• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

For 'Scooby'

scooby said:
so tell me, in the roughly 3 years before films like Loose Change brought the 911 issue to prominence, where all you had to apply your critical thinking skills to was the official story - tell me, what problems did you find with it? There are many and they are well documented - so show us what your made of - where is your list of problems with the official story? It's changed a couple of times - but any version will do for your critique. Some lists run into the hundreds. Whats on yours?
Click to expand...

That's a great point, Scooby. But you won't get any of them to admit to any part of the story that bothers them. Unless it points to beuracratic incompetence only. (And usually not even that). They have it all sealed up, tight as a drum.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Wow so much to choose from.....

let's go with

Okay scooby. What was wrong with the speed of the collapses?
Click to expand...

I'm sure somebody here can point you to a thread on this forum where the subject has been dealt with in a manner acceptable to yourself.

Ask them.
 
scooby said:
I'm sure somebody here can point you to a thread on this forum where the subject has been dealt with in a manner acceptable to yourself.

Ask them.
Click to expand...

No scooby. You said that there was an issue with the speed of the collapse and claimed it was particular information that proved explosives. You have already danced one jig proving that you couldn't supply any video or audio links of explosives going off during the collapses, perhaps you can just answer the question this time. What do you claim was wrong with the speed of the collapses. if you don't answer it straight, then you are showing yourself as nothing but a troll who doesn't believe his own hype.

Now answer this direct question. What was wrong with the speed of the collapses?
 
scooby said:
so tell me, in the roughly 3 years before films like Loose Change brought the 911 issue to prominence, where all you had to apply your critical thinking skills to was the official story -

And similarly the claim on Sept 11th, that the whole thing was a complete surprise, yet they produced a complete list of perpetrators on Sept 12th?
Click to expand...

I did not know there were dumb people who bought lies until I saw Charlie Sheen with zero facts challenge the world and say the terrorist did impossible manuvers.

Being the best pilot in the world I knew Charlie Sheen was full of BS on flying, just as you are in general on 9/11.

I was not surprised after I email Fetzer to discover he is just dumb as dirt when it comes to 9/11. As is Jones, Woods, and other so called experts. I started to feel real smart with my simple BS/MSEE with honors Degrees. But really I felt sad for those who believe them. Poor dolts with no chance to find the truth led by liars. This is what surprised me. I was not prepared to find such a dumb minority who are so closed minded they are not capapble of rational thought or any basic research skills. Email the experts they are real dumb on 9/11 topics; as in unable to understand anything 9/11.

The terrorist left a trail. You see when you do a crime and kill yourself you really do not care if you get caught. They signed in at the airlines, some of them had FAA licenses, they all had passports, they all had thousands of law enforcement working the case, get a clue idiots. Are you really this challenged to think?

Your mind is the closed mind of a CTer who hold lies with out facts. Still not a fact yet. Just talk, you must be of the Griffin/Tarpley School of Nuts and Dolts. You have wasted all these posts and not got close to a fact. How do you do it?
 
beachnut said:


The terrorist left a trail. You see when you do a crime and kill yourself you really do not care if you get caught. They signed in at the airlines, some of them had FAA licenses, they all had passports, they all had thousands of law enforcement working the case, get a clue idiots. Are you really this challenged to think?
Click to expand...

They sure did! Left a hell of a nice convenient trail. Almost as if somebody planted it. And as if somebody was tracking them. (cough cough Able Danger cough cough).

Didn't Atta bring 2 suitcases on the flight? I heard that.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
They sure did! Left a hell of a nice convenient trail. Almost as if somebody planted it. And as if somebody was tracking them. (cough cough Able Danger cough cough).

Didn't Atta bring 2 suitcases on the flight? I heard that.
Click to expand...

Cough cough How many of able danger are working with the truth movement cough cough.

I heard that there were hundreds of reports of terrorist attacks that the CIA and FBI had to look through.

Anyway when are those trials starting to bring the perps to justice?
 
Last edited:
skepticalcriticalguy said:
That's a great point, Scooby. But you won't get any of them to admit to any part of the story that bothers them. Unless it points to beuracratic incompetence only. (And usually not even that). They have it all sealed up, tight as a drum.
Click to expand...

Of course not, but it doesn't matter really.

They might like to furiously pretend that the whole thing is a debate that can only end when they are forced to admit that they are wrong on a public forum - as if the world revolves around a place like this.

I mean I've heard of James Randi, but barely. I've seen him on tv but to be honest I seemed to remember him as some kind of magician, or Uri Geller type (the irony) maybe not so far from the truth if he endorses the **** they say in here. I haven't seen that endorsement though. I've asked a couple of times for Mr Randi's 'skeptical' view of the whole thing - in particular I'd like to see his critique of the work of Steven Jones or David Ray Griffin, his exposure of the 'woo', but I'm damn sure it doesn't exist - though they will make a big song and dance in here as if it does.

No the whole thing is about public perceptions.

They're preaching to an audience, hoping to demonstrate that we are all fools, and they - the 'skeptics' are the ones with an accurate handle on things, desparately trying to put the cat back in the bag.

But as I've illustrated with the point above, anyone with an ounce of common sense who turns up here is going to be puzzled by a bunch of skeptics who aren't skeptical at all, when it comes to official pronouncements of the establishment view.

I mean who's skeptics are they? Ours or theirs?
Because we've got enough of their skeptics haven't we?
I'd say the market was pretty saturated for this brand of 'skepticism'
All you have to do to hear this point of view is turn on the TV and watch Fox News.

Another observation that might be useful - the join dates of the members on this forum. What are the odds that there was a rush of membership applications in the last two years - since films like Loose Change gained prominence? I notice most of them in here are recent.

What are the odds that a group of people who all joined up in this period - all post in here, systematically challenging anyone who is skeptical of the official story in any way?

It's absolutely transparent - because the whole thing is the ultimate orwellian appeal to authority. If 911 was an inside job - well then surely the skeptics would expose it wouldn't they ... wouldn't they? And they haven't - therefore it cannot be.

Absolutely transparent.

That's why I take pleasure in pointing out that debate is not necessary - the people who know what is going on are a bit more sophisticated than this, and the wealth of information available now is enough for them to demonstrate to anyone the purpose of a group of shills and halfwits squatting this place pretending to be skeptics and to speak for the forum.

It isn't going to change anything.

911 is a one way trip - waking everybody up to the real state of the world we live in. I'm just spectating now, I only came here to post the BBC video and to laugh - but someone beat me to it.

Plenty more laughs to come though eh?
Take it easy.
 
Last edited:
skepticalcriticalguy said:
They sure did! Left a hell of a nice convenient trail. Almost as if somebody planted it. And as if somebody was tracking them. (cough cough Able Danger cough cough).

Didn't Atta bring 2 suitcases on the flight? I heard that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, left a trail all the way to the whitehouse.
 
scooby said:
I mean I've heard of James Randi, but barely. I've seen him on tv but to be honest I seemed to remember him as some kind of magician, or Uri Geller type (the irony) maybe not so far from the truth if he endorses the **** they say in here. I haven't seen that endorsement though. I've asked a couple of times for Mr Randi's 'skeptical' view of the whole thing - in particular I'd like to see his critique of the work of Steven Jones or David Ray Griffin, his exposure of the 'woo', but I'm damn sure it doesn't exist - though they will make a big song and dance in here as if it does.
Click to expand...

You know that the JREF is not about conspiracy theories, do you?

Have you ever posted outside of this subforum BTW?

Another observation that might be useful - the join dates of the members on this forum. What are the odds that there was a rush of membership applications in the last two years - since films like Loose Change gained prominence? I notice most of them in here are recent.
Click to expand...

Again, have you ever read outside of this particular subforum?
 
scooby said:
Of course not, but it doesn't matter really.

They might like to furiously pretend that the whole thing is a debate that can only end when they are forced to admit that they are wrong on a public forum - as if the world revolves around a place like this.

I mean I've heard of James Randi, but barely. I've seen him on tv but to be honest I seemed to remember him as some kind of magician, or Uri Geller type (the irony) maybe not so far from the truth if he endorses the **** they say in here. I haven't seen that endorsement though. I've asked a couple of times for Mr Randi's 'skeptical' view of the whole thing - in particular I'd like to see his critique of the work of Steven Jones or David Ray Griffin, his exposure of the 'woo', but I'm damn sure it doesn't exist - though they will make a big song and dance in here as if it does.

No the whole thing is about public perceptions.

They're preaching to an audience, hoping to demonstrate that we are all fools, and they - the 'skeptics' are the ones with an accurate handle on things, desparately trying to put the cat back in the bag.

But as I've illustrated with the point above, anyone with an ounce of common sense who turns up here is going to be puzzled by a bunch of skeptics who aren't skeptical at all, when it comes to official pronouncements of the establishment view.

I mean who's skeptics are they? Ours or theirs?
Because we've got enough of their skeptics haven't we?
I'd say the market was pretty saturated for this brand of 'skepticism'
All you have to do to hear this point of view is turn on the TV and watch Fox News.

Another observation that might be useful - the join dates of the members on this forum. What are the odds that there was a rush of membership applications in the last two years - since films like Loose Change gained prominence? I notice most of them in here are recent.

What are the odds that a group of people who all joined up in this period - all post in here, systematically challenging anyone who is skeptical of the official story in any way?

It's absolutely transparent - because the whole thing is the ultimate orwellian appeal to authority. If 911 was an inside job - well then surely the skeptics would expose it wouldn't they ... wouldn't they? And they haven't - therefore it cannot be.

Absolutely transparent.

That's why I take pleasure in pointing out that debate is not necessary - the people who know what is going on are a bit more sophisticated than this, and the wealth of information available now is enough for them to demonstrate to anyone the purpose of a group of shills and halfwits squatting this place pretending to be scientists and to speak for the forum.

It isn't going to change anything.

911 is a one way trip - waking everybody up to the real state of the world we live in. I'm just spectating now, I only came here to post the BBC video and to laugh - but someone beat me to it.

Plenty more laughs to come though eh?
Take it easy.
Click to expand...

So we can't be skeptics because 9/11 was an inside job, and a skeptic would believe 9/11 was an inside job because one has to be skeptical about the "official story" and it's too "convenient" that the vast majority of people who were there and know why the buildings would collapse like they did (structural engineers, etc) have no problem with the official story?

Ok.
 
scooby said:
It's absolutely transparent - because the whole thing is the ultimate orwellian appeal to authority. If 911 was an inside job - well then surely the skeptics would expose it wouldn't they ... wouldn't they? And they haven't - therefore it cannot be.

Absolutely transparent.

That's why I take pleasure in pointing out that debate is not necessary - the people who know what is going on are a bit more sophisticated than this, and the wealth of information available now is enough for them to demonstrate to anyone the purpose of a group of shills and halfwits squatting this place pretending to be skeptics and to speak for the forum.

It isn't going to change anything.

911 is a one way trip - waking everybody up to the real state of the world we live in. I'm just spectating now, I only came here to post the BBC video and to laugh - but someone beat me to it.

Plenty more laughs to come though eh?
Take it easy.
Click to expand...

I hope you stick around. To help show them the grey between the black and the white.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Um, none that I know of. That's gubment stuff there. As in handlers.
Click to expand...

So they don't back the "truth" huh? ok.

So when are the trials starting? Or should I say when are you guys going to go beyond the internet forums, making movies, handing out fliers thing?
 
scooby said:
911 is a one way trip - waking everybody up to the real state of the world we live in. I'm just spectating now, I only came here to post the BBC video and to laugh - but someone beat me to it.

Plenty more laughs to come though eh?
Take it easy.
Click to expand...


The world is still laughing about KSM's "confession". No time to laugh about one-way-skeptics.
 
Redtail said:
So we can't be skeptics because 9/11 was an inside job, and a skeptic would believe 9/11 was an inside job because one has to be skeptical about the "official story" and it's too "convenient" that the vast majority of people who were there and know why the buildings would collapse like they did (structural engineers, etc) have no problem with the official story?

Ok.
Click to expand...

No forget 911 being an inside job - apply your critical thinking skills to the official story, it has 'weaknesses' - how many can you spot and what are they?

If you are not willing to list the problems with the official story, well you're a pretty worthless critical thinker, either dumb, or dishonest.

It's really very simple.
 
scooby said:
No forget 911 being an inside job - apply your critical thinking skills to the official story, it has 'weaknesses' - how many can you spot and what are they?
Click to expand...


What official story?

-Gumboot
 
Scoob.

Wipe your chin, your dribbling on your keyboard and avoiding the OP.
Your another kook like the rest of them. Grow some nads and man up from this childish crap. Address the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom