Seph: I suppose when you choose not to analyse anything in depth, and ridicule anyone who could possibly use the word 'conspiracy', the accident view of history might make sense. Since I'm living in the real world, I'll place all the accident theories of history where they belong; outside of any proper analysis of government. As I've said, Austrian Economics, Anarcho-Capitalism and "Conspiracy theories" are indelibly intertwined. Want to reject tin foil hat wearing nut heads? You only impair your own analysis.
I suppose when you choose not to analyse anything in depth, and ridicule anyone who could possibly use the word 'conspiracy', the accident view of history might make sense. Since I'm living in the real world, I'll place all the accident theories of history where they belong; outside of any proper analysis of government.
As I've said, Austrian Economics, Anarcho-Capitalism and "Conspiracy theories" are indelibly intertwined. Want to reject tin foil hat wearing nut heads? You only impair your own analysis.
I haven't looked at it in depth? I, like many here I assume, have researched mountains of information regarding the NWO, Illuminati, Masons, etc. and I was rather convinced at that point; I was 14 and somewhat religious. I had a worldview in which there was divine plan, and also "evil" that was manipulating world affairs. So, of course there must be anti-christs and such, right? I do not now deny that social clubs like the Freemasons do have power, but far be it that those organizations are working towards the subjugation of humanity. They are more like forums and networking for people in the business/political sphere. There is by no means a uniform consensus on policy, and I suppose if you like, you can say groups that include speakers that advocate a global governing body constitute a conspiracy, but by that definition isn't this forum a body of conspirators for anarchy?
As noted many times before, why is there a need to demonize your opponents?
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
solos: Austrian economics and conspiracies are not intertwined. Conspiracy theorists remind me of the Historical School and I guess that's why I see racists with the same world view. It's always some international Jewry private banking cabal and never the blow back from the state.
Austrian economics and conspiracies are not intertwined. Conspiracy theorists remind me of the Historical School and I guess that's why I see racists with the same world view. It's always some international Jewry private banking cabal and never the blow back from the state.
Austrian Economics is bunk because neo cons also certain espouse free market views.
Seph:Austrian Economics is bunk because neo cons also certain espouse free market views.
Which ones?
Wikipedia:Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy and human rights to other countries. Consequently the term is chiefly applicable to certain Americans and their strong supporters. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes. [Emphasis added][
There's another long thread on this already.
Esuric: Because there's no hardcore evidence. There are assertions fused with some scientific explanations along with nonsensical fantasy.
Because there's no hardcore evidence. There are assertions fused with some scientific explanations along with nonsensical fantasy.
"Because there's no hardcore evidence."
True . Almost all physical evidence was destroyed. [A fact that as far as I can see, "should", by itself, raise serious "red flag" concerns for anyone trying to seriously scrutinize the events of 911 ]
What you have left is mostly network video and photographic "evidence"- none of which can/should be assumed as being authentic until so proven, at least in a properly conducted scientific investigation into what happened, in my opinion.
So far, it has not been so proven- in fact a number of reputable researchers have actually concluded the exact opposite- that the so called live network footage of that day is mostly computer generated and fake.[see the best example, imho, "September Clues", here]
Outside of laws of physics, it seems to me incontestable that real scientific investigations do not/cannot automatically assume the authenticity/falsity of any evidence in advance, ESPECIALLY all video and photographic "evidence".
Any scientist who does make such grand assumptions [eg S. Jones] is not a real scientist in my [worthless] opinion.
And even scientific investigation does not address a very large legal "elephant in the room" question: no "evidence" [video or otherwise], and no witness has ever been cross examined in front of a jury to prove/disprove such important issues as chain of custody, reliability of witnesses, et. etc.
All we have is the governments "word", and its purportedly "scientific" explanation about what happened- which we are then told to believe, plus a bunch of extremely dubious network videos showing events that violate practically every known law of physics.
"There are assertions fused with some scientific explanations along with nonsensical fantasy"
Also true.
The governments explanation makes zero sense either scientifically or otherwise- it is without a doubt a "nonsensical fantasy" to anyone who studies all the evidence with an open mind.
You seem like an intelligent person, which begs the question:
given that:
[1] none of the video /photographic evidence of the event(s) has ever been independently and scientifically validated as being in any way authentic , and-
[2] none of the "evidence" has ever been cross examined in a court of law to likewise prove/disprove authenticity, chain of custody issues etc etc [i.e. all rock solid, fundamental Bill of Right issues].......
why is it that you have automatically sided with the governments story and assumed its "evidence" to beyond question ? Why would you assume, in this one instance, that it was/ is telling the truth?
"Enquiring minds" want to know!
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Zeitgeist: Fun, silly, entertaining, mostly counterfactual, but fine if it gets people questioning things - many will eventually find mises.org or at least become minarchists.
Zeitgeist Addendum: Terrible non-understanding of economics and communist overtones, completely unrealistic, but the idea of "emergent vs. established" was interesting.
Alex Jones: Mixed bag, sometimes quite good and getting better, but way too over-the-top to recommend to others:
Why anarchy fails
AJ: but way too over-the-top to recommend to others
Compared to what? Not in comparison, for those who are already into conspiracy theories and watching Zeitgeist.
I have tons of Alex Jones films on my computer, and I'm better off for have watching them. A lot of people seem to bash Jones, but their reasoning doesn't hold. I use to read his sites everyday till I stumbled on LRC and Mises.
Saw this last night. The first 2 minutes are very good.
Praetyre: What exactly does it matter if the Federal Reserve was created and is operated by well meaning idiots, a cabal of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families, the Freemasons, demonic reptilian spider men from Pluto, or all of the above? It's economic effects are the same, and it's far easier to argue against it when you do not burden Austrian Economics and liberalism with the pseudo-religious babble of the tinfoil hat crowd. What good does it do to hurt our growing traction by having our name associated with such folk, any more than we should associate ourselves with Neo-Nazis over free speech, white supremacists over freedom of association, drug dealers over freedom of transaction or Marxists over opposition to corporatism?
What exactly does it matter if the Federal Reserve was created and is operated by well meaning idiots, a cabal of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families, the Freemasons, demonic reptilian spider men from Pluto, or all of the above? It's economic effects are the same, and it's far easier to argue against it when you do not burden Austrian Economics and liberalism with the pseudo-religious babble of the tinfoil hat crowd. What good does it do to hurt our growing traction by having our name associated with such folk, any more than we should associate ourselves with Neo-Nazis over free speech, white supremacists over freedom of association, drug dealers over freedom of transaction or Marxists over opposition to corporatism?
Long time lurker, first time poster. ^ This is how I feel too. I've spent about 4 years being a minarchist conspiracy theorist only to finally get to know austrian economics and realize that even if every conspiracy theory out there is true, they're still all government enabled. Why would anyone bother trying to cut every single branch off a tree when you could just as well strike it at its root?
I still recommend others to look for cui bono clues and always be doubtful of anything the government says or does; yet, more importantly, that such worries wouldn't exist in the first place if it wasn't for the established statist system, where such great conspiratorial feats can externalize its costs to the very people affected by it!
I mean.. a lot of people here, if not everyone knows that every single depression has been state-induced - that itself could be characterized as a conspiracy theory, right? Everyone here also knows how the fed came about? Jekyll Island and all that? IMO most of this board and maybe even the people criticizing conspiracy theories are already conspiracy theorists at least to the mainstream. Not that it's a bad thing but, we only know that which we've been able to look at. Whether you think something was true or not depends on how much you've studied about it so you can have an educated opinion. Conspiracy theory is just a loaded term. People have different values and judge events differently, right?
Also, LOL @ super-sayan AJ.
I wish I remembered the allegory that I read in a daily blog post early last year. It said something along the lines of a doctor bludgeoning a patient stops the bleeding but hardly solves the problem or something along those lines. That's how I feel conspiracy theorists are treating Austrian economists to further their own cause. That paper by Cass Sunstein should tell you that it is way too easy to co-opt a conspiracy movement.
Laughing Man: Seph:As I've said, Austrian Economics, Anarcho-Capitalism and "Conspiracy theories" are indelibly intertwined. Want to reject tin foil hat wearing nut heads? You only impair your own analysis. Woha woha woha. Just because we are anarcho-capitalist does not infer we must believe that the CIA was on the grassy knoll. We are men and women with a love of intelligence and demand truth, facts, rationality and logic.
Seph:As I've said, Austrian Economics, Anarcho-Capitalism and "Conspiracy theories" are indelibly intertwined. Want to reject tin foil hat wearing nut heads? You only impair your own analysis.
Woha woha woha. Just because we are anarcho-capitalist does not infer we must believe that the CIA was on the grassy knoll. We are men and women with a love of intelligence and demand truth, facts, rationality and logic.
Exactly.
Praetyre: Seph:Austrian Economics is bunk because neo cons also certain espouse free market views. Which ones? Wikipedia:Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy and human rights to other countries. Consequently the term is chiefly applicable to certain Americans and their strong supporters. In economics, unlike traditionalist conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes. [Emphasis added][
I was speaking of their rhetoric. And you ignored the point besides.
Telpeurion: I do not now deny that social clubs like the Freemasons do have power, but far be it that those organizations are working towards the subjugation of humanity.
So evil, power seeking people who almost always have connections in an evil power structure (government) have great power.
And the logical conclusion to draw from that is, they would never use that power in a systematic way to subject humanity to their wishes?
My point is not whether conspiracy theorists like yourself are right. Whether or not you believe in the black helicopter/tinfoil hat/UFO/Truther/etc. stuff is irrelevant. What's relevant is that spouting that stuff and associating it with Austrian economics and liberalism is bad PR. If you want to believe the lizard Rockefeller/Rothschild Nazi cabal created and controls the Federal Reserve, I don't give a hoot. But don't bring your baggage aboard the ship, so to speak, any more than I would bring my views on feminism or homosexuality on board, or folk like Carson would bring their views on feminism or homosexuality or unions or workplace structure on board.
Praetyre:But don't bring your baggage aboard the ship, so to speak, any more than I would bring my views on feminism or homosexuality on board, or folk like Carson would bring their views on feminism or homosexuality or unions or workplace structure on board.
Because feminism and Austrianism/Anarcho-Capitalism are totally irrelevant to each other. 9/11 and other events are quite relevant if we want to accurately discuss the state.
Keep in mind that not all conspiracy theories are are created equal, just like not all 'free market' ideologies/supporters are created equal.
Feminists could claim that patriarchy is caused by men and point to the fact that most governments are run by and for the benefit of patriarchal men. Homosexuals could play up the religion=government line, point out famous examples of homosexual anarchists and point out that some of the most totalitarian governments (Cuba, USSR, Communist China) have persecuted homosexuals. Conspiracy theorists can make the subjects of their ire government, and claim government X is evil and run by three toed sloth men from Venus.
Please explain to me what difference it makes if the Federal Reserve is run by Martians or morons. It still has the same negative effects on the economy, it still benefits a small plutocratic cartel and it should still be abolished either way.
Praetyre:Feminists could claim that patriarchy is caused by men and point to the fact that most governments are run by and for the benefit of patriarchal men. Homosexuals could play up the religion=government line, point out famous examples of homosexual anarchists and point out that some of the most totalitarian governments (Cuba, USSR, Communist China) have persecuted homosexuals. Conspiracy theorists can make the subjects of their ire government, and claim government X is evil and run by three toed sloth men from Venus.
Praetyre:Please explain to me what difference it makes if the Federal Reserve is run by Martians or morons. It still has the same negative effects on the economy, it still benefits a small plutocratic cartel and it should still be abolished either way.
So, how exaclty does believing in the tinfoil gospel help the Austro-liberal cause? Are you planning to run on a platform of "Hang the Rockefellers for Causing 9/11" or "End the AIPAC-controlled Fed" or "Banish Barack the Bilderberger"? Do you think it does good for our cause when we are associated with the John Birch Society and end-days militia groups in the public eye?
Conspiracy theories and ethics-based arguments (in the academic sphere, that is) are two big albatrosses around the Austro-liberal movements neck, and neither of them come even close to rational, utilitarian argument. And I'm neither a utilitarian nor do I have that strong feelings either way conspiracy wise.
As for what conspiracy theorists think, they aren't a unified movement, nor do they hold one political position. There are conservative tinfoilers, like the John Birch Society, progressive tinfoilers, like Lyndon LaRouche, libertarian tinfoilers, like Alex Jones, fascist tinfoilers, like David Irving and all sorts of other tinfoilers, like the Zeitgest crowd. Their theories sometimes include the supernatural or extraterrestrial life, but others focus their hatred on more Earthly targets, like wealthy, politically connecte families such as the Vanderbilts, Rothschilds or Rockefellers, countries like the USSR, Russian Federation, Communist China, the USA, Nazi Germany, the UK, and just about any country that's gone to war you can think of (and even some that haven't), individuals like Presidents, Senators, Governors, Kings, Queens, CEOs, Chairmen, what have you, and everything in between. I wouldn't peg you as the outright lunatics who believe in Satanic cults or alien agents, but I'd guess one of these groups is on your Enemies List.
Praetyre:So, how exaclty does believing in the tinfoil gospel help the Austro-liberal cause? Are you planning to run on a platform of "Hang the Rockefellers for Causing 9/11" or "End the AIPAC-controlled Fed" or "Banish Barack the Bilderberger"? Do you think it does good for our cause when we are associated with the John Birch Society and end-days militia groups in the public eye?
Praetyre:As for what conspiracy theorists think, they aren't a unified movement, nor do they hold one political position. There are conservative tinfoilers, like the John Birch Society, progressive tinfoilers, like Lyndon LaRouche, libertarian tinfoilers, like Alex Jones, fascist tinfoilers, like David Irving and all sorts of other tinfoilers, like the Zeitgest crowd...I wouldn't peg you as the outright lunatics who believe in Satanic cults or alien agents, but I'd guess one of these groups is on your Enemies List.
I certainly do not believe in aliens.
And yes, many of those groups I would consider to be mainly (Zeitgeist) or at least somewhat (David Irving) mistaken. As I've said, that doesn't do anything to disprove anything, anymore than free-market economics is proven to be bunk when the ever idiotic Glenn Beck calls himself a "libertarian at heart."
Laughing Man: Just because we are anarcho-capitalist does not infer we must believe that the CIA was on the grassy knoll.We are men and women with a love of intelligence and demand truth, facts, rationality and logic.
Just because we are anarcho-capitalist does not infer we must believe that the CIA was on the grassy knoll.We are men and women with a love of intelligence and demand truth, facts, rationality and logic.
Not true, in my experience, at least as with regards to 911 issues.
"Truth, facts , rationality and logic? Surely you jest - ALL are conveniently thrown "right out of the window", consistently, time after time, "an-cap" after "an-cap".
"Not that there's anything wrong with that"
Allying yourself with the tinfoilers provides nothing but fuel for the MSM fire. Liberals are already being stereotyped as conspiracy nuts. This is like being stereotyped as a racist, then allying yourself with the Christian Identity movement. You are proving their point.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:"Truth, facts , rationality and logic? Surely you jest - ALL are conveniently thrown "right out of the window", consistently, time after time, "an-cap" after "an-cap".
Someone who believes there were no planes attacking the WTC has absolutely no business whatsoever lecturing others about truth, facts, rationality or logic.
Praetyre: Someone who believes there were no planes attacking the WTC has absolutely no business whatsoever lecturing others about truth, facts, rationality or logic.
You seem to be aware of my basic position.
OK, this may seem like a silly question to you, but [if you wish] , exactly what "evidence" leads you to believe that planes struck those 2 buildings?
The fact thousands of people saw them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJOwttgBpzE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Ty7Hc74o8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW1QSclSXbA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJoEcAPLcE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbCENOWUQMo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3iKLz4oatY
I too wouldn’t swear that actual planes hit the tower. As for the Pentagon being hit by a plane, I’ll never buy it. There are a number of technical reasons for this belief, mainly among which the knowledge that 1) the towers where designed to withstand the impact of a plane , 2) no aluminum plane could have punched through the steel column of the buildings and 3) even an experienced military pilot would have had a very hard time hitting the WTC with a commercial liner. A cruise missile is much more probable. At least, that’s what I would do, if I where a general asigned to plan 9/11.
As for associating ourselves with conspiracy theorists, I too must say that this would be unwise, for the reasons stated by others above. Yet this is a question of tactics, NOT personal belief. To echo others in this thread, I might very easily believe 9/11 “inside job” theories (like I do), but I would decline to make such views public. I believe that is the most sensible way to act.
As for “personal beliefs”, I see some CT’s as quite qualitative. After all we must see that CT’s do not interlap with Austrian Economic, thus they can be true at the same time. For example, many CT’s just seek to explain the structure of power nowadays, while AE just explain why such power came to be there, and what consequences does it have when used. I doesn’t matter one iota whether every nation is sovereign today, and its leaders are democratically elected, or there a web of “prime movers”, to be found in Masonic Lodges, Royal Families, or the like. So, we shouldn’t ban such theories FOR PERSONLA USE outright, but seek those that seem well-researched and see if we can get anything from them. As I mentioned a few times here, I myself find the Rig of Power insightful. Linguistic evidence are the only that can’t be falsified.
Praetyre:out famous examples of homosexual anarchists
Who? Never heard of any.
Praetyre: The fact thousands of people saw them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJOwttgBpzE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Ty7Hc74o8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW1QSclSXbA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJoEcAPLcE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbCENOWUQMo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3iKLz4oatY
Is that shading on the plane physically possible? It should be lighted, not in the shade. Look at the tower for reference of the sun’s position.
RE: Plane Shadows.
Even the truthers think the no-planers are off their rocker, and this point is no exception.
RE: Homosexual Libertarians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights#Libertarian_socialism_and_LGBT_rights
On the right libertarian side of things, there's Justin Raimondo.
Praetyre:Even the truthers think the no-planers are off their rocker, and this point is no exception.
I’m afraid that proves nothing. By the “truthers” own standard, only because most believe something, that doesn’t make it right. I’d still bet that no planes ever hit anything on 9/11. Logic seems to point that way.
Praetyre:Allying yourself with the tinfoilers provides nothing but fuel for the MSM fire. Liberals are already being stereotyped as conspiracy nuts. This is like being stereotyped as a racist, then allying yourself with the Christian Identity movement. You are proving their point.
And you're ignoring mine.
Praetyre:Someone who believes there were no planes attacking the WTC has absolutely no business whatsoever lecturing others about truth, facts, rationality or logic.
I agree.
It's called COINTELPRO.
Unless that's also a conspiracy.
Merlin: Praetyre: The fact thousands of people saw them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJOwttgBpzE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Ty7Hc74o8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW1QSclSXbA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJoEcAPLcE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbCENOWUQMo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3iKLz4oatY Is that shading on the plane physically possible? It should be lighted, not in the shade. Look at the tower for reference of the sun’s position.
There must be something obstructing the sun... What can that be? Oh wait... There's smoke. Nice try.
Praetyre: The fact thousands of people saw them?
So it would be fair to say that, in your case , you believe that a search for 911 truth as to why the towers collapsed, using rationality and logic [ie primary elements of scientific investigation] involves the unconditional acceptance of unverified, non cross-examined "witnesses" and their media records as being beyond question - and that it is therefor safe to assume all of those witnesses actually exist and actually told the truth about what they saw - correct?
In other words, you believe that , in your estimation, unverified heresay "witness" quotes on file with various media outlets count as solid/ indisputable evidence in a rational, logical [dare I say it "scientific"] investigation into the events of 911- yes?
P.S Is that all you have as evidence? so-called "witness" "testimony" ?
Surely you have more substantial evidence for your case than unverifiable here-say at this time?
Merlin: Is that shading on the plane physically possible? It should be lighted, not in the shade. Look at the tower for reference of the sun’s position.
That same question can and should be asked of all media video that shows towers /planes.
As well as for the plane itself, often the light and shade are on the wrong side of the building(s) for the time of day- yet another clue as to the falsity of those network videos.
Praetyre: Even the truthers think the no-planers are off their rocker.
Even the truthers think the no-planers are off their rocker.
True.
The internal "logic" of the typical Alex Jones/ "Loose Change" "truther" crowd is that the government lied about what the brought the towers down , but its telling us the truth about everything else regarding 911- therefor planes hit towers, etc etc.
As Harry Browne used to say: "yeah, right".
"Loose Change"- "Truthers" Versus "False in One False in All"
Leaving aside the fact that is entirely physically impossible for airliners to penetrate 500,000 steel and concrete buildings in one piece [and therefor videos that show that event are fakes], not one of these "truthers" is even remotely familiar with the simple to understand , logical consistency of the legal doctrine of "false in one, false in all"
Telpeurion:There must be something obstructing the sun... What can that be? Oh wait... There's smoke. Nice try
Hm, a good argument if it weren’t for one detail. The attacks at the WTC took place at 8 and 9 am, local time. The sun is pretty low that early in the day. While if you look carefully at the smoke and the plane, in order for the smoke’s shade to be projected on the plane, the sun would need to be pretty high. I submit that the shade of the smoke can’t be projected at that plane, at that hour, wouldn’t’ you agree?
Telpeurion: There must be something obstructing the sun... What can that be? Oh wait... There's smoke. Nice try.
First of all the above image still , and others like it is from a digitally created movie, not from an accurate rendition of a real time/real world event.
The plane is fake, the building images are fake, the shadows are fake etc. etc.
I understand your reaction- because I used to say the same thing.
However close investigation of the smoke patterns/shadows for all 911 videos over 1.5 years leads me to conclude that they all show the exact same endlessly repeated patterns and shadows in all the wrong places for the time of day - another clue that the videos are fake and that even the smoke in those videos was digitally created.
This[fake smoke] is not hard to do in fact. Digitally created smoke is a staple of the movie industry and has been for many years.
What we saw on 911 was mostly a made in the studio computer generated movie, not real -time events.
See"September Clues" for a frame by frame analysis of media archives that demonstrate this theory[ including analysis of digitally created smoke patterns.
JosephBright: Conza88: Telpeurion: Conza88: I'd recommend Alex Jones documentaries over Zeitgeist anyday. He is far closer to the mark. I hope that was sarcasm. Alex Jones? Really? Nope, it wasn't sarcasm. Have you got any anti-new world order / global elite documentaries you would recommend instead of Zeitgeist? What have you seen of his anyway, please list them all. When I was watching his Endgame out of boredom one day, I just about fell out of my seat with laughter when he got to his preposterous darwinian-futurist-immortal elites climax. Alex Jones is such a tool.
Conza88: Telpeurion: Conza88: I'd recommend Alex Jones documentaries over Zeitgeist anyday. He is far closer to the mark. I hope that was sarcasm. Alex Jones? Really? Nope, it wasn't sarcasm. Have you got any anti-new world order / global elite documentaries you would recommend instead of Zeitgeist? What have you seen of his anyway, please list them all.
Telpeurion: Conza88: I'd recommend Alex Jones documentaries over Zeitgeist anyday. He is far closer to the mark. I hope that was sarcasm. Alex Jones? Really?
Conza88: I'd recommend Alex Jones documentaries over Zeitgeist anyday. He is far closer to the mark.
I'd recommend Alex Jones documentaries over Zeitgeist anyday. He is far closer to the mark.
I hope that was sarcasm. Alex Jones? Really?
Nope, it wasn't sarcasm. Have you got any anti-new world order / global elite documentaries you would recommend instead of Zeitgeist? What have you seen of his anyway, please list them all.
When I was watching his Endgame out of boredom one day, I just about fell out of my seat with laughter when he got to his preposterous darwinian-futurist-immortal elites climax. Alex Jones is such a tool.
He does tend to make libertarianism seem like a nutty conspiracy theory instead of a legitimate political philosophy.I'm glad he's critical of obama though.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Telpeurion: There must be something obstructing the sun... What can that be? Oh wait... There's smoke. Nice try. First of all the above image still , and others like it is from a digitally created movie, not from an accurate rendition of a real time/real world event. The plane is fake, the building images are fake, the shadows are fake etc. etc. I understand your reaction- because I used to say the same thing. However close investigation of the smoke patterns/shadows for all 911 videos over 1.5 years leads me to conclude that they all show the exact same endlessly repeated patterns and shadows in all the wrong places for the time of day - another clue that the videos are fake and that even the smoke in those videos was digitally created. This[fake smoke] is not hard to do in fact. Digitally created smoke is a staple of the movie industry and has been for many years. What we saw on 911 was mostly a made in the studio computer generated movie, not real -time events. See"September Clues" for a frame by frame analysis of media archives that demonstrate this theory[ including analysis of digitally created smoke patterns.
If it is not the smoke, it is clearly the building itself generating a shadow. Look at the angle that the plane is going in. Also, if you want to claim it is a grand forgery, you'd think that the digital artists would know about lighting.
I assume everyone who saw the planes weren't real either... Or maybe the state possesses Joseph Smith's mass hypnosis technique.
What a surprise, this thread has been hijacked by COINTELRPO.
Telpeurion: If it is not the smoke, it is clearly the building itself generating a shadow. Look at the angle that the plane is going in. Also, if you want to claim it is a grand forgery, you'd think that the digital artists would know about lighting. I assume everyone who saw the planes weren't real either... Or maybe the state possesses Joseph Smith's mass hypnosis technique.
"Also, if you want to claim it is a grand forgery, you'd think that the digital artists would know about lighting."
You would think, certainly , but the video records show otherwise.
Besides, obviously , it was not necessary. In the heat of the moment the plan worked perfectly. Sadly, only "hindsight is 20:20"
It's also possible that whistleblower video forgers on the inside deliberately left these clues for us [sunlight/shadow contradictions] and others [eg the famous one of the devil face in the smoke].
Shadows on buildings, planes, smoke, even in supposed "live" crowd scenes[people running away etc.], consistently show impossible and completely contradictory directions for prevailing sunlight. And that issue [sunlight/shadows] is just one element . Perspective is completely "wacko", and camera shots originate from impossible locations etc. etc.
The list of inexplicable video anomolies [unless the videos were faked], is almost endless, I'm afraid.
See "September Clues" pts 1& 2 for a good "heads up" overview of these issues - assuming you are even interested, that is
As to the "thousands of witnesses" issue, first of all unverifiable witness testimony should play no part in a serious investigation of 911, in my opinion. Assuming you have an interest in scientific methodology, it is extremely unscientific [methodologically speaking] , for anyone to merely assume the truth of unknown, un cross-examined supposed "witnesses", it seems to me.
Regardless, here's what Austrian economist Morgan Reynolds wrote on the witness issue: " Most Witnesses at the WTC Heard And Saw No Planes"
Regards, onebornfree
P.S. And yes, I'm 100% "COINTELPRO," whatever the hell thats supposed to mean
Telpeurion: I assume everyone who saw the planes weren't real either... Or maybe the state possesses Joseph Smith's mass hypnosis technique.
As for thousands of eyewitnesses, the very first street interviews had people clearly saying “something hit the tower, a plane or a missile, I’m not sure”. Only after the official version of planes came out everyone magically switched to “sure those where planes”. It is self-suggestion pure and simple. i can't blame them, being bombarded by "the truth" from every channel alive, one come to humbly see how "wrong" his first impression was.
As for counter intelligence guys in this thread and stuff, well does it really matter? What difference does it make whether planes or missiles hit the tower? Does it even really mater whether it was an inside job or a true terrorist action? Nothing changes for us.
This thread, as I see it, is just us sharing our opinion, and, unlike other threads, will add nothing at all to our knowledge of the State. So, take it easier guys, we’re just having fun here, AE won’t change.
And than again, look at the bright side, if a counter-intelligence guy is really a Mises member, I bet that he’ll convert to an Austrian in a few months. One more victory for us.
Merlin: This thread, as I see it, is just us sharing our opinion, and, unlike other threads, will add nothing at all to our knowledge of the State.
This thread, as I see it, is just us sharing our opinion, and, unlike other threads, will add nothing at all to our knowledge of the State.
I disagree.
If what you, I, and others elsewhere propose is accepted by an individual as being true : i.e. no planes hit the towers [you seem to believe that much] and the network broadcasts were entirely faked [I 'm not sure, but I'll assume you agree with that for the time being], it can have a drastic , life -changing effect on that persons perception of what the state is actually capable of and what it will do, and no doubt has been doing since the inception of radio and TV systems, and exactly what the phrase "licensed by the FCC" means, in reality
Even for some here already somewhat cynical of the state- but still a little "wet behind the ears".
I can only speak for myself, but in my own case, psychologically speaking, the effect of this new knowledge was very, very profound, far reaching and behavior-changing [not that I care one way or another if the information I presently believe has a similar effect for others].
But thats just little old me