nonconformist
Miserable
Why, Garry Denke of course.
I've just convinced myself to that 9/11 is a conspiracy
- Thread starter Ondskan
- Start date
- Status
Why, Garry Denke of course.
Why the hell should I post the same link again from the Guardian when you can just browse the thread and click it yourself?
I'm not interested in winning an argument I was interested in seeing how many people on this forum think something. At the start I just wrote what I thought about it and asked what others thought about it. When you say I'm wrong I guess I try to at least point you in the right direction but I don't really give a . .. .. .. . what you belive. It's your right to belive and think what ever you want.
I'm not interested in winning an argument I was interested in seeing how many people on this forum think something. At the start I just wrote what I thought about it and asked what others thought about it. When you say I'm wrong I guess I try to at least point you in the right direction but I don't really give a . .. .. .. . what you belive. It's your right to belive and think what ever you want.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Oh good - that means you'll stop posting the garbage theories. Also, that you'll stop closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and screaming "LALALALALALLALAALALALA".
You have our thanks!
-- Ravensfire
Meh as you wish. I'll not post garbage theories anymore. Just tell me in advance the theory you've read and support so I am to post that one instead of the one I've read and support.For everyone else out there, I'd like to translate what Ondskan typed into what he really said:
"Rhetorically and factually speaking, I just got spanked so badly I'm going to be posting on the Loose Change forums standing up the rest of the week. I have no real evidence to offer except a single ambiguous Guardian article which doesn't talk about any actual evidence, much less support my theory about a controlled demolition, but I'm going to pretend that I've put forward all the evidence necessary to prove my point so I don't look like I got beaten, even though deep down inside I know I just very lost badly and have no real evidence."
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
It would help your argument if you used spell-check.
I see you still haven't read it. Great.
The article itself isn't the source *Sigh* Which you evidently would've seen if you read it. The links and the *sources* in the article and the sources.
___
Does it make my arguments less or more true or do you just enjoy picking on people who write perfect english or make a few typos?
The article itself isn't the source *Sigh* Which you evidently would've seen if you read it. The links and the *sources* in the article and the sources.
___
Does it make my arguments less or more true or do you just enjoy picking on people who write perfect english or make a few typos?
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
Ondskan,
I've read that article, and I've read the 911truth reports. They do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
It's you who has not read the counterpoint, not us.
Stop trolling.
I've read that article, and I've read the 911truth reports. They do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
It's you who has not read the counterpoint, not us.
Stop trolling.
You have.
Have the rest?
And may i ask you why the chair and the vice chair of the 9/11 comission are critical of it and have demanded a new study if it's just bull?
Don't ask me where it's written if you've read the article and checked into the links.
Have the rest?
And may i ask you why the chair and the vice chair of the 9/11 comission are critical of it and have demanded a new study if it's just bull?
Don't ask me where it's written if you've read the article and checked into the links.
Declaring things which are false isn't adding to your credibility. Yes, I read it. No, I was not impressed.
I'm still waiting for the "endless" number of credible scientists and engineers who say it was a controlled demolition. At this point, I'm sure you won't provide them, because I know you don't have them. Of course, you could always surprise me if you really wanted....
Or, as I suspect will happen, you'll just continue to sigh and ignore the actual arguments that have been put forward, and just continue to credit unnamed "scientists" who agree with you. Sorry to break it for you man, but you have to actually quote and cite scientists and engineers in order for it to be, you know, evidence. Simply saying that there are people who exist who agree with you doesn't prove anything at all.
Read the article. Check the links.
What ellse can I say. I base my thoughts on many of the scientists and people who've come up with this theory. It's my opinion that they are right. Hell I thought you guys were for free speach and all? Am I telling you that you are wrong beyond all doubt?
Are you telling me that I am?
Who's the ignorant.
Again check the links in the article and in the wiki entry for the same thing to see lists and names of scientists and engineers.
What ellse can I say. I base my thoughts on many of the scientists and people who've come up with this theory. It's my opinion that they are right. Hell I thought you guys were for free speach and all? Am I telling you that you are wrong beyond all doubt?
Are you telling me that I am?
Who's the ignorant.
Again check the links in the article and in the wiki entry for the same thing to see lists and names of scientists and engineers.
Come on. I looked at the link - none of it looked credible in the slightest. Post a link to a specific scientist or organization. This is the last time I'm going to ask. When you make an assertion, it is good manners to back it up. It's simply smart to back it up when asked. When asked five or more times, and you still won't back it up, it shows that you are simply unable to back it up, or don't care in the slightest. If you don't care, then this isn't worth my time. And if you are unable to back up your assertion (And unable or unwilling to even admit that you are unable) then again, this isn't worth my time because you are completely in denial.
I'm saying your position is, as far as I can tell, utterly unreasonably and completely untenable for a logical person to hold. If you have credible evidence suggesting otherwise, nows the time. (Or rather, about five posts back would have been the time, but now's good)
I'm not "the ignorant" about rationality, which is desperately needed in your "theory" of events. And I'm not "the ignorant" of common rules of grammar, either. I normally don't jump on people for grammatical mistakes - I certainly make them myself, but this is an exception because you brought this on yourself. So another tip: If you're going to call someone ignorant, use proper grammar when doing so. Otherwise your insult just backfires rather amusingly.
Heh I give up.
If you've spent even half the time you portrait you've spent on checking on scientific theories supporting your assumption then you must've at least stumbled on the scientists who've come up with the contrary theory of the same subject.
Calling me ignorant because of my spelling mistakes is ignorant itself and doesn't improve your posture in any way except making you out to be arrogant. I don't think my english is so bad that you can't understand it or that it becomes difficult for you to reply to it.
Again i ask you to read the article.
Here's a few things about the only real source that you have to back your theory up with:
Also the Wiki entry that you are obviously to lazy or to arrogant to find yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contro...is_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
The other site:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html - People who demand a real investigation and have doubts about this one including those who were involved in it themselves (9/11 comission).
Enough from me now. Let others explain their views instead.
If you've spent even half the time you portrait you've spent on checking on scientific theories supporting your assumption then you must've at least stumbled on the scientists who've come up with the contrary theory of the same subject.
Calling me ignorant because of my spelling mistakes is ignorant itself and doesn't improve your posture in any way except making you out to be arrogant. I don't think my english is so bad that you can't understand it or that it becomes difficult for you to reply to it.
Again i ask you to read the article.
Here's a few things about the only real source that you have to back your theory up with:
Also the Wiki entry that you are obviously to lazy or to arrogant to find yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contro...is_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
The other site:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html - People who demand a real investigation and have doubts about this one including those who were involved in it themselves (9/11 comission).
Enough from me now. Let others explain their views instead.
Well all i know is that the main people attacking the conspiracy theorists are the neocons.
So the conspiracy theorists get 1+ in my book just by the people attacking them.
Though ive seen conspiracy theorists saying ron paul makes devil signs and does freemasonic handshakes.
Crazy world
So the conspiracy theorists get 1+ in my book just by the people attacking them.
Though ive seen conspiracy theorists saying ron paul makes devil signs and does freemasonic handshakes.
Crazy world
Is that true?
And do you mean in general, or in this thread? Have any actual neocons even posted in this thread?
Not this thread, just from what ive seen from the internetz over all.
JerichoHill
Bedrock of Knowledge
I am not a neo-con. Therefore, your statement is false.
Gen Wesley Clark did not like the adminstration attempting to pin 9/11 on Saddam. That's it. No mention of him believing that a controlled demolition took down the wtc.
I post links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
Critics of these alternative theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[170] Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.
Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."[171]
Scientific American,[172] Popular Mechanics,[173] and The Skeptic's Dictionary[174] have published articles that attempt to debunk various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Proponents of these theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is cousin of Michael Chertoff — current head of Homeland Security.[175] However, U.S News says no indication of an actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.[176] Popular Mechanics has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article.[177] Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."
An article in the September 11 2006 edition of Time Magazine comments that the major 9/11 conspiracy theories “depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses”, and enjoy continued popularity due to the fact that “the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting”. It concludes that “conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events” and constitute “an American form of national mourning.”[166]
popularmechanics
Question:
What part of "I saw the plane as it went under the tree line and the subsequent explosion at the Pentagon" do you not understand?
How do you counter the above posting about the scale needed for a controlled demolition?
911morons
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html
Gen Wesley Clark did not like the adminstration attempting to pin 9/11 on Saddam. That's it. No mention of him believing that a controlled demolition took down the wtc.
I post links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
Critics of these alternative theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[170] Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.
Michael Shermer, writing in Scientific American, said: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking. All the evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."[171]
Scientific American,[172] Popular Mechanics,[173] and The Skeptic's Dictionary[174] have published articles that attempt to debunk various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Proponents of these theories have attacked the contribution to the Popular Mechanics article by senior researcher Ben Chertoff, who they say is cousin of Michael Chertoff — current head of Homeland Security.[175] However, U.S News says no indication of an actual connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has denied the allegation.[176] Popular Mechanics has published a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Myths that expands upon the research first presented in the article.[177] Der Spiegel dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theories as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."
An article in the September 11 2006 edition of Time Magazine comments that the major 9/11 conspiracy theories “depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses”, and enjoy continued popularity due to the fact that “the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting”. It concludes that “conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events” and constitute “an American form of national mourning.”[166]
popularmechanics
Question:
What part of "I saw the plane as it went under the tree line and the subsequent explosion at the Pentagon" do you not understand?
How do you counter the above posting about the scale needed for a controlled demolition?
911morons
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html
Bronx Warlord
Squad Leader
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Nor am I, your point?
I have seen all sorts of people attack them. I don't think it has anything to do with ideology.
Granted, I don't interact much with neoconservatives.
Granted, I don't interact much with neoconservatives.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
