• 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!

FBI being sued by Lawyer's Committee, Families, AE911T to present evidence as required by Congress

NWO_Spook said:
I will be explicit for you: The body of evidence that supports the conspiracy theories as presented by truther groups (AE911T etc), such as no planes, controlled demolition, energy beams, etc, is highly specious.

I hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep on keeping on posting your uninformed opinions?
 
ralphcdp said:
I agree. Being called out as part of the metabunk group is awfully nasty. So if you can prove to me that you have never had anything to do with that bunch of conspiracy theorists, I will apologize. Fair enough?

No, you post your evidence for the impossible US governments' official conspiracy theory. Just joking. You and I both know that the impossible US governments' official conspiracy theory has never had any evidence, which is why metabunkers never advance any.
Click to expand...

Ok, you're just yanking my chain. Please don't respond to me in the future.
 
NWO_Spook said:
I suspect these members are just yanking chains and they have no desire to discuss the subject rationally.
Click to expand...

Why can't anyone EVER provide ANY evidence for the totally phony US governments' 9/11 conspiracy theory? You folks can't even admit that the government story is the mother of all conspiracy theorists, which makes all of you who have been calling others conspiracy theorists the actual conspiracy theorists with all the pejorative meanings it holds applied squarely on the metabunkers.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Ok, you're just yanking my chain. Please don't respond to me in the future.
Click to expand...

Why can't anyone of you but you especially, NWO, EVER provide ANY evidence for the totally phony US governments' 9/11 conspiracy theory?
 
ralphcdp said:
Why can't anyone EVER provide ANY evidence for the totally phony US governments' 9/11 conspiracy theory? You folks can't even admit that the government story is the mother of all conspiracy theorists, which makes all of you who have been calling others conspiracy theorists the actual conspiracy theorists with all the pejorative meanings it holds applied squarely on the metabunkers.
Click to expand...

More vapid noise. What do you want? Where do you want to start? I'm willing to debate the subject with enthusiasm, but I'm not interested in your baiting and attacks. Just tell me what topic you want to start with and I'll respond accordingly.
 
ralphcdp said:
Why can't anyone of you but you especially, NWO, EVER provide ANY evidence for the totally phony US governments' 9/11 conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

Listen, if you want to debate a topic, nominate it and I will supply the evidence and we can discuss it. However, it appears that you only want to bait and insult others.
 
NWO_Spook said:
I suspect these members are just yanking chains and they have no desire to discuss the subject rationally.
Click to expand...

They appear to be unable to discuss the subject rationally.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Listen, if you want to debate a topic, nominate it and I will supply the evidence and we can discuss it. However, it appears that you only want to bait and insult others.
Click to expand...

I have asked that of truthers many a time but they just continue with their Pavlovian responses.
 
zyzygy said:
I have asked that of truthers many a time but they just continue with their Pavlovian responses.
Click to expand...

I've noticed. These guys are amateurs and it is becoming quite boring defending myself from the attacks. It seems they'll do anything within their power to avoid debating the subject in detail.
 
NWO_Spook said:
I've noticed. These guys are amateurs and it is becoming quite boring defending myself from the attacks. It seems they'll do anything within their power to avoid debating the subject in detail.
Click to expand...

It's odd. There are many studies of the psychology of conspiracy theorists available on the net. They make interesting reading.
 
zyzygy said:
It's odd. There are many studies of the psychology of conspiracy theorists available on the net. They make interesting reading.
Click to expand...


Yes, I have read a few, and I'm beginning to suspect ralphcdp is the same guy that used similar tactics some five years ago. I'm sure I've met this truther before.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Yes, I have read a few, and I'm beginning to suspect ralphcdp is the same guy that used similar tactics some five years ago. I'm sure I've met this truther before.
Click to expand...

They all display similar traits.
 
NWO_Spook said:
True, but there's something about this guy's style that makes me recall another from about five years ago. I wish I could remember his username.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter, no evidence will be forthcoming. Whether you wish to waste your time in responding to him is your choice.
 
NWO_Spook said:
I was referring to the content of your post.



Again, it was your post.



The supposed evidence that supports the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 is highly specious, and your pathetic ad hominem style of posting denotes the partisan nature of your motivations, so again, refer to my comments above.



And I know it will go nowhere for a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

If English is your primary language, and I assume it is, you should consult a dictionary from time to time.

If you do, you will discover there are definitions for both words in the term "conspiracy theory". And if you contemplate those definitions, and if you are honest with yourself, you will realize that the official story that you defend here ACTUALLY IS a conspiracy theory.

Therefore, we are all conspiracy theorists. All that separates us is whether we believe the official conspiracy theory as you do, or not.

And if you take the time there at NWOHQ to ponder and analyze, and if you're honest with yourself, you will realize that the OCT fails at every turn. The closer the curious and honest individual looks, the more he realizes the entire OCT is utterly invalid.

That's why so many people have realized for years what Kean and Hamilton said: the Commission was set up to fail. They could find no proof to support the theory.

Please note there is nothing at all about this post or the other that is partisan. Who knows, it's possible you don't know the meaning of that word....
 
Thoreau72 said:
If English is your primary language, and I assume it is, you should consult a dictionary from time to time.
Click to expand...

Snark noted and dismissed.

If you do, you will discover there are definitions for both words in the term "conspiracy theory". And if you contemplate those definitions, and if you are honest with yourself, you will realize that the official story that you defend here ACTUALLY IS a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

No. That is a biased assumption of little merit. There is a difference between the plausible and the absurd that you are ignoring.

Therefore, we are all conspiracy theorists. All that separates us is whether we believe the official conspiracy theory as you do, or not.
Click to expand...

Again, do not conflate the plausible with the implausible.

And if you take the time there at NWOHQ to ponder and analyze, and if you're honest with yourself, you will realize that the OCT fails at every turn.
Click to expand...

Logic and reason denote otherwise.

The closer the curious and honest individual looks, the more he realizes the entire OCT is utterly invalid.
Click to expand...

I think you should employ 'the more one listens to one's bias' as your qualifier.

That's why so many people have realized for years what Kean and Hamilton said: the Commission was set up to fail. They could find no proof to support the theory.
Click to expand...

That's a misunderstanding of the quote and simply an irrational truther meme built by the removal of context. That was simply a comment about the level of funding and the time frame and I remember the individual who made that statement stating otherwise upon the completion of the task.

Please note there is nothing at all about this post or the other that is partisan.
Click to expand...

Oh really? I seem to see evidence of the opposite.

Who knows, it's possible you don't know the meaning of that word....
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm fully acquainted with the definition and I must thank you for providing further examples of your high levels of bias.

As an adjective:

adjective: partisan: prejudiced in favour of a particular cause: "newspapers have become increasingly partisan"

synonyms: biased, prejudiced, one-sided, coloured, discriminatory, preferential, partial, interested, parti pris, bigoted, sectarian, factional, unjust, unfair, inequitable, unbalanced

They seem quite applicable in this case. ;)
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
Snark noted and dismissed.



No. That is a biased assumption of little merit. There is a difference between the plausible and the absurd that you are ignoring.



Again, do not conflate the plausible with the implausible.



Logic and reason denote otherwise.



I think you should employ 'the more one listens to one's bias' as your qualifier.



That's a misunderstanding of the quote and simply an irrational truther meme built by the removal of context. That was simply a comment about the level of funding and the time frame and I remember the individual who made that statement stating otherwise upon the completion of the task.



Oh really? I seem to see evidence of the opposite.



Oh, I'm fully acquainted with the definition and I must thank you for providing further examples of your high levels of bias.

As an adjective:

adjective: partisan: prejudiced in favour of a particular cause: "newspapers have become increasingly partisan"

synonyms: biased, prejudiced, one-sided, coloured, discriminatory, preferential, partial, interested, parti pris, bigoted, sectarian, factional, unjust, unfair, inequitable, unbalanced

They seem quite applicable in this case. ;)
Click to expand...

There is a difference between being partisan and reaching a logical conclusion and then promoting it.

Barry Goldwater alluded to it in his famous statement: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

That might be slightly modified to "Extremism in the pursuit of truth and justice is no vice. Constant repetition of false statements is no virtue."

And more: Believing stories which are contradicted by the facts, and told by known liars, is a sure sign of delusion.

Maybe another: partisanship in favor of the truth is no vice.
 
Thoreau72 said:
There is a difference between being partisan and reaching a logical conclusion and then promoting it.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is, but it's a pity it doesn't seem the be the case here.

Barry Goldwater alluded to it in his famous statement: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Click to expand...

Yes, but we are discussing the plausibility of theories guided by irrational bias.

That might be slightly modified to "Extremism in the pursuit of truth and justice is no vice.
Click to expand...

That depends on the acts of the extremist.

Constant repetition of false statements is no virtue."
Click to expand...

Indeed, and that is why I challenge 9/11 truth.

And more: Believing stories which are contradicted by the facts, and told by known liars, is a sure sign of delusion.
Click to expand...

Again, that is why I challenge 9/11 truth.

Maybe another: partisanship in favor of the truth is no vice.
Click to expand...

Objectivity is the acme of virtue in the pursuit of justice.
 
"Believing stories which are contradicted by the facts"

He never gets round to mentioning what these facts are.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Yes, there is, but it's a pity it doesn't seem the be the case here.



Yes, but we are discussing the plausibility of theories guided by irrational bias.



That depends on the acts of the extremist.



Indeed, and that is why I challenge 9/11 truth.



Again, that is why I challenge 9/11 truth.



Objectivity is the acme of virtue in the pursuit of justice.
Click to expand...

Right, but living there in Spookdom, you happily buy into the Fairy Tale they concocted. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom