|
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. If by "vanished" you mean "was found in millions of pieces identifiable as airplane parts."
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
zakharov posted: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. You see it's the offical story and the offical story is always wrong, because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Honestly, at that point you just need to shame them into shutting up. Call them out for how narcissistic and ghoulishly offensive the way they're talking is, and don't let them get a word in edgewise until they either back down or storm off. They're not going to be convinced of anything, and they're not going to stop bringing it up until it becomes unpleasant for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgxr6aK0YMk
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Hypation posted: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. It's not some kind of socratic dialogue, it's "heads I win tails you lose". quote:Everyone should know why they believe what they choose to believe. I think maybe you mean "everyone who claims to have a rational basis for holding a particular position should know whether that basis is actually rational". Belief is inherently irrational and is not, in fact, subject to proof. If you want to act on that belief, though, you do need to have something more substantial than mere belief. And that basis for action is subject to debate, and it can be shown to be insufficient. quote:And beliefs are choices- whether it is about the existence of God(s) or Climate Change or simply whether chocolate is better than vanilla.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:But this is not, in practice, how people use the whole "true rejection" attitude. It's more often used as "ah-HA, so you say that if I can prove (thing) then you'll stop believing (other thing), well, (thing) is totally proveable, therefore you should NOT believe (other thing), which means that your whole argument disappears because it depends on (other thing) being true! And if you still insist on believing (other thing) then you're irrational! So either way I WIN, MOTHERFUCKER." So instead of being a dick about it you use it properly then. Miss-Bomarc posted:Why? Everyone who has any belief should know why they chose to believe it. Belief is not inherently irrational - there are for instance things that are entirely rational to believe eg axioms and identities. The irrational part is the link from eg cause to effect (causal leap) or from a specific set of historic examples to a generalisation about likely future occurrences (inductive leap). It is essential to assume that it is logical to make both leaps if you want to have any sort of sane existence in the universe. So the way in which reason deals with the need to make these inherently irrational things seem rational, is through the thought bridges such as Occams Razor or Hume's Fork. Miss-Bomarc posted:...so what you're saying is that people should have a fully-examined rational basis for preferring chocolate. And this basis should be falsifiable, meaning that with sufficiently well-reasoned argument the person can be shown that it's morally wrong for them to continue preferring chocolate because there are so many logical reasons they should actually like vanilla. Not at all- people should understand why they prefer chocolate. Where the because I do part comes in; what evidence they have to affirm their belief and what it will take to change their minds. Eat chocolate -> Like it. Eat vanilla -> like it less. "Like" is the emotional response from the sensory stimulus created from eating the ice-cream. It is factual data just like a doctor poking you and saying "Did that hurt?". Meanwhile "more" and "less" are found from applying your values to the range of emotional responses you might get from eating different foods. Pepsi found itself on the wrong side of the vanilla chocolate debate: People preferred Coke. Pepsi knew that this was just a personal preference based on their past historical choices to get Coke. So instead of running a direct emotionally driven advertising campaign, they targeted Coke customers with a rational argument and reduced Coke v Pepsi to a rational choice: "Take the Pepsi Challenge".... Their adverting campaign was the results of the experiment they designed. Why do you prefer Coke? When did you last try Pepsi? Well here's a blind test- which do you prefer now? Oh that's the Pepsi. So now isn't it logical for you to switch to the Pepsi if you prefer the taste? Hypation fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Miss-Bomarc posted:But this is not, in practice, how people use the whole "true rejection" attitude. It's more often used as "ah-HA, so you say that if I can prove (thing) then you'll stop believing (other thing), well, (thing) is totally proveable, therefore you should NOT believe (other thing), which means that your whole argument disappears because it depends on (other thing) being true! And if you still insist on believing (other thing) then you're irrational! So either way I WIN, MOTHERFUCKER." Simultaneously, even if your claim is correct, anecdotes of this technique's misuse do not render it invalid, non-viable, or useless. You might as well say that the scientific method itself is invalid because some people have skewed and contorted it to "prove" completely false things. While we're at it, the entire point of the "true rejection" method is in part to maintain one of the core concepts of the scientific method when dealing in rational discussion; specifically, that of falsifiability. If a person outright claims that there is no evidence that would change their mind, no matter how incontrovertible, then they are not arguing rationally, at which point anyone with a shred of sanity will either end the discussion or, if such is taking place with an audience, will engage the audience instead. quote:Why? Again you're dismissing something entirely, for what reason I cannot tell. You've just shrugged off rudimentary epistemology, to lie on the floor beside falsifiability, in a pile of rubbish comprised of the very things that make us human. Bravo. (I also have to get a laugh out of the fact that you're asking for the rationale behind a belief while simultaneously claiming that belief is inherently irrational.) quote:...so what you're saying is that people should have a fully-examined rational basis for preferring chocolate. And this basis should be falsifiable, meaning that with sufficiently well-reasoned argument the person can be shown that it's morally wrong for them to continue preferring chocolate because there are so many logical reasons they should actually like vanilla. (I have to say, I think the song "Earthlings on Fire" starts with the best encapsulation of the conspiracy theory mindset I've ever heard: "I don't want knowledge. I want certainty.") You're arguing like a conspiracy theorist argues - "I don't have to prove it, I don't have to accept any evidence, I don't have to examine anything, and anything you say against me is just you being mean".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
I'm seeing an argument forming about how Osama Bin Laden first took responsibility of 2004 - it seems to be non-controversial that he did wait until 2004, but it has people in a tizzy that "well, he was clearly hesitant because he didn't do it/the Mossad forced him to/aliens were involved". Can this be countered? I think a more reasonable explaining would be Osama thinking "holy poo poo, it got a worse reaction than I expected" and laying low.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Just remind him how, before the US pissed away all the goodwill, pretty much the entire goddamn world was standing behind them and ready to take military action. Poor old Bin Laden suddenly found himself facing, not a proportional response, but the full scale invasion of the country where he had his entire base of operations by dozens of countries all with the sole goal of hunting him down and putting an end to his bullshit. Of course, it looked a lot easier on paper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
Tias posted:I'm seeing an argument forming about how Osama Bin Laden first took responsibility of 2004 - it seems to be non-controversial that he did wait until 2004, but it has people in a tizzy that "well, he was clearly hesitant because he didn't do it/the Mossad forced him to/aliens were involved". The Base never existed in the Cobra Commander conspiracy insanity that was presented to the public. It's plausible that he took credibility for something he didn't do, the counter to is that it's ridiculous that he underestimated what the reaction would be to multiple acts of war against the United States. And Mossad would have been after him regardless of any public statements he made. It was just a spooky boogeyman organization just like the Red Scare, here's part three of Adam Curtis's BBC doc "The Power Of Nightmares:" http://dotsub.com/view/53b8e7df-fa03-4e44-a47a-c27f70f276f5  THE SHADOWS IN THE CAVE Are adult human beings saying, "our only option is to shame them into silence" or calling people insane when they don't even know what the FEMA report is? The frothing insanity I see from self-proclaimed debunkers is disquieting, but yesterday was April Fool's so don't let me down, peeps. FEMA report: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/3544?id=1728 Highlights include the passage where the authors remark, "Hmm, WTC 7 imploded for no discernible reason which has never happened before in history. Oh well, moving on!" Not knowing why something happened is normal, to act so blase about it is inappropriate. The official story is that all of the gas lines in the building simultaneously ruptured simultaneously severing every single load bearing structure at exactly the same moment causing it to collapse it on itself. If you think that's rational but the "conspiracy theorists" are insane you probably shouldn't operate machinery or own anything more dangerous than a butterknife. Just saying. I haven't seen a credible explanation for what did happen, but the official reports are absolute psychobabble. Speaking of psychobabble, you people need to get reacquainted what unreasonable speculation actually looks like: http://www.amazon.com/Revealing-Aurora--Sexed-Reasons-1649ish/dp/1478279494/ref=la_B00IQ8BMIM_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396453343&sr=1-3 Revealing Aurora- 99 Sexed Up Reasons Why Human/Year 1 Was 1649'ish https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI_-FfLh3F0 Outside the box in the box outside of that box. Maybe he wrote Time Cube.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
I dig the building 7 conspiracy because it dovetails nicely with the first X-files movie (where an Oklahoma City-type bombing is actually a false flag to destroy a FEMA office containing alien corpses). But the point made in this thread about the loss of water pressure and lack of fire suppression makes alot of sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
"You people are so stupid and insane, who needs rational inquiry!" -A Human Being That Believed That The Tora Bora Cobra Commander Mountain Playset was real  Anyone who wants to "shame people into silence" was probably duped by this load of poo poo ...  Edit: The insane reactionaries to rational critique are as crazy and out-of-touch as the Reptilians among us! crowd. SavageBastard posted:If by "vanished" you mean "was found in millions of pieces identifiable as airplane parts." Ah, something that never happened. Cool. Don't be willfully dense, compadre: https://www.google.com/search?q=plane+crash     "Millions of pieces" happens when the plane explodes in midair, so I guess you're one of Those People that believes missiles were used. Post 9-11 User fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
