I feel like this is going to go the same way as our moon landing conversations. There’s a world of difference between “doubting the official narrative” and “bombs were used to bring down the buildings.” I’m 100% on board with you if you tell me you’re not convinced the planes were the only reasons the towers fell, or that we actually went to the moon. I might not agree, but I can absolutely see where you’re coming from and I would totally support that because skepticism is good. But taking the 180 degree opposite stance - that it was clearly an inside job or that NASA is faking it all - is something else entirely. That’s closer to denialism than skepticism. The people claiming bombs were used didn’t use physical models or computer models. They have even less credibility than the people who support the “official narrative” of what happened. This isn’t a binary choice, you don’t have to fully believe one side or the other. You can choose to believe aspects of both, or simply say you don’t know altogether.
You may be onto something here with the connections between the CIA and NRA. COINTELPRO was definitely something that the NRA would fully support.
I’m not sure where you got that I think you support Trump, but you’re right that most other countries don’t do politics like the US does. No other country has cockamamie rules that bend and twist the will of the people so that the minority consistently has as much or more power than the majority, most countries don’t even put everybody into nice, square boxes where everybody agrees with the all the people in their box and hates the people in the other.
Media wants ratings, because ratings = money. And, sadly, debates = ratings these days. That’s why you can turn on just about any cable news network and see two people on opposite sides screaming at each other until the “host” goes to commercial, or in some cases the host might be representing one side in which case they’ll cut off the other person so they can get the last word. That’s what people want to see, apparently, because the same thing happens on sports networks. Some of it is definitely state run, ie Fox News would never air anything that the Trump White House wouldn’t approve of, but that’s mostly just because they’re both bought and paid for by the same people(the Koch brothers, the NRA, etc).
It was obviously a controlled demolition. But we can agree to disagree. There are physical models demonstrating this though, this is a really good short video:
Im glad we finally agree on something though. Everybody gets put into little boxes. You have the freedom to do whatever you want, so long as your belief system aligns with boxes we're allowing you to check. What does your feelings on immigration have to do with abortion or gay marriage? Nothing, but to be a part of the group you need to follow the belief system of the group. People get their whole identity tied up in this nonsense. Fundamentally, people are scared of not belonging.
Media wants ratings but the people behind the news have a more nefarious agenda. The world you see portrayed in the news isn't reality, it's a simplified, skewed version of reality but it's not really the truth. Everything gets filtered through what the powers that be want you to be seeing, and that's how they control you. The people that think ONLY fox news or ONLY CNN are lying are missing the whole point.
At the end of the day we really don't know altogether, much of anything. Because it's all told to us by other people. The only thing you can really "know" is things you can demonstrate to yourself. That's why I honestly don't believe in a lot of this stuff. If you can land a rocket on a boat but cant demonstrate the physics of something like that working in reality, I have no reason to believe its possible because I have no reason to trust the people telling me they did it.
That’s not a model of a tower with a plane crashing into it, I’m really not sure what that’s supposed to demonstrate. But I can see why that would be effective, convincing propaganda for people who decided ahead of time that they were not going to believe the official story no matter what it was.
I will say that I think all those issues are at least somewhat loosely connected. It’s easy to see a person who believes in fairness and equality and treating others with kindness and respect taking one side on all of those issues. And people who only care about themselves taking the other. I used to work with a guy who never watched the news or listened to anything political but he always took the conservative position on things on his own because he didn’t give a shit if people had the right to do things he didn’t care about doing. He was never going to leave the country so he didn’t care about immigration, he was never going to have an abortion so he didn’t care they were legal, he was never going to marry a man so he didn’t care if gay marriage was legal. His argument against gay marriage was that there are gay people who secretly didn’t want to get married but used the fact that it was illegal as an excuse, and if it became legal then they’d be screwed because they’d be forced into a marriage they didn’t want. That was his thought process, because he didn’t want to get married(his wife had put pressure on him to do so), so he only related to theoretical gay people that might think like him. He opposed making Election Day a holiday or moving it to weekends because some people vote on their way to or from work, which is what he did. He didn’t care that millions more people would be able to vote overall, he only cared about himself and, by extension, people who thought like him.
I definitely understand what you’re saying about not trust people. I’m just saying, it’s a step beyond “I don’t trust them so I don’t know if it’s true or not” to say “that’s a lie.” The latter is still playing into the hands of the people who want you to be in one box or the other, because you’re still picking one side of a supposed two sided argument. It’s okay to say you don’t know, it’s okay to not pick a side. You don’t have to be atheist or theist, you can be agnostic. There are a whole lot of things that we don’t know and there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
Im pretty agnostic about most things. If technology that cant be demonstrated is being shown to people, Im not going to believe its real. Someone making a fantastical claim like "We have ships that can go to space" has a burden of proof to satisfy to be taken seriously. I watch everything NASA and SpaceX put out, and I can tell you exactly how they're faking all of it with openly availible film editing technology.
The news is fiction. Its a narrative scripted to appeal to people who think one way or another and pit those people against each other over non-issues that will never be resolved. Do you think the bankers running the world care if gay people get married? Of course not, but its a divisive "A or B" argument that they can trot out every time there's an election and everybody goes on one side or the other.
Its one thing not to trust people and its another to consider things a liar tells you as probably intentionally false. Trusting propaganda has gotten people in some pretty bad situations. No one knows anything that they can't demonstrate and prove to themselves, everything else is a religious belief.
The video is supposed to demonstrate that floors falling on top of each other don't accelerate, the downward movement is slowed and eventually stops before the falling floors reach the bottom. The top couple of floors of a tower weigh a lot less than the 95 floors below them, so the weight isnt enough to collapse the entire building.
See, you’re still doing it. Saying NASA hasn’t proven they went into space and saying it’s all fake are two completely different things. When you say the latter, the burden of proof is on you to prove it’s all fake. “This is all fake” is an Earth-is-flat level fantastical claim that needs to be proven to be taken seriously, and there is NO evidence whatsoever that it’s fake.
I absolutely think the oligarchs running the world absolutely care if gay people can get married, because that’s one less thing they have control over if they can. They see gay people as subhuman and do not want them to have the same rights they do. If it was up to them, minorities wouldn’t even be allowed to go to school and get an education, or even learn how to read. They see every single step towards equality as a threat.
Labeling someone a liar without proof that they lied is another form of disinformation and propaganda. It’s the B side of an “A vs B” argument. You might not know something is true unless you can demonstrate it yourself, but not being able to demonstrate it yourself doesn’t make it false in and of itself. There’s shades of gray between black and white, you don’t have to think one thing or the other, you don’t have to have a strongly held opinion on a given topic.
I can see how the video would demonstrate that for someone who had already decided that they didn’t believe what they were told and were looking for another explanation. But to say the”towers” in the video are not an accurate representation of the twin towers would be an understatement. The top 18 floors didn’t weight more than the 92 below them, but they weighed a hell of a lot more than the 92nd floor, and that’s all they collapsed. And then the weight of those 19 floors collapsed the 91st floor. And then the weight of those 20 floors collapsed the 90th floor. And on and on it went. Naturally, it accelerated as it went because it started weighing more and more, like a snowball. There was no individual floor in either tower that weighed more than the combined weight of all of the floors above them, so of course there was nothing to slow it down, let alone stop it. If you want to physically demonstrate how this would work, you could just set up a bunch of dominoes in a row and knock one over.
But, yes, building 7 really puts the final nail in the coffin for the “controlled demolition” theory.
Okay, Ill say it as "I don't see a burden of proof satisfied that NASA has been to space, and it absolutely should be considered the funding they get. Because of many mistakes I've seen in NASA videos, of which I watch a lot of, I believe that the videos showing astronauts on a space station are actually being faked in a studio. So if NASA really is going to space (Not saying the earth is flat or space travel is impossible, just we don't have the technology to actually do it) whatever they're doing is NOT what you're seeing on NASA's youtube channel"
There is a lot of proof the government lies and does all kinds of terrible things with money they coerce from us.
Dominos knocking each other over and a tower collapsing from top to bottom are a poor analogy, but I dont think we're really going to change each others minds here. You can explain it, but just because there's an explanation doesn't mean its correct. Building 7 absolutely was a controlled demolition. Many witnesses reported hearing explosions.
See, that’s pretty reasonable, although I’m not too concerned about the funding they get considering they bring in so much more money than they spend. For me, I’ve never seen compelling evidence that the “mistakes” are evidence they’re fake as opposed to the other explanations consistent with them being in space, and while anything is possible with today’s technology, there’s no denying that we do(or, at least, did) have the technology to go into space because the moonwalking videos were clearly filmed with much less gravity than what’s present anywhere on Earth. If we only know things that we can demonstrate, I know that I can’t demonstrate what was shown on those videos here on Earth. People in harnesses or hanging from wires don’t look like that. Slow motion videos don’t look like that. Plus I’ve seen the space station and countless satellites orbiting the Earth. So, while the government definitely does lie(how many times have police shot somebody and given an excuse that was later proven a complete fabrication by eyewitness videos?), I also see proof that people who want me to believe we’ve never been to space are lying.
EDIT: this is a legitimate question, not a “gotcha” thing or a rhetorical question trying to prove some point, I’m genuinely curious. What, if anything, would NASA be able to do to meet your burden of proof that they’ve been to space? Would they have to send you into space yourself? Like, if somebody used 1970’s technology to make a video that looked like he Apollo moonwalking videos, that would at least make me briefly reconsider the possibility they were fake. That wouldn’t answer all of the questions, but that would be a big hurdle. Is there anything NASA could do to make you consider the possibility that they’ve been to space?
I think dominos are as good an analogy as a “tower” made out of paper and anybody who’s been near a large building engulfed in flames will hear “explosions” because that’s what happens when things are on fire, but yeah, we’re definitely not going to change each others’ minds here.
I knew the atlanta shooter was white before the news
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I feel like this is going to go the same way as our moon landing conversations. There’s a world of difference between “doubting the official narrative” and “bombs were used to bring down the buildings.” I’m 100% on board with you if you tell me you’re not convinced the planes were the only reasons the towers fell, or that we actually went to the moon. I might not agree, but I can absolutely see where you’re coming from and I would totally support that because skepticism is good. But taking the 180 degree opposite stance - that it was clearly an inside job or that NASA is faking it all - is something else entirely. That’s closer to denialism than skepticism. The people claiming bombs were used didn’t use physical models or computer models. They have even less credibility than the people who support the “official narrative” of what happened. This isn’t a binary choice, you don’t have to fully believe one side or the other. You can choose to believe aspects of both, or simply say you don’t know altogether.
You may be onto something here with the connections between the CIA and NRA. COINTELPRO was definitely something that the NRA would fully support.
I’m not sure where you got that I think you support Trump, but you’re right that most other countries don’t do politics like the US does. No other country has cockamamie rules that bend and twist the will of the people so that the minority consistently has as much or more power than the majority, most countries don’t even put everybody into nice, square boxes where everybody agrees with the all the people in their box and hates the people in the other.
Media wants ratings, because ratings = money. And, sadly, debates = ratings these days. That’s why you can turn on just about any cable news network and see two people on opposite sides screaming at each other until the “host” goes to commercial, or in some cases the host might be representing one side in which case they’ll cut off the other person so they can get the last word. That’s what people want to see, apparently, because the same thing happens on sports networks. Some of it is definitely state run, ie Fox News would never air anything that the Trump White House wouldn’t approve of, but that’s mostly just because they’re both bought and paid for by the same people(the Koch brothers, the NRA, etc).
--
SmokeEverything
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It was obviously a controlled demolition. But we can agree to disagree. There are physical models demonstrating this though, this is a really good short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00&t=688s
Im glad we finally agree on something though. Everybody gets put into little boxes. You have the freedom to do whatever you want, so long as your belief system aligns with boxes we're allowing you to check. What does your feelings on immigration have to do with abortion or gay marriage? Nothing, but to be a part of the group you need to follow the belief system of the group. People get their whole identity tied up in this nonsense. Fundamentally, people are scared of not belonging.
Media wants ratings but the people behind the news have a more nefarious agenda. The world you see portrayed in the news isn't reality, it's a simplified, skewed version of reality but it's not really the truth. Everything gets filtered through what the powers that be want you to be seeing, and that's how they control you. The people that think ONLY fox news or ONLY CNN are lying are missing the whole point.
At the end of the day we really don't know altogether, much of anything. Because it's all told to us by other people. The only thing you can really "know" is things you can demonstrate to yourself. That's why I honestly don't believe in a lot of this stuff. If you can land a rocket on a boat but cant demonstrate the physics of something like that working in reality, I have no reason to believe its possible because I have no reason to trust the people telling me they did it.
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That’s not a model of a tower with a plane crashing into it, I’m really not sure what that’s supposed to demonstrate. But I can see why that would be effective, convincing propaganda for people who decided ahead of time that they were not going to believe the official story no matter what it was.
I will say that I think all those issues are at least somewhat loosely connected. It’s easy to see a person who believes in fairness and equality and treating others with kindness and respect taking one side on all of those issues. And people who only care about themselves taking the other. I used to work with a guy who never watched the news or listened to anything political but he always took the conservative position on things on his own because he didn’t give a shit if people had the right to do things he didn’t care about doing. He was never going to leave the country so he didn’t care about immigration, he was never going to have an abortion so he didn’t care they were legal, he was never going to marry a man so he didn’t care if gay marriage was legal. His argument against gay marriage was that there are gay people who secretly didn’t want to get married but used the fact that it was illegal as an excuse, and if it became legal then they’d be screwed because they’d be forced into a marriage they didn’t want. That was his thought process, because he didn’t want to get married(his wife had put pressure on him to do so), so he only related to theoretical gay people that might think like him. He opposed making Election Day a holiday or moving it to weekends because some people vote on their way to or from work, which is what he did. He didn’t care that millions more people would be able to vote overall, he only cared about himself and, by extension, people who thought like him.
I definitely understand what you’re saying about not trust people. I’m just saying, it’s a step beyond “I don’t trust them so I don’t know if it’s true or not” to say “that’s a lie.” The latter is still playing into the hands of the people who want you to be in one box or the other, because you’re still picking one side of a supposed two sided argument. It’s okay to say you don’t know, it’s okay to not pick a side. You don’t have to be atheist or theist, you can be agnostic. There are a whole lot of things that we don’t know and there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that.
--
SmokeEverything
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Im pretty agnostic about most things. If technology that cant be demonstrated is being shown to people, Im not going to believe its real. Someone making a fantastical claim like "We have ships that can go to space" has a burden of proof to satisfy to be taken seriously. I watch everything NASA and SpaceX put out, and I can tell you exactly how they're faking all of it with openly availible film editing technology.
The news is fiction. Its a narrative scripted to appeal to people who think one way or another and pit those people against each other over non-issues that will never be resolved. Do you think the bankers running the world care if gay people get married? Of course not, but its a divisive "A or B" argument that they can trot out every time there's an election and everybody goes on one side or the other.
Its one thing not to trust people and its another to consider things a liar tells you as probably intentionally false. Trusting propaganda has gotten people in some pretty bad situations. No one knows anything that they can't demonstrate and prove to themselves, everything else is a religious belief.
The video is supposed to demonstrate that floors falling on top of each other don't accelerate, the downward movement is slowed and eventually stops before the falling floors reach the bottom. The top couple of floors of a tower weigh a lot less than the 95 floors below them, so the weight isnt enough to collapse the entire building.
And then there's building 7...
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See, you’re still doing it. Saying NASA hasn’t proven they went into space and saying it’s all fake are two completely different things. When you say the latter, the burden of proof is on you to prove it’s all fake. “This is all fake” is an Earth-is-flat level fantastical claim that needs to be proven to be taken seriously, and there is NO evidence whatsoever that it’s fake.
I absolutely think the oligarchs running the world absolutely care if gay people can get married, because that’s one less thing they have control over if they can. They see gay people as subhuman and do not want them to have the same rights they do. If it was up to them, minorities wouldn’t even be allowed to go to school and get an education, or even learn how to read. They see every single step towards equality as a threat.
Labeling someone a liar without proof that they lied is another form of disinformation and propaganda. It’s the B side of an “A vs B” argument. You might not know something is true unless you can demonstrate it yourself, but not being able to demonstrate it yourself doesn’t make it false in and of itself. There’s shades of gray between black and white, you don’t have to think one thing or the other, you don’t have to have a strongly held opinion on a given topic.
I can see how the video would demonstrate that for someone who had already decided that they didn’t believe what they were told and were looking for another explanation. But to say the”towers” in the video are not an accurate representation of the twin towers would be an understatement. The top 18 floors didn’t weight more than the 92 below them, but they weighed a hell of a lot more than the 92nd floor, and that’s all they collapsed. And then the weight of those 19 floors collapsed the 91st floor. And then the weight of those 20 floors collapsed the 90th floor. And on and on it went. Naturally, it accelerated as it went because it started weighing more and more, like a snowball. There was no individual floor in either tower that weighed more than the combined weight of all of the floors above them, so of course there was nothing to slow it down, let alone stop it. If you want to physically demonstrate how this would work, you could just set up a bunch of dominoes in a row and knock one over.
But, yes, building 7 really puts the final nail in the coffin for the “controlled demolition” theory.
--
SmokeEverything
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Okay, Ill say it as "I don't see a burden of proof satisfied that NASA has been to space, and it absolutely should be considered the funding they get. Because of many mistakes I've seen in NASA videos, of which I watch a lot of, I believe that the videos showing astronauts on a space station are actually being faked in a studio. So if NASA really is going to space (Not saying the earth is flat or space travel is impossible, just we don't have the technology to actually do it) whatever they're doing is NOT what you're seeing on NASA's youtube channel"
There is a lot of proof the government lies and does all kinds of terrible things with money they coerce from us.
Dominos knocking each other over and a tower collapsing from top to bottom are a poor analogy, but I dont think we're really going to change each others minds here. You can explain it, but just because there's an explanation doesn't mean its correct. Building 7 absolutely was a controlled demolition. Many witnesses reported hearing explosions.
--
Correction
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
See, that’s pretty reasonable, although I’m not too concerned about the funding they get considering they bring in so much more money than they spend. For me, I’ve never seen compelling evidence that the “mistakes” are evidence they’re fake as opposed to the other explanations consistent with them being in space, and while anything is possible with today’s technology, there’s no denying that we do(or, at least, did) have the technology to go into space because the moonwalking videos were clearly filmed with much less gravity than what’s present anywhere on Earth. If we only know things that we can demonstrate, I know that I can’t demonstrate what was shown on those videos here on Earth. People in harnesses or hanging from wires don’t look like that. Slow motion videos don’t look like that. Plus I’ve seen the space station and countless satellites orbiting the Earth. So, while the government definitely does lie(how many times have police shot somebody and given an excuse that was later proven a complete fabrication by eyewitness videos?), I also see proof that people who want me to believe we’ve never been to space are lying.
EDIT: this is a legitimate question, not a “gotcha” thing or a rhetorical question trying to prove some point, I’m genuinely curious. What, if anything, would NASA be able to do to meet your burden of proof that they’ve been to space? Would they have to send you into space yourself? Like, if somebody used 1970’s technology to make a video that looked like he Apollo moonwalking videos, that would at least make me briefly reconsider the possibility they were fake. That wouldn’t answer all of the questions, but that would be a big hurdle. Is there anything NASA could do to make you consider the possibility that they’ve been to space?
I think dominos are as good an analogy as a “tower” made out of paper and anybody who’s been near a large building engulfed in flames will hear “explosions” because that’s what happens when things are on fire, but yeah, we’re definitely not going to change each others’ minds here.