The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

Gordon

There's a lot of discussion about this on the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Sgt. Sensible

Wicknight wrote:

Threatened by whom?

The owls.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

I'm am losing the will to live......

Show me a document, video or audio clip (that isn't fabricated) that show that Osama Bin Laden had engineered 9/11. It's very easy, no complex discussion involed whatsoever. Just show me.

Good luck.

So what you do you want a document that proves that Bin Laden killed Professor Plum in Tora Bora with the candlestick?

The world is not that simple. You cannot look at a video clip and instantly "know" that Bin Laden did it, nor can you look at a video clip and "know" the building were demolished.

We know the hijackers trained in Al Qaeda training camps. We know they trained as pilots. We know Bin Laden has attacked the world trade center previously, we know that Al Qaeda planned to attack the US using planes. In fact we have a wealth of information, and Occam's razor that Bin Laden was behind the attack. However if you're looking for a signed confession, I suggest you grow up because the world is a slightly more complex place than you think.

No a few questions for you. If the buildings were demolished how were the charges planted? If the 19 hijackers didn't fly the planes into the towers, who did? What happened to the passengers? How were the passengers phonecalls faked?

Diogenes

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

The owls.

OH RLY?

Dump this thread. Quick before tunaman gets here.

sceptre

Gordon wrote:

There's a lot of discussion about this on the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Marvellous. Here's some more for the forum that just took me three minutes of solid looking to find.

Gordon

I'm getting a lot of that these days, too many forums, it's near impossible to find some of them. I think it's a conspiracy of the admins preventing properly segmented discussion.

So Glad

Diogenes wrote:

So what you do you want a document that proves that Bin Laden killed Professor Plum in Tora Bora with the candlestick?

The world is not that simple. You cannot look at a video clip and instantly "know" that Bin Laden did it, nor can you look at a video clip and "know" the building were demolished.

We know the hijackers trained in Al Qaeda training camps. We know they trained as pilots. We know Bin Laden has attacked the world trade center previously, we know that Al Qaeda planned to attack the US using planes. In fact we have a wealth of information, and Occam's razor that Bin Laden was behind the attack. However if you're looking for a signed confession, I suggest you grow up because the world is a slightly more complex place than you think.

No a few questions for you. If the buildings were demolished how were the charges planted? If the 19 hijackers didn't fly the planes into the towers, who did? What happened to the passengers? How were the passengers phonecalls faked?

WOOAAAHH now. Lets slow down a bit. Before I answer questions I didn't bring up, why don't we answer the first one? You know, who did it? And why was Afghanistan and Iraq invaded on the grounds of his threat. Now, if you go saying to me that I should believe he did it because "the world is a slightly more complex place than you think" I would have to laugh in your face, sorry. Where are the weapons of mass destruction, then? Erm, the world is a slightly more complex place than you think. Hehe thats a first, I'll admit it.

Anyways, leaving every aspect of how 9/11 happened and getting down to to bigger more important question of WHO DID IT. Answer me, anyone.

Ok, so I'm bored, I'll answer your questons. Bomb charges, how, why, where, who? Good question. If you haven't read or watched material supplied you would not notice how the WTC had regular "security maintenance" procedures enacted at random intervals by the FBI and bombs squads. During and after these "security checks", bomb sniffing dogs were removed from duty. Who put this in motion? Jeb Bush. UUUH, WHA?.

Hijackers, who, where, why etc. Oh, the 19 "hi-jackers", many of which have been found alive?
Kinda hurts the official theory when, you know, THE SUICIDE PILOTS ARE FOUND ALIVE. Ehem, lets carry on, shall we? Training, Al-Qaeda, pilot training. Hur hur hur, This one is a classic, The pilots were not trained by Al-Qaeda but rather trained by Americans. American piloting schools to be exsact. Hani Hanjour, who apparently flew flight 77 to the pentagon did an amazing 360 U-turn and nose dive worthy of a fighter jet or missile (Eh, Eh?) and at full speed ploughed straight into the Pentagon. Wow. Great skills, Especially for someone who was only trained to fly a Cessna 172, and terribly at that.

