as soon as the maths exam question came in you fucking lost me
i'll read it later on buddy, i have a pint with my name on it...
but i will read it.
sure thing, thanks for taking hte time to rely to it originally
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
What I'd really like to see is the conspiracy theories that would have come out if we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it. I mean, this stuff is entertaining but holy shit those would be fucking great. The speculation about the plane's cargo alone would have been unimaginable!
One point regarding eyewitness testimony, including OneLove's sister....
A few days ago I watched the original broadcasts of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN from Septemeber 11th.
One thing that struck me was just how off the initial eyewitnesses were who saw the first plane strike the tower and called into the networks. In the first half hour, I believe there was only one or two witnesses on all the networks who got it "right", i.e. that it was a large passenger plane. Most thought it was a small twin engine plane, internal explosion in the building or missle.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, our brains simply aren't capable of handling the sort of action that happened on Septemeber 11th. That isn't to say that OneLove's sister and others are wrong about what they think they observed, I just wouldn't put a lot of stock into it...
Investigators realize this, and in disaster scenerios (plane crashes etc...) put very little weight into what eyewitnesses saw...
One point regarding eyewitness testimony, including OneLove's sister....
A few days ago I watched the original broadcasts of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN from Septemeber 11th.
One thing that struck me was just how off the initial eyewitnesses were who saw the first plane strike the tower and called into the networks. In the first half hour, I believe there was only one or two witnesses on all the networks who got it "right", i.e. that it was a large passenger plane. Most thought it was a small twin engine plane, internal explosion in the building or missle.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, our brains simply aren't capable of handling the sort of action that happened on Septemeber 11th. That isn't to say that OneLove's sister and others are wrong about what they think they observed, I just wouldn't put a lot of stock into it...
Investigators realize this, and in disaster scenerios (plane crashes etc...) put very little weight into what eyewitnesses saw...
That is a very fair point. The only difference I would site between the WTC and the Pentagon is that the strike on the WTC was very high up, off of the ground, hitting a skyscraper. In the case of the Pentagon, the plane came in much lower (and over more "open" ground), its much easier to judge relative size, etc with something that close to the ground. My sister for instance, noted that she saw what ariline the plane was from, and it matched up later. I was literally talking to her right after it hit, she called me so that I could go and pull her son out of daycare, she knew I was close by.
I hope that helps, and again, I realize that you have a valid point there.
What I'd really like to see is the conspiracy theories that would have come out if we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it. I mean, this stuff is entertaining but holy shit those would be fucking great. The speculation about the plane's cargo alone would have been unimaginable!
One point regarding eyewitness testimony, including OneLove's sister....
A few days ago I watched the original broadcasts of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN from Septemeber 11th.
One thing that struck me was just how off the initial eyewitnesses were who saw the first plane strike the tower and called into the networks. In the first half hour, I believe there was only one or two witnesses on all the networks who got it "right", i.e. that it was a large passenger plane. Most thought it was a small twin engine plane, internal explosion in the building or missle.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, our brains simply aren't capable of handling the sort of action that happened on Septemeber 11th. That isn't to say that OneLove's sister and others are wrong about what they think they observed, I just wouldn't put a lot of stock into it...
Investigators realize this, and in disaster scenerios (plane crashes etc...) put very little weight into what eyewitnesses saw...
I place no stock in 9-11 conspiracy theories at this time, but this is still a good point. Eyewitness testimony is prone to error.
What I'd really like to see is the conspiracy theories that would have come out if we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it. I mean, this stuff is entertaining but holy shit those would be fucking great. The speculation about the plane's cargo alone would have been unimaginable!
And I'd love to see all the people buying into whatever the government says and never questioning it. I mean, the gullibility and passiveness would be cute and pet-like all but holy shit....oh wait.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
And I'd love to see all the people buying into whatever the government says and never questioning it. I mean, the gullibility and passiveness would be cute and pet-like all but holy shit....oh wait.
That's funny since in my example I said: "we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it." That would mean that anyone who "bought" the government's story would be entirely correct in doing so, since the story would be relfective of the actual events.
I understand that you think that those who believe the government account never questioned such an account. And that viewpoint is just as silly as those who think everyone who questions such an account are nuts.
That's funny since in my example I said: "we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it." That would mean that anyone who "bought" the government's story would be entirely correct in doing so, since the story would be relfective of the actual events.
I understand that you think that those who believe the government account never questioned such an account. And that viewpoint is just as silly as those who think everyone who questions such an account are nuts.
I know what your example said. I was making my own example.
I don't think everyone who believes the official story is gullible. Some just came to differnet conclusions than others. That's my point...so many here seem to act as thought the people who came to a different conclusion than themselves are nutjobs. It's quite closeminded to think everyone will see this the same way. There is reason to doubt and question this. It's not irrational or foolish.
Just like your views on imprisonment and criminal justice. A lot of people could say that your views would be crazy and easily dismiss them. I think they are unique and only wonder how should ideas would actually play out in the real world. I don't dismiss your views as nutty. I give them thought and try to understand your point of view. I'm guess i'm just hoping for more intelligent discourse here than I should expect. It is just very frustrating to me, I guess.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I know what your example said. I was making my own example.
I don't think everyone who believes the official story is gullible. Some just came to differnet conclusions than others. That's my point...so many here seem to act as thought the people who came to a different conclusion than themselves are nutjobs. It's quite closeminded to think everyone will see this the same way. There is reason to doubt and question this. It's not irrational or foolish.
Just like your views on imprisonment and criminal justice. A lot of people could say that your views would be crazy and easily dismiss them. I think they are unique and only wonder how should ideas would actually play out in the real world. I don't dismiss your views as nutty. I give them thought and try to understand your point of view. I'm guess i'm just hoping for more intelligent discourse here than I should expect. It is just very frustrating to me, I guess.
All fair statements. The bottom line on this issue is that one side is right or one side is wrong or both sides are wrong. And that creates a lot of tension for people who become married to their positions. There's no reason to be frustrated though -- be comfortable in what you believe and speak your mind. What more could you reasonably want?
All fair statements. The bottom line on this issue is that one side is right or one side is wrong or both sides are wrong. And that creates a lot of tension for people who become married to their positions. There's no reason to be frustrated though -- be comfortable in what you believe and speak your mind. What more could you reasonably want?
To be able to discuss things without all the hostility and dismissivenes. Maybe I aim too high.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm happy to see that this thread, for the most part, has not been reduced to insults and a pissing contest. It seems there are a few here on the board who really do enjoy a reasoned debate.
Anyway, I'm off to the beach for the weekend, but I'll be checking this thread when I get back on Sunday. You all have a good one
To be able to discuss things without all the hostility and dismissivenes. Maybe I aim too high.
You don't aim too high. You just focus too much on the perception of others. Hostility and dismissiveness are only worth the reaction they get out of you. Without your sanction, hostility and dismissiveness have absolutely no power.
You don't aim too high. You just focus too much on the perception of others. Hostility and dismissiveness are only worth the reaction they get out of you. Without your sanction, hostility and dismissiveness have absolutely no power.
But how can you discuss things with these kind of attitudes? And many people will follow whatever another says instead of reading up on it. 'Oh they say its crazy so it must be.' That is frustrating more so than other perception of me.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But how can you discuss things with these kind of attitudes?
By not giving sanction to them. If you're there to discuss, why bother with someone who is not? Why play by their terms? Look, I've been called a lot of names on this board ranging from "heartless CEO" to "filthly liberal". My response is often to discuss those names. Challenge the premises beneath them. Disprove their claims, and do it for fun.
Or if that doesn't interest you or isn't worth your time, ignore them. What do you hope to accomplish with someone who already annouces with their hostility that they don't wish to consider your claims? If someone defends their view strongly, do the same with yours. If someone simply has no view other than "I don't like you or what you stand for" without knowing you or without understanding what you stand for, do you really expect that person to have an interest in the actual meaning of those things?
In short, play by your rules and your terms. There are many people here and elsewhere who you'll find common ground with (at least in terms of the methods). Why pay heed to those who don't?
