A Great 9/11 Debate (C-Span 04/2/12), page 1

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 30-4-2012 @ 08:23 PM by thisisnotaname

I'm not one of those posters that says alot of things but I do know what a good debate is:

YouTube Link

edit on 30-4-2012 by thisisnotaname because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 08:28 PM by headorheart

reply to post by thisisnotaname

Can you summarize or possibly highlight the parts your found most interesting. I don't want to spend 20 minutes of a hour and 40 minute video to decide I do not want to watch the video.

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 09:08 PM by thisisnotaname

reply to post by headorheart

Nobody summarized it for me and I saw the whole thing. I don't like spoiling things. It'll be like you were there and watched it all happen live!

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 09:35 PM by DrEugeneFixer

reply to post by thisisnotaname

Sorry, bro, but that's too long of a video to ask people to discuss intelligently on this forum: by the time people have time to watch this whole thing, the thread will be buried, most likely.

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 09:38 PM by psikeyhackr

Debates are rubbish. I just listened to Johathan Kay for a while skipped thru it to random places They talk about the Romans and the Chinese like that has something to do with the physics on 9/11. Kay claims he asked people when they joined the Truth Movement and claims most didn't until 2003 because of not finding WMDs in Iraq. He says that made people suspicious of the government.

I haven't joined anything but I figured after two weeks that airliners could not completely destroy skyscrapers that big.

I didn't hit any discussion of the physics in my samples.

Kay is playing the same psychological association games in this so called debate that he does with his book. Where Obama was born has nothing to do with the physics of 9/11. He is just trying to paint all conspiracy crap together.

Debating Newtonian physics 43 years after the Moon landing is pretty ridiculous.

psik

edit on 30-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-4-2012 @ 11:30 PM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by thisisnotaname

Sorry, bro, but that's too long of a video to ask people to discuss intelligently on this forum: by the time people have time to watch this whole thing, the thread will be buried, most likely.

That is too long of a video to expect people to watch. And what I did watch of it was not worth the time.

That is one of the problems with this info and BS saturated society. You have to spend hours wading through garbage to find 10 minutes of stuff that is worth the time. That is the primary basis of the 9/11 snow job. I often think the game is being played from both sides of the debate.

psik

edit on 30-4-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err

edit on 1-5-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 05:53 AM by psyop911

reply to post by thisisnotaname

jonathan kay? i remember that douchebag. debunker, right?

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 06:23 AM by Six Sigma

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by thisisnotaname

jonathan kay? i remember that douchebag. debunker, right?

Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait, e.g. treating an attractive person as more intelligent or more honest. People tend to see others as tending to all good or tending to all bad. Thus, if you can attribute a bad trait to your opponent, others will tend to doubt the quality of their arguments, even if the bad trait is irrelevant to the arguments.

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 08:49 AM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by thisisnotaname

jonathan kay? i remember that douchebag. debunker, right?

I have not heard or read him debunk anything. He just assumes the OS is true and then plays psychological games ridiculing all conspiracists as though not thinking what proper authority says is some kind of mental problem.

psik

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 08:55 AM by homervb

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by thisisnotaname

jonathan kay? i remember that douchebag. debunker, right?

I have not heard or read him debunk anything. He just assumes the OS is true and then plays psychological games ridiculing all conspiracists as though not thinking what proper authority says is some kind of mental problem.

psik

You know how it goes around here bro, anything that anyone has said pertaining to the search for truth is a douche bag nutjob who spouts nothing but lies. That's how the OS troops see it.

This is what they defend

Despite the lies that are contained within:

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon (Washington Post) We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

reply posted on 1-5-2012 @ 08:34 PM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by homervb

You know how it goes around here bro, anything that anyone has said pertaining to the search for truth is a douche bag nutjob who spouts nothing but lies. That's how the OS troops see it.

This is what they defend

Despite the lies that are contained within:

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon (Washington Post) We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

I watched some more of the other guy supposedly debating Kay.

What the hell does post-modernism and deconstructionism have to do with it? This "debate" isn't about 9/11 it is about what other people say about 9/11 and say about supposed spin-offs of 9/11. This is even dumber and more of a waste of time than the Chris Mohr versus Richard Gage debate.

It is like we are in a bury the issue with stupid drivel phase until it can be swept under the rug.

psik

reply posted on 5-5-2012 @ 10:27 AM by YetSharkproof

The length of the debate video? That is why there was valid points getting through with both sides, really.
Who objects that?

reply posted on 5-5-2012 @ 01:15 PM by psikeyhackr

reply to post by YetSharkproof

What valid points from either side? Please specify the time.

psik

reply posted on 6-5-2012 @ 05:24 AM by YetSharkproof

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Quite at the beginning, there was talk about editors pushing to the Pulitzer Price, and about the hope and future of investigative journalism. Is the incentive there or is it not? Also there was critique about linking blogs after each other, causing the original investigation as the source of information to go missing. These are valid points, and I like the other side to be tough, that´s the way to go! I might look the whole debate again soon.

reply posted on 6-5-2012 @ 09:25 AM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by YetSharkproof
reply to post by psikeyhackr

Quite at the beginning, there was talk about editors pushing to the Pulitzer Price, and about the hope and future of investigative journalism. Is the incentive there or is it not? Also there was critique about linking blogs after each other, causing the original investigation as the source of information to go missing. These are valid points, and I like the other side to be tough, that´s the way to go! I might look the whole debate again soon.

Then your idea of valid points is not about what happened on 9/11 but about what people have done since 9/11. What is this "DEBATE" really about then? The psychology created by 9/11?

psik

reply posted on 7-5-2012 @ 03:07 AM by YetSharkproof

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Sure. Mr. Kay has studied the truth movement, and I welcome any good findings. There should be healthy self-criticism about the methods in use. As the debate itself, it was surprisingly reasonable.

reply posted on 7-5-2012 @ 09:53 AM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by YetSharkproof
reply to post by psikeyhackr

Sure. Mr. Kay has studied the truth movement, and I welcome any good findings. There should be healthy self-criticism about the methods in use. As the debate itself, it was surprisingly reasonable.

I don't have a problem with that. But don't call it a debate about 9/11.

It is a debate about 9/11 psychology or the 9/11 decade. It is not about what happened on 9/11.

And I think it is mostly to just further muddy the waters.

psik

reply posted on 7-5-2012 @ 12:07 PM by hooper

reply to post by psikeyhackr

have a problem with that. But don't call it a debate about 9/11.

You're right about that.

It is a debate about 9/11 psychology or the 9/11 decade. It is not about what happened on 9/11.

I would say its more about social psychology. There is no debate about what happened on 9/11.

And I think it is mostly to just further muddy the waters.

Actually the water is pretty clear. Its just that some folks insist on standing in the mud and then wonder why everyone swimming in the lake thinks everything is OK.

reply posted on 7-5-2012 @ 12:37 PM by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then your idea of valid points is not about what happened on 9/11 but about what people have done since 9/11. What is this "DEBATE" really about then? The psychology created by 9/11?

The more I read this post, the more I realized this is actully a valid question. The real debate really IS about the psychology created by 9/11.

Years of Hollywood movies have trained people to believe that the culprit the detective is initially investigating of a crime is never the actual culprit, but rather a culprit hidden in plain sight and the revelation of the crime always leads to some plot equally as dramatic as the crime itself. It's not just a gold smuggling ring, it's a drug smuggling conspiracy among the South African Gov't ("Lethal Weapon"). It's not just an epidemic, it's really a secret biological weapon developed by the military ("Outbreak").

Look at what's going on here- there are people who simply can not wrap their heads around the idea that something so dramatic and global reaching as the 9/11 attack could have been pulled of by something so simple as a bunch of imaginative islamic fundamentalists, so they insist it was REALLY conducted by some dramatic and global reaching culprit working toward a plot equally as dramatic and global reaching as the 9/11 attack itself (the gov't, Mossad, secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists, S.P.E.C.T.R.E., or whatever). Even when presented with evidence that shows they're wrong, the truthers will go back to this psychology and insist there are all these armies of secret agents planted throughout all walks of life who are working to cover up the secret plot.

This of course has nothing to do with the C-Span debate...but it does shed light on what's instigating the debate on C-Span to begin with.

reply posted on 7-5-2012 @ 01:29 PM by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Then your idea of valid points is not about what happened on 9/11 but about what people have done since 9/11. What is this "DEBATE" really about then? The psychology created by 9/11?

Look at what's going on here- there are people who simply can not wrap their heads around the idea that something so dramatic and global reaching as the 9/11 attack could have been pulled of by something so simple as a bunch of imaginative islamic fundamentalists, so they insist it was REALLY conducted by some dramatic and global reaching culprit working toward a plot equally as dramatic and global reaching as the 9/11 attack itself (the gov't, Mossad, secret cults of Satan worshipping numerologists, S.P.E.C.T.R.E., or whatever).