• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hustler woo

can we put some type of organization into this, since we're falling victim to the CLASSIC WOO tactic. He asks questions, we question him back, he jumps to anotehr subject/claim, then we refute, he doesn't aknowledge and jumps to another subject


Please ONE person at a time and until that person's question is answered, do not FALL into this trap again. We've seen it with PDOH and his socks and Chris and 28th.


So, the ONLY question that should be answered from this POINT DOWN is by SkepticGuy


did you READ the nist and the 911 commission reports?

IF YOU DID NOT, then do no reply until you have done so. When you are READY, post a question in a NEW Thread about anything in those reports you need clarification on.



AGain guys, We are falling into the CLASSIC WOO tactic.....we have to stop this.
 
I haven't even read Reynolds and Woods theory. But I will soon. Have any of you really read it?


Funny I never mentioned Reynolds and Wood. Did judy. (you are funny)

I have had enough of them. If you find value in their work, hide out until you go to college and work hard for 4 years on some engineering degree.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
This so-called "skepticalcriticalguy" is obviously a sockpuppet.

Something about his writing style seems familiar to me, and the name I came up with was:

Morphology

Thoughts?
 
Have you guys here proven that Bin Laden orchestrated the attacks? I'd like to read that. I think Robert Mueller might be interested in reading that, too. I've been looking for a thread, but can't find it yet. (I'm learning my way around).

You were asked a question Kind of unfair of you to ask one of anybody here until you answer the one asked of you first. Here is a repost of it.

Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.
 
Well, I asked first. (wink) Being that this is a skeptics group, I would assume that everybody here is, or at least was initially, skeptical of the Bin Laden theory. Until proven. Am I wrong?

I guess I'm trying to find out what it is that the skeptics here are skeptical of. Is it anything that can't be backed up with evidence/proof? Or just anything that is counter to the "conventional wisdom." (e.g. the official government version).
Is there any reason you are avoiding a direct question? Can you answer what you were asked?

Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.
 
OK, nice, gotcha on that. (I mean, gotcha, not I gotcha). That's a good thought, but I doubt this debate is going away any time soon. While the world burns.

Again, just let them (us, I still think there's more to the story than meets the eye on 9/11) implode and collapse. If there's nothing to see, then move along, and let us waste our time and lives on nothing.

Does that make sense?

It makes no sense that you would bother to come here to deliver that little message, no. As long as you twoofers spout BS to people, we will be here to counter your BS. If you've come here to tell those of us who rely upon facts and evidence - instead of woo - to leave you poor little misguided twoofers alone, I fear you're on a fool's errand as it appears you have no idea about why we do what we do.

Skeptics here do what we do for a myriad of reasons, some of which follow. I do not purport to speak for others, and I'm not likely to touch upon all of the reasons of all of the members here, but you'll get the idea and others will correct me or add to what I say if I've left something out or misrepresnted anything. (Because around here, that's what we do. We don't just jump on a bandwagon and cheerlead like the vast majority of the twoof movement adherents are wont to do.)

We do this because we don't like to see people misled by BS, which is all that the twoof "movement" feeds people. We do this because we don't like seeing twoofers disparage the family members of those who died that day. We do this because we will not leave unchallenged the attempts of the twoof "movement" to label everyone who doesn't buy into their unsubstantiated nonsense as "disinfo", "agents", "government shills", etc. We do this because critical thinking is important, so vitally important, and the twoof movement encourages the exact opposite - mindless followers who do not think at all.

We do this because thinking, research, facts, and evidence are important - vitally important - and the twoof movement waves away facts and reality and science and critical thinking as though they matter not a whit.

We do this because we don't like seeing woowoos trying to convince people that they should blindly follow morons like those that are embraced by you twoofers as demi-gods. We do this because lurkers and fence sitters need to see twoofers exposed for what they are, and because we want lurkers and fence sitters to see that facts, evidence, science, proof, expertise, knowledge and experience not only matter but are orders of magnitude above the alternative espoused by the twoof movement (blind belief, blind following, lack of ability or incentive to think, lack of ability or incentive to research, lack of ability or incentive to consult experts, lack of ability or incentive to become experts, etc.)

And mostly, we do this because we find the behaviour of twoofers utterly despicable when they accuse innocent people of mass murder; because we find it utterly despicable that twoofers suggest that firefighters and other first responders were "in on it" or that they are too scared to speak up for their deceased brothers and sisters; because we find the lies of the twoof movement morally repugnant; because we find it reprehensible that twoofers laugh - literally - at the heroic efforts of thoroughly decent people who died that day, in order to further the twoofers' own goals, financial and otherwise; because we never lose sight of the fact that real people died that day. Not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, not just a number on a piece of paper, but real people. And because the deceased left behind other real people, also victims - not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, but real people. Twoofers disparage these innocent victims and their families every day.

That last paragraph is reason enough all on its own for skeptics and critical thinkers to take it upon themselves to rail against twoofers. I'm surprised you had to ask.

There is much more, of course, but it's late and that will have to do for now.
 
Last edited:
I'm still deciding whether I want to bother earning my stripes here. I'm trying to find out what this is about. Somebody at another board recommended I drop by.

That said, I am intrigued by the many recent articles in the "alternate" media that discuss the possibility that we have a Mossad-riddled Pentagon and State Dept. But I see if anybody even shows an interest in discussing that topic here, they are ridiculed and accused of blaming "the jooooooooooose." (Was that too many o's?)

So, no theory at this point; just reading and learning. I trust everybody here continues to read and learn.

That didn't answer the question. Answer the question or admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Name an "alternate" theory that has not yet been debunked. Be a good way to earn your stripes here.
 
Don't you think that huge corporate media outlets, owned by defense contractors and citizens of other nations, have a glaring agenda? Equal to or greater than the "alternative" outlets you listed?


I'm more inclined to trust the mig conglomerate than the little independent.

An enormous international corporation has literally hundreds of little companies under its umbrella in a wide variety of areas. It's simply not possible for the "owners" of the company to actually micromanage every single company and make sure EVERY thing they do is precisely what they want it to do.

In contrast, in a little independent media outlet, it's very easy for the owner to directly control everything that comes out of it - for exampe the owner could also be the company's ONLY editor.

In contrast, how many editors do you suppose are employed by, say, News Corp (Rupert Murdoch)? Well they have about 50,000 employees, so I'd say it's safe to estimate hundreds of editors work for the company. They own about 50 newspapers.

Do you honestly believe Murdoch personally approves (or is even aware of) every single article run by any of these newspapers?

If News Corp isn't big enough for you, how about General Electric with over 300,000 employees?

Now let's compare that to PrisonPlanet.com owned by Alex Jones. Not only does Alex Jones oversee all facets of his small company, but he personally writes a great deal of the material!

So, who do you think has more direct real control over the content released by their company?

People like Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Immelt (CEO of GE), or people like Alex Jones?

-Gumboot
 
Well, shucks; I've been typing the whole time. You are an impatient lot, I see. I'm going to write this, then go for a beer. When I get back and read all your attacks and snide comments, which I'm fairly certain will take up a page or two here, I will have learned a lot about each of you, and what your thinking patterns are like. I doubt I'll have time to respond to everybody's requests for proof.
Wizard...I mean dough boy...I mean pdoh...what the heck are you doing back here....D'oh

:dl:
 
We supported UBL and now he does not like us?
You know I never really understood why woowoos think this is an impossibility or even an improbability. I mean Sadat supported militant islam against the pending Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Wasn't it those he fed (radical islam) that bit the hand that fed them? The US should have learned from that but we supported OBL (and through him radical islam) and after the Soviets left Afghanistan why should we be surprised that he turned on us?
 
An enormous international corporation has literally hundreds of little companies under its umbrella in a wide variety of areas. It's simply not possible for the "owners" of the company to actually micromanage every single company and make sure EVERY thing they do is precisely what they want it to do.
gumboot, I think this is a strawman. The owners do not have to "micromange every single company". All they have to do is set policy at the executive level and promote or fire managers/executives for their ability to implement "corporate policy". No micromangement is necessary.

In contrast, in a little independent media outlet, it's very easy for the owner to directly control everything that comes out of it - for exampe the owner could also be the company's ONLY editor.
True, but self-defeating. How much influence does "a little independent media outlet" have in the face of a multi-media conglomorate?

Do you honestly believe Murdoch personally approves (or is even aware of) every single article run by any of these newspapers?
No. But see above. You've never heard of corporate policy before?

If News Corp isn't big enough for you, how about General Electric with over 300,000 employees?
Excellent example. Now, find me ONE example of NBC (which is owned by GE) publishing one story critical of nuclear power.

So, who do you think has more direct real control over the content released by their company? People like Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Immelt (CEO of GE), or people like Alex Jones?
It is a strawman: Do you really think Jones has the same media reach as NewsCorp and GE?
 
gumboot, I think this is a strawman. The owners do not have to "micromange every single company". All they have to do is set policy at the executive level and promote or fire managers/executives for their ability to implement "corporate policy". No micromangement is necessary.


I disagree. I believe micromanagement IS necessary for the sort of scenario CTers suggest - that being that media outlets are nothing more than giant propaganda generating machines for the sole benefit of those that own them.

Bias, not touching specific topics, etc... okay, I can see that being a normal part of a conglomerate (though I'd disagree on how far up the chain of command such guidelines originate) but that's not what CTers are talking about.



True, but self-defeating. How much influence does "a little independent media outlet" have in the face of a multi-media conglomorate?


I don't see how that's relevant.


No. But see above. You've never heard of corporate policy before?

As above. Corporate policy doesn't account for the scenario proposed by CTers. That's like a CTer claiming no govt. employees would blow the whistle on 9/11 because of "government policy".



Excellent example. Now, find me ONE example of NBC (which is owned by GE) publishing one story critical of nuclear power.

Well I did a quick look, and I found a couple of articles that are very balanced, but I think, weighted AGAINST the nuclear industry. One recounts the Yucca Mountain dumping site, the other some weasily tactics by a Senator and lobbyist for the nuclear industry.

Nuclear Waste: No Way Out? and From Senate Job to Nuclear Lobbyist - twice.


It is a strawman: Do you really think Jones has the same media reach as NewsCorp and GE?

As before, I don't see how this is relevant.

-Gumboot
 
By the way: Does someone know if this one is true? :

111074543b902d0828.jpg
 
By the way: Does someone know if this one is true? :

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/111074543b902d0828.jpg[/qimg]


Why would Newsweek be published in English in Europe, Asia, or Latin America?

-Gumboot
 
I would have (still might) reply to the post where it was brought up. Maybe I'll spare you all. But I was told (lectured?) that the NIST, FEMA, and Warren Commission reports are the status quo. What did all of you use as your basis for argument before those reports came out?
This is your problem scg. You, and every other truther* who has come here, has a complete inability to pick one topic and stick to it.

You haven't yet posted one fact that supports your 9/11 CT, and now you want to start talking about the JFK assasination?

Do you have any evidence at all to support your claim of a CT? Do you have a plausible theory for what happened on 9/11? I'm guessing "no" on both counts.

* I guess I'll except Christophera and his dogged pursuit of the concrete core.
 
I'm sorry. Did scg post anything resembling evidence yet? All I hear is echos from past posters. (Or is it posers?)
 
Nice way to welcome somebody to your club!

It's not a club.

Or has every single aspect of the official story been proven to be true here at this forum? And every single alternate theory fully debunked?

I'll put it this way, skepticalcriticalguy, we have yet to see convincing evidence for any of the "inside job" theories. Every time someone comes on to change our minds, they invariably either post nothing at all in the way of evidence, or rely on the same circular track of CT claims, misquotes, and a faulty understanding of technical topics such as physics and engineering.

If you have not read the NIST report on the collapse, you need to do so. It will allow you to understand where the "official story" is coming from, and what kind of support there is for it from the investigation. Really read it, don't just skim through it thinking "this is BS".

If you want to convince us of any of your theories, you'll need to provide evidence. Asking "what if it's true?" or making vague implications will not sway anyone here to your views. You will need to present real, verifiable evidence of what you claim.

If you happen to be an expert in any relevant field, feel free to use that experience to provide some substance, but be aware that there are experts in a number of relevant fields here. Calculations will be checked, and you will be called on any kind of claims you make.

You have come here to make a claim about the events of 9/11, so please don't spend your whole time asking us to provide evidence for the official theory. That evidence is compiled, analyzed, and widely available. If you aren't convinced by it, too bad. It doesn't make you right by default; you still need to provide evidence for your theory.

Apparently that concept is hard for many of the pro-CT posters here to understand. Perhaps you are different.
 

Back
Top Bottom