http://www.artwhatson.com.au/images/...1027103946.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by joboo
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/20...14-d36sjdu.jpg
Printable View
http://www.artwhatson.com.au/images/...1027103946.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by joboo
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/20...14-d36sjdu.jpg
I'm talking out the missile scenario, and you're off comparing something totally unrelated to form a conclusion again. This is precisely the example of the type thinking I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by mamboni
What does the planted passport have to do with the pentagon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
What you are saying here is true, but it's pointing to the fundamental flaw both you and the guy in the video above appear to have. I don't believe you are a troll or a shill, but rather I think that you use an incompatible cognitive process from most others here.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
From my observations, both you and the guy in the video above generally try to move toward a rational, proven, consensus about all the issues we discuss, including 911. That's why you are concerned with the image we as a group present to everyone else, and also why you attempt to de-emphasize things which are not considered proven.
The vast majority of people who support these rational consensuses are in the mainstream, with conspiracy theorists generally in the alternative. You (and the guy in the video above) however seem to be a growing group who are bringing the rational consensus to the alternative arena.
As I have shown, there is no such thing as a rational consensus. A rational consensus is a deductive reasoning paradigm where everyone must first hold common premises upon which deductive reasoning is applied to arrive at the rational consensus. I propose you are literally using a different cognitive process from the rest of us here, one which I have argued is inferior and flawed.
I wrote two threads describing these differences:
Confession: Inside the Mind of a Conspiracy Theorist
Thesis: Beyond the Scientific Method - Shifting into the New Age
I encourage everyone to consider the possibility that the person they are trying to talk to may be a deducivist/subscriber and literally use a different cognitive process than they use, in addition to the possibility of being a shill or troll. Obviously almost everyone you talk to in your daily life is neither a shill or troll...what they all have in common is rather the cognitive process they use. The need for a rational consensus.
^ That all sounds good, and all but you have to look at the evidence objectively regardless.
There are some users here that refuse to do it because it goes against what they have been subconsciously trained to believe, or simply just want to believe.
Most of these individuals are faith based religious types.
Oh excuse me, I didn't realize that missiles carry passengers to be disintegrated on impact, not planes. My bad. /sarcQuote:
Originally Posted by joboo
It is related as you are saying everything was blown to tiny pieces just like this passport was meant too but didnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
And how on earth would you know thatQuote:
Originally Posted by joboo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INY5RCzhbjwQuote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
Downloaded pictures are great and all, but how many passengers do you think you're going to find from that?
Are you kidding? Do you really believe this ass believes the total bullshit he spews here with impunity? Don't you see, a plane traveling at 600 mph isn't a missile at all - it's just a plane! After all, it has wings!Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
What transparent bullshit artistry. Another thread getting crapped all over by the resident ADL/SPLC interloper.
It's an observation that holds true. There is a distinct tendency, and direct correlation. Suppression of physical evidence over a belief system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
It is impossible to look at anything objectively; we are all biased in ways we can't know or predict. This is the fallacy deductivists make. Only when one realizes that he is not objective can he begin to become more objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
It's easy to see others flaws such as faith-based types, but unless you are questioning every assumption, you yourself have the same flaws. You should read at least the first essay.
It's an observation that holds trueQuote:
Originally Posted by joboo
hahahah
No I'm not saying that. If people want to link up unrelated info then that's their own flawed line of thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
I'm talking about one specific incident. If someone wants to trail off elsewhere, and make other unrelated conclusions, and link it back as "proof", then that's simply idiocy.
"A passport was planted geographically elsewhere so it was a missile" it about as stupid as it gets.
The passport was planted there... everyone knows this. It has nothing to do with physics.
If you don't see the connection then you're simply not thinking. It's the religion v.s. scientific approach argument phrased differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
How many of these interlopers on GSUS have we had....lost count ......jewboy is the latestQuote:
Originally Posted by mamboni
Who cares joboo,you seem to be the problem here and yet you cannot see it......Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
this forum can see thru people with a false agenda
you have a false agenda too me........ie NOT REAL
If you see three apples on a table, and form the conclusion there is three apples on a table. Is that biased?Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuum
Something tells me no.
I see very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
If you took the time to read the link I provided, and evaluate that site, and make up your own mind you would see this. I'm going to bet you did not take the time.
The issue is some of you are so wierded out over the whole GIM breakup thing it has scarred you intellectually into a permanent level of paranoia. Some of you refuse to look at any information rationally despite what the evidence shows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
At some point in the future you might realize it.
What happens when one of your peers says he sees only one apple?Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
I read it ,very good articleQuote:
Originally Posted by joboo
this Jim Hoffman believes the W7 building was brought down by explosives......
More examples of Jim Hoffman's Blatant Dishonesty: "Airliner crashes typically leave no recognizable debris"
Submitted by Keenan on Sun, 2009-10-04 21:30. Jim Hoffman, the notorious disinformationist who seems to focuse most of his deceptive practices on the 9/11 Pentagon attack, has created a presentation on his website purporting to show that airliner crashes typically do not leave much if any recognizable debris. The purpose of his presentation is to support his argument that the lack of recognizable aircraft debris at the Pentagon on 9/11 does not damage the case for the OCT of AA77 having crahed there:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.htm...
Jetliner Crash Debris
Examples of Jetliner Crashes Leaving Little Recognizable Debris
Some skeptics of the official account of the 9/11/01 attack maintain that the apparent paucity of aircraft debris at the crash sites -- the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville PA -- is evidence that jetliners did not crash there [Notice how he tries to lump Pentagon Boeing crash skeptics in with WTC no planers, yet again?]. Such arguments are based on several assumptions, including that jetliner crashes always leave extensive debris with easily recognizable pieces. However, one does not have to look far to find numerous examples of crashes of jetliners and cargo jets that left almost no recognizable debris, such as those listed here.
[...]
The problem is that when one applies a little bit of critical analysis and fact checking, one quickly discovers a whole lot of deception going on, which seems to be par for the course with Hoffman. One person who decided to do the checking and discovered massive deception in Hoffman's presentation was one Bruno from WeAreChangeLA. He then provided photographic evidence, including from many of the crashes that Hoffman referred to, which actually showed large recognizable debris - indicating the Hoffman purposely chose to cherry pick photos that were not representative, or flat out lied about what was in the photos. When Bruno presented this on True Faction, he was howled down and shortly thereafter the thread was locked, with John Bursill saying "Time for this movement to close ranks once again!" Sigh...It always cracks me up when somebody over at True Faction refers to their little clique of clowns there as "the movement". LOL!
The original post can be found at http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtop...5687&start=135
Bruno creates his own presentation in which he picks apart Hoffman's article and deconstructs Hoffman's blatant disinformation. Jim Hoffman wrote:
"Crashes of aircraft into buildings also typically leave little in the way of large debris, as the December 5, 2005 crash of a C-130 into an apartment building in Iran illustrates."
He gives an example of a plane hitting a building, then shows 4 aerial photos with the claim that no recognizable debris was seen. But look what Bruno found in a matter of seconds: numerous photos of the same crash site with large recognizable debris:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhnjtcf4_14dbznr3f4
Is it not fair to ask now where Jim Hoffman is receiving his pay check? If not now then when? How many blatant lies and distortions does someone like Hoffman have to be caught engaging in before he should be shamed out of the movement? What say you, truthers?
Here is Bruno's post on 911Blogger discussing Hoffman's dishonest research methods in response to John A's juvenile attacks in which JohnA once again compares Boeing crash skeptics to "Holocaust Deniers". I think Bruno sums up the situation quite well:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21517#comment-218640
I got sucked into this Pentagon discussion because I saw real footwork getting real answers when I watched CIT's documentaries on the witnesses. Then I was informed that CIT was getting bashed and treated like disinfo. I slowly got into each consecutive discussion, and it's Hoffman's attacks that disturbed me the most, because when I looked at his Pentagon opinion page (it can't really be called anything more than his opinion) at 911Research I was shocked. How can this guy who really does not present much if any legitimate research on the Pentagon then go on the attack against somebody else who is actually going to DC and getting actual witness testimony as evidence on record? Even if someone disagrees with CIT's conclusions, the evidence stands and should not be dismissed, no matter whose feelings got hurt.
On the other hand, you can't even qualify Hoffman's presentation as research. He makes far far too many conclusions without doing any actual footwork. Legge does the same. The page that Hoffman presented as support for his opinion that large recognizable plane debris is rare at crash sites was shown to be 99% fail. For each example he gave of historical crash sites, he provided only one photograph to corroborate his claim. When I spent time researching each example, I found evidence of large plane parts at the crash sites. We are talking huge obvious parts like sometimes a wing, sometimes an engine, sometimes chunks of fuselage and usually the tail section in whole or parts. 100% of his examples where other photos or video was available, large plane debris was visible. The remaining handful of examples where only one photo is available can't be considered as evidence either way. Hoffman should correct this page in order to maintain his integrity, and not to be classified as disinfo.
One more thing John, in your sign off you say "We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans..."
How can you classify this notion that the government might someday show a video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon as anything other than "conspiracy theories and slogans"? It's only conjecture, and it's being used here on 911blogger apparently in an attempt to ward off those in the 9-11 Truth Movement from investigating the Pentagon any further than Hoffman's opinion.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
P.S. You mentioned 'holocaust denial' once again almost like its your personal voodoo word to scare people away from asking questions.
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2458
whole GIM breakup thing it has scarred you intellectually into a permanent level of paranoia.--)O:[##]Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
You take another look at the evidence as many times as is necessary. At some point it will become apparent the one apple guy cannot count to three, or two for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by vacuum
It's the truth. You guys prove it through your own words, and actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...ashdebris.html
web site with photos of planes after crashing
Losing credibility again......who are"you guys"............. obviously not youQuote:
Originally Posted by joboo
yes we lost count because Magnes left......Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
The whole site questions the official narrative, yet points out all the evidence indicates a plane not a missile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
The reality is there is no evidence of a missile, and ample evidence to suggest it wasn't.
The entire missile angle offers as much to the debate as David icke and his shape shifting space lizards.
I am presenting information with links. I can't say the same in return other than name calling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
Where is the credibility again?
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2458Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
So you dont deny you are a paid Israeli internet operative.............
I have several times, however, the question itself is particularly dim when all you need to do is look at the evidence that is available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
I do find it very telling the focus immediately shifts away from the topic for some at every opportunity and goes into personal attack mode.
That's very telling.
500mph. What does that tell you? What do your eyes compel you to believe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INY5RCzhbjw
I have looked at your evidence and it dosnt stand up in fact it sounds like this jim hoffman is also working for IsraelQuote:
Originally Posted by joboo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
Ok...then answer this. What would be gained in the narrative by a missile over an airplane?
Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
The TRUTH........often overlooked and cast away............
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FoVQzQ-uj6...2BExitHole.jpg
so much for the pulverization theory.......
There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C ...... approximately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered ..... the building." No further information is given.
http://bbcstory.blogspot.com.au/2008...ry-line-2.html
It would show that your rabbi shekel masters are lying... always lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by joboo
So this guy that works for IL is going against the missile narrative which makes the truthers sound crazy. Hmm. Who is he working for again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
If it is possible for a plane to do that, and they had all kinds of planes up in the air at their disposal complete with training exercises all over the place, and there's all kinds of plane debris, and planes (and people) do atomize at high velocity. 20 miles out...10 miles out....does the order still stand? Yes stand down. That was the pentagon btw.
So they smacked it with a missile, brainwashed all the witnesses, then ran into that burning mess in fire proof suits, then planted airplane parts everywhere without anyone noticing?
One side the evidence is there. The other side there is zero evidence, and it gets increasingly far fetched the more one looks at it.
what is this holeQuote:
Originally Posted by Serpo
and this....http://www.flickr.com/photos/36819974@N04/3390807906/