Why you, your children & your grand-children can't put down a phone or Computer game

[Marco]

Since you're selectively quoting from the article, to suit your POV, allow me to reciprocate:

Barrett says the experts have been fooled by an "act of psychological conversion" not unlike the tactics CIA interrogators use on their victims. "People will disregard evidence if it causes their faith to be shattered," he says. "I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it."

The first highlighted part is particularly apt, and exactly what I've been saying for years about ingrained belief systems and comfort zones, sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'la la la, make the bad man go away', and subsequently burying your head in the sand... The faith mentioned cuts both ways, and so it affects the beliefs of both YOU and I!

No-one is immune from the effects of cognitive dissonance - not even scientists or rational academics

And the second describes how the majority of the general public will most often behave in these situations, although not necessarily those who are 'sensible'...

Marco.

[Macca]

I've no problem with being skeptical about anyone's claims. It's my default position.

But as far as 9/11 is concerned there is way too much evidence to show that it happened exactly as claimed and none whatsoever to demonstrate otherwise. A false flag op of that magnitude simply isn't viable.

[Marco]

Well, as before, we'll simply have to agree to disagree - and I have good cause to do so

You could still be a victim, as highlighted, of disregarding what doesn't suit your belief system or faith, without realising it.... And only seeing what you WANT to see!

None of that, however, detracts from the validity of what I wrote in post 60. It's not about *wanting* to believe in conspiracy theories, but rather testing the robustness of the supposed 'facts' you're being fed by the media, and how well they stand up to scrutiny. There are *always* two sides to every story. I never just automatically believe one side, without considering the other, no matter how apparently 'ludicrous' or uncomfortable to entertain.

Therefore, CHALLENGING the accepted norm/currently accepted wisdom, or the majority (popular) view, as others and I frequently do, is a sign of an enquiring/inquisitive mind, and the desire to discover the REAL truth, not stupidity or gullibility. So in answer to Joe, *that* is what's called being a free-thinker!

Heretics have always been vilified and considered as dangerous

However, if I'm presented with sufficient evidence, which satisfies me that I'm wrong, I'm openminded enough to change my views on 9/11 (and other thorny subjects, such as the assassination of Jill Dando, in relation to her intended exposure of paedophile rings, existing in rather high places, which I believe is the truth, not what the supposed 'facts' suggest), but so far I've seen none.

Marco.

[Marco]

I've no problem with being skeptical about anyone's claims.

Including your own?

Marco.

[Macca]

I'm not making any claims.

[anthonyTD]

The better side of humanity.
This is one example of why i still believe that the majority of people are good at heart, perhaps misguided, and guilty of the pack mentality at times, but potentialy good!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QntBkDFkiuY

[Marco]

I'm not making any claims.

Yes you are. You're claiming that the stated 'conspiracy theories' are wrong, so if given sufficient evidence refuting that, would you also be skeptical about thinking you were right?

Marco.

[Macca]

Yes you are. You're claiming that the stated 'conspiracy theories' are wrong, so if given sufficient evidence refuting that, would you also be skeptical about thinking you were right?

Marco.

In the case of 9/11 I'm not contesting the official version of events. That's not the same as making a claim.

Conspiracies do happen so I'm happy to entertain the idea of a conspiracy about pretty much anything. Moon Landings, Princess Diana, 9/11 and so on. I'll look at the evidence presented by those claiming conspiracy and weigh it up.

I won't dismiss it out of hand just because it goes against the official version or just because it requires a conspiracy to be true.

But as far as those three go the evidence for conspiracy is badly wanting. I could perhaps go for the idea that they knew 9/11 attack was going to happen but did nothing to stop it, so they could exploit the aftermath. I wouldn't put that past them. But I've seen no credible evidence presented to back that up.

Like Joe said big organizations like governments tend to be incompetent, slow and ineffectual at everything they do. There's a massive weight of evidence plus my own personal experience to back that up.

For these conspiracies to be true that would have to be a complete and deliberate illusion and governments would in fact need to be amazingly well-organized and competent in order to manufacture these events. How likely is that? I'd say there is zero chance.

[Marco]

Conspiracies do happen so I'm happy to entertain the idea of a conspiracy about pretty much anything. Moon Landings, Princess Diana, 9/11 and so on. I'll look at the evidence presented by those claiming conspiracy and weigh it up. I won't dismiss it out of hand just because it goes against the official version or just because it requires a conspiracy to be true.

Same here. And that's exactly what I did, at some length over a considerable period of time, but have come up with a different and equally valid view from yours.

What also needs to be remembered is that it's always easier finding evidence supporting the "official version" of events than the opposite, for various obvious reasons, one of which is that our 'controlling powers' will always ensure that their dirty tracks are covered up as best as possible - and they have the wherewithal, both in terms of manpower and finances, to ensure that that is the case.

However, that doesn't automatically mean that any claimed conspiracy is untrue, despite a seeming lack of evidence, because it could simply just have been very well covered up!

I'm afraid that when it comes to unadulterated inhuman greed, ego or image, and seeking ultimate wealth and power, at the expense of anyone who gets in their way, and protecting their own vile (and corrupt) best interests in the process, I wouldn't put ANYTHING past the elite [especially those within the Royal family, think what happened to Princess Diana], or those whose strings they're pulling - and that includes governments!

For these conspiracies to be true that would have to be a complete and deliberate illusion and governments would in fact need to be amazingly well-organized and competent in order to manufacture these events. How likely is that?

Perhaps more likely than you think, or indeed might want to believe

Marco.

[AJSki2fly]

Some interesting words I came across today that were written some years ago.

"Man is a danger.
Though essentially nothing more than sentient clay, he takes your breath away. He is a prodigy - a miracle.
Unique imagination generates unique ambition. Skill and knowledge, developing in tandem, provide the tools to realise ambition.
In absolute terms his deeds are neither good nor bad - simply good or bad for him, be it directly or indirectly. The only real sin is bad husbandry.
The world shall surely live on - long after he is gone - and the only useful advice to him would be caution.

Man is a danger - though less of a danger to the universe than to man himself.
Man is a danger.
As the angel - in Hadyn's oratorio 'The Creation" - warned Adam and Eve when they were given the custody of the garden:
O happy pair, and happy evermore
Provided folly lead you not astray
To wish for more than what you have
Or more to know for your good."

words by Patrick Woodroffe (27 October 1940 – 10 May 2014)