I was being a dick in my first reply to Beebs. If i want to have an adult conversation with him I can't call him a hardass, etc. So let me try this again only a little more chilled out this time:
A significant portion of your counterarguement that you posted is satisfying to me. Like the "Marketing 101" comment, I see where you're coming from, and acknowledge the fact that you might be right.
Let's look at one of your arguements that I can't seem to understand how you could possibly think this way.
Theory: Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
Your Counter-Arguement: Bad radar, bad reporting, low flying plane
I mean, do I really need to explain how shitty of an arguement that is? The plane disappears off the radar around Kentucky because you say it was simply "low flying"? Yet, when it reappeared on the radar just outside the Pentagon it was... what?... cruising at 30,000 feet?
I guess my point with all of this is: You seem to be pretty willfull and quick to shoot down any conspiracy theories. And that's okay. I'm more the opposite in that I tend to want to believe conspiracy theories. I'll be the first to admit that I need to not be so quick to believe everything I read on the internet.
I guess it just bothers me that a lot of the things you say to shoot down conspiracy theories make much less sense than the theory itself. You don't have to believe the theory, that's fine; but please try to make your arguements halfway close to logical when trying to convince me not to believe it.
|