Being unreasonable and dishonest in response to someone you perceive as not being logical makes very little sense.
All you've done here is prove that you are willing to resort to maligning people you disagree with, instead of address the facts they have put forward - which you've compleatly ignored.
This type of circular logic to defend your own bias is not logical or reasonable, it's merely the hallmark of a guy that's a douchebag.
Have a little intellectual integrity. It won't kill you.
I have already stated why. Have some integrity. Your understanding of "science" is indistinguishable from religion. You do not actually comprehend, you merely parrot.
Attempt to prove your own assumptions wrong, and you might have some chance. Otherwise, your'e just a poser and a mere internet troll.
No, you really haven't stated anything. You've merely asserted that I have no integrity without backing your statement up. I know what my video was about because I made it. I also know the context under which the video was made, something you can't know because the video that this is a response to was deleted. So you're coming into the conversation half way and making a bunch of assumptions. How am I supposed to take that seriously?
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is ju
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure
I think this is a fairly decent explanation of confirmation bias; anyone who's done work in artificial intelligence can verify how working models such as the Kohonen net explain this. Each bias point/"meme" added to the nondirectional graph/network cause an overall buildup on one side of a Cartesian plane; if you introduce a radical point on the opposite end of the plane, that one factoid won't override the bias built by, shall we call it, "experience."
The problem is, as irrational creatures, the experience doesn't always get weighted in fact, as we have to accept empirical evidence on a level of faith that others would equate to more radical beliefs (difference being, scientific "beliefs" are readily testable and reproducible, while hair-up-the-ass conjectures are taken at face value). No matter how much *testable* evidence you give someone, if they've got any left-field conjecture to back an existing bias, you'll never get thru.
OK, that was easily the most interesting comment I've ever had on any of my videos. I'm totally fascinated with artificial intelligence now. Please, feel free to comment on any of my videos.
Also... AI walks hand in hand with Cognitive Science. What's grey matter and that which we can replicate on silicon will converge at some distant point (which is why we have Turing tests et al.), but it's still a bit farther down the road. Nondeterministic self-organizing maps and neural networks are pretty bland subjects. For some fun, look up the gaffs that the CYC project made. Creating an infant mind and feeding it an encyclopedia is fun, but the bias after is more important
Putting aside the notion of arguing in the total absence of logic, I think that whilst it is indeed pointless to win or lose an argument with someone retreating to the untestable, it is important to that the argument actually takes place. This is because it demonstrates that there is opposition to the idea, that it is not a universally-accepted idea, and that it can be shown to be ridiculously stupid. In short, having the argument at all shows others why the idea shouldn't be given credence.
I actually used what I learned from your video today-- I was discussing organic food with a friend, and how people aren't "argued into it." I will be sure to check out your other vids. Keep up the good work!
Actaully h8uall6, the more I look at the various angles of footage, the more it looks to me that the building fell exactly as the truthers say it should, collapsing from the top around the central core, with debris falling out and away from the bulding. It requires very selective angles of footage to make the claim that it appears to be in freefall. The truther website states that there is alot of internal debate sand division about this point. That is hardly their only point however.
@sd19791 Let me ask you a question: would a building that collapsed because of fire weakened support columns not also project debris away from the building? If you have a floor full of air and light materials, and the roof suddenly falls in and compresses it, wouldn't it take the path of least resistance and eject through the windows? In other words, that's not evidence of anything.
@h8uall66 I guess what I am saying is that the more I look, the more it seems the building could not possibly be in freefall from the base. They truthers say that if it collapsed from the top there would be a central column and debris would collapse over the sides....that is exactly what happens. You can clearly see the central column and the debris collapsing from all sides. In other words i yeild. Controlled demolition is nonsense.
And also, I might be less moved by the argument if it were meerly a bunch of armchair observers posting vids on YouTube, but the 911 truth movement is international in scope and it involves thousands of professionals, scientists, and engineers who have steped up with the mantel of their own expertise to say "you know, the official story is bull, its not possible and it ignores alot of evidence". These are not stupid paranoid morons man, this is serious stuff.
My problem with the controlled demolition idea is that it's idiotic. Why bother with the charade of crashing airplanes into buildings if you can just detonate a bomb on the ground floor? Why jump through so many hoops, especially if a bunch of experts are just going to say that planes can't bring down buildings? Especially considering how much easier it would be to just drive a truck full of explosives into the parking garage. Explain why planes are necessary.
@h8uall66 I dont have an answer for that but i do understand that this question is the question that causes some to speculate that it could have been an "inside job". The reasoning is, IF it was impossible for planes to cause this damage, and IF it was a controled demolition, then it would appear that someone orchestrated it with the intention of deception. Why? To create a "terrorist threat" in peoples minds is one speculation. If the 911 doubts are justified, the implications are profound.
Well that's just it, isn't it? If I'm trying to fool people I'm going to use something plausible, not something impossible. Why use an impossible method of bringing a building down, thus necessitating a controlled demolition. It doesn't make any sense. Regardless, you can bring a building down with burning jet fuel. I used to work with JP-5 as a Marine. It burns incredibly hot. I'm also a blacksmith. My work depends on the fact that steel loses 90% of it's strength at 800C degrees.
@h8uall66 But itis an implausible scenario. In absence of the demolition explaination we are left with the domino effect explaination, but this very scenario is said to be taken into account in the design of these buildings. At most it would have knoked the concrete off the good solid steel that had not been heated to high temperatures, with debirs falling out and away from the building, and only for a few floors below the fires, that is the truther claim at least.
That very scenario was taken into account in the design? Really? The designers built it to resist a 747 crashing into it? Show me the documentation that says that!
It is not my intention to make assumptions, i listened to you video and Im going on available data. I do find it typical of those who assert the offical line to dismiss those asking question as morons in knee jerk fashion. I dont understand how any person claiming to be of reason could be so disparaging to those who are just asking questions. They may not the the questions that you ask, but they are trying to make sense of it. Makes you sound as though your mind is closed to other perspectives
My mind is closed. I don't allow falsehood in. I'm not interested in your opinion. All truthers are liars that have an emotional agenda to push. Why would I bother arguing with a dishonest person? Better to just walk away. May as well be arguing with a telephone pole. At least the telephone pole doesn't have an agenda to push.
You feel sorry for me that I don't allow falsehood into my mind? Really? Are you saying that you allow falsehood into yours? Or do you feel sorry for yourself as well? By the way, if you really do feel sorry for me because I don't allow falsehood into my mind, then you are a stupid, stupid, stupid human being.
Oh, is it typical? Oh, how sad. How am I supposed to respond to you coming to my video and leaving vague comments about what you think I may or may not believe about 9/11? Here's an idea genius, why don't you just ask me?! DUH!!!!!
I believe that Islamic extremists flew 747 jets into various buildings. Specifically they were motivated by disapproval of US support for Israel. I do not believe that it was an inside job. There is no evidence of this. The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, there are hundreds of videos of the collapse and you can time the fall. All truther arguments are specious, circumstantial or incorrect. If you have one that I have not heard and can't destroy in 3 seconds, please share.
@h8uall66 I think the arguments are worthy of consideration. I think that the idea that it was an inside job is just one of many speculations in the face of doubt surrounding the official story. To me the buildings appear to be falling as though the foundation was destroyed underneath, like a demolition. There is disbelief that an airplane could even take down a building like that. I dont have the numbers, but the argument is compelling enough that I would like the opportunity to see them.
and also, the reaction given by those such as yourself, who assume the official line is correct and accurate, is a very emotional reaction in itself, based on a deep need to maintain your paradigme that the government in which have been taught to trust is always truthful and working in your best interest. You are reacting against the suggestion that this might not always be so, hence you cannot objectively consider the information presented.
And also, I do not mean to assume what you know and don't know. It just appears that you are being overly dismissive. It seems perfectly clear to me what the truther endgame is, which is for a public discourse and non-dismissive consideration of arguments. I have never seen any argument against the truthers points that was not a very condecending brushing aside with no true consideration of what is presented. An official story cannot count, that is like a man on trial acting as his own jury.
@h8uall66 that is a red herring of a response man, we are not talking about the tooth fairy or anything similar. The assumption you seem to be making is that the information presented by the truthers is not falsifiable. This is why I assumed that you dont even know what the arguments are. In your video you reduce a very detailed body of information to a simple "oh, they just wanted to belive that those crazy emotional whackjobs". That is not objective, that is not reason.
No, you are the one making assumptions. You have no clue what my position is. You just assume that because I find the truthers to be morons that I obviously believe the official story. Come back when you learn to stop making assumptions.
H8ual66, I think you are speaking without really knowing what the 911 truth argument is. Perhaps you are dismissing it superficially. It is no secret that Bush lied his way into Iraq. He had a very transparent agenda. I remeber that day vividly, and I felt like i was watching the minstry of truth in action as the official story changed by the minuet. It is no secret, Bush opened a very unamerican branch of the government which has and is enacting some very fascist policies.
Logic is easy. Only wacko's like you believe otherwise. If your a brainwashed tool, like yourself, up will always be down and the sun will set in the east. You are not rational you are what the fabian socialist's only dreamed of but there you are for all to see the frankenstien creation of the fabian socialist that Roosevelt and lady bird were members. What you don't see, or do, the elitest are the rulers and contol the unwashed masses, the families with the wealth are the masters; thus America
@Darkozl You know a few years ago I would have almost thought like you but never as far as to call any one or think them crazy, only strange or eccentric but some one opened my eyes only but slightly like a flower before bloom. Maybe it will enlighten you, all that was said was there are 7 families ruling the world, I'm not sure of the number he said but It was enough to spark my curiosity and little by little with much reading and investigating my world opened up. Ref. Aaron Russo, E. Mullins
@XGralgrathor Do you want an interview? Contact me at addersvenom at myspace. I believe in God and that can be argued logically and affirmitively against darwinism/evolution. Steel framed buildings can not melt from jet fuel and can not free fall at close to the speed of gravity and no plane hit a near by building and it fell like a conroled demolition. Read The Holocaust Industry, by Norman Finkelstein.
A hiv denialist does not question that the disease AIDS exist. A hiv denialist questions whether the HIV virus is responsible for that disease. Some of them are insane enough to put it down to dietary habits.
« the only alien I have evidence of is the illegal alien »
@doomsdaypreacher Oh, I definitely would have chosen strange or quirky over crazy if your response to this man's video didn't seem so extreme. How was he not rational? He was simply making the point that people who are so dedicated to their ideas are not being logical, that they want emotional satisfaction. Either you are part of one of the groups he was talking about or you missed his point because he was completely rational in his arguments.
@h8uall66 You and people like you are taught from the same play book. The fact is either you can see the truth or you can't and if you can you decide the team you cheer for. or do you ;)
when o rly taitz was relishing her fifteen minutes last year, a new approach to dealing with birfers occured to me: tell them that they're absolutely right about everything, then laugh at their inability to do anything about it. gloat like a motherfucker. i've realized that it's the ridiculous argument they're after, not concession, and my brand of concession takes all the fun out it for them.
I respectfully disagree, although I see where you're coming from.
Positive models.
ie.
Nth Europe, Denmark & Norway have highest tax on the top 2%.
They've become the most equal & wealthy populations on Earth, best standard of living, excellent education, health, democratic, green, high tech, skilled.
Fact is, many alienated nuts can be shown sense.
Helping Pick each other up works at all scales.
Competing ever larger blocks to destruction, inequality & myopic profiteering are demonstrably dumb.
Cave men? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that they were living in a cave, or that they were ignorant? Because both are incorrect. They were college educated and came from middle class backgrounds. And I don't treat atheism as a fact, but it is also true that there is no good reason to believe any gods exist and a lot of reasons to believe that all of them are man made.
When I was in the Marines, I worked on many air stations. I was trained to be able to perform basic maintenance on jet engines. I was also present during two crashes, one in Yuma and one in Japan. In Japan I guarded the wreckage of a downed chopper. It crashed into a building. Aircraft are not very sturdy. They are light and don't leave much behind. The engine one that helo was in about 500 pieces according to the investigators.
So what does this have to do with flight 77? Well there is no reason to expect a jet engine to remain intact after crashing into a concrete building. They are mostly empty space and are known to disintegrate if something flies into the intake. However, all of this is irrelevant, as if you look at the pictures of the crash site, you can see engine pieces all over the place. You may not know what to look for, but I do. I've seen parts of turbines, combustion cases and the pressure shaft.
No, the loose change video showed no such thing. The video quotes a Rolls Royce factory manager from Indiana as saying it is not an engine part that he is familiar with. 757 engines are not made in Indiana, they are made in England. So in other words, the loose change people tricked you.
Also, just do a simple google image search, there are photos of the wreckage all over the place. Claiming that the plane just disappeared is absurd. Please be more skeptical in the future.
This was very insightful. I loved the parking meter analogy. I'm usually pretty good with psychology but this video has definitely added to my toolbox.
Aside...
Did you watch Blake's 7 too? I wouldn't have thought the US would buy it. I loved it as a kid :)
I reached a position on 9/11 because of the evidence people provided. Initially I considered them crazy. But the evidence kept piling up, and it all dovetails.
Google for PNAC Primer. Have a read. Especially the phrase "new Pearl Harbor." What would convince me I'm wrong? Show me that Bernard lied in that primer. Show me that Cheney wasn't running two war games on 9/11 that put half the USAF in Canada and Alaska and simulated multiple hijackings.
Are you talking about Bernard Weiner of the San Francisco chronicle? I live near San Francisco and I am a subscriber to the Chronicle, and I know for a fact that Weiner has repeatedly stated that it was not an inside job, but that the Bush administration exploited the crisis to get us into Iraq. That's kind of a "no duh." Also, how do you get from "Cheney was running war games" to "therefore it was an inside job?" That's a total non-sequitur.
I don't know if this Dr Weiner is the same one. All I can suggest is that you read his PNAC Primer (where he does not express an opinion either way).
Cheney ran two war games that day. War games normally held months apart. War games that disrupted the US's ability to take out those hijacked aircraft. Any other day that year, Osama's plan (as executed) would have failed. Wasn't he incredibly lucky?
PNAC got their new Pearl Harbor. Weren't they incredibly lucky?
Well actually, one of the "wargames" was a real military engagement of Russian forces called Northern Vigilance. Cheney was not in charge of this operation as it was a legitimate NORAD engagement. This is a moot point however, as standard procedure for all training scenarios is to use only spare aircraft not already in deployment. I was in the USMC air wing, I know exactly how drills are conducted. So NORAD had the standard compliment of air craft for the East Coast.
No, Cheney was in charge of the Office of National Preparedness. The ONP was under FEMA and only had the power to co-ordinate NORAD operations AFTER a disaster had already occurred. He had no power to co-ordinate any non-emergency NORAD exercise. This is all documented in the ONP charter.
I believe you when you tell me what the ONP charter says. But that is Cheney's powers after an accident.
You do not convince me that Cheney had no power to run a war game just because the ONP charter did not say he could. I have seen various claims that Bush specifically gave Cheney the power to be in overall control of war games. Dispute their validity if you will, but just because the ONP charter didn't say he could doesn't mean something else did not say he could.
As for PNAC getting their wish, well I find that infinitely more likely than such a ludicrously complicated conspiracy. Not to mention, if your goal is to invade Iraq, why would you blame a guy in Afghanistan? Doesn't it make more sense to blame Iraqi agents? Rumsfeld tried his damnedest to link Iraq and Al-Quaida but failed. If they had so much time to plan this thing out, why not have your phony link to Al-Quaida ready to release to the public? Why wait until after the fact?
Why did most of the hijackers (many of whom were later found alive) have Saudi passports?
Why was the invasion of Iraq, supposedly to take out their WMDs and long before the excuse was changed to liberating them, called Operation Iraqi Liberation? Guess what the acronym for that is.
Rumsfeld linked Iraq and al-Qaeda and succeeded. As far as the press was concerned.
Well it was my understanding that the hijackers, like Bin-Laden, were in fact Saudi citizens. This does not change the fact that if they wanted to invade Iraq, blaming Iraqis would have been the better move. All of what you have said supports the notion that the attack was merely used as a somewhat convenient excuse to carry out an invasion of Iraq. It lacks all the hallmarks of an inside job. That's the problem with conspiracy theories, all evidence against a conspiracy can be used for it.
They wanted several things. The trans-Afghan pipeline. To invade Iraq. To be able to invade other middle-eastern oil kingdoms that might become unco-operative. 9/11 was a blanket excuse for all of that, because you could always "discover" that Iran had connections to bin Laden, and so did Kuwait, and...
You can simply say "Oh, well the reason why X did/didn't happen is because they wanted to make it look like it wasn't a conspiracy!" Once you start doing that though, you enter the realm of totally unfalsifiable, untestable claims. And any claim that can not be tested is no better than a religion. Once you go down that road, you're using circular reasoning, as any lack of evidence is merely explained by attributing it to the awesome power of the conspiracy, the very thing you're trying to prove.
I agree that to say "X didn't happen because they wanted to make it look like a conspiracy" is a very weak argument. I would never use it as a primary argument, only in rebuttal to "It can't have been a conspiracy because otherwise they'd have done it this way instead." I don't consider either of those arguments to be fruitful.
What I do consider useful is the very large number of coincidences which each equate to "it couldn't have worked out better for them if they'd planned it themselves."
dude, i feel you pain, once i was having a discussion with a theists and this idiot told me that the MAIN PROBLEM with modern society is that "the schools teaches kids to think in a logical way thats why you (me and everyone under 40) cant understand the bible" i really couldnt believe what i was hearing if you have to stop using logic in order to believe in something then you shouldnt! oh wait thats a logical argument, i must be wrong...sigh...you are correct logic is useless with this people
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "Max Planck"
I've never been a fan of vaccines, and i must say my distaste for vaccines could hardly be comparable to the ramblings of a truther or creationist. I don't particularity trust the h1n1 vaccine, mainly because of how fast it was put out, and the lack of testing for any long-term side effects. Thats a little different than huddling in my basement with a tin-foil hat afraid of "the man". Being sceptic over one rushed vaccine does not equal a religious faith.
Right, because most vaccines go through years of testing. Oh wait, no they don't. That's right, it's conspiracy nuts that are repeating the RUMOR that vaccines are tested for years and that the H1N1 vaccine was *rushed* even though it wasn't. Sorry, I'm just too skeptical to believe such non-sense. I suggest you abandon your conspiracy fantasies and try actual skepticism.
The entire h1n1 nonsense is almost all media fear mongering, I'd rather not waste my time getting vaccinated for a disease that hasn't infected more than a handful of people were I live. When I could actually get something useful like a flu shot, since the flu has killed many more people around here than h1n1.
But. honestly I don't really care all that much, but thanks for being an uncompromising asshole.
I'm actually impressed how you could acknowledge being condescending In such an incredibly condescending way. good job.
Your still wrong about the vaccine though. the h1n1 vaccination is a secret government plot to implant you with a bio-chip so they can monitor you from there secret moon base.
seriously thought, why so butt-hurt about people who don't want to be vaccinated you'd compare them with truthers?
a distrust of the pharmaceutical industry is not a "conspiracy fantasy."
The only reason to resist the vaccination for H1N1 is the simple observations that some folks (notably, oldsters who have received vaccinations in their childhood *for* a version of the virus) and those that suffer the flu (alone, mind you) become more resistant in the future to similar flu viruses. Resisting vaccination from distrust is poor risk assessment.
Much gratitude for posting this video, I learned quite a bit listening to what you have offered here. I can relate to the frustration of having this type of conversation. While it is true that we see these people/machines differently, I can relate to the unmet needs and painful emotions you expressed here. Cheers.
Well actually, if you follow from the arguments of truthers, then voting Democrat would stop the war, IF you accept their position. They believe that the entire war is a neo-conservative conspiracy, so of course getting them out of office would end the war. Again, IF you accept their position.
Your spot on, these people sit around inflating each others ego to the point that no solid argument can effect them. 9/11 trutheres have no solid position because the reason for the attack was evident, not only did the Alqueda take responsibility for it, but if you look at our history, we were bombing them just about everyday through the late 90's. Hell the day the columbine shooting took place we were bombing them. 9/11 was retaliation, and civilians paid the price.
A very excellent and insightful video. I think your point about human beings running on emotion is absolutely spot on - truth matters to us only because we all instinctively know that knowledge is valuable. But for some, it provides great satisfaction and a sense of powerful consistency to believe that their 'knowledge' conforms perfectly to all their other beliefs and prejudices. Humans are also pattern-seekers, after all.
This was brilliant.....I have asked myself for a very long time how it was that *believers* could ignore very solid arguments that debunked their positions....and you've explained it in a way that made sense to me. They become so hungry to be in the spotlight as *the answer guy* that they cease to care about the question.
Great video. Everyone has some kind of rationale for what they believe. People believe things that make sense in their world view. People also believe alot of things based on trust. I would say 99% of what anyone believes (even "rational" people) is based purely on trust (do you know when you were born? do you have proof?).
It is not true that a person cannot be reasoned out of a position that they were not reasoned into. I know because having been indoctrinated into theism (specifically fundamentalist, evangelical christianity), I was reasoned out of it later in life.
Anyone on youtube can say something similar along the lines what you just did and flip it. Using emotion, logic, having the feeling that they know it it's not a conspiracy as a form of comfort. Claiming to know by fact, generalizing or just giving an opinion how everyone that believes the governments story came to that conclusion. The word arrogant comes to mind. Doesn't matter which side you are on. To me, I really don't care about the 9/11 anymore. It's not going to change anything.
Interesting. In your vid you made a few statements that sound like facts. Perhaps you were just generalizing. You know, like saying all black people look alike lol. There lies the flaw if thats the case. Hopefully they are just your opinion. Anyway I guess I am a person that you would consider a truther. Whether you believe me or not doesn't matter but the way you describe people who came to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job doesn't sound remotely close to how it was for me
Well actually there is a way to test that. If I ask you "what would make you abandon your position?" and your answer is "nothing" then you are merely holding on to that position for emotional reasons. If you say "This particular type of evidence would make me change my position" and then I bring you that evidence and you just ignore it and refuse to change your position, then you are holding that position for emotional reasons.
That's making the assumption that what you consider evidence will be enough evidence and cover everything for the person in question. Another assumption is to say because they don't change their position is because it's an emotional one. Granted that does happen a lot from my personal experience but not enough to make it a statement of fact. While emotion is a strong and common reason it's not the only one and to put it forth like it is the only reason is another generalization.
putting religious people in the same category as these "truthers" is wrong.
dont forget, religion is faith based and goes back thousands of years.these truthers are looking for conspiracy in everything that happens today and i noticed you left atheists out of your line of fire.are you actually suggesting that all atheists are logical? within every group we see logical thinking...the opposite is true as well...dont judge those you dont agree with too harsh, isn't that the respect you would want?
Note, stonedcommander, that you said "faith-based", and not "reason-based". I'm pretty sure that was h8uall's point. None of these ideas are reason-based, therefore they cannot be properly addressed by purely reason-based arguments. That includes religion.
And skepticism (including atheism) is most indeed reason-based. That does not necessarily mean it is correct, but it is addressable by reason. If you want to convince an atheist he is wrong, you have to do it by reason; faith and emotion based arguments simply fail in that regard.
o.k., but id bet the truthers think that they do have reason based arguments...
E.G. - fishy photos, no pictures of plane hitting the pentagon,etc....i personally think it was terrorists and not our government...if you want to convince a religious person that evolution is right then by your logic, theories aren't proof of anything.
"id bet the truthers think that they do have reason based arguments"
Well, yeah I'm sure they do. But as h8uall said in his video, the difference between people who aren't really using a reason-based argument is that they ultimately retreat into a non-falsifiable position that no amount or kind of opposing evidence can touch.
Reason and evidence for them is just a veneer of respectability, not the core of their belief; they can't be reasoned out of it because they weren't reasoned into it.
Wait a minute Stoney, I never said "religious people". As a matter of fact, I know I took great pains to specifically not offend religious people, as I know that I have many religious subscribers and friends, you among them. I believe I said "creationists," and by that I meant specifically the young Earth variety.
i believe you and am not offended...but to say creationists is a broad term...many,(like me), could misinterpret your meaning.
young earth creationists are grasping at straws on most of thier claims...dinosaurs on Noah's ark? fire breathing dino/dragon thingies...i made a video a while back on this...ill send it as a response since we are on the subject.
This was very insightful, calling the irrational beliefs of these various groups religion.
One distinction that I would make is this: For something to be strictly religion it has to involve the belief in supernatural beings, whether it be a god or spirits or Xeno the cosmic warlord.
Other irrational beliefs, as noted in your video, might more properly be called faith based beliefs, where religion is just one subset of faith based belief.
Um, OK let's lock swords for a minute friend. I fully admit to using hyperbole to describe the tactics used by cranks, but I disagree with your definition of religion. Does it really need to be supernatural to qualify as religion? I mean, clearly we both agree that Scientology is a religion, but as far as I know there are no supernatural elements to it. Let's discuss.
Yes i have come to the same conclusion. I think they use it as an opportunity to build the illusion of self importance. However, it will not stop me. I take great pleasure in taking on the Creationists and cornering them into their non falsifiable refuge. Once i have done that, then i know i have won. Keep giving them the logical truth and eventually some (not all) will go away and actually think about.
I don't think that debunking their arguments is necessarily pointless, I just think that trying to have a reasoned debate with them is pointless. They simply refuse to play by the rules. Of course, cornering them like you do is a fun and rewarding pursuit. You should keep it up. I find that it hones my debate skills and forces me to learn things I was unaware of. But don't ever fool yourself into thinking you are changing their minds. That was my point.
The Truthers will pick other Truthers theories to pieces. This is why there are so many different Truther groups out there.
The "holographic planers" the "robotic planers" the "planted explosivers" the "no victimers" and the "the hijackers did it, but Bush was behind it" ones.
One thing will get them fighting amongst each other. Asking them who did it, how they did it, and why they did it.They will tear each other to pieces if they do not agree.
Keep us updated on how that experimental strategy works. Lately I've taken the tactic simply using these people to demonstrate to others how crazy and dishonest these people can be.
The best example of this is TheAtheistAntidote. There's no arguing with that guy - he doesn't give a fuck about facts and logic. But if I can hold him up and say, "look how dishonest these creationists are," then I think I've done my job.
I've seen all four in one person and they weren't poe's law, attention whores or trolls. It's during those times they wonder if the idioms "fact is stranger then fiction" or "there's a sucker born every minute" are too accurate.
Being unreasonable and dishonest in response to someone you perceive as not being logical makes very little sense.
All you've done here is prove that you are willing to resort to maligning people you disagree with, instead of address the facts they have put forward - which you've compleatly ignored.
This type of circular logic to defend your own bias is not logical or reasonable, it's merely the hallmark of a guy that's a douchebag.
Have a little intellectual integrity. It won't kill you.
Klaa2 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Klaa2
You missed the point.
h8uall66 1 month ago
@h8uall66
Seriously, give up. You've already shown you have zero integrity.
Klaa2 1 month ago
@Klaa2
How so?
h8uall66 1 month ago
@h8uall66
I have already stated why. Have some integrity. Your understanding of "science" is indistinguishable from religion. You do not actually comprehend, you merely parrot.
Attempt to prove your own assumptions wrong, and you might have some chance. Otherwise, your'e just a poser and a mere internet troll.
Klaa2 1 month ago
@Klaa2
No, you really haven't stated anything. You've merely asserted that I have no integrity without backing your statement up. I know what my video was about because I made it. I also know the context under which the video was made, something you can't know because the video that this is a response to was deleted. So you're coming into the conversation half way and making a bunch of assumptions. How am I supposed to take that seriously?
h8uall66 1 month ago
@tuzmor
Would you mind crying like a little bitch somewhere else? I prefer to talk to adults that can clearly articulate their thoughts and ideas. Thanks.
h8uall66 1 month ago
Sorry, would not allow me to post these articles in full. A good site for reading is
911research.wtc7.net
Cheers.
Area612 3 months ago
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is ju
Area612 3 months ago
John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure
Area612 3 months ago
I think this is a fairly decent explanation of confirmation bias; anyone who's done work in artificial intelligence can verify how working models such as the Kohonen net explain this. Each bias point/"meme" added to the nondirectional graph/network cause an overall buildup on one side of a Cartesian plane; if you introduce a radical point on the opposite end of the plane, that one factoid won't override the bias built by, shall we call it, "experience."
Rurne 4 months ago
@Rurne
The problem is, as irrational creatures, the experience doesn't always get weighted in fact, as we have to accept empirical evidence on a level of faith that others would equate to more radical beliefs (difference being, scientific "beliefs" are readily testable and reproducible, while hair-up-the-ass conjectures are taken at face value). No matter how much *testable* evidence you give someone, if they've got any left-field conjecture to back an existing bias, you'll never get thru.
Rurne 4 months ago
@Rurne
OK, that was easily the most interesting comment I've ever had on any of my videos. I'm totally fascinated with artificial intelligence now. Please, feel free to comment on any of my videos.
h8uall66 4 months ago
@h8uall66
Sub'd.
Rurne 4 months ago
@h8uall66
Also... AI walks hand in hand with Cognitive Science. What's grey matter and that which we can replicate on silicon will converge at some distant point (which is why we have Turing tests et al.), but it's still a bit farther down the road. Nondeterministic self-organizing maps and neural networks are pretty bland subjects. For some fun, look up the gaffs that the CYC project made. Creating an infant mind and feeding it an encyclopedia is fun, but the bias after is more important
Rurne 4 months ago
Putting aside the notion of arguing in the total absence of logic, I think that whilst it is indeed pointless to win or lose an argument with someone retreating to the untestable, it is important to that the argument actually takes place. This is because it demonstrates that there is opposition to the idea, that it is not a universally-accepted idea, and that it can be shown to be ridiculously stupid. In short, having the argument at all shows others why the idea shouldn't be given credence.
Lyinginbedmon 5 months ago
Wow, this was a really good video! Well done!!
zakiechan 9 months ago
@zakiechan
Well thank you very much! I'm a big fan of your video "Atheist" and have spread it around to all of my friends. This just made my evening!
h8uall66 9 months ago
@h8uall66 Thanks a lot!
I actually used what I learned from your video today-- I was discussing organic food with a friend, and how people aren't "argued into it." I will be sure to check out your other vids. Keep up the good work!
zakiechan 9 months ago
Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.
Steve2323ZX 11 months ago
Great Video - In fact, I've put it on my list of Favourites (And sent a video response, which covers some of the same territory)
But just in passing, I think Bush may have had something to do with 9:11 - and the reason I think that is... because of the evidence I've seen.
But don't worry, I'm not totally convinced he did it, and that he's a lizard, etc.
I just think there is some evidence to suggest he did, and it would be good if we could debate that, in a calm and rational way.
mickmle1 1 year ago
Too few people have seen this
EivindTM 1 year ago
forget the addict golden voice guy, you can out speak him if you wanted to lol
mrsquishyboots 1 year ago
@mrsquishyboots
Haha! Thank you!
h8uall66 1 year ago
Actaully h8uall6, the more I look at the various angles of footage, the more it looks to me that the building fell exactly as the truthers say it should, collapsing from the top around the central core, with debris falling out and away from the bulding. It requires very selective angles of footage to make the claim that it appears to be in freefall. The truther website states that there is alot of internal debate sand division about this point. That is hardly their only point however.
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791 Let me ask you a question: would a building that collapsed because of fire weakened support columns not also project debris away from the building? If you have a floor full of air and light materials, and the roof suddenly falls in and compresses it, wouldn't it take the path of least resistance and eject through the windows? In other words, that's not evidence of anything.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 I guess what I am saying is that the more I look, the more it seems the building could not possibly be in freefall from the base. They truthers say that if it collapsed from the top there would be a central column and debris would collapse over the sides....that is exactly what happens. You can clearly see the central column and the debris collapsing from all sides. In other words i yeild. Controlled demolition is nonsense.
sd19791 1 year ago
@h8uall66 @h8uall66 this reminds me of the old anecdote about wittgenstain.
Wittgenstein and a companion are on a stroll through Cambridge.
‘I’ve always wondered why’, says W., ‘for so long people thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth.’
