|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Given the damage they sustained, it would be impossible for them to fall in any way other than (relatively) straight down. They weren't made of building blocks, it doesn't work that way. It should also be noted that the buildings didn't really "fall into their footprints" as people state. WTC 5 was about 60 meters from Tower 1, and was almost buried in debris.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:I don't understand this. There was no drone then and there is no drone now that is even close to as big as nor has the silhouette of a 737. There's also the problem that a bajillion people watched a 737 hit the second tower. Both planes that hit the twin towers were 767s, not 737s. But your point stands, because the 767 is even bigger, and even the larger drones have a completely different profile to a commercial airliner like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Both planes that hit the twin towers were 767s, not 737s. But your point stands, because the 767 is even bigger, and even the larger drones have a completely different profile to a commercial airliner like that. Not only that but the live video footage is so clear that you can see practically every detail of the plane. There are thousands and thousands of eyewitness accounts of people who saw the second plane with their own eyes (a good friend of mine is one of them), and there are dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the first plane too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
I thought it was common knowledge that the planes were holograms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
And it's not like we had remote flying capability with telemetry since the 1940s either. I mean, it could have easily been a guided plane, but no. It HAS to be purpose built drones or holograms. edit: drat, beaten.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Both planes that hit the twin towers were 767s, not 737s. But your point stands, because the 767 is even bigger, and even the larger drones have a completely different profile to a commercial airliner like that. Piss, thanks for the correction. amanasleep posted:Not only that but the live video footage is so clear that you can see practically every detail of the plane. There are thousands and thousands of eyewitness accounts of people who saw the second plane with their own eyes (a good friend of mine is one of them), and there are dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the first plane too. I wonder if there's an accurate count of how many recordings there are of the second plane hitting. Has to be scores at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Piss, thanks for the correction. You can find megamixes of all the footage on youtube. Upload quality is usually poo poo though and half of them are slomos purporting to prove how most of the major videos are cgi or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Yeah, that list was pretty retarded. In the end nothing you said would have done anything. When their questions are answered and "theories"* debunked, they'll just stop listening, hit the reset button, and restate everything again later or just start going around in circles with you. I really don't understand the need to do such, I can only compare it to the fundamentalists of religion because they absolutely, completely, unquestioningly need to be right. *I refuse to accept placing their "theories" on the same level as the actual definition of theory
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Yeah, that list was pretty retarded. In the end nothing you said would have done anything. When their questions are answered and "theories"* debunked, they'll just stop listening, hit the reset button, and restate everything again later or just start going around in circles with you. I really don't understand the need to do such, I can only compare it to the fundamentalists of religion because they absolutely, completely, unquestioningly need to be right. Yeah exactly. I didn't really know what I could have done. Should I have whipped out my phone and googled for Pentagon bodies right then and there? It's not so much trying to prove him wrong and more on how do I get him to stop talking about it because I don't want him spreading it around to anyone and who wants to talk about that poo poo over dinner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
This is the worst thing ever. I have a friend who's gone totally loving nuts over the last couple years and no matter what we're talking about, he always steers the conversation towards 9/11, federal reserve banking, fluoride, etc. I've stopped arguing with him because it's useless, and just tell him he's acting the same way religious nut jobs act. That usually shuts him up for a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Yarbald posted:This is the worst thing ever. I have a friend who's gone totally loving nuts over the last couple years and no matter what we're talking about, he always steers the conversation towards 9/11, federal reserve banking, fluoride, etc. I've stopped arguing with him because it's useless, and just tell him he's acting the same way religious nut jobs act. That usually shuts him up for a while. My family members/social acquaintances like that are both conspiracy nutters and and religious nut jobs. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
My brother has ramped up his craziness from just 9/11 to now becoming an infowars follower.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I felt terrible being in that position because I couldn't really recall enough about the standard debunking points (besides that very last one) to fight him off well right then and there Honestly Gredenko, it wouldn't have mattered if you'd pulled a time machine out of your rear end, warped back in time with the guy to 9/11/2001, come out on top of the plane with special magic suits that let you walk on a plane in mid air, leaned over and waved at the people inside, waved at the people on the ground as you flew in, and then pulled out a magic wand and cast your special invincible HD camera armor spell so he could see up close the crash and the slow degradation to confirm that it was planes that badly damaged two skyscrapers to the point of collapse. It was said all the way back on the front page of this thread: it's not about truth or understanding, it's about ego and fear. You can't argue with someone who wants to be a narcissist or can't handle the fact that all life is random chance with varying odds. So don't feel bad: you were in an impossible situation. Really, if this thread has any lesson, it's 'Learn and teach how to handle fear, or fear will handle you.'
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
EDIT - goddamn, wrong thread. Too many tabs open - again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Another forum I frequent lit up recently with theories about the Ukraine rebellion being coopted by global oligarchs to force Ukraine to privatize all of their state assets to out of country private entities and then enslave them with IMF loans. Does anyone have the scoop on this? My head nearly exploded with the contradictions. Edit- oh yeah and Monsanto is always a huge player in this crap. Somehow, Monsanto is always involved including in the Ukraine. SavageBastard fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Isn't that literally IMF's mission statement?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
Yeah, i'd say that's just the IMF doing its usual thing, they'll
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah exactly. I didn't really know what I could have done. Should I have whipped out my phone and googled for Pentagon bodies right then and there? It's not so much trying to prove him wrong and more on how do I get him to stop talking about it because I don't want him spreading it around to anyone and who wants to talk about that poo poo over dinner. Tell him it's not the place, and if he must, go somewhere else to do it. Simple as that. It's just decent manners that you don't start spouting off crap like that over dinner, same as politics and religion topics
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Tell him it's not the place, and if he must, go somewhere else to do it. Simple as that. It's just decent manners that you don't start spouting off crap like that over dinner, same as politics and religion topics I don't know about that last part-- maybe the underlying motivation to believe things like this are similar to religious feelings, but perhaps the way to fix it is to discuss the topic openly, point-by-point. Quashing discussion of it altogether contributes to the "conspiracy of silence" and lends credit, at least for him, to the idea that no one will discuss it because they know it's true and are afraid they can't back up the "official story" in the face of their claims. You can talk about it without starting each argument with, "Oh, you loving idiot:" There should be an "Exact Change" documentary that destroys this stuff going down the list. Just being indignant about how crazy or offensive it is isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:I don't know about that last part-- maybe the underlying motivation to believe things like this are similar to religious feelings, but perhaps the way to fix it is to discuss the topic openly, point-by-point. Quashing discussion of it altogether contributes to the "conspiracy of silence" and lends credit, at least for him, to the idea that no one will discuss it because they know it's true and are afraid they can't back up the "official story" in the face of their claims. You can talk about it without starting each argument with, "Oh, you loving idiot:" Anything said is going to do nothing but add to the conspiracy. That's how they work with nutters. EVERYTHING is part of a conspiracy. Not saying anything is part of the conspiracy, "quashing" the ideas point by point means you've been brainwashed by the conspiracy, that's all there is. Telling someone to be decent and not bring up stuff like that over dinner is just good manners because no matter what is or isn't said, it's all "part of the conspiracy, man". Honestly if people at the dinner were going to be swayed to his side simply because you asked him to exorcise good manners and judgement, after all the years of information being available, chances are they're near as stupid as he is and you "quashing points" won't do a damned thing. Essentially your dinner guests being swayed by such would be like saying they were undecided voters on the day before a presidential election that turns into a landslide. SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Mar 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Inspector Hound posted:I don't know about that last part-- maybe the underlying motivation to believe things like this are similar to religious feelings, but perhaps the way to fix it is to discuss the topic openly, point-by-point. Quashing discussion of it altogether contributes to the "conspiracy of silence" and lends credit, at least for him, to the idea that no one will discuss it because they know it's true and are afraid they can't back up the "official story" in the face of their claims. You can talk about it without starting each argument with, "Oh, you loving idiot:" No, that doesn't work at all. Truthers are not motivated by truth, they are motivated by being the bearers of secret knowledge. The best way to interact with them is just to tell them to shut up and change the subject. Don't sound angry, sound bored. If you've ever been in a discussion with a real conspiracy freak about their pet conspiracy, you would know that there is no way to get through to them that they are wrong. All you can do is surround them with the idea that they're tedious and engaging in social faux pas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:No, that doesn't work at all. Truthers are not motivated by truth, they are motivated by being the bearers of secret knowledge. The best way to interact with them is just to tell them to shut up and change the subject. Don't sound angry, sound bored. No no, you just bait their Gnostic desires and tell them you can help put them on the path of truth so they can meet their syzygy emanation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
I always go back to a documentary I saw where they did show a bunch of truthers what happened and explained everything that the Truther theories covered. How did the truthers react? "Yes but that doesn't disprove my theory". You can't change their minds because their beliefs are based in nothing real. When someone claims they were drones or holograms, you can't disprove that because there's no evidence for these things outside of what some weirdo in their basement sees on their computer monitor after watching youtube videos over and over. It's like the moonlanding hoax guys, or Richard Hoegland seeing things on Mars and the Moon. There's nothing there, just paradolia, so you can't disprove it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I always go back to a documentary I saw where they did show a bunch of truthers what happened and explained everything that the Truther theories covered. How did the truthers react? "Yes but that doesn't disprove my theory". Would you happen to have the name of this documentary? I have some family members to whom I would like to show that, just to see how they react.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
Grouchy Smurf posted:And it's not like we had remote flying capability with telemetry since the 1940s either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
What are you talking about?! Surely flying a remotely controlled 767 is just as simple as flying some little rink dink model airplane? I mean we see 767s hover vertically all the time when they take off and bank at 5G with no issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
SealHammer posted:Would you happen to have the name of this documentary? I have some family members to whom I would like to show that, just to see how they react. I wish I could remember, but it was probably something generic as it was on Discovery before they went all lovely. Probably something like "exploring 9/11 myths".
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
I want the mythbusters to do a 9/11 conspiracy special that some how ends with grant flying a plane controled by an RC robot pilot he built into the new world trade centre tower.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I always go back to a documentary I saw where they did show a bunch of truthers what happened and explained everything that the Truther theories covered. How did the truthers react? "Yes but that doesn't disprove my theory". You need to start with the preposition of "What will it take for you to change your mind?" If they cannot answer that or will not then they are disingenuous. The key issue is that there are many people who just do not think beyond the immediate sphere around them. I do not believe Truthers are motivated by seeking Truth (otherwise they'd F-off to the library; enrol in university; take open ed or do something else that increases their knowledge base) They seem to be seeking a sense of reaffirmation of the value of their own position in society by constructing some dark conspiracy acting around them. They have a lovely life -> Conspiracy's fault. Something bad happens in the world -> evidence of the conspiracy. They do not want to know what happened - they want to prove that what they think happened, did in fact happen, because of the conspiracy. This is the opposite of truth-seeking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
Hypation posted:You need to start with the preposition of "What will it take for you to change your mind?" If they cannot answer that or will not then they are disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
The Penn and Teller BS episode about 9/11 was amusing when they interview the guy in the beret who says "I'm a skeptic, nothing will change my mind" and they stop and call that dude out on him completely misusing the term. To quote a million skeptics, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". It's not going "I don't believe the OFFICIAL story because thats what THEY want us to believe". Going against the best evidence is not skepticism, its being obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:The Penn and Teller BS episode about 9/11 was amusing when they interview the guy in the beret who says "I'm a skeptic, nothing will change my mind" and they stop and call that dude out on him completely misusing the term. To quote a million skeptics, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". It's not going "I don't believe the OFFICIAL story because thats what THEY want us to believe". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I I happen to agree with Penn re: "Throwing Truthers down a flight of stairs".
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I Exactly it. Convince me, bring me evidence. No, not blurry jpgs made from badly encoded footage from a youtube video, not anecdotal evidence from a "whistleblower" or "black ops agent" that posted on letsroll911 forums. And yea, that thing where Penn says "how do you look at this and your first reaction is "this is a hoax by the goverment".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
I've been hearing people lately with regards to Ukraine/Russia saying "Just waiting for the false flag to start a war here, it's gonna happen". It's loving annoying because they're already convinced whatever happens will be a false flag. They don't even want to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, things weren't planned out in advance by the illuminati.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:Um, I'm not required to make your argument for you. If you can't come up with a convincing argument for your position, then you have failed. "But I'm right!" is not a meaningful argument, and neither is "but you're an idiot!". I never asked you to make my argument for me. The question "what will I need to do in order for you to change your mind" is fundamentally a test of rationality. The person who can answer that question is a rational thinker. A person who cannot, has either not thought about the issue or is irrational- that is their belief is based on faith or some other irrational base. Everyone should know why they believe what they choose to believe. Even if they do need to take some time to reflect on their choices. And beliefs are choices- whether it is about the existence of God(s) or Climate Change or simply whether chocolate is better than vanilla. Everyone should know what evidence they are relying on when they choosing their beliefs- even if the proof is no more than how the belief makes them feel. And they should additionally know what evidence will be required to support an alternate hypothesis. Therefore they should be able to answer the question of "what's it going to take for you to change your mind". The answer is either demonstration that the current evidence they rely on is not reliable; or the proffering of new evidence supporting an alternative hypothesis. Intellectual honesty requires each of us to be able to construct an answer to those questions. I am simply stating that you should start from your conclusions and work backwards: To believe X requires Y and Z to be true. To believe Y and Z to be true requires Y1....Yn and Z1....Zn data. Does that data exist with a sufficient degree of certainty? This exercise is recursive as the decision that eg data points Zx and Yx exist with sufficient certaint is also a function of belief as well. So eventually you get to very granular decisions about what data to accept or not. This is actually a part of the formal reasoning process. Asking someone what will it take to get them to change their mind is like asking them to design the experiment that will uphold or reject their null hypothesis. It is simply a method of asking - 'Why do you believe what you believe?' except asked from the perspective of performing a scientific inquiry into the belief. This process works regardless of whether you are engaging in rational, emotional or moral arguments. I agree that on an objective measure saying "I am right" is not usually a meaningful rational argument. However many conspiracists' beliefs are not rational. They are instead based almost entirely on faith and large and tenuous inductive leaps. This means "but I am right" is actually a meaningful argument for them- they become right when they choose the values that allow them to assess evidence in a way that is consistent with their beliefs. This is an artefact of the the fact/value dichotomy. You cannot argue with values just facts; values are always right for those who choose them. It is not rational but it is not wrong. The third type of argument is the emotional argument: I feel good when I think that X caused Y. Therefore I choose to believe X caused Y. Again it is not rational but like moral arguments it is also not wrong. You just can't expect people to accept your arguments as universally true; or proclaim them to be true based on any form of scientific inquiry. If you come at a person who believes something is true based on emotional or value based argument you are not just arguing against the evaluation of facts; you are arguing against that person's core beliefs and values. To do so can be confronting because it can partially strip that person of their identity- which is why doing so quickly devolves into claims of eg idiocy. There is no better way to work out what kind of person you are dealing with than to ask them what it will take for them to change their mind- it is also the only effective starting point - because if someone is running an irrational argument you are wasting your time engaging in rational debate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
I feel like Miss-Bomarc may have been fakeposting a bit there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
An intelligent adult should be able to admit that the FEMA report is the most implausible conspiracy theory about 9/11. A plane vanished into the Pentagon? A plane vanished in Pennsylvania? Three buildings perfectly imploded on the same day in the same place? The only people who are looney toons are those that claim to know what did happen, but we know for a fact that the FEMA report is ludicrous fanfiction. "poo poo, we don't know what the gently caress happened, but ... there, there ... the evil beards did it all, don't think about it ever again." FuzzySkinner posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I You're agreeing with libertarian brainrots who think that landfills are wonderful beautiful nature refuges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puVBFIciqGU Post 9-11 User fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Doctor Chaxtical posted:I've been hearing people lately with regards to Ukraine/Russia saying "Just waiting for the false flag to start a war here, it's gonna happen". It's loving annoying because they're already convinced whatever happens will be a false flag. They don't even want to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, things weren't planned out in advance by the illuminati. Meanwhile I've noticed the Western media actively avoiding the contents of the latest Erdogan leaks where he might be talking about a false flag to justify more involvement in Syria 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:An intelligent adult should be able to admit that the FEMA report is the most implausible conspiracy theory about 9/11. I don't know what FEMA report you're going on about. Do you mean the 9/11 Commission? Anyway, nothing vanished, insert photos of plane parts on the ground that have been posted ITT several times already, blah blah blah you're insane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:41
|
|
Tater Love 
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:08 |
|
|
My absolute favorite part is te incredulity that when you smash thin aluminum tubes into brick and ground, it does not in fact wind up sitting on the ground in huge chunks like a Road Runner cartoon. No wait it's the idea that buildings "perfectly imploded".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:46
|
|