Skeptics..

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!

Pages:
1
2
3

Skeptics..
Topic Started: Feb 15 2008, 08:40 AM (1,301 Views)
midwestzero	Feb 15 2008, 08:40 AM Post #1
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #318 Joined: 02/15/08	What really kills me about non-911 Truthers is that.. 90% of them have never viewed the evidence... most want to form an opinion before they even look at the evidence put in there face.. ... sorry about that rant ... just my opinion.
Posts: 5 Group: Members Member #318 Joined: 02/15/08


arbor	Feb 16 2008, 12:08 AM Post #2
Posts: 450 Group: BANNED! Member #100 Joined: 01/16/08	its also incorrect.
Posts: 450 Group: BANNED! Member #100 Joined: 01/16/08


Headspin	Feb 16 2008, 07:01 AM Post #3
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	arbor Feb 16 2008, 12:08 AM its also incorrect. what evidence convinced you the official story was true.
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


JimBob	Feb 16 2008, 05:15 PM Post #4
Trolls R Us Posts: 245 Group: BANNED! Member #314 Joined: 02/12/08	Headspin Feb 16 2008, 07:01 AM arbor Feb 16 2008, 12:08 AM its also incorrect. what evidence convinced you the official story was true. Live images of an airliner crashing into the WTC. Body parts belonging to airline passengers found in the wreckage of the WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville. The alleged hi-jackers are dead. The phone calls from passengers saying the aircraft were hi-jacked. Bin laden's claim that he was involved. The witnesses that say they saw the airliners crashing.



outside	Feb 16 2008, 05:19 PM Post #5
Posts: 44 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: 01/14/08	Wow, you totally convinced me. I'm gonna join your side now.
Posts: 44 Group: Members Member #19 Joined: 01/14/08


arbor	Feb 16 2008, 05:52 PM Post #6
Posts: 450 Group: BANNED! Member #100 Joined: 01/16/08	i became 99% convinced after reading the loose change guide. all of my questions that had been brought up by loose change were answered. i have remained unconvinced of the conspiracy theories since then, and that was a year and a half ago.
Posts: 450 Group: BANNED! Member #100 Joined: 01/16/08


JimBob	Feb 16 2008, 07:51 PM Post #7
Trolls R Us Posts: 245 Group: BANNED! Member #314 Joined: 02/12/08	outside Feb 16 2008, 05:19 PM Wow, you totally convinced me. I'm gonna join your side now. I was not trying to convince anyone of anything. My post was all about me. You are not trying to be one of those jerks are you?



Trajan Octavian Titus	Feb 19 2008, 07:34 PM Post #8
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08	Headspin Feb 16 2008, 07:01 AM arbor Feb 16 2008, 12:08 AM its also incorrect. what evidence convinced you the official story was true. The confession videos, hours upon hours of independent research, the 9-11 Commission Report, the NIST report, the fact that K.S.M. is Ramzi Yousef's uncle and Ramzi Yousef is responsible for the first WTC bombing back in 1993, the fact that it would be impossible to plant the amount of explosives necessary for a controlled demolition without anyone noticing (72 days with 12 for just 1 building), the fact that tons of wreckage and body parts matching the flight roster were recovered in the Pentagon, the sheer amount of people who would have to be involved in the conspiracy, the amount of researchers and experts involved in the NIST and 9-11 Commission Report who would have to be covering up for mass murderers, the fact that there was an un-fought fire in WTC7 burning for hours and the fact that there was a hole in WTC 7 which extended 1/3 across the south facade and 1/4 into the interior of the building which was designed in such a way that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, etc etc et al. Edited by Trajan Octavian Titus, Feb 19 2008, 07:35 PM.
Posts: 67 Group: Members Member #335 Joined: 02/19/08


charlie4371	Jun 18 2008, 04:24 AM Post #9
Posts: 8 Group: Skeptics Member #425 Joined: 03/21/08	has anyone actually read the screw loose change guide?
Posts: 8 Group: Skeptics Member #425 Joined: 03/21/08


JFK	Jun 18 2008, 05:01 AM Post #10
Posts: 2,523 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	charlie4371 Jun 18 2008, 04:24 AM has anyone actually read the screw loose change guide? I actually started to.... But could not cope with the ad homiens and stupidity. Did Gravy ever stop frothing at the mouth ?
Posts: 2,523 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Headspin	Jun 18 2008, 05:35 AM Post #11
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	i managed the first 30 minutes, it is an abomination to the intellect.
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


look-up	Jun 18 2008, 01:11 PM Post #12
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	yea they just twist the intention of mentioning a particular fact in LC. LC makes an ellusion to a questionable connection between one fact and another fact, and any intelligent person already should know that LC was not saying "See this proves it" but the LC guide just goes ahead and says that LC is lying and twisting things. For instance, the Op Northwoods part. LC mentions Northwoods to show people that the mentality that "the government would never do something like that" is ridiculous, because in the 1960s, it was proposed and a huge plan was devised to do something very similar. LC guide says that we are saying that NOrthwoods somehow proves 9/11 was an inside job. That was not the purpose of having it mentioned in LC though. LC guide is very dishonest. They do point out some logical leaps that LC makes, but the viewer should already be able to see that for themselves. LC guide is for people who can't think for themselves.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Jun 18 2008, 01:37 PM Post #13
Posts: 433 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	look-up LC guide is for people who can't think for themselves. And I believe it was also authored by people who can't think for themselves. MM
Posts: 433 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


PBnJ	Jun 18 2008, 04:00 PM Post #14
The Best Sandwich on Earth Posts: 179 Group: Members Member #315 Joined: 02/13/08	JFK I actually started to.... But could not cope with the ad homiens and stupidity. look-up LC guide is for people who can't think for themselves. Miragememories And I believe it was also authored by people who can't think for themselves. Irony at its finest. Edited by PBnJ, Jun 18 2008, 04:00 PM.



Arvel	Jun 19 2008, 12:15 PM Post #15
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08	Quote: 90% of them have never viewed the evidence... most want to form an opinion before they even look at the evidence put in there face.. I know it was posted months ago, but seriously. Is this kind of blanket statement really what you people believe? Every skeptic I know of has at one point believed in the conspiracy, or at least had questions about 9/11. Including me. Quote: it was proposed and a huge plan was devised to do something very similar. Very similar? It was a bit different, really. Namely, it wouldn't have taken place in front of hundreds of witnesses or be televised. Personally, I don't doubt that our government is above staging a foreign threat. Hell, governments have been doing that for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and they're not going to stop anytime soon. Quote: what evidence convinced you the official story was true. Not so much that the official story is one hundred percent true and the U.S. government is inexorably just and moral (as some would attribute to skeptics), but that the official story is generally correct. Of course there are cover-ups, errors, and corruption. I expect that sort of thing from a government. I just don't believe it was all one big sinister plot. What convinced me that LC was not trustworthy? The one detail that always comes to mind first is the claim about the bomb-sniffing dogs. The kind of thing that either was intentionally misleading or simply a terribly lazy error. Neither of those two things is what I want from someone telling me about the biggest conspiracy in American history. The other thing that convinced me is John O'Neill. Once I started reading about him, it was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. Do I believe 9/11 was everything we've been told it was? No. So please don't respond by calling me a government loyalist (again).
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08


Headspin	Jun 19 2008, 12:37 PM Post #16
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Arvel Jun 19 2008, 12:15 PM Quote: what evidence convinced you the official story was true. Not so much that the official story is one hundred percent true and the U.S. government is inexorably just and moral (as some would attribute to skeptics), but that the official story is generally correct. Of course there are cover-ups, errors, and corruption. I expect that sort of thing from a government. I just don't believe it was all one big sinister plot. What convinced me that LC was not trustworthy? The one detail that always comes to mind first is the claim about the bomb-sniffing dogs. The kind of thing that either was intentionally misleading or simply a terribly lazy error. Neither of those two things is what I want from someone telling me about the biggest conspiracy in American history. The other thing that convinced me is John O'Neill. Once I started reading about him, it was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. Do I believe 9/11 was everything we've been told it was? No. So please don't respond by calling me a government loyalist (again). so essentially, your're saying you think the official story is true because you "believe it". did you notice how that response doesn't answer the question.
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


look-up	Jun 19 2008, 03:25 PM Post #17
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	PBnJ Jun 18 2008, 04:00 PM JFK I actually started to.... But could not cope with the ad homiens and stupidity. look-up LC guide is for people who can't think for themselves. Miragememories And I believe it was also authored by people who can't think for themselves. Irony at its finest. there is in fact no irony in those posts... now THAT's ironic.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Jun 19 2008, 03:31 PM Post #18
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	Arvel The other thing that convinced me is John O'Neill. Once I started reading about him, it was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. Do I believe 9/11 was everything we've been told it was? No. So please don't respond by calling me a government loyalist (again). so the world's foremost expert on Osama Bin Laden is killed in the terror attacks and was just recently moved to the WTC complex to work, and you think that supports the official story and that he wasn't killed to cover for the fact that Bin Laden could not have done of this on his own? I think some of your side makes mistake in thinking that we all believe that Al-Qaeda was imagined and doesn't even exist. The more accurate statement would be that we understand that islamic terror is by and large controlled by western intelligence, and they by and large only do operations that will benefit a broader New World Order agenda. Did al-qaeda do 9/11? yes. Who did they do it for? The NWO globalists, which couldn't have been done without the help of its American faction, using the infastructure of teh US military and other parts of US political mechanisms. Edited by look-up, Jun 19 2008, 03:32 PM.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


