Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
good fucking post
it always so obvious
yet so hard for the masses to see
good fucking post
it always so obvious
yet so hard for the masses to see
For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=359162
I just watched this video, and it sums up my point of view on 9/11 and the truth movement better than I ever could in the many debates I've participated in over the years.
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=359162
I just watched this video, and it sums up my point of view on 9/11 and the truth movement better than I ever could in the many debates I've participated in over the years.
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Can I have this 17 minutes of my life back. Im a big 9 11 conspiracy guy...but this is a waste of time.
Can I have this 17 minutes of my life back. Im a big 9 11 conspiracy guy...but this is a waste of time.
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
But this video is a waste of your time?
But this video is a waste of your time?
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
am watching will update in seventeen mins
am watching will update in seventeen mins
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
The majority of his videos are on philosophy, economics, history, and psychology...
The internet is world-wide. Assuming that videos on the web are or should be by or for dummies is an error.
The majority of his videos are on philosophy, economics, history, and psychology...
The internet is world-wide. Assuming that videos on the web are or should be by or for dummies is an error.
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Understood the gist of what he was saying
grossly minimalized the idea of 9 11 being the equivalent of a parking ticket compared to the other atrocities committed by the government, the point isnt 2,000 american lives its the lengths they will go to that is why it is important to bring 9 11 truth to the masses.
overall wasnt really impressed by vid but thanks for the drop. as it does remind us how many DOCUMENTED cases of terror america is responsible for.
Understood the gist of what he was saying
grossly minimalized the idea of 9 11 being the equivalent of a parking ticket compared to the other atrocities committed by the government, the point isnt 2,000 american lives its the lengths they will go to that is why it is important to bring 9 11 truth to the masses.
overall wasnt really impressed by vid but thanks for the drop. as it does remind us how many DOCUMENTED cases of terror america is responsible for.
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Best of luck.
Best of luck.
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Damn, what's that smell? Dert, I think you left the cap off the ether again.
Seriously though, I see his point. But I noticed something that may be non-obvious in the ongoing 9/11 conspiracy debates.
He has a foreign accent. This matters only on this small point, which I'll use to make a larger point. As social beings, humans of a group DON'T regard other groups like they do their own*. This gives rise to a sort of dissonance that is only overcome through more knowledge, and cultivation a of cultural inclusion and empathy. Which socially, isn't always immediate. I said that to say that his perspective and world view is likely couched through his identity as a foreigner, and thus 'more' neutral in his examination of the situation and broader context. This is evidenced in his thesis when he says why go to the 301st thing, looking passed 300 things. He's correct on this point.
But regarding 9/11, this event is very personal to 'Americans'. And though he mentions other atrocities that are all as real, and unfortunately more tragic in many cases, 9/11 was a catalyst that got folks involved and 'awakened' from their insensitivity, because they were more foreign. And he did touch on it to his credit.
9/11 is two things, local and more importantly recent. These combined elements, though unfair, have mobilized more people to this cause than other crimes.
Logically he's right, but he doesn't touch on why 9/11 is so significant to the folks you've been debating. It's like living in a town where a gang has taken hold. Let's say the gang has been fucking people up in other territories for years and occasionally on the home front. Everyone knows this right? Nobody does anything because they feel powerless. *And besides, you aren't tripping because 'they' haven't brought harm to your family, right? But NOW some extraordinary event occurs that is SO spectacular that it jolts folks into action and out of resignation, self pity . . . or plain old ignorance.
People that are likely to pick up on his points and see the clear rationale are likely in a minority, moreover, a very small minority in comparison to the average . . . whatever that is. And making an appeal to the 'masses' without ACKNOWLEDGING their perspective is likely to end in failure.
He admits he doesn't know the truth about 9/11 and in fact isn't even trying to address it. 9/11 truthers want to know if you agree or disagree and what the merits are. This guys is saying, TAKE A NUMBER and start at 1.
How effective do you think this tact will be?
JG
Damn, what's that smell? Dert, I think you left the cap off the ether again.
Seriously though, I see his point. But I noticed something that may be non-obvious in the ongoing 9/11 conspiracy debates.
He has a foreign accent. This matters only on this small point, which I'll use to make a larger point. As social beings, humans of a group DON'T regard other groups like they do their own*. This gives rise to a sort of dissonance that is only overcome through more knowledge, and cultivation a of cultural inclusion and empathy. Which socially, isn't always immediate. I said that to say that his perspective and world view is likely couched through his identity as a foreigner, and thus 'more' neutral in his examination of the situation and broader context. This is evidenced in his thesis when he says why go to the 301st thing, looking passed 300 things. He's correct on this point.
But regarding 9/11, this event is very personal to 'Americans'. And though he mentions other atrocities that are all as real, and unfortunately more tragic in many cases, 9/11 was a catalyst that got folks involved and 'awakened' from their insensitivity, because they were more foreign. And he did touch on it to his credit.
9/11 is two things, local and more importantly recent. These combined elements, though unfair, have mobilized more people to this cause than other crimes.
Logically he's right, but he doesn't touch on why 9/11 is so significant to the folks you've been debating. It's like living in a town where a gang has taken hold. Let's say the gang has been fucking people up in other territories for years and occasionally on the home front. Everyone knows this right? Nobody does anything because they feel powerless. *And besides, you aren't tripping because 'they' haven't brought harm to your family, right? But NOW some extraordinary event occurs that is SO spectacular that it jolts folks into action and out of resignation, self pity . . . or plain old ignorance.
People that are likely to pick up on his points and see the clear rationale are likely in a minority, moreover, a very small minority in comparison to the average . . . whatever that is. And making an appeal to the 'masses' without ACKNOWLEDGING their perspective is likely to end in failure.
He admits he doesn't know the truth about 9/11 and in fact isn't even trying to address it. 9/11 truthers want to know if you agree or disagree and what the merits are. This guys is saying, TAKE A NUMBER and start at 1.
How effective do you think this tact will be?
JG
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
excellent points and analogy
Damn, what's that smell? Dert, I think you left the cap off the ether again.
Seriously though, I see his point. But I noticed something that may be non-obvious in the ongoing 9/11 conspiracy debates.
He has a foreign accent. This matters only on this small point, which I'll use to make a larger point. As social beings, humans of a group DON'T regard other groups like they do their own*. This gives rise to a sort of dissonance that is only overcome through more knowledge, and cultivation a of cultural inclusion and empathy. Which socially, isn't always immediate. I said that to say that his perspective and world view is likely couched through his identity as a foreigner, and thus 'more' neutral in his examination of the situation and broader context. This is evidenced in his thesis when he says why go to the 301st thing, looking passed 300 things. He's correct on this point.
But regarding 9/11, this event is very personal to 'Americans'. And though he mentions other atrocities that are all as real, and unfortunately more tragic in many cases, 9/11 was a catalyst that got folks involved and 'awakened' from their insensitivity, because they were more foreign. And he did touch on it to his credit.
9/11 is two things, local and more importantly recent. These combined elements, though unfair, have mobilized more people to this cause than other crimes.
Logically he's right, but he doesn't touch on why 9/11 is so significant to the folks you've been debating. It's like living in a town where a gang has taken hold. Let's say the gang has been fucking people up in other territories for years and occasionally on the home front. Everyone knows this right? Nobody does anything because they feel powerless. *And besides, you aren't tripping because 'they' haven't brought harm to your family, right? But NOW some extraordinary event occurs that is SO spectacular that it jolts folks into action and out of resignation, self pity . . . or plain old ignorance.
People that are likely to pick up on his points and see the clear rationale are likely in a minority, moreover, a very small minority in comparison to the average . . . whatever that is. And making an appeal to the 'masses' without ACKNOWLEDGING their perspective is likely to end in failure.
He admits he doesn't know the truth about 9/11 and in fact isn't even trying to address it. 9/11 truthers want to know if you agree or disagree and what the merits are. This guys is saying, TAKE A NUMBER and start at 1.
How effective do you think this tact will be?
JG
excellent points and analogy
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
he rambles too much. sorry dert couldn't stomach this
he rambles too much. sorry dert couldn't stomach this
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Yeah, dude is French-Canadian.
As for the ether, man... I don't know why folks think ain't nobody smarter than they mama 'n 'em.
What is valuable to me about Stefans p.o.v. is that presents the question: "You are a 911-truther to what end?" If the end is justice (for victims and jto criminals) or increased awareness of the duplicitous nature of our government, there are these other "300" cases that are actually in a posture to be prosecuted. There aren't even the basic "who, what, when, where, how" elements to construct the filings of a case against the "real' perpetrators of 911 (in a court of law or mainstream public opinion).
Maybe the efforts of Truthers will uncover the whos-and-whats so that a case can made. But it seems to me, that even with that goal, if the point of the case is justice, rather than a quest of personal identity fulfillment, 9/11 truthing is a waste of fucking time. Bush could go to jail for real on war crimes charges. Those facts are NEON. There are no charges against Bush for 9/11 or anyone else I've ever heard of. Half of the truthers I've talked too don't even have suspects in mind! They attribute it to the fucking shadow members of the illuminati!!?!
I don't mean to paint with a broad brush or challenge folks integrity or intelligence because they have view of the mechanics of 9/11 contrary to the official story. But, I do think that trying to develop and promote a 9/11 theory based solely on the errors you perceive in the "official" theory is akin to the efforts of creation scientists and intelligent design proponents in the arena of the Evolution debate.
The goverment aint shit... and is willing to kill the innocent to further its political goals. I understand that completely. There are people who don't, and to reach them 9/11 Truth theories are far too nebulous or patchwork to do the job. Some disagree with Truthers on the facts. And others disagree with truthers on the very premise. Spending time or resources arguing 911 truth with either group is a waste of time if your goal is justice or increased awareness. The former group are already with you and with enough evidence to proceed on the justice. And the latter group are not gonna be shaken out of their stupor by what in many ways is an argument from ignorance.
But that doesn't apply if the goal of the Truther is actually something else.
Truthers, as you know, often think that disagreeing with the inside job angle makes one a sheep. I think this is precisely because the issue has become personal -- not just because it happened in America, but because it is a new, modern, shiny, sexy, fuck-the-government, "TRUE-leftist" opinion to hold, politically, and they often then allow themselves to be defined by it personally -- that holding this position makes them special, smart, intellectual, cool, insightful etc. in some way. This wouldn't be peculiar to Truthers, because lots of folks (individuals and groups) hold and argue opinions for the emotional comfort they derive from them, rather than for the logic and reason that produced them (or for the fidelity to empirical reality that they represent).
So thats my winding analysis.
None of that means Truthers should agree with me on the facts.
People will always disagree about shit.
But this 9/11 Truth shit -- as a wake-up America movement... seems like a collossal waste of man hours, and ill-advised.
Damn, what's that smell? Dert, I think you left the cap off the ether again.
Seriously though, I see his point. But I noticed something that may be non-obvious in the ongoing 9/11 conspiracy debates.
He has a foreign accent. This matters only on this small point, which I'll use to make a larger point. As social beings, humans of a group DON'T regard other groups like they do their own*. This gives rise to a sort of dissonance that is only overcome through more knowledge, and cultivation a of cultural inclusion and empathy. Which socially, isn't always immediate. I said that to say that his perspective and world view is likely couched through his identity as a foreigner, and thus 'more' neutral in his examination of the situation and broader context. This is evidenced in his thesis when he says why go to the 301st thing, looking passed 300 things. He's correct on this point.
But regarding 9/11, this event is very personal to 'Americans'. And though he mentions other atrocities that are all as real, and unfortunately more tragic in many cases, 9/11 was a catalyst that got folks involved and 'awakened' from their insensitivity, because they were more foreign. And he did touch on it to his credit.
9/11 is two things, local and more importantly recent. These combined elements, though unfair, have mobilized more people to this cause than other crimes.
Logically he's right, but he doesn't touch on why 9/11 is so significant to the folks you've been debating. It's like living in a town where a gang has taken hold. Let's say the gang has been fucking people up in other territories for years and occasionally on the home front. Everyone knows this right? Nobody does anything because they feel powerless. *And besides, you aren't tripping because 'they' haven't brought harm to your family, right? But NOW some extraordinary event occurs that is SO spectacular that it jolts folks into action and out of resignation, self pity . . . or plain old ignorance.
People that are likely to pick up on his points and see the clear rationale are likely in a minority, moreover, a very small minority in comparison to the average . . . whatever that is. And making an appeal to the 'masses' without ACKNOWLEDGING their perspective is likely to end in failure.
He admits he doesn't know the truth about 9/11 and in fact isn't even trying to address it. 9/11 truthers want to know if you agree or disagree and what the merits are. This guys is saying, TAKE A NUMBER and start at 1.
How effective do you think this tact will be?
JG
Yeah, dude is French-Canadian.
As for the ether, man... I don't know why folks think ain't nobody smarter than they mama 'n 'em.
What is valuable to me about Stefans p.o.v. is that presents the question: "You are a 911-truther to what end?" If the end is justice (for victims and jto criminals) or increased awareness of the duplicitous nature of our government, there are these other "300" cases that are actually in a posture to be prosecuted. There aren't even the basic "who, what, when, where, how" elements to construct the filings of a case against the "real' perpetrators of 911 (in a court of law or mainstream public opinion).
Maybe the efforts of Truthers will uncover the whos-and-whats so that a case can made. But it seems to me, that even with that goal, if the point of the case is justice, rather than a quest of personal identity fulfillment, 9/11 truthing is a waste of fucking time. Bush could go to jail for real on war crimes charges. Those facts are NEON. There are no charges against Bush for 9/11 or anyone else I've ever heard of. Half of the truthers I've talked too don't even have suspects in mind! They attribute it to the fucking shadow members of the illuminati!!?!
I don't mean to paint with a broad brush or challenge folks integrity or intelligence because they have view of the mechanics of 9/11 contrary to the official story. But, I do think that trying to develop and promote a 9/11 theory based solely on the errors you perceive in the "official" theory is akin to the efforts of creation scientists and intelligent design proponents in the arena of the Evolution debate.
The goverment aint shit... and is willing to kill the innocent to further its political goals. I understand that completely. There are people who don't, and to reach them 9/11 Truth theories are far too nebulous or patchwork to do the job. Some disagree with Truthers on the facts. And others disagree with truthers on the very premise. Spending time or resources arguing 911 truth with either group is a waste of time if your goal is justice or increased awareness. The former group are already with you and with enough evidence to proceed on the justice. And the latter group are not gonna be shaken out of their stupor by what in many ways is an argument from ignorance.
But that doesn't apply if the goal of the Truther is actually something else.
Truthers, as you know, often think that disagreeing with the inside job angle makes one a sheep. I think this is precisely because the issue has become personal -- not just because it happened in America, but because it is a new, modern, shiny, sexy, fuck-the-government, "TRUE-leftist" opinion to hold, politically, and they often then allow themselves to be defined by it personally -- that holding this position makes them special, smart, intellectual, cool, insightful etc. in some way. This wouldn't be peculiar to Truthers, because lots of folks (individuals and groups) hold and argue opinions for the emotional comfort they derive from them, rather than for the logic and reason that produced them (or for the fidelity to empirical reality that they represent).
So thats my winding analysis.
None of that means Truthers should agree with me on the facts.
People will always disagree about shit.
But this 9/11 Truth shit -- as a wake-up America movement... seems like a collossal waste of man hours, and ill-advised.
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
911 Truth is not some political movement within the false left right paradigm. It is a means to understanding government sponsored terrorism and who is orchestrating these events and why. It has nothing to do with the fact that the "government ain't shit" but rather that the government has been hijacked since 1913 by the elites of society and international banksters.
46 years ago nobody wanted to believe that the government was behind the death of JFK. Now it is pretty much common knowledge that the government along with various other criminal entities were indeed behind the JFK assassination. E. Howard Hunt former CIA operative even admitted on his deathbed that he and a whole bunch of others were in on the event.
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/DbD_u7nUB_c&feature=related[/FLASH]
And sure 911 Truthers can spend there time exposing operation northwoods, operation gladio,gulf of tonkin, operation ajax, the Tuskegee airmen experiments, and many more atrocities that have since been ADMITTED by the government with declassified documents to prove, but these events do not directly effect Americans today who still remember 9/11 like it was yesterday.
911 Truth serves as a catalyst to understanding the goals and objectives of the CFR, Club of Rome, and ultimately Builderberg. Although I believe Bush should be prosecuted for many of his crimes including 9/11. He's only a puppet much like Obama whose job is to move the agenda forward.
NEW WORLD ORDER- Time Magazine
New world order in banking necessary after abject failure of present model
911 Truth is not some political movement within the false left right paradigm. It is a means to understanding government sponsored terrorism and who is orchestrating these events and why. It has nothing to do with the fact that the "government ain't shit" but rather that the government has been hijacked since 1913 by the elites of society and international banksters.
46 years ago nobody wanted to believe that the government was behind the death of JFK. Now it is pretty much common knowledge that the government along with various other criminal entities were indeed behind the JFK assassination. E. Howard Hunt former CIA operative even admitted on his deathbed that he and a whole bunch of others were in on the event.
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/DbD_u7nUB_c&feature=related[/FLASH]
And sure 911 Truthers can spend there time exposing operation northwoods, operation gladio,gulf of tonkin, operation ajax, the Tuskegee airmen experiments, and many more atrocities that have since been ADMITTED by the government with declassified documents to prove, but these events do not directly effect Americans today who still remember 9/11 like it was yesterday.
911 Truth serves as a catalyst to understanding the goals and objectives of the CFR, Club of Rome, and ultimately Builderberg. Although I believe Bush should be prosecuted for many of his crimes including 9/11. He's only a puppet much like Obama whose job is to move the agenda forward.
NEW WORLD ORDER- Time Magazine
New world order in banking necessary after abject failure of present model
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Man, thanks for the thoughtful response.
I'm not sure on what grounds you and I can meet for any fruitful discussion of this topic, because I have the same view of Illuminati-NWO theories/theorists generally, as I do of those specifically focused to the 911 Truth movement. By my light, these theories suffer from the same problems with nebulous concepts and patchwork construction the 9/11 theories are rife with. I do believe that power consolidates. I think elites in the West, often unseen, have a variety of agendas that they meet to discuss, promote, plan etc. that ultimately effect large, even global, populations. For this, rather natural, state of affairs, I don't have any use for NWO or Illuminati-like labels. Its a plain conspiracy, like GM is a conspiracy to sell cars. The IMF and WTO are prime examples of this. We may actually agree on some specific points on the agenda of Western elites, but the sinister overraching framework of neo-slavery, 1 global currency, 1 global government, mark of the beast stuff that people affix to these points is unsubstantiated. --But, I'm already getting more into this topic than I planned.-- Basically, if you think that JFK and 911 theories are going to help you point the public to other things that you might actually have strong evidence for (i.e. the IMFs control of third world governments), you should probably just focus on those things that you have strong evidence for to start.
Man, thanks for the thoughtful response.
I'm not sure on what grounds you and I can meet for any fruitful discussion of this topic, because I have the same view of Illuminati-NWO theories/theorists generally, as I do of those specifically focused to the 911 Truth movement. By my light, these theories suffer from the same problems with nebulous concepts and patchwork construction the 9/11 theories are rife with. I do believe that power consolidates. I think elites in the West, often unseen, have a variety of agendas that they meet to discuss, promote, plan etc. that ultimately effect large, even global, populations. For this, rather natural, state of affairs, I don't have any use for NWO or Illuminati-like labels. Its a plain conspiracy, like GM is a conspiracy to sell cars. The IMF and WTO are prime examples of this. We may actually agree on some specific points on the agenda of Western elites, but the sinister overraching framework of neo-slavery, 1 global currency, 1 global government, mark of the beast stuff that people affix to these points is unsubstantiated. --But, I'm already getting more into this topic than I planned.-- Basically, if you think that JFK and 911 theories are going to help you point the public to other things that you might actually have strong evidence for (i.e. the IMFs control of third world governments), you should probably just focus on those things that you have strong evidence for to start.
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
I agree with the above poster, something about his rants are just too fuckin much...
maybe I just like european accents on chicks... on dudes it sounds gay and fuckin annoying.
no offense to any dude with that accent but seriously it does sound gay.
I agree with the above poster, something about his rants are just too fuckin much...
maybe I just like european accents on chicks... on dudes it sounds gay and fuckin annoying.
no offense to any dude with that accent but seriously it does sound gay.
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Man you niggas is crazy.
Man you niggas is crazy.Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Good shit Dert,
Well said. And as stated, Stefans is correct. And if so, then the question really does refactor down to a course of action, and how to generate a ground swell in support of said action . . . whatever the goal.
As a rationalist, I've had myriad debates and musings over the same subject matter. The line of logic is usually pretty clear. However, the outcomes almost always results in only a minority of folks that agree in these instances (like now), while the vast majority remain stuck on particular points and/or stages.
Part of the reason that oligarchs succeed is because action requires a movement of venerable numbers to gain traction in order to confront such issues. Which the rationalists don't have. So on one hand you have a hand full of folks who can see through the vapor. On the other, you have groups of considerable numbers, who can't see very well, or at least those finer points that are critical to the larger pursuit of bringing out truth. But they do have the numbers. And by the numbers is how the ruling class retains power.
In your opinion which is likely to be tackled first? Do the other fully/more documented cases really have a better chance? If so, what is lacking, what's the impediment? If there's a gimme in terms of points I can score on the board, I'll take them . . . immediately. So that begs the question as to whether Stefans claims of chance in terms of prosecution are as favorable as he suggests.
Historically, as the saying goes, power concedes nothing. That is to say, unless vast numbers of people are mobilized to action, I see nothing being done . . . and definitely without evidence. In the video, Stefans makes an appeal to truthers to aim their arrows at simpler targets. I can imagine that those appeals are likely falling on deaf ears, precisely because 9/11 is personal, and 'sexy' and 'shiny'. What we are left with is 3 choices;
• The overwhelming challenge of converting the majority opinion to that of the minority opinion, in terms of priority of pursuit as Stefans suggest.
• Tackle the lessor understood and more difficult to prove case first. Which would require the brain trust of the minority to alter course in order to indirectly prosecute to earlier cases. In other words, first things last.
• Or continue down disparate courses simultaneously, in hopes that either group succeeds, and thereby wedging open the gate to exercise these crime in whatever order that comes up.
What are your thought there?
JG
Good shit Dert,
Well said. And as stated, Stefans is correct. And if so, then the question really does refactor down to a course of action, and how to generate a ground swell in support of said action . . . whatever the goal.
As a rationalist, I've had myriad debates and musings over the same subject matter. The line of logic is usually pretty clear. However, the outcomes almost always results in only a minority of folks that agree in these instances (like now), while the vast majority remain stuck on particular points and/or stages.
Part of the reason that oligarchs succeed is because action requires a movement of venerable numbers to gain traction in order to confront such issues. Which the rationalists don't have. So on one hand you have a hand full of folks who can see through the vapor. On the other, you have groups of considerable numbers, who can't see very well, or at least those finer points that are critical to the larger pursuit of bringing out truth. But they do have the numbers. And by the numbers is how the ruling class retains power.
In your opinion which is likely to be tackled first? Do the other fully/more documented cases really have a better chance? If so, what is lacking, what's the impediment? If there's a gimme in terms of points I can score on the board, I'll take them . . . immediately. So that begs the question as to whether Stefans claims of chance in terms of prosecution are as favorable as he suggests.
Historically, as the saying goes, power concedes nothing. That is to say, unless vast numbers of people are mobilized to action, I see nothing being done . . . and definitely without evidence. In the video, Stefans makes an appeal to truthers to aim their arrows at simpler targets. I can imagine that those appeals are likely falling on deaf ears, precisely because 9/11 is personal, and 'sexy' and 'shiny'. What we are left with is 3 choices;
• The overwhelming challenge of converting the majority opinion to that of the minority opinion, in terms of priority of pursuit as Stefans suggest.
• Tackle the lessor understood and more difficult to prove case first. Which would require the brain trust of the minority to alter course in order to indirectly prosecute to earlier cases. In other words, first things last.
• Or continue down disparate courses simultaneously, in hopes that either group succeeds, and thereby wedging open the gate to exercise these crime in whatever order that comes up.
What are your thought there?
JG
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Bet 'em up. 'Til then.
JG
Bet 'em up. 'Til then.
JG
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Your standard of criteria is immeasurably high . . . in ignorance.
JG
Your standard of criteria is immeasurably high . . . in ignorance.
JG
Re: For 9/11 Truthers and Skeptics [VID 17min] (NOT the same old rehash of BS)
Great analysis imo.....I would add also along with the visceral significance of Americans and 9/11....it is also the major smokescreen being used to justify further incursion into The region the has labeled Eurasia....not even to speak of the smear campaign on Islam which btw has more adherents in Asia and Africa than the Middle East........But again very fine post......Props!!
Damn, what's that smell? Dert, I think you left the cap off the ether again.
Seriously though, I see his point. But I noticed something that may be non-obvious in the ongoing 9/11 conspiracy debates.
He has a foreign accent. This matters only on this small point, which I'll use to make a larger point. As social beings, humans of a group DON'T regard other groups like they do their own*. This gives rise to a sort of dissonance that is only overcome through more knowledge, and cultivation a of cultural inclusion and empathy. Which socially, isn't always immediate. I said that to say that his perspective and world view is likely couched through his identity as a foreigner, and thus 'more' neutral in his examination of the situation and broader context. This is evidenced in his thesis when he says why go to the 301st thing, looking passed 300 things. He's correct on this point.
But regarding 9/11, this event is very personal to 'Americans'. And though he mentions other atrocities that are all as real, and unfortunately more tragic in many cases, 9/11 was a catalyst that got folks involved and 'awakened' from their insensitivity, because they were more foreign. And he did touch on it to his credit.
9/11 is two things, local and more importantly recent. These combined elements, though unfair, have mobilized more people to this cause than other crimes.
Logically he's right, but he doesn't touch on why 9/11 is so significant to the folks you've been debating. It's like living in a town where a gang has taken hold. Let's say the gang has been fucking people up in other territories for years and occasionally on the home front. Everyone knows this right? Nobody does anything because they feel powerless. *And besides, you aren't tripping because 'they' haven't brought harm to your family, right? But NOW some extraordinary event occurs that is SO spectacular that it jolts folks into action and out of resignation, self pity . . . or plain old ignorance.
People that are likely to pick up on his points and see the clear rationale are likely in a minority, moreover, a very small minority in comparison to the average . . . whatever that is. And making an appeal to the 'masses' without ACKNOWLEDGING their perspective is likely to end in failure.
He admits he doesn't know the truth about 9/11 and in fact isn't even trying to address it. 9/11 truthers want to know if you agree or disagree and what the merits are. This guys is saying, TAKE A NUMBER and start at 1.
How effective do you think this tact will be?
JG
Great analysis imo.....I would add also along with the visceral significance of Americans and 9/11....it is also the major smokescreen being used to justify further incursion into The region the has labeled Eurasia....not even to speak of the smear campaign on Islam which btw has more adherents in Asia and Africa than the Middle East........But again very fine post......Props!!
Candidate Questions WTC..
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n9rwdu67o5Q?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n9rwdu67o5Q?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n9rwdu67o5Q?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n9rwdu67o5Q?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
What if aliens from the future got in contact with Donald Rumsfeld during Bush 41 and told him that 9/11 would happen and if America tried to prevent it they would drastically alter the future and the aliens would retaliate by displaying pics of Rumsfeld in lingerie on the big screen in Times Square? Rummy shows photographic evidence of 9/11 to Bush 41 (while concealing the pic of himself) and they lay in wait for the 2000 election. Bush 43 wins the election through all manner of deception and takes office knowing full well that Al Gore wouldn't allow 9/11 to happen because of the carbon footprint that would occur. Rummy also plants some extra explosives in the buildings to guarantee the collapse. Here we are 9 yrs later and NOBODY has seen a pic of Rummy in some panties in Times Square.
