Does the U.S. government manufacture terrorism? If so, why?

Juror No. 8

New Member
I know you do. The question here is WHY you think that.

Because this is what governments have always tended to do. They grow, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. People who get power usually don't want less, they want more. If a government doesn't have an excuse to grow, it will simply create the excuse (War on Terror, War on Poverty, War on Drugs, ,etc...) and then attack everyone who gets in the way.

As Hermann Goring famously put it:

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

Of course, you can't just tell the people they are being attacked, you have to show them they are being attacked. That's not so hard to do, especially when you can just have the FBI bribe some desperate, mentally unstable kid with thousands of dollars during a historically bad economy to blow something up he otherwise wouldn't have considered blowing up.

What's the evidence to support it?

To support what, specifically?

Why do you think that, but I don't? What am I missing? Whats the root difference?

In your case, I'm not particularly sure. You might just be brainwashed really well and can't see what's right in front of your face. You might be a disinformation agent. You might also be suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance and, as a result, are in denial.

I don't really know.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The fact that various governments have done nefarious things in the past is not actually evidence that they are doing any given nefarious thing right now - it simply does not follow.

While I have little or no doubt that somewhere, someone in the US Govt is doing something "bad" right now, it could b any one of a million things. It could be anything from illegal "profiling" by one FBI agent or even a FBI Station (for example) to a cop letting his cousin off a traffic ticket to the President actually being a Reptilian Agent spaying chemtrails to change our DNA (at a very extreme extreme!)

And it may or may not be a "Govt conspiracy" in the sense of being known about (or being deliberately ignorant about) at high levels.

To say that people do evil is a triviality in the sense that it is obviously true and of no practical use whatsoever. To say that a given set of people are doing a specific evil is an accusation that requires evidence.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Do you think it's at all possible that the attacks of 9/11 could have been the result of the U.S. government covertly funding, supplying, and training a bunch of radical Muslims, encouraging them to attack, and then instead of foiling the attack at the last minute as with these FBI operations, they simply allowed the attack to proceed? And then, in the aftermath, the U.S. government just stonewalled the investigation and 9/11 Commission, ensuring that the real origins of the attack never reached the public?

No I don't. They stopped them from blowing up a bridge in Bumbutt Ohio, but they let them kill 3000 people on 9/11. You really believe that?
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Does the question of controlled demolition even matter anymore if our government was complicit in and had foreknowledge of the attacks, but didn't stop them because they desperately needed an excuse (a new Pearl Harbor) to pursue a criminal, neocolonial foreign policy of war, occupation, and resource exploitation in the Middle East?

We're not doing a very good job of exploiting the resources, are we?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
The fact that various governments have done nefarious things in the past is not actually evidence that they are doing any given nefarious thing right now - it simply does not follow.

Nor is the fact that various governments have done nefarious things in the past is not actually evidence that they are not doing nefarious things right now - it simply does not follow.

To say that a given set of people are doing a specific evil is an accusation that requires evidence.

You believe this entity called "Al-Qaeda" was fully responsible for the attacks of 9/11 don't you? That they were responsible for doing a specific evil, right? Well, where's your hard, credible evidence of that? How do you know the government told you the truth about their role in the attacks?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
No I don't. They stopped them from blowing up a bridge in Bumbutt Ohio, but they let them kill 3000 people on 9/11. You really believe that?

So you believe our government is capable of infiltrating all these supposed domestic terror groups, thwarting their attacks, and bringing them to justice but was incapable of infiltrating Al-Qaeda, thwarting their attack, and bringing them to justice? You really believe that?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
We're not doing a very good job of exploiting the resources, are we?

Who's "we"?

Actually, yes, I think the favored corporations who are now allowed to exploit the resources of the countries we are occupying are most likely doing a splendid job of it. That's part of the reason we went in there, after all.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Who's "we"?

Actually, yes, I think the favored corporations who are now allowed to exploit the resources of the countries we are occupying are most likely doing a splendid job of it. That's part of the reason we went in there, after all.

Well give a specific example then, not just your conjecture that it is happening.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Well give a specific example then, not just your conjecture that it is happening.

A specific example of what, exactly? Of a corporation who's profiting from our neocolonial wars and occupations? Do you really need me to hold your hand through this?

OK, how about Halliburton?
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
A specific example of what, exactly? Of a corporation who's profiting from our neocolonial wars and occupations? Do you really need me to hold your hand through this?

OK, how about Halliburton?

So is Halliburton loading up tanker trucks of stolen oil then and taking them out of those countries? How are they exploiting resources of occupied countries?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
So is Halliburton loading up tanker trucks of stolen oil then and taking them out of those countries?

No, but Halliburton is certainly profiting by providing the oil industry infrastructure that will exploit those resources for various oil companies.

Why, were you under the impression that no corporations were profiting from these wars and occupations?
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
No, but Halliburton is certainly profiting by providing the oil industry infrastructure that will exploit those resources for various oil companies.

Why, were you under the impression that no corporations were profiting from these wars and occupations?

Lots of companies profit by supplying infrastructure, thats always happened. European companies are probably doing even more of it.
What are you expecting, that peace corps volunteers and NGOs will repair Iraqs neglected oil industry?

And lets not forget, you tried to quietly change the goalposts again. You first specifically said they were exploiting resources in those countries. Then when asked for specifics, then its changed to making a profit.

Thats what companies do, they make a profit from their services. I fly for a company that flies aircraft on wildland fires, and they make a profit from it. I make a living from firefighting too. Should I give my pay back?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Lots of companies profit by supplying infrastructure, thats always happened. European companies are probably doing even more of it.
What are you expecting, that peace corps volunteers and NGOs will repair Iraqs neglected oil industry?

Oh, so I guess that makes it OK then, right? I mean, our government, which had close, close ties to Halliburton, goes in and destroys a bunch of stuff, and then a bunch of favored corporations, like Halliburton, get to go in and repair it all for big bucks.

Hey, that's always happened! No big deal! Nothing to see here, move along, folks!

And lets not forget, you tried to quietly change the goalposts again. You first specifically said they were exploiting resources in those countries. Then when asked for specifics, then its changed to making a profit.

Well, how are they making a profit? Is it not off the exploitation of natural resources in some way?

That's not moving the goalposts. That's just nuance, something which is lost on you.

Thats what companies do, they make a profit from their services. I fly for a company that flies aircraft on wildland fires, and they make a profit from it. I make a living from firefighting too. Should I give my pay back?

Sure, if you're involved in setting those fires, as Dick Cheney was.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
J8, I see a lot of speculation. Do you actually have any firm evidence? Do you have any specific claims that can be backed up?
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
I wish we had never gone into Iraq, and we should seriously consider getting out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later. But last I checked, Iraq is doing its own thing and we have tiny military presence there than before, so your assertion that there is colonialism at work is silly.

And who is supposed to fix Iraqs infrastructure? I am sure they are doing more and more of it themselves too like they are everything else. And no supplying equipment to the Iraqi government to help repair their neglected and destroyed oil industry, is not the same as exploiting those resources. And no, calling it a "nuance" does not make it the same thing.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
J8, I see a lot of speculation. Do you actually have any firm evidence? Do you have any specific claims that can be backed up?

I see a lot of speculation on your part as well. Do you actually have any firm evidence for what you believe? Do you have any specific claims that can be backed up?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
But last I checked, Iraq is doing its own thing and we have tiny military presence there than before, so your assertion that there is colonialism at work is silly.

If Iraq is "doing its own thing", as you claim, why would we have any military presence there at all? Why would we have military bases there?

And who is supposed to fix Iraqs infrastructure?

Naturally it would be the corporation that Dick Cheney was the CEO of for over a decade. It couldn't be anybody else.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I see a lot of speculation on your part as well. Do you actually have any firm evidence for what you believe? Do you have any specific claims that can be backed up?

I'm going to take that as a no.

But clearly you think your position is vastly more valid and correct than mine, right? You are not saying that it's 50/50, you are saying that you think you are correct and I am wrong.

So you must think you've got more and better evidence than I do. So let's see some.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
I'm going to take that as a no.

But clearly you think your position is vastly more valid and correct than mine, right? You are not saying that it's 50/50, you are saying that you think you are correct and I am wrong.

So you must think you've got more and better evidence than I do. So let's see some.

Likewise, I'm going to take your silence as a no.

You think your position is vastly more valid and correct than mine, right? You are not saying that it's 50/50, you are saying that you think you are correct and I am wrong.

So you must think you've got more and better evidence than I do. So let's see some.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But you are the one making the claim here. Playing silly games like "prove me wrong" is not the way to win arguments. You should demonstrate why your claim is correct.

"You can't prove it isn't so" is not a valid argument.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
But you are the one making the claim here. Playing silly games like "prove me wrong" is not the way to win arguments. You should demonstrate why your claim is correct.

You've made claims in this thread as well. You're not backing any of them up, so why should I feel the need to? You're not going to win any arguments by trolling and derailing threads through demands for evidence without ever providing any yourself.

"You can't prove it isn't so" is not a valid argument.

Neither are your innumerable logical fallacies, but I don't see that deterring you at all.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Do you simply see your position as being equally as justified as mine then? A 50/50, you've no idea really type of thing?

Of do you think there's some evidence backing your position (I'll happily accept for the sake of argument I have no evidence to back my position)
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
If Iraq is "doing its own thing", as you claim, why would we have any military presence there at all? Why would we have military bases there?

Naturally it would be the corporation that Dick Cheney was the CEO of for over a decade. It couldn't be anybody else.

Training them and assisting when they ask for it. We also have bases in other countries like the UK, Germany, Japan too. Are they our colonies? Are we telling them what to do, and are we there to exploit their resources, or maybe to export Dental services to the UK? The military does have dentists! A-ha!

Well considering that they are not many companies that can do oil field services, well that narrows down the field. There are two companies of that size for oil field services, Halliburton and Schlumberger which is a French company. Should we have intentionally used a non-US company?

When I worked in the oil field, we used Halliburton for well completion services. Does that mean they were exploiting the natural resource of Texas in the name of colonialism?
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
So you believe our government is capable of infiltrating all these supposed domestic terror groups, thwarting their attacks, and bringing them to justice but was incapable of infiltrating Al-Qaeda, thwarting their attack, and bringing them to justice? You really believe that?

Well getting information on public protest group, that advertises its presence and where they will be, is maybe, just maybe, quite a bit different than infiltrating a foreign terrorist cell.
 

firepilot

Senior Member.
Oh, so I guess that makes it OK then, right? I mean, our government, which had close, close ties to Halliburton, goes in and destroys a bunch of stuff, and then a bunch of favored corporations, like Halliburton, get to go in and repair it all for big bucks.

Hey, that's always happened! No big deal! Nothing to see here, move along, folks!



Well, how are they making a profit? Is it not off the exploitation of natural resources in some way?

That's not moving the goalposts. That's just nuance, something which is lost on you.



Sure, if you're involved in setting those fires, as Dick Cheney was.

Ah, so Dick Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq! So now we are going to get into a conspiracy that Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq, and all the massive monetary costs it would entail, to be able to send some contracts their way later. Seems if he had that kind of power, he could have just given them contracts anyways or just under the able money.

Of course Halliburton is a publicly traded company with open financial records. What is Halliburton supposed to do? To refuse contracts for oil field services? Any how many different versions of this are there? I heard at first it was to give us availability of cheap oil (when Saddam would have gladly sold it anyways). Then it was to jack up the price of oil. And then later the claim was it all an effort to give contracts to US companies, when Saddam would have done that anyways.

What about cell phone services? Look at the explosion of cell phone usage in Iraq since then and internet availability? Maybe google and motorola pushed for the Iraq war too.

Yes it is moving the goalposts. Exploiting natural resources, is not the same as selling others the equipment and professional services to help others. When I was doing oilfield geology, was I exploiting natural resources? No. Was I aiding in exploration for it? yes

Still seems you should insist that in times of war or disaster that no company or person be allowed to make a profit, that would fit better into your worldview.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
Juror seems to think that public perception of gov't operations..... is a key to unlock the idea of gov't deception.
You are only fooled by your own beliefs......ask any magician.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Nor is the fact that various governments have done nefarious things in the past is not actually evidence that they are not doing nefarious things right now - it simply does not follow.

Indeed - however I do not say that is the case, whereas you say that them having done things in the past IS evidence they are doing things now.

You believe this entity called "Al-Qaeda" was fully responsible for the attacks of 9/11 don't you? That they were responsible for doing a specific evil, right? Well, where's your hard, credible evidence of that? How do you know the government told you the truth about their role in the attacks?

By looking at a multitude of sources, including claims such as yours, and looking at the evidence that backs them all up.

Lots of people have lots of evidence that AQ planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. the only evidence for anything else is stuff like yours - hearsay, assertions without credible basis lacking in coherence or verifiability.

therefore I have concluded that the only credible evidence supports the AQ conclusion.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Well getting information on public protest group, that advertises its presence and where they will be, is maybe, just maybe, quite a bit different than infiltrating a foreign terrorist cell.

So, what you're saying is, domestic terrorist groups are different than foreign terrorist groups? That domestic terrorist groups always advertise their presence and where they will be, while foreign terrorist groups never advertise their presence and where they will be?

And you base this on what?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Juror seems to think that public perception of gov't operations..... is a key to unlock the idea of gov't deception.
You are only fooled by your own beliefs......ask any magician.

Instead, I trust the government and corporate media to tell me the truth, right? As you do?

Why, that's even sillier than believing in magic!
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Indeed - however I do not say that is the case, whereas you say that them having done things in the past IS evidence they are doing things now.

Right. Good job at back peddling.

Lots of people have lots of evidence that AQ planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Lots of people? Like who? How do they know the evidence is credible? How do we know the evidence is credible? Where did it come from? How can we be certain Al-Qaeda wasn't entrapped and put up to the 9/11 attacks by people within and behind our own government?

the only evidence for anything else is stuff like yours - hearsay, assertions without credible basis lacking in coherence or verifiability.

What credible, verifiable evidence backs the government's assertions about their role in the 9/11 attacks? Why do you believe, without evidence, that they told you the truth?

therefore I have concluded that the only credible evidence supports the AQ conclusion.

You're confused, as there is no credible, independently verifiable evidence supporting the Al-Qaeda conclusion. There's credible evidence suggesting they were involved, but there's no credible evidence proving they were fully responsible.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Ah, so Dick Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq!

Straw man.

So now we are going to get into a conspiracy that Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq, and all the massive monetary costs it would entail, to be able to send some contracts their way later. Seems if he had that kind of power, he could have just given them contracts anyways or just under the able money.

Straw man part 2.

Of course Halliburton is a publicly traded company with open financial records.

Totally irrelevant.

What is Halliburton supposed to do? To refuse contracts for oil field services? Any how many different versions of this are there? I heard at first it was to give us availability of cheap oil (when Saddam would have gladly sold it anyways). Then it was to jack up the price of oil. And then later the claim was it all an effort to give contracts to US companies, when Saddam would have done that anyways.

It sounds like you'll inventory and believe everything you're told.

What about cell phone services? Look at the explosion of cell phone usage in Iraq since then and internet availability? Maybe google and motorola pushed for the Iraq war too.

Sure, why not!

Yes it is moving the goalposts. Exploiting natural resources, is not the same as selling others the equipment and professional services to help others. When I was doing oilfield geology, was I exploiting natural resources? No. Was I aiding in exploration for it? yes

So, you were helping people exploit resources, right? That's what Halliburton does. They help the oil industry, both foreign and domestic, exploit resources, just as they are doing in Iraq.

Not sure why you are playing the deflection game.

Still seems you should insist that in times of war or disaster that no company or person be allowed to make a profit, that would fit better into your worldview.

Straw man part 3.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Do you simply see your position as being equally as justified as mine then? A 50/50, you've no idea really type of thing?

Of do you think there's some evidence backing your position (I'll happily accept for the sake of argument I have no evidence to back my position)

Why, do you see your position as being more justified than mine? What do you base that on? Where's your evidence?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Training them and assisting when they ask for it.

Ah, I see. So we invade and occupy all these countries because we are "training and assisting" them?

With propaganda like that, you should work for the Department of Defense.

We also have bases in other countries like the UK, Germany, Japan too. Are they our colonies?

More like, protectorates, with some colonial value.

Are we telling them what to do, and are we there to exploit their resources, or maybe to export Dental services to the UK? The military does have dentists! A-ha!

Ha, ha, ha! Isn't foreign occupation just a hoot?

Go State!

Well considering that they are not many companies that can do oil field services, well that narrows down the field. There are two companies of that size for oil field services, Halliburton and Schlumberger which is a French company. Should we have intentionally used a non-US company?

Of course not. Using that French company would have made it appear as if the contract awarding process was unbiased and without corruption.

We can't have that!

When I worked in the oil field, we used Halliburton for well completion services. Does that mean they were exploiting the natural resource of Texas in the name of colonialism?

Why, is Texas a colonial possession or occupied territory of the U.S. government?

Actually, it probably is.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
It's predictable that all these U.S. government true believers would do everything they could to shift the subject away from U.S. government manufactured terrorism onto something else.

What a good laugh.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why, do you see your position as being more justified than mine? What do you base that on? Where's your evidence?

Assume I've no idea how well justified my position is. Let's say I'm not trying to convince you of my position. Why would I believe in yours?

Clearly you don't think all position are equally unjustified, do you? So what's the evidence to back up your position (assume here I have no evidence to back up mine)?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Right. Good job at back peddling.

Where did I say that various government doing nefarious things in the past is evidence that they are not doing them now?

I have not - you are a liar.

Lots of people? Like who? How do they know the evidence is credible? How do we know the evidence is credible? Where did it come from?

Like Popular Mechanics, like NIST, like the various other contributions to debunking 9/11

How can we be certain Al-Qaeda wasn't entrapped and put up to the 9/11 attacks by people within and behind our own government?

Because the evidence that anything like that happened is not credible.

you seem to be missing the point - I have looked at a lot of evidence saying various things about 9/11 - there are a lot of "what if's" - but "What if..." is not evidence, cannot be analysed, nd does not actually support a conclusion.

Just saying something might have happened does not mean it happened - nor does repeating claims for which there is no credible evidence make them any more credible.

Each person has to decide on their own which evidence is credible and which is not - they can use all sorts of criteria - in your case it seems to me that your criteria is that it is credible if it makes it look like there was a conspiracy on the part of the US Govt.

I prefer evidence that stacks up with known facts, with what I know about the behaviour of materials and persons, with what I know about the competence and otherwise of governments, and with what I know about the credibility of conspiracy theories and the lack of evidence that always accompanies them and the attacks on people who dare to say they are not true becoem the argumetn of believers rather than them having any credible evidence - such as your utterly BS claim of me backpeddling that has really pissed me off.

also on trying to change the topic - as you have done by questioning everything rather than actually providing any evidence to support your position. And when your questions are answered you refuse to accept the answers - instead you ignore, shif position and question some other aspect - conveniently STILL refusing to provide any verifiable evidence to actually support your own position.

And yes this is a personal attack on you - I am fed up with your obfuscation, lies, misdirection, ignoring evidence you don't like, ignoring answers that are provided, and ignoring questions you don't want to answer.

As far as I am concerned you are dishonest, deceitful, and het worst sort of disinfo agent there is - because you DO have the correct information and yet you repeat lies half-truths deliberately and with malice in order to deceive.



What credible, verifiable evidence backs the government's assertions about their role in the 9/11 attacks? Why do you believe, without evidence, that they told you the truth?



You're confused, as there is no credible, independently verifiable evidence supporting the Al-Qaeda conclusion. There's credible evidence suggesting they were involved, but there's no credible evidence proving they were fully responsible.[/QUOTE]
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Assume I've no idea how well justified my position is. Let's say I'm not trying to convince you of my position. Why would I believe in yours?

Clearly you don't think all position are equally unjustified, do you? So what's the evidence to back up your position (assume here I have no evidence to back up mine)?

Why would you not believe in my position? What evidence would sway you from disbelieving my position?

What would you be basing your disagreement on?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why would you not believe in my position? What evidence would sway you from disbelieving my position?

What would you be basing your disagreement on?

The lack of evidence. Without evidence it's just an arbitrary supposition, like a religion.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Where did I say that various government doing nefarious things in the past is evidence that they are not doing them now?

I have not - you are a liar.

Now you're just being dishonest.

Like Popular Mechanics, like NIST, like the various other contributions to debunking 9/11

Tell me, how would Popular Mechanics and NIST be able to confirm that the attacks of 9/11 were not orchestrated by the U.S. government through some form of entrapment?

What authority or expertise would they have in such an investigation?

Because the evidence that anything like that happened is not credible.

How do you know the government has allowed you to see all the evidence surrounding the 9/11 attacks? Maybe they are withholding evidence of their involvement.

You don't know.

you seem to be missing the point - I have looked at a lot of evidence saying various things about 9/11 - there are a lot of "what if's" - but "What if..." is not evidence, cannot be analysed, nd does not actually support a conclusion.

What the government asserts about 9/11 isn't evidence either. Your belief in what took place on 9/11 is based in part on what the government asserts.

That's not evidence.

Just saying something might have happened does not mean it happened - nor does repeating claims for which there is no credible evidence make them any more credible.

The same goes for the U.S. governments assertions regarding 9/11. Simply saying something happened doesn't mean it happened.

Each person has to decide on their own which evidence is credible and which is not - they can use all sorts of criteria - in your case it seems to me that your criteria is that it is credible if it makes it look like there was a conspiracy on the part of the US Govt.

While your in your case it seems to me that your criteria is that it is credible if it makes it look like there was a only a conspiracy on the part of al-Qaeda.

I prefer evidence that stacks up with known facts, with what I know about the behaviour of materials and persons, with what I know about the competence and otherwise of governments, and with what I know about the credibility of conspiracy theories and the lack of evidence that always accompanies them and the attacks on people who dare to say they are not true becoem the argumetn of believers rather than them having any credible evidence - such as your utterly BS claim of me backpeddling that has really pissed me off.

How do you know your "known facts" are really factual? What sources are you relying on and how do you know they aren't just deceiving you?

also on trying to change the topic - as you have done by questioning everything rather than actually providing any evidence to support your position.

Well, where's your evidence? Why should I provide evidence to disprove what you believe when you didn't even require evidence to believe what you believe?

And when your questions are answered you refuse to accept the answers - instead you ignore, shif position and question some other aspect - conveniently STILL refusing to provide any verifiable evidence to actually support your own position.

That's funny. Nobody has really answered my questions. You dodge them just as Mick does. You respond only to what you feel comfortable responding to and in such a way that tiptoes around the core subject of the thread.

And yes this is a personal attack on you - I am fed up with your obfuscation, lies, misdirection, ignoring evidence you don't like, ignoring answers that are provided, and ignoring questions you don't want to answer.

Why are you so angry? Why do you argue from emotion? Can't you settle yourself down and discuss this without becoming unhinged?

If you're this excitable over an internet discussion, I wonder how excitable you are in real life. I also wonder if your emotions may have clouded your judgement with regard to the 9/11 attacks.

As far as I am concerned you are dishonest, deceitful, and het worst sort of disinfo agent there is - because you DO have the correct information and yet you repeat lies half-truths deliberately and with malice in order to deceive.

How do you know you have the correct information? What are you basing that on, exactly?

Simply attacking me and getting angry isn't going to win you any arguments.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
The lack of evidence. Without evidence it's just an arbitrary supposition, like a religion.

Not necessarily. An assertion can be true or false independent of the evidence provided.

After all, you could acquire the evidence on your own, open your eyes to the evidence, or simply stop living in denial of the evidence.

Anyway, you still haven't provided evidence for your beliefs, so it's not my responsibility to spoon-feed you evidence for mine.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
U Why does this site not debunk government and corporate wrongdoings? Site Feedback & News 4
Edward Current Does the beginning part of Gimbal debunk the claim that the object rotates? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 13
T How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here? 9/11 170
W What exactly does “Explained:” mean in a thread title? Site Feedback & News 2
S Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Jeff Semenak Does Benford's Law apply to Elections? Election 2020 2
P What does "genuine UFO" mean in the Condon Committee report General Discussion 5
Edward Current Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
Mick West What does "Off-World" mean to the US Military? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
J Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 5
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
S Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Trailblazer Why does Polaris appear stationary on a rotating Earth? Flat Earth 16
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Supreme Logic Why does the equator stay warm all year? Conspiracy Theories 7
P Does Orlando victim switch legs when he switches languages [No] Conspiracy Theories 8
Rory Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Z.W. Wolf Does Sundial Disprove Flat Earth? Flat Earth 17
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
Tony Szamboti Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything? 9/11 288
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Steve Funk Does Guy McPherson believe in chemtrails? [No] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Ogmion Does DNA emit light General Discussion 8
T How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Leifer does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
David Fraser Super/subscript, how does one do it? Site Feedback & News 4
qed Why does the Lunar Lander leave not tracks Conspiracy Theories 44
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Does concrete melt? 9/11 84
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
fonestar Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore] Conspiracy Theories 178
Cairenn How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top