Who thinks this Post should be on the Conspiracy Thread..and Why?

[USMC the Almighty]

First of all Mr USMC, it was Marilynj55 who posted the original video, and "Titled" it 9-11 inside job. ??

All that KOF did ,was come here to ask IF THIS POST should have been MOVED to the conspiracy section? Are you this incapable of following along?

She didn't post it for any such reason, as you have obviously mistaken,and then accused her of.

Secondly the above definition of conspiracy that i have Cited for you, is "DIRECTLY" from Merriam-Webster website?

Being there aren't two people, or more conspiring in this situation, your "counter" definition, of a the "TERM" "Conspiracy Theory" is NULL, as the conspiracy part of that has not been able to be established.

Fine mis-directive piece of work though,it will catch many who are, shall we say more naive than us off guard.


The definition of conspiracy hasn't been met PERIOD end of story.......your "definition of the "TERM" conspiracy theory is NULL

This is all addressed in my previous post.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Roker, the title of the video is "9/11 Truth: WTC First Responder on Says 9/11 was an Inside Job"

Are you really going to tell me that this video is not "9/11 conspiracy related"?

just because the "Author" titled it something dosent make it automatically so.only in a simple world friend

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Which is what Roker? If you have such a big problem with "this place" then leave.



My deepest and sincerest apologies to all of those I offended. I admit that I was wrong and will never be able to live this down. Marilyn originally posted the video, not KOF.



And I explained why it was placed in the conspiracy section: because it's a conspiracy.



Okay.



I don't think that a definition can describe an event any more precisely.



So this is your thesis? Saying 9/11 was an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims) is only a "theory" but it cannot be called a "conspiracy theory" because there was no conspiracy?

Per Merriam Webster, a conspiracy is when people "join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement". Consider the fact that for 9/11 to be an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims), it would require the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble, I would say that this would meet the definition.



Okay.



Yes it has.



No collusion of individuals? He's saying that 9/11 was an inside job. I just outlined above how many individuals it would've included if his theory was correct.



Why do I keep coming back? Simple, to defend my actions.

thanks for illustrating for us how it is you misdirect
i have said what i needed to . your simply ridiculous

 

[Rokerijdude11]

This is all addressed in my previous post.

ha ha ha with all the effectivness of a 6th grade poster

 

[USMC the Almighty]

ha ha ha with all the effectivness of a 6th grade poster

Okay, make all the childish insults you want, you acknowledge that I have fully explained my reasoning and that it was fair and correct?

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Bottom Line!!!

Yes 5 35.71%
No 9 64.29%

Time to move the post back to the original place it was posted.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Okay, make all the childish insults you want, you acknowledge that I have fully explained my reasoning and that it was fair and correct?

ohhhh I learned this behavior from you and Palerider,we cant call names now can we? so we all do this instead! Kettle meet pot..................
my how things change for you when the shoe is on your foot?


your reasoning as i have stated is completly Flawwed and totally inaccurate.It was far from fair at all .it was skewed as you continue to spew about the definition of the "TERM" "Conspiracy Theory" there is no conspiracy present no collusion or corroboration or plots therefore there can be no "Conspiracy Theory"

wht you have been saying and doing in this thread certainly will not ,can not be construed as "Fair" you present a skewed story and then try to support it with even more biased opinion and thats what we are to call fair


nice try like i said i have dismantled your theory and yet you cling to it like a sinking ship in a noreaster

your really out of your league pal

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Which is what Roker? If you have such a big problem with "this place" then leave.

Im here to spread the truth and to keep posters from falling into the "hole" that you have dug


And I explained why it was placed in the conspiracy section: because it's a conspiracy.


not according to mirriam webster?








I don't think that a definition can describe an event any more precisely.



So this is your thesis? Saying 9/11 was an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims) is only a "theory" but it cannot be called a "conspiracy theory" because there was no conspiracy?
No ....Nice twisting of the concept though all that said it was inside job was the title.......i have repeatedly explained to you that this was NOT the main thrust of the interview? your too ignorant to watch it all for yourself? i can title a post anything......it dosent mean that the post necessarily meets the title? only in your skewed world
Per Merriam Webster, a conspiracy is when people "join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement".
NO ......This is INCORRECT ,quit misleading the readers ! what you keep referring to is the definition of the "TERM" ....."Conspracy Theory" You have NOT ONCE shown the defenition of "Conspiracy" from merriam webster? why is that? I know why....because i already have and it shows the glaring error you are using in your judgemnet and the misdirecting fashion in which you are posting

perhaps i need to re-post merriam websters definition of "Conspiracy" becuase you havent posted it once yet you keep referring to it as you have ? you lose dude

Consider the fact that for 9/11 to be an inside job (as the title of the video proclaims),



as i have stated the title dosent always match the contents of the post this has been shown true in this video yet you cling to this childish technicality........im starting to really wonder more about you as time goes on
your not nearly as brite as i had originally thought? interesting

it would require the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble, I would say that this would meet the definition.
well funny the video isnt talking about any of that? thats your drivel dropped into the equation to muddy the pool.....and the other thing i keep telling you is that neither myself or KOF have EVER commented on the validity of the video ....or any of its aspects other than the fact its not conspiracy when someone relates a story of what happened to to themselves to you in a video..............


take up the title as a seperate issue it was a lable given to the thread the video does not spend even half of its time on conspiracy







Yes it has.

really? who is the ex-police officer colluding with? where is his accomplice, or accomplice's in the so called conspiracy? you have an ex-police officer, relating his experiences that day, he also offers his OPINIONS on things that hapened that day

where is the conspiracy?



No collusion of individuals? He's saying that 9/11 was an inside job. I just outlined above how many individuals it would've included if his theory was correct.


again ill ask you DIRECTLY .............
WHOM did the ex-police officer Collude with to form this "Conspiracy".........


Why do I keep coming back? Simple, to defend my actions.

well sir "IF" you were correct 100% .............there would be NO NEED to do such? your simply proliferating the argument because your immaturity wont let you put it down ......your Bias is shining through ike a light in a dark tunnel

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Bottom Line!!!

Yes 5 35.71%
No 9 64.29%

Time to move the post back to the original place it was posted.

No. I couldn't care less about this poll. If I really wanted to, I would just edit it my favor, but I have no interest.

Perhaps if the votes were public or everyone who voted no explained their flawed thinking, but so far no one has been able to refute my logic.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

First, Roker, I did provide the definition of "to conspire" in the very post that you quoted:

Per Merriam Webster, a conspiracy is when people "join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement".

Aside from this, you didn't say anything other than the title of the video doesn't match up with its contents. All anyone has to do is watch 1 minute of the video to see that it's a conspiracy theory video put out by conspiracy theory nuts.

I've made my position perfectly clear and backed it up with the dictionary definition of "conspiracy theory" and "to conspire". I have no need to further explain myself.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

No. I couldn't care less about this poll. If I really wanted to, I would just edit it my favor, but I have no interest.

Perhaps if the votes were public or everyone who voted no explained their flawed thinking, but so far no one has been able to refute my logic.

At least 9 people on these boards think it is your thinking that is flawed. And now we know you might just cheat to get your way.

Of course we have refuted your logic, you just deny it.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

At least 9 people on these boards think it is your thinking that is flawed. And now we know you might just cheat to get your way.

Of course we have refuted your logic, you just deny it.

Who are those 9 people? If they all come forward and refute my logic, then I'd reconsider. And I'm not going to cheat to get my way, I just don't care enough.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Who are those 9 people? If they all come forward and refute my logic, then I'd reconsider. And I'm not going to cheat to get my way, I just don't care enough.

I have no way of knowing which 9. I'm looking at what the poll says. Of course you care, you keep coming back.

How many people does it take for the refuting to take on you?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

How many people does it take for the refuting to take on you?

Only 1

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Only 1

Well, you've already had more than one.