9/11 a staged attack

Post Reply New Topic

When does speculation become irrational making irrational delusions fact?

When Conspiracy delusionists believe one another without my intervention!

Elvis lives! Honestly, I read it in the National Inquirer.

I realize you're trying to make a point here, but as I said before, there's a difference between completely unfounded lunacy and speculation on events that are entirely possible, even probable, and just weren't reported on by the government-controlled media.



Okay, first of all...what's delusional about this? If you pointed out some specific details and explained how they were impossible and how anyone to believe them is delusional, then I might take your arguement more seriously. As it is, you're just being insulting and self-righteous.

I have to prove something? Somehow people are believing false fact, its delusion unless you have fact.

A delusionist is like a magician, it doesn’t all add up, so there are missing parts of the arguments in the form of fact.

Nothing other then a conspiracy complex that is anti-establishmental based. Sort of like UFO's abducting people and cows, somehow the government must have made 9/11 happen.

Imagining into things….

No where here am I self-righteous are you viewing another post of mine just recently and want to banter on about it?

I think that anyone that accuses the government of such atrocity is psychotic, beyond that of simple delusion and by comparision compliment of being a delusionist. It takes a gift in order to make illusional factless arguments plausible and acceptable to a rational mind.

Delusion is false belief, a delusionist spews such nonsense and the irrational believe it.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

I've taken care of more than one person who would kill if you even tried to take their foil away from them. They were convinced that the government could read their thoughts without it. You cannot convince a delusional person that they are delusional, it's very real to them. Usually present with these people are paranoia, delusions, and conspiracy theories. It's much easier to let them keep their foil. Why even try?

I never said you had to prove anything. I said you had to specifically point to what didn't fit for me to take your arguement seriously. Please, don't put words in my mouth.

So, basically, what you're saying is that unless there's concrete proof for something then you shouldn't believe in it? What if there's everything but proof? What if you see someone with blood on their hands, and nearby you see a dead guy? Is it delusional to assume something about what happened there, just because you yourself didn't see what happened? Using that logic then you can't believe anything anyone else says unless you yourself have seen exactly what they're talking about, and therefore believe almost nothing, because one gains a majority of information about the world from other people.

Speculation and theory has a place in the world, when it is possible or probable. Deductive reasoning has a place, when it is based on fact--and this is based on fact, even though it is theory and not fact. You're willing to think that something couldn't have happened just because it isn't a fact in itself, but instead a theory based on many facts?



That's very different, first of all because these abductions and UFO's have never been confirmed while 9/11 has, and second of all because we know nothing about the behavior of these supposed "aliens," so how would we know that they'd done these things even if we knew that they existed? However, we DO know the behavior of the Bush administration, based on the things that they have done. There are numorous facts that show that they are exactly the sort of administration to orchestrate something like this, that show they don't care about the lives of the Americans they're supposed to protect.



I was referring to the posts that you made in this thread. Again, you make a claim but never back it up. What have I said that is self-righteous? In that other thread, I told you to calm down. How is that self-righteous?

In this thread, I defend my views as you do, but I don't insult you as I do so. I don't call you naive or ignorant, or anything. I just defend the plausibility, and explain why I believe what I do. Yet you insult me just for my beliefs, effectively doing the very same thing that Emp does, except with politics instead of religion, and without the parody or wit, either. No offense, but saying that I am acting more self-righteous than you on either thread is waaaaay more delusional than having political beliefs that don't jive with yours.



But how do you know that it's automatically false, eh? How do you know automatically that this is impossible just because it isn't a fact, even when facts that do exist back it up, and when other facts fit in perfectly with it? Give me some specific reasons that point to the conclusion this couldn't have happened, and explain how it doesn't, and do so without constantly insulting those who believe this, and it might be easier to take your arguement seriously. As it is, your arguement seems like...well, little more than a bunch of rude rambling and statements about why you can't believe anything unless it's complete and utter proven fact. Need I remind you that with that comes the assumption that anything that cannot be proven is automatically false. Do you honestly believe that? And do you honestly believe that anyone will listen to you when you're so hostile towards them?

I wonder if it's delusional to dismiss outright the possibility of a staged government attack.

You'll notice that like conspiracy theorists, they will find evidence for whatever it is they are claiming, anything to refute them.


It's been said that the Bush Administration couldn't get away with this. But think about this. Dick Cheney shot a guy, who then apologized for the inconvience of getting shot. Seems to me they get away with a lot of things.


I don't think that the attacks where staged, I just think that it's possible, and it would explain a lot. On the other hand, the Administration being utterly inept and they're embaressed about it explains things pretty well too.

Possibility and the Psyche are fascinating.

Delusion and possibility are related....

It's when possibility becomes some kind of rational fact beyond a hypothesis.

not really, there is a lot of firm evidence to suggest the holocaust took place. holocaust revisionists tend to be antisemitic racists. if you don't believe governments are capable of actions such as this, try reading some books, for instance john pilger's "heroes".


i think it is probably so.

It is just imagining into what is hidden and not known, to say it is delusion to not be of possibilities is not logical.

After providing clear evidence, despite propagandas of possibilities or else your nuts as well, then there is only protection of the fear of establishment. It's entirely logical that there is a possibility, but it is no where near plausible.

The arguments refuted based upon the grounds there is no plausible evidence despite possible paranoia fear possibilities.. Entirely speculation and unfounded entirely.

You hit the nail right on the head Xuincherguixe!! How could an administration which so badly bungled the Iraq war, have pulled off the cover-up that THEY were behind the 9/11 attacks. There are plenty of world news outlets that don't like Bush. If there was clear evidence that the Bush admininstration was behind the attacks, THEY WOULD BE SCREAMING IT FROM A MOUNTIAN TOP!! !! You don't even hear Al Jezeera claiming that Bush ordered the attacks (anymore).

As long as Mushrooms will grow in it, it's O.K.

Mushrooms do grow well with cow patties, or so I've been told.

And there isn't firm evidence that Islamic terrorists were'nt behind 9/11?? How is a book (a work of fiction) evidence of anything at all?? Come on peboo! Get real for a second. Look at the sources of information here. Where is all this crap coming from?? As I said, EVEN AL JEZEERA ISN'T DESPENSING THIS NONSENSE!! !! !! !! !!

Anything is possible but that does not mean it is probable yah never know you could be deal a royal flush but probally not or the pope might not be Catholic but probally not. The Bush administration could pull it off probally not Inept is putting it nicely

And there isn't firm evidence that Islamic terrorists were'nt behind 9/11?? [/quote]
some of the evidence to me seemed flimsy. where is the firm hard evidence?


the book is nonfiction.



i've not stated any nonsense, just suggested keeping an open mind about things.