WHo wants to bet this inquiry receives a serbiz stonewalling?
Reports: Bin Laden gotten by US forces.
Started by
Deadshow Dan
, May 02 2011 02:49 AM
328 replies to this topic
#306
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,913 posts
Posted 11 May 2011 - 03:57 PM
the funny part is, they're not even trying with this one...it's gotten to the point where people just take their word for it so why even bother to work hard on the lie?
im waiting for deadshow dan to say "they never said it was him, at least not as far as i can recall"
im waiting for deadshow dan to say "they never said it was him, at least not as far as i can recall"
#308
-
- VibeTribe
- 7,570 posts
Posted 11 May 2011 - 04:15 PM
Perhaps this has something to do with it. 
Believe what you want, but if you take your "professional conspirator" role to the level of "the sky is falling" people are going to stop to engage you. Yes, Bin Laden was trained and assisted by the CIA way back when. But there seems to be enough evidence out there that he turned back around '90 when he was snubbed for the Gulf War.
I'm not saying you or Vic are completely wrong, but you're going against prevailing logic and enough supporting evidence to make those accounts plausible.
Occam's Razor'd - you both tend to hypothesize the "truth" of events to the point that your explanations become increasingly implausible due to the complexity of the theory. That doesn't mean that the truth isn't somewhere in between the "official" story and your intuition, but what you present in public tends to an assertion that it is on your far end of the spectrum of explanations. If you concede the possibility of some middle ground, it might be more palatable, but that doesn't seem to be your first instinct - it's to call "bullshit" on all "official" stories and then call anyone who might buy into any of it sheep or downright stupid. I think most of us can think for ourselves and know that the government lies to us on a regular basis. But we also know human nature and that it is nearly impossible for there not to be government leaks and dissent. So when you throw out an "incredible" theory, we have to wonder how our leaky and inept government managed to cover all of this up - because it just isn't in their nature to be that efficient with secrets.
It is purely assumption built on lies from the eye witness testimony of one scoundrel in January of 2001. the same testimony that brought this "Al-Qaeda" to life so that Bin Laden could be linked and wanted for crimes he neither admitted to or was tried for, or had any direct connection to.
Believe what you want, but if you take your "professional conspirator" role to the level of "the sky is falling" people are going to stop to engage you. Yes, Bin Laden was trained and assisted by the CIA way back when. But there seems to be enough evidence out there that he turned back around '90 when he was snubbed for the Gulf War.
I'm not saying you or Vic are completely wrong, but you're going against prevailing logic and enough supporting evidence to make those accounts plausible.
Occam's Razor'd - you both tend to hypothesize the "truth" of events to the point that your explanations become increasingly implausible due to the complexity of the theory. That doesn't mean that the truth isn't somewhere in between the "official" story and your intuition, but what you present in public tends to an assertion that it is on your far end of the spectrum of explanations. If you concede the possibility of some middle ground, it might be more palatable, but that doesn't seem to be your first instinct - it's to call "bullshit" on all "official" stories and then call anyone who might buy into any of it sheep or downright stupid. I think most of us can think for ourselves and know that the government lies to us on a regular basis. But we also know human nature and that it is nearly impossible for there not to be government leaks and dissent. So when you throw out an "incredible" theory, we have to wonder how our leaky and inept government managed to cover all of this up - because it just isn't in their nature to be that efficient with secrets.
#309
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 11 May 2011 - 04:21 PM
There is absolutely nothing complex about the facts here. I form no theory that is not based on the facts of the matter. Still haven't watched the power of nightmares and fact checked the info i presume.
I'm also not saying terrorism, or as it should rightly be called blowback, doesn't exists. I just know that this whole situation, like so many others in history, was dreamed up and given credibility in order to forward an agenda.
I'm not a professional conspirator either, whatever that is even suppose to mean. I'm a fact and truth searcher. I never unfold a theory without enough fact to back it up. I find it offensive that people claim theory to fact and act as if it is ME that has rapped myself in some conspiracy.
Also, you misused Occam's Razor, brehm.
Wanna go more rounds on 9/11?
I'm also not saying terrorism, or as it should rightly be called blowback, doesn't exists. I just know that this whole situation, like so many others in history, was dreamed up and given credibility in order to forward an agenda.
I'm not a professional conspirator either, whatever that is even suppose to mean. I'm a fact and truth searcher. I never unfold a theory without enough fact to back it up. I find it offensive that people claim theory to fact and act as if it is ME that has rapped myself in some conspiracy.
Also, you misused Occam's Razor, brehm.
Wanna go more rounds on 9/11?
#310
-
- VibeTribe
- 7,570 posts
Posted 11 May 2011 - 04:33 PM
About "space rays" and how an ousted professor who wants to put forth incredible theories doesn't understand basic (rust and deformation) concepts about heated steel and water? About steaming piles? 
No offense, but to say that you've never put forth a theory without enough "fact" to back it up is an overstatement at best. Your internet "facts" aren't any better than anyone else's internet "facts." We're not privy to the raw intelligence information and we're not on site or in a lab analyzing raw data. Everything we have access to is already tainted and easily spun.
No offense, but to say that you've never put forth a theory without enough "fact" to back it up is an overstatement at best. Your internet "facts" aren't any better than anyone else's internet "facts." We're not privy to the raw intelligence information and we're not on site or in a lab analyzing raw data. Everything we have access to is already tainted and easily spun.
#311
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 11 May 2011 - 04:49 PM
Show me where then, seany?
Are you prepared to explain the anomalies on 9/11 I presented? Or are you going to just dance around them and slander the character of the person presenting them so that you can continue to feel safe easily ignoring them. All is fine here, right?
Believe whatever you want, I've made no assersion to anythign other than what the FACTS of the matter present to me. You've got me fired up too, thanks. Tonight I'm apparently going to have to put the fucking nail in the coffin on that the official story is fraudulent on 9/11. People just refuse to wake up...unreal.
Why dont you tell me your thoughts on 9/11 outside that bullshit tap dance of "yeah, we weerent told everything, but you know like, it's fine because we'll never know anyway." ~ head back in sand....
Since people want to side step facts. Now, perhaps you could stay on topic here. Anything to add about the Bin Laden caper? Or are you just here to resound your cognitive dissonance?
Are you prepared to explain the anomalies on 9/11 I presented? Or are you going to just dance around them and slander the character of the person presenting them so that you can continue to feel safe easily ignoring them. All is fine here, right?
Believe whatever you want, I've made no assersion to anythign other than what the FACTS of the matter present to me. You've got me fired up too, thanks. Tonight I'm apparently going to have to put the fucking nail in the coffin on that the official story is fraudulent on 9/11. People just refuse to wake up...unreal.
Why dont you tell me your thoughts on 9/11 outside that bullshit tap dance of "yeah, we weerent told everything, but you know like, it's fine because we'll never know anyway." ~ head back in sand....
Since people want to side step facts. Now, perhaps you could stay on topic here. Anything to add about the Bin Laden caper? Or are you just here to resound your cognitive dissonance?
#313
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 11 May 2011 - 05:01 PM
Right, i highly overestimate a fact. 
. As far as Bin Laden is concerned we've been given NO facts, yet everyone is all sure that the claims are true. Give me a break. You're welcome to play word of mouth if you want to. it isn't how I roll.
Make sure when you have time you thoroughly explain the 9/11 anomalies I presented in the other thread too. Also, I will post the credentials that Judy Wood has inside the thread to show that she does in fact hold some water to her research. Maybe not her hypothesis, but certianly her research.
I'll ask that you do the same so we can have clarity on who is more knowledgeable in the respective studies.
. As far as Bin Laden is concerned we've been given NO facts, yet everyone is all sure that the claims are true. Give me a break. You're welcome to play word of mouth if you want to. it isn't how I roll. Make sure when you have time you thoroughly explain the 9/11 anomalies I presented in the other thread too. Also, I will post the credentials that Judy Wood has inside the thread to show that she does in fact hold some water to her research. Maybe not her hypothesis, but certianly her research.
I'll ask that you do the same so we can have clarity on who is more knowledgeable in the respective studies.
#314
-
- VibeTribe
- 13,194 posts
Posted 18 May 2011 - 05:28 AM
I think this is why people don't engage more in controversial issues. It becomes hours of posts trying to explain/argue/defend each statement, each counter-post (I gotta hand it to those who have the facts/intellect/fortitude to do so).
#315
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 18 May 2011 - 01:08 PM
Meh. I didn't think anyone was actually going to attempt to explain my "over estimated facts" in the other thread.
Just sling insults at me instead. Ignore the information. I got it on the internet. It must be fake.
Soooo predictable...
in the other thread. Just sling insults at me instead. Ignore the information. I got it on the internet. It must be fake.
Soooo predictable...
#316
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 18 May 2011 - 01:11 PM
I think this is why people don't engage more in controversial issues. It becomes hours of posts trying to explain/argue/defend each statement, each counter-post (I gotta hand it to those who have the facts/intellect/fortitude to do so).
Yup. Because it's much easier to just go along with you're told instead of doing any due diligence and poking around on a subject. Even if there are clear conflicts in a story/event. Just ignore them, give it a quick
, and keep it moving.then when someone comes along that exposes even more flaws in the official story, just bash them for being a tin foil hat moran. Head back in sand. It's the reason I gave up speaking this stuff years ago. People just dont fucking care is the conclusion Ive drawn. Lied to on a massive scale that helped in teh deterioration of the country and morality the world over? O'well....I still got TV!
#317
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,913 posts
Posted 18 May 2011 - 01:15 PM
I think most of us can think for ourselves and know that the government lies to us on a regular basis. But we also know human nature and that it is nearly impossible for there not to be government leaks and dissent. So when you throw out an "incredible" theory, we have to wonder how our leaky and inept government managed to cover all of this up - because it just isn't in their nature to be that efficient with secrets.
there's been plenty of whistleblowers inside that have just simply been ignored
#322
-
- VibeTribe
- 13,194 posts
Posted 18 May 2011 - 02:02 PM
Dave, I agree with your frustration over the "tin foil" responses, they are demeaning ad hominem attacks rather than intelligent responses.
I think tones should be civil. Most of us are friends here. Discussions invite more to consider your perspective (more so than arguments claiming you are right and others are wrong). You post believing you're right and others are wrong, which makes others want to knock you down a notch.
I don't know what happened on 9/11. Do I doubt this govt played a role? not in the slightest. If we didn't do it, I believe we knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it in order to further the agenda of war corporatists and new world order agendas (the pieces fit so clearly, to me, anyway). Fear mongers, creating a boogie man, patriot act, rfid chips in the name of national security, obama's approval of the assassination of american citizens without trial...
But the tone of the debate here is the problem. I see the same in my brother. My brother knows more about U.S. history and these issues than anyone I have ever met. Yes he's watched over 100 conspiracy documentaries but he's also read Chomsky and Zinn and biographies of Andrew Jackson and studied the IMF and the like--I've seen him destroy people in debates (because he actually knows what he's talking about and most of us don't) His problem, he argues in a way that people lose interest. I understand the passion but the delivery makes all the difference. I told him that he needs to check his intention if he wants to be heard. I said if your intention is to "teach" others, chances are you won't be heard but if it is to "share" people are more receptive. I am guilty of this, too.
Communicate in a way that inspires curiosity rather than beats someone into the ground for not believing as you do--you lose whatever chance you had of being heard and it becomes a battle of egos rather than an exchange of information.
I think tones should be civil. Most of us are friends here. Discussions invite more to consider your perspective (more so than arguments claiming you are right and others are wrong). You post believing you're right and others are wrong, which makes others want to knock you down a notch.
I don't know what happened on 9/11. Do I doubt this govt played a role? not in the slightest. If we didn't do it, I believe we knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it in order to further the agenda of war corporatists and new world order agendas (the pieces fit so clearly, to me, anyway). Fear mongers, creating a boogie man, patriot act, rfid chips in the name of national security, obama's approval of the assassination of american citizens without trial...
But the tone of the debate here is the problem. I see the same in my brother. My brother knows more about U.S. history and these issues than anyone I have ever met. Yes he's watched over 100 conspiracy documentaries but he's also read Chomsky and Zinn and biographies of Andrew Jackson and studied the IMF and the like--I've seen him destroy people in debates (because he actually knows what he's talking about and most of us don't) His problem, he argues in a way that people lose interest. I understand the passion but the delivery makes all the difference. I told him that he needs to check his intention if he wants to be heard. I said if your intention is to "teach" others, chances are you won't be heard but if it is to "share" people are more receptive. I am guilty of this, too.
Communicate in a way that inspires curiosity rather than beats someone into the ground for not believing as you do--you lose whatever chance you had of being heard and it becomes a battle of egos rather than an exchange of information.
#323
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 18 May 2011 - 02:21 PM
What you refer to comes from YEARS of people blindly and intentionally being insulting, rather than engaged in the information. I can probably relate to your brother a lot. My brother is way more advanced on this stuff than I am and he wont even talk with people about it anymore because no one really listens. They immediately dismiss what he says and treats him like he's crazy.
I'm close to that too. I've spent years researching, reading, watching, listening and debating these items.
I said it in a post above. A few years back, I actually came to the conclusion that people really just do not care. They would rather not know. I find that troubling. The only reason I am re-arming myself and flinging information again is because I truly fear that the time is coming where if we don't take action now, there will be no option to take action going forward.
I'm close to that too. I've spent years researching, reading, watching, listening and debating these items.
I said it in a post above. A few years back, I actually came to the conclusion that people really just do not care. They would rather not know. I find that troubling. The only reason I am re-arming myself and flinging information again is because I truly fear that the time is coming where if we don't take action now, there will be no option to take action going forward.
#325
-
- VibeTribe
- 4,913 posts
Posted 18 May 2011 - 02:26 PM
Dave, I agree with your frustration over the "tin foil" responses, they are demeaning ad hominem attacks rather than intelligent responses.
I think tones should be civil. Most of us are friends here. Discussions invite more to consider your perspective (more so than arguments claiming you are right and others are wrong). You post believing you're right and others are wrong, which makes others want to knock you down a notch.
I don't know what happened on 9/11. Do I doubt this govt played a role? not in the slightest. If we didn't do it, I believe we knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it in order to further the agenda of war corporatists and new world order agendas (the pieces fit so clearly, to me, anyway). Fear mongers, creating a boogie man, patriot act, rfid chips in the name of national security, obama's approval of the assassination of american citizens without trial...
But the tone of the debate here is the problem. I see the same in my brother. My brother knows more about U.S. history and these issues than anyone I have ever met. Yes he's watched over 100 conspiracy documentaries but he's also read Chomsky and Zinn and biographies of Andrew Jackson and studied the IMF and the like--I've seen him destroy people in debates (because he actually knows what he's talking about and most of us don't) His problem, he argues in a way that people lose interest. I understand the passion but the delivery makes all the difference. I told him that he needs to check his intention if he wants to be heard. I said if your intention is to "teach" others, chances are you won't be heard but if it is to "share" people are more receptive. I am guilty of this, too.
Communicate in a way that inspires curiosity rather than beats someone into the ground for not believing as you do--you lose whatever chance you had of being heard and it becomes a battle of egos rather than an exchange of information.
same can be said about the other side...it's hard to keep your cool when the responses you get in return are "derderdertinfoilhatderkaderpdeedoooooo" no matter what you say or how you present it...it's easy to get frustrated when people that you know better to be somewhat intelligent start acting like a bunch of assclowns...then you have some people on here that you could just swear are talking heads for obama no matter what he does...
#326
-
- VibeTribe
- 13,194 posts
Posted 18 May 2011 - 02:38 PM
I hear you, Dave. It is really frustrating to be dismissed, especially by those who are unwilling to learn and read what you have learned and read(sean and dan do seem willing to debate actual points of contention - sean was doing so in your 9/11 thread. Dan does tend to watch things posted before refuting/discussing them..).
The big picture is so clear to me - and it's happening, quickly. I really believe the time is growing short. but, the point is, it is not clear or even plausible to other people. So what's the most effective way to invite the idea that what your saying is quite plausible?
and i think you're right. some/most really don't care. They are more interested in what's happening on jersey shore and american idol.
hang in there
The big picture is so clear to me - and it's happening, quickly. I really believe the time is growing short. but, the point is, it is not clear or even plausible to other people. So what's the most effective way to invite the idea that what your saying is quite plausible?
and i think you're right. some/most really don't care. They are more interested in what's happening on jersey shore and american idol.
hang in there
#327
-
- VibeTribe
- 13,194 posts
Posted 18 May 2011 - 02:42 PM
same can be said about the other side...it's hard to keep your cool when the responses you get in return are "derderdertinfoilhatderkaderpdeedoooooo" no matter what you say or how you present it...it's easy to get frustrated when people that you know better to be somewhat intelligent start acting like a bunch of assclowns...then you have some people on here that you could just swear are talking heads for obama no matter what he does...
it easy easy to get frustrated, but you can't focus on that or you'll become ineffective and the deabte will become about you and your tone rather than the issue. just put it out there. some will watch the videos and even if they don't agree now, just believe in the "sleeper effect" as things get worse, or they come across another piece of info that causes them to think..... plant seeds, it's all you can do (but try not to plant them in a way that makes your neighbor want to come over and piss on them)
#329
-
- VibeTribe
- 16,773 posts
Posted 19 May 2011 - 10:56 AM
Good quote, cc.
Can anyone here kangfirm the death of OBL?
If not, you're merely going off from word of mouth. Word of mouth offers no evidence to support its conclusion. As far as I am concerned, it is nothing short of opinion.
I don't build conclusions off word of mouth. I adhere to evidence that can support a claim. Or combination of the two. I know. This idea is completely
Can anyone here kangfirm the death of OBL?
If not, you're merely going off from word of mouth. Word of mouth offers no evidence to support its conclusion. As far as I am concerned, it is nothing short of opinion.
I don't build conclusions off word of mouth. I adhere to evidence that can support a claim. Or combination of the two. I know. This idea is completely