What else? Oh yeah, passenger phone calls. I can't tell you how they were faked. I can't find the people who faked them. All I CAN tell you is that those phone calls could not have taken place up at that altitude. Maybe on the plane phone (Granted it was in 2002 because air-to-ground phones were only installed in planes then) but surely not on a cellphone. No proof needed. But if you want, Google it yourself (and please don't get at me because I asked you to do something yourself).

You have just said multiple times that "We know" Bin Laden attacked the WTC before and stuff. Please, explain yourself, otherwise you are bathing in a pool of your own ignorance. Sorry for the philosophical blather but it's generaly a good way to express some people.

bonkey

<edit>

reposted below

So Glad

The links are broken.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

why don't we answer the first one? You know, who did it?

Thats nt the first question. The first qusetion is "what happened?". Only when you know what happened is it even possible to determine with certainty who did it.

And why was Afghanistan and Iraq invaded on the grounds of his threat.

After saynig Woah, and asking that the first question be answered first, why are you also providing a second question? How does that work? We should WOOOAH with our questions, but give you free reign to ask as many questions as you like?

Anyways, leaving every aspect of how 9/11 happened and getting down to to bigger more important question of WHO DID IT. Answer me, anyone.

Who did what?

See, the one area where there still is agreement that there is uncertainty is in terms of what teh Administration knew, should have known, etc. in advance. So "who did it" isn't a simple question...it depends on what the "it" is. So are you asking who attacked the US, or who allowed teh US to be attacked, or who was negligent enough that they couldn't prevent the US being attacked, or who masterminded the attack, or who masterminded teh response, or what?

See, depending on what happened, that question means entirely different things. its entirely possible, for example, that Bin Laden was behnid the attack, but the US Administration were behind whatever it was they did (or choose to not do) to not prevent the attack, and that the two were otherwise unrelated. But until we know who did what - until we know what happened - the who was behind it question is meaningless unless you define its scope better.

Bomb charges, how, why, where, who? Good question. If you haven't read or watched material supplied you would not notice how the WTC had regular "security maintenance" procedures enacted at random intervals by the FBI and bombs squads. During and after these "security checks", bomb sniffing dogs were removed from duty. Who put this in motion? Jeb Bush

911myths.com

Hijackers, who, where, why etc. Oh, the 19 "hi-jackers", many of which have been found alive?
Kinda hurts the official theory when, you know, THE SUICIDE PILOTS ARE FOUND ALIVE.

911myths.com

Ehem, lets carry on, shall we? Training, Al-Qaeda, pilot training. Hur hur hur, This one is a classic, The pilots were not trained by Al-Qaeda but rather trained by Americans. American piloting schools to be exsact. Hani Hanjour, who apparently flew flight 77 to the pentagon did an amazing 360 U-turn and nose dive worthy of a fighter jet or missile (Eh, Eh?) and at full speed ploughed straight into the Pentagon. Wow. Great skills, Especially for someone who was only trained to fly a Cessna 172, and terribly at that.

911myths.com

What else? Oh yeah, passenger phone calls. I can't tell you how they were faked. I can't find the people who faked them. All I CAN tell you is that those phone calls could not have taken place up at that altitude. Maybe on the plane phone (Granted it was in 2002 because air-to-ground phones were only installed in planes then) but surely not on a cellphone. No proof needed. But if you want, Google it yourself (and please don't get at me because I asked you to do something yourself).

911myths.com

Spotting a pattern yet?

See, the intial answers to these issues are also just as well documented as the issues you raise. They may not fully answer everything, and leave some additional questions to be asked, but thats where we should be picking things up....or with you explaining why the content of the best-known "debunking" site is also wrong.

There is no excuse to re-ask the same questions over and over until and unless you account for the answers already offered.

You're not doing that, and until you do, there's no need to discuss these points further.

So seriously....if you won't read the site, its not worth carrying on the discussion. If you ignore the site, its not worth carrying on the discussion. If you won't offer a credible reason why you don't accept their answers, its not worth carrying on the discussion.

THe problem, I guess, is that there isn't a handy site out there which gives truthers/mihopers/whatever-it-pleases-you-to-be-called-ers the "questions to ask someone who's read 911myths.com" stuff. It means you have to do your own research and frame your own arguments.

Then, and only then, is it worth carrying on the dicusssion.

jc

So Glad

Double post :P

So Glad

Ok, I can see that arguments get very complex when we start from the end. Lets start from the start and I'll make my question as simple as I can to avoid confusion or confrontation and I hope unlike every post before, someone will give me an answer and stop my paranoid ramblings.

Let us entertain the notion that on the morning of september 11th, 19 hijackers did indeed hijack 4 planes and do what they did with them. Let us also presume that the twin towers did indeed collapse because of fires. lets take everything from every news station and the 9/11 report to be the true occurrences of that day. The popular belief contrived from this method of what happed that day is that Osama Bin Laden trained, armed and issued these 19 men to America without any resistance to commit these attrocities.

My question is, how do we know so. Show me proof that links the occurrences of that day with him and Al-Qaeda.

I sincerely hope this will be answered now.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Show me proof that links the occurrences of that day with him and Al-Qaeda.

911myths.com

So Glad

Erm, yes. I have read the material regarding Osama Bin Laden and find it, as per usual, to be speculation. They even say themselves "Overall, we can't say with 100% certainty that the tape is real". There is only one document on that site about Osama claiming responsibility and it discusses the Osama tape. To me, it only proves that it isn't him on it. Just look at the pictures.

The website is good. But can you not just show me proof?

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

WOOAAAHH now. Lets slow down a bit. Before I answer questions I didn't bring up, why don't we answer the first one? You know, who did it? And why was Afghanistan and Iraq invaded on the grounds of his threat. Now, if you go saying to me that I should believe he did it because "the world is a slightly more complex place than you think" I would have to laugh in your face, sorry. Where are the weapons of mass destruction, then? Erm, the world is a slightly more complex place than you think. Hehe thats a first, I'll admit it.

I'm not sure what this random collection of non sequters has to do with anything.

Anyways, leaving every aspect of how 9/11 happened and getting down to to bigger more important question of WHO DID IT. Answer me, anyone.

Conspiracy theorist so easy at asking questions so bad at answering them?

Ok, so I'm bored, I'll answer your questons. Bomb charges, how, why, where, who? Good question. If you haven't read or watched material supplied you would not notice how the WTC had regular "security maintenance" procedures enacted at random intervals by the FBI and bombs squads. During and after these "security checks", bomb sniffing dogs were removed from duty. Who put this in motion? Jeb Bush. UUUH, WHA?.

Was one of these tests carried out in the days before the attack. And were these tests so large and so complex that the gubiment could smuggle in the tonnes of explosives necessary to carry out the bombing? And protracted time it would take to wire the explosives. Oh and that link doesn't say anything about Jeb Bush ordering the removal of sniffer dogs. Where did you pick that one up? Jeb Bush as governor of Florida doesn't have authority over squat in NYC never mind the twin towers security detail.

However while we're on the subject, its not that the level of security was reduced in the days before the attack it was brought back to normal

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

It's also not true that there were no sniffer dogs in the WTC that day.

Police K9 Sirius... ...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. Sirius, along with his partner, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center in New York, where their primary duty was to check vehicles entering the Complex, clear unattended bags and sweep areas for VIP safety...
On the morning of September 11, 2001, Sirius and Officer Lim were at their Station located in the basement of Tower Two...
http://www.novareinna.com/bridge/sirius.html

Incidently since, by your own admission, you admit that there was a heighted security presence (including sniffer dogs) in the WTC in the days leading up to the attack, it makes the demolition claim even more tenious seeing as, the gubiment conspiracy, would have made it harder to smuggle in the tonnes of explosives necessary to carry out the attacks.

Hijackers, who, where, why etc. Oh, the 19 "hi-jackers", many of which have been found alive?

Again as bonkey pointed out this is a weary point has been raised before just taking Said al-Ghamdi for an example. This is such a tedious old chesnut that I'm getting fed up debunking.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html

The final explanation is provided by the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, one of the sources of Arab News, which in turn serves as a source to the BBC. Mohammed Samman is the name of the reporter who interviewed a man named Said al-Ghamdi in Tunis, only to find that al-Ghamdi was quite horrified to discover his name on the FBI list of assassins.

Kinda hurts the official theory when, you know, THE SUICIDE PILOTS ARE FOUND ALIVE.

http://911myths.com/html/hijacker_resources_and_links.html

You'll find your 11 alive suicide bombers are very much dead.

Ehem, lets carry on, shall we? Training, Al-Qaeda, pilot training. Hur hur hur, This one is a classic, The pilots were not trained by Al-Qaeda but rather trained by Americans.

NO NO NO!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

I dun nut no that. Because I've not been on this thread for weeks now. Don't patronise me and assume I'm not informed of even the most fundamental facts. Of course they learnt to fly in america, but they also recieved Al Qaeda training in Afganistan.

American piloting schools to be exsact. Hani Hanjour, who apparently flew flight 77 to the pentagon did an amazing 360 U-turn and nose dive worthy of a fighter jet or missile (Eh, Eh?) and at full speed ploughed straight into the Pentagon. Wow. Great skills, Especially for someone who was only trained to fly a Cessna 172, and terribly at that.

Look so glad go back and read the thread, you'll find I've linked to an article by a commerical airline pilot who explains how the manevour is incredibly simple and easy to pull off.

In fact I'll be nice I'll include the link to the pilot's pdf
http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

It was a left turn, which is
what someone sitting on the left seat (captain’s seat) would do to keep a
target to his left in sight. All this would require a bank angle of between 32
and 45 degrees, and a moderate rate of descent. Nothing that requires
Iceman (remember Top Gun?) to do. Again, the hijacker decided to err on the
undershoot side, and descended a lot more than what a good pilot would
have done. Almost too much, since he had to fly the last seconds level at a
very low altitude, clipping the lampposts along his way.

Of course; civilian controllers (and military as well) don’t usually get to see a
civilian airliner at 300 plus MPH at low level flown by a suicidal holy warrior.
Normal speed limit in Europe is 200 KTS (230 MPH) at or below 10000 feet.
This doesn’t mean airliners aren’t physically able to fly fast at low altitude.
We wish we were allowed to do it, it’s so much more fun! So if you see a blip
flying as fast as a military jet, you say “it looked like a military jet” but it
doesn’t prove anything.

What else? Oh yeah, passenger phone calls. I can't tell you how they were faked. I can't find the people who faked them. All I CAN tell you is that those phone calls could not have taken place up at that altitude. Maybe on the plane phone (Granted it was in 2002 because air-to-ground phones were only installed in planes then) but surely not on a cellphone. No proof needed. But if you want, Google it yourself (and please don't get at me because I asked you to do something yourself).

Again it's really tedious having someone wave all this in our faces like we've not been discussing this for a few hundred pages.

But I'll be nice

andheld while in a plane 10,000 feet in the air, and why should it work there when it doesn’t work in your own neighborhood?

It all depends on where the phone is, says Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council. “Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.”
http://www.sandiegometro.com/2001/oct/sdscene.html

http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

You have just said multiple times that "We know" Bin Laden attacked the WTC before and stuff. Please, explain yourself, otherwise you are bathing in a pool of your own ignorance. Sorry for the philosophical blather but it's generaly a good way to express some people.

Er the van bomb attack in '93? The bomber, Ramzi Yousef who is in prison? His uncle was the mastermind of 9/11? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Senior Al Qaeda member? Bin Laden's right hand man? None of this ringing a bell?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,436061,00.html

I've never met someone who who discusses something with such a patronising tone, while at the same time exposing their own ignorance.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Erm, yes. I have read the material regarding Osama Bin Laden and find it, as per usual, to be speculation. They even say themselves "Overall, we can't say with 100% certainty that the tape is real".

Sigh...CSI has just ruined the minds of a generation. What you want Grisham to give a voice full spectrum anaylsis and conclusively and irrafutebly prove it is him? Not. In. The. Real. World. A voice recognition expert can only give their expert opinion, no one will put their hand on their heart and say irrefuttably that it's him. Because they don't know that's him, in their expert opinion they think it's him. Thats how it works in forensic anaylsis.

There is only one document on that site about Osama claiming responsibility and it discusses the Osama tape. To me, it only proves that it isn't him on it.

So if you try to prove it, you disprove it. Weird logic going on here.

Just look at the pictures.

Which pictures?

The website is good. But can you not just show me proof?

And tell us, what exactly would satisfy you as to proof?

So Glad

Conspiracy theories do my nut in. I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore. There are so many sites claiming this, refuting this, prooving this. Continue. I'm out.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Erm, yes. I have read the material regarding Osama Bin Laden and find it, as per usual, to be speculation.

Which material? The stuff in http://911myths.com/html/responsibility.html which lists statements not only from bin Laden but from Al Qaeda as well, where culpability is admitted?

Or did you only look at the link you took the following quote from:

There is only one document on that site about Osama claiming responsibility and it discusses the Osama tape.

Ah, so you apparently did only look at the link about the video, and bypassed the one mentioned above.

So, like I said before:

911myths.com

jc

So Glad

Would there perhaps be a video that I could watch? Maybe something like Loose Change because I don't like reading screens a lot.

Thanks.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Conspiracy theories do my nut in.

Yet you seem happy to spout the most childish ones.

I'm not going to bother with this thread anymore.

So you come out patronisingly spouting nonsense, get called on it and run away.

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

Would there perhaps be a video that I could watch? Maybe something like Loose Change because I don't like reading screens a lot.

Thanks.

Way to convince me that you've done your research on both sides of the story.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

Would there perhaps be a video that I could watch? Maybe something like Loose Change because I don't like reading screens a lot.

Thanks.

You mean a shoddily put together video cutting montage over an ominous techno track, using news footage in breach of copyright? With quick snips of soundbites, presenting conjecture and speculation as fact, talking heads popping up for a minute, often un astoned so it's impossible to check their credentials, spouting a brief opinion, which is then framed in the context as irrafutilble proof? Using selective quoting from reports, and because it's video it's difficult to find out the source material or the original context of the comment?

You mean something like that?

Yeah thats what the conspiraloons prefer. It's much easier to present a distortion of the facts using video. They present a video, and then the narrator tells you what you see.

The debunkers rely on cold hard facts. The written word. Scientific evidence. Scientific papers aren't presented on video. People don't do thesis and put them on youtube. Noble prize nominees don't put their work on DVD.

The debunkers rely on fact, and therefore use the written work. It is harder to distort. Conspiracy theorist prefer video because it is easier to distort and maniuplate the facts using video.

While it may hurt your head I suggest you start
www.911myths.com
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
The latter is a fine article by the people of popular mechanics debunking many 911 myths. If you don't like looking at a screen print it out and read it at your leisure.

So Glad

I didn't ask for a video because I'm illiterate. Reading compter screens gives me headache thats all. I'd prefer something in book or video form.

So anyways, sorry for coming across ignorantly. I had a headache from reading. I do agree with you and applaud your answers given. I shall see if I can print out some stuff off www.911myths.com as it seems non byist.

Thanks,

Davitt

Also, what think ye of the delayed response from NORAD? I find that quite rediculous.

Diogenes

So Glad wrote:

I didn't ask for a video because I'm illiterate.

Where did anyone say they thought you were illerate? Wow defensibe much?

Reading compter screens gives me headache thats all. I'd prefer something in book or video form.

Okay you know the eyestrain from watching a hosted video is the same for reading a website. Right?

So anyways, sorry for coming across ignorantly. I had a headache from reading. I do agree with you and applaud your answers given. I shall see if I can print out some stuff off www.911myths.com as it seems non byist.

So which parts of your previous points do you recant? ?Do you still believe it was impossile for the pilot to hit the pentagon? Or the cellphones? Or the Jeb Bush and security? Conspiracy theorist tend to pull a Micheal Fatley when their points are disproven..

Thanks,

Davitt

Also, what think ye of the delayed response from NORAD? I find that quite rediculous.

Sigh...

Two steps foward one step back, why do you find it ridiculous?

http://911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

Oh and tunaman a few years ago a 30 store building was demolished care to guess how long it took to wire the building to blow?

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

I didn't ask for a video because I'm illiterate. Reading compter screens gives me headache thats all. I'd prefer something in book or video form.

I wasn't suggesting you were illiterate, nor was anyone else.

I was more referring to the fact that when you rejoined this conversation, here your post contained 5 links, all to predominantly text-based material. Some, such as newamericancentury were complete sites.

You said in this post, and I quote, that you had "thought and researched this more thoroughly".

Your next major post contained a further three links, again to non-video-based material. The written word, again.

So, you claim to have researched more thoroughly, and post a chunk of links to text-based material. Then, when questioned why you don't seem to take the information in what is arguably the best-known 911-myth-debunking site into account, you give all teh appearance of not having already read it, and then come up with excuses why you don't want to read it.

I find it difficult to make sense of all of this.

You say you've done your research.
You provide links to a chunk of text-based sites.
You show a complete lack of familiarity with the counter-argument material despite claiming to have done your research
You claim a dislike to reading large amounts of text online, despite providing links to online volumes of text-based material.

Now, I accept entirely that you get a headache and would rather research differently, but do you not see the problem of having claimed to have done your research and then giving every indication that this research has at best been only on one side of the story? Do you not see the problem in providing links to text-based material including entire websites and then claiming you don't like reading that stuff?

Also, what think ye of the delayed response from NORAD? I find that quite rediculous.

As already said: 911myths.com

There were undeniably cock-ups. A lot of the cock-ups were down to badly-designed procedures which effectively guaranteed slow response times. Complacency also played a part.

However, I believe it is a stretch to conclude there was any deliberate mismanagement and do not believe there is any clear indication that this is the case.

I have said previously that there is every indication that there has been a degree of ass-covering in terms of the testimonies given and I find this unacceptable. I would agree that there are additional questions to be asked and answered. I do not agree with any suggestion that this suggests malice, foreknowledge or anything else more than ass-covering until such times as there is clear evidence of same, particularly because I do not agree that had the system which was in place functioned as intended that the crashes would have been avoided.

Jocksereire

lads all the answers are in 911myths.com
its getting embarrassing in here for some

Diogenes

Jocksereire wrote:

lads all the answers are in 911myths.com
its getting embarrassing in here for some

Y'know the smiles just give your argument that extra air of credibility. Care to demolish the site's facts or do you have anything constructive to add?

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

lads all the answers are in 911myths.com

They're not, nor has anyone been foolish enough to claim they are.

However, any question which ignores the information available on that site can be deferred, if not in general than specifically in this thread where its been referenced so often, but its integrity and quality has yet to be meaningfully challenged.

Thats not to say everyone has to agree with everything written there. However, its a bit pointless to make a claim that question X is unanswered, or assertion Y is clearly the case when there's an article on an oft-referenced site which answers X or shows why Y is not as clear a case as it may appear, or not a case at all. Even if the poster disagrees with the contents, its pretty much a given that the first thing they'll be asked to do is explain why, so simply ignoring or dismissing out of hand said contents achieves nothing.

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote:

They're not, nor has anyone been foolish enough to claim they are.

hence your plug of this site.....eh how many times??
this site is utter tripe to say the least
thank god more and more people are seeing the truth hence the poll results here and every poll in america in the last year....

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote:

hence your plug of this site.....eh how many times??

I'm not plugging it. I'm referencing it as a source of information because its about the best I've seen to date for what it tries to do.

this site is utter tripe to say the least

And here we have a typical "refutation" of the work on the site.

Your reasoning, logic and argumentative skills leave me in awe. The manner in which you frame your argument, building piece on piece so that when the conclusion is formed it is both as inevitable as it is inarguable....its literally a joy to behold.

With such a comprehensive set of criticisms of the site, its clear that I will have to abandon my previous, foolish belief that it had any merit.

Meanwhile....back in the real world...

thank god more and more people are seeing the truth

Is it the truth coz you say so, or coz its becoming popular? And which truth is that, by the way? I've heard so many things claimed to be truth on "your" side of the fence that I'm amazed various conspiracy factions haven't yet realised that someone believing something completely different to you is not supporting your case.

hence the poll results here and every poll in america in the last year....

Ah well. If more of the Voc Populi have spoken, it must be true. We do live in a democracy after all.

If only we could get them to vote and agree that global warming doesn't exist, or that fusion reactors will be online and ready by Christmas. It would be great to make that stuff true too...

Think you could manage it?