And many people will follow whatever another says instead of reading up on it. 'Oh they say its crazy so it must be.' That is frustrating more so than other perception of me.
Yeah, I hear you. Conformity is a sign on fear and fear is typically a sign of misunderstanding. The conformist is rarely attached to his target. They're easily persuaded, if you wish. But not much of a long-term ally
By not giving sanction to them. If you're there to discuss, why bother with someone who is not? Why play by their terms? Look, I've been called a lot of names on this board ranging from "heartless CEO" to "filthly liberal". My response is often to discuss those names. Challenge the premises beneath them. Disprove their claims, and do it for fun.
Or if that doesn't interest you or isn't worth your time, ignore them. What do you hope to accomplish with someone who already annouces with their hostility that they don't wish to consider your claims? If someone defends their view strongly, do the same with yours. If someone simply has no view other than "I don't like you or what you stand for" without knowing you or without understanding what you stand for, do you really expect that person to have an interest in the actual meaning of those things?
In short, play by your rules and your terms. There are many people here and elsewhere who you'll find common ground with (at least in terms of the methods). Why pay heed to those who don't?
Yeah, I hear you. Conformity is a sign on fear and fear is typically a sign of misunderstanding. The conformist is rarely attached to his target. They're easily persuaded, if you wish. But not much of a long-term ally
But this nation is filled with comformists who vote and we have to live by their rules, such as wiretapping. Frustration!! So I try to do what I can to to offset that.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But this nation is filled with comformists who vote and we have to live by their rules, such as wiretapping. Frustration!! So I try to do what I can to to offset that.
Just take comfort in the fact that I'm here to cancel your actions out.
But this nation is filled with comformists who vote and we have to live by their rules, such as wiretapping. Frustration!! So I try to do what I can to to offset that.
Yep. Come on over to the side that rejects the right of those conformists to control you
Just as there is no middle ground between life and death there is no middle ground between freedom and fascism. You have different types of lives and you may have different types of death, but you cannot be half alive and half dead. Similarly, you cannot stand for the individual and against him at the same time. If you think you can, check your premises.
What about the less fortunate?
What about them? They're individuals too.
You have a lot of trust in man. But that is another thread.
I know three people from my work who were on Church Street in NYC on business. One of them got separated from the other two. They all said they saw the second plane hit the tower. They witnessed the collapse of the towers and were covered in that white dust. Somehow all three of them met up on the train to go home after several hours of walking to the train station I believe in NJ.
I've seen all the videos and believe what I saw on live TV that day. I watched that second plane hit the tower. Any video can be edited to have things appear or disappear and it doesn't take a genius to do so.
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
Comments
sure thing, thanks for taking hte time to rely to it originally
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
A few days ago I watched the original broadcasts of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN from Septemeber 11th.
One thing that struck me was just how off the initial eyewitnesses were who saw the first plane strike the tower and called into the networks. In the first half hour, I believe there was only one or two witnesses on all the networks who got it "right", i.e. that it was a large passenger plane. Most thought it was a small twin engine plane, internal explosion in the building or missle.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, our brains simply aren't capable of handling the sort of action that happened on Septemeber 11th. That isn't to say that OneLove's sister and others are wrong about what they think they observed, I just wouldn't put a lot of stock into it...
Investigators realize this, and in disaster scenerios (plane crashes etc...) put very little weight into what eyewitnesses saw...
That is a very fair point. The only difference I would site between the WTC and the Pentagon is that the strike on the WTC was very high up, off of the ground, hitting a skyscraper. In the case of the Pentagon, the plane came in much lower (and over more "open" ground), its much easier to judge relative size, etc with something that close to the ground. My sister for instance, noted that she saw what ariline the plane was from, and it matched up later. I was literally talking to her right after it hit, she called me so that I could go and pull her son out of daycare, she knew I was close by.
I hope that helps, and again, I realize that you have a valid point there.
Perhaps you might benefit in actually knowing what a troll is and how to spot one.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ha! No kidding ...
I place no stock in 9-11 conspiracy theories at this time, but this is still a good point. Eyewitness testimony is prone to error.
