kuzadd

You'll notice it does not include/smear/namecalling or ridicule. This piece ,as do a number of posters here, inc. scottsa, excels at the smear/namecalling/ridicule. BUT does NOT demonstrate any critical thinking skills, which can only explain IMO, why scottsa , posted it. As he thinks this piece is actually demonstrative of that, critical thinking,, except, since scottsa, who is not alone in this, does not even begin to understand or demonstrate critical thinking skills in even one post I have ever read.

actually most american incarcerated are not murder's many of them are petty drug possessors. waste of jail time, and taxpayers dollars. The point is the US holds no higher moral ground on prisoner incarceration rates nor treatment!

wow a ridicule, smear piece, and that's a demonstration of critical thinking??? ROFL!!!! Or a rational discussion on an alternative opinion. Someone who lacks any critical thinking skills, of course wouldn;t recognize this for what it is. Or did they simply wish to seize the opportunity, to further their name call/smear?

imagine my surprise, the US covers up policy of murdering civilians. not! http://www.thestar.com/article/203254 but this document that the US had , but did not divulge in order to clear itself (self-serving) Is but one of numerous omissions of documents. Let's see deliberate cover-up of intentional civilian murders, mostly women and children. bringing democracy and freedom ???? and who is the terrorist?? well that's nothing new under the sun, IMO. it is quite likely the same murdering of civilians is going on in Iraq, as it did in Korea, as it did in Vietnam......

for scribbs and dop. watch this little documentary done by the brits, on the US prisons system http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.htm Torture inc. Savaged by dogs, Electrocuted With Cattle Prods, Burned By Toxic Chemicals, Does such barbaric abuse inside U.S. jails explain the horrors that were committed in Iraq? By Deborah Davies They are just some of the victims of wholesale torture taking place inside the U.S. prison system that we uncovered during a four-month investigation for Channel 4 . It’s terrible to watch some of the videos and realise that you’re not only seeing torture in action but, in the most extreme cases, you are witnessing young men dying. it's brutal, but, you can take it! It's just the truth. But the Us holds the moral high ground on prisoner treatment, ???? yea right.

We can draw the line and distinguish between the absolutely outlandish and normal debate based on the news etc. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...aw/1230517.html Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists seem's clear it's a personal beef. eh scribbs?? btw: if the debate on 9/11 makes it into the news, it falls into the realm of normal debate, as it is even debated in Popular mechanics for example. At one time it was rather normal to keep a black person as a slave now it is outlandish, what qualfies as "normal' vs outlandish, changes all the time. it's quite clear, IMO, some posters with personal bias's are calling for censorship of opinions, they do not agree with, and that is all it is. What the real question is, is why some posters,(I can't help but notice), largely identifying themselves with the conservative camp, are so intolerant?? Is it individuals within the party? is it the parties policy, that make it's adherent's intolerant? is it because many but not all adherents come from Alberta? Are Albertans more intolerant? I dunno, but this is what it seems, to be. That the posters with intolerant bias's towards divergent opinions are identyfying themselves as conservatives, it is an interesting correlation, to be sure. Though it will be quickly denied, the proof is in the pudding.

suggested reading up: the US incarcerates more people, then any other country in the world, and then engages them in slave labour for corporations, no rehabilitation necessary. land of the free..........................home of the slave Published on Saturday, December 9, 2006 by Reuters US Has the Most Prisoners in the World by James Vicini we should inform ourselves on the reality of the US prison system, before we point fingers elsewhere. Oh , sorry, that requires thinking.

LOL; the last resort of the weak is to use name calling/smear tactics. scriblett always excelled at that. Propaganda runs both ways, wake up people. You really think the US and Britian haven't engaged in massive propaganda campaigns?? How is it soo many, myself NOT included bought into the WMD's in iraq story. Or the 9/11 /Iraq connection, or the iraq/yellow cake, or the brit dossier BS??? Massive Propoganda! All who did, demonstrate propoganda works and critical thinking skills are lax. ( I am not inclding myself, in this assessement, as I did my homework) Even if, the Iranians put that footage out as propoganda, which, I can't say either way> W What was the whole Jessica Lynch story, the Pat Tillman story, the pulling down of the statue, how about the incubator story, GW1, lots of propaganda courtesy of PR firms in the US. wake up people! What's going on in Guantanamo, what's going on in US prisons?????? denial, denial, denial............................................

"How is there to be reasoning with such people?" "with such people", how extremely arrogant, do you know who these people are, you characterize in such a disgraceful manner. what you are endorsing is censoring opinions that you disagree with. EX: many people would say any number of things are conspiratorial, and example of this is the NAU discussions, always held in secret, anway from public eyes, question that and hear the shrieks of 'conspiracy' IMO, I would characterize Harper as a zealous christian, and so what? All politicians make speeches to special interest group, but, IMO Harper goes a little further then that. So you. or the pack , the mob, make yourself the deciders, of what is acceptable? what next lynchings or book burnings, are to be advocated for? and backwards we march...... As Voltaire said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. ..

I was wondering that too, how long will they continue to fund it, and will we get to see the results of the study. I agree that the forum is changing and one of the reasons I wanted a separate forum for conspiracy theories, that way one doesn't have to scroll on by or put them on ignore. No one is saying they should be censored, just given a separate forum as obviously some people do like to debate the issue. cheers I personally consider anything from the Bush regime to be a 'conspiracy theory' at best, so shall we dedicate a forum to all the bush induced theories, that would be fun! or how about one for the 'rapture believers' that is quit a theory? how about one for the 'Muslim world take over' theory?

HMMMMmmm, I smell the cries for censorship, and wonder why? exercise your own free choice, participate or not. post where you want, we are all capable, are we not? or do we need babysitters to censor discussion for us. I think not. why do you think so?

Assertion: Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies. stignasty: are you now contradicting yourself, or was this one of you assertations?? LOL! Read what you posted above carefully. Read it a number of times if you have to. Pay careful attention to who said what. Eventually it may start to make sense to you. actually stignasty the whole scenario, went down like this stig tries to pass of a hypothesis as conclusions. i point out via quotation from your info, that the statements were hypothesis. You then assert again they are conclusions, I correct you. You persist, I post defintions of hypothesis, vs conclusions. When Buffy points out something along the same line, and I digress, on what you posted, you finally, finally concede, that YOU mistakenly called a hypothesis, a theory, when actually you were attemting to pawn the hypothesis as conclusions. it's all there to read..... when you realize your error, you start with this foolishness. IT STARTED HERE KUZADD STIGNASTY: kUZADD" STIGNASTY: KUZADD: kUZADD: How many times did I point out to you your own info, was a hypothesis, and you persisted in minimally three cases, by claiming NIST had "explained it to be", or " they have explained it " as if that was a conclusion.Using past tense language. NIST didn't even claim they had explained it to be anything, you did. That's what happened stignasty and it's all there, to read. Now you are trying to say what, more twisted BS?! that generally sums up all you have said. RIVERWIND; I am waiting....................... Though I see you continue to ignore............. See if PN, made this type of claim, and then did not support it, the nasty people, would be here, calling PN every name in the book, and yet, Riverwind, you have made an assertation, which you have failed to support, kinda like WMD's in Iraq, now I won't call you names, I leave that to the varying posters on this forum, who resort to that, but I will ask you again to support your claim. Thanks

Assertion: Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies. stignasty: are you now contradicting yourself, or was this one of you assertations?? LOL!

Assertion: Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies. In reality, I mistakenly called an hypothesis a theory. Allow me to correct. 9/11 conspiracy theorists like Poly and kuzadd have created an hypothesis (the government used explosives to bring down the three towers). They have then only looked for evidence to support that hypothesis. The problem is that they disregard any counter-evidence because it does not hold to their beliefs. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused you. did I ever mention explosives, anywhere???? NOPE

Transfer: Transfer is another of the seven main propaganda terms first used by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Transfer is often used in politics and during wartime. It is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind. Although this technique is often used to transfer negative feelings for one object to another, it can also be used in positive ways. By linking an item to something the subject respects or enjoys, positive feelings can be generated for it. However, in politics, transfer is most often used to transfer blame or bad feelings from one politician to another of his friends or party members, or even to the party itself. When confronted with propaganda using the transfer technique, we should question the merits or problems of the proposal or idea independently of convictions about other objects or proposals. i didn't use Transfer, i demonstrated more assertation, unsubstantiated assertations, ones which you obviously swallowed up. I know you did ,it's ok, some people can only muster blindly following, with subservient unquestioning. The assertation of WMD's in iraq, was just that an assertation, didn't you know that?? BTW: I am well versed in the tools of propoganda, you could do well to learn more about them , then you wouldn't swallow up so many assertations, nor jump on the bandwagon so quickly, and would avoid the "name calling/smear technique, along with glittering generalities etc., etc., and while your at it, bone up on your language and defintion skills! You need to understand a hypothesis is not a consclusion. when in doubt , check it out!

A fact is something that has been proven using mathematical properties and facts that have been proven themselves. For example, here is a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. This proof depends on the fact that the area of a square is the product of the length of its sides. A proof is worthless if any of the facts used in the proof are not proven themselves. All of the hypotheses produced by the thruthies are based on facts which are not proven (e.g. the amount of material ejected during the collapse is an unknown quantity). This means that truthies cannot claim that they have PROVEN anything. They have a hypotheses - nothing more. The same is true of NIST. They have used a number of computer simulations which are more reliable than data collected from video footage but they still rely on data which cannot be verified. Unfortunately, it is impossible to actually collect the data necessary to validate any of these hypotheses because that would require someone to fly a few more planes into a few more buildings that have been prepared in advance to collect the data. This is obviously not an option so we must evaluate these hypotheses using other criteria. That is where plausibility comes in. The story arc required to explain the thruthie hypothesis is extremely implausible and has no evidence to support it. The story arc required to explain the NIST hypothesis is extremely plausible and has a lot of evidence to support it (phone calls from passengers on the planes, prior attacks on the WTC, statements by Al Queada, etc). Thruthies try to compensate for the lack of supporting evidence by claiming they have falsified the NIST hypothesis. However, such approaches are a waste of time because it is impossible to falsify the NIST hypothesis with the data available. "They have used a number of computer simulations which are more reliable than data collected from video footage but they still rely on data which cannot be verified. " FALSE! computer simulations, are NOT more reliable, in fact they can be very unreliable depending on the parameters, the programming etc. Rather like computerized voting machines that can easily be "adjusted" God almighty the crap you swallow up!!!! Hard evidence, counts not computer generations!! like NIST puts floors into ovens that don't fail, when subjected to extreme heat, but when they made a computer model, the floors could fail, and this is reliable, BS!!! Change the parameters to get the results you want. are you for real????? seriously???

Assertion: Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies. Like that Thomas Eager report, full of assertations. Many unsubstantiated, but you don't question, nor does Riverwind, right?????? or how about the wmd assertation, question that one? How about the assertation that iraq was connected to 9/11. Just a couple BS assertations, swallowed up, without question, right stig and riverwind??? I am sure you both did. of course there were other assertations. yellow cake from niger cooked intel, lots of assertations, NO TRUTHS, just like 9/11, lots of assertations, NO TRUTH!

So? The onus of proof is on you since the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the widely accepted explaination for why the buildings collapsed. If you want to claim otherwise you need CONCLUSIVE evidence that bombs were present. You have nothing but idle speculation about what should or should not happen when large airplanes full of fuel hit large buildings. No actually, the onus of proof was on the Bush administration, and they did a very very bad job of it!!!! But you forget that. Did I mention bombs at any point in time. NOPE. still waiting for info, and have aske dyou to enlighten me on the strengthening of wtc 7 done in 89. In fact, I've asked you three times, and can't help but notice, that you ignore it.\ scares you eh??? still waiting as others on the forum are also... Buffycat, aren't you waiting ?? I know I am, I am sure PN is........ don't let me down, don't let me down.......

actually stignasty thought a hypothesis, was a conclusion, ( ask me how that's possible) but I digress.............

Hey B: it crossed my mind soooo many times , listening to the whining, drone on and on. as if the Brits or the Us have the high moral ground, rofl!!!!! I'll pass it on!

How come none of the people who 'dissappeared' on that day have come forward to confess their role in the plot? There were hundreds of people who were either on those planes or close relatives of those who were. Yet none of them have come forward to expose the hoax of the century. The lure of fame or the power of guilt is a powerful force. It is irrational to suggest that 100s of people could resist it. How come its never happened before with completed buildings except in controlled demolitions ?No steel frame structure has ever had a large plane flown into it before. But as I said - the onus of proof is on you. You have no proof that buildings cannot collapse naturally when damaged enough. Riverwind: "No steel frame structure has ever had a large plane flown into it before." really ???? http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html Riverwind"But as I said - the onus of proof is on you. You have no proof that buildings cannot collapse naturally when damaged enough." and you have no proof they can, because, until Sept 11th , they never had, and have never since. waiting for the info on 3,4,5,and 6 that didn't collapse,don't you wanna show everyone on the forum the support for your statement, that 7 was damaged far more then those buildings??? I am sure there is interest. PN aren't you interested in Riverwind supporting his/her statement, that wtc 7 was far more damaged then 3,4,5,and 6. the "onus of proof is on you", to back up your statement.lol waiting.......................... btw: riverwind, did you read this, share your thoughts http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...&pagewanted=all COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million ''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need "MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors " ''Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building no reason to think wtc 7's minimal damage, would cause a collapse, to this super strong reinforced structure,

Complete BS. There are an infinite number of damage scenarios that could lead to a complete collapse. More importantly, you have zero proof that your claim is true. waiting patiently, or are you digging yoruself, deeper at your own behest??

what you suggest??? rather then some 'polynewbish type publication', in reference to the book, I mentioned , America and the Nazi's LOL! dop: this is where you discredit yourself in an attempt to, elevate yourself. I implore you to check out the book I am referencing http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Intelligence-Naz...n/dp/0521617944 U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis( i should have put the title in correctly) but, you should not assume. Book Description At a time when intelligence successes and failures are at the center of public discussion, this book provides an unprecedented inside look at how intelligence agencies function during war and peacetime. As the direct result of the 1998 Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act, the volume draws upon many documents declassified under this law to reveal what U.S. intelligence agencies learned about Nazi crimes during World War II and about the nature of Nazi intelligence agencies' role in the Holocaust. It examines how some U.S. corporations found ways to profit from Nazi Germany's expropriation of the property of German Jews. The work also reveals startling new details on the Cold War connections between the U.S. government and Hitler's former officers. About the Author Richard Breitman, professor of history at American University, is the author or co-author of seven books and more than forty articles. nice try at discreditting, still up to tricks eh? ;-)

BTW: obsidian, don't know if this was covered, but, you can watch this interesting documentary on-line. I am actually listening right, now, as I work. Banking with Hitler Timewatch for BBC - Banking with Hitler The US Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, began investigating Nazi finances 60 years ago and found Allied banks, including many British and American high street names, who continued to do business with Hitler's Germany throughout the war http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_drugsmoney.htm scroll down and watch on realplayer.

This was true for Canada, Switzerland, Brazil, Italy, etc. If such a connection is abhorrent, what of the CanAm connection today in wars under the Bush "regime". Are you prepared to level the exact same criticism against Canadian business interests complicit in the USA's very "despicable" wars? anyday BC, anyday!