Superhighway/N. American Union

[jakesteele]

@Marley23

Yes, surprisingly, your lack of facts has not overwhelmed me. I was hoping you’d at least tell me what I was afraid of, but instead, you proceeded straight to the final namecalling stage.

If calling you “Dude” offends you then I sincerely apologize. My intention was to mirror image right back at you the same righteous, assumptive, condescending tone of voice. That’s why I wrote: “Shakes head” It is in the same conntation as “rolls eye balls”.

[jakesteele]

@Lemur866

Interesting that person who started this thread isn’t interested in arguing about his original premise, but instead would rather focus on 9/11 trutherism.

Why start a thread about the North American Union if you don’t want to talk about the North American Union? If you want to argue about 9/11 there’s another perfectly good thread you can post in.

You make a good point. I inadvertently started this diversion from the main topic by using the Super Highway non-believers and the 911 non-believers as example of someone who doesn’t believe in the conspiracy by using: Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority). I was just using it as an example and a comparison.

I didn’t intend the thread to go this direction but a number of people steered it this way by grabbing ahold of the 911 comparison. Perhaps I was comparing apples to oranges. All I wanted was other people’s take on the Super Highway, which I got,

But it seems I also opened a can of worms by people who immediately grabbed ahold of the 911 part and wouldn’t let go of it which made it necessary for me to respond in like.

[Algorithm]

@jakesteele

As far as what parts I think are inaccurate, Again, I’m going to state this one more time…it’s called “reasonable doubt”.

I know what reasonable doubt is. What parts of the official story do you find inaccurate?

[Miller]

@jakesteele

As far as what parts I think are inaccurate, Again, I’m going to state this one more time…it’s called “reasonable doubt”. This is common place in courts. When two equally credentialled forensic specialists give differing opinions on the same evidence it will potentially raise doubts in the jury’s mind. This can return a verdict of not guilty or innocent. Once again, I refer you to the O.J. trial. If that doesn’t work for you then watch Law and Order.

I’m not saying it was or was not a conspiracy. I’m saying that there enough conflicting interpretations of the same evidence by equally qualified experts (#26) to raise reasonable doubt.

No, actually, there aren’t. There are virtually no experts in the relevant fields who are at major disagreement with the findings of the 9/11 commission. There are some people, with credentials in unrelated fields, who broker this 9/11 truther nonsense, but there is no one who is widely acknowledged to be at the top of their profession, where said profession is relevant to their ability to assess the data, who thinks that 9/11 was the result of a government conspiracy.

[RickJay]

Perhaps more to jakesteele’s point, I’d like to see some evidence that a North American Union is in the cards.

Certainly, from a Canadian perspective, the only way this could happen would be outright invasion and occupation. Such a thing could not legally happen in Canada without a Constitutional amendment, passed by the federal government AND provincial governments, and any politician who even mentioned such a thing would be laughed out of office.

[BrainGlutton]

Top 10 Characteristics of Conspiracy Theorists:

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the “official” account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the “official” account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn’t it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jakesteele

Man, oh, Man. You just don’t seem to get it. The mere fact that you have to take the stance of, "If you don’t believe like I do, then you’re a kook, paranoid, wacko, nuts, etc. is sad.

If something makes you a kook, a paranoid, a wacko and/or a nut, it’s because you believe things that are kooky, paranoid, wacko and nuts. Having read your statements, they are all of the above. That these beliefs are different from my own is merely a happy coincidence.

People like you do everything in their power to marginalize, diminish and deny anything contrary to your world view.

I can only wish I had power like that.

Let’s try it this way. In a court of law there will be cases where both the prosecution and the defense will each hire their own equally qualified forensic expert. With the same evidence in front of them one will say, “Yes, he did it.” and the other will say, “No, he didn’t do it.”

It’s like the prosecution hires CSI Miami and the defense hires CSI NY. Equally qualified experts coming to different conclusions. Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other does. If the defense wins it’s because he raises enough reasonable doubt about the other guys interpretation of the evidence.

Just remember the O.J. Simpsom trial. In general, many people thought he got away with murder and many thought he was innocent. This whole thing is based on two different interpretations of the same evidence.

It’s called Reasonable Doubt.

I somehow fail to see the logic of the analogy. I suppose if I had the power to have people who spout nonsense silenced/arrested/jailed/killed, but held off if there was a reasonable doubt that they might have a point…

In any case, spout away. I’m not stopping you.

[jakesteele]

@Algorithm

I know what reasonable doubt is. What parts of the official story do you find inaccurate?

Just so we’re on the same page as to what reasonable doubt is:
REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

My stance throughout this thread, which I have repeated a number of times, is this: I don’t think the official story is necessarily true, complete and accurate because of qualified, credentialed people like these that challeng the official report. (9/11 Essays: Samples & Topics | WritingBros).

Once again, forensic experts arriving at different conclusions and findings from the exact same evidence.

In your mind there is no reasonable doubt. You take on faith that the government is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

To take this stance you are automatically implying that anybody who disagrees with you, expert or not, is a conspiracy wacko.

That is a very arrogant and assumptive stance, very similar to a religious fundamentalist. They have “contempt prior to investigation” because they already know what the “real truth” is; therefore, there’s absolutely no need to give it anything else validity.

I don’t necessarily believe or disbelieve but I have reasonable doubt as to the official based on expert statements who challenge the report.

Just to make you happy I will tell you that I think the govt’s. version about the airliner crashing into the Pentagon is highly questionable because my father is a qualified expert at flying jets. He flew a B-24 bomber in WW II and was an airline pilot for Northwest for 30 yrs. When he saw a computer simulation of how the jet had to be maneuvered he instantly called bullshit. He said that will all his skill he would not be able to pull that stunt off and there was no way a group of barely trained student pilots could pull it off, especially since they had no experience, or at least very little, with an aircraft as big and complex as an airliner.

Now, I tend to give his statement a lot of weight because he is an expert in this field.

I believe that the universe is a field of infinite possibilities, and theoretically, somewhere in that infinity there exists the possibility that it could have happened like the 911 report says it did. Highly unlikely, according to just one of many pilots who are experienced, skilled and knowledgeable in their profession.

If you want to disagree with the above professional opinion(s) of a number of dissenting experts, fine, but you, as an unqualified non-expert are disputing an expert in the field and are basically calling him a conspiracy wingnut because he disagrees with what you have taken on faith as the god, the gospel and the scripture.

[Marley23]

@jakesteele

If calling you “Dude” offends you then I sincerely apologize.

It didn’t. I was talking about the way you finished your post. I rolled my eyes at your tone, not your argument.

So without arguing about your argument any further, I’ll ask this again: why don’t I want to see the truth?

[jakesteele]

@Miller

No, actually, there aren’t. There are virtually no experts in the relevant fields who are at major disagreement with the findings of the 9/11 commission. There are some people, with credentials in unrelated fields, who broker this 9/11 truther nonsense, but there is no one who is widely acknowledged to be at the top of their profession, where said profession is relevant to their ability to assess the data, who thinks that 9/11 was the result of a government conspiracy.

Oh, my Goood!

9/11 Essays: Samples & Topics |

Read 'em and weep.

[jakesteele]

@Miller

No, actually, there aren’t. There are virtually no experts in the relevant fields who are at major disagreement with the findings of the 9/11 commission. There are some people, with credentials in unrelated fields, who broker this 9/11 truther nonsense, but there is no one who is widely acknowledged to be at the top of their profession, where said profession is relevant to their ability to assess the data, who thinks that 9/11 was the result of a government conspiracy.

Once again, 9/11 Essays: Samples & Topics | WritingBros

[RickJay]

@jakesteele

Once again, 9/11 Essays: Samples & Topics | WritingBros

And the first linked “Expert” is a guy - whose credentials are not in the relevant fields - saying the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives , an idea that has been utterly and thoroughly discredited by scores upon scores of qualified experts, a claim that defies all rational explanation, that fits no logical theory, and that explosives and demolitions experts say is laughably stupid. A claim for which every single argument that has ever been advanced has been completely debunked, and for which this gentleman offers not one shred of positive evidence. The page repeats, over and over, the claim that “there was no visible fire” in WTC 7, which is a ridiculous lie. You can find pictures of the WTC 7 fires all over the Internet. You want us to take this source seriously?

Stop telling us you’re a brilliant skeptic and START PRESENTING YOUR ARGUMENT. Tell us what it is you claim is the truth and provide the evidence. WTC or “North American Union” - Tell us what your claim is and give us the evidence to support it.

[Algorithm]

@jakesteele

My stance throughout this thread, which I have repeated a number of times, is this: I don’t think the official story is necessarily true, complete and accurate because of qualified, credentialed people like these that challeng the official report. (9/11 Essays: Samples & Topics | WritingBros).

Right. All I’ve asked is for a few specific areas in which you find the official report problematic.

@jakesteele

In your mind there is no reasonable doubt. You take on faith that the government is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I don’t take it on faith that the government is telling me the truth.

@jakesteele

To take this stance you are automatically implying that anybody who disagrees with you, expert or not, is a conspiracy wacko.

Nope. Don’t put words in my mouth.

@jakesteele

That is a very arrogant and assumptive stance, very similar to a religious fundamentalist. They have “contempt prior to investigation” because they already know what the “real truth” is; therefore, there’s absolutely no need to give it anything else validity.

I asked you twice to point out specific areas in the official report you find problematic and you come back and call me arrogant and say I’m taking things on faith in government. Who is the assumptive one? (hint: you)

@jakesteele

I don’t necessarily believe or disbelieve but I have reasonable doubt as to the official based on expert statements who challenge the report.

For the third time, what specific areas do you find problematic in the report? What do you have “reasonable doubt” about?

@jakesteele

Just to make you happy I will tell you that I think the govt’s. version about the airliner crashing into the Pentagon is highly questionable because my father is a qualified expert at flying jets. He flew a B-24 bomber in WW II and was an airline pilot for Northwest for 30 yrs. When he saw a computer simulation of how the jet had to be maneuvered he instantly called bullshit. He said that will all his skill he would not be able to pull that stunt off and there was no way a group of barely trained student pilots could pull it off, especially since they had no experience, or at least very little, with an aircraft as big and complex as an airliner.

Now, I tend to give his statement a lot of weight because he is an expert in this field.

Do you believe an airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001?

@jakesteele

I believe that the universe is a field of infinite possibilities, and theoretically, somewhere in that infinity there exists the possibility that it could have happened like the 911 report says it did. Highly unlikely, according to just one of many pilots who are experienced, skilled and knowledgeable in their profession.

Many more pilots disagree with them. How do you explain that?

@jakesteele

If you want to disagree with the above professional opinion(s) of a number of dissenting experts, fine, but you, as an unqualified non-expert are disputing an expert in the field and are basically calling him a conspiracy wingnut because he disagrees with what you have taken on faith as the god, the gospel and the scripture.

Again, I’m not taking anything on faith. Maybe you’d like to actually put forth some claims and back them up with evidence rather than simply belittle the opinions of others prior to even learning what they actually are. Your choice.

[Miller]

@jakesteele

Once again, 9/11 Essays: Samples & Topics | WritingBros

Yes, that is just as I said: virtually no one with experience in the relevant fields believes that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the impact of the two airplanes. What you’ve got there is:

A research physicist, a geophysicist, an electrical engineer, an aeronautics researcher, a physicist whose speciality is in fusion and solar energy, two “demolitions experts” whose testimony is in Dutch, and whose credentials are unverified, and so on and so on. You’ve got a few of people speaking authoritativly on matters that are entirely outside their disciplines, and a handful of nobodies making statements of “fact” based on what they saw on TV. Meanwhile, literally hundreds of experts with relevant experience and training, who actually worked directly on the site of the attack, say that the WTC was brought down by the impact of the two jets. In other words, we’ve got facts, evidence, and science on our side, and you’ve got nothing at all.

By the way, posting the same link twice doesn’t make it twice as convincing.

[msmith537]

@Der_Trihs

Even if you buy the idea that a road is such a scary, scary thing - how could they build it and have it used without it becoming blatantly obvious that there’s a Great Big Highway with a bunch of trucks on it ? Not to mention how obvious it’s construction would be. It only makes sense to declare something secret if you can hide it.

I don’t think it’s even a secret. I mean there are actual highways and superconductors and whatnot and their planning and construction is pretty much public record. It’s just that these conspiracy nuts are trying to make it sound all sinister for some reason.

[Ocean_Annie]

@jakesteele

Hey, I like your post and it is educational. I’m not sure what that means, “…name of the messenger.”

It means consider the source.

[tomndebb]

@jakesteele

Oh, my Goood!

9/11 Essays: Samples & Topics | WritingBros

Read 'em and weep.

@RickJay

And the first linked “Expert” is a guy - whose credentials are not in the relevant fields - saying the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. . .

Actually, every single person quoted, (some of whom appear to have been quoted out of context), is speaking outisde their area of expertise.

Dr. David L. Griscom, a physicist, making claims about structural engineering.
Dr. Lynn Margulis, who studies geoscience–the interaction of geology, ecology, and evolution–calls for a new investigation based on no evdence except what she has inhaled from reading the works of
David Ray Griffin, PhD – Professor Emeritus of Philosophy of Religion and Theology and Co-director of the Center for Process Studies at the Claremont School of Theology. (I do not recall any courses on structural failures or any civil engineering in my courses of theology and philosophy.)
Dr. James Quintiere, (finally a person who is actually addressing his own area of expertise, that of fire science researcher and safety engineer), does not even challenge the basic set of assumptions regarding the WTC collapse: he simply proposes a different scenario regarding the issue of insulation failing to prevent the fire from weakening the structure. Whereas NIST proposed that the aircraft impacts blew away insulation, he proposes that insulation was inadequate to begin with.
Richard F. Humenn, principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, has no training or expertise regarding structural failure.
Dwain A. Deets, an aeronautical engineer, has no education or training in regards to structual failures, (or even structural engineering), and is talking about “explosions” outside his realm of knowledge.
Dr. Steven E. Jones, another physicist trying to expound on civil engineering issues and structural failure.
And so it goes. . . .

I did read it and weep–for the gullibility it displayed. This is true Argumentum ad Verecundiam, appealing to the “authority” of people who are not even authorities in the relevant fields, simply because they happened to have PhDs attached to their names in unrelated fields.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@RickJay

But this superhighway thing is just baffling to me for this very reason. You cannot connect the three countries with one highway. You see, they’re big. Mexico is easily the smallest of the three and it’s REALLY big; it’s the fifteenth biggest country in the world. The USA is just immensely, ridiculously big, and Canada’s bigger still. If you wanted to connect them with a single highway, where would you run it?

No, no, no! Don’t you see? Don’t you see?!? The highway isn’t really a highway; it’s actually a landing strip and refueling lifeline for the black helicopters!!!

[mswas]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

No, no, no! Don’t you see? Don’t you see?!? The highway isn’t really a highway; it’s actually a landing strip and refueling lifeline for the black helicopters!!!

Well you’d run it down the center of the continent actually. They were trying to do this, just no one wanted it running through THEIR back yard.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

The Amero would kill the US economy. The gignatic ammount of dollars in that hand of foreigners (for a US point of view) and the massive loss of confidence in the currency would make it crash like an Osmium ballon.

Just to get an idea, when the US government changed the bill with the larger faces and more colours they did a big publicity campaign (in FOREIGN countries) to keep everyone informed that nothing was going to happne and still the new bill had many months of being “suspicious”.
A whole new currency would take years to be accepted and by that time the Euro (already has a toehold in my country at least) would be top dog.