9/11 Attacks

Di0genes · 08-09-2010 8:02pm

nullzero wrote: »

I feel everyone here should treat each other with respect regardless of their opinions, so you're making a big asssumption there and getting me all wrong by some distance.

No I'm getting you right. Care to show me when you've been critical of the attidue of some other posters on this foru?

You've admitted that you feel some people here are stupid, that says a lot.
If you made an effort to be respectful of people you'd probably make strides in having your opinions taken to heart by those "stupid people" you're so hell bent on converting.

Convert? Convert? Ha! A poster like squod? No I'm not going to convert him. However if someone was on the fence, and started reading the irrationality without the healthy dose of scepticism, could actually start believing this crap.

nullzero · 08-09-2010 8:03pm

Di0genes wrote: »

No sorry not true. Poster by the name of Nick Olivri (or something) went from gun ho pro 9/11 nutjob, too on the fence, to admitting he was wrong thanks to one of my posts.

I can go, find his post, show it, show you up as wrong. But you know how much I like doing that, and I don't think you want to give me the satisfaction.

Fire ahead, I don't care how much satisfaction you get out of it.
The point I made originally is that you're abusive to people and then you abuse them for not discussing things with you becasue of that.
I think you should make an effort to at least be respectful towards people, it wouldn't hurt you.

nullzero · 08-09-2010 8:08pm

Di0genes wrote: »

No I'm getting you right. Care to show me when you've been critical of the attidue of some other posters on this foru?

Convert? Convert? Ha! A poster like squod? No I'm not going to convert him. However if someone was on the fence, and started reading the irrationality without the healthy dose of scepticism, could actually start believing this crap.

No one else is as abusive of others here (regularly), so there's been no need to say it to anyone else.

So you are getting me wrong and still making assumptions.
People don't pay attention to the points you're making because your'e so nasty to them. You don't simply disagree, you assume they're stupid and treat them like idiots. If that makes you feel big then I hope you're having fun.

meglome · 08-09-2010 8:59pm

nullzero wrote: »

Useful to who?
As I said, the divide here is obvious, no one has had a Diogenes assisted epiphany.

Any number of times people have come in here and said "I think 911 was an inside job because...". 99% of the time they are very politely shown evidence that proves within reason it didn't happen as the CT's often claim. Open and honest debate is one of the most important things we can all do and encourage.

Nullzero I find you generally a sensible and smart person, even though we often disagree, hehe sometime we disagree a lot... but to be fair here you usually save all your complaints for those who would be considered sceptics.

I have been dismissed and called names on numerous occasions. Yes I have retaliated but very very rarely. And it's rarer again that I have initiated the name calling. Anyway at the end of the day there is name calling or dismissive attitudes on both sides of the debate but answer me two questions... how many sceptics do you know have put CT'ers on ignore? How many sceptics have got into a huff and refused to engage?

I will believe anyone who can backup what they say. But in this thread we can't even get the people who believe the CT's to outline what it is they actually believe. At the end of the day it's difficult to take someone very seriously when they agree, and often champion, CT's that directly contradict one another.

alastair · 08-09-2010 9:16pm

There clearly are some stupid people on this forum, given that they keep spouting the same (demonstrably incorrect) 'talking points' over and over, despite being shown clear evidence to the contrary (no hijackers on manifestos, no debris, melting steel, etc, take your pick). Once is understandable, but to blithley ignore the facts takes either some kind of delusion, or some kind of stupid.

Respect is earned, and lost pretty quickly when that sort of nonsense kicks in.

Brown Bomber · 08-09-2010 9:23pm

How many times have you been banned Alastair in the short time you have been here for trolling or insulting behaviour?

Just back from one aren't we? Diogenes, same with you yeah?

Who's respect are you "earning"? Have you made any comments at all without insulting someone?

Other posters don't need to earn your respect to not be insulted by you or anyone else and if that is the way you feel then I think the forum is a sham.

alastair · 08-09-2010 9:34pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How many times have you been banned Alastair in the short time you have been here for trolling or insulting behaviour?

Just back from one aren't we? Diogenes, same with you yeah?

Who's respect are you "earning"? Have you made any comments at all without insulting someone?

Other posters don't need to earn your respect to not be insulted by you or anyone else and if that is the way you feel then I think the forum is a sham.

I've insulted those who have acted the maggot - for which I make no apology. And yes - I make plenty of comments without insulting anyone - the vast majority of my posts just contain factual info. Maybe you're just seeing yourself as one of those people I referenced above and taking it all a little too personally?

Brown Bomber · 08-09-2010 10:15pm

alastair wrote: »

I've insulted those who have acted the maggot - for which I make no apology.

"Acted the maggot" meaning what?

Surely not discussing conspiracies in a CT forum?

Personally I think you've acted the maggot in the majority of your posts. I'd define acting the maggot as displaying patronising, aggressive and insulting, behaviour.

Have I ever directly, personaly insulted you? You have me, you accused me of having a pschyiactric disorder if remember correctly, is that acting the maggot to you? Should I then in turn have unapologetically insulted you? I think you'll find I did not, certainly not in kind.

alastair wrote: »

And yes - I make plenty of comments without insulting anyone - the vast majority of my posts just contain factual info. Maybe you're just seeing yourself as one of those people I referenced above and taking it all a little too personally?

Its not about taking anything personally. To be crystal clear I couldn't give a **** what you believe or what makes you believe it It bothers me more to see other genuine posters interested in conspiracies trying to shouted down and bullied by you and your ilk. I don't why you can't behave in the manner you would in a real life situation. I know you musn't because you'd be in hospital more than out if you did.

I have no problem with you personally or anyone else here, I'd just suggest you bottle up your hostility as you post and dish out no insults. Pretend you are in a work situation. I mean it must be possible for you to stop and treat EVERYONE with a base level of respect. Right?

Brown Bomber · 08-09-2010 10:19pm

meglome wrote: »

Any number of times people have come in here and said "I think 911 was an inside job because...". 99% of the time they are very politely shown evidence that proves within reason it didn't happen

I'm calling bull**** on this. Kindly prove the parts in bold.

Di0genes · 08-09-2010 10:25pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm calling bull**** on this. Kindly prove the parts in bold.

Theres evidence on this thread. unless you dispute myself and squods inter change, and if you do, please explain why.

Brown Bomber · 08-09-2010 10:40pm

Di0genes wrote: »

Theres evidence on this thread. unless you dispute myself and squods inter change, and if you do, please explain why.

You referring to squod (in this thread) and everyone else who doesn't hold your view.

Woa? I didn't realise that was an option. Here's me postings links to papers and sources, and facts, but you're telling me I can literally beat the stupid out of people? Brilliant! I think I may need some kind of padding for my hands, because some people are really stupid. Or can I use a bat?

Not so sure what your definition of "very politely" or "99%" is.

squod · 08-09-2010 10:46pm

I wouldn't bother with the guy. I can't see the point of starting a thread just to get a slagging match going.

Di0genes · 08-09-2010 10:49pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You referring to squod (in this thread) and everyone else who doesn't hold your view.

And your he-man reference was what?

Not so sure what your definition of "very politely" or "99%" is.

Yeah you understand I never said "very politely" or "99%" aren't my quotes, right?

Oh what are the odds you'll apologise for attributing quotes to me? 10:1?

Di0genes · 08-09-2010 10:57pm

squod wrote: »

I wouldn't bother with the guy. I can't see the point of starting a thread just to get a slagging match going.

I started this thread because I was informed on another thread that no one would submit the "official" story to the kind of scrutiny conspiracy are dealt with in this forum. I presented the story. The first few posts on my thread ridiculed a spelling mistake. You linked to a pdf littered with flaws, I pointed out the 1st 4 theories of your pdf were completely wrong.

You ignored this.

And you think I'm the one whose trolling?

squod · 08-09-2010 11:09pm

Di0genes wrote: »

I started this thread because I was informed on another thread that no one would submit the "official" story to the kind of scrutiny conspiracy are dealt with in this forum. I presented the story. The first few posts on my thread ridiculed a spelling mistake. You linked to a pdf littered with flaws, I pointed out the 1st 4 theories of your pdf were completely wrong.

You ignored this.

And you think I'm the one whose trolling?

Didn't say you were. I pointed out the fist line of the first response you made was completely wrong. This thread has decended into a slagging match in record time. Others have pointed to your attitude during the thread, here you are shouting in bold letters.

Penn · 08-09-2010 11:14pm

So... what about this 9/11 thing, huh? Anyone ever hear about it?

Brown Bomber · 08-09-2010 11:19pm

Di0genes wrote: »

And your he-man reference was what?

A "snide reference" according to you :rolleyes:. According to me it was a joke. Did it cause any offense to you whatsoever? Was never my intention. If so how did it cause you offense exactly?

And just as importantly how can you honestly try to compare that with insulting someone directly and half the users here by extension?

But lets all be honest here. This thread, one of your "latest" is nothing but a troll thread.

Unless you can show me otherwise why your OP has any place in a CT forum.

Di0genes wrote: »

Yeah you understand I never said "very politely" or "99%" aren't my quotes, right?

Oh what are the odds you'll apologise for attributing quotes to me? 10:1?

I would if I did but I didn't

MEGLOME

Any number of times people have come in here and said "I think 911 was an inside job because...". 99% of the time they are very politely shown evidence that proves within reason it didn't happen as the CT's often claim.

ME IN RESPONSE

I'm calling bull**** on this. Kindly prove the parts in bold.

Which were ""very politely" and "99% of the time"

YOU THEN ENTER, IN RESPONSE TO MY REQUEST OF PROOF FROM MEGLOME FOR HIS CLAIM OF "very politely" and "99% of the time" WITH:

Theres evidence on this thread. unless you dispute myself and squods inter change, and if you do, please explain why.

CLEARLY STATING THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF YOU BEING VERY POLITE AND I ASSUME IGNORING THE 99% CLAIM.

TO WHICH I RESPONDED WITH:

"Not so sure what your definition of "very politely" or "99%" is."

As you quite clearly hadn't been "very polite" in this thread when in fact you had been quite the opposite.

So quite clearly I don't owe you an apology.

Di0genes · 08-09-2010 11:30pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So quite clearly I don't owe you an apology.

Did I ask or even demand an apology from you?

I thought your responses were both pathetic and juvenile. If I thought you'd mean any apology demanded from you, I'd never have asked for it. In fact I never asked for it. If I held you enough regard that I cared you offered an apology I'd have to change the criteria of what I consider opinions that matter to me.

Di0genes · 08-09-2010 11:38pm

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

So... what about this 9/11 thing, huh? Anyone ever hear about it?

I heard the Jew's, I mean the Lizs. The Jewards. Jedwards! Jewards carried out 9/11.

It is wonderful watching a load of CTers spending three pages trying to derail a thread on 9/11 though.

meglome · 08-09-2010 11:44pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

MEGLOME

ME IN RESPONSE

Which were ""very politely" and "99% of the time"

YOU THEN ENTER, IN RESPONSE TO MY REQUEST OF PROOF FROM MEGLOME FOR HIS CLAIM OF "very politely" and "99% of the time" WITH:

CLEARLY STATING THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE OF YOU BEING VERY POLITE AND I ASSUME IGNORING THE 99% CLAIM.

TO WHICH I RESPONDED WITH:

I can feel myself getting old even thinking about going back over all the threads and adding them up. Besides the last time I did that was to show just how many threads one poster started about Jews or Israelis. I actually checked the threads and gave the figures but i was still asked to prove it. Now considering the info is there for everyone through the site search in moments it got tired fast. Never gonna do that again.

However if anyone would like to discuss the topic of the thread I'll more than happily engage. I dunno maybe outline their view of what happened on 911?

Brown Bomber · 08-09-2010 11:45pm

Di0genes wrote: »

Did I ask or even demand an apology from you?

You implied that you were deserving of one. Do you still hold that position in light of what I have just shown you?

Di0genes wrote: »

I thought your responses were both pathetic and juvenile.

OK fine. I disagree. show me why my responses were both pathetic and juvenile.

Otherwise we are back to unprovoked nastiness and insults on your part and again you are just proving my point for me.

Di0genes wrote: »

If I thought you'd mean any apology demanded from you, I'd never have asked for it. In fact I never asked for it. If I held you enough regard that I cared you offered an apology I'd have to change the criteria of what I consider opinions that matter to me.

You'll need to rephrase that, it is gobbledy-gook.

Yitzhak Rabin · 08-09-2010 11:51pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Unless you can show me otherwise why your OP has any place in a CT forum.

You have on more than one occasion referred to the official story as a conspiracy theory.

Brown Bomber · 08-09-2010 11:52pm

meglome wrote: »

I can feel myself getting old even thinking about going back over all the threads and adding them up. Besides the last time I did that was to show just how many threads one poster started about Jews or Israelis. I actually checked the threads and gave the figures but i was still asked to prove it. Now considering the info is there for everyone through the site search in moments it got tired fast. Never gonna do that again.

However if anyone would like to discuss the topic of the thread I'll more than happily engage. I dunno maybe outline their view of what happened on 911?

Cop-out. To quote you, King Mob, Diogenes and buddies - You made the claim.

You don't have to check them all. Check the last 10 911 threads. Show me 9 where everyone meaning debunker types has been "very polite" to the OP.

Othewise, accept that your statement has no basis in fact. If you can't then I'll have to bring up the pink unicorns certain people like to bring up here

Brown Bomber · 08-09-2010 11:54pm

yekahs wrote: »

You have on more than one occasion referred to the official story as a conspiracy theory.

That is irrelevant as I wasn't the OP. Diogenes was. Has he ever referred to the official story as a conspiracy theory? Was it positioned as a conspiracy theory? That is the key point.

meglome · 09-09-2010 12:01am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Cop-out. To quote you, King Mob, Diogenes and buddies - You made the claim.

You don't have to check them all. Check the last 10 911 threads. Show me 9 where everyone meaning debunker types has been "very polite" to the OP.

Othewise, accept that your statement has no basis in fact. If you can't then I'll have to bring up the pink unicorns certain people like to bring up here

To be clear I wasn't talking about the hard core CT'ers in here, I was talking about the people who come in, ask questions but are open to getting an answer that didn't necessarily agree with the views they came in with. The vast majority of those people got a polite and helpful answers.
Now I certainly did make the claim and am openly admitting I don't want to go back over all the old threads, rightly or wrongly. Feel free to ignore my point.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is irrelevant as I wasn't the OP. Diogenes was. Has he ever referred to the official story as a conspiracy theory? Was it positioned as a conspiracy theory? That is the key point.

So you gonna talk about what the thread was about? Maybe give us your view?

Yitzhak Rabin · 09-09-2010 12:02am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is irrelevant as I wasn't the OP. Diogenes was. Has he ever referred to the official story as a conspiracy theory? Was it positioned as a conspiracy theory? That is the key point.

Di0genes wrote:

I believe that 19 hijackers working for Al Qaeda
...
The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists

Yep, sounds like at least 19 individuals conspiring to murder c. 3000 people.

Brown Bomber · 09-09-2010 12:15am

yekahs wrote: »

Yep, sounds like at least 19 individuals conspiring to murder c. 3000 people.

So in your view everybody who believes this, including Diogenes is a conspiracy theorist?

meglome · 09-09-2010 12:19am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So in your view everybody who believes this, including Diogenes is a conspiracy theorist?

I believe he means that 19 (plus) people carrying this out is a conspiracy.

Yitzhak Rabin · 09-09-2010 12:22am

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So in your view everybody who believes this, including Diogenes is a conspiracy theorist?

wiki wrote:

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains an historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning

For the first part yes. For the second part no.

Do you think the OP's outline of events is a CT? Do you think they accurately reflect the outline of what happened? If not, which parts do you disagree with? Which parts do you think are lacking in evidence?

Brown Bomber · 09-09-2010 12:23am

meglome wrote: »

To be clear I wasn't talking about the hard core CT'ers in here,

What is a hardcore CTer? Someone who holds a sufficent number of differing views to you???? Please explain.

meglome wrote: »

I was talking about the people who come in, ask questions but are open to getting an answer that didn't necessarily agree with the views they came in with.

Meaning "hard core CTers" aren't? What are you suggesting? Please clarify because it appears you are being prejudiced.

meglome wrote: »

The vast majority of those people got a polite and helpful answers.

That is a bit of climb down don't you think?. From 99% of all 9-11 OP's to the "vast majority" of some tiny group - "those people" that I don't believe I have ever personally witnessed. And "very polite" to now "polite"?

And more than this, I have never seen any debate here that has even been borderline polite unfortunately. That is why I am so curious about your claim.

[QUOTE=meglome;67910141 So you gonna talk about what the thread was about? Maybe give us your view?[/QUOTE]

I actually already have.

9/11 Attacks

Comments