Reply #102: Point by point

[William Seger]

Well, since there doesn't seem to be anything interesting going on, and you seemed to be so disappointed not to have each of your criticisms addressed, let's do that.

The Pakistani ISI "theory" has already been addressed. I take it that you don't yet have enough evidence to actually formulate any specific theory, just suspicions. Fine; then I take it that you'll agree that that doesn't even qualify as a 9/11 conspiracy theory yet.

> quote:
> In fact, according to polls, the majority of people in New York believe that the government was complicit or had foreknowledge. This is based on circumstantial evidence.
Irrelevant

Your initial post says that the truth movement hasn't proven anything to anyone. But a majority of New Yorkers believe in complicity, which is to say, something has been proven to them. Now you claim the fact that something has been proven to a majority of New Yorkers is irrelevant. Do you know how idiotic that argument is? how illogical? And the polls that show New Yorkers believe 9/11 was an inside job were done before the Loose Change phenomenon blew up. How do you know what has convinced the people of New York?

No, my initial post DID NOT say "that the truth movement hasn't proven anything to anyone," and it's still right up there if anyone cares to read it more closely than you apparently did. But first, as has been pointed out numerous times, that poll question is so vaguely worded as to be meaningless. I also happen to believe that BushCo "had foreknowledge" that an attack was planned, so I think I would honestly answer "yes" to that question. How specific was that foreknowledge? The poll doesn't ask that, does it. But apparently, based on that poll, you would include me as someone who "believe{s} 9/11 was an inside job!" As far as I'm concerned, that's proof positive that your "logic" has led you astray. Second, the issue I talked about was whether or not the "9/11 truth movement" has proved anything at all yet; not whether or not they had managed to use distortion and deception to raise a lot of suspicions with a lot of people who visit "truth" sites and watch videos on YouTube, but perhaps haven't visited any of the numerous debunking sites. Polls have zip to do with what I said.

> quote:
except in the delusional minds of conspiracists who believe that the conspiracy is so all-powerful and all-encompassing

Who says that the conspiracy is all powerful and all encompassing? Only OCTers and OCTabots. The majority of realistic truth posters here who have speculated about the size of the conspiracy have suggested that it might take as few as two or three people to forestall action on the intelligence that was pouring into the Bush White House. This is typical straw man rhetoric.

Hey, if the shoe doesn't fit, I'm not forcing you to wear it. If you are not a person who believes that the lack of evidence proves a conspiracy, then good for you. And since you haven't yet made it clear to me what HamdenRice's conspiracy theories are -- you just don't want me to put you in the mainstream of the "movement" -- I can't really comment on how large your conspiracies would need to be. But let's go back to your comment that I was addressing: "Your assertion that it should be possible to prove that theory, in the face of the obstruction of the investigation and the proven coverups and omissions of the 9/11 Commission is bizarre and counter factual." Yes, I believe it should be possible, at least in theory, to prove any conspiracies you want to advance. You want to say that it's possible that some conspiracies can be successfully covered up. Well, that's a trivial truth. The issue at hand is, why should we give credibility to any particular theories that aren't proved, which at this point happens to include all the "inside job" theories that the "movement" has advanced? See the difference? I'm not claiming that the "official theory" is any kind of "truth"; I'm saying that the "official theory" is the only one supported by solid evidence, which most conspiracists dismiss as being faked. Yes, HamdenRice, things happen that you will never be able to prove; there are "truths" that you and I will never know; but that does not give us the right to promote supposition and speculation to be "truth," just to satisfy our desire for truth. Do you honestly not know what I'm getting at?

>
quote:
"knows what really happened" was either in on it, or is willing to be an accessory to mass murder by keeping quiet, or has been intimidated into silence by "them." In your mind, even the very lack of evidence "proves" your case

Use the search function and find a post of mine in which I asserted this. Otherwise you should admit you are lying and apologize. Just because you think some one believes this doesn't mean everyone does. By your logic: Hitler was a vegetarian and espoused a vegetable based diet. Therefore all vegetarians are Nazis.

Hypocrite.

>
quote:
How many? LOTS of people have "looked at the evidence" and apparently found the same thing I have,

Did you answer the direct question? Have you read the timeline? Do you have an opinion on Rumsfeld's performance of his duties on the morning of 9/11?

Yes, I've read the timeline and I've seen Press For Truth. Yes, I think Rumsfeld is completely incompetent as a Defense Secretary, and likely getting senile too. How does any of that add up to proof of an "inside job," which happens to be the issue at hand? Start another thread if you want to talk about that.

>
quote:
Bigfoot or read my mind with ESP, and if I still don't believe in that stuff, then you can call me close minded.

More bullshit, red-herring, guilt by association. Some people who believe that Bush is completely innocent of 9/11 also believe that Bush has personal conversations with Jesus. That must mean that you believe Bush has personal conversations with Jesus.

That is so irrelevant to what I said as to be hard to comment on. It in certainly NOT "bullshit, red-herring, guilt by association" to point out that rational people don't believe improbably things without some convincing proof, which is the very issue that you have so busily attempted to dodge through this very long and boring post.

>

Your post is perhaps the worst, most illogical, cheap-rhetoric filled crap I've read from an OCTer or OCTabot since this forum was established. Congrats!

Back atcha, dude. Either that, or as I said in my previous response, you completely misunderstood the topic of the thread, what I said, and why I was saying it -- which would not be my problem.

Want to play again?