It's CTists, not CTers.

I'd like to propose either CTwits or CTurds. Those seem to sum up our feelings on the matter fairly well.
 
What about "9/11 deniers" to describe CTs? That makes no sense. I'm not aware of one CT who doesn't think 9/11 happened. :confused:
 
Killtown said:
What about "9/11 deniers" to describe CTs? That makes no sense. I'm not aware of one CT who doesn't think 9/11 happened. :confused:
Click to expand...

Some denied/ignore/don't believe the evidence that has be presented, found, investigated, calculated,etc. over the last 5 years that has lead to the conclusion that we were attacked by terrorist on that day. Most of the time it is brushed aside no matter what, with out any real sort of evidence to prove other was. So I see the 9/11 deniers name fits. That is my opinion of course.
 
tkingdoll said:
Is theorizer in common use in the USA? Because the popular word in the UK for one who theorises is theorist.

I suppose we could have CTetician...

Edit: silly test, but what the hey:

Google search results for theorizer, 98,900

Google search results for theorist, 10,600,000
Click to expand...
Usage, abusage, or whatever, I vote yes, CTist.

DR
 
Earl The Tall said:
Some denied/ignore/don't believe the evidence that has be presented, found, investigated, calculated,etc. over the last 5 years that has lead to the conclusion that we were attacked by terrorist on that day. Most of the time it is brushed aside no matter what, with out any real sort of evidence to prove other was. So I see the 9/11 deniers name fits. That is my opinion of course.
Click to expand...
We believe we were attacked. We believe we were attacked by terrorists. We believe the Twin Towers/7 collapsed and the entire complex destroyed. We believe the Pentagon was hit and believe....well we believe that at least there's a crater in Shanks.

So what are we "denying"?
 
Killtown said:
We believe we were attacked. We believe we were attacked by terrorists. We believe the Twin Towers/7 collapsed and the entire complex destroyed. We believe the Pentagon was hit and believe....well we believe that at least there's a crater in Shanks.

So what are we "denying"?
Click to expand...
Why use term "believe" versus "accept as fact?" Yes I am nitpicking, but I wonder at what "belief" has to do with this?

DR
 
Killtown said:
We believe we were attacked. We believe we were attacked by terrorists. We believe the Twin Towers/7 collapsed and the entire complex destroyed. We believe the Pentagon was hit and believe....well we believe that at least there's a crater in Shanks.

So what are we "denying"?
Click to expand...

But you are denying it was a plane and in fact something else. Which is why you made a thread and poll to try and prove your point. And don't not say "I never said denied it." No you never said those words but by your post it is easy to tell you don't think it is.

EDIT: Rasa fragging, Gravy how do you beat me to my points!
 
Last edited:
Killtown: "Because no 757 crashed in Shanksville. The scene was all faked"

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/...p?showtopic=53
Click to expand...

i often wonder, and no CTers has yet given me a straight answer (suprise surprise)

why bother faking a 757 crash in shanksville? why not just crash a 757 there? why bother doing anything at all? the WTC and pentagon werent enough the neocons had to blow up a field for no reason to further their plans? if its about making "heroes" why not have them take over the plane and land safely? then you could trot out your heroes whenever doubts are raised


Note: i mean no disrespect to those who lost loved ones on 9/11
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom