Bin Laden is dead, official

[MH]

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

I have over 5gb of documents and videos about how the WTC was controlled demolition and the involvements of US government with both WTC AND Bin Laden, things you wouldn't believe.

The word "Terrorism" in every newspaper have a purpose. You gotta see thru it.

No i wouldn't believe but that's probably because my memory got wiped out.



You batter watch your back....

I have over 5gb of documents and videos about how the WTC was controlled demolition and the involvements of US government with both WTC AND Bin Laden, things you wouldn't believe.

The word "Terrorism" in every newspaper have a purpose. You gotta see thru it.

It is proven that the WTC wasn't a government job, the government had sunk all its scarce resources in creating a fake american to becomefuture president and couldn't afford the demolition job. They may have had some resources to spare if they had some foresight but they were stuck with high interest payments for their fake moon landing and were saddled with ongoing feed bills for area 51 as no one reaslised the aliens could eat so much.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

I have over 5gb of documents and videos about how the WTC was controlled demolition and the involvements of US government with both WTC AND Bin Laden, things you wouldn't believe.

You're right; I wouldn't believe it.

[joea]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is proven that the WTC wasn't a government job, the government had sunk all its scarce resources in creating a fake american to becomefuture president and couldn't afford the demolition job. They may have had some resources to spare if they had some foresight but they were stuck with high interest payments for their fake moon landing and were saddled with ongoing feed bills for area 51 as no one reaslised the aliens could eat so much.

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

... as no one realised the aliens could eat so much.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

I have over 5gb of documents and videos about how the WTC was controlled demolition and the involvements of US government with both WTC AND Bin Laden, things you wouldn't believe.

I've seen most of that crap, and it's crap. What I can't believe is that I used to respect you.

[Catfish]

It's hard to believe, and it may be true or not. But if you look for CIA action in the last decades, and especially state terrorism (program "Gladio" in Europe) you get at least a bit worried. As usual it helps to think about whom serves such action most.
The two other "terrorist" assaults in Europ (Spain etc.) now seem to not have islamist background, indeed the people involved reported it to be a drill that went out of hand due to too much exposives (it was even announced by the authorities).
Greetings
Catfish

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've seen most of that crap, and it's crap. What I can't believe is that I used to respect you.

Cheap shot, Steve...

Well, you all might call me "conspirationist", but what CAN you prove or take for granted nowdays? To be honest, what the media feeds me taste as crappy as the underground stuff. Only thing is, the underground stuff makes more sense in my head.

The government is filthy with corruption and things done in the wrong way, so why would day be totally honest and transparent when it comes to giving information to the mass?

If I was the man behind the curtain, I would make the mass believe what I wanted them to believe, what was more convenient for keeping them under control.

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

If I was the man behind the curtain, I would make the mass believe what I wanted them to believe, what was more convenient for keeping them under control.

Which is exactly the psychologic profile of 'conspirationists'. Just two weeks ago a study was released that made a psychological profile of people that tend to believe in conspiracies, and it concludes that these people more often use manipulative techniques in real life. According to this study, they project their own personality on the way they see the world. Of course this study could be part of a conspiracy as well..
No offense by the way Phillip, but I just thought the study was worth mentioning. And it makes sense to me.

That being said, questioning the media is always a good thing. Especially in matters like these, usually our whole perception of the truth is solely based on what we see on tv. Now I can't and won't believe all journalists are part of some elaborate plot to make people believe a certain 'truth'. That's just BS. But I am critical at how easy journalists will often believe what they are being told.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

Cheap shot, Steve...

Well, it is crap. The first problem with any conspiracy is that it only takes one person involved to blow the wistle, and this would have taken dozens to pull off, if not hundreds. Please, show me any piece of so-called evidence and I'll bet I can show you what's wrong with it.

No, wait, that will only prove I'm in denial.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

Which is exactly the psychologic profile of 'conspirationists'. Just two weeks ago a study was released that made a psychological profile of people that tend to believe in conspiracies, and it concludes that these people more often use manipulative techniques in real life. According to this study, they project their own personality on the way they see the world. Of course this study could be part of a conspiracy as well..
No offense by the way Phillip, but I just thought the study was worth mentioning. And it makes sense to me.

That being said, questioning the media is always a good thing. Especially in matters like these, usually our whole perception of the truth is solely based on what we see on tv. Now I can't and won't believe all journalists are part of some elaborate plot to make people believe a certain 'truth'. That's just BS. But I am critical at how easy journalists will often believe what they are being told.

It's an interesting study, and part of it is correct: People do see what they wanna see, do believe what they wanna believe. But of course that if they do a thousand studies about conspirationism, all thousand will show evidence of how it's all in people's minds and it's all a fiction.

But the info the TV passes to you have a source. You think the journalists will make a deep study for weeks to determine what caused the building to collapse and then tell the public? No. The government will tell the media what to tell the mass. Has always been like that, will always be like that.

So, I do not believe right away whatever I hear, whatever I read. No. I dig down for more info and after I have enough evidence, I mount up my own conclusions. I don't watch tv, don't read newspaper. That's not the raw info at all, thats only the info that has been put in front of your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Well, it is crap. The first problem with any conspiracy is that it only takes one person involved to blow the wistle, and this would have taken dozens to pull off, if not hundreds. Please, show me any piece of so-called evidence and I'll bet I can show you what's wrong with it.

No, wait, that will only prove I'm in denial.

The amount of people giving testimonials about what happened, both victims and scientists, people that were there, people that have some info... I've seen and read a huge amount of stuff about it.

So, we're down to this: 100 people tell you "It wasn't", and show weak evidence or no evidence at all. Another 100 people tell you "It was", showing some evidence.

Is it possible that the evidence is fake, and they convinced a thousand people to say the same thing? Yes. Anything is possible.

But IMO one side makes more sense than the other. I think in the end is a matter of personal preference about what to believe.

I say it all looks too suspicious, and even some stuff look ridiculous, impossible to chew. Feels like their feeding me crap.

Here between you and me, this stuff is just like religion. You tell a believer that god doens't exist and jesus is basically the adoration of the sun and church is just a money harvesting and mass controlling device, and he will not listen to you, might even call you crazy, and no matter how much evidence you show him, he will grab hold of his beliefs and fight to protect it. People are so desperately attached to their beliefs that they can't live without it, it's impossible to rip them of it. So no, it doens't surprise me what people believe and what people don't, and I don't ever lose my time trying to change people's minds, cos to be honest I think anybody have the right to believe whatever crap they want to believe.

What is the truth anyway? Nothing can be proved, not my theory, not yours. Maybe neither is the truth. All I have is a theory, the best I could craft with the info I gathered, and I'm happy with it.

So, I guess we can agree to disagree, eh? And I won't respect you 1% less just cos your believes don't match mine.

[CCIP]

I think you're right in that in some sense, it's always a matter of belief - there's probably noone out there who has actually seen all the evidence and has the expertise to interpret it on their own, meaning that anyone's views of it boil down to a) who they trust as credible sources of analysis; and b) common sense (which is itself 'sourced' from somewhere). The amount of evidence anyone has on their hands, however, is in that case not relevant if they only have a narrow view on interpreting it.

But here's where I'm with Steve and where I think the Achilles' heel of conspiracy theories lies: in order to pull something so complex off and cover it up, you have to push the data through a very narrow interpretation channel. And that interpretation channel has to take as granted some very unlikely and un-common-sense things, along with the notion that what we know about the workings of public officials is a complete lie. No matter how much data you have, you still have to force it into a convoluted sort of puzzle. Sheer probability and breadth of perspective tends to defeat this most of the time. In the real world, the convoluted version is very rarely the right one. The narrow version tends to ignore broader interpretations and realities of how information travels these days.

Sadly, the fact that 9/11 itself was such a bizzare and incompetently-handled event easily lends itself to these things.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Philipp_Thomsen

The amount of people giving testimonials about what happened, both victims and scientists, people that were there, people that have some info... I've seen and read a huge amount of stuff about it.

So, we're down to this: 100 people tell you "It wasn't", and show weak evidence or no evidence at all. Another 100 people tell you "It was", showing some evidence.

Did any one of the 'witnesses' see anybody plant even one of the hundreds of charges it would take to accomplish that destruction? That's a pretty big secret to keep right there. That's all I ask for - one single piece of actual evidence.

[Philipp_Thomsen]

Originally Posted by CCIP

I think you're right in that in some sense, it's always a matter of belief - there's probably noone out there who has actually seen all the evidence and has the expertise to interpret it on their own, meaning that anyone's views of it boil down to a) who they trust as credible sources of analysis; and b) common sense (which is itself 'sourced' from somewhere). The amount of evidence anyone has on their hands, however, is in that case not relevant if they only have a narrow view on interpreting it.

But here's where I'm with Steve and where I think the Achilles' heel of conspiracy theories lies: in order to pull something so complex off and cover it up, you have to push the data through a very narrow interpretation channel. And that interpretation channel has to take as granted some very unlikely and un-common-sense things, along with the notion that what we know about the workings of public officials is a complete lie. No matter how much data you have, you still have to force it into a convoluted sort of puzzle. Sheer probability and breadth of perspective tends to defeat this most of the time. In the real world, the convoluted version is very rarely the right one. The narrow version tends to ignore broader interpretations and realities of how information travels these days.

Sadly, the fact that 9/11 itself was such a bizzare and incompetently-handled event easily lends itself to these things.

If they had done a good job of covering it up, or if was they said is actually what really happened, there wouldn't be so much discussion about how it's all a lie.

In my opinion they tried to pull this complex thing off, and they didn't do a very good job.

Did you actually read they reports on the analysis of the WTC and the Pentagon? Did you read they replies about the inquiries regarding the inconsistent data and information?

A kid could've done a better job.

[CCIP]

I've looked into all sorts of things actually, there's even a "9/11 truth club" at my university where a lot of the conspiracy-oriented information is advocated. My own conclusion, from a politically-disinterested point of view, is that it was in part the result of gross incompetence but not wilful malice or desire for propaganda. Propaganda coups are much easier to manufacture than that, and they don't have to cost this much politically, econimically, and in terms of lives. But other than that, I'm not seeing anything here other than planes flying and buildings falling, and a lot of innocent people dead by terrorism. I think it's grossly inappropriate to try to diminish that. Bin Laden doesn't even have to enter the equation here.

As for Bin Laden, I'm also just as willing to agree that the US support for Afghan Mujahedeen against the Soviets is in no small part responsible for the rise of his likes. Fallout of the "maybe an SOB, but our SOB" doctrine that is part of the type of the gross incompetence and short-sightedness that led to so many problems the US faces today. So yep, while I see "the government" at fault, I'm just not seeing the smoke and mirrors.

And the bigger issue for me now, of course, is that the cashing-in on the Bin Laden killing is a wonderful way to yet again tout competence in this non-achievement, when in fact this whole war on terror and US' foreign policy are still a terrible debacle.