4 ms·

1, 2 and 7 are common knowledge. http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/prete

1, 2 and 7 are common knowledge. http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/prete...

chmod775 7y ago
They are really not. They may be considered "common knowledge" in your circles. You can find plenty of detailed rebuttals to the theories you subscribe to and I invite you to seek them out and consider the other side of the argument.
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Certainly. I have checked that box. The magnitude of bad/false information around that Tuesday exceeds the verifiable by orders. Your other responses (I strongly agree with) tell me you haven't really looked into it.
  - chmod775 7y ago
    > Your other responses (I strongly agree with) tell me you haven't really looked into it. By Tuesday you mean the WTC attacks? I spent the better part of three years listening to someone who tried to convince me of the false-flag POV. I'm still in the camp of I don't know and I don't care though, because it's not even my country and either way the weather forecast is gonna have a bigger influence on my life. As for the Holocaust, you'll have a hard time convincing me since I'm German and there's still enough evidence of it here to drown yourself in if you so please (or touch with your bare hands if archives are not your thing). Also I guess my grandparents (or their parents) and virtually every older person with first or second-hand knowledge would have to be lying to me. So yeah... that position is pretty untenable here. It's like if your distant uncle from France tried to convince you your arbor doesn't exist when it's right there outside your window in Arizona and your granddad can still tell you stories of his father building it. Your french uncle would have to be damn convincing on the phone.
    - jakeogh 7y ago
      That's pretty common. If I bring up the (rather specific) subject of that link to someone who has been extensively exposed to bad information, they associate it with some other event. Association, where there is none, is a very effective way to poison the well and change the subject. I'm not suggesting you did either on purpose, it's clear you are being candid and relaying your experience. Note I said nothing (anywhere... ever) about the unrelated older historical event you brought up. Indeed, I bet we agree.
      - chmod775 7y ago
        > Note I said nothing (anywhere... ever) about the unrelated older historical event you brought up. Indeed, I bet we agree. Wait... what was 1, 2, and 7 referring to then? I just numbered the topics in the order they were brought up in the original article.

1, 2 and 7 are common knowledge. http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/pretext.mov http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/video/prete...

chmod775 7y ago

They are really not. They may be considered "common knowledge" in your circles. You can find plenty of detailed rebuttals to the theories you subscribe to and I invite you to seek them out and consider the other side of the argument.

jakeogh 7y ago
Certainly. I have checked that box. The magnitude of bad/false information around that Tuesday exceeds the verifiable by orders. Your other responses (I strongly agree with) tell me you haven't really looked into it.
- chmod775 7y ago
  > Your other responses (I strongly agree with) tell me you haven't really looked into it. By Tuesday you mean the WTC attacks? I spent the better part of three years listening to someone who tried to convince me of the false-flag POV. I'm still in the camp of I don't know and I don't care though, because it's not even my country and either way the weather forecast is gonna have a bigger influence on my life. As for the Holocaust, you'll have a hard time convincing me since I'm German and there's still enough evidence of it here to drown yourself in if you so please (or touch with your bare hands if archives are not your thing). Also I guess my grandparents (or their parents) and virtually every older person with first or second-hand knowledge would have to be lying to me. So yeah... that position is pretty untenable here. It's like if your distant uncle from France tried to convince you your arbor doesn't exist when it's right there outside your window in Arizona and your granddad can still tell you stories of his father building it. Your french uncle would have to be damn convincing on the phone.
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    That's pretty common. If I bring up the (rather specific) subject of that link to someone who has been extensively exposed to bad information, they associate it with some other event. Association, where there is none, is a very effective way to poison the well and change the subject. I'm not suggesting you did either on purpose, it's clear you are being candid and relaying your experience. Note I said nothing (anywhere... ever) about the unrelated older historical event you brought up. Indeed, I bet we agree.
    - chmod775 7y ago
      > Note I said nothing (anywhere... ever) about the unrelated older historical event you brought up. Indeed, I bet we agree. Wait... what was 1, 2, and 7 referring to then? I just numbered the topics in the order they were brought up in the original article.