Why do people believe 911 was a conspiracy?

<< < (6/9) > >>

Mefiante (January 29, 2008, 10:39:35 AM):
Interesting, then, that Jeff Rense is so often described as a loon, whose stock-in-trade, like a fringe low-circulation newsletter, is racism and hate speech. Oh, but I forget: it's all part of a big conspiracy to discredit Rense and to manipulate the population-at-large, keeping them dumb.

ETA: What evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

'Luthon64
Logic_Bomb (January 30, 2008, 13:20:47 PM):
Oh well if it's on Wikipedia it must be true then? LOL. Copernicus was a loon too! And a silly little nerd called Bill Gates for believing that normal citizens would use computers. Shall I continue? Please don't knock it until you've tried it.
bluegray (January 30, 2008, 13:39:11 PM):
Oh well if it's on rense.com it must be true then? LOL.
As your name suggests, your logic has bombed with this one. By your logic, someone must be right if their views are rejected? People like Rense are not taken seriously because they have no evidence for what they are arguing. Besides, it's been tried, knocked, and sensible people have moved on.
Mefiante (January 30, 2008, 14:02:10 PM):
Oh well if it's on Wikipedia it must be true then? LOL.
The truth isn’t guaranteed, of course, but the nature of Wikipedia makes it a credible resource. You must have missed the prolific list of contributors to the article, and you’re also entitled to correct any factual errors it contains. Please go ahead and do so.

Copernicus was a loon too! And a silly little nerd called Bill Gates for believing that normal citizens would use computers. Shall I continue?
Please do! Copernicus had lots of solid evidence to back up his claims. Bill Gates had the acute foresight to bet on the right horse. Jeff Rense, on the other hand, has neither good evidence nor good horse sense, despite your earlier averment re “overwhelming evidence”. Were it so overwhelming, you can be sure that a major US newspaper or two, if not one of several independent investigative bodies, would have picked up on it.

Please don't knock it until you've tried it.
Oh, I have tried the "troofers" but I found their ill-conceived rants, badly constructed argumentation, poor grasp of scientific principles, manufactured coincidences and energetic finger pointing quite unconvincing, not to mention morally repugnant. They rely on emotive humbug to evince an emotional response, not a rational one. We all like a good scapegoat for our own bad fortunes; why not make one up with blacker-than-black morals?

So my question still stands: What evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

And, what bluegray V said. :)

'Luthon64
Logic_Bomb (January 31, 2008, 12:38:51 PM):
Look I'm not going to be drawn into a senseless battle of wits here. If you want to believe the mainstream media (all owned by the global elite) then that is your choice. If you want to knock rense.com without delving into the NUMEROUS reports with FACTS on 9/11 etc., then you can also try www.infowars.com. I was not promoting Jeff Rense as an individual, there are hundreds of contributors with unquestionable credentials that submit articles to his site. And if you really want to honestly seek the truth behind the global conspiracy, google for and download a document called "World's last chance", detailing the rise of the Illuminati and global elite since its' official inception on 1 July 1776 by Adam Weishaupt. If you can't find it on the net, let me know and I will email the doc to you.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page