• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Conspiracies

praktik

TRIBE Member
I should also offer this potential point of mutual understanding. So this is my signature over on the randi forums:

“ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief"
-Iain Banks​
Interesting eh? And as I finished a post over there and saw it it made me think of this comment in your post.

So like, in your mind, a lot of the objections to believing 9/11 is an inside job can be explained by thinking that people like me are clinging to a "cosily comforting belief" (to quote Mr. Banks).

The thing is there is a symmetry to this attitude on "my side" too, where objections to our counter-evidence are understood to be the products of "motivated reasoning" and other terms from psychology and recent research in field (thinking of Haidt, but also the psychology PHDs quoted like in articles in Popular Science on conspiracy theory). These are just psychological sciencey terms referring to the "cosily comforting belief" that we feel is the conspiracy theory (but usually it is a nexus of many such theories as we have undergone some serious convergence lately).

And then I'm all like: woah - the guy posted the 10 minute interview with a psychology professor from "their side", and they're starting to look at us through the same lens as well.

So like, even though you're wrong and I'm right, it's interesting that we're both taking similar paths to you being wrong and me being right!

:D
I dunno if you missed this Inv si le - but I offered this as a bridge between us and you didn't pick up the olive branch! (back 2 pages)
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Probably - you know there's a lot of them @ the bilderberg conference every year, and none of them died on 9/11
 

alexd

Administrator
Staff member
Journalist who brought down U.S. general is killed in Los Angeles car crash
LOS ANGELES — Reuters

Journalist Michael Hastings, whose 2010 Rolling Stone magazine profile of the U.S. military chief in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, led to the general being relieved of command, died on Tuesday in a car wreck in Los Angeles, his employer said.

A statement from the editor-in-chief of online news outlet BuzzFeed reporting that Hastings, 33, had been killed, gave no details of the accident, and neither Los Angeles police nor the county coroner’s office would confirm his death.

But police said a man who had not been identified was killed before dawn on Monday when his car slammed into a tree near Hollywood and burst into flames in what authorities say was the only fatal traffic accident reported in the city during the day.

The driver was the lone occupant of the automobile, police said.

Coroner’s Lieutenant Fred Corral said the body of the driver was burned beyond recognition and that further investigation was required to make a positive identification.


Authorities said they had no further information about the circumstances or cause of the accident, which left the trunk of a palm tree at the corner of Melrose and Highland Avenues gouged and charred black.

“We are shocked and devastated by the news that Michael Hastings is gone,” BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith said in a statement. “Michael was a great, fearless journalist with an incredible instinct for the story, and a gift for finding ways to make his readers care about anything he covered, from wars to politicians.”

Hastings was best known for the Rolling Stone feature, headlined “The Runaway General,” that brought about the resignation of McChrystal as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in June 2010.

Rolling Stone’s executive editor, Eric Bates, said at the time that the U.S. military apparently had given the magazine access to the general in hopes that a positive profile reaching its young readers might help boost Army recruitment.

Instead, the article Hastings wrote portrayed McChrystal and his aides making disparaging comments about President Barack Obama and other civilian leaders, prompting the president to relieve the Army general of his command.

Hastings, who remained a contributing editor to Rolling Stone as well as writing for BuzzFeed, covered the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and previously worked for GQ magazine and Newsweek.

from the globe / reuters:
http://t.co/PSo6M2tfP8
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
no, that's Reality.
So what about the proven funerals for dead jews, and all the ____+stein names in the list of dead on 9/11, and all the proven cases of jews dying in the attacks?

Or do you ignore all this evidence because, for some reason, it just feels better to believe no jews died on 9/11?
 

Bacchus

TRIBE Promoter
Why do you believe this guy's account?
I always thought it was interesting that Bin Laden constantly changed his look throughout the years.

And interestingly enough, the only video where Bin Laden takes credit for 9/11 is #4. Always thought he looked absurdly fatter, younger and healthier for a guy on dialysis.



I wouldn't put it past the american government to keep bin laden "alive" to be able to continue their cause.
 

Hal-9000

TRIBE Member
Multiple cameras/lenses, varying lighting situations, likely fluctuations in his health, due to nutrition or his dialysis. #4 is a mess, but those pictures don't look so different to me.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Multiple cameras/lenses, varying lighting situations, likely fluctuations in his health, due to nutrition or his dialysis. #4 is a mess, but those pictures don't look so different to me.
Confirmation bias and poor quality inputs... thats whats going on here.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
The other point to make is that even if we were to find dispositive proof that ANY of these were not the real Bin Laden, it cannot be used to further the narrative that 9/11 was an inside job, because it could very well be that Al Qaeda or a proxy faked the actual presence of OBL with OBL's blessing as part of their typical propaganda activities.

You need to take further evidence to prove exactly WHO did the faking - whether it is fake or not is actually irrelevant to any claims about OBL/American responsibility for 9/11, because there are plausible cases to be made for any number of people/interests to fake these kinds of videos.

This is more of what we're used to from this crowd, because no smoking gun exists (I argue because the narrative itself is incorrect and so no smoking gun SHOULD exist), people who are motivated to believe that 9/11 is an inside job are stuck anomaly hunting and marshalling collections of "weird' facts - none of which, on their own, prove anything - but when put together provide the gateway for them to perceive confirming signals for their desired conclusion.
 

Bacchus

TRIBE Promoter
The other point to make is that even if we were to find dispositive proof that ANY of these were not the real Bin Laden, it cannot be used to further the narrative that 9/11 was an inside job, because it could very well be that Al Qaeda or a proxy faked the actual presence of OBL with OBL's blessing as part of their typical propaganda activities.

You need to take further evidence to prove exactly WHO did the faking - whether it is fake or not is actually irrelevant to any claims about OBL/American responsibility for 9/11, because there are plausible cases to be made for any number of people/interests to fake these kinds of videos.

This is more of what we're used to from this crowd, because no smoking gun exists (I argue because the narrative itself is incorrect and so no smoking gun SHOULD exist), people who are motivated to believe that 9/11 is an inside job are stuck anomaly hunting and marshalling collections of "weird' facts - none of which, on their own, prove anything - but when put together provide the gateway for them to perceive confirming signals for their desired conclusion.

dot.

I don't think it was an inside job, but I do think that the American Government/War Machine did their best to make the most out of the unfortunate event.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
dot.

I don't think it was an inside job, but I do think that the American Government/War Machine did their best to make the most out of the unfortunate event.
Certainly, this is the MO of savvy politicians and nations looking at every opportunity that presents itself to further their perceived interest.

The issue with this is that it also defuses any claims about how subsequent actions prove the motive for 9/11.

For instance:

Scenario A - 9/11 was an inside job

- America uses this as pretext to enable ME wars

Scenario B - 9/11 was a legitimate attack by a non-state actor we call AQ

- America uses this as pretext to enable ME wars


This is usually a foundational element in most thinking among committed 9/11 CTers, but they don't recognize that since the subsequent wars were likely to begin under both false-flag and non-false-flag scenarios, that it cannot be used to prove their claim. Another product of the lack of a smoking gun, that they need to include data points like this that could exist in both competing narratives without problem.
 

ndrwrld

TRIBE Member
Owner of World Trade buildings takes out massive insurance policy weeks before 9/11.

Severe ' options ' put on American Airlines and United Airlines just before 9/11.

Best Air Force on the earth wasn't able to scramble planes.

Pentagon damage was NOT done by a plane.

Fragile planes could not have done damage to fall WTC buildings.

Passports of ' terrorists ' found on site...everything completely obliterated.

Thousands were told to take the day off, or not to fly anywhere around 9/11.

Everything since 2002 regarding Bin Laden were faked.

---

the Bin Laden raid was fake. this severely helped Obama get a 2nd term.
and now he's raping every American of their rights.
and Harper is 1 step behind him.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Fragile planes could not have done damage to fall WTC buildings.
Wow - so many untruths.

Lets take this one for starters. Planes didn't, by themselves, knock the towers down. It was a product of all the subsequent effects from the infernos set off by the massive amounts of jet fuel.

How can you assert so confidently that the towers could not have fallen from the impacts and their resultant effects - and if they could not have - what strong evidence can you provide for any other explanation?
 
Top