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

nobody · July 2008

spiral out wrote:

So simply put. Exactly what i was saying last night but i think it was to complicated for some to understand.

as you can see in the EDITED orignal post...I put your answer there, it's number 6 I believe...

and I thank you, too...for giving it...HONESTLY!!!

m.

nobody · July 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

I know. I wasn't refuting you per se. I just felt it needed commenting that there's always someone behind bad things.

And the control issue is relevant to 9/11 and other conspiracies as powerful innate motivations for looking for the someone or something in control. a lot of the same drive that made us look for god(s) in the first place. Random calamity is unbearable, but if it's because the gods are angry, then we can repent and thus do something to control it.

That said, of course there are cases where there are someone behind, but I think that it is more rare than many believes.

Peace
Dan

I believe we share the same outlook here...

m.

nobody · July 2008

BushLovesEd wrote:

And that you know for sure?

At my most arrogant.. I state to myself that I dont need facts when everything fall so simply into place.

Anyway, for a nonbeliever - First thing u gotto to do is coming to terms with the fact that the people who are running america these days, are not working for the John Doe.

What I find hard to grasp, is how many know what really happened and how many know something of what happened.

And now some naziquotes - just because of your signature..

- Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose. (Goebbels)

- The war made possible for us the solution of a whole series of problems that could never have been solved in normal times. (Goebbels)

- Of course the people don't want war. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. (Goering)

- The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy. (Hitler)

- The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies. (Hitler)

you do exactly what I said here:

nobody wrote:

if you approach something with a fixed mindset, like that the media is controlled by the goverment (or the puppet master) and just used to spread propaganda...then well, you have no possibility to look into facts...

like this website I linked many times...
I doubt anyone here has taken 3 to 4 hours like me and actually read through it...http://conspiracyscience.com/
so guy claimed it was complete bullshit 30min(!!!!!!!) after I posted the link for the first time....so how is that for looking into facts...???
I'm sorry, but evidence adds up in this thread alone that nobody is even willing to doubt there is a conspiracy...
[\quote]

and here:

nobody wrote:

well I analysed where your point is coming from:
a believe in an all powerful entity(group, lobby whatever)
a believe with doesn't have any substantial prove...
still every fact you encouter you view in the light of your first premise (which is unsubstanial) and then you take it as to confirm your believe...

from you many posts, I take it that you believe in a group if people who have (almost) all power...no?

and I say...this way of starting with an unsubstantial claim...is similiar to someone who says...god did it...or aliens...cause it can't be disproven!
[\quote]

you don't have to look at what makes sense(as you claim you do) BUT what the FACTS are...

m.

OutOfBreath · July 2008

nobody wrote:

I believe we share the same outlook here...

m.

Pretty close, at least.

Peace
Dan

VINNY GOOMBA · July 2008

nobody wrote:

again: no disrespect...but this is garbage...
every sane economist will tell you that a thing like the federal reserve is absolutely necessary for a modern economy (and that is not because they are "in" on it)...
as people are so fond of (demolition) textbooks here...try and get an economy textbook...

and I keep hearing about those international bankers...how come they allways end up being american...??? do they control me too? do they like Europeans so they strengthen the euro?

take some time and read this (non-scientific) website
http://conspiracyscience.com/ for I can't put any history, sociology or economy text book in here...

m.

Why should we pay the interest the Federal Reserve charges our government, when the treasury already has the power to regulate the money supply and control money?

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

most members in the Bin Laden family have absolutely nothing to do with Osama...
they were allowed to fly out with their young children because they were afraid to by lynched...
this explanation is one that I can relate to far easier, than that they were "in" on it...and then of course helped by the FBI...why would they let it become public if they are all powerful???

m.

Hmm... how do you know that? Did you interview them? Did you see the interview? Did ANYBODY interview them? If it were any other family in the world, their word wouldn't be taken so quickly. Wouldn't it make more sense to maybe put them in protective custody or in hiding rather than fly them out of the country?

Makes NO sense at all.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

if you approach something with a fixed mindset, like that the media is controlled by the goverment (or the puppet master) and just used to spread propaganda...then well, you have no possibility to look into facts...

like this website I linked many times...
I doubt anyone here has taken 3 to 4 hours like me and actually read through it...http://conspiracyscience.com/
so guy claimed it was complete bullshit 30min(!!!!!!!) after I posted the link for the first time....so how is that for looking into facts...???
I'm sorry, but evidence adds up in this thread alone that nobody is even willing to doubt there is a conspiracy...

m.

evidence?

what evidence?

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

well I analysed where your point is coming from:
a believe in an all powerful entity(group, lobby whatever)
a believe with doesn't have any substantial prove...
still every fact you encouter you view in the light of your first premise (which is unsubstanial) and then you take it as to confirm your believe...

from you many posts, I take it that you believe in a group if people who have (almost) all power...no?

and I say...this way of starting with an unsubstantial claim...is similiar to someone who says...god did it...or aliens...cause it can't be disproven!

is that clearer now?

m.

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.

nobody · July 2008

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Why should we pay the interest the Federal Reserve charges our government, when the treasury already has the power to regulate the money supply and control money?

I don't exactly know where you're getting at...but...

paying back an interest is not the same as printing new money and thus enhancing the money supply...
while there is always inflation(in the sense that things get more expensive every year) printing new money inflates the money supply at such a fast rate, that it far exeeds the supply of goods(in a wide sense) in a country...-> this process well speed up inflation drastically, since there is a lot more money circulating than before, but not more good to buy...hence, prices have to grow rapidly in order to keep up with the higher demand(fueled by the higher supply of money)

paying interest makes up for normal "inflation"
you load someone money...then you get it back a year later...due to normal inflation the same amount of money isn't worth the same amount of goods anymore...hence you charge an interest to make up for this loss of value in the money

m.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

lgt wrote:

Indeed, people can have different opinions and all opinions must be respected. Totally agree, but if it is claimed it is a conspiracy theory, then a theory by definition must be proven!

I think what nobody is trying to do is get the proof of their opinions out of the conspiracy theorists to see whether their opinions are valid or not, whether they stand on their merits against basic reasoning and argumentation.

Like another poster mentioned earlier (slighofjeff, I believe) when also quoting Occam's razor, you cannot prove a negative and so the burden of the proof is on the conspiracy theorists to prove why their ideas are valid when denying all the other explanations.

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.

nobody · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

Hmm... how do you know that? Did you interview them? Did you see the interview? Did ANYBODY interview them? If it were any other family in the world, their word wouldn't be taken so quickly. Wouldn't it make more sense to maybe put them in protective custody or in hiding rather than fly them out of the country? Makes NO sense at all.

but why else would they fly them out of the country...
so they can meet up with brother Osama and have a villian party???

you mean the Bin Laden families word, is taken quicker than other family's word??

m.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

oh, but I'm all serious here!!!!!!!!!!
I started this threat to get answers to one little question...
then people start to bring in all kinds of other crap...that I partly mocked, yes...
but I appreciate your clear answers to my question...and that's the truth!!!

m.

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

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

that they don't support with facts...
no, such opinions I cannot accept...

and if you read the thread you will see that I never mock any post that gives a direct answer to my question...and that doesn't come up with pictures of dust clouds...

I want people's opinions on my question...they don't have to support it...
but if they make claims that have nothing to do with the question, yeah...then I get upset and want them to support is...

saying that 911 is like the Reichstags fire is an opinion, yes...

but it is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!!!!!!!!
and nobody should be called arrogant for pointing out that nonsense!!!!!!!

m.

since when do opinions have to be supported by fact

the two are unrelated.

nobody · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

evidence? what evidence?

this is the most minor point of my post...and you adress it...how about checking out the website??

people don't even react to the main points that I'm making here...and that I repeatedly call my main points...

however, what I mean with evidence is that people aren't even willing to look at the stuff I present...like the guy who claimed this website sucked after looking at it for like 30min...or by making absolutely false historical analogies to proove their point...this isn't a reasonable way to engange is a discussion...
this is voicing an opinion...and not supporting it...an opinion is not supported by posing new questions all the time...but by giving facts...

m

Heineken Helen · July 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

That said, of course there are cases where there are someone behind, but I think that it is more rare than many believes.

Peace
Dan

Ya know, I think so too. It's just hard to know in which instances it's true. Basically, where I come from on an issue, is that I take most things I read in papers with a lot more than a pinch of salt... but I don't automatically believe it. Papers only print what they've been told in most cases, except for the rare cases of wonderful journalism.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

also some valid experiment for people who believe in an all powerful HUMAN force...

go to the woods, and look at an ant's heap for a few hours...no human society can ever hope to work that precisely...and ants can't even think...
so do you think there is an all powerful ant behind it that controls every other ant???
or is it just a complex interdependecy of many individuals, who's outcome absolutely NOONE can either predict nor control...

m.

You answered your own question... humans are not ants... ants cannot think... the two cannot be compared.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

there ACTUALLY are invalid opinions...the ones that have no substantial back-up...I can respect them sure...but I wouldn't pay respect to anyone here, if I didn't point out absolutely FALSE believes some people come up with here...
and this I tend to do with facts...(accurate) historical examples...and common sense...I'm sorry if I insulted anyone...but I get angry when someone claims utter nonsense and them blames be for not considering it to be true...

m.

I do not expect anyone to agree with me, believe me or take my side... but if you ask a question and the relevant people answer that, just respect the fact that they've chosen to answer... despite the fact the mocking tone was evident

nobody · 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.

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...

m.

m.

Heineken Helen · July 2008

nobody wrote:

but why else would they fly them out of the country...
so they can meet up with brother Osama and have a villian party???

you mean the Bin Laden families word, is taken quicker than other family's word??

m.

It seems to be. If it were any other family in the world... do you think they would immediately be flown out of the country? Seriously that really makes zero sense. Now obviously I don't know if they were in on it or not... but why should the American government spend so much money IMMEDIATELY on ensuring the family of the man behind it all are safe? Especially when the country is in a crisis unlike any it's ever seen before... why would that be their first priority?

nobody · July 2008

Heineken Helen wrote:

You answered your own question... humans are not ants... ants cannot think... the two cannot be compared.

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.

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

Comments

Categories