General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

[The following is an extension of a PM I sent to Acombfosho concerning 9/11. Nazis and creationists will be mentioned. If the DC mods think this is in bad taste, feel free to lock and/or delete.]


If we understand a process, we can ask the right questions.

People aren't as endlessly manipulable and prone to evil as we assume at times (listen to the real Stanley Milgram experiments starting @ 8:20):
http://www.radiolab.org/2012/jan/09/

Evil is a learned response. It has religious and philosophical roots. It doesn't just randomly happen because someone in power wants more power. If we understand why the Nazis did what they did, we can then see if the same environment for socializing an evil mindset is happening to people in the U.S. government who would be complicit in plotting or letting other people attack their own people.

If we can't explain how not only the leaders, but the ground troops actually setting up demolitions who are complicit in performing the evil acts are rationalizing and defending their acts through some belief in a greater good, the inside job theory does not make sense.

Acombfosho, you believe you're performing a greater good by spreading the alternative theory of 9/11. You're willing to make sacrifices, namely your public reputation, in order for a greater good. This is very basic human nature. Strong beliefs want to propagate. I also believe I'm doing a greater good by steering people away from bad thinking, and I want to spread my message as well.

Terrorists have strong beliefs, and they want to spread their message to others publicly. The Nazis had strong beliefs, and they wanted to spread their message to others publicly.

But if the alternative theory of 9/11 is true, now we have a group of people with similarly strong beliefs who choose to hide in secrecy and subterfuge and false flags. This is a very big problem for the alternative theory as it contradicts what we know about basic human behavior.

Also, according to the Stanley Milgram experiments, the ground troops who are part of the conspiracy need to be convinced of this same belief that killing thousands of fellow citizens will be for a greater good or else they will not follow orders. An obscure policy paper for a new American empire is only of academic interest. Something like that doesn't make Joe in Bravo Company want to blow up fellow Americans. In order to inculcate such a belief, there has to be visceral media, songs, TV, magazines, things the common man can understand. And even more importantly, once they believe in such a thing, they will want to spread that message to even more people because they believe it's for a greater good. I don't think even FOX news is this bad yet (but i could be wrong since i never watch it).

And aside from the detonation crew, we're forgetting these other people who need to be part of this conspiracy:

-The Bush Administration
-The NYC Fire fighters
-The courts
-The NYC Police department
-The NYC port Authority
-All the people in the Pentagon
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this.
-The media
-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers
-Popular Mechanics
-PBS Nova
-Everyone in the NIST
-NY Governor Pataki
-The NY city scrap yards
-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire.
-Structure Magazine
-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why? No clue...
-The CIA
-The FBI
-FEMA
-The American Society of Civil Engineers
-NORAD
-The FAA
-The Silverstein Group
-Silverstein's Insurance Company
-American Airlines (Pentagon)
-United Airlines (Pentagon)
-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport
-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology
-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)
-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)
-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology
-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings
-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover
-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)
-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)
http://debunking911.com/massivect.htm


The most defensible alternative theory of 9/11 imo would be a shadow group whose only action is to funnel money to terrorist organizations to disrupt and manipulate nations. It requires the least micro-managing of events where there are mishaps and witnesses. Everybody other than the shadow group just does their normal thing, no socialization or secrecy needed. They attack us, we attack them, the military-industrial complex profits.

But this shadow group still has the problem of not acting like human beings because they do evil things only because it's evil. Or, if they believe what they're doing is for a greater good, they keep it to themselves or in obscure policy papers. So we can only know of their existence through the evidence of their evil machinations. Deities also use this tactic. Seemingly all powerful, invisible beings who for some unknown reason choose to only leave clues rather than spread their message personally.

These invisible puppet masters, neocons, illuminati, whatever you want to call them, they're just another version of God.

"To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with the natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behaviour on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress."
- Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1941)

this was a very well thought out post

Cool post. Very right on many levels. It's probably more likely that I've been mistaken the whole time than that there was a grand conspiracy. My head just can't get past the WTC7 building. Everytime I watch it 'collapse' its like doublethink.

I don't want to believe it. But I do.

Finally, I aint coming up with anything original. This isn't something I cooked up one night while on acid. Many prominent people with great expertise and experience are the ones who have influenced me to decide that something was not right about 9/11. The least I figured I could do after seeing the evidence was share the information so that others who then choose to look into it can decide if they do or don't think anything off hand occurred.

If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine, if you agree, great. Either way, free discourse about anything at all is what's most important. So long as the tone is respectful imho.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/ The opinions aired on this site by experienced professionals swayed my choices. I hope this thread doesn't get closed simply because it's a controvertial topic!

Diary: How to Improve the World
(You will only make matters worse).

—JOHN CAGE

I hope this thread doesn't get closed simply because it's a controvertial topic!

doubt it will, both of you are actually playing pretty nice even thou you two disagree, and frankly its healthy to have disagreement that is respectful.

By your quantification of "evil" do those who demonstrate these tendencies during this process actively know they are doing evil actions or is it something that slowly manifests producing a backwardness within a given society? I have a question for you. If a civilian populaces was under a government who they deemed to be treating them unfairly (i.e. lack of democracy) would they be justified in rising up and fighting against the government/ good behavior (establishment) or would this be seen as an act of terrorism/ bad behavior?
Not to derail but I'm just trying to gauge if you feel good vs. evil is a set in stone notion or if it can be seen as situational based.

[
And aside from the detonation crew, we're forgetting these other people who need to be part of this conspiracy:

I agree with all of your points but this part . Just because they were affected by the conspiracy doesnt mean they had to be in on it for there to be one.

now the theory of the myth of Al Qaeda has a logical consistency. amazing documentary. thanks for the link.

The Power of Nightmares Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave

http://patriotsquestion911.com/ The opinions aired on this site by experienced professionals swayed my choices. I hope this thread doesn't get closed simply because it's a controvertial topic!

trying to qualify a belief system through the occupations of its members is just an appeal to authority. such a tactic does not prove anything other than that normal, intelligent people who hold skilled jobs can also simultaneously hold onto fantastic beliefs.

and there may be 1500 engineers and architects who believe it was a controlled demolition, but then if we don't count all the other engineers and architects all over the world who don't believe it was a controlled demolition, we're not getting the whole picture. if you believe in things based on numbers (which isn't good either), "everybody else" is a lot more than 1500. so that's a lot more proof for the conventional explanation.

By your quantification of "evil" do those who demonstrate these tendencies during this process actively know they are doing evil actions or is it something that slowly manifests producing a backwardness within a given society? I have a question for you. If a civilian populaces was under a government who they deemed to be treating them unfairly (i.e. lack of democracy) would they be justified in rising up and fighting against the government/ good behavior (establishment) or would this be seen as an act of terrorism/ bad behavior?
Not to derail but I'm just trying to gauge if you feel good vs. evil is a set in stone notion or if it can be seen as situational based.

so according to the Milgram experiments, anybody can do any bad thing if they believe it's for a greater good. people don't suddenly become psychotic; they can still recognize right from wrong. even tho they consciously know what they're doing is wrong, they feel they have to do it, want to do it because it's the only way to be good in that situation. or, iow, if they didn't do the bad thing that has to be done for the greater good, they would be acting cowardly/selfishly/badly.

justification is relative. i'm sure the people rising up would perceive it as justified, but those in power would surely perceive it as terrorism.

I agree with all of your points but this part . Just because they were affected by the conspiracy doesnt mean they had to be in on it for there to be one.

i guess it depends on what magnitude of conspiracy we're talking about. there seems to be a wide range of opinions on it.

And aside from the detonation crew, we're forgetting these other people who need to be part of this conspiracy:

I think this is a little bit to simplistic. And I think you are forgetting that some people don't really need to believe in something in order to do it. Example:

Woman wants to see her husband dead. She hires a killer who kills her husband. Does the killer need to believe that it is good for the woman to have a dead husband? No. He is doing it for the money.

I think this happens way more often then we want to believe. Think about the financial collapse, Powell giving "information" about the massdestructive weapons of Saddam Hussein to the UN, Nayirah, etc etc etc

I don't want to say it was a conspiracy or that it wasn't. I'm just saying that if people want something to happen and they have the power to do it, they will try to make it happen.

Nothing is good/evil or right/wrong, these are simply labels made up by us.

Nothing is good/evil or right/wrong, these are simply labels made up by us.

Ding, Ding ding we have a winner. These are terms that society has created to prevent citizens from carrying out deeds that the state views as wrong. Whether they are right or wrong is not relative as they keep people in line and make society not fall into a state of chaos. There lies the problem other countries and societies have other ideas on what is right and wrong i.e. in Middle Eastern countries honor killing is a justified act. Does this make this act evil? By our perceived standards for right and wrong yeah it's. It all comes down to perception whether or not someone is viewed as a terrorist or a freedom fighter. With the perception mattering most in that of international governments that can deem these acts "legitimate or not".

Moral relativism and scepticism start to hit a brick wall when you talk about rape though. Or killing babies.

I don't know if it can fit as I really don't know if any given society would deem rape as something okay/ justified. From what I understand of rape when it's more less used in discussions of war as a technique that allows the attacker to impose their will causing the victims to be considered less in their eyes or dehumanized as was the case during World War 2 with the Japanese in China. If it were in theory considered okay to rape someone within a given country, I guess people wouldn't know any different their as it would be seen as a societal norm. This doesn't mean that outside interference could happen changing their views. With any of these acts that outside countries may try outside state intervention to prevent these acts from being carried out as universal norms are.

now the theory of the myth of Al Qaeda has a logical consistency. amazing documentary. thanks for the link.

The Power of Nightmares Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave

there's some nice parallels between the tactics of the overzealous prosecutors in the domestic terror cases to the tactics of alternative theory proponents.

a videotape of a trip to Disneyland becomes a scouting mission, a momentary pause on an trash can becomes a coded signal, missing structural evidence means they're trying to cover it up, a phrase from a public speech is a coded message, not acklowledging an accusation means it was too close to the truth, the fact that we can't find them means they're masterminds at hiding, that their power and web of influcence is more powerful than we can imagine, everything unseen is possible, and no evidence becomes the ultimate evidence.

I think this is a little bit to simplistic. And I think you are forgetting that some people don't really need to believe in something in order to do it.

what the Milgram experiments are trying to explain is how ordinary people can do extraordinarily bad things. i don't know much about assassins other than what i see in movies, but it would be interesting to understand how they're socialized and what kind of belief systems they use.

or they could just be sociopaths. but killing other people without state sponsorship or a higher belief wouldn't be a very lucrative or safe occupation imo, so i don't know why they would choose it simply for money.

I think this happens way more often then we want to believe. Think about the financial collapse, Powell giving "information" about the massdestructive weapons of Saddam Hussein to the UN, Nayirah, etc etc etc

but sociopaths in the financial sector seems much more plausible. American Psycho is an awesome movie.

still, if they intended to collapse the system and compromise their own industry and job security, i'd classify that under incompetence and hubris and not evil for the sake of being evil.

as for Powell, he admitted he made a mistake. i guess people will always suspect him of outright lying, but that's more a personal judgment call. he seems like a sober, thoughtful man to me. maybe i've been fooled.

Moral relativism starts to hit a brick wall when you talk about rape though, eh? Or killing babies.

No, when I say nothing is good/evil or right/wrong, it's absolute, so trying to argue that some circumstance may merit one of these labels is pointless.