To the people who believe 911 was an inside job...

nobody · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

since when do opinions have to be supported by fact the two are unrelated.

this "opinion" is exactly the reason why no serious discussion is possible here...

if I point out time and time again that an opinion is based on FALSE claims...and a person isn't willing to even slightly revise their opinion...well, than I'm not dealing with a reasonable debater...but an individual with a CLOSED world view...who will believe EVERYthing just to support their "opinion"...

your upper statement is very enlightening as to why it is so frustrating here...

m.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

claiming that Bush is working in his own interest is one thing...I would accept it as critical thinking...
claiming that Bush is working in the interest of a superclass blowing up thousands of his own people or letting it happen is...sensationalism at best

I can't disprove that there is a superclass...just as I can't prove there is no god or aliens...BUT I can disprove central claims or raise reasonable doubt about all kinds of wold conspiracy theories...as I can about specific religions...

cause it is a different thing to claim something general like god...or make a positive statement as to how he wants me to act and how he arranged things in history...those are detailed theories...and sadly for some...they can all be disproven...while I no one can disprove there is god...

Can you accept that anyone who earns a certain amount of money or who has a certain amount of power in society would view others in the same situation as having more in common with them than the average person? There certainly IS a superclass... whether they're working together or not is up for discussion, not whether or not they exist.

Yes, it may be sensationalism... but only if it's something you don't think possible. To me it makes sense.

nobody · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

No probs... I'm answering your questions as well as I can and I think others do too, but if I start to feel I'm being mocked well... that's simply rude don't ya think. Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories cos, if the evidence 100% proved them to be true they'd become fact... no? Plenty of conspiracy theories which were laughed at have since been proven to be true. There are plenty of examples of 'official versions' of stories later being exposed as lies. So please don't mock... if you want answers, just respect that people are trying to give them we're looking at things from different ways, that's obvious. I have not come out and said 'you're wrong'. I don't believe you're right... but I also don't believe that EITHER of us have the evidence to stand up and say 'my opinion is 100% right and you're wrong' so... bottom line... respect

tell me ONE WIDE SCALE conspiracy theory that has proven true...just ONE?

has the UN built birth control centers???
has a chip been implanted under your skin???

see my above post in reply to your last statement...

m.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

well, human society looks a lot more disorganized than ants...
ants cannot thing...hence there must be someone controlling them...
human societies are a mess compared to ants...yet they can think...you would think that the ones planning your society could at least do as good a job as ants, no???
think about it...

m.

Oh I agree it makes no sense... but I think humans are capable of much more. The world is probably in such a mess cos they're too busy concentrating on much more pressing issues

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

this "opinion" is exactly the reason why no serious discussion is possible here...

if I point out time and time again that an opinion is based on FALSE claims...and a person isn't willing to even slightly revise their opinion...well, than I'm not dealing with a reasonable debater...but an individual with a CLOSED world view...who will believe EVERYthing just to support their "opinion"...

your upper statement is very enlightening as to why it is so frustrating here...

m.

Definition of opinion:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:opinion&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"; "what are ...
a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"
public opinion: a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public opinion"
the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge"
the reason for a court's judgment (as opposed to the decision itself)
impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying

The two are certainly unrelated... and that's NOT my opinion... that's fact

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

this "opinion" is exactly the reason why no serious discussion is possible here...

if I point out time and time again that an opinion is based on FALSE claims...and a person isn't willing to even slightly revise their opinion...well, than I'm not dealing with a reasonable debater...but an individual with a CLOSED world view...who will believe EVERYthing just to support their "opinion"...

your upper statement is very enlightening as to why it is so frustrating here...

m.

I'm sorry, but aren't you the one who believes everything the paper tells you? Who unquestionably trusts that governments work in the peoples best interests?

I don't believe EVERYthing to support my opinion. I simply know that what we're told is not always the truth. I look at all sources 'official' or not... and if I have doubt in my mind then, well I have doubt... does not mean I believe everything... it actually suggests the contrary!

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

tell me ONE WIDE SCALE conspiracy theory that has proven true...just ONE?

has the UN built birth control centers???
has a chip been implanted under your skin???

see my above post in reply to your last statement...

m.

it happens

http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/list-of-proven-conspiracies-from.html

and I'M the close minded one? I'm not stating my opinion as fact... I've accepted many conspiracy theories are most likely just a pile of bollox... my whole argument is that the whole thing is questionable and that there are not enough facts on either side.

nobody · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

Can you accept that anyone who earns a certain amount of money or who has a certain amount of power in society would view others in the same situation as having more in common with them than the average person? There certainly IS a superclass... whether they're working together or not is up for discussion, not whether or not they exist.

Yes, it may be sensationalism... but only if it's something you don't think possible. To me it makes sense.

this isn't what people claim here...and I never attacked anyone that makes such a statement...
this is really spin at its best...I can't believe you don't actually work for a government...

people here made SPECIFIC OUTRAGOUS CLAIMS that I energetically denied...

Ahmadineshad claims the Holocaust never happened...am I supposed to respect his opinion??? or am I allowed to call him and absolute idiot???
people who even remotely compare Bush(or even Obama) to Hitler ARE INSANE!!!! they don't voice an opinion...they voice UTTER NONSENSE...and if some isn't allowed to speak out against them...or yes...even mock them...what the hell is going wrong???

I urge you again to watch the movie I repeatedly mentioned and THEN
read the website I repeatedly linked...it is ONE good example of how deception works and how many people still believe it for fact...cause...THEY DONT HAVE A CLUE...

and that is really all I have to say here...

opinions, arguments, facts? yeah, only what is the connection between those???
this isn't even funny anymore...

have a nice day...

m.

nobody · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm sorry, but aren't you the one who believes everything the paper tells you? Who unquestionably trusts that governments work in the peoples best interests?

I don't believe EVERYthing to support my opinion. I simply know that what we're told is not always the truth. I look at all sources 'official' or not... and if I have doubt in my mind then, well I have doubt... does not mean I believe everything... it actually suggests the contrary!

that's your opinion about me...
I have repeatedly stated otherwise...YOU SPIN...you twist arguments to make your opinion look right...SPIN

I don't believe everything the goverment says is a lie doesn't mean I believe everything it says is the TRUTH...the same goes for the second point that you so wisely make about me...
and no...I'm not the one...that's the one you want to see in me...so can easyiy discount me on being on "their side"...

claiming such LIES as you just did...is exactly why I get so pissed in here...

and this...really sucks...

m.

nobody · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

I'm sorry, but aren't you the one who believes everything the paper tells you? Who unquestionably trusts that governments work in the peoples best interests?

I don't believe EVERYthing to support my opinion. I simply know that what we're told is not always the truth. I look at all sources 'official' or not... and if I have doubt in my mind then, well I have doubt... does not mean I believe everything... it actually suggests the contrary!

and here you spin again...

you believe everything to support your opinion...and you yourself claimed that you don't see a connection between facts and opinions...

and now...I'm really out of here...

cause as I said...to have a discussion on SUCH premises...doesn't make sense...

m.

nobody · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

it happens

http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/list-of-proven-conspiracies-from.html

and I'M the close minded one? I'm not stating my opinion as fact... I've accepted many conspiracy theories are most likely just a pile of bollox... my whole argument is that the whole thing is questionable and that there are not enough facts on either side.

and they were about controlling the world?
cause that's what I asked for...

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!

please do yourself a favor
and read this website
http://conspiracyscience.com/
for the lack of any history, economy or social science literature on the internets...

m.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

that's your opinion about me...
I have repeatedly stated otherwise...YOU SPIN...

I don't believe everything the goverment says is a lie doesn't mean I believe everything it says is wrong...the same goes for the second point that you so wisely make about me...
and no...I'm not the one...that's the one you want to see in me...so can easyiy discount me on being on "their side"...

claiming such LIES as you just did...is exactly why I get so pissed in here...

and this...really sucks...

m.

BUT... they were your arguments in the Lisbon Treaty thread... that governments work in peoples best interests and, if they don't, simply vote them out. I'm not making this stuff up. You wanted answers... and now you're getting annoyed at the answers being given. I love discussing conspiracy theories and would happily talk about them all day... but there really is no reason to get annoyed just cos we have different opinions on stuff.

lgt · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

Theory definition

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:theory&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ...
hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was ...
a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"

Well substantiated comes closest to suggesting it 'must be proven'. It depends which definition you follow. I think of theory as meaning more of an idea... as in 'I've a theory', doesn't mean I immediately have proof. it means I have an idea.

I was trying to be ironic - and failed!

Yes, in common parlance, theory can be used interchangeably with idea but scientifically and academically a theory to be valid must be proven and substantiated.

Therefore, I was alludingto the fact that the use of theory next to conspiracy is a bit ironic as it seems that proponents of conspiracy theorists always wiggle out of providing substantiated evidence, put forward opinions as facts when they're not or ask to prove a negative, which is impossible.

All opinions are to be respected BUT not all opinions are facts or substantiated claims though, therefore cannot be accepted as valid when they cannot stand the test of reason or logic or scientific proof.

And I believe nobody's experiment was to get some sort of proof to see why conspiracy theorists claim what they claim, using logical and scientific reasoning as you would for any other theory.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

and they were about controlling the world?
cause that's what I asked for...

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!

please do yourself a favor
and read this website
http://conspiracyscience.com/
for the lack of any history, economy or social science literature on the internets...

m.

Of COURSE none of those conspiracies have been proven beyond a doubt for the public yet... cos then they'd be fact and everyone would know about the global elite running the world.

how about how it was proven recently that the British government KNEW about the Dublin/Monaghan bombings in the 70's and turned a blind eye... officially! That was I suppose a conspiracy theory until then.

lgt · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

Not really. Yes, I do certainly believe in a superclass... I wouldn't even know where to BEGIN to start telling you why I believe it. Take this one example: do you believe Bush's biggest interests lie with 'his people' or with the oil companies, from whom he receives billions? Honestly???? Where would YOUR loyalty lie?

So no, it's not unsubstantial... far from it.

And that's why until it is unsubstantial, it is just an opinion, a belief, an idea -but not a fact, and therefore cannot be accepted as valid by others without you providing evidence to support your claims. Respected yes, accepted no until you convince others with that your ideas and opinions have substantiated evidence that back them up.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

lgt wrote:

I was trying to be ironic - and failed!

Yes, in common parlance, theory can be used interchangeably with idea but scientifically and academically a theory to be valid must be proven and substantiated.

Therefore, I was alludingto the fact that the use of theory next to conspiracy is a bit ironic as it seems that proponents of conspiracy theorists always wiggle out of providing substantiated evidence, put forward opinions as facts when they're not or ask to prove a negative, which is impossible.

All opinions are to be respected BUT not all opinions are facts or substantiated claims though, therefore cannot be accepted as valid when they cannot stand the test of reason or logic or scientific proof.

And I believe nobody's experiment was to get some sort of proof to see why conspiracy theorists claim what they claim, using logical and scientific reasoning as you would for any other theory.

I'd gladly give you proof... but I'm not a scientist... so if you're looking for scientific proof of anything... you're asking the wrong person. I COULD however probably find 100,000s of links to 'prove' my point as could you I'm sure... and we could throw around links all day. However I thought this was a discussion. The original post asked questions, I answered with my opinion... and now he's getting annoyed that I'm not giving him 'proof'. Any 'proof' I give will simply be a link to another site.

nobody · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

BUT... they were your arguments in the Lisbon Treaty thread... that governments work in peoples best interests and, if they don't, simply vote them out. I'm not making this stuff up. You wanted answers... and now you're getting annoyed at the answers being given. I love discussing conspiracy theories and would happily talk about them all day... but there really is no reason to get annoyed just cos we have different opinions on stuff.

SPIN SPIN SPIN

what have my arguments about the Lisbon treaty to do with 911???
even if I think everything the government says about lisbon is true, doesn't make me think ALL governments ALL papers at ALL times ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH...

and if you don't see your failure in twisting and turning everything I say here...never actually responding to the important things...don't even voice in inclination in checking additional material out...

I can't help you...the Internet seems to fail miserably here in what many people applaud it for...an exchange of (well-funded) thought...not some UTTER DISINFORMATION

m.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

lgt wrote:

And that's why until it is unsubstantial, it is just an opinion, a belief, an idea -but not a fact, and therefore cannot be accepted as valid by others without you providing evidence to support your claims. Respected yes, accepted no until you convince others with that your ideas and opinions have substantiated evidence that back them up.

But YOUR 'fact' is simply words written by other people about a series of events that were told to them by the people that MANY suspect to have had a hand in it. Where else are we supposed to get our truth from?

lgt · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

No probs... I'm answering your questions as well as I can and I think others do too, but if I start to feel I'm being mocked well... that's simply rude don't ya think. Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories cos, if the evidence 100% proved them to be true they'd become fact... no? Plenty of conspiracy theories which were laughed at have since been proven to be true. There are plenty of examples of 'official versions' of stories later being exposed as lies. So please don't mock... if you want answers, just respect that people are trying to give them we're looking at things from different ways, that's obvious. I have not come out and said 'you're wrong'. I don't believe you're right... but I also don't believe that EITHER of us have the evidence to stand up and say 'my opinion is 100% right and you're wrong' so... bottom line... respect

I don't think nobody is mocking - s/he seems just getting frustrated with the lack of serious answers, especially after the comparison with the fire in the Reichstag.

Which conspiracy theories are you referring to that have been proven to be true?

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

SPIN SPIN SPIN

what have my arguments about the Lisbon treaty to do with 911???
even if I think everything the government says about lisbon is true, doesn't make me think ALL governments ALL papers at ALL times ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH...

and if you don't see your failure in twisting and turning everything I say here...never actually responding to the important things...don't even voice in inclination in checking additional material out...

I can't help you...the Internet seems to fail miserably here in what many people applaud it for...an exchange of (well-funded) thought...not some UTTER DISINFORMATION

m.

well, there's not much I can say in reply to that :rolleyes: since it's just you voicing your opinion of me rather than discussing the topic at hand. If that's your opinion, fine

To the people who believe 911 was an inside job...

Comments

Categories