High Ranking US Major General Exposes September 11 High

[vacuum]

The video starts off as "NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT"

It's sensationalistic from the very beginning.

So far no proof of anything other than a Plane.

It has to be this grand ultra ridiculous scheme of elaborate perplexity to no end, when all they had to do was use the airplane already in the air flying towards it!

The most complicated far fetched scenario imaginable v.s. the simplest and most probable.

The real detraction from the perpetrators of this crime is people that insist on pushing this lunatic nonsensical truther angle, when nothing shows it to be a missile under scrutiny, and everything points to it being an airplane.

For the love of god, and everything sane in this world, stop doing it!!

It's only a distraction if you let it be a distraction. Most people in this thread who don't think it was a plane are not distracted, but rather they consciously understand they don't know what happened with certainty and are building up theories about what happened.

The only distraction comes in when someone attempts to force a consensus and/or has a problem with someone else asking questions.

Obviously the general public will have issues with possibilities that are considered fringe, but that is truly their issue, not the people who propose such theories. In an abstract sense, the need for an official story of any sort, a consensus, is where the flaw comes stems from.

A conspiracy theorist recognizes (a) there is a continuum of possibilities, (b) the likelihood of anyone being completely right is almost zero, and (c) all theories are recognized to be possibilities, not certainties. The last one is what I think most people have problems with. Most people are certain about their personal view of the world, and therefore when someone says they believe some version of something happened, they transfer their personal certainty onto the person making the claim, and are shocked at what they find. On the other hand, from the other person's view, it was implied that their theory isn't gospel. They probably don't even totally believe it themselves! They don't expect the other person to take it that way.

Most people have a difficult time understanding how truly different the two different cognitive processes described here are. Deductivists/subscribers believe they are already taking all possibilities into account, and that all the different spurious theories simply have no weight and are therefore largely irrelevant. Perhaps the simple answer is that conspiracy theorists just can't distinguish between relevant and irrelevant facts? It's much different than that. The fundamental attitude of a subscriber is that in order for them to believe something, change their conclusion, or even take the time to look at the details of a possibility, they have to be presented with evidence. They say “prove it to me”. They've settled on an essentially logical conclusion, and do not come up with alternate explanations beyond that point unless compelling evidence is presented to them.

On the other hand, the “conspiracy theorist” never stops asking questions. Even when they are pretty confident they know what really happened, they inevitably question the official story – their personal official story. They are driven by the fact that they don't really know what happened.

Truth is not a right; it's a great privilege only gained by a few through hard work and brutal self honesty. It's immature to expect things to be proven to you. When one recognizes his abject ignorance, truth seeking then becomes a desperation. Instead of asking something to be proven to him, the ignorant should seek out those who he suspects know more than him and beg to be taught. Only those who hold unquestioned premises have the luxury of taking a passive role, everyone else must either take an active role or choose to be ignorant.

Continually asking questions, looking at the possibilities in every context, looking at the possibilities of those possibilities, and questioning one's own personal official theory is indeed a distinct feature of abductive reasoning. Over time, petabytes worth of information will be gathered, creating unforeseeable connections and patterns that the deductivist just cannot see, because he stops asking questioning once he has come to a conclusion. Further questions must have “proof” which may itself require these petabytes of information which they are lacking.

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...iracy-Theorist