A Focus on Conspiracy Theory

Miscellaneous General
61

AJ: "…but I’d point out that if this “no planes” thing is true, State control is a lot more far along than we tend to think. If this is possible - not saying it is, but if - then there is value in analyzing this particular instance for the insight it gives into the dynamics and level of control the State now has, and how it wields that control."

Exactly. The rabbit hole might be a lot deeper than you originally assumed eh?

“September Clues” deals mostly with the Fox and CNN broadcasts and used the original broadcast footage as archived at their sites.

Archive Alterations

Since September Clues first appeared, Fox, for example, has altered its archives to try to obscure the damaging “nose out” footage.

Those self alterations to Fox’s original archived footage are specifically addressed in “Foxed Out” part 1 and in “Foxed Out part2”. by the same author , SocialServices

Fortunately, mirror sites for those original Fox footage archives were created early on and are still available here.[There are other mirror sites for these archives as well].

As for your understandable doubts regarding video fakery at this stage, please carefully review the 2 choices I proposed for you in a previous post.

Either planes can fly through buildings in the manner depicted in the Herzakhani video , or they cannot- simple choices for you.

If it is any help to you, I never, for one second believed any of the official version, yet it still took me 7 years of often daily independent research before I finally “twigged” the obvious- that the videos of planes flying through buildings had to have been faked.

It would never have happened for me if I had not kept an open mind and then had the good fortune to be accidentally exposed to “September Clues” etc.

Here is my own melodic death-metal tribute to the maker of “September Clues”

62

I don’t have time to look at all those now since, honest to God, I’ve got a trans-Pacific flight in a few hours and I’ve been staying up way too late reading the forums.

Still, what about the passengers?(???!) I reject the notion that scientific evidence trumps self-evident logic - that would be to commit a standards of proof error. Moreover, I’m not an engineer or a physicist, even less am I qualified to say what happens in extreme physical situations that are far out of my everyday experience. So the physics argument is never going to persuade me. For the record, I majored in physics for two years, but what I learned just made all the more aware that the physical world is full of counterintuitive phenomena. What gets me interested in no-plane theory is the obvious video “matrices” in the TV footage (assuming its real).

63

This isn’t praxeology, this is bullshit conspiracy theorizing. Nothing but faulty premises and endless correlations.

You are headed down this road - http://www.september11news.com/Mysteries2.htm

BTW, your one dimensional high school physics student explanation of why such an event occuring is impossible fails to impress anyone but a high school physics student.

64

First of all, scientifically speaking, if you cannot see anything procedurally incorrect with starting an attempt at unbiased investigation of the events of 911 using scientific investigative principles , with an automatic assumption of the truth of certain information [ i.e. what is in essence, unprovable hearsay testimony supplied to you by the media and government - : “there were passengers, therefor there were planes”] , then I’ve got news for you- you’d never make it as a real scientist.

On the other hand , you would probably enjoy a long and successful “scientific” career with the N.I.S.T. , or even Popular Mechanics or some other scum-sucking “scientific” organization on the government payroll : -)

True scientific investigation demands that , outside of acceptance of well known time-tested scientific principles concerning observed behaviour/ phenomena,[eg in this case Newton’s 3rd Law of motion] , one can never pre-suppose either the truth or falsity of any claimed “evidence” being taken into consideration, one way or the other, until all data/information has been exhaustively analyzed and reanalyzed, and analyzed yet again when more evidence/data/ information is uncovered and verified.

Anything less than such a procedure guarantees skewed, useless, results. One simply cannot start with the unproven [and unprovable] assertion that there were passengers[ ergo, there were planes] , simply because that is what you’ve been told and you have previously believed to be true.

Second of all, as I hinted previously, in my humble opinion, you are not much of an anarchist if you automatically pre-suppose the truth/veracity of anything the government tells you via its media, particular when something as important as [what it and its sycophant media] claims were the true events of 911 are at stake, knowing what the states agenda always has been and always will be.

I suggest your anarchist buddies ostracize/ eject /punish you forthwith until you learn the error of your ways and beg for forgiveness!

I’ve got nothing else for you [apart maybe from expensive psychotherapy ]- you’ve seen the “Air vs Skyscraper” analysis, of Flight 175’s supposed clean entry into WTC2 and you’ve taken the time to review “September Clues”, possibly even “Nosed Out” and “Foxed Out”.

Maybe you need to just “chew” on the revolutionary information in those videos for a while and see how you feel a few months down the road.

There is a lot of information to digest/consider/accept/reject there.

'Bye for now. www.onebornfree.blogspot.com

65

Zefreak: "this isn’t praxeology, this is bullshit conspiracy theorizing. Nothing but faulty premises and endless correlations.

You are headed down this road - http://www.september11news.com/Mysteries2.htm

BTW, your one dimensional high school physics student explanation of why such an event occuring is impossible fails to impress anyone but a high school physics student."

Whatever, you government propaganda supporting libertarian/anarcho capitalist, you!

66

take that back. thats positively dishonest of you, and you wouldnt want us to think of you as dishonest, would you?

67

Who even cares if he is libertarian as long as he speaks the truth. The attempt at using bias doctrine the cudgel your enemies into submission is pathetic.

68

laminustacitus:

“Who even cares if he is libertarian as long as he speaks the truth. The attempt at using bias doctrine the cudgel your enemies into submission is pathetic”

The truth being the states account right? [But of course!]