DoYouEverWonder	Jun 19 2008, 03:42 PM Post #19
Posts: 178 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	look-up Jun 19 2008, 03:31 PM Arvel The other thing that convinced me is John O'Neill. Once I started reading about him, it was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. Do I believe 9/11 was everything we've been told it was? No. So please don't respond by calling me a government loyalist (again). so the world's foremost expert on Osama Bin Laden is killed in the terror attacks and was just recently moved to the WTC complex to work, and you think that supports the official story and that he wasn't killed to cover for the fact that Bin Laden could not have done of this on his own? I think some of your side makes mistake in thinking that we all believe that Al-Qaeda was imagined and doesn't even exist. The more accurate statement would be that we understand that islamic terror is by and large controlled by western intelligence, and they by and large only do operations that will benefit a broader New World Order agenda. Did al-qaeda do 9/11? yes. Who did they do it for? The NWO globalists, which couldn't have been done without the help of its American faction, using the infastructure of teh US military and other parts of US political mechanisms. al CIAda is more like a subcontractor. The project managers were from Team Bushco, with Paul Bremer and Jerome Hauer in charge of destroying the WTC. That's why John O'Neill had to go. He knew too much and would have figured out what his friends had done.
Posts: 178 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


look-up	Jun 19 2008, 03:48 PM Post #20
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	well it's got to be much bigger and higher up than just Bush & co... they weren't in office long enough to plan this whole thing. it spans administrations and certainly isn't constrained by an actually legitimate seat of authority. what I mean by that is that many of the 9/11 planners probably do not have an office in Washington or Langley.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


DoYouEverWonder	Jun 19 2008, 04:26 PM Post #21
Posts: 178 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	look-up Jun 19 2008, 03:48 PM well it's got to be much bigger and higher up than just Bush & co... they weren't in office long enough to plan this whole thing. it spans administrations and certainly isn't constrained by an actually legitimate seat of authority. what I mean by that is that many of the 9/11 planners probably do not have an office in Washington or Langley. Look at US history since WWII and there is a Bush behind every major event. Dimson is just the empty suit, that Poppy stuffed back into the Oval Office. But Poppy and his pals have been pulling and planning most of the crap that's gone down in the last 50+ years. Whose behind Poppy Bush - Big Oil of course and isn't that what all this is really all about. Who gets to control the oil, by any means necessary?
Posts: 178 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


Arvel	Jun 19 2008, 06:45 PM Post #22
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08	Quote: so essentially, your're saying you think the official story is true because you "believe it". Right. Except for the part where I said I don't believe the official story is one hundred percent true, which is sort of the opposite of what you're saying. Quote: did you notice how that response doesn't answer the question. I didn't answer the question because the question doesn't apply to me. If I asked you, "What evidence convinced you that the planes that flew into the WTC were actually holograms?" how would you reply? Quote: so the world's foremost expert on Osama Bin Laden is killed in the terror attacks and was just recently moved to the WTC complex to work, and you think that supports the official story and that he wasn't killed to cover for the fact that Bin Laden could not have done of this on his own? See, this is the sort of thing that I'm talking about. I'll explain: John O'Neill did indeed take a job at the WTC shortly before the attacks. He had little chance of advancing in his current position, and the WTC job paid better. He had every reason to take the first job that appealed to him. He was indeed killed in the 9/11 attacks. That is, he got killed after he escaped the buildings and went back in to rescue people. He also was deemed by many as the world's leading expert on Osama bin Laden. In fact, in the weeks preceding 9/11, he was convinced that there was going to be a terrorist attack. Not suspicious of one--he was sure that something was going to happen, and it was going to be big. And it was going to come from Afghanistan. And that it would probably be on the World Trade Center towers. But all I ever hear is how it's such an eerie coincidence that John O'Neill got knocked off by the conspirators (by the skin of their teeth) so that he wouldn't blow the lid on how bin Laden was incapable of such an attack (even though he knew the FBI should have paid more attention to Afghanistan, because he knew things weren't lining up there.) It's things like this that turn me off of the truth movement. Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/john/ Let me know if you want me to find anything in particular from those articles.
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08


DoYouEverWonder	Jun 19 2008, 08:31 PM Post #23
Posts: 178 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	Arvel Jun 19 2008, 06:45 PM Quote: so essentially, your're saying you think the official story is true because you "believe it". Right. Except for the part where I said I don't believe the official story is one hundred percent true, which is sort of the opposite of what you're saying. Quote: did you notice how that response doesn't answer the question. I didn't answer the question because the question doesn't apply to me. If I asked you, "What evidence convinced you that the planes that flew into the WTC were actually holograms?" how would you reply? Quote: so the world's foremost expert on Osama Bin Laden is killed in the terror attacks and was just recently moved to the WTC complex to work, and you think that supports the official story and that he wasn't killed to cover for the fact that Bin Laden could not have done of this on his own? See, this is the sort of thing that I'm talking about. I'll explain: John O'Neill did indeed take a job at the WTC shortly before the attacks. He had little chance of advancing in his current position, and the WTC job paid better. He had every reason to take the first job that appealed to him. He was indeed killed in the 9/11 attacks. That is, he got killed after he escaped the buildings and went back in to rescue people. He also was deemed by many as the world's leading expert on Osama bin Laden. In fact, in the weeks preceding 9/11, he was convinced that there was going to be a terrorist attack. Not suspicious of one--he was sure that something was going to happen, and it was going to be big. And it was going to come from Afghanistan. And that it would probably be on the World Trade Center towers. But all I ever hear is how it's such an eerie coincidence that John O'Neill got knocked off by the conspirators (by the skin of their teeth) so that he wouldn't blow the lid on how bin Laden was incapable of such an attack (even though he knew the FBI should have paid more attention to Afghanistan, because he knew things weren't lining up there.) It's things like this that turn me off of the truth movement. Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/john/ Let me know if you want me to find anything in particular from those articles. Do you know that Jerome Hauer got John O'Nell his job in the WTC? Did you know they had dinner together the night before in NYC? Did you know that Jerome Hauer is the only person who ever 'saw' and identified O'Neill's body? Sure, fine, just another coincidence. Except Jerome Hauer also just happened to be Rudy's OEM Director and oversaw building his OEM Bunker in WTC 7. Oh, yeah, and he's the one who told the WH to start taking Cipro on 9/11, less then 2 weeks before the anthrax attack. Why O'Neill had to be killed had little to do with the Neocon's sockpuppet Usama bin Forgotten.
Posts: 178 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


Arvel	Jun 19 2008, 11:54 PM Post #24
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08	Quote: Do you know that Jerome Hauer got John O'Nell his job in the WTC? I know that he had some level of involvement. I wouldn't say he "got him" the job. Plus, O'Neill's reason for leaving the FBI had a lot to do with the briefcase incident (you can read about it in the link I provided if you're not already familiar with it). And I'd be impressed if you can work Hauer into that. Quote: Did you know they had dinner together the night before in NYC? Yes, along with other friends. Why is this important? Quote: Did you know that Jerome Hauer is the only person who ever 'saw' and identified O'Neill's body? Source? Quote: Sure, fine, just another coincidence. He got out of the building. He could have walked away, but he chose not to. If the conspirators had wanted to kill him, he wouldn't have made it out of the building. So is it just coincidence that he went back in? Quote: Oh, yeah, and he's the one who told the WH to start taking Cipro on 9/11, less then 2 weeks before the anthrax attack. Maybe he was doing his job? Perhaps the U.S. intelligence has some merit after all? Quote: Why O'Neill had to be killed had little to do with the Neocon's sockpuppet Usama bin Forgotten. Then why?
Posts: 35 Group: Members Member #224 Joined: 01/27/08


Headspin	Jun 20 2008, 04:44 AM Post #25
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Arvel Jun 19 2008, 06:45 PM Headspin so essentially, your're saying you think the official story is true because you "believe it". Right. Except for the part where I said I don't believe the official story is one hundred percent true, which is sort of the opposite of what you're saying. Wow! you really didn't understand the question. let me exact it for you: so your're saying you think the official story is essentially* true because you "believe it".* The operative word is essentially which means the essence which means to exclude the periphery, ie most definitively not 100%. Arvel Headspin did you notice how that response doesn't answer the question. I didn't answer the question because the question doesn't apply to me. If I asked you, "What evidence convinced you that the planes that flew into the WTC were actually holograms?" how would you reply? I'd reply by saying you were conflating a very specific question with a *general* question in order to avoid answering the essence of my question, which is: WHY do you think the official narrative is essentially true.
Posts: 773 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3