Exactly, Nando, and that's the whole point: Your theory is based on NO data. It is based on the "probable fact" (i.e. assumption) that the conspirators fabricated apparent anomalies from the start.Nando said:
I say: look at the hard data without prejudice (i.e. without assumptions) FIRST, and then propose a theory that explains it.
But you are doing it the other way around: Since you assume that there really was a 757 as part of a master plan to fool us all, then you try to fit the data into that, by proposing that the Pentagon wall was designed like a 'giant garage' (does that mean that there was a bigger hole and that then it closed up? Now that's a conspiracy theory! How did they do that?), and that the pieces of the plane dissappeared because they were blown up by 'car bombs' (which cars? which bombs? which explosions? There's nothing to support that), if I'm following you correctly.
By the way, how is it that you assume that they were smart enough to foresee the truth movement and fabricate the anomalies, yet they were not smart enough to understand that Alex Jones would not discuss the Pentagon strike on CNN, if that's what they were looking for?
P
paulnotbilly
Guest
I think it's from British navy, when sailors used to 'dally' with the locals in port, when they returned a year later, the local would board the ship and make mention of their son - where's the father? If nobody came forward the child was placed beneath the cannon, which became known as being a 'son of a gun.'Ben said:
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Son of a gun is not an insult in American slang. It can refer to a powerful but somewhat hot-tempered person. But it often is used as a euphemism for 'son of a b----' which I think is how Nando used it.
paulnotbilly said:
rs
Dagobah Resident
I think I know what you meant ("Nando is implying that a coverup, being expected, is somehow 'good'. Considering a cover-up 'good' is 'bad'.), but I have to say that this particular quote, (admittedly taken out of context), makes some inherent sense.sleepyvinny said:
You seem to be implying that one should have a 'moral' decision making process, i.e. if you commit a disgraceful act, you should be ashamed and be seeking atonement, therefore you should accept responsibility and take your deserved punishment. However if you remove the 'morality' directive, you get simply stimulus-response. If someone does something that they perceive to be disgraceful, it would be natural to desire to cover it up. So it would be "foolish" if the goal was to avoid consequences or punishment.
Ironically, the fact that an individual would characterize their actions as a "disgraceful act" implies to me that this individual has some kind of moral center, otherwise they would not feel shame. In this case the only issue is the willingness to accept (and even embrace) consequences. Like a 5-year old boy who is found standing in the kitchen holding a cookie, surrounded by the shattered remains of an heirloom cookie jar, he wants to avoid "getting spanked". From the point of view of the little boy, any other stance than denial is foolish because acceptance brings certain punishment. (Like happens even with adults, the denial is often even more foolish. I have a 5-year old and it sometimes almost makes me laugh at his ridiculous attempts at denial. He refuses to grok that denial is actually counter-productive - "it's not the crime it's the cover-up".)
This is not the kind of individual to "fear" as they are unresolved as to their moral center. At least they accept the possibility that an action they take could be in an objective sense "disgraceful", the issue is only the additional desire to avoid consequences. The kind of individual to be more concerned with is the psychopath who has no moral center and therefore would not characterize any action they take as being "disgraceful". Since there is no disgrace, a cover-up is a natural reaction to avoid having uncomfortable consequences to actions that others, for some bizarre reason, find disgraceful, whatever that term means.
OSIT.