Conspiracy believers, answer me this:

[The Great Hairy One]

You show your biased well. You don't seem to be interested in facts with the comment "How can you guys be so damn stupid to think that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American government?" which is just a comment and not a true question.

Actually, I AM interested in the actual facts. And from what I have seen, read and discussed IRL, all the fact points to the commonly and widely accepted theory that Al'Qada was responsible.

You bias is apparent in that you believe US would never do it, so straight off the bat you discount thier points before you even hear them.

No, I didn't say that. The US government - hell, any government - can and will perform covert operations against their own people if the motive, opportunity and pay offs are there, and are worth it. In this particular case (9/11), none of these three requirements can be shown to exist.

I've seen Loose Change. I've read CT wesbites. At first, I blinked and went "holy nostrils, what if there is some truth to this?". So I investigated. Researched. Spoke with experts via email and phone conversations. Examined the data. My first degree was in science, I am a trained scientist. Scientists like to look at data, and then draw conclusions. And the very clear, very resonable conclusions to draw from the mountains of evidence freely available is that the Bush Administration had nothing to do with the plot to slam the planes into those buildings. They may have missed warning signs, they may have not reacted as they should have, but this was not a conspiracy, but simply incompetence.

In the six years since 9/11, I've seen a myriad of CT'ers come up with simply crazy, asinine theories. All of which have been very effectively debunked. And yet CT'er STILL come up with the SAME DAMN THEORIES.

Sheesh. Grow a brain, people.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Suggesting that it is crazy to even think that elements in govt would never do it means he looked at the evidence truthers offer with preconcieved notions. Which means when he read CT's evidence he had already decided it was not an inside job. Bias apparent.

Without Rights,

You have arrived at an erroneous conclusion. As everyone is saying, I'm talking about 9/11. Not the Bay of Pigs, the School of America (IIRC), etc., etc. I'm sure that the US government, like every other national government, has done - and will do in future - horrible things. However, there is no evidence linking the Bush Administration to the events of 9/11. NONE. Not a smigden. Not a skerrick.

This is why I call CT'ers idiots. Because they make these accusations continuously without any evidence to back them up. And any actual "evidence" they present can quickly and easily be shown to be completely laughable.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[WildCat]

This is why I call CT'ers idiots. Because they make these accusations continuously without any evidence to back them up - even after they have been well and truly debunked many times.

Cheers,
TGHO

Having their evidence thoroughly debunked is no problem for CT's. They'll just move on to their next piece of "evidence" and not even acknowledge that thay've been debunked. Eventually, after all their points have been debunked, they'll go right back to where they started and the cycle repeats itself.

 

[Gravy]

You love that whining term don't you? I wasn't whining. If I said that there is no way OJ killed anybody do you think they would allow me on the jury? No? Why? Because that proves that I am biased. Just exactly like his statement.
I can't believe anybody would believe the Govt would do that, then I search to prove them wrong, that is bias. It is the same thing if a truther hated the govt and said I know they did it, let me research to prove it. Obviously biased. And it is not a oneway rd, fair debate requires consistent standards.

Your deplorable reading comprehension, combined with immaturity, has caused you to whine. Please don't whine. Read the relevant posts again, slowly, and not in the hope that you will see something that will make your blood boil, but for comprehension.

Be a winner, not a whiner. Okay?

 

[Without Rights]

Yet you refuse to cast your same non biased critical eye on truther arguments, you suck it all up, buy it all and pay homage to it all,why is that?

I don't, please quote me paying homage to truther side. I defend it because I don't believe it is crazy. To me it is just two theories for 1 event, very few facts are present on both sides. Only rhetoric.

Why will you not apply your non preconceived notion to analysing and evaluating this claims made by the truth movement?

That is actually why I joined jref. I am analyzing both arguments and it is alot of info and is time consuming.

Are you too lazy? Or do you just want to be seen a cool anti establishment dude?

You don't know me or what I have done. Are you really this egotistical?

You buy it all because you want to buy it all, you want to believe that your fellow Americans, planned, executed and cover up mass murder of 3000 of their own.

Nope, never said I "buy it", fabrication on your part.(again)

So you desperately look around and cling to any scarp of garbage pumped out by your fellow truthers.

Wrong again, more fabrication.

You cling to, knowing that you are not alone for to be so, would be terrifying to you.

Incoherent.

It is far better to pretend that everybody agrees with you and those that don't well, they are just not thinking for themselves are they?

That is the standard "skeptic" mantra.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Having their evidence thoroughly debunked is no problem for CT's. They'll just move on to their next piece of "evidence" and not even acknowledge that thay've been debunked. Eventually, after all their points have been debunked, they'll go right back to where they started and the cycle repeats itself.

Aye, I realise this. They are pretty much the same as creationists, with whom I have been debating for nigh on 20 years.

Maybe I'm just a masocist...

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Without Rights]

Your deplorable reading comprehension, combined with immaturity, has caused you to whine. Please don't whine. Read the relevant posts again, slowly, and not in the hope that you will see something that will make your blood boil, but for comprehension.

Be a winner, not a whiner. Okay?

Is me claiming bias whining? What part would you concider to be me whining?

 

[stateofgrace]

I don't, please quote me paying homage to truther side. I defend it because I don't believe it is crazy. To me it is just two theories for 1 event, very few facts are present on both sides. Only rhetoric.

Incorrect there is a mountain of facts on one side, there is zero facts or evidence on the other side. You support the zero fact side.

That is actually why I joined jref. I am analyzing both arguments and it is alot of info and is time consuming.

Well I offer you my congulations let me know when the truth sinks in.

You don't know me or what I have done. Are you really this egotistical?

No, my ego has nothing to do with my distaste of BS.

Nope, never said I "buy it", fabrication on your part.(again)

Really? Were you not stating only recently that lots and lots of people inside the military bought it all and believed that 911 was an inside job?

That is the standard "skeptic" mantra.

Maybe you could tell me, after all you are the only true skeptic here are you not ?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Aye, I realise this. They are pretty much the same as creationists, with whom I have been debating for nigh on 20 years.

Maybe I'm just a masocist...

Cheers,
TGHO

Strong with this one, the Force is.

A somewhat belated welcome, my good Wookie.

Hans

 

[Gravy]

Is me claiming bias whining? What part would you concider to be me whining?

I never thought it was possible to be able to write comprehensibly while being unable to read with comprehension, but you're making me question that belief.

Read the relevant posts again. Slowly. And stop whining. Please.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Is me claiming bias whining? What part would you concider to be me whining?

The part where you claim bias, when TGHO clearly states he has examined the evidence. You are whining because he is unimpressed with your evidence.

Hans

 

[Without Rights]

Incorrect there is a mountain of facts on one side, there is zero facts or evidence on the other side. You support the zero fact side.

What are some facts, don't tell me to search and read for myself because I have. What are these facts you speak of, and be paticular.

Well I offer you my congulations let me know when the truth sinks in.

Offer your facts to me and maybe you will be the one to persuade me. I try and try but nobody ever offers facts that they say they have.

No, my ego has nothing to do with my distaste of BS.

I believe you statement was

"Are you too lazy? Or do you just want to be seen a cool anti establishment dude?"

1st of all what BS? 2nd your quote above assumes that you are the final say on truth... very egotistical. You have an opinion, that's all. Unless you're gonna list those facts for me.

Really? Were you not stating only recently that lots and lots of people inside the military bought it all and believed that 911 was an inside job?

Yep, that is a fact. Notice I also said in the same thread that I don't nessasarly agree with them. I just agree that a independent investigation is needed since American citizens have issues and questions and they are not being represented fairly in the media or by politicians. It has become an internet issue and govt accountability is out the window.

Maybe you could tell me, after all you are the only true skeptic here are you not ?

I never said that. My position is that we do not know enough to come to a definitive conclusion and certainly don't know enough to call people kooks for questioning the Govt. Both sides are pretty much stone faced in thier OPINION. Both sides discount things with no real bases to discount them, other than rhetoric. Unless of course your ready to give me those facts.

 

[Without Rights]

The part where you claim bias, when TGHO clearly states he has examined the evidence. You are whining because he is unimpressed with your evidence.

Hans

My evidence? Please show me where I presented "my evidence" to him or anybody.

 

[Without Rights]

I never thought it was possible to be able to write comprehensibly while being unable to read with comprehension, but you're making me question that belief.

Read the relevant posts again. Slowly. And stop whining. Please.

Is stop whining all you got. Stop whining. Stop whining. Stop whining. Stop whining.

Ok is that enough yet or do you have something to actually say?

 

[DavidJames]

What are some facts, don't tell me to search and read for myself because I have. What are these facts you speak of, and be paticular.

So you've read the NIST and other engineering reports and you didn't find any facts? The FEMA report, the 9/11 commission reports, no facts? You're kidding right?

Further you've stated it's just two views of the same events. Why don't you point us to the tin hat version of NIST, FEMA, and 9/11 reports. You know the one's that includes an equivalent detailed analysis along with the names and credentials of people and organizations performing the analysis.

Thanks

 

[Without Rights]

Actually, I AM interested in the actual facts. And from what I have seen, read and discussed IRL, all the fact points to the commonly and widely accepted theory that Al'Qada was responsible.



No, I didn't say that. The US government - hell, any government - can and will perform covert operations against their own people if the motive, opportunity and pay offs are there, and are worth it. In this particular case (9/11), none of these three requirements can be shown to exist.

I've seen Loose Change. I've read CT wesbites. At first, I blinked and went "holy nostrils, what if there is some truth to this?". So I investigated. Researched. Spoke with experts via email and phone conversations. Examined the data. My first degree was in science, I am a trained scientist. Scientists like to look at data, and then draw conclusions. And the very clear, very resonable conclusions to draw from the mountains of evidence freely available is that the Bush Administration had nothing to do with the plot to slam the planes into those buildings. They may have missed warning signs, they may have not reacted as they should have, but this was not a conspiracy, but simply incompetence.

In the six years since 9/11, I've seen a myriad of CT'ers come up with simply crazy, asinine theories. All of which have been very effectively debunked. And yet CT'er STILL come up with the SAME DAMN THEORIES.

Sheesh. Grow a brain, people.

Cheers,
TGHO

So please give me the facts that draw this conclusion. Everybody says read for yourself. I have. I am not a CT because I have not drawn an opinion on the matter because I do not see any facts presented. What are these glorious facts please someone tell me, please.

 

[MRC_Hans]

My evidence? Please show me where I presented "my evidence" to him or anybody.

The evidence for your position, duh.

You said

You bias is apparent in that you believe US would never do it, so straight off the bat you discount thier points before you even hear them.

You talked about the truther evidence and claimed that it would convince. That not being convinced was a sign of bias.

Hans

 

[Without Rights]

So you've read the NIST and other engineering reports and you didn't find any facts? The FEMA report, the 9/11 commission reports, no facts? You're kidding right?

Further you've stated it's just two views of the same events. Why don't you point us to the tin hat version of NIST, FEMA, and 9/11 reports. You know the one's that includes an equivalent detailed analysis along with the names and credentials of people and organizations performing the analysis.

Thanks

I have read alot of them. I see another explaination but no facts. What are just 2 facts, thats easy right, 2 facts...ready....go.

 

[Without Rights]

The evidence for your position, duh.

My position is that there is a lack of evidence. You are the one that claimed evidence for me. Putting words in my mouth. Building strawmen. Duh

You talked about the truther evidence and claimed that it would convince. That not being convinced was a sign of bias.

Would you mind quoting me directly as saying truther evidence would convince. Oh, you can't because I didn't. Comprehension is key.

I said starting with the preconcieved notion that govt would never do such a thing is biased. How does this relay into saying truther evidence would convince?

 

[Pardalis]

How about answering the OP Without Rights?

What about the time discrepancy between the plane impact and the collapse of the towers?

Why did the conspirators wait? How did they manage to hold the explosives from igniting for an hour?