my proof was so accurate it was ignored. i see *pats self on back*
| |
The Manhattan Project is a poor example. Everybody knew the USA and Soviets were developing nuclear bombs, just the engineering specifics were classified information. You really think there weren't soviet spies involved with the Manhattan Project? Please.
| |
Before beginning, I would like to clarify there are some damming questions that have been outright ignored, and my arguments misrepresented. I will bring up the ignored points when they are relevant, and correct the ignored arguments.
I'm also doing this solely for my own entertainment, as you--quite clearly from what has been presented so far--have chosen your position and are now selecting the evidence that agrees with it. I don't intend to change your position as that is utterly impossible, and I am probably strengthening your belief in this (technically about political science, but the psychology behind it likely extends beyond that realm). Let's proceed! That link has the extension of .gov, you know... The same people that tried to justify the science behind the moon landing. Firstly, this is guilt by association. The government is not a monolith or a hivemind, a collection of individuals who have unified motivations and thoughts. There is little reason to believe that the NIST and NASA are necessarily unified in their goals. As for the moon landing, the only doubt in the mind of anyone that we went to the moon are those that are most adamant we did not. While there is very clear physical evidence we went--the most obvious being that we can bounce lasers off of a mirror placed on the surface, which has allowed us to measure the distance between the moon and the Earth extremely accurately--probably the greatest evidence in favor of us having been there, and more specifically of the science behind it being completely reasonable, is that the Soviet Union, the bitterest enemy the US has ever had, never once claimed we did not or could not have went to the moon. The science itself--as an aside--is in principle not that difficult. If we made no advances in physics throughout the 20th century and only made advances in engineering, we could have still gone to the moon. The greatest discoveries in physics in the 20th century, quantum mechanics and relativity, were utterly unnecessary to get to the moon. This can be treated in an entirely-classical manner. It's not. The majority do believe 9/11 was an inside job, with the agreeance being even bigger outside of the US.  This claim is not supported by evidence. Furthermore, there are very few claims I can find by foreign governments--or foreign officials--that assert 9/11 was orchestrated or facilitated by the United States. In fact, the only example I can find with a quick search is an Iranian General, who is hardly an expert. Not only is your argumentum ad populum inherently fallacious but you have nothing to back it up. Though it would be silly of me to assume you have the clarify of mind to understand why I was appealing to the majority of experts, I'm still quite astonished it was so painfully non-obvious to you: I am not claiming the majority is right simply because they are the majority. I am questioning why Xooxer--and presumably you--choose to believe a minority of experts. Are these experts better-qualified? Why, if so? Or do you believe them purely because they are appealing to the opinions you had formed in advance. Obvious to you, perhaps, in light of your biases. To the majority, it is the polar opposite of obvious (and by that, I do not mean that the water is muddled in the least). The majority is not necessarily right, but there's honestly nothing better to work off unless you can claim why your experts are better-qualified.Oh I don't know, go ask the Head Scientists at NASA why some of them only have a degree in public speaking. I normally will not requote myself, but I'm doing so here to make it clear how much of a non-sequitur this is. I would also like to highlight that the last sentence of mine is essentially a plain and clear mission statement of why I keep drawing attention to the majority, as detailed above, and yet you still missed it. For fuck's sake. As for their head scientists, can I ask who? As an aside, I could be tautological and claim that a head scientist would necessarily have a degree in the sciences, and not public speaking, but I won't. It appears that...
Those would reasonably be the "head scientists" of NASA--that is, the heads of their scientific divisions--and only one is not really a "scientist" depending on how you categorize that uselessly-broad label. I'm curious, where is the public speaking degree you mentioned? Perhaps you heard this claimed somewhere and decided it was fact without fact-checking? I'm sure this is a regular occurrence for someone like you, who likely claims a skeptic's title without a skeptic's mind. Inside job =/= Government So what? It was done by a collective of US citizens who were not working for or members of the US government? I would assume US citizens, at least, given that without that "inside" seems devoid of meaning. We have several shadow governments and agencies with a lot more power than they should. I hope this is not some vague reference to Illuminati or some tantamount bullshit, for that is the ultimate simpleton's reductionism: the world is complex and complex is back; one group controlling everything is simple, and simple is good; ergo, one group controls everything. The logistics alone of it are insane. Or perhaps you are referring to some corporate entity or collection thereof? I'm curious why they were okay with the economic consequences of 9/11. And while there are certainly agencies far more powerful than they have any right to be in my opinion--the CIA being the clearest--this does not really help your argument if it was an agency. That is still a branch of the US government doing it, and by all accounts I would call it an action of the government. It would also beg the question of how Snowden or Manning overlooked such important material. It's not clear who's responsible but the physical evidence and the evidence was observe makes it apparent that a plane did not bring the tower down. No, it really is not as clear as you hope. I mean, you can hope even harder, but I'm skeptical that it would do much good. Several have been trying to declassify it. References, please! http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/ 02/rand-paul-calls-for-release-of-911-documents/ Oh, there it is. Let's see this juicy conspir--- ... Release of documents alleging Saudi support? Boy, that sure sounds like an inside job. Why risk their lives by breaking non-disclosure information agreements? They don't have the evidence to back themselves up until these documents come out. Who would ever risk their lives and livelihood in releasing non-disclosure agreements! Or worse | |
GatewayRa wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project So much info was leaked to the Soviets during the Manhattan project that by the time Truman was told about the success of the Trinity test while at the Potsdam conference, Soviet officials were already aware. | |
 | |
Just to be flippant: Saying "Jesús te ama" would pretty much imply the same things it does anywhere else -- that is, the biblical Jesus -- unless context dictates otherwise.
| |
 | |
Popisfizzy wrote:
Firstly, this is guilt by association. That's like saying henchmen aren't guilty. Everyone in the government takes their orders from someone. is that the Soviet Union, the bitterest enemy the US has ever had, never once claimed we did not or could not have went to the moon. That would compromise their position on it and make them appear weak. As for their head scientists, can I ask who? As an aside, I could be tautological and claim that a head scientist would necessarily have a degree in the sciences, and not public speaking, but I won't. It appears that... Oh wow, four aliases with fabricated backgrounds. Reminds me of how Obama went to Harvard Law School, which there is no evidence of. I hope this is not some vague reference to Illuminati Goldman Sachs and Bilderberg Release of documents alleging Saudi support? Boy, that sure sounds like an inside job. Yes, Saudi support. Kind of like how the CIA trained Osama Bin Laden and all of the other alleged terrorists. They trained their "support" and equipped them. | |
For what it's worth, in response to the question opening this thread I see no evidence in the admin log that there was an earlier version of it that got deleted anytime recently. That doesn't mean I'm entirely on board with a thread whose sole purpose is to rehash a well-covered issue that attracts insanity, but at least it doesn't appear that anyone deleted some earlier incarnation of it.
| |
He did make a thread on this before, and it was deleted by an admin. It's there in the middle of the flood of cleanup logs recently -- on Monday.
| |
I was doing this for my own entertainment, but at this point GatewayRa is just boring. Arguing with you is exactly the same as arguing with a devout fundamentalist Christian on any scientific topic, except you have replaced "God did it" with "my spook of the week did it". I got bored with those sorry of hollow discussions in the previous decade.
If Xooxer gets back from his hissy fit I'll continue. He is reasonable by comparison. | |
Popisfizzy wrote:
I hope this is not some vague reference to Illuminati or some tantamount bullshit Bullshit? Oh, so you expect me to believe that Kanye West and Tom Cruise are just throwing up the All-Seeing Eye Triangle of Satan just for their health, right? It's just a complete coincidence in your twisted, uninformed brain correct?  The only people who deny the existence of the Illuminati and their plans to create a new world order are people who are thick, dense, and lacking in morals. Like Ra pointed out, a man tried to put gold on his sack and other people are trying to build bergers. What more evidence are you requiring, exactly? | |
The All Seeing Eye isn't inherently indicative of anything negative in nature; it's only been portrayed negatively in Western culture to keep the masses ignorant of the truth of everything.
| |
 | |
Popisfizzy wrote:
Before beginning, I would like to clarify there are some damming questions that have been outright ignored, and my arguments misrepresented. I will bring up the ignored points when they are relevant, and correct the ignored arguments. It's nice to see you taking this seriously for a change. I'm also doing this solely for my own entertainment, as you--quite clearly from what has been presented so far--have chosen your position and are now selecting the evidence that agrees with it. In all fairness, the same can be said of you. However, I would like to point out that so far, I'm the only one who's provided any evidence. I don't intend to change your position as that is utterly impossible, and I am probably strengthening your belief in this (technically about political science, but the psychology behind it likely extends beyond that realm). I can site articles on cognitive dissonance and its effects on 9/11 skeptics' unwavering conviction to the official story, but most of the ones I am finding are very hard on the skeptics, so I'll just leave it at that. People are emotional creatures, I think we can both agree. Firstly, this is guilt by association. The government is not a monolith or a hivemind, a collection of individuals who have unified motivations and thoughts. There is little reason to believe that the NIST and NASA are necessarily unified in their goals. It's clear that we can't hold every government agency responsible, but some of them do have some culpability. NIST probably most of all. As for the moon landing, the only doubt in the mind of anyone that we went to the moon are those that are most adamant we did not. Not sure how we got on this topic, but Yes, of course we went to the moon. Faking it would have been almost as difficult, and probably not possible with the technology and video effect techniques at the time.
Nice pic. How long did it take you to make? :P Seriously, though. That's not evidence. Poll data is notoriously unreliable, given the wording of the questions and the demographics of the participants (and the number, of course), can all have very large impacts on the outcome of the poll. Who carried out this poll? Who funded them? What was the sample size? What was the exact questions asked? What were the participants, age, sex, religion, political affiliation, and financial positions? None of these factors are represented in your image, and all would affect the numbers. In other words, you can make a poll show a desired outcome by controlling the variables. It's a fairly common practice. Though it would be silly of me to assume you have the clarify of mind to understand why I was appealing to the majority of experts, I'm still quite astonished it was so painfully non-obvious to you: I am not claiming the majority is right simply because they are the majority. I am questioning why Xooxer--and presumably you--choose to believe a minority of experts. Are these experts better-qualified? Why, if so? Or do you believe them purely because they are appealing to the opinions you had formed in advance. I believe the experts I have cited because their explanation fits the evidence. Your experts provide explanations that do not fit the evidence. Simple as that. For example: According to your experts, fire heated the steel trusses enough to cause them to sag (not melt). This sagging disconnected the trusses from the walls, which initiated the collapse. As the upper floors fell, they impacted the lower floor, obliterating them in successive progression all the way to the bottom. Experiemnt, however, clearly demonstrated that this could not have happened. NIST themselves tested this theory (YES, it IS a theory), and found that even after an hour of constant high-temperature applied to the steel trusses, they did not sag nearly enough to come disconnected. In spite of this, they LIED and stated that the trusses sagged 40+ inches, when the test showed no more than a few inches of deformation. My experts, on the other hand, point to many points of evidence in the videos and reports and show how these are clear indications of controlled demolition, and in fact, there can be no other explanation. I do not know how many experts are on which side of the debate. Maybe you have more, maybe not. I do know that the experts I have cited are qualified to make informed statements about the events of that day. Do you not agree? Obvious to you, perhaps, in light of your biases. To the majority, it is the polar opposite of obvious (and by that, I do not mean that the water is muddled in the least). The majority is not necessarily right, but there's honestly nothing better to work off unless you can claim why your experts are better-qualified. I'd rather work with the evidence, as opposed to the popular opinion. Wouldn't you? I mean, even your majority has to fall back on evidence to maintain their position, right? Have you looked at their evidence? Can you cite any? We have several shadow governments and agencies with a lot more power than they should. Our nation maintains a number of black projects, with their own black budget. http://www.wired.com/2012/02/pentagons-black-budget/ Oversight in non-existent here, and nobody knows for certain what these projects are, or are doing. In addition, we have the NSA and Homeland Security with far too much power and control than they should have in a democratic republic, but these are hardly shadowy. Also, you can not overlook the role corporations play in world governments, which are allowed to remain fairly shady in their practices, to protect their investments and profit engines. To say there is nothing funky going on in government is pretty ignorant of the complexities of modern society. Or perhaps you are referring to some corporate entity or collection thereof? I'm curious why they were okay with the economic consequences of 9/11. By what metric are you measuring their "okayness", who are you measuring, and what "economic consequences" are you referring to that would make said unnamed corporate entity "okay"? And while there are certainly agencies far more powerful than they have any right to be in my opinion--the CIA being the clearest--this does not really help your argument if it was an agency. That is still a branch of the US government doing it, and by all accounts I would call it an action of the government. It would also beg the question of how Snowden or Manning overlooked such important material. What material? Please cite your source for this statement. No, it really is not as clear as you hope. I mean, you can hope even harder, but I'm skeptical that it would do much good. Hope? I won't stand here and let you sling underhanded insults, insinuating he's an emotional person who can't reason. Please refrain from such tactics, and stick to the facts of the topic. It makes your position look weak, that you would have to resort to these cheap attacks to validate your position. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to participate, though. It really does mean a lot to me, if no one else. :D | |
Lummox JR wrote:
For what it's worth, in response to the question opening this thread I see no evidence in the admin log that there was an earlier version of it that got deleted anytime recently. Did you look? Look for the topic named "nt2". That was the name. It may have gotten merged with "nt", which was closed. I'd do a search for recent actions by Nadrew, since I'm pretty sure he's the one who removed it. (and WTF is he a moderator, considering his past actions????) That doesn't mean I'm entirely on board with a thread whose sole purpose is to rehash a well-covered issue that attracts insanity, but at least it doesn't appear that anyone deleted some earlier incarnation of it. The sole purpose of this thread is to change the world. Any insanity it attracts is not my doing. I can not, nor can this topic, be blamed for your members devolving a perfectly civil thread into a madhouse of name-calling and hate. Look back over the years. I have consistently asked questions, and you all consistently undermine the threads, ignoring the questions and putting words in my mouth, calling me insane for asking in the first place. Saying how I used to be a good person, but now I'm just a crazy nutjob wacko. If this topic is tired, if you think it's insane, it is all your own insanity. I have brought only reason and civil discourse, though I did devolve a couple times after beating my head against the wall failed to get results. Nobody is perfect, however, you're not even close! It is almost laughable how frightened you all are of this topic. I used to have so much respect for you guys. I really wish I could get you to set your ego aside long enough to think reasonably about your world and what you're doing, because frankly, as far as I'm concerned, you are all no better than Nazi sympathizers, and honestly, probably don't really deserve the amount of time and heartache this has all cost. | |
tl;dr: "Everything you say is wrong, but everything i say is right." -Xooxer
| |
America has a giant telescope on the moon. They're using it to spy on us.
Trust me, the NASA leaked my source once.