Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Careful, Bill. That's close to a personal attack, which is a breach of your membership agreement.

Or are you trying to burn your bridges, since you've painted yourself into a corner with your belief in "Bush's conspiracy theories"?
 
orphia nay said:
Careful, Bill. That's close to a personal attack, which is a breach of your membership agreement.

Or are you trying to burn your bridges, since you've painted yourself into a corner with your belief in "Bush's conspiracy theories"?
Click to expand...

I don't think that that's close to a personal attack Orphia ? I've uffered much worse myself without complaint.
In what way have I painted myself into a corner on the subject of the Bush adminisration having deliberately started the conspiracy theories themselves ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I don't think that that's close to a personal attack Orphia ? I've uffered much worse myself without complaint.
In what way have I painted myself into a corner on the subject of the Bush adminisration having deliberately started the conspiracy theories themselves ?
Click to expand...

It's close. I didn't say it WAS a personal attack.

You've painted yourself into a corner by not believing that a myriad of evidence proves the conspiracies are myths and instead you believe that Bush, the Satan of most 9/11 CT believers, has created the myths and you still believe them!

If you can't understand that, you are beyond help.

Care to reach out for a helping hand? Most people here are very forgiving.

Where do you go from here?
 
orphia nay said:
It's close. I didn't say it WAS a personal attack.

You've painted yourself into a corner by not believing that a myriad of evidence proves the conspiracies are myths and instead you believe that Bush, the Satan of most 9/11 CT believers, has created the myths and you still believe them!

If you can't understand that, you are beyond help.

Care to reach out for a helping hand? Most people here are very forgiving.

Where do you go from here?
Click to expand...

You can name nothing specific then ? That's a positive sign for the theory. For the rest you are just saying that I'm a nutty conspiracy theorist which I've heard before believe it or not.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
You can name nothing specific then ? That's a positive sign for the theory. For the rest you are just saying that I'm a nutty conspiracy theorist which I've heard before believe it or not.
Click to expand...

This is a classic example of a bill smith post - as is the earlier (rather incompetent) one Orphia Nay highlighted as a personal attack - in that it doesn't actually follow in any way whatsoever from the post it purports to reply to. I sometimes wonder, when we type messages into this forum, what is it that bill smith actually sees?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
This is a classic example of a bill smith post - as is the earlier (rather incompetent) one Orphia Nay highlighted as a personal attack - in that it doesn't actually follow in any way whatsoever from the post it purports to reply to. I sometimes wonder, when we type messages into this forum, what is it that bill smith actually sees?

Dave
Click to expand...

Sigh....just to be clear let's look at that again:-

Dave wrote
Given that there still aren't any [conspiracy theories] worth speaking of, I can't argue with that.

Bill answered
You should engage your brain before you start to write Dave.
That way you won't make comments that anybody can instantly see through.


I indicated that this post of Dave's was a stupid one for the following reasons:-

1. If he means that there are no conspiracy theories then I think we can all say that that is not true.

2. If he means that said conpiracy theories are not worth speaking of then what about the huge number of posts he has made here on the conspiracy forum going back some years ?

I hope that is clear.
 
Last edited:
bill, I still don't understand how you can have such unwavering faith in your religion yet be convinced that the devil invented it. You probably have the worst case of cognitive dissonance ever recorded. Seriously. Ever.
 
bill smith said:
2. If he means that said conpiracy theories are not worth speaking of then what about the huge number of posts he has made here on the conspiracy forum going back some years ?
Click to expand...

I think they have been, for the most part, a total waste of time. It's my time, and my choice to waste it in that manner, but I'm under no illusions that arguing with a group who ignore rational argument is somehow worthwhile. Entertainment value is, these days, the only value this forum possesses.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think they have been, for the most part, a total waste of time. It's my time, and my choice to waste it in that manner, but I'm under no illusions that arguing with a group who ignore rational argument is somehow worthwhile. Entertainment value is, these days, the only value this forum possesses.

Dave
Click to expand...

You have your version of 'rational' and I have mine Dave. One thing you got right though......there are lots of laughs ahead. lol
 
bill smith,

I posted this...

Cl1mh4224rd said:
I'm curious as to what information you believe you've presented that can act as any kind of solid foundation for rational, logical thought regarding your belief that the 9/11 Truth Movement is a creation of the U.S. government.

As it is, you're essentially asking us to use our imagination.
Click to expand...


...and you responded with this...

bill smith said:
The conspiracy theories would have come nyway so they had nothing to lose by bringing them forward and they had everything to gain. Personally I think they thought the school thing and a few media reports would be enough. But people were mostly so shocked by the attacks that they were not thinkng straight and didn't pick up on the clues. Then they tried Rumsfeld in the Pentagon missle thing and finally in desperation, Bush at the UN. It was actually 2003 before the heavy duty populist conspiracy theories got going around the time of Charlie Sheen.
Click to expand...


Your speculations and daydreams don't qualify as useful information on which to begin a rational and logical discussion of your topic. They're far more useful for anyone attempting to assess your mental state, but that's not the topic.

You asked us to think about a topic for which you provided no real or useful information to act as a launching point for rational, logical discussion. What made you think an actual discussion was even possible? Perhaps we can talk rationally about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
They were very heavy handed in the laying of clues. And why ? Because they absolutely had to generate the image of a '9/11 conspiracy theorist' as quickly as possible before any credible people could come out with questions. If that had hapened before the template was laid down then they might be taken seriously. Afterards ? They could be associated immediately with 'conspiracy theorists' Elvis and Bigfoot long with the faked Moon landings and the JFK conspiracy. Not only that- the potential whistleblowers themselves would then be very reluctant to come forward for fear of being branded.
Of course the media was there to beat the conspiracy theory drum of ridicule. Do you guys recognise the Bigfoot and Elvis thing in your own technique ? Of course you do. You have been playing the fish game.
http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php
Click to expand...

So for 8 years Bill has been chasing a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory and can continue to question 911.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom