to see the world with a rational eye
How to distinguish between true conspiracy theories and false ones
Last September, I was confronted by a Canadian "truther" from the movement striving to reveal the "truth" regarding the September 11 attacks, after a lecture I gave at the University of Lethbridge. It turned out that he was a professor at this university, named Anthony J. Hall, and he brought one of his students to film the "confrontation". The very next morning the video went online, edited and accompanied by music, illustrations and side clips in such a way as to present me as a deluder (search YouTube for the words Michael Shermer and Anthony J. Hall). "Sir, you are not a skeptic on the subject, you are gullible," Hall raged. "We see that the official conspiracy theory is not credible... It is clear beyond any doubt that the official story is a disgrace and a disgrace, and people who cooperate with it, like you, and mix it with the whole Red-Alien thing, are doing it to undermine trust, and they are shaming and dishonoring [the academy] and the university". Hall teaches globalization studies and believes that the events of September 11 are another event in a long series of subversive actions that those in power have taken to suppress freedoms and control the world.
Conspiracy theories are as common as a commodity in the market. On the same tour of Canada, a politician in Calgary told me that he thought the fluoridation of drinking water was the biggest public fraud ever. Others delighted my heart for hours with their breathtaking stories of who really was the killer of President Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jimmy Hoffa, and Princess Diana, in addition to tales of the criminal conduct of the Central Bank, the New World Order, The Trilateral Committee, the Council on Foreign Relations, "Skull and Bones" - the secret society of Yale University, the Knights of the Temple, the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Rothschild and Rockefeller families, and the Elders of Zion. Madison Square Garden would have to be called out to get everyone together for a world control conference.
However, we cannot simply dismiss all these theories, because sometimes conspiracies do exist. Instead we should look for signs that a particular theory is probably incorrect. The more of the characteristics indicated here, the more likely it is to assume that it does not have a solid foundation:
1. The proof of the conspiracy supposedly arises from a pattern of "connecting the dots" between events that apparently have no causal connection. When there is no evidence to support these connections other than to blame the conspiracy itself, or when the evidence is equally consistent with other causal connections, or with coincidence, the conspiracy theory is probably not true.
2. The agents behind the conspiracy pattern must have almost superhuman strength to carry it out. Humans generally don't come close to the power and strength we assume they have.
3. The conspiracy is complex and complicated and its success depends on many factors.
4. Similarly, the conspiracy involves a very large number of people who must keep the secret. The more people involved, the less realistic the theory becomes.
5. The conspiracy includes within it a great ambition to control a nation, an economy or a political system. And if the theory implies global control, it is even less credible.
6. The theory evolves from small events that may be real to much larger, less probable events.
7. Conspiracy theory attributes an ominous and threatening meaning to events that are apparently innocent and unimportant.
8. The theory tends to mix facts and hypotheses without distinguishing between them and without attaching to them a level of plausibility or degree of truth.
9. The theorists are indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, a trait that suggests a lack of ability to distinguish between real and false conspiracies.
10. The theorists refuse to consider other explanations, reject all contradictory evidence and blatantly seek only evidence to support what they have pre-determined as truth.
The fact that politicians sometimes lie or corporations occasionally cheat is not evidence that every event is the result of an insidious conspiracy. In most cases, things just happen, and our brain connects the dots and creates a meaningful pattern from them.
Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com) and author of the book "Why People Believe Strange Things". He blogs at BigQuestionsOnline.com.
94 תגובות
FreeStinker:
Read a logical answer to your claim here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Search for the word BBC
to the dark:
Do you really not see the difference between a state trying to make a mess of its enemy and a state doing it to itself?
Do you not understand the difference between a handful of secret-keeping spies and a huge conspiracy involving the US government, airlines, the US military, several broadcast networks, construction companies, fire brigades and …… bin Laden (by his own admission)?
And here - despite all the differences - the matter was revealed!
Sweet dreams
My father, you make me laugh!!!
I won't go into the depth of how "scientific" the site is, but your next sentence: "Now the TV companies are also members of the conspiracy?" I burst out laughing, especially after I remembered an amazing segment that was broadcast on the BBC, maybe you also happened to see it live?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo
Decide if you are a clown or a scientist, you can't wear both hats.
So you think that a country cannot be involved in mock terrorist attacks (pulse-flag), in order to achieve political agendas?
For your information, the Israeli government tried to do to Egypt what the shadow government managed to do to America.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A1%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A9
And this is an operation that has been exposed.
Think about those who have not been exposed...
Ran:
I have read and seen many claims of the conspiracy enthusiasts and I am convinced that they are all nonsense.
so true I didn't read everything - there is a limit and at some point you form an opinion and decide to devote your time to other topics.
The criteria for detecting false conspiracies presented here in the article are good, in my opinion, and actually quite trivial.
Good. I have to finish.
And thanks for the article.
I will end with a testimony of a person who was broadcast only once in live time and never again
(He hasn't watched TV yet, so he hasn't been brainwashed yet).
Look how he corrects the media's staged interview (the studio is actually interviewing their own man who acts like he's just a bystander)
Listen carefully to what the witness says
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcxx4GF_53g
There was no plane - there was a bomb
Didn't see or hear an airplane that is supposed to scream and be heard all over Manhattan at a speed of 500 mph at this altitude.
Why ?
Because there were no planes in the events of 9/11 as proven in the television broadcasts and the "amateur" photographs
Just as you attached a link to a 313-page document that I doubt you read a single page of.
Thus I attached a counterargument.
For both of us this nice game is clear.
Now to the heart of the matter:
All you have to say is "nonsense" without refuting a single fact in the entire course of comments.
You even state that you have not watched the arguments and their basis.
Saying nonsense without seeing the data - does not give anything either way.
However, at the same time, no one points a gun to your head and forces you to watch.
You are not interested in watching the material - don't watch.
This is your full right.
Ran Levy:
I didn't read it all.
There are more important topics to me that I haven't read everything about.
I choose what to read logically and I don't read the kind of nonsense you send in depth.
Of course you don't read them either, but that doesn't stop you from saying you did. That's why you need interpretations to whitewash the nonsense you wrote earlier.
I read the entire introduction. And I watched Mackie's entire confrontation with the engineer.
What about you ?
Maki is indeed a charlatan (as he was in the confrontation). Therefore, there is a reference to the evidence in his document and not to the hot air that Maki adds to his arguments (a classic straw man method).
As stated in the introduction to the document I linked:
For this critique I use an organization that departs from both that of Griffin's chapter and Mackey's article, in order to bring the focus back to the core issue: what caused the swift and total destruction of the World Trade Center. Mackey's long-winded article, like most reviews professing to debunk the case for controlled demolition, conceals that issue by redirecting readers into a bottomless well of exaggerated details and a variety of fallacies that depart ever further from the core evidence that speaks to the question at hand.
Another important issue is this - how the NIST scientific investigation conference plastered and fabricated its report.
Luckily we have an inside witness.
After the attacks, an independent research laboratory named: Underwriters Labs was hired to find a mathematical and structural model that would explain the collapse of the buildings as a result of the fire.
All the laboratory's attempts, whether with computer models or with physical models, to create an artificial collapse of steel structures using the data they received from the government, were unsuccessful.
Beyond that, all their physical attempts in the models to cause the structure to collapse failed even under much higher temperatures and heavier weights.
Kevin Ryan, a chemist and manager who worked for the company, wrote a letter to one of the heads of the investigative committee, in which he wrote that the fire did not cause the weakening/collapse - and in response he received a letter of dismissal.
Here he reveals everything step by step:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urs14eAaFcM
I know I refer to a lot of material to watch.
But the above two links cover two key layers to the 9/11 event:
1. What didn't happen?
2. What did happen.
Ran Halevi (response 81):
You must have read the entire document you voted on in response 81.
That's why it's quite surprising that you claim that it has an answer to every issue from the Mackey document when he himself writes the following sentence:
This review is not a comprehensive critique of Mackey's article. If it were it would be a sizable book
If there is something worth sitting on at length - in my opinion
This is the Russian officer's presentation. (I was wrong, I didn't put a link)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAV_BUQoGBw
Of course why not?
I assume you have read all 313 pages of Ryan Mackie's document -
And knows every detail, otherwise you wouldn't refer to him.
You will be happy to know that there is an answer to every subject from the document here
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html
Ryan Mackie makes a lot of smoke and behind it - all lies in scientific and fiction.
If you watch the interview of the Russian officer that Shlomi1 linked to (I also watched it)
You will also see why the US government tries so hard to hide the truth and sends people like Maki.
Ran Halevi:
I don't usually argue with wooden boards.
If you point out something wrong in that analysis - fine - but just saying he's lying is pointless.
Try to add a picture of Maarom Bar Refaeli - on its realistic scale.
Maybe then it will work.
I added a photo of the pile of rubble - on its realistic scale.
But the WordPress system refuses to approve it for some reason
Were the fires in building 7 large?
There are pictures - several floors of burning office equipment, that's it. Does it bring down a building? bullshit
Hellfires and for 24 hours never brought down buildings.
And indeed a steel building conducts and dissipates heat beautifully.
It's not just that hundreds of firefighters sign a petition about this lie
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469
Building 7 didn't fall straight down.. ok.. sure
no shame tell me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5my_VMMog
Well Ran Halevi it seems there is no limit to the lies you and others spread here.
1) The fires in building 7 were large and if you had bothered to read the testimonies of the firefighters who were in and around the building instead of spreading lies you would have known that.
2) The building did not turn to dust as you can see in the photos of the ruins:
http://www.debunking911.com/barclay.jpg
3) The building fell with a tendency towards the north and not "straight down" as you can see in the picture above.
And those are three lies from just one sentence of yours. And the building was built with steel cores, which only harmed its resistance to fires because metals are vulnerable to the effects of heat. This is why the new building 7 is built with concrete-coated beams.
Machel
I know the surgery and Ryan Mackie.
What did Bruce say to me? A wooden board does not strike back
If you want to grow up
You are invited to watch him face off in a televised match against an engineer from the Association of Architects and Engineers regarding Building 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE
Ryan Mackie is another liar who throws sand in our eyes - but it doesn't work in front of an engineer.
Ran Halevy and John:
It's easy to see that you didn't read the answers we gave to all the nonsense you posted, so there's no point in adding and answering you.
If you ever want to grow up, you are invited to read the analysis that is colored by comment 57.
There is no mystery????
Migdal Shalom (but built with steel cores) falls straight down and turns to dust from small office fires lasting a few hours on several floors?????
There is no limit to lies
1200 architects and engineers expose the lies about building 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl9Up2JiC7A
The BBC is not to blame - someone cheated and sent the controlled explosion message to the press too early.
There is no mystery about WTC7. The building was damaged by the collapse of the northern tower and large fires broke out in it. The firefighters knew about the damage and realized that the building was in danger of collapsing and evacuated the area and informed the media. Reports of this appeared in the various media, the BBC made a mistake and instead of announcing that it was about to collapse, they got confused and announced that it had already collapsed. Such mistakes happen a lot in chaotic events like September 11.
The promoters of the conspiracy theories ignore the testimonies of the firefighters and those who were in and around the building who tell about the great damage caused to it because it destroys their fantasy.
A good summary (although from 2007 so it's not always up to date) of the lies of the conspiracy theories and firemen's testimony:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
Just like a star was born, the big brother and other series that wash the viewer's brain and turn it into pulp.
This was also the case with the live footage of the planes during the events of 9/11
In retrospect, I also believed what they told me on TV, who didn't?
A review of the live footage reveals the deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gujn4jMGgIE
We need to raise our voice and demand the truth be revealed.
On the contrary, my father
I was taught in school and in the army that aluminum does not penetrate steel.
Do you think the military uses tungsten and depleted uranium shells to penetrate armor or aluminum shells?
These reactions only show the wretchedness of the education system in Israel, which is unable to bring out critical people in a minimal way.
So of course they messed up in a big way with the image of the plane's penetration live as you can see in the clip above.
It's nice to see how they even create the illusion of a plane hitting the other shots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWZyXRuz1Uk
Shlomi forgot the proof in the knowledge that these were not real planes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
Look at how the media tried to hide the information in the above clip every time (and failed)
in the video called
foxed out
All I've seen in the comments here is Shlomi giving an argument and bringing very convincing evidence and the deniers only get red in the face - but fail to refute anything except blasphemy.
And when will you listen to logical arguments instead of listening to blabbermouths in all kinds of video clips?
You want to believe quacks, do it on the sites of quacks like you and leave the others here alone. By the way, there is a rumor that it was flying spaghetti that brought down the second tower, but they hurried to cover the tracks with the help of Godzilla, a huge fork and a lot of ketchup! Google it.
color,
What can I do, and I guess some others here are also a bit busy and with all the interest and regret that we won't invest 1:12 in the first film and another 1:45 in the second film. So I suggest that if you are really interested in bringing to the attention of the website surfers new claims beyond those put forward by Shlomi and others, which were not really convincing, that appear in these lectures, summarize and write them briefly.
There may be inaccuracies and minor problems in the official story and there are contradictions that may arise from the multitude of sources and witnesses. However, even if the official and accepted story is not accurate, I have no doubt that the alternatives you present, which include the explosion of nuclear facilities in the heart of New York, massive falsification of the planes, fake calls, the Kursk submarine, and more and more are far-fetched and illogical and infinitely more problematic than the story of the kidnapping by a terrorist organization Moslem.
I'm staying put until the answers are given. This is not a matter of faith or blind adherence to some point of view. I wish I was wrong, I wish these were some fanatical Muslims who knew how to fly a Boeing in a way that professional pilots don't. I wish, as an Israeli, I just want them to prove it to me, but it seems that you are the
Debunkers
Luke has the same phenomenon that you attribute to others: a desire to believe in something, in a myth. Those who want to get an impression of why this is a myth, are welcome to listen to the following lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXw3jJ3021o
color:
In short, and to the point, all the answers to the nonsense have already been given, but you are on your own.
In short and to the point, just watch the following documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078#
Despondent 43 I understand your heart, Calot Bull.
It really doesn't look like I'm fine1,2,3,4,5...
(Or all the skeptics that pop up on the site like mushrooms after the rain, J)
They came to the website for a discussion, it seems that they are here to promote an agenda (only a link to their website is missing)
I don't understand why science gives a platform to all those agendas
I read with great interest the arguments between Avi, R.H. and Michael against Tamir and Shlomi. Also in other articles.
The idea is this: as soon as you give the agendaist a platform, he will withdraw his doctrine and you are only helping him by doing so, because after each response of yours that is supposed to end the debate, the agendaist pulls out more content and information.
Attempts at persuasion are irrelevant here because the agendaist does not come to be convinced, he comes to present his wares...
In conclusion, I suggest to the site of the scientist to open a new banner with the title "The Proveer"
And there to throw discussions as long as the exile such as
Agendist: There is a God…
The vindicator: No, there is no God
Agendist: I have proof that Exists…
The prover: No, I don't have proof that. Does not exist
Agendist: 4 million believers
The proof: 4 million don't believe
Agendist + Funz Lane: Go to my website, whose name is a lie, whatever it is, and the name is blablablabla...
Peace be upon you, get rid of all the salt shakers you have at home!!!
The General Intelligence Agency uses WTF technology to hear everything that is said in every house that has salt in it and in general it is known that salt itself is a hard hallucinogenic drug that is used by the regime to control people (look what happens in Libya to people who ate salt), if you don't know it yet, the reason is Because of government agents (you know them as scientists) who are glossing over the truth.
First of all, you have to wear magnet bracelets on your hand so that with the help of the metallic life energy, they cancel the effects of the salts, and then you have to drink 4 highly diluted Rescue Remedy!!!
Don't believe the insulters here in the forum, this is a government forum, pay attention to the "name" of the editor - my father!!! Reverse the name and you get an import - it's amazing!!! It really means preachy!!!!
I'm already tired of all those sages at night who are sure that if they saw something on TV it means it's real!!!
Enough! wake up people!!
Even the BBC broadcast the fall of a building 7 minutes before it even happened!!
Why would he fall in the first place? After all, nothing hurt him!!!
You want to claim that there is no conspiracy???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk&feature=related
you don't want to believe- you are sleeping!!
And for those who want a little more serious information:
http://jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
Shlomi
I don't have time for bullshit.
I told others that you were indomitable and found myself dragged into an idiotic discussion of a collection of publicity-seekers and liars.
Sweet dreams.
איציק
But an aluminum plane can penetrate 6 walls (3 rings) in the Pentagon and leave
A nice round hole in the last wall, yes?
By the way, the first wall was just renovated to be protected.
And the twin plane penetrates steel beams even at the tips of its wings!
Shlomi, look how a crashing plane looks and "melts"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM
Or is this also part of the conspiracy?
Machel
The site you are referring to is knowingly lying.
He cites the alleged cell phone conversation between Attorney General Ted Olson and his wife.
that the FBI claims in the Mousavi trial was for 0 (zero) seconds.
See the interview with Griffin.
Even the FBI has started changing versions because the cell phone story is sordid.
They later changed the version that instead of 15 cell phone calls there were only 2 and the rest from air phones.
But all the important stories (kidnappers, Japanese knives, etc.) were from cell phone calls.
What's funny is that the woman who supposedly received a call from her husband on Flight 93 - the number identification service showed her it was from his cell phone - even though the FBI later says it wasn't.
Lies on top of lies.
Here is Professor David Ray Griffin talking about the fiasco of cell phone calls in an interview with the CBC network
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjImLL4NnwA
Another thing about the hallucination about cell phones:
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
Shlomi:
This is worthless nonsense.
Why do you think cell phone calls were banned on airplanes for many years before 2006? Is it because they were impossible?
Your willingness to accept rubbish theories and dismiss any logical claim is really amazing!
The cellular antennas on the ground are also sufficient for an airplane, when it comes to flying over a networked area. Not over the ocean.
L.N.C
Obviously, version 2 is the correct one. Did the man "by chance" pass just as the woman arrived at the door of the house? Has anyone checked if one of the links in the chain was not half opened so that it would tear easily? Were the North Koreans not ready to do everything to obtain a neutron bomb? Is it a coincidence that the aforementioned agent recently joined Kadima? When Tzipi Livni "discovers" in the upcoming elections that the one who saved the world is a member of Kadima, will she not win the elections? Isn't it Tzipi's lifelong ambition to become prime minister?
you are welcome ! ! ! ! ! The simple explanation is not always the right one.
Hello from Kal.
I actually ended my participation in the topic (due to a request)
But if the conversations from the plane were already mentioned as a punch line -
No one asks how they made cell phone calls from 35000 feet to tell about the hijackers?
The flight altitude of the plane is known and there were conversations even before it disappeared from the radar.
The technology that enables cell phone calls from the plane was introduced only in 2006.
And the most famous conversation of all is proven false
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1akmBKXPdU
Arguing with Shlomi is futile.
I guess you've seen that he's invincible.
He shows films with a mixture of images and sounds and claims strongly and without any substantiation that they contradict the true story.
He must also have a story about the company that managed to overpower the hijackers of one of the planes and just killed themselves when they made the plane dive towards the ground.
R.H
My father gave me a hint earlier that I should stop and I don't want to feel uncomfortable here.
So this is my latest addition.
If this plane looks real to you (compare with other photos of a Boeing 767 in flight)
And how it "melts" into the tower including wing tips and tail (59 steel beams on each side of the tower) -
Suitable for the world of physics.
So we disagree.
Also look at the comparison between the other amateur photographs - what contradictions between the photographs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-X90gXF4rQ
Regarding the Pentagon:
We know exactly the location of the camera (it's not a secret)
We know exactly the location of the hole in the wall (it's not a secret)
We know exactly the size of a Boeing 757 (it's no secret)
We know the direction of the flight according to the official version (it's not a secret)
The scale is simple to calculate.
Shlomi 1,
As for the plane in Gemini, maybe I'm ignorant so please enlighten me what's wrong here?
Regarding the plane in the Pentagon, I understand that whoever made the video is a great expert in how a plane entering the Pentagon "should have been shown". I wonder where such expertise can be acquired?
Arguing with a believer in irrational conspiracies is reminiscent of trying to prove to a paranoid that he is not being pursued ("You are trying to convince me that I am not being pursued because you are also part of the conspiracy, the part that wants to harm my vigilance").
In short, those who know a bit of the logic of skeptical philosophy know that even trying to prove on a sunny day is good for a psychotic stubborn who claims that it is now night, that he is wrong, lost in advance.
At a certain point one realizes that the fight is against psychosis and not against real arguments.
Perhaps it is possible to ask according to Popper's principle whether there is some kind of fact that would motivate him to change his mind. If there isn't one, then M.S.L.
But that's not what you see in the photo they released.
This is what you see (the original photo):
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer/pentagon_strike2.gif
where is the plane
I will also give the most non-conspiratorial example of a lie
If a passenger plane did hit the Pentagon - the photo that the Pentagon was kind enough to release in 2006
And only after a legal threat, it had to look like this:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer/pentstrike3.gif
to delete any possibility of accusing the administration of lies.
R.H
Watch a famous amateur shot posted on CNN in Slow Motion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDfbm8OhCg
If I were to show you this without all the emotional baggage of 9/11
What would you say about this photo? You see here the Rottweiler of N.C. ?
A short story with 2 explanations for what happened:
A man is walking down the street and sees a Rottweiler dog tearing its chain in the garden of a house, jumping over the fence, attacking an old woman passing by in the street
and tears her apart.
Explanation A for what happened: a rottweiler dog broke a chain and attacked a woman in the street
and killed her.
Explanation B: The dog belongs to the American intelligence, a silicon chip has been implanted in its body, which by pressing a button in the most secret wing of the Pentagon can give an electric shock to the left part of the brain (the dog's, of course), this causes the dog to go crazy and attack the first person it sees. The old woman who walks by is not old at all, she is An agent of the North Korean intelligence, who met with Vanuno and received from him the formula for a neutron bomb, which is 629 times more powerful than a hydrogen bomb. She was on her way to the airport on her way to Pyongyang.
The "man" who saw it is none other than our informant F. Tzatz (49) the number one Mossad agent who was specially summoned from a top secret mission in Tehran - there he became one of Ahmadinejad's bodyguards - his job was to call the Pentagon as soon as the "old woman" passed by the house The Rottweiler dog is tied there, and given the command to press the red button that will send the electric shock to the dog's brain.
By the way, the Rottweiler is not a dog at all, but the "Tasmanian Devil" that went extinct about a hundred years ago, but the Pentagon managed to clone one individual especially for this task.
Now guess which version the aforementioned Shlomi will believe.
Shlomi 1
Indeed, the theory of Muslim terrorism is completely unfounded, after all, who has heard of such terrorism? Much more likely is the terrorism of the Freemasons or members of the New World Order. After all, they are the ones who also blew up the buses (or did they plant nano nuclear charges there?) and they are the ones who threw stones at me in Nablus and they are also the ones who fire Qassams from Gaza.
And what exactly makes Adon Kozlov a Jew and a Jew whose every word is in the rock?
Shlomi1's mistake is simply that the real conspiracy is that there never were twin towers at all, and all the legends about Ground Zero is the Bush administration's conspiracy to have a sophisticated pretext to take over Afghanistan and Iraq.
And all the photographs 4 Shots and the testimonies of these media people are the real sophistication that at once creates a conviction in the ignorant crowd that there were ever twin towers and they were shot down, as if by airplanes but actually by Russian nuclear warheads from the Kursk submarine.
And now go prove that there never were twins.
R.H
Ockham's razor distinguishes between explanations that can fit the evidence in the field.
The theory of Muslim terrorists - does not fall into this category at all
And among all the other theories as to why it really happened
Ockham's Razor - points to Kelsoub's version.
I agree with you about the public factor.
Shlomi 1,
Ockham's razor distinguishes between two explanations for the phenomenon, simple and complicated. And I will demonstrate: a Muslim terrorist attack is an accepted and common thing in our places. On the other hand, an attack by the organization of the world's richest people with handshakes, symbols and rituals of small children who obtained a missile from a sunken Russian submarine, jammed a plane into the live broadcasts of all the main television networks in the USA, deceived the whole world and blew up 3 radiation-free nuclear facilities in the middle of Manhattan is a scenario that even in the 24 series they would reject it because it is not realistic.
Do you understand what Ockham's razor is?
Regarding training or mistrust of the American public? Since when is this a factor for truth? They also believe that baseball is a fascinating game or that a plastic bun with a dirty hot dog is the glory of cooking.
And more about Ockham:
In connection with what former Mossad official Viktor Ostrovsky tells us in the link I provided earlier:
Which is more correct according to Ockham?
that the Libyans are terrorists who accidentally revealed details through the communication systems about their plans to carry out attacks
And the Americans picked up the transmitter.
או
The Mossad wants to make the US act against Libya - sending navy ships to the international border
And sends elite units to put a Trojan charge that transmits on the frequency of the Libyans - a charge that if discovered explodes?
And so it works on the Americans, etc.
If the Libyans told you that - you would laugh at them out loud and say... no shwein
But the Mossad officer tells you that he was a partner in this operation.
R.H
How about Ockham's Razor - when the evidence in the field goes completely against your hypothesis?
(see response 4)
Bin Laden even declares that he is not connected, 5 days after the attack - even to him it is clear that it is a conspiracy
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US
Regarding what Yosef said - I don't know if the majority, but a significant mass:
A survey by the Zogbi company in 2006 showed that over 70 million American citizens have the right to vote
They do not believe the official version, suspect that the government has some kind of involvement and are interested in opening a new investigation.
Yosef:
And what about logic?
filled in the incorrect factual claims (isn't it true that the majority of the public in the US think like psychos) but what about the logic?!!!
How can it be claimed that a person with a common sense who knows that there is no difference between religions and sects would claim that a myth does not reach such dimensions if it has no concrete foundation after he spoke in the same paragraph about the religions which are a myth that took on much larger dimensions without concrete foundation?
And by the way - the myth you are trying to defend has no basis and certainly not a massive basis.
Guys it's been 10 years since the twin disaster.
Let's not ascribe meaning to whether it's Laden or Bush, slavery means that the majority of the US public believes that the government was involved in the disaster in one way or another, whether directly or indirectly.
I think that any person with a common sense who knows that there is no difference between gods and demons and between religions and cults can understand that something is wrong here, after all a myth does not reach such dimensions if it does not have a concrete basis, and in this case there is a massive basis.
And for dessert: who would have believed that the USA conducted human experiments throughout the sixties and seventies? After all, only a crazy and delusional loony could come up with such a crazy conspiracy.
Search YouTube for MKULTRA PROJECT
Shlomi 1,
The story becomes super simple and very logical?
So let me tell you a story a little simpler and a little more logical. A Muslim terrorist organization that believes that the US and capitalism are a danger to Islam decides to damage its symbols. As targets he chooses the World Trade Center, the bastion of capitalism, the Pentagon and the White House. He trains about 12 pious friends who are ready to commit suicide (how surprising? Martyrs? What? Can there be such a thing?) with simple and cheap means of flight lessons and simulators. These guys get on planes with Japanese knives and hijack them (how surprising? They did this throughout the 70s and 80s only a few dozen times) and fly them towards the targets. The one intended for the White House is smashed by the passengers in an open field, the rest succeed .
So what is more likely? This scenario? Or a scenario that includes three nuclear warheads, Mike Harari, Kursk, 4 biased TV networks, 42 photographers, no plane, missiles, on the day of the crash, on the day of the phone calls, on the day of the movies, on the day of the photos, Freemasons and Bildberg?
Classic Ockham's Razor
The "testimony of the "Russian officer" could be bought for less than a hundred thousand dollars... but what do the spreaders of the conspiracies earn? They sell books
For intellectuals like the one above, they are interviewed on all television channels, invited to debates and lectures, become celebrities and famous.
By the way, just today I watched a program on the National C channel in which several "experts" appeared
who brought "proofs" that the pyramids were built... by the inhabitants of Atlantis... and where
Did the inhabitants of Atlantis come? They were aliens. One of the experts even knew from which star constellation they came here about 12 thousand years ago... Ahhhh I forgot another important "fact": the image of the children of Atlantis
Appears on the walls of one of the Mayan sites on Yucatan Island.
And something that I think will sharpen an element that makes you wonder:
How do you manage to make the enemy not see that planes have penetrated without the entire radar array not suspecting that anything happened?
For example, the attack on the nuclear reactor in Syria.
What didn't the Syrian technicians see that their computers were being electronically penetrated?
R.H
A. Not tons of bombs - but 3 nuclear charges under each tower. which were placed there back when the towers were built in the 70s as a civil emergency destruction mechanism. (According to the testimony of the Russian officer - who says this is a known fact to the Soviets at the time of signing the nuclear disarmament agreement with the Americans in the XNUMXs)
B. I am not wrong - 4 small shots 1 in each network. That's it, there are no more live broadcasts. (Go to the link and see)
C. Not thousands of photographers, but exactly 42 amateur photos.
D. Regarding why planes - I can only speculate:
There was already an attack in 1993 at the base of the towers - it turns out that the effect was not enough.
The real 9.11/XNUMX operatives knew about the civilian nuclear destruction mechanism under the towers - and looked for a way
get the americans to run them.
And most importantly - they wanted the American public to be in fear.
Remember the words of the Canadian professor "subversive actions done by those in power to suppress freedoms and rule the world"
Suicide planes that bring down towers to ashes - scary enough, isn't it? To be ready to give up freedoms - just give me confidence...
As soon as the testimony of the Russian officer comes in - the story becomes super simple and very logical.
Shlomi 1,
You really didn't convince me. Beyond the fact that, as Avi Blizovsky wrote, we all saw it live and 1000 times in rebroadcasts, there is also a small problem of plausibility here.
Let's try to think how many people should be involved in the operation as you suggest and what powers they should have.
A. Planting tons of bombs in the Twins - that is, bringing trucks full of explosives and scattering them in a very intelligent way so that the tower collapses on itself and all this without anyone noticing - dozens of people for several weeks to months.
B. Fake a live broadcast at 4! The largest networks (and here I think you are wrong and there were many more, but it doesn't matter) - do you have any idea how many technicians and television workers are involved at any given moment in the broadcast? - Dozens of people who are not "security" people but chatty journalists who were very happy to expose conspiracies
third. Convince thousands of amateur photographers to fake photos. Just google images on the subject and you'll see how many there are. Are they all fake? - Dozens of "convincing" and hundreds of "convinced"
third. And let's say it's true, why was all this enormous effort and taking the crazy and sure risk of being discovered necessary? It was possible to simply plant charges and release evidence that a terrorist organization was taking responsibility. You could come and claim that a terrorist organization fired a missile into the buildings, it would have been no less effective. Why did you take all the effort to convince everyone that there was a plane????
Does that make sense to you? Leave all the conspiracy sites and think for a moment by yourself. True, it is terribly tempting to believe in all these conspiracies, but what can you do, sometimes life is a little simpler.
My father and all the other normals on the science site. Why are you even bothering to answer all kinds of idiots, delusional, and conspiracists, who believe in "x-rays"
Abamists and other evildoers.
After all, there are quite a few people who believe (wholeheartedly and with "proofs") in what they read in the coffee, that there was no moon landing. "X-ray" really has special powers (he's certainly not an idiot. As evidenced by the half a billion NIS lying in his account)
That at the bottom of the Bermuda Triangle there is a base of UFOs, that there is heaven, that there is hell, that 72 virgins are waiting for each "martyr", that God split the Red Sea, that Muhammad ascended with his horse to heaven, that Jesus is the son of God and more and more...
For every rumor and every conspiracy, no matter how delusional it may be, there will always be idiots like one of the commenters here who will fanatically believe in any such nonsense.
Why should such people not be treated at all? There is a proverb in Arabic that says: "If you had to throw a stone at every barking dog, the price of stones would be like the price of gold."
My dear father
Well done - you are the one who published an article about conspiracies.
And I think I responded in a matter-of-fact manner.
Anyway, I see you've applied Goodwin's law to me
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A7_%D7%92%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9F
I understood the clue.
