Part 2 of World corruption, lying politicians and the tragedy of 9/11.

[BigJim]

AM, I'm slightly puzzled at where science or scientific theory comes anywhere near into proving anything like this. As far as I can see it's more like a trial in court. What do you need on your side to prove something? Substantial evidence in the form of witnesses, documented evidence, physical evidence recovered and documented etc. Any other circumstantial evidence also adds weight.

That is as close a comparison as I can find to define it. I may just be confusing myself over semantics, but where does the word 'scientific' come into it?
You might also take account of Myr's critiscism and system of rationalisation. His theory was that it was impossible to take my theory apart piece by evidential piece, so just chop at the main trunk of it's philosophy. Well coming from a man who's as technically intelligent as I know Myr is, that is a monumentally stupid thing to say. (No offence Myr. I know you never agreed with me at all, but I would have thought you could have come up with something better than that.)
Going on Myr's reasoning, anything that doesn't sound normal from the "normal" point of view shouldn't even be considered no matter what the evidence. That basically means you filter information based on a pre-conception that might very well be totally erroneous. I have to say that I think he didn't refute the evidence I put up, because he couldn't. There are plenty of questions still to be asked about these things, but I don't think the stuff I wrote about can be proven untrue. That's different from not being able to prove otherwise though. That just means there's two theories and neither has the upper hand. Proving it to be untrue means finding gaps in my theories and proving me wrong or at least showing my evidence is faulty. *shrugs*
In the early to mid 19th century if you'd dared to suggest that malaria was caused by mosquito bites transfering infected blood from one infected organism to another, you'd have been ridiculed from pillar to post. Since the time of Hippocrates is was a pillar of medical society that malaria was caused by breathing stagnant swamp gas. (Indeed malaria comes from mal-aria; the latin words for bad vapours.) Anyone who suggested otherwise was a complete idiot with no respect for the establishment's proven theory. Unfortunately the invention of better microscopes and a doctor who was brave enough to inject himself with infected blood (nearly killing himself in the process) proved established fact utterly wrong. What makes us think we're so superior in knowledge today?

I was similarly nonplussed by Hal's opinion too. Part of Myr's argument was that I was searching for something to replace religion. When I posted at length taking Myr's argument apart at the seams, point by point, Hal posted saying he thought my reaction only proved Myr's point. Erm......... pardon? So what should I have done? Catch 22 anyone? If I'd not posted, then Myr's argument (which was very very well constructed and plausible sounding till investigated thoroughly) would have been unchallenged; a niggling oversight given the depth of the debate. But because I did post, it proves him right anyway? Is it just me, or is that reasoning disappearing up it's own arse at a great rate of knots?

I would eagerly invite debate to pull apart my arguments and prove me wrong. Believe it or not I would prefer to believe in the world we're toldwe live in. The world I describe in this thread is a vile one that needs a load of rectification. If someone could prove me wrong on the basis of my information being total crap I'd be embarrassed, but happy to admit my mistake. But saying my theory doesn't hold water because I take the trouble to write about it, doesn't do that. If anything, it makes Hal and Myr look like the ones who are desperate to find order in the chaos.

Besides this particular argument Hal and Myr, no big. No wish to cause offence to either of you. I may do my best to argue against your opinions, but that is only because I genuinely believe there is another explanation; not because I'm hell-bent on fighting. 🙂

 

[BigJim]

Hijacked planes were not used as weapons until that morning, or at the very least that scenario was highly unlikely. You must also remember that the attacks took place over a few hours. The planes were hijacked in the morning and the attacks were over well before lunch time. The movies make it seem that the military is ready at the drop of a hat to respond but it takes time to get a jet in the air, it takes time to mobilize troops, especially when you don't know where they are being mobilized to.

The US government knew that the planes had been hi-jacked for close to four hours before they hit the towers. As long as it takes to prep a jet, do you really expect anyone to believe that a modern air force couldn't have had a single plane in the area before the jets hit the towers? There is plenty of detailed stuff as to what exactly they could have done, when, where and how; but that'll have to wait for part 3 for detailed analysis.

THere are questions to be asked here? But those questions are boring and it is much easier to speak of conspiracy and the illuminati and the tri lateral commission and all sorts of stuff.

