Are you actually saying the Internet is not a haven of misinformation but actually is a haven of truth ? Some of the stuff spread on the internet is blatantly false and stupid. For instance, if you search you will find that each flight had different flight numbers at different times - but that is false. There are pictures of the planes as they were about to crash that are false. there is even a story of a person on the roof of one of the towers when it collapsed - and how he survived. Sorry but a soft fleshly creature is not going to fall 1000 feet in rubble and survive. As far as the internet, it is an immaculate tool to spread misinformation. Even pianists often find bad technique lessons that are just plain wrong. If you are relying on the internet to give you the truth about anything, you'll have to wait .
you do realize all media has an agenda.Except mainstream media of course, that's 115 double percent verified and fact checked and obviously serves no agenda but of course a partial nondiscrimination to both sides of a story. He simply stated use your own brain - you should try it.
He simply stated use your own brain...
Quote from: unholeee on February 10, 2013, 03:23:01 PMHe simply stated use your own brain Well said.
He simply stated use your own brain
As long as one hasn't been brainwashed oneself, of course.
If the Americans were behind this attack, they would have missed the twin towers and blown up a local school.Thal
There are certain facts stated through the thread and certain gray areas which lean more towards one answer than the other once you piece more and more together.
Acknowledged, but the facts are mostly organised in such a way that they strongly suggest the conclusion the authors want you to draw, you see? That is called the Art of Manipulation, and as long as we don't learn to recognize the SIGN, we will be nothing more than puppets on somebody else's strings.Paul
Well if you think you can detect it be comforted that others can too. Those who are really interested won't get fooled because when they read conflicting conclusions they then will need to work out which one is more believable.No serious reader completes a single article on a "gray subject" and then goes... "oh yep now I know it for sure".
Look at the Vietnam war. Gulf of Tonkin phantom attack on the US military.
I wonder if that link just tries to allow the guilty to squirm out of a situation.
I'm not saying because they did it before that the 911 must be done by them.
Yes I have heard these used in Internet debates over the last 20+ years now, they often do not mean to show that what is said is wrong but rather is emotionally charged which may indeed be simply the style of the speaker or writer rather than intended motive to deceive. Everyone likes to dot in their opinions.For me I read is it probably a lie or true. The classifications elsewhere are just over reactions to emotional communication.
I did not intend even to suggest that. I'm attacking the conclusions your sources want us to draw, not you, and I'm doing that by introducing assumptions at random that change the focus.
A logical link to those events is strictly speaking merely a SUGGESTION, not a fact. Moreover, it is based on uncritical and primitive stereotype-like "thinking" ("Once a crook, always a crook", "no smoke without fire"), etc. Personally, I cannot accept that as facts.
I'm not sure what you mean by this as these really have nothing to do with 'internet debates', but instead have to do with how people argue their opinions. This is a factual statement in regards to my links: "these are logical fallacies". This has nothing to do with supporting an opinion or refuting it. Pointing out these logical fallacies won't make your opinion false or true. What it does is show that the argument you use to support it is nothing more than a few wasted kilobytes in the latrine that is the internet. Your opinion can be 100% true, but if you throw sh*t in the air as proof, all you're doing is throwing sh*t. I posted that so that people can try to use proper ways of supporting their argument as well as view other peoples' opinions from a logical perspective.Anyone can say something is a lie or a truth. If you want people to believe you, make a logical argument that supports it. Don't just waste everyone's time by throwing poop in the air. I'd personally rather actually move towards a point than argue over the merits of an argument.
Democracy is supposed to be honest and just, the leaks show that it is not and is a sham.Misinformation of 911 has had over a decade to percolate, a lot of misinfo has already been identified and also shows how it was encouraged by the government itself with their Internet schemes.
I am asking readers to see the US history of attacking itself, whatever conclusions you draw from it is up to you.
I don't think it's that simple. I don't think we have a right to accuse anyone in particular of such a monstrous crime, especially since all REAL evidence was cleaned up really quickly from ground zero. One cannot say that the one who uses his/her brain power best is automatically right in his/her assumptions and conclusions.
We have all the right to put question to the official story since we hopefully live in a free thinking society. The US have in their own constitution a freedom of speech clause.
The "free-speech" argument here is not much of an argument. In the name of free speech one could easily sentence an innocent person to death...
It is "Free speech", not free judgement.
Free speech is free speech, there is no such thing as free judgement unless you live in a lawless country, maybe in your own head you can judge but officially and all encompassing, certainly not.
I put a little focus on the lies of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The events of 911 was used to encourage the US to look at Iraq as a target for the so called "War on terror". Here is an admission from an insider proving that weapons of mass destruction was a lie and the resulting war based on this lie caused the deaths of over 100,000 innocent civilians.
Politicians all over the world have always lied because they have always had powerful incentives to do so.Citing these data in this topic carries the risk of introducing false causality (concerning the real perpetrators of the 911 events). This is a very popular trick in the media to manipulate popular opinion...Paul
Like I said people are emotional beings, pointing out these things is irrelevant, we just look at facts. I do not personally believe people's opinions is wasted kilobytes.
One would wonder why they cleaned it up so rapidly where in an airplane crash investigation they meticulously piece together every single tiny scrap.
I don't think it's that simple. I don't think we have a right to accuse anyone in particular of such a monstrous crime, especially since all REAL evidence was cleaned up really quickly from ground zero.
8 months and 19 days - the length of time the cleanup took. Is that actually a short period of time?
I'm not saying opinions are wasted kb's, I'm saying justifying them poorly is a waste. I believe in pink unicorns. My justification is because my wall is green, I saw it snow in a tv show with pink unicorns and there is currently snow outside, and BECAUSE I SAID SO!!.
the non-forensic cleanup was a terrible miscarriage of justice in itself.
You will find that it is not only conspiracy theorists that believe that. So yes, let's keep the discussion clean.
In that case I have to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to draw any objective conclusions from the Internet resources available.
Well- or badly constructed articles are no parameter for me because they may NOT contain facts related to this particular case.1) What I have seen from virtually ALL parties involved is mainly computer animations, lots of "photo-shopping", modified video clips, fake audio clips, etc., all of which would be rejected as evidence in a court of law.2) I'm in Russia. Dead links abound if you want to carry out some serious investigation yourself (either "access denied" or "does no longer exist"). To find out who bought the scrap and when, for example, I have to go to Chinese (!) resources. These problems can be explained in more than one way. Let everyone think for him/herself. This is not important enough for me, though, to set up several proxies to bypass the restrictions.3) The official NIST report has certain procedural flaws that would be easily attacked by even a mediocre lawyer in court.I agree that this plays into the hands of the ones that THINK they have it all figured out. It does not warrant definite conclusions, though. Paul
In what case?
In the case of your rather sarcastic reply to a serious post of mine about keeping the topic clean.Paul
Ok thanks for your opinion.
You are welcome. The available sources are too suggestive for my taste, and leave no room for objective and independent analysis. I therefore see no point in digging any deeper.
Well I don't really care if you think there is "no point" that is meaningless to me.