• 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.

8/10 Terrorist conspiracy

MarkyX said:
Hence, 9/11 deniers. You deny the official story, therefore you are a 9/11 denier. Yes, it's meant to mix the two up because I really hate your kind ever since I released Screw Loose Change and received threats for the past two months almost every day. Also, you guys associate yourselves with holocaust denires and use neo-nazi sources to fuel your pet theories.
Click to expand...

Is there evidence of links between 9/11 deniers and neo-nazis? I know they've been drawing on far right sources, but are there links beyond that?

By the way, spam telling me to watch Loose Change (well, sent by people with me in their address book, but still spam...) seems like it might have started up again - haven't had any for ages, and got two today :( Hm, so people see (what is probably) a genuine terrorist attack foiled - and therefore send out spam re. a CT video :rolleyes:
 
I thought I'd share this glaring bit of stupidity, from Alex Jones.

One of the most glaring errors in the Popular Mechanics hit piece appears in the 'Intercepts Not Routine' section where it is claimed that, "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999."

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/debunking_popular_mechanics_myths.htm
Click to expand...


Clearly not recognizing the crucial difference between "intercepting a civilian jet over North America" and "scrambling fighters."
 
Dazed said:
Can you please provide 1 or 2 examples of logical fallacies he has personally touted? I must have missed them.
Click to expand...

(note: quoting as close as I can given no transcript)
His very first statment:
"The majority of the worlds muslims believe 9/11 was an inside job. They don't believe the official story."
1) No substantiating evidence provided
2) Argumentum ad numerum - It doesn't matter if all the worlds muslims believe 9/11 was an inside job. People believing something doesn't automatically make it true.

ETA: interview source I used was http://www.911podcasts.com/gnere8xml.php?vid=136
 
Last edited:
Well, seeing how he teaches a course on Islam at a respected university, do you not consider him in a better position than most to state what the world muslims believe?

True enough, that people believing it doesn't make it true.
 
Dazed said:
Well, seeing how he teaches a course on Islam at a respected university, do you not consider him in a better position than most to state what the world muslims believe?

True enough, that people believing it doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

His academic qualifications, and whether they allow him to speak with authority on the muslim viewpoints, is completely moot. It is a blatant logical fallacy; which is what you were interested in having provided.
 
Indeed, indeed.

I was kinda hoping for something that pertains to the claims of government complicity though. Is his logic flawed in these claims as well?
 
Dazed said:
Indeed, indeed.

I was kinda hoping for something that pertains to the claims of government complicity though. Is his logic flawed in these claims as well?
Click to expand...

Indeed.

All his claims, have been talked about in the Loose Change thread.
 
Dazed said:
Indeed, indeed.

I was kinda hoping for something that pertains to the claims of government complicity though. Is his logic flawed in these claims as well?
Click to expand...
How about you try and prove them true, rather than asking others to prove them false, that's way things are supposed to work, no?
 
Dazed said:
Well, seeing how he teaches a course on Islam at a respected university, do you not consider him in a better position than most to state what the world muslims believe?

True enough, that people believing it doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

I think he has some sort of authority.

But so does Wally Shoebat (Ex-PLO terrorist), Nonie Darwish (raised in Palestine, daughter of a martyr), Khaled Abu Toameh (Palestinian Journalist), Tashbih Sayyed (Editor of Pakistan Today)...

And they all agree that 9/11 was carried out by 19 muslim extermists under the wings of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, and see Muslim Extremists as a threat to their religion and the western culture.
 
Dazed said:
Indeed, indeed.

I was kinda hoping for something that pertains to the claims of government complicity though. Is his logic flawed in these claims as well?
Click to expand...

Maybe you could start a new thread, entitled The claims of Kevin Barrett and post some of his claims to discuss. It may grow into a useful resource for those who might follow in your footsteps.
 
Shrinker said:
Maybe you could start a new thread, entitled The claims of Kevin Barrett and post some of his claims to discuss. It may grow into a useful resource for those who might follow in your footsteps.
Click to expand...

I second the motion. It would aid in keeping this thread focused on the UK incident today.
 
Meh.. I don't think that's neccessary, I'm not a follower of Mr. Barrett, I was just wondering if Pardalis had something specific in mind when he said Barrett's claims are full of logical fallacies.
 
And Dazed should at least have the decency of downloading Excel and read the first Loose Change thread. All of what Barrett says has been thouroughly debated there, over and over and over again.
 
I'm sorry if it appears indecent to you that I'm not rushing out to buy expensive software I don't really need.
 
Pardalis said:
And Dazed should at least have the decency of downloading Excel and read the first Loose Change thread. All of what Barrett says has been thouroughly debated there, over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
Bah! He's not even reading this thread.

Dazed said:
I'm sorry if it appears indecent to you that I'm not rushing out to buy expensive software I don't really need.
Click to expand...

What's the point of this "discussion", Dazed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom