gaelllic:


No, man. I'm offering an hourish's worth of video that passes any reasonable test of rational objectivity. The kind you deny, and instinctively know you're kidding yourself.

Any content/information that indeed passes "any reasonable test of rational objectivity" = evidence.
If the evidence exists, I honestly doubt we'd be having this conversation.

There are thousands of such videos on Youtube. However, all they do is ask questions.
Questions are great, but questions aren't answers.

Feel free to post your video. I'm always happy to take a look.

ramalot:

Questions are great, but questions aren't answers.

Yeah, they are. To a degree at least.

If you saw incontrovertible evidence that 9-11-01 was an inside job, you would have to accept that US government, media and corporate
are part of a single entity of secret control, run by a secret clique.

That would be certain, whatever else might be obscure.

I'm just asking for some good faith. Men have a way of seeing what they wish, if the truth is too uncomfortable. This is why most
televangelists exist.

Anyhow. Check out

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCE60816E15E92281 (videos 5, 8 and 10. 15 minutes each)

and to round out my hour


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hGZM7heYKw

Good day, my fellow nairalanders, please let's help a young Nigerian lady win this global video contest on climate change by viewing and sharing. Your view is your vote, let's give her a million votes.Thanks.

Here is the link:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mWfwPjVIRo

Gerrarahere.

gaelllic:


Yeah, they are. To a degree at least.

If you saw incontrovertible evidence that 9-11-01 was an inside job, you would have to accept that US government, media and corporate
are part of a single entity of secret control, run by a secret clique.

That would be certain, whatever else might be obscure.

I'm just asking for some good faith. Men have a way of seeing what they wish, if the truth is too uncomfortable. This is why most
televangelists exist.

Anyhow. Check out

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCE60816E15E92281 (videos 5, 8 and 10. 15 minutes each)

and to round out my hour


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hGZM7heYKw

I've seen these videos before, and many others like it. Nothing more than over-dramatized pixel peeping.

I have a degree in Communication and Media Production. My vantage point on media content is a little different from the layman's.
I know when a hack hacks together unrelated strings of facts/information to sell a hypothetical.

I view/consider everything (in life) from a neutral stand, and only absorb the hard facts.
None of the facts presented in any of these videos are remotely "evidence" of anything beyond what they are in isolation.

e.g it can be said objectively that CNN's crisis actor was spotted in different crisis situations. FACT.
However, that isn't evidence that rabbits are planning an armed uprising. Same way it isn't evidence of anything else beyond what it is - A HIRED CRISIS ACTOR.

Why then would they hire a crisis actor, you say? Well, I'd have to give you a lecture on media production for that, if I had the time. But the short version is - to deliver the most basic information on site, with maximum articulation and minimum misinformation risk. Sketchy practice? Yes. Unheard of? No.

(random fact: I was on my way to the marathon finish line when I heard bombs had gone off. That's where the crisis actor was in one of them).

The point is, it's like saying the "fact" your username is "Gaelllic," which is phonetically equivalent to "Gaelic" is EVIDENCE that you're Irish, and a member of the IRA. No, not necessarily. Logic isn't that simplistically linear.

Anyway, while I'd like to go on yapping about this, I believe it is a waste of both our times. It's kinda like arguing over religion. You both run around in circles and end up at the starting point. Not a very judicious use of our valuable time.