| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gurl102
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 27
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: 911 conspiracy conspiracy |
 |
|
doesn't it seem odd that the conspiracy theorists give us selected quotes out of context?
isn't it strange that all the "scientists" that the "911 truth" provides are not really what they say they are?
why is everything they say one hundred times more rediculous and has a thousand more holes than those who claim "Elvis is alive" with proof after proof.
what's their motivation?
1) hate Bush
2) stop the war in Iraq
3) get Bush to resign his presidency
4) maybe get someone angry enough to actually kill the prez
5) divide the nation that was so united before (it's inconvenient for the America haters that the Americans are so united)
etc. etc.
so we have the motivation for the why the conspiracy theorists want to start a 911 conspiracy conspiracy.
_________________
DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY! THE WORLD IS REALLY FLAT, THE STARS ARE REALLY JUST FIREFLYS THAT GOT STUCK ON THAT GOOEY THING THAT PEOLE CAL "sky" AND THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE
Last edited by gurl102 on Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A theory is a plot by two or more people to commit a crime. Conspiracies happen everyday and are not confined to nutters that believe in Elvis being alive and well.
A theory (the OCT) is a proposed explanation which is not yet proven, as contrasted to well established facts (truth movement)
Most of what I see on here everyday is evidence supporting the truth movments version of events. Where is the theory?
A lot of people do hate Bush, a lot of Americans too in fact, due to the fact that he has shredded the constitution which so many of them swear on at school.
Stopping the war in Iraq WOULD be a good thing as we all know it was illegal.
Getting Bush to resign I don't think would change anything. Cheney would step in and continue the same job.
Why do you try to insinuate that any of us wqouls want the President dead? it's widely acknowledged that he's too dumb to have pulled it off and that he is a puppet. Nobody on here wants to see anybody murdered, they just want people to tell the truth
Divide the nation? Everything I see tells me it was already divided before the war.
The motivation for people discussing on here is that they want the truth, simple as that, they don't come on here just for the fun of it like the OCT believers. We have a purpose to come on here. Non believers have NO purpose other to throw a fox in the chicken hut and try to dish out some disinformation.
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is particularly interesting about your post is the way you initially claim that 'truthers' engage in poorly evidenced arguments and then go on to assert a set of wholly unevidenced assumptions that claim to be privy to the inner psychological motivations of, in the case of this forum, over a thousand disparate individuals, including an extremely vague and ill-defined notion that America was somehow peculiarly 'united' but now, thanks to truthers, is not.
Remarkable stuff.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gurl102
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | | A theory is a plot by two or more people to commit a crime. Conspiracies happen everyday and are not confined to nutters that believe in Elvis being alive and well. |
yes, a plot by two or more people to brainwash the sheeple that their prez is a criminal. a plot to cause confusion, fear, and hate amung the Americans
| Quote: | | A theory (the OCT) is a proposed explanation which is not yet proven, as contrasted to well established facts (truth movement) |
facts? (excuse me while I laugh my head off! ok, done laughing) what facts?
and the OCT or whatever you call it HAS proof. the conspiracy plotters of the "truth movement" aren't showing the proof to the sheeple they try to drag into their cult, though.
| Quote: | | Most of what I see on here everyday is evidence supporting the truth movments version of events. Where is the theory? |
all the "evidence" you see HERE is a destortion of the truth. look elsewhere
_________________
DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY! THE WORLD IS REALLY FLAT, THE STARS ARE REALLY JUST FIREFLYS THAT GOT STUCK ON THAT GOOEY THING THAT PEOLE CAL "sky" AND THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gurl102
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | | A theory is a plot by two or more people to commit a crime. Conspiracies happen everyday and are not confined to nutters that believe in Elvis being alive and well. |
yes, a plot by two or more people to brainwash the sheeple that their prez is a criminal. a plot to cause confusion, fear, and hate amung the Americans
| Quote: | | A theory (the OCT) is a proposed explanation which is not yet proven, as contrasted to well established facts (truth movement) |
facts? (excuse me while I laugh my head off! ok, done laughing) what facts?
and the OCT or whatever you call it HAS proof. the conspiracy plotters of the "truth movement" aren't showing the proof to the sheeple they try to drag into their cult, though.
| Quote: | | Most of what I see on here everyday is evidence supporting the truth movments version of events. Where is the theory? |
all the "evidence" you see HERE is a destortion of the truth. look elsewhere
_________________
DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY! THE WORLD IS REALLY FLAT, THE STARS ARE REALLY JUST FIREFLYS THAT GOT STUCK ON THAT GOOEY THING THAT PEOLE CAL "sky" AND THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gurl102
Minor Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | What is particularly interesting about your post is the way you initially claim that 'truthers' engage in poorly evidenced arguments and then go on to assert a set of wholly unevidenced assumptions that claim to be privy to the inner psychological motivations of, in the case of this forum, over a thousand disparate individuals, including an extremely vague and ill-defined notion that America was somehow peculiarly 'united' but now, thanks to truthers, is not.
Remarkable stuff. |
America is united now, too. the "troothers" are trying hard to change that.
_________________
DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY! THE WORLD IS REALLY FLAT, THE STARS ARE REALLY JUST FIREFLYS THAT GOT STUCK ON THAT GOOEY THING THAT PEOLE CAL "sky" AND THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All of the evidence put forward on these forums seems to be backed up. The OCT is only backed up by "experts" on the payroll.
If you read my other posts you will see that I provide evidence to back up what I say.
When a suspect is being questioned by the police and he changes his story each time that it is proven wrong, it's generally assumed (for good reason) that the suspect is lying. The same can be applied to the OCT, the story has changed so many times since day one that it's almost totally different than when it started.
Most of the sites that claim to "debunk" the "conspiracy theories" tend to lable us all nutcases instead of focusing on facts. While all the sites that debunk the OCT are factual and are run by people that are not so immature as to slander people.
Any expert who truly looks at both sides of the story can plainly see which side is easier to "debunk" and that is why so many people are waking up. And comments like yours with it's lack of research only go to show that some people can't think for themselves and have to go along with the OCT to validate whatever kind of life you have. I've said this before....if i believed in the OCT I wouldn't spend a second of my time on sites like this because really there would be no need to, the fact that you are here indicates that you are either in some kind of way intrigued by some of the evidence against the OCT or that you have no life of which to speak and instead find comfort in making fun of people who use there brains to put forward rational debate.
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | America is united now, too. the "troothers" are trying hard to change that. |
Really? I thought America was a vast nation representing a veritable plethora of competing ideals, opinions and ideologies. In fact, its very size means that it represents differences in culture and attitudes analogous to those in separate countries. Like everywhere, you have left, right, anarchists, marxists, nazis etc. In what ways do you think a gay hairdresser in San Francisco and a redneck truck driver in Alabama are inherently 'united'? As far as I can see, the war(s) for one have divided America, as they have here. That would have happened irrespective of trutherism. Plenty of non truthers oppose the war(s). Unfortunately, some people are apt to believe government conspiracy theories about 'WMD' and 'getting OBL' or swallow hypocritical prattle about 'liberating the people' (like the US (or UK) government ever gave a flying f*ck about human rights abroad unless it suited their purposes to do so).
How are truthers trying to divide America?
By your logic, people who, say, campaign for an end to the war are trying to divide America, or on the other hand people who try to ban abortion are trying to divide America - even people who campaign for people to accept Jesus as their saviour - you are basically arguing campaigning on an issue is an attempt to divide. To be consistent, you cannot simply just lay that at the door of truthers unless you have particularly compelling evidence they are somehow a unique case. Which you've yet to present.
People campaign about and express their wishes on issues close to their heart and try to convince people of what they consider true - do you have a problem with that? Or would you prefer some kind of homogenous multitude that think as one and move in tandem like a shoal of fish? It sound like you'd prefer a species of fascism with everyone goose-stepping as one. Good luck with that.
| Quote: | | their prez is a criminal. |
Irrespective of 911, he's a war criminal in case you hadn't noticed. Like Bliar.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | All of the evidence put forward on these forums seems to be backed up. The OCT is only backed up by "experts" on the payroll.
If you read my other posts you will see that I provide evidence to back up what I say.
When a suspect is being questioned by the police and he changes his story each time that it is proven wrong, it's generally assumed (for good reason) that the suspect is lying. The same can be applied to the OCT, the story has changed so many times since day one that it's almost totally different than when it started.
Most of the sites that claim to "debunk" the "conspiracy theories" tend to lable us all nutcases instead of focusing on facts. While all the sites that debunk the OCT are factual and are run by people that are not so immature as to slander people.
|
None of that is actually true. The theory that the towers collapsed because of the damage caused to them and the fires that burned in them has never been disputed by a single structural engineer. Not every one of the world's structural engineers works for the US government. Not a single demolition expert in the world thinks that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Not every one of the world's demolition experts works for the US government. The theory that controlled demolition destroyed the WTC buildings has no evidence to support it that is worth the name.
There was a change in the theory of why the towers collapsed between the original ASCE/FEMA report and the NIST report, relating to whether the floor trusses became detached from the support columns causing the floors to fall and initiate collapse, or whether the trusses remained attached to the support columns and pulled them in leading to general collapse. In contrast to this rather technical differance, the conspiracy theories constantly multiply, LIHOP or MIHOP, remote controlled planes, swopped planes, patsy pilots, drugged passengers, substituted drone planes, no planes at all, cruise missiles inside holograms, demolition charges, thermite, thermate, beam weapons from space whatever takes your fancy.
The debunking sites do not label anyone as nutcases, but go into minute detail over the known facts. Examples are http://www.debunking911.com/index.html and http://www.911myths.com/index.html
Your big lies are unfortunately all too typical of the ironically named "truth movement."
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: |
Most of the sites that claim to "debunk" the "conspiracy theories" tend to lable us all nutcases instead of focusing on facts. While all the sites that debunk the OCT are factual and are run by people that are not so immature as to slander people.
|
Fascinating. OCT debunking sites routinely contradict each other, so how can they all be "factual"?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | ZUCO wrote: |
Most of the sites that claim to "debunk" the "conspiracy theories" tend to lable us all nutcases instead of focusing on facts. While all the sites that debunk the OCT are factual and are run by people that are not so immature as to slander people.
|
Fascinating. OCT debunking sites routinely contradict each other, so how can they all be "factual"? |
Presumably because they disagree on which facts stand up and how they should be interpreted.
Historians, sociologists, political scientists (and sometimes physical scientists) having been doing that regarding a bewildering array of topics for years.
Would you really expect all CTers to think the same stuff?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: |
Fascinating. OCT debunking sites routinely contradict each other, so how can they all be "factual"? |
Presumably because they disagree on which facts stand up and how they should be interpreted.
Historians, sociologists, political scientists (and sometimes physical scientists) having been doing that regarding a bewildering array of topics for years.
Would you really expect all CTers to think the same stuff? |
If you believe that mini-nukes, hologram-cloaked cruise missiles and beam weapons are worthy alternatives for reasoned debate about the "facts" of 9/11, then I'd have to disagree. They're the products of self-delusion (or worse). Excusing the wackier offshoots of 9/11 CT by comparing them with justified disagreement about genuinely debatable scientific issues is really a bit feeble. What next? Judy Wood should be applauded for making a bold stand over beam weapons? Nah. She's just nuts.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: |
Fascinating. OCT debunking sites routinely contradict each other, so how can they all be "factual"? |
Presumably because they disagree on which facts stand up and how they should be interpreted.
Historians, sociologists, political scientists (and sometimes physical scientists) having been doing that regarding a bewildering array of topics for years.
Would you really expect all CTers to think the same stuff? |
If you believe that mini-nukes, hologram-cloaked cruise missiles and beam weapons are worthy alternatives for reasoned debate about the "facts" of 9/11, then I'd have to disagree. They're the products of self-delusion (or worse). Excusing the wackier offshoots of 9/11 CT by comparing them with justified disagreement about genuinely debatable scientific issues is really a bit feeble. What next? Judy Wood should be applauded for making a bold stand over beam weapons? Nah. She's just nuts. |
Now you're changing your emphasis - from the fact that CTs condradict each other to the notion they're barmy, basically by citing the 'extreme wing'. Funnily enough, this is a bit like what ZUCO was suggesting happens in the first place.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: |
Fascinating. OCT debunking sites routinely contradict each other, so how can they all be "factual"? |
Presumably because they disagree on which facts stand up and how they should be interpreted.
Historians, sociologists, political scientists (and sometimes physical scientists) having been doing that regarding a bewildering array of topics for years.
Would you really expect all CTers to think the same stuff? |
If you believe that mini-nukes, hologram-cloaked cruise missiles and beam weapons are worthy alternatives for reasoned debate about the "facts" of 9/11, then I'd have to disagree. They're the products of self-delusion (or worse). Excusing the wackier offshoots of 9/11 CT by comparing them with justified disagreement about genuinely debatable scientific issues is really a bit feeble. What next? Judy Wood should be applauded for making a bold stand over beam weapons? Nah. She's just nuts. |
Now you're changing your emphasis - from the fact that CTs condradict each other to the notion they're barmy, basically by citing the 'extreme wing'. Funnily enough, this is a bit like what ZUCO was suggesting happens in the first place. |
No, I'm illustrating that they can't all be factual.
While CD-assisted collapse of the Towers might be worth looking into - in depth - beam weapon theory deserves about 10 seconds consideration. Once. (I'd hazard a guess that you'd agree it's dismissible with a wave of the hand. Correct me if I'm wrong).
So to classify Wood's OT-debunking site as "factual" is incorrect.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | | Ignatz wrote: |
Fascinating. OCT debunking sites routinely contradict each other, so how can they all be "factual"? |
Presumably because they disagree on which facts stand up and how they should be interpreted.
Historians, sociologists, political scientists (and sometimes physical scientists) having been doing that regarding a bewildering array of topics for years.
Would you really expect all CTers to think the same stuff? |
If you believe that mini-nukes, hologram-cloaked cruise missiles and beam weapons are worthy alternatives for reasoned debate about the "facts" of 9/11, then I'd have to disagree. They're the products of self-delusion (or worse). Excusing the wackier offshoots of 9/11 CT by comparing them with justified disagreement about genuinely debatable scientific issues is really a bit feeble. What next? Judy Wood should be applauded for making a bold stand over beam weapons? Nah. She's just nuts. |
Now you're changing your emphasis - from the fact that CTs condradict each other to the notion they're barmy, basically by citing the 'extreme wing'. Funnily enough, this is a bit like what ZUCO was suggesting happens in the first place. |
No, I'm illustrating that they can't all be factual.
While CD-assisted collapse of the Towers might be worth looking into - in depth - beam weapon theory deserves about 10 seconds consideration. Once. (I'd hazard a guess that you'd agree it's dismissible with a wave of the hand. Correct me if I'm wrong).
So to classify Wood's OT-debunking site as "factual" is incorrect. |
They can't all be right, but I'm sure Judy Woods believes she's basing her ideas on facts. The original sense of 'factual' proposed was 'focusing on the facts'
| Quote: | | Most of the sites that claim to "debunk" the "conspiracy theories" tend to lable us all nutcases instead of focusing on facts. While all the sites that debunk the OCT are factual and are run by people that are not so immature as to slander people. |
(though I might disagree with the factual nature of the original post - just look at Rick Siegel and Fintan Dunne - they spend much time slandering people)
However daft you might think Judy Woods is, I assume she feels she's got the best hypothesis to fit the facts.
However, I agree she might be a teensy bit wrong in her conclusions.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
