Epistemology and the 911 Attacks

Dave Rogers said:
Don't you mean epistemology rocks?

Dave
Click to expand...

Look, multisampling and repetetive iterations for sufficient datapoints rocks, let's put it that way.
user12386_pic1142_1243994670_thumb.gif


Hokulele said:
I have one question triggered by this thread.

Why are the gentlemen restricting themselves to just one of the women from Firefly?
Click to expand...

I'm not! See above!!
 
ElMondoHummus said:
How? Christina Hendricks has nothing to do with Firefly. :confused:

;)
Click to expand...

She was in three episodes. For a show that only had 13, that makes her almost a regular.

Yo Saf Bridge

Mal's nickname for the young lady we are introduced to in Our Mrs Reynolds as "Saffron". She is a consummate con-artist who gets her kicks not from making the big score but in proving that she's better and smarter than the people she fools.

The crew narrowly manages to avoid the fate that Saffron leaves them to in Our Mrs Reynolds, but Mal doesn't kill her when he catches up to her—he's just a softie.

We next meet up with Saffron in the episode Trash. Now, her name is "Bridget" and she's married to Mal's old war-buddy Monty. After Mal ruins her honeymoon, she talks him and the rest of the crew into helping her out with a big theft. During the caper, we find out that she was also married to the Alliance commander they're stealing from—under the name Yolanda.

Yolanda... Saffron... Bridget. Yo Saf Bridge. Get it?

Yo Saf Bridge was played by Christina Hendricks (IMDB link). They could not have picked a better woman for the part, Christina pulled off being an amazingly tempting femme fatale and did this with sheer perfection. Double acting within the act of being a natural, and still believable as the pro companion. Best known for her line: "face it hubby, I'm really hot!" ​


ElMondoHummus said:
:o Ps. Yeah, I just vacated my bunk... and feel a need to go back to it now... :boxedin:
Click to expand...

I feel your "pain". ;)
 
Loss Leader said:
True, Our Mrs. Reynolds is a little more likely to cause you to die than Inara or Kaylee, but I think that only adds to her charm.
Click to expand...

You underestimate the hazzards of a roll in the hay with Kaylee. Doing it under a 2 ton turbine whirling at 10,000 rpm doesn't strike me as necessarily "safe" (engines make her hot).
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
ElMondoHummus said:
How? Christina Hendricks has nothing to do with Firefly. :confused:

;)
Click to expand...

She was in three episodes. For a show that only had 13, that makes her almost a regular.
Yo Saf Bridge

Mal's nickname for the young lady we are introduced to in Our Mrs Reynolds as "Saffron". She is a consummate con-artist who gets her kicks not from making the big score but in proving that she's better and smarter than the people she fools.

The crew narrowly manages to avoid the fate that Saffron leaves them to in Our Mrs Reynolds, but Mal doesn't kill her when he catches up to her—he's just a softie.

We next meet up with Saffron in the episode Trash. Now, her name is "Bridget" and she's married to Mal's old war-buddy Monty. After Mal ruins her honeymoon, she talks him and the rest of the crew into helping her out with a big theft. During the caper, we find out that she was also married to the Alliance commander they're stealing from—under the name Yolanda.

Yolanda... Saffron... Bridget. Yo Saf Bridge. Get it?

Yo Saf Bridge was played by Christina Hendricks (IMDB link). They could not have picked a better woman for the part, Christina pulled off being an amazingly tempting femme fatale and did this with sheer perfection. Double acting within the act of being a natural, and still believable as the pro companion. Best known for her line: "face it hubby, I'm really hot!"
​
Click to expand...

doh-1.gif
You got me dead to rights.
 
twinstead said:
My wife had an epistemology with our second child. Took weeks to heal.
Click to expand...
.
I don't recall my partner taking that long to heal up.

OTOH, it was months before she wore out the "kiss it make it feel all better" shtick. :D
.
 
Okay everyone! I looked up some videos of Christina Hendricks in Firefly!

Let me just say that, after watching those, seeing a few Mad Men clips in passing, rewatching those, rewatching the Mad Men clips, turning out the lights, rewatching her in Firefly, rewatching her in Mad Men, full screening her in Firefly, fullscreening the clips from Mad Men, rewatching to make sure I didn't miss anything... :drool:... err... where was I. Hell, where am I??

I'll... uh... be in... my... bunk... :o
 
Motivations?

I wouldn't claim to know but when Illuminati have revealed a little bit of their philosophy to me they seem very taken with the concept of Social Darwinism - namely it is the right of the strong to prey upon the weak. It is the natural order of things for the more intellectually gifted to exploit the less intelligent.

Obviously, they have no doubts as to the fact that they are more gifted and intelligent - despite all evidence that the Illuminati give here to the contrary.

It would also help to create a vertically integrated hierarchy of mutually assured destruction that would help enforce Illuminati obedience and discipline. Given their actions are now so far outside the pale, individuals have, so to speak, burnt their boats
There was a young lady of Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside,
And the smile on the face of the tiger.
Click to expand...

Finally, I think the invasion of Iraq, for whatever reason, was suprisingly important to the Illuminati. I don't think the WMD issue could have taken off without the environment created by 911. And I don't think Al Gore would have used 9/11 to invade Iraq either - which would explain the importance of the electoral fix in Florida in 2000.

Why was it so important to invade Iraq? Perhaps just to keep the military-industrial complex purring (no peace-dividend for America), perhaps to create a divisive issue for debate to polarise around (see the 70s classic satire Report From Iron Mountain). Perhaps, given that Freemasonry Illuminati is incurably woo-ish, they just wanted to absorb the vibe of Babylon.

The first thing that did go up was the Baghdad museum. The Americans also seemed to like placing their bases bang on top of archaeological sites like Ur and Babylon (I don't know now they only have 50 000 troops if these bases are still there).

But these are just a blind man throwing darts in a crowded pub. You will need to capture some Illuminati and try water-boarding them to find out.
 
So, to summarise the thread, 9/11 was engineered to make people think Kaylee is hotter than Inara, but the truthers saw through it because they're all masochists so obviously they all fancy Zoe.

At last, a 9/11 conspiracy theory we can all agree on!

Dave
 
little grey rabbit said:
Motivations?

I wouldn't claim to know but when Illuminati have revealed a little bit of their philosophy to me they seem very taken with the concept of Social Darwinism - namely it is the right of the strong to prey upon the weak. It is the natural order of things for the more intellectually gifted to exploit the less intelligent.

Obviously, they have no doubts as to the fact that they are more gifted and intelligent - despite all evidence that the Illuminati give here to the contrary.

It would also help to create a vertically integrated hierarchy of mutually assured destruction that would help enforce Illuminati obedience and discipline. Given their actions are now so far outside the pale, individuals have, so to speak, burnt their boats


Finally, I think the invasion of Iraq, for whatever reason, was suprisingly important to the Illuminati. I don't think the WMD issue could have taken off without the environment created by 911. And I don't think Al Gore would have used 9/11 to invade Iraq either - which would explain the importance of the electoral fix in Florida in 2000.

Why was it so important to invade Iraq? Perhaps just to keep the military-industrial complex purring (no peace-dividend for America), perhaps to create a divisive issue for debate to polarise around (see the 70s classic satire Report From Iron Mountain). Perhaps, given that Freemasonry Illuminati is incurably woo-ish, they just wanted to absorb the vibe of Babylon.

The first thing that did go up was the Baghdad museum. The Americans also seemed to like placing their bases bang on top of archaeological sites like Ur and Babylon (I don't know now they only have 50 000 troops if these bases are still there).

But these are just a blind man throwing darts in a crowded pub. You will need to capture some Illuminati and try water-boarding them to find out.
Click to expand...

GENIUS! You rhymed Tiger with Tiger!
 
Quiproquo said:
Hi, I am new to this forum.

I've read through many threads and I realize this topic is mainly dominated by anti-Truthers. However, I am interested not in debating what conspiracy narrative is the valid narrative to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center towers but the ideology which is behind an operation I personally assume was carried out by a rogue network belonging to the State intelligence apparatus, be it as it may.

Debunkers need not apply here, because there is nothing to debunk :)

Here our some of my thoughts on the philosophy which brought about, and led to, the conception of the dark, brilliant, and sinister 911 attacks against the WTC towers, and I would also like to hear yours if you have any ideas or you would like to elaborate on mine.

If this operation is indeed an insider intelligence operation, as I assume it is, then I believe it was designed not so much to influence foreign and domestic policy, but was construed as an attempt to change human nature itself.

The 911 attacks were in this sense an attempt to institute an epistemological revolution on mankind, by the imposition of a new ideology, through subversive and deceptive means, to a humanity that no longer believes in, or is no longer capable of believing in, ideologies, after and since the failed political systems of the 20th century.

Nine-one-one has thus, in a sense, brought God back into a world in which, according to Nietszche, God is dead.

The WTC attacks are therefore, in my view, the latest mass ideological system adopted by, or imposed onto, mankind, and probably the last. True public revelation of the ideological nature and origin of the artificial 911 myth is considered inconceivable by its designers, for it would destroy the collective, social, and moral basis upon which all modern human societies are founded. The necessity to keep the myth alive is existential in nature. In this optic there can be no other issue but success for and perpetuation of the myth.

Revelation of the myth will cause Western civilization itself to inevitably come to an end. We thus truly live in a "post-911" world, a world in which our sense perception has forever been altered, and one from which there will be no turning back.

Such is the epistemological revolution which occurred on the day of September 11, 2001, in the city of New York, USA: sad, acutely tragic, and profoundly human.
Click to expand...


Greetings Quid,

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your interesting and timely topic. I concur that 9/11 is an epistemologically-based military undertaking. It appears to have been designed to overcome the 'capacity for disbelief' in explanations that are 'unbelievable' by appealing to raw emotions, like defense of homeland from aggressive attack by those we are conditioned to and/or willing to 'dislike' to begin with.

Put simply, 9/11 brought out and relied on one of the worst American characteristics -- xenophobia in general, Islamaphobia, in particular.

When xenophobia is invoked, no rational explanation, let alone forensically verified explanation is even necessary; and, most importantly, none was ever done. That is a point that is not even argued around here, AND, at the same time, the lack of a valie official confirmation of the common storyline of 9/11 simply is not important in the emotionally charged, xenophobia-laden context of that storyline.

9/11 then, represents a cynical setback in human progress and development. It is a very large scale crime against humanity that, when it breaks down, will result in a lengthy, catharctic healing process. Could you but realize it, Quid, you are a contributor to the process of breaking down the barriers towards realization of the truth of the hideous and catastrophic crime that 9/11 really was.

For that, we are all grateful to you.
 
jammonius said:
Greetings Quid,

Welcome to the forum and thanks for your interesting and timely topic. I concur that 9/11 is an epistemologically-based military undertaking. It appears to have been designed to overcome the 'capacity for disbelief' in explanations that are 'unbelievable' by appealing to raw emotions, like defense of homeland from aggressive attack by those we are conditioned to and/or willing to 'dislike' to begin with.

Put simply, 9/11 brought out and relied on one of the worst American characteristics -- xenophobia in general, Islamaphobia, in particular.

When xenophobia is invoked, no rational explanation, let alone forensically verified explanation is even necessary; and, most importantly, none was ever done. That is a point that is not even argued around here, AND, at the same time, the lack of a valie official confirmation of the common storyline of 9/11 simply is not important in the emotionally charged, xenophobia-laden context of that storyline.

9/11 then, represents a cynical setback in human progress and development. It is a very large scale crime against humanity that, when it breaks down, will result in a lengthy, catharctic healing process. Could you but realize it, Quid, you are a contributor to the process of breaking down the barriers towards realization of the truth of the hideous and catastrophic crime that 9/11 really was.

For that, we are all grateful to you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he admitted that he "intentionally misused" the word Epistemology. Way to read the thread truther.

On the other hand, you have taken it to a whole new word salad with "epistemologically-based military undertaking."

Hee hee! Dictionaries, truther, how do they freaking work.

Well, I am off to the epistemologically-based coffee machine to get a epistemologically-based cup of coffee, and I hope they have epistemologically-based sugar for my epistemologically-based coffee or I am going to throw a epistemologically-based **** fit.

epistemologically-basedly yours,

16.5

ps: epistemologically-based.
 
MOTHER OF GOD!!! Do any of you truthers know what the hell the word means???

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/epistemology:
e·pis·te·mol·o·gy (
ibreve.gif
-p
ibreve.gif
s
lprime.gif
t
schwa.gif
-m
obreve.gif
l
prime.gif
schwa.gif
-j
emacr.gif
)
n.
The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
Click to expand...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epistemology
epis·te·mol·o·gy

noun \i-ˌpis-tə-ˈmä-lə-jē\
Definition of EPISTEMOLOGY

: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity
Click to expand...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epistemology
e·pis·te·mol·o·gy

   /ɪˌpɪs
thinsp.png
təˈmɒl
thinsp.png
ə
thinsp.png
dʒi/ Show Spelled[ih-pis-tuh-mol-uh-jee] Show IPA
–noun a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.
Click to expand...

Is it clear yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom