• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Looser reading comprehension at its finest

tacodaemon

Muse
tacodaemon
Joined
Jun 22, 2006
Messages
571
One of the Loosers found a wire-service article saying that in 1952 the CIA wrote up an internal report about how some Japanese ultranationalists they had previously given some money to (in order to get help gathering intelligence) had at some point been planning to overthrow the postwar Japanese government and install a more militarist one.

The wire-service article comes right out and says that the CIA apparently didn't know about the coup plot until after the Japanese group had already decided against the coup, and that the money from the CIA had dried up long before then anyway:
The files reviewed by the AP strongly suggest the Americans were unaware of the plot until after it had been dropped. The plot was developed after the U.S. postwar occupation of Japan ended in April 1952, and the CIA files say American financial support for Hattori's group had dried up by then.
Click to expand...
But of course that doesn't stop Killclown from being enraged in the very first post. And from the next guy's response, I'm guessing his interpretation is that the CIA had been planning to help overthrow the pro-American postwar government and install a militant Japanese-nationalist one for no comprehensible reason.

Anyone have any other lovely illustrations of how well the truthers can comprehend written text?

(The second reply's lack of comprehension of why the U.S. government was involved with Japanese governance in the years right after WWII indicates a certain lack of knowledge about history as well...)
 
New World Order

The conspiracy people who believe there is a secret world government called the "New World Order" are simply misinterpreting the phrase "a new world order," which is in common parlance and means "a change in the world order." There is absolutely no implication of world government.

Apparently, the conspiracy guys slept through the part of English class where we learned that words and phrases sometimes have more than one meaning. So the whole belief in world government comes from the CTs' stunning ignorance of the way language works.
 
Last edited:
tacodaemon said:
Anyone have any other lovely illustrations of how well the truthers can comprehend written text?
Click to expand...
Not realy lovely or funny, but ubiquitous in woowooland: the way they misinterpret the PNAC-report, specifically the Pearl-Harbour quote.
 
I like how they see words that no one else can...

An excellent example is the recent BBC video of the WTC7 collapse.

Somehow "WTC7 has collapsed" became "WTC7 has collapsed rapidly at near free-fall speeds symetrically straight down into a neat pile"

I'm pretty sure the BBC didn't actually say all that, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention...

-Gumboot
 
So after fighting a long and bloody war against a militant Japanese-nationalist government, the US was going to get rid of the democratic one and replace it with a - militant Japanese-nationalist one?
I'll have a pint of what that Looser's been drinking, ta!
 
Is it just me, or does anyone else notice a serious lack of reading for comprehension skills among the conspiracy fantasists?

They appear to see the words properly, but fail to understand the meaning, IMHO.
 
gumboot said:
Somehow "WTC7 has collapsed" became "WTC7 has collapsed rapidly at near free-fall speeds symetrically straight down into a neat pile"
-Gumboot
Click to expand...
"...into its own footprint, never mind all the stuff that's spilt all over the surrounding streets."
 
The thing that frightens me most is the continual harping on the phrase
"The most likely hypothisis had the lowest probability of occurance"
The way I, as an engineer, read this--and I am 86% sure it was intended this way-is that the probability of a large-scale fire, combined with major structural damage from the collapse of the surrounding/adjacent buildings was so small as to not merit consideration during design. What it amounts to is "You can't design for everything". It'd be like designing an airliner to withstand a meteor strike. It could happen, but it is so unlikely as to be near zero probability.
The CT'ers read it as "The probability that large fires and major sturctuaral damage could bring the building down is effectively zero, but that is our story and we're sticking to it."
 
rwguinn said:
The thing that frightens me most is the continual harping on the phrase
"The most likely hypothisis had the lowest probability of occurance"
The way I, as an engineer, read this--and I am 86% sure it was intended this way-is that the probability of a large-scale fire, combined with major structural damage from the collapse of the surrounding/adjacent buildings was so small as to not merit consideration during design. What it amounts to is "You can't design for everything". It'd be like designing an airliner to withstand a meteor strike. It could happen, but it is so unlikely as to be near zero probability.
The CT'ers read it as "The probability that large fires and major sturctuaral damage could bring the building down is effectively zero, but that is our story and we're sticking to it."
Click to expand...



Reading the FEMA report, they actual hypothesises (?) they're talking about are for the collapse initiation being solely caused by fire. Remember, FEMA did not take into account South-face damage because they didn't know about it.

Basically, they had to offer up several hypothesises (how the hell do you make that plural???) for how fire alone could cause these collapse. They're right that they had low probability of occuring - because it's now much more clear that structural damage played a far greater part in all this.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom