TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Democracy Now! televised debate: Loose Change vs Popular Mechanics
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by occrider When one side is backed by faith and the other backed by science was there really any doubt as to what the outcome would be? They should join forces with IDers, and combined, the truthiness of their pseudo-science will be 3 fold. /love how people try to create fact by creating doubt

haha I admit the PM guys first made that comparison in the debate but you couldn't help and twist the screw.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 haha I admit the PM guys first made that comparison in the debate but you couldn't help and twist the screw.

It's an excellent comparison that deserves reiteration.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider It's an excellent comparison that deserves reiteration.

Your vehement passion about no governmental involvment in the attacks isn't very reflective of high confidence in your world view. At the very least, it makes you come across as a little emotionaly insecure about your opinion on this topic. I'm sorry, no offence Occ, but I don't see any reason for you to get so upset about it if you think a conspiracy involving the goverment is so utterly ridiculous. It's not like you have anything to loose if you truly believe goverment complicity is not the case. That goes for the rest of you too.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Your vehement passion about no governmental involvment in the attacks isn't very reflective of high confidence in your world view. At the very least, it makes you come across as a little emotionaly insecure about your opinion on this topic. I'm sorry, no offence Occ, but I don't see any reason for you to get so upset about it if you think a conspiracy involving the goverment is so utterly ridiculous. It's not like you have anything to loose if you truly believe goverment complicity is not the case. That goes for the rest of you too.

ill just speak for myself, but im sure occ would agree- i get upset because people become so convinced of something which has its roots in intellectual/academic fraud. i couldnt care less whether the government instigated the attacks or not, its the methods by which the theories come into existence that really gets to me.

for instance, after the port arthur massacre where 35 people were killed, theories burst forth about it being a government conspiracy carried out by elite Oz forces, so the government could bring in stricter gun laws. sound familiar?

there was plenty of "evidence", such as how could a mentally deficient man shoot people with such accuracy? they point at supposed holes in the official narrative as evidence to something, which it clearly isnt.

whilst there may be a number of questions still circling re 9/11, pointing at apparent or supposed anomalies in such a chaotic environment isnt evidence of a government conspiracy. if anyone had something more then id be jumping sides immediately. unfortunately, after 5 years, theyve still got little more than poor research and questionable assessments to back up their extreme claims.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Your vehement passion about no governmental involvment in the attacks isn't very reflective of high confidence in your world view. At the very least, it makes you come across as a little emotionaly insecure about your opinion on this topic. I'm sorry, no offence Occ, but I don't see any reason for you to get so upset about it if you think a conspiracy involving the goverment is so utterly ridiculous. It's not like you have anything to loose if you truly believe goverment complicity is not the case. That goes for the rest of you too.

I've spent the better part of 2002-2004 arguing conspiracy theories about 9/11 on TA to no end until frustration drove me to avoid every and all 9/11 discussions other than making passing comments. Oftentimes, when I had very little to work with, I spent hours doing the research into engineering and phsyics to properly substnatiate my rebuttals. In every instance that I can remember, I don't think very many have responded to my arguments in a reasonable fashion that is reflective of the time I took to properly respond to their arguments. I don't have a vehement passion about "no government involvement", I have a vehement passion against unsubstantiated, unscientific arguments. To be frank, there is no aggregate, defendable scientific explanation for 9/11 that conspiracy theorists have been able to stand behind. Their tactics consist of creating doubts about a million little things, the vast majority of which, if not all, fail, and thus we are supposed to subscribe to their grandeoise, unsubstantiated theory which would not last half a second of the very same level of scrutiny that they apply towards the "official" explanation. I'm not upset at all. I just ridicule what I see worthy of ridicule. Some days it's 9/11 ... most it's the administration and Iraq, and others it's crazy religious people. Do you think I have anything to "lose" by there being a government conspiracy?? Do you really think I want these clowns in office?? Do you think I want this congress in office???

The video is gone of google video and off youtube. I would love to see it

quote:

Originally posted by Danila The video is gone of google video and off youtube. I would love to see it

You could try Democracy Now's website. They should still have it in audio.

quote:

Originally posted by Danila The video is gone of google video and off youtube. I would love to see it

They probrobly took it off cause how foolish it made the CTs look. I am now sure that the CTs will say now that Google and You Tube are all part of the cover up. ha ha ha

Its back up on YOUTUBE! sweeet

Why isn't anyone (including the Popular Mechanics guys) addressing the quite out of the ordinary and convenient change of chain of command for NORAD? If it weren't for Cheney's stand down orders, whatever hit the pentagon would not have hit it. That is not incompetence, that's Cheney ensuring an attack on the pentagon. It's complicity, end of story.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I've spent the better part of 2002-2004 arguing conspiracy theories about 9/11 on TA to no end until frustration drove me to avoid every and all 9/11 discussions other than making passing comments. Oftentimes, when I had very little to work with, I spent hours doing the research into engineering and phsyics to properly substnatiate my rebuttals. In every instance that I can remember, I don't think very many have responded to my arguments in a reasonable fashion that is reflective of the time I took to properly respond to their arguments. I don't have a vehement passion about "no government involvement", I have a vehement passion against unsubstantiated, unscientific arguments. To be frank, there is no aggregate, defendable scientific explanation for 9/11 that conspiracy theorists have been able to stand behind. Their tactics consist of creating doubts about a million little things, the vast majority of which, if not all, fail, and thus we are supposed to subscribe to their grandeoise, unsubstantiated theory which would not last half a second of the very same level of scrutiny that they apply towards the "official" explanation. I'm not upset at all. I just ridicule what I see worthy of ridicule. Some days it's 9/11 ... most it's the administration and Iraq, and others it's crazy religious people. Do you think I have anything to "lose" by there being a government conspiracy?? Do you really think I want these clowns in office?? Do you think I want this congress in office???

Well, you have alot more to loose if these guys did infact orchestrate 9-11, or had forknowledge (which they did) and deliberately allowed 9-11 taking place, and still being in office, as opposed to neigther one of those and being in office. Eighter way (orchestration or deliberate inaction), it makes perfect sense for them to do so. They couldn't have begun their implementation of PNAC's 'Rebuilding Americas Defences' agenda with out "some catastrophic and catalyzing event�like a new Pearl Harbor." I don't why understand somone as intelligent as yourself doesn't connect those dots, when it's in black and white in their own agenda/document. "Incompetence" is a very convenient projected/perceived public image isn't it?

EDIT:Formatting and corrections.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, you have alot more to loose if these guys did infact orchestrate 9-11, or had forknowledge (which they did) and deliberately allowed 9-11 taking place, and still being in office, as opposed to neigther one of those and being in office. Eighter way (orchestration or deliberate inaction), it makes perfect sense for them to do so. They couldn't have begun their implementation of PNAC's 'Rebuilding Americas Defences' agenda with out "some catastrophic and catalyzing event�like a new Pearl Harbor." I don't why understand somone as intelligent as yourself doesn't connect those dots, when it's in black and white in their own agenda/document. "Incompetence" is a very convenient projected/perceived public image isn't it? EDIT:Formatting and corrections.

ive pointed out time and time again that this document has nothing to do with 9/11, doesnt mention anything even remotely connected to 9/11 and its thoroughly dishonest of you guys to keep posting this rubbish. have you read that entire document? nothing at all to do with 9/11. stop reaching for meaning, its just not there

as for popular mechanics debating the NORAD stuff, theyre into physical sciences not the public sphere of government organisation.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ive pointed out time and time again that this document has nothing to do with 9/11, doesnt mention anything even remotely connected to 9/11 and its thoroughly dishonest of you guys to keep posting this rubbish. have you read that entire document? nothing at all to do with 9/11. stop reaching for meaning, its just not there as for popular mechanics debating the NORAD stuff, theyre into physical sciences not the public sphere of government organisation.

Exactly.

Let's not try and force square pegs in round holes...

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That is not incompetence, that's Cheney ensuring an attack on the pentagon. It's complicity, end of story.

You really believe this whole "war on terror" thing is a concoction of some crazy New World Order/PNAC/Freemason/Skull & Bones conspiracy, don't you!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You really believe this whole "war on terror" thing is a concoction of some crazy New World Order/PNAC/Freemason/Skull & Bones conspiracy, don't you!

PNAC, yes (i.e. American hegemony and global dominance). The whole "war on terror" ascpect can't be taken seriously considering how we've sponsored and carried out most of it (NOTE: not a referrence to 9-11 or post 9-11 era). Shouldn't we be bombing the shit out of ourselves first in that case?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z PNAC, yes (i.e. American hegemony and global dominance).

and doing so through maintaining superior technical advantage and integrating information technology further into the military, NOT by orchestrating terror attacks on american soil

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and doing so through maintaining superior technical advantage and integrating information technology further into the military, NOT by orchestrating terror attacks on american soil

No, by going to war and invading key locations to builid military bases, install regimes subservient to the US and US interests, control resources the entire world is dependant on etc.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No, by going to war and invading key locations to builid military bases, install regimes subservient to the US and US interests, control resources the entire world is dependant on etc.

yes. but not by orchestrating terror attacks on US soil.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes. but not by orchestrating terror attacks on US soil.

Well, did they specifically mention and feel the need for a "new pearl harbor" to get the American people (enthusiastically or reluctantly) behind it.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Well, did they specifically mention and feel the need for a "new pearl harbor" to get the American people (enthusiastically or reluctantly) behind it.

no they did NOT.

they were saying that the revolution in military technology will likely be a slow one, unless another pearl harbour occured, ie an attack that they did not have a counter for. this often mis-quoted text has nothing to do with garnering public support for a war based on a "new pearl harbour" attack by terrorists.

the revolution in military technology and information systems will be a slow and gradual process, unless someone pulls the american military's undies up over their head. then, this transformation would be much faster as they combatted this new form of military tactic or technology.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no they did NOT. they were saying that the revolution in military technology will likely be a slow one, unless another pearl harbour occured, ie an attack that they did not have a counter for. this often mis-quoted text has nothing to do with garnering public support for a war based on a "new pearl harbour" attack by terrorists. the revolution in military technology and information systems will be a slow and gradual process, unless someone pulls the american military's undies up over their head. then, this transformation would be much faster as they combatted this new form of military tactic or technology.

Read the entire document. It's about ALOT more than just "superior military technology and integrated information technology." You don't need be a 9-11 "conspiracy theorist" to understand this.

EDIT:

quote:

hope is the denial of reality - raistlin majere.

EDIT2: Yes, I know exactly what you're response to ^^ will be .

i have read much of the document. not all of it granted, but it IS pretty boring

and yes, you indeed do need your 9/11 hat on to see the "new pearl harbour" = 9/11 attacks. indeed the entire document only mentions it twice, and both were in the context i mentioned.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.