• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

Morrison's Lament said:
PBJ???

2291.jpg


It's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time!!

I'll get my coat...

--- G.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't that be a dancing...

never mind.
 
I found this thread several days ago and wanted to reply, but as I'm busy debunking the same thing at another forum, I've hardly had time to read this, let alone post. I really want to say I've enjoyed reading Year Zero and kookbreaker's posts, amongst others, and to say thankyou for the links provided. I have been using my own skepticality and logic to do my debunking, but 911myths might come in handy soon.

Regards the PBJ, I hadn't thought of that and posted a similar question (thanks v.much), and one of my CTs replied:

"Monica to her best friend (before leaving CA for DC) "Going to Washington to get my Presidential kneepads"
She was sent there to entrap Slick 'cause they knew what bait to dangle IMHO, he stepped in the trap set by Linda Tripp"
:rolleyes:

Who's calling who "slick"? These CTs have a conspiracy for everything. They never learn anything, and never admit to being wrong, they just slip in another theory and expect to get away with it.

Thanks again for the great reading.
 
Nothing ever "Just Happens" in a CT'ers world. Everything is planned by the SIA (Sinister Intelligence Agency).
 
orphia nay said:
I found this thread several days ago and wanted to reply, but as I'm busy debunking the same thing at another forum, I've hardly had time to read this, let alone post. I really want to say I've enjoyed reading Year Zero and kookbreaker's posts, amongst others, and to say thankyou for the links provided. I have been using my own skepticality and logic to do my debunking, but 911myths might come in handy soon.

Regards the PBJ, I hadn't thought of that and posted a similar question (thanks v.much), and one of my CTs replied:

"Monica to her best friend (before leaving CA for DC) "Going to Washington to get my Presidential kneepads"
She was sent there to entrap Slick 'cause they knew what bait to dangle IMHO, he stepped in the trap set by Linda Tripp"
:rolleyes:

Who's calling who "slick"? These CTs have a conspiracy for everything. They never learn anything, and never admit to being wrong, they just slip in another theory and expect to get away with it.

Thanks again for the great reading.
Click to expand...

OK. So the president of the US is a mere pawn and is really devoid of power.

This begs the question of who and why?
 
The funny thing is that all of these conspiracy theories seem to allude, vaguely, to the jews. Think of the adjectives -large, sinister, hidden, sources of money and power --- all things that referred to the jews from time immemorial.
 
Well, Ed, they do have the perfect cover story.

Their original planning meeting must have been something:

Boss, this whole run-things-from-behind-the-scenes thing sounds great, but we have to throw off suspicion.

Agreed. Any ideas?

Yeah, one, but you might not like it.

Try me.

Ummm...we let all the peoples throughout history degrade us, enslave us, oppress us, and at least once, murder nearly all of us.

You're right, I don't like it.
 
dogguy said:
A simple question for thesyntaxera/love:

The investigations conducted by the experts that have been referenced in this thread have come up with reasonable answers to the following questions surrounding the events of 911:
- Who was involved?
- What happened?
- Why did things happen?
- When did the events take place?
- Where were the locations of the significant events?
- How were the various activities leading up to these events acted on?

Please summarize your "theories" by answering each of the questions above.
All you have done so far is point to unsubstantiated reasons as to why you think the recognized experts are "wrong". Please tell us in your own words what you think actually happened. Start with when the idea was concocted 35 years ago to put explosives in the concrete.
Click to expand...

Those are some good questions, and they are just what I would like to know as well.
As I have stated over and over, and over, and over again....I don't have any theories...you can ask me to make guesses, and I will, but they won't be fact.

I am curious about facts, and why a deductive, fact gathering investigation wasn't done. I am curious as to why there was an apparent gloss over of the environmental disaster that was the aftermath of 9/11. I am curious to know why you fanatical skepterroists don't question an official story with so many holes in it. The only way a skeptic can not do this is by making absurd rationalizations to back up what they have chosen to believe. You have no real facts either, and the few little facts you have, are just as questionable as a CT's claims.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030707/corn

the above article sums up what I think quite nicely.
 
Translation:

I still have no answer to the valid points raised nor comments on the inconsistencies and inaccuracies within my own posts. However, I retain the capacity and willingness to string words together in such a fashion as to provide the uninformed with the illusion I am arguing coherently when in fact I have said nothing of substance.
 
Reference your first link: The article has complaints that are over 2 years old.

It admits that the investigators were granted full access to information regarding 9/11.

Its major complaints concern political wrangling, the slowness of bureaucracies, and the evils of the airline industry for allegedly placing revenues above security.

It does not even hint at conspiratorial plottings or cover-ups.
 
Reference your second link: With one exception, there are no references, just vague assertions that "authors" et al have talked about complicity.

The exception is a reference to Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright's autobiography. The quotation, however, is not at all about conspiracies but about alleged negligence. The two are polar opposites.

You should read what you post.
 
Garrette said:
Reference your first link: The article has complaints that are over 2 years old.

It admits that the investigators were granted full access to information regarding 9/11.

Its major complaints concern political wrangling, the slowness of bureaucracies, and the evils of the airline industry for allegedly placing revenues above security.

It does not even hint at conspiratorial plottings or cover-ups.
Click to expand...

I never said there was a conspiracy.
 
Garrette said:
Translation:

I still have no answer to the valid points raised nor comments on the inconsistencies and inaccuracies within my own posts. However, I retain the capacity and willingness to string words together in such a fashion as to provide the uninformed with the illusion I am arguing coherently when in fact I have said nothing of substance.
Click to expand...


and where is all this substance coming from your end...all I see is a bunch of skepdics stroking each others ego with the intent of not thinking, just reacting....
 
thesyntaxera said:
and where is all this substance coming from your end...all I see is a bunch of skepdics stroking each others ego with the intent of not thinking, just reacting....
Click to expand...

Boo-hoo, your lack of producing anything tangible has caught up with you and your going to blame us for your failure. Maybe if you had a clue as to what you are talking about, rather than trying to throw out terms you don't understand you might have gotten somewhere.
 
thesyntaxera said:
I never said there was a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Got it. No conspiracy.

I guess that leaves your only complaint being the quality of the investigation regarding which all your claims to date have been shown to be inaccurate yet you refuse to acknowledge them.

thesyntaxera said:
and where is all this substance coming from your end...all I see is a bunch of skepdics stroking each others ego with the intent of not thinking, just reacting....

I believe you when you say this is all you see. You have manifestly ignored the specific refutations and citations of the skeptics in this thread.

I thank you for admitting that you are blinded to evidence.

Though I rather think I was correct in an earlier post when I called you a troll. You could just be a fool, though.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom