Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
AWSmith said:
Does it not disturb you to have your world view rejected?
Click to expand...

JihadJane said:
No.
Click to expand...

When one's worldview is based 100% on faith and 0% on evidence/science, why should one be disturbed when evidence/science rejects it? That which evidence played no role in contructing will never by disturbed by evidence.
 
Last edited:
240-185 said:
In one word, your plot is "trolling".
Click to expand...

Care to expand?

GStan said:
When one's worldview is based 100% on faith and 0% on evidence/science, why should one be disturbed when evidence/science rejects it? That which evidence played no role in contructing will never by disturbed by evidence.
Click to expand...

GStan, would it disturb you if your worldview was rejected?
 
Care to expand?
Click to expand...
Yup.
All I saw from your posts can be summarized in one sentence: "Debunkers are wrong, that shows a disturbed psychology, they're wrong, wrong, wrong, 'cause I say so". You're just bitching at debunkers. Nothing to say more about it as you don't say more than this sentence.
 
JihadJane said:
Care to expand?

GStan, would it disturb you if your worldview was rejected?
Click to expand...

It depends on who is rejecting it and why. For example, from all the "evidence" I've seen from the 9/11 Conspiracy movement in seven years, I've not been given even a moment's worth of alarm or pause that they reject ignore deny the evidence upon which my worldview has been built.
 
1337m4n said:
What is your "standard of evidence"? What do you want from us? What can we give you that would change your mind about 9/11?
Click to expand...

typical_cricket.gif
 
240-185 said:
Yup.
All I saw from your posts can be summarized in one sentence: "Debunkers are wrong, that shows a disturbed psychology, they're wrong, wrong, wrong, 'cause I say so". You're just bitching at debunkers. Nothing to say more about it as you don't say more than this sentence.
Click to expand...


By that definition virtually everyone posting on this site is trolling, with their continual bitching about how wrong and insane "twoofers" are. See above and below. My defintion of 'debunkers" was precisely inspired by it!
 
By that definition virtually everyone posting on this site is trolling, with their continual bitching about how wrong and insane "twoofers" are. See above and below. My defintion of 'debunkers" was precisely inspired by it!
Click to expand...
No. The main problem is that this definition does not apply to debunkers. We don't say "Troofers are wrong, that shows a disturbed psychology, they're wrong, wrong, wrong, 'cause we say so".

We say this: "Troofers are wrong, that shows a possible disturbed psychology, they're wrong, wrong, wrong, because they aren't right on this, this, and this, some evidences show they're wrong about it".
 
Last edited:
240-185 said:
No. The main problem is that this definition does not apply to debunkers. We don't say "Troofers are wrong, that shows a disturbed psychology, they're wrong, wrong, wrong, 'cause we say so".

We say this: "Troofers are wrong, that shows a possible disturbed psychology, they're wrong, wrong, wrong, because they aren't right on this, this, and this, some evidences show they're wrong about it".
Click to expand...

I get the impression that "twoofers" are called insane as often as wrong.

I present some factual information, above, about why the 911 Commission Report is not as thoroughly researched as Texas Jack asserts.

What you do not see, which is mysterious to an outsider, is that the evidence for your own story is remarkably thin on the ground and much of what there is is unbelievable.
 
Last edited:
I present some factual information, above, about why the 911 Commission Report is not as thoroughly researched as Texas Jack asserts.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's true, perhaps it's not. As for me, I'm focusing on the essential: 4 planes, hijacked by 19 guys, have crashed into two towers, a Pentagon, and somewhere in Shanksville. After all, the commission took place *after* the events.

What you do not see, which is mysterious to an outsider, is that the evidence for your own story is remarkably thin on the ground and much of what there is is unbelievable.
Click to expand...
So, what is "unbelievable" to you?
 
240-185 said:
No. The main problem is that this definition does not apply to debunkers. We don't say "Troofers are wrong, that shows a disturbed psychology, they're wrong, wrong, wrong, 'cause we say so".

We say this: "Troofers are wrong, that shows a possible disturbed psychology, they're wrong, wrong, wrong, because they aren't right on this, this, and this, some evidences show they're wrong about it".
Click to expand...

One thing this made me think of. One can believe that 9/11 did not happen in the manner described by what some refer to as the Official Story, and still not necessarily be crazy, or a twoofer. The reason twoofers are crazy is not because they believe 9/11 was an inside job. They are crazy because they will not acknowledge that the available evidence makes the "official story" the best explanation we have right now.

I'd have alot more respect for the truth movement if they simply had the intellectual integrity to admit that "Yes, based on the evidence that is available now, it appears as though 19 terrorists from the middle east used US commercial airplanes to attack NY and DC. I have a gut feeling that it didn't happen that way, and I will conduct further research to satisfy my gut instincts, but right now, it looks as though the "official story" is the best explanation."

If the T.M. has developed a better explanation, please share it.
 
JihadJane said:
That the US military/intelligence machine is so pathetically useless.
Click to expand...

Have you done any actual research on what military/intelligence protocol would have been on that day?

Have you done any actual research on all that the "machine" actually did do that day?

Do you have a detailed moment-by-moment theory that lays out specifically how the "machine" should have behaved on that day?

Have you done these things?

NO.

Or is your argument just a giant appeal to incredulity?

YES.
 
JihadJane said:
That the US military/intelligence machine is so pathetically useless.
Click to expand...

So, pretty much the United States is invincible, and it is impossible to be attacked, unless the attack is made by the government itself or allowed to happen purposely?

It couldn't be that a bunch of pissed off Muslims came up with an ingenious plan that exploited known weaknesses, did a good job of keeping it a secret beforehand, and executed it well?
 
dtugg said:
It couldn't be that a bunch of pissed off Muslims came up with an ingenious plan that exploited known weaknesses, did a good job of keeping it a secret beforehand, and executed it well?
Click to expand...

What was "ingenious" about their plan?
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
What was "ingenious" about their plan?
Click to expand...

How they exploited known weakness in security and protocol to take over the planes. They knew that they could bring box cutters and small knives on the plane to take it over. They knew that the passengers and crew wouldn't try to fight back back, especially because of the fake bombs. The only hitch in the plan was beyond their control; Flight 93 took off late so the passengers had time to figure out the whole situation and stop them before the plane reached its target.

And I really can't think of away for terrorists with their means to cause more death, destruction, and terror than by turning large passenger jets filled with fuel into guided missiles.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom