Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Are Truthers Dumb, Ridiculous, Gullible, or Crazy?

Posted 4 months ago on Aug. 6, 2014, 4:25 p.m. EST by shortNbaldNfatBUTSexy (-79) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Usually they are either dumb, ridiculous, and gullible, or they are crazy (schizophrenic paranoia). Sometimes both. Recent polls show that most Truthers did not complete graduate studies, and have a below average IQ. Truthers excel in jobs like salesmen, but do poorly in jobs which require the ability to do proper research. They are fuelled by emotions as opposed to being fuelled by rationality and logic. Truthers are very similar to religious people. They hold on really tight to irrational beliefs long ago proven myth.

80 Comments

80 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 4 months ago

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 corbettreport Transcript and sources: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=2594 Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.

(Watch French, German, Spanish, Italian, Hebrew or Portuguese translations of this video.)

TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.

The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).

Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.

[-] 4 points by eklutna (101) 4 months ago

Thanks quant.., You did a super job on that. I think most Americans just prefer the spoon-feed version of 9/11 because they don't want to confront the possibility that their government has become so perverse. I know it saddens the hell out of me.

[-] 4 points by MattHolck0 (1868) 4 months ago

what concerns me is the public's willingness to be duped

we would like to say 911 manipulated our actions to violence

when in truth, we allow wars to happen

[-] 2 points by eklutna (101) 4 months ago

That's a legitmate concern, but I believe we have been put under a mass Bernays-like psychological slumber and that it renders us impotent to react to the many injustices we face, hence not much "dup[ing]" is necessary. That, and the now foolish belief that many of us have signed on to that to question the government is on the same lines as being a traitor.

Yes as in all wars, we needed a bogeyman and a launching pad, and 9/11 fit the bill nicely for our empiracal pursuits.

From the back of my Alaska ACLU tee-shirt, "DISSENT IS PATRIOTIC"

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 4 months ago

are you in alaska? you made me think of this - “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” - tom paine

[-] 2 points by eklutna (101) 4 months ago

Yes I've been in AK since early June and will be here to the end of August.

Unfortunately being compliant to our government's policies (no matter how egregiously wrong they may be) has been confused with patriotism. That confusion is no accident though, but rather it is the result of a deliberate effort of the oligarchs and their lackeys in the MSM.

Thanks, we need more modern-day Tom Paine's..

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 4 months ago

nice - i have a friend up there for about the same time period - i hope he is well

[-] -2 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Are you a Truther like the others here?

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

you also a truther?

[-] 3 points by eklutna (101) 4 months ago

What?! You don't think that a government that has lied to us so often and for so long...and on a whole host of different things is capable of lying to us about 9/11. I mean...aren't some of those lies the reason why we are here? So yes the preponderance of the evidence suggests to me, we were lied to. You can now label me a "truther," and a conspiracy nut. I do so envy your being content with the government's version. It reminds me of the fairy tales that I read my grandkiddies.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (1868) 4 months ago

they bombed Gaddafi's grand children

bin laden was assassinated 3 days latter

the subject of Nato collateral deaths was missed

[-] -2 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I have to say. I'm a little bummed out. I thought you were more intelligent that this. I'm really sad you are a Truther like most others here. I had big hope for you.

[-] -2 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I mean...aren't some of those lies the reason why we are here?

That's not why I am here, I cannot speak for the others.

I am here because I would like to see an end to capitalism. I don't think that anything to do with lies from the governments, politicians, etc.. I don't care about the actors. What interests me is the system. Even if all the actors were super honest, capitalism would still be a problem for me. It's a system that promotes the pillage of resources for the only purpose of profit.

I guess some people joined OWS because they didn't like particulars in government, etc... I joined it for a bigger reason. Not for my country, or another, but for all countries. As a resistance to capitalism everywhere.

I joined OWS not only because I don't like capitalism, but also because I support anarcho-communism (what OWS was all about). I know many supported OWS only because they fought against what they didn't like (the government), but I actually also supported their plans for the future.

[-] -2 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I didn't ask if you thought the government was lying about 911.

Nor did I ever say I was content with the government's version.

I'm wondering if you believe in 911 conspiracy theories as a way to explain the events of 911. Saying the government lied is not saying much since we don't know what lie you mean.

For example, do you believe the Truthers when they say the government lied about a plane hitting the pentagon and that a missile was what hit? Or that the towers were brought down by demolition.

You know, it's possible to not believe the government entirely, but to also not believe 911 conspiracy theories. Those are different things that can be tackled individually.

I think evidence is important, not just saying the government lied before so he must be lying now. Don't you think?

[-] -3 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

You don't think that a government that has lied to us so often and for so long...and on a whole host of different things is incapable of lying to us about 9/11

It's as if you decide whether or not Truthers are correct about their 911 conspiracy theories based on whether or not you think the government is honest. This is kind of wacked thinking.

You should instead decide whether or not Truthers are correct about their 911 conspiracy theories based on the evidence they have amassed for their claims.

In other words, it's not either/or. The government lying does not mean Truthers aren't lying as well. We know conspiracy theorists about 911 are liars, the government probably is as well to some degree.

[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

I don't think a guy who does metal work and has built skyscrapers stating that building do not collapse like that is lying, I think they are stating what they honestly believe.

[-] -3 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Who knows. Some conspiracy theorists lie on purpose, others are just badly informed. What's important is to understand they are wrong.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

Let me ask you something outside of 9/11 as in individual event.

Do you think that the US government or the people that run it could justify doing something like this for a greater long term prize?

Could they morally do it?

[-] -2 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I'm not sure, but they certainly never would need to and that is the real danger of US nowadays. The danger is they can pretty much do anything they want. They are more powerful than you think. They don't need to create hyper-complex plans like 911 and spend months practicing to do it, and loads of money for it. They can pretty much just say let's go to war anything time want.

Morally? I think the government has done much more immoral things than 911. 911 caused under 5000 deaths. It was a big blow by the Islamist terrorists, but dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused in the hundreds of thousands of deaths, and they weren't needed at all. US could have dropped the bombs in less populated areas, like islands, just to show the power they had. There are many many more examples of absolutely immoral acts from the US government.

US is a horrible country in many ways.


I suggest you base your support of 911 Truth based on evidence, not based on whether or not you think the government could have done it.

[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

Well, like I said before, precedence carries weight when determining the legitimacy.

As you said, the body in question has nuked people, nuked them in broad daylight.

For that reason, and about 1000 more, nothing should be taken as 100% truth. And no, i dont posses the ability or resources to verify anything. I'm going off of precedence.

Not saying that whatever string of events people who sell books should be accepted, just saying that whatever this perpetual liar- who has openly nuked two cities- should be questioned and most likely at this point, after all of the horrific things, probably written off.

[-] -3 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

nothing should be taken as 100% truth.

We should always doubt. Agreed.

This means doubting the government and doubting everyone else also.

In the case of 911, we doubted. Evidence was provided by the government and by conspiracy theorists. Careful analysis of that analysis showed the conspiracy theorists were full of nonsense and the government's version held water. Furthermore, Islamist terrorists confirmed the US version by claiming responsibility.

911 is the most studied and analyzed even in history. For more than 12 years all kinds of people analyzed the facts of the case.

There's no more doubting what happened. It's been dissected to death. If you still doubt, then you are just incapable of reviewing and understanding evidence.

Your comment is like 12 years too late. You doubt before reviewing evidence, but after detailed and long review, it becomes a bit stupid to still be on the fence about something.


I mean, your comment is kind of insulting to Non Truthers. You imply we don't doubt what the government states. We do. We are skeptics. Some of us are the harshest government critics. The difference is we also doubt fat 14 year old pimpled ridden conspiracy theorists operating from their mom's basement.

We ask the government and the conspiracy theorists for evidence.

I mean, the people who lack doubting skills are conspiracy theorists, not people like me who aren't gullible and demand evidence from claims made by whomever.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

How old are you?

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

Im simply stating that they are slick enough to prove their evidence correct if studied by people like you, and sick enough to pull it off, that is all.

Believe what you want.

Personally after someone nukes someone, I dont care what their story is. If its true they cant be trusted, if it isnt they cant be trusted. Still the same end game- dont trust them.

[+] -4 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

To be honest, I find your method as being intellectually lazy.

First, people in government change. The people in government when US bombed Japan are not the same ones as in 2001 during 911.

Secondly, the idea of always distrusting someone, or always trusting someone is extremely naive and lazy. It's seing the world in black and white. I mean, I know that's what conspiracy theorists do. They never dig deeper than the most shallow waters. Governments are always 100% evil, and those against government 100% good in their eyes.

Serious scholars analyse events one by one. They realize the players in the government won't be the same each time, and, even if they were, that does not mean they would keep acting the same. To think the government always acts and reacts in similar fashion to each event is a very static form of thought, very naive, shallow, and just unrealistic in every way.

I know making an effort to understand events one by one requires more effort, but anything less is useless. Either you make the effort to understand, or you just say you don't. Saying it must of happened that way because that's the way the government worked in the past, etc... is just yourself cheating your own self intellectually. You need more self respect, more discipline. Don't cheat yourself out of intellectual thoughts because of laziness.

[-] 3 points by MattHolck0 (1868) 4 months ago

we should have an open information government

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 4 months ago

Very nice job

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 4 months ago

the credit goes to corbett.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (4847) 4 months ago

Excellent

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 4 months ago

someone had to post it.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

Amen

[-] 4 points by flip (7101) 4 months ago

how about some specifics - i notice you chose not to take up my challenge. tell me the two most compelling arguments that the truthers mount and debunk them. you will not do it - i am sure of that because that would expose you for the fraud you are. well trashy, by not taking up the challenge you have shown yourself to be short, fat, bald (no chance on the sexy) - and CHICKEN!

[+] -4 points by shortNbaldNfatBUTSexy (-79) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Sorry, I don't debate conspiracy theorists, especially Truthers.

The reason is simple. This debate is dead. It's been debated ad nauseum. Truthers have lost the debate long ago, and, for the strange reason, like religions folks, don't want to accept that their position was absolutely unfounded, baseless, and only based on faith.

You can find lots of debunking info here if that interests you:

http://www.debunking911.com

Or, read the books published by Popular Mechanics.

It would be ridiculous for me to engage a debate on this topic when the debate has ended years ago.

All the material you post about 911 is old and has been debunked 10 times over.

[-] 3 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

We now have a museum.

The mission of the 9/11 Memorial Museum, located at the World Trade Center site, is to bear solemn witness to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and February 26, 1993. The Museum honors the nearly 3,000 victims of these attacks and all those who risked their lives to save others. It further recognizes the thousands who survived and all who demonstrated extraordinary compassion in the aftermath. Demonstrating the consequences of terrorism on individual lives and its impact on communities at the local, national, and international levels, the Museum attests to the triumph of human dignity over human depravity and affirms an unwavering commitment to the fundamental value of human life.

There are two main exhibition spaces. In Memoriam, the memorial exhibition, is located on the footprint of the South Tower. The exhibition commemorates the 2,983 men, women, and children killed in the 9/11 attacks and the bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993, honoring them for how they lived their lives rather than for how they died. The historical exhibition, located on the footprint of the North Tower, examines the day of the attacks, what preceded them, and how 9/11 continues to shape our world.

The most interesting reaction was from the Christian Science Monitor.

At $700 million to build and $60 million a year to run, the new 9/11 museum is the most expensive in America. Critics say that doesn't justify the $24 entrance fee, the $39 souvenir 'Darkness Hoodie,' or parties for donors.

The Memorial Museum may become a new venue for 9-11 truth advocates. As with the other major New York City museums there are ongoing research projects continually that are important to the development of the museum in the fields of archaeology, biology, art history, and new discoveries. The Museum will be the new forum that legitimizes every thing 911 Truth organizations have done since 9/11/2001.

WTC 7 http://sf911truth.org/the-911-museums-biggest-oversight-no-mention-of-wtc-building-7/

Richard Gage (United States) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZku5KQneL8

Eye Witness Reports (United States) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDlr997wc1g

Professor Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY

Professor Laurie Manwell (Canada) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCY_vopQbRk#t=339

Professor Niels Harrit (Denmark) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNPeMvsSbl4

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 4 months ago

Weak. But no surprise

[-] -3 points by shortNbaldNfatBUTSexy (-79) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Debating Truthers is what would be weak. Intellectuals don't debate obvious crap. There are so many interesting things to talk about, why talk about garbage that has already been debated ad nauseam.

[-] 3 points by flip (7101) 4 months ago

Isn't that what you have been doing since you came to this site? You just never say anything

[+] -4 points by shortNbaldNfatBUTSexy (-79) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I actually presented a whole bunch of great ideas like Occupy pushing for anarcho-syndicalist initiatives in order to show by example, for the Bridge to the Ground, fixing Occupy imagery (which they did - Thank God). And so many more ideas.

[-] 5 points by flip (7101) 4 months ago

well that is very nice that you gave us great ideas - thanks. now to my point - you have been talking about ct since you came here. the problem is that you never say anything even remotely interesting on the subject. you say it is bullshit but never why it is bullshit. now you have posted some links to some very weak debunkers like popular mechanics - here is a bit to show those interested here how poor a job pm does - "PM next turns to the issue of the plane impacts and fire damage and their roles in the WTC event. Though PM acknowledges that the fires in the buildings could not have become hot enough to melt steel, they nonetheless rehash the constantly heard argument from other defenders of the official story that the steel did not need to melt to cause collapse. According to PM, it only had to be weakened by the fires enough to cause collapse.

PM argues that “When the planes hit the buildings and plowed into their centers, a large section of the exterior load-bearing columns as well as some crucial core columns were severed.” (pg. 37-38) Though this may be true, the collapse of the Towers appears to have actually started at floors that had minimal structural damage."

now i would like to know how some of the exterior columns were cut - not all but some - and yet the building came straight down. wouldn't the columns that were not cut cause the building to tip? so trashy i expect your usual non answer and will try not to waste my time anymore on you or 9/11 theories - i do consider it (and you - except for your "great" ideas of course) mostly a waste of time. but maybe some here will move the debate in a more intelligent direction. and lastly there is this on the pm debunking

"PM next goes on to discuss NIST’s assertions that the fires in the buildings were sufficient to weaken the steel to the failure point. However, NIST’s own tests show no evidence of this. While PM asserts in their book that “[steel] loses roughly 50 percent of its strength at approximately 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 Fahrenheit)” (pg. 38), NIST cites no evidence that the steel in the Towers sustained temperatures anywhere near this range. The highest temperatures NIST estimated for the steel samples was only 250 °C (482 °F), according to the metallographic paint tests they performed on WTC core column specimens.4

PM attempts to make a case that the combination of the aircraft impacts and the ensuing fires were sufficient to cause both of the structures to collapse. Conspiracy theorists point to other high-rise fires, such as the one in 1991 at the 38-story Meridian Plaza hotel in Philadelphia, as proof that fire alone cannot bring down a skyscraper. And, in a sense, they are right: Fire alone did not bring down the towers. (pg. 40) It is important to note that the term “conspiracy theorists” is a derogatory term used here to discredit the forensic evidence of controlled demolition brought forward by technical professionals. The experts at AE911Truth do not speculate on possible theories regarding who brought down the WTC skyscrapers.

In the case of Building 7, the NIST report tells us that structural damage played no role in initiating the collapse of the building, and that its collapse was due to “normal office fires”.5

One then has to wonder why PM does not consider the 9/11 Truth movement “in a sense right” about Building 7. But that aside, it is important to quantify how the structural damage played a role in the collapse of the Towers. We previously noted that the collapse of the Towers started on floors with less damage than other floors. In the case of the North Tower, the collapse started at the 98th floor6, which had the least amount of structural damage out of all the damaged floors.7 Not only that, but the upper section of the North Tower started to collapse on the side of the building opposite to where the plane impacted.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

Through debating there's an opportunity or chance to learn something.

[-] 2 points by flip (7101) 4 months ago

some people feel that they know it all!

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by SerfingUSA (146) 4 months ago

Who wrote this post? It is written in a very childish, foolish manner. Very little effort was given to it. It is poorly researched, and fails to link it's claims to legimate sources. I give it a grade of F-.

Post Quote: "Recent polls show that most Truthers did not complete graduate studies, and have a below average IQ." "Truthers excel in jobs like salesmen, but do poorly in jobs which require the ability to do proper research. They are fuelled by emotions as opposed to being fuelled by rationality and logic. "

It would be important to be able to review these "Recent polls". Who conducted the polls? What questions did these "Recent polls" ask?

These "Recent polls" seem to be able to extrapolate and leap to presumptuous, insouciant conclusions. Most polls are based on limited, unsubstantiated information. It would take a clinical research study to reach all of these indepth conclusions.

The author of this post is either dumb, ridiculous, gullible, or crazy (schizophrenic paranoia). Why else would someone believe that polls could reach such comprehensive conclusions?

[-] 3 points by trashyharry (3148) from Waterville, NY 4 months ago

The Pilots For 9/11 Truth have uncovered evidence that is admissible in a court of law of High Treason at:FAA,NEADS,NORAD,and Boston Center.A further examination of evidence related to the avionics of 9/11 would expose the entire truth,but most of this evidence has been classified and is not available to the American People for analysis.No other conclusion can be drawn from the analysis that has been done except High Treason.Analysis of avionics and structural engineering does not involve "emotions." Either recorded data matches what occurred,or it doesn't match.When analysts are confronted with recorded data that came from a computer that has capabilities other than those known to exist on the aircraft in question,the only explanation left is that the data provided has been falsified or substituted.Since the data provided came as the result of a FOIA request,that, in and of itself is criminal conduct of a very serious nature.And,obviously,Jihadis,although serious and comitted,are subject to the laws of physics just like non-Jihadi Muslims and everything else on the planet.A rather large discrepancy,IMHO.Further investigations could be undertaken,but there is not much point to such investigation unless somebody,somewhere has both the desire and the ability to take these matters to court.I am in favor of both further investigation and taking the case to court,but probably the American People would prefer to just let it go,as the political assassinations,the Watergate/Nixon Resignation,the Savings & Loan Debacle,the Iran/Contra Affair,various & sundry Wall Street swindles such as Enron all were let go without complete investigation or complete prosecutions.Then 9/11 was let go in the same way.Then the recent worldwide financial collapse and bailouts occurred,and again the DOJ has done only a slight investigation and no criminal prosecutions at all.That's where we're at,and that's were we've been at.Anything goes and nothing matters.There will always be people who think that massive fraud,massive murder,assassinations,and all the rest of it are unacceptable,and that it actually does matter whether or not we live in a society that tolerates such rank corruption.Calling us names like "Conspiracy Nuts'' or "paranoid schizo-Truthers" or whatever is not a contribution to any kind of constructive activity whatever.We all know another world,where abuse of power is kept to a minimum is possible.That's what we want & need and we should all work towards that,IMHO.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

Giving perpetual liars the benefit of the doubt constantly, for an entire lifetime, is a tough task.

Eventually you get to the point where you just assume its all a lie. I think the rise of "conspiracy theorists" is a just a direct result of the things the government has conspired over the course of our lifetimes. Kind of a natural reaction.

[+] -4 points by shortNbaldNfatBUTSexy (-79) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I disagree. You can go to other countries where governments are much worse than US, governments that are totally corrupted and make devious lie after devious lie, and conspiracy theories aren't as popular as in US. It's really an American phenomenon.

This is really a religious type phenomenon. What's interesting to note is that these conspiracy theories keep lasting even after they have been shown to be false and ridiculous. I think this is the key. If it was just a problem of trust with the government, then trust would be rekindled after investigations are over. But, it's not. A conspiracy theorist does not care for evidence. He holds a religious position based on faith that can never be changed.

We don't ask to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone. Be wary. Question the government and their motives. The problem is not this. The problem is that conspiracy theories have pre made answers to their questions. They don't care about evidence. No matter what, they will distrust the government. No matter what evidence is uncovered.

Constant distrust is just as bad as constant benefit of the doubt. I ask of neither. Only proper research. Doubt everyone, including conspiracy theorists. Learn about research. Learn about evidence. Make up your own mind. But, be educated in order to do so properly.

The perpetual liars here are the conspiracy theorists. This is the irony.

[-] 2 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

Wikipedia-

The relationship between religion and science has been a subject of study since Classical antiquity, addressed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others. Perspectives from different geographical regions, cultures and historical epochs are diverse, with some characterizing the relationship as one of conflict, others describing it as one of harmony, and others proposing little interaction.

Science and religion generally pursue knowledge of the universe using different methodologies. Science acknowledges reason, empiricism, and evidence, while religions include revelation, faith and sacredness. Despite these differences, most scientific and technical innovations prior to the Scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Much of the scientific method was pioneered first by Islamic scholars, and later by Christians. Hinduism has historically embraced reason and empiricism, holding that science brings legitimate, but incomplete knowledge of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

[-] 0 points by shortNbaldNfatBUTSexy (-79) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Science is the only method we have to obtain knowledge about the world.

Religions and conspiracy theories make up stories which they call knowledge. When put to the test, these don't hold up.

Without science, you would still be living in a cave with no understanding of what the moon, sun, stars, etc... are. You would still explain everything by saying 'God'.

[-] 2 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

Can science explain everything?

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

No, not yet, perhaps one day it will (that I cannot answer), but it is the only way we have of acquiring knowledge.

The other forms of epistemologies - region, conspiracy theories, etc... have been a complete failure. They are not only limited like science, they are absolutely useless in terms of acquiring knowledge about the world. They make up fantasies which they call knowledge. But, in the end, it is not knowledge so it cannot be used.

This is easy to test. Look at the applications. Can you name one application from religion or conspiracy theories? There are none.

[-] 5 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

Einstein said imagination is more important than knowledge.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/556030-imagination-is-more-important-than-knowledge-for-knowledge-is-limited

The concept of the infinite cannot be proven scientifically. It is the basis of calculus which is used by science and engineering today.

Shakespeare:There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, or more simply Hamlet, is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written between 1599 and 1601.

The Galilean moons are the four moons of Jupiter discovered by Galileo Galilei around January 1610. They are by far the largest of the moons of Jupiter and derive their names from the lovers of Zeus: Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. They are among the most massive objects in the Solar System outside the Sun and the eight planets, with radii larger than any of the dwarf planets.

The discovery of these moons started a scientific revolution.

[-] -2 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Why should we care what Einstein had to say - out of context on top of that?

If infinite calculus is used to create engineering applications and those applications work in real life because of that calculus, then that calculus is proven to work scientifically.

I'm not sure what your point is?

Are you trying to say that because science has limits (I'm not even sure this is true), that conspiracy theories and religions are thus true or worthwhile endeavours to undertake in order to gain knowledge? That proposition makes no logical sense.

[-] 3 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

Infinity cannot be measured. How big is infinity? How small is infinitesimal? Here is an example. Some math students have memorized pi to100 decimal places. Pi's practical value is useful only up to 8 decimal places. Beyond that region distances would be measured in units smaller than angstroms and microns. These would be subatomic particles. Practically invisible.

[-] -2 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

What is your point?

[-] 2 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

Cometotheparty mentioned science is the only way we have of acquiring knowledge and that the other forms of epistemologies - region, conspiracy theories, etc... have been a complete failure. They are not only limited like science, they are absolutely useless in terms of acquiring knowledge about the world.

My reply quoted Einstein on the importance of imagination. I cited examples where pure imagination and fantasy is related to science. Einstein formulated the general theory of relativity which couldn’t be proven scientifically until years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

At its introduction in 1915, the general theory of relativity did not have a solid empirical foundation. It was known that it correctly accounted for the "anomalous" precession of the perihelion of Mercury and on philosophical grounds it was considered satisfying that it was able to unify Newton's law of universal gravitation with special relativity. That light appeared to bend in gravitational fields in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919 but it was not until a program of precision tests was started in 1959 that the various predictions of general relativity were tested to any further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.

Mathematics is said to be the Queen of the Sciences, but Mathematics is not a Science. Mathematics is closely related to religion. Theology and mathematical thinking have influenced each other in a variety of ways throughout history, exemplified in the mystical sect of Pythagoreans

http://philoctetes.org/event/mathematics_and_religion

[-] -2 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I'm sorry, but mathematics are closer to science than religion. They can be tested for one thing. They describe phenomena that is observable, or rational. Religions describe fantasy that fails to be proven when checked in the real world. Actually, most religious ideas could not function as per our current mathematical and scientific models of the world.

As for your diatribe on Einstein's General Relativity, well, it wasn't fully scientific until it was tested. It was only a hypothesis at the point preceeding scientific testing.

Many hypothesis made by scientists end up being false. Hypothesis is not knowledge. Knowledge is only acquired at the end of the scientific process when hypothesis is tested repeatedly, can make predictions, etc... at which point it becomes a theory, and, the beauty is that with theories we can make applications in the real world like computers , planes, etc... Applications are the ultimate proof that what we formulated scientifically actually works in the real world.


So, if you believe there are other methods of acquiring knowledge apart from science, then I ask you to show applications made by those other methods. For example, showing us an application made from the "knowledge" acquired through creationism, religion, conspiracy theories, etc... would be a good indicator that this knowledge might be correct.

[-] 3 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

What is Stonehenge? It is a mystery. It is an astronomical artifact and more. Stonehenge was produced by a culture that left no written records.

[-] 1 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Don't look to religions and/or conspiracy theories to explain StoneHenge for you.

I suggest you read what well trained archeologists, historians, scientists, etc... have to say.

[-] 0 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Wikipedia is your friend! You can use the sources below the article to further your reading. It links to many books and articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_about_Stonehenge

[-] 3 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

Practical applications of Einstein's theories are being developed a century after the original papers were published. It takes time to understand things.

How can science test for infinity? Science can give approximations. Mathematics can also give approximations Is the universe infinite?. Religion may have an answer.

[-] -1 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

What can mathematics tell us about the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11/2001?

Probably a whole lot of stuff. Make models of the planes hitting the towers for example based on fuel on board, impact speed, strength of building elements like the tensile strength of some pillars, etc...

There's probably a whole other bunches of uses I am not even sure of. You should probably read the NIST report. It's like 600 pages long and uses mathematics to back some of the claims.


What can religions tell us about the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11/2001?

[-] 2 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

Some people want to blame Muslim extremists. Others want to blame the Jews who owned the WTC. I just want the truth.

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration. In NIST's May 7, 2003 News Release on the progress of its investigation, there is clear evidence that the agency has been hampered in its investigation by a lack of access to evidence.

In August of 2005, 9-11 Research published Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century, Version 0.98, by Jim Hoffman. The essay critiqued the Draft of NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Towers, which actually only treats the Twin Towers, not WTC 7, the third WTC tower to totally collapse. (The Report's detailed title, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft), is similarly misleading.) Hoffman's essay noted that NIST went to great lengths to model aspects of the attack that are well understood -- such as the impacts of the jetliners -- while quietly sidestepping the core question of how the Twin Towers totally collapsed. By truncating the timelines of its models before the collapses even began, NIST not only evaded its stated objective of explaining the collapses, it avoided disclosing the many features of controlled demolition exhibited by the collapses. Subsequent to the publication of this essay, NIST altered its website to prevent direct access to its draft report.

On August 21, 2008, NIST held a press conference to release the draft of its Final Report on WTC Building 7. The draft included a half-dozen PDF documents, all of which were locked. Researchers working make NIST's investigation more transparent published unlocked versions of the documents.

NIST allowed only 30 days for public comments on its report. A group of sixteen researchers, including scientists, architects, and engineers, submitted this letter to NIST's WTC Technical Information Repository before the deadline. The letter points out numerous inconsistencies, unsupported conclusions, and failures of investigation in NIST's Report. NIST's Final Report, entitled "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building Center", or NIST NCSTAR 1A, was released in November of 2008.

In August of 2008 the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) published a draft of its Final Report on the "collapse" of WTC 7. A group of independent researchers submitted the following response to the draft Report within the public comment period.

http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/WTC7Comments.html

NIST took 3 years to prepare a 1000+page document, but only30 days for review and comments.

Critics of the NIST report say it doesn't add up and need many revisions. In science the data is published, the source code for computer programs is published and the results are peer reviewed. This was not allowed to happen.

.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/nist/

[-] -2 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Practical applications of Einstein's theories are being developed a century after the original papers were published. It takes time to understand things.

Your point? Do you mean to say we should deem religions or conspiracy theories true because it takes time to develop applications? Until there are applications, I don't consider them true, just like many people did not consider Einstein's theories true until they were properly verified by science.

Science can give approximations. Mathematics can also give approximations Is the universe infinite?.

True, science gives approximations so far. So what?

How can science test for infinity?

I'm not sure. You'd have to ask a scientist of a philosopher. Perhaps there are problems making this impossible, maybe not.

What we know is that if things are knowable about our universe, science will be able to know them.

It is the only method we have for acquiring knowledge, and it is pretty damn powerful.

Religion may have an answer.

None so far. Nothing from religion seems to hold true, it's the opposite. It's becoming more and more obvious that religions are complete hogwash created by sand vagabonds thousands of years ago.

[-] 3 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

What can mathematics tell us about the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11/2001?

[-] 2 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

Not everyone can believe in Special or General Relativity because they can't see the effects and probably never will. So Special and General Relativity doesn't exist for them.

When two observers are in relative uniform motion and uninfluenced by any gravitational mass, the point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a slower rate than the local clock. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the magnitude of time dilation. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation.

Gravitational time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers differently situated from gravitational masses, in regions of different gravitational potential. The lower the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.

The effects of time dilation are near millisecond, microsecond or nanosecond range. Atomic clocks are needed to detect time dilation with precision. The clocks didn't exist in1915.

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Relative_velocity_time_dilation

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

As far as people that have their theories proven to be wrong and still keep believing, its kind of the same as the ones that keep believing their government despite the proven lies coming out from them.

Obviously, the latter has a much larger following.

[-] -3 points by shortNbaldNfatBUTSexy (-79) from New York, NY 4 months ago

You are confusing two things here.

On one hand you talk about keeping belief in theories proven wrong, and on the other you talk about keeping belief in an entity that lies often.

Apples and oranges. Events vs people. Content vs proposer.

The comparison should be believing in conspiracy theorists even though they lie often with believing a government even though it lies often.

The problem with believe in theories proven wrong is that those theories are proven wrong! It makes not sense to keep believing in 911 conspiracy theories that have been showed wrong. That doesn't mean the conspiracy theorists who came up with those lame theories won't be right the next time around.

Similarly, because the government lied about a passed event does not mean it will lie about a current one. Or, vice versa.

You can't see the world in black or white fashion like a conspiracy theorist, or you will never have understanding.

Again, the world is complex. To understand, you need to dig deep, to analyze each event. The people in government change, goals change, etc... You can't explain 911 by saying the government did this thing 20 years ago so they must have done smiting similar for 911. You have to analyze 911 on its own.

Again, do not believe government nor conspiracy theorists a priori. Make the effort to research event by event to see what happened for real.


Both governments and conspiracy theorists have a high tendency to lie. And both might be lying to you at the same time. So, you really can't base yourself on a priori assumptions. You need a case by case analysis.

[-] 1 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

"Both governments and conspiracy theorists have a high tendency to lie. And both might be lying to you at the same time. So, you really can't base yourself on a priori assumptions. You need a case by case analysis."

True.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

I think the difference is that people in these other countries have come to the conclusion that their government is full of shit a long time ago, its not really up for debate. But here, they slather on the freedom and democracy propaganda so thick, that it makes for an interesting combination of empire and honesty.

Personally I belief the entire system is bought and paid for. So while I personally dont have the funds- or more importantly the time- to do the research on every scandal or nonstory, I tend to stop believing what they tell me.

Without the funds to do the research on one's own, all you have is to either take the original story from lying, stealing murdering bodies and organizations, or attempt to connect the dots on your own. Not a whole of middle ground there.

[+] -4 points by shortNbaldNfatBUTSexy (-79) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Not believing what the government tells you does not equate buying into ridiculous conspiracy theories. This is one of the big mistakes conspiracy theorists make, and I think it shows quite well their black and white thinking patterns. That is their main problem after all, they view the world like a cartoon, black and white. The world is complex. It is grey. Full of contradictions, coincidences, the unexplained, the irrational, etc...

If you tell a conspiracy theorist that you don't believe in their nonsense, they instantly retaliate - "So why do you believe in the official explanation!" as if those were the only two possibilities.

You need to take things one at a time. You can dismiss dumb and ridiculous 911 conspiracy theories instantly because they are based on flawed research and have no evidence to support them. This has nothing to do with the official explanation.

The official explanation is something else altogether.

I believe the main lines of the official 911 explanation. That is I believe there might be lies from the government, but that overall it is a good explanation.

However, you don't have too. You can disbelief the conspiracy theories and disbelief the government as well.

In other words, the fact that conspiracy theorists lie does not mean the government is telling the truth, or the fact that the government is lying does not mean that conspiracy theorists aren't lying as well.

Don't view this question as a kind of double sided coin, as bi-dimentional. It is not necessarily one or the other.

[-] 2 points by JackPot (87) 4 months ago

Why would the government lie about 9/11? Why would conspiracy theorists lie about 9/11?

Professor Daniele Ganser (Switzerland) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY

[-] -1 points by cometotheparty (-66) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Lol, conspiracy theorists lie so they can sell books, DVDS, sell talks, amass donations, etc... They lie to make big money. It's a huge industry. You even have big TV shows from people like Jesse Ventura, and the main conspiracy theorist in US, Alex Jones, is a millionaire.

The government didn't really lie about 911. They didn't have too.

The Truth movement is a huge industry. Americans have not shame profiting from a tragedy to make big bucks.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

Good points. Myself, I fall into the "Im not sure what happened, but these lunatics in government are usually full of it, so I'm going to usually dismiss their story".. But you are right, as far as some of the stuff goes, like the incredibly detailed scenarios that are built on nothing but hearsay, thats kind of insane.

For myself, with 9/11, I'm not sure what happened. All I can go on, that I saw with my own eyes, was how that fool of a president reacted when told we were under attack. To me, that was an incredibly bizarre reaction.

[-] -2 points by shortNbaldNfatBUTSexy (-79) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Why aren't you also adopting the position - "I'm not sure what happened, but these lunatic conspiracy theorists are usually full of it, so I'm going to usually dismiss their story?"

You should doubt all sources equally. Especially since we know conspiracy theorists lie all the time, just like governments. They lie to sell their books, their talks, and their DVDs. The guy that runs Architects and Engineers for 911 goes around the country getting donations from gullible people. He's been grabbing donations for years and never does anything with them. He's getting rich from idiots who just give him money for nothing.

He should at least do something. Like pay for some kind of independent research. Well, he does nothing because he already knows he's wrong. He does nothing so he can keep milking donations off people.


To be honest, it seems to be you are lazy to do your research. You "usually dismiss" based on what happened before. Instead, you should doubt everyone and research thing by thing if you want to hold a position on it. If you don't do research, then just say "I don't know, I didn't research it."

Just like you shouldn't trust anything a priori, you shouldn't dismiss stuff a priori either. That's just being lazy.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1718) 4 months ago

It's not that I'm lazy, its that I simply dont have the time to dive and research everything. And you are correct, that same skepticism should be given to all of the official stories that come out against the mainstream narrative as well.

At the end of the day I have to look at the government the same way I look at a few people I know when I see them and the bullshit starts flying- most likely, its all bullshit. Whether it real is or not is of little consequence to me, and I don't have the desire to verify it all.

Its not being lazy, its seeing a pattern of abuse and making an assumption based off of an incredibly consistent track record of corruption, lying, cheating and killing.

I mean, honestly, you can't really expect everytime another story happens for me to start donating valuable time to figure out whether these corrupted lunatics are once again lying of if its really the truth, right?

Its a pretty pessimistic view I have of the government, I have a very low tolerance for liars and scammers.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Narley (295) 4 months ago

You do realize most of the population fit into your profile. I also think truthers are dumb; but probably no more so than most everyone else.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 4 months ago

so you are saying you think the govt was honest and forthcoming about all 9-11 and obl information? they didn't obfuscate the truth and craft a narrative to suit business interests and not the citizens of the usa? that is just silly.

[-] 1 points by Narley (295) 4 months ago

I have no idea what the truth is about 9-11; and neither do you. In the end it's just our opinion.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 4 months ago

there are opinions grounded in fact and opinions grounded in fantasy to act as if there is an equivalence is to be dishonest.

[-] -3 points by shortNbaldNfatBUTSexy (-79) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Yes, agreed. Most people are dumb and gullible. Intelligent people are rare.