- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
America has evolved to a place where the government is unquestionable by its citizens....even though America's government is far more sneaky and secretive than ever before
Right now for just one example the Pentagon is defying the "Freedom of Information Act" and snubbing American citizens who wanted to see real footage of the actual 757 that hit the Pentagon. There are many prominent people world wide with well documented statements explaining how it could not have been a full size airbus. A simple release of actual footage would clear up this disturbing descrepency but our government chooses to ignore its citizens and be sneaky and secretive about it.
I can bring a mountain of examples and will be back with some more.
Good, we have a specfic claim to work with. What makes you think the Pentagon is holding back footage? Who has filed a Freedom of Information Act claim to have access to the alleged footage? When was it denied? Were there eyewitnesses who said that what struck the Pentagon was not a 757? How many eyewitnesses compared to the eyewitnesses who said there was?
Critical thinking only asks that you back up your claims with evidence. It doesn't require that you put forth a lot of claims, only that you substantiate the claims that you do put forth.
I couldn't care less about witnesses....I truly would like to see some actual footage to clear up the disturbing descrepencies which countless prominent people speak of.
Awhile back I read about the snubbing of the "Freedom of Information Act" and the petitions demanding to see the actual footage...I will have to do some digging about this topic.
Why do you believe the footage exists? Do most people agree with what happened or is it evenly split? What makes you so sure there is a lot of discrepancy and that is isn't just a few people who are disagreeing with most people?
It seems awfully strange that you can't support your claim that there was a petition to see this footage. How do you know that there was actually a petition and that it wasn't someone just saying that there was a petition that was denied? Am I suppose to just take your word that there was such a petition?
This is a 40 minute open-source download from ClearBits™ - BitTorrent Distribution of Open Licensed Media
Do you believe in the paranormal?
Do you believe in 911 truth?
Do you believe in the face on Mars?
Do you believe in.......... Anything that is considered pseudoscience or conspiracy theories?
There is a reason that it is called pseudoscience in that anybody who has critical thinking skills can smash it to smithereens. This video, called Here Be Dragons - A Guide to Critical Thinking, is a quick tour of how critical thinking works, and how it can be used to debunk junk science and conspiracy theories. This is an excellent video, and I highly recommend it, especially for all you truther guys. :mrgreen:
You can find and download it here. You will need a torrent client to download it.http://www.clearbits.net/torrents/659-here-be-dragons I recommand utorrent, which can be found and downloaded here.
Enjoy.
What evidence do you have to back up this claim? What independent sources can you cite? How do you measure "sneakiness" and "secretiveness"? What makes you think that people are any less likely to question their government today than they were 20 years ago? Is there any way to test your claim that people are not likely to question their government?
I figures since this is a thread about critical thought, we ought to convey it in the discussion.
Interesting how the very term "conspiracy theory" in itself creates a taboo topic and has evolved to keep average American's (sheeple) from questioning their government.....even though throughout history of the world there are countless "conspiracies" that were quite disturbing and quite real....
Right now for just one example the Pentagon is defying the "Freedom of Information Act" and snubbing American citizens who wanted to see real footage of the actual 757 that hit the Pentagon. There are many prominent people world wide with well documented statements explaining how it could not have been a full size airbus. A simple release of actual footage would clear up this disturbing descrepency but our government chooses to ignore its citizens and be sneaky and secretive about it.
I can bring a mountain of examples and will be back with some more.
The idea of grand conspiracies for major world events (e.g. 9/11, the JFK assassination, the moon landing) is ****ing retarded. The sheer number of people required to pull something like that off and keep it quiet is staggering. The idea that people wouldn't figure it out stretches the limits of credibility to the breaking point. And generally these silly theories aren't accompanied by any plausible motive.
And yet again creative, you get it entirely wrong !!!
There is no longer ANY kind of FOIA request ... because the footage has ALREADY been released, for nearly FOUR years now !!!
And anyone whom keeps up to date with 9/11 issues ALREADY knows this ... you are aware also creative, that your little appeals to authority are either YEARS old or pathetic ???
Your "Scholars" (I use the term most loosely) one is from 2006 ... and your Medical one has the astounding level of support, almost nine years later, of just 144 medical professionals ... well, woop de do !!!
Anyhow, Judicial Watch first filed FOIA requests in December 2004 for all media pertaining to Flight 77 ...
Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Against Defense Department for Withholding Video of 9/11 Attack on Pentagon
In May 2006 granted release of two videos, the infamous "security hut" ones ...
Judicial Watch
And then the rest ...
Judicial Watch Obtains Security Camera Videos from Doubletree Hotel That Show 9/11 Attack on Pentagon
Which ALL been FREELY and EASILY available since December of 2006 !!!
How come you did not know this creative ???
FBI hides 84 Pentagon videos - 911myths
American Airlines Flight 77 - 911myths
911debunker: The Pentagon - Security cameras
In regard as to why the videos are not going to show you anything is most simple ... security cameras are NOT for watching the building ... instead to monitor that parking lot, check-point hut or entrance, etc, etc, etc.
Security cameras do NOT turn, look around or up or zoom in ... no matter how "close" an aircraft flies overhead or nearby.
"God and an Army of a Thousand Angels" could descend from Heaven directly overhead and that camera will KEEP staring at that patch of parking lot/pathway/door/whatever like an idiot !!!
The ONLY things most security cameras would see is things ON the ground ... DIRECTLY within range.
Most cameras used for these applications have limited depth of field and a slower frame rate than a recreational or professional video camera.
They usually have lens that are fish-eyed and, as they are designed to capture information from cars stationary at a security check-point, capture images at the positively glacial rates of just ONE or TWO frames per SECOND !!!
Therefore they do not NEED to be of higher resolution or speed.
Research the terms, "Frame rate" and "Depth of field" ... you may learn something which will prevent you from making further asinine claims.
Flight 77, according to flight data, was travelling at seven hundred and eighty feet per second ... now what are the odds of an object travelling at 780 FEET PER SECOND of clearly being picked up on video that is recording at the frame rate of ONE PER SECOND ???
Because of the human phenomenon known as PERSISTANCE OF VISION ... for us to CLEARLY see film or video image it NEEDS to be filmed at the rate of at least 24 FRAMES PER SECOND ...
You don't need to be a mathematical genius to work out the IMPOSSIBILITY of capturing clear and defined footage ... do you ???
What were you expecting ... IMAX ???
What's next creative the "no-fly zone" crud ???
This is what im talking about.....
Why does somenone need "independent sources" and "evidence to back up this claim" every time they make a post?
QUOTE]
for what I have seen the "truthers"(sheeples) want indpendent sources to prove the govt. was correct, yet they will accept any opinion that supports thier theory as fact without indepent sources to support it.. It is fair to ask them to do the same to support their statements.
And yet again creative, you get it entirely wrong !!!
There is no longer ANY kind of FOIA request ... because the footage has ALREADY been released, for nearly FOUR years now !!!
And anyone whom keeps up to date with 9/11 issues ALREADY knows this ... you are aware also creative, that your little appeals to authority are either YEARS old or pathetic ???
Your "Scholars" (I use the term most loosely) one is from 2006 ... and your Medical one has the astounding level of support, almost nine years later, of just 144 medical professionals ... well, woop de do !!!
Anyhow, Judicial Watch first filed FOIA requests in December 2004 for all media pertaining to Flight 77 ...
Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Against Defense Department for Withholding Video of 9/11 Attack on Pentagon
In May 2006 granted release of two videos, the infamous "security hut" ones ...
Judicial Watch
And then the rest ...
Judicial Watch Obtains Security Camera Videos from Doubletree Hotel That Show 9/11 Attack on Pentagon
Which ALL been FREELY and EASILY available since December of 2006 !!!
How come you did not know this creative ???
FBI hides 84 Pentagon videos - 911myths
American Airlines Flight 77 - 911myths
911debunker: The Pentagon - Security cameras
In regard as to why the videos are not going to show you anything is most simple ... security cameras are NOT for watching the building ... instead to monitor that parking lot, check-point hut or entrance, etc, etc, etc.
Security cameras do NOT turn, look around or up or zoom in ... no matter how "close" an aircraft flies overhead or nearby.
"God and an Army of a Thousand Angels" could descend from Heaven directly overhead and that camera will KEEP staring at that patch of parking lot/pathway/door/whatever like an idiot !!!
The ONLY things most security cameras would see is things ON the ground ... DIRECTLY within range.
Most cameras used for these applications have limited depth of field and a slower frame rate than a recreational or professional video camera.
They usually have lens that are fish-eyed and, as they are designed to capture information from cars stationary at a security check-point, capture images at the positively glacial rates of just ONE or TWO frames per SECOND !!!
Therefore they do not NEED to be of higher resolution or speed.
Research the terms, "Frame rate" and "Depth of field" ... you may learn something which will prevent you from making further asinine claims.
Flight 77, according to flight data, was travelling at seven hundred and eighty feet per second ... now what are the odds of an object travelling at 780 FEET PER SECOND of clearly being picked up on video that is recording at the frame rate of ONE PER SECOND ???
Because of the human phenomenon known as PERSISTANCE OF VISION ... for us to CLEARLY see film or video image it NEEDS to be filmed at the rate of at least 24 FRAMES PER SECOND ...
You don't need to be a mathematical genius to work out the IMPOSSIBILITY of capturing clear and defined footage ... do you ???
What were you expecting ... IMAX ???
What's next creative the "no-fly zone" crud ???
Perhaps it was just someone saying there was a petition? I will do some digging to clarify whether or not there was one.
The Pentagon is likely the most surveilled building in the World...there is either footage of the actual jumbo jet or there was no jumbo jet...
This is what im talking about.....
Why does somenone need "independent sources" and "evidence to back up this claim" every time they make a post?
This type of thinking makes me sick...
And if you need a source for my statement about it making me sick.. let me go throw up and I'll post the video of it to youtube.
Most conspiracies are quite mundane, quite poorly executed, and quite small. For example, 4 dudes conspire to steal some money from their shareholders or the taxpayers. THAT is what actual conspiracies look like.
The idea of grand conspiracies for major world events (e.g. 9/11, the JFK assassination, the moon landing) is ****ing retarded. The sheer number of people required to pull something like that off and keep it quiet is staggering. The idea that people wouldn't figure it out stretches the limits of credibility to the breaking point.
And generally these silly theories aren't accompanied by any plausible motive.
Yet the ABSURD idea that to be intelligent, scientific, and intellectually honest requires a distrust for all authority per se, and a contempt for the opinions of the experts ... has so deeply permeated the modern Western consciousness that conspiratorial thinking has for many people come to seem the "rational" default position !!!
There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
Here is what the actual full size jumbo jet would not look like hitting the building....this image was put together by a group of idiots that know absolutely nothing about frame rates, field of view, or cameras in general...
The ONLY video they released doesn't show a jumbo jet.
There were about 85 surveillance videos they could release but continue to defy the "Freedom of Information Act".
Here is the actual footage of the Pentagon plane for 9/11 which was NOT released but leaked out from the Pentagon security camera at a construction checkpoint....
Here is what the actual full size jumbo jet would look like hitting the building....this image was put together by a group of physicists researching the disturbing descrepencies about 9/11...
Here is an example of "critical thinking"...
Here is another example of "critical thinking"...
Here is another example of "critical thinking"...
<Drivel snipped >
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?