Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If she doesn't want to answer your questions, that is her right. You'll just have to deal with it.
Wow...you guys are so predictable...it would actually be funny if 3000 people hadn't been killed that day...and countless other innocent lives since.
And no...I don't want to engage in fruitless arguments. Sorry if that offends you, but it is simply a waste of time and energy. Your reality is simply very different from mine. I accept that. Perhaps you would like to extend the same respect.
But you may want to take a look at recent poles. You are now in the minority. Gee, I wonder why so many people just don't believe the official story anymore.
Wow...you guys are so predictable...it would actually be funny if 3000 people hadn't been killed that day...and countless other innocent lives since.
If you don't want to engage in discussion then it begs the question why you are on a discussion forum talking about 9/11 in the first place.
And no, we are not in the minority. Both professionally and publicly the "truther" movement is still and always has been the minority.
Discussion is one thing....fruitless, time wasting arguments are another.
Like I said...you should check the latest stats...I didn't compile them silly...so if you want to argue them...go to the source.
Well since you never gave me an answer to my original question it doesn't look like you are after a discussion either.
There are potentially thousands of sources you could be working from.
It isn't hard to simply post a link into the thread so people know what stats you are talking about.
Even though it's irrelevant how many people believe something when determining if the belief is valid, the only source in that video was a poll taken by Rethink 911 (which I obviously don't trust as an unbiased source). If I heard the results correctly, they are in the minority even in their own poll.
Btodd
Obviously many do view the evidence as valid, stats included. And why would that be a surprise. More and more people in my everyday life bring it up now. Using the, as usual, "discredit" the source/witness/whistleblower/engineer/scientist etc. doesn't say anything.
Zanting said:Obviously all sources and experts other than the ones you adhere to will be biased in your opinion and produce defunct data. You've made that abundantly clear on many occasions. That doesn't make it true on any level, or make the data unreliable.
Like I said...fruitless, waste of time argument. Not a discussion.
This is what I've been asking.So where'd the plane, passengers and crew of the real plane go?
Evidence please.
This is what I've been asking.
From Homer to Harry Potter in human history, there is always the hero, seeking the "truth." His mission - to reach places that taboo for mortals - Minotaur's labyrinth or secret government agencies - and bring out the knowledge and share it with all of us.You are now in the minority. Gee, I wonder why so many people just don't believe the official story anymore.
That wasn't a personal attack (you're quite sensitive); it was merely articulating that appealing to the number of people who believe something as some sort of evidence for it being true is a logical fallacy. It's called 'Argumentum Ad Populum'. That would apply to anything I believe as well, if I made such an argument. I was merely pointing out that the (single) source you cited when saying that people like me are in the minority did not even show us in the minority, and it's not an unbiased source. We have no idea about the methods of that (single) poll, whom they targeted for it, etc. It is absolutely useless in establishing what happened on 9/11. Questions like the one I asked you earlier, though...are entirely useful, because they put both scenarios to the ultimate test of which view provides the most complete narrative of what happened, which is supported by more evidence, and the least amount of assumptions. But you didn't care for that question, calling it 'fruitless'.
You don't actually discuss anything. You question the official story, ask us to defend it...we do, and when we ask you to defend your side, you consider that some sort of illegal move on our part. I'm sorry that you cannot provide any plausible narrative for such a simple question as the one I asked, but that's your problem. I'm no stranger to this; it's how the entire Truth Movement works. "We ask the questions around here!", etc. I'll answer any question put to me to the best of my ability...I'm not afraid of anything.
Btodd
You actually thought I took that personally?
Sorry you feel that way! You're very selective about what you want to discuss. All you seem interested in is the planes.Why is that?
I'll answer any question put to me to the best of my ability...I'm not afraid of anything.
Actually, you seemed to have missed this...
Btodd wrote,
So no, he is clearly not very selective.
What is it you want to discuss Zanting?
No...I didn't miss it. And He indeed has persisted on discussing the planes...why not just start another thread? It is a very interesting topic and loaded with controversy all on it's own, which certainly warrants it's own thread. Making assumptions regarding my reasons for not discussing the planes on this thread has been amusing, since I have clearly stated my view that it is off topic. The OP regarding the collapse of the buildings I have discussed to it's conclusion with Btodd, and as I have already stated several times...no, I do not wish to engage in fruitless, off topic, circular arguments. That is my choice. So to continue a discussion on the OP is mute. If you wanted to discuss what the OP presented directly, that is one thing, but all you have done thus far is reiterate Btodd. I refer to that as the goading tag team on CF, since it happens quite frequently with certain responders. And it usually is very successful at inciting responders and derailing topics. Experience on CF has taught me not to engage in those kinds of antics.
And, of course, these are my opinions based on personal experience and on observations of many other threads pertaining to controversial topics.
I am well aware that Btodd knows the controversy surrounding the topic of the planes, so what is his problem with starting a new thread? Or yours for that matter quietriot?
Originally Posted by Zanting
On the contrary...I simply haven't given you a response you're willing to accept. Start another thread with your explantion about the planes.
On the contrary, you refuse to give a response to a very simple, straightforward question that has to do with the collapse of the towers. Are you saying that if I start a new thread and ask you this question again, you will provide a direct answer to the question? Because if so...I will.
I'm not sure why you seem to feel you have to jump in to support Btodd. If you have not read the discussion we have had at length, then you obviously have no idea why I concluded further discussion on the topic initiated by the OP.
I am well aware that Btodd knows the controversy surrounding the topic of the planes, so what is his problem with starting a new thread? Or yours for that matter quietriot?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?