Originally posted by exponent
When you type complete nonsense, it makes yourself look bad. That's pretty coherent. I report posts that accuse others of being complicit or 'part
of the problem' as that breaks rules here.
A truther is someone who presents the idea of an alternate or hidden truth to 911. This is what you're doing, if you are now saying that you have no
desire or need to back up your statements, then we can dismiss your opinions without evidence. You clearly want your opinions taken seriously, and so
you need to back them up.
OK, if you personally think I look bad for something I wrote that is fine by me. One person on a forum who doesn't like what I write is no skin off
my nose at all.
The sentence I was referring to was incoherent, and still makes no sense, but it's not worth persuing if it's gobbledygook.
Why would you be concerned about someone saying people are complicit if you have nothing to hide? I just don't get that. You could call me complicit
and I wouldn't care less because I know I'm not. Why would you run and tell to a moderator about rule breaking if you are making regular ad hominem
remarks? Aren't ad hominem remarks also against rules here? Why would you break rules yourself then report someone else for breaking rules? Isn't
that an imabalance of morals? Having your cake and eating it, so to speak?
I thought people that had an alternate idea to 9/11 were call conspiracy theorists? Theorising that a real conspiracy actually happened, whilst
presenting various facts to say why they believe there was a conspiracy. I've never heard of people that suspect a conspiracy to be called a truther.
Maybe it's one of those street talk urban dictionary words that have yet to make it into the Oxford Dictionary? I use the Queens English, the real
English, and have a rather large Oxford dictionary that is 1 year old, and I do not see the word truther in there. So I curiously looked it up in the
online urban dictionary, which is obviously just a slang dictionary, and this is what it said: Truther - "A now stereotypical, thereby ad-hominem
label for an individual who is sceptical about world events".
So it would seem you are breaking the ATS house rules by using this generalised slang term because it's ad hominem, and being a stippler for the
rules, I assume you know that it's ad hominem? Don't worry, I wont run to the mods to report you, it's only a slang word, but you should be aware
that ad hominem is not withing the rules, right?
I'm not asking you to take anything I say seriously, so no, I do not have to provide evidence for everything I post here. In most posts I just post
something that might be of interest to those that do not believe the OS, they can then take that information and look into it further if they so wish.
I'm not a debunker, or masquerading as a debunker, so I have no reason to to provide any evidence because it's the OS under scrutiny, and I'm not
in court or anything!
Those that disbelieve the OS can take what I post anyway they want, they can ignore it if they so wish, I just hope they might find it useful and will
share their thoughts with me, I really don't care if what I post is good for anyone else. The onus is on the people that believe the OS to prove the
OS is not a complete lie.
You claim that the existence of questions proves that there's something wrong. I point out that people question the age of the earth, the
theory of gravity, the theory of evolution. These are not wrong, but yet the questions exist. Therefore your assertion that questions = issues is
Again, I really don't quite follow you, this is another incoherent remark. What exactly are you saying here? It's not very clear. I don't ever
recall saying the existence of questions proves there is something wrong, however, when the 9/11 OS poses so many questions, it would seem that the OS
does have some serious problems that need to be addressed. This is why these forums exist, people are not happy with the OS, and we are here to pick
apart the flaws in the OS, and ask telling questions.
Using things like the earth and gravity to make a comparison to 9/11 is not really relevant, I'm sure you could have put across what you meant in a
way that wasn't so wacky, but each to their own I guess.
You use the term 'defeated' like you're in some kind of competition, that kind of shone through in your first paragraph too. Do you feel you have
to have the upper hand everytime you post at any cost? I'm not here to play games, if it makes you feel better being that way then cool, but I
personally will rise above getting sucked into silly 9/11 top trump games.
Sure, young earth creationists are morons.
What do young earth creationists, have to do with me or 9/11? I am not remotely religious, I lean towards science, not religion thank you! If you are
somehow being snide and implying I am a 'moron' for reasons unexplained, then do grow some thicker skin because it seems you like to dish out
insults, but cannot take any kind of remarks back in return. I wont be running to to mods because words on a forum will not upset me, and I have
nothing to hide, but if you wish to run along to the mods becuase you do not like something that is said, then perhaps you should address your own
behaviour before you complain about other members. Are you one of those that likes to have their cake and eat it?
Just because you're asking these questions does not mean that you've got any proof though. As I said before, people question the age of the
earth. Do you think they have an actual evidence of a young earth? Of course not.
I genrally only post factual information that can be found in the public domain, videos mainly thus far, that obviouslt speak for themselves, and
people can make of them what they wish. I'm not here to force my opinions on people like some members, I'm here to exchange ideas and give people
the freedom to come to make their own minds up. Again, the earth has nothing to do with 9/11, and quite frankly I'm only interested in 9/11. These
kinds of non-related examples are of no interest to me.
Yes, I do ask people questions, this is how we learn from each other, but I'm careful what information I take onboard, I have got the feel for which
member's opinions are worth taking on board, and which ones are not. I will listen to those that believe the OS, and those that don't, but
generally, it seems that those that disbelieve the 9/11 OS are the ones that have the most common sense, and present the best factual information.
I'm not here to learn more about the OS, I've heard that time and time again.
I've yet to see evidence of this. Every authoritative source presented with the counter 911 theory is associated with outlandish or completely
illogical claims. I can't think of a single truther source that is well educated and coherent at all times.
So are you saying you have never come across anyone that is reasonably educated disbelieves the OS? Seems a bit of a strange claim when you have
pilots, engineers, scientists, and many other respected professionals on 9/11 forums who do not believe the OS.
I don't see how people that disbelieve the OS are outlandish or illogical? The sources that people go off are the ones in the public domain, NIST,
FEMA reports, media videos, and such, these are all over the internet and anyone can analyse the data and images. If you are saying the government
websites are not valid sources then I find that remarkably peculiar. If you say you believe the OS, then you must also use these sources. These are
the very sources that myself and others are deconstructing and analysing. These are the things that have quite a few problem areas, and this is why
people just do not completely buy the OS. The reports are astonishingly poor in a lot of areas.
What they have to do with 911 is the belief structure. The belief in an alternate truth is exactly the same as a belief in a religion. It's
supported the same way (pseudofacts with personal relevance) and argued the same way (personal assertion).
The point of my post is to draw a parallel between the two, so you can see that just having questions does not equate in any way to flaws in a theory.
Millions of people question the age of the earth, yet it remains an undeniable fact.
Myself and others I have come across that do not buy the OS do not base our views on a belief, as you call it. As I said above, we have analysed a lot
of the data/videos/photos etc, that are in the public domain, put out there by the government and the media, and withing all that these are a lot of
problems tha traise serious questions to people that are experts in certain fields. Maybe the average Joe that watches TV all the time, will not think
past what they saw on television, but there are others, that have certain skills and expertise, who can use that expertise to spot serious problems
with 9/11. This is why a lot of professionals in various fields have done a lot of research into the official reports, and have drawn upon their
expertise to come to the conclusion that the OS is not exactly what the government want people to think it is. Not every one can spot those problems,
and again, this is why these forums exist, so people can explore the issues surrounding the OS, and share their expertise on certain matters.
So making any comparison to religion is sheer ignorance in my book. scientists shoot down religion, and experts shoot down the OS. There will be some
kooks who claim this and that about 9/11, and not all 9/11 ideas are worth pursuing, but there are many serious 9/11 contributers that bring a lot of
detailed research to the table.
The same could be said for anyone that believe the OS, all the peopel that buy the OS have to go off are the same set of government reports, and the
same media images, and fully believing everything a government presents could be seen as taking a leap of faith, but I'll not use the religion card
like you, because I feel religion and 9/11 are two opposite ends of the spectrum, and should be kept in separate forums, which they are. I have no
interest in religion, and have no interest in discussing it, it has no place in this forum.
You are making remarks about the earth again, I dont see how that is has any serious merit in the 9/11 forum either. I'm sure there is an astronomy
section if you care to debate planets with other members. I am only interested in 9/11.
You don't know what an ad hominem is, so perhaps look that up. What I am bothered by is the straight up assertions that someone like me, who
is only interested in the truth, is somehow perpetuating some vast undefined conspiracy.
That is wrong, it's immoral to claim so, it's against the rules of this site, and it shows you up as a 'believer'. QED.
It was a good while ago that I studied Latin, but I do understand what ad hominem is, why would I need to look it up? It appears you are here for some
kind of tit for tat game? I have seen ad hominem used here by quite a few members, and it's futile behaviour that makes anyone that does it come
across as rather desperate. Like they will try any tactic to come out on top. If that makes you feel good, then fine, it really is not sweat to me, I
just think ad hominem is lowering the tone, and you are less likely to find members that will engage with you when you resort to belittling behaviour.
You seem quite touchy, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about, I have said this already. If you are not prepared to honour the
rules yourself, you cannot take the moral high ground and accuse other members of rule breaking. I think you have a religious fixation, do you go to
church on Sunday? You're not a Baptist by any chance are you?