Dubstepforum.com

you are right that things don't add up, and it may have been a false flag operation...

but i REALLLLLLY don't want to steer this into a 9/11 debate

Ha! I understand, but logic in general dismisses multiple variables, so it is flawed by its very nature (Human, vulcan or otherwise if you follow logics' path, like many philosophers, you will hits many brick walls. There are many different modes of 'thought', have a look at most Eastern culture and philosophy, Zen 'paradoxical Logic' for instance, Quantum theory also generally turns logic on its head.
Have you ever heard of 'Zenos paradox'?, it is a prime example of logics main flaw, in my opinion. Anyway, that's my

hurlingdervish wrote:you are right that things don't add up, and it may have been a false flag operation...

but i REALLLLLLY don't want to steer this into a 9/11 debate

yeh i know i cant be arsed either i got no energy but im trying to say is, there is a lot of solid evidence proving a lot of the things the US say is a lie. and most likely enough evidence in a court of law to prove bin laden and al qeada could not be responsible, and that what they said happend was impossible.

Scarecrow wrote:

Ha! I understand, but logic in general dismisses multiple variables, so it is flawed by its very nature (Human, vulcan or otherwise if you follow logics' path, like many philosophers, you will hits many brick walls. There are many different modes of 'thought', have a look at most Eastern culture and philosophy, Zen 'paradoxical Logic' for instance, Quantum theory also generally turns logic on its head.
Have you ever heard of 'Zenos paradox'?, it is a prime example of logics main flaw, in my opinion. Anyway, that's my

good post!
yes logic has flaws but a mix of logic and intuition is necessary where as too much of either can be unhealthy

zenos paradox is like fractal logic...very interesting

Scarecrow wrote:

Have you ever heard of 'Zenos paradox'?, it is a prime example of logics main flaw, in my opinion.

Although most people agree that the paradoxes have been resolved via calculus.

Osky wrote:we KNOW what the government has told us is physically impossible

do we?

what do you know, beyond whats on the internet at the moment? this is the thing i find totally incredible about the 9/11 cultists. their whole sphere is what they've seen/read/heard on the media or on the net.

i was 30 blocks away from the towers when they fell that day. i heard no explosions. one of my best friends was in the deutche bank building, literally 1 block from the towers. they heard no explosions when the buildings came down. hundreds of people that were in and around the tower when it fell heard no explosions. yet people are willing to go on and on about engineering impossiblities based on some youtube videos and things on sites.

its horseshit. that tower came down on its own.

i find it funny that people so much faith in an argument based on a video they saw on the internet.

there's some big logical fallacies in the OP to start with

and it's funny people still judge videos by the hosting site not by the content

hurlingdervish wrote:
If you make any claim

YOU have to prove it.

The listener doesn't have to prove anything because they didn't make a claim!

go on prove what you just said!

hurlingdervish wrote:

Scarecrow wrote:

Ha! I understand, but logic in general dismisses multiple variables, so it is flawed by its very nature (Human, vulcan or otherwise if you follow logics' path, like many philosophers, you will hits many brick walls. There are many different modes of 'thought', have a look at most Eastern culture and philosophy, Zen 'paradoxical Logic' for instance, Quantum theory also generally turns logic on its head.
Have you ever heard of 'Zenos paradox'?, it is a prime example of logics main flaw, in my opinion. Anyway, that's my

good post!
yes logic has flaws but a mix of logic and intuition is necessary where as too much of either can be unhealthy

zenos paradox is like fractal logic...very interesting

logic has no flaws, if it has flaws it's bad logic (or no logic more precisely)
same with science
zeno is bad logic

alien pimp wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote:

Scarecrow wrote:
Ha! I understand, but logic in general dismisses multiple variables, so it is flawed by its very nature (Human, vulcan or otherwise if you follow logics' path, like many philosophers, you will hits many brick walls. There are many different modes of 'thought', have a look at most Eastern culture and philosophy, Zen 'paradoxical Logic' for instance, Quantum theory also generally turns logic on its head.
Have you ever heard of 'Zenos paradox'?, it is a prime example of logics main flaw, in my opinion. Anyway, that's my

good post!
yes logic has flaws but a mix of logic and intuition is necessary where as too much of either can be unhealthy

zenos paradox is like fractal logic...very interesting

logic has no flaws, if it has flaws it's bad logic (or no logic more precisely)
same with science
zeno is bad logic

well logic does have flaws because if you are looking to buy a car you can choose between the cheaper used car, and the more expensive but reliable new car, logic wont tell you what to choose.

a computer can do logic, but it can't make choices which is in part what logic helps us do but ultimately relies on other things

after reading more on zeno's its really not a problem at all its like dividing 1 by 2 into infinity, it will never reach zero but at some point we would make the obvious choice to round it down

alien pimp wrote:there's some big logical fallacies in the OP to start with

and it's funny people still judge videos by the hosting site not by the content

at least im trying not to, instead of just buying into everything i see.

a credible source is a credible source and an internet video is not a credible source for anything unless its a cop tasering someone or something

fuagofire wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote:
If you make any claim

YOU have to prove it.

The listener doesn't have to prove anything because they didn't make a claim!

go on prove what you just said!

that's what im sayin yo!
What hurlingdervish is putting forward as some sort of revelation is called logical positivism and it stems from the vienna circle, it fails by its own criteria and is basically just masked christianity as it is the worship of knowledge (as logos or plato's forms) and is a vain attempt to overcome the ineptitude of human knowledge.

J-sh wrote:

fuagofire wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote:
If you make any claim

YOU have to prove it.

The listener doesn't have to prove anything because they didn't make a claim!

go on prove what you just said!

that's what im sayin yo!
What hurlingdervish is putting forward as some sort of revelation is called logical positivism and it stems from the vienna circle, it fails by its own criteria and is basically just masked christianity as it is the worship of knowledge (as logos or plato's forms) and is a vain attempt to overcome the ineptitude of human knowledge.

what are you talking about man? its called BURDEN OF PROOF. its been around for a long time.

why should an agnostic have to prove that god exists when theres no proof that god does exist?

the burden of proof is on christianity because they are the ones making the claim.

hurlingdervish wrote: a credible source is a credible source and an internet video is not a credible source for anything unless its a cop tasering someone or something

yeah, i see where your exigence comes from, exigence is exigence
i'd just like to underline the term content

alien pimp wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote: a credible source is a credible source and an internet video is not a credible source for anything unless its a cop tasering someone or something

yeah, i see where your exigence comes from, exigence is exigence
i'd just like to underline the term content

jokessss


content like:

jews are going to take over the world

ob@ma is evul

fooking your mom was an inside job

Parson wrote:wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about something like Robert Anton Wilson and an 8 circuit model of intelligence than to try to mold everybody into a tiny little corner of consensus?

RAW would literally call you hopeless and dogmatic and insane with this lawyer-speak.

life is not a court of law. hiding lies gets real easy when people are as quick to dismiss as they are being trained.

Thanks for telling me about this guy. Hadn't heard of him nor his model. Very interesting. Have you read any of his books? Sorry for going a bit off-topic here.

hurlingdervish wrote:

alien pimp wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote: a credible source is a credible source and an internet video is not a credible source for anything unless its a cop tasering someone or something

yeah, i see where your exigence comes from, exigence is exigence
i'd just like to underline the term content

jokessss


content like:

jews are going to take over the world

ob@ma is evul

fooking your mom was an inside job

this is all you found?

damn youtube, i guess google was bought by conspirationix!

hurlingdervish wrote:

J-sh wrote:

fuagofire wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote:
If you make any claim

YOU have to prove it.

The listener doesn't have to prove anything because they didn't make a claim!

go on prove what you just said!

that's what im sayin yo!
What hurlingdervish is putting forward as some sort of revelation is called logical positivism and it stems from the vienna circle, it fails by its own criteria and is basically just masked christianity as it is the worship of knowledge (as logos or plato's forms) and is a vain attempt to overcome the ineptitude of human knowledge.

what are you talking about man? its called BURDEN OF PROOF. its been around for a long time.

why should an agnostic have to prove that god exists when theres no proof that god does exist?

the burden of proof is on christianity because they are the ones making the claim.

haha i was taking the piss