‘Why?’ said his surprised interlocutor, ‘well, I suppose it just looks that way’
‘Hmm’, retorted W.‘and what would it look like if the Earth revolved around the Sun?’.
That a chair looks like a square from a birds view doesn't mean its not a chair :)
wickedragon 9 months ago
And also, I might be less moved by the argument if it were meerly a bunch of armchair observers posting vids on YouTube, but the 911 truth movement is international in scope and it involves thousands of professionals, scientists, and engineers who have steped up with the mantel of their own expertise to say "you know, the official story is bull, its not possible and it ignores alot of evidence". These are not stupid paranoid morons man, this is serious stuff.
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791
My problem with the controlled demolition idea is that it's idiotic. Why bother with the charade of crashing airplanes into buildings if you can just detonate a bomb on the ground floor? Why jump through so many hoops, especially if a bunch of experts are just going to say that planes can't bring down buildings? Especially considering how much easier it would be to just drive a truck full of explosives into the parking garage. Explain why planes are necessary.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 I dont have an answer for that but i do understand that this question is the question that causes some to speculate that it could have been an "inside job". The reasoning is, IF it was impossible for planes to cause this damage, and IF it was a controled demolition, then it would appear that someone orchestrated it with the intention of deception. Why? To create a "terrorist threat" in peoples minds is one speculation. If the 911 doubts are justified, the implications are profound.
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791
Well that's just it, isn't it? If I'm trying to fool people I'm going to use something plausible, not something impossible. Why use an impossible method of bringing a building down, thus necessitating a controlled demolition. It doesn't make any sense. Regardless, you can bring a building down with burning jet fuel. I used to work with JP-5 as a Marine. It burns incredibly hot. I'm also a blacksmith. My work depends on the fact that steel loses 90% of it's strength at 800C degrees.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 But itis an implausible scenario. In absence of the demolition explaination we are left with the domino effect explaination, but this very scenario is said to be taken into account in the design of these buildings. At most it would have knoked the concrete off the good solid steel that had not been heated to high temperatures, with debirs falling out and away from the building, and only for a few floors below the fires, that is the truther claim at least.
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791
That very scenario was taken into account in the design? Really? The designers built it to resist a 747 crashing into it? Show me the documentation that says that!
h8uall66 1 year ago
It is not my intention to make assumptions, i listened to you video and Im going on available data. I do find it typical of those who assert the offical line to dismiss those asking question as morons in knee jerk fashion. I dont understand how any person claiming to be of reason could be so disparaging to those who are just asking questions. They may not the the questions that you ask, but they are trying to make sense of it. Makes you sound as though your mind is closed to other perspectives
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791
My mind is closed. I don't allow falsehood in. I'm not interested in your opinion. All truthers are liars that have an emotional agenda to push. Why would I bother arguing with a dishonest person? Better to just walk away. May as well be arguing with a telephone pole. At least the telephone pole doesn't have an agenda to push.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 I feel sorry for you then
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791
You feel sorry for me that I don't allow falsehood into my mind? Really? Are you saying that you allow falsehood into yours? Or do you feel sorry for yourself as well? By the way, if you really do feel sorry for me because I don't allow falsehood into my mind, then you are a stupid, stupid, stupid human being.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 This sort of response is so typical. I though when I stumbled upon your vids that you were a deeper thinker than this. Take care man.
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791
Oh, is it typical? Oh, how sad. How am I supposed to respond to you coming to my video and leaving vague comments about what you think I may or may not believe about 9/11? Here's an idea genius, why don't you just ask me?! DUH!!!!!
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 What do you think or believe about 911?
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791
I believe that Islamic extremists flew 747 jets into various buildings. Specifically they were motivated by disapproval of US support for Israel. I do not believe that it was an inside job. There is no evidence of this. The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, there are hundreds of videos of the collapse and you can time the fall. All truther arguments are specious, circumstantial or incorrect. If you have one that I have not heard and can't destroy in 3 seconds, please share.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 I think the arguments are worthy of consideration. I think that the idea that it was an inside job is just one of many speculations in the face of doubt surrounding the official story. To me the buildings appear to be falling as though the foundation was destroyed underneath, like a demolition. There is disbelief that an airplane could even take down a building like that. I dont have the numbers, but the argument is compelling enough that I would like the opportunity to see them.
sd19791 1 year ago
and also, the reaction given by those such as yourself, who assume the official line is correct and accurate, is a very emotional reaction in itself, based on a deep need to maintain your paradigme that the government in which have been taught to trust is always truthful and working in your best interest. You are reacting against the suggestion that this might not always be so, hence you cannot objectively consider the information presented.
sd19791 1 year ago
And also, I do not mean to assume what you know and don't know. It just appears that you are being overly dismissive. It seems perfectly clear to me what the truther endgame is, which is for a public discourse and non-dismissive consideration of arguments. I have never seen any argument against the truthers points that was not a very condecending brushing aside with no true consideration of what is presented. An official story cannot count, that is like a man on trial acting as his own jury.
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791
I dismiss idiots. Why should I give any more time than is necessary to lying morons?
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 certainly dosent do anything to garner truth and understanding. again very dismissive, and full of assumptions.
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791
Prove to me that there is no tooth fairy. Don't be dismissive, just do it.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 that is a red herring of a response man, we are not talking about the tooth fairy or anything similar. The assumption you seem to be making is that the information presented by the truthers is not falsifiable. This is why I assumed that you dont even know what the arguments are. In your video you reduce a very detailed body of information to a simple "oh, they just wanted to belive that those crazy emotional whackjobs". That is not objective, that is not reason.
sd19791 1 year ago
@h8uall66 fruther, it is intellectually dishonest.
sd19791 1 year ago
@sd19791
No, you are the one making assumptions. You have no clue what my position is. You just assume that because I find the truthers to be morons that I obviously believe the official story. Come back when you learn to stop making assumptions.
h8uall66 1 year ago
Being cautious is not the same as being paranoid.
sd19791 1 year ago
H8ual66, I think you are speaking without really knowing what the 911 truth argument is. Perhaps you are dismissing it superficially. It is no secret that Bush lied his way into Iraq. He had a very transparent agenda. I remeber that day vividly, and I felt like i was watching the minstry of truth in action as the official story changed by the minuet. It is no secret, Bush opened a very unamerican branch of the government which has and is enacting some very fascist policies.
sd19791 1 year ago
I am anti everything that that is forced against my will, that includes social persuasion
movadoband 1 year ago
Logic is easy. Only wacko's like you believe otherwise. If your a brainwashed tool, like yourself, up will always be down and the sun will set in the east. You are not rational you are what the fabian socialist's only dreamed of but there you are for all to see the frankenstien creation of the fabian socialist that Roosevelt and lady bird were members. What you don't see, or do, the elitest are the rulers and contol the unwashed masses, the families with the wealth are the masters; thus America
doomsdaypreacher 1 year ago
@doomsdaypreacher You are batshit crazy, I hope you know.
Darkozl 1 year ago
@Darkozl You know a few years ago I would have almost thought like you but never as far as to call any one or think them crazy, only strange or eccentric but some one opened my eyes only but slightly like a flower before bloom. Maybe it will enlighten you, all that was said was there are 7 families ruling the world, I'm not sure of the number he said but It was enough to spark my curiosity and little by little with much reading and investigating my world opened up. Ref. Aaron Russo, E. Mullins
doomsdaypreacher 1 year ago
@doomsdaypreacher
are you a creationist?
are you a truther?
are you a holocaust denialist?
are you a hiv denialist?
do you believen that extraterrestrials abduct people on earth?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor Do you want an interview? Contact me at addersvenom at myspace. I believe in God and that can be argued logically and affirmitively against darwinism/evolution. Steel framed buildings can not melt from jet fuel and can not free fall at close to the speed of gravity and no plane hit a near by building and it fell like a conroled demolition. Read The Holocaust Industry, by Norman Finkelstein.
doomsdaypreacher 1 year ago
« against darwinism/evolution »
So, yes to 1.
« Steel framed buildings can not melt from jet fuel »
Yes to 2.
« Read The Holocaust Industry, by Norman Finkelstein »
And a maybe to 3.
No comments on 4 and 5?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor #4 Of couse there is the disease a.i.d.s, most people know someone that has died from it.
#5 I've never see an alien from another planet, the only alien I have evidence of is the illegal alien enemies from the south.
doomsdaypreacher 1 year ago
« Of couse there is the disease »
A hiv denialist does not question that the disease AIDS exist. A hiv denialist questions whether the HIV virus is responsible for that disease. Some of them are insane enough to put it down to dietary habits.
« the only alien I have evidence of is the illegal alien »
So, no to 5.
« illegal alien enemies from the south »
But that still completes the picture.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor Well at least you believe in God.
apocalypse1280 1 year ago
@doomsdaypreacher Oh, I definitely would have chosen strange or quirky over crazy if your response to this man's video didn't seem so extreme. How was he not rational? He was simply making the point that people who are so dedicated to their ideas are not being logical, that they want emotional satisfaction. Either you are part of one of the groups he was talking about or you missed his point because he was completely rational in his arguments.
Darkozl 1 year ago
@Darkozl
I think that this guy is one of the people I'm talking about in my video. Why else get so upset?
h8uall66 1 year ago
@doomsdaypreacher
Really? How so? Be specific. What did I say in this video that makes you believe as you do.
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 read above post
doomsdaypreacher 1 year ago
@doomsdaypreacher
You still have not answered my question. What specifically did I say in this video that leads you to your conclusion?
h8uall66 1 year ago
@h8uall66 You and people like you are taught from the same play book. The fact is either you can see the truth or you can't and if you can you decide the team you cheer for. or do you ;)
doomsdaypreacher 1 year ago
@doomsdaypreacher
Still no answer.
h8uall66 1 year ago
so, what to do?
when o rly taitz was relishing her fifteen minutes last year, a new approach to dealing with birfers occured to me: tell them that they're absolutely right about everything, then laugh at their inability to do anything about it. gloat like a motherfucker. i've realized that it's the ridiculous argument they're after, not concession, and my brand of concession takes all the fun out it for them.
KEvron
KEvronista 1 year ago
The part of the mind that use rational is not the part that that makes decisions. The emotional part of the brain makes decisions, its that simple.
MirageScience 1 year ago
This the best video I've seen that deals with the nature of conspiracy theorists.
DavidRandallCurtis 1 year ago
Yep, I've come to the same conclusion. Keep us posted if you find a way around that problem.
jollyradical 1 year ago
Unfortunately I think you're absolutely right
EivindTM 1 year ago
@EivindTM
I know, it's kind of depressing, isn't it?
h8uall66 1 year ago
I respectfully disagree, although I see where you're coming from.
Positive models.
ie.
Nth Europe, Denmark & Norway have highest tax on the top 2%.
They've become the most equal & wealthy populations on Earth, best standard of living, excellent education, health, democratic, green, high tech, skilled.
Fact is, many alienated nuts can be shown sense.
Helping Pick each other up works at all scales.
Competing ever larger blocks to destruction, inequality & myopic profiteering are demonstrably dumb.
marsCubed 1 year ago
Fanfuckingtastic.
thisfreakingname 1 year ago
you made some good points.
TheUnmaskedMagician 1 year ago
Great vid!!
lilililililililiilii 1 year ago
Arguing with a broken parking meter. lol Love it! Very well put.
GTF
RelaxGodfolk 1 year ago
Great explanation ! no offense
Are u falling into the catogery of emotional believer who choose to believe 9/11 did by cave men & Atheism is fact !!! because it serves the purpose!
I belong to ur opposite catogery ! hope that wont make u offensive towards me...
Peace be on you :)
jzxonly 2 years ago
Cave men? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean that they were living in a cave, or that they were ignorant? Because both are incorrect. They were college educated and came from middle class backgrounds. And I don't treat atheism as a fact, but it is also true that there is no good reason to believe any gods exist and a lot of reasons to believe that all of them are man made.
h8uall66 2 years ago
hmmm... i take the cave men back..... i falled into the emotional part .... lol :)
Can you explain the disappearance of flight 77
How come the Flight completely dissapear without leaving the huge tail & wing sections of the flight ? And the 757 engine /turbine!
What are your thoughts the evidence provided by "loose change 2" about the flight engine....
Peace be on you
jzxonly 2 years ago
When I was in the Marines, I worked on many air stations. I was trained to be able to perform basic maintenance on jet engines. I was also present during two crashes, one in Yuma and one in Japan. In Japan I guarded the wreckage of a downed chopper. It crashed into a building. Aircraft are not very sturdy. They are light and don't leave much behind. The engine one that helo was in about 500 pieces according to the investigators.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Yup aircrafts are light . but i have seen crash photos of commercial airlines and all of them showed the skeleton
Regarding pentagon we dont have a single footage which show that. Why is it so ?
jzxonly 2 years ago
So what does this have to do with flight 77? Well there is no reason to expect a jet engine to remain intact after crashing into a concrete building. They are mostly empty space and are known to disintegrate if something flies into the intake. However, all of this is irrelevant, as if you look at the pictures of the crash site, you can see engine pieces all over the place. You may not know what to look for, but I do. I've seen parts of turbines, combustion cases and the pressure shaft.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Well does the engine match the same as the And the 757 engine /turbine! the loose change video show the difference in that .
Also if such a big plane crashed we will get the huge wings & tale section & how can the entire plain dissapear just like that ?
We will get to see atleast the skeleton !
jzxonly 2 years ago
No, the loose change video showed no such thing. The video quotes a Rolls Royce factory manager from Indiana as saying it is not an engine part that he is familiar with. 757 engines are not made in Indiana, they are made in England. So in other words, the loose change people tricked you.
Also, just do a simple google image search, there are photos of the wreckage all over the place. Claiming that the plane just disappeared is absurd. Please be more skeptical in the future.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Peace be on you
hmmm... well i think you should make a refutation to the loose change video. I checked ur uploads i didnt find any.
I guess that will bring a larger crowd to respond & let "truth" win. If you have time please do it...
best wishes
Peace be on you
jzxonly 2 years ago
Interesting idea. I think I will. Thanks for the suggestion!
h8uall66 2 years ago
Eagerly awainting for that :)
good luck
peace be on you
jzxonly 2 years ago
This was very insightful. I loved the parking meter analogy. I'm usually pretty good with psychology but this video has definitely added to my toolbox.
Aside...
Did you watch Blake's 7 too? I wouldn't have thought the US would buy it. I loved it as a kid :)
VirgilFoxMusic 2 years ago
I reached a position on 9/11 because of the evidence people provided. Initially I considered them crazy. But the evidence kept piling up, and it all dovetails.
Google for PNAC Primer. Have a read. Especially the phrase "new Pearl Harbor." What would convince me I'm wrong? Show me that Bernard lied in that primer. Show me that Cheney wasn't running two war games on 9/11 that put half the USAF in Canada and Alaska and simulated multiple hijackings.
bdf2718 2 years ago
Are you talking about Bernard Weiner of the San Francisco chronicle? I live near San Francisco and I am a subscriber to the Chronicle, and I know for a fact that Weiner has repeatedly stated that it was not an inside job, but that the Bush administration exploited the crisis to get us into Iraq. That's kind of a "no duh." Also, how do you get from "Cheney was running war games" to "therefore it was an inside job?" That's a total non-sequitur.
h8uall66 2 years ago
I don't know if this Dr Weiner is the same one. All I can suggest is that you read his PNAC Primer (where he does not express an opinion either way).
Cheney ran two war games that day. War games normally held months apart. War games that disrupted the US's ability to take out those hijacked aircraft. Any other day that year, Osama's plan (as executed) would have failed. Wasn't he incredibly lucky?
PNAC got their new Pearl Harbor. Weren't they incredibly lucky?
bdf2718 2 years ago
Well actually, one of the "wargames" was a real military engagement of Russian forces called Northern Vigilance. Cheney was not in charge of this operation as it was a legitimate NORAD engagement. This is a moot point however, as standard procedure for all training scenarios is to use only spare aircraft not already in deployment. I was in the USMC air wing, I know exactly how drills are conducted. So NORAD had the standard compliment of air craft for the East Coast.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Nope, Cheney was running it.
bdf2718 2 years ago
No, Cheney was in charge of the Office of National Preparedness. The ONP was under FEMA and only had the power to co-ordinate NORAD operations AFTER a disaster had already occurred. He had no power to co-ordinate any non-emergency NORAD exercise. This is all documented in the ONP charter.
h8uall66 2 years ago
I believe you when you tell me what the ONP charter says. But that is Cheney's powers after an accident.
You do not convince me that Cheney had no power to run a war game just because the ONP charter did not say he could. I have seen various claims that Bush specifically gave Cheney the power to be in overall control of war games. Dispute their validity if you will, but just because the ONP charter didn't say he could doesn't mean something else did not say he could.
bdf2718 2 years ago
As for PNAC getting their wish, well I find that infinitely more likely than such a ludicrously complicated conspiracy. Not to mention, if your goal is to invade Iraq, why would you blame a guy in Afghanistan? Doesn't it make more sense to blame Iraqi agents? Rumsfeld tried his damnedest to link Iraq and Al-Quaida but failed. If they had so much time to plan this thing out, why not have your phony link to Al-Quaida ready to release to the public? Why wait until after the fact?
h8uall66 2 years ago
Why did most of the hijackers (many of whom were later found alive) have Saudi passports?
Why was the invasion of Iraq, supposedly to take out their WMDs and long before the excuse was changed to liberating them, called Operation Iraqi Liberation? Guess what the acronym for that is.
Rumsfeld linked Iraq and al-Qaeda and succeeded. As far as the press was concerned.
Why wait? To make it more plausible. See Origen.
bdf2718 2 years ago
Well it was my understanding that the hijackers, like Bin-Laden, were in fact Saudi citizens. This does not change the fact that if they wanted to invade Iraq, blaming Iraqis would have been the better move. All of what you have said supports the notion that the attack was merely used as a somewhat convenient excuse to carry out an invasion of Iraq. It lacks all the hallmarks of an inside job. That's the problem with conspiracy theories, all evidence against a conspiracy can be used for it.
h8uall66 2 years ago
They wanted several things. The trans-Afghan pipeline. To invade Iraq. To be able to invade other middle-eastern oil kingdoms that might become unco-operative. 9/11 was a blanket excuse for all of that, because you could always "discover" that Iran had connections to bin Laden, and so did Kuwait, and...
bdf2718 2 years ago
You can simply say "Oh, well the reason why X did/didn't happen is because they wanted to make it look like it wasn't a conspiracy!" Once you start doing that though, you enter the realm of totally unfalsifiable, untestable claims. And any claim that can not be tested is no better than a religion. Once you go down that road, you're using circular reasoning, as any lack of evidence is merely explained by attributing it to the awesome power of the conspiracy, the very thing you're trying to prove.
h8uall66 2 years ago
I agree that to say "X didn't happen because they wanted to make it look like a conspiracy" is a very weak argument. I would never use it as a primary argument, only in rebuttal to "It can't have been a conspiracy because otherwise they'd have done it this way instead." I don't consider either of those arguments to be fruitful.
What I do consider useful is the very large number of coincidences which each equate to "it couldn't have worked out better for them if they'd planned it themselves."
bdf2718 2 years ago
dude, i feel you pain, once i was having a discussion with a theists and this idiot told me that the MAIN PROBLEM with modern society is that "the schools teaches kids to think in a logical way thats why you (me and everyone under 40) cant understand the bible" i really couldnt believe what i was hearing if you have to stop using logic in order to believe in something then you shouldnt! oh wait thats a logical argument, i must be wrong...sigh...you are correct logic is useless with this people
Kortosis 2 years ago
Exactly! You know precisely what I am talking about.
h8uall66 2 years ago
True. However, I did convince a born again Christian creationist that evolution was true.
BUT: it took many months of arguing face to face pretty much every day and they were fairly young AND I was their good friend.
I'm starting to think that it's fairly hopeless without similar conditions to those.
ubergossen 2 years ago
This quote might sum it all up for you lol
A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "Max Planck"
moety2 2 years ago
Excellent video with many excellent points.
In fact, it was so good that it just earned you yet another subscriber. :P
Thumbs up from Finland. Keep on being reasonable!
PuoskarinRuoska 2 years ago
I've never been a fan of vaccines, and i must say my distaste for vaccines could hardly be comparable to the ramblings of a truther or creationist. I don't particularity trust the h1n1 vaccine, mainly because of how fast it was put out, and the lack of testing for any long-term side effects. Thats a little different than huddling in my basement with a tin-foil hat afraid of "the man". Being sceptic over one rushed vaccine does not equal a religious faith.
thats my 2 cents. good video too. 5*
EricTheNihilist 2 years ago
Right, because most vaccines go through years of testing. Oh wait, no they don't. That's right, it's conspiracy nuts that are repeating the RUMOR that vaccines are tested for years and that the H1N1 vaccine was *rushed* even though it wasn't. Sorry, I'm just too skeptical to believe such non-sense. I suggest you abandon your conspiracy fantasies and try actual skepticism.
h8uall66 2 years ago
wow, what a condescending response.
but anyway.....
The entire h1n1 nonsense is almost all media fear mongering, I'd rather not waste my time getting vaccinated for a disease that hasn't infected more than a handful of people were I live. When I could actually get something useful like a flu shot, since the flu has killed many more people around here than h1n1.
But. honestly I don't really care all that much, but thanks for being an uncompromising asshole.
EricTheNihilist 2 years ago
You made an ignorant comment. Why would you be deserving of anything other than condescension?
h8uall66 2 years ago
I'm actually impressed how you could acknowledge being condescending In such an incredibly condescending way. good job.
Your still wrong about the vaccine though. the h1n1 vaccination is a secret government plot to implant you with a bio-chip so they can monitor you from there secret moon base.
seriously thought, why so butt-hurt about people who don't want to be vaccinated you'd compare them with truthers?
a distrust of the pharmaceutical industry is not a "conspiracy fantasy."
EricTheNihilist 2 years ago
The only reason to resist the vaccination for H1N1 is the simple observations that some folks (notably, oldsters who have received vaccinations in their childhood *for* a version of the virus) and those that suffer the flu (alone, mind you) become more resistant in the future to similar flu viruses. Resisting vaccination from distrust is poor risk assessment.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
"....I don't even consider you a human being..."
Much gratitude for posting this video, I learned quite a bit listening to what you have offered here. I can relate to the frustration of having this type of conversation. While it is true that we see these people/machines differently, I can relate to the unmet needs and painful emotions you expressed here. Cheers.
NLPNVC 2 years ago
you should be pointing out about how notfitforsociety points out the fail suggestion of voting democrat, as if that will stop war
chorizo1337 2 years ago
Well actually, if you follow from the arguments of truthers, then voting Democrat would stop the war, IF you accept their position. They believe that the entire war is a neo-conservative conspiracy, so of course getting them out of office would end the war. Again, IF you accept their position.
h8uall66 2 years ago
I DID NOT mean to one star your video...I meant to hit the play button and for some reason it scrolled down...I'm sorry about that.
exacerbatedtaboo 2 years ago
Hahahaha! It's ok my friend! You made a mistake. We all do! I forgive you! No harm done. I just hope that you enjoyed the video.
h8uall66 2 years ago
To an extent. There's some things I disagree with but for the most part it was pretty accurate.
exacerbatedtaboo 2 years ago
Great video. Keep it up.
tylerjamesstephens 2 years ago
Very good, video. Worth the wait.
whitefox998 2 years ago
Logic is religion repellent.
AtheosEthos 2 years ago
Your spot on, these people sit around inflating each others ego to the point that no solid argument can effect them. 9/11 trutheres have no solid position because the reason for the attack was evident, not only did the Alqueda take responsibility for it, but if you look at our history, we were bombing them just about everyday through the late 90's. Hell the day the columbine shooting took place we were bombing them. 9/11 was retaliation, and civilians paid the price.
KonanXIX 2 years ago
A very excellent and insightful video. I think your point about human beings running on emotion is absolutely spot on - truth matters to us only because we all instinctively know that knowledge is valuable. But for some, it provides great satisfaction and a sense of powerful consistency to believe that their 'knowledge' conforms perfectly to all their other beliefs and prejudices. Humans are also pattern-seekers, after all.
SkepticsClaw 2 years ago
One quick clarification: falsifiability is not the same thing as testability.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Good point Sisyphus.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Your parking meter analogy is spot on!
spikesmth 2 years ago
This was brilliant.....I have asked myself for a very long time how it was that *believers* could ignore very solid arguments that debunked their positions....and you've explained it in a way that made sense to me. They become so hungry to be in the spotlight as *the answer guy* that they cease to care about the question.
8journey8 2 years ago
Great video. Everyone has some kind of rationale for what they believe. People believe things that make sense in their world view. People also believe alot of things based on trust. I would say 99% of what anyone believes (even "rational" people) is based purely on trust (do you know when you were born? do you have proof?).
pkingo1 2 years ago
Good video sir. I agree whole 1000%. Thus is man.
WayOfTheBastard 2 years ago
It is not true that a person cannot be reasoned out of a position that they were not reasoned into. I know because having been indoctrinated into theism (specifically fundamentalist, evangelical christianity), I was reasoned out of it later in life.
ur2blind2c 2 years ago
good vid
CiphersSon 2 years ago
Anyone on youtube can say something similar along the lines what you just did and flip it. Using emotion, logic, having the feeling that they know it it's not a conspiracy as a form of comfort. Claiming to know by fact, generalizing or just giving an opinion how everyone that believes the governments story came to that conclusion. The word arrogant comes to mind. Doesn't matter which side you are on. To me, I really don't care about the 9/11 anymore. It's not going to change anything.
moety2 2 years ago
Interesting. In your vid you made a few statements that sound like facts. Perhaps you were just generalizing. You know, like saying all black people look alike lol. There lies the flaw if thats the case. Hopefully they are just your opinion. Anyway I guess I am a person that you would consider a truther. Whether you believe me or not doesn't matter but the way you describe people who came to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job doesn't sound remotely close to how it was for me
moety2 2 years ago
Well actually there is a way to test that. If I ask you "what would make you abandon your position?" and your answer is "nothing" then you are merely holding on to that position for emotional reasons. If you say "This particular type of evidence would make me change my position" and then I bring you that evidence and you just ignore it and refuse to change your position, then you are holding that position for emotional reasons.
h8uall66 2 years ago
That's making the assumption that what you consider evidence will be enough evidence and cover everything for the person in question. Another assumption is to say because they don't change their position is because it's an emotional one. Granted that does happen a lot from my personal experience but not enough to make it a statement of fact. While emotion is a strong and common reason it's not the only one and to put it forth like it is the only reason is another generalization.
moety2 2 years ago
the putting a quarter into the broken meter was the best analogy for debating i think i've ever heard.
C0ct0pusPrime 2 years ago
I want to make slow but hard love to you too.
h8uall66 2 years ago
*makes out with monitor (on paused frame of h8...)
C0ct0pusPrime 2 years ago
agreed, but I would state it as that the 911truther's have a messianic view of their own status. It's a calling, a responsibility.
AtheistCitizen 2 years ago
When I was a truther, I was argued into it... the I was argued out of it. So not all truthers are the same :P
Try not to stereotype people so quickly
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
When I was a string theorist, I didn't understand physics and now that I'm not, I don't understand it a little bit less XD
organdva 2 years ago
When I was a string theory I understood physics only a little bit. Now that I'm an 'M' theorist, I understand allot more xP
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
"Ridicule is he only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..."
— Thomas Jefferson
mchance27 2 years ago
putting religious people in the same category as these "truthers" is wrong.
dont forget, religion is faith based and goes back thousands of years.these truthers are looking for conspiracy in everything that happens today and i noticed you left atheists out of your line of fire.are you actually suggesting that all atheists are logical? within every group we see logical thinking...the opposite is true as well...dont judge those you dont agree with too harsh, isn't that the respect you would want?
stonedcommander 2 years ago
Note, stonedcommander, that you said "faith-based", and not "reason-based". I'm pretty sure that was h8uall's point. None of these ideas are reason-based, therefore they cannot be properly addressed by purely reason-based arguments. That includes religion.
Theophage 2 years ago
And skepticism (including atheism) is most indeed reason-based. That does not necessarily mean it is correct, but it is addressable by reason. If you want to convince an atheist he is wrong, you have to do it by reason; faith and emotion based arguments simply fail in that regard.
Theophage 2 years ago
o.k., but id bet the truthers think that they do have reason based arguments...
E.G. - fishy photos, no pictures of plane hitting the pentagon,etc....i personally think it was terrorists and not our government...if you want to convince a religious person that evolution is right then by your logic, theories aren't proof of anything.
stonedcommander 2 years ago
"id bet the truthers think that they do have reason based arguments"
Well, yeah I'm sure they do. But as h8uall said in his video, the difference between people who aren't really using a reason-based argument is that they ultimately retreat into a non-falsifiable position that no amount or kind of opposing evidence can touch.
Reason and evidence for them is just a veneer of respectability, not the core of their belief; they can't be reasoned out of it because they weren't reasoned into it.
Theophage 2 years ago
Wait a minute Stoney, I never said "religious people". As a matter of fact, I know I took great pains to specifically not offend religious people, as I know that I have many religious subscribers and friends, you among them. I believe I said "creationists," and by that I meant specifically the young Earth variety.
h8uall66 2 years ago
i believe you and am not offended...but to say creationists is a broad term...many,(like me), could misinterpret your meaning.
young earth creationists are grasping at straws on most of thier claims...dinosaurs on Noah's ark? fire breathing dino/dragon thingies...i made a video a while back on this...ill send it as a response since we are on the subject.
stonedcommander 2 years ago
This was very insightful, calling the irrational beliefs of these various groups religion.
One distinction that I would make is this: For something to be strictly religion it has to involve the belief in supernatural beings, whether it be a god or spirits or Xeno the cosmic warlord.
Other irrational beliefs, as noted in your video, might more properly be called faith based beliefs, where religion is just one subset of faith based belief.
SuperDaveBob 2 years ago
Um, OK let's lock swords for a minute friend. I fully admit to using hyperbole to describe the tactics used by cranks, but I disagree with your definition of religion. Does it really need to be supernatural to qualify as religion? I mean, clearly we both agree that Scientology is a religion, but as far as I know there are no supernatural elements to it. Let's discuss.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Good to see something new from you.
I think your right on the motivation thing.
TheOats 2 years ago
Yeah I know, it's been forever hasn't it?
h8uall66 2 years ago
Yes i have come to the same conclusion. I think they use it as an opportunity to build the illusion of self importance. However, it will not stop me. I take great pleasure in taking on the Creationists and cornering them into their non falsifiable refuge. Once i have done that, then i know i have won. Keep giving them the logical truth and eventually some (not all) will go away and actually think about.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
I don't think that debunking their arguments is necessarily pointless, I just think that trying to have a reasoned debate with them is pointless. They simply refuse to play by the rules. Of course, cornering them like you do is a fun and rewarding pursuit. You should keep it up. I find that it hones my debate skills and forces me to learn things I was unaware of. But don't ever fool yourself into thinking you are changing their minds. That was my point.
h8uall66 2 years ago
The Truthers will pick other Truthers theories to pieces. This is why there are so many different Truther groups out there.
The "holographic planers" the "robotic planers" the "planted explosivers" the "no victimers" and the "the hijackers did it, but Bush was behind it" ones.
One thing will get them fighting amongst each other. Asking them who did it, how they did it, and why they did it.They will tear each other to pieces if they do not agree.
dangerouslytalented 2 years ago
Keep us updated on how that experimental strategy works. Lately I've taken the tactic simply using these people to demonstrate to others how crazy and dishonest these people can be.
The best example of this is TheAtheistAntidote. There's no arguing with that guy - he doesn't give a fuck about facts and logic. But if I can hold him up and say, "look how dishonest these creationists are," then I think I've done my job.
Good video.
antybu86 2 years ago
I've seen all four in one person and they weren't poe's law, attention whores or trolls. It's during those times they wonder if the idioms "fact is stranger then fiction" or "there's a sucker born every minute" are too accurate.
Mephistophilus 2 years ago
Wow, all four in one!? What a fucked up human being!
h8uall66 2 years ago