What is a conspiracy theorist?

GwionX said:
As for controlled demolitions with explosives-- in any of the WTC buildings-- I refer to what a controlled demolition sounds like not what it "looks" like. It doesn't take much time to realize, a blind person could tell the difference.
Click to expand...
Yep. This is an oft-overlooked, but damning, point. CTers love to point out people who claimed to hear "explosions," but they totally ignore the fact that there wasn't a crisp, clean, series of explosions immediately prior to the collapse. There is no way anyone near by would fail to hear those cutter charges, as anyone who has ever personally witnessed a CD can tell you.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
As I might have mentioned, to some it's a game about comebacks and scores. And "burns." Grow the hell up.
Click to expand...
Oh, dear. Did I upset you? My, my. I guess you'll send me to bed without supper now?
Again, irony is wasted on the stupid. Thanks for making my point.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
The irony is that he is making fun of somebody who wants ALL the facts on the table? Oh, sweet irony.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to make fun of you again in the middle of your super-important investigation. I'll try to quit giggling at you. But you look so cute in your tu-tu!
 
Horatius said:
Not baseless. Perhaps not correct, but not baseless. And exactly how is IDing you as possibly being PD'oh an "ad hominem"? If you don't know who he is, how did you know you were being insulted?

Also note, even if IDing you as Pd'oh could be considered an insult, it's still not an ad hominem, unless I use that ID to dismiss your arguments, which I haven't done.

Rememeber: "You're an idiot, so your arguments have no value" is an ad hominem. "You're an idiot" is just an insult. Important difference.
Click to expand...

It is an obvious ad hominem. I know sock puppet may sound like a term of endearment to you, but to me it is an insult. And it is ad hominem because it is meant to discount everything I said because I am being discredited as a person everybody has no respect for, obviously. Clearly ad hominem.
 
The Almond said:
You can't prove a negative.
Click to expand...
Of course you can. A extremely simple way would be to blow up a building with explosives and time how long it takes to collapse. If it is close to freefall speed, which it obviously would be since all the supports get blown out and leave the building suspended in air, then the negative can be answered.

I don't think this is even a issue worth arguing. Are you actually saying that it is unlikely for a imploded building to fall at freefall speed. I mean I would do a search and find videos of demolitions and time the collapse then firgure out what freefall should of been using the laws of gravity., then compare the two actions but that would be a waste of time since common sense would tell you that a imploded building will fall at freefall speed. This is a nickpicking argument where people are trying to make me prove something that is so obvious that it makes my head hurt that people would still argue against it. Is this what skepticism is?
 
Free Thinkr said:
Yep. This is an oft-overlooked, but damning, point. CTers love to point out people who claimed to hear "explosions," but they totally ignore the fact that there wasn't a crisp, clean, series of explosions immediately prior to the collapse. There is no way anyone near by would fail to hear those cutter charges, as anyone who has ever personally witnessed a CD can tell you.
Click to expand...

Actually the proposed theory is thermate for the steel supports, explosives for the concrete supports. Expolsions could take out the concrete without harming the soundness of the steel. Thermate or thermite both get the job done through reactions not explosions. The bombs (for concrete) that were heard by many witnesses have only been dismissed as mass confusion.

And there was fire fighters who said they heard blasts decribed like "boom, boom, boom, boom, like they were demolishing it".
 
Without Rights said:
Actually the proposed theory is thermate for the steel supports,
Click to expand...
Please explain how thermate can cut horizontally.

explosives for the concrete supports. Expolsions could take out the concrete without harming the soundness of the steel.
Click to expand...
What "concrete supports"?

Thermate or thermite both get the job done through reactions not explosions.
Click to expand...
Explain how thermite/ate can cut horizontally.

The bombs (for concrete) that were heard by many witnesses have only been dismissed as mass confusion.
Click to expand...
What concrete? What bombs? What witnesses?

And there was fire fighters who said they heard blasts decribed like "boom, boom, boom, boom, like they were demolishing it".
Click to expand...
Can you present a single firefighter who was there that day who believes the buildings were demolished? Because a 110 story building undergoing a catastrophic collapse will certainly go "boom, boom, boom" without any explosives whatsoever.

I fully expect you to dodge all of these questions, I'm sure you won't disappoint me.
 
Without Rights said:
Actually the proposed theory is thermate for the steel supports, explosives for the concrete supports. Expolsions could take out the concrete without harming the soundness of the steel. Thermate or thermite both get the job done through reactions not explosions. The bombs (for concrete) that were heard by many witnesses have only been dismissed as mass confusion.

And there was fire fighters who said they heard blasts decribed like "boom, boom, boom, boom, like they were demolishing it".
Click to expand...

Without Rights, wait until you get the "what people described as explosions were really bodies hitting the pavement" response. I actually got that here a couple months ago, from a well-respected member here.
 
JimBenArm said:
Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to make fun of you again in the middle of your super-important investigation. I'll try to quit giggling at you. But you look so cute in your tu-tu!
Click to expand...

No, Mr Irony; you're making fun of somebody else, who wants ALL the facts on the table. In your ironic little signature.
 
So Without Rights, when will you prove that the towers could have collapsed the way they did with the use of explosives?
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Without Rights, wait until you get the "what people described as explosions were really bodies hitting the pavement" response. I actually got that here a couple months ago, from a well-respected member here.
Click to expand...

Without Rights said:
And there was fire fighters who said they heard blasts decribed like "boom, boom, boom, boom, like they were demolishing it".
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of a simile?

Don't worry, neither has Avery.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Without Rights, wait until you get the "what people described as explosions were really bodies hitting the pavement" response. I actually got that here a couple months ago, from a well-respected member here.
Click to expand...
Because the quotes troofers were taking out of context were describing just that - bodies hitting the ground and canopies.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
No, Mr Irony; you're making fun of somebody else, who wants ALL the facts on the table. In your ironic little signature.
Click to expand...
Yes we understand you can not find facts. You have not changed since you have shown up with a mind filled with 9/11 junk and lies.

Whilst we joke, many more are being exposed to the conspiracy theories. Wow, what if they end up being right?
Click to expand...
Well, they will never be right because all the lies on 9/11 are not based on fact.

You woke up one day and thought you found something, it has been over 5 years and the truth movement has no facts and only produces lies for morons to suck up and spread. Your first post actually alludes to more people joining. Yet they who join are lacking logic and reason. You are a CTer who is showing his lack of facts. Go back to school and this time listen.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Yes we understand you can not find facts. You have not changed since you have shown up with a mind filled with 9/11 junk and lies.


Well, they will never be right because all the lies on 9/11 are not based on fact.
Click to expand...

Again, what is a fact? You say the 19 hijackers scenario is a fact. But you really don't know.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Again, what is a fact? You say the 19 hijackers scenario is a fact. But you really don't know.
Click to expand...
I do have tons of evidence that the terrorist did 9/11, it fills books; it is you that has a problem with understanding evidence. You believe lies and fraud. You have not posted one fact but you say 9/11 terrorist did not exist, and you do it without proof or knowing you just said it.

You are challenged on research because you can not state one fact to support the ideas you have not even spelled out. When will you find one fact or tell anyone what you thing happened.

You are the living conspiracy theorist, and you have no facts. When will you tell us what you have.

You may have read Webster Tarpley's book of woo, where he presents no facts and you believe it. Why can an idiot writer make up stuff and you believe and the evidence for 9/11 is just sitting if front of you and you ignore it? (why are you unable to realize WT's book is junk, it is not based on fact, just talk you like to hear)

You must be upset you spent money on Webster's book and it is just junk! When will you realize you have been taken?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom