Breaking News! 9/11 Mastermind confesses

skepticalcriticalguy said:
I's like to know a conspiracy theory that you believe could be true. Vince Foster? Drugs through Clinton's Mena? Wellstone? JFK? Tonkin? Anything? (Skip Watergate, please).
Click to expand...
any of them "could" be true, but it's facts and evidence which will determine whether they are true.

That's the difference between you and normal people.
 
DavidJames said:
any of them "could" be true, but it's facts and evidence which will determine whether they are true.

That's the difference between you and normal people.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of facts and lots of evidence for all those. But apparently, not enough. Either that, or there is enough, but the teevee and paper didn't bother to tell us.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
I's like to know a conspiracy theory that you believe could be true. Vince Foster? Drugs through Clinton's Mena? Wellstone? JFK? Tonkin? Anything? (Skip Watergate, please).
Click to expand...

  • Iran/Contra
  • Overthrowing Allende in Chile
  • Castro assassination attempts
Not saying that they are all true - just that they could well be. This is because

  1. They are inherently plausible.
  2. They have evidence to support them.
I have no definitive lists of conspiracies which are credible, and which are nonsense. There's a spectrum there. In the case of 911 theories, it's not inherently absurd that the US government has information which it isn't sharing. It's not credible that the WTC was deliberately demolished. It's completely ludicrous that the WTC was dissolved by satellite laser weapons.
 
Nice sidestep. Newton's laws are "just a theory", but on the whole I'm regularly happy to entrust them with my safety. Is the official account a conspiracy theory? If it is, then it's one the debunkers believe "could be true", so we're not as closed minded as you want to portray us. If it isn't, then you can't claim equivalence with the fantasies of the truth movement. Your choice.
Click to expand...
Well, that was the most opened minded statement I heard yet. Usually the official account is defended as fact here, with anyone questioning it being labelled crazy.

And if he meant "conspiracies executed by the US Government", why didn't he say so? Are there no other conspiracy theories? (Hint: A-Train's parachuting invIsraelis, Diana conspiracy theories, David Carmichael's endless ravings about the USS Liberty.)
Click to expand...
Ok, maybe he meant Government conspiracies and not just US. I know he didn't mean terrorists becauase I pay attention to context.

Are you speaking for SkepticalCriticalGuy now?
Click to expand...
No. I speak for myself, that's why I started the sentence with "I think", I meaning me.
 
Sorry, you already answered the US Government question. Tonkin Gulf could be true, I don't know enough to be certain either way. JFK, no. The rest you list, I don't know. Allende, quite possibly. Castro assassination, looks reasonable though stupid. Pearl Harbor/FDR, not in a million years, it's just too stupid a premise and all the evidence is against it. Churchill/Coventry, possible but not reasonable in the light of the evidence, I don't believe it. Iran/Contra, yes, quite plausible. Reichstag, looks like no despite the awfulness of the supposed culprit. Chemtrails, don't be stupid. Moon landings, ditto. Watergate... no, just yanking your chain.

Bottom line, I'll believe it if the evidence says yes, I'll believe it could be true if there's virtually no evidence, I'll disbelieve it if the evidence says no. 9-11, the evidence doesn't just say no, it says
NO!

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Sorry, you already answered the US Government question. Tonkin Gulf could be true, I don't know enough to be certain either way. JFK, no. The rest you list, I don't know. Allende, quite possibly. Castro assassination, looks reasonable though stupid. Pearl Harbor/FDR, not in a million years, it's just too stupid a premise and all the evidence is against it. Churchill/Coventry, possible but not reasonable in the light of the evidence, I don't believe it. Iran/Contra, yes, quite plausible. Reichstag, looks like no despite the awfulness of the supposed culprit. Chemtrails, don't be stupid. Moon landings, ditto. Watergate... no, just yanking your chain.

Bottom line, I'll believe it if the evidence says yes, I'll believe it could be true if there's virtually no evidence, I'll disbelieve it if the evidence says no. 9-11, the evidence doesn't just say no, it says
NO!

Dave
Click to expand...

What evidence is definitive enough to give you an astounding no on 911?

Or JFK?
 
Last edited:
Without Rights said:
What evidence is definitive enough to give you an astounding no on 911?
Click to expand...

The totality of it. Did you mean "resounding"? I don't think there's anything particularly astounding in the conclusion that 911 wasn't an inside job, though I suspect you may disagree.

Or JFK?
Click to expand...

Just a reqular sized no on JFK. Not really on-topic for this thread.

Dave
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
There are plenty of facts and lots of evidence for all those. But apparently, not enough. Either that, or there is enough, but the teevee and paper didn't bother to tell us.
Click to expand...
You don't know if there's more evidence, because it doesn't show up on television or in the newspapers? Are those really your only two sources of information? Geez, most nuts stick to the Internet exclusively.
 
 
westprog said:
  • Iran/Contra
  • Overthrowing Allende in Chile
  • Castro assassination attempts
Not saying that they are all true - just that they could well be. This is because
  1. They are inherently plausible.
  2. They have evidence to support them.
I have no definitive lists of conspiracies which are credible, and which are nonsense. There's a spectrum there. In the case of 911 theories, it's not inherently absurd that the US government has information which it isn't sharing. It's not credible that the WTC was deliberately demolished. It's completely ludicrous that the WTC was dissolved by satellite laser weapons.
Click to expand...

Therefore the LIHOP theory is credible, right?

Thanks for the logic, at last!

Busherie
 
busherie said:
Therefore the LIHOP theory is credible, right?

Thanks for the logic, at last!

Busherie
Click to expand...
Are you LIHOP now? So that means no CD of WTC 1, 2, and 7, no faked crash at Shanksville, no flyover of the pentagon, no missiles at GZ or the Pentagon, no remote controlled planes, no pods, etc etc, right?
 
I find one thing really funny about this whole thing...

It's the way people are reacting. People like truthers, and the columnist MaGZ linked to.

I've known his name for years. I've known that he has had his sticky fingers in dozens of terrorist attacks for years. It comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that he is responsible for lots of actual and attempted attacks.

I find it funny that many people seem to think this guy was just suddenly presented, randomly claiming responsibility, out of the blue.

One might almost be inclined to think these people had never heard of KSM before.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom