What are you in it for?

[tomwaits]

As in, why do you like to argue with CTers? They are clearly on the fringe of society, and history shows they don't change their minds for any reason.

Personally, I think it's hilarious. Watching them back themselves into a corner while sticking with the idea that it was a conspiracy is pure entertainment. I love watching examples of cognitive dissonance, and I can't help but bring to mind the Great Disappointment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_disappointment) when it comes to CTs and Loose Change.

[JAStewart]

I love watching them crumble under the pressure.

Its a topic interest of mine anyway as a politics student.

[Brainache]

I'm in it for the chicks.


er





I may need to rethink my getting chicks strategy....

[Gravy]

As in, why do you like to argue with CTers? I don't. At all. But I feel it's necessary to confront the vicious morons who want to absolve the people who killed my neighbors, who blame others for those crimes without a shred of evidence, who disparage learning and professionalism, and who wish to replace facts with lies.

[defaultdotxbe]

the nwo sends me daily shipments of beef jerky

[PhantomWolf]

Mostly I like to talk about Apollo and when someone brings up the Hoax it's a good excuse to do so without people looking at you weird. I deal with 9/11 mostly because I think that the lunacy of the claims needs to be rebutted and that we need to not only keep remembering that there is a threat to our way of life out there, but we have to be careful how we critise our governments so that genuine critisim isn't lost in the fuzz of rampant idicocy and speculation. I rather see people critising Bushies and Co over things they are actually responsible for, rather than making stuff up.

[ConspiRaider]

The sound of a twoofer falling on his face in the morning after he's been out-thought, outmaneuvered and outgunned: Aaahhh! No sound like that in the world. Sounds like... Victory.

They require opposition. The result of sound, reasoned logic might even be more beneficial to those who are not twoofers. Personally I don't care whether the twoofer tumbles. A nice little bonus when, occasionally, it happens. But the fact is, twoofing can convince people of great falsehoods and that is dangerous, left unchecked.

[tomwaits]

I don't. At all. But I feel it's necessary to confront the vicious morons who want to absolve the people who killed my neighbors, who blame others for those crimes without a shred of evidence, who disparage learning and professionalism, and who wish to replace facts with lies.

Ok, so change "like" to "feel obligated", but you answered that question.

For me it's entertainment, but you clearly feel you have a duty to argue. But do you really think it's worth it? They are clearly an extremely small and dumb part of the population who never listen to reason, so what's the point? They are the trolls of the real world: never bringing anything substantial to the table, always just accusing everyone else of being "sheep".

[CHF]

I tackle 9/11 twoofers for three reasons.

1) lies left unchallenged can have serious consequences
2) there's nothing sadder than an otherwise rational person buying into total idiocy
e) comedy

I used to be all about #1 and 2 Then I realized that the twoof movement was dying and so now it's largely for laughs.

[Gravy]

For me it's entertainment, but you clearly feel you have a duty to argue. But do you really think it's worth it?The duty I feel is to make solid information more accessible. Whether it's worth it is an individual decision. It certainly has been for me. I've had a couple of thousand emails from people who've thanked me, and probably over a hundred emails from people who had bought into at least one major truther claim that, with my help, they discovered was false. I'm an educator, and I take satisfaction in helping people improve their critical thinking skills.

[Alferd_Packer]

It's a hobby

[stateofgrace]

As in, why do you like to argue with CTers? They are clearly on the fringe of society, and history shows they don't change their minds for any reason.

Personally, I think it's hilarious. Watching them back themselves into a corner while sticking with the idea that it was a conspiracy is pure entertainment. I love watching examples of cognitive dissonance, and I can't help but bring to mind the Great Disappointment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_disappointment) when it comes to CTs and Loose Change.

I guess it just kind of annoyed me. I came across 911 cters a few years ago on a gaming forum of all places. I had never even heard of such theories. Anyway somebody had started a thread about S Jones and bombs in the towers. I entered the thread and all of a sudden found myself totally out of my depth, I simply could not respond to the barrage of copy and paste arguments being put forward. Like I said it kind of annoyed me, simply by virtue of the fact that, even though I never bought into it, I simply could not respond.

Given time I started looking around the net and was simply appalled at the CT sites that had sprung up, all spouting the same BS. This was about the time MikeW set up his site, which I just stumbled across by chance. I read it all, every single page. It was a great site and one that simply blew away any doubts I had. I eventually went back to the gaming forum and simply wiped the floor with the resident cters, who to be honest were novices compared to some of the cters who are springing up now.

Other than that I drifted around, becoming the resident debunker on one forum and finally ended up here after being banned from a few ct forums.

Other than that I also enjoy my NWO cheques (which incidentally is overdue this mouth) and in a strange way actually feel sorry for those that still buy into these alternative theories.

[RedIbis]

The duty I feel is to make solid information more accessible. Whether it's worth it is an individual decision. It certainly has been for me. I've had a couple of thousand emails from people who've thanked me, and probably over a hundred emails from people who had bought into at least one major truther claim that, with my help, they discovered was false. I'm an educator, and I take satisfaction in helping people improve their critical thinking skills.

How do you reconcile your proclaimed occupation as an educator of critical thinking when you refer to those who offer opposition to your position as,

vicious morons who want to absolve the people who killed my neighbors, who blame others for those crimes without a shred of evidence, who disparage learning and professionalism, and who wish to replace facts with lies.

I am not any of those things but I know for a fact that I've pointed out where you have been wrong, thus contributing to the discussion in a way that works towards accuracy.

[tomwaits]

How do you reconcile your proclaimed occupation as an educator of critical thinking when you refer to those who offer opposition to your position as,



I am not any of those things but I know for a fact that I've pointed out where you have been wrong, thus contributing to the discussion in a way that works towards accuracy.

Care to point those out again for those who haven't seen it?

[RedIbis]

Care to point those out again for those who haven't seen it?

No, I don't care to at all. Gravy knows exactly what I'm talking about.

[tomwaits]

yawn. well, i tried.

[Good Lt]

vicious morons who want to absolve the people who killed my neighbors, who blame others for those crimes without a shred of evidence, who disparage learning and professionalism, and who wish to replace facts with lies.

Because that's what Troofers are.

[Good Lt]

I am not any of those things but I know for a fact that I've pointed out where you have been wrong, thus contributing to the discussion in a way that works towards accuracy.

And yet, you still believe 9-11 was an inside job, making your platitudes about "accuracy" ring hollow.

[RedIbis]

yawn. well, i tried.


Not all that much. Certainly not worthy of the man who wrote "Diamonds and Gold", a song I very much enjoy playing.

[tomwaits]

but I know for a fact that I've pointed out where you have been wrong, thus contributing to the discussion in a way that works towards accuracy.
No, I don't care to at all.


nice contribution. you've pointed out errors, but don't want to tell anyone about them! keep up your quality efforts towards truth!

[stateofgrace]

No, I don't care to at all. Gravy knows exactly what I'm talking about.

So why post on a public forum ?

[RedIbis]

And yet, you still believe 9-11 was an inside job, making your platitudes about "accuracy" ring hollow.

Your entitled to your opinion, but I check this forum to see what the best debunking arguments are for what I consider the unanwered questions on 9/11. I found Gravy's Flight 93 presentation, with hoppers of scrap metal wholly unconvincing, and I'm still waiting for NIST to explain WTC 7, so until then you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical.

[RedIbis]

So why post on a public forum ?

Where do you think it was posted?

[stateofgrace]

I'm still waiting for NIST to explain WTC 7, so until then you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why WTC 7 an empty building was so important that they demolished it.

On you go, please enlighten me.

Simply Question RedIbis, Why was WTC 7 demolished?

No other cter has ever answered this question , be the first, please.

Forgive me for being skeptical.

[afinemadness]

I don't. At all. But I feel it's necessary to confront the vicious morons who want to absolve the people who killed my neighbors, who blame others for those crimes without a shred of evidence, who disparage learning and professionalism, and who wish to replace facts with lies.

I agree completely. I at one time worked for Marsh in IT and everyone that was in my group that was in the office lost their lives. All of us in the area lost friends and to let these "people" espouse their idiocy without an attempt to set the record straight would just be wrong.

[RedIbis]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why WTC 7 an empty building was so important that they demolished it.

On you go, please enlighten me.

Simply Question RedIbis, Why was WTC 7 demolished?

No other cter has ever answered this question , be the first, please.

Forgive me for being skeptical.

You think that WTC 7 was "empty"?

I"m going to find it very difficult to take any of your questions seriously.

[stateofgrace]

Where do you think it was posted?

No idea, please enlighten me, some form of petty vendetta maybe?

[stateofgrace]

You think that WTC 7 was "empty"?

I"m going to find it very difficult to take any of your questions seriously.

Really ?

I take you won't be answering my question then?

Simple question............Why was WTC 7 demolished? Any idea ? Care to make it up, go on , give it your best shot, I am on the edge of my seat.

[RedIbis]

No idea, please enlighten me, some form of petty vendetta maybe?

It would literally consume 1/10th of a calorie for your index finger to make the two clicks and scrolldown to find the post.

[Good Lt]

Nice dodge, Ibis.

Why did "they" "demolish" WTC7? Simple question.

Should be a simple answer. Right?

[RedIbis]

Sorry guys but you don't get to frame the debate.

The question is not "why did 'they' demolish WTC 7?"

You're asking me to speculate. The important question is: Did WTC 7 collapse due to the debris and fires caused by the collapse of the towers?

That's the question, care to answer it? NIST certainly hasn't.

[ConspiRaider]

You think that WTC 7 was "empty"?

I"m going to find it very difficult to take any of your questions seriously.
You may be "right". After all, that Larry Silverstein said "Full, it." As in:

"It's full of secret CIA documents that can only be destroyed by knocking over the Twin Towers and crashing into the Pentagon as diversions and then demolishing 7 in the confusion, to save our country from those CIA documents being compromised to cross-eyed conspirators who hates real estate developers and jokes about cross-eyed conspirators."

[stateofgrace]

It would literally consume 1/10th of a calorie for your index finger to make the two clicks and scrolldown to find the post.

Your entertainment value is fading, any chance you can answer a simple question or are you simply spamming this thread?

I've asked two now, you have answered neither.

!. Why post your petty vendetta on a public forum?

2. Why was WTC 7 demolished?

[CHF]

The question is not "why did 'they' demolish WTC 7?"

You're asking me to speculate.

Your theory is that it was a demolition, correct?

So surely there must be a logical reason for why they'd do that, otherwise why would you believe it so strongly?

[RedIbis]

Your theory is that it was a demolition, correct?

So surely there must be a logical reason for why they'd do that, otherwise why would you believe it so strongly?

I take it you're not going to answer the question I asked in #31.

[Good Lt]

Sorry guys but you don't get to frame the debate.

The question is not "why did 'they' demolish WTC 7?"Until you Troofers produce a shred of evidence of ANY explosives used ANYWHERE at WTC, we do get to frame the debate. And you get to answer questions.

Sorry.

So what evidence do you have that WTC7 was "demolished?"

Did WTC 7 collapse due to the (massive structural damage caused by) debris and fires caused by the collapse of the towers?

There. Fixed that for you.

Yes.

[stateofgrace]

You think that WTC 7 was "empty"?


You think WTC 7 wasn't "empty"?

Please expand.

[tomwaits]

I take it you're not going to answer the question I asked in #31.

Ok!

The important question is: Did WTC 7 collapse due to the debris and fires caused by the collapse of the towers?

Yes. (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html)

your turn...

[Calcas]

The important question is: Did WTC 7 collapse due to the debris and fires caused by the collapse of the towers?


Yes.

Your turn.

[RedIbis]

Ok!



Yes. (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html)

your turn...

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find 911myths at all convincing. Not one of those pics shows inferno like fires, not one. Not one of those pics shows the infamous scoop, yet the collapse happens from the penthouse.

Nice try, but 911myths is only explanation, certainly not definitive proof of debris and fire causing 7's collapse. If it did, NIST wouldn't be taking so long to release their report.

[Calcas]

Ok!



Yes. (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html)

your turn...

That's too funny.

I had NOT seen your reply when I typed mine...LOL

[Good Lt]

" If it did, NIST wouldn't be taking so long to release their report."

That's specious reasoning.

I have a rock that keeps tigers away.

I don't see any tigers around here.

The rock must be working.

Wanna buy it?

[Coffee]

Sorry guys but you don't get to frame the debate.

So you're not going to answer the questions put to you in posts 24, 28, 30, 33, 36 and 37?

[tomwaits]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't find 911myths at all convincing. Not one of those pics shows inferno like fires, not one. Not one of those pics shows the infamous scoop, yet the collapse happens from the penthouse.

Nice try, but 911myths is only explanation, certainly not definitive proof of debris and fire causing 7's collapse. If it did, NIST wouldn't be taking so long to release their report.

What about all the firefighter accounts? Are you suggesting that the firefighters were in on it? Yes or no. No dodging the question. I answered yours, now it's your turn.

[stateofgrace]

If it did, NIST wouldn't be taking so long to release their report.

Are you accusing the people who work for NIST of covering up mass murder?

Please expand.

[tomwaits]

That's too funny.

I had NOT seen your reply when I typed mine...LOL

ha, i thought you were just echoing my sentiment. but i guess that's to be expected from a bunch of government shills, eh?

[Kiosk]

Because I'm interested in people.

It really does come down to that, I think. Arguing with twoofers, like arguing with creationists, isn't really an argument because there's no debate - it's more like performing experiments on lab rats. What I "enjoy" about it is the fact that you get to see some very interesting psychology, close up.

Of course, if there are fence-sitters listening in, it becomes more of a duty, and then there's naturally an element of distaste at the insensitivity of the theories themselves (I know a woman who worked in the WTC, didn't go in on 9/11 because she was off work for a fortnight, and lost most of her friends, many of whom were Jewish - so when some smirking halfwit tells me that "all the Jews got a phone call telling them not to go to work that day", as happened recently, I don't want to just shrug and say "whatever"). But the only reason I researched the subject to the point where I can debunk it from memory - rather than just to the point where I was satisfied there was no conspiracy - is that I'm fascinated by the bizarre psychology of conspiracy theorists.

[RedIbis]

What about all the firefighter accounts? Are you suggesting that the firefighters were in on it? Yes or no. No dodging the question. I answered yours, now it's your turn.

False dichotomy. Next.

[tomwaits]

Were the firefighters in on the conspiracy? Yes or no?

If you think it's a false dichotomy, just say no and explain yourself. I'm willing to listen.

[Kiosk]

Sorry to re-rail the thread, by the way.

[Good Lt]

And to answer the OP, I'm in it for the lulz. :)

And to watch hyperactive, delusional Troofers get pwned over and over again. That's just so fun to watch.

[tomwaits]

What I "enjoy" about it is the fact that you get to see some very interesting psychology, close up.

That's what I was saying. It's cognitive dissonance at work. They say they knew it was a CD because it looked like a CD. Then it is pointed out that it looks nothing like a CD. Truther then claims it was a CD that was designed not to look like a CD. That's pure cognitive dissonance at its funniest.

[ConspiRaider]

False dichotomy. Next.
Motive. Forget (just for a brief moment) about the fires, penthouse, Pull It, thermite, NIST, Gravy.

You will now tell us what the motive was for intentionally demolishing WTC7 in this fashion. Buildings are deliberately demolished all the time. But you are saying this one was demolished by people, with a specific motive.

Answer this question or get the hell out of here.

[RedIbis]

Were the firefighters in on the conspiracy? Yes or no?

If you think it's a false dichotomy, just say no and explain yourself. I'm willing to listen.

False dichotomy. (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy)

[Good Lt]

False dichotomy.Interesting...

If it did, NIST wouldn't be taking so long to release their report.


That's specious reasoning.

I have a rock that keeps tigers away.

I don't see any tigers around here.

The rock must be working.

Wanna buy it?

Next.

Next.Here's next:

What evidence do you have to prove that WTC7 was "demolished?"

[tomwaits]

False dichotomy. (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy)

I don't understand. Either they are or aren't part of the conspiracy. What's the third option you suggest?

[RedIbis]

Interesting...






Next.

Here's next:

What evidence do you have to prove that WTC7 was "demolished?"

What are you talking about? The bldg was demolished. Is that in dispute? Unless I'm mistaken what we're debating is how it came to be demolished. Right?

[stateofgrace]

What are you talking about? The bldg was demolished. Is that in dispute? Unless I'm mistaken what we're debating is how it came to be demolished. Right?


Incorrect.............so why was it demolished?

[Good Lt]

What are you talking about? The bldg was demolished. Is that in dispute? Unless I'm mistaken what we're debating is how it came to be demolished. Right? If intentionally, how?
If intentionally, by whom?

Just asking questions. And you're not providing any answers.

[RedIbis]

Answer this question or get the hell out of here.

Unless you're a mod and I've broken a rule, I'll ask you to remain civil and spare me the ultimatums. They're entirely unintimidating, soporific in fact.

[tomwaits]

Either they are or aren't part of the conspiracy. If you have a third option, then please explain. Notice how this is not a false dichotomy because I'm allowing you to explain a third option. Please answer.

I am going to keep posting this until you answer.

[RedIbis]

Either they are or aren't part of the conspiracy. If you have a third option, then please explain. Notice how this is not a false dichotomy because I'm allowing you to explain a third option. Please answer.

I am going to keep posting this until you answer.

Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue, too?

[tomwaits]

Let it be noted that he refuses to answer the question, instead posting what he thinks are witty replies.

[RedIbis]

Let it be noted that he refuses to answer the question, instead posting what he thinks are witty replies.

Noted and quoted!

[tomwaits]

I don't understand. Are you embarrassed to admit you think they are or aren't part of a conspiracy? I will leave this thread if you say yes or no or explain yourself. Honestly. I just want an answer.

[quixotecoyote]

epic lulz

[RedIbis]

I don't understand. Are you embarrassed to admit you think they are or aren't part of a conspiracy? I will leave this thread if you say yes or no or explain yourself. Honestly. I just want an answer.

What is the point of your question? There were hundreds of firefighters on the scene of many ranks, depts, etc. Some survived, some didn't. Some described bombs going off, some described large fires.

I find it ridiculous to be challenged on questions based entirely on generalization and speculation.

[tomwaits]

So are you saying some were part of the conspiracy and some weren't?

[RedIbis]

So are you saying some were part of the conspiracy and some weren't?

I'm saying that if you base your investigation on quotations, you're going to find a lot of contradictions.

[ConspiRaider]

Unless you're a mod and I've broken a rule, I'll ask you to remain civil and spare me the ultimatums. They're entirely unintimidating, soporific in fact.
Attention: RedIbis has just left the building.

You HAVE gotten the hell out of here. Thank you. You look a lot better going.

Oh fine, you might twooferishly still post your vapid crap just to increase your count, but you have clearly demonstrated that you've gone.

You may return to darken this thread again when you have something of actual substance to convey. Empty posts indicate one thing only: You are outta here.

[tomwaits]

I'm saying that if you base your investigation on quotations, you're going to find a lot of contradictions.

So they weren't part of the conspiracy and the quotations are just examples of general confusion or whatever? Am I reading your statement correctly?

[RedIbis]

Attention: RedIbis has just left the building.

You HAVE gotten the hell out of here. Thank you. You look a lot better going.

Oh fine, you might twooferishly still post your vapid crap just to increase your count, but you have clearly demonstrated that you've gone.

You may return to darken this thread again when you have something of actual substance to convey. Empty posts indicate one thing only: You are outta here.

So are you talking to someone who's not here but is really here?

[The Silver Shadow]

Conspiracy theorists are like a woman, once you argue with them, they're all you want to argue with :D

[Good Lt]

So are you talking to someone who's not here but is really here?

What evidence do you have the WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

[1337m4n]

No offense to either side, but this little WTC7 "debate" here is like two deaf people trying to have an argument.

As to the OP: I do it for the lulz. (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/I_did_it_for_the_lulz)

Seriously. I could say I have some noble-sounding motive like "defending the truth" or "honoring the victims" or "working against propaganda that supports the enemy", but as heartless as it sounds, I don't entirely care about any of those things. This, to me, is a hobby, and not much else.

[tomwaits]

All I want is an answer. My point here is that this is an example of a truther being confronted with what their theories implicate. They are all about innuendo and vague speculation, so when you actually confront them with what it means, they don't want to answer because of its obvious absurdity. If RedIbis answers my question, whether that be "yes","no","i don't know", "sort of yes", etc, then I will stop asking and leave the thread.

[OldTigerCub]

As in, why do you like to argue with CTers? They are clearly on the fringe of society, and history shows they don't change their minds for any reason.

Personally, I think it's hilarious. Watching them back themselves into a corner while sticking with the idea that it was a conspiracy is pure entertainment. I love watching examples of cognitive dissonance, and I can't help but bring to mind the Great Disappointment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_disappointment) when it comes to CTs and Loose Change.

Personally, I am just here to learn...but some of the hillarity offered by troothers is just too good to pass up when it comes time to spit out a snarky comment. Granted, there are some that are clearly ill... but poking fun at smart people who make stupid statements is good sport.

[Corsair 115]

I don't find 911myths at all convincing. Not one of those pics shows inferno like fires, not one. What is your definition of an "inferno like fire"? How did you arrive at that definition? What are the assumptions underlying it?

[Gravy]

What is your definition of an "inferno like fire"? in*fer*no (n.) What lazybones firefighters call a small, manageable fire when they feel like lying. See also fully involved.

[leftysergeant]

I take this pretty seriously, but I can still have a bit of fun at it. I have a slightly grotesque sense of humor. It served me well as a fire fighter and soldier.

I see in some of the twoofer sites the hands of enemies of our very civilization. It is not a mere coincidence that many of the groups involved, sooner or later, show some linkage to white nationalism. The distrust for government- all government, legitimate or otherwise - that the twoofers seek to arouse plays right into the hands of the white nationalists. They are a threat to my well-being, should they ever organize enough useful idiots to help them in their RaHoWa.

I would rather not have to resist them in the streets with firearms. I'm a good shot, but I cannot take them all out by myself. So it is probably best that I defang them by showing them up for the idiots and vermin they are. That is why I sometimes become rather viscious in my attacks on certain of their mentors, such as Bollyn, D.B.Smith and Eric May.

[eromitlab]

The 9/11 tr00th arguments are based on bad information, twisted to fit the story, by people who are in it to manipulate as many people as possible to come over to their side. I'd rather not just stand aside and let that happen.

Plus, if I do well enough, I might get the guvmint's attention and prove I can be a credible disinfo agent after all, and I'll get a plush cube of my very own at Fort Meade.

[chillzero]

No idea, please enlighten me, some form of petty vendetta maybe?

I don't see any vendetta. RedIbis corrected Gravy on an error in another thread, and Gravy has acknowledged it. Review the thread on the other witness in the basement who was with William Rodriguez if you need more info.

Please take any discussion of WTC7 to one of the many threads it is already being discussed in. This thread has been severely derailed, and I would like to see it back on topic, without needing to split it (although I will if I have to).

Conspiracy theorists are like a woman, once you argue with them, they're all you want to argue with :D

I like that. :D

[westprog]

As in, why do you like to argue with CTers? They are clearly on the fringe of society, and history shows they don't change their minds for any reason.

Personally, I think it's hilarious. Watching them back themselves into a corner while sticking with the idea that it was a conspiracy is pure entertainment. I love watching examples of cognitive dissonance, and I can't help but bring to mind the Great Disappointment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_disappointment) when it comes to CTs and Loose Change.

I'm here for the cognitive dissonance. I find it fascinating that someone like Griffin can make two points in successive paragraphs, one of which contradicts the other, in spite of the fact that his job is supposed to involve clear reasoning.

I have no interest in engaging or debating with people who are incapable of thinking clearly. I do find it interesting to dig out precisely what their erroneous reasoning consists of.

[Stellafane]

What it all boils down to is that I'm here because I hate it when willful stupidity affects good people's lives. And that's that this whole 9/11 thing is, willful stupidity. And the good people whose lives it affects includes families of 9/11 victims who have suffered enough. Maybe my posts here don't amount to a whole lot, but it's what I can do, so I do it.

And laughs. If you get past the stupidity and craziness and meanness, watching CTers get there lunch handed to them in increasingly humiliating ways is worth the occasional laugh or two. (Yes, I admit I'm not always a good person.)

[tomwaits]

I don't see any vendetta. RedIbis corrected Gravy on an error in another thread, and Gravy has acknowledged it. Review the thread on the other witness in the basement who was with William Rodriguez if you need more info.

Ok, in that case I apologize to RedIbis for questioning his correction of one of Gravy's points.



HOWEVER: Gravy has acknowledged the error and corrected it. I see that it still doesn't change much, so I am not concerned with it.

[StickMan2008]

I don't see how someone could be so devoted to opposing CTs

Spreading them because of the implications is one thing. But what's the point of the slander when the media takes care of that?


IMO

A)People are in denial of their beliefs and subconsciously/consciously are curious about the possibility of OS being untrue. But they call themselves defending their utopian mindset

B)They are disinfo agents

IMO there is no in between. No explanation why someone would devote so much time to slandering a movement that only has a minority following in the first place

[tomwaits]

B)They are disinfo agents

:dl::dl::dl:

[StickMan2008]

The 9/11 tr00th arguments are based on bad information, twisted to fit the story, by people who are in it to manipulate as many people as possible to come over to their side. I'd rather not just stand aside and let that happen.

Plus, if I do well enough, I might get the guvmint's attention and prove I can be a credible disinfo agent after all, and I'll get a plush cube of my very own at Fort Meade.

The ironic thing is the complete opposite is true.

You want to talk masters of manipulation look no further than the US media and Hearst Magazine.

Talk about the art of propaganda techniques.

Even the man who was chosen to lead the 9/11 commission, instead of being a criminal investigator, he was a Bush insider who was a master of manipulation.

And the only reason he was used because the victims familes disapproved of another known manipulator in Kissinger.

[StickMan2008]

:dl::dl::dl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet

You think such things don't exist?

Im not accusing this site of that, but there really isn't an in between


How could someone passionately try to defend the OS of 9/11 outside those two scenarios?

[tomwaits]

Are you saying we are all the same person?

[StickMan2008]

Are you saying we are all the same person?

That's not how I imagine the process works.

It would be several individuals.


These sock puppets def exist.


I don't know if they are trying to look like disinfo or they really are but all over Youtube videos you see people who just recently registered and comment on 9/11 video with some deceptive comment.

[tomwaits]

I don't know if the noises in the foundation of my house are ghosts or people trying to be ghosts but something fishy is going on! :eye-poppi

[Dave Rogers]

IMO

A)People are in denial of their beliefs and subconsciously/consciously are curious about the possibility of OS being untrue. But they call themselves defending their utopian mindset

B)They are disinfo agents

IMO there is no in between. No explanation why someone would devote so much time to slandering a movement that only has a minority following in the first place

I always find it amusing when someone tries, in effect, to tell me that I don't exist. When you present a conclusion that's so patently absurd, it saves a lot of time that might be wasted on debunking your line of reasoning.

Let's look at the possible reasons why a conspiracy theorist might want to come to this forum and try to convince a group of skeptics that he's right and they're wrong, based on a set of evidence that he knows that these skeptics have analysed and discussed to death. Frankly, I have trouble thinking of even one possible motivation. So basically there are two possibilities here:

(a) I am not able to fathom all the possible motivations behind why a person may choose to post on a specific subject on a particular forum, or

(b) The truth movement does not exist, and neither do you.

Your problem is that you're not prepared to consider the possibility of your own fallibility.

Dave

[westprog]

IMO

A)People are in denial of their beliefs and subconsciously/consciously are curious about the possibility of OS being untrue. But they call themselves defending their utopian mindset

B)They are disinfo agents

IMO there is no in between. No explanation why someone would devote so much time to slandering a movement that only has a minority following in the first place

The interesting thing about this post is that it makes no reference to the intrinsic truth of the conspiracy theories. Hence anyone who disputes the truth of any of the conspiracy beliefs - laser beams from space, missiles fired from the planes before impact, whatever - is in denial, or a paid disinfo agent.

Even if two conspiracy beliefs contradict each other, if you deny one of them, it means you have a utopian mindset.

This is why my interest in CT's is in the psychology of the believers. The extent to which reality can be denied is astonishing.

[tomwaits]

A)People are in denial of their beliefs

And what is this even supposed to mean?

[RedIbis]

Ok, in that case I apologize to RedIbis for questioning his correction of one of Gravy's points.



HOWEVER: Gravy has acknowledged the error and corrected it. I see that it still doesn't change much, so I am not concerned with it.

Apology accepted. It's not a big deal and I support the mods good work in keeping threads on track.

My only point was that in reference to the OP, I'm "in it" as I suspect Gravy is, is to learn as much as possible about a very complex day. The example of correcting Gravy was so that these discussions remain civil and productive because too often they are contentious.

Believe it or not you might learn something from people you disagree with. I know I have.

[westprog]

That's not how I imagine the process works.

It would be several individuals.


These sock puppets def exist.


I don't know if they are trying to look like disinfo or they really are but all over Youtube videos you see people who just recently registered and comment on 9/11 video with some deceptive comment.

So, StickMan - you've gone on record as stating that the fires weren't hot enough to cause collapse, as shown by the people standing waving.

Regardless of the merits of that particular claim - what do you make of people who claim that the fire was so hot that molten steel could be seen coming out of the building, and that pools of molten steel were found in the basement? Disinfo or in denial?

[Mister Earl]

What is the point of your question? There were hundreds of firefighters on the scene of many ranks, depts, etc. Some survived, some didn't. Some described bombs going off, some described large fires.
I'm saying that if you base your investigation on quotations, you're going to find a lot of contradictions.

Just wanted to point out that. Seems almost like you shot down yourself.