Butthurt Street

**seabass** · 08-07-2016

Originally Posted by IronMaiden

Today's security cameras are grainy and record at a low FPS? LOL

Dude, I have 7 surveillance cameras around and in my house. They all recorded at 60 fps @ 1920x1080. Where have you been? It�s 2016.

You ignored this part

Originally Posted by seabass

Back in 2001, this was all done on tape so the quality would be even worse.

And this part

Originally Posted by seabass

As for the security cameras, I don't really want to spend hours looking into that, but there are two points:

Back in 2001, this was all done on tape so the quality would be even worse.
Security cameras typically point downwards high off the ground. Even if there were modern cameras that recorded this stuff, how much would you expect those cameras to catch? Especially when the plane came in at that speed?

**uranus** · 08-07-2016

At the risk of violating the "do your own research" principle:

I posted this before but it may have been overlooked. This video deals with the Pentagon crash @9m45s and is part of a series that examines the "truther" positions with a special kicker in part 6 of the playlist dealing with the psychological phenomenon of the "truthers", et al.

As one researcher put it, "Conspiracy theories are are a convenient alternative to an uncertain world".

Here's the 7 vid playlist,

**seabass** · 08-07-2016

Yup, that plane is visible in one of the frames. Truthers lying to support their narrative. Who would have thought.
Nice one, @uranus.

**TimTim** · 08-08-2016

Saw this on reddit a few minutes ago titled, "After a frustrating argument with my conspiracy-theory-happy friend" lol.

**sumbich** · 08-08-2016

Originally Posted by TimTim

@sumbich Can you explain to me how any one of the latest shootings is a false flag operation? I fail to see how mentions of jet fuel and steel beams from 15 years ago are proof that the latest shootings are false flags. Please explain how you've come to your conclusion, step-by-step.

Also, regarding the sparks, did you completely wipe my earlier link from your memory because it doesn't support your delusions? You do that a lot. I'll link to it again:
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/...hit-x-y-z.html

I dunno though, like I said before, maybe all those people are in on the conspiracy too. That thread from 2007 was obviously planted 9 years in advance for the Dallas shooting.

I guess I wasnt direct enough, cant leave a single thing for inference lest it be overlooked - but then again, given that you have a problem identifying patterns that you have been programmed to ignore, it is not surprising.

You put that link up. Go show me where anyone talks about concrete, cement, or anything of the like. Yeah - not there. That's why I said it'd help if you read the link you're trying to utilize as a debunking tool to actually verify if it does indeed debunk, or are you just tossing shit on a wall to see what sticks? Appears to be the latter here. You want to change my mind on this? Find out precisely what bullet the cop shot and show me a video of it making a spark on plain concrete - otherwise, piss off and do your homework.

911 does not prove Dallas, wtf idiot strawman are you trying to imprint upon my argument this time? facepalm.

Originally Posted by Higor

Why setup a false flag if you can create the ideal mental conditions and get some sucker to do it for free?
All you have to do is not-censor social media comments that ask for assasination, killings, etc and eventually it'll be picked up.

Look at twitter, they're censoring conservatives and right wing activists all over the place while leaving ISIS accounts and calls for Trump/Farage assasinations untouched.
Welcome to the 21st century, you no longer need footwork to turn ppl into radicals, just complicity of the mainstream/social media.

For the perps, that is an ideal tactic to utilize - so it is simply not logical to use that as rationale to dismiss the argument. Look at how they destabilize countries, look at the "Arab Springs" - you really think those were grassroots??

Originally Posted by IronMaiden

It's out there, you just don't believe it, hence you have to give yourself a chance to make up your mind with your own research. This is a transformation. It won't happen overnight. It won't happen if you don't work it out yourself. BTDT.

PS: this fucking edit button needs to go somewhere else lol

but we're crazy for questioning the news

Originally Posted by seabass

I really dislike this argument, and it's one that conspiracy theorists make all the time.
What are we supposed to do? Do our own forensic analysis?
Very few people are qualified to have an opinion on how buildings collapse or how bullets react with materials at high velocity.
How about looking at what 'alternative' experts has to say?
Nope, not even qualified to do any sort of meta analysis to compare and contrast different expert opinions.

So I think I'll stick with what the real experts have to say. I'll take a guess and say that their methods and criteria for proof are much more stringent than these other 'experts' anyway.

No, you're supposed to analyze to the extent that you may - so that necessarily precludes obtaining physical evidence. I hope you realize the usage of the strawman here.

While most or all of us are not experts in a given field, one doesnt have to have a degree in physics to know when a story presented breaks the laws of physics. Now if one is severely ignorant of physics, perhaps one might be able to be tricked into thinking silly things like "there were enough BTUs of heat available to have been transferred to the core columns so as to have cause symmetric collapse." Although, for the physics retarded, that translates to "jet fuel may have been hot enough to catastrophically damage the buildings" but I hope you can see the difference in detail between the two notions. Any honest stoichiometric analysis would show that no way, no how, were there enough BTUs of heat to have catastrophically affected those buildings, much less drop them in perfect demolition, much less atomize a curiously large portion of the steel structure.

That does even get to 7 where most of the incriminating evidence was or how there is no way that was not a demolition. (I mean really, 7 is not called the smoking gun for no reason, you have to be utterly and hopelessly ignorant of physics to accept that this building fell because of fire.)

And the Pentagon - nevermind all of the Pentagon's footage - what about the gas station across the street that captured it, and saw the FBI show up not 10 minutes after the fact, confiscate the footage, and never, ever let anyone see it? (in its entirety)

Nah, no foreknowledge there

Fact of the matter is, if they had any interest in letting the truth out, it could have been VERY easy for them to have released the pentagon footage to quell any and all questions about whether or not it was a plane that hit the pentagon. Instead, the one they do show you as evidence, has key frames removed from the footage that would have provided some detail as to what it really was.

We're talking about framerates, when it is already proven and obvious that the footage we were given, by the security services, had frames removed from it.

Yeah, I'll stick with what real experts say, that dont have financial or situational reliance on maintaining the lie - like the thousands of architects, engineers, and professional pilots who call bullshit on 911. ae911 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the commission report is fraudulent, and expert pilots with decades of experience couldnt pull off the pentagon crash on a sim, either. (and not MS flight sim, the industry standard flight trainer)

Originally Posted by IronMaiden

I wasn't talking about you...

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't cite 9/11. Regarding this matter: why are there only 3 frames of a “video” showing the “plane” going into the pentagon? One of the most secured buildings in the world and only 1 camera captured 3 frames and you can’t even make a plane out. That alone is proof in my book that whatever that day happened, is not what the mainstream media tried to portrait. Now go ahead and search for more video footage of said plane going into the pentagon. Comeback with your research. Ain’t gonna happen.

The 2 shooting incidents I actually mentioned in my post can be researched with a simple web browser and some knowledge in how to search topics and people online. Did you actually try what I suggested? Well, I hold a MSC degree in computer science, another 2 unrelated bachelors, 1 associates. Does that make me an expert? No. But thinking out of the box isn't avowedly for everybody, let alone some form of intuition.

Nope, researching these things is taboo. For some reason you're a sick bastad if you want proof that people died somewhere, even if those deaths werent listed on the FBI's report of gun murders amidst a situation where every possible protocol was broken.

**IronMaiden** · 08-08-2016

Originally Posted by sumbich

I guess I wasnt direct enough, cant leave a single thing for inference lest it be overlooked - but then again, given that you have a problem identifying patterns that you have been programmed to ignore, it is not surprising.

You put that link up. Go show me where anyone talks about concrete, cement, or anything of the like. Yeah - not there. That's why I said it'd help if you read the link you're trying to utilize as a debunking tool to actually verify if it does indeed debunk, or are you just tossing shit on a wall to see what sticks? Appears to be the latter here. You want to change my mind on this? Find out precisely what bullet the cop shot and show me a video of it making a spark on plain concrete - otherwise, piss off and do your homework.

911 does not prove Dallas, wtf idiot strawman are you trying to imprint upon my argument this time? facepalm.

For the perps, that is an ideal tactic to utilize - so it is simply not logical to use that as rationale to dismiss the argument. Look at how they destabilize countries, look at the "Arab Springs" - you really think those were grassroots??

but we're crazy for questioning the news

No, you're supposed to analyze to the extent that you may - so that necessarily precludes obtaining physical evidence. I hope you realize the usage of the strawman here.

While most or all of us are not experts in a given field, one doesnt have to have a degree in physics to know when a story presented breaks the laws of physics. Now if one is severely ignorant of physics, perhaps one might be able to be tricked into thinking silly things like "there were enough BTUs of heat available to have been transferred to the core columns so as to have cause symmetric collapse." Although, for the physics retarded, that translates to "jet fuel may have been hot enough to catastrophically damage the buildings" but I hope you can see the difference in detail between the two notions. Any honest stoichiometric analysis would show that no way, no how, were there enough BTUs of heat to have catastrophically affected those buildings, much less drop them in perfect demolition, much less atomize a curiously large portion of the steel structure.

That does even get to 7 where most of the incriminating evidence was or how there is no way that was not a demolition. (I mean really, 7 is not called the smoking gun for no reason, you have to be utterly and hopelessly ignorant of physics to accept that this building fell because of fire.)

And the Pentagon - nevermind all of the Pentagon's footage - what about the gas station across the street that captured it, and saw the FBI show up not 10 minutes after the fact, confiscate the footage, and never, ever let anyone see it?

Nah, no foreknowledge there

Fact of the matter is, if they had any interest in letting the truth out, it could have been VERY easy for them to have released the pentagon footage to quell any and all questions about whether or not it was a plane that hit the pentagon. Instead, the one they do show you as evidence, has key frames removed from the footage that would have provided some detail as to what it really was.

We're talking about framerates, when it is already proven and obvious that the footage we were given, by the security services, had frames removed from it.

Yeah, I'll stick with what real experts say, that dont have financial or situational reliance on maintaining the lie - like the thousands of architects, engineers, and professional pilots who call bullshit on 911. ae911 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the commission report is fraudulent, and expert pilots with decades of experience couldnt pull off the pentagon crash on a sim, either.

Nope, researching these things is taboo. For some reason you're a sick bastad if you want proof that people died somewhere, even if those deaths werent listed on the FBI's report of gun murders amidst a situation where every possible protocol was broken.

You are wasting your time with those 2, but I'm sure you already know that. They are not here to understand, but to argue an ideology.

Ideology knows the answer before the question has been asked.
George Packer

**sumbich** · 08-08-2016

Originally Posted by IronMaiden

You are wasting your time with those 2, but I'm sure you already know that. They are not here to understand, but to argue an ideology.

Ideology knows the answer before the question has been asked.
George Packer

oh, I knew tim and uranus were hopelessly brainwashed a long time ago

"If you dont read the news, you're uninformed; If you read the news, you're misinformed"
-Mark Twain

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by uranus

At the risk of violating the "do your own research" principle:

I posted this before but it may have been overlooked. This video deals with the Pentagon crash @9m45s and is part of a series that examines the "truther" positions with a special kicker in part 6 of the playlist dealing with the psychological phenomenon of the "truthers", et al.

you do know that the term "conspiracy theorist" was invented by the CIA in the wake of the jfk assassination, yes?

nothing more than an attack on critical thinking by ostracizing those who think critically.

those vids are hilarious, do you believe them?

mocking the do your own homework by misrepresenting its breadth and scope....nah, no logical fallacies there bro, n1

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by TimTim

I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.

**uranus** · 08-08-2016

Wow. And here was I thinking "The Matrix" was a fictional movie made by the Jews in Hollywood.

**sumbich** · 08-08-2016

Originally Posted by uranus

Wow. And here was I thinking "The Matrix" was a fictional movie made by the Jews in Hollywood.

well, I guess we should be happy with one quasi serious reply from you

ever mentally get past 14?

**uranus** · 08-08-2016

Originally Posted by sumbich

I hope you realize the usage of the strawman here.

I don't. Please, ELI5, professor.

User Tag List

Thread: Butthurt Street

Thread Tools

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Spiderman butthurt by the name Spiderpig, boosted me whole game

yeahhh street fighter

Members who have read this thread : 162

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions