please ignore the PMs I sent this morning, I'm an idiot.
FAO Wibble
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
He's still going to read them
tag line?
get in the excuses already.1. hangover
I read them, shocking
no one here even knows me and I'm embarassed beyond belief. I suppose you've got to be able to laugh at yourself though, it was just appauling.
That feeling I had when I realised just how stupid it was.
it's the best description of me there is at the minute
I was so arrogant in those threads as well.
Sorry to anyone I offended/insulted.
Sorry to anyone I offended/insulted.
Come on, man up, what did you say to him? You didn't send dirty pictures of your naked body in an attempt to lure him into love did you?
no, I was acting like a complete cnut in 2 threads because I was certain I was right, and I've just realised I couldn't have been more wrong.
I told you it was Aliens....or Peter Andre...Definitely one of them. Perhaps both?
you know there are actually a lot of qualified people who have got genuine questions about the way they came to their conclusions, but I'm obviously not one of them.
I haven't read your supposed insults, so I won't comment on those. However, the collective attitude here regarding so-called conspiracy theories is appalling; it honestly seems that many refuse to consider anything which contests the official (government/media) line. This attitude, post-Watergate, simply won't do - it's not a badge of honour, intelligence or reasonableness to dismiss relevant questions about events which genuinely pose such questions. At RAWK, a certain moderator automatically locks all threads which deviate from what I'll term for convenience's sake as 'the official line', simply because he dismisses these contrary opinions as 'stupid' - do we really want to be so arrogant here too?
And this is aside from the ludicrous, sometimes craven, attempts to group together all manner of theories from the authentically mysterious to the patently ridiculous; yes, it's surely hilarious to mention Godzilla and lizard beings in reference to 9/11*...but it is also idiotic, self-serving and wilfully ignorant. I expected better from Caf posters I ordinarily respect. This is the kind of nonsense I expect from the modern-day press, not from open-minded people.
Far from labelling those who question certain important occurrences - in a sensible fashion - as fools, obsessives, or mentally ill fantasists, thinking people would be better served to consider whether they are being naive. They surely possess the intelligence to look into these matters and sort out what appears to be truth and what seems to be absurdity. It's not difficult to do this, in this age when so much information is online; we owe to ourselves to be informed.
* I should make it clear that I personally don't believe that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. The September 11th event is simply a good example of the vast gulf existent between inquirers and sceptics.
All the 9/11 nonsense has been comprehensively debunked, in some depth, several times before on the caf. I don't see the point in going over it all again. You have to be a crackpot to give any weight to such drivel.
The 9/11 debate was used by me to make a (larger) point, Mike. The last line of my post makes it clear that I don't really subscribe to any particular position re the event.
Well you're not a nutter are you? Seriously, there is a great deal of healthy scepticism on the caf about everything from religion to 'official' pronouncements - this doesn't extend to looney tune stuff fuelled by YouTube videos.
I'm not trying to start the debate again but the documentaries I've seen answering, for example, the architects and engineers questions about the investigators methods misrepresent their questions.
Pete, a great deal of the 'healthy scepticism' - on many subjects - I see here recently only extends to the likes of 'I don't believe in God - therefore, he doesn't exist and anyone who thinks so is an idiot/maniac/fantasist'. This is playground stuff, and unworthy of us. It's intellectual laziness, unfair, and provides an opportunity to those who would gang-up on posters who fail to agree with the general consensus. How often have you read, say, criticism of Arsenal that isn't factual but, instead, patently biased and deliberately ignorant? Well, there you have it: too many Caf posters state their opinions as irrefutable facts, and this is plain wrong. These posters come across as zealous and pig-headed as the very worst of the people they criticise.
https://www.redcafe.net/f13/rooneygr8s-orgy-spasticity-184285/
Probably the best of these types of threads.
Probably the best of these types of threads.
There's a diifferent tone to the football stuff which is really all opinion and usually banter if posted by the likes of Kraftwerker or plain stupidity by some (nameless) others. In the CE the points are frequently well argued with supporting facts or logic. The whole 9/11 conspiracy schtick is an insult to the victims if you ask me.
Good point. Perhaps I was naive to expect better of the General.
The 9/11 stuff that has gone on here recently is a bad example. I ended up listening to about 10 minutes of the 'Alex Jones show', to make sure I wasn't going crazy. That's really is above and beyond the call of duty.
no, I was acting like a complete cnut in 2 threads because I was certain I was right, and I've just realised I couldn't have been more wrong.
Ahem...
Can I see the PMs?
Ta x.
Ta x.
I love it when people use "open minded" to mean "believe the possibility of absolutely anything"...That's not what it means. Being open minded is about being open to the possibility of changing your mind or view if evidence presents itself. It's not simply tolerating everything before it does.
9/11 conspiracies are a great example of people not being open minded. All the evidence that they were carried out as a terrorist attck is available and strong and present in virtually every aspect of the case from the backgrounds of the hijackers, to the in flight phone calls, to the in depth scientific analysis reported and detailed in large, freely available books and sites, to the fact the whole world saw two feck off planes crash into two feck off tall buildings, whilst the evidence that it was an inside job are minimal and specified to certain fringe facets like Building 7, misinterpreted grainy news footage and years old government press releases already in the public domain.
When someone is picking and choosing from a mish mash of theories that rely on believing one or two incidents to tie a whole conspiracy together whilst ignoring the huge weight of evidence that they're wrong, they are not being open minded.
Furthermore the people you most frequently hear saying things are "not possible" regarding the events of 9/11 are the conspiracy theorists. It's not possible a building can fall at free fall speed without detonations. It's not possible that fire can cause fatal structural damage to steel buildings, it's not possible that a plane hit the pentagon...People without the relevant structural engineering degrees or fire damage experience deeming things "not possible?"...Sounds open minded to me.
Not being open minded would indeed stretch to dismissing theories without listening to them...However I'd be willing to bet my entire worldly wealth that more people have watched Loose Change, or AN other 9/11 Conspiracy video/read their summaries and conclusions, than have read their debunkings, let alone the entire 9/11 Commission or NIST reports.
We aren't just assuming it's bollocks. We've seen it, and listened to it, and tolerated it..We've been open minded...and then we've realised it's bollocks.
All you need to know is I'm a fool.
I do owe you an apology, I'm sorry.
you didn't read my post on germany though and you were wrong!
he's a complete nut job, obsessed with secret organisations and the new world order.
thing is though he does occassionally have very credible guests, like ray mcgovern, but he takes their information and goes completely insane.
A lot like I've done I suppose
It's great how he plugs his books every five minutes or so. You can tell he's a rotten turd who is in it for the dough.
I do owe you an apology, I'm sorry.
you didn't read my post on germany though and you were wrong!
Apology accepted, I was just a bit concerned that you may have inflicted your misguided opinions on your students.
he's an impossible attention seeker and it's a real struggle to listen to him, but like I said he does, very occassionally, have some great guests who I don't see anywhere else.
I'm flattered but Lemonparty just isn't my thing.
but what I'm I going to do to keep myself busy now? I can't rant about 9/11 anymore.
Porn it is then.
Porn it is then.
what the feck is a p p sock anyway? is it what i think it is?
it doesn't mean anything (AFAIK), I was just trying to find something that wasn't taken when making up an email address once and that popped into my head. no idea why.
you use your sock after a wank dont you?
well that certainly doesn't apply to me, I've read the NIST reports and the scientific papers behind them after I heard that 'total progressive collapse' was 'impossible' (which has never been proven, which is where I went wrong). I made an error in my interpretation of the 2002 paper and thought there was intentional deception.
the NIST reports do themselves no favours at all, their stated obective was to "determine why and how" the buildings collapsed but their approach fell short of what was needed to achieve this because it stopped at the point that collapse started, in the main report the only mention of why is hidden in a footnote where they say (paraphrased) "we have performed very little analysis of the events after initiation of collapse started and global collapse became inevitable" their supporting documents are equally vague about why this assumption was made and no justification/sources for it is offered.
Progressive collapse is only mentioned in the recommendations section not in their preamble and since I thought progressive collapse had been discredited I came the conclusion they were either completely incompetent or deliberately concealing something, the first conclusion seemed highly unlikely so I was only really left with deliberate concealment to explain it.
The fact that someone thinks something that you don't agree with doesn't mean they don't have reasons why.
Although I now know progressive collapse has not been disproven I still think the only paper on the subject is insufficient to prove that collapse was inevitable in the particular circumstances of the twin towers, and it certainly should have been clearly stated and referenced in the NIST report why they had made that assumption.
I've just read through bits of this again. It stands the test of time and should be in the classics.