That fortress looks rad, but I take it nothing close to that ever existed? Why does the illustration claim it exited and they knew so many details?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
You're crazy dude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
That is one awesome Fortress of Doom. I like how Al Qaida have the funding and expertise to build such a beast, and yet still use horses and cheap assault rifles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:That fortress looks rad, but I take it nothing close to that ever existed? Why does the illustration claim it exited and they knew so many details? Whole cloth fantasy material. There were caves, probably some bong water and latrines to poo poo in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
"Here are what some plane crashes look like, therefore all plane crashes look like this!" That UPS crash, IIRC that was an airplane that overshot its landing, it's a completely different scenario from what the 9/11 aircraft went through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I dig the building 7 conspiracy because it dovetails nicely with the first X-files movie (where an Oklahoma City-type bombing is actually a false flag to destroy a FEMA office containing alien corpses). Not even close. The best conspiracy theory is that one that states "mini-nukes" were used to destroy the tower.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:That fortress looks rad, but I take it nothing close to that ever existed? Why does the illustration claim it exited and they knew so many details? According to Rumsfeld it was real. But it was actually just newspaper nonsense based on the alleged story of a Russian soldier that had fought in Afghanistan. NBC's Meet the Press posted:Russert: The Times of London did a graphic, which I want to put on the screen for you and our viewers. This is it. This is a fortress. This is a very much a complex, multi-tiered, bedrooms and offices on the top, as you can see, secret exits on the side and on the bottom, cut deep to avoid thermal detection so when our planes fly to try to determine if any human beings are in there, it's built so deeply down and embedded in the mountain and the rock it's hard to detect. And over here, valleys guarded, as you can see, by some Taliban soldiers. A ventilation system to allow people to breathe and to carry on. An arms and ammunition depot. And you can see here the exits leading into it and the entrances large enough to drive trucks and cars and even tanks. And it's own hydroelectric power to help keep lights on, even computer systems and telephone systems. It's a very sophisticated operation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:FEMA report: You seem pretty knowledgeable about WTC 7, so I presume you have already evaluated and discarded the definitive study by the NIST released in 2008. The National Institute Of Standards and Technology posted:Abstract: Conclusions: The National Institute Of Standards and Technology posted:SUMMARY PROBABLE COLLAPSE SEQUENCE
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Highlights include the passage where the authors remark, "Hmm, WTC 7 imploded for no discernible reason which has never happened before in history. Oh well, moving on!" No building in history, well, none before the twin towers earlier, had both fires that burned unchallenged for hours and the type of construction these buildings had. 7 had a huge atrium that put much of the load on a smaller number of large internal columns. Oh, and no other building in history had both those traits and massive impact damage (the twin towers from the planes, 7 from their debris, which gouged out huge chunks of the building). quote:"Millions of pieces" happens when the plane explodes in midair, so I guess you're one of Those People that believes missiles were used. PanAm 103, the plane that was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland blew up in midair yet left many very large pieces, as did TWA 800, another plane that exploded mid-flight. Planes that go into the ground or any solid surface at full power typically leave little more than small fragments. There are plenty of accidents that display this: USAir 427 went in nose-first at 300 mph and "Due to the severity of the impact, the bodies of the passengers and crew were severely fragmented, leading investigators to declare the site a biohazard," and Valujet 592 that crashed nose-first into the Everglades at over 500 mph also left very few large pieces of debris.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Three buildings perfectly imploded on the same day in the same place?    WTC 4:  WTC 5 (only WTC building that was left somewhat standing):  WTC 6:  Note also that non-WTC buildings were destroyed as well like St. Nicholas Church, the North Bridge, the Deutsche Bank Building, and Fiterman Hall. So no, nothing "perfectly imploded". It was a huge clusterfuck that leveled a whole city block, and caused massive damage in the adjacent streets. zakharov posted: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. Which no one really cares about, since a much more extensive study was done by NIST. And then we're not even mentioning the dozens of other studies on the WTC collapse and all things 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Wait a minute, are there actual truthers posting here? What the gently caress??
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
pd187 posted:Wait a minute, are there actual truthers posting here? What the gently caress?? And it's magical. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
pd187 posted:Wait a minute, are there actual truthers posting here? What the gently caress?? Just one, who is clearly someone else trolling, given the name of this account and that he "mistakenly" confused the FEMA and NSIT reports.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
pd187 posted:Wait a minute, are there actual truthers posting here? What the gently caress?? When the thread first started it was a nice honeypot that one or two fell into bit since than I'm not so sure if I'm just suffering from Poe's law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Ah, something that never happened. Cool.            The black boxes were found: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1515650/Shouts-moans-and-murder-on-Flight-93.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92510 As well as the DNA of the passengers: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/remains-of-9-sept-11-hijackers-held/ Post 9-11 User posted:Don't be willfully dense, compadre: Sosoliso Airlines, Nigeria, 10 December 2005:  Airblue, Pakistan, 28 July 2010:  Golden Aviation, Colorado, 2 October 1970:  Libyan military plane, Tunisia, 21 February 2014:  Grouchy Smurf posted:Not even close. The best conspiracy theory is that one that states "mini-nukes" were used to destroy the tower. http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
CSM posted:You have clearly never heard of Dr. Judy Wood and her Star Wars laser beams: I concede.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Can some sort of batsignal be put out when the dumb 9/11 truth argument finishes because discussing crazy people mitigation strategies is really frusturating around crazy people howling their innocence at the moon. I'm going off to hit up the lizard comptrollers for my late paycheck. Russlin' up that chile quake withe HAARP-O-Trons hard work, and I'm a union man. Also, GWB didn't do 9/11. I did, using mind control satelites, and it was ordered by agent Alex Jones of the lizard order. Debate closed duck monster fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
CSM posted:You have clearly never heard of Dr. Judy Wood and her Star Wars laser beams: This theory is actually rejected by the truther community as a whole as being too crazy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:This theory is actually rejected by the truther community as a whole as being too crazy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Millions of tiny lols. This is not the site of a plane crash but welp. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:This is not the site of a plane crash but welp. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:
Just the level of idiocy there in that post is astounding. Like are you loving five? Tell me, do you have a background as an aerospace engineer? No? Then shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Tell me, do you have a background as an aerospace engineer? No? Then shut the gently caress up. I have to disagree with you here. You don't have to be an aerospace engineer to know his post was stupid. You just have to not be an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:I have to disagree with you here. You don't have to be an aerospace engineer to know his post was stupid. You just have to not be an idiot. I believe he was mostly referring to the "No, an air plane disaster should look like this" attitude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
CSM posted:Libyan military plane, Tunisia, 21 February 2014: Actually, this looks like Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771, which crashed on 12 May 2010. Unless there was another total loss from that airline much more recently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
The only thing truly stupid about the plane that went down in PA is the goddamn   shrine that went up there, complete with vendors selling all sorts of USA #1 garbage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Grouchy Smurf posted:I believe he was mostly referring to the "No, an air plane disaster should look like this" attitude. Right, right. I've really yet to meet an engineer of any legitimate merit back any of these theories up. I kind of respect someone's opinion on the matter that has a degree on something within engineering or architecture. I had an architecture professor explain to me why the buildings collapsed (a guy who worked as a building inspecter in the county for about 20-30 years), and the TL;DR of it was the real story stood up to the facts. Some dipshit on the internet with no background in it claiming he knows why it happened is...idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
pd187 posted:Wait a minute, are there actual truthers posting here? What the gently caress?? I'm just a refugee from AusPol trying to avoid Manus Island detention- everyone here is just so sanely reasonable and balanced in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:21
|
|