Stundie's "people who don't buy the official theory" thread

maccy said:
As far as this thread is concerned, I think the point still stands that most of the people you have listed do not believe that there was a government conspiracy behind 9/11. Some of those that do have been shown to have beliefs on other subjects that would suggest that their relationship with reality is tenuous at best.

I'd like to know what you think about the following tinhatters in the movement:

Alex Jones (apparently believes every conspiracy theory ever, plus some he's made up himself).
Click to expand...

Don't rate him and not particularly keen on him, his voice is very irritating but he makes some valid points!

maccy said:
Steve Jones (cold fusion)
Click to expand...

I do not know anything about this guy, other than his thermite/mate idea. Not sure what Cold Fusion has to do with Steve Jones but I've heard others talking about it, so I've read the wikiepedia entry on him and it says.

A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[9] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Other research and experiments confirmed his findings.

So if you are trying to make him out to be some sort of mad scientist crackpot, then you'll have to provide me with more evidence.

maccy said:
Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds (star wars beam weapons, no planes)
Click to expand...
Never heard of them and I do not know who they are. I've seen them being referenced, but know nothing of them.

maccy said:
Jim Fetzer (JFK)
Click to expand...
I know he is part of the truth movement, but again I know nothing of him.

maccy said:
Rick Ratjer (no planes, holocaust denier)
Click to expand...

Remember I'm from the UK and again this is not a name I've come across.

maccy said:
Eric Hufschmid (holocaust denier)
Click to expand...

Never heard of him!

maccy said:
Plus the following cynical exploiters, profiting form a tragedy:
Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas (deadbeat kids trying to get themselves a career in movies).
Click to expand...

Debeat kids.....Thats is just your opinion??

Although Loose Change contains some errors, they make some valid arguments which you guys are quick to dismiss because it doesn't back the official story. I know nothing about ANY of them personally, but I give them credit for making a film which challenges peoples perceptions and asking some important questions.

The anger that has been vented at the Loose Change is totally unjustified and usually people get angry when they are confronted with things that challenge thier beliefs. Like when you challenge a Christian about the bible or god!

maccy said:
Do you stand for or against these people?
Click to expand...
I don't stand by any one person, I agree with some of there views and disagree with others. The only things I do agree with all these people on, is that there needs to be a PROPER INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION into 9/11. More money was spent on investigating Clintons BJ than investigating the biggest attack on American soil. No wonder there is all of this conflict!

maccy said:
And can you find a single person that supports a theory of any kind of deliberate action on behalf of the government to cause 9/11 (either MIHOP or LIHOP) who isn't crazy or doesn't have a financial motive for perpetuating conspiracy theories? .
Click to expand...

Muse's Matt Bellamy, who I'm sure is not crazy or have any financial motive for it.

BTW....To dimiss someone as crazy because they do not agree with your views is quite ignorant.
 
Gravy said:
What is it with all these Brits who have an unhealthy obsession with me?

Oh, I forgot: they've all been the same person.
Click to expand...

Obsession....Don't flatter yourself!!

I just think you are a bit of a liar, who will twist facts to distort your argument.
 
gumboot said:
The matter is obviously not JUST that there was another aircraft in the sky. Your previous post clearly indicates you feel there was a SUSPICIOUS aircraft in the sky. The C-130H is fully accounted for and not the least bit suspicious.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Again, you are just saying so....Where is your proof that this c-130H is accounted for?? lol
 
Alt+F4 said:
Yeah, you did. Re-read your comments from Nov. 23 & 24. But what would I expect from someone like you who uses as a credible source a doctor who says things like "plane crashes" and "victims" and insinuates that some 9/11 victims are in some way responsible for their own murders.
Click to expand...
Wrong again......Read the previous posts, you will see they tell me the protocol was outdated.

I just repeated what they had said...because I couldn't believe they said it!
 
stundie said:
Read the thread!

Did I ever said there was a point? Someone asked for proof hence the links!

You guys are laughable!! :)
Click to expand...
Someone asked for proof, yes. The question was posed thus:
So all you have to do is to present facts to prove there was no DNA from flight 77 in the pentagon.

You need to prove there was not fuel explosion as seen on the frame of the parking lot license plate car camera.

You have to prove all the witnesses did not see flight 77 hit poles and explode at the pentagon.

You have to prove a C-130 crew did not see flight 77 pass them and crash into the Pentagon.

You have to prove it to us. You have chosen the wrong path, you have chosen the CT no fact line of reasoning. You must be Docker!

Cause you have zero facts, zero numbers, no proof. Who are you?

so when will we see your facts to support you ideas, and I would like to see you disprove NIST or PM too?
Click to expand...
The links all refer to witnesses seeing a second plane or specifically a C-130. Which of the above points do these links prove?

The only point referring to a second plane, specifically a C-130, is:
"You have to prove a C-130 crew did not see flight 77 pass them and crash into the Pentagon."
But your links do not prove this. They support the opposite conclusion: that a C-130 crew did see flight 77 pass them and crash into the Pentagon.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Someone asked for proof, yes. The question was posed thus:

The links all refer to witnesses seeing a second plane or specifically a C-130. Which of the above points do these links prove?

The only point referring to a second plane, specifically a C-130, is:
"You have to prove a C-130 crew did not see flight 77 pass them and crash into the Pentagon."
But your links do not prove this. They support the opposite conclusion: that a C-130 crew did see flight 77 pass them and crash into the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

I could sit here proving things all day long, but I'm trying to stick to the thread and not get sidetracked.

I do not have to prove anything because I have never made half of these caims, these are the rantings of one of you skeptics!

This thread is getting confusing so please stick to the points on it.
 
stundie said:
You'll ask to ask Gravy that question!

From what I can gather though, he is lying so it fits the offical account.
Click to expand...

I have been eating popcorn as this thread as been developing.

Why would you say this?

Why would you single out Gravy? Have you been here before?

This only the second forum you’ve been on, the first being something to do with banking charges, so why would you suddenly single out Gravy?

Me thinks somebody is not being totally honest, again...
 
stundie said:
You'll ask to ask Gravy that question!

From what I can gather though, he is lying so it fits the offical account.
Click to expand...

Except we've shown your two alleged "lies" from Gravy are no such thing. Continuing to assert that he is lying makes you a liar.

Now piss off, wanker.
 
Gravy said:
What is it with all these Brits who have an unhealthy obsession with me?

Oh, I forgot: they've all been the same person.
Click to expand...

At first I didn't think so, as he was actually making some sort of effort at providing substantive comments, but now he's into full-on dissmissive PD'oh land, isn't he?

We should just start calling him sock-boy.
 
stundie said:
I could sit here proving things all day long, but I'm trying to stick to the thread and not get sidetracked.
Click to expand...
Right? Then why do you post things like this instead:
stundie in an earlier post said:
You mean proof like this.

[list of quotes that do not address the specific points in the post to which you were responding, and that you later suggest have no point and yet prove something unspecified: "Did I ever said there was a point? Someone asked for proof hence the links!"]
Click to expand...

stundie said:
I do not have to prove anything because I have never made half of these caims, these are the rantings of one of you skeptics!
Click to expand...
You made the claim that the quotes you provided were proof of something:
stundie in an earlier post said:
You mean proof like this.

[list of quotes that do not address the specific points in the post to which you were responding, and that you later suggest have no point and yet prove something unspecified: "Did I ever said there was a point? Someone asked for proof hence the links!"]
Click to expand...

stundie said:
This thread is getting confusing so please stick to the points on it.
Click to expand...
I am not surprised that you're finding this confusing.
 
chipmunk stew said:
I am not surprised that you're finding this confusing.
Click to expand...

I think he's deliberately trying to confuse things, so he can use the confusion as another club against us. Consider this post:

stundie said:
Shame on you JREFers! In your desperation to debunk me, again I see you are misquoting me yet again!! This is how the thread went!

I have NEVER quoted this?? but yet TellyKNeasuss decided to post it like I made the comments about the C-130 myself.

When infact it was in reference to one of a few links that I posted of people reporting another plane being in the sky when the Pentagon was hit.

There are plenty of other witnesses, even if you do discount the C-130 pilot!

F- for TellyKNeasuss.
Click to expand...

TellyKNeasuss' confusion as to how the posting went can be attributed in large part to sock-boy's appalling editing of quotes in his own posts. I'm sure we've all noticed this. I was willing to assume that was an honest screw up, but now he's blaming TellyK for it, which is simply dishonest.

Sock-boy's a lying troll. Only reasonable conclusion. Probably P'Doh again.
 
stundie said:
Muse's Matt Bellamy, who I'm sure is not crazy or have any financial motive for it.

BTW....To dimiss someone as crazy because they do not agree with your views is quite ignorant.
Click to expand...

Having read the rest of your posts in this thread I realise your just here to troll and aren't interested in any kind of serious discussion, which is a shame.

