"Truther Top 20 Jewish Self-Victimization Examples" on InfoGalactic - join to contribute

submitted by JasonCarswell from infogalactic.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Do you consider the Dancing Israelis getting arrested or Mossad living 100 yards away from some of the hijackers in Florida to be something resembling decent evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mosdef.

They didn't do it alone, but they were key.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

No. No, I don't. With the wealth of information out there, arbitrary observations can be selected to support any hypothesis.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

How is action and facts discovered by US law enforcement an arbitrary observation? Finding a van with bomb making materials and residue seems pretty relevant to me.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

All it means is that the person wanted to make a bomb. It doesn't mean they blew up the Holby City hospital at 4:37 PM, or whatever. Lots of people want to commit acts of terrorism. Fewer follow through, and fewer of those succeed. That doesn't mean people in the first category are automatically in the last ­– just that you have reason to suspect them (and can arrest them for the former if that's illegal).

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Well law enforcement certainly suspected and arrested both the dancing Israelis and around 200 Israelis posing as art students. Motive, opportunity, evidence...

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Law enforcement suspected and arrested them… for something else. I don't see how that contradicts what I'm saying.

And it is an arbitrary observation. Look, here's an example.

Look, you can cancel fractions by removing duplicate digits, like this:

16   1
-- = --
64    4

Proof:

19/95, 26/65, 49/98…

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

You sound like MarTim.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Sorry; that sounded more coherent in my head. But you do see what I'm saying, don't you?

There's a wealth of good evidence – enough to argue any way if you really want: if you start from a conclusion you'll be able to find all sorts of impressive evidence to back it up, and that won't change the truthiness of the conclusion!

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

No.

Also, you're not informed. It's not truthy. It's fact. Watch the 9/11 videos.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

"Truthiness" is programmer slang for the truth value of something, i.e. whether it is true or false. Sorry! I forget that not all well-informed, interesting-to-talk-to people are hackers. (I should get out more.)

Also, you're not informed. […] It's fact.

I'm not watching the videos, because that'll interfere with my approach. Currently, I've got two assertions, that 9/11 was caused by two different groups; I need to find a way to distinguish between the two. And the way in which I will do that is to come up with several tests, not knowing the answers beforehand, writing them down, then researching them myself. I'll do that when I've got time; I don't at the moment.

But I don't appreciate people forcing a set of views on me. I don't want to be "informed" by anyone but myself, or someone I trust to give me verifiable evidence. So what if I get to the facts later than everybody else? I'll be fairly certain that I'm right, instead of simply believing that I am, and what's more I can demonstrate it to other similarly-thinking people and they can critique my method. Slow and steady and rigorous wins the race. (Though it's a bit trickier if I assume that evidence can be falsified; I'll have to work through a method for that first.)

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Dude, you're tech savvy but you don't seem to have much truther knowledge.

Did you even watch any of these? : https://saidit.net/s/SaidItSurveys/comments/9hi/saiditsurvey_how_to_gently_red_pill_newbie/lav

The Corbett videos have transcipts on his site you can read if you don't like videos, but the images help. Also YouTube has a less than great auto-transcription.

If you haven't you're not on the same page. You don't have to agree with any of it, but you have to at least know what's being put out there - the good, the bad and the ugly - to discuss it.

Laws don't matter to those above the laws.

Seriously.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I continue to insist that I am not interested in politics.

Anyone who says they are not interested in politics is like a drowning man who insists he is not interested in water.

— Mahatma Gandhi