If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
So a couple of small objects, presumably concealed in someone's back pocket or bag, survived, and that means its a conspiracy? Give me a break.
a hole is a hole. no matter how big or small. when you add up all the little holes, they are just as big as the holes in any version of 9/11. that's why i started this, not prove my version, but to see what people think, to fill the holes.
My point is all of the supposed little holes in my theory can be compensated by information that hasn't been made public or a coincidence.
So a couple of small objects, presumably concealed in someone's back pocket or bag, survived, and that means its a conspiracy? Give me a break.
My point is all of the supposed little holes in my theory can be compensated by information that hasn't been made public or a coincidence.
really now, and you know this how.
well just forget about all this crap we can't prove. when i started this thread, i didn't know the FBI had no link to OBL. this is new to me. but why is it that we are told that OBL was behind it when there is no proof that he was. don't say there is, because i have shown you the FBI can't find it. this should pop up red flags in my eyes. it may not to you, but that's okay.
Here's the thing to remember about conspiracy theories, folks. No matter how preposterous, no conspiracy theory can be disproved outright.
I can state, "Elvis rose from the grave and instructed the space aliens to crash airplanes into buildings." The best you can do for a rebuttal is to say, "That is so ridiculous the chances of it happening that way are vanishingly small." However, you can not disprove my proposition that Elvis was resurrected, or that he commands space aliens, or that space aliens even exist. What would be your evidence?
Conspiracy theorists dodge the burden of proof by shifting the burden of disproof over to the rest of us. They will use the tiniest shred of "evidence" -- a tiny blip on a screen, a reflection of light in a photograph, an interview with a self-proclaimed expert, etc. -- as basis for their outlandish ideas. When confronted, their attitude is, "Prove me wrong."
And that, kids, is how we get drawn into debates with trolls and nutjobs on these internets.
this is a great point. the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.
but i don't want to prove anything.
this is a great point. the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.
so there is absolute truth...
look, in events like that which took place on 9/11 we'll never know the "absolute truth" because we were NOT there, all we know is what we saw and what we saw was the aftermath of what happened on those planes.
that is the simplest way I can put it.
everything else will always be up for debate purely because what we've been told is what officials THINK happened.
the only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth.
but i don't want to prove anything.
Originally posted by Verbal
Wrong.
Without wanting to side with either position in this discussion, I am pleased to see this discussion diverge into philosophy for a moment.
There may or may not be absolute truth. If there is, there is no direct way for us as human beings to know it. If we believe in absolute truth, then we need to do it based on faith. If we don't believe in absolute truth, or don't believe in our ability to know absoute truth, then there is the recognition of the following things:
a) that all that we know directly is what is in presented to our senses. (what we see, hear, feel, taste, smell, etc.)
b) our senses can be deceived either in obvious or subtle ways. (re: magic, illusions, drugs, hypnosis, hallucinations, sleep deprivation, etc.)
c) while we interpret what our senses tell us as truth, either our senses or our interpretation of what we sense can be wrong. (ie., as is often found with witnesses in court cases.)
d) we are often capable of leaping to conclusions before all the facts are known. Even if the facts are known, we can be selective, and just believe those that match the version of the story/theory we have constructed in our minds.
e) the rest of the information that we receive on the nature of the world is passed on second hand - at best. Someone tells us something they observed, we read a newspaper, go to the Internet, watch television, etc. Those who pass on this information are subject to the same limitations of senses and interpretation that we are.
f) therefore, the truth of all that we know is always subject to some degree of interpretation, and our conviction in the absolute must be somewhat less than certain.
On the other hand, if we lived our lives skeptical of all of the information that we received, we couldn't function. We need to believe that we can determine truth to a reasonably high degree. We need to be prepared to believe in something so that we can act. In order to function well, we need to be able to separate accurate information from inaccurate. (with the understanding that the Internet is notoriously inaccurate - although it is also strewn with nuggets of knowledge that we can winnow from the chaff if we are careful.)
We need to find credible sources of information, with the recognition that everyone else on this planet has the same limitations in determining truth that we do. We need to be prepared to look at the evidence and evaluate whether it makes sense. We need to use our experience and our reasoning capabilities to make judgement on which evidence is relevant and the conclusions that fit the available evidence. If new evidence is presented, we need to be prepared to evaluate it, and be prepared to change our minds if the evidence is persuasive enough. (ie., scientific method)
On the other hand, we can't live our lives and examine every possible mystery in exhaustive detail. We have other objectives to accomplish in our lives and we need to prioritize the information that is valuable to our lives, and the lives of those we care for, versus that which is not so meaningful. We all do this somewhat differently, and some will care deeply about the mysteries of the world enough to spend a great deal of time pursuing all the threads. Others will say, it's not worth my time, or, if it's worth my time, there isn't enough credible evidence available to make it worth my time to delve too deeply.
Okay - I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Terry Lurking at JP since the BA 777 at Heathrow and AD lost responsiveness to the throttles. How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? Sherlock Holmes
Without wanting to side with either position in this discussion, I am pleased to see this discussion diverge into philosophy for a moment.
There may or may not be absolute truth. If there is, there is no direct way for us as human beings to know it. If we believe in absolute truth, then we need to do it based on faith. If we don't believe in absolute truth, or don't believe in our ability to know absoute truth, then there is the recognition of the following things:
a) that all that we know directly is what is in presented to our senses. (what we see, hear, feel, taste, smell, etc.)
b) our senses can be deceived either in obvious or subtle ways. (re: magic, illusions, drugs, hypnosis, hallucinations, sleep deprivation, etc.)
c) while we interpret what our senses tell us as truth, either our senses or our interpretation of what we sense can be wrong. (ie., as is often found with witnesses in court cases.)
d) we are often capable of leaping to conclusions before all the facts are known. Even if the facts are known, we can be selective, and just believe those that match the version of the story/theory we have constructed in our minds.
e) the rest of the information that we receive on the nature of the world is passed on second hand - at best. Someone tells us something they observed, we read a newspaper, go to the Internet, watch television, etc. Those who pass on this information are subject to the same limitations of senses and interpretation that we are.
f) therefore, the truth of all that we know is always subject to some degree of interpretation, and our conviction in the absolute must be somewhat less than certain.
On the other hand, if we lived our lives skeptical of all of the information that we received, we couldn't function. We need to believe that we can determine truth to a reasonably high degree. We need to be prepared to believe in something so that we can act. In order to function well, we need to be able to separate accurate information from inaccurate. (with the understanding that the Internet is notoriously inaccurate - although it is also strewn with nuggets of knowledge that we can winnow from the chaff if we are careful.)
We need to find credible sources of information, with the recognition that everyone else on this planet has the same limitations in determining truth that we do. We need to be prepared to look at the evidence and evaluate whether it makes sense. We need to use our experience and our reasoning capabilities to make judgement on which evidence is relevant and the conclusions that fit the available evidence. If new evidence is presented, we need to be prepared to evaluate it, and be prepared to change our minds if the evidence is persuasive enough. (ie., scientific method)
On the other hand, we can't live our lives and examine every possible mystery in exhaustive detail. We have other objectives to accomplish in our lives and we need to prioritize the information that is valuable to our lives, and the lives of those we care for, versus that which is not so meaningful. We all do this somewhat differently, and some will care deeply about the mysteries of the world enough to spend a great deal of time pursuing all the threads. Others will say, it's not worth my time, or, if it's worth my time, there isn't enough credible evidence available to make it worth my time to delve too deeply.
Okay - I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
well just forget about all this crap we can't prove. when i started this thread, i didn't know the FBI had no link to OBL. this is new to me. but why is it that we are told that OBL was behind it when there is no proof that he was. don't say there is, because i have shown you the FBI can't find it. this should pop up red flags in my eyes. it may not to you, but that's okay.
OBL is blamed because his group was responsible for the attacks. However, there is not enough to charge him with the crime and that is why the FBI can't but 9/11 on his wanted poster.
Now, don't start resorting to cheap shots like this. It's a classic sign that you know you've lost and are trying to divert attention elsewhere.
well go back and read, people have been taking cheap shots at me for 2 days now. it kinda sucks. i thought it would be okay to bring something like this up, at first people were real asses to me. then the thread started to come together a bit, till we had some good topics come up. sorry for the cheap shot. anyone who took the time to read this thread is smart to me.
OBL is blamed because his group was responsible for the attacks. However, there is not enough to charge him with the crime and that is why the FBI can't but 9/11 on his wanted poster.
i know what your are saying, the thing is that it's only you and the FBI saying that. but all we here is OBL. OBL is the so callled leader of his group. he has come out and said they had nothing to do with 9/11. groups like his love to take credit for things like this. and even lie to try to take credit from attacks done by other groups.
i know what your are saying, the thing is that it's only you and the FBI saying that. but all we here is OBL. OBL is the so callled leader of his group. he has come out and said they had nothing to do with 9/11. groups like his love to take credit for things like this. and even lie to try to take credit from attacks done by other groups.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment