'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia

[jonH]

So everyone else simply wouldn't notice the strange decisions being made, the secretive conduct and the shifty excuses?

You're right, no one would notice a directive from the highest echelons of the U.S. Government to the highest echelons of Al Quaida

I'm not saying it happened, but it's a lot more plausible than any other story I've heard. The conspiracy theories about explosive etc are the best cover those really responsible could wish for. So many lives lost and for what?

 

[fela fan]

All I did in the first place was question somebodies research methods, and you have reacted a lot worse than the person in my class. But now I am your mortal enemy.

It confuses me.



You probably won't read this anyway.

*sigh*

Yes, i have read all your posts dillinger. You do appear to have missed chunks of my posts though. Maybe you missed a page...

You're not my 'mortal enemy'! Get real. Like i say, it is my estimation that you have not actually read half my posts that leads to your misleading, and rather impolite, conclusions about me. Just were it so that somebody came on this site and called you a blatant liar and all the rest of it, how might you react?

I came on this thread with positive intentions, as i've already posted. And that's that. Despite you levelling at me all sorts of nasties, and going on about putting me on ignore, i have attempted to keep my language on topic. And you really ought to do yourself a favour and give over two minutes of your time to ask yourself if a viewpoint couched in academic boundaries should be dealt with by blocking it from hearing? That if you don't like a voice and what it says, you will shut it off? Strange academic bahavioiur.

Emotions are fine, but i'm not sure how much room there is for the rather more aggressive ones (in your own words) to be displayed within the academic genre of life. By dwelling on such things, you can score a win.

 

[chico enrico]

Snooker loopy nuts are we
Me and him and them and me
We'll show you what we can do
With a load of balls and a snooker cue

Pot the reds then, screw back
For the yellow green brown blue pink and black
Snooker loopy nuts are we
We're all snooker loopy

etc.

 

[Dillinger4]

Yes, i have read all your posts dillinger. You do appear to have missed chunks of my posts though. Maybe you missed a page...

You're not my 'mortal enemy'! Get real. Like i say, it is my estimation that you have not actually read half my posts that leads to your misleading, and rather impolite, conclusions about me. Just were it so that somebody came on this site and called you a blatant liar and all the rest of it, how might you react?

I came on this thread with positive intentions, as i've already posted. And that's that. Despite you levelling at me all sorts of nasties, and going on about putting me on ignore, i have attempted to keep my language on topic. And you really ought to do yourself a favour and give over two minutes of your time to ask yourself if a viewpoint couched in academic boundaries should be dealt with by blocking it from hearing? That if you don't like a voice and what it says, you will shut it off? Strange academic bahavioiur.

Emotions are fine, but i'm not sure how much room there is for the rather more aggressive ones (in your own words) to be displayed within the academic genre of life. By dwelling on such things, you can score a win.

I am sorry, but you have not kept on topic. You rapidly degenerated into calling my all sorts of names in an incredibly petty fashion.

I never said I didn't like his 'voice' or what he says. I questioned his sources. Its literally that simple. He would not accept anybody questioning his sources. I don't see why I am not in the wrong for being inquisitive.



If you ask me, I would call that strange acaedemic behaviour, not the view that you seem to have conjoured of thin air.

Yes, I called him a nutjob, I was a little aggressive. I was frustrated because he would not listen to criticism that his sources may, MAY have a little bias.

Where is the problem? Please point it out to me.

 

[Demosthenes]

And this led me to believe that either some aliens comic book writer, just by coincidence happened to imagine a plot where the world trade centre got destroyed by terrorists in 2001, - as the background conquest to a comic where killer aliens take over the world, - or else, some freak had the power of foresight and foresaw that this would happen, and planted the message in a comic book, - or else that some branch of the emergency/conspiracy of conspiraloons, endlessly dedicated to trying to bewilder people like me into thinking that there's something odd about 911, manufactured the book after the event with a fake publication date and planted it in hackney library to confuse people.

You're defending someone who thinks 'they' planted a reference to the 9/11 conspiracy in an alien comic book in a Hackney public library and that the only evidence worth considering is shaky bollocks posted up by by Willy Whodafuck on YouTube. Priceless!

