20 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-08-23 1140 +Drunk Guys For 911 Truth

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-08-23 1140 +Drunk Guys For 9/11 Truth and Beyond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSIlKqPYt8&lc=z22pzl1geoazwzkmjacdp432qfxtzrq502opjism15hw03c010c
https://pastebin.com/VXyCVqZK
__

+Drunk Guys For 9/11 Truth and Beyond __ *LOL!* I've read a lot of retarded comments on YouTube over the past couple of years but it's not often I encounter someone who has missed the point so profoundly and completely as you just have.

If you are doing a parody of the average YouTube viewer who comments on content without watching or understanding it then you've nailed it!

Whatever the case may be I have no incentive to help some drunken troll understand what has already been made simple enough for a 5th grader to grasp. Put down the booze and try again.



__________
2017-08-23 1400

+Drunk Guys For 9/11 Truth and Beyond __ You are someone who - in 2017 _and with the benefit of *more than 15 years of hindsight*_ - continues to assert that *holograms* were used on "9/11". It is clear you do not have what it takes to critique my "film" as you put it. "Not video fakery, hologram" watch?v=BkqFMRMBecQ&t=212

Merely saying you have not missed the point does not mean that you haven't. Merely saying you have understood something does not mean that you have. Merely calling something silly does not mean that it is.

*Your wall of words demonstrate no understanding about my "film" or the ideas I am presenting.* You have talked about anything and everything except that! If you don't believe you are a troll and don't think you're doing a parody of inattentive YouTube viewers then pick *one thing* and let's talk about _that._

Pick *one* objection you have about my "film". You seem to be having difficulty with the "fallacy of the conspiracy theorist" - so would you like to talk about that?



__________
2017-08-23 1545

+Drunk Guys For 9/11 Truth and Beyond __ In your initial comment you wrote: *"Bld 7 did collapse."* Why did you mention that? This is how I *know* you have not understood my "film". Is there *anyone* (conspiracy theorist or not) who has suggested building 7 _didn't_ collapse? Why do you imagine I included a clip of building 7 collapsing? What point do you suppose I was making and illustrating with it?



__________
2017-08-23 1820

+Drunk Guys For 9/11 Truth and Beyond __ Slow down. It is necessary to take this *one* step at a time. Whether a person is a conspiracy theorist or not there is no one - _not even the most mentally ill and deluded of people_ - who suggests that Building 7 did not collapse.

It seems ridiculous to state such a commonsense thing but it's important to understand why it's the case.

Notice how it is possible for you to talk about "holograms" on 9/11 (an idea which you must admit sounds _insane_ to "normal people") but there is *no one* - _not even the *verified insane*_ - who suggests that Building 7's collapse was a hologram or an illusion or did not happen.

A lot of intelligent people say a great many crazy things on the Internet but none of them assert that Building 7 didn't collapse. Holograms - sure. But not that Building 7 didn't collapse. No meaningful progress can be made until it is properly understood why.

Building 7 collapsed and its collapse is _not_ disputed, but why? The reason it is accepted as a fact about reality and not contested is because "sufficient proof" for its collapse has been presented. *"Sufficient proof" is a _specialised_ lie system term* (in Lesta's lie system nomenclature) *which refers to any _singular_ piece of evidence that _in and of itself_ necessarily proves a claim to be true and real _without_ requiring a subjective interpretation.*

When "sufficient proof" is provided for a claim it becomes irrational, unreasonable and _insane_ to suggest the claim is false. No one - _not even the most drunk of Internet trolls_ - claim that Building 7 didn't collapse.

To suggest Building 7 didn't collapse when we have "sufficient proof" that it did would be to deny reality itself.

There is more to it than that. My use of the Building 7 collapse footage was to serve as a clear and simple example of "sufficient proof". A basic example that can be understood by everyone - no matter how insane or stupid or trollish they may be.

I could have used any number of video clips to illustrate the concept of "sufficient proof" but chose to use the Building 7 collapse because it is likely already familiar to those who watch my presentations.

I also did not want to have people in the comments section try to pick apart my example of "sufficient proof" by saying it did not really happen or that it was CGI. So as an example I used something that *no one* denies happened.

On its own the Building 7 footage is "sufficient proof" for a building collapse though it can tell us *nothing* about _how_ or _why_ it collapsed. To know how and why Building 7 collapsed would require _other_ evidence and subjective interpretation.

I did not present the Building 7 footage to speculate on how or why it collapsed. I presented the Building 7 footage to illustrate an example of "sufficient proof" for a simple claim (e.g., "a building collapse").

My use of it in this video served to make the following point: *A person's ability to doubt a claim - _whether or not the claim is true_ - can only exist when "sufficient proof" for that claim either does not exist or is not provided.*

Read that again and let it sink in. People can only doubt claims - _regardless of how true those claims may be_ - if "sufficient proof" for the claim _is not_ presented.

When "sufficient proof" for a claim is withheld or obscured a person becomes *forced to trust* whoever makes the claim. If a person trusts the story teller then they will trust the "official story" and as a consequence believe it (it becomes real in their mind) even though they never saw "sufficient proof" for it.

On the other hand - if a person does not trust the story teller then they can end up rejecting the "official story" (even if it's true) and latch onto any _wild_ conspiracy theory; just so long as it is rooted in their concept of reality, seems plausible to them and (ideally) conforms to their preexisting belief bias.

What I have outlined above is just the _first_ thing. You may need to read over the above more than once to appreciate what I am saying, its nuances and its ramifications.

Let me know if you are able to follow along and I'll move on to the next step if you don't have any specific questions (about the above). Stay focused and let's go through one thing at a time - one step at a time.




__________
2017-08-24 0010

+Drunk Guys For 9/11 Truth and Beyond __ *Good grief - such waffle!* You cannot stay focused on *one* thing at a time. _You are all over the place like a mad woman's breakfast._ *STOP!* Let me help you.

What I am pointing out is profoundly *simple* to understand. There is nothing about it that's difficult or complex - _absolutely everyone can grasp it_ - but you will struggle until the end of time if you insist on arguing over every detail. Especially when those details do not need to be disputed!

For example - there was *no reasonable reason* to think that the Building 7 collapse footage was not genuine. The footage contained no *"potential editing points"* (i.e., no glaring glitches, clever cuts, sneaky edits or misdirecting pans).

There is no good reason to think that the footage showing the collapse of Building 7 was CGI or otherwise fake. *There is no good reason to think that the Building 7 footage did not accurately represent reality.* Especially when *everyone* can observe _for themselves_ that Building 7 - _immediately after the collapse_ - was no longer standing!

Remember - the Building 7 footage is "sufficient proof" of a building collapsing. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. To form any other belief from that specific footage would require additional evidence and a subjective interpretation. Again - that is why I used it as an _example_ of *"sufficient proof".*

You have taken leave of your senses if you are to come at me with: _"We saw it in video. Video can be a set or fake if you will"._ Of course video footage can be faked! _In fact - perfectly faked._ And if you can sit still for long enough you will learn something useful about "perfectly faked" footage and why the lie system does not exploit that option. But it is too soon to introduce _that_ into the conversation.

It seems absurd to have to point this out but the *intended purpose* of a video camera is to *capture reality* as it really was. By function - that is what a video camera does. There is simply no good reason to have doubted the Building 7 footage. You have lost touch with reality if you are to talk about *that* footage as being anything other than genuine.

If it is not reasonable to doubt that the footage is genuine (there really is no good reason to think that it wasn't) then we *must accept* the footage *else* we are being unreasonable. Else we are being *erratic* and *whimsical.* Else we are being self-defeatingly absurd.

If you would doubt footage that has no good reason to be doubted then you are living in a *subjective fantasy world* and there is no way to reason with you. You will simply be someone who believes whatever you want to be true and reject as a lie whatever you want to be false.

If that describes your current state of mind then this conversation can go no further.




__________
2017-08-24 0240

+Drunk Guys For 9/11 Truth and Beyond __ The simple things I point out are - _of course_ - common sense but unfortunately they have become _uncommon_ common sense. The reason for this is because *paranoia* runs rampant amongst those who have lost trust in the lie system and are not seeking true things for true reasons.

This is the situation for most open-minded people _especially_ for those who are new to doubting (i.e., not automatically believing) what is presented on the nightly news.

With minimal help and support I am endeavouring to correct this problem and guide good, honest and intelligent people onto the right path.

I'll now mention a few points about the *"fallacy of the conspiracy theorist"* since you brought it up. It is - _of course_ - a simple concept. However - many people seem to need things to be more complex than they really are and consequently have a tendency to skip over these simple concepts.

_That is not wise so pay attention._

The *"fallacy of the conspiracy theorist"* - _in lie system nomenclature_ - is where a person forms a belief that a claim is *false* _because_ "sufficient proof" (a concept you should now understand) *has not* been presented for the claim _when_ "sufficient proof" for that claim _should exist_ and there's no good reason for not showing it.

That is to say: A claim is made which may or may not be true. Given the nature of the claim "sufficient proof" for it should exist. But that "sufficient proof" is not being shown and there is no good reason as to why not.

It will help if I provide you a real-world example to make this perfectly clear.

On January 20th (2017) there was an *alleged car attack in Melbourne* (Australia). The claim was that a gentleman by the name of *"Dimitrious Gargasoulas"* intentionally ran people down along a footpath in Bourke Street killing six people and injuring several dozen more.

The area where the car attack allegedly took place was lined with CCTV cameras but to this day no footage of _anyone_ getting struck by the car - _let alone of the car driving down Bourke Street_ - has been released to the public.

If the event really happened as claimed then "sufficient proof" for the attack *must* exist. There is also _no good reason_ as to why the public have not been shown any of the relevant footage. After all - the public did get to see footage of the car *driving through a crowd of people* (but not hitting anyone) just prior to entering Bourke Street.

Perhaps the relevant footage (which would qualify as "sufficient proof") has not been released to the public because it is too gruesome? Perhaps it has not been released to the public out of consideration for the victims? _Perhaps!_

Most people would assume that is the reason but it does not stand up to scrutiny when you consider that CCTV footage of the more recent "Times Square Car Attack" (May 18th, 2017) - _which showed people getting run down from multiple camera angles_ - was released to the public. One person died and twenty were injured in that gruesome event.

And so with the "Melbourne Car Attack" we have a claim which - _if real_ - "sufficient proof" for it *must* exist and (when compared to similar events) there is _no good reason_ at to why at least _some_ of the relevant footage has not been released to the public.

Let's get to the fallacy.

In response to this turn of events a number of "truthers" asserted - _as a fact about reality_ - that the "Melbourne Car Attack" was a *completely staged event* where nobody died or got hurt. All *because* no relevant CCTV footage has been shown.

They reason that if the attack happened then at least a small amount of it would have been shown - even if heavily censored. This would at least prove that a car went down Bourke Street.

These "truthers" have reasoned that if the attack _did not really happen_ then there would be no CCTV footage to show. They concluded that the reason we saw nothing _is because nothing happened._

But you have said yourself that it is possible to fake video footage. I agree! Of course it is possible to fake video footage. In fact - it is possible to _perfectly fake_ footage. And so if the Melbourne Car Attack had been a staged event then it is not out of the question for us to have been shown some staged CCTV footage depicting people getting run down.

Every open-minded person who formed a belief that the Melbourne Car Attack _did not happen_ *because* we would have been shown "sufficient proof" - but were not - have committed the fallacy of the conspiracy theorist.

It may be that the Melbourne event _did not_ really happen - but to believe it did not happen *because* "sufficient proof" was not shown is to commit the "fallacy of the conspiracy theorist".

There is another option which those "truthers" aren't considering and that is the *intentional withholding* of "sufficient proof". There is also the possibility that police hit _some_ of the pedestrians and in an effort to cover it up the footage has not been shown.

There are a few reasons why the footage has not been shown *beyond* the notion of it being fake. There are a few reasons why the footage has not been shown *if* the event had been real.

But - to conclude that the event was fake *because* "sufficient proof" was not shown *is* a thinking error that has bad (and predictable) consequences which I won't go into just yet.

If you are unable to take take anything from what I have written above take this: *We must reject events and claims for the right reasons only.* Open-minded people are making a _grave error_ whenever they reject an event or claim _because_ "sufficient proof" has not been presented when it should exist and there's no good reason for not showing it.

The absence of "sufficient proof" is what forces the population to trust the story teller. And when people _do not_ trust the story teller - _and they are not seeking true things for true reasons_ - they become vulnerable to believing all manner of nutty conspiracy theories. No matter how ridiculously false they may be.



__________
2017-08-24 0245

+Drunk Guys For 9/11 Truth and Beyond __ By all means enjoy your increasingly sound-proofed echo-chamber. I'll catch you some other time should you ever escape it long enough to also figure out the profoundly *simple* things I have been pointing out to you!


____________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/c/LestaNediamHQ

Lesta on Twitter
https://twitter.com/lestanediam

Lesta on Google Plus
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.