Challenger1978
Well-Known Member
davymcfc said:
We would get turned over the US military machine is just far to big for us to handle.
9/11
- Thread starter davymcfc
- Start date
We would get turned over the US military machine is just far to big for us to handle.
Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'
12. Michael Meacher!!!!!!!!!
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'
12. Michael Meacher!!!!!!!!!
Bułgarska St
Well-Known Member
LOOSE CHANGE FINAL CUT:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598#
imo 9/11 was an inside job!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598#
imo 9/11 was an inside job!
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Bułgarska St said:
Can't be arsed watching that but if it really is 'Loose Change' then every single shred of 'evidence' in that pile of shit has been completely debunked.
oneyeartillheaven
Well-Known Member
1_barry_conlon
Well-Known Member
Well if you go funding NORAID for 30+ years, theses things come back and bite you on the arse!
Not saying two wrongs make a right but you get the drift.
Not saying two wrongs make a right but you get the drift.
goatboy
Well-Known Member
first off i'd like to to say i completely agree with many of the theories surrounding the cover up and execution of of 9/11 by various government and intelligence agency operatives. but for a minute think about this situation rationally and objectively and do not take into account the media stories (which were very quickly and nicely presented to the western world in no time at all)
it's an argument i used in conjuction with 7/7 but is relevent here too
imagine yourself as a muslim person in any middle eastern country
" i am annoyed at the ignorance and arrogance of western governments and their contempt for my nation, religion and the religion of my brothers. i am annoyed at their constant political and business interference in regards to our resources and coups led against us or anyone who is not an ally of the west. i am annoyed at the violence and disregard shown against my brothers from the days of the british empire through every other nation that has shown colonial and empirical interest in our nations"
"it is time we struck back at the people responsible for our supression and misfortune, it is time we showed the leaders of the western world that they can not get away with this anymore"
"rather than attempting to strike at those directly responsible for our pain we shall take our revenge by flying a plane into a financial building and killing a bunch of innocent civilians, that will show the governments we mean business"
does that scenario make any sense to anyone? i'f i'm pissed at someone i go for them not the local shopkeeper or banker.
during times of attack the nation ALWAYS rallies behind its leaders so as soon as the attack happened so they would be depleting their argument straight away and acheiving absolutely nothing other than scaring the public and giving more support, authority and funding to the people they hate.
anyone remember the g8 summit when we were going to "make poverty history" and we were going to save africa and all that, then the bombs went off and that story disappeared from the news completely. the brits rallied round tony blair and as a result he and the rest of the sdministration gained more support, control, authority and funding. so if muslim terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 7/7 attacks then they would have done nothing but damage their own agenda and strengthen their enemies. as a country we have suffered the blitz and the ira in recent history and it made us stronger and unified. the official stories make no sense to me purely from a logic viewpoint, nevermind conspiracies
it's an argument i used in conjuction with 7/7 but is relevent here too
imagine yourself as a muslim person in any middle eastern country
" i am annoyed at the ignorance and arrogance of western governments and their contempt for my nation, religion and the religion of my brothers. i am annoyed at their constant political and business interference in regards to our resources and coups led against us or anyone who is not an ally of the west. i am annoyed at the violence and disregard shown against my brothers from the days of the british empire through every other nation that has shown colonial and empirical interest in our nations"
"it is time we struck back at the people responsible for our supression and misfortune, it is time we showed the leaders of the western world that they can not get away with this anymore"
"rather than attempting to strike at those directly responsible for our pain we shall take our revenge by flying a plane into a financial building and killing a bunch of innocent civilians, that will show the governments we mean business"
does that scenario make any sense to anyone? i'f i'm pissed at someone i go for them not the local shopkeeper or banker.
during times of attack the nation ALWAYS rallies behind its leaders so as soon as the attack happened so they would be depleting their argument straight away and acheiving absolutely nothing other than scaring the public and giving more support, authority and funding to the people they hate.
anyone remember the g8 summit when we were going to "make poverty history" and we were going to save africa and all that, then the bombs went off and that story disappeared from the news completely. the brits rallied round tony blair and as a result he and the rest of the sdministration gained more support, control, authority and funding. so if muslim terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 7/7 attacks then they would have done nothing but damage their own agenda and strengthen their enemies. as a country we have suffered the blitz and the ira in recent history and it made us stronger and unified. the official stories make no sense to me purely from a logic viewpoint, nevermind conspiracies