See other 9/11 Articles
Title: History Channel to Air 9/11 Conspiracies Special
Source:
History Channel
URL Source: [None]
Published: Aug 3, 2007
Author: History Channel
Post Date: 2007-08-03 10:31:04 by Ringo Blankenship
Keywords: None
Views: 12178
Comments: 246
UPCOMING SHOWS Sunday, August 12 08:00 PM Monday, August13 12:00 PM An Internet search for "9/11 conspiracy theories" yields nearly two million hits. Were the attacks on 9/11 perpetrated by the Bush Administration to advance its own interests? Could a government missile have hit the Pentagon? As outrageous as these ideas may sound, many people believe them. Why do these theories arise in the first place? An interview with James Miegs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, who refutes many of these theories. Watch as experts in the fields of aeronautics, engineering and the military put these theories to the test. Rating: TVPG Running Time: 120 minutes
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ringo Blankenship (#0)
thanks for the headsup, Ringo, and welcome to 4um!
Even if this turns out to be a one-sided hit piece, the fact that History Channel is even airing this show is a victory for the 9/11 Truth movement if judged by the Ghandi standard. Think about it: First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. Looks like it's progressed to somewhere between the ridicule and the fight...
Thank you. It will be interesting to see if/how they deal with WTC 7.
Hearst corp. will lose.
If their expert is from Popular Mechanics, a known CIA asset, and they want to talk about missiles hitting the Pentagon, then I won't waste my time though I might look at it for a few minutes. I would love to see someone cover the bomb that went off in the Pentagon 3 1/2 minutes before the plane hit the building. The bomb killed the auditors who were trying to track down the 2.3 trillion dollars that Donald Rumsfeld said on 9-10-2001 that he could not trace. The primary witness was Robert Andrews the Asst Secretary of the DOD in charge of Special Operations. He was a former Green Beret so he knows what a bomb is.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
got a link? the 2.3 trillion dollars that Donald Rumsfeld said on 9-10-2001 that he could not trace. would have gone a long way toward repairing that bridge over the Mississippi.
....On 9-10-2001 Donald Rumsfeld admitted to CBS News that he was unable to trace 2.3 trillion dollars in Department of Defense (DOD) spending. On 9-11-2001 Robert Andrews, the Acting Asst. Director of the DOD went to the Counter Terrorism Center (CTC) after the Twin Towers had been attacked in New York. The CTC was destroyed by a bomb that also killed 40 of 41 military officers who were auditing the DOD books attempting to recover public taxpayer monies lost by what appears to be intentionally bad record keeping by the Pentagon. Robert Andrews is a former Green Beret and was in charge of Special Operations for the military on 9-11. He knows what a bomb is. He smelled the cordite. He also tells us that this bomb was detonated 3 1/2 minutes before the plane struck the building. Flight 77 was the plane alleged by the Bush administration and the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission to have hit the Pentagon on 9-11.....
I wonder if they'll trot out Chertoff's cousin, whom Chertoff wasn't sure was his cousin or not at first.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Thanks Ringo!
Ron Paul for President
You will never understand why the Dems on the 9-11 Commission eagerly covered up treason and murder by the Bush admin until you take alook at Catherine Austin Fitts' website. She goes into details on the 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the DOD spending that Rumsfeld admitted to on 9-10-2001 to CBS News. http://www.solari.c om/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm For more on the bomb went off 3 1/2 minutes before the plane hit the Pentagon and that killed the auditors looking for the missing 2.3 trillion dollars go here: http://johnmccarthy90066.t ripod.com/id206.html
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Popular Mechanics, a known CIA asset No kidding? Are you saying this with a straight face? Since when did they 'cross over' to be CIA assets?
I'm not sure, but I would look at the dumbing down of America as a major cause, and the over-running of the internet by more or less common John's who are products of that failed education system. Take for instance the proliferation of the co-called "Credit River Case" involving Jerome Daley and 'Justice' (of the Peace) Mahoney The case is variously known as "The Mahoney Credit River Decision" and the "First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff vs Jerome Daly". The 'case' was as bogus as a 3-dollar bill BUT it is all posted all over the internet!
Or even sillier, why does the History Channel feel the need to run a two hour special debunking them?
Not sure about Popular Mechanics specifically, but do a search on "Operation Mockingbird" sometime. Unless you have already made up your mind you'll see that the CIA has a deeper footprint in mainstream media than most people I know feel comfortable with.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Because the American People deserve The Truth, you filthy Saddam Lover! :)
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
you'll see that the CIA has a deeper footprint in mainstream media than most people I know feel comfortable with. Did they used to have a newsletter they sent out to al the news people? I'll bet there are still a few 'old copies' floating around - ever see any scanned and posted on websites?
