question ??

[brett]

why are we even discussing 9/11 on a site supposedly dedicated to pseudo skeptical criticism of the paranormal ?? - 9/11 has nothing to do with anything paranormal

there are plenty of truther and skeptic sites for that

just a thought

[ciscop]

i think the same
at first i thought it was funny and interesting
now is just lame

but i have to give kudos to the guy that started the no planes theory
thats quite intriguing... kind of reminds me of mel gibson and julia roberts in conspiracy theory

[Nostradamus]

The no planes is really humorous.

The MLK nonsense and the WTC crap should be off on some twoofer site. I've been reading some threads over there and the best part of twoofer threads is that they bicker as much amongst themselves as they do with the rest of the world. They call each other disinformation officers as they compete amongst themselves for the goofiest explanation possible.

[WhiteTiger]

Hmmm... since we're coining demeaning terms for the opposition, lets level the playing field. I suggest BSers for the adherents of the official Big Story



Tiger

[Nostradamus]

Sorry BSers is already the effort made by twoofers.

I love the claim of 'official'. What twoofers do is label something official instead of naming the source. So reports by NIST, ASCE, FEMA, MIT, and anyplace else are dubbed official although they or may not originate from related groups. I recommend that use of 'evidence based' instead of official. It's the appropriate adjective and distinguishes these reports from twoofer claims.

[WhiteTiger]

And I love the self aggrandizing coining of demeaning terms such as "truthers", "twoofers", etc.

Might as well just stand and call out "neener, neener, neener, you're stupid and I'm smart" just like any other immature kid on a playground.

As for "official" being nonspecific, just how specific and indicative of actual source is "twoofers"? Nice little rubber yardstick you're using for measurements there



Tiger

[Scepcop]

[Nostradamus]