Friends, there are irresponsible websites that publish all kinds of nonsense, the science website only publishes things that happened, and it cannot be that after ten years they will suddenly say that there was no terrorist attack, no wonder there are holocaust deniers, because it happened 70 years ago. And maybe there were no pogroms in Chisinau because they happened in 1905 and we weren't born yet.
Besides, you referred to American television. I doubt if this is true, although the television workers are also human, but what about the Israeli tourists who were there and talked to the Israeli radio stations? Including a Knesset member who saw the plane that hit the Pentagon and reported it a few hours later on the IDF airwaves. Are the IDF waves also part of the conspiracy?
Do yourself a favor, go to the conspiracy sites and leave the science site to report the reality as it is and not to doubt things that cannot be doubted.
Hello my father.
I agree with you - I also saw the plane hit the tower... on TV.
And we are all sure that planes did hit because there is a myth that thousands of witnesses saw it live around Manhattan.
But in reality (documented) eyewitnesses on the street - everyone says it was not a large commercial plane
Either it was a rocket or a small Cessna plane.
The only ones who did say in TV interviews - it was found that all of them were not just passers-by but TV employees and their number is not large.
I don't think the entire station was complicit in the fraud - but certain people certainly were.
They spread the idea that a plane had obviously hit - and from there the rumor spread.
After all, people in the studio just watch the broadcasts as well
Why would anyone suspect just like that that it's not true?
Here is a nice example of what I mean:
A phone call to a photographer from the helicopter who supposedly took one of the live pictures of the plane hitting,
Says I didn't see the plane (!) - and you can clearly see the plane in the photo
In general, he sounds very afraid to talk about the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YREMxZRx090
I also agree that the evidence should be treated from a scientific point of view - go to the links I brought to R.H.
The pictures are fake. Why who and how is a separate question. But the fact of forgery remains the same.
The science site is a scientific site and thus it refers to reality as it happened. I don't know how old you were 10 years ago, I was already close to 40 and I specifically saw on TV the second plane hitting the tower. This is not Hollywood. Now the TV companies are also members of the conspiracy?
Surprisingly:
It's a myth that everyone/most said they saw a large commercial plane hit Migdal.
The only people on record who said they saw a commercial plane hit are people associated with the corporate media.
The multitude of private individuals' testimonies describe 19 different things, all but a large commercial plane:
http://septemberclues.info/faq_4.htm
And the technology to introduce spoofing into a live broadcast is being implemented commercially as early as 2000
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/when-tv-brings-you-the-news-as-it-didnt-happen-728236.html
R.H
I apologize for having to contradict you, but there are only 4 shots in the live footage.
And one of them has such a blatant fake.
You'll see:
http://www.septemberclues.info/wtc_airplanes.htm
Shlomi 1,
Look, I don't have the tools or the information to deal with most of the claims you make, but for at least one I know you are definitely wrong. You claim that regarding the second plane there are "only" four television networks that broadcast live its entry into the building. Do you know how many events in the world were filmed by four networks at the same time? I think not much. Another point, I don't know if you remember, but after the first plane thousands of poor New Yorkers and hundreds of millions of poor poor people followed the first smoking tower and suddenly in front of the wondering poor of us all the second plane emerged and entered the second tower. Do you think there was a way to fake it? In 4 broadcasting networks (and I think many more..) at the same time?
You may claim that something planned or caused it, but there is no doubt that a passenger plane entered the second twin building.
R.H
You can hear him interviewed by the website and Trans-Today regarding his relationship with Harari on a radio station from a few days ago, and get a personal impression here:
http://eddieleaks.org/barrett-khalezov-duff/
R.H
You did not understand me correctly, or I did not explain well:
The Russians have nothing to do with 9/11.
And not to the State of Israel.
As the Canadian professor knows - behind the scenes there are influential factors that steer the geopolitical processes. (Bildberg CFR, etc.)
According to him, it's not that the entire Mossad was involved, but elements from the Mossad and the French intelligence agency - you can call them rogue elements, responsible.
Former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky describes the lack of control over the Mossad:
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/libya.html
Regarding the planes - do you know that there are only 4 flights of the second plane, one on all four networks that broadcast live?
All the rest came later from "amateur" filming.
Do you know that most witnesses say they did not see a large passenger plane hit the twins? But something Keto like a rocket or a Cessna plane?
According to Kalzov, Mike Harari was indeed taken to a court in Thailand by the American authorities (there is documentation and case numbers) - but they suddenly let him disappear under a false name.
Illusory or not - the evidence in the field supports the officer's version.
In addition, do you think that if this were the correct story, the counter blow would have fallen on Afghanistan and Iraq and not on Russia and Israel? Mike Harari would have survived until 2011?
Shlomi 1,
The version you present here is even more delusional than the conspiracy version which claims that everything was initiated by the government in order to cause a war in the Gulf, the arms industries and everything that comes out of these.
How do you explain all the airplane movies? Was there no plane? After all, the second plane was watched live by millions. And what in particular sounds strange like some particularly weak season of the series 24 is that the Russians together with Mike Harari will initiate such a strange operation. Why? how ? How was it not leaked after that?
In short, you are justifying all those anti-Israeli Shitna websites that blame the all-powerful and demonic institution (of which we wish there was a quarter of what is attributed to it) for all the ills of the world from the twins to the sharks in the Red Sea.
I will try to summarize for you the course of affairs that the officer reveals, and why there is no government leak:
The Canadian professor in the article here - talks about another operation designed to promote a global agenda
As a first-hand witness to the 9/1 operation, Kalzov claims that he knows the operator of the operation - former Mossad man - Mike Harari.
