How conspiracy theorist think.

Discussion in '9/11' started by Bluespade, Sep 19, 2015.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. bobgnote

    bobgnote New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2012
    Messages:
    739
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. You didn't analyze the twins' construction. It was restrained vertical girders. The restraints failed, after the heat got them. You need to just vote for Donald, and let him drive, as well, since that pedal you can't find is the BRAKE.

    2. Most jet crashes make shreds, and the fuel vaporizes. But the fuel stayed, at the crash sites, causing the metals to fail, by fire.

    Ask Trump, before you gamble. You should also stay thirsty. And in school, for as long as possible. Just saying!
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,812
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lead moving the speed of a bullet often vaporizes upon impact, but you think a liquid moving the speed of a bullet upon impact is just going to hang around. Bravo!

    Yes and it had horizontal columns too didnt it! LOL

    thanks for the laugh!
     
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,812
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    good. then drop the strawman ice bs because ITS NOT MY ARGUMENT, its yours, by all means start a ice thread and invite all you friends, have a blast, STOP TRYING TO FORCE ME TO ARGUE YOUR BS STRAWMAN crap.

    now the argument on the table is waiting for you to show the damage that caused the initiation of the collapse in wtc 2 since we both have agreed that its was not plane damage and it was not fire.




    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=425485&page=3&p=1065388254#post1065388254
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,812
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ok so then we agree they have no evidence what so ever to back the claim that fire caused the initiation of the collapse of wtc2.

    No, in fact you support the gubmint if you accept evidence not entered into the record on their behalf without their need to prove up the claim. I do not need irrevocable anything if that even has a legal meaning in this case.



    That may be true but you are certainly trying to waste my time with questions that anyone who wanted to argue this matter should already have the answers rather than stating claims. Again if you have a claim state it. I clearly stated my claim and requested the appropriate evidence in support of the fire theory, none has been forthcoming and it does not look like any will ever be forthcoming.

    No one has any reason to believe much less accept nothing more than gubmint guesses as fact.




    Steel evidence comes in the form of pictures which is why I asked you for them.

    Do you intend to go around in circles dodging rather than simply admit they do not exist?


    In order for you to justify your claim of confirmation bias you first need to prove I am wrong to prove I am biased and to do that you need to show us the fire damage of the columns (wtc2) that initially failed due to fire.

    Good we agree, which is why I asked you to state a claim instead of asking me questions with loaded innuendo.
     
  5. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    13,701
    Likes Received:
    1,587
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nor have you provided evidence that the government is wrong.

    A moot point as I have not accepted the governments evidence as irrefutable fact.

    Dodge noted. My questions are to better understand your position which is logical by my measure of logic as I am not a mind reader.

    I have made no claims as my position if one of ignorance rather than knowledge thus my asking questions rather than making claims. To make a claim I would have had to come to a conclusion which I have not. Do not make the mistake of assuming I am like previous people that you have debated.

    A claim that you have not backed up with source citation other than a pic that lacks context thus I take your claim as nothing but opinion.

    This has what to do with me as I make no claim for or against the evidence? I have asked clarifying questions that you have thus far chosen to dodge rather than answer.

    Says who and by what authority?

    A picture that lacks context or source citation. Remember I make no claims for or against the pics I just ask for context and source citation which you have thus far failed to produce.

    Please post proof of my alleged dodging. What is there for me to dodge when I make no claim?

    The inability to prove the negative is not proof of the positive nor vice versa.

    And yet again I make no claims here. I speak from a position of ignorance and ask questions to better understand your argument... questions that you have thus far dodged. Would you like me to repeat my questions or can you find the previous post yourself and answer them?
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,812
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,812
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I most certainly have not only to someone familiar with the material being discussed but also according to the rules of evidence, how can you even say such a thing?

    I didnt say you accepted it as an irrefutable fact you defend by inference

    no one has to be a mind reader if they know the material they are trying to debate. I have fully explained it and what I set out to prove, and am met not academically but with incredulity.

    yeh here we go again, pleading ignorance to force me into teaching. I am not here to take people by the hand and teach them metallurgy physics or mechanical engineering just so they can debate me without appropriate understanding. There is no mistake and there was a long line of people who made the same claim. That was when I had patience and discovered it was a waste of time when they pleaded ignorance in every new new thread.

    This is why I am burned out on teaching forum posters.
    Sourced citations are nothing but opinions.
    You can be your own citation if you simply learn the material you wish to debate.
    I literally dropped all the information in your lap what more do you want.


    yes which requires me to teach you what one quick glance would tell you if you simply study materials. round and round we go.

    Volumes of people who have studied it.


    I challenged everyone here yourself included to post pictures of any columns that failed due to overheating. No one has, you cannot because they do not exist. Its all a fantasy made up by posers. You have been told this before whats the point in asking again as if it were not asked several times before? Maybe that is the point?



    You mean the ability......in this case it is however proof of the positive.
    while you quote a logical fallacy it does not dispose of my argument since its incorrectly applied.


    There you go, that is my (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) in the first place, the position of ignorance that you admittedly speak from requires that I teach you about it over the forum instead of your learning it in school. Its one thing to ask for simple clarification and its another to teach what people who have the background and experience already know. Its best for people with your approach to simply take notes of what people like myself say and research it then come back when you have an argument if in fact you have an argument after doing the reseach. I am not here to replace yours or anyone else research and do everyones home work for them. sorry.
     
  8. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,024
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have never provided any evidence whatsoever that the government is wrong so stop that fib.

    Every type of evidence you have asked for has been provided and you lie and deny it
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,812
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of your post is true.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,024
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is absolutely true and you know it
     
  11. Ryriena

    Ryriena New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2015
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm a conspiracy theorists but at least I realize 9/11 happened because I actually understand the fire dynmatics that happened in the Towers. And understand the physics that were at play with Flight 93 and the one that hit the pentagon. The dubunkers are nothing more than an "official story believer". After all, the government can never do anything wrong to them. The reason I don't buy this theory is because their is no paper trial like in the JFK assassination theory where their are bread crumbs in every corner of that case. I also don't believe Bush was that smart to begin with, as such, couldn't come up with a plan that extreme.
     
  12. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,024
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which simply means your a light weight conspiracy theorist who still believes nonsense in contradiction of evidence.

    Such as JFK where there are no such crumbs but tons of evidence proving Oswald acted alone and shot kennedy.

    Words like " official story believer" simply means someone smarter and more informed.

    No one claims the government never lies and always tells the truth. Conspiracy theorists use such accusations to maintain a legend in their own minds that they are better enlightened or informed. They are not however.

    Others outside of government can lie and sell fiction as much as government can. When one follows the EVIDENCE conspiracy theories fall apart.
     
  13. Ryriena

    Ryriena New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2015
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess that I am someone that follows logical conclusions more so than random facts that have been proven nosense. I don't believe Oswald was the only one involved in his achievement of shooting JFK. Their are bread crumbs in the case and you just chose to ignore them, and I don't chose to ignore them. I have read report after report on JFK; even the Warren Commison report, which my mother had bought for her class to read, if they wanted too learn about it.
     
  14. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,024
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only logical conclusion is that Oswald acted alone.

    There are no such crumbs and the evidence leads to the conclusion above.
     
  15. Ryriena

    Ryriena New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2015
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whatever http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm This is a debunker site of course however the evidence is their if you chose to look but of course keep on keeping on.
     
  16. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,848
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,812
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113

    sure I have, from your link:


    In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.”

    :deadhorse:
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,812
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    actual debunkers are pretty much non existent today, they have been replaced by posers who simply dig in their heels that the official story is bonafide in which like oswald has been proven on many levels cant be true. you can prove these guys wrong in one thread and the push the reset button and start all over from the beginning in the next thread.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,812
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the only way anyone could ever get to the truth would be to exume the body, take dna samples and get new xrays since it is common practice for the mafia to murder someone with similar features then substitute xrays from the staged corpse. High crimes get pretty intense when it comes to covering up the real perp, just like 911, everyone who supports the gubbermint assumes all they need for proof is the news reel.
     
  20. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    You were doing so well, and then in the third sentence you abandoned the waters of reason and scampered off into truther territory with the usual brain dead ad hom.
     
  21. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,024
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The mafia has never done thay.

    Like the rest of your ideas you got this one from hollywood
     
  22. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yeah, the "belief" that skyscrapers must get stronger and therefore heavier toward the bottom is so irrational.

    psik
     
  23. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    there is no question that some conspiracy thinkers are tin hatters at best

    however, facts will sustain the truth of claims made by many, depending on the issue such as Bush's role in planning his criminal war on Iraq:



    http://www.occupydemocrats.com/newl...-plotted-iraq-war-a-year-before-launching-it/



    Newly Released Clinton Email Proves Bush & Blair Plotted Iraq War A Year Before Launching It




    It turns out that yes, there was some astonishing details hidden in Hillary Clinton’s emails – just not what the Republicans thought it was. Newly released information indicates that then-President George W. Bush had reached a secret deal with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to invade Iraq – nearly a year before the invasion took place. A secret meeting took place in April 2002, where Colin Powell wrote that “He [Blair] will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause,” Powell wrote, adding that the prime minister has the skills to “make a credible public case on current Iraqi threats to international peace,” according to Newsmax.

    It flies in the face of Blair’s public declaration that he was attempting to find a diplomatic solution to the manufactured “crisis.” It also reveals Blair’s collusion with the Department of Defense in fabricating and selling the “evidence” which convinced America that Saddam Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction (it didn’t) and that they were involved in 9/11 and planning to strike America again (they weren’t). Tony Blair, desperate for the United Kingdom to regain some of its influence in the global balance of power, went along with everything Bush asked him to, including creating the fake narrative that Saddam Hussein had an unmanned aerial vehicle program that could deliver a WMD “within 45 minutes.”

    It adds to the heaping mound of evidence that our nation was lied to, not just by our leader, but by those of our allies as well. The Iraq War will be remembered as one of the most catastrophic disasters our nation has ever brought upon themselves, the pinnacle of neoconservative arrogance and the hubris of American exceptionalism, preconceived even before 9/11 ever happened and organized to maximize the profits of defense contractors and fossil fuel companies like Vice President Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, which made $39 billion in profits over the course of the conflict. George Bush has a lot to answer for; it now appears that Mr. Blair does as well.




    ... more ...
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh please....:roll:
     
  25. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Downing Street Memo
     

Share This Page