Alternative Knowledge

[Khris]

Another noteworthy article is this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank

[Mandle]

Another noteworthy article is this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank

"All of this has the practical upshot of rendering the debate a fantastic waste of calories."

[Jack]

This is a post I had in mind for a while, but never really had time to compile. I've seen people here say something to the effect of "the fact that historical false flags exist cannot be used as proof of current false flags". While this is true, they typically then go on to make the claim that "the truth wants to be free". Sure, if you wait long enough, and your whole planet is not incinerated by stupidity in the meantime, everything will eventually be declassified.

What follows here is an incomplete list of recognised false flag attacks carried out by governments, with the approximate time it took for the truth to come to light. This is proof of nothing other than the fact that these things can be done and have been done, and that we have most likely not received the last declassification.

Mukden Incident
The Mukden Incident, or Manchurian Incident, was a staged event engineered by Japanese military personnel as a pretext for the Japanese invasion in 1931 of northeastern China, known as Manchuria.
1931 - 1932 (1 year)

Reichstag fire
Used by Hitler to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties in order to counter the ruthless confrontation of the Communist Party of Germany.
1933 - 1945 (12 years)

Gleiwitz incident
Pretext for the German invasion of Poland, official start of WWII.
1939 - 1945 (6 years)

Celle Hole
Attempted prison break initiated by the German government in order to implicate the red army faction.
1978 - 1986 (8 years)

Lavon Affair
Israeli mossad agents are caught firebombing sites frequented by foreigners in Cairo and Alexandria in an effort to ruin Egypt in the eyes of the US.
1954 (caught in the act but Israel denied it for many decades apparently)

Operation Embarrass
A false flag bombing campaign MI6 carried out to try to stem Jewish immigration.
1947 - 2010 (63 years)

1953 Iranian coup d'état
Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.
1953 - 2000 (47 years)

Gulf of Tonkin incident
Alleged unprovoked aggression by NVA which turned out to be initiated by US warning shots. Granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression"
1964 - 2005 (41 years)

Shelling of Mainila
The Shelling of Mainila was a military incident where the Soviet Union's Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila, declared that the fire originated from Finland across the nearby border and claimed to have had losses in personnel. Through that false flag operation, the Soviet Union gained a great propaganda boost and a casus belli for launching the Winter War four days later.
1939 - ~1994 (55 years)

Bonus flavour:
Were weapons planted on this protester?

Operation Northwoods

[Snarky]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bullshit

(And watch the video at the bottom of page that in just a few minutes of viewing time knocks 99% of "Alternative Knowledge" into a cocked hat!)

I'm sorry to say that I think Maddox's video is utter crap. It's not a good presentation of the scientific method in the first place (the model is highly idealized and simplified), it is simply not true that there can't be good reasons to believe something without going through that particular process, and his examples elide the distinction between "the experiments don't support the hypothesis", "experiments have not been carried out (yet)" (which isn't an argument either way), and "no experiment could possibly show whether the hypothesis is true". Overall, a terrible, terrible job of explaining the process of rational thinking.

Reichstag fire
Used by Hitler to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties in order to counter the ruthless confrontation of the Communist Party of Germany.
1933 - 1945 (12 years)

While it is often supposed that the Nazis were responsible, historical evidence tends to indicate that it was in fact the work of a lone madman, which Hitler merely capitalized on.

[Jack]

Yes, the Saudi government helped the 9/11 terrorists

Now we know why the missing 28 pages on 9/11 were kept under lock and key for 15 years: They show the hijackers got help across America from Saudi diplomats and spies in the run-up to the attacks. Because of the coverup, a Saudi terror support network may still be in place inside the United States.

A CIA memorandum dated July 2, 2002, stated unequivocally that the connections found between the hijackers, the Saudi embassy in Washington and Saudi consulate in Los Angeles are “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists within the Saudi government.”

“Numerous” FBI files also fingered two Saudi government employees who assisted the 9/11 hijackers as “Saudi intelligence officers,” the newly declassified documents reveal.

W., Borne Back Ceaselessly

If the 28 pages had been released back in 2002, the revelations might have helped stop the Iraq invasion by refocusing attention where it belonged: on possible real links between Al Qaeda and Saudi royals, rather than the fantasy links between Al Qaeda and Saddam pushed by Dick Cheney.

W. said releasing the pages back then would “make it harder for us to win the war on terror.” But now that we can see them, it's clear that the reverse is true: It was the Saudis who repeatedly stymied American efforts to crack down on Al Qaeda in the years before 9/11.

I find it interesting that some publications and politicians are proclaiming proudly that this finally frees Saudi Arabia of all suspicions surrounding 9/11.

Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

[monkey424]

I was going to post another long-winded 7/7 post, but I'll hold fire for now...

Just in response to the 9/11 stuff, I stand by what I said earlier - Judy Wood's material has not been debunked. When talking about evidence, there is strong evidence and weak evidence. ‘Debunkers' tend to attack the weak evidence and ignore the strong evidence. The ambulance that survived at ground zero is strong evidence that chunks of a building did not fall on it and crush it, but rather turned to powder before hitting the ground. Just watch any video of the so-called ‘collapse' and you can see the chunks of building disintegrating into fine dust as they fall! You can't get stronger evidence than that â€" it's a direct observation.



My analysis of the ambulance from last year. It was never really addressed properly - sort of just swept under the rug.

Here's a simple question:
What do you think happened to those buildings? Describe what happened, in scientific terms. What was the destructive mechanism?

[Crimson Wizard]

Just in response to the 9/11 stuff, I stand by what I said earlier - Judy Wood's material has not been debunked. When talking about evidence, there is strong evidence and weak evidence. ‘Debunkers' tend to attack the weak evidence and ignore the strong evidence.

Naturally, we discussed only stuff we have knowledge about. And in that areas we proved your claims wrong, or at least dubious, several times. And it was not that the evidence was "weak". Weak evidence is something that is generally true but not enough. That "evidence" I talk about was proved to be wrong.
And yet you still keep bringing those evidence in your newer posts as if nothing happened.

There is a thing, that I actually told you about before. You cannot expect people to begin trusting you by throwing tonns of evidence at once. To get people's trust, you need to take one evidence, discuss it, and make sure people actually agree with you on that one before moving forward.
Now, what happened is that we took some random bricks (evidences) from your building (theory) - just something that we could understand and discuss using our personal knowledge - and saw that those bricks are faulty. Should that really be surprising that we do not trust in the remaining building, and do not even want to "address" it?

The ambulance that survived at ground zero is strong evidence that chunks of a building did not fall on it and crush it, but rather turned to powder before hitting the ground.

There are chunks of building that did not turn into dust but lying all around that ambulance. The car got fortunate either not to be hit hard by falling debris, ... or being protected by energy ray that only disintegrated chunks falling directly on it.

Just watch any video of the so-called ‘collapse' and you can see the chunks of building disintegrating into fine dust as they fall! You can't get stronger evidence than that â€" it's a direct observation.

You say this like that should be clear fact, but it does not look like that to me. They continue to fall down inside the dust cloud that covers them (or outside one). I can even see the shapes of the biggest parts of buildings in the dust - until they hit the ground. Some core parts even keep standing for dozen of seconds after rest of building collapsed. This is my own "direct observation".
(And yes, I am refering to the video you posted in the old thread).
The largest visual difference from usual building demolishing here is that the destruction started occuring at the top half of the building, causing dust cloud appear on top and descend down, as opposed to common case when the initial damage is done at the bottom floors, hence the dust cloud stays generally low. Chunks of the building fly through the dust cloud, taking dust particles with them, which create kind of dust trail - which is probably what you interpret as them "disintegrate as they fall".

EDIT By the way, since we are at this again, there was something I wanted to reply to your post back then, but did not because other people quickly changed the thread into fun (although bit annoyed, but I could not blame them). Here is the picture you posted, probably to claim "dustification":
http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/a21e/s97zf3ke9y48m4zzg.jpg
It amused me how whoever did this image sequence rised the horizon up on latest frames to make it look like a part of tower turns to dust at a spot and not falls down behind the neighbour building. If you adjust those images to have matching horizon level, you can clearly see progressive falling down, while leaving hovering dust trail behind. Where did that dust came from? I would suggest it simply got on those structural parts as the surrounding building fell. As they started falling down themselves, the cover of dust got suspended in the air.

I mean, these things look so obvious to me, that it would take something much more serious to even make me consider other possibilities. And you call that strongest evidence? :/

Here's a simple question:
What do you think happened to those buildings? Describe what happened, in scientific terms. What was the destructive mechanism?

You see, it is not our job to describe the destructive mechanism. It is YOUR job to explain the destructive mechanism you are claiming took place. Which you never did in detail.

[Scavenger]

Here's a simple question:
What do you think happened to those buildings? Describe what happened, in scientific terms. What was the destructive mechanism?

No. You describe, in scientific terms, how exactly the building turns to dust, and why it leaves so much not-dust debris.

Give me solid scientific fact of the existence of the energy weapon.

An ambulance not being destroyed is not strong evidence, it is conjecture at most. I could say:

"The ambulance wasn't destroyed because invisible angels came down and deflected the heavy debris with their angelic powers."

And I'd have just as much evidence for my theory as you do for yours.

[Danvzare]

You know, I really REALLY want to build up a strong case for why aliens are responsible for every single conspiracy theory on this thread. It probably wouldn't take long either, since a quick search revealed to me that aliens did 9/11.

But unfortunately I'm way too lazy to build this case. And I doubt any of you would believe that I believe it.

"The ambulance wasn't destroyed because invisible angels came down and deflected the heavy debris with their angelic powers."

Why did you say that with a hint of sarcasm? That is what happened!
If you look closely at the pictures you can clearly see a speck that's clearly an angel!
Just watch that video I linked to, or better yet just look at that picture posted by monkey424, and prove to me you can't see the angelic glow above the ambulance. That's scientific evidence right there, and I challenge monkey424 and Jack to prove me wrong.

[Jack]

Could This Rally Be a Head-Fake?

This doesn't have Washington's Blog's characteristic 100 links (I think it's a guest post), but I thought I would post this anyway if someone were interested in the inner workings of the US economy circa 2016.

Like I said, this doesn't have all the qualification of a usual post of theirs and seems a bit speculative, but it would be a good bet to say that this is what they're doing, because:

1) Not doing it would crash the world economy.
2) They have been doing it since 2008.

It's called extend and pretend, or kicking the can down the road. Typically in these situations you'll find that the sells in the market show actual volume (lots of real people trading), and a rise in market/index value comes with very little (much too little) volume, in other words, a few high-frequency trading algorithms and the like are doing the buying.

It is unclear for how much longer the fed can keep this up. I know that last time I heard about the US national debt it was around 16 trillion, and now it's 19 trillion.

This is a more "credible" site which was the second hit for "low volume rally": Why this market is on the verge of falling hard

[monkey424]

Crimson Wizard and others

I humbly accept what you're saying in regards to the ‘info dumps'. I didn't mean to overload people with info. I got a bit carried away I guess. Of course, you're right. We should consider things one step at a time.

It seems we're back to where we were last year. And I'm trying to convince you all of what I know to be true, but the penny hasn't dropped for some for whatever reason. It's a tough gig what I'm doing. And I don't particularly like doing it. That's why I sort of just gave up and quit last year. But now, here we are again. FYI - here's a recent book review on Amazon of Where Did the Towers Go. This is someone who ‘gets it' and pretty much describes exactly how I feel on the subject.



The ambulance surviving is not trivial. The fact that it is visible is astounding! Or rather, impossible. A back-of-envelope calculation (as per my analysis) proves this â€" although I think it should be more or less intuitive when you realise just how close the ambulance was in relation to the building. People that day were asking “where did the towers go?” â€" and was the inspiration for the title of Judy Wood's book.

There are chunks of building that did not turn into dust but lying all around that ambulance. The car got fortunate … not to be hit hard by falling debris.

Those ‘chunks' appear to be aluminium cladding. Perhaps it is lucky they didn't hit the car. But where's the rest of the building? Where are the huge pieces of concrete slabs and steel girders? There is an obvious lack of debris here that should be piled on top of the ambulance. Is this too subtle for people to understand?

The ambulance wasn't destroyed because there wasn't enough large pieces of material that fell on top of it. Same goes for the survivors in Stairwell B - in the building itself - just in the background behind the ambulance! But, if that material turned mostly to dust, and mostly went up and blew away in the wind (which we also clearly see) then that explains it.

The building turned to dust. That is the destructive mechanism. I don't need to be more specific than that. I know there is a technology that exists that can turn a building to dust, because a building was turned to dust, clearly.

If you disagree with this, then tell me what you think happened to the buildings?

If you think it was a gravity driven collapse, then did this destructive mechanism obey the laws of conservation of momentum and energy?

[Scavenger]

The building turned to dust. That is the destructive mechanism. I don't need to be more specific than that. I know there is a technology that exists that can turn a building to dust, because a building was turned to dust, clearly.

How do you know? What tests have been carried out to replicate "building turns to dust", even on a smaller scale? No conjecture here, I want actual physical studies replicating at least part of it. Otherwise, you're working off of faith.

If you disagree with this, then tell me what you think happened to the buildings?

If you think it was a gravity driven collapse, then did this destructive mechanism obey the laws of conservation of momentum and energy?

Planes flew into it and it fell down. Angels prevented the ambulance from being destroyed by putting up a faith based forcefield, because, as you know, the many eyed flaming wheel of eyes that are angels possess powers beyond that of mortal ken.



As you can see, The circular area around the ambulance matches up with the aura of protection cast by the angel. The remaining concussive force left over from the falling debris hitting the protective angel shield damaged the ambulance, that was there before the towers fell down. Angels are, of course, incorporeal and intangible so it doesn't have to worry about being hit itself, but it protected this particular ambulance. Now, we know that God is totally capable of protecting people and objects from environmental damage, as stated in Daniel 3:10-27, and that was just a normal fire. Partially protecting an ambulance from falling rocks should be totally within the perview of the divine servants of God. Angels are, of course, invisible to the naked eye unless they want to be seen, so no wonder nobody saw it. There ain't no time for "Be Not Afraid" when a building is collapsing. And miracles have been reported to happen at arbitrary and random places, so it's totally believable that the angel can protect this ambulance for no discernable benefit. And clearly, there was another angel on Stairwell B.

This is, of course, the truth, as you can plainly see the ambulance has survived, and this is Strong Evidence for my Angels Protected the Ambulance theory.

[Crimson Wizard]

EDIT: Hm, it appears I ended typing this as Scavenger posted his own reply. As usual it tooks me a lot to explain something that others do not see necessary to elaborate, or prefer do that in sarcastic manner .

Those ‘chunks' appear to be aluminium cladding. Perhaps it is lucky they didn't hit the car. But where's the rest of the building? Where are the huge pieces of concrete slabs and steel girders? There is an obvious lack of debris here that should be piled on top of the ambulance. Is this too subtle for people to understand?

See, you say there should be "huge pieces of concrete slabs", etc, but how can you tell (and how can I)? Can you provide an explanation of where those huge pieces may come from and how they could get on a car that was standing besides the tower?
I cannot, for example, use just any random building demolishion as a reference, because any random building is not a giant skyscraper which top part got damaged and cracked somehow, and then rammed down with the rest of the dissipating building.
I mean, naturally some percent of building turned dust, but it could also turn into just a lot of small rubble, and I can see the piles of it all over the place; and I can find photographs with piled steel beams too (like this one for example), that is point one. Secondly, the ambulance was standing at one side of the bulding, and your chart in the PDF you refer to implies that the pile of rubble should be accurate and symmetric around the spot where tower stood - but that is a questionable assumption, because the remains of the towers did not have to fell symmetrically. Is not it possible that most amount fell to another direction, or rather was spread all over the bigger area - on neighbour streets and other buildings, - or spread unevenly (bigger piles in some places and less piles in others), making average height of the rubble pile less than you calculated?
See, I am not even trying to discuss this properly right now, I am simply noting that even at first glance the arguments and calculations that you provide seem to be based on assumptions that are questionable and not necessarily correct. If you wanted to know why people won't want to "understand" you, here I gave an example.

EDIT: oh, and btw...

I know there is a technology that exists that can turn a building to dust, because a building was turned to dust, clearly.

Come on... even if something you claim really happened, that does not itself mean that it was a piece of secret technology that does that. I honestly cannot understand this argument.

[Mandle]

I found this quote on THIS JUDY WOOD WEBSITE

"So it wasn't just WTC 1,2 and 7 that went down that day. But not only is there a lack of a 12-story heap from Buildings 1 and 2, towering over the remnants of the smaller Buildings 4, 5, and 6; but an aerial view shows the surface level to still be mostly ground level. Of course by the time this photo was taken 16 days later, a lot of wreckage had already been hauled away. But at least you see that the ground is not an irregular shaped heap, deformed from the "falling buildings", which is what you would expect if those buildings had actually collapsed and not gone mostly to dust."

I bolded that particular section for two reasons:

(1) Showing a photo of the site 16 days after the collapse to try to say anything about the state of the rubble immediately after the collapse is so ridiculous that I don't think I need to even explain why.

(2) "a lot of wreckage had already been hauled away": Wait! I thought the main point was the lack of wreckage, and then they mention that over the course of 16 days "a lot of wreckage" had already been removed from the site??? (And still try to use the photo as proof of a lack of wreckage immediately after the collapse regardless (see point (1))

This one sentence (that caught my eye at random as I scanned down a huge page of text and pics) is, I guess, another one of the "weak proofs"? If by just scanning down a single page on this site I can find such an amazing gap in logic, that makes me wonder what a more detailed look would do to its credibility...

