Reply #138

In the discussion thread: Here is the problem with the 911 conspiracy theory's...... [View all]

Thu Apr 26, 2012, 10:24 PM

138. Ohmygawd, do you actually READ what I write?

Not only do I believe what I write, but if you actually read it, you would see that I'm quite capable of providing detailed facts and logical reasons for WHY I believe it, and that I'm more than willing to defend my arguments against anyone who wants to challenge them. If that weren't the case, then I wouldn't write it.

You and zeemike have had every opportunity to explain what's wrong with what I believe and why people should instead believe what you believe, but all you've got are pathetically lame excuses for why you have failed so miserably, completely refusing to even glance toward the most obvious reason. Rather than deal with that in an intellectually honest way, you try to blow smoke up people's asses by just making nasty, cowardly assertions about my motivations.

> Psssstt, guess what? I don't actually believe that you or “the others” believe what you say you do. That's primarily why I engage so rarely. But, hey, you're just doing a job—self-appointed or otherwise.

Psssstt, guess what? I don't actually give a damn what sort of nonsense you believe if you can't defend it with facts and reason, and from where I sit, it sure looked like you now "engage so rarely" because you realize you can't do that. Who do you think you're fooling?

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

146 replies	Author	Time	Post
Here is the problem with the 911 conspiracy theory's...... [View all]	Logical	Dec 2011	OP
I don't have an answer to your question, but one has to look at the evidence	teddy51	Dec 2011	#1
The cracking of the Enigma Code was not leaked until the 1970s after it was offiically announced.	JDPriestly	Dec 2011	#2
And that allso goes for the capture of a German sub with the enignama machien	zeemike	Dec 2011	#28
If you were asked to participate in either operation, what would you do?	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#29
Well that is a fair question and a fair point.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#30
There's no way that there's the expertise to pull it off	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#31
Well then how does the mob and other organized crime do it?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#32
Since mob informers are the key to most police investigations	hack89	Feb 2012	#39
But that is because their are police and law enforcement.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#40
You are naive if you believe that.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#41
you would have to be a sociopath	BobbyBoring	Feb 2012	#37
Well I would know only what I needed to know to do my part of the plan	zeemike	Feb 2012	#46
You've been watching too many movies	Confusious	Feb 2012	#43
And you perhaps not enough history.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#45
Nope, not me	Confusious	Feb 2012	#47
Well I never saw it in the movies	zeemike	Feb 2012	#49
do I detect some contempt from you about people that you consider CTers?	Confusious	Feb 2012	#50
Do you know what disinformation is?	zeemike	Feb 2012	#53
So you're spreading disinformation?	Confusious	Feb 2012	#55
Well it is astounding to me that people can buy that .	zeemike	Feb 2012	#56
"that is just basic science"	William Seger	Feb 2012	#57
The first frame is before the impact.of the head shot.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#59
Nope	William Seger	Feb 2012	#61
No that is the frame where the bullet struck	zeemike	Feb 2012	#64
Utter nonsense	William Seger	Feb 2012	#68
Well look this is not nonsense	zeemike	Feb 2012	#69
If the Zapruder film is REALLY what made you believe that Oswald didn't shoot JFK,	William Seger	Feb 2012	#71
You mean to tell me	zeemike	Feb 2012	#72
in what sense do you "see" that?	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#73
Because if the bullet did not strike in 312	zeemike	Feb 2012	#74
didn't you just say yourself...	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#75
Well let me try again to explain.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#76
OK, let's think about this	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#77
Some good points	zeemike	Feb 2012	#78
meh	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#79
Well how about we just declare you the winner	zeemike	Feb 2012	#80
This is NOT a "small point"	William Seger	Feb 2012	#81
Now this is how you control the discussion...	zeemike	Feb 2012	#84
yo, if you're so free from fear, get the heck out of fetal position	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#82
We are discussing it on your terms.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#83
jeepers	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#85
Again we are back to math.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#86
so you don't think the head changes position from 312 to 313?	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#87
Well let me try to be clear.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#89
well, no	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#91
Really?	zeemike	Feb 2012	#95
"And you cannot explain that backward movement with any thing that makes sense"	William Seger	Feb 2012	#97
Well you can't prove a negative	zeemike	Feb 2012	#100
Another myth. Actually, it IS sometimes possible to prove a negative	William Seger	Feb 2012	#105
This is getting kinda bizarre	William Seger	Feb 2012	#93
OK...so the ejected material is several feet away	zeemike	Feb 2012	#96
In other words, you've got nothing	William Seger	Feb 2012	#98
Now with the ridicule.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#101
Your theory is all assumption and no fact.	zappaman	Feb 2012	#102
The facts presented is what we see in the film.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#107
Here's what's ridiculous about it, by the way	William Seger	Feb 2012	#108
No that is not what I said.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#109
"The shutter on frame 313 was open for 1/30 of a second"	zappaman	Feb 2012	#110
Frames per second is different from shutter speed.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#115
The camera's manual says a nominal 16 fps and 1/35th sec exposure	William Seger	Feb 2012	#119
Well thanks for looking that up	zeemike	Feb 2012	#120
WTF?	William Seger	Feb 2012	#112
No sir the shutter speed is all that is relevant.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#116
I seriously doubt that a timeline is going to unconfuse you, but let's try:	William Seger	Feb 2012	#118
I get what you are claiming.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#121
So you have no explanation for the forward head snap	William Seger	Feb 2012	#122
Can't let it end when you say inertia is imaginary physics	zeemike	Feb 2012	#123
No, it's your claimed "DELAY due to inertia" that's imaginary	William Seger	Feb 2012	#124
Well I can't compete with that	zeemike	Feb 2012	#125
Hopeless	William Seger	Feb 2012	#126
You are right it is hopeless	zeemike	Feb 2012	#127
This may be the most ridiculous thing I've read about the JFK assassination in some time.	zappaman	Feb 2012	#99
there is only one reason I am still here	zeemike	Feb 2012	#103
"this is like a case study in how debunking CTs work"	William Seger	Feb 2012	#106
it's kind of hilarious-- if a "conspiracy theorist" had presented this as proof he'd be laughed at.	NoMoreWarNow	Apr 2012	#137
It's motion blur caused by camera motion	William Seger	Apr 2012	#139
that may be, but your data is still inconclusive	NoMoreWarNow	Apr 2012	#141
Neither	William Seger	Apr 2012	#142
Frame 313 is not an instant, it is a duration. And during that duration the head may have travelled	eomer	Feb 2012	#88
OK, where does that get us?	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#90
Back to square one.	eomer	Feb 2012	#92
See gif in post #93. There was no forward motion before frame 312	William Seger	Feb 2012	#94
"square one" was trash talk about "the power of fear"	OnTheOtherHand	Feb 2012	#104
Well, you've just proved my point	Confusious	Feb 2012	#58
I want to listen and have been listening.	zeemike	Feb 2012	#60
I've seen IN PLANE SITE	zappaman	Feb 2012	#62
Well a 757 is consistent with what I saw	zeemike	Feb 2012	#66
Really	Confusious	Feb 2012	#63
You present questions that are easy to answer	zeemike	Feb 2012	#65
Well if you make up stuff	Confusious	Feb 2012	#67
Well I don't have all the answers...and no one could	zeemike	Feb 2012	#70
Two other things	Confusious	Feb 2012	#51
Have you seen the original movie The Day The Earth Stood Still?	zeemike	Feb 2012	#54
A brief visit to one secure in their findings.....	AlwaysQuestion	Apr 2012	#132
Well thanks for that vote of confidence.	zeemike	Apr 2012	#133
Jeez, what a pantload	William Seger	Apr 2012	#134
Do you believe?	AlwaysQuestion	Apr 2012	#136
Ohmygawd, do you actually READ what I write?	William Seger	Apr 2012	#138
Then why the cover up?	tblue	Dec 2011	#3
Plenty of reasons for a coverup without positing guilt in the 9/11 attack	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#6
I remember people telling me....	lib2DaBone	Dec 2011	#4
We have no idea what happened to that drone	hack89	Dec 2011	#19
Regardless of what happened to that drone, there's no connection to 9-11	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#20
You seem to ignore	terrafirma	Dec 2011	#27
You need to read "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters,"	Peace Patriot	Dec 2011	#5
That's the problem with EVERY conspiracy theory	RZM	Dec 2011	#7
But if the conspirators know that someone will eventually talk....	Richard Charnin	Dec 2011	#9
Exactly	RZM	Dec 2011	#10
Not quite. You miss the point.	Richard Charnin	Dec 2011	#11
Of course there have been conspiracies	RZM	Dec 2011	#12
Compelling evidence? You want it; you got it.	Richard Charnin	Dec 2011	#13
Wow. Ed Asner and some random blogger	RZM	Dec 2011	#14
15 unnatural deaths within a year!	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#15
Nope	zappaman	Dec 2011	#16
You mean like the 9/11 Commission conspiracy to not talk about Building 7 in their Report?	Richard Charnin	Dec 2011	#8
The 9/11 Commission Report was not meant to be an exhaustive examination of all aspects	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#17
theories	Tunkamerica	Dec 2011	#18
You're conflating and collapsing all conspiracy theories into a single monolith (npi),	coalition_unwilling	Dec 2011	#21
Truthers rarely correct other truthers when they promote total nonsense	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#23
I grant you a lot of it is nonsense, but there are some troubling	coalition_unwilling	Dec 2011	#24
The put options on United and American were explained.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#25
Thank you for that. At some point, I am going to have to make time	coalition_unwilling	Dec 2011	#26
Oh, please. You believe THAT?	Remember Me	Dec 2011	#33
Thanks for your opinion.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#34
Yeah, you'd think	Remember Me	Dec 2011	#35
One major airline (Ansett Australia) was folding at the time	KDLarsen	Dec 2011	#36
"So it is fair to criticize almost all truthers for any truther nonsense."	ocpagu	Apr 2012	#140
It's called COMPARTMENTALIZATION, dude!	Uranus Needs Men	Dec 2011	#22
I want to know who is behind the Unwarranted Apostrophe Conspiracy.	Codeine	Feb 2012	#38
Hasn't stopped the UK	libodem	Feb 2012	#42
It had to be hundreds but couldn't have been hundreds? Why couldn't it have been a few or a dozen?	eomer	Feb 2012	#44
What would the scenario be in which only a few know?	Ohio Joe	Feb 2012	#48
That would be the scenario in which only a few were part of the consipiracy.	eomer	Feb 2012	#52
... which really just demonstrates the pointlessness of idle speculation.	William Seger	Feb 2012	#114
Leads that the "investigation" didn't follow; additional parties surely were involved.	eomer	Feb 2012	#117
WT7 didn't have enough damage to fall like that in my opinion	deadinsider	Feb 2012	#111
"Damage" was not the reason for WTC7's collapse	William Seger	Feb 2012	#113
Heck, we might as well argue here too right?	cbrer	Feb 2012	#128
Nope	William Seger	Feb 2012	#129
That actually	cbrer	Feb 2012	#130
NIST simulation	deadinsider	May 2012	#144
Finally getting back 2 u...	deadinsider	May 2012	#145
Oh, well, nothing else going on around here, so...	William Seger	Jun 2012	#146
The steel portions of the Madrid tower collapsed due to fire.	hack89	Apr 2012	#135
People who haven't mastered the difference between plural and possessive...	JackRiddler	Apr 2012	#131
911?	dukie	Apr 2012	#143

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.