Zeitgeist: Moving Forward | Official Trailer-

[-Snafu- 77]

Any evidence provided towards a ludricrous assumption doesn't have worth. In fact it has negative worth as by compiling it you have wasted both your own time and the time of all those who read it.

Apply the common sense test.

The internet being what it is I can provide a wealth of evidence towards any stupidity.

It doesn't change that stupidity is stupidity. You can't validate it, only invalidate yourself by attempting to.

Yeah, obviously the evidence would have to be credible and not BS which I think I mentioned.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Snafu

[mrcash2009 0]

The bottom line is that without evidence your argument is worthless.

Yeah, obviously the evidence would have to be credible and not BS which I think I mentioned.

You have it all worked out mate, I salute you for it.

As I already stated very clear:

Take as you find of course, slam out of hand without watching in its entirety is something else though.

Everybody replies are still subjective points of view, like it or lump it, you clearly lump it, fair enough. Just thought Id add some middle road to the proceedings, nothing to get a sweat about. Edited October 22, 2010 by mrcash2009

[-Snafu- 77]

You have it all worked out mate, I salute you for it.

As I already stated very clear:

Everybody replies are still subjective points of view, like it or lump it, you clearly lump it, fair enough. Just thought Id add some middle road to the proceedings, nothing to get a sweat about.

Requiring credible evidence to prove a case isn't a point of view it's a necessity you can't dodge by stating your trying to put forward some moderate middle road view.

The reason that most people would dismiss out of hand nuclear weapons theory is the points I mentioned above and the fact that the effects when a nuclear weapon goes off were not present.

[mrcash2009 0]

Requiring credible evidence to prove a case isn't a point of view it's a necessity you can't dodge by stating your trying to put forward some moderate middle road view.

But you can by not watching videos putting a case for nuclear detonation forward and not watching it or looking at it further, which does put a case of evidence forward for it, hence the reason I posted it to view and take as you find, you cant have found this as you clearly couldn't have watched it as you are already speaking of out of hand dismissal.

the fact that the effects when a nuclear weapon goes off were not present.

Who's fact ... you know for a fact 100 percent that it isn't, you only agree to this conclusion from the evidence presented becuase its evidence more logical to you (subjective still) than someone else, that's my point all along, if it was so ever perfectly cut and dried we wouldn't have the outstanding things we still have today, the subject is still a hot topic to this day.

Don't worry about my points, have a look and watch it, your head wont blow up or anything :) Why is it down to a forum poster to suddenly be a lawyer and prove a case, do people need spoon feeding or something? I dont get that side of it at all, everyone becomes an internet mini courtroom judge with folded arms ... makes me smile.

Prove to ME im the all knowing (no direct pointing), I beg to differ, that's my middle view, and that will always be the case, whether people agree or not, and its no shock they wont ;)

Anyway, enough said on the matter my end, nothing is ever set in stone, new evidence comes along all the time, even NIST realised that.

Edited October 22, 2010 by mrcash2009

[MrBump 10]

Personally I find the anomaly hunting, innuendo and poor deductive reasoning of 911 'truthers' less convincing than the 'staunch' official version with it's evidence backed by peer review by a range of experts... a version so 'staunch' it actually changes it's conclusions when presented with new evidence unlike the truthers.

All I see from these conspiracy websites is stuff like, hey this looks to me like explosions, therefore... (illogical leap) ...the government did it. etc. Actually, looking at the way these websites and documentaries deceptively ignore evidence, quote mine and cherry pick, I'd say they start with 'the government did it' and go from there.

It's not that I don't believe in conspiracies, history shows that they do happen, but history also shows that conspiracies are manufactured for ideological reasons. For me it's down to the evidence, and the evidence in this case is pointing to a manufactured conspiracy driven by ideological agenda.

[-Snafu- 77]

But you can by not watching videos putting a case for nuclear detonation forward and not watching it or looking at it further, which does put a case of evidence forward for it, hence the reason I posted it to view and take as you find, you cant have found this as you clearly couldn't have watched it as you are already speaking of out of hand dismissal.

Who's fact ... you know for a fact 100 percent that it isn't, you only agree to this conclusion from the evidence presented becuase its evidence more logical to you (subjective still) than someone else, that's my point all along, if it was so ever perfectly cut and dried we wouldn't have the outstanding things we still have today, the subject is still a hot topic to this day.

Don't worry about my points, have a look and watch it, your head wont blow up or anything :) Why is it down to a forum poster to suddenly be a lawyer and prove a case, do people need spoon feeding or something? I dont get that side of it at all, everyone becomes an internet mini courtroom judge with folded arms ... makes me smile.

Prove to ME im the all knowing (no direct pointing), I beg to differ, that's my middle view, and that will always be the case, whether people agree or not, and its no shock they wont ;)

Anyway, enough said on the matter my end, nothing is ever set in stone, new evidence comes along all the time, even NIST realised that.

In the real world you need to have evidence to back up your points to show that they are correct and/or worthwhile. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time. You can't base your argument on the possibility that evidence to support your theories may appear. The same goes for 'well it's a middle of the road view'. Facts and evidence are needed not feelings and wishful thinking.

The nuclear detonation case is incorrect because the effects of a nuclear explosion were not present therefore it was not a nuclear explosion (intense heat and light, radiation, huge explosive bang etc.). Traces of a nuclear detonation would be left. In addition to that the complex nature of such a thing would leave trails (people, paper, money etc.) that would be nigh on impossible to cover up.

[MrBump 10]

Theres this massive difference with conspiracy which is a badge for UFO/Paranoid/madness etc, but then there is also a middle ground between staunch official version of events and information (which to some is never questioned or compared) and then alternative information.

Middle ground fallacy.

[pre-Vet 10]

But you can by not watching videos putting a case for nuclear detonation forward and not watching it or looking at it further, which does put a case of evidence forward for it, hence the reason I posted it to view and take as you find, you cant have found this as you clearly couldn't have watched it as you are already speaking of out of hand dismissal.

Oh you gotta love this! This documentairy is as legit as the ones showed before IMO

Why would you need a nuclear detenation? Slamming 247 tonnes of airplane in a building and leave it burning will do the job.

The world is boring, accept it, no big hollywood conspiracies, no UFOs, no nuclear detenations without huges amounts of radiation.

Just some religious nutscases got on a plane and did something nobody thought of yet.

Now that is what I think happend..

What do you think what happend?

What is that "bit" more the general population needs to know about?

Edited October 24, 2010 by pre-Vet
url

[mrcash2009 0]

Your reactions say everything, thanks. :)

Watch the full video :computer:, but as you are all knowing of every facet of all factors 100 percent with your logic I guess it doesn't matter (some), which is fair enough I suppose.

Im just not a side taker that's all, many unknowns and factors to these things.

What do you think what happend?

What is that "bit" more the general population needs to know about?

Find out for yourself mate, or ... dont worry about it. :) Edited October 24, 2010 by mrcash2009

[pre-Vet 10]

Thank you, but Im not all knowing. Still a very nice of you to say that! :)

You tend to talk a lot but say almost nothing, only about "what is proof" and no facts or only theories from people who want to sell a book.

Too bad, thought you really had something to contribute.

[mrcash2009 0]

You tend to talk a lot but say almost nothing, only about "what is proof" and no facts or only theories from people who want to sell a book.

Sell a book? Ugh, how many people in government or any event has "never" been put into a book. That would mean we best not look at anything, for example a film flight 93 ... that must have sold for money right?

Too bad, thought you really had something to contribute.

I have, read the post links. If you mean contribute as in agree with most posters here that are spouting the other half are all mental then there is no need it speaks for itself how it would pan out, it would get locked after time with flame replies from the official standpoint "all knowing 100 percent fact you cannot refute it or me" people. Then I would have to state my case to these people as they are somehow court judges for the thread (how that came about is anyone's guess), which in this microcosm of a thread would not change a thing than what is already available to look further.

So, I simply posted a different view and a different link, thus "contributed", I dont need to justify myself to do this. Lets face it I contributed based on the original topics "area" most others "contribution" came in for a : :coop:

Agree to disagree, that's what I do you have your set view I have mine, others have theirs, that's my middle ground, that's the balance, which reflects the views outside of this thread, the whole world does not see it one way. As opposed to firing in all guns cocked calling cynical names to people or a group of people I have "Tagged" that I have never met, in a thread that's blatantly about the subject I wont agree with before entering (I speak in general), then calling for anyone who isn't singing from my hymn sheet to justify it all like some mini court soap opera.

But ... It does make me smile :) On a side note if this ends up a battle of words regards anything I posted then hit the PM button. I do note this has gone off topic from Zeitgiest, so what's peoples views about the financial state of things right now?

Edited October 25, 2010 by mrcash2009