|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| Dude, why is it so hard to believe that your gov't might lie to you? |
I have repeatedly stated that I have no problem with the "Let it Happen on Purpose" conspiracy theory. All that requires is burying a few reports in the bureaucratic muck.
I do have a problem with some silly notion of planting explosives on a building in order to bring it down to start a war because apparently planes flying into them isn't enough. That's crackpot fantasy, not sober analysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
I'm With You
Joined: 01 Sep 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| Dude, why is it so hard to believe that your gov't might lie to you? |
I have repeatedly stated that I have no problem with the "Let it Happen on Purpose" conspiracy theory. All that requires is burying a few reports in the bureaucratic muck.
|
This reflects my take on what my be a more likely scenario, also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEDf7OkRCxk&feature=c4-overview&list=UU7TvL4GlQyMBLlUsTrN_C4Q
James Corbett: "Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper"
The reference to 9/11 starts around the 37 minute mark, but it's worth watching the whole thing.
His basic argument is that Chomsky, as a "gatekeeper", builds capital with astute criticism of certain aspects of the government, and spends it by making pronouncements on certain other aspects which he doesn't support with argument, but which he expects people to take at face value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk
"9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed!"
This video lays out scenarios and presents evidence which (although I haven't verified it) I find highly plausible, because I already believe that there are people in the world who pursue profit aggressively at all levels, so it's not much of a stretch to believe that 911 involved a conspiracy of some very powerful, very aggressive pursuers of profit using their world class capacity for secrecy, deception and manipulation to achieve their ends.
As for whether it involved controlled demolition, I don't rule that out. If anyone on this thread claims it is impossible, then they have not made any case at all to show that beyond stating their own opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wintermute wrote: |
As for whether it involved controlled demolition, I don't rule that out. If anyone on this thread claims it is impossible, then they have not made any case at all to show that beyond stating their own opinions. |
Is that the standard? We have to show your unlikely scenario is impossible?
Occum's razor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| wintermute wrote: |
As for whether it involved controlled demolition, I don't rule that out. If anyone on this thread claims it is impossible, then they have not made any case at all to show that beyond stating their own opinions. |
Is that the standard? We have to show your unlikely scenario is impossible? |
No. I think you thought I was referring to you, and jumped to conclusions. I meant nothing more than the literal meaning of what I wrote.
It was actually an invitation to Steelrails to take a definitive position which matched his closed mind on the issue.
Definitive positions and closed minds/judgmental attitudes require strong support. The rest of us have our subjective opinions about how likely/unlikely various possibilities are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's POSSIBLE we're all living in a universe that is nothing more than the imagination of a giant space beetle.
But that is not a point to begin rational discourse. Claiming that its so, and then declaring people who say that's ridiculous or impossible as "close minded" is just a childish debate tactic that someone uses when they aren't interested in actual intellectual exchange, but rather "not losing" the argument.
Declaring you scenario and theory as true until someone proves it impossible is not good science or the process of rational thinking.
Question- Is it impossible that the government's official version is what happened- That 4 airliners were hijacked, 2 smashing into the WTC, causing it to collapse, that another hit the Pentagon, and that the 4th was flown into the ground after the passengers rebelled?
Now, which is more likely? Can 4 airliners be hijacked- Likely, given that standard procedure was to cooperate and land at some place. Can those planes be flown into towers? Likely, as they aren't exactly the smallest structures. Is it likely that two large jet passenger aircraft laden with fuel are sufficient to cause the collapse of a skyscraper? I'd say so. Is it likely a plane can be flown into the Pentagon? I'd say so. Is it likely that people hearing about 3 other planes meeting a suicidal fate, might decide the best course is to try and retake the plane and the terrorists decide to fly it into the ground? Sure.
And the big one- Is all of this more likely than some scenario involving sneaking in of controlled demolitions involving secret SEAL teams, offloading of passengers, voice duplication, deceiving air traffic controllers, military facilities and pilots, blowing up WTC7 just for the sake of burning some papers, and doing all of this to start a war against Saddam Hussein (already public enemy #1), because apparently Americans don't like to go to war as exemplified by Kosovo, Haiti, Gulf War 1, Panama, Grenada, etc., and of course being able to do all of this but not being able to hide 200 old chemical weapons warheads in the Iraqi desert...
Which is more likely? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
It's POSSIBLE we're all living in a universe that is nothing more than the imagination of a giant space beetle.
But that is not a point to begin rational discourse. Claiming that its so, and then declaring people who say that's ridiculous or impossible as "close minded" is just a childish debate tactic that someone uses when they aren't interested in actual intellectual exchange, but rather "not losing" the argument.
Declaring you scenario and theory as true until someone proves it impossible is not good science or the process of rational thinking.
Question- Is it impossible that the government's official version is what happened- That 4 airliners were hijacked, 2 smashing into the WTC, causing it to collapse, that another hit the Pentagon, and that the 4th was flown into the ground after the passengers rebelled?
Now, which is more likely? Can 4 airliners be hijacked- Likely, given that standard procedure was to cooperate and land at some place. Can those planes be flown into towers? Likely, as they aren't exactly the smallest structures. Is it likely that two large jet passenger aircraft laden with fuel are sufficient to cause the collapse of a skyscraper? I'd say so. Is it likely a plane can be flown into the Pentagon? I'd say so. Is it likely that people hearing about 3 other planes meeting a suicidal fate, might decide the best course is to try and retake the plane and the terrorists decide to fly it into the ground? Sure.
And the big one- Is all of this more likely than some scenario involving sneaking in of controlled demolitions involving secret SEAL teams, offloading of passengers, voice duplication, deceiving air traffic controllers, military facilities and pilots, blowing up WTC7 just for the sake of burning some papers, and doing all of this to start a war against Saddam Hussein (already public enemy #1), because apparently Americans don't like to go to war as exemplified by Kosovo, Haiti, Gulf War 1, Panama, Grenada, etc., and of course being able to do all of this but not being able to hide 200 old chemical weapons warheads in the Iraqi desert...
Which is more likely? |
You talk about "likely" as if your brain was a supercomputer that has access to all possible information, calculated all possible scenarios, crunched the numbers and then arrived at a conclusion that is impossible to deny.
That is simply not the case. Our brains are in fact particularly bad at calculating probability because they are memory machines not computers. You remember something you read, you remember something you believe, you remember some fact you know, you form a subjective opinion with or without awareness of its subjective nature, and then remember that opinion when participating in a thread such as this.
If you think you have made an objective calculation you are deluding yourself. My opinions are also subjective, but unlike you, apparently, I am aware of it. I don't scoff at some imaginary amorphous entity which to me represents all "opposition", pandering to my ego by declaring my knowledge superior and my experience vaster.
If you were to say, "From all that I know and have read, controlled demolition is highly improbable, but I admit that that's just my opinion, there may be facts of which I am not aware, or assumptions of mine that are wrong", then we are in complete accord and we can leave it right there. That opinion is sensible, reasonable, and rational.
Does that describe your position? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does that describe yours?
Might as well say this-
"From all that I know and have read, Alien Attack is highly improbable, but I admit that that's just my opinion, there may be facts of which I am not aware, or assumptions of mine that are wrong"
That's about the level I put CD at. Alongside "Publicity Stunt by Will Ferrell" or "Mishap During Hollywood Film". That doesn't add anything to the discussion by saying that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Does that describe yours?
Might as well say this-
"From all that I know and have read, Alien Attack is highly improbable, but I admit that that's just my opinion, there may be facts of which I am not aware, or assumptions of mine that are wrong"
That's about the level I put CD at. Alongside "Publicity Stunt by Will Ferrell" or "Mishap During Hollywood Film". That doesn't add anything to the discussion by saying that. |
Edit for clarity: "Does that describe your position?"
Yes, it pretty much does. I'd say "From all that I know and have read, controlled demolition is possible, but I admit that that's just my opinion, there may be facts of which I am not aware, or assumptions of mine that are wrong"
With respect to your postings, it would add a lot to the debate if you arrived there.
- You would stop basing your opinions on the assumption that you know everything.
- You would start linking to information to contextualize or support your arguments
- You would actually examine your own assumptions, instead of giving them the status of universal absolutes
- A bit of humility would improve your critical thinking. If you admit you can be wrong, it opens up the possibility for improvement.
Last edited by wintermute on Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| By the way, what did you think, in general, of the information in the second link I posted above? Don't you find it fascinating, and want to know whether or not it is true? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wintermute wrote: |
| By the way, what did you think, in general, of the information in the second link I posted above? Don't you find it fascinating, and want to know whether or not it is true? |
1 minute into the video and there already is sheer idiocy- George W. Bush and this elite financial cabal set up this 240 billion dollar fund to scam the Russian government and run covert operations, but apparently were foiled by a couple money laundering investigations and a 10 year deadline on their bonds???
Again, its the "If they're so smart, why couldn't they hide a couple hundred chemical weapons in the Iraqi desert" argument.
So far its playing a very subtle manipulative game of quick cuts, and tenuous connections and "accepted" facts.
Then next, its implied that the Office of Naval Intelligence was moved to the outer wing of the Pentagon in an apparent attempt to target them with the plane to hide their investigation. Apparently, shit-canning the Director of the ONI or hiring a team of lawyers was not going to be effective. An elaborate conspiracy involving a plane was necessary.
Apparently because a bunch of high-profile companies have workspace in the WTC, and for some strange reason, a lot of government-affiliated offices are located in Manhattan, New York City (strange place to put them, huh?) That that must mean they were targeted. Not that they were famous landmarks, centers of Anti-Islamic "Jewery" or simply that in any skyscraper like that, you would undoubtedly find companies that you could make sound sinister with the right narrative.
Its notable that one theory "that the airplanes all had pods" has a disclaimer that its "misinformation". Apparently even though the poster believes in the 9/11 conspiracy, that somehow the person who made the video has either been duped or is compliant into spreading misinformation.
And you have repeated claims with no direct evidence "flew over airforce bases", "flew over bases simultaneously and without contact". A simple look at their flight paths and takeoff times reveals this to be ludicrous. It also ignores the fact that Stewart is an AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE. Apparently not only were passengers landed and their voices simulated and replacement planes given near instantaneously, but a bunch of guys who fly C-5s when they aren't flying for Delta were in on it too.
Not to mention their "These are E-4Bs" and it shows a plane that is clearly NOT an E-4B.
Perhaps the most hilarious was the sinister implication that "Flight 93 turned around over Hopkins Airport", probably expecting you not to know that Hopkins is Cleveland's major commercial airport, and Tri-State is also a major airport, and a good deal east of the "turnaround" point.
You do realize that the people you are turning to because you and apparently they feel that the government is "lying to and manipulating you", are in fact, lying to you and manipulating you yourself? Do you not realize THEY are the ones playing fast and loose with evidence, science, and the truth? They expect that YOU don't ask questions and do basic research.
Sorry you don't ask the right questions and too easily buy into slick propaganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think SR has got it right - his "probabilities" seem much more realistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wintermute wrote: |
Edit for clarity: "Does that describe your position?"
Yes, it pretty much does. I'd say "From all that I know and have read, controlled demolition is possible, but I admit that that's just my opinion, there may be facts of which I am not aware, or assumptions of mine that are wrong"
With respect to your postings, it would add a lot to the debate if you arrived there.
- You would stop basing your opinions on the assumption that you know everything.
- You would start linking to information to contextualize or support your arguments
- You would actually examine your own assumptions, instead of giving them the status of universal absolutes
- A bit of humility would improve your critical thinking. If you admit you can be wrong, it opens up the possibility for improvement. |
Insomnia, so I'll have some more fun with this...
- Just because I don't know everything, doesn't mean I don't know anything. Nor does it mean I lack sufficient information to arrive at a conclusion.
I may lack sufficient information to know whether or not the government let the attack happen on purpose, I do however, have sufficient information to rule out controlled demolition and other "made it happen" theories.
-I don't even have to. I'm not out here to prove the government's story 100%. I AM here to discredit the crackpot theories out there, and you just need basic logic, fact-checking, and critical thinking to do that.
-I already did examined my assumptions. Using scientific inquiry and rational examination, it rapidly became apparent that the CD theory was a crock of crap.
-What does admitting I might be wrong accomplish? You admit you might be wrong, so do I. We're back at square one- trying to determine what happened, and everything points to CD being a crock of crap and that yeah, 19 guys with box cutters did this.
You do realize that I could put to together a clip featuring music and edited clips and make it look like the whole thing was a conspiracy by Jay-Z, right? "Prior to 2001, Jay-Z was engaged in a lucrative music career, however on August 12 he received a notice from Holla Records stating that company would be bought out by Interscope. Jay-Z had been hoping that Sony would be purchasing Holla and had invested 75 million dollars in Sony stock. Who was the CEO of Holla records? Matthew Wilkins, a former Navy SEAL, with a long history of donating to the Republican Party. Sony's American CEO? That was Randall Smith, former Exxon executive, who would later be appointed to head a department in the Afghanistan occupation government. Interscope's NY offices are located just 3 floors above the point of impact on WTC 1. Curiously 3 rappers scheduled to appear at Interscope that day canceled their appointment due to "illness". Those rappers all had close links to Jay-Z". Following the destruction of the Interscope offices, Jay-Z and Sony music worked to quickly move into the Country Music Market. With such a devastating attack, it was clear that Country music would see a "rally round the flag" effect. But why Interscope? And why blame it on terrorists? Interscope was currently facing financial complications in its takeover of Holla records, so for foreign capital, they had turned to Prince Hassam Al-Jeddari, a high-ranking member of the Saudi royal family. Al-Jeddari had given significant capital backing to Interscope. It was hoped that by implicating Suadi terrorists, the American public would be wary of Saudi investors.
Even now, we see the fruits of Jay-Z's conspiracy- Ties to Russian oil moguls. Favorable deals on New York real estate. The rise of rap-country aided by such stooges as "Cowboy Troy". The 'War on Terror'? Just a distraction to keep the public unaware of the REAL moves taking place behind the scene. Rudolf Guiliani? Jay-Z pawn. Of course Jay-Z had powerful supporters, such as NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was able to seize control.
There you have it- Jay-Z: Mastermind of 9/11. It's all out there. You just have to open your eyes man. Stop assuming, start questioning. Don't believe the government lies. Connect the dots. It's all supported in journals like Critical Reform for America's People. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| wintermute wrote: |
Edit for clarity: "Does that describe your position?"
Yes, it pretty much does. I'd say "From all that I know and have read, controlled demolition is possible, but I admit that that's just my opinion, there may be facts of which I am not aware, or assumptions of mine that are wrong"
With respect to your postings, it would add a lot to the debate if you arrived there.
- You would stop basing your opinions on the assumption that you know everything.
- You would start linking to information to contextualize or support your arguments
- You would actually examine your own assumptions, instead of giving them the status of universal absolutes
- A bit of humility would improve your critical thinking. If you admit you can be wrong, it opens up the possibility for improvement. |
Insomnia, so I'll have some more fun with this...
- Just because I don't know everything, doesn't mean I don't know anything. Nor does it mean I lack sufficient information to arrive at a conclusion.
I may lack sufficient information to know whether or not the government let the attack happen on purpose, I do however, have sufficient information to rule out controlled demolition and other "made it happen" theories.
-I don't even have to. I'm not out here to prove the government's story 100%. I AM here to discredit the crackpot theories out there, and you just need basic logic, fact-checking, and critical thinking to do that.
-I already did examined my assumptions. Using scientific inquiry and rational examination, it rapidly became apparent that the CD theory was a crock of crap.
-What does admitting I might be wrong accomplish? You admit you might be wrong, so do I. We're back at square one- trying to determine what happened, and everything points to CD being a crock of crap and that yeah, 19 guys with box cutters did this.
You do realize that I could put to together a clip featuring music and edited clips and make it look like the whole thing was a conspiracy by Jay-Z, right? "Prior to 2001, Jay-Z was engaged in a lucrative music career, however on August 12 he received a notice from Holla Records stating that company would be bought out by Interscope. Jay-Z had been hoping that Sony would be purchasing Holla and had invested 75 million dollars in Sony stock. Who was the CEO of Holla records? Matthew Wilkins, a former Navy SEAL, with a long history of donating to the Republican Party. Sony's American CEO? That was Randall Smith, former Exxon executive, who would later be appointed to head a department in the Afghanistan occupation government. Interscope's NY offices are located just 3 floors above the point of impact on WTC 1. Curiously 3 rappers scheduled to appear at Interscope that day canceled their appointment due to "illness". Those rappers all had close links to Jay-Z". Following the destruction of the Interscope offices, Jay-Z and Sony music worked to quickly move into the Country Music Market. With such a devastating attack, it was clear that Country music would see a "rally round the flag" effect. But why Interscope? And why blame it on terrorists? Interscope was currently facing financial complications in its takeover of Holla records, so for foreign capital, they had turned to Prince Hassam Al-Jeddari, a high-ranking member of the Saudi royal family. Al-Jeddari had given significant capital backing to Interscope. It was hoped that by implicating Suadi terrorists, the American public would be wary of Saudi investors.
Even now, we see the fruits of Jay-Z's conspiracy- Ties to Russian oil moguls. Favorable deals on New York real estate. The rise of rap-country aided by such stooges as "Cowboy Troy". The 'War on Terror'? Just a distraction to keep the public unaware of the REAL moves taking place behind the scene. Rudolf Guiliani? Jay-Z pawn. Of course Jay-Z had powerful supporters, such as NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was able to seize control.
There you have it- Jay-Z: Mastermind of 9/11. It's all out there. You just have to open your eyes man. Stop assuming, start questioning. Don't believe the government lies. Connect the dots. It's all supported in journals like Critical Reform for America's People. |
This is clearly your best contribution on this board. Thanks for the laugh- well done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