Easier? Like hell it is! lol Please don't run away with the assumption that I find the *insert I-word here* a conveneint peg to hang the disaster hat on. It's anything but. I also felt a stab of annoyance when you insinuated that I'd waffle about anything hat sounded remotely controversial or jazzy as opposed to asking pertinent questions. Long-winded I may be, but vague I'm definately not. There are a bundle of pertinent questions. A lot I've already asked, some more I will be asking in the future threads. The stuff I've written about isn't some vague conspiracy theory written because I have no life other than my keyboard. It's a highly detailed, INCREDIBLY pertinent and meticulously researched project. (Is 'project' the right word?) It's included a lot of technical details and background research into exactly the thigns people should be asking about if they ever want a truhful explanation to the disaster. I havn't left a single vague area in it. (Or if I have I'll address it eventually.)

 

[Dragon321]

order

human beings strive for order. order seems to be in the natural order of things: animals seem to have their own order, their own social organization. humans want to live in a world where effect comes after cause, where order rules. this is all well and good. however, we are all inherently bound by the laws of entropy. namely, entropy causes the loss of order until maximum entropy is reached within a system, whether it be a small system like a person, or a large system like the universe. this is all i understand of entropy. i am probably wrong in assuming that it can be applied to a social construct. but consider this. the perfect society is one in where everyone holds the same views, because in that society there is no dissent, no war, conflict, hatred (how can you hate someone who agrees with you?) argument, etc. the best possible government, therefore, is a dictatorship, provided the dictator is truly out for the interests of the people. the only problem is, the humans. there are too many of us. add that to the fact that we reproduce sexually (rather than asexually) and the development of our brains leading to the rise of an ego and free will, and you have a situation in which a society cannot have a singular interest. thus democracy. in this what is morally right and wrong is decided by the majority. however, a true democracy would lead to mob rule (ancient athens). therefore, a partial democracy must be enacted, and this is America and most of the west as we have it. other governments are possible which give society a more ordered structure: a theocracy, where every law is in accordance with a holy text (pre- occupation tibet, or Iran). however social realities cannot be completely encompassed by religious texts. a "democratic dictatorship?" well, i alread ruled that out, because the "people" do not have a singular will, not even if you subclass it, such as a "proletariat". what then, is left? what government shall we choose as we go into this century?😕

 

[jordan]

Bigjim talk long and funny...

 

[BigJim]

Re: order

the perfect society is one in where everyone holds the same views, because in that society there is no dissent, no war, conflict, hatred (how can you hate someone who agrees with you?) argument, etc. the best possible government, therefore, is a dictatorship, provided the dictator is truly out for the interests of the people.

Everyone holds the same opinion? I'd hate to live in a society like that. I think it would be extraordinarily boring and unproductive. Ugh!
Having different ideas and opinions is what stimulates creativity for Lawd's sake. Everyone being the same would make us a society of clones.
No, the perfect society would be one where all members followed three simple rules.
1/ Never be afraid to express your individuality in any way you feel fit to, provided it doesn't infringe on anyone else.
2/ Never try to convert anyone by force or bullying to the same view of reality or the same expression of self as you.
3/ Allow everyone the same freedom that you enjoy under rule number 1.

Three simple rules that most people find incredibly difficult to follow. But if everyone in the world did follow them, life in every nation on the planet would be totally transformed.

 

[BigJim]

Bigjim talk long and funny...

Que?😕 😛

 

[Haltickling]

Re: Re: order

1/ Never be afraid to express your individuality in any way you feel fit to, provided it doesn't infringe on anyone else.
2/ Never try to convert anyone by force or bullying to the same view of reality or the same expression of self as you.
3/ Allow everyone the same freedom that you enjoy under rule number 1.

Three simple rules that most people find incredibly difficult to follow. But if everyone in the world did follow them, life in every nation on the planet would be totally transformed.

Hear, hear! For once I agree with Big Jim here! All those rules come down to one single concept: TOLERANCE! It's not at all necessary to share the same opinion, as long as you tolerate other views, political concepts, or religions.

Unfortunately, the human race doesn't seem to be mature enough for that concept. It would also mean no greed, no power lust, no criminals. Utopia, in one word.

Maybe we humans may be ready for that in a few centuries, if we manage to survive till then. For now, it's every individual's duty to pursue this concept on a small, personal scale.

 

[BigJim]

The wonderful thing Hal, is that the more of us that do practice it, the easier it'll be for everyone else. I think it's called "Hundredth Monkey Syndrome". 🙂

Despite the heated debate that goes on here, this place fosters quite a lot of tolerance and acceptance.

And we agree on things a lot more than once mein freund. Just not on politics and machieavellian machinations. 🙂

 

[Dragon321]

you obviously did not get the point of my argument.

i was deliberately positing a disagreeable view: i was basically playing devils advocate. this is the view that actually makes logical sense but does not make emotional sense. i fully agree with your views on the subject. however, i would advise you not to fall into the trap of cultural relativism. there must be an objective moral goal, or else the nazis and the communists had to be right at the same time.

now, about that hundredth monkey syndrome... you know that is pure pseudoscience right? that has actually been proven wrong by a team of researches. there is no telepathic force that causes all monkeys to learn something once a "critical mass" is reached. the data was fudged, pure and simple.

 

[BigJim]

*sighing deeply and bending towards his keyboard once again*

you obviously did not get the point of my argument.

i was deliberately positing a disagreeable view: i was basically playing devils advocate. this is the view that actually makes logical sense but does not make emotional sense. i fully agree with your views on the subject. however, i would advise you not to fall into the trap of cultural relativism. there must be an objective moral goal, or else the nazis and the communists had to be right at the same time.

now, about that hundredth monkey syndrome... you know that is pure pseudoscience right? that has actually been proven wrong by a team of researches. there is no telepathic force that causes all monkeys to learn something once a "critical mass" is reached. the data was fudged, pure and simple.

I got as much of your point as possible, and yes, I did suspect if not was certain about your playing Devil's Advocate AM.

HMS is not based on "telepathy" anyway really. There is also more to it than just the experiemtn we're talking about. I could do one of my "epitome" threads if you'd like but it would take a few weeks even to research because of the lack of concentrated data. (That I'm aware of anyway.) I used that example experiment because it was the one where the name originated.

Cultural reativism? You must have me confused with someone else cobber. I have several concrete goals in mind when I spout off all this boring stuff, in fact I've even written about them.

 

[Haltickling]

Where is #3?

BTW Jim, where is the third part? You've been promising it to us for a long time, watering our mouths... 😛

 

[BigJim]

Re: Where is #3?

BTW Jim, where is the third part? You've been promising it to us for a long time, watering our mouths... 😛

You mean you actually want to read more of this stuff?

Heh heh. There's no accounting for taste. I'll get my arse in gear next time I'm on night shift Hal. (Too busy with my new web-site when I'm at home.)

Last time I was doing some conspiracy writing at work one of the other guys was walking ruond and tapping the station walls. I asked him what he was doing and he said he was trying to work out of the building could withstand the impact from a USAF bunker-buster. Heh heh. Guess they think I'm getting to public with it all.

Soon Hal, soon.

 

[Dragon321]

the populace of America is easily controlled and manipulated. it is true. in fact, when a large enough group of people gathers, it ceases to become a collection of individuals and instead becomes a singular creature known as a "mob". you never hear a mob in a single place talked of as a plural, do you? the mob is a facile, credulous, and easily led creature. its IQ is the same as the lowest (or most obnoxious) of its parts. the sum is SO much less than the constituent parts. the mob runs on a mix of fear and nervous tension, offerd up to it by the governing bodies in palatable doses of "scapegoats". want someone to blame? chinks. niggers. commies. pinkos. poofs. faggots. those filthy proles. all that does not fit into the cult of the normal is a target. now give these people guns. tell them their country is at atake, that America needs saving, and all they have to do is eliminate the problem. its like a miniature final solution. watch the carnage from your 5 star bedroom or safehouse, or on the news channels controled by commerce. there. now, doesnt that feel better? now go back to your homes, disperse, become individuals again. back to thy sanitised TV, they palateless food, cheap oil. until next time your nation calls.

and there you have it. my philosophy? we are no better than animals we eat. our 'rational' mind is made up of loose thinking, 'common sense' what you hear from the TV and 'a bloke you met in a pub'. info from your bigoted parents. the rest of the mind is a swirl of raw emotions, hatred,fear, death, kill, anger. they overwhelm what counts for a mind all too easily. so, sterling work for the Illuminati, who have caged the beast in their perfect world, who have reduced population overflow, who have chained us to our post, a whimpering thing, devoid of the light of reason. they are scum, but what are we? those who have been subjugated by scum. unworthy to be spat upon. it doesnt matter if there is or is not a conspiracy. we are controlled nonetheless by our worst enemies: ourselves.

wow. glad i got that out. half was ranting, half i meant, perhaps. in my troubled dreams of darkness who can tell where the veritas lies?

 

[BigJim]

when a large enough group of people gathers, it ceases to become a collection of individuals and instead becomes a singular creature known as a "mob". you never hear a mob in a single place talked of as a plural, do you? the mob is a facile, credulous, and easily led creature. its IQ is the same as the lowest (or most obnoxious) of its parts.

I agree with that. I agree with the whole principle of mass consciousness. That oddly enough, is where the so-called "hundredth monkey syndrom" theory comes from.

 

[Dragon321]

what you posit is true: this theory, making statements and references to other pseudo-theoretical references cannot be disproved. it is up to the individual who believes or not.

however, the fact remains that conspiracy or not, you yanks have a shitty, predominantly white, predominantly nouveau nobility rich bastard conservative god fearing government. i would prefer to believe in a conspiracy, so i can feel sorry for bush and say the shittiness is not his fault. this war isnt about some stupid crusade vs the heathens; its about the US wanting the war, and going ahead and telling the rest of the world to fuck themselves when they have a dissenting view. its about the US culture of fear.

 

[BigJim]

Re: four hours?

Sorry to be the guy who ruins everyones fun with annoying things like facts, but the US government most certainly did not know that planes had been hijacked up to nearly four hours before they hit the towers. THe first plane struck at approximately 8:47 AM EST. THis would mean that the govt.

Sorry about that. All the annoying facts will come out with no mistakes when I do the long awaited Part 3 thread. Hopefully it'll be out this of Armagheddon.

Hard as it may be to believe, even wonderfully intelligent, charismatic,, handsome, superhumans like me type a wrong number during a bout of post-5 hour on TMF fatigue now and again. 😀

I promise you tieler, I won't leave so much as a pebble of "fact" unturned when I write that post.

 

[BigJim]

however, the fact remains that conspiracy or not, you yanks have a shitty, predominantly white, predominantly nouveau nobility rich bastard conservative god fearing government. i would prefer to believe in a conspiracy, so i can feel sorry for bush and say the shittiness is not his fault. this war isnt about some stupid crusade vs the heathens; its about the US wanting the war, and going ahead and telling the rest of the world to fuck themselves when they have a dissenting view. its about the US culture of fear.

And there was me thinking I was being controversial! Heh heh.

One thing I will say about the word "conservative" is this; in the US it is used as a politically correct altnerative for something that borders closely on fascism. Now that IS NOT to say that I'm calling all people who call themselves conservative, fascists. I fell into that trap once before and caused un-meant offence because the man was Jewish. But hear this point out a sec...

We have 3 main political parties in the United Kingdom. The Labour Party, currently headed by Tony Blair and traditionally the party of the people, supporting worker's rights and trade unions. The Liberal Democrats who don't seem to believe in anything except for the UK becomming a state of the United States of Europe and giving every single piece of independance over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussells. and lastly we have the Conservative Party who represent the right of British politics. This is the party of Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill. Currently headed by Ian Duncan-Smith a former officer in a Guards regiment of the British Army. This is the blood and thunder party who don't take any shit from anyone and took the Falklands back off the Argies.

Now the Conservative Party are aligned politically-wise more with the Democratic party in the US. The party Americans call "conservative" is hugely politically right of the Conservative Party in the UK. America as a consciousness is dangerously right-wing in a lot of it's thinking. (Passing the death penalty on 12 year olds, nuking the shite out of other countries for erroneous reasons and lying to their citizens about it, giving children leukemia in countries they bomb by using radioactive weapons, etc...)

So next time any American uses the word conservative to make something very dangerous in it's politics sound more reasonable..... think twice, because the only people you're lying to and deluding, is yourselves.

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: Re: order

Maybe we humans may be ready for that in a few centuries, if we manage to survive till then. For now, it's every individual's duty to pursue this concept on a small, personal scale.

Not centuries. I'd guess about 9 years, when I'm feeling optimistic.

Those last two lines encapsulate the whole discussion and it's that principle in them, that will cause the "change". Not people doing it for their country, town or society. but doing it on their own, because we're all human. 🙂

Incidentally, Part III is imminent!

 

[BigJim]

It's up at last!!!

http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34077