9/11 Argument Took Place Yesterday In My Local Inn

I dont really know where to post this so I thought I would place it here. I wanted to share with people an event that took place yesterday evening down my local inn between myself and some other people in regards to a conversation about conspiracies and 9/11. I am hoping after people have read this post they can offer me some form of advice for next time.

So there I was enjoying my drink and conversation with some friends when a guy pitches up at our table, he was a friend of a friend. He started off the bat talking about different chili ratings (we were eating curry at the time) and he seemed a knowledgeable guy. He was telling us the medicinal properties of chilis and hot food and the conversation was interesting.

One conversation led to another and before we knew it we were talking about the new apple patent including 'traitorware' nicknamed by the EFF. (one of the last threads I read yesterday by IRM) He laughed and scoffed openly at me saying that it was completely rubbish and that Apple could not do such a thing as it would be against privacy laws.

My friend had a mobile phone on him so I went on to google to find the patent. After looking it up and finding the actual patent, first he refused to look at it saying that it was made up. After a little persuasion he reluctantly looked at it and read it. Paragraph after paragraph he would come out saying that there is nothing in the patent that suggests that Apple would collect any information. At this point I was getting a little peeved as he kept skipping past the paragraphs that actually backed up the validity of the argument and arguing that there was nothing in the patent to suggest that apple were recording details of its users. After he had seen enough he said to me 'your not on of these people that believe that 9/11 was part of a government conspiracy are you'. Wow! from then on the conversation heated up!

I am very passionate about 9/11 like many members on this site I have spent hundreds of hours researching 9/11 so I am confident in what I am saying when I talk about it.

I started off by saying there were irregularities with 9/11 that need to be looked at. He scoffed and went round the table asking people if they thought 9/11 was an 'inside job' or an 'outside job' (meaning government or Al Queada) everyone said 'outside'. I was getting more and more angry at this point because these people I frequent my time with are well educated and very intelligent people. They seemed to be goaded on by this one man. No matter what I said I was always greeted by the same response "Don't believe everything you read on the internet" (in a patronising way) in the end I almost lost it. Basically this one man managed to turn the whole table in to believeing that everything on the internet can't be trusted and that there is no evidence to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job. and even worst all this information is spread around the net by blogs and that there is absolutely no evidence at all (what a sweeping statement I thought)

I ended up storming off and stopped short of telling everyone to # off, ignorant bastards I thought as I was walking up the road. I went on the PC afterwards to find out more about skeptical minded people and the way they think. I came across this intersting piece that explainss how the process or arguing works with these sorts of people www.discord.org... which is very interesting and fits exactly in to how this man operated.

I am still annoyed with how everyone acted, basically they did not allow me to complete any of my sentences without interrupting and they did not allow me to speak of more than a few of the irregularities that surround 9/11, it was always the same old response when I did 'wheres the evidence' I tried to explain about the thermate being in the rubble to which I was greeted with 'how do you know this' ' don't believe everything you read on the net'

The reason I stormed off and left the table was the fact that I became insensed with the way that rational sane educated people refused to believe anything other than what they have read in a newspaper without doing their own research.

Normally I wouldn't have let this get to me because I know its futile, but I suppose its because 9/11 is creeping up and my emotions are still running high at this time. What I want to know is how do I deal with this kind of skeptical argument.

What do you say to try and educate people in these matters? how can one possibly get their point across if the other party refuses to listen? its so frustrating and it has effected me quite alot as its constantly on my mind the unfairness of not allowing me to speak.

I have been reading a debate that I found here CHAMPIONSHIP: schrodingers dog vs souls - "September 11, 2001" if only these very people that deny the evidence of 9/11 being an inside job would read this debate, maybe just maybe they would change their minds.

Have you ever been embroiled in a heated discussion with a skeptical minded person, that resulted in being led down the garden path because they did not let you get your point across? if so what did you do?

[edit on 27-8-2010 by franspeakfree]

9-11 is a very touchy subject. think about the implications and the way it made you feel when you first started to think it was not just some terrorists. I know I would be a much happier person if I could just believe that our government would never do anything to hurt us. Knowing the way the real world operates has a price. let these people stay in blissful ignorance. It's a much safer, happier place. Trying to convince them is akin to trying to change their religious beliefs. When they come to you and ask a few questions, then you can give them the knowledge you have. Until then, have a beer and relax.

I would have told both sides of you guys, none of you fools know if it was outside or inside. Fact.

And then I would have laughed at yall in such a way, as to embarrass everyone sufficiently enough that the conversation would be dropped and we could go back to talking about something less inflammatory.

Yeah where is the evidence? There is none!

Everything is opinion and hyperbole.

No one really knows what happened. I don't believe either side of this.

It's just one of those things you cannot know unless you were personally behind it yourself.

These are the only facts.

Also, when arguing with drunk idiots you have to always make your replies witty one liners that are really funny and embarrassing sounding. This ensures the drunks will understand it clearly and you will win the debate hands down.

It doesn't matter which side of the debate your on, or what topic is debated. That is just how bar debates go. You have to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator.

These are just my opinions.

I guess these guys don't seem so smart now do they?

Originally posted by muzzleflash

It's just one of those things you cannot know unless you were personally behind it yourself.

Or unless a proper FBI investigation is done, just sayin like.

Originally posted by Thepreye

Originally posted by muzzleflash

It's just one of those things you cannot know unless you were personally behind it yourself.

Or unless a proper FBI investigation is done, just sayin like.

Even then that investigation can be full of hoaxes and disinformation.

There is no way to know even after a so called "proper" FBI investigation.

I won't trust a single human on Earth about this subject.

I do realize something doesn't add up though. Thus my intense skepticism of all theories. Including the official story.

Originally posted by network dude
Trying to convince them is akin to trying to change their religious beliefs.

That applies to anyone with so much faith in their personal convictions they've excluded the possibility that they could be completely wrong, whatever side of the fence they choose to stand on.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
when arguing with drunk idiots you have to always make your replies witty one liners that are really funny and embarrassing sounding. This ensures the drunks will understand it clearly and you will win the debate hands down.

It doesn't matter which side of the debate your on, or what topic is debated. That is just how bar debates go. You have to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator.

Can you give me a few examples of witty one liners when it comes to 9/11? I wouldn't want to just come out with crap that gets a few cheap laughs as 9/11 is not a laughing matter. I know I am taking it seriously but I don't know how to dumb the conversation down in such a way I am on an even level with them, surely thats bowing down to their level?

Originally posted by franspeakfree
No matter what I said I was always greeted by the same response "Don't believe everything you read on the internet" (in a patronising way) in the end I almost lost it. Basically this one man managed to turn the whole table in to believeing that everything on the internet can't be trusted and that there is no evidence to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job.

He was of course correct, you should not believe everything you read on the internet and there is no actual evidence that 911 was a inside job!

and even worst all this information is spread around the net by blogs and that there is absolutely no evidence at all

Also true!

I ended up storming off and stopped short of telling everyone to # off, ignorant bastards I thought

So you ran away because you could not back up your claims!

I tried to explain about the thermate being in the rubble to which I was greeted with 'how do you know this' ' don't believe everything you read on the net'

again very true, there has been no thermate found in the rubble....

without doing their own research.

Yet your "research" consisted of just visiting conspiracy theory sites and believing everything there!

Nod smile and walk away........

Or go the super sarcastic route from the start like:

"Nah I don't beleive it was an inside job, I beleive those muslim cavemen have got our number, I bet they got some kind of thunderbirds installation in them mountains with super high tech shiznit that we don't even have. I mean the way they managed to have norad all confused and topple 3 buildings with 2 planes like sacks of potatoes. I mean we can't be too safe, I'm glad we're over there killin everythin that looks a little brown cause these buggers are sly and want to take our freedoms. Thank god our lovable leaders don't want us to lose our freedom so its for the best that we give it up to them before those evil sandmonkeys can get to it. And Bush, wow I mean I haven't come across anyone I trust more, I mean his sincerity is off the charts. I wouldn't question anything the gov't says cause they're lookin out for us, I mean thank f%#k they bailed out the banks with our money while people are kicked to the curb. Honestly thats where we belong, I personally give the gov't 90% of my paycheck so those banks don't get in trouble again, and we can keep funding our war machine thats gettin rid of (not creatin) terrorists. You'd have to be crazy to think the gov't would do anything against the ones it loves."

Then spit in his face and walk away. lol O.K. maybe not

reply to post by dereks


Yea you're right no thermate was found but thermite was.

reply to post by franspeakfree


LOLOLOL You were havin beers with derek right?

Hey derek tell us about Chilli.

LOLOL

Originally posted by dereks
He was of course correct, you should not believe everything you read on the internet and there is no actual evidence that 911 was a inside job!

This is a total cop out thats like saying, the only type of information we should believe to be true is the sort that the MSM give us via news broadcasts and newspapers as nobody else can be trusted.

So you ran away because you could not back up your claims!

I stormed off because it was futile trying to communicate with them. They would not let me finish my sentences without interrupting and they weren't interested in listening to any of the irregularites at all.

again very true, there has been no thermate found in the rubble....

Should have said thermite.

Yet your "research" consisted of just visiting conspiracy theory sites and believing everything there!

This is it in a nutshell, take for instance this debate, www.abovetopsecret.com... this is a debate on a conspiracy web site. It is clear, concise and logical everything in this debate can be verified this information is not based on assumptions it is based on research. Are you saying that nothing is factual because its posted on a blog or conspiracy site?

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Should have said thermite.

There was none of that found either, Jones did not test in the absence of air, so his results are invalid, nor was his paper peer reviewed.

Yet your "research" consisted of just visiting conspiracy theory sites and believing everything there!

Are you saying that nothing is factual because its posted on a blog or conspiracy site?

No, I am saying you should not believe everything you read on the internet, especially if it is from a conspiracy site with a agenda

I say to people, " So you believe 3 towers brought down by 2 planes was conducted from a Cave in the desert by a bond type villan and his group of terrorists?"

reply to post by Titan Uranus


No, youre wrong. No thermite was found at all. For those of you who dont know what thermite is (and that goes for about 90% of the government coverup theorists), it is simply a mixture of powdered aluminium and iron oxide (rust). Both of these materials were found in the rubble, but that is perfectly normal as large parts of the building were made of aluminium and iron alloys. Its only when you mix them in large quantities that they react sufficiently to burn through building supports and believe me you would need at least a few hundred kilos of it to bring down the towers. This is just snippets of info twisted to fit in with peoples delusional theories.

reply to post by dereks


Wow, you really got your jaws locked around the, 'No chance it was a conspiracy bone'. Read the Schrodingers Dog Vs. Souls debate linked in an earlier post by the op. I doubt it'd make a difference, you got your eyes closed, fingers in ya ears singin 'blah blah blah I am the keeper of truth blah blah blah'.

(Wonder if I get a bite)

reply to post by Pryde87


The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31

'Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.'

Damn peer reviewed scientific papers, can't trust em anymore.
It doesn't matter what evidence is presented debunkers have a set conclusion and will explain anything away. Yea these guys are probably workin for the sandmonkeys.

I do not wish to argue with debunkers, this is a thread by a 9/11 coverup beleiver for other 9/11 coverup beleivers and how we deal with this exact problem. Do you guys have to hijack every 9/11 thread?

It is good advice to NOT discuss religion or politics with people drinking at a bar or a party. You can add conspiracy theories to that advice as well. Let them close their eyes and sleep until the SHTF, then you can say "I told you so" or "I knew this all along. In your face!" not that it will matter much at that point. Prepare for the worst and be happy if you're wrong.

reply to post by Titan Uranus


So basically, in less sensational words. They found chips of rust, with some sort of metal residue. I could find traces of a thermitic substance on your car, if I wanted to. Its everywhere. And as for nanotechnology, seriously how exactly does an oxidising chemical reaction contain nanotechnology. Peer reviewed journals arent the word of god. They are still open to interpretation and the language in that brief snippet you quoted is obviously biased towards a coverup theory.

They could have written: "'Based on these observations, we conclude that the redlayer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is a commonly occuring metal oxide, often found in buildings with internal metal structures". But that would be boring now wouldnt it.

Also thermite is such a ridiculous choice for cutting through building supports. Its stoneage technology, compared to whats available now.

These things produce hardly any explosion and cut through metal instantly:
www.havoc.com.au...

Using thermite is kind of like an assassin using a boomerang to kill someone. Sure its possible, but there are easier ways of doing it.

reply to post by Pryde87


Of course you're right. Nothin suspicious happened at all that day. All questions have been answered. I'm glad everything is as you say, what a lovely ordered world we live in. Thank you for enlightening me.