Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Posted: November 21 2011 at 10:08
James wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
mom, cracked is not really a good source for you to be leaning so heavily on...
I understand that. That particular article just broke the two possible reasons for all this nonsense so forcefully.
It actually made your viewpoint even less valid. Sorry.
That's because you are hard-headed and impossible to reason with. I'm sure you'd rather believe Bigfoot were piloting the planes at the behest of the underground-mole-people then accept what actually happened.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 21 2011 at 11:13
manofmystery wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
mom, cracked is not really a good source for you to be leaning so heavily on...
I understand that. That particular article just broke the two possible reasons for all this nonsense so forcefully.
That particular article is quite good. I mean, it shows the stupidity behind the particular video and everything around it. I'm sure MoM wouldn't cite Cracked as an ultimate source of wisdom (nothing, not even peer-reviewed scientific articles are ultimate fountains of truth) but this particular one makes such a good point...
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Posted: November 22 2011 at 08:35
It may make a good point but it doesn't mean it's correct. Plus he really didn't do much research himself. He said he'd get both sides of the story. He just belittled the conspiracy side. He didn't take any elements of it seriously.
And no, I'd rather go with the official story than think Bigfoot was flying the 'planes.
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Posted: November 22 2011 at 08:56
manofmystery wrote:
James wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
Saying because it would take a certain amount of explosives to demolish a building, in such a way, that a plane crash couldn't is a logical fallacy.
How so? Please do explain.
Ever hear of the expression: "comparing apples to oranges"
That didn't answer my question. How can a 'plane (and I know there were supposed to be 2 but I dealing with both towers separately here) full of jet fuel hat hits a building of that scale (and 3/4 of the way up) be expected to be equal to that estimated figure for a controlled explosion? A controlled explosion takes planning. There was ample time for people to plan it all. There were builders working in the building up to a week before and I'm sure even before that they had time to work on it.
If there was no controlled explosion, then a 'plane, that hits the building, is expected to cause a tower to collaspe into its own footprint in the same manner as a controlled explosion? Not once but twice? Plus a third building that wasn't even hit by a 'plane (admittedly a lot smaller) and was only hit by debris, also happens to fall into its own footprint? This is without barely any impact at all.
You'll say the fires caused it.
If that is the case, then won't down people who are in the demolition business set fire to their buildings?
You'll probably say that's a stupid comparison and also say because it's slower.
If it's slower, then how come fires supposedly brought down 3 different buildings within a couple of hours of the fires starting?
Experts is a subjective term. In my opinion claiming, on youtube or elsewhere, that the buildings looked like they were bombed invalidates your expert status.
So basically you're calling bullsh*t on anyone with a differing opinion to your own? Whoever they claim to be. Hold on, that's a false negative. I could easily say the same thing about people who are experts and post something on Youtube who claim that the buildings collapsed due the 'plane crashes and fires. Because they claim this on Youtube, it therefore invalidates their opinion and their expert status.
It's the same argument you're making.
I said expert was a subjective term so it's not as though you caught me here. I even said "in my opinion".
So you basically agreed with me then. You're calling bullsh*t on it because you're "hard-hearded" and won't even think that anything untoward happened that day. No doubts whatsoever.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Oh and I never said they were bombed. Do you not read properly?
The piece from the cracked article said "bombed". I was responding to your response to that.
A controlled explosion is not being bombed. It may consist of using bombs but they're not being dropped by 'planes.
Anyway you want to word it, it didn't happen. You might not agree with the video below but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than anything you've thrown out there.
Do his own research? He was writing an analysis of existing information.
No. He chose to pretty much steal information from sources that try to debunk the conspiracies. He dismisses everything that supports conspiracies and doesn't even think before he types (sorry, copy and paste), otherwise he'd never have said what he did about there being not experts in demolition who disagree with the official story. I suspect his source said the same thing and he just stole and it didn't fact check.
Have you ever written a paper for a class? You don't pull information out of your ass. You gather information, piece it together in your own voice for your audience, then cite your sources. I suspect that he probably thinks as much of your experts as I do.
I have written many. Yes. If I'd have written that Cracked article, I'd have probably failed as I would have pretty much just stolen the information from a website. Yes I may have re-worded it but it's not my own research. Plus I'd also have failed for not being reasoned and taking the conspiracy side of the story seriously.
Oh and then openly admitting I stole the material from a website and forums as I close. Oh that'd go down well with my assessor!
Here's a little video about debunking controlled demolition, while I'm here:
Oh, and Karl Pilkington is a friend of British comedian Ricky Gervais. Ricky finds Karl's bizarre world view and willingness to believe anything he reads online to be hilarious and has put a lot of effort into trying to make him a household name.
Ah. Ricky Gervais... urgh. He's so up his own arse! He used to be amusing but now he's just annoying. He was born in the same town as my two older brothers too... oh well.
Ricky's funny but Karl is hilarious. I've found this discussion far from funny and extremely close to tragic. I'm all for skepticism, especially when it comes to government, but I just can't stand people yelling fire when there isn't even any smoke. There is just no way in hell that 9/11 was a government conpiracy. I'd swear that on my life.
There's plenty of fire without smoke. Open your eyes to it. How come so many people on this very poll have voted for 9/11? I know they're not saying they believe it but they say it's the most likely.
So I'm not alone. There's millions of us out there who don't believe the official story. Many of us disagree and indeed argue with each other (not me, as I don't post on any conspiracy forums about it) but we alll agree that elements of the story simply don't hold up to scrutiny.
Anyway, with any conspiracy, you'll get debunkers. That's the nature of a conspiracy.
In both cases you'll find that people choose to ignore evidence. Again, that's the nature of both conspiracy theorists and debunkers of those conspiracies.
If tomorrow Bush or one of his cronies admitted it was an inside-job, what would you do?
Of course, that won't ever happen but I am curious as to how you'd react.
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372
Posted: November 22 2011 at 08:58
The T wrote:
manofmystery wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
mom, cracked is not really a good source for you to be leaning so heavily on...
I understand that. That particular article just broke the two possible reasons for all this nonsense so forcefully.
That particular article is quite good. I mean, it shows the stupidity behind the particular video and everything around it. I'm sure MoM wouldn't cite Cracked as an ultimate source of wisdom (nothing, not even peer-reviewed scientific articles are ultimate fountains of truth) but this particular one makes such a good point...
Except the author is lying in regards to some of his answers.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 22 2011 at 11:32
CPicard wrote:
James wrote:
And no, I'd rather go with the official story than think Bigfoot was flying the 'planes.
Hey, I would buy this last one. At least, it's more believable than the hypothesis of the Chupacabra doing it.
Yeah right, try to operate a plane with those big hands (which I guess accompany the big feet...) The Chupacabra theory is more plausible due to more maneuverability...
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:20
Ah, and of course: Scientology. Evil galactic emperor using tax collectors which fly people in giant B-52 shaped space ships to earth and into volcanos - and then later forcing those peoples' souls to watch movies ...
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:21
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Ah, and of course: Scientology. Evil galactic emperor using tax collectors which fly people in giant B-52 shaped space ships to earth and into volcanos - and then later forcing those peoples' souls to watch movies ...
That's not a conspiracy theory.. that's mass lunacy...
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:32
The T wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Ah, and of course: Scientology. Evil galactic emperor using tax collectors which fly people in giant B-52 shaped space ships to earth and into volcanos - and then later forcing those peoples' souls to watch movies ...
That's not a conspiracy theory.. that's mass lunacy...
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: November 22 2011 at 12:38
Dean wrote:
The T wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Ah, and of course: Scientology. Evil galactic emperor using tax collectors which fly people in giant B-52 shaped space ships to earth and into volcanos - and then later forcing those peoples' souls to watch movies ...
That's not a conspiracy theory.. that's mass lunacy...
Unlike every other religion?
...any other religion?
... an other religion?
... a religion?
...a?
Well yeah but even for a religion scientology really takes craziness to the next level...
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: flyover country
Status: Offline
Points: 2822
Posted: November 22 2011 at 16:28
The T wrote:
Dean wrote:
The T wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Ah, and of course: Scientology. Evil galactic emperor using tax collectors which fly people in giant B-52 shaped space ships to earth and into volcanos - and then later forcing those peoples' souls to watch movies ...
That's not a conspiracy theory.. that's mass lunacy...
Unlike every other religion?
...any other religion?
... an other religion?
... a religion?
...a?
Well yeah but even for a religion scientology really takes craziness to the next level...
Well what do you expect of a religion that started as a bar bet?
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Posted: November 22 2011 at 16:50
A study was undertaken at the University of East Anglia in the 1980's, into the psychology of conspiracy theorists. It concluded that many conspiracy theorists had issues with drugs, drink and an inability to form personal relationships, and found the world around them very hard to cope with. Hence they looked for explanations for sinister and or/ seemingly random events, usually concluding that an evil cabal, who operated in the shadows of government, were behind most if not all significant geo-political events.
Tax payers money well spent, again..
No wonder we're broke. Perhaps if they had invested more money in research into the psychology and the CONSPIRACY that is global banking, we'd be slightly less f***ed!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.179 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The most intriguing conspiracy theory
Topic Options
Henry Plainview wrote:
