Do you think 9/11 was an inside job? (poll)

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] You got me, dude. I'm just an unreasonable conspiracy theorist. I'm not playing devil's advocate in the face of a majority who trust's the official story. That would be ... paranoid of you to assume. willy279

I'm glad you finally admitted it. People playing Devil's Advocate don't agree with them on every single point, nor do they constantly go "look at all these people -- how can they all be wrong?!"

[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

1. Thus proving your bias.

2. I know much about what the United States did in South America during the 1980's. I also know a bit about what they did in Central America, the Middle East, and Africa in the name of fighting Communism. That doesn't mean I inherently consider the government untrustworthy. All that means is that I consider trust on a case-to-case basis, and in the case of 9/11, I find their report fairly reliable.

tycoonmike

Whereas I try to approach something as objectively as possible, you seem to want to flaunt your subjectivity. Indeed, I have not once said that the government can be fully trusted. I may have said that in light of the evidence the government report seems fairly reliable, but I've always stopped short of saying they can always be trusted.

[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm glad you finally admitted it. People playing Devil's Advocate don't agree with them on every single point, nor do they constantly go "look at all these people -- how can they all be wrong?!"

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I'm glad you finally admitted it. People playing Devil's Advocate don't agree with them on every single point, nor do they constantly go "look at all these people -- how can they all be wrong?!"

Theokhoth

Yes, I made it up. . .NIST and everyone else; they're part of the illusion generated by Hogwarts. Ya caught me.

Really? Because every post I see, when somebody explains why they think it was NOT a coverup, you respond with "how do you explain this and that and this and that" followed by at least one link to a conspiracy website. When somebody explains why they think it WAS a coverup, you respond with "yeah, that's right, and there's also this and that and this and that," followed by at least one link to a conspiracy website.

I think that most of you define "conspiracy theory website" as "a website which disagrees with me about this."willy279

[QUOTE="willy279"]I think that most of you define "conspiracy theory website" as "a website which disagrees with me about this."-Sun_Tzu-

No, I don't see how America or the world has benefited in any way from it. kruesader

Wait...what? Are you for real? Look at how much weapon manufacturers make from war. Then see how connected Bush was to these companies, then come back and be in awe.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="willy279"] When you give me this 10,000 number (which you made up) you're doing the same thing. I'm willing to look at my assumptions et al, I really don't think you are. This is why I've continued this thing with you. It's really just critical thinking. If you go back a few pages, you'll find me disagreeing with the YES people for sure, and not as much as disagreeing with the NO people, but mostly because I find the former activity to be more fun, or easy or something. At least I'm able to see it from both sides. Want me to play on your side for a while? It's probably just as easy. All you have to do is say "OMG, another CONSPIRACY THEORIST." I'm curious: if I gave you links with questioning/alternative ideas as to what happened, would you continue calling them "conspiracy theorist" links or whatever? Is there this actual dichotomy of REALITY versus THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS? willy279

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] When you give me this 10,000 number (which you made up) you're doing the same thing. I'm willing to look at my assumptions et al, I really don't think you are. This is why I've continued this thing with you. It's really just critical thinking. If you go back a few pages, you'll find me disagreeing with the YES people for sure, and not as much as disagreeing with the NO people, but mostly because I find the former activity to be more fun, or easy or something. At least I'm able to see it from both sides. Want me to play on your side for a while? It's probably just as easy. All you have to do is say "OMG, another CONSPIRACY THEORIST." I'm curious: if I gave you links with questioning/alternative ideas as to what happened, would you continue calling them "conspiracy theorist" links or whatever? Is there this actual dichotomy of REALITY versus THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS? willy279

Yes, I made it up. . .NIST and everyone else; they're part of the illusion generated by Hogwarts. Ya caught me.

Really? Because every post I see, when somebody explains why they think it was NOT a coverup, you respond with "how do you explain this and that and this and that" followed by at least one link to a conspiracy website. When somebody explains why they think it WAS a coverup, you respond with "yeah, that's right, and there's also this and that and this and that," followed by at least one link to a conspiracy website.

Do you have your eyes set to "ignore" for whenever someone brings up NIST? That ALONE is over six thousand people. Then there's every other engineering firm in the country (what, want proof for that too?). The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Popular Mechanics.

[QUOTE="willy279"]Look look look, it's REAL NEWS! http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-US-Intelligence-Examiner~y2009m9d2-911-Commission-Report-questioned-by-100-professorswilly279

I noticed that the first person listed is David Ray Griffin. He isn't even an engineer or a physicist or a scientist - he's a theologian. And he isn't credible.PannicAtack

Anyone can be an engineer -- if you use your imagination!

Why hasn't GabuEx posted here yet?

[QUOTE="willy279"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Depends entirely on whether the site is credible. For example, AE911, which you mentioned, is not credible. In one debate, Richard Gage, the founder, stood up on his chair, and dropped a cardboard box on top of another cardboard box, in order to somehow prove that the towers shouldn't have collapsed. They've also made blatantly false statements, such as the "free-fall acceleration" myth.PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I noticed that the first person listed is David Ray Griffin. He isn't even an engineer or a physicist or a scientist - he's a theologian. And he isn't credible.Theokhoth

Anyone can be an engineer -- if you use your imagination!

[QUOTE="kruesader"]No, I don't see how America or the world has benefited in any way from it. xXDante666Xx

Wait...what? Are you for real? Look at how much weapon manufacturers make from war. Then see how connected Bush was to these companies, then come back and be in awe.

[QUOTE="willy279"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Yes, I made it up. . .NIST and everyone else; they're part of the illusion generated by Hogwarts. Ya caught me.

Really? Because every post I see, when somebody explains why they think it was NOT a coverup, you respond with "how do you explain this and that and this and that" followed by at least one link to a conspiracy website. When somebody explains why they think it WAS a coverup, you respond with "yeah, that's right, and there's also this and that and this and that," followed by at least one link to a conspiracy website.

Theokhoth

Do you have your eyes set to "ignore" for whenever someone brings up NIST? That ALONE is over six thousand people. Then there's every other engineering firm in the country (what, want proof for that too?). The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Popular Mechanics.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="willy279"] The US Government has made blatantly false statements, that doesn't mean whitehouse.gov is "not credible." That's one guy who's part of a fairly large organization. Using him as a representative of the organization is probably a bit lazy. I would recommend seeing what they have to say, instead of trusting the word of people who say that what they have to say is garbage. Going with the latter trend is just flaunting faith in the appearance of rationality rather than attempting to think critically.

willy279

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="willy279"]I think that most of you define "conspiracy theory website" as "a website which disagrees with me about this."willy279

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] Like I said, it's how I've decided to argue in those particular cases. I'm pretty impartial to the whole thing. I'm still looking for this tens of thousands thing though. So far you have still made it up. Who are the tens of thousands of engineers who support the official story? Gimme a link man, then I won't have to bother you for it for a fourth post in a row. Until then, yeah, you made it up.willy279

Do you have your eyes set to "ignore" for whenever someone brings up NIST? That ALONE is over six thousand people. Then there's every other engineering firm in the country (what, want proof for that too?). The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Popular Mechanics.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="willy279"] Like I said, it's how I've decided to argue in those particular cases. I'm pretty impartial to the whole thing. I'm still looking for this tens of thousands thing though. So far you have still made it up. Who are the tens of thousands of engineers who support the official story? Gimme a link man, then I won't have to bother you for it for a fourth post in a row. Until then, yeah, you made it up.willy279

Do you have your eyes set to "ignore" for whenever someone brings up NIST? That ALONE is over six thousand people. Then there's every other engineering firm in the country (what, want proof for that too?). The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Popular Mechanics.

I should hope so -- they helped write it. :|

You gave me a specific number so I assumed you were referring to a specific source somewhere, not some assumption. I see where you're coming from now, but it's just a big assumption. How was I ignoring NIST? You just don't seem to understand the way publications work. NIST publication does not equal NIST support.

:|

Yes, NIST totally doesn't support the findings they publish. . .