Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

Conspiracy Theories


  • Please log in to reply
192 replies to this topic

#31    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 October 2012 - 11:06 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

feel free to pass on posting to me if you think I am full of sh**.....as i have said I do not care if you believe me or talk to me.

Perhaps you should ask yourself an important question.  You don't need to do this publicly of course, feel free to do it on your own time and in privacy.

"If I can't provide evidence which actually supports what I believe may have happened or not happened, why exactly do I believe that it happened or didn't happen?"



View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

It should be the govt job to investigate and prove what really happened. If you believe it's all a ok and they did your job.....yeah for you.

The government did investigate, as did many agencies and groups outside of the government.  So far this historically documented version of events is the best supported that I've seen.  If there is a plausible alternate version, I'm willing to at least entertain it as being possible, but in order to actually accept it, I'd need it to be more strongly evidenced than what we already have on historical record.

Is that really all that unreasonable?



View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

I really have nothing more to say because you are not even OPEN to the idea that 9/11 did not quite play out the way you were told.

Why are you wrongly accusing me of not being open?  I'm attempting to engage you in discussion.  I've asked you multiple times for your evidence.  If you have evidence and you are withholding it from me, how does that equate to me being closed minded?


View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

You believe everyone in opposition is a nut or throwing tantrums or too incredible to believe.

Not at all.  I believe that people who throw tantrums are throwing tantrums.

If you want to convince me of something, you'll need to bring evidence to the table in order to do so.  Of course, you've stated that you aren't trying to convince anyone.  What then is your intention?  Are you just venting?


View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

I am wasting my time talking to close minded ones. go chat with those like you.  have a wonderful evening and i hope life treats you well. :)

If you think that I'll accept anything less than substantial evidence before I accept your claims, you are indeed wasting your time.

I hope that you have a wonderful evening as well.  Take care of yourself TB. :)


#32    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,008 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 19 October 2012 - 11:07 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

I am not one of them and do not hang out with them.

My goal is a legitimate investigation into 9/11. I think many on all sides do not give a damn about those murdered and just want recognition or money or a good fight. Anyone that has no respect for the victims of 9/11 is no friend of mine. I don't care who you are or what you represent, if you don't have any respect or desire for justice I have no use for ya.

I see....

Isn't it interesting that when a person who supports the "Official Narrative" is concerned over where the money will come from for the new investigation and suggests that those who are the most vocal about wanting a new investigation should pay for it themselves you find it "DISGUSTING" that the person is concerned over the money, and yet when those CT's who demand a new investigation but are too busy openly profiting (off the murder of those 3,000 people that you rail on and on about) to pay more than lip service to a new investigation are brought up you simply "don't have time for them"...

Very interesting indeed...






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 19 October 2012 - 11:08 PM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#33    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,873 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 19 October 2012 - 11:53 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

feel free to pass on posting to me if you think I am full of sh**.....as i have said I do not care if you believe me or talk to me.

Maybe the reason why nobody will believe you is that you are throwing out accusations without any shred of evidence to back your accusations up.  

That is the jist of what booN is saying.

Merely throwing around accusations and not providing evidence is basically throwing tantrums/venting.

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

It should be the govt job to investigate and prove what really happened.

And they already have had an investigation.  Just because you merely think it was not up to your epicurial standards does not warrant another investigation as the original report had all the evidence to back itself up.

I am up for another investigation, I have stated that before, but not at any tax payer's expense.

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

If you believe it's all a ok and they did your job.....yeah for you.

The official narrative has all the evidence required to come to the known conclusion.

Had the Conspiricay theorists come with a common theory, then maybe it would have warranted another investigation, however there is no common conspiracy theory.

Let me provide you with SOME of those theories.

1. Nuclear detonation at WTC
2. Drones
3. Controlled demolition
4. Shootdown theory (UA 93)
5. Cruise missile (AA 77)
6. DEW (direct energy weapons)
7. off load of passengers (UA 93)
8. Remote controlled flight
9. Pentagon fly-over

that is only SOME of the theories

Why can't the CT's come together in an agreement when it comes to what happened on 9/11?  

Yet the official narrative has come with only one solution to each given incident.

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

I really have nothing more to say because you are not even OPEN to the idea that 9/11 did not quite play out the way you were told.

It is not about being open/closed minded on the possibilities of 9/11.  The fact of the matter is, the evidence supporting the official narrative is abundant and makes sense.
Just because you cannot come to an agreement on it does not make it less of a fact.

Remember, no evidence is not considered evidence.

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

You believe everyone in opposition is a nut or throwing tantrums or too incredible to believe.

No, it is because you have not provided any evidence to support your bantering accusations.

View PostTrueBeliever, on 19 October 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

I am wasting my time talking to close minded ones. go chat with those like you.  have a wonderful evening and i hope life treats you well. :)

Neither am I.  I have wasted enough time discussing anything with another poster here (Regeneratia).

Looks like as if you are heading down the same boat.

Edited by RaptorBites, 20 October 2012 - 12:38 AM.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#34    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 20 October 2012 - 12:17 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 19 October 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

Maybe the reason why nobody will believe you is that you are throwing out accusations without any shred of evidence to back your accusations up.  

That is the jist of what booN is saying.

Merely throwing around accusations and not providing evidence is basically throwing tantrums/venting.



And they already have had an investigation.  Just because you merely think it was not up to your epicurial standards does not warrant another investigation as the original report had all the evidence to back itself up.

I am up for another investigation, I have stated that before, but not at any tax payer's expense.



The official narrative has all the evidence required to come to the known conclusion.

Had the Conspiricay theorists come with a common theory, then maybe it would have warranted another investigation, however there is no common conspiracy theory.

Let me provide you with SOME of those theories.

1. Nuclear detonation at WTC
2. Drones
3. Controlled demolition
4. Shootdown theory (UA 93)
5. Cruise missile (AA 77)
6. DEW (direct energy weapons)
7. off load of passengers (UA 93)
8. Remote controlled flight
9. Pentagon fly-over

that is only SOME of the theories

Why can't the CT's come together in an agreement when it comes to what happened on 9/11?  

Yet the official narrative has come with only one solution to each given incident.



It is not about being open/closed minded on the possibilities of 9/11.  The fact of the matter is, the evidence supporting the official narrative is abundant and makes sense.
Just because you cannot come to an agreement on it does not make it a fact.

Remember, no evidence is not considered evidence.



No, it is because you have not provided any evidence to support your bantering accusations.



Neither am I.  I have wasted enough time discussing anything with another poster here (Regeneratia).

Looks like as if you are heading down the same boat.

Even some on the 9/11 Commission knew the investigation was a sham, they were impeded and blocked many many times from a thorough investigation.  Many intelligence operatives know it was a sham, and some firefighters and policemen and family of victims know this too.

Your blessing, 'wisdom' or insight is not needed to confirm that a REAL investigation is warranted.

feel free to move along if you don't like my posts. have a good evening.

You don't have to waste your time....please move on. I don't force you to respond to my posts.


#35    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,873 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 20 October 2012 - 12:28 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 20 October 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

Even some on the 9/11 Commission knew the investigation was a sham, they were impeded and blocked many many times from a thorough investigation.  Many intelligence operatives know it was a sham, and some firefighters and policemen and family of victims know this too.

Like what has been said before, not all the questions were answered when it comes to the official investigation into 9/11.

Could the investigation have been handled differently?  Sure it can, however based on the evidence presented, the conclusion is quite clear.

If any of those firefighters, families of victims, and intelligence operatives you speak of are able to present a smoking gun, back by concrete evidence, then there is no need for another investigation funded by tax payer's dollars.

If those who do not believe in the Official Narrative would put their own money aside to pay for a new investigation then by all means.

Or better yet, propose government funding for a new investigation yourself.  However, there is one thing that will stop you, evidence.

View PostTrueBeliever, on 20 October 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

Your blessing, 'wisdom' or insight is not needed to confirm that a REAL investigation is warranted.

