9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

reply to post by OrionStars

Hate to tell you there skippy but asking for creditentials is not a personal attack unless you have something to hide.Not everyone accepts every claim to personal knowledge on any subject with little to back up that word. There are after all a great many braggarts that know nothing yet claim to know alot in any subject you can pick.
If this was not so, a vast number more people would fall for conman games.

What IS an attack though is questioning the mental capacity of those that question you. Repeatedly. Especially when its just a question respectfully asking for credentials to back up the information.

Simple fact is you absolutely REFUSE to back up your information, instead you attack when asked. That says to any rational mind that you can't back it up because your in a word "talking out your hind-end-orrifice and are desperately trying to cover that fact up.

Do you think you can set aside your personality conflict directed at me and get back on topic as well?

reply to post by dbates


I actually agree with everything you said. I guess count me in on the OOBers.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

Hate to tell you there skippy but asking for creditentials is not a personal attack unless you have something to hide.

I edited your snide retort for brevity. I am not your "skippy" whatever a "skippy" is. Please learn the difference between the words personal information and personal attack.

You obviously would rather start a flame war than behave with adult mentality of sense and sensibility while staying on topic.

If all you have to offer discussion, is the past precedents of snide retorts and unnecessary personal prying, I have no intentions of reading or responding to any further posts of your posts addressed to me. Nor do I have any intention of addressing any to you.

I have no personality conflict with you my friend. In fact, when you did post interesting info on another thread, I praised you for it!!!! Obviously if I had a conflict with you, I NEVER would do something like that.

I've always gone out of my way to show you respect and tried to give you the benefit of th doubt. I asked a simple question earlier about your "claimed" knowledge in both science and construction. You refused a simple, respectful request then attacked me for questioning you. I'm sorry you have a problem with telling the truth but please don't place blame on my doorstep for your failings.

Since my question was in response to your post, either I was on topic or we were both off topic and if we were both off topic, that would make you a hypocrite for posting the above comment.

I'm honestly not sure why you must make this huge deal about a simple, respectfully asked question??????? Either you have the knowledge you claim or you don't? If you don't have it, don't claim it. If you do have it, tell me what background you have.

As a causual observer and new to this site, it would seem OrionStars doesn't want to discuss the thread topic, but make the thread about himself.

I will continue to lurk and hope for answers to a well layed out original post.

goodbye

Ahem

Please stay ON topic and cease the sniping back and forth.

Thanks
FredT, Moderator

Originally posted by Bunch
This thread is the prime example of what is wrong with CT's.

The OP ask for evidence to be laid out and all I have seen is the trollish attitude that reigns on this forum.

The exact same thing would happen if someone opened a thread asking for evidence supporting what the government keeps asserting. If you weren't biased you would know that positive evidence is missing on both "sides", because still no one has done any of the proper investigation or relevant testing to any of this. The bickering is just what arises when the usual legal evidence doesn't even exist.

I didnt intend for there to be bickering, though I obviously know its going to happen. I know that Orion gets under everyones skin, and as he stated before, he likes to argue, even if it is over semantics, it only helps understand anothers arguments.

I want to know where the abundance of evidence is that proves either side. I guess what I am getting at is this: Is the only thing we will ever know about that day going to be from the videos from the media?

I am sure there is video out there that the public has not seen, and I am sure there is a reason for that. Say the pentagon for example....what is the deal with the video from the gas station? Why can the public not see that?

Also the video from the zacharias moussaoui trial...where was that video from? Who filmed that? Is there more to it that what we have seen?

reply to post by bsbray11


Agree 100% with your post. So what it is it to discuss when we can't even agree with some basic facts about what happen that day.

There is no basis for a good discussion when I start from A and someone else starts from Z.

What I'm getting at is, that there is no point of debating if we can't even agree on certain basic facts.

Thanks for you post

For the sake of clarification once again.

1. I do not enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, including semantics, and have never stated I did. There is a 180 degree difference between semantics vs. incorrect use of the American English language.

2. I enjoy logical debate any time.

Having read the whole thread, I think Orion has had a bit of a raw deal here. If anything there seems to be a bit of gang mentality going on against someone who was only trying to supply evidence as the OP requested.

But as someone else said, it's pointless if it's not going to get past personal attacks.

reply to post by OrionStars



Sorry, I didnt mean to misrepresent you.

anyways, thanks for the clarification

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Quite all right, Jeff, and thank you. If I unknowingly gave you any reason for misinterpretation, I apologize to you.

reply to post by cornixman


THat is very true, it seems as if Orion is always getting the poop end of the stick on these threads. It seems as if he posts something, and then gets attacked and end up having to defend himself....from there it spirals downward

reply to post by Jeff Riff


How is it a raw deal to get asked for credentials when you make claims to personal knowledge?
Would you let someone your not sure is a actual dentist work on your teeth?

I fully appreciate the comments of a couple of posters. Thank you. Yet, I am not the only one to whom it happens. Possibly, not to the severity it happens to myself and a few others, but it is happening, to some degree, to anyone not in agreement with the "official" reports.

This my observation of what has been occurring for quite some time.

We give our opinion. Make it clear it is our opinion. Our opinions do not suit the opinions of our oppostion contenders. We end up being personally attacked for expressing, and making clear it is only opinion.

We are requested to provide validation. We provide validation, and still get attacked by our opposition contenders.

That goes from the inane to the absurd in any discusssion. Any discussion is bound to go off course when people end up being forced to defend themselves. Yet, even when our opposition is requested to stay on topic and logically debate the points, they do as they please without thought to sense and sensibility. Ignorning them may help against some but not with others.

I will iterate it is my observation. Anyone in disagrement is entitled to an opinion as long it it does not result in illogical fallacy (red herring, personal attack, etc).

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by cornixman

 

THat is very true, it seems as if Orion is always getting the poop end of the stick on these threads. It seems as if he posts something, and then gets attacked and end up having to defend himself....from there it spirals downward

From what I've seen happen on this and other threads, orionstar makes a statement, someone asks him to back up that statement or clarify that statement and that is when orionstar starts attacking instead of simply responding.
So I think that orionstar is being treated fairly but he brings it on himself. I myself have asked a very simple question in a very respectful manor and was attacked for asking the question ????? I'm not sure what planet that is reasonable on?

I think a lot of this could be avoided by the following:
1. If you make a statement, explain whether it is opinion or factual based. If factually based, provide the facts to back up a statement.
2. If you are asked a question, and the question is reasonable and respectful, you should answer it to the best of your ability.
3. Don't derail the topic.

My opinion is that these are all reasonable requests. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Originally posted by OrionStars
We give our opinion. Make it clear it is our opinion. Our opinions do not suit the opinions of our oppostion contenders. We end up being personally attacked for expressing, and making clear it is only opinion.

If you express an idea as only your opinion and you are attacked for it, that is wrong and should not happen.

We are requested to provide validation.

Everyone should provide validation to any statement made if it is anything more then an opinion, regardless of what theoretically side you are on.

I just thought I would pipe in with a few supportive remarks. You or anyone else should not be chastised for their opinions.

Regarding the "plane crashes" at Pennsylvania and the Pentagon, does anyone remember the Lockerbie disaster and the obvious resulting evidence.

www.youtube.com...