WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[Park Life 71]

I'm with Renton. It's one thing to challenge the official narrative of 9/11 (I've done that loads on various forums) - there have been books on it and videos with analysis from engineers and so on...But it's quite different to say the victims were fake.

 

[wolfy 12]

2 minutes ago, Renton said:

There's no claim to ludicrous for some people. How about the boxing day tsunami or 2010 Japanese earthquake, witnessed by millions and killing hundreds of thousands. Didn't happen apparently. Oh, and Raul Moat was a hoax too, just for good measure. Literally every significant news event, including the second world war didn't happen. Satellites don't exist. Nuclear bombs and energy are fake. Even electricity is harassed from the sky and those power stations you see are merely facades. You can't see a germ or atom without equipment so they're fake, same for stars and galaxies. My favourite from Wolfy was the claim mathematics is fake, all those complicated equations from those do called scientists are hoaxes. 

 

This is what you need to embrace to be a free thinker like Wolfy. It's inevitable that arseholery quickly follows. 

There's some things that I believe COULD have some mileage and others being a tad weaker.

You just appear to accept anything told to you officially and think none of what you put above could have possibilities as to not being what we are told.

That's all well and good and you're entitled to spend the rest of your life with that thought process.

After all, it's handed to you on a plate, as it is with the masses.

 

The major thing about it all is, you cannot directly prove any of what has been schooled into you throughout life.

 

What's more strange is the amount of people that can look at news media in all aspects and declare it nonsense or in many cases fabrications.

People also know that those in power in all aspects, lie to us.

 

Knowing all this and then outright denying that all the above is all above board is a massive case of a reliance on the sale of emotional content.

We are basically bullied into acceptance by all kinds of means.

 

If a person doesn't trust those in power, why does that person have to be mentally ill?

If a person goes against the norm with certain things, then why is that person labelled a flame war proponent?

If a person won't back down on something they feel strongly about, then they're a troll.

 

People use these labels because it's the norm for people to follow a script, even though most people won't have any real understanding as to why the script is being played out, other than the person on the end of the words is a person that goes against the grain.

 

Human mimicking is the name of the game, in the main.

[Meenzer 15531]

2 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Human mimicking is the name of the game

 

[wolfy 12]

11 minutes ago, Alex said:

Eschewing rationalism and empiricism isn't an intelligent form of individualism.

In the world of mass acceptance of anything officially put out, you are correct.

That does not make what you say, correct. It just means that mass peer pressure ensures that it will be deemed correct, or else.

[Rayvin 5223]

5 minutes ago, wolfy said:

In the world of mass acceptance of anything officially put out, you are correct.

That does not make what you say, correct. It just means that mass peer pressure ensures that it will be deemed correct, or else.

 

It's not peer pressure though. We don't all sit here nodding in agreement with each other continuously. We very frequently have differing views on all sorts of things, coming to different conclusions even from the same evidence. If peer pressure was an overriding factor, we'd simply agree on everything.

[Renton 21627]

Wolfy, do you acknowledge that there is such thing as mental illness? It seems bizarre I have to ask this, but there you go. Yes or no?

 

If yes, have you considered the possibility you are in fact mentally ill? Yes or no?

 

It's quite common for people with delusions to not see in themselves what is clear to others.

[Renton 21627]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

It's not peer pressure though. We don't all sit here nodding in agreement with each other continuously. We very frequently have differing views on all sorts of things, coming to different conclusions even from the same evidence. If peer pressure was an overriding factor, we'd simply agree on everything.

We disagree on opinions in the main, we are generally less inclined to disagree on facts as long as they have sufficient veracity. This is where Wolfy differs, he disbelieves even self evident or personally testable facts.

 

Which just makes the whole thing pointless. What I was getting at today though is this train of thought is not always benign. It can be seriously offensive. 

[wolfy 12]

14 minutes ago, Park Life said:

I'm with Renton. It's one thing to challenge the official narrative of 9/11 (I've done that loads on various forums) - there have been books on it and videos with analysis from engineers and so on...But it's quite different to say the victims were fake.

 

I don't know exactly what went on that day. I honestly do not know.

I can only question certain stuff that does not conform to rational logical thinking.

I can't walk about telling all and sundry that this and that happened for sure.

All we have to go on are two sides.

We have the official side of things and the other side that questions the official side.

 

Unless I was physically there to literally see what we were told happened, then I only have official stuff put out for me to either accept of question.

The problem with all of that is, it is open to all kinds of water muddying techniques by all kinds of people with all kinds of motives.

 

All I'm interested in is being told the truth and I honestly do not think we are being told the entire truth with one hell of a lot of things.

The issue is, if you can question one thing that literally makes no real life genuine physical sense about a certain happening, then it stands to reason that more questions are begged, which require rational, logical answers.

 

We do not get that with a lot of stuff and most people know this but are either not too bothered about it and would rather just accept the official version (which is fair enough) or they will argue in favour of the official version as being 100% truth against any questioning person, as if they were physically there and actually know for sure, when the truth is much much further from that.

 

If I was 18 or 20 or whatever, then I wouldn't be typing this, because I'd most likely be doing all the stuff that younger people do.

The fact that I am is because I've had enough time and opportunity to actually see stuff differently to what I thought was just the norm.

For this very reason I understand why people will go on the defensive or go into frenzy attack mode at times, on certain forums or even at physical conferences.

 

 

[wolfy 12]

6 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

It's not peer pressure though. We don't all sit here nodding in agreement with each other continuously. We very frequently have differing views on all sorts of things, coming to different conclusions even from the same evidence. If peer pressure was an overriding factor, we'd simply agree on everything.

I'm talking about official lines. 

If you don't think mass opinion stumps all other minority opinions, then fine, you stick to that.

Arguing about football teams and music, etc, is a personal choice by a variation of masses, not just individuals or severe minority.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894]

13 minutes ago, wolfy said:

I don't know exactly what went on that day. I honestly do not know.

I can only question certain stuff that does not conform to rational logical thinking.

I can't walk about telling all and sundry that this and that happened for sure.

All we have to go on are two sides.

We have the official side of things and the other side that questions the official side.

 

Unless I was physically there to literally see what we were told happened, then I only have official stuff put out for me to either accept of question.

The problem with all of that is, it is open to all kinds of water muddying techniques by all kinds of people with all kinds of motives.

 

All I'm interested in is being told the truth and I honestly do not think we are being told the entire truth with one hell of a lot of things.

The issue is, if you can question one thing that literally makes no real life genuine physical sense about a certain happening, then it stands to reason that more questions are begged, which require rational, logical answers.

 

We do not get that with a lot of stuff and most people know this but are either not too bothered about it and would rather just accept the official version (which is fair enough) or they will argue in favour of the official version as being 100% truth against any questioning person, as if they were physically there and actually know for sure, when the truth is much much further from that.

 

If I was 18 or 20 or whatever, then I wouldn't be typing this, because I'd most likely be doing all the stuff that younger people do.

The fact that I am is because I've had enough time and opportunity to actually see stuff differently to what I thought was just the norm.

For this very reason I understand why people will go on the defensive or go into frenzy attack mode at times, on certain forums or even at physical conferences.

 

 

 

 

Come up with one.

[wolfy 12]

8 minutes ago, Renton said:

Quote

Wolfy, do you acknowledge that there is such thing as mental illness? It seems bizarre I have to ask this, but there you go. Yes or no?

Yes, but in many different ways.

Memory loss can be construed as a mental illness and there's variations of this.

Schizophrenia is classed as mental illness in the varying forms.

Paranoia in varying forms, one of which can be with the above.

I could go on and on and on.

 

Let's see what other things can be classed as mental illness.

How about questioning something official?

What about not being as quick as drawing a picture of something we can all see and are given equal presence of, or does that come down physically less able?

Does a person that can't read or write have a mental illness?

 

What about a person that is scared of ghosts?

I could go on and on, so what do we class as mental illness against things that are not?

Do we work on official lines for this and accept that ADHD is a mental illness that years ago got a smacked arse?

 

Discuss.

 

 

8 minutes ago, Renton said:

Quote

If yes, have you considered the possibility you are in fact mentally ill? Yes or no?

Maybe I am and I don't know it. But then again maybe you are and you don't know it, or can you explain to me how you would know?

Maybe I am mentally ill and I actually do know it but you are maybe mentally ill and you actually really don't have a clue that you are.

We could form many variations of this.

8 minutes ago, Renton said:

Quote

It's quite common for people with delusions to not see in themselves what is clear to others.

 

I agree. I've seen many people see ghosts.

I've seen people who tell me that people of all races are following them.

I've seen people run screaming around a supermarket just because they can't have a chocolate bar...although I admit,  I am learning to accept I won't get one). 

 

And so on and so on.

Discuss.

[Park Life 71]

Wolfy can't you see how you've been distracted by the Flat earth nonsense?..When you might have spent your time finding out about other things that are more relevant and way more dangerous. How the Nazi's got their funding...Libor rigging..Gladio, Iran-Contra, Addictive chemicals added to cigarettes, Global agribusiness and terminal seeds (Monsanto)etc...The list is endless...Many people are open to discuss this stuff and can relate to it as there is data out there from various sources. But this flat earth stuff is just claptrap.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894]

Wolfy do you believe dinosaurs existed?

[wolfy 12]

16 minutes ago, Renton said:

We disagree on opinions in the main, we are generally less inclined to disagree on facts as long as they have sufficient veracity. This is where Wolfy differs, he disbelieves even self evident or personally testable facts.

 

Which just makes the whole thing pointless. What I was getting at today though is this train of thought is not always benign. It can be seriously offensive. 

Show me the self evident testable FACTS.

[Renton 21627]

22 minutes ago, wolfy said:

I don't know exactly what went on that day. I honestly do not know.

I can only question certain stuff that does not conform to rational logical thinking.

I can't walk about telling all and sundry that this and that happened for sure.

All we have to go on are two sides.

We have the official side of things and the other side that questions the official side.

 

Unless I was physically there to literally see what we were told happened, then I only have official stuff put out for me to either accept of question.

The problem with all of that is, it is open to all kinds of water muddying techniques by all kinds of people with all kinds of motives.

 

All I'm interested in is being told the truth and I honestly do not think we are being told the entire truth with one hell of a lot of things.

The issue is, if you can question one thing that literally makes no real life genuine physical sense about a certain happening, then it stands to reason that more questions are begged, which require rational, logical answers.

 

We do not get that with a lot of stuff and most people know this but are either not too bothered about it and would rather just accept the official version (which is fair enough) or they will argue in favour of the official version as being 100% truth against any questioning person, as if they were physically there and actually know for sure, when the truth is much much further from that.

 

If I was 18 or 20 or whatever, then I wouldn't be typing this, because I'd most likely be doing all the stuff that younger people do.

The fact that I am is because I've had enough time and opportunity to actually see stuff differently to what I thought was just the norm.

For this very reason I understand why people will go on the defensive or go into frenzy attack mode at times, on certain forums or even at physical conferences.

 

 

What a load of bull shit and a cop out. You didn't bear personal testimony to 9/11 so you don't know for sure what happened.

 

Fact is, that hasn't stopped you hypothesising that it was all a government cover up and that nobody died that day. That those who have lost loved ones are paid actors. Do you not even see how utterly vile this is if you are wrong, and if you're as open minded as you claim you should acknowledge this possibility.

 

Ironically, in my experience the strongest herd mentality is found on conspiracy sites anyway. Sheeple indeed. 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2017 by Renton

[wolfy 12]

2 minutes ago, Park Life said:

Wolfy can't you see how you've been distracted by the Flat earth nonsense?..When you might have spent your time finding out about other things that are more relevant and way more dangerous. How the Nazi's got their funding...Libor rigging..Gladio, Iran-Contra, Addictive chemicals added to cigarettes, Global agribusiness and terminal seeds (Monsanto)etc...The list is endless...Many people are open to discuss this stuff and can relate to it as there is data out there from various sources. But this flat earth stuff is just claptrap.

You can tell me anything you want to tell me about what I'm doing wrong whilst pushing what you believe is right.

The truth is not as rubber stamped as it appears on anything.

 

Applying your own logic and having the ability to actually take on-board all potentials to enable a piecing together of a more potential clearer picture than the blurred one officially on offer, is a step in the right direction for the individual.

This is what I do and I don't just follow anything for the sake of it and go with it.

 

This is why the flat Earth as is told on those forums is not one that I subscribe to. I have my own opinions and musings.

That being said, I'm always open to anyone who puts forward relevant arguments towards potential alternatives to what we were and are, all schooled into by literal force.

 

[wolfy 12]

7 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

Wolfy do you believe dinosaurs existed?

Yes I do, but not in the way we've been told.

[wolfy 12]

3 minutes ago, Renton said:

What a load of bull shit and a cop out. You didn't bear personal testimony to 9/11 so you don't know for sure what happened.

 

Fact is, that hasn't stopped you hypothesising that it was all a government cover up and that nobody died that day. That those who have lost loved ones are paid actors. Do you not even see how utterly vile this is if you are wrong, and if you're as open minded as you claim you should acknowledge this possibility.

 

Ironically, in my experience the strongest herd mentality is found on conspiracy sites anyway. Steeple indeed. 

 

 

When did I say all of this?

[Renton 21627]

6 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Show me the self evident testable FACTS.

We've done all this before, so, no. Change you repertoire ffs. 

[Alex 35093]

3 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Ironically, in my experience the strongest herd mentality is found on conspiracy sites anyway.

 

 

Aye, and the ones who accept the flimsiest of 'evidence' (so long as it's going against the official version of events).

[wolfy 12]

Just now, Renton said:

We've done all this before, so, no. Change you repertoire ffs. 

Not the answer I was looking for but it'll do. Basically you're proving that you do not have any testable FACTS.

[Alex 35093]

2 minutes ago, wolfy said:

Yes I do, but not in the way we've been told.

They were all robots

[Renton 21627]

1 minute ago, wolfy said:

When did I say all of this?

Last time you were on here for a period of time. Pretty difficult to forget stuff like that. Accepting it is also a minimum requirement of cluesforum you used to be on.

 

Are you now saying you never said it? If so, can I clarify you do accept people were massacred that day?

[wolfy 12]

Just now, Renton said:

Last time you were on here for a period of time. Pretty difficult to forget stuff like that. Accepting it is also a minimum requirement of cluesforum you used to be on.

 

Are you now saying you never said it? If so, can I clarify you do accept people were massacred that day?

I don't rightly know what happened that day, except for what we were told happened of which some of it makes little to no sense.

Mentioning cluesforum gives you no extra bullets to fire so save them in your chamber to unleash as and when you can literally prove that what I'm saying is wrong.

You appear to be arguing from a backed up official stance.

Basically you have everything official at your fingertips.

It means you are arguing against me based on mass opinion and nothing more than that.

[Park Life 71]