What attack? Ok, now provide evidence BESIDES his claim. Now if you think it is possible please show me a school in the USA that did it. I am aware of it happening recently at the University of Guleph but that is not in the USA and if that is where it took place we have a serious indication that as far as citizen the OP lied.
Wtc 7
- Thread starter audesapre
- Start date
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I don't understand why Enigma is so adamant about this. What about someone who was 7 years old in 2001? Any reason why he couldn't be a fencesitter?
Enigma seems to think that everyone has been thinking about/investigoogling 9/11 for the last seven years. I will agree that anyone who has been doing so, and still claims to be a fencesitter, is either stupid or disingenuous. But not everybody has been.
Enigma seems to think that everyone has been thinking about/investigoogling 9/11 for the last seven years. I will agree that anyone who has been doing so, and still claims to be a fencesitter, is either stupid or disingenuous. But not everybody has been.
Someone who has never looked at 9/11 since 2001 has heard enough on the news since then so I will not believe that they all of a sudden up and decided to read CT sites for their information. If they do, they aren't a fencesitter.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Well, the problem is that if someone gets interested in the subjects of conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK, whatever) then the first things that come up in any search for information on them tend to be conspiraloon sites.
I'm sure I'm not alone on this forum in having believed in a JFK conspiracy at one point in the distant past. And the reason I came to this forum in the first place was because I was interested in reading some rebuttal of the claims made in "Loose Change". I suppose at that point you could have called me a "fencesitter".
I just think that the notion that because the science is settled, then there will never be any more people who need convincing of that fact, is naive at best.
I'm sure I'm not alone on this forum in having believed in a JFK conspiracy at one point in the distant past. And the reason I came to this forum in the first place was because I was interested in reading some rebuttal of the claims made in "Loose Change". I suppose at that point you could have called me a "fencesitter".
I just think that the notion that because the science is settled, then there will never be any more people who need convincing of that fact, is naive at best.
First, thanks for the replies, and links. In reply to the ad hominem comments...the guy actually is bright, in certain ways...which I understand sounds apologist-esque...but he seems kind and learned...and the 9/11 topic came up in discussion regarding "false flag terrorism." Read into that what you will.
As I said prior, I am having a hard time buying into the whole "inside job" bit...I mean, if a gov goes through the trouble of engineering a ploy to KILL 3000 of its own constituency then why would they let us uncover it? Hasn't anybody watched X Files? Also, there's just so much at stake if something like an "inside job" was exposed...too much, I would think.
Just my thoughts. I didn't have time to get a word in during class.
Anyhow, back OT, has anybody watched "A Great Conspiracy"?
It features Barrie Zweiker, (or something like that), and was the basis for our class discussion. I cringed the whole way through...well, most of the way. No, probably the whole way.
I suggest you read up on the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident. It is remarkably similar to the Intel that lead up to the Iraq invasion. In other words fabricated, deceitful, and in some cases outright false.
The decisions made based on this bogus and fabricated information cost 58,000 American lives.
Taking poor, incomplete, or downright fabricated information, and using this to involve the US in war with no or extremely limited justification to have as its result the death of thousands of Americans didnt start on 9/11.
JFK is not 9/11. That was Willie Rodriguez
No, People will not tolerate liars. Truth movement apologist's lack of understanding in this "pull it" issue is indicative of their major problems getting a handle on 9/11 issues. That lack of logic, and ignorance on 9/11 leads to believing pure fantasy. Truth movement apologists need to mature to understand they need evidence, and stop supporting the rant of fantasy?
To actually support "pull it" as a plank in the failed truth movement platform, is the sign of woo.
MM, it is your lack of skepticism with your own kind, those that lack knowledge on 9/11 and make up lies, that is your downfall.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
JFK is not 9/11. That was Willie Rodriguez
Well, thanks for the smile - at least you're not calling me stupid!
But if you think that 9/11 isn't like JFK, I think you're wrong. There'll be people believing this nonsense for years to come, just like there are with JFK. And in ten years' time, some of them will be people who weren't even alive in 2001. At some point in their lives they'll be "fencesitters" - people who don't yet know what to believe, but who are questioning the information they've been fed up to then.
When they come to somewhere like this, and the first response they get is "go away, truther scum", or something similar, I don't think we'll be doing much in the way of moulding young minds or influencing people to think critically.
I didn't say that. I said JFK is not 9/11. "Like" is a word you used.
If you think there will be truthers (ala the moon hoaxers or flat earthers) that is your perogative but you would be wrong.
Where was that comment made or where was something similar saying "go away" made in this thread? Personally, I don't understand how one can think critically and make such a blatently false accusation.
ETA - There is a difference between being critical and being gullible.
Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
Gee, I would never had known that except for this post, that no Americans died in Viet Nam prior to Gulf of Tonkin, and none would have died after that had it not occurred. Amazing.
I agree, you can stumble upon the truth movement and panic, as if the world went pure stupid. Imagine discovering for the fist time, your kind professor is a fraud on 9/11!
You understood 9/11 in a general sense, then by surprise, a high school dropout, Charlie Sheen, says 77 could not have made the maneuver turning 330 degree and descending 7000 feet. You are forced to look up the facts to prove the pure stupid statement is crap!
Without specific knowledge on 77's flight path, you sit there with your mouth open, how can a guy who has spent more money in one year on drugs and girls than you will make in a lifetime, make such a insanely stupid statement (was it the drugs or the girls, or the lack of knowledge)! And to counter his claims you have to study 9/11 for a few hours, or find JREF to help you.
The quick fix, is to ask for some help. Watch out, the hounds of woo are posting to the new guy trying to warn him to avoid using evidence, and stick with the woo of the truth movement.
There are posts with data, and skills to combat pure ignorance! Good luck to the new guy combating the insane ideas of his kind professor.
I can't imagine teaching stuff from the truth movement, except to point out how it is pure anti-intellectual claptrap.
Last edited:
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Generally speaking, I agree with you. The 9/11 CT will be around, probably forever. If someone comes to a site like this with a genuine interest in learning they should be educated (or directed to where they can be) in an equally genuine way.
However, in the years I've been here, I can probably count on one hand how many of this kind of "fence sitter" there were. Personally, I have no tolerance for the arrogant and ignorant and less when they are disingenuous regarding their intentions. I've lost track of their numbers.
Great, i am glad your aware.
My comment was directed to the OP, who perhaps isnt.
Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
That sound you just heard was the joke going over your head.
Oh yeah, your post clears up WTC7 and make perfect sense.
Good job, without your post I would be lost forever, not understanding WTC7 and how a kind professors turns into liars on 9/11 issues. Thank you, great one of a kind post!
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I know you didn't say it, and I didn't say that you said it - that's why I put "If you think ...." at the beginning of the sentence. If you don't think that, then that's fine. You're not the only person reading this thread.
We will have to agree to disagree, then.
Talk about blatantly false accusations! I made no accusation and I don't know how a critical thinker can say that I did. I did not accuse you or anybody else of saying "go away, truther scum" in this thread or anywhere else. Perhaps you should read my post again?
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
I know you didn't say it, and I didn't say that you said it - that's why I put "If you think ...." at the beginning of the sentence. If you don't think that, then that's fine. You're not the only person reading this thread.
We will have to agree to disagree, then.
Talk about blatantly false accusations! I made no accusation and I don't know how a critical thinker can say that I did. I did not accuse you or anybody else of saying "go away, truther scum" in this thread or anywhere else. Perhaps you should read my post again?
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Yes, nothing proves one conspiracy theory like using another conspiracy theory as evidence. If you want proof of bother 9/11 and Gulf of T, then look at JFK. We can go on and on can't we?
If you don't believe me that 2+2=5 then just look at the incident of 6+6=13. Same thing.
If you don't believe me that 2+2=5 then just look at the incident of 6+6=13. Same thing.
Audesapre:
1. This is an open forum, but it is dominated by people, such as myself, who not only do not believe the 9/11 CTs, but despise those who promote them.
2. We have a few truthers. We would have more, but for some reason they seem incapable of following the rules and regs of the JREF Forums (of which there is MUCH MORE than 9/11 CTs).
3. Some of the truthers here (a small minority) are civil and can at least be engaged with , in terms of a discussion.
4. Most truthers here spend a lot of their time antagonizing, flame baiting, trolling, etc...
5. The links I provided you will take you several days, if not weeks, to go through thoroughly. As well, my suggestion is you pick up the 9/11 commission report in paperback. Now mind you, once you do, if you mention it to a truther, they will immediately say "go read David Ray Griffin's book on the commission report". Be aware that DRG is a first rate Snake Oil Salesmen. He speculates, connects things that he shouldn't, misquotes, quote mines.
Good luck.
TAM
1. This is an open forum, but it is dominated by people, such as myself, who not only do not believe the 9/11 CTs, but despise those who promote them.
2. We have a few truthers. We would have more, but for some reason they seem incapable of following the rules and regs of the JREF Forums (of which there is MUCH MORE than 9/11 CTs).
3. Some of the truthers here (a small minority) are civil and can at least be engaged with , in terms of a discussion.
4. Most truthers here spend a lot of their time antagonizing, flame baiting, trolling, etc...
5. The links I provided you will take you several days, if not weeks, to go through thoroughly. As well, my suggestion is you pick up the 9/11 commission report in paperback. Now mind you, once you do, if you mention it to a truther, they will immediately say "go read David Ray Griffin's book on the commission report". Be aware that DRG is a first rate Snake Oil Salesmen. He speculates, connects things that he shouldn't, misquotes, quote mines.
Good luck.
TAM
Par
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,768
You might be wondering why your conversation with Enigma isn’t going as smoothly as you had hoped it would. “This guy’s being slightly unreasonable,” you initially thought, “but if I broach the matter politely and rationally, I’m sure he’ll come round. After all, he opposes conspiracy theories, so he’s bound to be reasonable enough.” Now, normally – on this forum, at least – that’s a fairly prudent rule of thumb. Enigma, however, is an irrationalist: dogmatic, intellectually dishonest and abusive. Countless such people just so happen to oppose trutherism, and Enigma just so happens to be one of them. In short, he – like the conspiracy theorist – has rejected reason. That is why you cannot reason with him.