And I'd love to see all the people buying into whatever the government says and never questioning it. I mean, the gullibility and passiveness would be cute and pet-like all but holy shit....oh wait.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That's funny since in my example I said: "we had intercepted those planes and shot them down and admitted to it." That would mean that anyone who "bought" the government's story would be entirely correct in doing so, since the story would be relfective of the actual events.
I understand that you think that those who believe the government account never questioned such an account. And that viewpoint is just as silly as those who think everyone who questions such an account are nuts.
I know what your example said. I was making my own example.
I don't think everyone who believes the official story is gullible. Some just came to differnet conclusions than others. That's my point...so many here seem to act as thought the people who came to a different conclusion than themselves are nutjobs. It's quite closeminded to think everyone will see this the same way. There is reason to doubt and question this. It's not irrational or foolish.
Just like your views on imprisonment and criminal justice. A lot of people could say that your views would be crazy and easily dismiss them. I think they are unique and only wonder how should ideas would actually play out in the real world. I don't dismiss your views as nutty. I give them thought and try to understand your point of view. I'm guess i'm just hoping for more intelligent discourse here than I should expect. It is just very frustrating to me, I guess.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
All fair statements. The bottom line on this issue is that one side is right or one side is wrong or both sides are wrong. And that creates a lot of tension for people who become married to their positions. There's no reason to be frustrated though -- be comfortable in what you believe and speak your mind. What more could you reasonably want?
To be able to discuss things without all the hostility and dismissivenes. Maybe I aim too high.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Anyway, I'm off to the beach for the weekend, but I'll be checking this thread when I get back on Sunday. You all have a good one
You don't aim too high. You just focus too much on the perception of others. Hostility and dismissiveness are only worth the reaction they get out of you. Without your sanction, hostility and dismissiveness have absolutely no power.
But how can you discuss things with these kind of attitudes? And many people will follow whatever another says instead of reading up on it. 'Oh they say its crazy so it must be.' That is frustrating more so than other perception of me.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
By not giving sanction to them. If you're there to discuss, why bother with someone who is not? Why play by their terms? Look, I've been called a lot of names on this board ranging from "heartless CEO" to "filthly liberal". My response is often to discuss those names. Challenge the premises beneath them. Disprove their claims, and do it for fun.
Or if that doesn't interest you or isn't worth your time, ignore them. What do you hope to accomplish with someone who already annouces with their hostility that they don't wish to consider your claims? If someone defends their view strongly, do the same with yours. If someone simply has no view other than "I don't like you or what you stand for" without knowing you or without understanding what you stand for, do you really expect that person to have an interest in the actual meaning of those things?
In short, play by your rules and your terms. There are many people here and elsewhere who you'll find common ground with (at least in terms of the methods). Why pay heed to those who don't?
Yeah, I hear you. Conformity is a sign on fear and fear is typically a sign of misunderstanding. The conformist is rarely attached to his target. They're easily persuaded, if you wish. But not much of a long-term ally
But this nation is filled with comformists who vote and we have to live by their rules, such as wiretapping. Frustration!! So I try to do what I can to to offset that.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Just take comfort in the fact that I'm here to cancel your actions out.
Yep. Come on over to the side that rejects the right of those conformists to control you
What side is that? And what side is there that wants to encourage the production of noncomformists?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nah, I'll get more attention
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Probably so. You're much better looking.
Well, I didn't mean because of that but thank you anyways.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The side that believes the individual is paramount, of course. That's the side of freedom.
Whatever side that does not wish to override the will of the individual with the will of society, of course. That's the side of fascism.
Isn't there some middle ground? What about the less fortunate? You have a lot of trust in man. But that is another thread.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Just as there is no middle ground between life and death there is no middle ground between freedom and fascism. You have different types of lives and you may have different types of death, but you cannot be half alive and half dead. Similarly, you cannot stand for the individual and against him at the same time. If you think you can, check your premises.
What about them? They're individuals too.
I trust many men. I distrust others.
I've seen all the videos and believe what I saw on live TV that day. I watched that second plane hit the tower. Any video can be edited to have things appear or disappear and it doesn't take a genius to do so.