Alternative Knowledge

[Khris]

If you can stomach the TRUTHâ,,¢, read on.

What follows is a conspiracy hypothesis (I'm using the scientific term here) I have developed after reading countless posts about 9/11 and other events on the internet:
Conspiracy "theorists" are actually government disinformation agents who spread ridiculous stories in order to distract people from the actual conspiracies. The intention is to bore people to tears as much as possible (while quote-mining actual rational thinkers) until they're so jaded they just reject any conspiracy talk out of hand and become full-fledged mainstream sheep.

Since my hypothesis is internally consistent and unfalsifiable, it's pretty much 100% true.*

*Nope.

[NickyNyce]

The funny thing is, if you write and sell a book about it, some of these conspiracy theorists would still buy it.

[Mandle]

quote-mining

That is such a great term! I've never heard it before but it's instantly understandable.

Mind if I quote it sometime?

[Khris]

Not mine, unfortunately
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote-mining

[Danvzare]

If you can stomach the TRUTHâ,,¢, read on.

What follows is a conspiracy hypothesis (I'm using the scientific term here) I have developed after reading countless posts about 9/11 and other events on the internet:
Conspiracy "theorists" are actually government disinformation agents who spread ridiculous stories in order to distract people from the actual conspiracies. The intention is to bore people to tears as much as possible (while quote-mining actual rational thinkers) until they're so jaded they just reject any conspiracy talk out of hand and become full-fledged mainstream sheep.

Since my hypothesis is internally consistent and unfalsifiable, it's pretty much 100% true.*

*Nope.

The funny thing is, that actually sounds more plausible than more conspiracy theories.

[Jack]

A Brief Analysis of Prejudicial Thinking as it Relates to Conspiracy Theory

Encapsulation of ideas is a function of the mind which enables consciousness to occur within the variable limits of a brain. In other words, it allows thinking to occur at the various levels that a brain may be capable of storing information. Here are examples of the two extremes of the idea encapsulation spectrum:

The first theoretical person only has space for 3 ideas in his head: The hammer is the only tool to use for fixing and breaking things alike. The only thing worth doing is watching football. The only good people are the ones who have the same skin colour, football team, tool preferences. This person probably doesn't exist, but apparently we're all descended from him.

The second has a theoretically unlimited capacity to store information, and his understanding of ideas is a completely accurate representation of the information available to him. Since any one idea is so detailed and therefore so unique, no two provide a convincing basis for comparison, and he therefore he has no opinions on anything. This person also probably doesn't exist, but is the naive goal of some transhumanists. In fact he's just as useless as the other extreme.

All of us lie somewhere on this spectrum. The limits could be natural, or artificial. An example of a self-imposed overuse of encapsulation is an old man who has decided that it's impossible for him to learn anything about computers, and so doesn't try, and so doesn't learn anything. It is a well-accepted idea that such lack of mental plasticity, be it natural or artificial, is the cause of prejudicial thinking. The misanthrope has encapsulated the idea of people, and believes that all people are bad. His counterpart has done the same, but believes all people are good. They're both morons.

These fundamental forms and limitations of thinking tend to expose themselves through the output of a person so affected. From the quote "The only good rooskie is a dead rooskie," it's clear that this person believes that all Russians are the same. So here we finally come to how this well-acknowledged behaviour pertains to the cultural taboo known as conspiracy theory:

Meet Fah Knut and Fah Khehd. Fah Knut has never looked into the assassination of JFK aside from incidental exposure, but he knows that no conspiracy was involved and the magic bullet theory is 100% factual, because conspiracy theorists are all a bunch of UFO-chasing nutters. Fah Khehd on the other hand will believe practically any conspiracy theory he reads, and the only fact checking he cares about is whether he liked the theory being presented. You may have guessed it. They're both prejudiced morons.

These belief systems too are exposed by content, for example:

You mention there's a petition signed by over two thousand accredited architects and engineers, questioning the validity of the non-peer-reviewed and covered-up scientific study which is used by the government as the official explanation of 9/11. To express this information, providing no interpretation or comment, is the totality of what you wrote. Fah Knut's reply? "Ooh, I bet the aliens helped them cover it up!"

That was a bad day. 52% of Fah Knut's already strained mental resources were taken up by a particularly poignant my little pony fan video. Let's give him another shot:

You drop the mic like this: 7 Reasons 9/11 Could NOT Have Been An Inside Job
Yes, a good percentage of those linked right back to mainstream media sources, but Fah Knut's reply? "A blog? Wow, what a credible source"

Fah Knut would be filled with glee to hear that I used to think these people were shills when I saw them around the internet. I couldn't believe that a person capable of using a keyboard could so poorly understand what they were replying to, that they could be utterly dismissive about it. I thought someone paid them to act this way. Now it seems obvious that they're just morons being prejudiced in a culturally acceptable way, because they have the added handicap of having no guts.

[Khris]

Did you just call me a gutless moron?

[Jack]

The crown of Fah Knut cannot be given, it must be claimed. Congratulations. May your reign be fraught with peril.

[Khris]

I also conducted a brief analysis, and it resulted in my thinking you'll probably be very interested in this:

[embed=640,390]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LRf1PalFbA[/embed]

[Jack]

Yes, excellent example.

Anyway.

The Panama Papers, eh?

There's Chinese new year. Does that mean there's truther Christmas?

The Panama Papers are a leaked set of 11.5 million confidential documents that provide detailed information on more than 214,000 offshore companies listed by the Panamanian corporate service provider Mossack Fonseca, including the identities of shareholders and directors of said offshore companies. The documents identify (as directors and shareholders of such companies) current government leaders from five countries â€" Argentina, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, and the United Arab Emirates â€" as well as government officials, close relatives, and close associates of various heads of government of more than 40 other countries, including Brazil, China, Peru, France, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Syria, and the United Kingdom. On 5 April, the Prime Minister of Iceland Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson announced his resignation following the scandal.

Comprising documents created since the 1970s that amount to 2.6 terabytes of data, the papers were supplied to the Süddeutsche Zeitung in August 2015 by an anonymous source, and subsequently to the U.S.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The papers were distributed to and analyzed by about 400 journalists at 107 media organizations in more than 80 countries.

The first news reports based on the set, along with 149 of the documents themselves, were published on 3 April 2016, and a full list of companies is to be released in early May 2016.

As a citizen of South Africa, recognised as the second most corrupt country on earth, this fills me with joy.

Also,

SUCK IT, CAMERON!

[miguel]

Just for the record and it doesn't really mean that I'm trying to change anybody's point of view, but regarding the McCann case - Gonçalo Amaral (the detective that was put into disgrace when trying to investigate) was considered not guilty of all charges. The McCann's plan to appeal.

[monkey424]

Danvzare

"So what's this truth about 9/11 then?"

In summary: the towers didn't burn up, nor did they slam to the ground; they turned into dust in mid-air. Episode 3 of Adam Dywer's "Irrefutable" series illustrates this pretty well, here.

Also, see my final post on the matter, here.

---

Mandle

"The media often spins the news according to its own or the government's agenda... DUUUUUH!!!"

So you know this - fine.

"Still doesn't mean there is some master plan behind the whole deal".

Perhaps.

---

Khris

You're getting your information from RationalWiki? God help you! I've already pointed out that the phrase "conspiracy theory" was popularised / weaponised by the CIA, and Wikipedia is controlled / biased. RationalWiki is fucking a joke! Its content is actually quite infantile.

---

Jack & Miguel

Thanks for your contribution.

---

Madeleine McCann

As Miguel pointed out, detective Gonçalo Amaral has just recently won an appeal against the McCanns' libel claims.

If you have not viewed any of the documentaries I have posted yet (link back to page here) then at least remember who this guy is:



Clarence Mitchell, the media spokesperson for the McCanns, gave this talk recently in Australia. See how many times he lies!

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzikQRswVpw&feature=em-subs_digest[/embed]

[Danvzare]

Danvzare

"So what's this truth about 9/11 then?"

In summary: the towers didn't burn up, nor did they slam to the ground; they turned into dust in mid-air. Episode 3 of Adam Dywer's "Irrefutable" series illustrates this pretty well, here.

Also, see my final post on the matter, here.

Blah blah blah, dust, blah blah blah. Seriously, why can't you just get to the point in those links you gave me?
Can't you just say from the get go, that you think someone just shot a disintegrator ray at the damn things, rather than just shoving all of this stupid "evidence" in my face. It's like I'm reading one of those "One weird and crazy way to lose weight" ads.
Just say it, and stop beating around the bush.

By the way, that's a stupid hypothesis. That's right, it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that chem trails alter your mind, the president is a lizard, the pyramids were built by aliens to dock their spaceships, and that the Area 51 incident did involve aliens.

If you ever want to know if a conspiracy theory is true, you just need to remember three simple little facts.
1st: All governments are incompetent.
2nd: Humans have always done and will always continue to do extremely impressive (but incredibly stupid) feats.
3rd: Nothing stays a secret for long.

If there was something like this out there, I'm sure we'd know about it. After all, if the goverment were this good at covering this up, then they definitely would have hidden nuclear bombs for a lot longer, and probably would have covered up any attempts to use them as well.

One last thing. There is one major piece of evidence that contradicts this theory.
Someone survived the so called "blast". If it had disintergrated everything, then how the hell could anyone have survived it. Unless!
Gasp, he was an ALIEN!!!
It all makes so much sense now.

[Crimson Wizard]

Can't you just say from the get go, that you think someone just shot a disintegrator ray at the damn things

Danvzare, you probably was not around here at the time we did attempt to discuss the disintegrator ray :
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.0

[Khris]

You're getting your information from RationalWiki? God help you! I've already pointed out that the phrase “conspiracy theory” was popularised / weaponised by the CIA, and Wikipedia is controlled / biased. RationalWiki is fucking a joke! Its content is actually quite infantile.

Are you saying I can't pick random stuff that random dudes put online to back up my claims? I thought that's all we're doing in this thread.
You'll also note that I linked to their definition of quote-mining. Are you saying that RationalWiki's explanation about what quote-mining is is actually misinformation planted by the government?

Also, Wikipedia != RationalWiki. Plus, when i care about a topic, unlike you, I read multiple points of view from a variety of sources, then make up my own mind.
And even if I granted that the CIA "weaponized" the term, I'm not using it to try an shut up any dissent from the mainstream pov. I only use it for long debunked ridiculous bullshit, especially if it's bullshit of the highest order that is even rejected by most other truthers.

Given your answers, I suggest we stick to the meta-level for now, because that might actually lead to a productive exchange.

[Danvzare]

Can't you just say from the get go, that you think someone just shot a disintegrator ray at the damn things

Danvzare, you probably was not around here at the time we did attempt to discuss the disintegrator ray :
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.0

Yeah, I definitely wasn't around back then.
I should probably stop posting in this thread before I embarrass myself... again.

[Mandle]

I should probably stop posting in this thread before I embarrass myself... again.

I actually thought you had read that other thread but had come away still confused as to what its central point was...As were most of us...

It was mostly just link to tons of "evidence", most of which was quickly debunked by other posters, to which the response was many new links to tons more "evidence", without much addressing of the points that had already been disproved...

It went round and round like that for a while and then I guess everyone just kinda agreed to disagree...

And then this thread came along and the popcorn machines got turned back on!

YAY!

[Jack]

9/11 is not about secrets, it's about complacency and propaganda.

We know that the entire US military stood down. Protocols for flight controllers and alert fighter response, which would normally prevent it, did not apply that day. We know those tapes were destroyed. We know that the USG did a whitewashed investigation, lists of the people involved have demanded a real investigation. We know that the scientists behind the official tale still won't publish their model, and rule out explosives based solely on the fact that they didn't test for any. We know the USG promptly destroyed key evidence. We know that passports (but nothing else) can survive being crushed by a skyscraper. We know that WTC7 was not struck by a plane, but is still one of only 3 skyscrapers ever to completely collapse due to fire. We know that not only did the twin towers collapse in this manner, but did so cleanly, from the top down, and into their own footprint, the path of greatest resistance, a collapse which has never before or since been possible than with anything other than a perfectly executed controlled demolition. We know that large amounts of gold went missing from the WTC complex during 9/11, far more than should be possible with the disaster alone. We know that key files from several SEC investigations regarding the financial crash that was occurring at the time were lost in WTC7. We know that the owner of the company responsible for the security of the buildings is named bush, the same name you will see on the bin laden christmas list.

All this and more, public record. To be found simply for the price of looking. Pretty much everything except the plainly visible controlled demolitions is circumstantial, even if it all does paint an unmistakable and strikingly coherent picture. Until there is a real investigation, videos of controlled demolition is all we know for sure. We know all this, and the only response a new investigation gets is ridicule from the government and mainstream media alike. Why reinvestigate when we were so thorough the first time? Why reinvestigate when it's only the single biggest thing shaping US foreign policy and invasions in the last decade and a half? Seriously, you must be blazing too much with the aliens lately.

A continued source of amazement is WTC7, and the number of people who completely glaze over it no matter how much it is referred to. You can talk about mostly WTC 7 for like 3 posts, and people will still think you are talking about the twin towers. Because it was the only ones they ever saw on TV? Could it really be that simple? It's a manifest phenomena, and yet it's still hard to believe. What else can't these people see while looking straight at it?

Alright then, that's about 10,000 words, way over the limit of what most are capable of handling, apparently.

TLDR: Let's pop on the pancake theory one more time, seasoned with a plain demonstration of how incapable people become at understanding english when 9/11 is mentioned. Go on then, post some UFOs pasted in next to 9/11 and then revel in your cleverness at debunking it.

PS: Okay, I know I'm being an asshole by letting my frustration out, but will one of you please recount the magic bullet theory? But put real emotion into it, like your brain is programmed directly by the TV.

[Danvzare]

Alright then, that's about 10,000 words, way over the limit of what most are capable of handling, apparently.

For the record, I gladly read it all. It was refreshing to read a post that only contained the facts, and no actual theories as to what all of these facts could mean.
Also, it wasn't really that long in my opinion.

In short, clearly something weird is going on. What is it? I don't know... and personally I don't really care. For all I know, the building wasn't built to code.
Whatever the case, it's seems as though something weird happened. I'm not sure what, but I'm sure of what it isn't.

[Jack]

--For all I know, the building wasn't built to code.
Whatever the case, it's seems as though something weird happened. I'm not sure what, but I'm sure of what it isn't.

With the same surety I can say that cutting corners to cause a perfect controlled demolition is a lot harder than executing a controlled demolition, 3 times in the same day.

Public record: NIST removed shear studs and fireproofing from all the load bearing supports of their model, which was present on the blueprints and the building, to get their girders deformed by fire to jump off their supports, which otherwise would not be possible. So corners were cut, but not where you think.

People proclaim that fire can deform steel, then use that as proof that buildings can implode due to fire, but the truth is that fire is the first thing buildings are designed to withstand, and can handle sagging beams as a matter of design.

But yeah, it seems you and I can at least agree that a reinvestigation in warranted. Don't you find it odd that it's simply laughed off, considering all the unanswered questions and the gravity of the matter?