Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

A Focus on Conspiracy Theory

This post has 82 Replies | 9 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Sun, Jul 12 2009 10:34 AM

DD5:
For crying out loud, The Huffington Post is sponsoring this HR1207 bill.  Is this not a writing on the wall?

It could just mean that the audit is going to be one giant fraud, kind of like the stress-tests. This would increase the reputation of the FED, and assure its existence. One reason why I completely oppose this bill.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Sun, Jul 12 2009 11:11 AM

onebornfree:
Fact 2 :   based on an understanding of elementary, high school level laws of physics [i.e.  using basic simple, laws of elementary physics] , it is scientifically provable that no planes hit either WTC1, WTC2, or the Pentagon,  on September 11th 2001.  Such a conspiracy theory is commonly called "no plane theory" [NPT], although in my own case, NPT stands for "no plane truth".

If you have evidence, I'm listening. I have always had two major issues with the no plane theory:

1. If nothing hit the towers, how come no one in all of NYC caught "nothing" hitting the buildings? Obviously something hit the twin towers, and I suppose the theory is that they were missiles made to look like planes?

2. If so, where are the people who were supposed to have died in those plane crashes? We have flight numbers, so we must have several hundred dead people - who you're saying didn't really die? Or are you saying the flights were diverted and crashed (and cleaned up without a trace) somewhere else?

Seems a very very hard hole to dig out of, more a basic logical issue than a scientific one, but I'm all ears if there is good evidence.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 457
Points 14,505

Guys.  Conspiracy theorists aren't statists.  I don't know where you get this idea.  Conspiracy theorists in fact want the government to stay out of our private lives.  They may not be anarchists... they're just clearly not statists.  They see the government has been hijacked, and, they want a government, as was laid out by the founding fathers- that being a small one.  They are minarchists.  You should do some reading about their works on the internet and on different message boards- you will see they aren't statists, not in the sort.  You have your partisan conspiracy theorists but most conspiracy theorists aren't partisan.  They want the smallest government possible... but... they just don't believe we can do without government.  They just see it as a necessary evil.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 712
Points 13,830
zefreak replied on Sun, Jul 12 2009 1:42 PM

Somewhat irrelevant, but Alex Jones is a nutcase. I refuse to be associated with him and others of his persuasion.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken


 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 244
Points 3,785
Pablo replied on Sun, Jul 12 2009 1:54 PM

nirgrahamUK:

how many no-planers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 244
Points 3,785
Pablo replied on Sun, Jul 12 2009 1:58 PM

SilentXtarian:
They want the smallest government possible

They want legitimized use of violence. They are statists. Point out the gun in the room, they'll be the first to drop it. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 457
Points 14,505

Pablo:

SilentXtarian:
They want the smallest government possible

They want legitimized use of violence. They are statists. Point out the gun in the room, they'll be the first to drop it. 

Most conspiracy theorists are against the use of violence.  They see wars as nothing but exercises for special interests, or, Rockefeller and co, and, just NWO battle grounds.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

onebornfree:
Or, to put it another way, how many state- employed "engineers" , state media pundits and other state sycophants who directly benefit from spouting the official "scientific truth", have to insist that the events depicted in this video follow the laws of physics, before most self-described "anarcho -capitalists" believe them?

Of course! Everbody who disagrees with you is state-employed! On a serious note, Popular Mechanics showed how the laws of physics necessitated the results of 9/11; but, Popular Mechanics is obvious a syncophants of the state a la Marx's bias doctrine.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 12:57 AM

A few points:

1) Assuming rationality, truly crazy people doing things that get them put in prison for life or killed, just to get attention or to go down in history or to make a point should be incredibly rare. Even butchering sociopaths like BTK, Bundy, Unabomber, Charles Ng, etc. seek to avoid capture.

2) Most powerful people who die prematurely die at the hands of their powerful enemies. History is conclusive on this point. Conspiracy is the rule, not the exception.

3) The state instigates war with its neighboring states and terror in its citizenry and/or the citizenry of neighboring territories. The state is the foremost practitioner of terror.

4) We should never hesitate to suspect state involvement in any atrocity due to some sense that it would be "beyond" the state, since the state is simply a mafia with really good PR. The government are thugs.

5) Nevertheless, there is a tendency amongst people to exaggerate the powers of the state and the extent of conspiracies and this tendency actually plays into the hands of the state. Etienne de la Boetie says in The Politics of Obedience,

"The kings of the Assyrians and even after them those of the Medes showed themselves in public as seldom as possible in order to set up a doubt in the minds of the rabble as to whether they were not in some way more than man, and thereby to encourage people to use their imagination for those things which they cannot judge by sight. Thus a great many nations who for a long time dwelt under the control of the Assyrians became accustomed, with all this mystery, to their own subjection, and submitted the more readily for not knowing what sort of master they had, or scarcely even if they had one, all of them fearing by report someone they had never seen. The earliest kings of Egypt rarely showed themselves without carrying a cat, or sometimes a branch, or appearing with fire on their heads, masking themselves with these objects and parading like workers of magic. By doing this they inspired their subjects with reverence and admiration, whereas with people neither too stupid nor too slavish they would merely have aroused, it seems to me, amusement and laughter. It is pitiful to review the list of devices that early despots used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible, readily caught in the net as soon as it was spread. Indeed they always fooled their victims so easily that while mocking them they enslaved them the more."

Every time I see a clip of David Icke, I think of this quote. Whether intentionally or not, the Ickes and Alex Joneses, by exaggerating the power of the elites and failing to apply critical thinking to the actions of the crooks in government, play into the "mystique" and amplify the power of the elite to intimidate through the fear of the unknown.

The Austrians are truly a breath of fresh air in this regard, at once refusing to give the state a carte blanche on the basis of utilitarianism or simple naivete, like all other schools of thought, and yet refusing to fall into the trap of exaggerating and enlarging the mystique of the state to its own benefit.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 1:46 AM

Good points on the mystique of the state, or alternatively of the mystique of powerful elite conspirators. That mystique is so thick and dank in conspiracy writings and videos that it's almost palpable.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 321
Points 5,235
Seph replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 2:03 AM

All good points. I myself, being a 'conspiracy theorist' (meaning yes, I do believe 9/11 was an inside job) am often frustrated with the solutions given by other so called 'conspiracy theorists'. 

Most of them ARE minarchists, lets make that quite clear, anyone who disputes this, simply doesnt know enough about the issue. However, they fall into the old minarchist trap....they see the evil in government, but only until their man gets in. Instead of being free, they would rather have a just master.   

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 321
Points 5,235
Seph replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 2:10 AM

Over 700 certified engineers would dispute your point. 

 

http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

And I dont suppose you've read David Ray Griffin's masterful works debunking Popular Mechanics?

 

Do you appreaciate Keynsians spouting their obviously false doctrines, while having only the barest knowledge of who Mises or Rothbard are? Im guissing not.  

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

laminustacitus:

onebornfree:
Or, to put it another way, how many state- employed "engineers" , state media pundits and other state sycophants who directly benefit from spouting the official "scientific truth", have to insist that the events depicted in this video follow the laws of physics, before most self-described "anarcho -capitalists" believe them?

Of course! Everbody who disagrees with you is state-employed! On a serious note, Popular Mechanics showed how the laws of physics necessitated the results of 9/11; but, Popular Mechanics is obvious a syncophants of the state a la Marx's bias doctrine.

"On a serious note,Popular Mechanics"  ?

Fer cryin out loud!  If I wanted to patronize  I'd say your naivete astounds me, Sir.

Instead , I suggest that:

[1] you reconsider the Rothbard quote from earlier in the thread : "Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of "conspiracy" analysis who profess to believe that all events – at least in government – are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning."

[2] then you find out for yourself [I'm not going to tell you] exactly who owns "Popular Mechanics".

[3] You then thoroughly research that Inc.s and its founder's long, sordid historical record of activities and involvement in previous wars involving the US.

Along the way you might also discover said corporations current CEO and president has direct ties to both the Bush family [HW and GW] and to the CIA.

[4] on a similar note, that you also find out for yourself , assuming that you do not already know,[ and again, I'm not going to tell you], exactly who owns the major TV networks who broadcast the "live" [i.e on 17 second delay] footage on 9/11.

[5] you take  another hard look at the Rothbard quote.

'Changed my mind- your naivete astounds me, Sir!

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

AJ:

onebornfree:
Fact 2 :   based on an understanding of elementary, high school level laws of physics [i.e.  using basic simple, laws of elementary physics] , it is scientifically provable that no planes hit either WTC1, WTC2, or the Pentagon,  on September 11th 2001.  Such a conspiracy theory is commonly called "no plane theory" [NPT], although in my own case, NPT stands for "no plane truth".

If you have evidence, I'm listening. I have always had two major issues with the no plane theory:

1. If nothing hit the towers, how come no one in all of NYC caught "nothing" hitting the buildings? Obviously something hit the twin towers, and I suppose the theory is that they were missiles made to look like planes?

2. If so, where are the people who were supposed to have died in those plane crashes? We have flight numbers, so we must have several hundred dead people - who you're saying didn't really die? Or are you saying the flights were diverted and crashed (and cleaned up without a trace) somewhere else?

Seems a very very hard hole to dig out of, more a basic logical issue than a scientific one, but I'm all ears if there is good evidence.

For now, I would suggest that you put aside/clear your mind of  your initial stated reservations [1&2 above] and instead concentrate on simple laws of physics  and common sense while reviewing an analysis of this  911 crash movie[ never shown live but shown on CNN and elsewhere later that  same day].

If you do not start from that position [ i.e seriously considering the possibility or impossibility of the events supposedly depicted in that video and others  similar from an unbiased, purely scientific standpoint], but instead start from your position of doubt /bias as expressed in your objections/questions 1&2 when reviewing any evidence I or anyone else might present for you, there can be no hope of reaching any conclusion other than the one implied/expressed in you pre-existing doubts.

P.S. Higher and Lower Standards of Proof For Evidentiary Review Methodologies

As far as I can see there are only two ways for reviewing evidence in the case of 911, or for any other.

[1] would be the neutral , unbiased "scientific" approach whereby all evidence [nothing excluded] is exhaustively reviewed before any conclusions are reached. Of the two possible methodologies, this requires a lower standard of proof for the governments case.

[2] The other, the "legal method" requires  automatic pre-bias against absolutely anything the state and its sycophants says, and therefor automatically requires a much higher standard of proof for proving the state's case.

As an inhabiter of these boards, I assume you know that such pre-bias against the states evidence was purposely written into the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights, so at least at one time in this countries history the idea of automatic pre-bias against the states version of truth was taken for granted .

As no systemic pre-bias is assumed in using the scientific method, obviously, method[1] requires a lower standard of proof than does [2] , but quite honestly, I am constantly amazed that anyone here even considers giving the state the benefit of the doubt in the case of 911 or for anything else.

However, the lower standard for truth that the unbiased scientific approach requires is sufficient in this particular case [i.e planes flying through buildings in one piece without even slowing down and with no parts falling off on the outside], seeing as it involves nothing more than the employment of common sense plus a basic working knowledge of Newtons 3rd law of motion.

The real bottom line? Nobody on these boards who claims to be a libertarian, an  anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist or whatever should  be even remotely considering  as truthful  anything the state says is true about 911,  or about anything else for that matter, as far as I can see. They "should" be  automatically starting their 911 investigations with massive pre-bias against the state's story, just as the Bill of Rights attempted to ensure.

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 6:52 AM

All that is rather convincing that there was a controlled demolition, I agree, but I'm asking about the "no plane theory," i.e. "it is scientifically provable that no planes hit [the buildings]." I know many people have a problem with analyzing evidence when they have pre-existing doubts, because they don't have much patience with provisionally accepting premises that seem doubtful in order to think about further possibilities, to see if later puzzle pieces will fit together so as to make the initial premise seem more likely. I am patient and seek the truth, so I have and will provisionally accept premises when needed to evaluate nested claims. I think that's a basic requirement for any logical person, and I too lament that most people seem to eschew that type of patient inquiry. I do provisionally accept the idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and that the planes were just for show, but even with that provisional acceptance the above two issues stand. That's why I raised those specific questions.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

AJ:

All that is rather convincing that there was a controlled demolition, I agree, but I'm asking about the "no plane theory," i.e. "it is scientifically provable that no planes hit [the buildings]." I know many people have a problem with analyzing evidence when they have pre-existing doubts, because they don't have much patience with provisionally accepting premises that seem doubtful in order to think about further possibilities, to see if later puzzle pieces will fit together so as to make the initial premise seem more likely. I am patient and seek the truth, so I have and will provisionally accept premises when needed to evaluate nested claims. I think that's a basic requirement for any logical person, and I too lament that most people seem to eschew that type of patient inquiry. I do provisionally accept the idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition and that the planes were just for show, but even with that provisional acceptance the above two issues stand. That's why I raised those specific questions.