[NickyNyce]

Judys book shows a fire engine with the front of the cab crushed.She says,what in the world can do this? A picture surfaced later showing that the building landed on it. Good try Judy.

Judy claimed that cars on the FDR mysteriously caught fire. Wrong Judy, cars were moved there. Judys book shows the police car on the FDR and says it mysteriously caught fire by the beam. Wrong Judy, we proved that the car was towed there with the picture that I provided.

Judy shows pictures of glass with holes in it. Sorry Judy, this is a common occurrence.

Judys hurricane theory went out the window, when I explained that 95 percent of hurricanes move away from the east coast...especially New York. Good try Judy.

The towers were 90 percent air or something like that. They had huge giant open floor plans on tons of floors. There also was plenty of space for debris to fall into the parking garage below. You claimed it was not damaged. I provided pictures to prove that was wrong too.

The buildings collapsed from the points of impact from the planes. They did not turn to dust from the top down.

You claimed there were no planes, but there are pictures of plane parts in the street.

The video that shows what looks like a metal piece turning to dust in her blurry and horribly undetailed video can easily be laughed at. I found another video from a different angle showing this same piece falling downward and not turning to dust. 

When did that ambulance arrive? Did it arrive after the first tower collapsed, or before any collapse? You can't say that it's impossible for every square foot surrounding the building to not be crushed by debris. That is just a ridiculous statement. Shouldn't that ambulance have no paint? You did say that beam turns steel things to dust, but no cars were turned to dust. You said that the beam stripped them of paint. Why only paint? Do you know what makes paint dissappear from cars?...fire.

Judy also says that people that fell from the windows of the buildings should have been holding pictures of their loved ones. This is a disgusting disgrace. These people were hanging from the windows for their dear life. What a disgusting and another ridiculous statement from Judy.

Did you ever come across a crazy person in the street, and say..wow.. that person is crazy. That's exactly what I thought the first time I saw and heard Judy talk. Listening to her talk during that ambushed interview video reminded me of these same drug abusing people I come across on the street. This is my opinion.

As you can see, lots of what Judy says is utter nonsense in the hopes that some people will buy her book. Her so called evidence is not evidence at all. When a person gets caught lying, you don't care about anything else they say.

[Crimson Wizard]

BTW, missing mass of the building is not the only issue, there is a larger missing mass issue out there...

Spoiler

(j/k)

[close]

[Mandle]

When a person gets caught lying, you don't care about anything else they say.

Exactly! Uri Gellar and Sai Baba both claimed amazing powers! They both got caught faking their powers. Does anyone honestly believe them when they claimed they only faked their powers that one time while having an "off" day. Or is it much more likely that they were faking their powers every time?

[Adeel]

Exactly! Uri Gellar and Sai Baba both claimed amazing powers! They both got caught faking their powers. Does anyone honestly believe them when they claimed they only faked their powers that one time while having an "off" day. Or is it much more likely that they were faking their powers every time?

I'm curious which Sai Baba you're talking about. Are you referring to the (orginal) Sai Baba or the reincarnated Sai Baba? I'm more inclined to believe that it might be the latter, but still... What do you think of the original man, btw?

[Mandle]

I'm curious which Sai Baba you're talking about. Are you referring to the (orginal) Sai Baba or the reincarnated Sai Baba? I'm more inclined to believe that it might be the latter, but still... What do you think of the original man, btw?

Yes, sorry I meant reincarnated Sai Baba. I was not actually aware of the original man.

I have seen film of the Sai Baba of which I was speaking producing his "miracle-dust" from the sleeves of his robe instead of from his hands. Also I saw a documentary where they took several of the gold items he claimed to be producing from thin-air and had them studied under high magnification: The items showed the telltale signs of factory machine tooling...This was enough to convince me that he was a fake. I don't mean to offend anyone here though and I now see that his organisation also did a great deal of good of which I was not aware. So let's just call this my opinion...

[Khris]

And I'm trying to convince you all of what I know to be true, but the penny hasn't dropped for some for whatever reason.

This is the actual problem here. You are no longer capable of even considering the notion that you could be wrong. You are no longer interested in finding out what actually happened; all you care about is spreading the Truthâ,,¢.
Discussions with True Believers* are completely pointless because to their mind, anything and everything that contradicts their Faith must be wrong by definition.

I try to keep an open mind, and if some actually convincing evidence came along, I'm prepared to abandon my current opinion. Because I'm not invested in believing X about what happened on 9/11, I only care about not believing something that's wrong.

*rationalwiki