Gå til innhold

Arkiteter bestrider offisell forklaring for 9/11

Oddvardm

Av Oddvardm
i Oppslagstavlen

Anbefalte innlegg

jjkoggan

jjkoggan

Skrevet
Skrevet

Psykologer identifisere personlige egenskaper som typiske konspirasjonteoritikere har, det heter Schizotypy.  Når alt ikke kan forklares så ser de det som ikke eksisterer og er villig til å akseptere BS,  noe som psykologene kaller BullShit Receptivity.  Forskningen viser at de blir lurt av BS oftere enn andre,  nettopp det som de anklager andre for!

Schizotypy 

The trait borrows its name from schizophrenia, but it does not imply a clinical diagnosis. Hart's study also showed that conspiracists had distinct cognitive tendencies: they were more likely than nonbelievers to judge nonsensical statements as profound (a tendency known as "BS receptivity").

In turn, they were more likely to say that nonhuman objects -- triangle shapes moving around on a computer screen -- were acting intentionally.

"In other words, they inferred meaning and motive where others did not," he said.

These people tend to be more suspicious, untrusting, eccentric, needing to feel special, with a tendency to regard the world as an inherently dangerous place," Hart said. "They are also more likely to detect meaningful patterns where they might not exist. People who are reluctant to believe in conspiracy theories tend to have the opposite qualities."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180925075108.htm

 

  • Liker 1
  • Innsiktsfullt 3
Lenke til kommentar

Videoannonse

Videoannonse
Annonse
Arve Synden

Arve Synden

Skrevet
Skrevet
50 minutes ago, Oddvardm said:

Indian education.

Du har virkelig vanskelig for å skjønne det, eller hva? Du slenger ut videoer og tekst+bilder som du har klippet ut og limt inn her uten noen som helst spor av følgetekst som forklarer hvorfor du poster det, hva meningen med det er og hva du selv mener om det. For eksempel den nesten to timer lange videoen du postet lenke til, kjemisk fritt uten noen kommentarer: mente du virkelig at jeg skulle orke å se den uten at du har forklart hvorfor jeg bør se den? Og...TO TIMER? Hvilken forakt har du ikke for andre folks fritid om du forventer at de du diskuterer med skal bruke to timer på å se en video du verken gidder (eller evner) å oppsummere, transkribere de sentrale poengene, ikke engang pekt til tidspunkter de eventuelt kommer fram. Jeg prøvde å hinte til dette med å lenke til en enda lengere (11+ timer, og garantert mye bedre dokumentert), men det virker ikke som du har den kognitive kapasiteten til å skjønne sånt. Så da har jeg ikke noe annet valg enn å anta at du ikke akkurat er den skarpeste kniven i skuffa, og si det rett ut. Til slutt, bare for å ha det klart: Jeg kommer IKKE til å se noen av videoene du slenger ut på en sånn måte.

Her er litt lett underholdning du kan se på mens du prøver å forstå det jeg skrev i avsnittet over:

 

  • Liker 4
Lenke til kommentar
Capitan Fracassa

Capitan Fracassa

Skrevet
Skrevet
Arve Synden skrev (1 minutt siden):

Du har virkelig vanskelig for å skjønne det, eller hva?

For en som ikke har deltatt i debatten her i det hele tatt, men fulgt rimelig godt med på den, vil jeg si at jeg tror du tar feil om @Oddvardm. For meg ser det ut som om han har skjønt at han ikke får debatten på den måten han ønsker, og derfor har gitt opp, og heller velger å bevisst irritere deg og andre ved å poste slike videoer.

Med andre ord, bevisst trolling for å provosere dere.

Lenke til kommentar
Arve Synden

Arve Synden

Skrevet
Skrevet
Just now, Capitan Fracassa said:

For meg ser det ut som om han har skjønt at han ikke får debatten på den måten han ønsker, og derfor har gitt opp, og heller velger å bevisst irritere deg og andre ved å poste slike videoer.

Selv om dette skulle være tilfelle mener jeg min konklusjon om hvilken kniv i skuffa han er allikevel vil stå seg.

  • Liker 1
Lenke til kommentar
clink

clink

Skrevet
Skrevet (endret)
On 6/18/2019 at 12:45 PM, hekomo said:

Så det brekes fortsatt om arkitekter, og så oooops, så var det visst bare en historiker dere hadde å vise til.

Hva er grunnen til å lyve så jævlig?

 

On 6/18/2019 at 10:40 PM, Oddvardm said:

Nå er du litt useriøs. Du har i flere innlegg kritiser innleggende til en rekke fagpersoner og du har blitt utfordret til å komme med fakta som kan diskuteres på et faglig nivå. Men så langt har du ikke gjort annet enn å banne. Kan du svære grei å ikke forsøple debatten mer og holde dine bannord for deg selv. Når du ikke har argumenter nytter det ikke med bannord og skjellsord.

Fikk en impuls om å hoppe litt tilbake i tråden, og det ble til første siden (ser at jeg var med allerede der).
Og det er interessant å se hvordan noen forsøker å vri sannheten så til de grader i feil retning.
Her var det snakk om Christopher Bollyn som er en av de mest kjente formidlere av 9-11 fakta, ikke bare om fysikk-fakta om kollapsene, men i stor grad om den dype staten, nettverket og koblingene bak. Dette har han solid greie på og er anerkjent for dette.  "..brekes om arkitekter....., men opps var det bare en historiker...".
(som om AE911Truth ikke har 3500 med fagkompetanse).

Han har naturligvis utgitt noen bøker og jeg har selv kjøpt noen direkte fra ham. Han fortjener all ære og inntekter fra disse, men det kan umulig være noen stor butikk. Han har lagt ned ufattelig mye tid på rundreiser og hundrevis av foredrag, akkurat som den danske professor/fysiker Niels Harrit, som har turnert med sine faktaforedrag.

https://www.bollyn.com/about-christopher-bollyn/
https://www.bitchute.com/search/?query=bollyn&kind=video

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bollyn+presentation&t=lm&iax=videos&ia=videos

 

Endret av clink
Lenke til kommentar
clink

clink

Skrevet
Skrevet
12 hours ago, Arve Synden said:

Religiøse predikanter bruker også ufattelig mye tid på rundreiser og foredrag. Det betyr ikke at guden de promoterer eksisterer.

Sikkert, men ingen som helst grunn til å sammenligne Bollyn med religiøse predikanter.
Han prøver ikke å indoktrinere folk om fantasihistorier for 2000 år tilbake, men formidler fakta med kildehenvisninger.

Lenke til kommentar
Oddvardm

Oddvardm

Skrevet
  • Forfatter
Skrevet
jjkoggan skrev (14 minutter siden):

Argumenterer du faktumet at det ikke finnes forskjellige typer personligheter?  Det er mye forskning som viser at det er sjelden at en tror på bare en konspirasjonteori, men heller flere.  

Misinformation

Maintaining the Official Story in the Face of Glaring Contradictions

Ensuring the success of the official story of 9/11/01 despite the long sequence of highly improbable events it supposes required that people not pay too much attention to the details. This would be ensured by the "shock and awe" of the attack itself combined with an intense propaganda campaign to sell the official story. Ironically, the vast majority of those who created and promoted that propaganda probably did so innocently, never questioning the official version of events. The idea that the entire attack was an inside job was simply too unthinkable for most Americans to consider.

The use of disinformation and diversion to manipulate public opinion is a highly developed art. It is well understood not only by psychological operations experts in the national security establishment, but also by marketing and public relations wizards. With the engineering of public reaction to September 11, disinformation has been used with a sophistication and depth that is historically unprecedented. A key tool in this modern form of psychological warfare is the "meme" -- an idea that acts like an infectious agent to spread itself through a population. Through careful construction of memes, the perpetrators could depend on others to unwittingly promote their cover story and conceal the truth. Their disinformation strategy was twofold. First, they would sell the official story to the masses through the compliant mass media, relying on people's desire to believe the official story. Second, they would seed specious ideas in the community of "9/11 skeptics" in order to distract and discredit them.

The Official Story of September 11, and Its Apologists

On the day of the attack, details about the alleged perpetrators emerged with a rapidity that is remarkable given the assertions by high-ranking administration officials that no one had ever considered that an attacker could fly planes into buildings. Within hours the identities of several of the alleged hijackers were known, and Osama bin Laden was being presented as the prime suspect. Within three days the FBI published the identities of all the alleged hijackers. It was being presented as an open-and-shut case.

Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent.

The mass media were consistent in avoiding asking the most obvious questions. Why did the air defense network fail to respond? Why did Flight 77 target the recently-fortified, mostly empty portion of the Pentagon? Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible? The media shirked their public service obligation of acting as watchdogs of the government, and instead became cheerleaders for the administration's war plans for central Asia.

The vast body of print reportage about September 11 attack is notable for an abundance of contradictions. The timelines in the Complete 9-11 Timeline series reveal numerous inconsistencies, such as between reported times of events. These discrepancies, combined with the lack of evidence, discourage investigation of facts of the attack. Meanwhile, the impending attack on Afghanistan, the alleged Islam-terror link, and "homeland security" got the attention.

This section examines just a few of the elements of the official story of September 11 with a skeptical view and attention to contradictions.

  • Red Flags: People are able to accept theories blessed by government and mainstream media, despite inconsistencies and long series of improbable coincidences.
  • Cover Stories: The top four in command of our defense go about routine appointments for an hour as the attack unfolds.
  • Experts on Parade: Experts "explain" the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings.

Disinformation Targeting the Skeptics

Disinformation aimed at skeptics of the official story is more subtle than the simple promotion of that story to the masses. It may consist of ideas with no basis in evidence packaged as shocking new findings that supposedly prove the involvement of insiders. Its effect is to discredit the larger body of 9/11 research through guilt by association with its sensational and unscientific approach. An example is the idea that Twin Towers were not hit by Flights 11 or 175 but rather by completely different objects, such as military planes with missile-firing pods. Since 9-11 Research does not provide analysis of such disinformation, we recommend the disinformation section of 911review.com.

Lenke til kommentar
jjkoggan

jjkoggan

Skrevet
Skrevet
Oddvardm skrev (5 timer siden):

Misinformation

Maintaining the Official Story in the Face of Glaring Contradictions

Ensuring the success of the official story of 9/11/01 despite the long sequence of highly improbable events it supposes required that people not pay too much attention to the details. This would be ensured by the "shock and awe" of the attack itself combined with an intense propaganda campaign to sell the official story. Ironically, the vast majority of those who created and promoted that propaganda probably did so innocently, never questioning the official version of events. The idea that the entire attack was an inside job was simply too unthinkable for most Americans to consider.

The use of disinformation and diversion to manipulate public opinion is a highly developed art. It is well understood not only by psychological operations experts in the national security establishment, but also by marketing and public relations wizards. With the engineering of public reaction to September 11, disinformation has been used with a sophistication and depth that is historically unprecedented. A key tool in this modern form of psychological warfare is the "meme" -- an idea that acts like an infectious agent to spread itself through a population. Through careful construction of memes, the perpetrators could depend on others to unwittingly promote their cover story and conceal the truth. Their disinformation strategy was twofold. First, they would sell the official story to the masses through the compliant mass media, relying on people's desire to believe the official story. Second, they would seed specious ideas in the community of "9/11 skeptics" in order to distract and discredit them.

The Official Story of September 11, and Its Apologists

On the day of the attack, details about the alleged perpetrators emerged with a rapidity that is remarkable given the assertions by high-ranking administration officials that no one had ever considered that an attacker could fly planes into buildings. Within hours the identities of several of the alleged hijackers were known, and Osama bin Laden was being presented as the prime suspect. Within three days the FBI published the identities of all the alleged hijackers. It was being presented as an open-and-shut case.

Academics helped to explain the collapses of the Twin Towers in articles in respected publications. Just two days after the attack, a scientific paper purported to fully explain the unprecedented engineering failures using "elastic dynamic analysis." "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE on 9/13/01. Peer review of this paper and of other theories volunteering to explain the collapses was conspicuously absent.

The mass media were consistent in avoiding asking the most obvious questions. Why did the air defense network fail to respond? Why did Flight 77 target the recently-fortified, mostly empty portion of the Pentagon? Why was the Ground Zero steel removed and destroyed as fast as possible? The media shirked their public service obligation of acting as watchdogs of the government, and instead became cheerleaders for the administration's war plans for central Asia.

The vast body of print reportage about September 11 attack is notable for an abundance of contradictions. The timelines in the Complete 9-11 Timeline series reveal numerous inconsistencies, such as between reported times of events. These discrepancies, combined with the lack of evidence, discourage investigation of facts of the attack. Meanwhile, the impending attack on Afghanistan, the alleged Islam-terror link, and "homeland security" got the attention.

This section examines just a few of the elements of the official story of September 11 with a skeptical view and attention to contradictions.

  • Red Flags: People are able to accept theories blessed by government and mainstream media, despite inconsistencies and long series of improbable coincidences.
  • Cover Stories: The top four in command of our defense go about routine appointments for an hour as the attack unfolds.
  • Experts on Parade: Experts "explain" the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings.

Disinformation Targeting the Skeptics

Disinformation aimed at skeptics of the official story is more subtle than the simple promotion of that story to the masses. It may consist of ideas with no basis in evidence packaged as shocking new findings that supposedly prove the involvement of insiders. Its effect is to discredit the larger body of 9/11 research through guilt by association with its sensational and unscientific approach. An example is the idea that Twin Towers were not hit by Flights 11 or 175 but rather by completely different objects, such as military planes with missile-firing pods. Since 9-11 Research does not provide analysis of such disinformation, we recommend the disinformation section of 911review.com.

Hva har dette å gjøre med schizotypy?

  • Liker 1
Lenke til kommentar
Arve Synden

Arve Synden

Skrevet
Skrevet (endret)
26 minutes ago, jjkoggan said:

Hva har dette å gjøre med schizotypy?

Ingenting. Oddvardm har ingen argumenter, ihvertfall ingen egne. Han poster slik som Jehovas vitner poster – de finner utdrag fra bibelen sin og fra sektens offisielle nettsted som de poster. Når de ikke finner noe som er direkte relevant, så tar de noe som er nesten, men ikke helt fullstendig ulikt temaet.

Edit: dobbel nektelse

Endret av Arve Synden
  • Liker 2
Lenke til kommentar
Oddvardm

Oddvardm

Skrevet
  • Forfatter
Skrevet
jjkoggan skrev (3 timer siden):

Hva har dette å gjøre med schizotypy?

 

jjkoggan skrev (3 timer siden):

Disinformation Targeting the Skeptics

Disinformation aimed at skeptics of the official story is more subtle than the simple promotion of that story to the masses. It may consist of ideas with no basis in evidence packaged as shocking new findings that supposedly prove the involvement of insiders. Its effect is to discredit the larger body of 9/11 research through guilt by association with its sensational and unscientific approach. An example is the idea that Twin Towers were not hit by Flights 11 or 175 but rather by completely different objects, such as military planes with missile-firing pods. Since 9-11 Research does not provide analysis of such disinformation, we recommend the disinformation section of 911review.com.

 

Lenke til kommentar
Oddvardm

Oddvardm

Skrevet
  • Forfatter
Skrevet (endret)
jjkoggan skrev (3 timer siden):

Igjen, hva har dette å gjøre med schizotypy?

Intimidation

Threats Target Opponents of Post-9/11 Agenda

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11/2001 attack, the Bush administration made it clear dissent from the War on Terror would not be tolerated. In 2001 President Bush declared “You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.” Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced:

To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies ... 1  

Some influential figures in the news media and Congress appeared to need no further persuasion. Dan Rather, on the Late Show a week after the attack praised the President, saying:

George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions and...wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. 2  

Other figures who may not have been persuaded to "line up" by the public pronouncements of administration officials might have been persuaded to do so by other means: threats from mysterious sources.

The Post-9/11/01 Anthrax Attacks

anthrax_reward.jpg
Several of the anthrax-containing letter envelopes

Starting one week and one month after the mass murder of 9/11/2001, batches of letters containing weaponized anthrax were sent to news network anchors offices and Democratic senators. The first wave of letters arrived at the network offices just as the networks were returning to normal programming, and the second wave arrived at the Capitol building just as Democratic Senate leaders Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle were attempting to subject the USA PATRIOT Act to meaningful legislative review. 3  

In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft named Dr. Steven Hatfill, a virologist and Army scientist, a "person of interest" in the case. Hatfield sued the Justice Department and FBI, charging that they invaded his privacy and destroyed his career. In June of 2008, Hatfill won a settlement of $5.82 million. 4  

On August 8, 2008, the FBI closed its book on the anthrax case by effectively framing Bruce E. Ivins as the "lone biokiller" behind the attack.

Endret av Oddvardm
Lenke til kommentar
jjkoggan

jjkoggan

Skrevet
Skrevet
Oddvardm skrev (17 minutter siden):

Intimidation

Threats Target Opponents of Post-9/11 Agenda

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11/2001 attack, the Bush administration made it clear dissent from the War on Terror would not be tolerated. In 2001 President Bush declared “You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.” Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced:

To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies ... 1  

Some influential figures in the news media and Congress appeared to need no further persuasion. Dan Rather, on the Late Show a week after the attack praised the President, saying:

George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions and...wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. 2  

Other figures who may not have been persuaded to "line up" by the public pronouncements of administration officials might have been persuaded to do so by other means: threats from mysterious sources.

The Post-9/11/01 Anthrax Attacks

anthrax_reward.jpg
Several of the anthrax-containing letter envelopes

Starting one week and one month after the mass murder of 9/11/2001, batches of letters containing weaponized anthrax were sent to news network anchors offices and Democratic senators. The first wave of letters arrived at the network offices just as the networks were returning to normal programming, and the second wave arrived at the Capitol building just as Democratic Senate leaders Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle were attempting to subject the USA PATRIOT Act to meaningful legislative review. 3  

In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft named Dr. Steven Hatfill, a virologist and Army scientist, a "person of interest" in the case. Hatfield sued the Justice Department and FBI, charging that they invaded his privacy and destroyed his career. In June of 2008, Hatfill won a settlement of $5.82 million. 4  

On August 8, 2008, the FBI closed its book on the anthrax case by effectively framing Bruce E. Ivins as the "lone biokiller" behind the attack.

Shots fired at national park after alleged Bigfoot sighting

https://www.wrbl.com/news/shots-fired-at-national-park-after-alleged-bigfoot-sighting/amp/

 

  • Liker 1
Lenke til kommentar
Gjest
Dette emnet er stengt for flere svar.
Gå til emneliste
×
×
  • Opprett ny...