| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jefflovestone Paddington - peace be upon Him
Great Old One Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Total posts: 1348 Age: 45 Gender: Male |
 Posted: 11-08-2007 17:36 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Without wishing to derail the thread too much, I've always been intrigued about Jerry's site too. Jerry, no offence intended as you've already stated your dislike of the term skeptic, but generally your posting does come across as 'semi-professional debunking' rather than fair open-mindedness, even if that is your intention. That's not a serious criticism, more an observation and, again, apologies if that comes across as being unfair.
Could you explain a little bit about it? Why the focus on two American states and, in the main timeline, those particular events? Are these occurrences that you feel stand up to scrutiny or particularly relevant in some way?
If not here, perhaps on a chat thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Jerry_B Great Old One Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Total posts: 8265 |
| Posted: 12-08-2007 10:01 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| crunchy5 wrote: | Keep your hair on mate, I never feel any stress about the site it's all just a laugh init, I've taken the time to look at your Fortean timeline, like the title, but just couldn't see how it proved or even indicated that you weren't a skeptik, as you have mentioned it in that context a few times, my interjection was genuine.  |
As I said, a skeptic wouldn't have such a site. All I'm asking is that you don't brand anyone who doesn't agree with you who is unconvinced by this conspiracy theory as a skeptic. Just because the theories about 9/11 don't hold water IMHO, that doesn't make me a skeptic - any more that believing in them makes you a tinfoil hatter. People here are going to have opposite views to your own, but that doesn't make them a skeptic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jerry_B Great Old One Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Total posts: 8265 |
| Posted: 12-08-2007 10:01 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| jefflovestone wrote: | | Could you explain a little bit about it? Why the focus on two American states and, in the main timeline, those particular events? Are these occurrences that you feel stand up to scrutiny or particularly relevant in some way? |
PM me if you want an explanation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| coldelephant |
| Posted: 13-08-2007 08:59 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jerry_B wrote: | | crunchy5 wrote: | | Keep your hair on mate, I never feel any stress about the site it's all just a laugh init, I've taken the time to look at your Fortean timeline, like the title, but just couldn't see how it proved or even indicated that you weren't a skeptik, as you have mentioned it in that context a few times, my interjection was genuine. |
As I said, a skeptic wouldn't have such a site. All I'm asking is that you don't brand anyone who doesn't agree with you who is unconvinced by this conspiracy theory as a skeptic. Just because the theories about 9/11 don't hold water IMHO, that doesn't make me a skeptic - any more that believing in them makes you a tinfoil hatter. People here are going to have opposite views to your own, but that doesn't make them a skeptic. |
Erm - having a list of events and dates without any comment on them does not mean anything in particular, a skeptic could do the same thing.
You are not supporting the interpretation of events in your list or debunking them - so I personally could draw nothing from them; and couldn't call you a tin foil hatter or a skeptic.
Nice list though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Jerry_B Great Old One Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Total posts: 8265 |
| Posted: 13-08-2007 17:45 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Well, I'm not skeptic so let's leave it at that, hm? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| techybloke666 Mad for Golf
Great Old One Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 3671 Age: 49 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 15-08-2007 08:18 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Go on Jerry whats so Fortean about ball lightning ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 15-08-2007 08:30 Post subject: |
|
|
|
The above is all Sooo off topic.
| Quote: | You Tube: 911 Commission - Trans. Sec Norman Mineta Testimony
The thing that sticks out = Cheney knew about an incoming flight! What were the orders? If it was for a shoot down, why weren't the Pentagon, Capitol building and White House evacuated... What if the orders were to let the incoming aircraft hit? (more) (less)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y |
What were the standing orders? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| waitew Great Old One Joined: 15 Apr 2004 Total posts: 301 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 12-09-2007 06:21 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| We don't know what the standing order was.However from the secretary of transportation's testimony it is obvious that the young man was incredulous that 'the order' still stood with the plane being so close.Under the circumstances what order would cause incredulity? With both WTC towers having all ready been struck by aircraft by this time, what order would this young man have expected the vice president to give?Obviously,that WASN"T 'the order'!You figure it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jimv1 Great Old One Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Total posts: 2645 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 12-09-2007 23:30 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Jerry has already nailed his colours to the mast.
He's not a skeptic, not a Fortean, just an interested observer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
