Joe User Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 I realize languages can evolve and I'm not against that at all. I have a problem with it becoming the exact opposite of what it originally meant. It meant something that described almost the whole population, now it describes almost none of the population. That is what I have a problem with, and why I started this topic. Nice - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nice late 13c., "foolish, stupid, senseless" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 25, 2010 Author Share Posted April 25, 2010 No, we have solid evidence that four planes were in fact hijacked (by Muslim fanatics), and that they were then flown into various targets, causing various documented damage. Your alternative theory says that this isn't true "because." The two are in no way equal, so stop trying to make it sound like they are. ACTUALLY, you just showed your ignorance on "alternative theories", most people don't argue over who did the hijacking, it's who was in control of the hijackers! Epic Fail! Honestly, the controlled demolition part might be a red herring all together, but I'm still not convinced. Well, can you blame him? I mean, you earlier did argue that if we just ignored gravity, down would no longer be the path of least resistance and the top of the building should have fallen sideways. You then proceeded to call us pedants for pointing out that gravity actually does exist. Wrong. I was trying to make the point that the free air outside the building was less resistance than going though the building itself. Someone else threw in gravity and messed everything up, I obviously wasn't saying they would go up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 ACTUALLY, you just showed your ignorance on "alternative theories", most people don't argue over who did the hijacking, it's who was in control of the hijackers! Epic Fail! No. Most conspiracy theorists do not believe there were four hijacked passenger planes full of passengers. If you do, you're one of very few. It also makes your theory crazy, since there would be no need to both have planes and bombs. I mean, if you wanted to argue that Bush or the Jews or whoever recruited the fanatics, then there is no reason to argue against most of the "official theory." You could just take it almost verbatim and just replace a few names. Wrong. I was trying to make the point that the free air outside the building was less resistance than going though the building itself. No, because getting to said free air is a path of greater resistance than just going down. I wish your grasp of basic physics was better, it would make this easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 ACTUALLY, you just showed your ignorance on "alternative theories", most people don't argue over who did the hijacking, it's who was in control of the hijackers! Epic Fail!Honestly, the controlled demolition part might be a red herring all together, but I'm still not convinced. So we just had 36 pages of discussion about the WTC collapse and controlled demolitions, which you now admit probably didn't happen, and now you have a new theory as to it being the US government paid Bin Laden to come crash planes into buildings? 36 more pages incoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 25, 2010 Author Share Posted April 25, 2010 Nice - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nice late 13c., "foolish, stupid, senseless" Is nice the opposite of foolish, stupid, or senseless? I don't think so, but we all know that I'm all three of the old definitions of nice... So we just had 36 pages of discussion about the WTC collapse and controlled demolitions, which you now admit probably didn't happen, and now you have a new theory as to it being the US government paid Bin Laden to come crash planes into buildings? 36 more pages incoming. "MIGHT be a red herring" and I said "I'm still not convinced" how does that mean I just admitted it wasn't controlled demolition?! If they wouldn't have destroyed the evidence so fast we would know a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 "MIGHT be a red herring" and I said "I'm still not convinced" how does that mean I just admitted it wasn't controlled demolition?! If they wouldn't have destroyed the evidence so fast we would know a lot more. I never said you admitted to it. I said you admitted it probably wasn't the case. Probably may have been bit of a stretch so I'll give you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe User Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Is nice the opposite of foolish, stupid, or senseless? I don't think so, but we all know I'm a moron... Your theories are idiotic with no basis in reality, and you're trolling by deliberately misusing words, but I never called you a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 25, 2010 Author Share Posted April 25, 2010 I mean, if you wanted to argue that Bush or the Jews or whoever recruited the fanatics, then there is no reason to argue against most of the "official theory." You could just take it almost verbatim and just replace a few names. We are fight a whole war right now because of who supposedly did 9/11, I think it's pretty ****ing important! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamawesomewicked Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Is nice the opposite of foolish, stupid, or senseless? I don't think so, but we all know that I'm all three of the old definitions of nice... "MIGHT be a red herring" and I said "I'm still not convinced" how does that mean I just admitted it wasn't controlled demolition?! If they wouldn't have destroyed the evidence so fast we would know a lot more. Fast ? You mean after more than 6 months is fast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 We are fight a whole war right now because of who supposedly did 9/11, I think it's pretty ****ing important! No..we're fighting a war in Iraq. Sure Afghanistan is seeing some action but its minor compared to Iraq. The war in Iraq has nothing, and never had anything, to do with 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihilus Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 In your opinion maybe. Ok, let me rephrase. There are no papers that have stood up to peer review supporting any of your claims. You have posted links to two which I would like to point out are NOT peer reviewed, and are written by very dubious "scientists" (the same people wrote both papers, btw) who have also cashed in (by writing books, charging for lectures and asking for large sums to do interviews etc.) after having written the papers. Hardly impartial or unbiased researchers, more like profiteers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 25, 2010 Author Share Posted April 25, 2010 No..we're fighting a war in Iraq. Sure Afghanistan is seeing some action but its minor compared to Iraq. The war in Iraq has nothing, and never had anything, to do with 9/11. Really, was it the "wmd"s? We are fighting a war on terror because of 9/11, non just the Afghanistan war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe User Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Ok, I'm going to start a new 9/11 theory: Osama Bin Laden has daddy issues. The Binladen family is friends and business associates with the Bush family. Osama attacks the US to get revenge on his dad and his friends. 9/11 was simple revenge! Yay, throw me a parade. (I'll work the space aliens in later) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 25, 2010 Author Share Posted April 25, 2010 Ok, let me rephrase. There are no papers that have stood up to peer review supporting any of your claims. You have posted links to two which I would like to point out are NOT peer reviewed, and are written by very dubious "scientists" (the same people wrote both papers, btw) who have also cashed in (by writing books, charging for lectures and asking for large sums to do interviews etc.) after having written the papers. Hardly impartial or unbiased researchers, more like profiteers. Fine I'm done with arguing the controlled demolition angle (not saying I don't believe it), but prove it was Bin Laden that orchestrated it. The video where he confessed was a little weird... Your theories are idiotic with no basis in reality, and you're trolling by deliberately misusing words, but I never called you a moron. Because you don't agree with my beliefs I'm trolling?! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe User Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Really, was it the "wmd"s? We are fighting a war on terror because of 9/11, non just the Afghanistan war. Actually, I have a theory about that too: See, GW Bush has daddy issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Really, was it the "wmd"s? We are fighting a war on terror because of 9/11, non just the Afghanistan war. The war on terror is just a general name. It also includes Iran, and North Korea are we invading those countries because of 9/11 too? So I'm going to say it again, the Iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 We are fight a whole war right now because of who supposedly did 9/11, I think it's pretty ****ing important! Yes, but earlier you made it sound like you were arguing that the official documentation about all of 9/11 was wrong (in fact, you were arguing against its explanation of the WTC collapse just a few posts ago), rather than just a few pages about who was pulling the strings. The theory you're proposing now really is exceptionally rare in the conspiracy theory community, because it's not very exciting. Still, there is no evidence to support it, which means you're wrong anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 25, 2010 Author Share Posted April 25, 2010 The war on terror is just a general name. It also includes Iran, and North Korea are we invading those countries because of 9/11 too? So I'm going to say it again, the Iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11. Where was the war on terror before 9/11?! Probably only a matter of time before we invade those countries, after all we are allowed nukes but they aren't... The theory you're proposing now really is exceptionally rare in the conspiracy theory community, because it's not very exciting. Still, there is no evidence to support it, which means you're wrong anyway. Actually, it's extremely popular! Just the fact that it doesn't get much coverage says volumes! Nice that there's no evidence to prove the official conspiracy theory either, huh? Maybe if they wouldn't have destroyed it so fast and actually did the investigation the right way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe User Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Just because you don't agree with my beliefs doesn't mean I'm trolling... LOL! Your beliefs in the definition of a defined common phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 25, 2010 Author Share Posted April 25, 2010 Your beliefs in the definition of a defined common phrase. True that. Fine, I'm different. I never claimed to be "normal" hell I don't want to be normal. I'll try being more respectful of everyone else's beliefs from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Where was the war on terror before 9/11?! Probably only a matter of time before we invade those countries, after all we are allowed nukes but they aren't... I honestly do not see any co-relation between the two. The war on terror existed well before 9/11, under the guise of economic sanctions and trade restrictions. The only thing 9/11 changed was America went to war with Afghanistan. Then apparently WMDs were found in Iraq so we went to war there. But its not like Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 The war on terror is just a general name. It also includes Iran, and North Korea are we invading those countries because of 9/11 too? So I'm going to say it again, the Iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11. Well, it depends on how you look at it. The Iraq War most likely could not have happened without 9/11 taking place. Bush exploited 9/11 to go to war in Iraq and carry out various other things. Call me a crazy treehugger if you want, but I think it's true. Actually, it's extremely popular! Just the fact that it doesn't get much coverage says volumes! No, it's very rare. I've been watching the crazies since 2001, and it's very rare indeed. Nice that there's no evidence to prove the official conspiracy theory either, huh? How would you know? You haven't read any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Well, it depends on how you look at it. The Iraq War most likely could not have happened without 9/11 taking place. Bush exploited 9/11 to go to war in Iraq and carry out various other things. Call me a crazy treehugger if you want, but I think it's true. Oh I agree that 9/11 certainly helped Bush's agenda, but there's also the possibility had he originally planned to go to war with Iraq even before 9/11 happened under the very same guise of WMDs / chemical weapons etc. It just so happened that 9/11 occurred, and Bush found a way to use people's hysteria to his advantage. But it doesn't have to mean one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s1k3sT Posted April 25, 2010 Author Share Posted April 25, 2010 How would you know? You haven't read any of it. I mean the actual, physical evidence, they melted it down real fast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted April 25, 2010 Share Posted April 25, 2010 Oh I agree that 9/11 certainly helped Bush's agenda, but there's also the possibility had he originally planned to go to war with Iraq even before 9/11 happened under the very same guise of WMDs / chemical weapons etc. It just so happened that 9/11 occurred, and Bush found a way to use people's hysteria to his advantage. But it doesn't have to mean one way or the other. Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. It would have been a very hard sell without 9/11. That's not saying the war had anything to do with 9/11 itself, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts