- The good and evil of a context represents a personal or subjective judgment, a societal norm, or either's claim to an absolute value related to the human nature or transcendent religious standard for that context.
Anyone who doubts 9/11 was a cover up needs to watch this video. Im not some idiot who just believes everything I see and hear on youtube or the news ect. I have seen many videos about 9/11 and I always knew the towers were blown up but this video proves it with no doubts left.
PLEASE do yourself this favour.. smoke a bowl, sit back and try to dispute what you see if you can.. but I promise you can not.
Also to your Bill Clinton statement,The republican party spent 65 million of tax payers money to investigate his affairs and impeach him. While in 2001 the republican party only spent 15 million investigating 9/11..Interesting that Bills affair greatly outranks finding out who terrorized the country in terms of importance. Im begging anyone who doesnt believe 9/11 was an inside job to watch that video and prove me wrong.
wonder why we never heard of the situation in Iceland??
Ummmm....we did.
Maybe you weren't watching--Iceland was all types of in the news when this happened.
Now you've entered my realm.
I can explain it by realizing that my friend was at the pentagon and assures me he watched the plane hit the building. I don't need to go any further than that personally. You're fishing on this one. This is literally my homie from childhood who watched the shit go down in D.C.
Think what you will, but a plane hit it alright.
my imaginary friends tend to be blonde and brunette victorian secret's models lol as long as i'm imagining lolI have lots of friends. Imaginary and real ones.
Sigh... I have seen videos debunking popular mechanics.I am open minded and look on both sides of the spectrum on everything I research but how can you claim the same when you just said"No one ever changes anyones minds in these arguments". Apparently you dont understand that an air plane CAN NOT go through not just one set of thick steel columns but 2 and still be fully intact.Lets also point out the fact there was no exit hole from the planes nose. The air planes nose is made of plastic and its hollow so please explain to me how it went through the other side shown on the live shot. I can bet anything you didnt watch the video, if you did you are just defying all logic. I have seen a ton of videos and that is the one I choose to show people, because its correct and shows undeniable proof. I am amazing with computers and technology so I understand the flaws in the video editing which he points out. For example in the non live shots of the plane hitting the tower the planes nose casts a shadow across the building(edited in) but in the live shot where we see the plane go right through theres no shadow and thats because the plane wasnt supposed to go all the way through the building and therefore how could they edit that in(since its live TV). He also shows another slip up of the sloppy video editing which further 100% proves the plane was edited in to the shot. Near the end of the video he shows a clip of all the smoke flooding new york(And I mean FLOODING) and thats not from planes hitting towers, thats from BOMBS. Not to mention a couple eye witness testimony of people saying they heard bombs and never seen a plane, including a random guy on the street telling a cop "No plane it was a bomb" and the cop says "It was a plane we saw it on television"No one ever changes anyone's minds in these arguments, all I can say is to be open minded and take time to look at the evidence from both sides and make up your own mind.
I have watched several docs. on each side of the argument and have weighed the evidence and in my mind there is no conspiracy here.
Here's a good article from popular mechanics on the subject link
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
Your "scientific approach" is severely lacking in ballistics and physics analysis--which would be the preferred scientific method for saying even the first thing about whether or not a plane did or could hit the pentagon. This would require more than informed guesses. It would require data, equations, trials. Do you think we build these giant machines to test physical quantities for nothing? No. We build them to tell us things about stuff like this.
Wind tunnels aren't for getting a mean blowout.
What you've done is reasoned science-ishly. Science is a thing with a definite definition, and you've done none of it. You've conjectured, not identified.
As to the question about whether or not I trust my friends whom I've known since I was shitting in diapers--yes I do.
I'm not so pedantic that relationships mean nothing to me. We're talking a close friend of mine--he watched it with his eyes, and that's good enough for me (given the rest of the OVERWHELMING data which suggests this did happen, and the multiple digital and first-hand accounts about the events in NYC).
That said. The really awesome thing about science is that it's a flag which is really incredibly hard to wave when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. This truth betrays when pretenders and opportunists try to use it to their advantage without the requisite knowledge.
That's what you're attempting to do here. Unfortunately for you, I am a student and practitioner of science rather than a slave to it.
You're committing a fallacy here, a famous one even. It's called the appeal to ignorance. You've placed the burden of proof on the wrong side--and in fact have committed the fallacy in an even deeper sense by using a perceived lack of evidence for the accepted case as "evidence" in the negative, or unaccepted, case.
The burden of proof is on you, and you offer nothing but youtube videos which claim that youtube videos are unreliable.
It.
Is.
A.
Joke.
A supremely dry and nearly unfunny joke, but a joke all the same.
You can't use science as a shield if you don't know shit about the science. The old adage goes: "Knowledge is Power."
On this issue, unless you've got some degrees or a helluva lot of expertise that you're not letting on--you are totally powerless.
At least shoot the misleading youtube videos yourself. Then maybe I'd take you somewhat seriously, at least for your ability to deceive, commit logical fallacies left and right, and cut video files together.
As it stands here it looks like you're really good at letting other people do your thinking for you, relying on information you don't have the expertise to assay, wasting time when you could be developing such expertise, and being really really suggestible.
It's not that these lies are stupid ones, easily picked out. Often the worst and most damaging (and the most successful) lies are the best told ones. They often are half-truths, and appeal to the human's mind to want a spoon-fed picture of how things really are.
Being manipulative and deceptive is about being smart--not only about being greedy, selfish, or in this case--craving attention. You can't feed the latter three without being a good liar, an intelligent manipulator. The best lies sometimes make even more sense than the truth.
This argument goes both ways, but that is why we handle burden of proof the way that we do. It's about weight of the evidence, not how convincing one particular piece of it is (unless its a red-handed type of thing, like DNA in a murder trial).
As a chemist, I'm sure I could start spouting off some deep organic chemistry jargon--and for any layman who would listen, I could convince him of some wildly untrue stuff. I'd be free to essentially make it up as I went along.
That's why we look to people who KNOW things about asking physics and ballistics questions when we ask these questions. People like you are free to make it up as you go along. There's no standard, no peer review, no equation or data to discount. Just your gut feeling that you know what's up. That's a bullshit model for you to use, and then accuse me of relying on faith and trust.
What are you relying on? Have you formed the expertise to judge any of the info?
Just as I could convince you of some chemistry shit, another dude could come along and convince you of some physics shit.
No matter which of them you read, or how true they are--the fact will remain:
You wouldn't know the difference between something true and something false it it bit you in the face 600 times.
The solution: Become a learned physicist, or move on to a different method of proving your flimsy point.
As for Iraq, I agree with you. However, at the same time I'm glad Sadaam is dead and I think it's a good thing. Guy was a total shithead.
I look at war a bit differently than most. I'm a survival of the fittest type guy. If you allow hate for America to breed in your country--I think that should move your country to the top of the carpet bomb list. The only reason shit like this can perpetuate is that they know America won't do much about it (until recently).
What do you think the British Empire would've done if a country had been breeding folks who were planning to murder British citizens en masse?
They would've slashed and burned that country (in fact, they DID do this).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?