|
New 9/11 Documentary, The peoples voice. (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| SherlockCrash |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
I'm not talking about any sort of official, government response, I'm referring to the multitude of independent debunking sites that give logical, scientifically sound explanations for many of the occurrences that happened that day.
You claim to have looked at information from both sides - which debunking/skeptic websites have you referenced, then? |
Personally I believe that the government was behind it, so I think that their response is most important. And their response is as I said a fariytale.
I have looked at information from both sides. Thats enough.
My TA visit has come to an end for this time, one can only stand so much hatred in so little time :) Not directed at you ofcourse, that seems a little more civil then the rest.
Have a nice one. |
|
|
| SherlockCrash |
| Haha you are like a ing sect :) |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| Thank you for giving justification to hate. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| see ya loser. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by SherlockCrash
I have looked at information from both sides. Thats enough. |
But, you see, it isn't. Without specifics, your argument becomes weaker and weaker. I could just as easily claim, "I can walk through walls!", and when asked to prove it, say, "I've tried it at home, and it works, that's all you need to know." Would you then believe me, or would you want to see somewhat more concrete evidence, like a video or in-person demonstration?
Weight out "Because, that's what I think." vs. "Here are the facts as I understand them." - the former is going to get you flamed, the latter could lead to more rational discourse.
So again, which debunking/skeptic sites have you referenced? It's o.k. if you haven't, but it would certainly help your cause to be truthful, considering you seem to be seeking the same. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
As much as I despise invoking fallacies, I think this really cuts to the heart of the matter. These people, these conspiracy theorists, evoke emotional responses in people (secondary to logical ones, if all goes accordingly) because there is this air of pride or "insider" knowledge they like to waive about, like they were the One to see through all the bull, like THEY stand alone in their assertions, fighting for What's Right; They all want to fancy themselves some Holmes-ian master deductionist, when at most they're maddeningly candidates for the very misguided "sheeple" moniker they inevitably project on everyone who will not see their self-apprised brilliance. It's the most anemic sociopathy, rooted in the fetishization of publication - even if that audience is 4 people - a kind of inverted voyeurism with all due dick-in-handed accompaniment. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
 |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| :haha: outstanding. |
|
|
|
|
