I don’t think you’ve quite yet grasped the raison d’etre of this message board.
bolding mine
Posting 6 times in a thread is not walking away. Posting links to 9/11 truth sites is not walking away. Saying you are “not interested in debating” and then re-iterating your position 3 posts later is NOT walking away. Explaining your viewpoint against opposition is debating. Saying you aren’t interested in debating in order to silence anyone who disagrees is bullshit.
More familiarly known on this board as the **lekatt ** style of debate. (Although **NightRabbit ** at least had the good graces to cite websites other than her own.)
Mmm, good point :smack:
Regardless, I still think that the snarky responses and the pit thread were more than slightly disproportionate to the offence.
Yeah, me too. But I figure, if they need to rage, let 'em. Just so you don’t feel completely alone in your opinion on the subject.
To many people’s minds, she’s calling thousands upon thousand of people liars and telling millions of people they can’t believe what they saw with their own eyes. It’s best to back up an assertion like that.
THANK YOU, bucketybuck
I was very surprised to see this thread, honestly.
FWIW, I did mean “bigwigs”. Obviously I was wrong that the pentagon section hit was “vacant”, but I meant vacant of anyone in a well-known and high-level position of power. It’s because I am not heavily into this. I don’t know all the facts by heart. If I had really wanted to debate, I would have looked up all my facts. As it was, I remember hashing it out with people a while ago, came to no conclusion one way or another, but I remember having my doubts. And then I went on to live my life.
When 9/11 came up in the thread, and it was listed as a CT, I thought I’d mention that I’m one of those people who doubts the official story, and that it’s a little narrowminded to to classify anyone with doubts as a nutjob or a heavy-duty conspiracy theorist. I admit, it’s been a while since I went to any of those sites, or even thought about it, so I tossed the sites out for anyone else who wants some information to read. I never wanted to get into a debate. I am uninformed for a debate, and I don’t care to reinform myself for a debate, and it’s an IMHO thread about why some people keep thinking about 9/11, not a great debates thread about 9/11 conspiracies! I got pulled into defending myself b/c I was immediately characterized as a loon, I didn’t expect to get jumped on or asked to explain myself, and that is why I posted some cites and gave some general comments about what I found disturbing about 9/11 when I was involved in actively debating it with others.
I’m not running away to silence anyone who disagrees, I was trying to delicately siphon people to the sites instead of engaging in a debate with me, so if they ARE interested in knowing more, they can read those, b/c I am not interested in refreshing my knowledge enough to walk them through it.
AND, for the record, just b/c someone has some doubts about some aspects of 9/11, doesn’t mean that they believe everything posited on 9/11 CT sites, which is a big fallacy of the thread and Cisco’s reasoning in particular. I would argue that most people who are majorly involved with 9/11 conspiracy theories ARE nutjobs. But you don’t have to be to find isolated points or disconnects about 9/11 a little compelling.
Geez, I like a good pit as much as anyone else, but this is absurd.
Also, does anyone else think that Cisco doth hyperbolize a little too much?
So, OK, I’m too dumb to remember a few facts (or too dumb to realize I’ve forgotten them) and/or too lazy to really get involved in a debate I don’t really care that much about. This hardly makes me a “piece of shit”.
Except it has been shown, time and time again, that the sites you posted are full of useless excrement, complete lies, malicious accusations, and stuff made up out of whole cloth. They’ve been discredited and disproved over and over. Why send people to those sites? They’re an insult to people who can think and reason.
So are you willing to retract your “Oh, but it was awful convenient that it just happened to fly into a vacant part of the building” or aren’t you? Oh, but I guess if the government was willing to sacrifice four plane-loads of people (or did they? :rolleyes: ) a few government employees wouldn’t add that much to the tally, eh?
No, it’s not.
So…pretty much what I posted in the other thread then?
Unless you have some evidence we haven’t seen before, yes, you do.
Don’t be dishonest with yourself. You got involved. A person not involved in such a debate wouldn’t have posted their stance on the issue repeatedly. A person not wishing such involvement wouldn’t repeat their stance after voicing their wishes of non-involvement. A person who didn’t care wouldn’t try to “siphon people to sites” dealing with the issue.
Does “fighting ignorance” mean “insulting people until they agree with you”?
Might want to consider how that approach doesn’t work. People who feel attacked become more entrenched in their beliefs. You might even say it ‘reinforces ignorance’.
Just sayin’
Doubts about what in particular?
Pentagon being suspiciously vacant- well it wasn’t
A plane being able to get suspiciously close- traffic patterns to Reagan Airport explain that
What concrete doubts do people have about the actual events of 9-11 (four hijacked planes flew, or attempted to fly, into high profile targets masterminded by people outside of the American government)? Doubts that can’t be explained by readily available facts?
It seems the hallmark of CT (which seems suspiciously close to the abbreviation of Connecticut 
) is the willful ignoring of reasonable explanations to their questions in favor of unlikely and outlandish explanations-- With little no reason to actually believe the outlandish ones instead of the credible.
In other words- given every explanation to your comments- why wouldn’t you believe the explanations. What other doubts remain?
I can’t believe I’m getting involved in this, but I just can’t stand lazy argument and debate. You have a cogent argument based on facts to support your concerns- great! But nagging, vague doubts that fly in the face of reasonable argument without any compelling reason? I’ll pass.
This.
Seriously, i’m sure the pretence that this thread is anything more than a fun chance to point and laugh rather than an actual attempt at helping is enjoyable. But wouldn’t it be better to try and convince NR you’re right? And would that cause not be aided by perhaps not calling her a piece of shit and filth?
I have no problem with a Pit thread of name calling. I have no problem with a Pit thread genuinely trying to get someone to change their mind. Both at once? Not going to happen.
I know I’m quoting myself, and I realize that in terms of “how” they died is ultimately meaningless because “they DID die”, but…despite my post’s anecdotal nature, it IS true, FWIW.
Just trying to put a hard-working, human American face on it, conspiracy theories aside. He ACTUALLY is dead, and his family is wanting for it, and he served his government well, and reaped a sacrifice.
She’s already said she doesn’t care. To me, that’s the graver offense.
Coming in with one of those bullshit 911truth sites and saying, hey, this seems provocative, and then actually fucking listening when people provide the Straight Fucking Dope on their bullshit — that would be just fucking fine.
But popping in with a wheelbarrow full of insultingly stupid lies, spraying the crap around, and then prancing away disavowing any responsibility for or even mild goddamn interest in the veracity of the material, is absolutely, utterly reprehensible, and, in my mind, is what has earned her whatever forcefully acrimonious disapprobation she will continue to receive from here on out.
I mean, it’s like the Anti Straight Dope.
Well, see, here was I thinking the Straight Dope was about fighting ignorance. I would have thought that giving in to one’s urges to ridicule, rather than honestly trying to change the person’s mind, is much more in the spirit of “Anti Straight Dope”.
After all, she presumably thinks she’s right and is in that spirit, though i’d disagree. But you know what you should be doing, and you willingly choose to reject it in favour of swearing. In my eyes, that’s a far greater offense - at least she can claim she’s misled. You can do no such thing.
you know what, you guys can go fuck yourselves. I never expected to need to cite ANYTHING in that thread. I threw out a couple sites about alternative 9/11 conspiracies at random b/c I don’t want to discuss it. I am UNINFORMED. Three years ago, I had a bevy of cites that I found particularly interesting but I don’t have them anymore. I felt defensive and pressed to give more information than I was comfortable with. I don’t HAVE any information. I am NO LONGER up on this crap. I NO LONGER care. I only know that, when I was pouring through it all a couple years ago, I never got comfortable with all the information that’s out there-- much like choosing one’s battles, I decided that I’d never know for sure, and I dropped it. I haven’t thought about it in a LONG TIME.
My point in participating in the IMHO thread was to simply contribute that sometimes people aren’t comfortable with what the OP had claimed was “already-known”. Plenty of murder cases that people are 100% sure about have been overturned b/c new evidence surfaces. Just because people believe that everything is already known doesn’t make it so, and people with doubts aren’t automatically nutcases. That’s all!
I humbly apologize for throwing out sites I’m not familiar with to justify beliefs that I never called my own because I felt attacked and defensive.
In my observation, people who have been attacked tend to run to an area of percieved relative safety. When bullies beat up a schoolkid, that kid runs to his mama to hear some soothing words. When a Jehovah’s Witness gets ridiculed and humilated by someone whose door they knocked on, they run back to their church for reassurance from their fellow J-wits. When a devotee of a political philosophy, let’s say a Democrat, gets their ass handed to them in a debate, do they repent and become Republican? Hell no! They run back to the nearest Democrat messageboard or party headquarters to get reassured that they are, in fact, on the correct side. They get re-indoctrinated, pick up some new soundbytes, and head back out even more Democratic than ever.
What I’m saying is that if you wanted to drive someone into the arms of the CTs and make them really, really serious about 9/11 conspiracies, well, you’re probably choosing a successful tactic. Or maybe I’m wrong and you actually *can * insult someone into agreeing with you. Good luck with that.
On edit - Hey NR, don’t let a couple people ruin the whole board for you.
Ahhhh I like the board too much for that! 
I love this place and I’ve been around a decent while… but, I have to say, I’ve never quite run into having my original intention twisted so beyond my own recognition.