General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

The CO2 has been disproven. That is where many skeptics differ. Rather than preceding warming....it appears that it follows. Cause and Effect is backwards, but Gore has never responded to this inaccurancy in his Nobel prize winning movie.

NOTE: started another thread, so as to not derail this thread.

I don't get PMs from Nawhead

Started watching Global Warming Swindle but got distracted by Philosophy and the Matrix: Return to the Source. Never knew youtube had so many cool documentaries.

I did

About the documentaries on youtube, and unfortunately the PMs from nawhead

Maybe I am gullable and take too many of them at purely face falue.

KONY 2012 perhaps a good example of how effective documentaries can be for people without much background knowledge?

with regards to this

it sure seems to matter to Acomb. he thinks the US Govt killed its own people. you tell him it doesn't matter. he's spreading this hate message and cloaking it in respectability and niceness. a bigot in a nice suit is still a bigot. i ain't falling for that noise.

Perhaps in your world a bigot means something else. To the English language speakers a bigot means this

A person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender.

While I disagree with the mainstream idea that the reality and entire full story is that terrorists were solely responsible for 9/11 (as in, the 19 Arabs did it entirely on their own, fooling the FBI, CIA, Mossad, ISI, overcoming the US military defence forces and NORAD) - I have repeatedly stated I do not care nor find it offensive if people choose to agree with the mainstream idea. I think that perspective is wrong, but I am not intolerant of those ideas, I just think that people who agree with the official theory are naive.

Out of the two of us, your behaviour and personal attacks makes you far more close of a match to that of the definition of a bigot described above.

Watch that movie. It made me a huge skeptic.

Here is the thing. Scientists that speak up get death threats, lose their jobs, etc. It is like saying there is no god in the Catholic church (or any other religion)

The main thing behind the cult........if you are doing a study on earthworms (pick your thesis).....all you have to do is say....I am studying the correlation between blahblahblah and GlobalWarming. Instant money.

I posted the video that impacted my thinking on the big scare. To me, it is just like the Y2K scare. Remember that? Lot's of people got rich off of it. I never believed that either. Laughed at the hotshot scaring everyone at our company. Boy, was he embarrassed. Planes were supposed to fall out of the sky. Yeah, right.

====
EDIT: Apologies for the derail. I was just having fun with the conspiracy talk. As much as people what to say it is a majority belief in GW, it is far from that. Not even close.
......... I don't mind starting another thread later on this, but let's not disrupt this other theme. Here is the URL again. I will pick this up later, outside this thread. No problem.
Full Movie is worth watching for believers and non-believers......Global Warming Swindle

So the answer is no then.

@Sneakers, just an fyi that I immediately discount your arguments (regardless of whether they are correct) because you use idiotic terms like "Pope Gore." You inject your emotions and personal opinions into arguments before anyone has a chance to debate, thus proving that any attempt to discuss things will be fruitless. I say all of this without knowing the first thing about global warming so I have no idea which side is right, but what I do know is that you look foolish when you argue like you do. I don't expect you to change as this is always how you've debated in the past, but I thought that I'd let you know. You usually have some quality information to portray, but unfortunately it gets hidden in your emotional diatribes and I just say F it when it comes to reading your stuff because you just come off as crazy lol. Contrast your style with the measured responses of many others in this thread and you'll see a major difference.

What temco said.

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.

Going back to page one. If we re-read this discussion from start to finish, well, frankly we actually start off quite friendly, we mostly remain friendly throughout, then about two thirds of the way through it becomes some what offensive, now hopefully we can bring it back to an open rational discourse. The name calling and mud slinging isn't doing anything to actually come to an agreement between anybody.

I hope we can agree on this: There has been enough controversy surrounding this event that in order to put this baby to bed, an open, follow the money, who was accountable for 'fuck ups', 'failure of imagination', 'incompetence', 'negligence' investigation should take place, that answers all of the family members questions. There can be no fairer than that.

As an aside, what I am quoting you saying is precisely the kind of thinking I want to highlight. About a little over a year ago ae911truth (architects and engineers for 911 truth) had about 1100 members, now they stand at around 1700, thats about 50% increase in a year or so. Are people getting 50% more 'nuts' every year, or are more architects actually stumbling upon the evidence, saying 'well, that doesn't match anything I have ever seen before nor correlate to any of the hypothesises presented by the government'?

Saying 'yes, there are over a thousand architects and engineers who disagree doesn't mean anything, because there are about 1,000,000 engineers in the world who haven't said anything, therefore those questioning the event are in the minority and hence wrong' Is a nonsense argument. The only on record architects or engineers who agree with the US governments account are either US government employed or their magazine (popular mechanics) heavily invested in by the same people who run the whole show. Follow the money please.

Let's make it simple and do some basic investigation. Let's go to the source. Your source of information is from a government who has been caught lying and not giving two fucks about the average person from about everything from katrina, Iraq, the housing bubble, enron, insider trading, the economy, the patriot act, the bill of rights, hell even online poker is a target. My source of information is saying, wait "That's high school math, how could anyone figure it out."

It's fine to disagree, but saying I'm nuts simply won't cut it as a reputable form of argument any longer, as you know you're only kidding yourself by making such claims.

KONY 2012 perhaps a good example of how effective documentaries can be for people without much background knowledge?

one who does not learn from mistakes is doomed to repeat them. and i seriously doubt you're sincere in this acklowledgement anyway and probably still think KONY 2012 is spot on.

Perhaps in your world a bigot means something else. To the English language speakers a bigot means this

A person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own or intolerant of people of different political views, ethnicity, race, class, religion, profession, sexuality or gender.

I have repeatedly stated I do not care nor find it offensive if people choose to agree with the mainstream idea. I think that perspective is wrong, but I am not intolerant of those ideas, I just think that people who agree with the official theory are naive.

Out of the two of us, your behaviour and personal attacks makes you far more close of a match to that of the definition of a bigot described above.

i am very much willing to accept that i am bigoted towards stupidity, especially arrogant stupidity. you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a devotee of illogic, avoidance, and mind-numbing repetition (the very tactic that misattributed Goebbels quote warns of). you continue to show no remorse for your actions, and you continue to spew the same nonsense verbatim even after many others other than myself have pointed out your tactics.

you may have fooled some people in your time with your endless ramblings, but you can't fool everybody all the time. play the victim card as well if you want, but you will get no such sympathy from me. you've used up all the graciousness i give to the merely ignorant.

nawhead, I'm sorry but I have to laugh at you. What you are saying about me is nonsense. If you feel I am an idiot, please debate me in a public live podcast regarding this, and prove it. Your thinking is entirely flawed and you trying to paint a picture of myself as a loon is amusing.

You may consider yourself a bastion of truth and logic, slaying all dragons, but frankly you have now made yourself look stupid. This is an open challenge to you. You are trying to insinuate I am stupid for questioning a government that has refused to answer questions that all of the victims family members have asked..

I will accept any time.

The battle is on. This IS SPAAAAAAAAARTAAAAAAAAAAA

you think this is a pissing contest? this ain't a pissing contest, fella. this is your education, and you are failing.

Far from it. You have done nothing but hurl insults and slander for the last umpteen posts. I have issued you an invitation to an open discussion several times. It isn't a pissing contest, nor did I set out to seek one. This is your OP after all. Please accept.

No, SCS. They are not both equally valid.

I do think that the arguments for 9/11 not being a 'goverment job' are better then the arguments of the conspiracy-side. I just don't believe you can say 'no, it's 100% not possible that it was a goverment job', or 'no, it was 100% a goverment job'.

We cannot prove a negative. I can't prove that unicorns and Chthulu don't exist, only asserts that their non-existence is likely because no unicorn (nor Chthulu) has been observed in this reality.

It would be disingenuous to ask this to non-believers. We shouldn't have to prove there was no conspiracy, but those making the positive claim should present evidence with a significant threshold of reliability: Extraordinary claims necessitate extraordinary evidence, and the null hypothesis is that 9/11 happened because of Al-Qaïda agents conspired and acted upon their conspiracy as free agents, with Saudi passports, with the intention to kill as many Americans as possible.

Does that mean that governments never secretly conspire against their citizens? Absolutely not, there have been noted conspiracies in the past. Governments and politicians lie and sugarcoat the truth to make it palatable to the body of citizens. However nothing has been showed that conclusively demonstrate that 9/11 is an inside job, and like I wrote earlier for such a big conspiracy the fact that no one with a faint of remorse, humanity, or degree of intoxication went public about it suggests a lot, as circumstancial evidence, on whether there was even a conspiracy.

So drakken, the change that we don't know the full truth about 9/11 is equal to believing in unicorns?

1)Extraordinary claims necessitate extraordinary evidence.

2)the fact that no one with a faint of remorse or humanity went public about it speaks a lot, as circumstancial evidence, on whether there was even a conspiracy.

1) True. none has been provided yet. And I am talking obviously about the extraordinary claims that the government is making. The government wants the population to believe that 19 arabs with box cutters with no help from anyone else, took down a 500billion $ per year industry, fooling all intelligence agencies in one fail swoop. They also want you to believe that buildings pulverize themselves through themselves too.

2) There have been dozens. John O'neil. Susan Lindauer. Sibel Edmons. Col. Shaffer... I have quoted them all previously in this thread. Top level experts.

Infact, please read this book http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X - (infact don't - just look for some negative reviews on amazon and reconfirm your assertions based upon those previously unknown reviews.) it is much more detailed and acurate than I can actually be/be bothered to be at this point.

So drakken, the change that we don't know the full truth about 9/11 is equal to believing in unicorns?

A) You think of it in binary terms. That we don't know the full truth about 9/11 doesn't mean that there was a criminal conspiracy by Washington to murder as many Americans as possible. It's not and/or here.

That we don't know everything there is to be known, remains that the "criminal" theory is quite less extraordinary than the more mundane hypothesis of conspiring to hide incompetence, oversights, and mistakes made in counter-intelligence, counter-terrorism, and the defence of US soil, which allowed thousands of Americans to die gruesomely when they should have been safe. Hence the extraordinary evidence threshold.

B) Yes, in such that until evidence is showed it is a belief. I may show you a horn that I assert was sampled from a unicorn without confirmation, it's just an assertion until I show you the unicorn and the DNA test.