Well, if you bothered to read what I said, - what I actually said was that after seeing the comic book published in the eighties which featured the world trade centre being destroyed by terrorists in 2001, I thought this was rather odd. And considered three possibilities. Both of the first two seem reasonably plausible, - and the third seems to me to be totally mad. But the three explanations seem to me to be exhaustive of the possibilities.

Nor did I ever claim that it was particularly relevant, I told you of this curious coincidence, because you, Editor Asked me to.

 

[Demosthenes]

The conspiracy theories about explosive etc are the best cover those really responsible could wish for. So many lives lost and for what?

And that sounds to me like sense. And a reasonably good explanation of why youtube is stuffed full of misleading videos. (assuming they are misleading)

 

[Demosthenes]

But say for the sake of argument, that there are eye-witnesses who saw planes, and eye-witnesses who didn't.

Presumably then, everyone thinks that if someone raises a question about whether the planes really existed, - well obviously we should believe the people who saw them rather than the people who didn't.

 

[editor]

But say for the sake of argument, that there are eye-witnesses who saw planes, and eye-witnesses who didn't.

Presumably then, everyone thinks that if someone raises a question about whether the planes really existed, - well obviously we should believe the people who saw them rather than the people who didn't.

Find me one eye witness who says what they saw blasting through the New York sky wasn't a plane.

 

[jonH]

it was a plane, then another plane, it was planned and lethal, the sort of thing that only the best planners could do, the question is, who were the planners of 9/11, who gave the word?

Ollie North..........nah

 

[tarannau]

If it's any compensation. I can direct this numbnut to colleagues at my ex-firm's New York office, where they were close enough to be some of the first evacuated and to witness the event as it happened.

Indeed some of the early 'official' photographs come from those Getty Images staff, not just from professional photographers on the payroll (clearly they'd be in on the mass media conspiracy according to this idiot) but from the variety of general office staff on the premises. Clearly they were all lying to the likes of me.

 

[Dillinger4]

If it's any compensation. I can direct this numbnut to colleagues at my ex-firm's New York office, where they were close enough to be some of the first evacuated and to witness the event as it happened.

Indeed some of the early 'official' photographs come from those Getty Images staff, not just from professional photographers on the payroll (clearly they'd be in on the mass media conspiracy according to this idiot) but from the variety of general office staff on the premises. Clearly they were all lying to the likes of me.

Ha! And you think they are real. They are really just automotons programmed to fool fewls like you.

 

[Dillinger4]

If it's any compensation. I can direct this numbnut to colleagues at my ex-firm's New York office, where they were close enough to be some of the first evacuated and to witness the event as it happened.

Indeed some of the early 'official' photographs come from those Getty Images staff, not just from professional photographers on the payroll (clearly they'd be in on the mass media conspiracy according to this idiot) but from the variety of general office staff on the premises. Clearly they were all lying to the likes of me.

In fact, how can you even be sure that you exist?

Fewl.

 

[Demosthenes]

Find me one eye witness who says what they saw blasting through the New York sky wasn't a plane.

Eye witness filmed at the event, - says the second tower just blew up out of nowhere.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well, I talked to a few d phil students about this thread, and every single one of them thought that if someone doing a d.phil wanted to use you tube videos as sources, that was his affair, and it was up to him to argue about their validity, origin and bias, and so on, and that the value of the d.phil couldn't be judged until it was finished.

I also since I was last here talked to someone who lived in new york for a while, who doesn't have any firm view of the matter.
He says that he talked to a few people who were eyewitnesses, - not many though, and that none of them saw a plane hit a tower, and that they thought it was possible that there weren't any planes.

There's other films on youtube showing people saying they didn't see any planes hit the towers..

I imagine there must be some that aren't official news, featuring people who say they saw planes, though, - Maybe someone could find one, I haven't managed to find any yet.

I also found a clip from someone called jim fetzer, who seems to think the no-plane theory is credible, and it was interesting to note in the clip's blurb, that according to these clip makers, they agree with editor that loads of so-called 911 truth sites are a load of shit.

"In spite of the cowardly censorship and banning at the pretend "truth" sites 911 blogger, nineeleven.co.uk, and Loose Change, the overwhelming evidence of TV Fakery is winning new converts every single day. Ian Neal, DZ, and Dylan Avery cannot supress the truth about TV Fakery no matter how hard they try.​

But myself, I'm not sure that people failing to see planes is knockdown evidence against planes. I'm quite inclined to the point of view that if just a few people say perceived something, and there's no obvious reason to think that they're lying, then that counts in favour of that something to a much greater extent than the failure of a bunch of other people to notice.
And it does sound as if there's evidence that some people say they saw planes. The problem is that people didn 't see planes hit the towers.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

If the above post was a parody, it might be slightly amusing...

The sad thing is, though, this poster wants to pretend they are 'rational' and 'objective' while coming out with absolute BS. Ultimately, there is no debating with such people--they are a kind of (anti-intellectual) virus.

 

[editor]

I also found a clip from someone called jim fetzer, who seems to think the no-plane theory is credible,

Credible if you're a fucking idiot.

Have you looked up to see what his relevent aviation qualifications are? Or is having a clip up on YouTube all the 'evidence' you need?

He's a fucking idiot. A deeply offensive one at that.

Fetzer also believes the hijackings were staged and that calls from passengers to relatives and operators were phony.

He also thinks that the WTC towers could have been demolished by 'mini nukes' or an invisible space ray and that JFK's brain was switched after his death.

He's a moron. And you're a moron for giving this creep the time of day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

 

[Demosthenes]

This one's interesting. I think, though the argument's a bit hard to follow.

It features a tv witness, who was interviewed on tv, and says he saw the plane hit the second tower. And it shows that interview.

Then it features what's apparently another interview with the guy, whose job is apparently tv commercials? saying what he actually saw, - which seems to be quite different from what he said on the tv.

The people who put the video out say tv fakery is real, - the 911 truth movement is fake. - well some of it at least-

 

[Demosthenes]

If the above post was a parody, it might be slightly amusing...

The sad thing is, though, this poster wants to pretend they are 'rational' and 'objective' while coming out with absolute BS. Ultimately, there is no debating with such people--they are a kind of (anti-intellectual) virus.

Well, if everyone thought the way you do, I guess I might believe you.

But, fortunately I'm not confined to urban75 for feedback on whether the ideas I have about this are rational or not, or in general for whether I talk sense, and have insight. And apart from on urban, where there's a long tradition of knowing what's credible and what isn't, by some kind of magic, everyone I've talked to face to face thinks that I'm sane, rational, and that what I say makes sense, whether or not they think they know what happened,, - and most of them don't.

Possibly the reason they think I'm rational, is because I say, unlike you and the editor, that I don't know what happened. Whereas you and the editor seem to be quite certain, which in the circumstances, strikes me as a little bit loopy, unless of course you were there to see it for yourself.

It seems a bit like a devout theist, lambasting the agnostic, for having any doubt on the matter at all, or even considering recommending looking into it further, and proclaiming fervently, that doubt is impermissible and recommending excommunication or worse for all doubters.

Or you could work the analogy the other way round.

 

[editor]

It seems a bit like a devout theist, lambasting the agnostic, for having any doubt on the matter at all, or even considering recommending looking into it further, and proclaiming fervently, that doubt is impermissible and recommending excommunication or worse for all doubters.

You're not kidding anyone, son.

You're so utterly desperate to believe in a conspiracy that you're reduced to basing your entire reality on dodgy YouTube clips and the output of loon-nuts on laughable websites.

That's why every time one of your quoted sources is torn to bits, you simply move on to the next one. It's classic conspiraloonery behaviour and it's getting really boring now.

 

[Demosthenes]

He's a moron. And you're a moron for giving this creep the time of day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Fetzer

I don't know that wikipedia is a reliable source about james fetzer, but I've never heard of him before now, and so you may be right, i suppose.

You asked for a link to an eyewitness who says they didn't see a plane hit a tower. I gave you one. Any comment.

If you bother to have a look at all, - why not look at a few other explosions with no planes, and see what you think.

If you don't bother to have a look, maybe you could leave out the spurious demands for evidence, (if in fact, all evidence that you don't want to consider is already not worth considering for just that reason. )

 

[Demosthenes]

You're not kidding anyone, son.

You're so utterly desperate to believe in a conspiracy that you're reduced to basing your entire reality on dodgy YouTube clips and the output of loon-nuts on laughable websites.

Well, it is like I said, - you are a bit like a devout theist, etc lambasting the agnostic.

How do you think you're any different. ?

 

[editor]

I don't know that wikipedia is a reliable source about james fetzer, but I've never heard of him before now, and so you may be right, i suppose.

You asked for a link to an eyewitness who says they didn't see a plane hit a tower. I gave you one. Any comment.

I asked for a credible source and not some edited conspiraloon-sourced YouTube clip.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well "I think your behaviour on every 911 discussion is classic "right man syndrome" behaviour, And I'm fairly bored by it as well.

 

[Dillinger4]

Well, it is like I said, - you are a bit like a devout theist, etc lambasting the agnostic.

How do you think you're any different. ?

Its entirely different.

Its like arguing aliens exist because somebody says so on youtube and www.ALIENSEXIST.com

the people on youtube are nutters and aliensexist.com probably have a commercial interest in you buying their book.

It doesn't make it true, however much you want to believe.

 

[editor]

Well, it is like I said, - you are a bit like a devout theist, etc lambasting the agnostic.

How do you think you're any different. ?

Because I don't base my opinions solely on the output of of nutcases claiming JFK's brain was switched, invisible space rays hit the WTC, holographic planes whizzed through the air and all the other barking, evidence-free shit off YouTube you swallow up whole.

 

[Demosthenes]

I asked for a credible source and not some edited conspiraloon-sourced YouTube clip.

You haven't even watched it, it's an eyewitness in front of the smoking towers, describing how the second tower just exploded out of nowhere, while being interviewed by a reporter. I think it might even be tv news.

 

[Dillinger4]

You haven't even watched it, it's an eyewitness in front of the smoking towers, describing how the second tower just exploded out of nowhere, while being interviewed by a reporter. I think it might even be tv news.

So what?

One man could be on the wrong side of the tower to see a plane. Might not have been looking until the explosion. Big wup. What about the thousands that did see it. Do their opinions not count now?

You just want to believe so badly.

 

[Demosthenes]

Because I don't base my opinions solely on the output of of nutcases claiming JFK's brain was switched, invisible space rays hit the WTC, holographic planes whizzed through the air and all the other barking, evidence-free shit off YouTube you swallow up whole.

I don't swallow anything up whole. I've just seen a bunch of videos that you have never watched, because you already know the truthi, that look like good videos from several different angles of the twin towers blowing up without any planes crashing into them, and I've seen other videos of eyewitnesses saying they didn't see any planes crashing into them, - and I've seen videos of planes crashing into the towers, in which the planes look fake, including one where the plane's nose pokes through the other side of the building. (And that was on the news ffs.) .

And you somehow think you're qualified to comment despite never having looked into the matter at all yourself.

And you base your extraordinary faith on an alleged unanimity of expert opinion, that in fact doesn't exist, except in your own fantasy.

 

[Dillinger4]

I could say the world is flat. I could find some person on youtube who says he has been to the edge of the world. I could find a website that backs my views.

However, this doesn't make it true. It doesn't falsify all the data, of earth seen from space, of all the people who have traveled around the world etc.

It just means there is one nutter who wants to believe it so much, he will blind himself to all the evidence contrary to his views.

 

[Demosthenes]

So what?

One man could be on the wrong side of the tower to see a plane. Might not have been looking until the explosion. Big wup. What about the thousands that did see it. Do their opinions not count now?

You just want to believe so badly.

Like all inductive reasoning, you have to do it cumulatively, considering lots of different sources of evidence.

What you can't do though is do inductive reasoning and simultaneously refuse to look at anything that might undermine what you've already decided is the true conclusion.