Sort of. But leave it because it's too long and complicated for you.

Depends what you mean by US Government. Let's discuss it, you'll end up running away. They usually do when I hit them with stuff they can't handle and ruffle up their fluffy pink bunny rabbit world. Warning - I've being blowing away smart arse arguments for 13 years. So show me watcha got if you feel up to it? It's one of my hobbies watching smart arses get progressively cut down and their only escape has been to yellow belly out of the argument. My best advice is not to go there in the first place. it will only make you unhappy and me feeling smug - AGAIN.
continuing:-

No. They're made by hideous entities called Art Students

No. Actually Dunno ,Wasn't there. Don't care

No. Not usually.

No. Having said this Darwin says we all descended from Reptiles. Tee Hee :)



Betcha thought you were being a smart arse. You'll be sorry if you take it any further.

It may result in me being banned when you realise I'm not such a pushover and your comfort zone has been violated. Been there done it many times. and my reaction has always been
Oh Dear - How sad - Never mind - Move on.

I also believe I've made a damn sight more than four posts

What do you mean by government is a better question.

1) Yes it is. Like, by definition.
2) Can you give me a concise version of what the theory actually is? Ideas seem to be scattered about the thread, but I'm having trouble parsing some of it.
3) The problem with most conspiracy theories is that they seem to be rooted in a sort of pseudo-ecclesiastical faith rather than evidence. Most of them are more focused on making the evidence match the facts rather than the other way around, which is why you get these sketchy, tenuous links.

Hmm I wish right now could post a youtube clip of some psychologists discussing YOUR problem, but I'm stuck on 4 posts. The last people to do that to me were JREF and I blew them away too. They banned me four times such was the strength of my argument in the face of vicious personal attacks that should have gotten those people banned if the forum rules had been adhered to. It only reinforces my conviction when my opponents stoop so low as to run away rather than fight their corner.

It ceases to become a theory when you have proof beyond reasonable doubt. The problem is that the reasonable doubt threshold is dependent of people's deep seated beliefs they have acquired from being brought up from birth inside the envelope.

You mean like the THEORY that 19 emaciated Arabs took over four planes and flew around for hours unmolested? Like that CONSPIRACY THEORY you mean?

The people in charge or the elected agents?

Voltaire said:
"To find out who it is that rules over you first ascertain whom you are not allowed to criticize"

We openly criticize the elected Governments.

Oh hell yes it's a truther. I knew that reading through all of The Beatless spam would be worth it.

This ladies and gentlemen is the typical phase one Attack Dog response which is designed to put off those without too much conviction. It has never worked with me. I get the next wave that try to use facts against me and when that gets blown away their only recourse left is to say that I violated some forum rule and ban me.

Been dealing with cowards for years. It only emboldens me.

Got any facts Guv?

Doubt it.

By the way you haven't commented on the link in my signature.

I'll have you know that I'm well equipped with facts being a shill for the government (and Monsanto, but that's my night job). Just give me the long haul man, really persuade me on this. I have an open mind and I would like to be proven wrong if you can prove that the government was actually involved instead of linking together a bunch of supposed anomalies taken out of context. Burden of proof is on the accuser.

So go on then.

Accuse.

incidently the word truther is straight out of Orwell's 1984 Newspeak

Today was trash day, and after the trash collectors collected my trash and left my empty trashcan on the sidewalk, someone came by and threw some trash in it. I would like to learn about how this is a conspiracy orchestrated by the shadow government.

Well why don't you go onto Architects and Enginneers for 911 truth. They would love to hear from you. I can watch them take you apart, it will make my day.

Another is Pilots for 911 truth and you can discuss things with the pilots who actually flew the planes that were involved.

I suppose this is were you act dumb and start making comments that are signally unfunny rather than attempt to enter into reasoned argument where you know you'll lose.

But I put my trash out on 5/18. I need 518 info about the shadow government.

Aw man that's so lazy. I like when they actually try to argue you instead of posting some factoid before passing you off to a forum or youtube video or implore you to google "john lennon and wtc 7".

What is lazy? You getting me to type out stuff that's already been typed out? Simply because you cannot be bothered to go there?

Why should I want to do that?

As for the Beatles stuff ---- read my book.

I take it you know what a book is?

youtube.com/watch?v=L_YWFC1HY74

youtube.com/watch?v=gwJDs1cg9Eo

watch them

If you can't be bothered then

LET IT BE.

Stop responding.

Nah what is this book thing you speak of and how can I blame it on the government?

I've seen quite a bit of the literature on 9/11, and none of it has convinced me. Were you duped by the same thing that I read and subsequently wrote off as horse**** or do you have a perspective that's actually based off of evidence that doesn't rely on vague leaps of faith? The fact that you don't want to regurgitate all of the "evidence" for me is enough to suggest that it's the former.

Look whilst you all think that you're winding me up let me just say that I love this.

I'm surprised the trashmen are in league with Skull & Bones to be honest. I always thought Skull & Bones were higher class than that.

I don't want to discuss 911 with people who live in a vault

Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fools gold mouthpiece
The hollow horn plays wasted words
Proved to warn
That he not busy being born
Is busy dying.

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despite their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something
They invest in.

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in.

But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it's alright, Ma, if I can't please him.

Well you see this isn't too far from my book. I did mention the A∴A∴ and the wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn and other such ILLUMINATED societies.

you see when you've been brought up with pots of money and have all you need boredom sets in and you become emotionally scarred and start craving more and more power and some of that is spiritual.

I'm not convinced but I don't think it's really that far of a leap. It's not like we have a clean record, and there is some fishy physical evidence, such as the beam cuts and the rate of collapse. I never really looked much into besides watching Zeitgeist, and a couple other docs.

Joke's on you, I live under a rock. Bob Dylan is a decent source for evidence I guess, but instead of having a little ad hominem fun by accusing me of being a sheep maybe you could actually show me the light.

It would be pretty lazy for me to say I've disproved E=MC^2 with the help of Alex Jones, then when people are like "oh ja? Tell me about it because that seems pretty crazy," I tell them that they think it's crazy because of what these here Bob Dylan lyrics have to say about it.

So howabout some actual evidence instead of avoiding the question with fallacies?

Not exactly a reliable source but the quoted part is interesting. If you wanna do your own research go ahead.

False Flag

You're not trying to reason with these people are you?

They can't handle the truth and a psychological condition called Cognitive Dissonance kicks in. Orwell called it Doublespeak. youtube.com/watch?v=8zP0FU46PcE

I've stopped looking at how and looking into who. How the buildings fell etc is no longer an issue with me.

Have you seen the play

Who killed John O'Neil. youtube.com/watch?v=MSyFD51vN_4 One man plays five roles

The Questioner
The Conspiracy Theorist
The Scathing Skeptic
The Computer Surfer.
And does a very good impresion of Kevin Costner in JFK dressed as the courtroom scene.

Alas most people today don't have the necessary attention span to comprehend what's being said. I think some of them are in this thread.

Reason? No. I'm just talking to them.

Beam cuts: there were thirteen stories left standing after the collapse. Videotaped and ****, the government can't be lying to us about that for sure unless you want to bring in a cool CGI theory (not you personally DWV, but I'm hoping the Beatles documentarian guy will get in on this), it's pretty solid evidence that that was a thing. Did they just pluck them out of the ground? It's a lot more likely that they would cut them down to smaller pieces to send out more easily with the rest of the rubble. It would be so likely that they have videos of volunteers cutting those beams in the cleanup process.

Rate of collapse: You mean the rate of collapse that is conflicting with all of the videos that are put forward? The news shows closer to 12 seconds than the ones purporting conspiracy saying that it's eight seconds or whatever freefall motion or "near free fall motion" is made out to be. It's kind of funny, with the "near free fall motion" being suggested that there was no resistance at all from the ground floors below. As if the bombs were uber precise but not quite precise enough to keep the floors from offering just a little bit of give because hey, the building still fell down. There's kind of a weird reason that the buildings collapsing look like a demolition. Here, I'll write it out for you:

Demolition end result: building collapses
9/11 end result of twin towers: buildings collapse

Interesting.

Zeitgeist and other films: There's quite an industry built around the 9/11 conspiracy, and I blame them for spreading misinformation to further their interests as a main cause for the popularity of the conspiracy. It's similar to global warming in that fashion.

Which do you think is more likely?
Scenario A: that a majority of scientists in relevant fields agree on some subject and a few people paid off by special interests go to great lengths to deny it or disprove it.

Scenario B: the majority of scientists (we're talking hundreds of thousands) are paid to believe said scenario and a few skeptics really show things how they are using their real brain-smarts.

I find the sides pretty easy to pick in the whole 9/11 scenario.

EDIT: I love when Truthers shout cognitive dissonance! It's like a retarded kid shouting down syndrome all the time whenever his parents tell him to do some chores.

Thoughts on my second post about False Flag operations?

See, this is exactly what I was talking about. My post was rational, thought out, and not at all a personal attack. I was merely asking for some evidence, as well as asking you to actually concretely state your thesis in a meaningful (ie. falsifiable) way so that the goalposts aren't moved later on.

If you're gonna accuse me of personal attacks for that post, buddy, you've got a whole other thing coming. You should respond better to people asking for basic evidence before they blindly follow you. You're too emotionally involved to this idea, which is a faulty position to take when searching for the truth.

Now, if you present a coherent thesis, as well as a logical, rational, argument that does not contain this type of reactionary, knee jerk responses, as well as not containing any more meaningless, external ad hominem, we can talk. Of course, you'd also have to be able to show that there aren't any obvious logical fallacies, even under harsh questioning, without breaking a sweat or getting angry. You'll also have to show that your research is from reliable sources, and that you aren't making anything up, or handwaving important parts of the equation.

Maybe your book does all of that, in which case I'd be glad to read it, and be perhaps persuaded by it, but your response to simple, polite questioning suggests otherwise. Now, throw another hissy fit or prove me wrong, your choice. But first you need a falsifiable thesis.

1) Which you have failed to supply.
2) Actually, no, that's not what a theory is, in anything other than the un-useful colloquial sense. A theory is an idea or set of ideas designed to explain something. Thusly, gravity is a theory, even though it's for all intents and purposes pretty much 100%. But let's not get into semantics here.

Wait, I'm the one asking questions here, you're the one asking for blind faith in an idea that hasn't yet been coherently defined. Yet I'm the one that's been brainwashed? You don't get to 1984 me, yo.

What?

Show me evidence for the official story?

No please show me your justification for blowing the arms and legs off kids?

Surely you have some evidence. Don't you?

As for my theory

DUNNO

NEED A NEW INQUIRY.

THAT'S HOW PROOF HAS ALWAYS BEEN ASCERTAINED IN THE PAST.

Operation Northwoods never went into effect for one, plus how does the existence of false flag events prove that 9/11 was a false flag? Saying that homosexuality exists even among men wouldn't prove that me or you is gay. Hell, the fact that we considered kissing a guy at one point doesn't prove that we went and had buttsex on 9/11. I'm going to need some actual evidence regarding the events of 9/11 itself before I buy into that.

I didn't say that it did. I was just showing it's not really that far of a leap that the US government would do such things considering it's history.

I said in my first post that I also wasn't convinced, but I'm also not gonna back the government like you do because they are shitbags.

The government should always be questioned to keep it in check, no matter how good it is.

Look it's simple DeadChannel

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE FOR THE OFFICIAL STORY?

If you cannot do this then a New Inquiry is required.

N' est-ce Pas?

let them feel your ire hold their feet to the fire

Charles Manson supports gay marriage. Do you support gay marriage? If you said yes then you just gave a massive pat on the back for good ole Manson.

Just because the guy who's being blamed sucks doesn't mean you have to immediately agree with his enemies, but that's kind of how it goes with conspiracy theorists. Yes, you will have to defend a man accused of some bull**** he didn't do, but that doesn't mean you accept everything that the man has done.

Like say a man gets murdered and the police have their eye on a suspect. You were licking the suspect's scrotum the evening of the incident, so he's innocent as far as that goes. However, it's pretty safe to say that the suspect also shipped cocaine to several third world countries to supply the drug trade and in turn create business for himself. So would you say that he murdered the man or would you say you licked his balls at the time of the event?

Ad hominem ain't no fun man. You always end up tongue thrusting someon'e nutsack.

I'm not angry.

You don't seem to understand how it works:

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This ****'s on you breh. Let it out and **** all over our mouths, then let us return the favour.

What official story? You still haven't provided a falsifiable thesis that I can argue against.
Also, the burden of proof is on the maker of extraordinary claims. "Show me the proof I'm wrong" is what's known as an "appeal to ignorance", and it's a pretty common logical fallacy.

It falls in the same camps as "prove that god's not true" and "prove that there's no giant purple plush orangutan suction cupped to the back of mars".

Again, without a falsifiable thesis, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. So how's that thesis coming?

I have no justification, but that's okay because that's not actually a thing I've personally ever done to my knowledge.

Well, maybe if I knew what you were talking about. Like, if you provided me with a falsifiable thesis.

So, basically, you've dodged every point I've made with a complete lack of grace, failing to address anything. Maybe if you spent half as much time tooting your own horn and bragging about past debates you've had actually refuting things and providing evidence, you'd be in a better position. Oh, and also if you had a falsifiable thesis (so that you don't move the goalposts, and also so that I know what the bollocks you're talking about).

EDIT: Oh, look, you replied a second time while I was typing this. I think I covered that though. Oh, btw, how's that FALSIFIABLE THESIS coming?

I'll back anyone who I agree with, even if I don't like them. I think roscoe got your brain all hung up. I already said 2x now I also was not convinced, what I'm waiting for you to say is that it is POSSIBLE that it was an inside job, even if you think it was not. Blind faith in government is dangerous, their morality is no different from yours and mine.

Nah I'll do it on a case by case basis instead of waiting for some other guy to come in and say he has doubt before I go on with some accusations.

Idk, what you're even talking about anymore. I just provided you with 3 instances of the US committing or planning to commit heinous crimes against itself/allies to push an agenda, and you didn't disagree, but you also believe that the government would never do such a thing.

Taking things on a case by case basis is logical and I agree with your approach, but to sit here and claim that it's no longer a possibility for the government to act in a way it has previously acted is just stubborn.