Why do people believe 911 was a conspiracy?

<< < (8/9) > >>

mdg (January 31, 2008, 15:34:47 PM):
This is what I found on google for "worlds last chance":
http://www.worldslastchance.com/, or is there another site with the document you mentioned Logic_ Bomb?
Logic_Bomb (January 31, 2008, 16:53:19 PM):
No it's not that website. I have the document with the author's website on my PC at home, I will check it out and let you know tomorrow. It's an exhaustive (and sometimes exhausting) document which traces the NWO from 1 May 1776, really worth the read if you are sincere about wanting to know what's going on behind the scenes. Here's a link to an interesting piece too: http://www.geocities.com/hankmcintyre/nwofacts1.html.

Anacoluthon I'm curious to know if you are open at all to a different viewpoint than the one you currently hold, because the simple fact of the matter is that there is so much information to support everything I've said (which really hasn't been much!). It's all out there on the www for anyone to find, if you'd care to look. Skip the mainstream media for a change and prepare to have your mind blown!
Mefiante (January 31, 2008, 17:23:05 PM):
Anacoluthon I'm curious to know if you are open at all to a different viewpoint than the one you currently hold, …
Ah, yes, insinuate that your detractors don’t have an open mind. But to answer your question, what do you expect I will say? “No,” perhaps? Of course I’m open to different viewpoints, but what you’re talking about are facts rather than viewpoints, and facts are by their nature verifiable. It’s the interpretation of those facts on which we differ.



… because the simple fact of the matter is that there is so much information to support everything I've said (which really hasn't been much!). It's all out there on the www for anyone to find, if you'd care to look.
I see. So accusing the “western intelligence agencies and the global elite” of mass murder, grievous bodily harm on a grand scale, colossal property damage, treachery, deception, collusion and a litany of lesser crimes is, in your estimation, “really not much.” See, that’s where we differ: an accusation of such proportions as you have proposed absolutely demands a watertight body of evidence, not circumstantial arguments from incredulity, false dichotomy, and lukewarm speculation bolstered by fervid rhetoric. And remember that the onus is on you as the claimant to prove your case, not on me or anyone else to disprove it.



Skip the mainstream media for a change and prepare to have your mind blown!
I have done so. I have told you this. I have also told you why I reject their contentions regarding the 911 event.

Now, what is your evidence? And, once again, what evidence would you consider sufficient to convince you that the official version of the events of 911 is accurate?

'Luthon64
Logic_Bomb (January 31, 2008, 17:43:38 PM):
Wow you're a tough cookie. I am not the originator/author of the 9/11 conspiracy theory (misnomer if ever there was one). Have you read any of the articles on either www.infowars.com or www.rense.com? You will find all the factual evidence you demand of me there. If, after reading these, you are still unclear, please let me know so we can chat about it once we're on the same page. With regards to your last question, nothing could convince me of the 911 official report's authenticity, as it has been debunked ad nauseam by experts from many fields of science, politics, etc. Now relax a bit, take your hard hat off and read some :P
Mefiante (January 31, 2008, 18:38:46 PM):
I am not the originator/author of the 9/11 conspiracy theory …
But clearly you subscribe to it as proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Why?



… (misnomer if ever there was one).
How so?



Have you read any of the articles on either www.infowars.com or www.rense.com?
For the third time, yes.



You will find all the factual evidence you demand of me there.
And again, what “factual evidence” are you referring to?



If, after reading these, you are still unclear, please let me know so we can chat about it once we're on the same page.
You’re obviously confused over the issue of “onus,” “burden of proof” and “no free ride” I mentioned earlier so allow me to clarify: It means that you present your case with the specific arguments plus supporting evidence that leave you convinced of what you’re proposing. Any forum member then has the right of reply to present counterarguments and evidence. What it decidedly does not mean is that – and I repeat – a general hand-wave at one or two websites (which, worse yet, also contain a glut of extraneous information) can be taken as a valid argument. If it were so, I would be entitled to argue that fairies exist because a Google search returns 18,500,000 hits, many of which assert that fairies are real. You will, I hope, agree that arguing thus is absurd.



With regards to your last question, nothing could convince me of the 911 official report's authenticity, as it has been debunked ad nauseam by experts from many fields of science, politics, etc.
Well there we have it – "[N]othing could convince me…," including, presumably, the debunkings and counter-debunkings of the “troofers.” So there’s no point in debating then, is there? What is your purpose here?

'Luthon64

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page