I never said that,  What I did state however is that the evidence present clearly backs the official investigation.  If you were to find the smoking gun to all this to but the case wide open again, please present it here for us to review.

View PostTrueBeliever, on 20 October 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

feel free to move along if you don't like my posts. have a good evening.

Unfortunately, I have been at this longer than you have, and this is an open forum.  If i want to respond to your arguments I feel that I am free to do so.

View PostTrueBeliever, on 20 October 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

You don't have to waste your time....please move on. I don't force you to respond to my posts.

I feel that it is necessary to respond to your posts in due kind as to not have you poison those less than verbal to post on this forum/thread.

Let's call it, setting an example, if you may.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#36    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 3,536 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Posted 20 October 2012 - 12:32 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 20 October 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:


Even some on the 9/11 Commission knew the investigation was a sham, they were impeded and blocked many many times from a thorough investigation.  Many intelligence operatives know it was a sham, and some firefighters and policemen and family of victims know this too.


Can you give me a link where you read this, or where you saw it on video?


#37    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 20 October 2012 - 12:39 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 20 October 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Can you give me a link where you read this, or where you saw it on video?
http://www.nytimes.c...2kean.html?_r=0


here's one......


#38    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 20 October 2012 - 12:53 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 20 October 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Can you give me a link where you read this, or where you saw it on video?

http://patriotsquest...om/#Stubblebine
here's another link...


#39    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 3,536 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Posted 20 October 2012 - 12:55 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 20 October 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:


One's good for now. I didn't expect that you'd have every article in your 'Favorites' list. :)

Thank you, I'll read it through and maybe we can discuss it's merits later.


#40    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:04 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 20 October 2012 - 12:55 AM, said:

One's good for now. I didn't expect that you'd have every article in your 'Favorites' list. :)

Thank you, I'll read it through and maybe we can discuss it's merits later.

actually I am not a computer whiz...lol....I feel awesome just being able to post a link. what may seem simple to most with computers isn't to me. I prefer reading books actually. Im weird....I admit it :lol: a little crazy too. :wacko: lol


#41    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 3,536 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:17 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 20 October 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:


Yes, the NY Times article. Since this was written by two senior members of the Commission, and if what they say is true, it does appear that they were impeded by the C.I.A., at least in this instance. This is good evidence.

The second link (I got that too),... not so much.

All I got was a list of people who think there there should be a new investigation. I clicked on the 'articles' link, but it didn't really take me anywhere.


#42    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:25 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 20 October 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

Yes, the NY Times article. Since this was written by two senior members of the Commission, and if what they say is true, it does appear that they were impeded by the C.I.A., at least in this instance. This is good evidence.

The second link (I got that too),... not so much.

All I got was a list of people who think there there should be a new investigation. I clicked on the 'articles' link, but it didn't really take me anywhere.

yes that isn't the best link but it had a lot of the different people who also would like another investigation....why not google each of their names and decide which source you think is best or most believable. ......Sibel Edmonds is a good one. There is testimony under oath she gives


#43    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 3,536 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:32 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 20 October 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:



yes that isn't the best link but it had a lot of the different people who also would like another investigation....why not google each of their names and decide which source you think is best or most believable. ......Sibel Edmonds is a good one. There is testimony under oath she gives

Okay, I'll look her up.

I just hope that she isn't listed in the '1500+ Engineers and Architects' list. If that's the group that I think it is (I feel that I have to warn you), I, for one, don't lend much creedance to what they say.


#44    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:39 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 20 October 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Okay, I'll look her up.

I just hope that she isn't listed in the '1500+ Engineers and Architects' list. If that's the group that I think it is (I feel that I have to warn you), I, for one, don't lend much creedance to what they say.

I am sure you are more informed and intelligent than all the military men and professionals listed. they can't all be legit.....its ok. I would be interested though if you would person by person tell me why they are not to be trusted? why their concerns are unimportant?


#45    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,008 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:53 AM

You know that Stubblebine used to try to walk / run through the walls of his office, right...?

And no, he never succeeded in his efforts.







Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users