016, 01:10:40 PM
Tell me how the Titanic investigation or the Pearl Harbor commission etc all went down. The government always tells the truth (and they know it, they know all things) and so do corporations. Tide really is new and improved ... hallelujah!
It just so happens that I have all forty volumes of the Congressional Investigation into the Attack on Pearl Harbor online. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/
Enjoy reading the 38,000 pages, I did. (But I was 14 when I started reading them, so I had ahead start on you.)
The problem here is that some folks think they have THE TRUTH and everybody else is just stupid. Doesn't do much for their credibility when they start of with "you ignorant sheeple don't know shit" and things go down hill from there.
Quote from: Johan on March 09, 2016, 08:00:38 PM
With advanced knowledge of the event or without?
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 09, 2016, 07:55:21 PM
You think Bush didn't let it happen, and that is speculation on your part.
But that would require the ability to read minds, which is not available, not more than investigating ghosts.
QuoteI am speculating just the same as you are. We are doing the same thing, so don't act like you are going by the facts and I am denying any facts, because that's not the case.
That was the point of my post. Investigating ghosts is just as bad as investigating the mind of W. Bush.
Gawdzilla Sama ... and your response is in the frame of your politics. You know in G-d terms, that FDR was innocent. But that isn't what this is about ...
The Challenger stuff ... I read it to. The intent was to exonerate NASA and Morton Thiokol ... it didn't happen, because the general suggested to Feynman, that result would be a shame, as well as false. Feynman had to completely dumb things down to prove his point, and NASA and Morton Thiokol only sorta of got away with murder. The head of NASA should have been executed, along with the managers at Morton Thiokol who overrode the engineers who knew better.
Similarly the Titanic ... reptilian overlords didn't ram the Titanic into the iceberg ... because they were playing with ships in the bathtub (as indeed I once did). The investigation was to prevent any legal finding that Cunard Lines or the captain (who survived, but should have gone down with his ship) were liable for insurance claims or civil suites by the families of the deceased. There is no evidence it was deliberately sunk ... but that isn't the point, the insurance/civil court are the point. And Cunard Lines and the captain got off ... even more than NASA or Morton Thiokol.
If someone wants to believe that everyone is innocent ... fine. If someone wants to believe that negligence isn't culpable ... fine. If someone wants to believe that all tort law is wrong, that there should be no private lawsuits or class-action lawsuits ... fine. If you want to believe that Santa Claus saved all the people on the Titanic, and no one drowned (other people already dead were substituted) ... fine ;-)
So if we can't know what someone thinks, now or in the past, even under cross-examination ... we can cancel all trials then? Because if their intent was good (and we can't prove otherwise) then there is no need for punishment. On the other hand, if we have a text like the PNAC ... which is prima facie treason and a war crime ... then we can't prosecute, right? Freedom of speech means anything a criminal writes, before the crime, can't be used in evidence against him.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 09, 2016, 08:29:18 PM
I don't know exactly what the Bush admin knew. Maybe Bush knew exactly what was going on, what time it was going to happen, etc. Maybe he knew less than that. I don't know.
They had a shitload of warnings that Bin Laden was determined to attack. I don't know if they knew all the specifics. The WTC and Washington should have been obvious targets though. Muslims went after the WTC before, so those buildings should have been protected if the government didn't want them to be hit. PNAC said shortly before 9/11 that there was consensus among those in power. They wanted to see a "transformation" with the US military. They said this transformation would be painfully slow without a Pearl Harbor like event. So, shortly before 9/11, PNAC is admitting that those in power can't accomplish what they want to accomplish as is. Something big needs to happen, they say. Shortly after that, Bush is elected, and something more than big happens. The neo-cons get their Pearl Harbor. Now, that doesn't show that they made it or let it happen, but what it shows is that those in power benefit from 9/11 in a big way, and this is why I say maybe, just maybe they let it happen.
Ok you so what you're saying is you've got absolutely zero evidence and really not even the slightest sort of indication or hint that any kind of conspiracy took place. But you choose to believe that such a conspiracy might have taken place simply because its theoretically possible. Fair enough.
So I guess my question then becomes why don't you believe in god? There's no evidence for god but it is possible that god exists. And lots of people most definitely would benefit from god being real. So why is the lack of evidence enough to make you reject the existence of god but not enough to make you reject the existence of whacko they're all out to get us conspiracy theories?
CTers never change. Sox, underwear, whatever.
Except ... even if Shrub came out and said he did it ... the deniers (like Islamic fellow travelers) would still find some excuse it was OK he did it? There is no evidence for some people, that would be capable of proving to them that for example, global warming was real. I would expect it was Cheney rather than Shrub, anyway. One of those two is much more evil and more effective than the other, guess which one?
Just bantering for fun .. it seems that atheists are just as much into fantasy and reality denial ... as everyone else.
Quote from: Baruch on March 10, 2016, 06:43:03 PM
The Challenger stuff ... I read it to. The intent was to exonerate NASA and Morton Thiokol ... it didn't happen, because the general suggested to Feynman, that result would be a shame, as well as false. Feynman had to completely dumb things down to prove his point, and NASA and Morton Thiokol only sorta of got away with murder. The head of NASA should have been executed, along with the managers at Morton Thiokol who overrode the engineers who knew better.
In your opinion. While there was certainly pressure from the head of NASA to get the Challenger off the ground that day, it is the Flight Director who bears the ultimate onus for what happens during the mission. It was up to him to decide whether to attempt to launch or scrub it. If he sincerely felt that it was not safe to launch, it would be his responsibility to say no. To my knowledge, the Flight Director was never told about Morton Thiokol's concerns about the temperature, or that the STS wasn't certified for the cold temperatures it flew in.
As to the Morton Thiokol overriding their own engineers? No. You have that
exactly backwards. Morton Thiokol (spurred by their engineers) was the one who
warned NASA about the launch because they had no data about how the O-rings would function at such low temperatures. Their concerns were, however, dismissed by NASA. It wasn't that Morton Thiokol had data that the O-rings would perform poorly at those temperatures, but that there was no data on the O-rings' performance at low temperatures, and their conference call to NASA wasn't convincing enough to dissuade NASA heads that there was a cause for concern.
It's actually a common ailment among flying types called "get-there-itis" â€" a psychological need for a pilot (or flight crew, as the case may be) to get a crate to its destination even if the conditions are dangerous, especially for a flight that has been delayed multiple times.
The purpose of the
Challenger accident investigation was to find out what went wrong. It was never to assign blame or absolve anyone of blame, but to expose inadequacies in procedure or equipment so that they may be
fixed. That is the purpose of any accident investigation, your conspiracy thinking notwithstanding.
Quote from: Baruch on March 10, 2016, 06:43:03 PM
Similarly the Titanic ... reptilian overlords didn't ram the Titanic into the iceberg ... because they were playing with ships in the bathtub (as indeed I once did). The investigation was to prevent any legal finding that Cunard Lines or the captain (who survived, but should have gone down with his ship) were liable for insurance claims or civil suites by the families of the deceased. There is no evidence it was deliberately sunk ... but that isn't the point, the insurance/civil court are the point. And Cunard Lines and the captain got off ... even more than NASA or Morton Thiokol.
They weren't found legally liable because... they
weren't legally liable. Cunard Lines had done everything that the law required them to do, it's just that it wasn't adequate. Given that they were advertising, and probably sincerely believing, that the
Titanic was unsinkable, such as the arrogance of Edwardian technology at the time, they probably expected that
Titanic could simply wait out any foreseeable disaster. Even the passengers didn't believe that the
Titanic could really sink.
You have to remember that there existed no maritime law that standardized safety equipment and procedures in the case of sinking ships. Indeed, such laws came about partially because
Titanic sank with great loss of life it did.
Quote from: Baruch on March 10, 2016, 06:43:03 PM
If someone wants to believe that everyone is innocent ... fine. If someone wants to believe that negligence isn't culpable ... fine. If someone wants to believe that all tort law is wrong, that there should be no private lawsuits or class-action lawsuits ... fine. If you want to believe that Santa Claus saved all the people on the Titanic, and no one drowned (other people already dead were substituted) ... fine ;-)
What a strawman! Nobody is arguing to dump tort law or that nobody is to be sued for negligence. The problem is that nothing you have pointed out
is negligence. The
Challenger disaster was the result of a complicated morass of conflicting goals and mixed signals, but with an undeserved confidence that they could handle anything thrown at them (these are the same people who safely brought Appolo 13 back). The
Titanic was the result of Edwardian arrogance in the robustness of their own technology.
Negligence depends on a reasonable standard of what constitutes adequate preparedness for disasters. If you fail to prepare for what was not foreseen, your behavior was not negligent no matter what the benefit of hindsight presents. What constitutes adequate preparedness is always going to be a work-in-progress, and it is manifestly unfair to judge someone guilty of negligence in the light of present knowledge that was not available at the time. We'd never get anything done if that were the case, always hiding under our beds and sucking our thumbs. We're not wired like that.
Legal? Convicted? But "the law is an ass". Getting out of jail free, or being sent to the gas chamber ... is a political act ... which means I don't care what exact judicial bullshit was used.
I used to work with NASA. Of course no one deliberately chose for the Challenger to explode. But there are commercial situations, where people make money off of failure (they even take out life insurance policies on employees, that the company benefits from, not the family). Then negligence is ... part of the plan, plausible deniability (see most governments) ... and ka-ching in their Cayman Islands bank account.
On the other hand, not everyone sees reality as deeply unredeemable evil as I do.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 09, 2016, 11:12:44 AM
It's one of those things where crackpot theory uses crackpot evidence. Hard to penetrate through...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 09, 2016, 05:32:03 PM
Just pay attention to the speakers. Are they there to get the facts or are they there to attack someone or some group? Are they impervious to fatal flaws in their theory? Do they claim that anybody who uses the term conspiracy theorist is a tool of some shadowy force you've probably never heard of before?
I agree with that. But it doesn't answer my point. CT'ers use crackpot evidence to support their crackpot theory. Unless you can dismantle that crackpot evidence, they will not demur from their position. And dismantling crackpot evidence is harder than dismantling crackpot theory, as the CTers are using different interpretation of what constitute real evidence. You say that evidence A means X, while they say evidence A means Y. Both are using the same evidence, but differing interpretation.
There are all kinds of ways we're mislead by people who stand to gain in ways we often don't even know about. The WOD is an example. You know, the war on drugs.. Even though there is very little harm from smoking marijuana it's still illegal in most places and get caught with a joint in your car in most places and you'll do at least a night or two in the slammer,but eho stands to gain from marijuana prohibition? There's quite a long list starting with police to politicians to the people who train dogs to detect it.
Of course we're told that it's a matter of health and safety and all that nonsense, but the truth is someone, actually a bunch of someone's made a shitload of money from marijuana laws. They even went to such lengths as to tell people that smoking marijuana would make you take an ax to movie goers which by the way is one of my favorite past times..
Look at substances such as kratom. Ir was outlawed in Thailand not because it actually harmed anyone, but it interfered with the opium trade and the governments ability to collect taxes from the opium dens when the Thai government found out people could chew the leaves to keep from going through withdrawal from opium..
Does that rise to the level of a conspiracy? Sure, but how many people are going to call it that? The Thai government still makes kratom illegal even though there is far more harm from smoking opium than from chewing kratom leaves. Now both are outlawed.. Just follow the money trail on just about anything and you may just uncover a conspiracy. Chances are though that you'll be called a crackpot and nobody will listen.
The continuing faith in our reptilian overlords makes me hiss like a Gorn in glee.
There is crackpot evidence. But the idea that any evidence contrary to what amounts to a political ideology ... isn't crackpot.
It is a fact that the captain of the Titanic couldn't share out the binoculars ... because when they left Ireland, they left the key at home. Those binoculars, had they been out of their locked cabinet ... would have been useful. If a passenger jet took off, without getting enough fuel ... would the airline be liable for criminal stupidity, if the airplane crashed when it ran out of fuel?
There are all kinds of conspracies to consider from the stuff of legend in high government office to little stuff that stays under the radar that most of us have experienced at some point in our lives such as in school when your 'friends' conspire to knock you out of the loop with the in crowd. Sometimes that happens, sometimes not. We often imagine it happening and sometimes it really does happen. If I had to guess probably 90% of it is benign and fairly harmless, but occasionally it can destroy a life and even drive someone to suicide.
Whenever I hear the word conspiracy I get a bit cautious. It's not always real,but the few times it's happened to me it was real and the people perpetuating it always denied it.. Just a cheating spouse can be a conspiracy..
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 11, 2016, 09:37:33 AM
I agree with that. But it doesn't answer my point. CT'ers use crackpot evidence to support their crackpot theory. Unless you can dismantle that crackpot evidence, they will not demur from their position. And dismantling crackpot evidence is harder than dismantling crackpot theory, as the CTers are using different interpretation of what constitute real evidence. You say that evidence A means X, while they say evidence A means Y. Both are using the same evidence, but differing interpretation.
As mentioned above, they don't care if there are fatal flaws in their theories, they know some people will pick up the ideas they put out and repeat them. This furthers their mission.
As for actually punching holes in their theories, I noted that I've read the Congressional Hearings on Pearl Harbor, but I didn't say that I'd done so more than once. It's been years since I ran into a CTer who said something I hadn't already debunked.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 11, 2016, 02:08:00 PM
There are all kinds of conspracies to consider from the stuff of legend in high government office to little stuff that stays under the radar that most of us have experienced at some point in our lives such as in school when your 'friends' conspire to knock you out of the loop with the in crowd. Sometimes that happens, sometimes not. We often imagine it happening and sometimes it really does happen. If I had to guess probably 90% of it is benign and fairly harmless, but occasionally it can destroy a life and even drive someone to suicide.
Whenever I hear the word conspiracy I get a bit cautious. It's not always real,but the few times it's happened to me it was real and the people perpetuating it always denied it.. Just a cheating spouse can be a conspiracy..
The easy way to tell them apart is to look at who broke them. Woodward and Bernstein broke Watergate. David Icke didn't break anything.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 11, 2016, 03:10:14 PM
As mentioned above, they don't care if there are fatal flaws in their theories, they know some people will pick up the ideas they put out and repeat them. This furthers their mission.
You're assuming they are deliberately trying to deceive you, but that's not the case for many of them. Most CTers believe in their crackpot theory, sincerely. Sure, they are always trying to convince you in order to get more people to support their case. That goes with the territory. But saying they don't care if there are fatal flaws in their theories is missing the boat as they think that
you have fatal flaws in your theories. It's your interpretation of the facts versus theirs.
Quote from: Johan on March 10, 2016, 06:49:58 PM
Ok you so what you're saying is you've got absolutely zero evidence and really not even the slightest sort of indication or hint that any kind of conspiracy took place. But you choose to believe that such a conspiracy might have taken place simply because its theoretically possible. Fair enough.
So I guess my question then becomes why don't you believe in god? There's no evidence for god but it is possible that god exists. And lots of people most definitely would benefit from god being real. So why is the lack of evidence enough to make you reject the existence of god but not enough to make you reject the existence of whacko they're all out to get us conspiracy theories?
They are out to get you and take away your rights and freedoms, whether they had anything to with 9/11 or not, so luckily them being involved in 9/11 means next to nothing to me and I don't care about the answer. The answer matters very little. If Hitler killed 3000 less people than he did, would that make him a Saint? When the number of deaths you have caused is in seven figures, a couple thousand more deaths don't make much of a difference.
Why would I believe in a god? What a silly question. To you, evil people allowing evil things to happen is as unlikely as a god existing? Really? I can't completely prove it, therefore the idea is as dumb as god... Ok. If you say so. We can't prove there are exta-terrestrials, therefore that idea is as dumb as god. We can't prove there is a multiverse, therefore scientists should STFU and just accept that they don't have the evidence, right? This is what you sound like.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 11, 2016, 04:12:07 PM
We can't prove there is a multiverse, therefore scientists should STFU and just accept that they don't have the evidence, right?
I generally don't agree with your position, but on this one, I agree. There is no evidence of a multiverse. And every time I have a chance to say it to scientists, I do.
If there is no Deity, then there is no Devil ... and so there is no virtue or vice ... and we are all innocent no matter what happens. Seems like a form of "easy grace" Christianity only minus Jesus. Be sure and tell the judicial system that they are unnecessary, and the police too. Everyone is innocent in their heart, and can't be held liable for acts of commission or omission.
Not all criminal acts are covered by RICO (conspiracy) ... but sometimes they are. As I pointed out before, where one falls on "interpretation" of past events ... is a matter of one's hidden political agenda. Personally, I am not the type to assign blame ... I see the Titanic for instance as a human tragedy.
My political agenda is this ... I find humanity guilty, not innocent.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 11, 2016, 04:12:07 PM
Why would I believe in a god? What a silly question. To you, evil people allowing evil things to happen is as unlikely as a god existing? Really? I can't completely prove it, therefore the idea is as dumb as god... Ok. If you say so.
Umm you're leaving out a very important detail or two. Lets fix that. To me, believing that evil people have allowed evil things to happen, despite ANY shred of evidence or even the very slightest indication (think beyond microscopic level) that they did so, is as unlikely as a god existing. Yes.
I don't doubt for a moment that evil people do evil things. In a word, duh. Of course they do. But when you're talking about something that involves so many people as such a high level, there would have to be at least some level of indication that some sort of advanced knowledge (and therefore some sort of cover up of said advanced knowledge) took place. But in this case, there is none, nada, zip. To pull that off such a cover up at that level with absolutely zero indication that anything underhanded took place would take a large group of people who are INCREDIBLY good. Way better than the likes of Bush and Cheney and they people they surrounded themselves with would have ever been capable of. So yeah, god is more likely. Way more likely.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 06:56:00 AM
Legal? Convicted? But "the law is an ass". Getting out of jail free, or being sent to the gas chamber ... is a political act ... which means I don't care what exact judicial bullshit was used.
What a crock! By that kind of logic, Cunard Lines, who
literally thought that any accident that the
Titanic could get in could be safely waited out, should have provided each passenger with an armored personal submarine in the off chance that aliens from another planet swoop down to scoop up the ship and carry it away. By that logic, NASA, whose every launch of the STS always carried some amount of risk, should have provided each astronaut with an armored personal reentry vehicle in the case that Russians shot it down with a nuclear bomb. Who would prepare for that? You CAN'T prepare for that. Life is risk. Hide under your bed and never come out if you think that risk is too much for you.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 06:56:00 AM
I used to work with NASA.
:lol: Surrrre you did.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 06:56:00 AM
Of course no one deliberately chose for the Challenger to explode. But there are commercial situations, where people make money off of failure (they even take out life insurance policies on employees, that the company benefits from, not the family). Then negligence is ... part of the plan, plausible deniability (see most governments) ... and ka-ching in their Cayman Islands bank account.
If you think that the insurance that NASA supposedly collected for the
Challenger accident is
anywhere near the cost of that particular mission up to that point, then you are insane. Because the shuttle took almost
a half billion per launch. Unless you think there are a half-billion in insurance policies floating around for the
Challenger, there was no mishap that was going to make NASA, or anyone involved, come out in the black. If you think there was, I want to see it. Which of course, you're going to dodge around this, like you did with producing any evidence that there were demonstrable harm associated with GMOs.
Yes, employers take out insurance for certain employees, because those employees represent a
significant investment of time and effort that the employers would do well to recoup the loss for should they perish. It takes an absurd amount of training to make an astronaut, which NASA foots the bill for. That's a lot of time and effort sunk into one person.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 06:56:00 AM
On the other hand, not everyone sees reality as deeply unredeemable evil as I do.
Well, who cares if I don't subscribe to your fantasy?
Back in my younger days I actually I helped work 3 days on one of the spectrometers for the Hubble telescope (I was personally invited to do so by the principle engineer for one part of it). But if you prefer your fantasy, you are entitled to it ;-) I really wanted to do more on the Space Program ... but I was kept to busy by the MIC developing weapons etc for the Cold War.
But all the scientists who post here ... are Nobel Prize winners like Obama ;-))
Here's the thing.. Conspiracy theories exist. We all know that. This notion that we're all privileged to have access to all of the information to determine if it's a crackpot theory is nonsense. As mentioned earlier the people involved in covering up and discrediting conspiracy investigations will go to great lengths to not only keep the information from the public eye,but will intentionally muddy the waters to insure that it remains just a crack pot theory.
The 911 ordeal is an example. If it was indeed a conspiracy as many believe all of the information simply is not made available to the public to sift through, but keep to your fantasies that you and you alone have the powers to determine what is or isn't the truth
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 11:41:45 PM
Back in my younger days I actually I helped work 3 days on one of the spectrometers for the Hubble telescope (I was personally invited to do so by the principle engineer for one part of it).
Hubble. Isn't that the one that didn't work?
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 12, 2016, 05:12:43 AM
Here's the thing.. Conspiracy theories exist. We all know that. This notion that we're all privileged to have access to all of the information to determine if it's a crackpot theory is nonsense. As mentioned earlier the people involved in covering up and discrediting conspiracy investigations will go to great lengths to not only keep the information from the public eye,but will intentionally muddy the waters to insure that it remains just a crack pot theory.
Ok but what if the water isn't muddy? What if there is no indication or evidence that any mud exists at all?
And what if we're not talking about the investigation of a murder of one relatively insignificant individual in some bum fuck town that no one ever heard of where maybe 4 people at most were directly involved with the investigation. And since its a small town, those 4 people are all life long friends and/or work for the same agency so they are therefore very easily able to falsify the investigation in such a way that no one would ever be able to detect any sort of 'muddied waters' at all. But what if instead we're talking about an event which took the lives of thousands of people and was therefore investigated by a small army of different individuals who never met, don't know each other at all and work for a wide variety of different agencies? Are you saying its plausible to expect all of those individuals to be able to carry out a massive cover up in tandem and that not one of them will ever speak of their actions and that the entire operation could be pulled off so effectively that there really isn't any hint that anyone muddied any water anywhere along the way?
Because when I look at things like 9/11 or the TWA flight 800 accident, that is what I see. No mud in the water at all. The conclusions of the investigations are crystal clear and the only people who dispute them are those who have no grasp of the science, engineering and/or common industry practices involved.
Quote from: Johan on March 12, 2016, 06:15:32 AM
Hubble. Isn't that the one that didn't work?
The original mirror was just a tiny bit off ... and they had to go up and fix it. But the Hubble is still working, and established a new "farthest/oldest" galaxy record. Fortunately I did not know that woman/mirror ;-)
"Because when I look at things like 9/11 or the TWA flight 800 accident, that is what I see. No mud in the water at all. The conclusions of the investigations are crystal clear and the only people who dispute them are those who have no grasp of the science, engineering and/or common industry practices involved."
What you are saying is ... no laymen need discuss it, leave it to the experts. Like the 9/11 Truth Commission or the FHA. Neither you nor I are qualified architects or airplane designers ... like illiterate medieval peasants, we have to take the word of our magic working priests, and there are competing sects.
On the TWA flight 800 ... the official explanation seems plausible ... but the odds of a full plane having an explosion are much less ... the fuel is most explosive when it is nearing its destination. But it isn't impossible that some spark could have set it off anyway. It is also possible that the spark was a malfunctioning part, or something in the luggage that shouldn't have been there ... which some passenger innocently brought aboard (drug runners do this) ... and even then, the intent might not have been to blow the airplane up. It is also possible that a US missile accidentally or deliberately brought it down, that isn't impossible. And it is certainly possible, if that happened either accidentally or deliberately ... that there would be a coverup. How about the passenger jet over Ukraine two years ago? There are plenty of reasons for coverup there, by all parties. And in terms of coverup, I have never seen a list of the National Guard members who shot their guns at Kent State decades ago. How come none of them ever wrote a memoire?
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2016, 08:57:15 AM
What you are saying is ... no laymen need discuss it, leave it to the experts. Like the 9/11 Truth Commission or the FHA. Neither you nor I are qualified architects or airplane designers ... like illiterate medieval peasants, we have to take the word of our magic working priests, and there are competing sects.
Nope that is not at all what I'm saying nor is it anything close what I meant. Discuss it all you want. But draw the line when that discussion heads off into whackoville. Observe:
QuoteOn the TWA flight 800 ... the official explanation seems plausible ...
That's because it is plausible. Very much so.
Quotebut the odds of a full plane having an explosion are much less ... the fuel is most explosive when it is nearing its destination.
Ok I think you're getting some terms wrong here so I'm going to make some assumptions. Feel free to clarify if I'm assuming incorrectly. You say the odds of a full plane having an explosion are much less but I believe you a referring specifically to a fuel tank, not the plane itself. If so, you would be correct. Much more likely for an empty fuel tank to explode than a full one.
QuoteBut it isn't impossible that some spark could have set it off anyway.
Again need some clarification here. The tank in question was empty. There are multiple tanks on a 747 which allow for very long flights so it is not at all unusual to see one departing on a flight with one or more empty tanks if the intended flight is going to be much shorter than the maximum range of the aircraft.
QuoteIt is also possible that the spark was a malfunctioning part, or something in the luggage that shouldn't have been there ... which some passenger innocently brought aboard (drug runners do this) ... and even then, the intent might not have been to blow the airplane up.
Actually no, that's not possible, unless we're talking about one and only possibly scenario (see below). The damage of the wreckage reveals the chronology of the failure event very reliably. The damage showed that the initial explosion was in the center fuel tank. Something blowing up in a baggage compartment would have caused a different type of failure event and the resulting wreckage would have contained damage which looked different than what was found.
QuoteIt is also possible that a US missile accidentally or deliberately brought it down, that isn't impossible.
Nope, not possible. Because if that had happened it would have left evidence. No such evidence existed. Ah but already hear you saying, but you didn't get to the last part of my post where I said it would all have been covered up and therefore we'd never know about said evidence. Fear not, we're getting there.
QuoteAnd it is certainly possible, if that happened either accidentally or deliberately ... that there would be a coverup.
And now we're in whackoville. If a missile brought that plane down, there would have been evidence of it that engineers from Boeing would have seen along with the FBI and the NTSB. If you want to cover that up, you would have to get all of the Boeing engineers as well as lots of Boeing middle and upper management to play ball and keep quiet about it forever. Plus you'd need several mid level NTSB investigators and their management chain to all play ball and participate/carry out said cover up as well as keep completely quiet about it forever. Same with the FBI guys involved. All would have had to have known or strongly suspected, all would have to be aware of the cover up and all would have to be motivated to keep quiet about it forever.
Now if you want to sit here and say yep, lots of people would have to know but all I'm saying is that a cover up is possible, quite frankly, you're dead wrong. A successful cover up of that scale is not possible. Not possible at all. And to think otherwise is just whacko. Can't put it any other way.
So by all means, discuss all you like. But draw the line when that discussion gets so whacko that it requires one to suspend all rational logic.
Quote from: Johan on March 12, 2016, 06:38:35 AM
... the only people who dispute them are those who have no grasp of the science, engineering and/or common industry practices involved.
But they will throw the same accusations to you, that you "have no grasp of the science, engineering and/or common industry practices involved." Their positions is a matter of interpretations of the facts. Given the same set of data, they can look as the same data as you, but will give it a different twist. So given fact A, you will draw conclusion X, while they will draw conclusion Y. And so you can spend the next one hundred years with a CTer debating your differences, meanwhile passing each other.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 11, 2016, 04:12:07 PM
They are out to get you and take away your rights and freedoms, whether they had anything to with 9/11 or not, so luckily them being involved in 9/11 means next to nothing to me and I don't care about the answer. The answer matters very little. If Hitler killed 3000 less people than he did, would that make him a Saint? When the number of deaths you have caused is in seven figures, a couple thousand more deaths don't make much of a difference.
Why would I believe in a god? What a silly question. To you, evil people allowing evil things to happen is as unlikely as a god existing? Really? I can't completely prove it, therefore the idea is as dumb as god... Ok. If you say so. We can't prove there are exta-terrestrials, therefore that idea is as dumb as god. We can't prove there is a multiverse, therefore scientists should STFU and just accept that they don't have the evidence, right? This is what you sound like.
Believing stuff just because it suits your political worldview is generally a losing proposition.
Gerard
The people who subscribe to conspiracy theories, are a lot smarter than the people they think are capable of constructing such a design. Lets face the hard truth that for the vast portion, the government pays the least, hence most government workers are usually the lower third of the class, and the least motivated for private industry and by far the least knowledgable and driven to charge into entrepreneurship by themselves. So what most cp.'s are suggesting is that the dumbest of us, has routinely outsmarted the smarter of us by using methods and thinking so advanced that it quite literally suggests they were abducted and replaced by highly intelligent aliens and ……..whoa……..
I really appreciate Johan's sharing of stuff I had forgotten. In my post I was only looking at common sense aspects that were missing in details he was willing to add.
In many cases the reason why governments figure in coverup theories ... is because of politics. People who like to think that the government is competent and honest ... believe that for their own political reasons too. People who blindly support the government, or who blindly oppose it ... are extremists. I am not an extremist (in that way) ... when I don't know the facts (and I think in most circumstances I don't) even though there will be people without any official connection to event X who will claim omniscience about it ... I am open to alternative explanation that is reasonable. Others will think that there is one and only one reasonable explanation, that happens to correspond to the one they believe in.
Not every alternative explanation is implausible, nor does it involve little green men from Roswell. Dog-people and other animal-people ... will bark their dogma ... then leave a turd in the front yard for someone else to clean up ;-)
Let me be clear. I am in no way saying I think the government as a whole is honest with the public. Nor do I think that no one within the upper levels of the military and the government ever covers anything up. Of course they do. But such cover ups are only possible on a very small scale and/or with very low profile events.
Did Hilary know immediately that those involved in the attack on Benghazi were not in fact protesting some movie as was initially reported? Probably. And therefore it is likely that her and not more than a few very close aids made a decision to try to deceive the public about who was involved for some reason and then later conspired to cover up the fact that they had the knowledge they had and yet chose to lie to public about for some reason. That is a conspiracy theory that I would say has at least some plausibility. It involves only a few people who are all within the same agency and therefore all presumably have the same goal. Not unreasonable at all to suspect such a thing might have taken place nor to question the story presented.
Similar example. Lets say mega corp X in the fast food business and their most of their locations are owned by private individuals who run the stores. Lets say one of those owners has several stores and lets say there's as disagreement between said store owner and the mega corp management and this disagreement goes on for quite a while and becomes quite expensive for mega corp. And then previously mentioned store owner ends up the victim of what appears to be some sort of random drive-by shooting. It would not be unreasonable to at least suspect that one or two of the upper level mega corp people had relationships certain unscrupulous individuals who would be happy to arrange a random drive by shooting of someone for cash from a source who is unknown to them. Again only a few individuals involved and all are within the same organization and all have the same common goal. Not unreasonable at all to suspect in such case.
On the other hand, some secret group of individuals within our own government conspired to wire both World Trade towers and several other World Trade buildings with explosives without any detection by anyone and then they further conspired to get some middle eastern individuals to carry out a coordinated hijacking plot and crash planes into said buildings. And they were able to execute this plan flawlessly. And then these individuals further conspired to bribe/threaten/kill off/whatever all involved in the ensuing investigation to keep their mouths shut and/or out and out lie about any evidence of the explosives used to demolish the buildings. And again, they were able to carry out this plan flawlessly. Yeah, now we're so far over the line into whackoville it isn't even funny.
Nobody wants to do Pearl Harbor with me? :(
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 12, 2016, 06:03:54 PM
Nobody wants to do Pearl Harbor with me? :(
YOU'RE NOT SCREAMING LOUD ENOUGH.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on March 12, 2016, 06:47:43 PM
YOU'RE NOT SCREAMING LOUD ENOUGH.
I usually don't have to.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 12, 2016, 06:03:54 PM
Nobody wants to do Pearl Harbor with me? :(
Turns out nobody believed that the Americans fired the first shot at Pearl Harbor. The report of the captain and crew at the entrance to Pearl Harbor was thrown out ... both that morning, and in the subsequent inquiry. There wasn't a vast conspiracy to cover it up, they simply chose to ignore evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyaWfo1pg-Q
It took until the 21st century before they found this minisub. Some are still missing.
A British double agent, informed J Edgar Hoover, that Pearl Harbor was coming ... and Hoover ignored him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skF58MoavTs
British aviators working for Japan were essential in the successful attack on Pearl Harbor, and the capture of Singapore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=258i8xhNdqc
So ... do you have the complete secret files of the FBI and MI6?
General Billy Mitchell outlined a hypothetical attack on Pearl Harbor, decades before it happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmcx-iCPE_s
In these films, it would appear that spying by the Japanese, and shear government incompetence was involved ... both in the loss of Singapore, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the loss of the Philippines. That and the highly competent Japanese Navy and Marines.
And of course it is most likely, that shear incompetence was involved in 9/11. Any coverup probably involves simply protecting the political reputations of certain failed government officials.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 11:41:45 PM
Back in my younger days I actually I helped work 3 days on one of the spectrometers for the Hubble telescope (I was personally invited to do so by the principle engineer for one part of it).
Funny you should say that. My father also worked on the Hubble. That means your claim is somewhat checkable. Not that I believe you in the first place.
Quote from: Baruch on March 11, 2016, 11:41:45 PM
But if you prefer your fantasy, you are entitled to it ;-)
You're the one who believes insurance fraud over throwing good money after bad in the case of
Challenger. I would really like to see you do better than NASA did, with congress breathing down your neck when the shuttle project, which was billed as being safe, reliable, cheap and regular access to space, was turning out to be anything but. Or how to hide insurance fraud regarding what would
obviously be one of the highest profile accidents in space history (first teacher in space, remember?) and with the insurance companies paying
very close attention to the investigation with all that money at stake â€"a caper that could only be pulled off if you were investigating to a foregone conclusionâ€" when you don't even know what evidence would turn up. Or in the case of
Titanic, how one could fault Cunard Lines for not having enough lifeboats when
Titanic itself was meant to be its own lifeboat, and I'd like to see you do better than most Edwardians in curbing the absolute arrogance for everything western that was pervasive at the time.
In short, you attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity: stupidly throwing good money after bad in the case of NASA and
Challenger, or the stupidity of Edwardian arrogance in the case of Cunard Lines and
Titanic.Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2016, 09:49:12 PM
Turns out nobody believed that the Americans fired the first shot at Pearl Harbor.
I don't think it matters. They were still military aircraft from a nation not on good terms with the US, violating the airspace of a military installation of the US, and dropping bombs
en mass on US soil, against clearly military targets. That is an act of war, and it doesn't matter a whit if some US soldiers fired upon them first or if the Japanese started dropping bombs first. Taking that into account would not have changed the outcome; the two of us were still at war, with the aggressors primarily the Japanese. You don't do what the Japanese did unless you were spoiling for a fight.
Baruch, you're twit. Captain Outerbridge reported he had fired on and dropped depth charges on a submarine operating in the restricted zone, and Com14th received that message and ordered the ready destroyer to sortie and the "four hour" destroyer to get steam up. Admiral Kimmel, CINCUS, left his regular Sunday morning golf buddy, General Short, standing and dashed down to his shore HQ. (His flagship, Pennsylvania was in dry dock at the time, so he was working out offices on the beach.)
EVERY investigation by the Navy, the investigation by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Congressional investigation had copies of Ward's radio messages to Com14TH.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 13, 2016, 11:55:44 AM
Funny you should say that. My father also worked on the Hubble. That means your claim is somewhat checkable. Not that I believe you in the first place.
You're the one who believes insurance fraud over throwing good money after bad in the case of Challenger. I would really like to see you do better than NASA did, with congress breathing down your neck when the shuttle project, which was billed as being safe, reliable, cheap and regular access to space, was turning out to be anything but. Or how to hide insurance fraud regarding what would obviously be one of the highest profile accidents in space history (first teacher in space, remember?) and with the insurance companies paying very close attention to the investigation with all that money at stake â€"a caper that could only be pulled off if you were investigating to a foregone conclusionâ€" when you don't even know what evidence would turn up. Or in the case of Titanic, how one could fault Cunard Lines for not having enough lifeboats when Titanic itself was meant to be its own lifeboat, and I'd like to see you do better than most Edwardians in curbing the absolute arrogance for everything western that was pervasive at the time.
In short, you attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity: stupidly throwing good money after bad in the case of NASA and Challenger, or the stupidity of Edwardian arrogance in the case of Cunard Lines and Titanic.
I don't think it matters. They were still military aircraft from a nation not on good terms with the US, violating the airspace of a military installation of the US, and dropping bombs en mass on US soil, against clearly military targets. That is an act of war, and it doesn't matter a whit if some US soldiers fired upon them first or if the Japanese started dropping bombs first. Taking that into account would not have changed the outcome; the two of us were still at war, with the aggressors primarily the Japanese. You don't do what the Japanese did unless you were spoiling for a fight.
I wish I could say I respected your opinion ... but your bullying is a ... negative.
You were projecting ... that I attribute anything to malice (though this is easy to do politically) ... or that I think little green men from Roswell are behind anything. Is that your constant use of ad hominem? It is easy to think that Nixon had malice ... but not to worry, he was simply incompetent ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 13, 2016, 12:03:21 PM
Baruch, you're twit. Captain Outerbridge reported he had fired on and dropped depth charges on a submarine operating in the restricted zone, and Com14th received that message and ordered the ready destroyer to sortie and the "four hour" destroyer to get steam up. Admiral Kimmel, CINCUS, left his regular Sunday morning golf buddy, General Short, standing and dashed down to his shore HQ. (His flagship, Pennsylvania was in dry dock at the time, so he was working out offices on the beach.)
EVERY investigation by the Navy, the investigation by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Congressional investigation had copies of Ward's radio messages to Com14TH.
These people are dead ... for how long now? Why are you still defending their incompetence? Was one of the unlucky Pearl Harbor folks a relative of yours? I can understand the relatives trying to defend the reputation of the captain of the USS Indianapolis. Nobody here is saying that the service chiefs in Hawaii were working for the Japanese. The incompetence of MacArthur's defense of the Philippines is much greater, and he was "protected" in high places. The British general who incompetently defended Singapore ... didn't get any medals from his country. Though historical revisionists have tried to rehabilitate him.
Is babble your only offensive strategy?
Well ... I didn't spend the last 60 years memorizing every dispatch from Peal Harbor for the month of Dec 1941 ... I had better things to do ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 13, 2016, 01:31:24 PM
Well ... I didn't spend the last 60 years memorizing every dispatch from Peal Harbor for the month of Dec 1941 ... I had better things to do ;-)
And so you just buy into a bunch of internet fairy tales. Lovely plan.
Lol. Big Navy attacks sleeping Navy, sleeping Navy bad for firing first? Bad Navy.
G. Washington leaves Valley Forge attacks sleeping Hessians at Trenton and pretty sure Washington fired first on sleeping Hessians. Bad Hessians. God I love history. :biggrin:
Quote from: stromboli on March 13, 2016, 02:33:23 PM
Lol. Big Navy attacks sleeping Navy, sleeping Navy bad for firing first? Bad Navy.
The Japanese attack Khota Baru before Pearl, almost four hours earlier.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 13, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
And so you just buy into a bunch of internet fairy tales. Lovely plan.
So all things on YouTube are false? I suppose this applies to the characters one meets on Atheistforum.com?
Quote from: stromboli on March 13, 2016, 02:33:23 PM
Lol. Big Navy attacks sleeping Navy, sleeping Navy bad for firing first? Bad Navy.
G. Washington leaves Valley Forge attacks sleeping Hessians at Trenton and pretty sure Washington fired first on sleeping Hessians. Bad Hessians. God I love history. :biggrin:
I do too ... the Hessians had it coming. And getting drunk of Xmas Eve is bad military discipline ... thank you Hessians.
I in no way think it was bad for the US destroyer to fire at an unknown periscope. Pretty good shooting that they were able to hole it while it was underwater still. The two Japanese sailors in the midget sub were brave men, a terrible shame to kill such men. But they had it coming. Our US sailors didn't have it coming. I might not have memorized every Pearl Harbor dispatch, but once upon a time, I went to church with a man who survived the USS Arizona ... I didn't need to know more than that.
Not Trying to Detract From Pearl Harbor
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on March 07, 2016, 04:01:04 PM
Shitty title.. I used that because I just went blank with a title..
Anyways.. I got to thinking about the notion that government or people within government or even private citizens would never be willing to kill citizens for profit or other reasons.. Take 911 as an example..
The argument is that there's either no motivation or too much standing in the way, but consider this.
I'm not pointing fingers or trying to get any conspiracy things going, just trying to get it through people's minds that a billion dollars is a hell of a bigger motivation to murder people than the lousy 20 bucks in your wallet..
Money and Power
This one is a fun one:
Quote - Plumlee puts it more directly.
"You want me to say this on camera? Alright. Those entities were cut outs financed and operated by the Central Intelligence Agency," he said. "Our operations were sanctioned by the federal government, controlled out of the Pentagon. The CIA acted in some cases as our logistical support team."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/10/us-intelligence-assets-reportedly-played-role-in-capture-dea-agent-in-mexico.html
Noreiga (scroll down to trial)
Quote - It ruled that the introduction of evidence about Noriega's role in the CIA would "confuse the jury"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega
Yeah, what Camarena didn't realize was the money he was targeting wasn't just Quintero's pocket change. And of course it would confuse the jury. Drug running CIA is counter-intuitive to everything the Just say No campaign was about. lol.
I work with the US government. They are ordinary people, and criminals, just like I am, like all Americans are. We were founded in treason and baptized in heresy. The US is not Superman, flying around for truth, justice and the American way. That was propaganda for late 1930s-1940s boys like my dad's generation. The idea that the US government is competent ... is false (see Pearl Harbor). The idea that the US government is benevolent ... makes me laugh into a brain hemorrhage ;-)) Now knowing human nature, and that it is incompetent, ignorant and evil ... doesn't mean that Shrub planned 9/11 ... or even The Dick planned 9/11. But the idea that they couldn't have ... is naive as hell.
Quote from: Baruch on March 13, 2016, 04:29:27 PM
So all things on YouTube are false? I suppose this applies to the characters one meets on Atheistforum.com?
Your strawman is on fire.
Quote from: Baruch on March 13, 2016, 01:19:27 PM
I wish I could say I respected your opinion ... but your bullying is a ... negative.
What bullying? I want you to fucking explain why insurance fraud or anything else conspirationatory was behind the
Challenger or
Titanic accidents, as any
freethinking skeptic demands. If you want to just continue to be evasive, fine with me, but that'll be my win whether we like it or not.
Quote from: Baruch on March 13, 2016, 01:19:27 PM
You were projecting ... that I attribute anything to malice (though this is easy to do politically) ... or that I think little green men from Roswell are behind anything. Is that your constant use of ad hominem?
Attributing the
Challenger accident to insurance fraud or that either NASA or Cunard Lines "got away with murder" certainly sounds like malice to me.
Quote from: Baruch on March 13, 2016, 01:19:27 PM
It is easy to think that Nixon had malice ... but not to worry, he was simply incompetent ;-)
Nice try, but we had ample proof that Nixon was covering up something.
I am glad to see ... that you don't consider Watergate a Democrat conspiracy to embarrass President Nixon ... if you did, you would be a die hard Republican ;-) It was in fact, a conspiracy of the FBI and CIA, because the FBI deputy director was Deep Throat ... and one of the two guys meeting with him, Woodward ... was and still is a CIA operative. One can only guess why they had it in for him. What Nixon did is tame, compared to later Presidents ... so I guess those later guys are square with the FBI and the CIA.
Quote from: Baruch on March 13, 2016, 09:43:34 PM
I am glad to see ... that you don't consider Watergate a Democrat conspiracy to embarrass President Nixon ... if you did, you would be a die hard Republican ;-) It was in fact, a conspiracy of the FBI and CIA, because the FBI deputy director was Deep Throat ... and one of the two guys meeting with him, Woodward ... was and still is a CIA operative. One can only guess why they had it in for him. What Nixon did is tame, compared to later Presidents ... so I guess those later guys are square with the FBI and the CIA.
Woodward got out of the Navy as a lieutenant and applied for law school in 1970. He instead took the gig as reporter for the WP. Don't know where you get the CIA operative stuff, but I would certainly like to see some evidence. The Watergate cover up may have been exposed by the FBI- I suppose because they didn't like Nixon- but in fact the Watergate burglars were identified
Bernard Barker
Virgilio Gonzalez
Eugenio MartÃnez
James W. McCord, Jr.
Frank Sturgis
and there was certainly sufficient evidence to link them to Nixon's henchmen and to Nixon. Saw the movie, read the book. Please provide evidence. Love to see it.
Mark Felt confessed to being Deep Throat. There have been subsequent attempts to cover that up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward
The man has many CIA friends, and is considered a WH insider reporter for many years ...
http://www.ctka.net/pr196-woodward.html
He was entangled during the Valerie Plame investigation, but that might have been incompetence, or Scooter Libby was using him as a cats paw.
Quote from: Baruch on March 13, 2016, 04:43:49 PMI work with the US government. They are ordinary people, and criminals, just like I am, like all Americans are.
I agree.
QuoteThe idea that the US government is benevolent ... makes me laugh into a brain hemorrhage ;-))
Didn't you just say they're ordinary people? Ordinary people tend to be fairly decent on the whole.
QuoteNow knowing human nature, and that it is incompetent, ignorant and evil ... doesn't mean that Shrub planned 9/11 ... or even The Dick planned 9/11. But the idea that they couldn't have ... is naive as hell.
This seems to be the refrain. The people at the top are bad people therefore they
could be up to something, like blowing up buildings or distributing mind-controlling mint toothpaste. But once again, you have to substantiate this sort of thing. You can't just point at an individual or group and pin whatever you want on them just because you don't like them. Also, the burden of proof is on the Truthers, not everybody else.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 13, 2016, 11:16:05 PM
This seems to be the refrain. The people at the top are bad people therefore they could be up to something, like blowing up buildings or distributing mind-controlling mint toothpaste. But once again, you have to substantiate this sort of thing. You can't just point at an individual or group and pin whatever you want on them just because you don't like them. Also, the burden of proof is on the Truthers, not everybody else.
This!
My neighbor
could be a pedophile, or a rapist, or an al qaeda sleeper spy or a keyboard player, or all four at once. I have no evidence that he's any of those, but he could be. Therefore I should suspect that he is or at least question it constantly. And if I don't question it constantly, I'm just a sheeple or whatever. That is how these conspiracy types choose to live their lives. What a fucked up way to spend your alarmingly short time in this world.
Operation Northwoods made me take conspiracy theories seriously.
Quote from: The Atheist on March 14, 2016, 01:44:21 AM
Operation Northwoods made me take conspiracy theories seriously.
Operation Dropshot and Plan Totality (nuclear/conventional war with the Soviets) were proposed as well. Those plans didn't materialize, either.
Quote from: The Atheist on March 14, 2016, 01:44:21 AM
Operation Northwoods made me take conspiracy theories seriously.
Any government is familiar with evil ... and should be. Being a government isn't for little old ladies ... you have to kill some people. Cheney calls these "facts on the ground" and "we don't study history, we make it".
Hyra009 - "Didn't you just say they're ordinary people? Ordinary people tend to be fairly decent on the whole." Maybe to you. Ideologically I oppose human beings in principle, including myself ... ape men ... bah, humbug! But not because I am a saint ... I am a competing criminal, and I don't like competition ;-) When Charlton Heston says to his captors, "Get your damn paws off me, you ape" ... did you catch the irony? This is the Planet of the Apes.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 14, 2016, 01:50:26 AM
Operation Dropshot and Plan Totality (nuclear/conventional war with the Soviets) were proposed as well. Those plans didn't materialize, either.
Governments make plans, but don't always carry them out. The US had a plan to attack the British Empire and seize Canada, until 1939. But was it really put on hold? We can be glad that the worst plans of governments haven't been implemented, just the mostly bad plans (Libya etc).
If you thrive on fear then good luck to you.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 14, 2016, 06:46:42 AM
If you thrive on fear then good luck to you.
Not fear, evil. Evil pays, fear does not. I don't have much fear ... the destruction of the human race would be a good/bad thing ... that isn't fear, that is misanthropy ;-) On the other hand, if you don't fear this world, you aren't awake ... I prefer to just be prudent and cautious ... down in the hood. Got gang-sign? R or D?
I'm a historian, remember?
Quote from: Baruch on March 13, 2016, 11:05:34 PM
Mark Felt confessed to being Deep Throat. There have been subsequent attempts to cover that up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward
The man has many CIA friends, and is considered a WH insider reporter for many years ...
http://www.ctka.net/pr196-woodward.html
He was entangled during the Valerie Plame investigation, but that might have been incompetence, or Scooter Libby was using him as a cats paw.
Right. Woodward was a member of Skull and Bones (Probe article) or else the Book and Snake society. so that means he was with the CIA. Thank your for sharing.
I was surprised by some of what I saw and learned as a Special Agent while on active duty with the US Army, and later with the Army Reserve. The US has at least partial plans of attack or of military operations for every country in the world. I was able to read some of these and they were in the form of magazine/books that look much like the Periodical Guide to Lit. found in most libraries. They are under constant review and change; I was working on the Philippines area for a short two weeks one year for the Army Reserve in Hawaii. But I had access to most of the other countries of the world, as well. Interesting reading--in a boring sort of way. :) Operational Plans are not noted for being a fun read.
Gawd may know more about this than I do, but aboard ship (in the radio shack) they had some "light reading" that were top secret examinations of nuclear war and the aftermath. Several volumes. I've seen them and had explained to me what they were, but never read them. I only had a secret clearance. I think they came from the Naval War College, not sure. There was an entire set of orders we never saw that would be opened by the Captain and XO after missile launch.
It all ties in with what targets the missiles are pointed at for fire control solutions and so on. Fire Control and the requisite officers knew the targets before leaving port. They changed from patrol to patrol. The missiles have to "know" where they are with pinpoint accuracy to hit the target with pinpoint accuracy. We were using Satnav in 1968.
The ship is nothing but a sophisticated missile platform. But there were scenarios for many different post launch situations. My understanding was that included such things as scuttling the ship or even becoming a hunter killer after launch. Lots of shit to shoot at on the ocean. Got to use those ASROCS for something. This is the shit you don't dwell on when you are driving a vehicle that can bring mass death to millions in about 15 minutes of launch time.
I can neither confirm nor deny...
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 14, 2016, 01:50:26 AM
Operation Dropshot and Plan Totality (nuclear/conventional war with the Soviets) were proposed as well. Those plans didn't materialize, either.
But the fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had even considered staging false flag attacks--and killing American civilians on American soil--to garner public support for the invasion of Cuba is worrying. If they fantasized about it once, why not a second time?
Besides, I can name several incidents off the top of my head of Uncle Sam doing crazy stuff. For example, during WWII, dozens of terminally ill patients were administered plutonium without their consent because researchers wanted to see the long-term effects of dropping a nuke over a populated area. During the middle of the 20th century, military planes dropped millions of mosquitoes infected with the common cold over several major cities (yes, a few people died) as a form of simulated biowarfare. The Army would then visit these cities dressed as health workers to study the infected up close.
And let's not forget about how Uncle Sam recently apologized for having infecting people in South America with syphilis back in the day.
Because 'Murica can do no evil. . . can do no evil . . . no evil . . . .
Because 'Murica.
:lolhitting:
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 14, 2016, 12:14:41 PM
I can neither confirm nor deny...
.................oh, I bet you can................:) I never got close to those plans--the nuclear ones. They were top secret and I had a top secret clearance--but not the 'need to know'. Two things you had to have to read any classified material--the correct clearance and 'the need to know'. I did not need to know about any specific nuclear attack plans. So, I never got to see them. So, I'd bet that at the very least, each branch of the military have to have complete sets of plans for battle in each country of the world--nuclear and conventional.
From memory: "It is not the policy of the United States Navy to either confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on its ships or shore installations. (beep)."
Quote from: stromboli on March 14, 2016, 09:19:25 AM
Right. Woodward was a member of Skull and Bones (Probe article) or else the Book and Snake society. so that means he was with the CIA. Thank your for sharing.
I don't know even one ex-CIA director, he knows several. So does that make me CIA? The most likely sign, back then, of being CIA wasn't Yale, it was Notre Dame. The CIA loved to recruit good Catholic boys ... just like the founder of the OSS (pre-CIA) was a good Irish Catholic-American. Averill Harriman was part of the recruitment from the Ivy League ... George H W would have been recruited that route ... a social distinction ... Yale for management, Notre Dame for the real work.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 14, 2016, 12:14:41 PM
I can neither confirm nor deny...
Same here ... I still work with the military ... just not in a "hot" area.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 14, 2016, 12:59:48 PM
.................oh, I bet you can................:) I never got close to those plans--the nuclear ones. They were top secret and I had a top secret clearance--but not the 'need to know'. Two things you had to have to read any classified material--the correct clearance and 'the need to know'. I did not need to know about any specific nuclear attack plans. So, I never got to see them. So, I'd bet that at the very least, each branch of the military have to have complete sets of plans for battle in each country of the world--nuclear and conventional.
Need to know and clearance. Top Secret Crypto for those involved in communications including radiomen. They don't think a cook is worthy, that I can vouch for.
Quote from: The Atheist on March 14, 2016, 12:53:13 PMBut the fact that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had even considered staging false flag attacks--and killing American civilians on American soil--to garner public support for the invasion of Cuba is worrying. If they fantasized about it once, why not a second time?
Once again, a bad reputation is not enough to convict. You have to substantiate this stuff.
It's true that the US gov contemplated false flag operations in the past. But does it logically follow that 9/11 was a false flag operation perpetrated by the US gov? No. That claim has to be substantiated on its own - other alleged incidents are irrelevant. And without evidence, all of this is just talk.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 14, 2016, 01:36:16 PM
Once again, a bad reputation is not enough to convict. You have to substantiate this stuff.
It's true that the US gov contemplated false flag operations in the past. But does it logically follow that 9/11 was a false flag operation perpetrated by the US gov? No. That claim has to be substantiated on its own - other alleged incidents are irrelevant. And without evidence, all of this is just talk.
I would have liked it better if George W and Dick would have personally flown the planes into the Twin Towers ... would have prevented a few subsequent problems ;-)
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 09, 2016, 03:07:32 PM
My problem is not with people accepting the official 9/11 story. That's all fine and well. My problem is when people act like questioning the official story makes you an idiot. You can pretend that any questions have been "debunked", but nothing that I've said about 9/11 has been debunked. It can't be debunked, so all this debunked talk you hear is nothing but nonsense. We don't know exactly what happened that day, and anyone acting like they know exactly what happened acts like they know more than they do. You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. You pretend to know everything about everything. I don't pretend to know everything.
...
This is the problem I have with that. It's not my duty to "debunk" anything, it's the claimant's duty to give evidence in support. Frankly, if there is any basis in reality there should not be any evidence which is later "debunked". But clearly some such claims (not evidence, claims, which is a very important difference) have been "debunked". You expressly state that neither side "knows". So what you're saying is there is no "evidence". If there was evidence then we would "know". So if there's no evidence to support a position, why would one have that position?
All the actual evidence there is supports the accepted explanation, to my knowledge. Everything else is just claims by uneducated people who believe themselves to be smarter than the experts who have given the accepted explanation. And lack of evidence is exactly why I dismiss all conspiracy "theories" outright, without examination. This isn't science. By this use, theory means "wild-ass guess". Outside of science, when there is evidence to support a claim, that claim becomes "fact".
Quote from: widdershins on March 15, 2016, 03:11:16 PM
This is the problem I have with that. It's not my duty to "debunk" anything, it's the claimant's duty to give evidence in support. Frankly, if there is any basis in reality there should not be any evidence which is later "debunked". But clearly some such claims (not evidence, claims, which is a very important difference) have been "debunked". You expressly state that neither side "knows". So what you're saying is there is no "evidence". If there was evidence then we would "know". So if there's no evidence to support a position, why would one have that position?
All the actual evidence there is supports the accepted explanation, to my knowledge. Everything else is just claims by uneducated people who believe themselves to be smarter than the experts who have given the accepted explanation. And lack of evidence is exactly why I dismiss all conspiracy "theories" outright, without examination. This isn't science. By this use, theory means "wild-ass guess". Outside of science, when there is evidence to support a claim, that claim becomes "fact".
You are correct that it is the claimants duty to give evidence in support. I only said no one could debunk what I was saying, because when 9/11 comes up, you will often see people say something like "9/11 questioners? All concerns people have about 9/11 have been cleared up and debunked. Next!" I think it's a false statement when someone says that all concerns have been cleared up and debunked, so that's the only reason I brought up debunking. You are completely right when you say it is the claimant that has to provide the evidence. About the claims that have supposedly been debunked... all I would say is you don't even need explosives in the buildings for Bush and Cheney to let it happen (maybe the buildings falling were just a bonus that could have happened or not happened), so I don't even bother with the explosives part of the story.
Why would one have the view that a truther does, without complete evidence to back them up? I can't say for sure because I myself am unsure about 9/11, but many truthers would probably say they think it's obvious that America was not caught off guard and attacked by Muslim terrorists. I don't subscribe to this line of thinking, but I see where they're coming from. I think there's a good chance Bush and Cheney let it happen, but at the same time, I think Johan and others have a pretty decent argument when they say it would be hard to keep such a secret.
It is fine to dismiss the 9/11 conspiracy theories based on lack of evidence. No problem with that. Some scientists will dismiss the multiverse idea because the evidence is just not there. I don't understand this stuff very well, but from what I do know, I would say there's a decent chance the multiverse idea is correct, and there's a decent chance the idea is not correct. Other scientists, despite the lack of evidence, will talk about what may be the case. They will say there may be a multiverse, or other dimensions, or extra-terrestrials, or that we may be living in a computer simulation. Should we completely dismiss these ideas out of hand because of a lack of evidence? Not everything in the world comes down to having evidence or not having evidence. What about when they give ideas about exactly how life on Earth may have started, or when they give ideas about why the Big Bang happened? We are simplifying things way too much when we just say "Evidence or STFU". I value evidence just like anyone else, but evidence is not all there is.
I understand that it's MSNBC and others job to push the White House's line they want to be pushed, but I really have a problem with people like Rachel Maddow calling the 9/11 questions and questioners "dangerous". Some of the parents of victims of the WTC collapse ripped Rachel Maddow a new one for demonizing them for having questions, when their children were murdered. Their freaking children were murdered, and Rachel Maddow calls them dangerous for asking questions about the murder of their sons and daughters? These parents have the right to ask questions, and calling them dangerous is beyond a cheap shot/ low blow by the White House who dictates what MSNBC and Maddow are to say.
I'm fine with people saying 9/11 conspiracies are silly and unlikely, but is it really necessary for these people to be labelled dangerous nuts? I get it if you're calling people nuts or dangerous for being anti-vaccines, and I understand that a whole lot of 9/11 truthers are also anti-vaccines, but should we really be calling the parents of a dead son or daughter, who has questions, or others with questions dangerous nuts? It's Maddow's job to get the people to buy into the idea that they shouldn't be questioning the mainstream. I can understand her calling people dangerous, because she's only doing her job. Others who call these people dangerous though, when it's not their job to do so? I think they should leave the demonizing of people who simply ask questions to shills like Rachel Maddow.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 15, 2016, 05:23:55 PM
It is fine to dismiss the 9/11 conspiracy theories based on lack of evidence. No problem with that. Some scientists will dismiss the multiverse idea because the evidence is just not there. I don't understand this stuff very well, but from what I do know, I would say there's a decent chance the multiverse idea is correct, and there's a decent chance the idea is not correct. Other scientists, despite the lack of evidence, will talk about what may be the case. They will say there may be a multiverse, or other dimensions, or extra-terrestrials, or that we may be living in a computer simulation. Should we completely dismiss these ideas out of hand because of a lack of evidence?
Many scientists study these things as toy models. IOW, it's a what-if scenario to gain insights into a simpler problem. There may be some scientists who believe in that stuff but none of them will ever win the Nobel prize in physics. OTOH, CTers are not proposing a toy model, but really believe that the government is behind 9/11.
QuoteI value evidence just like anyone else, but evidence is not all there is.
What else is there besides evidence? Your gut feelings? But how reliable is that? You might as well flip a coin. The probability of you being right by flipping a coin is the same as gut feeling could be right.
QuoteI understand that it's MSNBC and others job to push the White House's line they want to be pushed, but I really have a problem with people like Rachel Maddow calling the 9/11 questions and questioners "dangerous". Some of the parents of victims of the WTC collapse ripped Rachel Maddow a new one for demonizing them for having questions, when their children were murdered. Their freaking children were murdered, and Rachel Maddow calls them dangerous for asking questions about the murder of their sons and daughters? These parents have the right to ask questions
I don't know if she demonized anyone. She did remind that the 9/11 commission report as facts.
Quotethe White House who dictates what MSNBC and Maddow are to say.
Where's the evidence for that?
The fact that a scenario you can think of is possible, doesn't provide us with any useful information whatsoever.
Gerard
Help me out, who is that says ALL conspiracies are anything, please? Ray Bolger?
Quote from: Gerard on March 15, 2016, 05:57:53 PM
The fact that a scenario you can think of is possible, doesn't provide us with any useful information whatsoever.
Gerard
Just like the Zapruder film proves nothing about the Kennedy assassination. The one or more assassins were out of frame, and the grassy knoll was too fuzzy.
And of course people who want to believe everything the government says are useful ...
Quote from: FaithisFilthI understand that it's MSNBC and others job to push the White House's line they want to be pushed, but I really have a problem with people like Rachel Maddow calling the 9/11 questions and questioners "dangerous". Some of the parents of victims of the WTC collapse ripped Rachel Maddow a new one for demonizing them for having questions, when their children were murdered. Their freaking children were murdered
It is the task of professional news organizations to point out to people what is substantiated and what is bullshit. It is not their task to just tell people what they like to hear. Not even parents of victims.
Gerard
Quote from: Gerard on March 15, 2016, 06:14:47 PM
It is the task of professional news organizations to point out to people what is substantiated and what is bullshit. It is not their task to just tell people what they like to hear. Not even parents of victims.
Gerard
The professional journalists are complete Pravda bullshitters ... including Walter Cronkite. During WW II, the Cold War, and since the USSR had a coronary ... all journalists are processed by the FBI and CIA to say only the things that the government wants them to say. The free press only exists for people who have a press to print with. This is pre-Internet ... to be a professional journalist, you had to be vetted and part of an official news organization (all of which are fellow travelers of their respective national governments). A press pass stuck into the ribbon around your fedora.
We still have such people, in the age of the gonzo journalism of the Internet ... and they are to journalism what the DINOs and RINOs are to politics. Some are more disruptive like Drudge, who is the Trump of the Internet. Just ask to be invited to the next White House press conference ... just because of how wonderful you are. Back in the day when there were only three TV stations ... this was easy. Now the media is flooded with government trolls stirring everything up, so that people don't know what to believe. This prevents public consensus.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 15, 2016, 05:23:55 PM
I value evidence just like anyone else, but evidence is not all there is.
Yes it is. See my earlier post about my neighbor. Women get raped all the time. My neighbor has a penis and I don't know for certain where he was last week. Therefore my neighbor could be a rapist and we need to question this.
See how batshit crazy that is? That is what you're suggesting. 'Well I know there's no evidence of what I'm saying could have happened, but you shouldn't tell me STFU just questioning it.' Yes we should. You either have evidence or you can STFU. And why do I say this? Because otherwise we end up in a world where every fucking jackwagon who is taking up space and using up oxygen can just make any kind crazy claim he or she wants with no consequences. For instance:
QuoteThese parents have the right to ask questions, and calling them dangerous is beyond a cheap shot/ low blow by the White House who dictates what MSNBC and Maddow are to say.
Ahem... Evidence or STFU.
Quote from: Johan on March 15, 2016, 07:16:34 PM
Ahem... Evidence or STFU.
You can't be serious right now. You're serious, aren't you? Holy shit. You are actually being serious right now, aren't you? Are you? I find it hard to believe you could really be that blind. Are you shitting me?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwZPYgBjZGw
In b4 "That's not evidence. He doesn't know how tv news works"
Most people swallow both the red and blue pills.
Quote from: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 12:14:14 AM
Most people swallow both the red and blue pills.
When someone mentions that, all I can think of is the shit that comes out of /r/theredpill (https://www.reddit.com/r/theredpill). I know it's originally from The Matrix, but that community has ruined the analogy for me.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 15, 2016, 10:06:19 PM
You can't be serious right now. You're serious, aren't you? Holy shit. You are actually being serious right now, aren't you? Are you? I find it hard to believe you could really be that blind. Are you shitting me?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwZPYgBjZGw
In b4 "That's not evidence. He doesn't know how tv news works"
Nice. Reminds me of the all those theists who come here and present their evidence that god exists by posting this:
(http://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/photogallery/pwr/park/ciro/5CF2AE63-B455-CBBF-C548521BF36BA219/5CF2AE63-B455-CBBF-C548521BF36BA219.JPG)
And I will now tell you the same thing I tell them. I see absolutely no point in wasting any more of my time engaging in a discussion of evidence with a person who clearly hasn't the slightest grasp what the word evidence really means. Nice try kiddo. Better luck next time.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 16, 2016, 12:20:55 AM
When someone mentions that, all I can think of is the shit that comes out of /r/theredpill (https://www.reddit.com/r/theredpill). I know it's originally from The Matrix, but that community has ruined the analogy for me.
Another version .. people who go retard, shouldn't go full retard!
Funny Christian saying about evidence ...
If G-d became incarnate and walked among us, not only would we not believe in him, we would crucify him.
People believe used car salesmen, so this isn't all that crazy.
Conspiracy theorists would do well to keep their conspiracies within realistic limits. It is simply not realistic that any building in the WTC fell except by fire. Bush the Stupid wanted his war with Iraq (it was no secret) and didn't need a specific reason to attack Iraq, and if it was Iraq he wanted to attack, why use Al Qaeda (Afghanistan-based terrorist cell with a beef against Saddam) as his false flag? Asking why we couldn't defend ourselves against a surprise attack would also prompt the same question of every other successful surprise attack against an unprepared nation, not just the US, but in the entire history of war.
To attribute any of this to a concerted malice that is the grand conspiracy theory rather than the summation of the usual bog-standard little incompetencies and oversights over many people is really quite incredible. Hence the maxim, "Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity." We're simply not as smart as we think we are. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) The upshot is that conspiracies have always been revealed sooner or later, because people are stupid.
There have been conspiracies, we had evidence for them. Funny thing, though, is that we usually don't call them conspiracies at that point, just "scandals" or the like.
Quote from: Sal1981 on March 16, 2016, 11:52:40 AM
There have been conspiracies, we had evidence for them. Funny thing, though, is that we usually don't call them conspiracies at that point, just "scandals" or the like.
And your bog-standard conspiracy nut is never the one that breaks them.
I believe that the US government is or has been in contact with extraterrestrials. The evidence is anecdotal at best, but retired military (enlisted and officers, including generals) have been talking about this stuff for decades. Very recently I watched a 30-minute testimony of a retired CIA agent on his deathbed discuss how Eisenhower and (then-VP) Nixon were pissed with the installation at Area 51 for withholding info on crashed ET craft. Apparently, Eisenhower threatened to have the US Army tear apart the facility if they didn't give answers, which, if true, would suggest that the gubment is more compartmentalized than we expect.
T
Maybe they all lie, but all it takes is one piece of evidence. Edward Snowden vindicated four decades of whistleblowers, and if someone provides an alien body or whatever, it would be the kink that blew the whole works to smitherines.
The notion that a bunch of aliens could fly a space craft bajillions of miles through space just to crash on earth in the last thousand is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous when you consider the kind of energy that would require and just what would happen if that power core goes critical. Even more double-dog ludicrous when you consider that we would be poking at that thing with what would be the equivalent of cavemen poking at a nuclear bomb with pointed sticks in the case that it didn't.
If a real spacecraft even came into this
system, it would be painfully obvious that it happened. It would be a very high energy event to even slow down in a reasonable amount of time. We would see it long before the craft got here.
The evidence would have to be equal to claim. All the testimony in the world would pale in comparison to even their equivalent to an ashtray, because no matter what it is, it is going to be
interesting.Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 16, 2016, 12:58:01 PM
And your bog-standard conspiracy nut is never the one that breaks them.
This.
Quote from: The Atheist on March 16, 2016, 04:03:16 PM
I believe that the US government is or has been in contact with extraterrestrials. The evidence is anecdotal at best, but retired military (enlisted and officers, including generals) have been talking about this stuff for decades. Very recently I watched a 30-minute testimony of a retired CIA agent on his deathbed discuss how Eisenhower and (then-VP) Nixon were pissed with the installation at Area 51 for withholding info on crashed ET craft. Apparently, Eisenhower threatened to have the US Army tear apart the facility if they didn't give answers, which, if true, would suggest that the gubment is more compartmentalized than we expect.
They lie because they can. Deathbed or not, they can and do lie.
Quote
Maybe they all lie, but all it takes is one piece of evidence. Edward Snowden vindicated four decades of whistleblowers, and if someone provides an alien body or whatever, it would be the kink that blew the whole works to smitherines.
One piece of evidence would prove one thing, not everything. And we don't get that one piece of evidence. I watched nine seasons of X-files and had many a good laugh when the writers had to figure out how to keep people watching while still not providing any real evidence. It got pretty pathetic.
Of course, I would love for real aliens to show up ... but I am pretty sure they would bring a cookbook with them ;-(
Quote from: Johan on March 16, 2016, 06:40:39 AM
Nice. Reminds me of the all those theists who come here and present their evidence that god exists by posting this:
(http://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/photogallery/pwr/park/ciro/5CF2AE63-B455-CBBF-C548521BF36BA219/5CF2AE63-B455-CBBF-C548521BF36BA219.JPG)
And I will now tell you the same thing I tell them. I see absolutely no point in wasting any more of my time engaging in a discussion of evidence with a person who clearly hasn't the slightest grasp what the word evidence really means. Nice try kiddo. Better luck next time.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/msnbc-host-admits-to-parroting-white-house-talking-points.html
There you go. They are admitting it themselves. Is that good enough for you, Johan? How's that rat poison taste?
More
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC59K76LGK4#t=41
Also, Cenk Uygar says he was fired from MSNBC not because MSNBC didn't like him, but because Washington didn't like him.
Parroting White House talking points, isn't a conspiracy ... it is lazy reporting ;-)
Guys, nobody outside the USA was actually surprised by an Islamic terrorist attack on America. The only surprising thing was the SCALE and HOW it was done. Some sort of an attack was predicted many times before it happened. And that scale; the specific targets and how it is carried out points a lot about the nature of 9/11.
Think from the enemy's side for a moment. You are a terrorist. You want to plan an attack on the USA. Which probbaly you started to plan in 90s. What is your goal? You have 19 ready perpetrators to carry out whatever you wish to do.
a)Kill as many civillians as you can; scare the hell out of people from daily life. Instilling fear. How do you do that? You can send each of those 19 perpetrators to different big city subways in rush hours loaded with plastic bombs to blow up the whole place (19 different places).
In this scenario,
-with a good timing you would kill far more people than 3000 over all with 19 suicide bombers. And the panic would be more severe
-you would also destroy a very important transportation in big cities.
And this would have been VERY EASY thing to do. Much easier than flying planes into skycrapers. Because remember that the year is 2001. There are NO terrorist attack alerts, nobody is suspicious of middle eastern looking or black men with backpacks walking around.
Nobody is expecting anything what so ever. Load a huge packpack with...let's say c-4 as much as you can.
But they didn't do that because 9/11 wasn't first about killing people.
b)Attack on specific targets without any explosives. Flying planes into skycrapers. FAR MORE RISKY. Doesn't even come remotely close to blowing yourself up in a subway which noone would even notice until it's done.
You are in a confined place in air. MOST importantly, to accomplish this you need to reveal yourself. Everything is on your personal ability to start, to have control and end it. The timing, the moves. People do not know about you, but you don't know about the people on the plane either.
Let's s ay you did all that. The main problem is to fly the plane into the skycraper. The question? Do you really have the planned end game to cause the towers collapse or it was just another result of the attack? Did you really plan or even care that towers would collapse or is it just about hitting the towers and the pentagon?
You don't feel the need to send a message afterwards,
because in 2001
-NO Youtube, NO Facebook
-NO Smart phones used by masses
-Google has several years to become google
There are no social platforms whatsoever followed by masses to guarantee a viral message, hold them as in one audience. Any other message is likley to be caught up and used/censored by authorities. So leaving a message is useless, not to mention there is no understanding of it yet, because it will develop later by the social media becoming social media.
There have been lots of inside jobs, patsies...ect. BUT 9/11 is not an inside job. 9/11 does not get connected to Gladio Operations. It has a certain ideology and a world vision behind it.
If it was planned by the US government, the attack would target a few military bases at the same time, because it would be
-easier to control or manipulate
-easier to suppress information
-easier to build the wanted perception for anything else afterwards
-more profitable, more beneficial which is the point of ALL 9/11 conspiracy theories
A few big attacks on millitary bases on US soil would be the most legitimate cause for any war and saves you from a lot of bullshit you have to spew afterwards to convince world media. Clean. Neat. More profitable and beneficial from every aspect.
The funniest thing about conspiracy theories is their tangled webs and far fetched loose ends, while the motivation presented is always a very simple one. That's why they almost always blow. Because their inspiration is sensation and scandal and catasthrophic events rather than HOW and WHY. This is what draws people to look for conspiracy theories; dedective stories; playing Sherlock. Not willing to accept realistic scenarios; causes or reasons, but the need of looking for something extraordinary. It's a collective response that rises with the cultural traits of a gvien culture. It works different but pretty much the same everyhwere on the rock.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 15, 2016, 05:23:55 PM
You are correct that it is the claimants duty to give evidence in support. I only said no one could debunk what I was saying, because when 9/11 comes up, you will often see people say something like "9/11 questioners? All concerns people have about 9/11 have been cleared up and debunked. Next!" I think it's a false statement when someone says that all concerns have been cleared up and debunked, so that's the only reason I brought up debunking. You are completely right when you say it is the claimant that has to provide the evidence. About the claims that have supposedly been debunked... all I would say is you don't even need explosives in the buildings for Bush and Cheney to let it happen (maybe the buildings falling were just a bonus that could have happened or not happened), so I don't even bother with the explosives part of the story.
Why would one have the view that a truther does, without complete evidence to back them up? I can't say for sure because I myself am unsure about 9/11, but many truthers would probably say they think it's obvious that America was not caught off guard and attacked by Muslim terrorists. I don't subscribe to this line of thinking, but I see where they're coming from. I think there's a good chance Bush and Cheney let it happen, but at the same time, I think Johan and others have a pretty decent argument when they say it would be hard to keep such a secret.
It is fine to dismiss the 9/11 conspiracy theories based on lack of evidence. No problem with that. Some scientists will dismiss the multiverse idea because the evidence is just not there. I don't understand this stuff very well, but from what I do know, I would say there's a decent chance the multiverse idea is correct, and there's a decent chance the idea is not correct. Other scientists, despite the lack of evidence, will talk about what may be the case. They will say there may be a multiverse, or other dimensions, or extra-terrestrials, or that we may be living in a computer simulation. Should we completely dismiss these ideas out of hand because of a lack of evidence? Not everything in the world comes down to having evidence or not having evidence. What about when they give ideas about exactly how life on Earth may have started, or when they give ideas about why the Big Bang happened? We are simplifying things way too much when we just say "Evidence or STFU". I value evidence just like anyone else, but evidence is not all there is.
I understand that it's MSNBC and others job to push the White House's line they want to be pushed, but I really have a problem with people like Rachel Maddow calling the 9/11 questions and questioners "dangerous". Some of the parents of victims of the WTC collapse ripped Rachel Maddow a new one for demonizing them for having questions, when their children were murdered. Their freaking children were murdered, and Rachel Maddow calls them dangerous for asking questions about the murder of their sons and daughters? These parents have the right to ask questions, and calling them dangerous is beyond a cheap shot/ low blow by the White House who dictates what MSNBC and Maddow are to say.
I'm fine with people saying 9/11 conspiracies are silly and unlikely, but is it really necessary for these people to be labelled dangerous nuts? I get it if you're calling people nuts or dangerous for being anti-vaccines, and I understand that a whole lot of 9/11 truthers are also anti-vaccines, but should we really be calling the parents of a dead son or daughter, who has questions, or others with questions dangerous nuts? It's Maddow's job to get the people to buy into the idea that they shouldn't be questioning the mainstream. I can understand her calling people dangerous, because she's only doing her job. Others who call these people dangerous though, when it's not their job to do so? I think they should leave the demonizing of people who simply ask questions to shills like Rachel Maddow.
I'm with you on most of that, except the comparison between conspiracy theories and science. Science works a little differently in this case. It's not "evidence to support this theory" so much as it is "here is a possible explanation based on what we know". Take big bang theory, for instance. It isn't an idea someone came up with and then they started finding evidence to support it. It was a look at the universe and a ton of calculations, then "Let's see what the universe would have been like before we started looking at it by running this model backwards" and, using the data (not "evidence") alone, big bang theory was born. As for the idea of a multiverse, pretty much the same thing, only not quite as solid, as I understand it. It's just a possible explanation based on the math which works in this universe. Though they do use terms like "evidence to support it" that's really a misnomer. If a scientist is collecting "evidence" instead of "data" he's a crap scientist who's not being objective.
When it comes to the woo woo stuff like ghost hunting and conspiracy theories, they are looking for evidence. Most are not in the least bit interested in data because data may not support their belief. Conspiracy theories are far closer to a religious belief than to anything scientific. While a scientist may be collecting data which he hopes will be evidence to support a theory, he's just as excited when it doesn't because science is about gaining understanding, and it doesn't matter what that understanding is, so long as you understand reality better than you did before. Conspiracy theories, that's not about learning anything or about understanding. It's about living out a fantasy in which life is filled with mystery and evildoers you are helping to thwart. You have to look at the reasons behind why they do what they do. For science, the reason is simple understanding. Emotions and desires get in the way of that and are discouraged. For conspiracy theories, it's all about the emotional state. The discovery is just an excuse.
My favorite example of this is chemtrails, the dumbest conspiracy theory of all time. I saw a documentary a few years back about the start of the chemtrail nonsense. The guy literally admitted that he walked out his door one day and noticed contrails in the sky and said to himself, "What if they are using those to spread chemicals into the atmosphere?" And from that day forward, they were. No evidence, no data, no looking into it, just a thought that exploded into a conspiracy theory which there has never been a scrap of proof for.
You do make a good argument, but I've spent too long with people of the mentality and I simply know what they're like. I know that conspiracy theorists are generally the exact opposite of objective, that their "theories" are their religious doctrine and that literally nothing they say can be trusted; EVERYTHING must be fact-checked. That's not to say that all people who believe in conspiracy theories are like that. I used to buy into one or two and I don't think I'm like that. But every fact I've ever checked, literally every single one which a) mattered and b) could be checked (there was information available) has fallen through. So from my point of view, I gave conspiracy theorists the benefit of the doubt. But the mentality among them is exactly the opposite of objective. If you prove to them beyond doubt (and it MUST BE proof beyond doubt) that something they believe is wrong, they simply never bring it up again and move on to the next thing. They pretend the things they got wrong simply never existed. You can't get them to even acknowledge you in a forum if you post about something they got wrong. They simply skip over it as if they don't even see it and have the conversation around you. These people NEVER count their losses. With them, it is true until you prove it wrong. And when you prove it wrong it is excised from their memories and they simply move on to the next "truth".
If you want to see this for yourself, join a UFO forum. Read the conversations with a truly objective, open mind. Look for evidence to support their claims. Check all their facts. And post your thoughts. They'll make up terms to describe you and what a dick you are, like "septic skeptic". They'll all get excited about some new video and it will be the only thing they can talk about, until someone says, "Yeah, that was shot down in the '90s", and then they will NEVER talk about it again. They won't even respond to posts about it. They will simply ignore every scrap of information which shows that they got something wrong from that point forward. Forever. And that very day they will have the same level of excitement for the next thing, the next video, the next Photoshopped picture. And it WILL BE true until you can PROVE it wrong. And your proof must be absolute. Someone confessing to faking it, that's not enough. They have to PROVE they faked it AND that they did so without secret knowledge about the REAL (insert nuttery). Bigfoot was faked? I'm shocked! Well, whoever made the mask MUST HAVE seen a REAL bigfoot because it looks just like him! UFO video was faked? I don't know. It looks pretty convincing. Can you PROVE you faked it? Now hold on one minute! All you did was fake a video exactly
like this one while I watched. Can you prove you faked THIS ONE?
I'm sorry, but it has been my experience that these people are nuts. If there's a conspiracy, bring me evidence. I don't care about what "may have" happened. You can't convict someone because they "may have" killed someone. I can't do anything about the crimes the government "may have" committed. I'm not going to jump off a cliff to avoid a long and painful death because I "may have" cancer. If you don't have evidence, you don't have anything and the conspiracy is pointless.
I agree with most of that. I didn't mean to compare conspiracy theorists to scientists. I know they are nothing alike, and that most conspiracy theorists are whacked out. If I ever met these people, they probably wouldn't like me at all. I'm a left leaning atheist who is pro vaccines, and I think abortion is the best thing in the world. Why do I still watch these people's videos if I know they're full of shit? Me disagreeing with someone on a bunch of points is not reason enough for me to stop watching them. I still watch CNN, TYT, Secular Talk, RT, etc even though I hate them all and think they're all shit. I'll watch some Infowars clips from time to time even though I think they're full of shit and running a clown show. At least I can say that Alex Jones is a pretty entertaining comedian. That's all he is really. A comedian.
I agree about chemtrails. I think that idea is dumb too. Same with the idea that UFOs are alien spacecraft. I don't think extra-terrestrials have visited us, but I do assume they exist as do most scientists, despite the lack of evidence. This is why I say that evidence is not everything. If you want to show someone for sure that extra-terrestrials exist, you need to have the evidence to show them, true, but you don't need to see this alien life to say that it probably exists, and it's extremely unlikely that it does not exist.
Millions of people do think 9/11 was done by the Bush administration and these people are sure of themselves, but at the same time you have millions of people that have doubts, and these people are not like the average conspiracy theorist. Look at someone like APA. He's a smart guy. He's a left leaning atheist. He's not really anything like your average conspiracy theorist, but he says he has his doubts about 9/11. Is he a nut? Should APA be called a nutcase just because he has doubts? I don't think so. Not everyone asking questions is a crazy conspiracy theorist. Former CIA and FBI guys have said they think there's a very good chance the Bush administration let it happen. These are not your run of the mill conspiracy whackos.
I accept that I could be way off when it comes to 9/11. One of the arguments we use against theists is "Look at all these other people believing in different gods. That shows that the human mind is easily duped. If humans are that easily duped, how can you be sure you haven't just been duped too?" I accept that my thinking could be off, and maybe I've just driven myself a bit crazy by watching too many conspiracy theory videos. I don't think that this is the case, but I accept that it could be. I've never been a member of a conspiracy theory forum. I like how this forum keeps me grounded and challenges my ideas. I have no problem switching positions if I think the other person's argument is superior to mine. I've switched multiple positions on here, so I think I've shown that I'm not someone who is closed to changing their mind. I may change my mind about this at some point. I'm still young and learning how life works. I'm still just in my twenties. Anyways, I think it's good that we are having more of a mature, adult discussion about this topic than what usually happens with this topic, and I thank you for that.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 18, 2016, 02:59:37 AM
http://www.prisonplanet.com/msnbc-host-admits-to-parroting-white-house-talking-points.html
There you go. They are admitting it themselves. Is that good enough for you, Johan? How's that rat poison taste?
Oh boy a real live article written by a conspiracy theory idiot. And god exists because the bible says so. Guess you really showed me kiddo. Keep this up and I may sprain something from rolling my eyes so hard.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on March 18, 2016, 07:27:45 AM
Guys, nobody outside the USA was actually surprised by an Islamic terrorist attack on America. The only surprising thing was the SCALE and HOW it was done. Some sort of an attack was predicted many times before it happened. And that scale; the specific targets and how it is carried out points a lot about the nature of 9/11.
The number of times I've had this conversation with people who seem utterly dumbfounded at the thought that people in the ME actually disliked the US. Gosh. People seem to forget the USS Cole bombings, or the attacks on the WTC prior to 9/11, or the Embassy attacks in Kenya.
9/11 ramped up the general discourse of otherism now unfortunately prevalent in many Islamic countries to a new height. But you're 100% right. Anyone who knows anything about Mohammed Atta et al. can quite clearly trace the fall to extremism throughout the 90s. It's not a surprise they did what they did, just how they did it.
Size, Fidel. The country is so big, domestic flights are used and treated like bus transportation between cities we have where I live. Well, they are not the same thing in many aspects. Think about the difference between threatening people in a bus and in a plane. Very different things. Also domestic flights in the US take several hours. Time to observe, get ready and plan. Here if I travel to big cities longest I fly is an hour. 45 mins not even an hour. There are so many flights in the US. Everything about domestic flights in US provided a lot of advantage to use for those fuckers. Those 19 attackers probably flew around many times, just to fly around.
Also I don't tink they planned to collapse the towers.
Americans are very isolated. Most people have no idea what is going on outside their country, esp. about policies imposed by their own.
Quote from: Johan on March 18, 2016, 07:14:18 PM
Oh boy a real live article written by a conspiracy theory idiot. And god exists because the bible says so. Guess you really showed me kiddo. Keep this up and I may sprain something from rolling my eyes so hard.
The source is irrelevant. MSNBC anchors admit to working with the Whitehouse, getting emails from the Whitehouse criticizing them while on air, and Cenk says he was told Washington didn't like his tone shortly before he was fired. If you still want to believe a free press exists, be my guest. Next you'll be telling me that it wasn't FOX News' job to make Bush look good, and that CNN isn't the Clinton News Network :kiddingme:
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 19, 2016, 01:47:20 PM
The source is irrelevant.
And that's why we all accept the stuff written over at Answers in Genesis. Oh wait...
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 19, 2016, 01:47:20 PM
The source is irrelevant.
'the fuck? Are you that fucking high or that fucking stupid?
Quote from: Baruch on March 16, 2016, 07:01:42 PM
Of course, I would love for real aliens to show up ... but I am pretty sure they would bring a cookbook with them ;-(
"How to Serve man." A twilight special.
Sent from my ST23i using Tapatalk
How did we get on werewolves?
Quote from: Baruch on March 15, 2016, 06:21:13 PM
The professional journalists are complete Pravda bullshitters ... including Walter Cronkite. During WW II, the Cold War, and since the USSR had a coronary ... all journalists are processed by the FBI and CIA to say only the things that the government wants them to say. The free press only exists for people who have a press to print with. This is pre-Internet ... to be a professional journalist, you had to be vetted and part of an official news organization (all of which are fellow travelers of their respective national governments). A press pass stuck into the ribbon around your fedora.
We still have such people, in the age of the gonzo journalism of the Internet ... and they are to journalism what the DINOs and RINOs are to politics. Some are more disruptive like Drudge, who is the Trump of the Internet. Just ask to be invited to the next White House press conference ... just because of how wonderful you are. Back in the day when there were only three TV stations ... this was easy. Now the media is flooded with government trolls stirring everything up, so that people don't know what to believe. This prevents public consensus.
DINO's and RINO's are at least somewhat dispassionate..... Only three TV stations? That was better. Face it... professional journalism is on the decline in America. Ãt's not gone however. Whatever you may think of Walter Cronkite is beside the point. You don't have to like what they're telling you. As long as what they're saying is actually substantive.
Gerard
Quote from: Sal1981 on March 20, 2016, 11:29:20 AM
"How to Serve man." A twilight special.
Sent from my ST23i using Tapatalk
IT'S A COOKBOOK!
Gerard
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 20, 2016, 11:34:01 AM
How did we get on werewolves?
Uninformed and plain stupid suspicion. People heard the howls of wolves and accused their neighbors of the howling.
Gerard
Quote from: Gerard on March 20, 2016, 11:57:51 AM
Uninformed and plain stupid suspicion. People heard the howls of wolves and accused their neighbors of the howling.
Gerard
I was referring, rather snarkily, to the "Twilight" reference.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a9/50/d8/a950d8208111ac3ce72cd941b1035994.jpg)
Quote from: Gerard on March 20, 2016, 11:54:37 AM
DINO's and RINO's are at least somewhat dispassionate..... Only three TV stations? That was better. Face it... professional journalism is on the decline in America. Ãt's not gone however. Whatever you may think of Walter Cronkite is beside the point. You don't have to like what they're telling you. As long as what they're saying is actually substantive.
Gerard
Actually one had to listen to Eric Sevareid, Walter Cronkite pretended to not have an opinion ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHGHm8iPeUY
Quote from: Johan on March 19, 2016, 07:00:52 PM
'the fuck? Are you that fucking high or that fucking stupid?
The relevant part is a couple videos of MSNBC employees talking, and also the point that Cenk was warned that Washington didn't like his tone before he was fired. One of the videos wasn't a youtube video so I linked where I found it for you to go watch it. It's not my fault that you're too butthurt to click on the link and watch the video.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 18, 2016, 04:02:04 PM
I agree with most of that. I didn't mean to compare conspiracy theorists to scientists. I know they are nothing alike, and that most conspiracy theorists are whacked out. If I ever met these people, they probably wouldn't like me at all. I'm a left leaning atheist who is pro vaccines, and I think abortion is the best thing in the world. Why do I still watch these people's videos if I know they're full of shit? Me disagreeing with someone on a bunch of points is not reason enough for me to stop watching them. I still watch CNN, TYT, Secular Talk, RT, etc even though I hate them all and think they're all shit. I'll watch some Infowars clips from time to time even though I think they're full of shit and running a clown show. At least I can say that Alex Jones is a pretty entertaining comedian. That's all he is really. A comedian.
I agree about chemtrails. I think that idea is dumb too. Same with the idea that UFOs are alien spacecraft. I don't think extra-terrestrials have visited us, but I do assume they exist as do most scientists, despite the lack of evidence. This is why I say that evidence is not everything. If you want to show someone for sure that extra-terrestrials exist, you need to have the evidence to show them, true, but you don't need to see this alien life to say that it probably exists, and it's extremely unlikely that it does not exist.
Millions of people do think 9/11 was done by the Bush administration and these people are sure of themselves, but at the same time you have millions of people that have doubts, and these people are not like the average conspiracy theorist. Look at someone like APA. He's a smart guy. He's a left leaning atheist. He's not really anything like your average conspiracy theorist, but he says he has his doubts about 9/11. Is he a nut? Should APA be called a nutcase just because he has doubts? I don't think so. Not everyone asking questions is a crazy conspiracy theorist. Former CIA and FBI guys have said they think there's a very good chance the Bush administration let it happen. These are not your run of the mill conspiracy whackos.
I accept that I could be way off when it comes to 9/11. One of the arguments we use against theists is "Look at all these other people believing in different gods. That shows that the human mind is easily duped. If humans are that easily duped, how can you be sure you haven't just been duped too?" I accept that my thinking could be off, and maybe I've just driven myself a bit crazy by watching too many conspiracy theory videos. I don't think that this is the case, but I accept that it could be. I've never been a member of a conspiracy theory forum. I like how this forum keeps me grounded and challenges my ideas. I have no problem switching positions if I think the other person's argument is superior to mine. I've switched multiple positions on here, so I think I've shown that I'm not someone who is closed to changing their mind. I may change my mind about this at some point. I'm still young and learning how life works. I'm still just in my twenties. Anyways, I think it's good that we are having more of a mature, adult discussion about this topic than what usually happens with this topic, and I thank you for that.
A fair enough assessment.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on March 20, 2016, 02:28:50 PM
The relevant part is a couple videos of MSNBC employees talking, and also the point that Cenk was warned that Washington didn't like his tone before he was fired. One of the videos wasn't a youtube video so I linked where I found it for you to go watch it. It's not my fault that you're too butthurt to click on the link and watch the video.
Ok once again, the article is written by a conspiracy theory nut. Therefore anything written in said article is suspect. Therefore the source is fucking relevant. I asked for evidence and you bring me the fucking bible. Try again kiddo.
As for the video in the link? It does NOTHING to serve as the evidence you claim to have and actually attempts to disprove what you claim since the last comment the woman (don't know her name nor care) made is that the reason she has white house talking points at the ready is because of an experience with a previous guest. No mention from her that she has talk points because her bosses make her do so. Hmm.....
Also this. Someday you may end up doing a job similar to mine in which you will get to interview lots of job applicants and talk to them about why they left previous jobs. And if you do, then I can guarantee that you will quickly learn a little fact about that. People who were fired tend to lie about the reasons they were fired. In fact using the words 'tend to' puts it way too mildly. People DO lie about why they were fired. A lot.
Yeah, so this is not me being butt hurt. This me saying once again bring actual real evidence or STFU.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/fbi-just-canceled-its-big-court-showdown-apple
So who do you believe? The government, because of its national security function, has been spreading disinformation since 1776. So what is true about the Apple-FBI story and what is false? Do you trust Apple, a company that collaborates with Communist China?