Top Government Insider: Bin Laden Died In 2001, 9/11 A False Flag and tell to Federal Grand Jury!

I can't wait for the new Popular Mechanics magazine to come out title "Proof Osama was killed in May of 2011 in Pakistan" That's going to be a great one.

reply to post by Elbereth


I dislike talking to people who don't know how to read or even understand what they are saying out of their own mouths, so I will stop replying to you after this post.

1) You said this:

"Pieczenik's CV is all the proof I need to give him a fair hearing." -Elbereth

Which translates to; "I will listen to anyone who has some type of authority".

2) Read your own quoted source: "The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.".

What I was trying to explain is that Alex Jones continually claims and or implies that the authority is infallible, so that makes it a fallacy.

How do you not understand this Elbereth?

Alex Jones is trying to make a point... Alex believes (or pretends to believe) 9/11 was an inside job, and Bin Laden died in 2001. So Alex has guests on his show who believe/say the same thing he does to help prove his point, or further his beliefs/agenda. He continually picks people who have information from "authority" or are the "authority" because he illogically believes it adds weight to his arguments. He also believes their "authority" is infallible and in turn implies what they say is true. That is a fallacy. No matter what you say, appealing to authority is a logical fallacy.

Alex Jones uses the following to bait guppies in the same school;

Appealing to emotion
Appealing to fear
Appealing to authority

I am trying to tell you it's the same thing over and over with Alex Jones over all these years. In this case, it is another appeal to authority.

Sure, go ahead and listen to the interview, listen to Pieczenik... go ahead, take it all in... buy their books and DVDs while you are at it.

Mostly everything and everyone associated with Alex Jones is all talk and no substance, no proof, nothing of any value, just hearsay "he said she said", and agreements with common conspiracies. It has been that way for YEARS, nothing has changed with Alex. This topic is nothing but more of Alex's self made info war propaganda.

Info wars.... LOL... Alex thinks hes a soldier.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Thank you, that was a brilliant post that perfectly articulated what I was trying to say.

reply to post by SunnyDee

Originally posted by SunnyDee
You could be right, he just wants to sell a book, but he's taken a big risk if he's caught lying.

Oh really? Alex Jones has been caught lying MANY times but people still post his crap on ATS and buy his books, and DVDs, and t-shirts, and watch his show. Why would it be any different with Pieczenik?

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Don’t forget David Ike he lies, as well to boost book sales looks like our good doctor here might be as well.

Some people on ATS really need to go get an education and learn how to critically evaluate their sources. I think that is the biggest problem on ATS people find a source that backs up something they want to believe and then use that source to turn their believe in to a “fact” however the problem is that their source is rubbish. If I post a link saying “president confirms 9/11 was NOT a false flag” people would fame it because it does not fit in with their believe. They only believe this man because they want to.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

Originally posted by SunnyDee
You could be right, he just wants to sell a book, but he's taken a big risk if he's caught lying.

Oh really? Alex Jones has been caught lying MANY times but people still post his crap on ATS and buy his books, and DVDs, and t-shirts, and watch his show. Why would it be any different with Pieczenik?

edit on 5-5-2011 by gift0fpr0phecy because: (no reason given)

Well is it any different for Bush, Cheney, Obama.....I could go on and on. Yes, he could be lying, so could anyone.

If OBL was killed "years ago", Al Quaida could produce his remains and overturn the US Presidency overnight.

Why haven't they done this? It would be the biggest PR coup in history.

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

Well is it any different for Bush, Cheney, Obama.....I could go on and on. Yes, he could be lying, so could anyone.

That right there is the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a person more attached to reality. Its all about your ability to critique your sources, I might not believe this guy but if he was to come out with some irrefutable proof then yes I would believe him.

The only rat I smell is Steve R. Pieczenik, author, trying to hawk some books and shopping for a movie deal in the wake of the Obama Administration taking out the top terrorist in the world. Until he sits his butt down in front of a Federal Grand Jury, it's all just fiction.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Don’t forget David Ike he lies, as well to boost book sales looks like our good doctor here might be as well.

Some people on ATS really need to go get an education and learn how to critically evaluate their sources. I think that is the biggest problem on ATS people find a source that backs up something they want to believe and then use that source to turn their believe in to a “fact” however the problem is that their source is rubbish. If I post a link saying “president confirms 9/11 was NOT a false flag” people would fame it because it does not fit in with their believe. They only believe this man because they want to.

AMEN!!! I couldn't post this fast enough to agree with you on this story and the state of ATS.

reply to post by crudos


The OBL threads are full of examples of what I am talking about, it is frustrating me that apparently intelligent people can’t spot when a source is rubbish just because it backs up their arguments. They go on and on about how the MSN is corrupt and controlled by the NWO and governments but will happily regurgitate news stories from the MSN if they fit in with their believes as facts.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by crudos

 

The OBL threads are full of examples of what I am talking about, it is frustrating me that apparently intelligent people can’t spot when a source is rubbish just because it backs up their arguments. They go on and on about how the MSN is corrupt and controlled by the NWO and governments but will happily regurgitate news stories from the MSN if they fit in with their believes as facts.

Well said. As I've railed on before, discernment is word 95% of the posters should/need to learn it's definition. I think ATS has become nothing more than a contest of who can make the biggest story on the site.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by kevinunknown

 

I was thinking the same thing. He had no problem naming Cheney, Rice, etc., but he won't name the general? Why not? Spill it if you got it.

Maybe he is afraid of being sued? Not sure but that did strike me as suspicious he will name other high profilers but not the general.

If he names Bush, Rice, Cheney etc., so what? Let them take him to court for slander...but they won't will they!

If you were one of these people, and this high level, highly experienced guy was saying to the world that YOU are part of a conspiracy that is directly responsible for upwards of a million deaths, and trillions of dollars stolen from the people and handed to the arms manufacturers and if caught would carry the death penalty...would you keep you mouth shut?

Would you not sue? If you were totally innocent of the charges i mean? In the USA?

I'll eat my hat if any single one of the accused initiates a court case against Dr. Pieczenik...the guilty don't tend to draw attention to themselves, especially voluntarily going to court.

If Dr. Pieczenik names the General concerned, the General becomes an *immediate* target for either removal, bribery/blackmail and all the rest.

If they don't know who he is, they are at a serious disadvantage. Don't forget, Pieczenik deals with these tactics and methods as part of his career...these steps being taken by him now, would be well known and carefully thought through.

There's not a lot a smart person would leave to chance when openly going up against people that think nothing of genocide and treason.

Ok ...so anybody know list of generals who was on duty in that time when Steve R. Pieczenik received information and with who generals he may have active contacts ?

reply to post by crudos


I think you may be reading my mind, I know this is off topic but.

The issue around definitions really does my head in, people run to a online dictionary like it’s going to give a absolute solid definition. Perfect example was a debate on a terrorism forum, I pointed out terrorism has no universal definition, a user came back at me with a quote from a online dictionary. If you need to Google every second word to use it on ATS then you belong back in pre-school and not ATS. Also the stuff about how can get the biggest story is another one of my pet hates, there have been a few time I have seen people post sensationalist rubbish on this site and every one falls about to flag it just because it is spectacular. I have often said people on ATS are more interested in the spectacular rather than the truth and this breads ignorance. A inability to critique sources only adds to this ignorance.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by crudos

 

The OBL threads are full of examples of what I am talking about, it is frustrating me that apparently intelligent people can’t spot when a source is rubbish just because it backs up their arguments. They go on and on about how the MSN is corrupt and controlled by the NWO and governments but will happily regurgitate news stories from the MSN if they fit in with their believes as facts.

Sometimes even the MSM are handy as a research tool. If you watch or read their offerings with both eyes *fully open*, sometimes a lot can be learned by reading 'between the lines' on many issues and topics.

Even compulsive liars occasionally tell or incorporate the truth or elements of it.

reply to post by xavi1000


And just where do you think anyone on ATS would get such information?

Even if you could find that out it would still prove nothing because it would either show he had no contact with any General or that he had contact with multiple Generals and it could be anyone of them or it could be through a General he did not officially have contact with.

reply to post by spikey


By between the lines, what you really mean is by adding a conspiracy spin on the story with some speculation and bias.

I just really dislike the Infowars article where it states this:

Pieczenik cannot be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. -Infowars

..and it links to the wikipedia page of Pieczenik. It then states several of his accomplishments, and sort of implies that conspiracy theorists certainly can't accomplish all these tasks .

Then it fails to mention he is an author of FICTION books that mostly deal with government conspiracies.

Nice website.... www.stevepieczenik.com...

He must sell a lot of books. I bet appealing to authority and listing his credentials really helps sell books.

Oh no, Pieczenik certainly can't be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist..... just an author of fiction novels about conspiracies.

This part is funny...

Pieczenik went on to develop, “the basic tenets for psychological warfare, counter terrorism, strategy and tactics for transcultural negotiations for the US State Department, military and intelligence communities and other agencies of the US Government,” -Infowars

psychological warfare huh....

An expert on psychological warfare from the government is being vetted on an "inforwars" website. I don't know why I find that funny.

I agree with the others... A lot of ATS members love sensationalism and trust all sources that agree with their beliefs, most of the time blindly.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Forgive me for interrupting the mutual admiration slaver-fest between you and kevinunknown, but I wanted to congratulate you Gopr for very nearly making a coherent argument.

You know what they say about a roomful of monkeys banging away on typewriters.

You mock my saying “Pieczenik's CV is all the proof I need to give him a fair hearing,” claiming that this translates to "I will listen to anyone who has some type of authority."
How surprising that a Master Wiki Logician like you would draw an obviously invalid conclusion from my assertion. Your deductive skills are suspect regarding my likely relationship with authority and exhibit one of the most fundamental logical fallacies known.

Please, challenge me on this.

Oh, I forgot, you “dislike talking to people who don't know how to read or even understand what they are saying out of their own mouths, so I will stop replying to you after this post.” My loss. I rather enjoy shooting anencephalic fish in a barrel.

While we agree that Alex Jones is a self-serving provocateur, your saying that Jones is guilty of the fallacy of Argument from authority by implying that Pieczenik’s impressive credentials to speak on intelligence issues bolsters his (Pieczenik’s) plausibility is to stake out a position so unhinged from reality that only the lingering after-effects of a recent session of electroshock therapy or a violent concussive impact to your head or perhaps both simultaneously can excuse it, Gopr.


Maybe you can head back over to the University of Wiki Logic and school yourself up a little more convincingly before absurdly spouting off again, Professor.