skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
That the arrogance with which some people hold views for which there is substantiated proof is baffling? At least the arrogance is somewhat justified in that there is proof for their claims.
New Social Thread
- Thread starter MetalAges
- Start date
That the arrogance with which some people hold views for which there is substantiated proof is baffling? At least the arrogance is somewhat justified in that there is proof for their claims.
Dak
mentat
Lol@ "substantiated proof". By your logic, Santa Claus did exist when you were a kid because your parents said he did; the presents he was supposed to bring were always there, and the cookies had always been eaten. Must have been ol' St Nick. What other possible explanation could there be?
That kid down the street who said all your family was lying to you is lying. Your parents said so, and said his parents were mean parents. Aren't you happy?
That kid down the street who said all your family was lying to you is lying. Your parents said so, and said his parents were mean parents. Aren't you happy?
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
No, by my logic Santa Claus didn't exist because there wasn't substantiated proof. There was evidence, but not proof. You don't seem to know the difference. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, like you saying that there is a conspiracy. It'd be nice if you had any proof instead of just potential evidence, because it's getting boring already watching you say a bunch of things that fly in the face of contemporary wisdom yet never have any actual proof to support your arguments. Nice try tough.
9/11 conspiracy theories basically work by looking at all the ways in which 9/11 could have been good for an ill-defined, shadowy group of - fuck it, let's just call them the Illuminati. We look at all the ways 9/11 could have possibly benefited the Illuminati, assuming that they have some vaguely malevolent agenda, and then ignore all the ways in which it didn't at all. Then we ignore the possibility that other things could have worked better, or that there would have been much better ways to take advantage of 9/11. Then we stick our heads up our asses, and boom. Clearly it was an inside job.
King Richard
Hello there
Dak
mentat
@Dodens: You don't seem to understand the difference between asking questions and making a claim. "Maybes" are not definitive claims. The only definitive claim I have made is that the official story is unsubstantiated.
@WAIF: While it could there be taken that far, it's not really necessary to. If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. Also, apparently no one automatically accepting the official story understands "conflict of interest".
On the other side of things, at best the official story on 9/11 still proves Americans are as stupid as V5 says they aren't, since it was supposedly "blowback" for a foreign policy we immediately put in overdrive following the attack.
Edit: You can thank several days of vomit inducing tribute coverage for this coming up. If the MSM wants to drag this shit up, I can to. We still have Americans dying over 9/11 supposedly fighting against Al Qaeda in multiple middle eastern countries, while we provide Al Qaeda air supremecy and billions in assets in Libya.
@WAIF: While it could there be taken that far, it's not really necessary to. If you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers. Also, apparently no one automatically accepting the official story understands "conflict of interest".
On the other side of things, at best the official story on 9/11 still proves Americans are as stupid as V5 says they aren't, since it was supposedly "blowback" for a foreign policy we immediately put in overdrive following the attack.
Edit: You can thank several days of vomit inducing tribute coverage for this coming up. If the MSM wants to drag this shit up, I can to. We still have Americans dying over 9/11 supposedly fighting against Al Qaeda in multiple middle eastern countries, while we provide Al Qaeda air supremecy and billions in assets in Libya.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
Maybe I'm just a spineless waffler, but I think Dak is taking this too far one way and Dodens, V5, and WAIF are to the opposite extreme. look, the facts are out there. The FBI and CIA knew about the plot to crash planes on American soil in a massive terrorist attack. That is substantiated. Also, Saddam Hussein wanted to get out from under the thumb of the dollar standard when he traded his oil. That is an egregious offense that deserves retaliation, but the intricacies of such a bold shift in policy would be lost on the American people, thus making support for a re-invasion of Iraq luke warm at best. Put the two together and you get a golden opportunity. The fact of the matter is, 9/11 was preventable, but it was allowed to happen. And evidence points to the possibility that it was allowed to happen on purpose.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
The 'evidence' doesn't point to shit. What is known is that there were briefing memos that were more analyses than warnings about potential attacks. It's a stretch to say "the FBI and CIA knew about the plot to crash planes on American soil in a massive terrorist attack". The information that they had at the time was far more general than that, much of it was speculation, and, frankly, you're looking at everything with a hindsight mentality. So no, that's not "substantiated".
You know, I wrote a paper about OPEC wanting to abandon the US dollar and how that helped the US fuel its interest in invading Iraq. But to make the leap in logic to say that the US planned or assisted in the destruction of the twin towers and thousands of its citizens so that it could invade Iraq, which took a year and a half to get to, is, again, a really big stretch. Whether or not something presents a "golden opportunity" basically does not mean jack shit in terms of whether or not something actually happened in the manner that you choose to speculate. I'm sure there have been some golden opportunities for you to rape somebody and get away with it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't actually do it.
I chuckle that you suggest that I am on an extreme end and that you're in the middle. I'm the one that is not making assumptions and following insubstantial evidence and calling it proof. The furthest that it's even reasonable to speculate, let alone believe, based on the evidence that is available, is that the US, to some degree, knew what might happen and failed to prevent it from happening.
You know, I wrote a paper about OPEC wanting to abandon the US dollar and how that helped the US fuel its interest in invading Iraq. But to make the leap in logic to say that the US planned or assisted in the destruction of the twin towers and thousands of its citizens so that it could invade Iraq, which took a year and a half to get to, is, again, a really big stretch. Whether or not something presents a "golden opportunity" basically does not mean jack shit in terms of whether or not something actually happened in the manner that you choose to speculate. I'm sure there have been some golden opportunities for you to rape somebody and get away with it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't actually do it.
I chuckle that you suggest that I am on an extreme end and that you're in the middle. I'm the one that is not making assumptions and following insubstantial evidence and calling it proof. The furthest that it's even reasonable to speculate, let alone believe, based on the evidence that is available, is that the US, to some degree, knew what might happen and failed to prevent it from happening.
King Richard
Hello there
Dak
mentat
.........are you living in some sort of delusional dreamworld, or do you have zero reading comprehension?
I am asking questions and making suggestions of possibilites. I never called you "extreme". Nice strawman you have constructed though.
As the video I posted pointed out, the official story is ridden with problems. Instead of focusing on that, you attempt a witchhunt against any possible conspiracy theory(other than the Al Qaeda conspiracy theory). You are asking the wrong questions, since you are questioning questions.
I'm not dogmatic on what did happen. Merely on what did not happen. Obviously, we will probably never know, since the evidence is either sealed or destroyed.
It makes me sick that I am surrounded by people that believe it's ok to kill and injure millions of people, purely based on their religion, government, or geographical location. Or to spy/molest/sieze/imprison anyone/anytime/anywhere for any reason. Because of appeals to status quo and authority. Which, incidently, you have wrapped yourself in.
MasterOLightning
Optimator
Ugh, I regret clicking on this thread. I should know better than go anywhere near anything Dakryn comments on. I was especially miffed by that video that claimed to be objective yet did everything possible in terms of tone to suggest a particular view. It almost reminds me of Triumph of the Will in the way it used style so effectively to appeal to receptive viewers while it was a documentary in another sense. There are always choices made in the way that information is presented, but people like Dakryn can't bash mainstream media for being biased and then post videos like that. They can't have it both ways.
Cronopio
Glorious Imperator
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
For what it's worth, I could tell who you were responding to. I don't think that I made it clear to you that I disagree with the "Loose Change" theory. There probably were 19 Arab hijackers and it was the planes alone that brought down the WTC. However, from what I've seen of the intelligence reports, I would say that they were anything but ambiguous. Also, I'm not suggesting that 9/11 was a plot solely crafted by the gov't to give reason to invade Iraq. It was probably planned by al Qaeda and we merely took advantage of it. I thank you for giving me the benefit of a doubt on the whole rape thing, because I've never raped anyone, but I have taken advantage situations to do things that were morally questionable. There is no reason to believe that our gov't would not behave the same way.
Dak
mentat
@Dodens: Very well, I retract my statements regarding the extreme comment. The rest of it still stands.
@MOL: I am curious as to what an "objective" view of the information in that video is, and what would it change? Since it is 100% comprised of MSM information.
@MOL: I am curious as to what an "objective" view of the information in that video is, and what would it change? Since it is 100% comprised of MSM information.
