Okay, CTers, here's the best offer you're ever going to get.

twinstead said:
I disagree about this criminal suit. The best way for CTs to get their word out is to convince experts with relative expertise to back them.

Submit an legitimately peer-reviewed paper from a structural engineer who is acknowledged expert in his field.

If indeed the science was so compelling, and it was so obvious the official story is a farce scientifically, that should be easy, right?

That said, the FIRST step would be to disband groups like LC and the 'scholars for truth' and get serious with serious investigators instead of petulant kids and dubious experts. IMHO of course.
Click to expand...
They'll never do it. They see no relevance in experts. Which is fine, they're entitled to believe whatever they want regarding the legitimacy of their evidence.

But if it's all there in black and white, they need to do something about it. KillTown has listed 250 "smoking guns". They say they have enough to back up the CD theory. 83% of the population are apparently on their side in some form or another.

Honestly... how could the time get any more right?
 
realitybites said:
They'll never do it. They see no relevance in experts. Which is fine, they're entitled to believe whatever they want regarding the legitimacy of their evidence.

But if it's all there in black and white, they need to do something about it. KillTown has listed 250 "smoking guns". They say they have enough to back up the CD theory. 83% of the population are apparently on their side in some form or another.

Honestly... how could the time get any more right?
Click to expand...
Simply analogy.

CTists are like those people that sing in the shower and think, damn, that sounds great. But they never actually audition for any singing roles anywhere because, in their heart, they know their singing really sucks.
 
uk_dave said:
Having evidence of a crime and not taking it direct to the authorities?

Isn't that a crime? Somehow I don't think a defence of "I thought they'd buy a ticket and watch the film" would be sufficient.
Click to expand...
i know this applies to firsthand witnesses of muders, not sure how or if it applies to indirect evidence such as youtube videos
 
Overman said:
]:beerflag:
Click to expand...
From the title, free beer was in the offing. I must agree with Overman on this one.

Put up, or shut up, OP, with this best offer: :beerflag: :p

Where is my beer????

DR
 
DavidJames said:
Simply analogy.

CTists are like those people that sing in the shower and think, damn, that sounds great. But they never actually audition for any singing roles anywhere because, in their heart, they know their singing really sucks.
Click to expand...

Actually CTs are more like those people who really can't sing but DO show up at auditions and are honestly surprised when everybody tells them they can't hold a tune.
 
twinstead said:
Actually CTs are more like those people who really can't sing but DO show up at auditions and are honestly surprised when everybody tells them they can't hold a tune.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!

They are living in an insular world where, apart from you pesky people and your debunking websites (I bet they never predicted that when they started!) they are surrounding themselves with people who are lapping up this conspiracy nonsense.

But as soon as they walk out into the cold harsh light of reality, the theory they have all nailed their colours to starts to fall apart and they are left looking very silly..... or worse.
 
twinstead said:
I disagree about this criminal suit. The best way for CTs to get their word out is to convince experts with relative expertise to back them.

Submit an legitimately peer-reviewed paper from a structural engineer who is acknowledged expert in his field.

If indeed the science was so compelling, and it was so obvious the official story is a farce scientifically, that should be easy, right?

That said, the FIRST step would be to disband groups like LC and the 'scholars for truth' and get serious with serious investigators instead of petulant kids and dubious experts. IMHO of course.
Click to expand...
I don't know about getting the word out, but that's what it will take to convince me.

You'd think, out of the entire universe of 9/11 Deniers, there'd be one person together enough to capture it in written, logical, non-self-contradictory form, if there was anything to these delusions at all.

The first person who rebuts by saying "But what about Steven Jones?" will be taunted mercilessly. You have been warned.
 
twinstead said:
Actually CTs are more like those people who really can't sing but DO show up at auditions and are honestly surprised when everybody tells them they can't hold a tune.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but then they go back in the shower and the cycle starts all over again.

To make matters worse, all the other people in the shower think they all sound like the Mormon f;ing tabernacle choir.

Reference intentional
 
twinstead said:
Actually CTs are more like those people who really can't sing but DO show up at auditions and are honestly surprised when everybody tells them they can't hold a tune.
Click to expand...

And then threaten to sue those holding the auditions, but then never follow through.
 
All this D.A./"Law & Order" talk got me to thinking that if this ever does go to trial, I think I'd like to be on the government's defense team.

I wouldn't mind getting paid 6 figures to just sit in a court room all day repeating: "Objection, Your Honor... Speculation," over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
 
realitybites said:
All this D.A./"Law & Order" talk got me to thinking that if this ever does go to trial, I think I'd like to be on the government's defense team.

I wouldn't mind getting paid 6 figures to just sit in a court room all day repeating: "Objection, Your Honor... Speculation," over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Click to expand...

I thought the gummit allready pays you 6 figures a month?
 
Seriously, which municipalities do you believe have jurisdiction? I honestly want to know.
 
Hans Hoppe begins almost every lecture by saying: "Let us begin with the definition of government. A government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation. This means that if you have a dispute with anyone, you must go to this one agency, 'the government', to resolve it. This includes disputes involving the government itself. It is not hard to see that government would tend to find in its own favor."

He goes on.

The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does. I'm quite sure that any D.A. that made any noise at all about looking into 9/11 would be quickly and effectively shut down.

Having said that, your offer is an interesting one. It would be nice to have the evidence arranged as an actual criminal complaint.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Hans Hoppe begins almost every lecture by saying: "Let us begin with the definition of government. A government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation. This means that if you have a dispute with anyone, you must go to this one agency, 'the government', to resolve it. This includes disputes involving the government itself. It is not hard to see that government would tend to find in its own favor."

He goes on.

The point is, presenting evidence to the government in a case where the suspect is the government is obvious folly. The government will decide in its own favor, as it always does. I'm quite sure that any D.A. that made any noise at all about looking into 9/11 would be quickly and effectively shut down.

Having said that, your offer is an interesting one. It would be nice to have the evidence arranged as an actual criminal complaint.
Click to expand...

Well, if the US form of gov't is so fatally flawed, you better go find a desert island on which to live.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Well, if the US form of gov't is so fatally flawed, you better go find a desert island on which to live.
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy, Arkan. Assuming the conclusion. You're assuming the legitimacy of government, the very question at issue. I will continue living right where I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom