|
 Grav
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Loc: 
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
|
 Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence  [Re: Shins]
#13628167 - 12/13/10 09:16 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I wonder how many people in government(besides the ones that are just scared for their lives) know the truth but sincerely believe it would cause too much damage to be revealed. Can you imagine how pissed off the American people would be?
|
Nexius
Ruler
Registered: 06/24/07
Posts: 3,960
Loc: Earth
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Grav]
#13628203 - 12/13/10 09:24 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I think the American people already pretty much know, and it would be confirmation.
Sorta like the cablegate deal with wikileaks... just confirmed what was already thought to be known
--------------------
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak
|
 johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 16,657
Loc: Americas
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: cryptic_pickle] 1
#13628836 - 12/13/10 11:23 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
cryptic_pickle said:
You're a waste of my time.
Ah yes, truely. After stringing together a line of fallacious supposition and outright bullshit, you do it again, only to be corrected once more, and then declare you're off to pout in the corner. Good show.
Odd that I'm forever hearing truthers whine about prejudice and never being able to make their case without being disregarded out of hand. Then you get taken seriously and asked to prove your case, and you not only fail to do so, but you fail to provide anything whatsoever beyond fallacy and bare declarations.
Enjoy your cry in the corner. One day you might have the courage to confront why it is that you're unable to make even a prima facia case for that which you're sure is true.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 168,663
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Shins]
#13629190 - 12/14/10 12:35 AM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Shins said:
It's hard having a discussion with people who's philosophy conflicts with evidence.
so very true
--------------------
there are 923 words in the english language that do not follow the "I before E"
rule, there are 44 words in the english language that follow the rule. this is
the shit our education funding is paying for and these liberals want more money
for education to keep making students stupid
|
Grav
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Loc:
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: johnm214]
#13629429 - 12/14/10 01:23 AM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
cryptic_pickle said:
You're a waste of my time.
Ah yes, truely. After stringing together a line of fallacious supposition and outright bullshit, you do it again, only to be corrected once more, and then declare you're off to pout in the corner. Good show.
Odd that I'm forever hearing truthers whine about prejudice and never being able to make their case without being disregarded out of hand. Then you get taken seriously and asked to prove your case, and you not only fail to do so, but you fail to provide anything whatsoever beyond fallacy and bare declarations.
Enjoy your cry in the corner. One day you might have the courage to confront why it is that you're unable to make even a prima facia case for that which you're sure is true.
strawman
|
Cervantes
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 16,033
Loc: Dark Side of the Windmill
Last seen: 1 hour, 10 minutes
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Grav]
#13629462 - 12/14/10 01:34 AM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
He is working with what he was given.
--------------------
I know you think you understand the words I have just said to you but, what you fail to realize is, what you thought I said is not what I actually meant by saying what I said, when I said it.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 16,657
Loc: Americas
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Grav]
#13629563 - 12/14/10 02:04 AM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Grav said:
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
cryptic_pickle said:
You're a waste of my time.
Ah yes, truely. After stringing together a line of fallacious supposition and outright bullshit, you do it again, only to be corrected once more, and then declare you're off to pout in the corner. Good show.
Odd that I'm forever hearing truthers whine about prejudice and never being able to make their case without being disregarded out of hand. Then you get taken seriously and asked to prove your case, and you not only fail to do so, but you fail to provide anything whatsoever beyond fallacy and bare declarations.
Enjoy your cry in the corner. One day you might have the courage to confront why it is that you're unable to make even a prima facia case for that which you're sure is true.
strawman
Even so it is only a strawman with respect to "truthers" and hence has no bearing on the operative points under discussion here- for which there remains no evidence.
Even so, Grav said in this very thread, #13616760, that people would never beleive 9/11 even if it was true. I don't know how you can take that anyway but an endorsement of the oft-claimed nonsense that people refuse to consider the matter fairly.
|
Enigma of Ankou
Realist
Registered: 09/20/10
Posts: 1,340
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: johnm214]
#13629599 - 12/14/10 02:15 AM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
and you base your argument entirely off the assumption that what the governments side of the story and the evidence they present to you is indeed fact. If they were the ones who brought it down which I believe so without a doubt, what would make you think they wouldnt put out there explanation backed by "science" and feed it to the masses as truth.
--------------------
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.-George Orwell-
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 16,657
Loc: Americas
|
|
What argument? I've not argued anything, only asked what you could possibly be bassing your claims on and endured post after post of your equivocations. (nothing, it seems)
Given I've not even argued any position on the merits I'm pretty surprised you're so sure why I believe what this fantasy-argument has stated.
The funny thing about science, since you mention this, is that it doesn't matter who says what- the proof is in the data and the analysis stands or falls on its merits. This is unlike, for example, your posts where you provide the conclusions and no facts nor analysis leading to the conclusions.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 168,663
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
Enigma of Ankou said:
and you base your argument entirely off the assumption that what the governments side of the story and the evidence they present to you is indeed fact. If they were the ones who brought it down which I believe so without a doubt, what would make you think they wouldnt put out there explanation backed by "science" and feed it to the masses as truth.
is it science when you draw conclusions prior to examining the evidence?
what makes the official story 'invalid'?
--------------------
there are 923 words in the english language that do not follow the "I before E"
rule, there are 44 words in the english language that follow the rule. this is
the shit our education funding is paying for and these liberals want more money
for education to keep making students stupid
|
Grav
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Loc:
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Prisoner#1]
#13630594 - 12/14/10 11:05 AM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
to say something is invalid you have to show that it was valid in the first place.
what is the criteria for validity? is it endorsement by an agency that cherry-picked their investigation behind closed doors? i say cherry-picked because that's what they did. vans w/ explosives didn't fit in, so it was discarded, eyewitness testimony of explosions discarded, demolition not investigated even though it could have been very possible that al-queda operatives planted bombs inside the buildings as well. raw video evidence withheld from the public for years. NIST unable to explain the building collapse. 9/11 Commissioners repeated statements that the investigation was faulty.
this is most certainly not criteria that would make up a valid investigation or explanation.
|
Stillmatic9142
Learner
Registered: 01/14/10
Posts: 797
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Grav]
#13630642 - 12/14/10 11:25 AM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I just would like to see the videos that were confiscated from the surrounding area of the Pentagon. It's also a fact that the CIA and FBI had foreknowledge of 911 and were too damn stubborn to inform each other. The bin ladens were rushed out of America after 911. The black boxes? What about the supposed terrorists who are alive and well? Or the fact that the engineers who designed the WTC said that building was made to withstand much more than that.
--------------------
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists & will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-former President & 5 Star General, Dwight D Eisenhower's farewell address to the Nation
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 168,663
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Grav]
#13631272 - 12/14/10 01:58 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Grav said:
to say something is invalid you have to show that it was valid in the first place.
so very true and the truth movement has yet to show the official report to be valid or invalid
ok... in reality, what you just said was nonsense
--------------------
there are 923 words in the english language that do not follow the "I before E"
rule, there are 44 words in the english language that follow the rule. this is
the shit our education funding is paying for and these liberals want more money
for education to keep making students stupid
|
WakeboardrB
Pepe Silvia
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 13,678
Last seen: 11 months, 13 days
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Stillmatic9142]
#13631429 - 12/14/10 02:34 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stillmatic9142 said:
I just would like to see the videos that were confiscated from the surrounding area of the Pentagon. It's also a fact that the CIA and FBI had foreknowledge of 911 and were too damn stubborn to inform each other. The bin ladens were rushed out of America after 911. The black boxes? What about the supposed terrorists who are alive and well? Or the fact that the engineers who designed the WTC said that building was made to withstand much more than that.
If that were the case, why wouldn't the Bin Laden's be rushed out before it happened, not after? At any rate, they certainly have nothing to do with the black sheep of the family that they disowned many years ago.
As far as the buildings withstanding a plane impact, yes they were engineered to supposedly hold up against a Boeing 707 that might get lost in the fog while trying to land at JFK or Newark airport, which means extremely low speeds.
Not direct strikes from much larger 767's traveling at over 2 1/2 times the speed.
If you are going to make fantastic claims like that, at least do your homework beforehand.
--------------------
Same thing happened to me when I played Neil Armstrong in Moonshot. They found me in an alley in Burbank trying to re-enter the earth's atmosphere in an old refrigerator box.
|
Grav
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Loc:
Last seen: 5 months, 18 days
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Prisoner#1]
#13631671 - 12/14/10 03:14 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
what i meant was, if a story is bullshit and full of holes from the beginning then it can not be said to be a valid explanation, and is not necessarily something one needs to disprove if it can't stand up to basic scrutiny.
the investigation was flawed and incomplete. the burden of proof/truth is on everyone. alternative theories are more consistent with documented events, testimony, motives, physics, reality, and in general don't require the support of a plethora of amazing coincidences.
|
Enigma of Ankou
Realist
Registered: 09/20/10
Posts: 1,340
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Grav]
#13631833 - 12/14/10 03:46 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
There is no way that they could have been running multiple mock exercises of the exact same terrorist attack the very day it happened, so what al-qaida infiltrated the upper echelons of norad and made them run these exercises so the planes wouldnt be shot down before they reached there target? Or was it just some massive coincidence just like the london bus bombings. Why is it that Bush himself stopped the FBI from arresting prominent members of al-qaida and straight out ignored intelligence that a massive attack on american soil was imminent.
You base all your assumptions of what actual happened on some prepackaged story the government tells you which is full of holes often more-so then the alternative theories out there, they leave out building 7 entirely in there commission report, how could you just ignore something like that in a official document? Has it ever crossed your mind that they might also be spewing bullshit out in that report that all there "facts" and "scientific" evidence may just be a crock of shit Cause theres a lot of evidence pointing to just that You can rip apart our theories all day but not once do you ever put there report under the same scrutiny.
--------------------
War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.-George Orwell-
|
WakeboardrB
Pepe Silvia
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 13,678
Last seen: 11 months, 13 days
|
|
They left out Building 7 because they did a whole different report on it.
The focus was on WTC 1 and 2, not 7. No one died in 7.
--------------------
Same thing happened to me when I played Neil Armstrong in Moonshot. They found me in an alley in Burbank trying to re-enter the earth's atmosphere in an old refrigerator box.
|
Stillmatic9142
Learner
Registered: 01/14/10
Posts: 797
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: WakeboardrB]
#13632531 - 12/14/10 06:03 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
WakeboardrB said:
They left out Building 7 because they did a whole different report on it.
The focus was on WTC 1 and 2, not 7. No one died in 7.
Larry Silverstein admits to pulling the damn tower, yet the "official" report is that fires brought it down.... Please. It is irrelevant that no one died. The fact of the matter is the building was pulled, and admitted, and the official government-backed investigation says fire brought down the towers. BULL SHIT.
--------------------
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists & will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-former President & 5 Star General, Dwight D Eisenhower's farewell address to the Nation
|
Cervantes
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 16,033
Loc: Dark Side of the Windmill
Last seen: 1 hour, 10 minutes
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Stillmatic9142]
#13632560 - 12/14/10 06:10 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Here's the Pris1 challenge:
Show me when the word, "Pull" has ever been used to mean, "Blow UP a building."
"Pull" means many things. Several WTC buildings were "Pulled" as in, "Pulled down with crains."
In this case, Silversten meant, "Pull the firefighters out because it was a lost cause and too dangerous."
--------------------
I know you think you understand the words I have just said to you but, what you fail to realize is, what you thought I said is not what I actually meant by saying what I said, when I said it.
|
Stillmatic9142
Learner
Registered: 01/14/10
Posts: 797
|
Re: 9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence [Re: Cervantes]
#13632833 - 12/14/10 07:07 PM (2 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cervantes said:
Here's the Pris1 challenge:
Show me when the word, "Pull" has ever been used to mean, "Blow UP a building."
"Pull" means many things. Several WTC buildings were "Pulled" as in, "Pulled down with crains."
In this case, Silversten meant, "Pull the firefighters out because it was a lost cause and too dangerous."
You're an idiot. "We made the decision to pull it, and watch the building collapse".
--------------------
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists & will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
-former President & 5 Star General, Dwight D Eisenhower's farewell address to the Nation
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
