one_ugly_time
I could easily comment on how abbadon did call others liars with his rhetoric.
Well, it must be easy, you just did it. Whether you are right or not is a different thing;
- I called this conspiracy theory "credulous moronism". It is. I can dress it up purty and put a bow on its head, but it will still be credulous moronism. I attacked the theory, not the person posting it. If someone swims in water they get wet. Saying the water is wet is not attacking the person in the water for being wet even if they are. If one supports a false theory, saying the theory is false is not attacking the person supporting the theory even if they are supporting a false argument.
- I then pointed out three false claims made. No insults of persons making the claims here, just contempt for a conspiracy theory I had thoroughly researched and knew to be entirely erroneous.
- I then used the word "liars";
What gets me is people doing this are basically calling hundreds of people liars (the bereaved and the eye-witnesses), when they themselves seem incapable of seperating facts from fiction...What gets me is people doing this are basically calling hundreds of people liars (the bereaved and the eye-witnesses), when they themselves seem incapable of seperating facts from fiction...
- That statement is supported by the facts I have presented. I didn't call anyone liars, I objected to conspiracists theories which implied large numbers of people, some of whom lost loved ones, were liars, and to the fact the theory (no 757 hit the Pentagon) was entirely false, which it is.
- El blanko had a go, largely in fun, but I think I showed I did not lie and it was the conspiracists who made the emotive claims, even if they were not sensitive enough to realise it.
- I then made an accusation of falsehood, saying either Blair and Bush lied or they were not fit for office due to their incompetence. Which alternative do you think is true? Or what middle do you feel I exclude?
As you have said I called other liars, unless you were attacking my statement about Blair and Bush (which in context it is obvious you are not), it is you who are lying, as I never called anyone on this thread a liar. I would appreciate it if you would have the courtesy to read and comprehend what someone writes before making unwarranted attacks on them.
It is too bad such flame throwing and personal attacks had to occur in order to "persuade" someone "out of cult thinking"... Like that ever works...
Let me see, er, zen nudist seems to not believe this nonsense any longer, and I am sure from what he has said has learnt how easy it is to package something foul so it smells sweet, so that others innocently fall for it, and also from what he wrote realises how he is open to believing such theories due to his past life experienece.
Many of us are similarly vulnerable.
So, whilst you may not like my style, it worked, along with what other people who were saying about the false claims made. I ridiculed the theory, and would have happily extended that to someone who was deceptive or senseless (as I did in my discussion with Lovestruth and Ianone on the same topic), but in this thread it was the theory I was bashing, which it richly deserved.
Now I am of the opinion if one is going to go up against "established fact" such as "in 1969 two Americans landed on the Moon", or "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon", and one is hasty enough to do so without a thorough investigation, one has to take responsibility for the reaction you get. I find a claim like this unsupported, dangerous and offensive.
I admire zen nudist for taking responsibility for the reaction, and for going and checking his facts and having the common sense to see he'd fallen victim to a well-written con when he re-examined the data.
Will you take responsibiltiy for the reaction you get? I take responsibility for the reaction I get...
I too have many open questions, but seeing an F4 (I think) complete disintegrate is overwhelming.
It is cool.
Many of the statements about not being able to comprehend a plane that large disintegrating are most likely true.
Are you saying you don't think the 757 disintegrated? Remember highschool physics? F=Ma (squared).
The force of an impact is the mass multiplied by the speed (in lay terms). It doesn't matter if something is larger.
The amount of energy 'available' per gram of mass due to the kinetic energy of an object is the same at a given speed. A bullet moving at 500MPH will have the same kinetic energy per gram as a 757 moving at 500MPH.
And not being able to comprehend something doesn't mean it is impossible. It means you might not know enough to understand it. You will see this if you try to explain tensor calculus to your cat, except the cat will never understand tensor calculus whilst I am sure if you spent some time on the subject you would find it easily comprehendable.
Those that are grieving have to come to their own conclusions of the what, why, how, who, and all that in order to move on with life. We never know who is greiving as they research and discuss this tragedy. Share what we know... with compassion.
You seem to have missed the point that it is the conspiracy theorists who are 'sharing what they know' without compassion..They're the ones whose argument basically says several hundred people are pretending to have lost loved ones, hundreds more who had a clear view of what happened are partaking in a conspiracy, etc. etc.
The deception used by people who concoct and embroider these lies is appaling. The last link zen posted; you can go through the video pointing out the deceptions one by one;
- 757 not found; yeah, well no, not an entire one, but lots of bits of one...
- deception over hole size; no attempt to compare the entry hole size with the fuselage diameter of the 757
- deceptive highlighting of unbroken wondows; no mention of the new windows on the side being blast windows
- total absense of the eye wtitness accounts that dientify a passanger airliner hitting the Pentagon (these are in the majority)
And that is only the first few seconds of the video! That video make politicians look honest! If you ignore evidence, and select the evidence you use, you can make claims about anything that sound plausable.
But we all know that, don't we? Even if we forget sometimes.
