A Great 9/11 Debate (C-Span 04/2/12), page 2

reply to post by psikeyhackr

---

You're right and it's a damn shame what he is doing. It is a common tactic - to DISCREDIT anyone who doesn't align with the mainstream and accepted notions. While I do appreciate his approach with a very logical flow, there is the single major flaw that because conspiracies have common themes and that not one has been proven, they must all be just that - theories.

- Cheers

Originally posted by Knowtorious
reply to post by psikeyhackr

---

You're right and it's a damn shame what he is doing. It is a common tactic - to DISCREDIT anyone who doesn't align with the mainstream and accepted notions. While I do appreciate his approach with a very logical flow, there is the single major flaw that because conspiracies have common themes and that not one has been proven, they must all be just that - theories.

- Cheers

Ummm, you do know you're saying this to a guy who deliberately steers every conversation away from every thread's topic into pointless arguments over junk physics, right?

...and I don't get your objection. Why should a theory not be considered anything other than a theory if it hasn't been proven? In science a theory remains a scientific theory until someone can provide unequivocally evidence for it, in which case it becomes scientific law. This is why we have the theory of relativity and the law of gravity.

Why should conspiracy theories be considered different?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Knowtorious
reply to post by psikeyhackr

---

You're right and it's a damn shame what he is doing. It is a common tactic - to DISCREDIT anyone who doesn't align with the mainstream and accepted notions. While I do appreciate his approach with a very logical flow, there is the single major flaw that because conspiracies have common themes and that not one has been proven, they must all be just that - theories.

- Cheers

Ummm, you do know you're saying this to a guy who deliberately steers every conversation away from every thread's topic into pointless arguments over junk physics, right?

Sure, it's junk physics because you say so and everything is about conspiracies that you can ridicule.

But apparently neither you nor anyone else can build a physical model that can completely collapse like the towers are supposed to have done and the NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

But sources from before 9/11 say there were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete in both tower. That would be more than 300,000 tons per tower. How is it that the NIST can agree on the steel with sources from before 9/11 but miss the concrete entirely?

And you can't explain anything.

psik

reply to post by thisisnotaname

---

Oh man, that Johnathan Kay makes my skin crawl. He's some kind of sleazy slimy grease ball weasel journalist shill. I wouldn't trust a word from him. I've seen much info on this guy already and he's been shown to be two faced. His book is generally filled with slander and misinformation about truth movement and treats it all like one big joke. Regardless I find it quite fascinating all the same so thanks for the post!

reply to post by TexasStyle

---

You should check out JREF they do excellent work.

forums.randi.org...

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by TexasStyle

---

You should check out JREF they do excellent work.

forums.randi.org...

That is quite a list. (not surprisingly, not one JREFer who claims to be a pilot is willing to put their name behind their claims)

Can you tell me why such a list has been gathered by people who feel Pilots For 9/11 Truth are nuts? And can you please tell the readers why anyone would listen to the anonymous posters at JREF?

In other words waypastvne, if you saw a guy on a street corner holding a sign, "The End Is Near!", would you spend your days and nights trying to dispute his claims?

I wouldn't.

So, now the question becomes, why are you here, day and night, waypastvne? Have you ever confronted P4T yourself? Why are you not confronting the Flat Earth Society? Or the Nigeria Scams? Do you believe in UFO's? If not, have you confronted the owners of this very forum?

Then again... you think 532,867 is 11.2% of 644,275,754.



Here is an interesting link at the JREF.... do you agree with this?

forums.randi.org...

How about this one?

forums.randi.org...

Originally posted by TexasStyle


How about this one?

forums.randi.org...

This quote sums it up nicely.

That's kind of why I like it. It's like Fox News on coc aine and every psychotic/paranoid inducing drug imaginable. It's scary/rage inducing/hilarious all at the same time. Maybe it's a cheap thrill but I enjoy watching insane people thinking everyone is out to get them.

Basically: I come here to laugh at You.

Truly sorry to see you are no longer a member.

9/11: Criminal Incompetence and Ass-Covering by the Bush Administration
  Posted 14 days ago with 12 member flags

Why the Pentagon?
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags

NEVER FORGET 9-11….Maybe we SHOULD forget.
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags

Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags

The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags

Note from trapped workers surfaces 10 years after 9/11
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags

Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance.
  Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags

Where were you when the world stopped turning...
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: