• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there any way to cure a truther?[W:2707]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sadling said:
When confronted with the fact that there was no wreckage at the Shanksville crash site, Oozlefinch posted a pick of an auction car-lot where a DC-8 crashed. You saw it, and you saw the caption he placed beneath that pick. Tell me, Fallenangel, what do you suppose he meant by that?
Click to expand...

The comment was sarcasm, nothing more and nothing less.

Sheesh, some of you in here really need to take a chill pill and learn to loosen up a little bit.

This is why I could never be a Conspiracy Theorist myself, I simply refuse to take something so incredibly seriously that I can not have fun with it, or that I leave all my other mental abilities at the door.

ku-xlarge.jpg
 
Fallenangel said:
I do not know what he exactly meant by that.
Click to expand...

Very good FallenAngel, at least you are honest.

The rest of the readers will decide for themselves. I cannot say it will be good for you though....

(FallenAngel kind of reminds me of those who say Obama did not lie when he claimed, "If you like your insurance, you can keep it".)

:lamo
 
Fallenangel said:
I do not know what he exactly meant by that.

The caption was: "Wow, where are the planes? This is just proof it is all a conspiracy!"
And his question regarding it was: Do any of you think I was seriously implying that there was no debris at those crash sites?
Click to expand...

So, you don't know what he meant by it. Yeah, that's what I thought.

And his question regarding it only came out of him after he was called out on equating crashes.

But why don't you give it a go now. He posted the car-lot crash pic and added his own caption. What was the purpose of the caption? What did he intend to convey with that caption?
 
PilotsForTruth said:
Very good FallenAngel, at least you are honest.
Click to expand...
Very good PilotsForTruth, I was waiting only for your affirmation.

PilotsForTruth said:
The rest of the readers will decide for themselves. I cannot say it will be good for you though....
Click to expand...

Indeed, rest of the readers are free to decide for themselves.

EDIT:
Hmmm... 2 personal attacks in 1.5 pages, awesome, your mom must be very proud of you.

Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Oozlefinch said:
The comment was sarcasm, nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...

Why don't you explain what the caption was intended to convey in relation to the Shanksville crash? Not for any of us, but for yourself.
 
Sadling said:
So, you don't know what he meant by it. Yeah, that's what I thought.

And his question regarding it only came out of him after he was called out on equating crashes.

But why don't you give it a go now. He posted the car-lot crash pic and added his own caption. What was the purpose of the caption? What did he intend to convey with that caption?
Click to expand...

Great, I'm glad that was what you thought.

I am not a mind reader, and I'm not going to engage in "what he might/might not meant" guessing, because it is a waste of time.

The caption was: "Wow, where are the planes? This is just proof it is all a conspiracy!"
And his question regarding it was: Do any of you think I was seriously implying that there was no debris at those crash sites?
I answered: No, you weren't. - as I think it weren't.

As I've written above you might think differently, think he equated something, make guesses, assumptions etc...I do not think so, that is why I answered his question as I answered it.

That's all.

Fallen.
 
PilotsForTruth said:
Did "mike2810" really say the above? I question this because mike2810 has been reprimanding others over the past few weeks for using personal attacks.

Mike, did you really say the above?

And if so, do you think the people in my signature are "stupid"?
Click to expand...

Yes I posted that. Go to my post and read the rest.
 
Fallenangel,

Not asking you to read his mind. I simply asked your opinion of what you thought the pic and caption was intended to convey in relation to the Shanksville crash site.

EDIT: It's OK to have an opinion on this . . .
 
Last edited:
Sadling said:
But why don't you give it a go now. He posted the car-lot crash pic and added his own caption. What was the purpose of the caption? What did he intend to convey with that caption?
Click to expand...

Since "Fallenangel" will only make excuses.... allow me to respond?

I think that "Oozlefinch", the "one-tour of duty" man he admits to be in his profile... cannot.... under any circumstance, question those of his Superior. He truly believes his Superiors would never steer him wrong. After all, the Military has perhaps provided for everything he has, including his family.

This is a classic case of Cognitive Dissonance.

So, people like "Oozlefinch" will find anything they can to support their "beliefs" while ignoring the rest. This is called Confirmation Bias. Which is why he found the first thing to support his beliefs (the DC-8 crash) and then later back-peddled.

When confronted with the actual facts, they refuse to acknowledge such facts. It's like when we were kids playing hide-n-seek. If you close your eyes... you cannot be seen. Then we realized... wait.. yes we can.

This is the life of an Enlisted man who only served one tour of duty.... and feels that following every order of your Superior means being "Patriotic".
 
Last edited:
Sadling said:
Fallenangel,
Not asking you to read his mind. I simply asked your opinion of what you thought the pic and caption was intended to convey in relation to the Shanksville crash site.
Click to expand...

I already answered that I don't know what it was intended to convey, and I'm not going to start guessing - as I see it as a waste of time.

EDIT: EDIT: It's OK to have an opinion on this . . .
I form opinions mostly on topics/themes that I am interested in, or knowledgeable enough to actually be able to form an educated opinion about it.

Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Fallenangel said:
I already answered that I don't know what it was intended to convey, and I'm not going to start guessing - as I see it as a waste of time.
Click to expand...

And yet you have spent the last two pages cheerleading for the very person in which you admit, "I don't know what it was intended to convey"

:lamo
 
Sadling said:
And yet you decided to defend what you admit you don't understand. Fair enough . . .
Click to expand...

No. I decided to answer a question by another poster, regarding his own post.
That is all, not defending, not accusing, nothing...very simple.

Fallen.
 
PilotsForTruth said:
And yet you have spent the last two pages cheerleading for the very person in which you admit, "I don't know what it was intended to convey"
:lamo
Click to expand...

I have spent two pages defending my own answer to a question another person asked regarding his own post, that is all.

Fallen.
 
Fallenangel said:
No. I decided to answer a question by another poster, regarding his own post.
That is all, not defending, not accusing, nothing...very simple.

Fallen.
Click to expand...

:lamo

I invite the readers to read at least the last two pages of discussion. It won't take long. The webmasters of this forum have done it right for flowing discussion and reading.
 
Sadling said:
Why don't you explain what the caption was intended to convey in relation to the Shanksville crash? Not for any of us, but for yourself.
Click to expand...

Maybe I was not aware that so many in here are so totally lacking of the "Sarcasm Gene" that they would not get it for the sarcasm that it was intended to be.

This is why I almost never participate in the CT threads. Sorry, but when pages of posts are then spun off of a sarcastic remark, and people are insisting over and over that I was being serious, I can't help but shake my head and seriously wonder about the mental capacity of some people.

Fallen Angel is hardly a "cheerleader" for me, he and I have frequently disagreed in here. However, I think we do respect each other and our views, and he has frequently seen my sarcasm and know I almost never mean it in a nasty manner (not even on the times I have aimed it at him).

chill-pill.jpg
 
Oozlefinch said:
Maybe I was not aware that so many in here are so totally lacking of the "Sarcasm Gene" that they would not get it for the sarcasm that it was intended to be.
Click to expand...

Come on Oozlefinch. You totally crashed and burned here. But unlike in Shanksville, there's plenty of smoke and wreckage.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Maybe I was not aware that so many in here are so totally lacking of the "Sarcasm Gene" that they would not get it for the sarcasm that it was intended to be.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight.

The "UA93" crash site was brought up.

You replied with pictures from a DC-8 Crash site, using it to ridicule those discussing the "UA93" crash site.

When confronted with actual photos showing large pieces of wreckage at the DC-8 crash site, completely destroying your initial argument, you claim you had never intended to use it for "Flight 93".

Now that you have been exposed for your back-peddling, you now claim it was all "sarcasm"?

How old are you?
 
Jesus, Backtrack Jack or what? :mrgreen:

Here, instead of comparing crash sites (we've seen that the DC8 and "Flight 93" site are apples and oranges) why not listen to interviews with people at the scene who actually saw the alleged Flight 93. Both before the alleged crash and after. And what appears to be a military drone.

And those who actually saw the site close up within minutes of the event:

LiveLeak.com - 9/11 Truth : Flight 93 Shanksville

Edit: please note that these are the claims of local residents. Not "conspiracy theorists".
 
PilotsForTruth said:
No, that is a photograph of a rusted out mess of metal which obviously was posed for a photo-op next to a backhoe bucket.... somewhere.

You were told that is the engine from "Flight 93".

This is what the engine looks like in real life....

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6199/6072389882_9f8ce7c445_o.jpg

Of course, it won't look like that after "impact", but surely it won't look like a rusted out mess of metal which is the fraction of the size of a backhoe bucket. Perhaps this is why none of the 9/11 Aircraft were never positively identified?

By the way, the 757 has two engines. Where is the photo of the other "engine"?[/QUOTE]
Thank you!. I knew one of you would show the classic tactics used by truthers.

I was told? um so were you...

The aircraft were identified.

In the end you are just parroting a opinion that you heard elsewhere. As entertaining as it may be its far from definite information. Face it you have no facts just opinions. And the fact that people disagree with your opinions rubs you raw. if I point out that you would need to be delusional to believe all that 9/11 conspiracy crap, you would return with some cookie cutter reaction. Such is the life of a follower.
Click to expand...
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Thank you!. I knew one of you would show the classic tactics used by truthers.

I was told? um so were you...

The aircraft were identified.

In the end you are just parroting a opinion that you heard elsewhere. As entertaining as it may be its far from definite information. Face it you have no facts just opinions. And the fact that people disagree with your opinions rubs you raw. if I point out that you would need to be delusional to believe all that 9/11 conspiracy crap, you would return with some cookie cutter reaction. Such is the life of a follower.
Click to expand...

Question: is it documented anyplace, that the serial numbers of the jet engine
found a Shanksville, matches up with the serial numbers of the engine that belongs
to "FLT93" ..... or am I asking too much?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom