A titanic conspiracy

Diogenes

oscarBravo wrote:

Word of advice: in future, read the whole thread before you reply on it.

ARE you BLIND? PEOPLE often SPEAK the TRUTH. Even AFTER teh TRUTH has been RUBBISHED, wildly and with BaSiC COMMON SENSE!!!

tunaman

I see this thread is full of all the self proclaimed skeptics patting each other on the back for a job well done...

Do you all still believe Oswald killed JFK?

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

I see this thread is full of all the self proclaimed skeptics patting each other on the back for a job well done...

Partly. Its a thread of skeptics acting like conspiracy believers, truthers, or whatever you'd like to call them.

Do you all still believe Oswald killed JFK?

Could we stay on-topic, please?

If you'd like to discuss the Kennedy Assassination, or any other conspiracy, I don't think its too much to ask you to start your own thread on it.

Nick_oliveri

bonkey wrote:

Partly. Its a thread of skeptics acting like conspiracy believers, truthers, or whatever you'd like to call them.

I found this thread funny. I enjoyed it. You do have a point i suppose.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

Partly. Its a thread of skeptics acting like conspiracy believers, truthers, or whatever you'd like to call them.

If only all of you skeptics held the official conspiracy theories, and the liars that sell them, to the same standards...

Your self proclaimed skepticism turns into gullibility, in effect you all become conspiracy theorists...

The reality is that none of us can possibly know what really happened...

Could we stay on-topic, please?

If you'd like to discuss the Kennedy Assassination, or any other conspiracy, I don't think its too much to ask you to start your own thread on it.

I was just looking for a yes or no answer...

I could start a JFK thread, but just like 9/11 the same excuses would get brought up by all the conspiracy theorists, I mean skeptics...

The footage of him being shot in the front of the head, was just like the footage of the buildings coming down...

The secret service stand down of JFK's bodyguards, was just like the stand down of the US air defences on 9/11...

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1596619659201820052&q=secret+service

kippy

The reality is that none of us can possibly know what really happened...

Thanks,
Now, can we stop speculating on various evidence from people other than government agencies. If we are to believe anyone surely it is the people in official agencies who are involved directly in the investigation of these events.
I have to say, my main argument against most of the theories which are bandied about are still solid-how come more people, the people who investigate these theories in the Police, special foces, cia, mi5 etc dont highlight the apparent glaringly obvious holes in the official theory? Are they all in on it? Again, l doubt very much that every single person who investigates these events is in on the alleged plots by our governments to decieve us. If they were there would be far more of these people saying it.
Kippy

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

If only all of you skeptics held the official conspiracy theories, and the liars that sell them, to the same standards...

I do. But again...thats a subject for another thread.

tunaman wrote:

The reality is that none of us can possibly know what really happened...

And the titanic may indeed have been scuttled by explosive charges in the hull. We can't know for sure, right?

This is exactly the type of scpecious reasoning that this thread was intended to highlight.

The same type of logic that says we can't really prove that the world is billions of years old (i.e. that God didn't it 3000-odd years ago) because we can't know what really happened for sure.

The same type of logic that says the earth could really be hollow, or indeed flat, because we can't really know for sure.

Whats always the giveaway, is people who use this argument whilst simultaneously accepting/rejecting any evidence on the grounds that it cannot be true / must be true. Hmm...I forgot to use that trait in my arguments in this thread. Thanks for the pointer...I'll remember it for next time.

I was just looking for a yes or no answer...

And yet you insist on adding more stuff about this topic....whilst simultaneously saying that its not worthwhile anyway.

Either you want to discuss it or you don't. If you do, take it somewhere else. If you don't, stop posting about it here.

Put differently - it stil has nothing to do with this thread.

tunaman

kippy wrote:

Thanks,
Now, can we stop speculating on various evidence from people other than government agencies. If we are to believe anyone surely it is the people in official agencies who are involved directly in the investigation of these events.
I have to say, my main argument against most of the theories which are bandied about are still solid-how come more people, the people who investigate these theories in the Police, special foces, cia, mi5 etc dont highlight the apparent glaringly obvious holes in the official theory? Are they all in on it? Again, l doubt very much that every single person who investigates these events is in on the alleged plots by our governments to decieve us. If they were there would be far more of these people saying it.
Kippy

Most people who are part of the investigation just do as they are told by their boss, just like everybody else...

All it takes is for the puppet in charge of any investigation to be controlled...

He decides the direction of any investigation, just like you are doing now, by choosing not to look at some of the evidence...

When was the first time you saw building 7 come down?

The footage of those three buildings coming down defied the law of gravity...

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

I do. But again...thats a subject for another thread.

How long can you keep dodging the issue?

The same type of logic that says the earth could really be hollow, or indeed flat, because we can't really know for sure.

Why do you feel the need to make your arguement so ridiculous?

Whats always the giveaway, is people who use this argument whilst simultaneously accepting/rejecting any evidence on the grounds that it cannot be true / must be true.

You really should have a good look in the mirror...

What evidence have I rejected?

What I reject is the likes of you speculating on the difficulties of any inside job conspiracy, while at the same time speculating on how easy it was for those crazy genius terrorists...

Either you want to discuss it or you don't. If you do, take it somewhere else. If you don't, stop posting about it here.

I posted a very short video of incredibly incriminating footage of the secret service stand down, so you go and throw the toys out of your pram...

There was me thinking this was a thread about a titanic conspiracy...

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

The footage of those three buildings coming down defied the law of gravity...

Something coming down defies gravity. Hmm. Strange understanding of gravity.

kippy

Most people who are part of the investigation just do as they are told by their boss, just like everybody else...

All it takes is for the puppet in charge of any investigation to be controlled...

He decides the direction of any investigation, just like you are doing now, by choosing not to look at some of the evidence...

When was the first time you saw building 7 come down?

The footage of those three buildings coming down defied the law of gravity...

So one person controls the direction of the various investigations and the stupid minions, like myself, go along with him?
Even the people who have direct access to the evidence and can see there is a direct issue with the evidence and the way the official story is told will stand by their boss even though some of these people who investigated the incident lost friends and family in the incident?
I for one, have stood up and disagreed with my boss on many occasions when I believed I was correct in my assumptions based on the evidence put before me. Granted I am not a criminal investigator but I do seriously believe that if the people on the bottom level investigating the incident spotted such glaring inconsistancies between the evidence that they analysed and the official story of what happened, a number of them would have spoken out.
There is no possible way any of us can look at ALL the evidence. As I mentioned before numerous times you need to be involved in the investigation to be in that position. But I have looked at a lot of the videos, statements, nonsense that you have posted and combined that will my understanding of a few laws of physics, human nature and life in general to believe the official story. I do believe there may be some things the public havent been told. But do I really care-no. We have not been told for a reason, due to ongoing investigations.
You whole "defying laws of gravity" is an absolute joke. What kind of an argument is that?
If you are so enlightened and believe most, if not all major incidents are instirgated and carried out by the governments of the world, I would advise you get a career in the Police, and couple that with a degree in structural engineering, since you seem not to believe the official reports that the majority of these people have faith in.
Kippy

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

How long can you keep dodging the issue?

For.
Another.
Thread.

Thats what I said. I'm not dodging, I'm deferring. Tou start the thread, I'll answer your questions, comments, challenges....whatever you like.

Thats what threads are for....seperating subjects.

I started this one for a specific reason, and I'm asking you to stop trying to drag it off-topic with whatever takes your fancy.

Why do you feel the need to make your arguement so ridiculous?

Its your so-called logic that can lead to such things. I'm showing how weak the logic is. The more ridiculous the concept that such reasoning supports, the less useful the reasoning method is as a tool.

In other words, you're using specious reasoning and trying to present it as some sort of valid, meaningful article.

Its no different to the way the IDers tried to redefine science when they wanted to have ID introduced onto school curricula in the US. In one court case, there was a debate about what the definition of science should be, and after the ID guy handed his pat explanation of how science should be defined (in order to qualify ID) it was pointed out that witchcraft would also qualify as a science under this definition.

The purpose? To show that by supporting a ridiculous concept, the result itself is ridiculously weak.

So I agree fully...I'm using ridiculous examples. Your line of argument supports them. I'll allow the reader to conclude what the implication about the strength of your "100% certain" argument is.

You really should have a good look in the mirror...

Another common Conspiracy-Believer tactic. Accuse anyone who criticises you of the flaws that they themselves have pointed out in your case.

Why form your own lines of argument when you can use other peoples, eh?

What evidence have I rejected?

For.
Another.
Thread.

We've even discussed this on the relevant thread.

I posted a very short video of incredibly incriminating footage of the secret service stand down, so you go and throw the toys out of your pram...

Or, put differently, you just posted something that had nothing to do with anything being discussed for some reason that you haven't made clear and I refused to be taken off-topic.

This thread isn't about whatever you want it to be. Cope.

There was me thinking this was a thread about a titanic conspiracy...

Well I guess that just goes to show what making assumptions can lead to.

sceptre

danbo wrote:

Just to let you know, the person who wrote that above is an idiot

Don't call people idiots. It's quite rude unless you can successfully demonstrate that they (as opposed to their post) is idiotic. Personal abuse is a bannable offence on more than one forum here with good reason.

Additionally, read the whole thread. If you then feel idiotic after reading the whole thread, my post will have been worth it. If not, re-read the whole thread. Rinse and repeat as necessary.