How Can You Expose the 9/11 Cover-up by Starting a Blog?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby the_last_name_left » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:08 pm

See, there's a funny thing going on with conspiracists, and Troofers.

They always say "look at the evidence" - but they reject all the evidence which they don't like.

And in contrast to the massive amounts of evidence, from as diverse sources as you can imagine, which suggests 19 hijackers - there is NO DIRECT POSITIVE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for a conspiracy/inside job.

But none of the evidence counts for the terminally suspicious. It's ALL disregarded, apparently because it's compromised, unreliable, etc etc.

And of course, they tell us the "real" evidence is locked away......or destroyed.......or.....something.

What such beliefs rest upon is a mystery.

Why do you believe something for which you have NO EVIDENCE? Why do you reject all the evidence which contradicts your view?

Such cherry-picking is the staple of 911 truth.

I'm quite open to it being a conspiracy, or inside job, whatever. I used to believe it myself. But 7 years later I have to accept there's absolutely no direct positive evidence for it - whereas there is massive amounts of evidence from all sorts of various sources saying 19 hijackers, etc etc.

But troofers just disregard all the evidence they don't like. That is not the right way too proceed.

Iraq was a far greater crime - and we have all the evidence we need to conclude it's a war crime, of the highest order - a crime against peace. 911 is a distraction - parochialism.

911 conspiracy treads a difficult line: the conspiracy is sometimes huge - and at other times tiny ie it's never the same conspiracy all the way through.

It has to be small, to allow it remaining secret - and it has to be massive, to achieve everything needed.

For instance - the towers' collapse. If it was done by explosives, there'd need to be a lot of explosives. But that makes it very difficult to believe it could be done. So the amount of explosives needed is suggested to be very small - in which case a crashing jet and fires can easily account for the energy imparted by just a few explosives.

It is a clear, if unconscious tactic used by troofers - the conspiracy changes as the needs of explanation dictate.

And the history of 911 truth shows that as one element is eliminated, another pops into place to replace it, and the whole malarkey begins again.

It really doesn't generate any confidence.

And whilst there's no direct evidence for conspiracy, the huge amounts of evidence otherwise are simply ignored. And it's ignored because it's "official" evidence. But that again raises the issue of size - if ALL evidence is nobbled, then how big is this conspiracy? If it's soooo big, how come nothing has escaped it? And why believe anything at all if you reject every "official" piece of evidence? It's cherry-picking, isn't it?

So we have this "hidden" evidence - secreted away and witheld by the vast conspiracy? Why can't people see how presumptuous that is?

These errors run right throughout 911 Troof - and they lead me to be highly suspicious. How can "truth" be expected to come out of such cherrypicking? How can assumptions hold such sway? Why is all the evidence fatal to conspiracism rejected?

Clearly 911 Troof is interested in proving its hypothesis - and not "the truth". News providers which say the least thing in support of a conspiracy are believed - the same news orgs are disbelieved when they say anything that contradicts the conspiracy line.

That isn't investigation - it's an exercise in pure confirmation bias.

And what else to expect when so many are making money and gaining kudos from it? It's a money machine - like UFOs. Look at a bookshop and see how much crap on UFOs there is - and yet is there any credible evidence for the existence of aliens, and spacecraft etc? No - none. It doesn't stop them making money out of the gullible though, does it?

911 truth is just the same?
the_last_name_left
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:50 am

the_last_name_left wrote:
evidence that could vindicate said coverupers is being withheld.


oh. But somehow you know the evidence exists?

On what grounds?


well now you're just being a retard. on the grounds that they said it exists. and by they i'm referring to many thousands of people, many of whom are involved in the collection of said evidence.

clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. there are literally hundreds of threads on this board dealing with accumulated evidence, and you want me to do your VERY basic homework for you?

you need to go somewhere else.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby the_last_name_left » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:15 am

but how do you know what this hidden-away evidence is, if it exists at all?

Who are you thinking of whom says the evidence exists? Why do you believe them as opposed to anyone else? And what is the hidden-away evidence? what does it say?
the_last_name_left
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby brainpanhandler » Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:52 am

I'll give you this LNL, you're determined. But that's about all I'll credit you with at the moment.

You realize you fit a particular MO to a T. Board rules, sensible rules at that, forbid me from being more explicit, but you seem smart enough to figure it out.

If I had more time I would completely deconstruct your post from 12/22 9:08 and test your fortitude to continue in this vein. Maybe if I'm bored one day...
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hammer of Los » Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:27 pm

Hell, in a test of fortitude he would beat me every time.

Stamina. That's what you need to win an argument. Sheer stamina.

:wink:
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby the_last_name_left » Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:28 pm

I've been told I'm talking shit - over and over again.

But no-one has bothered to point out quite how.

They always only "threaten" to do so.
the_last_name_left
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest