Truthers and Debunkers Unite.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by hooper

 

Was "Gulf of Tonkin incident" a kooky conspiracy theory too? or was it a false flag operations ?

KCT.

Reichstag fire ?

And your point? The fire was the result of arson by persons or persons unknown. The nazis blamed the Coummunist. Don't see the connection. You're going pretty far afield here in order to make some case that because adolf hitler blamed the communist for a fire in 1933 then, of course, George Bush crashed two airplanes into the World Trade Center in 2001. Wow.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by hooper

 

Was "Gulf of Tonkin incident" a kooky conspiracy theory too? or was it a\
false flag operations ?

KCT.

Reichstag fire ?

And your point? The fire was the result of arson by persons or persons unknown. The nazis blamed the Coummunist. Don't see the connection. You're going pretty far afield here in order to make some case that because adolf hitler blamed the communist for a fire in 1933 then, of course, George Bush crashed two airplanes into the World Trade Center in 2001. Wow.

I'm just trying to see if you think false flag operations were ever done by any government in the past.. That's all.

Originally posted by maxella1
A lot of people are visiting The 9/11 Conspiracy theory forum. To me it shows that people still have questions and they are looking for answers. But all we do here is argue with each other for almost 11 years now. I don't know how others feel about it, but I'm sick of it.

I can definitely relate, but the problem ISN'T that the two sides cannot find a middle ground. The problem is that there IS no middle ground.

All it takes is a few minutes of discussion with the truthers to discover they aren't looking for the facts of the 9/11 attack- they're here to preach what they want to believe to be true regardless of whether the facts actually show. Case in point- when the "no plane hit the Pentagon" groupies are informed that hordes of eyewitnesses specifically saw it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, they weigh their belief in their conspiracies with the evidence and conclude their belief in their conspiracies is more important, and therefore brush off eyewitness accounts with excuses of "they're really sinister secret agents". The same goes for the recovered black box, the same goes for photographs of airplane wreckage, the same goes for passenger effects found in the crash area, and the same goes for literally every and any piece of evidence you can provide them. Heck, one person here even insists the towers were all really fake buildings. What possible middle ground can you possibly find with someone like this?

How then can you find middle ground with people whose entire motivation is to zealously convert others into believing what they want people to believe regardless of facts or logic? You might as well ask the Incans to try and find middle ground with the conquistadors.

reply to post by maxella1

I'm just trying to see if you think false flag operations were ever done by any government in the past.. That's all.

Actually, I don't think so. Its a nice fantasy - big old mean "government" wrangles up some destruction then blames some convenient enemy - but in general most persons that occupy governments are smart enough to know that there are better and much less risky ways to get the governed to agree on a course of action. In fact, I think the biggest "false flag" is the idea of governments committing "false flag" operations. Its a good way to get your enemies population to distrust its own government.

Originally posted by maxella1

Reichstag fire ?

Without meaning to you just disproved your entire point. The Reichtag fire was actually (or at least, documented to have been) started by a Dutch Communist by the name of Marinus van der Lubbe-

Wikipedia article on Marianus van der Lubbe

Granted, with the Third Reich's history of torture there is much debate whether the guy actually did it, but it also makes one wonder why an unemployed Communist with a criminal record for arson was found in the Reichstag after hours while the place was burning.

The fact that the Nazis milked the incident for all it was worth doesn't necessarily mean they were the one who pulled it off. It just means they knew an opportunity when they saw one.

You DO see the analogy, I trust.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

I'm just trying to see if you think false flag operations were ever done by any government in the past.. That's all.

Actually, I don't think so. Its a nice fantasy - big old mean "government" wrangles up some destruction then blames some convenient enemy - but in general most persons that occupy governments are smart enough to know that there are better and much less risky ways to get the governed to agree on a course of action. In fact, I think the biggest "false flag" is the idea of governments committing "false flag" operations. Its a good way to get your enemies population to distrust its own government.

Lots of opinion in your response, and that is fine. But that is all it is, opinion.

Care to address specifically "Gulf of Tonkin" and what McNamara had to say on the subject?

Ever see "Fog of War"

Do you honestly believe governments including ours do not, and have not lied and deceived and manipulated events to push forward agendas?

Jeepers! Iran Contra? MK-Ultra, to name a very small few.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Case in point- when the "no plane hit the Pentagon" groupies are informed that hordes of eyewitnesses specifically saw it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, they weigh their belief in their conspiracies with the evidence and conclude their belief in their conspiracies is more important, and therefore brush off eyewitness accounts with excuses of "they're really sinister secret agents".

Yes there are people like that. But it's not truthers only, On both side people brush off eyewitness accounts if it contradict what they believe.

Heck, one person here even insists the towers were all really fake buildings. What possible middle ground can you possibly find with someone like this?

One time i was in the subway and there was a guy telling everybody entering the train station not to ride D train because mermaids told him that the tunnel was flooded. I could have stopped and try to convince him that it's not true but what would be the point ?

How then can you find middle ground with people whose entire motivation is to zealously convert others into believing what they want people to believe regardless of facts or logic? You might as well ask the Incans to try and find middle ground with the conquistadors.

And this also applies to both sides. Truthers and debunkers are the same only with different believes.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You DO see the analogy, I trust.

Yes I do.

Do you think that actual false flags were ever used by governments in the past?

reply to post by hooper


Makes me think of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy:

Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe gets that.

reply to post by crawdad1914

Lots of opinion in your response, and that is fine. But that is all it is, opinion.

So that's your "out"? If you see something that contradicts your bias -declare it "opinion" and move on?

Care to address specifically "Gulf of Tonkin" and what McNamara had to say on the subject?
Ever see "Fog of War"

No.

Do you honestly believe governments including ours do not, and have not lied and deceived and manipulated events to push forward agendas?

You keep using the word "governments" as if the government was just one person. Government consist of millions of persons, elected, appointed and employed. Just because one person in government may have told a lie does not give a rational person carte blanche to hold everything as a lie. At least not a rational person. However, if in order to satisfy your bias you need a contradicting fact to be false I guess you can just unilateraly declare all facts as false if you can manage to create some link between the sources.

Jeepers! Iran Contra? MK-Ultra, to name a very small few.

Don't see the connection. Ever hear of the Tennesse Valley Authority? Or the Interstate Highway System? Are those lies?

reply to post by crawdad1914


Asking hooper questions is not worth your time typing them ?

Originally posted by maxella1

Yes there are people like that. But it's not truthers only, On both side people brush off eyewitness accounts if it contradict what they believe.

The problem with that statement is that the truthers are reinterpreting what the eyewitnesses are actually saying according to their own outlook. Case in point- every day the truthers repeat "witnesses heard explosions" while interpreting this as signs of demolitions. The problem for that viewpoint is, the witnesses aren't sayign they heard EXPLOSIVES. The say they heard EXPLOSIONS, as in really loud bangs, which can also be explained by flammable objects going BOOM as the fires reached them in turn to large chunks of debris collapsing unseen inside the towers. It is fair to say there were few trained demolitions agents on hand that could distinguish the auditory differences between RDX going off and a pressurized steam pipe bursting from the heat of the fires.

Thus, this isn't brushing off eyewitness accounts themselves. This is brushing off the creative interpretations offered by the truthers of what the eyewitnesses are saying. The only active brushing off of the eyewitnesses themselves I'm aware of is by the truthers with their accusing everyone of being "sinister secret agents".

One time i was in the subway and there was a guy telling everybody entering the train station not to ride D train because mermaids told him that the tunnel was flooded. I could have stopped and try to convince him that it's not true but what would be the point ?

What is your point with this, that it isn't necessarily the case that every eyewitness account must be considered sacrosanct simply because they are eyewitness accounts? Are you certain you want to go that route?

And this also applies to both sides. Truthers and debunkers are the same only with different believes.

I beg to differ. I have never, not once, seen or heard anyone make recalcitrant claims such as "I don't care what anyone tells me, you cant convince me there was a secret gov't plot to stage the 9/11 attack". I have in fact seen "I don't care what anyone tells me, you can't convince me there wasn't a secret gov't plot to stage the 9/11 attack" many times. It cannot be denied that blind zealotry is in fact a significant component of the 9/11 truther movement, although admittedly in varying degrees depending on who you speak to.

Do you dispute this?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You DO see the analogy, I trust.

Yes I do.

Do you think that actual false flags were ever used by governments in the past?

Hitler sure did.

Reichstag fire

~Tenth

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by crawdad1914

 

Asking hooper questions is not worth your time typing them ?

Because you don't like the answers? Now thats real truth seeking.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by maxella1

 

And these terrorists are winning because they divided the first group of people into 2 groups, Debunkers vs Truthers. These two groups should not exist at all because they are the same.

This is probably the funniest of all the conspiracy delusions. There are not two groups. There is all of humanity and within that group there is a microscopic subset of conspiracy cultist who like to think that they are onto some big truth wherein some megaconglomerate super evil pact of power hungry uber villians is out to control the world but all the brave truthers are on to them and the game would only be up if it weren't for the dastardly henchmen of the uber villians, the debunkers. This pretty much applies to all conspiracies, but mostly to the 9/11 conspiracies.

Is it just a coincidence you only post threads to the 911 forum? Or is that too conspiratorial for you?

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by crawdad1914

 

Asking hooper questions is not worth your time typing them ?

Because you don't like the answers? Now thats real truth seeking.

No... Because you don't answer !

reply to post by Bilk22

Is it just a coincidence you only post threads to the 911 forum? Or is that too conspiratorial for you?

Its not a coincidence - its the only forum on this website that I am interested in. You do realize, of course, that there are forums beyond this website, right? So to say that I only post threads to the 911 forum is a tyical truther half-truth. I post threads on other forums, just none on this website.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

The problem with that statement is that the truthers are reinterpreting what the eyewitnesses are actually saying according to their own outlook.

Will you ever show the Firemen some respect for what they do? Firemen say they heard "Definitely secondary explosions" What does that mean? Spray cans blowing up, or firecrackers, or something falling down? Three explosions in the lobby and then the building started coming down, Interpret that for me please, because the firefighters never clarified what they meant. Maybe you know better? FDNY professional firefighters never enter a burning building before 9/11 and that's why they were confused?

What is your point with this, that it isn't necessarily the case that every eyewitness account must be considered sacrosanct simply because they are eyewitness accounts? Are you certain you want to go that route?

My point is that your example of one guy who insists the towers were fake is they same thing as the guy in the subway... [Crazy).

I beg to differ. I have never, not once, seen or heard anyone make recalcitrant claims such as "I don't care what anyone tells me, you cant convince me there was a secret gov't plot to stage the 9/11 attack". I have in fact seen "I don't care what anyone tells me, you can't convince me there wasn't a secret gov't plot to stage the 9/11 attack" many times. It cannot be denied that blind zealotry is in fact a significant component of the 9/11 truther movement, although admittedly in varying degrees depending on who you speak to.

I see people demand evidence which can only be obtained by investigating the crime. You said few times that you don't think it was investigated enough. So why do you expect people to have evidence?

reply to post by maxella1

"Definitely secondary explosions" What does that mean?

The primary explosion was the explosion casued by the plane impact. The secondary explosions are anything exploding as a result of the primary explosion. Why do you need this explained?

reply to post by maxella1

No... Because you don't answer !

Really? Well, go ahead and ask an actual question. I'll try and answer it if its a genuine question. Not just stating some pseudo-fact with a question mark at the end. Like "Reichstag fire"?