| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:53 pm Post subject: Amazing new theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. |
 |
|
When the Twin Towers collapsed, firefighters heard the sound of trains. This leads to the obvious conclusion that the Twin Towers were brought down by runaway trains.
For the full story, see this site:
http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject: Critics Corner |
|
|
I did not know about Critics Corner because the last time I entered a blog Critics Corner did not exist.
CTS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmasdale
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1959
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:08 pm Post subject: Re: Amazing new theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | When the Twin Towers collapsed, firefighters heard the sound of trains. This leads to the obvious conclusion that the Twin Towers were brought down by runaway trains.
For the full story, see this site:
http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/
CTS |
I suppose this is a joke - in rather poor taste, I reckon.
Noel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I suppose this is a joke - in rather poor taste, I reckon. |
Yep Noel that echos my feelings as well. How low can these shills/trolls go? A view of the content of their man playing insulting comments in critics corner highlights that!
Regarding CTS claims:-
| Quote: | | I did not know about Critics Corner because the last time I entered a blog Critics Corner did not exist. |
That is indeed true, but he/they would have known that Critics Corner was the appropriate section when they went into the forum field. Anyway do you believe that CTS has not been following this website since their last blog mid July 2006 or got up to speed before sending this in the worst possible taste!
More work for our dedicated and skilful moderators:- another thread bites the dust in the critics corner!
_________________
Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
xmasdale writes:
| Quote: | I suppose this is a joke - in rather poor taste, I reckon.
|
No, xmasdale, it is not a joke but a parody of the kind of reasoning often employed by the CTs. (For example: Firefighters heard what sounded like explosions, therefore there must have been explosions). I would expect even CTs to recognise parody when they see it.
CTS
Last edited by ConspiracyTheorySceptic on Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:59 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:25 pm Post subject: Re: Amazing new theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | When the Twin Towers collapsed, firefighters heard the sound of trains. This leads to the obvious conclusion that the Twin Towers were brought down by runaway trains.
For the full story, see this site:
http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/
CTS |
welldone you just explained how conspiracy theorys are born. see how you took one thing and made it as the basis of your whole theory without using facts to come to your conclusion, the theory with no facts is indeed a conspiracy theory. however there is no physical evidence of a train at all so it would remain a conspiracy theory. if you had numerous reason to beileve a train was involved and video evidence to supported it and more than one witness statement lets say 30+ then you could of been onto something. so we can all agree we arnt conspiracy theorists. as we didnt make up any of the video evidence shown on the news or witness reports shown on the news ect. ect. which is some of the source that supports the conspiracy that we didnt film or say. (and no i didnt think you was serious about the train). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger the Horse
Moderate Poster
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | xmasdale writes:
| Quote: | I suppose this is a joke - in rather poor taste, I reckon.
|
No, xmasdale, it is not a joke but a parody of the usual level of reasoning employed by the CTs. I would expect even CTs to recognise parody when they see it.
CTS |
You would expect EVEN CTs to recognise parody? According to official sources us 'CTs' are completely unable to recognise parody in any shape or form. Although there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this whatsoever it remains a proven fact.
_________________
Only sheep need a leader. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: Amazing new theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. |
|
|
| ConspiracyTheorySceptic wrote: | When the Twin Towers collapsed, firefighters heard the sound of trains. This leads to the obvious conclusion that the Twin Towers were brought down by runaway trains.
For the full story, see this site:
http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/
CTS |
Can we delete this bollox? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I find it quite interesting that a number of people who post in Critics Corner in support of the OCT seem to have IP addresses which resolve to something I wouldn't always have expected. Then again, maybe I would have expected this.
I just find it surprising that our message board is worth wasting anyone's time - especially how there seems little evidence that any posts in critics corner have convinced any of us of anything except that we should stop posting in CC and redouble our efforts to disseminate the important facts to people.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | I just find it surprising that our message board is worth wasting anyone's time - especially how there seems little evidence that any posts in critics corner have convinced any of us of anything except that we should stop posting in CC and redouble our efforts to disseminate the important facts to people. |
Personally I don't find it a waste of time at all, even as what you'd call a "OCT'er". One or two CT'ers here have accepted some facts that have dented, however slightly, their 'received' views of the CT. That's all that can be asked of anybody. Present a case, back it up .... it's debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: Amazing new theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | welldone you just explained how conspiracy theorys are born. see how you took one thing and made it as the basis of your whole theory without using facts to come to your conclusion, the theory with no facts is indeed a conspiracy theory.
|
No, that's a hypothesis. A conspiracy theory is born when someone interprets real events through filters of paranoia. For instance, if billions of dollars are unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget, then it wasn't an accounting mistake, it was theft. If there was gold and/or secret documents in a building that collapsed, then clearly it was done purposefully to steal the gold or destroy evidence.
A conspiracy theorist is primed to ALWAYS attribute malevolent intent on the part of dark, shadowy forces to explain anything bad that happens in the world.
| Quote: | | however there is no physical evidence of a train at all so it would remain a conspiracy theory. if you had numerous reason to beileve a train was involved and video evidence to supported it and more than one witness statement lets say 30+ then you could of been onto something. |
Actually, here's how the CT's work: You get hundreds, preferably thousands of little disjointed bits of evidence, you sweep it all into a big, festering pile, then you say, "Look, the evidence is overwhelming!" This includes evidence such as: firemen say they heard a noise that sounded like a bomb going off, therefore there were bombs, or documentary makers saying that debris being blown out of a collapsing building looks like a squib, therefore the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition, or there was a flash of light when one of the planes hit the tower, therefore there was a sophisticated homing system that the drone aircraft homed in on to hit the building.
CTists know that none of these little pieces of dung can stand up under any sort of scrutiny, so they overwhelm their critics with shovel after shovel of it. They try to bog us down arguing about little details such as what caused a flash of light when the towers collapsed, completely overlooking the fact that the ONLY theory that comes even remotely close to explaining all the evidence is the so-called "official" story.
| Quote: | so we can all agree we arnt conspiracy theorists. as we didnt make up any of the video evidence shown on the news or witness reports shown on the news ect. ect.
|
Like I said, it's not about whether you make it up or not. It's about how you choose to interpret it.
| Quote: | | which is some of the source that supports the conspiracy that we didnt film or say. (and no i didnt think you was serious about the train). |
Um...Well. Yes. Can't argue with that logic, I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Anyway the content really does you no favours for such a serious issue as 911. I wonder what the families of those lost on 911 would think of this blog CTS. |
My own view of this, is that most families who support the official version would treat it exactly the same as controlled demolitions and holograms. To them, it would all be equally insulting.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| if theres evidence its not a theory, seeing as though we didnt make up the evidence as it was shot by numerous news agentgies wheres the theory? the only theory i see is the side that carnt provide any actual footage as evidence because they know it will give the game away and there explaination wont stand up to the footage. so get searching you written documents that trys to proves everything wrong with little diagrams rather than actual footage to point out where the conspiracy theory is wrong. then again its better to show computer graphics and miss out facts to show how the plane hit the pentagon rather than show actual footage and explain. they showed computer graphics that totally ignored the outer wall allowing the tail to enter the building with out braking of or damaging the building. they showed computer graphics of the pancake theroy, and totally ignored the core collapsing, they just showed the floors dropping with the core left intact. just a few examples of the evidence we are suppose to believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | if theres evidence its not a theory, seeing as though we didnt make up the evidence as it was shot by numerous news agentgies wheres the theory? the only theory i see is the side that carnt provide any actual footage as evidence because they know it will give the game away and there explaination wont stand up to the footage. so get searching you written documents that trys to proves everything wrong with little diagrams rather than actual footage to point out where the conspiracy theory is wrong. then again its better to show computer graphics and miss out facts to show how the plane hit the pentagon rather than show actual footage and explain. they showed computer graphics that totally ignored the outer wall allowing the tail to enter the building with out braking of or damaging the building. they showed computer graphics of the pancake theroy, and totally ignored the core collapsing, they just showed the floors dropping with the core left intact. just a few examples of the evidence we are suppose to believe. |
I think I see a pattern here...it's not evidence unless it's really, really easy to understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ok if it make you feel happy then yes thats what i was saying. carnt be bothered with you, you totally miss the point and just evade what i was saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | ok if it make you feel happy then yes thats what i was saying. carnt be bothered with you, you totally miss the point and just evade what i was saying. |
I was just trying to be polite. I was afraid I would hurt your feelings if I focused on your post and pointed out that you clearly don't know what the word "theory" means, that you seem to believe that documentaries thrown together by amateurs are somehow more valid than computer modeling, that you are demonstrably wrong in your claim that "the other side" doesn't use video evidence because it would "give the game away", etc., etc.
So, I didn't do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ok if it make you feel happy then yes thats what i was saying. carnt be bothered with you, you totally miss the point and just evade what i was saying. |
I was just trying to be polite. I was afraid I would hurt your feelings if I focused on your post and pointed out that you clearly don't know what the word "theory" means, that you seem to believe that documentaries thrown together by amateurs are somehow more valid than computer modeling, that you are demonstrably wrong in your claim that "the other side" doesn't use video evidence because it would "give the game away", etc., etc.
So, I didn't do that. |
Before video, investigators just guessed based on a hunch. Since there's no clear footage of flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, it can never be proven to any degree of certainty. [/sarcasm]  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ConspiracyTheorySceptic
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 144
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ok if it make you feel happy then yes thats what i was saying. carnt be bothered with you, you totally miss the point and just evade what i was saying. |
I was just trying to be polite. I was afraid I would hurt your feelings if I focused on your post and pointed out that you clearly don't know what the word "theory" means, that you seem to believe that documentaries thrown together by amateurs are somehow more valid than computer modeling, that you are demonstrably wrong in your claim that "the other side" doesn't use video evidence because it would "give the game away", etc., etc.
So, I didn't do that. |
Before video, investigators just guessed based on a hunch. Since there's no clear footage of flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, it can never be proven to any degree of certainty. [/sarcasm] |
And of course as the lovely and talented SHERITON HOTEL mentioned earlier:
"We will never know for sure what hit those towers until we have the black boxes."
One wonders how SH came to this momentous conclusion?
How 'bout it SH? Were you born a stupid, crazy, scumbag puking pieca' nonsense, or did you have to work on it?
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: | And of course as the lovely and talented SHERITON HOTEL mentioned earlier:
"We will never know for sure what hit those towers until we have the black boxes."
One wonders how SH came to this momentous conclusion? |
Clearly not by watching the video evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | ok if it make you feel happy then yes thats what i was saying. carnt be bothered with you, you totally miss the point and just evade what i was saying. |
I was just trying to be polite. I was afraid I would hurt your feelings if I focused on your post and pointed out that you clearly don't know what the word "theory" means, that you seem to believe that documentaries thrown together by amateurs are somehow more valid than computer modeling, that you are demonstrably wrong in your claim that "the other side" doesn't use video evidence because it would "give the game away", etc., etc.
So, I didn't do that. |
mmm ok, cnn, abc, ect. are amatures? thats where most the footage comes from, and people filming as it happened on the ground. you dont need words to see with your eyes that something isnt right. you dont see it and even if you did you would'nt admit it. but the evidence is in all the footage shot by people on that day. the amatuers as you call them point them out thats it. its like the london bombings, they show a picture of the bombers and you can tell its fake, because on man in the photo is stood in front of the railings but the railings behind goes over the top of his arm, and partially through his face. ok a lot will say its been faked by CTer's so explain why on the 10 o'clock news in england, they showed a report on john reid speaking to muslims about the terror threat and during the report they showed the picture on the news, with the exact same errors on the picture. that proved to me the picture wasnt fake as news agencies get there material straight from the source, in this case most proberbly the police as it was a picture of the bombers from a cctv camera on 7/7. its exactly the same with 9/11 all the evidence is on the news or from a news source as well as videos from passers by on the day. words you can call amatuer all you like but the footage dosnt lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject: Re: Amazing new theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | welldone you just explained how conspiracy theorys are born. see how you took one thing and made it as the basis of your whole theory without using facts to come to your conclusion, the theory with no facts is indeed a conspiracy theory.
|
No, that's a hypothesis. A conspiracy theory is born when someone interprets real events through filters of paranoia. For instance, if billions of dollars are unaccounted for in the Pentagon budget, then it wasn't an accounting mistake, it was theft. If there was gold and/or secret documents in a building that collapsed, then clearly it was done purposefully to steal the gold or destroy evidence.
A conspiracy theorist is primed to ALWAYS attribute malevolent intent on the part of dark, shadowy forces to explain anything bad that happens in the world.
| Quote: | | however there is no physical evidence of a train at all so it would remain a conspiracy theory. if you had numerous reason to beileve a train was involved and video evidence to supported it and more than one witness statement lets say 30+ then you could of been onto something. |
Actually, here's how the CT's work: You get hundreds, preferably thousands of little disjointed bits of evidence, you sweep it all into a big, festering pile, then you say, "Look, the evidence is overwhelming!" This includes evidence such as: firemen say they heard a noise that sounded like a bomb going off, therefore there were bombs, or documentary makers saying that debris being blown out of a collapsing building looks like a squib, therefore the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition, or there was a flash of light when one of the planes hit the tower, therefore there was a sophisticated homing system that the drone aircraft homed in on to hit the building.
CTists know that none of these little pieces of dung can stand up under any sort of scrutiny, so they overwhelm their critics with shovel after shovel of it. They try to bog us down arguing about little details such as what caused a flash of light when the towers collapsed, completely overlooking the fact that the ONLY theory that comes even remotely close to explaining all the evidence is the so-called "official" story.
| Quote: | so we can all agree we arnt conspiracy theorists. as we didnt make up any of the video evidence shown on the news or witness reports shown on the news ect. ect.
|
Like I said, it's not about whether you make it up or not. It's about how you choose to interpret it.
| Quote: | | which is some of the source that supports the conspiracy that we didnt film or say. (and no i didnt think you was serious about the train). |
Um...Well. Yes. Can't argue with that logic, I suppose. |
It seems to me that, if the above bunkum is a sample of the recieved wisdom, critics are here chasing a paranoid fantasy about these mythical "CT's" themselves: its a conspiracy theory that there are conspiracy theorists! The facts are that there is the same proportion of poor critical thinkers whatever the subject matter, and the fact that there is a label applied to people who question government (a duty of citizens in a democracy!) simply shows the inate resistance of authority to being questioned: becuase authority knows it deserves to be!
Hilarious really
"Condemn and Catagorise those who question any government pronouncments in the mainstream media" seems to be the real message here
It must be quite frustrating for those afflicted with believing they understand the world that the Courage to Question is so remorcelessly on the rise
Oh yes CTS and the original post
Tragic...so much promise, to have crashed and burned, reduced to juvenille mockery in the face of the irrefutable
Pay attention critics: that is your future, unless you can become wise
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Amazing new theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Tragic...so much promise, to have crashed and burned, reduced to juvenille mockery in the face of the irrefutable
|
JW "irrefutable" is a pretty strong word.
What's "irrefutable" here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: Amazing new theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Tragic...so much promise, to have crashed and burned, reduced to juvenille mockery in the face of the irrefutable
|
JW "irrefutable" is a pretty strong word.
What's "irrefutable" here? |
In the quantum universe? Not a lot
In a gentle mickey take? Quite a bit
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: Amazing new theory for the collapse of the Twin Towers. |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Tragic...so much promise, to have crashed and burned, reduced to juvenille mockery in the face of the irrefutable
|
JW "irrefutable" is a pretty strong word.
What's "irrefutable" here? |
In the quantum universe? Not a lot
In a gentle mickey take? Quite a bit |
Ah OK.
Tip - when taking the mickey it's best to be brief and simple. Otherwise you end up sounding pompous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dont do it too often...and its really only the last line
Thanks for the tip though, I'll keep it in mind
.....
oh yes... do you want to let CTS know that about his original post?
Cheers
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | I dont do it too often...and its really only the last line
Thanks for the tip though, I'll keep it in mind
.....
oh yes... do you want to let CTS know that about his original post?
Cheers |
I'd put the original in the "inappropriate frivolity" + "muddying the waters so we don't get #*&£'ing anywhere in this poxy debate" class. But that might sound pompous, so I won't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
