Why "Pseudo-Skeptics" Won't Contact the Witnesses

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
…
8

Why "Pseudo-Skeptics" Won't Contact the Witnesses
Topic Started: Dec 4 2008, 01:30 PM (3,672 Views)
jim76	Dec 4 2008, 08:19 PM Post #26
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Aldo, it seems as though you can't see the forest for the trees. Yeah, it might seem nearly impossible that the witnesses you talked to were mistaken or lying. It also might seem unlikely you're misinterpreting what the witnesses are saying or what it really means in terms of the flight path of the plane. But you have to consider this given everything else we know. It seems utterly crazy to believe that the government would go to the efforts necessary to pull this off. This includes, but is not limited to, spreading plane debris across the pentagon lawn and inside the pentagon, setting explosive to mimic the damage caused by a crashed plane, chopping up bodies and dispersing the parts about, knocking down light poles, thrusting one of the light poles into a taxi cab, cutting the top off of a tree, hijacking a plane and keeping it visible in the sky only before it flies over the pentagon, faking video footage of the crash, landing the hijacked plane somewhere else without anyone noticing, killing or secretly imprisoning the passengers, faking DNA evidence, and damaging items outside the pentagon to make it look like a plane hit them. They would have to do all this without any witnesses or any dissenters and not one whistleblower in seven years after the event. Wow. Given that, I'm not surprised that you're having difficulty getting people to buy your theory.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Bitterman	Dec 4 2008, 09:07 PM Post #27
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	Whatever you say Jim.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


SPreston	Dec 4 2008, 10:17 PM Post #28
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	jim76 Dec 4 2008, 08:19 PM Aldo, it seems as though you can't see the forest for the trees. Yeah, it might seem nearly impossible that the witnesses you talked to were mistaken or lying. It also might seem unlikely you're misinterpreting what the witnesses are saying or what it really means in terms of the flight path of the plane. But you have to consider this given everything else we know. It seems the FAA agrees with the ANC and NOC eyewitnesses, concerning the flight path of the actual plane at the Pentagon. What say you? FAA flight path 1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb) Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive



jim76	Dec 4 2008, 10:50 PM Post #29
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Ummmm... Well, it looks like the plane ends up hitting the Pentagon.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Grit1645	Dec 5 2008, 12:47 AM Post #30
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 05:51 PM So far we have a big fat no from the one brave pseudo-skeptic who dared to answer. So Jim76 will not contact these very important witnesses but claims he will continue to be unconvinced, whatever that means. Who knows? I guess it means he is willing to cast doubt on the credibility of grown men some of whom are professionals on a simple right or left detail, well pretty much because well he is "not convinced". So, obviously, you have convinced these crucial 13 witnesses that the plane they THOUGHT hit the pentagon actually flew over it and safely went somewhere else. They are all reasonable people after all. They must be outraged. Have they joined CIT in your mission to bring this news to the world? Why not invite them to come on the forum to chat it up with the skeptics themselves? Why do you find it so outrageous that people would "cast doubt on the credibility of grown men some of whom are professionals" when you yourselves certainly cast plenty of doubt, to say the least, on other grown men such as Lloyde England and Father McGraw. Isn't it more serious to accuse such men of outright treason and complicity than it is for skeptics to suggest that someone is simply mistaken in their recollection of events or their judgement of distance/position of a fast moving object which they saw for a matter of a few seconds, startled as they were out of their mundane contemplation of the price of gas or last night's lay?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Bitterman	Dec 5 2008, 02:00 AM Post #31
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	So that's it Grit, we're so much better off just to accept where everything is, be happy where we are, and just get on with running the machine while others decide our lives? Is that right? Just get on with life right? Why fight it? We can't possibly hope to prove anything anyway.....not with "good" people like you in the way right? You'll set us straight right? You must have the most PATHETIC life ever......this is all you have? You're on here almost every night trying to tell the masses that a plane was NOT seen by 13 witnesses all recorded by YOUR government, and you're asking everyone to ignore their testimony.....again which was already recorded by the Center for Military history. Maybe you should be telling your poor hard done by Gov't that they have the WRONG INFORMATION. That the plane wasn't actually there.....and that you've found an equal number of people who remember that the plane was actually on the SOUTH side...... But then you'll have to tell the FAA that their NEW video is now WRONG......geeez, when will you guys get your fucking stories straight eh??? Ahhh, geeez.....well I'll leave that up to you.......you're the professional guess makers......you know what is REALLY going on.....so spin us up another tale...... douche.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


mycal	Dec 5 2008, 09:17 AM Post #32
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 07:20 PM Can we please check the IPs of albion against jthomas and mycal against Brett08? It is absurd we have to endure this idiocy under different names. If you can't conceive of at least one way the 'flyover' could fool everyone, then it is impossible. It never happened. How can you put forth a theory that you, yourself can't even imagine? The plane was SOC. End of story.
Posts: 60 Group: BANNED! Member #890 Joined: 10/14/08


JFK	Dec 5 2008, 09:28 AM Post #33
Posts: 4,159 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	mycal Dec 5 2008, 09:17 AM Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 4 2008, 07:20 PM Can we please check the IPs of albion against jthomas and mycal against Brett08? It is absurd we have to endure this idiocy under different names. If you can't conceive of at least one way the 'flyover' could fool everyone, then it is impossible. It never happened. How can you put forth a theory that you, yourself can't even imagine? The plane was SOC. End of story. Well Mycal, It looks to me like you need to take a roadtrip to Arlington and convince those 13 people who were actually there that day.
Posts: 4,159 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Dec 5 2008, 10:22 AM Post #34
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	mycal Dec 5 2008, 09:17 AM If you can't conceive of at least one way the 'flyover' could fool everyone, then it is impossible. There is no logic in this statement. Scientists do not put "theory" before evidence. Plus nobody ever said they fooled everyone. We know for a fact that people saw it fly away and we prove it with more first-hand testimony. You guys love to ignore Roosevelt Roberts but he is the ultimate validation of the flyover and he proves that people DID see it! Since apparently you're ADD or learning disabled or something I'll explain it to you and the new members once again for posterity. We present 13 independent eyewitness accounts proving the plane flew on the north side of the former citgo gas station. This proves that the plane did not hit the building since a plane in this location is irreconcilable with all physical damage including the 5 downed light poles. You can see many of these north side witnesses in Part 1 of The North Side Flyover. Watch part 2 to hear the account of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. who saw the plane flying away from the building immediately AFTER the explosion. This hard evidence proves the north side witnesses correct because Roosevelt Roberts would not have seen a plane AT ALL from inside the Pentagon where he was during the explosion if there wasn't a flyover. So this first critical flyover witness, along with the other north side witnesses presented in Part 2, including heliport Air Traffic Controller Sean Boger, definitively prove the plane flew over the building. We believe there are more witnesses who saw the plane flying away but there wouldn't be as many as most think primarily because the Pentagon is right next door to Reagan National Airport and large commericial jets are making fast ascents over the river right next to the Pentagon all day long every few minutes of every day. Locals are quite used to this. And as you can see in the above overhead image there isn't much on the other side of the Pentagon except the Potomac River where planes are taking off and landing constantly. So a plane flying away would be of little consequence after most people were completely surprised by the big explosion and had their eyes fixed on the smoking Pentagon. Of course the perpetrators covered their tracks. We know for a fact that they confiscated and permanently sequestered the 911 call tapes and transcripts that would reveal what people really initially reported before the media propaganda machine set in. But they also implemented a very elaborate and detailed 2nd plane cover story by using real planes that were later in the airspace, like the C-130 and E4B, and ambiguously merging them with false tales of a "2nd plane" that was allegedly "shadowing" AA77 and veered away from the building immediately after the attack. This of course never happened but serves as perfect cover for the flyover. See this presentation for full details regarding the 2nd plane cover story and exclusive interviews with the above proven incorrect alleged witnesses: The 2nd Plane Cover Story Keep studying Brett. You'll start to get it one of these days. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Dec 5 2008, 10:28 AM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Dec 5 2008, 10:55 AM Post #35
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Craig - Have you talked with any of the air traffic controllers at Reagan? If anyone was aware of a fly over, it seems it would have been them.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 5 2008, 11:10 AM Post #36
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	jim76 Dec 4 2008, 08:19 PM Aldo, it seems as though you can't see the forest for the trees. Yeah, it might seem nearly impossible that the witnesses you talked to were mistaken or lying. It also might seem unlikely you're misinterpreting what the witnesses are saying or what it really means in terms of the flight path of the plane. But you have to consider this given everything else we know. It seems utterly crazy to believe that the government would go to the efforts necessary to pull this off. This includes, but is not limited to, spreading plane debris across the pentagon lawn and inside the pentagon, setting explosive to mimic the damage caused by a crashed plane, chopping up bodies and dispersing the parts about, knocking down light poles, thrusting one of the light poles into a taxi cab, cutting the top off of a tree, hijacking a plane and keeping it visible in the sky only before it flies over the pentagon, faking video footage of the crash, landing the hijacked plane somewhere else without anyone noticing, killing or secretly imprisoning the passengers, faking DNA evidence, and damaging items outside the pentagon to make it look like a plane hit them. They would have to do all this without any witnesses or any dissenters and not one whistleblower in seven years after the event. Wow. Given that, I'm not surprised that you're having difficulty getting people to buy your theory. Jim76, You are in denial. You let me know when you come to grips with what it is that happened or when you speak with the witnesses yourself to clear this up for your own edification.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Dec 5 2008, 11:15 AM Post #37
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 5 2008, 11:10 AM jim76 Dec 4 2008, 08:19 PM Aldo, it seems as though you can't see the forest for the trees. Yeah, it might seem nearly impossible that the witnesses you talked to were mistaken or lying. It also might seem unlikely you're misinterpreting what the witnesses are saying or what it really means in terms of the flight path of the plane. But you have to consider this given everything else we know. It seems utterly crazy to believe that the government would go to the efforts necessary to pull this off. This includes, but is not limited to, spreading plane debris across the pentagon lawn and inside the pentagon, setting explosive to mimic the damage caused by a crashed plane, chopping up bodies and dispersing the parts about, knocking down light poles, thrusting one of the light poles into a taxi cab, cutting the top off of a tree, hijacking a plane and keeping it visible in the sky only before it flies over the pentagon, faking video footage of the crash, landing the hijacked plane somewhere else without anyone noticing, killing or secretly imprisoning the passengers, faking DNA evidence, and damaging items outside the pentagon to make it look like a plane hit them. They would have to do all this without any witnesses or any dissenters and not one whistleblower in seven years after the event. Wow. Given that, I'm not surprised that you're having difficulty getting people to buy your theory. Jim76, You are in denial. You let me know when you come to grips with what it is that happened or when you speak with the witnesses yourself to clear this up for your own edification. I'm the one in denial? Honestly tell me that the latter is more probable than the former.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 5 2008, 11:50 AM Post #38
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: So, obviously, you have convinced these crucial 13 witnesses that the plane they THOUGHT hit the pentagon actually flew over it and safely went somewhere else. Well we certainly showed them why the jet they saw could not have hit the Pentagon or the light poles. Quote: They are all reasonable people after all. They must be outraged. Scared is more the word I would use. Quote: Have they joined CIT in your mission to bring this news to the world? No darling. Quote: Why not invite them to come on the forum to chat it up with the skeptics themselves? We have in the past. They have nothing to prove to you. But I am sure you can find a way to contact them individually so they can explain to you how the plane they saw approached on the north side of the Citgo. Quote: Why do you find it so outrageous that people would "cast doubt on the credibility of grown men some of whom are professionals" when you yourselves certainly cast plenty of doubt, to say the least, on other grown men such as Lloyde England and Father McGraw. Because those two men do not ring of honesty. They casted doubt on themselves. I guess you still haven't figured out that Lloyd is 100% involved in staging his cab alongside that light pole. You don't find it odd that a priest already late for a funeral decides to not go at all in order to preside over the injured and dying at the Pentagon? You don't find it odd that he described a low level approach into the building, but yet was vague about it? You don't find it odd that he said he crossed the guardrail within 45 seconds of the alleged impact even Mark Faram saw him do this when he got there 10 minutes after? Quote: Isn't it more serious to accuse such men of outright treason and complicity than it is for skeptics to suggest that someone is simply mistaken in their recollection of events or their judgement of distance/position of a fast moving object which they saw for a matter of a few seconds, startled as they were out of their mundane contemplation of the price of gas or last night's lay? God listen to yourself. So you feel it is your mission from God to needlessly and recklessly cast doubt on witnesses who expose military deception of world historical proportions rather than confronting it head on? Do you understand that you have 0 credible witnesses to the South of the Citgo flight path? 0 independently verified on location on camera reliving the moment and memory who happen to be corroborated a dozen+ other people? In fact, you don't even have a witness on video on location describing the impact in detail!!! Do you realize how insipid you sound trying to argue against the mountain of evidence and knowledge we possess? You are trying to convince people who have watched the interviews that these witnesses are "wrong, mistaken" about a very specific thing that you clearly don't understand because you refuse to understand. There is NO WAY these people can describe the same simple right/left over and over and over from all different sides of the plane. The ANC workers can't describe a banking plane that they RUN UNDERNEATH if it was on the SOC path. Lagasse wouldn't have been able to see it. Brooks and Robert would have pointed to the right and not the left. What is wrong with you? This is a mental stumbling block you have to deal with. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Dec 5 2008, 11:53 AM.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 5 2008, 11:52 AM Post #39
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	jim76 Dec 5 2008, 11:15 AM I'm the one in denial? Honestly tell me that the latter is more probable than the former. Yes Jim and I am not going to hold your hand through this any longer. If you have any questions that will help you understand this, then let me know. Other than that good luck, your input is no longer needed unless you want to talk about contacting the witnesses. Thanks.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Dec 5 2008, 12:07 PM Post #40
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 5 2008, 11:52 AM jim76 Dec 5 2008, 11:15 AM I'm the one in denial? Honestly tell me that the latter is more probable than the former. Yes Jim and I am not going to hold your hand through this any longer. If you have any questions that will help you understand this, then let me know. Other than that good luck, your input is no longer needed unless you want to talk about contacting the witnesses. Thanks. It's interesting to see that you're unwilling to address that.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Grit1645	Dec 5 2008, 12:21 PM Post #41
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Bitterman Dec 5 2008, 02:00 AM So that's it Grit, we're so much better off just to accept where everything is, be happy where we are, and just get on with running the machine while others decide our lives? Is that right? <snip> douche. You've been reduced to calling people names.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Flippy	Dec 5 2008, 12:40 PM Post #42
Posts: 575 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	Grit1645 Dec 5 2008, 12:21 PM Bitterman Dec 5 2008, 02:00 AM So that's it Grit, we're so much better off just to accept where everything is, be happy where we are, and just get on with running the machine while others decide our lives? Is that right? <snip> douche. You've been reduced to calling people names. Stupid is the name I would have went with. You knuckleheads wouldn't understand this if it was in a Road Runner and Coyote cartoon.
Posts: 575 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 5 2008, 12:47 PM Post #43
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	jim76 Dec 5 2008, 12:07 PM It's interesting to see that you're unwilling to address that. Unwilling to address what? Every fucking attempt at antagonizing or every bumbling dum dum that stumbles in tracking stupid all over the place? I don't have the time dude. I tried helping you out. Sit in here and stew on your ignorance, your over confident assumptions do not change the constant praise and attention we get for this evidence and work. C-ya! Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Dec 5 2008, 02:01 PM.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


albion	Dec 5 2008, 02:00 PM Post #44
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08	Quote: We know for a fact that people saw it fly away and we prove it with more first-hand testimony. No, you're witnesses saw it fly towards the Pentagon. NONE ever claimed to see it fly over and away from the Pentagon. Quote: You guys love to ignore Roosevelt Roberts but he is the ultimate validation of the flyover and he proves that people DID see it! No, I've used Robert's testimony repeatedly: Quote: Then my seargent, Seargent Woolwich, Woody, he called and he said, hey, rob, listen, we gonna threatcon delta. As I hang up the phone, the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the tv, it was like, it was almost timed for preciseness. So, as I hung up the phone, and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot, it's about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust and stuff coming from the ceiling, you could hear people screaming. So, what I did was, I turned around and drew out my weapon, and I didn't know what was going on. I thoughts we was being invaded, I didn't know what was happening. So I ran back into South Loading and I start forcing people out of the building. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/afc911bib:@field(DOCID+@lit(afc911000155)) Quote: Since apparently you're ADD or learning disabled or something I'll explain it to you and the new members once again for posterity. Ad hominem noted. Quote: We present 13 independent eyewitness accounts proving the plane flew on the north side of the former citgo gas station. So you admit that your witnesses saw a jet fly towards the Pentagon, not over and away from the Pentagon as you claim. Quote: This proves that the plane did not hit the building since a plane in this location is irreconcilable with all physical damage including the 5 downed light poles. Quite the opposite. The physical damage and eyewitness testimony demonstrates that the NoC flight path is mistaken. Quote: Watch part 2 to hear the account of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr. who saw the plane flying away from the building immediately AFTER the explosion. He stated in his first account only 2 1/2 months after 9/11 that he saw a ...plane flying around the south parking lot..." before the explosion. Please explain why we should accept any of Roberts's testimony as valid? Particularly when in his interview with you, you could not even figure out what he was contradicting your "theory" when he told you a jet came form the Southwest, circled, and flew back to the Southwest. Without a single corroborating eyewitness to your jet flying such a flight path. Quote: This hard evidence proves the north side witnesses correct because Roosevelt Roberts would not have seen a plane AT ALL from inside the Pentagon where he was during the explosion if there wasn't a flyover. He said in the first interview he was outside on the south loading dock, saw a plane "flying around the south parking lot", then ran back inside after the explosion. And you claim he didn't say that, Craig? Quote: So this first critical flyover witness, along with the other north side witnesses presented in Part 2, including heliport Air Traffic Controller Sean Boger, definitively prove the plane flew over the building. No, they only saw a jet approach the Pentagon and they all either saw the jet hit the Pentagon or believe it did, including Sean Boger. NONE saw any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon. Quote: Arlington National Cemetary workers: "Although all of these witnesses believe the aircraft impacted the building,..." 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON - Official Release - Pilots For 9/11 Truth http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7134448689829125037&hl=en Starting at 38:23 "Furthermore, these witnesses describe how they were running away from the scene for their lives and were not paying attention to what the plane did after it passed them." Starting at 38:52 Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief said: Quote: "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head." So everyone here can see that none of your eyewitnesses support you claims, Craig. You simply have not presented any evidence or eyewitnesses that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon. So, Craig, what is your next step? Are you going to file charges against the "Government?" Nobody seems ti know what you intend to do with your "information." Can you tell us?
Posts: 175 Group: BANNED! Member #911 Joined: 10/28/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 5 2008, 02:02 PM Post #45
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Bitterman Dec 5 2008, 02:00 AM douche. I think it is a douchette. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Dec 5 2008, 02:04 PM.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Dec 5 2008, 02:42 PM Post #46
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 5 2008, 12:47 PM jim76 Dec 5 2008, 12:07 PM It's interesting to see that you're unwilling to address that. Unwilling to address what? Every fucking attempt at antagonizing or every bumbling dum dum that stumbles in tracking stupid all over the place? I don't have the time dude. I tried helping you out. Sit in here and stew on your ignorance, your over confident assumptions do not change the constant praise and attention we get for this evidence and work. C-ya! HAHAHA Yes, Aldo. You are a true American hero! Please keep up the ~~hilarity~~ good work!
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Dec 5 2008, 03:00 PM Post #47
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	jim76 Dec 5 2008, 02:42 PM Aldo Marquis CIT Dec 5 2008, 12:47 PM jim76 Dec 5 2008, 12:07 PM It's interesting to see that you're unwilling to address that. Unwilling to address what? Every fucking attempt at antagonizing or every bumbling dum dum that stumbles in tracking stupid all over the place? I don't have the time dude. I tried helping you out. Sit in here and stew on your ignorance, your over confident assumptions do not change the constant praise and attention we get for this evidence and work. C-ya! HAHAHA Yes, Aldo. You are a true American hero! Please keep up the ~~hilarity~~ good work! And you are still a treasonous coward!
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Dec 5 2008, 06:50 PM Post #48
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	Aldo - Calling everyone that disagrees with you a "treasonous coward" is really getting old. I could easily call your actions treasonous, but I don't. I respect that you have a different theory and you are entitled to it, no matter how crazy it seems to me. If you want to achieve anything with these theories, you're going to have to change the minds of a lot of people that don't agree with you. Calling them "treasonous cowards" at the first sight of rejection will not help.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


HabeasCorpse	Dec 5 2008, 08:05 PM Post #49
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #21 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: If you want to achieve anything with these theories, you're going to have to change the minds of a lot of people that don't agree with you. Calling them "treasonous cowards" at the first sight of rejection will not help. I think Aldo's point is that when a treasonous coward such as yourself employs the circular logic of a pseudo skeptic the title of treasonous coward is therein earned. You have earned it.
Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #21 Joined: 01/14/08


jim76	Dec 5 2008, 08:28 PM Post #50
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08	HabeasCorpse Dec 5 2008, 08:05 PM Quote: If you want to achieve anything with these theories, you're going to have to change the minds of a lot of people that don't agree with you. Calling them "treasonous cowards" at the first sight of rejection will not help. I think Aldo's point is that when a treasonous coward such as yourself employs the circular logic of a pseudo skeptic the title of treasonous coward is therein earned. You have earned it. Would you care to point out the circular logic I've employed? Edited by jim76, Dec 5 2008, 08:28 PM.
Posts: 303 Group: BANNED! Member #172 Joined: 01/21/08


2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)


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

Pages:
1
2
3
…
8