You’d prefer that I respond to his/her comment with vague meaningless generalizations and swearwords such as [to use their very own words] : “this is bullshit .. theorizing. Nothing but faulty premises and endless correlations” , perhaps?

Cudgel[ing] into submission by attempting to point out the hilarious contradictions involved when one or more self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalists” get bent out of shape by a single individual who stands up and says: “the states story is total BS” , and actually consistently leap to defend the states fiction?

If anything is,that [consistent defense of the state’s story] is pathetic, [assuming professed anarchism].

Come on! Get your humor on, it’s a laugh a minute round here!

P.S. how’s your research into who owns “Popular Mechanics” doing?

69

you are lost:

you cant tell apart a consistent defence of the state, from anarchists disagreeing with you.

70

You’re not reading. I asked what’s your explanation for the passengers, but you haven’t answered. I am not stating anything; I am asking.

For that matter, given how deep you’re questioning, how do you know 9/11 even really happened? You’re running up against the standards of proof error.

71

Their analysis is correct.

Marxist bias doctrine.

They are correct, you are wrong; that is all I care about.

I don’t care about whose story it is, only that it is true.

I don’t care who owns the magazine. All that I care about is the soundness of their arguments, objectivity is possible in individuals other than yourself.

72

As I said before, I’ve got nothing more for you. If you insist on putting the cart before the horse and that there were passengers that is your affair. There are numerous private ongoing investigations into the falsity of the passenger lists and the curious fact that most listed passengers SS numbers are still active, but I have deliberately avoided dragging that stuff in in order to get you to focus purely on the [fiction] of the plane into building videos .

As far as I can see, the only possible logical thought process is : [1] no planes into buildings ->[2] therefor possibly no planes at all - > [3]therefor possibly no passengers.

I do not know definitively one way or another whether or not planes with passengers actually existed, the matter is entirely irrelevant to the question of the physics of “can aircraft fly through buildings in the manner depicted in the videos or not?”

I got you to look at and consider the proposals/ramifications of the various movies I linked to, and to perhaps closely consider your methodology for examining 911 evidence, so my job is done as far as I’m concerned.

Where you go from here with that information is none of my concern. I am certainly not going to get into anything regarding passengers and where are they now type questions/arguments just to satisfy your own personal fetish/hang-up, if that is what you are thinking .

Assuming that you [maybe some day ] reach the conclusion that there were no planes hitting buildings [and therefor no passengers in those planes] , instead of believing the preposterous government/media fiction, then you can conduct your own research and construct your own theory as to how the passenger lists were falsified, or adapt one of the many plausible [IMO] theories already out there.

Good luck with your research.

73

The State says alot of things, including:

  1. The Holocaust occurred
  2. Japan is a country
  3. The sky is blue

Do you seriously reject anything and everything the State says because it is the State that says it? As has been explained, the validity of the argument and the soundness of its premises are absolutely unrelated to the source.

Such dogmatism is precisely what the Anarchist movement does not need.

BTW, I enjoy reading conspiracy theories because of the epic Logic Fail involved.

74

uh oh.

75

Do you disagree?

76

Zefreak: “Do you seriously reject anything and everything the State says because it is the State that says it?”

Seriously- of course!

And I assume you don’t. Get help- seriously.

77

Hello, good evening and welcome to the “Anarchists For Defense of the State” Show" [:D] [because somebody’s gotta do it - you know it makes sense!]

Glad to have you aboard sir!

Please take a seat in the back- feel free to say anything , throw various ad hominums at myself etc. [ if you need pointers there just check a few moderators posts they have it down to a fine art!], just never say anything that even remotely questions the states story about the events of 911 or attempts to refute its lies via the employment of such irrelevancies as simple logic and high school level physics principles , we are real anarchists round here and such subversive thought processes will simply not be tolerated - adhering to simple logic and basic principles of science in order to reach a conclusion?- how passe! We have no use for that type of dangerous thinking round here! .

Please enjoy your Anarchy For Defense of the State Show and your time here "safely " . You know it makes sense! [:D]

78

Why would you think that there are no passangers on that plane? Look, I’ve looked at some really crazy theories about what happened on 9-11. I am starting to think it’s a mix of all of them. That they could have been hijacked, it could have all been planned (20th century fox knew about 9-11), that, the buildings could have been weak, that it was probably an intelligence operation by a number of countries. But to say there wasn’t any passangers on the plane? It’s stuff like that which discredits the 9-11 truth movement. I’m sure there are plenty of family members who were affected by that, who, demand an honest investigation. I know what I say on the day of 9-11. I believe we need an honest investigation of what happened- but- to go out and say that there were no passangers present on the plane- you’re totally shutting yourself off to other possibilities of what might have occurred.

79

The Holocaust was obviously a state conspiracy created to strenthen the case for interventionsim. [:S]

80

And which of these statements are provable true?

They also might take a stance on other issues as well i.e. You have a duty to sent your kid to our school. And perhaps other things concerning science or (civil) religion. But it is not the state that says so, rather represantatives of the state will make such statements (for whatever reason). The problem comes in, when they suppress alternative views on issues and when they basically enforce a statement of faith, even jail people or kill them because they dare to openly disagree. The state is however only instrumental in this matter. There are other interest groups at work and to them what people think an belief is what is important, since this is influencing their behaviour as well. Also note that the sum of state action requires some consent from civil society (I am getting Gramscian right now).

That would be childish. But many people do reason like that: If X says A then A must be wrong (right).