This is the course of events:
The missile that hit the Pentagon is a Russian anti-ship nuclear missile called Granite.
(taken from the sunken Kursk submarine)
It was sent with a broken thunderbolt on purpose.
The Americans "received" intelligence that during the day 3 nuclear warheads would be used.
And so if you found the missile in the Pentagon - they are sure it is real.
The Americans themselves activated the built-in system of lowering the towers - to prevent an atmospheric nuclear explosion at such a height in the heart of New York.
That is, they made the Americans themselves bring down the buildings on their occupants - as part of a sophisticated ploy.
According to the officer - the truth has 2 cover stories:
For the public - fuel for Muslim terrorist planes, etc.
To the investigative conference and investigative scientists - Osama bin Laden infiltrated nuclear charges into the towers (and must not tell the public).
The truth - that the various security institutions know - pressed the button as a result of a nuclear threat.
Now you can understand why there are no leaks - no one has an interest in revealing such a thing.
Oh, and Charlie Sheen of course! Hear his opinion on the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKR2-A0KPU
R.H
Exactly what you describe actually happened:
With the revelation of the lies of the investigative conference - a co-investigator named Kevin Ryan exposed the entire cover-up.
And with the 9/11 operations and the way it was carried out - the testimony of the Russian officer Dimitri Kalzov
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48713682/11th-of-September-the-Third-Truth-NEXUS-magazine-English
Also look for his interview online under the name
Dimitri Khalezov full playlist
Ha also describes to us why there is a government cover for the story in the first place
Acey,
I will watch when I have some time. In the meantime, how do you explain that small secrets compared to 11/9 such as the Watergate affair or the Monica Lewinsky affair were exposed so easily and the presidents involved with all their power and the "mechanism of darkness" at their disposal according to the conspiracy theory were unable to prevent their publication. On the other hand, in the case of 11/9 when it was clear that there would be a moral problem with the murder of thousands of people at least for some involved, there was no leak or tweet?
Besides, WikiLeaks is another lesson in propaganda, if they really wanted it, they would have caught it in half an hour or so.
R.H
In answer to your question, please watch the following interview, a bit long but very interesting and several times refers to the ability to keep and deny
Big secrets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yytSNQ2ogD4
The other movies on this channel are also recommended, trust Dr. Stephen Greer.
How can you not believe after seeing/hearing such testimonies?
Shlomi 1,
Do you really believe that in an age like ours with WikiLeak, Al Jazeera and Facebook of any kind, a conspiracy of this magnitude could have remained secret? After all, there had to be hundreds of people who knew a secret and thousands more who were involved in one way or another and could have done 1+1 afterwards. Now could it be that all these are immoral and scoundrels who are not sorry for the death of 3000 people? Is there not one among them who will restore and say what happened? See the case of Libya now how many security personnel, pilots, etc. refuse to carry out Gaddafi's extermination orders. Could it be that among the thousands allegedly involved in 1/9 there was not one such tzaddik?
This is a passage that illustrates what I'm talking about
A real scientific investigation begins with the following method:
Eliminate the impossible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNXqkZO3Y1g
Mirom Golan I was there a long time ago.
Just writing the word debanking and trying to create a smoke screen does not change that a lie is a lie.
The tobacco companies also had a joint research institute that denied all the dangers of smoking at the time.
Impossible things happen on 9/11
Buildings fall into the place of great resistance? and at free speed?
2/3 mass of a building disappears - turns to dust including the victims who turn to dust as a result of jet fuel?
A third building the size of Migdal Shalom Meir falls straight down due to a normal office fire?
A Boeing plane flies over 500 miles per hour at sea level?
An aluminum plane pierces steel beams like a knife through butter?
Where are the pictures of the plane hitting the Pentagon?
And that's in a nutshell
Invented new physics.
So don't tell me "because all the claims in it have already been completely refuted"
Because according to you basic laws of physics were disproved (3 times in the same day!) -
And I don't remember that the science website published these sensational discoveries
The article lacks all interest and is definitely not scientific.
Of course, every conspiracy researcher, by virtue of being a skeptic, provides evidence for information and cites sources.
Fluoridating drinking water is a despicable act and those who know fluoride will agree with me that it is not healthy to introduce such a poison into the body.
And why does the state suddenly decide to put any substance into the water???
I will not list every conspiracy mentioned here and I also do not agree with all of them
But Michael Shermer denies in a "logical" way the possibility of all theoretical truths in the argument
that they are arbitrary instead of examining one by one as a scientist should do
He himself says in 6: "The theory evolves from small events that may be real to much larger events, and less probable"
So he does find that the theory at its core may be true and negates what seems to him "large and less likely"
His arguments are based on feelings and not by checking data. Sounds like the arguments of the church which at the time denied the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe
To Shlomi
There is no need to prove again that the website of "Architects and Engineers for the truth about 11.9" is false, because all the claims in it have already been completely refuted. Even its name is misleading - 99% of the scientists listed in it come from fields that are not relevant to the topic. I wonder if they bothered to tell you about it?
You are welcome to look at the following sites, and give them the same seriousness (I hope) that you gave to the conspiracy sites:
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://www.jod911.com/
And of course the Wikipedia entry on the subject-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
The Canadian professor is right in his anger.
Shermer's presentation is an insult to intelligence, let's see him deal with the evidence instead of delegitimizing the very investigation of the issue.
If the science site really wants to deal with/disprove the various conspiracies,
which will present the evidence that 1200 architects and engineers present
or the testimonies of 400 military and intelligence personnel on the subject of UFOs, etc.