ANZACs and war and stuff

[Edbear]

Are you kidding me? You're all still arguing over this ???

[/IMG]

LOL!!!

[Katman]

Are you kidding me? You're all still arguing over this ???

Is it a sense of needing to feel you're a part of something that keeps you coming back?

[Ocean1]

Yeah, I read it - I just don't agree with it.

I certainly didn't have a belief first and then start looking for evidence.

It was exposure to the evidence that led me to start questioning the official story.

Yeah, the single most important aspect of scientific enquiry: look first, then describe, then postulate. Get that wrong and nothing else is worth shit.

One of the problems with your claim that you were disinterested before you saw the evidence is that, like it or not you’re pre-disposed to want to believe some things. And the very first thing that your brain does on seeing such evidence is to start shaping “reality” around what it wants to believe is true. It’s not actually a conscious decision, it’s not under conscious control, it’s not even consciously perceptible unless you're trained to see it happening.

It’s instructive to observe the general belief patterns of individuals and the extent to which they'll go to defend them, including quite literally failing to see contradictory facts.

[Katman]

Yeah, the single most important aspect of scientific enquiry: look first, then describe, then postulate. Get that wrong and nothing else is worth shit.

One of the problems with your claim that you were disinterested before you saw the evidence is that, like it or not you’re pre-disposed to want to believe some things. And the very first thing that your brain does on seeing such evidence is to start shaping “reality” around what it wants to believe is true. It’s not actually a conscious decision, it’s not under conscious control, it’s not even consciously perceptible unless you're trained to see it happening.

It’s instructive to observe the general belief patterns of individuals and the extent to which they'll go to defend them, including quite literally failing to see contradictory facts.

To me, that sounds more like those who believe the official story. They do so because they want to believe it - because to question it is far too scary.

Considering a version other than the official one is not done simply because one wants to belief a different version it's done because one wants to find the truth.

(And besides, I'm somewhat skeptical about those who claim to "know all about brains and how they work").

[Edbear]

In exactly the same way that those who believe the official story do so because they want to believe it.

It's far less scary than questioning the official story.

(And besides, I'm somewhat skeptical about those who claim to "know all about brains and how they work").

And some of us just post the facts that are provable and base their opinions on those. Others completely ignore them and refuse to acknowledge them at all...

[Katman]

Given your predisposition to believe in fairy tales Ed, your unquestioning support of the official story is hardly surprising.

[Edbear]

Given your predisposition to believe in fairy tales Ed, your unquestioning support of the official story is hardly surprising.

You keep harping on about "the official story". How about simply addressing the facts as presented? Not your strong suit, though is it?

Lets try the direct approach. Do you believe it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon? Or do you believe the conspiracy theorists and their so-called qualified experts that it was a missile?

Do you believe it was passenger planes that hit the towers, or do you believe the conspiracy theorists and their so-called qualified experts that they were military jets?

[Katman]

Lets try the direct approach. Do you believe it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon?

I haven't seen adequate proof of it yet.

Do you believe it was passenger planes that hit the towers, or do you believe the conspiracy theorists and their so-called qualified experts that they were military jets?

I believe planes of some description hit the towers.

[Katman]

Lets try the direct approach.

What are your ideas on this page?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ted-ols...l-denials/8514

[Maha]

I believe planes of some description hit the towers.

State the obvious, isn't every plane (or indeed anything else for that matter) ''of some description''?
Even toothpaste is ''of some description''. You need to be more specific, rather than being vague.

[oneofsix]

What are your ideas on this page?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ted-ols...l-denials/8514

That it is a load of crap massaged to give credence to a conspiracy theory. But thanks for sharing anyhow as it further shows how you selectively use you reasoning.

[Katman]

That it is a load of crap massaged to give credence to a conspiracy theory. But thanks for sharing anyhow as it further shows how you selectively use you reasoning.

So Ted Olson claims to have had phone conversations with his wife but the FBI claim there were no such conversations and you don't find that odd?

[oneofsix]

So Ted Olson claims to have had phone conversations with his wife but the FBI claim there were no such conversations and you don't find that odd?

This represents the issue I have with all your "evidence"

he evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Now the FBI were checking calls from HER phone, which failed. He reports earlier that the call was collect. The FBI aren't commenting on calls to him but the report implies they are by saying he did not receive a call from his wife when what is really said is no call was made from HER phone to him. Quite reasonable that she used someone else's phone to make a collect call to him.

Off you go now and fish around in the site to find other mis-leading quotes that will allow you to present and alternative arguement

[Katman]

Now the FBI were checking calls from HER phone, which failed. He reports earlier that the call was collect. The FBI aren't commenting on calls to him but the report implies they are by saying he did not receive a call from his wife when what is really said is no call was made from HER phone to him. Quite reasonable that she used someone else's phone to make a collect call to him.

Yes, there's so much that relies on speculation.

[scumdog]

Thought I'd pop in for another look.

Nothing has changed!

But by now I have forgotten what the story was..

Is it that rabid hijackers took control of planes and crashed them into various objects?

Or is there some sort of other interpretation on what happened???