Originally posted by exponent
Are you really asking why I would be concerned that people try and slander me by saying that I'm part of the problem? That i'm in some way culpable? I don't think that even needs an answer.
How can someone slander an anonymous person on the internet? If you were known to the public then it might be a different case, but you are just an anonymous blip on a 9/11 forum. Why are you so touchy if you have nothing to hide?
You've researched 911 but never come across the phrase 'truther'? Such a thing is not possible, and either means you're trying to play some silly word game, or you're straight up lying. Well I suppose there's a third option, you didn't research it at all.
Just because you say it's not possible that I have not heard the term turther until now doesn't mean you are correct. I know myself, you do not know me or anything about me, and whether you want to believe me or not makes no difference to me whatsoever.
I do not use slang ad hominem terms in my vocabulary, so why would I know every slang term like the tem truther? I know the urban dictionar exists, but I never use it, I like to use the Oxford English dictionary, not slang dictionaries. If you like to make your vocabulary up from slang dictionaries that is your choice.
These people exist. It's not wacky, it's sad. It's sad that I'm having to explain to you how I'm comparing the logical leaps and methods of belief used.
I personally think some of the stuff you come out with is wacky. Why are you sad? When you say sad, do you mean you feel really down? You don't have to explain anything to me, especially not with wacky unrealted analogies. I'm fully capable of working things out for myself without wacky comparisions to religion. As I say, I'm only interested in 9/11 on this forum, if you care to have a conversation about your religious beliefs then you are talking to the wrong person. Go to a church, you can discuss wacky beliefs all day long there, they welcome people that reinforce religion. They might try and extract money from you though, so be careful!
You're using the same belief structure. The same arrogant position that no evidence needs to be shown, the same dismissal without cause of alternate explanations.
Again, you are sounding incoherent. I will welcome evidence, that is what I base my conclusions on, but when you fail to provide it when asked, then anything you say will naturally be dismissed until the evidence shows up. Like the WTC7 20 story hole evidence I'm still waiting for. It would seem that you are very arrogant, I am trying to be civil, and the ad hominem keeps flowing from you. People that behave as such are more like internet trolls, not substance, just a never ending river of ad hominem.
When you actually post some on topic evidence, instead of wacky theoires about things unrelated to 9/11, then we can engage like adults, and I will then be happy to have a serious debate with you. It seems this is all some game to you?
No, that's not what I said. I can't think of a single group or organisation that puts across a consistent and coherent alternate hypothesis. AE911Truth for example, have members who claim micro-nukes were used. Even their front page list of evidence is inconsistent.
If you think there is a group with a coherent and consistent alternate hypothesis, I'd love to see it. I doubt they exist.
I'm not talking about groups, that is something you just plucked out of nowhere, I'm talking about individual professional people that are not part of any group. There are many that have expertise in their field, who have looked at the 9/11 OS evidence and found problems with it. They draw upon their expertise in their field to isolate elements of the OS, and disect it scientifically.
Except that's nonsense, and the experts in those fields have almost universally decried these theories. Of course there's a few people who believe in anything, but that's not a huge shock. Can you name a single major issue that hasn't been addressed by the community of experts in that field?
Oh I see, you do not accept there are experts in this world, maybe you think you are an expert in every professional field, and no one else can be more of an expert that you? I have listed the experts already, structual engineers, Fire experts, pilots, to name a few, and I have posted factual documents and videos already, if you have not taken time to look at all the evidence people present, dismissing it all before analysing it, then you cannot for one minute make any claims to know it all. It appears your own research is very lacking. A researcher worth their salt will look at all the evidence, and then base their conclusions on that, instead of just accepting what the media and government tells them, and then claiming to be an 'expert'. It is clear that I am talking to someone who will only accept the OS, and will not do any further research into all the available evidence. Jack of all trades, master of none.
I was a methodist by the way, but I left that nonsense
I said that as a joke seeing as you seem to be fixated with mixing religion and 9/11 together. Try scientific analysis of the evidence and stick to that alone. Bringing religion into a 9/11 forum just makes you come across as wacky.
