See other 9/11 Articles
Title: History Channel to Air 9/11 Conspiracies Special
Source:
History Channel
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 3, 2007
Author: History Channel
Post Date: 2007-08-03 10:31:04 by Ringo Blankenship
Keywords: None
Views: 13209
Comments: 246
UPCOMING SHOWS Sunday, August 12 08:00 PM Monday, August13 12:00 PM An Internet search for "9/11 conspiracy theories" yields nearly two million hits. Were the attacks on 9/11 perpetrated by the Bush Administration to advance its own interests? Could a government missile have hit the Pentagon? As outrageous as these ideas may sound, many people believe them. Why do these theories arise in the first place? An interview with James Miegs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, who refutes many of these theories. Watch as experts in the fields of aeronautics, engineering and the military put these theories to the test. Rating: TVPG Running Time: 120 minutes
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-160) not displayed.
.
.
.
#161. To: Mister Clean (#160)
All the polls on the matter indicate otherwise. It was a major factor in the only poll that really counts, the last national election.
9/11 conspiracy theories played no role in the last election.
Why should anyone believe this crap? You failed to support your assertion (above) and you can't support it. Logically it doesn't stand. You'd have to prove that each and every person who voted in the last election was in no way influenced by 911 conspiracy theories - no exceptions - and you can't do this. On its face, and on its face alone, your statement is an over the top falsehood. But you know that.
.
I'm not sure what part of the world you are in, but the majority of Americans I am around have suspicions on various levels. From my point of view, you are in the minority. Just so you know, when you use the "Conspiracy Theorist" label.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... There is no evidence even remotely indicating that 911 conspiracy theories influenced voters in the 2006 election. So, in the absence of any such evidence, I most certainly can say that it wasn't a factor. If you believe people voted under the influence of 911 conspiracy theories, the burden is on you to support it. It's no different from all those claims of Saddam having WMD. Without any evidence of that WMD, there was no reason to believe he had any.
So what?
You made the assertion, now prove it up Mr. Propagandist. The words of an internet kook such as yourself are a nullity. Your bullshit rings very hollow.
.
So what? You are not being consistent here with the horseshit you just tossed out to me. You told me that there was no evidence that the 911 theories influenced the election. This guy above just gave you some evidence. This makes what you told me wrong. Instead of reconciling this, you tell the guy you dont' care if there is evidence that that the 911 theories influenced the election, e.g., "So what?". Better use your narrowing dodge now: I never said it was an animal, I said it was a dog.
.
There is no evidence that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election. There, it's proven!
Show me your support for this dishonest assertion Mr. Bald Faced Liar. I note you are not expressing this as an opinion - and that you never have expressed it as an opinion in this discussion. You are putting it out as a fact. So show us your proof.
.
No evidence has been presented showing that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election.
Can the dishonest dodge liar. And this is a dodge and you know it. You are putting words in my mouth. And you know it. This isn't the issue. The issue is your statement above: 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 election. I called you a bald faced liar to your face over this. Show us your proof for this assertion of fact or admit that you just made this up.
.
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911. Now you'll need a new lie.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
No evidence has been presented showing that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election. You claimed that the 911 theories had no effect on the election. The guy above gave you evidece. I rubbed your nose in this. You then try to change the subject and the focus with the quote above. You are dishonest. You now have evidence that the 911 theories affected the election. Show us your proof that they did not or admit that you lied to us.
.
Now you'll need a new lie. Now you have two pieces of evidence that contradict your assertion that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections. Show us the proof for your assertion or admit that you tried to lie to us when you made the assertion. Again, I note that you didn't present your idiot, arrogant assertion as an opinion. You tossed it out as a fact. There are no qualifiers anywhere. So now prove up your fact for us.
.
911 was touted as reason for invasion of Iraq, Saddam ties to al qaeda and all, so it's ubundantly clear that MC hasn't a clue as what he is talking about.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
I called you a bald faced liar to your face over this. Show us your proof for this assertion of fact or admit that you just made this up. The proof is the lack of evidence to the contrary.
I just gave you evidence, idiot.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Good for you.
Dakmar needs to prove he actually did vote libertarian because of 911.
Your claim is not evidence. It's just a claim.
I just gave you two pieces of evidence. An you have presented nothing to support your idiotic assertion. When pressed on this, you try to change the subject. The conclusion is that you are a liar and a propagandist. Now prove me wrong by supporting your assertion of fact that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections.
.
Are you calling me a liar? That's hilarious.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
No, you haven't.
It's just a claim. It certainly is. We just polled one person and got some evidence. You are just arguing about the quality of the evidence now. But you, as a dishonest propagandist know this. And this evidence he presented is a hell of a lot better than any evidence that you have presented to back up your claim - which is nothing.
.
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
Gotta love the arguing the specific when a general observation is claims, and vice-versa. Classic propaganda technique, wouldn't hold up two seconds in a Jr High debate.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Answer the question or leave. Are you calling me a liar?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
If you want to believe that 911 kookery influenced the 2006 election, go right ahead. I don't believe it.
No, you haven't. You are telling a deliberate lie here, but you know that. I gave you the Percy and Dakmar accounts on the thread above. But you know this. You are simply quibbling about the quality of the evidence. But you, as a dishonest shill, already know that. I gave you evidence to contradict you idiotic assertion of fact that 911 had no effect on the 2005 elections. Now back up your asserion or admit that you tried to lie to us.
.
Did I use the word liar? Read my posts slowly. Let the words sink in.
I don't believe it. This isn't the subject under discussion here. But you know that. What you are trying to do is wiggle out from your lie by changing the subject. But you know that. Anyone who would try this cheap tactic - such as yourself - is a dishonest shill. But you know that already.
.
I've told no lies. I've only stated my beliefs.
It's just a claim. Yep, you are calling me a liar. Since you refuse to answer even the simplest of questions I see no reason to engage you for any purpose beyond my own amusement.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Read my posts slowly. Let the words sink in. You called him a liar. Specifically, you disparaged his assertion as follows: Your claim is not evidence. It's just a claim. He claimed he gave you evidence to contradict your dishonest assertion and you implied that what he said wasn't true. You now try to escape this by playing word games: I never said it was an animal, I said it was a dog.
.
No, I said that a claim is not evidence. I could claim right now to really be Brad Pitt but without evidence to prove that I am Brad Pitt, it's nothing more than a claim. I'm sure you can't grasp that very basic concept.
Ok, you wiggle for half a dozen posts and then - when you realize you are trapped - you try to change what you originally said. You are a liar. You didn't express your claim about 911 and the election as an opinion, you expressed it as an absolute fact. You did this more than one time on the thread above. I called you on it and you failed to clarify the statement - instead, you tried to change the subject and leave you dishonest statement intact. You are a lying propagandist.
.
Clean is either olde Sinkspur or his bastard child.
If that were true I would be posting my support and defense of Bush. But there is not one single post where I even come close to doing that. Interesting.
He claimed to have evidence that contradicted you. He gave his statement as the evidence. And evidence is precisely what his statement was. You called him a liar by implying that his statement wasn't evidence. You then denied calling him a liar. You are a real piece of work. If you are going to be dishonest in this manner, you need to be much more careful than you have been on this thread.
.
Comments (201 - 246) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestyou're not likely to convince many people.
#162. To: honway (#161)
It was a major factor in the only poll that really counts, the last national election.
#163. To: Mister Clean (#162)
(Edited)
9/11 conspiracy theories played no role in the last election.
#164. To: Mister Clean (#155)
#165. To: ... (#163)
You'd have to prove that each and every person who voted in the last election was in no way influenced by 911 conspiracy theories - no exceptions - and you can't do this.
#166. To: PercyDovetonsils (#164)
I'm not sure what part of the world you are in, but the majority of Americans I am around have suspicions on various levels.
#167. To: Mister Clean (#165)
There is no evidence even remotely indicating that 911 conspiracy theories influenced voters in the 2006 election.
#168. To: Mister Clean (#166)
I'm not sure what part of the world you are in, but the majority of Americans I am around have suspicions on various levels.
#169. To: ... (#167)
You made the assertion, now prove it up Mr. Propagandist.
#170. To: Mister Clean (#169)
(Edited)
There is no evidence that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election.
#171. To: ... (#168)
This guy above just gave you some evidence.
#172. To: Mister Clean (#171)
No evidence has been presented showing that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election.
#173. To: Mister Clean (#171)
#174. To: Mister Clean (#171)
This guy above just gave you some evidence.
#175. To: Dakmar, Mister Clean (#173)
(Edited)
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911.
#176. To: ... (#174)
#177. To: ... (#172)
The issue is your statement above: 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 election.
#178. To: Mister Clean (#177)
#179. To: Dakmar (#173)
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911.
#180. To: ... (#175)
Now you have two pieces of evidence that contradict your assertion that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections.
#181. To: Dakmar (#178)
I just gave you evidence, idiot.
#182. To: Mister Clean (#177)
The proof is the lack of evidence to the contrary.
#183. To: Mister Clean (#181)
#184. To: ... (#182)
I just gave you two pieces of evidence.
#185. To: Mister Clean (#181)
Your claim is not evidence.
#186. To: Dakmar (#183)
Are you calling me a liar?
#187. To: ... (#182)
When pressed on this, you try to change the subject.
#188. To: Mister Clean (#186)
#189. To: ... (#185)
And this evidence he presented is a hell of a lot better than any evidence that you have presented to back up your claim - which is nothing.
#190. To: Mister Clean (#184)
just gave you two pieces of evidence.
#191. To: Dakmar (#188)
Answer the question or leave. Are you calling me a liar?
#192. To: Mister Clean (#189)
If you want to believe that 911 kookery influenced the 2006 election, go right ahead.
#193. To: ... (#192)
What you are trying to do is wiggle out from your lie by changing the subject.
#194. To: Mister Clean (#191)
Your claim is not evidence.
#195. To: Mister Clean (#191)
Did I use the word liar?
#196. To: ... (#195)
He claimed he gave you evidence to contradict your dishonest assertion and you implied that what he said wasn't true.
#197. To: Mister Clean (#193)
I've told no lies. I've only stated my beliefs.
#198. To: ... (#197)
You are a lying propagandist.
#199. To: Cynicom (#198)
Clean is either olde Sinkspur or his bastard child.
#200. To: Mister Clean (#196)
No, I said that a claim is not evidence.
.
.
.