• 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.

Reflections on invicible ignorance

Böhringer was CIA"

I don't know man. I know Atta was seen by multiple witnesses on Abromoff's Casino boat. I know Atta was a coke fiend. I know Atta's boss was caught with a plane load of heroin. Presumably, Atta was training as a courier for smack. He certainly wasn't any "jihadist".

Atta's friend? We'll see ;)
Yoo-hoo! Earth to Morphology! You're making this up!

Somebody really needs to read the 9/11 Commission report.
 
Morphology, when you post on this or other forums it would be better if you'd stick to one topic instead of switching it for every post. How do you expect anyone to respond meaningfully when you are bouncing from Gladio to every other conspiracy there is. Apparently you have read some conspiracy oriented books. so if you know alot, for example about Gladio, I would like to recommed that you would continue your investigations on that topic and gather information from various sources to make an impartial presentation that could be revieved by others. Now it seems to me that you just arrogantly assume you are right because you have read some book and therefore know more than others. Let me ask you, what is in your conspiracy books that makes them so credible for you? I'm not dismissing your claims, I'm beeing sceptical about them. Somepeople like yourself just seem to be very prone to believing in alternative sources, and very inclined in believing in conspiracy theories that defy logic and go against evidence, reason and most importantly authorities. Again I'm not dismissing any evidence that would point towards a conspiracy, but You haven't produced any evidence, only opinions and insults. So could you please stick to a defined topic and always provide sources for your claims.

With regards to 9/11 related comments you have posted they have all been discussed at length on this board, so thats one reason why people here might not have the patience to discuss the myths you throw in the air, especially when you change the topic with every post. You might want to use the search function.
 
Hell, a sure tribute to common sense is the latest poll on 911: only an idiotic 14 percent buy the official story. That includes you maniacs ;)

Read my signature. The second point of it.

So where is this poll that 86% of Americans don't buy into the official story? I've heard 84... but 86 now?

You know what this poll scientifically proves? It proves that 787 American adults who were interviewed over telephone believe that the official story isn't revealing everything or is making stuff up.

That does not by any means give you the right to say that 84% of Americans don't buy the official story. Even so, who's the say that these 84% aren't wrong? Polls count for nothing.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean "invisible" or "invincible?"

Morphology,

You will find that spelling seems more important than life itself to some of these folks.

It's a good thing you are not trying any forensic analysis, you would be really disapointed.
 
Hey Morph, if you want to respond to what someone else has said, take a look at the little "Quote" link at the bottom right of each post. Click that and it will automagically put that post between quote tags, so you can then easily edit it down to just the part you're responding to, and put your response below it. Just trying to be helpful here, because without the quote box it gets confusing.

May I suggest responding to Oliver's question?
 
explain the discrepancies.

If you're consistent you'll apply the same standard of evidence to your enemies as you do Bush and Guili.

How do you explain Bin Laden's multiple denials?

Does it make sense to deny a terrorist attack on multiple occasions then -- a few years later -- admit culpability? Does that make sense to you?

Are you basing you opinion on logic or emotion?

Does it matter either way? = WTC7
No, YOU explain the discrepancies. If you've got evidence, BRING IT ON!

Vague waffle about "what about this" and "what about that" doesn't cut it here, or anywhere sane people gather.
 
Wow. Apparently alot of folks here are locked in the anal phase of development.

Someone has read Prometheus Rising. Bravo. His son is awesome as Dwight on The Office BTW.

This and the rest of the torrent of philosophical whimsy contained in Morph's posts brings up something I have been thinking about regarding books and CTers. Just because you read something in a book doesn't necessarily make it true. You need to consider the source quality, and motivation etc.. CTer's consider all information that makes it into the printed word, or electronic word, or the youtube video equal. This is why they try to refute a NIST report (compiled by scientists with references and footnotes clearly explaining methodology) with a youtube video (that was made in someone's basement and has no sources or references other youtube videos). Quoting Philosophers really doesn't cut it here as far as changing our minds goes. That being said, I'm going to quote one of my favorite (fictional) philosophers who shares my name:

"Sure it was a book? Sure it wasn't...NOTHING." Brian - Family Guy
 
explain the discrepancies.

I think you need to learn how it works here. You started this thread by making a bunch of claims, so now you need to provide sources of some kind.

Time and again, a CTer will start a thread making claims, and then turn it around like we're supposed to hurry off and disprove each and every one of their ridiculous claims. We can play that game if we need to, but we don't like to, and we don't have to.

This is a skeptics' board, and skeptics like evidence, not baseless assertions without proof. You're in our house, so provide some evidence, please.

And stop using a single trailing quotation mark without a leading mark to match it.
 
How do you explain Bin Laden's multiple denials?
He needed to to allow the Taliban to buy time (by repeatedly asking for "proof" of his involvement) to spirit him away before the Tomahawks slam into his suspected hideouts.

Does it make sense to deny a terrorist attack on multiple occasions then -- a few years later -- admit culpability?
Yes, and it didn't take "a few years" for them to admit it either.
It makes sense because now they can openly recruit new fighters, from a location they believe to be safe.
 


22 what ?? - missed that

And Morp.....

Why do you keep insulting people? What do you hope to achive? You keep saying sorry, which is nice, but then you go and do it again !! Nobody has won an arguement by name calling (well not since I was in primary school)

And why have you still not answered the question?

Proof please - not insults
 
Derail while Morph is on vacation.....

Did I miss something? I saw nothing in the way of little yellow warning flags. What were the transgressions that led to the suspension? (Or something offline? PMing people or such?)
 
And with those quotes, why did Morph decide to bring philosophy to a math argument?

Because he had no maths?

And with long quotations, it's quite easy to (over)extend metaphors for various situations to fit any scenario you like. It only gets fiddly when people say, 'that's all very well, but how does that apply here, specifically.'

Then it all goes a bit wrong for him.
 

Back
Top Bottom