Skeptic Project

Welcome Mr. No, I'm sure you'll see we're all pretty friendly and open to debate so long as you actually debate and don't just change goalposts and spam youtube links. :)

Is there a larger AJ following in Austin that you've noticed compared to other places you've been? He's mainly an internet thing, but I'm wondering if his stuff gets spread around more in his HQ.

What conspiracy theories do you believe in, and why do you believe in them--meaning, what caused you to think there was something to them?

3. 9-11: Just the secrecy of the events like the confiscation of tapes around the pentagon. Rice saying no one could imagine an event like this happening. All of the claims that have gone unresolved like the guy that claims to have found the black boxes.

The guy that no one else backs up?

The fact is that black boxes are not indestructible, it would be very likely to have been destroyed in the collapse.

Second, ask yourself what motivation they would have for covering up finding black boxes at the WTC where the vast majority of truthers believe real planes hit the towers, yet they plant fake black boxes's at the Pentagon and Shanksville where many truthers believe no planes crashed?

The contrast between loosing black boxes and finding a passport.

The problem with that "contrast" is that the passport was found BEFORE the collapses, not after.

There was all sorts of perishable items from the planes that found its way onto the street below.
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911</p>

Circumstantial things like that make me question heavily what happend.

One thing you have to understand is that truthers will lie through their teeth about things they know nothing about.

When they talk about coincidences, just assume they have no idea what they are talking about.

4. 7-7: I need to look into this more but this is what I've heard and done some research into... Rudy Guilianni just happend to be in town. Exercise underway regading terrorists during the event.

Oh right so Guilianni was spearheading the attacks, you think? And he had to be in town for that to happen, he couldn't coordinate this from the US? They have video conferencing nowadays you know.

And FYI the exercise was literally just an exercise with a few guys in a room and it wasn't in fact the exact same stations at all.
http://www.911myths.com/html/7_7_exercise_probabilities.html

And consider this, the entire reason people like AJ give for having an exercise at the same time as a false flag attack is to confuse the emergency services into thinking the attack or suspicious activity is just a drill. This idea becomes meaningless if the extent of it is simply a guy with a white board and a few other businessmen in a room.

No_heros, as you continue through "deprogramming," you will probably come to realize that all "9/11 was an inside job" scenarios are not only totally illogical, but completely impossible.

We are happy to point out to you irrefutable scientific evidence that this is the case--not YouTube links, but actual, real evidence.

LIHOP makes no sense either. Once you realize that conspiracy theorists have lied to you about the "New Pearl Harbor" scenario and realize that a war in Afghanistan serves absolutely no strategic purpose UNLESS its sole purpose is to defeat Al-Qaida and Osama (yeah, the "oil pipeline" motive is bullshit), you will transform from LIHOP to LIHOA (Let It Happen On Accident), which (surprise!) happens to be what CT's refer to as "the official story."

Yes, when conspiracy theorists quote-mine the PNAC document to bolster their lunatic theories, the one they invariably pick is the "New Pearl Harbor" language. Which, as is usual with CT's, doesn't really mean what they insist it means.

That's all you need to know save reading it yourself, which I advise if you really are still unsure after all that.

I recommend reading it regardless of whether No_Heros is unsure or not. There's no substitute for primary sources, and even a quick skim of the document itself reveals that it means nothing even close to what conspiracy theorists say it means.

Get it here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf</p>

No_Heros, there's one piece of your real evidence right there.

I dont think Zeitgeist even brings it up, I was just arguing with them on their forum.

>>"2. Iraq / Afganastan wars are illegal: There was no decleration of war only an authorization to enforce UN resolutions by force."

I'm not sure if I would throw this one under the CT umbrella, in the sense that debating the legality of something like this is much different than inside job claims and the like. A controversial topic, sure... a conspiracy theory? I don't believe so.

>>"Rice saying no one could imagine an event like this happening. All of the claims that have gone unresolved"

I'm not sure of the relevance of Rice's statement, seems like a pretty insignificant thing to pick on even by CT standards. Theoretically, there can be an infinite number of unresolved claims. It's important not to get hung up on those, especially since most of them are bogus. Instead, focus on the evidence and what we do know. I could claim that the government trained mutant rats to chew through steel columns which caused the collapse of the towers, and it has just about as much substance as all the other 'claims' surrounding the event.

He got sick of conspiracy theorists on here.

Too bad. Matt and I had our differences from time to time, but I always liked him, and you'll not find a more tireless fighter against the idiocy of conspiracy theories.