I understand. I must go now. Please review and closely consider the physics of the plane crash video I linked to, and my P.S. concerning standards of truth vis a vis investigative methodologies.

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 7:59 AM

Yeah, I already looked at it and have seen a whole lot of other stuff before, but none of that addresses the two issues above. No matter how perfect the media cover-up may have been, the two issues ought to have answers and that is what I'd like to hear.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 10:33 AM

All right, congratulations. The clues video was fascinating. I found your newbie post and watched the video you linked there - all 90 minutes of it. If I could verify that all the video footage they show is indeed the same video footage that was aired on the various news networks, I would lean toward believing that the planes were missiles or nonexistent (but would lean back toward planes if anyone I knew said they actually saw the planes). Some of the arguments were dubious, but a few were downright damning by showing obvious video editing - if the footage there is really the original footage.

However, the part about the plane passengers still makes zero sense. The video's answer to this was entirely unsatisfactory, all the more so considering that this is a seemingly fatal hole in "no planes" notion.

So where are we now? If we assume, or can verify, that the video footage in "clues" is as originally aired on TV, then the case for malicious and coordinated media forgery is quite strong. However, the passenger issue is utterly irreconcilable on the face of it. I'm not asking questions just to be argumentative, I really am interested in your answers. I will evaluate them patiently, so please link or explain away the passenger objection.

[Note: I know I'm derailing and seemingly contradicting my own thread here, but I'd point out that if this "no planes" thing is true, State control is a lot more far along than we tend to think. If this is possible - not saying it is, but if - then there is value in analyzing this particular instance for the insight it gives into the dynamics and level of control the State now has, and how it wields that control. That's sort of what I meant by the OP: focus not on the conspiracy, but on what the conspiracy (if true) can tell you about the nature of the State.]

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

AJ:

Yeah, I already looked at it and have seen a whole lot of other stuff before, but none of that addresses the two issues above. No matter how perfect the media cover-up may have been, the two issues ought to have answers and that is what I'd like to hear.

OK, then it seems to me that you have 2  very clear , mutually exclusive choices .

Its an "either or " situation- you can choose to believe either :

[1] :that it is entirely possible/normal for plastic nosed, hollow, aluminum skinned planes weighing about 120 tons to fly into/through 500,000 ton  steel and concrete buildings in one piece, without slowing down and  without losing any parts [e.g. tail section, wings] etc. apon initial collision, and that it is therefor, at the same time, entirely impossible for witnesses to be faked  or to give false testimony, or to be actors, and for plane flights,  passenger lists etc. to be faked,

.......or choice [2]:
that it is entirely possible  for witnesses to be faked, or to be actors, and for plane flights,  passenger lists etc. to be faked etc. etc.,  and that it is therefor, at the same time  entirely impossible for plastic nosed, hollow, aluminum skinned planes weighing about 120 tons to fly into/through 500,000 ton  steel and concrete buildings in one piece, without slowing down and  without losing any parts [e.g. tail section, wings] etc. upon initial collision.

Like I said, these are mutually exclusive choices- what you choose to believe [so far choice 1 I would assume]is your responsibility, not mine. What you choose  in this case will ultimately depend on what you, realistically or otherwise, consider to normal/possible in the real world, magic planes or fake witnesses and flight data etc. , and I cannot help you decide. As I said, its your choice- your responsibility.

 

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 11:11 AM

Oh, looks like it was doctored. Or not? Would need to verify.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

AJ: ".....but I'd point out that if this "no planes" thing is true, State control is a lot more far along than we tend to think. If this is possible - not saying it is, but if - then there is value in analyzing this particular instance for the insight it gives into the dynamics and level of control the State now has, and how it wields that control."

Exactly. The rabbit hole might be a lot deeper than you originally assumed eh?

 

"September Clues" deals mostly with the Fox and CNN broadcasts and used the original broadcast footage as archived at their sites.

Archive Alterations

Since September Clues first appeared, Fox, for example, has altered its archives to try to obscure the damaging "nose out" footage.

Those self alterations to Fox's original archived footage   are specifically addressed in "Foxed Out"  part 1 and in "Foxed Out part2". by the same author , SocialServices

Fortunately, mirror sites for those original Fox footage archives were created early on and are still available here.[There are other mirror sites for these archives as well].