Interested readers should look at the post histories of PDoherty76, JessicaRabbit, Shades_of_Grey and Docker (among others) to see you doing this with your previous sock puppets. I'm guessing you aren't using a proxy server to get around your IP ban this time, but intead you're posting form work or a library or a friends computer (or you live near an idiot with an unsecured wireless LAN) - this would explain why you're not posting all the time, this go around.

You may feel you're winning some kind of battle by doing all this but I'd be surprised if your grandstanding, misrepresentation of other posters and inability to argue your points logically and methodically is impressing or persuading anybody who is reading.

For that reason, I'm through with trying to discuss things with and with trying to help you keep on track.

For what it's worth, what I mean by "crazy", in the post you're quoting, is "enamoured of a number of strange and unlikely ideas" - in other words the more byzantine the theories someone has about the world the less inclined I am to believe anything they have to say. I was setting this up as a counter-argument to your opening "look at all these respectable people, they can't be tin-hatters" argument.

To argue that Matt Bellamy is a sane and rational exponent of the 911 inside job theory really does take the biscuit. Here are some interviews with him:

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1798032,00.html
http://lexcorpninja.vox.com/library/post/interview-with-matt-bellamy.html
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/qas/story.html?id=02e2ea5b-7ffa-4722-890e-d3f620766309&k=89265
http://living.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1138052006
http://www.last.fm/user/inyourworld_x13/journal/2006/10/11/244192/
http://www.microcuts.net/uk/news/archives/11172006-interviews.php
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/bellamy%20my%20girlfriend%20keeps%20me%20in%20the%20real%20world_1013944

Here's the prison planet article on Bellamy's enthusiasm for Terrorstorm:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/270806rockfrontman.htm

Here some details of his appearance of Alex Jones' show:

http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=711949

An albums review that notes some of the Conspiracy Theory influences:

http://www.mumobo.com/muse-black-holes-revelations

I'd say that Matt Bellamy is definitely a full-on tinhatter.
 
Last edited:
stundie said:
Obsession....Don't flatter yourself!!

I just think you are a bit of a liar, who will twist facts to distort your argument.
Click to expand...

... says the guy who has now been banned six times over here. Is that a JREF record?

You can't make this stuff up, folks.
 
stundie said:
Shame on you JREFers! In your desperation to debunk me, again I see you are misquoting me yet again!!.
Click to expand...

What is it with you and misquoting, anyway ? Must everything that everyone says here need to be a direct quotation or exact representation of every single one of your opinions ? The fact was that the plane could easily cover the distance.

Thermite can be tailored to yield a variety of burn rates
Click to expand...

MONTHS ?

A lot of people agree that 9/11 was either an inside job or they knew the terrorists were going to attack and let it happen. There could be lots of different reasons or motives for doing it, not just for the invasion of Iraq & Afghan, oil or the military/industrial complex.
Click to expand...

None of which are sufficient to kill 3000 people. In fact, killing 3000 people is overkill, pardon the pun. There was no need to do this in order to reach any of these goals. A far simpler plan, assuming there was one, was enough. This isn't the movies, Stund.

I'm sure Silverstien has no vested financial interest or involvement with the war in Iraq/Afghan. So there isn't one unified theory because all the people have different motives for there actions.
Click to expand...

Again, in the movie world this kind of thinking works. Not in the real one.

Thermite can be tailored to yield a variety of burn rates
Click to expand...

And you say this again. Apparently, you think that "variety" means ANY burn rate. Of course, that's an interesting and blatant non sequitur.

I forgot, planes do a complete turnaround when they get too the pentagon or an airport.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it specifically asked to check out the site ? How is that suspicious ?

And for the third time, what, specifically, is Gravy's "agenda?"
Click to expand...

You'll ask to ask Gravy that question!
Click to expand...

I'll take this as an admission that you have no idea whether he has one.

Again, you are just saying so....Where is your proof that this c-130H is accounted for?? lol
Click to expand...

I don't know what's so funny about that event.

It seems your ability to research the topic is limited.

I do not have to prove anything because I have never made half of these caims, these are the rantings of one of you skeptics!
Click to expand...

Convenient. All you do is "ask questions" and claim things are suspicious, relieving you of any burden of proof. So you can basically say whatever you damn well please without any form of accountability.
 
I saw this on another blog.

Here is the infamous Pdoh.

He's looking for love I guess

xxtp://manchester.flirtbox.co.uk/dating/pdoherty76.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom