Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
RedIbis said:
It must be nice to conflate a large group of unrelated people, assume they all think the same things, ascribe the same beliefs to them, label them and hold each of them responsible for whatever one of them says or does.
Click to expand...

Isn't that pretty much what you do where "debunkers" are concerned?
 
RedIbis said:
It must be nice to conflate a large group of unrelated people, assume they all think the same things, ascribe the same beliefs to them, label them and hold each of them responsible for whatever one of them says or does.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't assume they think the SAME things. I assume that they, as a group, fall into two categories:

1. People who are demonstrably wrong about 9/11 (about .0001 percent of truthers)
2. People who refuse to say what they believe about 9/11 and simply argue (about 99.999 percent of truthers)

You're a 2.
 
tempesta29 said:
It's nice to see all the trolls downplay this one. It really highlights just where their heads are. That's called getting 'defensive'.
Click to expand...

tempesta29 said:
Seriously the apologizing from your kind has ventured into comic territory.
Click to expand...

tempesta29 said:
Once again, official story dupes have trouble maintaining a conversation without injecting red herrings.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
It must be nice to conflate a large group of unrelated people, assume they all think the same things, ascribe the same beliefs to them, label them and hold each of them responsible for whatever one of them says or does.

You realize that this is actually the opposite of logical discourse.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
twinstead said:
Isn't that pretty much what you do where "debunkers" are concerned?
Click to expand...

Show me where I've ever conflated "debunkers" as believing all the same thing or all having entirely the same mindset. I'm assuming posters are individuals, with diverse backgrounds and perspectives.

Truther is a label used by lazy people in an attempt to demonize a monolith that doesn't exist.
 
RedIbis said:
Truther is a label used by lazy people in an attempt to demonize a monolith that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

"Truthers" is a label created by conspiracy theorists to lionize their own place in society. It sounded much better than "wild speculationers".

Personally, I use it as a sign of respect. I could easily say "troofers" or "twoofies", but there is no sense antagonizing them any more than necessary.
 
RedIbis said:
Except I don't.
Click to expand...

Sure you do.

The whole No Claimer thing is ppppllllaaaaaaaaaayyyed Red.

On the other hand many Truthers are willing to back up their claims.

You, however, are not.

So maybe it is an insult to to the dogs to compare them to you, huh?
 
RedIbis said:
Show me where I've ever conflated "debunkers" as believing all the same thing or all having entirely the same mindset. I'm assuming posters are individuals, with diverse backgrounds and perspectives.

Truther is a label used by lazy people in an attempt to demonize a monolith that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

So there is no group of people who believe the government is lying about 9/11?
 
Redtail said:
So there is no group of people who believe the government is lying about 9/11?
Click to expand...

You won't want to admit it, but there's a very large group of people who doubt the official account of 9/11. They come from many countries, with many different political beliefs. In fact, other than a healthy skepticism towards a very improbable story, they likely don't have much in common at all.
 
RedIbis said:
You won't want to admit it, but there's a very large group of people who doubt the official account of 9/11. They come from many countries, with many different political beliefs. In fact, other than a healthy skepticism towards a very improbable story, they likely don't have much in common at all.
Click to expand...

You won't want to admit it, but there's a very large group of people who thought that the world was going to end last weekend. They come from many countries, with many different political beliefs. In fact, other than being complete idiots, they likely don't have much in common at all.

/"very large" lulz.
 
Besides so far not offering an alternative explanation that comes even close to plausible?
 
Thunder said:
yeah, you got a better one based on actual evidence?
Click to expand...

My theory is that due to geo-political reasons, members of the Bush administration, including Rumsfeld were not telling the whole truth and prevented a thorough and comprehensive investigation into 9/11.
 
16.5 said:
You won't want to admit it, but there's a very large group of people who thought that the world was going to end last weekend. They come from many countries, with many different political beliefs. In fact, other than being complete idiots, they likely don't have much in common at all.

/"very large" lulz.
Click to expand...

I bet few if any were atheist, Jewish, Muslim or liberal. What a horrible analogy.
 
paperboy05 said:
At the risk of being a newbie and taking this thread OT; what exactly is the "probable story" of 9/11 if the official story is improbable?
Click to expand...

I've asked every truther here that and never got an answer. It seems to defeat the object of of the 'truth' movement if they won't tell you what they think that the 'truth' is.
 
RedIbis said:
You won't want to admit it, but there's a very large group of people who doubt the official account of 9/11. They come from many countries, with many different political beliefs. In fact, other than a healthy skepticism towards a very improbable story, they likely don't have much in common at all.
Click to expand...

Apart from being divorced from reality?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom