Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
JamesThomas

Beleive It Or Not, A Sceptic Is Someone Who:

112 posts in this topic

i think it goes like this

the gullible

the heartfelt believers

the fence sitters

the skeptical

the debunkers

at UM we have an abundance of all of these types, but the debunkers are often mistaken for skeptics and the heartfelt believers are often accused of being gullible (usually by the debunkers)

i sit between fence sitter and skeptic usually.

ok if none of that made sense, sorry. it did when i typed it lol

You forgot one important category--the free thinkers. Yes, if strict definitions were used they might be included with skeptics, but the way the language has been butchered in today's political environment, some describe themselves as skeptics even though they believe every press release issued by the government.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot one important category--the free thinkers. Yes, if strict definitions were used they might be included with skeptics, but the way the language has been butchered in today's political environment, some describe themselves as skeptics even though they believe every press release issued by the government.

i'm not familiar with what a 'freethinker' is.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not familiar with what a 'freethinker' is.

At the beginning of the last century, a free thinker was a person who did not practice organized religion. He or she did not buy into all the superstition and dogma of organized religion. Susan Jacoby wrote a book about it, subtitled A History Of American Secularism, in 2004, and it was quite good.

A freethinker is a person who thinks for herself or himself. He does not have others do his thinking for him, whether "others" be the church and its priests, or the government and its priests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A freethinker is a person who thinks for herself or himself. He does not have others do his thinking for him, whether "others" be the church and its priests, or the government and its priests.

You are excluded as a "freethinker" because you allowed yourself to be duped by conspiracy websites whose main purpose is to spew lies, misinformation, and disinformation. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are excluded as a "freethinker" because you allowed yourself to be duped by conspiracy websites whose main purpose is to spew lies, misinformation, and disinformation. :yes:

Exact same thing goes for you. Just replace "conspiracy websites" with " world government" and there you have it.

Anyway, what has Babe lied about?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm skeptical of all the points raised and made in this thread...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exact same thing goes for you. Just replace "conspiracy websites" with " world government" and there you have it.

Anyway, what has Babe lied about?

That doesn't work with me because I have used references with no connections with the government in order to support my case.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exact same thing goes for you. Just replace "conspiracy websites" with " world government" and there you have it.

Anyway, what has Babe lied about?

We can start with his claim as a pilot. He has shown a lack of knowledge on aerodynamics and aeronautics and has posted errors regarding the "Hani maneuver." He is not familiar with pilot associations, which was evident when he posted a message regarding the AOPA and overlooking the ALPA and the APA.

We can now move on where he claimed that "no Boeings" crashed into the Pentagon or near Shanksville despite the overwhelming evidence presented to him.

I should add his blunder regarding an P700 anti-ship missile striking the Pentagon. How about his comments regarding nukes and 9/11? How about explosives as responsible for the downing of light poles, which clearly depicted impact damage and nothing to do with explosives?

The list goes on and on!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You light up my life Sky, you really do. :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A freethinker is a person who thinks for herself or himself. He does not have others do his thinking for him, whether "others" be the church and its priests, or the government and its priests.

so according to this definition a free thinker could be either a believer or a skeptic as well.

(edit to add they could even be fence sitters)

not necessarily a category on its own

Edited by JGirl
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You light up my life Sky, you really do. :tsu:

I've noticed your comments were gathered from Internet references rather than from a platform of flying experience. In other words, you were placing pieces of the puzzle in the wrong order because you didn't possess the knowledge to know the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "free thinker" can tend to be a person who applies neither logic nor critical thinking nor evidence to what they choose to believe.

Sky - can you direct me to where claims have been made of being a pilot? I want to explore that but this is not the place.

Edited by Obviousman
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so according to this definition a free thinker could be either a believer or a skeptic as well.

(edit to add they could even be fence sitters)

not necessarily a category on its own

Yes, "fence sitter" might work very well.

I use "freethinker" because the term was commonly used in the United States about a century ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky - can you direct me to where claims have been made of being a pilot? I want to explore that but this is not the place.

Here are just a few.

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

No sir, crop dusting DOES NOT qualify one to fly jets, but for the record I'm typed in the Learjet, and am currently flying right seat on a Falcon 10.

Whether you understand, believe, or care about what flying experience I have influences me not at all.

With 10 years of fixed-wing crop dusting sir, it is most likely that I have spent more time in ground effect than you have. And I assure you that coming out of a 4000FPM descent and attempting to transition to terrain following flight is a sure recipe for disaster.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not back-pedalling from a statement, or defending anything. I asked a question of Turbs. I have not had an answer from either him or you.

This is my last try at getting you to understand my point: Given that the steel from ground zero contained incriminating evidence, why should it be shipped to a foreign country rather than melted down in the US?

Why not just melt all the steel in the US? Why would - and did - they ship it away overseas?

What is the best option for disposing of the evidence?

Which is the faster option? Overseas is much faster, obviously. It's all gone in a few days. At most.

Melting the steel is done afterwards - in China. There's no hurry to melt it in China.

But if the steel remained in the US, it can't be metled fast enough. Because it's within our reach, you have a cousin who works there and tells you about it. Many people are soon protesting the facility to return all evidence they've illegally obtained from a crime scene.

Not if it's all in China.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Melting the steel is done afterwards - in China. There's no hurry to melt it in China.

But if the steel remained in the US, it can't be metled fast enough. Because it's within our reach, you have a cousin who works there and tells you about it. Many people are soon protesting the facility to return all evidence they've illegally obtained from a crime scene.

Not if it's all in China.

If it's in China, you have no control at all about what happens to it. What's to stop the Chinese finding the evidence you are trying to hide? For an example of what can happen, as I posted recently in the Apollo thread, the Chinese took the Apollo 17 commemorative sample given them and analysed it to check it really was from the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's in China, you have no control at all about what happens to it. What's to stop the Chinese finding the evidence you are trying to hide? For an example of what can happen, as I posted recently in the Apollo thread, the Chinese took the Apollo 17 commemorative sample given them and analysed it to check it really was from the moon.

In China, the evidence is gone. It is not available for some curious whistleblower or concerned citizen to examine.

Are you really that naive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In China, the evidence is gone. It is not available for some curious whistleblower or concerned citizen to examine.

Are you really that naive?

If it's in China, there is nothing to stop some Chinese metallurgist examining it, or the Chinese authorities making propaganda use of anything incriminating. As I said, if it's gone abroad, there is no longer any control over what happens to it. Exporting it is an enormously risky course for a conspirator to take.

If the Apollo samples had really been faked, it would similarly have been risky to hand them out all over the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, there is nothing to stop them. You're right about that.

But neither is there anything to compel them to do so. It seems to me that in a country claiming to operate "under the law" should issue an order to the Chinese, informing them the steel was part of a crime scene and we needed to look at it close.

That didn't happen, of course. What happened was that the US refused to investigate anything at all. Our Prescient President knew all the answers that afternoon, and we don't need no stinkin' investigation. Just that simple. For 2 years or so.

So, I don't know what your point is, but I do know what happened and didn't, eleven years after the fact. More and more stuff comes out that works against the official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this going to turn into yet another cockamamie 9-11 thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's in China, there is nothing to stop some Chinese metallurgist examining it, or the Chinese authorities making propaganda use of anything incriminating. As I said, if it's gone abroad, there is no longer any control over what happens to it. Exporting it is an enormously risky course for a conspirator to take.

First of all, it's a far, far riskier option to keep the steel in the US. There was an enormous public outcry when the steel was shipped so quickly, and I'm sure know which country I'm referring to here - the US. I'm not aware of ANY outcry by the Chinese.

You suggest...

"Chinese authorities making propaganda use of anything incriminating.."

Weigh the potential benefits of doing that against the potential drawbacks..

I'm not sure of what benefits there are in using it as a propaganda tool. Perhaps you think we were engaged in a 'Cold War' woth China in 2001, similar to the US-USSR Cold War. You'd also be wrong to think it.

As for drawbacks - take a look at this source, which cites China-US trade and investment from 2001-2005..

Trade and investment have soared since China joined the WTO in 2001

The United States is China's largest trading partner

US exports and imports have both more than doubled since 2001

Apart from growth in trade, China's WTO entry has sparked a boom in foreign direct investment

https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0609/ChinaData.pdf

It should be abundantly clear to you what the drawbacks would be if China had chosen to use the steel as a propaganda tool back in 2001. If you want to talk about an "enormously risky course" to take, how about China risking $Billions annually in trade and investment!!

But let's say they'd want nothing better than to kill their biggest trading partner. Let's say they decided to tell the world about finding evidence of explosives in the WTC steel. What happens then? The US flatly denies it, of course. They accuse China of fabricating research to make the US look bad. Once it left US soil, it could easily be tampered with by Communist interests who obviously 'hate our freedoms'!! Or some such drivel...

China is the much better option for the conspirators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this going to turn into yet another cockamamie 9-11 thread?

Sorry, I'll desist. I've made my point, BR and Turbs can do their usual if it makes them happy.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'll desist. I've made my point, BR and Turbs can do their usual if it makes them happy.

You have not made a point. You have offered a nonsensical statement, nothing more. The destruction of the forensic evidence regarding the WTC is well known. Anybody who is familiar with CSI knows that crime scenes must be preserved.

That you rationalize such things as unimportant is more insight into just how challenged you are in critical thinking skills. If there was a point made in your previous posts, that is it. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weigh the potential benefits of doing that against the potential drawbacks..

Good, now apply that same logic to the Bush Administration. What really was gained as a result of 9/11? More debt - Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions. More instability in the Middle East, tens of thousands dead, all for a couple of percentage points for Haliburton? Surely such a powerful corporation would be able to find a much better idea to make a profit that didn't risk the lives of every boarf member and their conspirators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, now apply that same logic to the Bush Administration. What really was gained as a result of 9/11? More debt - Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions. More instability in the Middle East, tens of thousands dead, all for a couple of percentage points for Haliburton? Surely such a powerful corporation would be able to find a much better idea to make a profit that didn't risk the lives of every boarf member and their conspirators?

Don't forget that the SEC invoked Rule 12(k). That allowed the next day clearance of $240 billion in US securities without the usual rules and procedures regarding identity of those surrendering them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.