As for your understandable doubts regarding video fakery at this stage, please carefully review the 2 choices I proposed for you in a previous post.

Either planes can fly through buildings in the manner depicted in the Herzakhani video , or they cannot- simple choices for you.

If it is any help to you, I never, for one second believed any of the official version, yet it still took me 7 years of often daily independent research before I finally "twigged" the obvious- that the videos of planes flying through buildings had to have been faked.

It would never have happened for me if I had not kept an open mind and then had the good fortune to  be accidentally exposed to "September Clues" etc.

Here is my own melodic death-metal tribute to the maker of "September Clues"

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 12:36 PM

I don't have time to look at all those now since, honest to God, I've got a trans-Pacific flight in a few hours and I've been staying up way too late reading the forums.

Still, what about the passengers?(???!) I reject the notion that scientific evidence trumps self-evident logic - that would be to commit a standards of proof error. Moreover, I'm not an engineer or a physicist, even less am I qualified to say what happens in extreme physical situations that are far out of my everyday experience. So the physics argument is never going to persuade me. For the record, I majored in physics for two years, but what I learned just made all the more aware that the physical world is full of counterintuitive phenomena. What gets me interested in no-plane theory is the obvious video "matrices" in the TV footage (assuming its real).

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 712
Points 13,830
zefreak replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 1:07 PM

onebornfree:

laminustacitus:

onebornfree:
Or, to put it another way, how many state- employed "engineers" , state media pundits and other state sycophants who directly benefit from spouting the official "scientific truth", have to insist that the events depicted in this video follow the laws of physics, before most self-described "anarcho -capitalists" believe them?

Of course! Everbody who disagrees with you is state-employed! On a serious note, Popular Mechanics showed how the laws of physics necessitated the results of 9/11; but, Popular Mechanics is obvious a syncophants of the state a la Marx's bias doctrine.

"On a serious note,Popular Mechanics"  ?

Fer cryin out loud!  If I wanted to patronize  I'd say your naivete astounds me, Sir.

Instead , I suggest that:

[1] you reconsider the Rothbard quote from earlier in the thread : "Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of "conspiracy" analysis who profess to believe that all events – at least in government – are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning."

[2] then you find out for yourself [I'm not going to tell you] exactly who owns "Popular Mechanics".

[3] You then thoroughly research that Inc.s and its founder's long, sordid historical record of activities and involvement in previous wars involving the US.

Along the way you might also discover said corporations current CEO and president has direct ties to both the Bush family [HW and GW] and to the CIA.

[4] on a similar note, that you also find out for yourself , assuming that you do not already know,[ and again, I'm not going to tell you], exactly who owns the major TV networks who broadcast the "live" [i.e on 17 second delay] footage on 9/11.

[5] you take  another hard look at the Rothbard quote.

'Changed my mind- your naivete astounds me, Sir!

 

This isn't praxeology, this is bullshit conspiracy theorizing. Nothing but faulty premises and endless correlations.

You are headed down this road - http://www.september11news.com/Mysteries2.htm

BTW, your one dimensional high school physics student explanation of why such an event occuring is impossible fails to impress anyone but a high school physics student.

“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken


 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

AJ:

I don't have time to look at all those now since, honest to God, I've got a trans-Pacific flight in a few hours and I've been staying up way too late reading the forums.

Still, what about the passengers?(???!) I reject the notion that scientific evidence trumps self-evident logic - that would be to commit a standards of proof error. Moreover, I'm not an engineer or a physicist, even less am I qualified to say what happens in extreme physical situations that are far out of my everyday experience. So the physics argument is never going to persuade me. For the record, I majored in physics for two years, but what I learned just made all the more aware that the physical world is full of counterintuitive phenomena. What gets me interested in no-plane theory is the obvious video "matrices" in the TV footage (assuming its real).

First of all, scientifically speaking, if you cannot see anything procedurally incorrect with starting  an attempt at  unbiased  investigation of the events of 911 using scientific investigative principles , with an automatic assumption of the truth of  certain information [ i.e. what is in essence, unprovable hearsay testimony supplied to you by the media and government - : "there were passengers, therefor there were planes"] , then I've got news for you- you'd never make it as a real scientist.

On the other hand , you would probably enjoy a long and successful "scientific" career with the N.I.S.T. , or even Popular Mechanics or some other scum-sucking "scientific" organization on the government payroll : -)

True scientific investigation demands that , outside of  acceptance of well known time-tested scientific principles concerning observed behaviour/ phenomena,[eg in this case Newton's 3rd Law of motion] , one  can never pre-suppose either the truth or falsity of any claimed "evidence" being taken into consideration, one way or the other, until all data/information has been  exhaustively analyzed and reanalyzed, and analyzed yet again when more evidence/data/ information is uncovered and verified.

Anything less  than such a procedure guarantees skewed, useless, results. One simply cannot start with the unproven [and unprovable] assertion that there were passengers[ ergo, there were planes] , simply because that is what you've been told and you have previously believed to be true.

Second of all, as I hinted previously, in my humble opinion, you are not much of an anarchist if you automatically pre-suppose the truth/veracity of _anything_ the government tells you via its media, particular when something as important as  [what it and its sycophant media] claims were the true events of 911 are at stake, knowing what the states agenda always  has been and always will be.

I suggest your anarchist buddies ostracize/ eject /punish you forthwith until you learn the error of your ways and beg for forgiveness!

I've got nothing else for you [apart maybe from expensive psychotherapy ]- you've seen the "Air vs Skyscraper" analysis, of Flight 175's supposed clean entry into WTC2 and you've taken the time to review "September Clues", possibly even "Nosed Out"  and "Foxed Out".

Maybe you need to just "chew" on the revolutionary information in those videos for a while and see how you feel a few months down the road.

There is a lot of information to digest/consider/accept/reject there.

'Bye for now. www.onebornfree.blogspot.com

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

Zefreak: "this isn't praxeology, this is bullshit conspiracy theorizing. Nothing but faulty premises and endless correlations.

You are headed down this road - http://www.september11news.com/Mysteries2.htm

BTW, your one dimensional high school physics student explanation of why such an event occuring is impossible fails to impress anyone but a high school physics student."

 

Whatever,  you government propaganda supporting libertarian/anarcho capitalist, you!

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

onebornfree:
Whatever, you government supporting libertarian/anarcho capitalist, you.

take that back. thats positively dishonest of you, and you wouldnt want us to think of you as dishonest, would you?

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

onebornfree:

Zefreak: "this isn't praxeology, this is bullshit conspiracy theorizing. Nothing but faulty premises and endless correlations.

You are headed down this road - http://www.september11news.com/Mysteries2.htm

BTW, your one dimensional high school physics student explanation of why such an event occuring is impossible fails to impress anyone but a high school physics student."

Whatever, you government supporting libertarian/anarcho capitalist, you.

Who even cares if he is libertarian as long as he speaks the truth. The attempt at using bias doctrine the cudgel your enemies into submission is pathetic.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

laminustacitus:

"Who even cares if he is libertarian as long as he speaks the truth. The attempt at using bias doctrine the cudgel your enemies into submission is pathetic"

The truth being the states account right? [But of course!]

You'd prefer that I respond to his/her  comment with vague meaningless generalizations and swearwords such as [to use their very  own words] : "this is bullshit .. theorizing. Nothing but faulty premises and endless correlations" ,  perhaps?

Cudgel[ing] into submission by attempting to  point out the hilarious contradictions involved when one or more self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalists"  get bent out of shape by a single individual who stands up and says: "the states story is total BS" , and actually consistently leap to defend the states fiction?

If anything is,_that_  [consistent defense of the state's story] is pathetic, [assuming professed anarchism].

Come on! Get your humor on, it's a laugh a minute round here!

P.S. how's your research into who owns "Popular Mechanics" doing?

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

you are lost:

you cant tell apart a consistent defence of the state, from anarchists disagreeing with you.

 

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Mon, Jul 13 2009 7:33 PM

onebornfree:

First of all, scientifically speaking, if you cannot see anything procedurally incorrect with starting  an attempt at  unbiased  investigation of the events of 911 using scientific investigative principles , with an automatic assumption of the truth of  certain information [ i.e. what is in essence, unprovable hearsay testimony supplied to you by the media and government - : "there were passengers, therefor there were planes"] , then I've got news for you- you'd never make it as a real scientist..

You're not reading. I asked what's your explanation for the passengers, but you haven't answered. I am not stating anything; I am asking.

For that matter, given how deep you're questioning, how do you know 9/11 even really happened? You're running up against the standards of proof error.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

onebornfree:
You'd prefer that I respond to his/her  comment with vague meaningless generalizations and swearwords such as [to use their very  own words] : "this is bullshit .. theorizing. Nothing but faulty premises and endless correlations" ,  perhaps?

Their analysis is correct.

 

onebornfree:
Cudgel[ing] into submission by attempting to  point out the hilarious contradictions involved when one or more self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalists"...

Marxist bias doctrine.

 

onebornfree:
...get bent out of shape by a single individual who stands up and says: "the states story is total BS" , and actually consistently leap to defend the states fiction?

They are correct, you are wrong; that is all I care about.

 

onebornfree:
If anything is,_that_  [consistent defense of the state's story] is pathetic, [assuming professed anarchism].

I don't care about whose story it is, only that it is true.

 

onebornfree:
P.S. how's your research into who owns "Popular Mechanics" doing?

I don't care who owns the magazine. All that I care about is the soundness of their arguments, objectivity is possible in individuals other than yourself.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

AJ:

onebornfree:

First of all, scientifically speaking, if you cannot see anything procedurally incorrect with starting  an attempt at  unbiased  investigation of the events of 911 using scientific investigative principles , with an automatic assumption of the truth of  certain information [ i.e. what is in essence, unprovable hearsay testimony supplied to you by the media and government - : "there were passengers, therefor there were planes"] , then I've got news for you- you'd never make it as a real scientist..

You're not reading. I asked what's your explanation for the passengers, but you haven't answered. I am not stating anything; I am asking.

For that matter, given how deep you're questioning, how do you know 9/11 even really happened? You're running up against the standards of proof error.

As I said before, I've got nothing more for you. If you insist on putting the cart before the horse and that there were passengers that is your affair.  There are numerous private ongoing investigations into the falsity of the passenger lists and the curious fact that most listed passengers  SS numbers  are still active, but I have deliberately avoided dragging that stuff in in order to get you to focus purely on the [fiction] of the plane into building videos .

As far as I can see, the only possible logical thought process is : [1] no planes into buildings ->[2] therefor possibly no planes at all - > [3]therefor possibly no passengers.

I do not know definitively one way or another whether or not planes with passengers actually existed, the matter is entirely irrelevant to the question of  the  physics of "can aircraft fly through buildings in the manner depicted in the videos or not?"

I got you to look at and consider the proposals/ramifications of the various movies I linked to, and to perhaps closely consider your methodology for examining 911 evidence, so my job is done as far as I'm concerned.

Where you go from here  with that information is none of my concern. I am certainly not  going to get into anything regarding passengers and where are they now type questions/arguments just to satisfy your own personal  fetish/hang-up, if that is what you are thinking .

Assuming that you [maybe some day ] reach the conclusion that there were no planes hitting buildings [and therefor no passengers in those planes] , instead of believing the preposterous government/media fiction, then you can conduct your own research and construct your own theory as to how the passenger lists were falsified, or adapt one of the many plausible [IMO] theories already out there.

Good luck with your research.

http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com/

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 712
Points 13,830
zefreak replied on Tue, Jul 14 2009 2:10 AM

onebornfree:

laminustacitus:

"Who even cares if he is libertarian as long as he speaks the truth. The attempt at using bias doctrine the cudgel your enemies into submission is pathetic"

The truth being the states account right? [But of course!]

You'd prefer that I respond to his/her  comment with vague meaningless generalizations and swearwords such as [to use their very  own words] : "this is bullshit .. theorizing. Nothing but faulty premises and endless correlations" ,  perhaps?

Cudgel[ing] into submission by attempting to  point out the hilarious contradictions involved when one or more self-proclaimed "anarcho-capitalists"  get bent out of shape by a single individual who stands up and says: "the states story is total BS" , and actually consistently leap to defend the states fiction?

If anything is,_that_  [consistent defense of the state's story] is pathetic, [assuming professed anarchism].

Come on! Get your humor on, it's a laugh a minute round here!

P.S. how's your research into who owns "Popular Mechanics" doing?

 

The State says alot of things, including:

1. The Holocaust occurred
2. Japan is a country
3. The sky is blue

Do you seriously reject anything and everything the State says because it is the State that says it? As has been explained, the validity of the argument and the soundness of its premises are absolutely unrelated to the source.

Such dogmatism is precisely what the Anarchist movement does not need.

BTW, I enjoy reading conspiracy theories because of the epic Logic Fail involved.

“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken


 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,538
Points 93,790
Juan replied on Tue, Jul 14 2009 2:33 AM
Such dogmatism is precisely what the Anarchist movement does not need.
uh oh.

February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church.
Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 712
Points 13,830
zefreak replied on Tue, Jul 14 2009 3:02 AM

Juan:
Such dogmatism is precisely what the Anarchist movement does not need.
uh oh.

Do you disagree?

“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken


 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

Zefreak: "Do you seriously reject anything and everything the State says because it is the State that says it?"

Seriously- of course!

And I assume you don't. Get help- seriously.

http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com/

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 690
Points 11,315

Juan:
Such dogmatism is precisely what the Anarchist movement does not need.
uh oh.

Hello, good evening and welcome to the "Anarchists For Defense of the State" Show"  Big Smile [because somebody's gotta do it - you know it makes sense!]

Glad to have you aboard sir!

Please take a seat in the back- feel free to say anything , throw various ad hominums at myself etc. [ if you need pointers there just check a few moderators posts they have it down to a fine art!], just never say anything that even remotely questions the states story about the events of 911 or attempts to refute its lies via the employment of such irrelevancies as simple logic and high school level physics principles , we are real anarchists  round here and such subversive thought processes will simply not be tolerated - adhering to simple logic and basic principles of science in order to reach a conclusion?- how passe! We have no use for that type of dangerous thinking round here! .

Please enjoy your Anarchy For Defense of the State Show and your time here "safely " . You know it makes sense! Big Smile

http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com/

 

 

For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].

Top 200 Contributor
Posts 457
Points 14,505

AJ:

I don't have time to look at all those now since, honest to God, I've got a trans-Pacific flight in a few hours and I've been staying up way too late reading the forums.

Still, what about the passengers?(???!) I reject the notion that scientific evidence trumps self-evident logic - that would be to commit a standards of proof error. Moreover, I'm not an engineer or a physicist, even less am I qualified to say what happens in extreme physical situations that are far out of my everyday experience. So the physics argument is never going to persuade me. For the record, I majored in physics for two years, but what I learned just made all the more aware that the physical world is full of counterintuitive phenomena. What gets me interested in no-plane theory is the obvious video "matrices" in the TV footage (assuming its real).

Why would you think that there are no passangers on that plane?  Look, I've looked at some really crazy theories about what happened on 9-11.  I am starting to think it's a mix of all of them.  That they could have been hijacked, it could have all been planned (20th century fox knew about 9-11), that, the buildings could have been weak, that it was probably an intelligence operation by a number of countries.  But to say there wasn't any passangers on the plane?  It's stuff like that which discredits the 9-11 truth movement.  I'm sure there are plenty of family members who were affected by that, who, demand an honest investigation.  I know what I say on the day of 9-11.  I believe we need an honest investigation of what happened- but- to go out and say that there were no passangers present on the plane- you're totally shutting yourself off to other possibilities of what might have occurred.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

onebornfree:

Zefreak: "Do you seriously reject anything and everything the State says because it is the State that says it?"

Seriously- of course!

The Holocaust was obviously a state conspiracy created to strenthen the case for interventionsim. Tongue Tied

 

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 633
Points 11,275
Torsten replied on Tue, Jul 14 2009 9:02 AM

zefreak:
The State says alot of things, including:

1. The Holocaust occurred
2. Japan is a country
3. The sky is blue

And which of these statements are provable true?

They also might take a stance on other issues as well i.e. You have a duty to sent your kid to our school. And perhaps other things concerning science or (civil) religion. But it is not the state that says so, rather represantatives of the state will make such statements (for whatever reason). The problem comes in, when they suppress alternative views on issues and when they basically enforce a statement of faith, even jail people or kill them because they dare to openly disagree. The state is however only instrumental in this matter. There are other interest groups at work and to them what people think an belief is what is important, since this is influencing their behaviour as well.  Also note that the sum of state action requires some consent from civil society (I am getting Gramscian right now).

zefreak:
Do you seriously reject anything and everything the State says because it is the State that says it? As has been explained, the validity of the argument and the soundness of its premises are absolutely unrelated to the source.
That would be childish. But many people do reason like that: If X says A then A must be wrong (right).

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 2 of 3 (83 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS