| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Authoritarianism And the Movement | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 24 2009, 06:01 AM (843 Views) | |
| Rhymenoceros | Sep 24 2009, 06:01 AM Post #1 |
|
I wonder if the reason this forum is half-dead is because debate is stifled? There is no point in pretending that certain theories aren't divisive (the pentagon fly-over for example) but the act of disagreeing with these theories DOES NOT make a poster a 'skeptic'. A community that is both diverse and rational is what is necessary for it to survive over the long term. The degree of paranoia exhibited by certain members of this forum is terrifying - it reinforces the public perception of the movement as paranoid maniacs and serves to create a forum where the level of rational debate is impoverished. You are creating a monster. |
 |
 
|
| DoYouEverWonder | Sep 24 2009, 07:32 AM Post #2 |
|
No, it's just people get tired of talking to idiots and answering the same questions over and over. |
|
|
| Alfie | Sep 24 2009, 08:00 AM Post #3 |
|
I am inclined to agree with Rhymenoceros. I haven't been a member here long but it is obvious to me that double standards operate and skeptics are frequently banned for what I would consider to be trivial reasons. On the other hand, truthers appear to be able to be as abusive as they like. In post 2 of this thread DoYouEverWonder says "people get tired of talking to idiots ". If a skeptic said that of truthers on here it would very likely mean a warning or ban and what he said is so mild compared to many posts. I think this forum is clearly in a bad way. 18 posts in the last 24hrs is hardly viable. Often, it seems to me, the only lively and interesting bit is the interface between skeptics and truthers, so it would be a pity if it is moderated out of existence. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Sep 24 2009, 09:54 AM Post #4 |
|
A terrifying half-dead paranoid maniac monster you say ?  
no doubt .
This site is a good reference to links, research and discussions. I don't think it is supposed to be a popularity contest. |
|
|
|
| Headspin | Sep 24 2009, 10:15 AM Post #5 |
|
skeptics are banned for frequently considering trivial reasoning |
|
|
|
| Toriac | Sep 24 2009, 11:34 AM Post #6 |
|
Skeptics seem to get banned for making sound arguments. Skeptics are called all sorts of names and the person doing it is never banned or even reprimanded. We are called trolls for asking someone to explain their claim. Saying there was a flyover, but not being able to say how it was possible, physically, means it probably didn't happen. The mods often say if you don't like it you can leave, but I wonder what the real motive is, if it isn't trying to get to an acactual truth? Some witnesses are believed, even it they have shown that they are prone to being mistaken. Other witnesses who support the official story are accussed of being an accomplice and lying for the govt, with not proof of such. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Sep 24 2009, 04:28 PM Post #7 |
|
Maybe you can help me here, if you are really in a mood to contribute. I started this thread http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1212539/1/ over 6 months ago. I was asking for the clincher eye-witness at the Pentagon who describes the flight-path as it must have happened for the official story to be true. At the moment CIT has identified numerous well placed eye-witnesses who place the plane north of the Citgo, some distance from the "light-pole" path. While they disagree with the exact path, none of them have the plane anywhere near where it would need to be. This includes Sean Boger, in the helicopter tower at the Pentagon itself - and he had a great view of the approach. So I started the thread to allow skeptics the chance to post their best eye-witness account. So not a vague account which "may not support a NoC flightpath" but an account which actually supports the "hitting lightpoles, flying low and level to the ground" flightpath. So far they have failed, preferring the usual tactics of disputing the NoC witnesses or the old "why would they do a flyover and not just fly a plane into the Pentagon" approach. Now on this thread here, skeptics appear to be feeling a little sorry for themselves - consider this your chance for redemption and a good way to prove your intellectual credibility. Go onto the thread above and post your best eye-witness. Good luck. |
|
|
|
| Toriac | Sep 24 2009, 07:08 PM Post #8 |
|
Do you know how many witnesses there are total? The noc witnesses are just a very small sampling of all of the witnesses. How can you form a conclusiion based on that? Are you seriously saying that every witnesses who's account supports the plane hitting the pentagon is lying or wrong? There are many more witnesses who support the official flight path as well as the impact of the building by a plane. You have to look at everything, not just bits and pieces. If the flyover is physically impossible, there is no need to even consider noc. Is it possible for all of the noc witnesses to be wrong about the path or location of the plane as it passed them? Yes. So there is nothing that says the plane had to be noc. How do you explain all of the physical evidence? You guys simply say it was planted. How could all of the physical evidence be planted or faked? If you want to get people to listen to you, you need to go there, because when you look at everything that had to be done, in less than a second in most cases, it is rather impossible. How do you explain the damage to the pentagon? It was hit by a large flying object or projectile from the outside consistant with the official flight path. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Sep 24 2009, 07:18 PM Post #9 |
|
no there isn't. you're lying. thats why you cant name any. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Sep 24 2009, 07:34 PM Post #10 |
|
You see what happened there? I made a very, very simple request and you failed - you wrote a lot of words but didn't actually post the single eye-witness requested. If there really are "many more witnesses who support the official flight path" then surely you can find just one???????? |
|
|
|
| Toriac | Sep 24 2009, 07:48 PM Post #11 |
|
The witnesses have been listed many times. Why don't you believe them? Why are you so focused on what people say? You do know that many people saw many things that day. Not all of them are going to be accurate. This happens all the time. Why do you think that is? People are not tape recorders. They have their own perceptions and they may believe what they say. When you compare it to the physical evidence, you get a better picture of what happened. The physical evidence does not support the noc witnesses. Why should they be believed? |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Sep 24 2009, 07:59 PM Post #12 |
|
FAIL! Next please. |
|
|
|
| Toriac | Sep 24 2009, 08:02 PM Post #13 |
|
The noc witnesses are real witnesses and they are the only ones who told the truth? OK. |
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Sep 24 2009, 08:02 PM Post #14 |
|
and its been debunked many times.
when their accounts are clarified on film on location it always tends to be people like you that dont believe them.
the majority of the 911 commission no longer support their official report. do you understand that yet? the government has lied to us about everything. they said saddam had wmds. he didn't. they said he was connected to al ciada. he wasn't. they said they patriot act wouldn't be used against americans. it has. they said there wasn't secret cia prisons in europe were they were torturing people. there are. they claim prisons in cuba and afghanistan and abu ghraib weren't concentration camps carrying out cruel inhumane experiments and abuses on human beings. they are. they said they weren't spying on the american people. they were. now the majority of the 911 commission no longer support the "official conspiracy theory". you people try to somehow make that fact seem unimportant or even trivial. that makes you desecraters of the 9/11 dead, not us. the corporate media is their mouthpieces. glenn becks and sean hannitys, bill oreillys, keith olbermann all their little puppet actors reading what is written for them keeping a fake left/right this or that belief in a fluoride drinking yearly squalene injected dumbed down population who turn to the corporate media to hopefully be informed but instead are excessively lied to. its all drivel. dont believe people trust the government. dont believe people trust the government. trust zelikow. trust rove. trust zelikow. trust the government. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Sep 24 2009, 08:11 PM Post #15 |
|
The way you failed to produce a single eye-witness to the official flightpath speaks volumes for your skeptic status. But you say there are so many of them? You say there are many more of them than the NoC flightpath eye-witnesses? But you can't produce a single one. |
|
|
|
| Toriac | Sep 24 2009, 08:14 PM Post #16 |
|
Again, we don't need to go over all of the eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the building. They are on record. You didn't believe them before, so you won't believe them now. It is pointless. |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Sep 24 2009, 08:22 PM Post #17 |
|
Here's what I wrote above :- If there really are "many more witnesses who support the official flight path" then surely you can find just one???????? Now tell me again why we need to be nice to those poor little skeptics .................... final chance Toriac, otherwise go and play on another thread. |
|
|
|
| Toriac | Sep 24 2009, 08:27 PM Post #18 |
|
Let's take Mike Walters for example. You say he couldn't have seen what he said he saw based on his said location? We don't know his exact point in space, so how can you decide he didn't see what he said he saw. You based it on what he said. Did he go out with you and show you exactly where he was? What if he doesn't even know his exact spot on the road, but knows he saw the plane hit the building? Lagsse didn't know what pump he was at. Why do you take every word of the witnesses you don't want to believe as law, but the ones you want to believe are capable of making mistakes? Same thing with Lloyd England, you harp on his every word, without realizing that he could be just as wrong about a number of details that morning. Then you try to play this gotcha game, by using everything he says as absolute fact. They may not be facts, because he is human. It is ridiculous. I have enough sense to know that people can't be expected to be exact on all of these things, as Lagasse alone proves in spades. Why use physical evidence, if you just need to hear what someone says happened? The black noc witnesses may not be 100% accurate about their location and you try to infer that they couldn't see what the plane did after it passed them, based on where THEY SAY they were. What if they are wrong about their exact location? Then you call your conclusions facts. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Sep 24 2009, 08:31 PM Post #19 |
|
Yes it is pointless. All the witnesses which have agreed to be reinterviewed on film or tape have clarified the location of the plane as being North of the Citgo. Zero put it South of the Citgo and due to the topography of the area for that 757 to have flown over the Navy annex and come in low and level over the Pentagon lawn is a physical impossibility... And I have not even mentioned the lightpoles. But you know what Toriac, That's OK. You just keep on living in your fantasy world and the rest of us who actually live in reality will eventually take care of this mess. 
|
|
|
|
| Toriac | Sep 24 2009, 08:35 PM Post #20 |
|
You say, "all of the witnesses that have agreed to be interviewed on tape". What does that have to do with anything? Why does someone have to talk to CIT to be a credible witness? Most probably don't even know about CIT. If you are doing a real investigation, you better look at everything if you want any chance of getting to the truth. You don't form a conclusion, because some witnesses refuse to talk to you. You are missing information, that may tell you what really happened. That's like trying to solve a puzzle with missing pieces. You will never do it. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Sep 24 2009, 09:55 PM Post #21 |
|
Well now, if we were doing a "real investigation" we would have subpeona power so the people which refuse to speak right now would have to. And that will eventually happen.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Sep 25 2009, 12:24 AM Post #22 |
|
they dont. thats the best part. you can start trying to contact people tomorrow and ask them if they'd meet you where they were on 9/11 and describe it for you on film too. isn't that awesome????? |
|
|
|
| tuatara | Sep 27 2009, 07:05 PM Post #23 |
|
So any skeptic going to take on the challenge? From the many claimed witnesses of the official flightpath, please post one detailed account. This should include where the witness was located, where the plane came from and enough details to deduce that it did indeed fly on the lightpole striking path. Your time starts now ........ |
|
|
|
| ToS | Sep 27 2009, 07:08 PM Post #24 |
|
Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot? |
|
|
|
| Alfie | Sep 27 2009, 07:10 PM Post #25 |
|
ToS Have I ever been abusive to you ? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
8:06 PM Dec 6
