ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th April 2008, 03:38 PM   #1
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,875
"You guys obviously haven't done your research"

What research are twoofers talking about when they say this?

Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan?

That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin?

That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ?

That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon?

That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?"

What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done?
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2008, 03:47 PM   #2
fullflavormenthol
Master Poster
 
fullflavormenthol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,417
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
What research are twoofers talking about when they say this?

Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan?

That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin?

That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ?

That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon?

That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?"

What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done?
It means that sense we don't agree with them we couldn't possible have read the same things they have, because if we read them we would be left with no choice but to agree with the "truth".

Incidently this is the same circular argument you will get from Christians regarding the Bible.
__________________
"Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS
fullflavormenthol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2008, 03:57 PM   #3
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,080
"Research" = watching truther videos on youtube.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2008, 04:11 PM   #4
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,769
WildCat. Dude. You know the YouTube generation ROCKS!
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2008, 04:57 PM   #5
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,080
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
WildCat. Dude. You know the YouTube generation ROCKS!
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...6112580409.gif
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2008, 05:02 PM   #6
mrbaracuda
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,799
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Now that you mention it.. they don't most of the time! Shocking discovery!
mrbaracuda is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2008, 05:03 PM   #7
mrbaracuda
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,799
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
"Research" = watching truther videos on youtube.
You forgot videos.google. You know, for the hardcore researchers who can endure more than 15 minutes tops.
mrbaracuda is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2008, 05:34 PM   #8
milesalpha
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 375
Just wanted to point out that Youtube has been declared "The Root of All Evil" by Lewis Black, joining beer and Trump.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows....aspx?sid=7618

Should I be worried that I agree with all of his assessments?
__________________
Tragedy is when I cut my finger.
Comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die.

Mel Brooks
milesalpha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2008, 05:42 PM   #9
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 54,080
Hey, my Steve Earle video on youtube has 12,600 views! And the top linking site is Steve Earle's myspace page!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 12:29 AM   #10
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,911
Most truthers seem to believe the "inside job" case is so blindingly obvious, that anyone who gets to see the details will immediately be converted. When they encounter someone who isn't a true believer, then, they see only two alternatives.

a) "you haven't done the research"
b) you have seen the "research" and know it's an "inside job" but are intentionally covering it up

The third possibility, that you've done the reseach and found flaws in their phony "evidence", is so damaging to their world view that they won't even dare consider it. They just "know" 9/11 "was an inside job", so people saying otherwise must simply be wrong. No doubt must be allowed to slip in, otherwise the whole facade will begin to crumble.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 01:28 AM   #11
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,931
Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol View Post
It means that sense we don't agree with them we couldn't possible have read the same things they have, because if we read them we would be left with no choice but to agree with the "truth".
Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, don't we all feel the same way about them?

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 01:54 AM   #12
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,080
when you dont belive the CT, you did not read them or did not understand them.
when you dont belive the Debunkings, you did not read them or did not understand them.

Its the same stuff on both sides
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 02:26 AM   #13
padragan
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
when you dont belive the CT, you did not read them or did not understand them.
when you dont belive the Debunkings, you did not read them or did not understand them.

Its the same stuff on both sides
After having spent some time over the last few years on several boards where CT are discussed I must respectfully disagree that it should be the same thing. One thing separates the two sides in a very obvious way: Evidence. I've seen twoofers rund like the devil were chasing them rather then actaully looking at evidence. To me it is clear which side is based on fact, observation and critical thinking and which side is based on pure and blind faith.

Therefore, I'd say that skeptics DO understand conspiracy theories, they just don't agree when all facts are reviewed.
padragan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 03:02 AM   #14
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,080
Originally Posted by padragan View Post
After having spent some time over the last few years on several boards where CT are discussed I must respectfully disagree that it should be the same thing. One thing separates the two sides in a very obvious way: Evidence. I've seen twoofers rund like the devil were chasing them rather then actaully looking at evidence. To me it is clear which side is based on fact, observation and critical thinking and which side is based on pure and blind faith.

Therefore, I'd say that skeptics DO understand conspiracy theories, they just don't agree when all facts are reviewed.
the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 03:27 AM   #15
padragan
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers
Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community.
padragan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 03:51 AM   #16
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,080
Originally Posted by padragan View Post
Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community.
oh they belive they show alot ov evidence, they also belive that they have alot peer-reviewed papers. witch oc is denied by the other side
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 04:07 AM   #17
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
What research are twoofers talking about when they say this?

Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan?

That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin?

That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ?

That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon?

That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?"

What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done?

Questions like that are highly contextual - perhaps you could provide a few examples? Or have you not done your research?
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 04:14 AM   #18
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by padragan View Post
Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community.

Wait, compared to a huge pile of "published/reviewed work"? What do you mean by that?

If you meant peer-reviewed, which scientific journals can I find this peer-reviewed research in?
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 05:27 AM   #19
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,931
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers
Is there an echo in here?

And back to reality: the big difference is that we, as debunkers, tend to look at the totality of the evidence and reconcile our understanding to a best fit to it, whereas conspiracy theorists invariably take a position where a significant proportion of the evidence is claimed, either without proof or with highly dubious proof, to have been fabricated. A possible exception is instances like the faked explosions on the Trinity Church video, but even there proof exists of fabrication, in the form of (a) two versions of the video being available and (b) Mark De Martini's stereo separation analysis.

So the difference is, we adjust our perceptions to fit the evidence, and truthers adjust the evidence to fit their perceptions.

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 07:17 AM   #20
padragan
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Wait, compared to a huge pile of "published/reviewed work"? What do you mean by that?

If you meant peer-reviewed, which scientific journals can I find this peer-reviewed research in?
Yes I mean peer-reviewed. Many researchers/engineers/scientists from different parts of the world have done analysis and calculations on the events that day and published them for peer-review. And that is on top of the work done by NIST. Gravy have alist that can be found here:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/peer...tcimpacts%2Cfi

Where are the peer-reviewed papers from the twoof movement?
padragan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 07:19 AM   #21
padragan
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
oh they belive they show alot ov evidence, they also belive that they have alot peer-reviewed papers. witch oc is denied by the other side
Peer-review is not about faith. You either HAVE submitted a paper for review or you have not.

It's absurd to see you trying to make this an open "We think this, you think that, both theories are of equal probability and value" type of thing.

Face it, in terms of real evidence, you know the kind that wouldn't be thrown out of a court hall followed by laughter, we have lots, you have nothing.

Last edited by padragan; 11th April 2008 at 07:30 AM.
padragan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 07:20 AM   #22
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,151
You wouldn't believe how many times I have heard this line, even after I explain to truthers that I write for a blog on truthers (currently approaching 3000 posts) and have probably read and watched 10 times as much of this crap as they have. Sad, I know.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 07:39 AM   #23
Hyperviolet
Damnum Fatale
 
Hyperviolet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 990
They think we don't know that a 3rd building came down on 9/11 without even being hit with a plane!


Groundbreaking and shocking.




zomg.
__________________
The English are worried about the Euro being brought in because of loss of national identity and rising prices. In Scotland, people are just worried in case they have to close Poundstretcher.

Last edited by Hyperviolet; 11th April 2008 at 07:40 AM.
Hyperviolet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 07:46 AM   #24
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,831
Originally Posted by Hyperviolet View Post
They think we don't know that a 3rd building came down on 9/11 without even being hit with a plane!


Groundbreaking and shocking.
Yeah, alot of twoofers say that this has not been reported by the media, but I distinctly remember returning home from work on 9/11 (at around 5pm) and seeing it collapse live on television.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:07 AM   #25
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,080
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Yeah, alot of twoofers say that this has not been reported by the media, but I distinctly remember returning home from work on 9/11 (at around 5pm) and seeing it collapse live on television.
i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:08 AM   #26
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,080
Originally Posted by padragan View Post
Peer-review is not about faith. You either HAVE submitted a paper for review or you have not.

It's absurd to see you trying to make this an open "We think this, you think that, both theories are of equal probability and value" type of thing.

Face it, in terms of real evidence, you know the kind that wouldn't be thrown out of a court hall followed by laughter, we have lots, you have nothing.
its more about, who is peer reviewing
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:18 AM   #27
Sporanox
Muse
 
Sporanox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 899
Quote:
i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^
Yes, and I hope you don't think that.

Instead of trying to come up with a more general summary of the argument, as other have done above, I'll just cite the various verbal acrobatics truthers have been forced to do over the years with their "science." If you point out that traditional explosives were impossible to use, they claim thermite. If you point out there is no evidence of thermite and it wouldn't fulfill their "too fast collapse scenario," they go back to the exploding windows. If you point out the same thing you did the first time, they claim "smart air."

It's rich. Now when have you seen debunkers jump around the place?
__________________
A joke is a very serious thing.

-Winston Churchill
Sporanox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:23 AM   #28
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,831
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^
Yeah, they knew the collapse was imminent, kind of goes against the CD theory doesn't it?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=75768
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:24 AM   #29
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,769
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
its more about, who is peer reviewing
That is 100% correct. I could submit a paper claiming the Holocaust was a hoax to a neo-nazi organization and call it peer review.

But is it really?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:25 AM   #30
padragan
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
its more about, who is peer reviewing
No it's not, any paper/article submitted to scientific journals is a fair target to anyone. ANY scientist/engineer can write down a case where they prove someone wrong (provided that they actually ARE wrong that is), it's not that only a selected handfull people controlled by the NWO can read the articles and papers.

So, you are wrong, the reason twoofers don't have any peer-reviewed papers is that they don't pass the quality check. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that IS the case.

Last edited by padragan; 11th April 2008 at 08:28 AM.
padragan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:26 AM   #31
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,769
Maybe the establishment is in on it? Down with The Man! Power to the People!!
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:52 AM   #32
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,080
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
That is 100% correct. I could submit a paper claiming the Holocaust was a hoax to a neo-nazi organization and call it peer review.

But is it really?
i gues the neonazis would claim it is peer reviewed, and somehow they would be right. while somehow they would be wrong
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:54 AM   #33
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,080
Originally Posted by padragan View Post
No it's not, any paper/article submitted to scientific journals is a fair target to anyone. ANY scientist/engineer can write down a case where they prove someone wrong (provided that they actually ARE wrong that is), it's not that only a selected handfull people controlled by the NWO can read the articles and papers.

So, you are wrong, the reason twoofers don't have any peer-reviewed papers is that they don't pass the quality check. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that IS the case.
why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering?
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:57 AM   #34
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,482
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering?
its pretty much a catchall for any shadowy organization behind any outlandish conspiracy
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 08:59 AM   #35
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,831
Is it me, or is the truth movement trying to cast off Alex Jones?

It's been a couple of posts now from truthers trying to make it look like it's the "debunkers" the ones who put too much emphasis on AJ's claims.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 11:36 AM   #36
padragan
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering?
Feel free to search/replace NWO with Illuminati, The Bush Cabal, Republicans, The gubbmint or whatever it is you think may be behind all of this (but hey, if there's an evil conspiracy out there, why settle for the lesser evil when NWO is so much more fun?). It still does not change the fact that any proffesional can challenge a published article at any time after it's been published. It's part of the scientific method you know... to constantly see if claims hold up, and when they don't replacing them with a better theory.

Have you seen a massive massive critique launched ANYWHERE against these peer reviewed articles? A simple yes or no will do.

Last edited by padragan; 11th April 2008 at 11:38 AM.
padragan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 11:44 AM   #37
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,080
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Is it me, or is the truth movement trying to cast off Alex Jones?

It's been a couple of posts now from truthers trying to make it look like it's the "debunkers" the ones who put too much emphasis on AJ's claims.
well i dont represent the truth movement or any other group

i never liked AJ nor LC
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 11:48 AM   #38
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,080
Originally Posted by padragan View Post
Feel free to search/replace NWO with Illuminati, The Bush Cabal, Republicans, The gubbmint or whatever it is you think may be behind all of this (but hey, if there's an evil conspiracy out there, why settle for the lesser evil when NWO is so much more fun?). It still does not change the fact that any proffesional can challenge a published article at any time after it's been published. It's part of the scientific method you know... to constantly see if claims hold up, and when they don't replacing them with a better theory.

Have you seen a massive massive critique launched ANYWHERE against these peer reviewed articles? A simple yes or no will do.
a massive massive critique?
no
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 11:50 AM   #39
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,080
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
its pretty much a catchall for any shadowy organization behind any outlandish conspiracy
AQ is NWO?
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2008, 11:52 AM   #40
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,482
Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney View Post
AQ is NWO?
what outlandish conspiracy are they behind?

oh wait, truthers think outlandish means the opposite of outlandish
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.