i know its cracked but they break it down really well
i know its cracked but they break it down really well
When I say I dumbed it down, I mean that it is just very surface level the things I said, and there is much more detail. I did a real quick, real surface level breakdown of certain ideas and certain events.
Honestly, I really just wrote this to break a couple things down. I'm not trying to win an argument, it makes no difference. If it came off as me trying to act like I'm better than anyone, then I believe the wrong tone came off. Not sure if its my mistake or your mistake, either way, trust me when I say that is not the type of attitude I was writing this with.
**oh, and as far as what I said in my other thread, that was directed at nate. The guy has many strengths, but all I'm saying is his weakness is the ability to add things together, his weakness is the ability to connect the dots. Instead of taking it as a criticism and wondering to himself if this is something he can improve, I'm sure he'll take it as an insult and defend himself. It is what it is, I can't control what his reaction is to what I say, or how he's gonna take it. But, on the real, read his response to my original post, and it is clear as day what I was saying. The guy illustrated it picture perfect.
The "fake Osama" video conspiracy . . . also ********.
The 9-11 conspiracy theories have been debunked for years. There have been no new claims for years. They just keep repeating the same old ****.
If you have "become aware" of things other people are not aware of.....why do you just repeat the same **** every other conspiracy theorist repeats?
Last edited by gcoll; 11-13-2012 at 06:56 PM.
Just because I don't take disparate pieces of information and try to string them together into some crazy grand theory that can't even stand up under it's own weight doesn't mean I can't "connect the dots." It just means I don't open up a Connect the Dots book and connect a dot on page one to another on page twelve in order to create the shape I want to make.**oh, and as far as what I said in my other thread, that was directed at nate. The guy has many strengths, but all I'm saying is his weakness is the ability to add things together, his weakness is the ability to connect the dots. Instead of taking it as a criticism and wondering to himself if this is something he can improve, I'm sure he'll take it as an insult and defend himself. It is what it is, I can't control what his reaction is to what I say, or how he's gonna take it. But, on the real, read his response to my original post, and it is clear as day what I was saying. The guy illustrated it picture perfect.
On the real.
Just by the wording, he never actually issues any orders, he merely asks the person to confirm that whatever previous orders that were issued, by whoever they were issued by, were still in effect.
I have spent some time on 911myths.com
One thing I will admit is about the 2001 video, the other people with bin laden, that's a pretty good point. Doesn't change the fact that the man touted as osama is physically very different, facial structure wise and weight wise, and also very different mannerisms.
What my basic aim is to show you what the pattern is. If you understand our history, and how we have operated in the past, it makes it very clear what is going on. You can identify the major players, you can see how decisions are truly made. When you see how these relationships form and their interactions with one another, you can then start seeing certain things about 9/11 which don't particularly add up, and in fact you can see how they are connected with top level people in this country (be it business, be it gov't, whatever).
I will repeat again, I do not have proof to sway anyone this way or that way. I just want to bring to light particular ideas and particular historical events, which when analyzed, you can see the striking resemblance to how we are operating present day.
Conspiracy thinking is rooted in a desire for control and understanding, triggered by a lack of control and information, or ambiguous and unsatisfying information about big events. The authors emphasize that the public often has a lack of access to adequate information to explain historical events (a situational factor). This can be coupled with what has been called a “crippled epistemology” – a tendency to utilize circular reasoning, confirmation bias, and poor logic coupled with this lack of information. The result is a popular conspiracy theory that makes sense (even if a perverse sense) of events.
One tidbit I found interesting was the offer of the fundamental attribution error as a partial explanation for conspiracy thinking. This is the notion that people tend to assume or overemphasize internal factors (inherent character) as an explanation for the behavior of others, rather than situational or external factors. If we see someone trip while walking down the sidewalk we think they are clumsy, rather than that there was a crack in the sidewalk. We, of course, exempt ourselves from this assumption are are happy to attribute our missteps to unavoidable external factors.
Conspiracy theorists take this attribution error to the extreme, and will often attribute the behavior of others to internal goals (the conspiracy) rather than benign situational factors.
One factor that was not mentioned in the article was the related notion of agency detection – the human tendency to see agency in objects and events. We tend to see a hidden agent where there is none. With respect to conspiracy theories this results from seeing an invisible hand behind otherwise disconnected events. This also relates to the desire for control, understanding, and privileged knowledge.