View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Hello!

Introduce yourself here!

Hello!

Postby accidentsinspace » 17 Oct 2009, 01:59

Not sure what happened there but I just introduced myself and the post disappeared. I will have to keep this one short and succinct. Hello! I discovered this forum through the SCEPCOP video on You Tube. I have registered in order to support like minded members of this forum and expose the psedoscientific brigade at the JREF forum and their 'leaders and heroes' such as Shermer, Dawkins and Randi himself. I will offer up my energies to help expose these devils and lunatics and government agents. I have been active within the 9/11 Truth Mvement since 2005 but I have fallen out of favour with most so called 'truth' forums and groups due to my so called 'controversial views'. I am a 'no planer'. I believe that the images we saw on our tv screens on 9/11 were faked. I am sure I will be allowed to discuss this subject further at another time. However, my main reason for being here is to help build up a defence against wicked lies cloaked in pseudoscience. Cheers!
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31






Re: Hello!

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Oct 2009, 02:05

Welcome!
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Hello!

Postby Scepcop » 18 Oct 2009, 08:09

Welcome Accidentinspace.

So were you born in space? Just kidding. lol

Anyway, yeah there does seem to be a correlation between believing in or being open to the paranormal and in conspiracies, and vice versa. Those who believe in one tend to believe in some of the other as well.

It's nice to see another Truther here anyway. If you go to the Conspiracies board here, you will see a lot of 9/11 topics we're discussing and vital links and updates I've posted.

I have a question for you though. How do the "no plane" theorists explain all the eye witnesses who saw the plane hit the towers in person who were there in NYC? I mean, if there was no plane and it was faked on TV, wouldn't the perpetrators be taking a huge risk since people actually near the WTC would be giving a completely different testimony than what was on TV?

Also, what happened to the planes and passengers on those flights? Did they not exist? Or were they all CIA agents collaborating?

So many unanswered questions.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Hello!

Postby accidentsinspace » 19 Oct 2009, 23:16

Scepcop wrote:Welcome Accidentinspace.

So were you born in space? Just kidding. lol

Anyway, yeah there does seem to be a correlation between believing in or being open to the paranormal and in conspiracies, and vice versa. Those who believe in one tend to believe in some of the other as well.

It's nice to see another Truther here anyway. If you go to the Conspiracies board here, you will see a lot of 9/11 topics we're discussing and vital links and updates I've posted.

I have a question for you though. How do the "no plane" theorists explain all the eye witnesses who saw the plane hit the towers in person who were there in NYC? I mean, if there was no plane and it was faked on TV, wouldn't the perpetrators be taking a huge risk since people actually near the WTC would be giving a completely different testimony than what was on TV?

Also, what happened to the planes and passengers on those flights? Did they not exist? Or were they all CIA agents collaborating?

So many unanswered questions.


The ''what happened to the passengers and planes' question is also relevant in the drone plane scenario. Who knows? There is much to be said about who was actually on the planes in the first place. As I have already stated, we were told there were eyewitnesses, but I have yet to see a list of names. The risk itself was minimal. There were few vantage points. The explosion would be instantaneous, some say they saw no plane, others would have succumbed to the assumption that it was a plane because that is what the media was telling them. The live feed had 'blackouts'. Planes do not melt into buildings, bits fall off. This was not the case that day. It was a TELEVISUAL TRICK and the world fell for it.
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: Hello!

Postby Scepcop » 27 Oct 2009, 02:11

Well since the evidence is sketchy on this, why are you so certain about it? Shouldn't you remain undecided on the no plane theory for now? It just seems like a super risky fraud to pull off. I am not ridiculing the theory. Like any theory, it should be considered and looked into.

Your argument reminds me of the skeptic argument against the Christian argument that Jesus must have risen from the dead because the apostle Paul said that there were 500 witnesses to the resurrection. The skeptics argue that ONE MAN claiming that there were 500 witnesses is really just ONE claim, and not the same as 500 witnesses coming forward themselves. That is a valid point, but of course that incident was too far in the past to truly get to the bottom of.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Hello!

Postby ciscop » 27 Oct 2009, 02:30

perhaps
but since 911 happened less than a decade ago
and everybody owns a camera nowadays

i still dont see how all the regular folks than posted their own videos thru that many channels
will care to add a plane hitting the wtc

im also interested in how accident can be so sure airplanes dont explote like that?
has he seen so many commerciales airplanes hitting into buildings?

the no planes theory
is way too out there..
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04


Return to Introduce Yourself

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest