[quote]Sifu wrote:
In the interview with the fbi official the lips weren’t synched with the video. So we don’t even know if the people talking are even the ones in the video.
[/quote]
Was the William Rodriguez video enough in synch for your liking, mate ?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I certainly would like to think of our government as benevolent, or at least benign. But I also know that power is a magnet for scum who love to exert power over others.
Our government is the most powerful on earth. It can fight a war on the other side of the globe and sustain a couple of hundred thousands of troops there for years. This MUST attract human ‘rats’, just like chickens to corn. Let’s face it: we ain’t Switzerland.
Therefore, while I don’t know for 100% certitude that 9/11 was an inside job, if it increased someones power, then I think it possible. Did 9/11 increase anyone’s power?[/quote]
!!! Define power. I suspect your definition and mine are at odds. By power do you mean cowering obedience? By that definition N. Korea and a few others are the only powerful countries on Earth. That you are casually taking your own government to task for things you cannot prove in a public forum frequented by anyone pretty much is the definition of freedom. Our discussion shows how powerless the government is to stop our criticisms. So again, tell me what you mean by power and tell me how it is exercised.
Statements like “it must be so” confuse 2 things. Probability (yes it is likely that somewhere some sleazebag got a GS position to lord it over us) with certitude – that a 1% chance should be accorded as the same as 100%. The fact that there is a dysfunctional loser in the government means everyone in the government is the same. Do you know anyone who works in the government? Seems to me that working for Uncle Sam is always choice number 2 for people since industry pays so much better.
– jj
Well HH I think the Saudi’s profited very well from 9/11 and from the Madrid and London bombings. Because all of those were attacks upon mass transit. It’s like they did enough to get more people driving cars but not enough to collapse the economy so noone could buy oil.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Saudi’s have a lot of money invested in defense industry stocks either.
Jeff after your first three video’s turned out to be bullocks I didn’t bother listening to much of the fourth because the audio sucked.
Comic book stuff thrown around here…
Here are some questions for you guys. How do you think belief in the conspiracy theories divides along political lines? Do you think that there is a more or less even spread of believers and unbelievers amongst republicans and democrats, or do you think there is a concentration in one party or the other?
If belief and unbelief divides along party lines with one party having more believers, do you think it’s impact is benign or do you think it has become a wedge between people, with group A thinking group B are brainwashed and group B thinking group A are idiots who shouldn’t be listened to.
Last question. If the people are divided by these conspiracy theories do you think it makes them harder or easier to manipulate them? Or is there no change?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here are some questions for you guys. How do you think belief in the conspiracy theories divides along political lines? Do you think that there is a more or less even spread of believers and unbelievers amongst republicans and democrats, or do you think there is a concentration in one party or the other?[/quote]
Thank you for the thoughtful question Sifu! It used to be that crank conspiracy theories were pretty much the province of the Right (which I differentiate from simply being conservative). All through the 1950’s - 1990’s whenever you thought of some crackpot he was always some kook who saw a commie under every bridge.
Or perhaps he would be a survivalist holed up in the middle of no place expecting some calamity that never quite came. Leftists tended to become radicals and while busy fomenting revolution (e.g. Baader-Meinhof) they didn’t often end up out in la-la land.
I think that this is one big reason why conspiracy theories seem to have gone mainstream is that nobody is getting enough of an education to be able to spot on. If your professor “deconstructs history to expose power relations” he essentially is putting history on ideological trial rather than showing you how to understand the whys and wherefores of humanity. Yes, I think that this is a serious professional lapse and is inexcusable in any institution of higher learning.
An institution that stupefies its charges is unacceptable. Democracy is the most labor-intensive form of government for its citizens and makes demands of them others do not. A failed educational system is the biggest threat to it we have.
On top of this is PC thinking which is just revival tent moralizing made fashionable enough for yuppies. This has caused quite a few conspiracy theories to have gotten institutionalized, such as
extreme Feminism: which thinks that us guys really do have secret cabals where we lay out a systematic subjugation of anything with the wrong set of chromosomes. Many seek to remedy this by reducing males to about 10% of the population (so kill off 40% of the general population). Hell even Pol Pot only managed to off 12% of Cambodia. What an amateur!
Afrocentrism: where everything in the West actually came from Africa and the fact that nobody knows this is proof of oppression. Yeah, right Socrates was Black. We should teach African Algebra even though nobody can articulate what it is.
vestigial Marxism: everything is still a Capitalist (which means Republican) plot and even the Soviets were in on it. Chiefly found in Ivy League English Departments, but coming to a school near you soon.
the up and coming field of “Oppression Studies” that allows us all to be a victim someplace and expressly labels any criticism of this position as yet more oppression, hence proving the validity of the field and the dire need for more funding.
So a lack in the university system is one part. The other is that, well, moderate Liberalism won the ideological war. Big time. People really aren’t wondering much if Democracy is just a flash in the pan nor if free markets are a good thing. (I’m not talking extreme Capitalism here.) This has left the Left with nothing to do, no dragons to slay and has allowed them to drift on autopilot. We have a ton of career politicians who are barely distinguishable from each other so they engage in shrill accusations and innuendo (look at Clinton vs. Obama). That such battles are so hard fought demonstrates how little there is they fight over.
These sorts of theories are immensely comforting. They simplify the world down to something less messy and quite manageable. If the government is evil because it makes me pay taxes, vote every 4 years and once in a great while calls me up for jury duty, then you better believe if something goes wrong it just has to be their fault. Bastards.
If there is demagoguery afoot, very easy. Look at the hysteria during the Soviet Great Purge of the 1930’s. How about the purges during the Nazi’s Kristallnacht? McCarthyism? The Cultural Revolution? This allows people to go off half-cocked and is very empowering since they are doing the “right” thing. Once in a positive feedback loop (so no outside criticism can occur) it will go until the whole system crashes, where it may crawl along forever (e.g. Soviets after Stalin).
Isms are just a florid variation on the old saw that “there are two types of people in the world”. Any such mass movement is always on the verge of having a pogrom.
$1.37 (which is my $.02 after such a long post)
– jj
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ragingbassist wrote:
don’t know if anyone has mentioned this in previous posts, but this video is very, very interesting. Long…2 hours, but it sucks you in and really makes you ponder shit.
I am always interested in government scandals anybody with me on this idea:
I believe that there will never be a cure for cancer or AIDS. I believe that there is a cure, but higher powers that be would never allow it to come forth. I say this because:
Aids and cancer is population control
Too much money would be lost on companies profiting off of medications to treat both health issues.
Too much money would be lost for doctors, hospitals, and companies that make the equipment for the treatment centers in hopsitals.
Anybody else with me on this topic?
…
They will never cure polio and smallpox for the same reasons.
[/quote]
1 - There is no such thing as a cure for “cancer.” By that I mean that cancer is not a simple disease with a single origin(such as HIV causes AIDS, or Strep causing a sore throat). there are MANY, MANY types of cancer that spread differently, grow differently, have different origins in the body, are made up of different tissues, come from different exposures… The fact of the matter of that there ARE treatments for some forms of cancer, some with almost 100% cure rate, and people with AIDS are living significantly longer than before…But I guess big Pharma is out to get ya’
2 - As Zap pointed out, there have been many diseases in the past that have been completely obliterated due to big Pharma. At least in our western world. Yes, they are out to make money, no doubt, but the name of the game is still medicine. If they dont make medicines THAT WORK, no physician will prescribe them and nobody will buy them. Cancer and AIDS just happen to be the hard ones of this era, I’m sure 70 years ago everyone was saying the same thing about Polio. Remember how they hid the Penicillin discovery from us… oh wait.
3 - Too much would be lost from the TREATMENT CENTERS? You mean the places people go to receive the treatments that big pharma isnt giving the public? The places where physicians are laughing all the way to the bank not curing their patients. Bottom line, cancer is a tough, tough cookie to crack. The HIV virus is a phenomenal little bug with all sorts of ways to trick us into letting it spread.
Conspiracy theories are VERY rarely true. Science is VERY rarely wrong.
As far as the Pentagon being hit on the side with the construction a happening. Quite the coincidence, huh! It proves it! Well, for starters, there are only 5 sides. That gives us a 20% chance of hitting that side, not bad. Also, if the government has no problems killin Thousands of people in the WTC, why would they attack the pentagon on the side no one was on? Doesnt it rally more support if our men in uniform at the pentagon got killed as well?
Hell, why attack the pentagon AT ALL. Why not just hit 1 of the WTC and call it a day. Hitting both towers, and the pentagon, and whatever else they were going to hit with flight 93 only adds to the complexity of the “inside job.” More and more and more people needing to be involved and to keep quiet.
And of course there is always the great point of… You are still alive.
If the government had absolutely no problems killing thousands of its own people and going to great lengths to make sure no one involved in the process has lose lips, why would they not be killing everyone who has the “secret” information that they actually did it?
Here is what Bill Clinton has to say about it.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is what Bill Clinton has to say about it.
Video News - CNN [/quote]
Good job Bubba.
Well, first, there certainly are conspiracies. And of course, the government does try to screw people all the time.
But considering that state official of the the highest ranks actually met to discuss parameters of this operation involving dozens, hundreds of specialists is mindblowing.
I do, however criticize the Bush Admin for being so stupid as to not having conducted a thoroughly and transparent investigation, like NASA did with the “we never landed on the moon” guys- it’s just bad PR. Today, people are thin skinned and wild theories are spread to a much larger population through the internets.
Ultimately, this all boils down to education, rationality and belief. If someone doesn’t know or accept that a small part of scientists will always disagree, and/or he lacks something in his life or is young and seeks out challenges or just wants to believe something out of convinience- boom; Irrationality alert.
Global warming is an example: the vast majority of scientists is convinced, yet folks claim it’s a hoax to control us.
Religion would also be a good example: People would rather believe 3000 year old drivel of some unwashed, goat-loving, middle eastern patriarchs who could barely read a sentence then modern scientists as to what really happened in that era.
Schwarzfahrer the problem with having an official investigation of the conspiracy theories is if it doesn’t produce the results the conspiracy theorists want, they will just say the investigators were in on the conspiracy which would be further proof of what they are saying.
To even have an investigation of some of claims would be to suggest that they have validity.
This is a no-win situation.
Right, the great thing about being on the conspiracy side of things is that YOU CANT LOSE. If they do an investigation and actually “find out” that Osama did it… its a cover up. If they dont do one… Its a cover up. Ahhh, if only that pesky science and skepticism didnt get in the way.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Ultimately, this all boils down to education, rationality and belief. If someone doesn’t know or accept that a small part of scientists will always disagree, and/or he lacks something in his life or is young and seeks out challenges or just wants to believe something out of convinience- boom; Irrationality alert.
[/quote]
Irrationality ??
Let me get this straight:
We have a 47 storey steel reinforced building (WTC 7) that didn’t suffer major fires or damage, didn’t have an airplane crashing into it, crumbling into it’s own footprints at free fall speed.
First time ever in history, twin towers nonwhitstanding.
No scientific explanation has been found, 6 years after the facts.
The owner, Larry Sylverstein, said on the record the building was pulled. The BBC announced it’s fall 25 minutes too early.
Demolition experts are on the record saying this building was pulled.
The independent 911 comission refuses to talk about it.
In these condidtions, who’s the irrationnal one ?
You’re being rational for thinking everything has been explained, and irrational if you dare question the status quo ?
Seems to me your idea of irrationality is rather a confused one when it comes to 911.
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Ultimately, this all boils down to education, rationality and belief. If someone doesn’t know or accept that a small part of scientists will always disagree, and/or he lacks something in his life or is young and seeks out challenges or just wants to believe something out of convinience- boom; Irrationality alert.
Irrationality ??
Let me get this straight:
We have a 47 storey steel reinforced building (WTC 7) that didn’t suffer major fires or damage, didn’t have an airplane crashing into it, crumbling into it’s own footprints at free fall speed.
First time ever in history, twin towers nonwhitstanding.
No scientific explanation has been found, 6 years after the facts.
The owner, Larry Sylverstein, said on the record the building was pulled. The BBC announced it’s fall 25 minutes too early.
Demolition experts are on the record saying this building was pulled.
The independent 911 comission refuses to talk about it.
In these condidtions, tell me who’s the irrationnal one ? The people asking questions, or the ones thinking everything is perfectly fine ?
[/quote]
Heh, no major damage to WTC 7! Or, even major fire! Tell that to rescues crews! Shall I prove you wrong? I’ll leave it up to you.
Please quote Larry Sylverstein saying to pull WTC 7, and I’ll teach you how to read. I know exactly which quote you’ll use, so think twice. Hint: What was the Cheif talking to him about regarding WTC 7 and the rescue operations within?
Do you even know what “pulling” means in the demo world? Hint: It involves cables, and well, actually pulling.
For now I’ll leave you with a proffesional piece published in an independent, peer-reviewed Engineering journal. Concerns the WTC 7.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Oh hell. This can’t actually debunk the no major fire and damage claim, could it?! Please, go through all the videos.
http://911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos
Really, this stuff is easy to find, you should be ashamed.
Collapse expectations. Why? Because the building is badly damaged and has been subjected to major fires. Pay attention to the fire fighter describing the visible signs of distortion.
http://911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Collapse_Expectations
Alex Jones didn’t tell you about this?
Hmm, wonder what might happen to structure and support within WTC 7 when this debris rains in. I wonder.
Maybe severe damage?!