Former conspiracy believer here

[RedIbis]

He has made a correct evaluation; you support 9/11 truth, you thus become a liar after pushing the lies of 9/11 truth. It is based on logic, your posts, and the fact you use no facts or evidence to support your support of 9/11 truth or even your own ideas on 9/11. He is using knowledge and judgment to tell you his conclusion; you should try it sometime soon. (plus you post without using facts)

You should try bringing facts to this debate, it is not faith or politics, it is an event. Facts? You could try using them. But then you would be a former truther. Oops, better skip the facts if you want to maintain your status.

I see you didn't take my request for specificity too seriously. Any direct response to your posts will be for sporting purposes only.

 

[jhunter1163]

Well then that's one more lie you believe....

Nominated. As good a story of "coming in out of the dark" as I've read.

 

[pomeroo]

WTC 7.

Remember, not one conspiracy liar has yet managed to fit the collapse of building 7 into the imaginary conspiracy's grand scheme to do whatever it was supposed to do.

 

[Brainache]

For sure. The NWO, for want of a better term, constructed a terrorist cell to carry out the attacks as part of a globalist agenda to keep people locked into the whole us and them thing. No more evil Russians, it's time for evil terrorists. Divide and rule.

WTC 7 fell down because the structure weakened through fire.

Nick

So Nick, are you saying that radical Islamist terrorists don't exist? Are all of those suicide bombers etc just patsies of the evil West? Are you saying that they couldn't organise themselves without assistance from the CIA (or whoever)?

If so, it sounds a bit racist. If not, please explain just what it is that you are saying.

Just saying that the World Bank or the IMF are more interested in making a profit than improving the lives of the poor is no great revelation to me and neither is it proof of some world domination conspiracy. Just bankers doing their usual stuff.

 

[shuize]

It was great he picked the dustified beam weapon one; Judy. very funny

It's too bad I didn't know her story at the time. I would have really enjoyed hearing him try and walk me through all the complexities involved with such an incredibly amazing weapon -- Just so I could then have respond with:

"Wow. That's really f-cking retarded."

As I've discovered, mocking him is the quickest way to make him lose his sh-t.

 

[pomeroo]

If there's no explanation for the collapse, how does the collapse support a conspiracy?

In order for the collapse to support a conspiracy, one would have to explain how it collapsed.

Now, wait a minute! Red Ibis is a conspiracy liar. He doesn't do logic. He peddles falsehoods. Show a little consideration, willya?

 

[pomeroo]

If WTC 7 didn't completely collapse due to debris from the falling towers and the ensuing small fires, then something else brought it down.

Explanations are very popular here, and there are some good sounding ones, but I prefer evidence.

Now, that's funny!

 

[RedIbis]

Remember, not one conspiracy liar has yet managed to fit the collapse of building 7 into the imaginary conspiracy's grand scheme to do whatever it was supposed to do.

Are you kidding me? Do your research. There's any number of theories as to how and why WTC 7 needed to be demo'd.

I'm not one to speculate and stay completely away from anything that contains the letters N,W,O, but such theories are very much promoted, the ridiculous to the plausible.

 

[e^n]

Are you kidding me? Do your research. There's any number of theories as to how and why WTC 7 needed to be demo'd.

I'm not one to speculate and stay completely away from anything that contains the letters N,W,O, but such theories are very much promoted, the ridiculous to the plausible.

There are two theories I know of

"WTC7 was the control centre", this is usually referring to judy wood style beam weapons or radio controlled planes

"They needed to get rid of data", which doesn't hold up to scrutiny (set a fire, use a shredder etc)

 

[RedIbis]

Now, that's funny!

Glad you got a chuckle out of it. I don't find the fact that NIST has not provided a conclusive report on WTC 7 all that funny.

The evidence I have read about, such as reported by WPI, suggests other possibilities.

 

[RedIbis]

There are two theories I know of

"WTC7 was the control centre", this is usually referring to judy wood style beam weapons or radio controlled planes

"They needed to get rid of data", which doesn't hold up to scrutiny (set a fire, use a shredder etc)

Well, if you are presenting only two possibilities than you are committing the fallacy of the false dilemma.

The occupants of the bldg and the OEM have nothing to do with space beams.

If "data" was intentionally destroyed, I hope you do realize that they had computers, servers and databases in 01, not just paper.

 

[danielk]

It's too bad I didn't know her story at the time. I would have really enjoyed hearing him try and walk me through all the complexities involved with such an incredibly amazing weapon -- Just so I could then respond with: "Wow. That's really f-cking retarded."

I tend to get angry when it comes to enduring twoofers on screen, but after having watched Judy Wood's interview with Greg Jenkins, I only felt sorry for her. I believe in her case it really is a medical condition. That interview was just... bizarre. Jenkins was really sympathetic to her, but even he was visibly dumbfounded. It's just sad.

 

[Minadin]

I think you mean Greg Jenkins, perhaps? I can't think of a time I've seen Dr. Greening on TV or interviewing Ms. Wood. If there's a video out there I don't know about, I'd like to see it.

 

[beachnut]

I see you didn't take my request for specificity too seriously. Any direct response to your posts will be for sporting purposes only.

and further posts to your posts will only be made if you have some facts to back up your fantasy bs

I think this is the last post to you; you will not, have not, nor ever will post a fact to support conclusion on 9/11. Does this mean I will win the mil?
Seriously, you never have facts. As I predict, when you start using facts and evidence to support your conclusion on 9/11, you will post an OP like this; until you gain knowledge and judgment; hope it comes soon; just like in the OP.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

. . .but I prefer evidence.

No, you don't. That is blatantly obvious from your posting history on this board. The vast majority of your posts are rife with paranoid speculation and personal incredulity. This is all available for anyone to see. Please stop trying to fool people, especially yourself.

 

[danielk]

I think you mean Greg Jenkins, perhaps? I can't think of a time I've seen Dr. Greening on TV or interviewing Ms. Wood. If there's a video out there I don't know about, I'd like to see it.

Oops, my bad. You are right of course, I meant Jenkins not Greening.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And again, I never called you a liar. I questioned the sincerity of your OP.

Bermas... Is that you?

 

[Corsair 115]

So, without evidence, you prefer a more complex explanation for a given phenomenon to a simpler one.

Indeed. It's Occam's Rube Goldberg over Occam's Razor...

There is an astounding amount of coincidence and incompetence that has to occur for the official story to be true.

Care to make a detailed list of this supposedly "astounding" amount of coincidences and incompetence?

And as to coincidences, guess what, unlikely things happen all the time. Entire battles have turned on a just a few moments of good luck for one side. Check out the Battle of Midway for a great example. A Japanese scout plane was a half-hour late taking off — had it launched on time, it would have found the U.S. carriers and alerted the Japanese and quite possibly they wouldn't have been caught with loaded aircraft on their decks. Later in the battle a Japanese scout plane found the U.S. carriers — but its radio failed and it couldn't transmit a message. The scout had to fly back to its carrier to report what it had found. What are the chances that the radio of a scout plane would fail at such a crucial moment? But that's exactly what happened.

Random chance plays its role in major events.

 

[Diagoras]

In the future you might consider using the quote function, that way you could prove your outrageous charge of mendacity.

Can't you take some scrutiny of your OP? Isn't that the whole point of a debate forum?

You didn't scrutinize the content of my OP. You just accused me of completely fabricating the story, i.e. you accused me of being a liar. If you're an honest, decent individual, you will own up and apologize. Or you can go on calling me a liar. I honestly don't care. You've lost all respect and credibility in my eyes. But don't expect any more responses from me until I get an apology for these posts:

Your first post in this thread:

This is an obvious work. The reasons are too many to list.

Your second post:

Seriously, how do you guys not see that this is just an obvious work?

Some more:

The tone of the OP and the vague details make your intent obvious.

I'm sticking to my original theory that you were never a "conspiracy believer" as you call it, but someone who thought that this would be some clever way to make the "twoofers" look dumb.

 

[Pardalis]

Call me a liar if you will. It only enhances my confidence that you're willing to deny reality to go on believing what you want to believe. The conspiracy to you is so obviously true that you don't think somebody who had intimate knowledge of it could give that belief up. I understand that. I used to believe that myself. It was inconceivable that I could ever deny the evidence which at the time seemed so clear to me. But I came to the understanding that I was mistaken, and I sincerely hope that you do as well. It is a humbling and maturing experience.

Damn you're good.