Started By
Message
re: 9/11 Was A Conspiracy!
Posted on 6/27/14 at 7:54 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 6/27/14 at 7:54 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
quote:
not sure what you're talking about
Per par for you.
quote:
what did I ignore?
You literally just quoted it.
Meh, I didn't ignore anything in regards to what you were talking about. You're wrong (am I doing it right? I at least want to live up to my reputation).
You see I'm on the ground getting kicked and you're taking full advantage of this vulnerability by saying whatever you want because you know in this circumstance you can and it will be believed by anyone passing by.
quote:
Because they were idiotic.
I don't know, I think the post about inverting this conversation wasn't that idiotic.
If everyone believed 911 was an inside job and a video was shared of firefighters saying there was molten metal at ground zero, official reports claiming it, pictures, video, ect and I said they were all wrong, I'd be laughed at.
1
Posted on 6/27/14 at 7:56 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
not sure what you're talking about
Should seriously be your signature, ST.
quote:
What are you talking about?
quote:
I'm not sure what you're talking about, what did I ignore?
quote:
I'm not connecting this to what I said, not in any way.
quote:
Anyway.. not seeing how your response about the world not constantly thinking about me makes sense as a reply to my comment about detecting aggression in your posts.
quote:
I'm not sure how this isn't clear and understood.
quote:
What? Maybe you should show me where I said what's in your sig quote.
quote:
Comment makes no sense.
MO if I ever saw one. For a guy who suggests no one else understands, you seem to need clarity at every corner.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 7:58 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
And then this, no idea what to even say besides -- 'whaaat'?
quote:
What are you even talking about?
Posted on 6/27/14 at 7:59 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
I didn't ignore anything in regards to what you were talking about.
Yeah, right.
quote:
You see I'm on the ground getting kicked and you're taking full advantage of this vulnerability by saying whatever you want because you know in this circumstance you can and it will be believed by anyone passing by.
Are you listening to yourself?
I don't care about passers-by. I'm laughing at your wilfully ignorant takes and overly convoluted line of thinking that allows you to rationalize the utter drivel you continue to spew.
quote:
I think the post about inverting this conversation wasn't that idiotic.
If everyone believed 911 was an inside job and a video was shared of firefighters saying there was molten metal at ground zero, official reports claiming it, pictures, video, ect and I said they were all wrong, I'd be laughed at.
Idiotic hypothetical that you concocted to continue to play the martyr.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 7:59 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
That lack of integrity you've had in this conversation is overwhelming.
It's a shame.
It's a shame.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:00 pm to UMTigerRebel
Truthers like to cast doubt without a lot of general substance. Its not about proving the nuts and bolts of the greater theory, its about trying to cast doubt in the nitty gritty details. Propagating that doubt is obviously the number one priority over trying to stand up and factually defend the general merits of the theory as a whole as it pertains to the event. Creating that doubt is very important to their "movement".
Every truther does the same thing, argues points in the same way etc. Run across one, you have run across them all.
Im not going to attack sleepy, I actual enjoy his musings on other things, but I just get a chuckle when it comes to these types of threads.
Every truther does the same thing, argues points in the same way etc. Run across one, you have run across them all.
Im not going to attack sleepy, I actual enjoy his musings on other things, but I just get a chuckle when it comes to these types of threads.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:00 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
That lack of integrity you've had in this conversation is overwhelming.
It's a shame.
Do you need screenshots?
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:02 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Idiotic hypothetical that you concocted to continue to play the martyr.
How is it an idiotic hypothetical, it's an actual inversion of what has happened.
I shared a video with firefighters saying they saw molten metal, like lava, like a foundry and I was told that they were lying, exaggerated, and don't know what they're taking about.
Imagine if the tables were turned and I replied that way, it would be hysterical.
This post was edited on 6/27/14 at 8:03 pm
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:04 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
How is it an idiotic hypothetical, it's an actual inversion of what has happened.
It's idiotic because there was no need to invert the conversation.
ETA: done with this thread for now. Taking wifey to the movies.
This post was edited on 6/27/14 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:04 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Do you need screenshots?
Sure, go for it.
I'm not the one that has been aggressively insulting other posters, making diagnosis's about their mental state, altering what they've said and using it as a sig quote, and misconstruing points at an extremely bizarre level.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:05 pm to Sleeping Tiger
what in the frick is going on in this thread? 
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:05 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
It's idiotic because there was no need to invert the conversation.
Wait what?
There was no need to invert it..
Is need a condition that usually triggers a hypothetical?
I thought it was just for a change of perspective?
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:09 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
I'm not the one that has been aggressively insulting other posters
Yet you contently condescend and suggest others are too stupid to even comprehend what you're saying.
quote:
making diagnosis's about their mental state
Psychology is a fetish of mine, sue me. I'm not the only one who has called you loony in this thread.
quote:
altering what they've said and using it as a sig quote
I'm sorry, but you're the only one who feels this way. Every other person has told you that you haven't a single idea on what's relevant and irrelevant. You can't wave a magic wand and say it's irrelevant and that's the end of it.
quote:
and misconstruing points at an extremely bizarre level.
Here you are again.
I think one of your tactics is to make another person exhausted saying things over and over again until they just don't have the energy to keep going at it.
You LOVE to say: "I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.", it's an attrition mechanism and for you to say that I'm misconstruing points is laughable.
It's you who just doesn't seem to be on the same frequency as everyone else, and while that might be good in some instances -- in debate it's a really goddamn bad one.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:11 pm to kilo
quote:
Truthers like to cast doubt without a lot of general substance. Its not about proving the nuts and bolts of the greater theory, its about trying to cast doubt in the nitty gritty details. Propagating that doubt is obviously the number one priority over trying to stand up and factually defend the general merits of the theory as a whole as it pertains to the event. Creating that doubt is very important to their "movement".
You watch the documentary I endorsed in this thread and I'll talk all the nuts and bolts you want.
It's impossible to have these conversations when both sides aren't looking at the same image.
The way this thread was set up is the worst way to go about this topic, looking at one small piece of the puzzle without a general understanding of the full picture.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:13 pm to kilo
quote:
Creating that doubt is very important to their "movement".
They don't have a viable alternative theory. It's why it all consists of casting doubt on individual points.
If we applied the same level of skepticism to every single event in our lives, we'd be sure of nothing.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:16 pm to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
Yet you contently condescend and suggest others are too stupid to even comprehend what you're saying.
I've earned that reputation, I won't deny that, but in this thread that isn't true, not in the slightest.
quote:
altering what they've said and using it as a sig quote
I'm sorry, but you're the only one who feels this way.
Then link where I said what is in your sig quote, thanks.
quote:
I think one of your tactics is to make another person exhausted
Buddy, listen, I'm not purposely trying to make you exhausted.
Most rational people would not have taken what I said the way you took it.
I clearly said I'm aware this isn't entirely relevant because of differing factors, but planes have hit buildings with no collapse.
I'm injecting that planes have hit buildings, causing structural damage and fires with no collapse, while being aware that the differing factors of this case to those makes it impossible to use those examples as a leg to stand on.
This post was edited on 6/27/14 at 8:17 pm
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:17 pm to the808bass
quote:
They don't have a viable alternative theory. It's why it all consists of casting doubt on individual points.
If we applied the same level of skepticism to every single event in our lives, we'd be sure of nothing.
What's increasingly bizarre is the hypocrisy. They make inane hypothetical arguments and when you refute them with a hypothetical of your own (for instance, let's keep it with this argument, the logistics it'd take to pull of such a scenario) suddenly that's inconclusive and inadmissible.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:18 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:well thanks for clearing that up he wrote ironically
It was intentional, for effect. Yo.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:18 pm to the808bass
quote:
They don't have a viable alternative theory
Sure there's a viable alternative theory.
One major problem is that all the information/facts aren't even on the table in these discussions.
It's like trying to put together a puzzle with 1/3rd of the pieces.
Posted on 6/27/14 at 8:20 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Then link where I said what is in your sig quote, thanks.
Here you go again with the semantics "I don't see it", part. Would you like me to link you to other people getting it, while you sit there in darkness wondering what's going on?
I've not only shown you the proof twice, I see that you've tried to preemptively refute it.
You used examples of planes hitting buildings and the buildings not falling down in an argument that was built on that premise.
That you say it may be irrelevant doesn't remove the fact that you used the examples to bolster your argument. Your adjustment doesn't suddenly negate the argument being made.
Page 29 of 48
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News