911 Pentagon Video Released

[Highflyer_GP]

This isn't reason.

Think about it - what would have made a more perfect campaign for the democrats than this? What would be a more perfect counter point for Iran to use than this?

Neither the democrats nor Iran had any form of control on the US media. They were not the ones in power at the time of the event, and are still not the ones in power.

 

[icyrus]

Neither the democrats nor Iran had any form of control on the US media. They were not the ones in power at the time of the event, and are still not the ones in power.

Do you imagine that the US government has complete control of every major media source in the world?

I don't recall the democrats bringing it up at all in any of their election campaigns - even the ones that do not require the mainstream media.

 

[mooK]

Xarog, if the Xenu thing wasn't a joke WTF do you think it was? I've seriously lost a lot of respect for you now.

Honestly, the use of smilies is absolute trite.

"Oh no, you didn't use a smiley, how am I supposed to understand it's a joke!!!"

When you read a novel, how do you know when people are joking? Does your mother have to draw smilies next to them?

 

[ignacio]

"he real problem I have with ignacio's posts is that he's effectively trying to say that the only sane conclusion is that the official story is true, and that everyone else with a differing opinion cannot be believed because they are insane."

That's not the feeling I get from reading his posts. He believes in the official story, he did not automatically label people as insane based on their belief of a conspiracy, but rather the steps they took in getting to that belief. Which involved leaps of faith and the selective ignorance of many things.

Anyway, I don't know how long you've been reading this thread but IMO Ignacio's been level-headed throughout the discussion and he's been a breath of fresh air source of reason even if he has been using insults. Personally I don't mind them, I think it's kinda pathetic the way people get all hissy about it, almost like they want to turn this into congress instead of an internet forum. These discussions would be really bland without them.

So call me an Ignacio cock-sucker if you will, but I'm a lot more comfortable on his side than I would be on theirs.

Well thank you for that... agreed: this is an internet forum, a subforum of an ADSL site in fact, not a publication, not a workplace - I don't think using rhetorical tools, logic, facts, jokes, hyperboles and even ad hominem attacks in order to get points across is unwarranted - imagine how boring this place would be without them! So - some people will have problems with my style, some with my logic and some with my facts... but I really couldn't care how offensive all of these are to people as long as they remain within the context of current discussion (or posts that arise from it) and they are not "beyond the pale" insults (racial slurs etc.) I have taken all insults (my stupidity, idiocy, kookiness etc) gladly... and I have resorted to ignoring forumites who no longer want to discuss anything, but want to solely attack me. So, I would suggest that anyone who finds what I am saying so offensive to likewise ignore me.

 

[Prometheus]

What should I call your particular worldview? Special? I am only taking the lead of our resident kookie style commentator, which is to call a thing what it is (if you are calling it what it is, it is not ad hominem - so the logic goes)

No, you are leading the ad hominem style of thought. You have nothing on which to call anyone a kook or kookie eater so you make things up to discredit a persons character, that's an ad hominem.

I said JFK wasn't germane with respect to proving your current conspiracy; simply put, your current conspiracy shouldn't require someone to believe in the JFK conspiracy.
No - I didn't actually want a comment or any serious dicussion on Xenu - it was a joke that evidently went way over your head.

No, it's very germane. If they can kill a president they wouldn't hesitate to kill civilians. No one said it proves anything relating to 9/11. You assumed we said so just as you assumed I believe there is a conspiracy when I am not prepared to say anything either way.

 

[Xarog]

Note : the thread is moving a bit fast, sorry if I don't deal with everything in one post, as posts are being made as I'm writing mine.

This isn't reason.

Think about it - what would have made a more perfect campaign for the democrats than this? What would be a more perfect counter point for Iran to use than this?

Well, trying to point out things like this immediately gets one branded as being unpatriotic, or a terrorist, or even a kook. That's why I'm so annoyed by the way ignacio posts - it's trying to shut down the debate instead of honestly trying to find the truth.

America in general is very insular, and there just isn't a culture of critical thinking, thanks in part to the fact that people all get their news from 24 hour news television - "infotainment" as it's called. CNN et. al. aren't particularly interested in showing the truth, they're simply trying to keep their ratings up. I remember before the war with Iraq, CNN was addressing the issue of the fact that most countries didn't agree with the US' desire to invade. On the against side, they listed russia's, france's and germany's flag. On the for side, they listed every single last supporter of the US stance, including island nations etc. which the US has guardianship over - including the making all international relations decisions on behalf of those island nations.

That's not the feeling I get from reading his posts. He believes in the official story, he did not automatically label people as insane based on their belief of a conspiracy, but rather the steps they took in getting to that belief. Which involved leaps of faith and the selective ignorance of many things.

Then he can say "your reasoning is selective here", and give his reasons, and be done with it. And he quickly jumped to call me a kook too, even though I hadn't said a single thing which could be considered a conspiracy theory.

Anyway, I don't know how long you've been reading this thread but IMO Ignacio's been level-headed throughout the discussion and he's been a breath of fresh air source of reason even if he has been using insults. Personally I don't mind them, I think it's kinda pathetic the way people get all hissy about it, almost like they want to turn this into congress instead of an internet forum. These discussions would be really bland without them.

Well, in that case, you're an idiot and nothing you can say can be trusted, because you're an idiot. Thus I declare your entire participation in this thread null-and-void. Please stop spamming, and have a nice day.

(Still think it's a source of reason? I sure as hell don't, and frankly I didn't enjoy writing that last little response - but I hope it illustrates the point I was trying to make.)

So call me an Ignacio cock-sucker if you will, but I'm a lot more comfortable on his side than I would be on theirs.

Fundamentalist, I think, would be closer to the truth.

Xarog, if the Xenu thing wasn't a joke WTF do you think it was? I've seriously lost a lot of respect for you now.

I think it was an attempt to ridicule, not a joke. The intent was different. Making a joke, imo, is something which isn't intended to insult someone, or if it is, to do so in a playful matter (and then to make sure the victim knows it was a joke - that's what the smiley would be for). Considering Ignacio's other statements, I find it very hard to consider that Xenu lot a mere joke, sorry.

 

[Xarog]

Well thank you for that... agreed: this is an internet forum, a subforum of an ADSL site in fact, not a publication, not a workplace - I don't think using rhetorical tools, logic, facts, jokes, hyperboles and even ad hominem attacks in order to get points across is unwarranted

Nice attempt to make ad-hominems a valid means of debating a topic by including it in the same breath as logic. Ad hominems are inherently ILLOGICAL. Maybe it does add 'flavour' to the forum, but then again, so would crapping on food add 'flavour'.

So - some people will have problems with my style, some with my logic and some with my facts... but I really couldn't care how offensive all of these are to people as long as they remain within the context of current discussion (or posts that arise from it) and they are not "beyond the pale" insults (racial slurs etc.)

I don't recall moaning about you being offensive, only that your debating tactics are up to **** and full of logical fallacies. Care to prove me wrong?

I have taken all insults (my stupidity, idiocy, kookiness etc) gladly... and I have resorted to ignoring forumites who no longer want to discuss anything, but want to solely attack me. So, I would suggest that anyone who finds what I am saying so offensive to likewise ignore me.

And who would that be? I in my last post towards you before you decided it was beneath you to address your detractors, I made points which refuted your position that the official story is the the right one as it's the simplest. Still waiting for a response, btw.

 

[icyrus]

Well, trying to point out things like this immediately gets one branded as being unpatriotic, or a terrorist, or even a kook. That's why I'm so annoyed by the way ignacio posts - it's trying to shut down the debate instead of honestly trying to find the truth.

America in general is very insular, and there just isn't a culture of critical thinking, thanks in part to the fact that people all get their news from 24 hour news television - "infotainment" as it's called. CNN et. al. aren't particularly interested in showing the truth, they're simply trying to keep their ratings up. I remember before the war with Iraq, CNN was addressing the issue of the fact that most countries didn't agree with the US' desire to invade. On the against side, they listed russia's, france's and germany's flag. On the for side, they listed every single last supporter of the US stance, including island nations etc. which the US has guardianship over - including the making all international relations decisions on behalf of those island nations.

Indeed American's are insular, but this is not a small thing we a talking about that could be dismissed so easily. If the evidence that the conspiracy theorists would have us believe is so overwhelming then surely it would hold up in court?

How many people march against Bush in America alone? Concrete evidence of something other than the official story of 9/11 would give these people the ammunition to take the current US government down. But it doesn't happen. Why?

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Indeed American's are insular, but this is not a small thing we a talking about that could be dismissed so easily. If the evidence that the conspiracy theorists would have us believe is so overwhelming then surely it would hold up in court?

How many people march against Bush in America alone? Concrete evidence of something other than the official story of 9/11 would give these people the ammunition to take the current US government down. But it doesn't happen. Why?

Have a look at the Patriot Act which effectively gives the government more power over the people if they believe it's of "national interest"

 

[ignacio]

No, you are leading the ad hominem style of thought. You have nothing on which to call anyone a kook or kookie eater so you make things up to discredit a persons character, that's an ad hominem.

There was a time when your crew embraced the term and even used it (kilos quotes - must note this in case you get angry) ... but now it is offensive to you... it was just a dismissive joke for your ideas, sorry you can't take it any more.

You say this...

No, it's very germane. If they can kill a president they wouldn't hesitate to kill civilians.

but then this

No one said it proves anything relating to 9/11

So then - IS it germane or isn't it? You and Kilo would have it that the belief in the JFK conspiracy is a cornerstone to the belief in the 911 conspiracy - so therefore want to keep discussing JFK in this 911 thread (as much as I don't want to). You are trying to make it germane, in fact.

you assumed I believe there is a conspiracy when I am not prepared to say anything either way.

hmmmm - so now you have backed away entirely from what you and kilo built up over all of these days? Why are we even arguing then? Kilo has outlasted you as the truest conspiracy theorist - never backing down and really believing what he had to say - you are now distancing yourself with every post... where is the Prometheus of this post?

 

[Xarog]

Indeed American's are insular, but this is not a small thing we a talking about that could be dismissed so easily. If the evidence that the conspiracy theorists would have us believe is so overwhelming then surely it would hold up in court?

How many people have gone back and looked at the videos of the WTC attack broadcasts and counted the minutes until bin Laden's name was mentioned? I don't think people would mostly notice that kind of thing, considering what was going on. There have been attempts to have a real independent investigation into the events of that day, but the process was turned into a paper tiger by the govt.

How many people march against Bush in America alone? Concrete evidence of something other than the official story of 9/11 would give these people the ammunition to take the current US government down. But it doesn't happen. Why?

Because for a long time after the attacks, Bush was a golden boy, and being critical of the government was heresy. People are trying to investigate what really happened, but it seems anyone who tries inevitably ends up getting called "kooks".

 

[icyrus]

How many people have gone back and looked at the videos of the WTC attack broadcasts and counted the minutes until bin Laden's name was mentioned? I don't think people would mostly notice that kind of thing, considering what was going on.

To be fair there is prior history of terror attacks on American targets by islamic militants, including bin laden.

Because for a long time after the attacks, Bush was a golden boy, and being critical of the government was heresy.

Yes thats true. But time has moved on.

People are trying to investigate what really happened, but it seems anyone who tries inevitably ends up getting called "kooks".

I'm sure that does happen, but I would think that sound theories and evidence would have an audience in the international scientific and engineering communities. Like I said before, this is not a small matter and America is not loved and protected everywhere.

 

[Prometheus]

That's not the feeling I get from reading his posts. He believes in the official story, he did not automatically label people as insane based on their belief of a conspiracy, but rather the steps they took in getting to that belief. Which involved leaps of faith and the selective ignorance of many things.

Yes he did, he also made a leap of faith in selectively ignoring many contradictions in the official reports and when he was shown to do that he called everyone conspiracy kooks in order to argue based on their character.

Anyway, I don't know how long you've been reading this thread but IMO Ignacio's been level-headed throughout the discussion and he's been a breath of fresh air source of reason even if he has been using insults.

You call using insults level headed? Now that is a leap of faith. His head may have been levelled as in being flattened.

Personally I don't mind them, I think it's kinda pathetic the way people get all hissy about it, almost like they want to turn this into congress instead of an internet forum. These discussions would be really bland without them.

Nice to know you think it's necessary to call someone names in order to prove your point.

So call me an Ignacio cock-sucker if you will, but I'm a lot more comfortable on his side than I would be on theirs.

wonder why

 

[Xarog]

To be fair there is prior history of terror attacks on American targets by islamic militants, including bin laden.

The WTC attacks was the first one bin Laden didn't immediately claim credit for, why?

Yes thats true. But time has moved on.

And now it's old hat and many people have pre-conceived notions about what happened, based on their emotional reactions at the time. It's not easy to overcome that.

I'm sure that does happen, but I would think that sound theories and evidence would have an audience in the international scientific and engineering communities. Like I said before, this is not a small matter and America is not loved and protected everywhere.

Well, as I said, I don't want to get into that right now, mainly because I honestly don't know what happened that day. But I am still suspicious of the US govt, or more specifically those in the US govt, because they're known liars, and they gained alot from the fallout of the attacks.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

So call me an Ignacio cock-sucker if you will, but I'm a lot more comfortable on his side than I would be on theirs.

OK so who's sucking off who

 

[icyrus]

The WTC attacks was the first one bin Laden didn't immediately claim credit for, why?

I have no idea. Can't say I follow any of this too closely.

And now it's old hat and many people have pre-conceived notions about what happened, based on their emotional reactions at the time. It's not easy to overcome that.

I know exactly what you mean.

Well, as I said, I don't want to get into that right now, mainly because I honestly don't know what happened that day. But I am still suspicious of the US govt, or more specifically those in the US govt, because they're known liars, and they gained alot from the fallout of the attacks.

There is no denying that. I think people need to focus more on what acually happened and less on what they want to believe happened - on both sides.

 

[ignacio]

Get some respect first then come back.

I think I have been very respectful of you and kilo in my last dozen or so posts - I want the conspiracy theorists I was arguing with to return: the main conspiracist is sadly gone and you have backtracked almost entirely and descended into name calling and no substance. What can I do to get the fire back into you two?

 

[ignacio]

You assume we had any respect left for you

And now you attack mooK as well? You are really in a foul mood... mook has been an objective observer as far as I can tell.

 

[Xarog]

I have no idea. Can't say I follow any of this too closely.

Then personally, I think you should do more investigation before you choose any particular camp. Infact, better yet, don't side with any camp, do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

I think I have been very respectful of you and kilo in my last dozen or so posts - I want the conspiracy theorists I was arguing with to return: the main conspiracist is sadly gone and you have backtracked almost entirely and descended into name calling and no substance. What can I do to get the fire back into you two?

Refusing to address valid criticism is not being respectful, either to the person criticising you, or to anyone else participating in the discussion. You've refused to apologise for your mistakes when you were called on them, and you've refused to address valid points against your view (when they're actually trying to deal with reason rather than ad hominems). How can you claim you're being respectful while doing this?

 

[icyrus]

Then personally, I think you should do more investigation before you choose any particular camp. Infact, better yet, don't side with any camp, do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

I don't recall siding with any camp really. There are somethings I find harder to believe than others though, I will concede to that.