Ahh... you just got to skim Morgellon's right at the end. At least Joe was exposed to a bit of your views on it. Fun Show! Rogan is quite an intelligent guy.
However, I also feel that any theories that go against the official story on 9/11 all get lumped together when I feel there are some that are far more credible than others. People who go on about missiles hitting the pentagon, actors at the Boston bombings, space aliens etc. should not be all lumped together with more credible 911 theories as I feel they often are. I do actually believe that 9/11 was created through covert operations and I do not buy the official story.
It seems to me - and I don't really expect you to admit to this - that you go around debunking things with the preconceived notion that the things you are debunking must be false. You accused certain conspiracy theorists of behaving like religious nuts because they can't get their head around certain facts and numbers and have already decided that their ideas are correct. However, I find it ironic that you think this since I actually see elements of this within yourself with regards to your own 'debunking' of 9/11.
Mick said CT's behave like religious nuts? That doesn't sound like him....You accused certain conspiracy theorists of behaving like religious nuts because they can't get their head around certain facts and numbers and have already decided that their ideas are correct. ....
As far as you 'not being able to get your head around facts and numbers', I didn't so much think that as i felt an unwillingness on your part to consider other evidence of why the 911 story is false, although i may be wrong about this. I can't believe that you have only looked at controlled demolition evidence and not looked at other evidence that goes against the official story. 9/11 was a crime scene and if you're going to simply look at the how the towers came down without looking at the why - the clear motives - then there is not much point really. And I even feel your focus on how the towers came down themselves is somewhat of a distraction as there is much other evidence. The video I posted goes into this in detail.
There was a great motive to create the event of 911. Without 911, I do not believe that the US and UK would have been able to go into all these wars and Israel especially benefited from having western powers essentially do their work for them. I actually feel there is evidence other than controlled demolition which is more compelling but I do not think that the mere impact of the planes took those towers down. It seems to me there were bombs in those buildings but that does not mean the towers were brought down by a traditional controlled demolition. Several eyewitnesses say that bombs or explosions were in the base of the towers even before the planes hit. I cannot believe that this was merely their confused minds. Many, many, people talk about huge explosions in the bases of the towers. Look at the evidence of Israeli involvement.
yea well everyone believed the golf on Tonkin happened before they told us it didn't. the official story is a comic book
There's your problem. Please review the posting policy. Metabunk is about evidence.the odds IF this was a conspiracy that there would be some damning evidence showing bush front to back planning this whole thing...common guys be realistic, i know im not presenting one piece of evidence but im just saying if your really going to get to the bottom of it you gotta be realistic. they control the release of news and information, the evidence would come from whistleblowers piecing together and strings of small circumstantial evidence proving the motive.
No, evidence. Have any?guys guys guys, patterns in behavior is how conclusions are made....right?
Check please...your arguments aren't really clear here guys, i first show just a random video which is interesting, then just said the golf of Tonkin thing, then you said what does that have to do with it, then i said patterns of behavior, then you ask for evidence.... and mick highlighting that i said one piece of evidence is just doing the same round and round thing, im stating that im not presenting one specific piece of evidence like tower 7 ect, but just stating that the motive seems to be there and there have been plenty of whistleblowers who say the same. not commenting on specific posts and then highlighting certain aspects of posts is doing exactly what you guys talked shit about on JRE...
Good thing, or I'd be in jail after my boss had a heart attackHaving a motive is not evidence.
Quite a few F bombs . Takes away from the show IMO
Newsradio. A really great show, and Phil Hartman's last performance. Joe's character was the one who always believed the government was hiding proof of aliens.
I would like to see Joe Rogan host a debate on chemtrails.
He seems to understand the conspiracy enough, plus does seem able to speak from both sides. He's a strong enough speaker to lead the responses away from any over-talking and arguing that often occurs.
If it happens live on his show, the studio situation removes any phone/skype delay problem often found on a typical call-in debate.
Interesting show only caught the end of it . Did you record it ? I agree Bush is a Idiot as well as the guy elected after him Will you post the movie he was talking about to debunk ?I did an internet radio show this morning that will be rebroadcast at 3 PM Pacific
http://www.radioio.com/btls/channels/all/Bubba-TWO#
This is Jason Bermas' film that he mentioned:
I just did the Joe Rogan Experience podcast, which is an interesting format, a three hour casual discussion of whatever springs to mind, with a loose focus on conspiracy theories and debunking. We ended up covering a very wide range of topics.
Mick, do you know Joe Rogan used to be a truther before he worked for mainstream programing like SciFi right? He used to have small sponsors like 'Fleshlight' and 'Hallucinogenic Mind Expanding Supplements.' You do know that about him right?