9/11 conspiracy- Don't know what to think.

It's not just his lack of respect for other people's opinions, it's the things the says, the way he plays people. Everything considered "Left" he supports, everything considered "Right" he doesn't. I know there are all kinds of people like this who really believe what they say, but I always felt like he did it on purpose -- like the things he says are designed specifically to appeal to this type of person. Maybe I'm wrong. But if Skip's on the level, then the whole site must be. I can't see how he could be out of the loop if it was an intelligence operation. Maybe it's not. But what I discussed in the email makes me very suspicious, and I simply can't rule it out.

 

You basically just said he's typically left wing.

 

Oh, did I? It's a good thing you told me, because I don't generally think about what I'm typing.

 

So some people are black and white.
There seems to be many people here like that.
Like I said, your email was interesting, but I suspect there is a very mundane reason for it.
Be cautious if you wish.
That is your right.
But, don't let it take over your enjoyment of the site.
You seem to like it here, I assume?
If not, you don't have to stay.

 

I can't imagine a terribly mundane reason for it. I will concede, however, that it is possible that I am wrong. But be cautious, I will.

As for enjoyment of the site, I suppose I enjoy it well enough. I've been here for quite awhile, under different names. What I said about Skip's intolerance of people who disagree with him comes largely from firsthand experience...

 

If you lose trust and faith in people. Ignore them. I do. Not yet, but I will.
If it becomes a pandemic, I will leave. Simple as that.

People don't agree with me: Must mean their is a conspiracy.
That does not ring too true to me.

Are you really 17?

Agh, well, when the actual owner of the site disagrees with you, then you might be inclined to think all manner of things.
It still does not null the notion that even if this forum is supposed to imbue some mystical hippy doctrine, that does not mean everybody will or does.
I have no idea what Skip believes in, or his take on reality.
I imagine it is as contradictory, wrong, right, idiotic, baseless, etc etc etc ... as it is with the majority of people here (including me).
I think that is what is called "normal".
You are still here, you are not banned, nobody it seems is closing this thread. So, shall we move on?

 

Are you accusing me of saying this? I never tried to say that people disagreeing with me meant they were a part of anything. There are just certain people that I'm a little suspicious of. I realize that the vast majority of people who disagree with me are normal people, who just see things differently. I think I'm right, they think they're right. That's okay; that's the way it should be. Don't think I'm trying to marginalize people who disagree with what I say.

Yes. Is that not a reasonable age to be?

 

It just seemed that because Skip did not agree with you, and had a black and white attitude, this somehow made this site suspect. Nearly everybody I speak with in the politics section has a black and white attitude, maybe even I do. You certainly do (with respect). I imagine if you avoided Skip, and others, your view of this site would be radically different.
The people I have met and spent some time with, on the whole, don't come across as suspect, they come across as mad bad and funny.
What you said in your email, did trouble me, but I'm just going to let it go.
Ofcourse, you do not have to.

I'm just throwing in my own paranoia, forgive me.
It was meant as a joke.

 

My problem with Skip is not that he disagrees with me or has a black and white attitude, but that he actually bans people who argue too vigorously with him. No one else has the ability to do that, but since he does, he abuses it. Like I said, he's tyrant.

 

Maybe he is a tyrant.
Maybe he does abuse it.
I don't know.
I've not read his arguement for his supposed tyranical behaviour.
I just know what I have been told in relation to this site, and him
(this came from somebody who was later banned).

I know forum politics can be very fucked up.
What can we do?
Start another forum.
Let it run for years and years, and see if we are not tyranical people after dealing with 100,000 people.

 

Not for Rat, you forget, you 'were still sucking your momma's titties when he began his research'

 

Wow, for some reason I thought you were in your 20's, Ethan. Regardless, you are wise for your age.

The difference between you and somebody like Finnaz is that his only sources of information is what he hears on the tube and what he hears mommy (pardon, mummy) and daddy talking about. I doubt he's ever critically analyzed anything he's been told or done his own research. I have no doubt he's probably smart, but he's indoctrinated like most people are. If the media doesn't talk about it, well then it must not be true... keeping in mind that all today's journalists do is parrot whatever they're fed by "official" sources, which is then parroted by the public.

 

So lets get back to the 911 conspiracy. Zorba said there were air defence systems at the Pentagon. When I asked him to back this up, he refused. When I asked again he accused me of being cointelpro and then claimed the whole site was CIA, including Skip, because the server is in Langley or something.

So lets get back to the part where you back up what you say. Show me some actual evidence that the Pentagon has air defences. Its either that or sit here and listen to Rat explain just how brilliant he is, which I think we've all heard enough times.

 

Cheers for the baseless speculation Rat, I do, funnily enough, check up for the basis on most stories I hear. Whether they be 'official news media' or not. Especially if they claim to base themselves on a report. I usually make some attempt to find said report and see if there's any spin being added. I tend to be more suspicious of reports from conspiracy sites for the reason that they are a hell of a lot more prone to make shit up.

 

I can't be bothered to try and prove anything to you. Can it be proved? Maybe. I refuse to believe anyone can fly a plane into the Pentagon without being stopped. It just doesn't make sense. If I took the time, I might be able to find something to back that up, I might not. Either way, it won't make any difference. If I don't find anything, you'll continue as you are now. If I do, you'll pick a couple of specific sentences that you can try to refute, or attack the source, then continue as you are. I've already said I see no point in arguing with you, because I have never seen you admit to being wrong. I don't see why you'd start now. You've been trying to bait me for pages now, quoting me as "Pressed Rat's Sock Puppet", and things like that. That's not how a mature person debates. If you could be civil and not bring all the personal shit into it, it might be different.

But you can't. You have to attack me using generalizations about "conspiracy theorists", since you don't actually know me and therefore can't really attack me personally. Next thing you'll be saying I get my info from Alex Jones, which has been a favorite of yours for a long time. You accuse me of using sources I don't use, and of believing things I don't believe, based on a stereotype, which one automatically qualifies for if they disagree with you. I have never called anyone "sheeple", and I've never tried to make anyone else look stupid or brainwashed. Telling someone that is not going to help my case, whether I believe it or not. I don't think what I believe makes me better than anyone else, as you seem to think I do. It would be nice to be able to believe everything we're told, that the government is there to protect us, etc, etc, but I don't believe that. It's not about feeling important, or any of that other bullshit. It's an opinion I hold, not for psychological reasons, but for the same reasons anyone else holds an opinion: because it's what they feel to be the truth. I have done a lot of research, and these are the conclusions I've come to. I don't ask anyone else to believe it. If anyone wants to talk about it, I'm happy to, but I'm not going to debate it with someone who has no interest in anything but attacking me for it. I do have a life, and I'd rather spend my time doing other things.

 

I don't get this - you make a claim and when I ask you to back it up you say maybe you can, maybe you can't, but you won't bother. Is this the standard of evidence that your conspiracy theories are built on? Is this an example of the hard work that you have put into researching them?

Its exactly like your PNAC claim. Week after week you evaded my questions before admitting that the quote didn't exist. Yet you think questioning your quote was some kind of unfair tactic. Seriously, WTF?

I'm never wrong.

Excuse me, you accused me of being a CIA agent, said I only post on politics (not true), that I have no friends here (not true), and called me by other names, etc etc. You have some special right to do this?

I don't want or need to attack you personally. When I see you making something up, I call you out on it. That's all, yet you seem to find any challenge to anything you say to be an outrageous attack on you as a person.

Right so you're accusing me of plotting to accuse you of something? What's the point of that?

You don't seem to have any sources at all, if this Pentagon story is representative of your theories.

Well you called me an idiot for not thinking there are air defenses at the Pentagon, and you've called me and Skip CIA agents.

Who does?

So much research yet you cannot provide a single thing to back up your theory that there are air defences at the Pentagon. Literally nothing.

 

This isn't a competition. This is an investigation for the truth. Almost everyone here is name calling and getting at each others throats. This is very distracting and I believe that it's important for us all to calm down so that we can get at the truth a lot more efficiently. If you're proven wrong, that's ok, just move onto something else and study that.

Many here are scared about being wrong, because if they're proven wrong then everything pertaining to their idea may be labeled wrong as well. Instead, I think it would be better for us to think of everything into particulars and leave out the connections to other thoughts and hypothesis. Also, there is the risk of not having your voice heard any longer. If you're proven wrong then this hurts your future credibility to be listened to. I think the root of this problem is looking at this as a competition; it shouldn't be this way.

Each and every single idea should be explored, regardless of how silly it may sound at the start and who states it.