reply to post by OrionStars
Okay, here we are - again. Same circular logic, circular arguments supported by semantic posturing.
The original OP asked for my
opinion. I stated my opinion, nothing more. I also gave an example as I thought this was more complete than
replying with a simple one liner. I also admitted
I could be 100% wrong. I also claimed I had no proof (concerning my shoot-down claim).
That is quite a baseless broad tar brush to spread over at least 40% of the US population and 65% of world population.
Says who? 65% of the
world population?! A quick Google search (not scientific) claims the estimate of the world population is 6,602,224,175. So
you're claiming that 4,291,445,713 (roughly give or take a few million people) believe holograms, no plane in Pennsylvania and the WTC were brought
down due to "Thermite" and a "controlled demolition"?
Four billion, plus or minus a few million?
I know exactly from where your claim comes from and what the basis for your claim actually says, do you? Even if what you are claiming was true, and
it's not, that doesn't make the claims of a conspiracy true.
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Conjecture does not equal proof. Because Alex Jones says so does not equal proof.
Whenever you have an opinion in disagreement with others, does that automatically make you and others dishonest because of differing opinions
(hypotheses)?
If you had actually read the OP's question you would realize I offered my opnion, not the basis for a debate. I also gave an example, exactly as the
OP asked.
Specifically dishonest: the Loose Change fraud. These guys are either blindingly incompetent or flat out dishonest. There has been much, much work
done in realm of "proving" their claims. I don't need to highlight what you don't already know - or choose to ignore
As for the rest of your attempt to semantically box me into a corner: don't be silly. Of course I don't think those who think differently than me
are dishonest. I do believe that their honestly held beliefs are based on total frauds, perpetuated by those who gain financially from those that will
buy their books, videos and pay to come see them "lecture".
What have you done to honestly disprove an opponent beyond your own opinion?
....with people who long ago made their mind up about the events of 9-11 and are convinced it's a massive conspiracy that fit's their own political
biases? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. There is no reason, evidence, or plausibility that will change their mind - like yours.
If you are not interested in the full truth concerning 9/11, that is your perogative. However, it is not your perogative to baselessly denigrate many,
many others who are. Is it really any concern of yours how other people do what you opine as "wasting their time"? If so, why would that be?
That's a truly remarkable position from someone claiming to be after the truth, or in your case "...the full truth...". See, the thing is you - and
others like you - just can not wrap your brains around the fact that I
DO want the full truth. I am not going to entertain wild, baseless
speculations and positively absurd claims based on "facts" as put forth by people like the Loose Change crowd.
You, not me, made the leap that I was personally attacking someone in particular. I am attacking the ideas. I offer no apologies for that. I see that
as nothing more than another attempt to derail my comments, re frame them into something they were not and move the discussion to something your more
comfortable talking about: me and my comments, rather than the absurd nature of the no plane in Pennsylvania "conspiracy".
The rest of your post is semantic gymnastics event.
[edit on 4-1-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]