We can't trust wikipedia. (1 Viewer)

[Tigerace117]

Ad hom

Have you reviewed this individual's body of work?

 

[TheGoverness]

Have you reviewed this individual's body of work?

I think he's just ****ing with you. At least I hope so.

 

[Tigerace117]

I think he's just ****ing with you. At least I hope so.

That'd be my guess, but you never know.

 

[Bodi]

I think he's just ****ing with you. At least I hope so.

ad hom...

 

[Thoreau72]

The Truthers and Birthers and anti-vaccers are proof of that.

The Truthers & Birthers ain't got nuthin on those who believe Legend of Abbottabad and 911 story when it comes to being gullible. :lol:

 

[Mark F]

The Truthers & Birthers ain't got nuthin on those who believe Legend of Abbottabad and 911 story when it comes to being gullible. :lol:

Just remember, that is only due to the complete inability of people like you to present a plausible alternative - or at least one that doesn't immediately invoke uproarious laughter.

 

[pinqy]

The Truthers & Birthers ain't got nuthin on those who believe Legend of Abbottabad and 911 story when it comes to being gullible. :lol:

What I find odd is that while people tend to lump "Truthers" together, they ONLY thing most have in common is that they don't accept the official story. Beyond that, there are dozens of theories of what happened, none with good evidence. And then many have no theory at all and just say the official version is wrong.

That is not skepticism, that's more like paranoia.

 

[Pin dÁr]

What I find odd is that while people tend to lump "Truthers" together, they ONLY thing most have in common is that they don't accept the official story. Beyond that, there are dozens of theories of what happened, none with good evidence. And then many have no theory at all and just say the official version is wrong.

That is not skepticism, that's more like paranoia.

A lot of assumptions here. Done any real research?

 

[pinqy]

A lot of assumptions here. Done any real research?

Oh? What are you claiming are assumptions? Everything in my post was fact or opinion and required no assumptions.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Oh? What are you claiming are assumptions? Everything in my post was fact or opinion and required no assumptions.

Nope. sorry , just opinions.

 

[pinqy]

Nope. sorry , just opinions.

Oh, it is not a fact that there are multiple 9/11 theories that disagree with each other? It is mot a fact that some Truthers don't have an alternate theory but just don't believe the official story?

 

[Pin dÁr]

Oh, it is not a fact that there are multiple 9/11 theories that disagree with each other? It is mot a fact that some Truthers don't have an alternate theory but just don't believe the official story?

As long as you are too vague and give no examples, yes, it is just an opinion.

 

[Tigerace117]

The Truthers & Birthers ain't got nuthin on those who believe Legend of Abbottabad and 911 story when it comes to being gullible. :lol:

Says the guy who thinks the Twin Towers got nuked :lamo

Talk about gullibility.....

 

[pinqy]

As long as you are too vague and give no examples, yes, it is just an opinion.

How is that too vague?
There are multiple 9/11 truth groups. Fact.
There are multiple disagreeing theories that loose the official story. Fact
There are people who have no clear theory, but simply think that we are not getting the whole truth. Fact.
Which of those do you disagree with and why? I'll be happy to provide e,samples. I didn't think there was any disagreement about those.

 

[Mark F]

As long as you are too vague and give no examples, yes, it is just an opinion.

Vague with no examples describes almost all of your activity here.

 

[Pin dÁr]

How is that too vague?
There are multiple 9/11 truth groups. Fact.
There are multiple disagreeing theories that loose the official story. Fact
There are people who have no clear theory, but simply think that we are not getting the whole truth. Fact.
Which of those do you disagree with and why? I'll be happy to provide e,samples. I didn't think there was any disagreement about those.

Still very vague. You are really confusing your opinions iwth facts. A verry common sickness these days.

I think you have to say it so soo vague, because otherwise mauybe you will find out that your OPINION is wrong.

One thing is extremely clear,9-11 was an inside jiob. No doubt about that at all!

 

[pinqy]

Still very vague.

How is it vague? Those were straightforward statements, and you still won't give specific objections. I can't be less vague until I know what you want clarified.

You are really confusing your opinions iwth facts. A verry common sickness these days.

What exactly are you claiming iis not factual about my statements?

I think you have to say it so soo vague, because otherwise mauybe you will find out that your OPINION is wrong.

OK, so tell me what I got wrong.

One thing is extremely clear,9-11 was an inside jiob. No doubt about that at all!

And does everyone who agrees with the inside job claim agree about what happened, how, why, and by whom?

 

[mike2810]

One thing is extremely clear,9-11 was an inside jiob. No doubt about that at all!

and that is your opinion Pin. Your burden to prove, not for anyone to disprove.

Interesting you provide nothing to back up your posts.

 

[TheGoverness]

and that is your opinion Pin. Your burden to prove, not for anyone to disprove.

Interesting you provide nothing to back up your posts.

Conspiracy theorists don't back up anything they say.

The make a BS claim and state it as fact. And then they call us brainwashed morons because we don't accept their BS claims like a bunch of sheeple.

 

[mike2810]

Conspiracy theorists don't back up anything they say.

The make a BS claim and state it as fact. And then they call us brainwashed morons because we don't accept their BS claims like a bunch of sheeple.

I have asked him before on other threads. He ignores the post or comes back with a nonsense question or statement.

Yep. Some state if we disagree we have accepted the "govt" bs and won't question anything. What they fail to realize they have accepted some CT author without really looking at the facts. Many CT authors are great at the "what if". Much like the ancient aliens show on the History channel. A lot of questions and no real proof to what they are trying to convey.

 

[Pin dÁr]

and that is your opinion Pin. Your burden to prove, not for anyone to disprove.

Interesting you provide nothing to back up your posts.

Nope, this is FACT.but a FACT most people don't want to be confronted with.

it's sad, really.

 

[mike2810]

Nope, this is FACT.but a FACT most people don't want to be confronted with.

it's sad, really.

Last chance Pin, explain exactly what you mean by, "One thing is extremely clear,9-11 was an inside jiob. No doubt about that at all!"
provide your sources that you used to come up with that conclusion

and last what is a jiob?

Yes, it is sad Pin. Your inability to back up your statements.

 

[Thoreau72]

What I find odd is that while people tend to lump "Truthers" together, they ONLY thing most have in common is that they don't accept the official story. Beyond that, there are dozens of theories of what happened, none with good evidence. And then many have no theory at all and just say the official version is wrong.

That is not skepticism, that's more like paranoia.

Do you mean to say that not believing a gang of known liars is paranoia? If so, I disagree completely.

Being skeptical of the statements of known liars is not paranoia. Operating under the maxim "once bitten, twice shy" is not paranoia.

Perhaps you should get your trusty dictionary out and look up the meaning of those 2 very different words.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

wow, you made my day! You just proved you have no clue at all at what is going in the world.
Democracy? where? There is none.


But also on logic. Referring to yourself as a 'professor' is the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority"

And you must be clueless on money as well.

Otherwise you wouldn't have that position at all.

if you have it, that is. Being a 'professor' You can't proof you do here.
Everyone can write they are this or that, so that even doesn't interest me.

But I do see you are way off.




And. you probably won't understand in your life time what I mean, that is if you really are a professor, because of this:

View attachment 67205924

 

[Mark F]

Do you mean to say that not believing a gang of known liars is paranoia? If so, I disagree completely.

Being skeptical of the statements of known liars is not paranoia. Operating under the maxim "once bitten, twice shy" is not paranoia.

Perhaps you should get your trusty dictionary out and look up the meaning of those 2 very different words.

I follow your mantra to the letter. I am skeptical of everything you post. Skeptical BTW doesn't mean what you think it means.