Yeah, it's not one of their better ones, that.The problem with the Snopes rebuttal isn't that I believe the conspiracy theories, it's that "Yeah, there was some suspicious trading going on, but it was just a coincidence," is a terrible rebuttal. You have to at least explain why it was a coincidence and how that conclusion was reached otherwise you're no better than the conspiracy theorists claiming such and such "definitely happened" without providing any evidence.
i say that to my mad cousin all the time. but then he has a temper tantrum and doesnt speak to me for 3 monthsoften the problem with having arguments about this shit in real life is that it's rude to say to your interlocuteur that you don't believe that they know anything at all about stock movements / how to interpret medical statistics / the temperature at which steel beams melt and that they're just telling you about things they read on the internet. you're just not allowed to say that in a conversation. this is a weakness of our culture.
I pull the old Socrates humblebrag trick of pointing out how little I know about the given subject, while demonstrating that even I know more than my interlocutor.often the problem with having arguments about this shit in real life is that it's rude to say to your interlocuteur that you don't believe that they know anything at all about stock movements / how to interpret medical statistics / the temperature at which steel beams melt and that they're just telling you about things they read on the internet. you're just not allowed to say that in a conversation. this is a weakness of our culture.
I pull the old Socrates humblebrag trick of pointing out how little I know about the given subject, while demonstrating that even I know more than my interlocutor.
Also easier when you actually recognize how little you know in relation to what can be known, but then again I'm early in my practice of this technique and thus my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.Oh, is that what you're doing?
youll like this tea right up your street
Turning to 9–11, work by one of the present authors (Zarembka 2008: 49–56) confirms two aspects of the official story of 9–11, namely, against those claiming that the four planes did not even take off and that no planes were hijacked (This research does, nevertheless, note doubt about a hijacking for American Airlines flight 77). The hijacking of the planes can thus be taken as public. However, Zarembka could not confirm – nor fully disconfirm – assertions that hijackers (whatever their identities) were in control of the planes all the way to the final seconds, given that auto-control and/or beaconing is common (probably on every flight the reader has taken in the past quarter-century). This is an example of an open question.
Also I doubt Socrates was as much of a cybernetic narcissist as I am, but then again I am largely unfamiliar with ancient greek culture.
i didnt read it it was too longSeems a little redundant for the planes to have been flown into the towers both by the hijacker pilots and by remote control, no?
I wouldn't say so. I was just describing the situations in my experience where it has been true, which are few because I am usually conversing with people at least twice my age....and yet you've demonstrated you know more about it than us, your interlocutors?