Just do the search first, smarty-pants.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Geez - what a smart alecky answer. I asked because you look like you might know, maybe not?
You thought the CIA sent out a newsletter informing people of their covert activities? Right.....
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
u thought the CIA sent out a newsletter informing people of their covert activities? Well no. If they are in the media they are definely not covert, the word is 'overt' (opposite of covert see). The newsletter is to organize activities; everybody has newsletters, companies have newslettes, police depts have newsleters, attornies have newsletters. Think of them more as corporate info or 'propaganda' from the head office ...
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Oh no - more slow video from Utub. I don't know that I trust them, video drivers have to be installed on one's PC to watch that so-called 'free stuff' ... maybe Utub is trying to 'hook' us on their system and they are all the while just biting their time ... that's my conspiracy theory anyway.
Too fucking stupid to get it to play, eh?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Yes I would be interested in that as well.
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" Plato
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
i don't know why, but that me laugh. :P
That me laugh too. )
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" Plato
I'm a slacker, no need to staple lace on a pig.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
hahahahahahaha good one, tom. me forgot made. :P
Was that comment really neccessary? Do you even know what happens when you click on a UTub download - and you are the guy touting all kinds of CIA and media interaction conspriacies? Me, personally, I think you are CIA, and you want me to play your 'stupid' little video to invade my machine, and I won't play along so you call me names. See, I can be a little nasty too, but I did not have to become vulgar or call you a wanker or a twit.
Wouldn't have been if you had looked up Operation Mockingbird, but you didn't, I could tell you didn't, you weren't sincere at all Ed.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Caught me, I'm really Sid Vicious, come to haunt your towel closet.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Eat sand Towelhead apologist!
Wouldn't have been if you had looked up Operation Mockingbird Well hello Mr Assume. I did a Google - and GEESH the conspiracy meter pegged ...
So you only believe centralized GOP sources, and not us "fringe" republicans?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
lol
Herbie's mother was a stripped down mule cart!
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Caught me, I'm really Sid Vicious, come to haunt your towel closet. I think I read somewhere that that is exactly what a CIA operative who was trying to 'push' something on another would do it. So, my suspicians are really aroused (no jokes now). I have a side question: Why are some of you, like you, so ill-tempered and nasty?
Perception is paramount, my dear, I am but a broken mirror.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
So it is "submit or get the lash" here too huh (WA, CP, DC, TOS/FR)? Nice to know if I ever 'want the lash' anyway.
You think I run these people? That's craziest kookshit I've heard yet.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Perception is paramount, my dear, I am but a broken mirror. Uh uh. You come across as, arrogant and cocky and you assumed a lot (ties in with arrogant) too. I asked questions, you responded with vulgarity. Would your mom be proud of your actions and manner of speech or writing? (Surely you're weren't hatched by solar heating of 'crap' on a log ...)
You think I run these people? No - "are like."
Miss Marple? Is that you, you demented pruny old bitch?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
actually, dakmar was hatched by solar heating crap on a log. but its a long story and i don't want to go into it now.
lol Please ... no encouragement ... (either him or me)
i ma going to get drunk now. don't tell christine i am buckeroo.
Prove it!
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Are the nominations for 'site kook' still open? Can I toss Dakmires name into the punch bowl?
I thought you were Bride Rabbit.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
be quiet you negro.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
We's gwine rise again, you know.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
did you know that you are the only real person on this site?
I'm not the eggman? Shit!
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Who spiked the punch bowl?
Goo Goo Ga Jewb
Ed did..with Dak.
Are you one, Herbert?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
would you be happy as the milk man?
We've got to get out of this place "A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
you are giving JCHarris ideas.
Do I get to pick which race I represent?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
The Walrus was Paul.
it might involve a race change operation.
I know. It was a joke. I'm nut two good wit speling.
can you do bird calls?
Cool, I've been wanting to break free from Pro Stock/Nitro for a long time anyway.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
I take them: 1-900-BRD-CALL Have your credit card ready.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
- Caught me, Now that you've been outed, does that mean I'll be free from your hideous mind-control techniques?
no, the submiminal messages have already been put up on the site.
Are you Ed Condom?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
no, he is buckeroo too. everyone here except you is buckeroo.
What part of Sid Vicious, towelhead closet do you not underst...you're getting sleepy, yes, that's it...All together now, ALL TOGETHER NOW! ALL TOGETHER NOW!
oh my beloved ice cream bar, how I love to lick your creamy center "A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
That depends If you double up my weekly brain-gravy injections, I'll be his daddy.
I cant promise anything of the sort. Dont ever tell anyone about fight club.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
That explains A LOT about you blokes; bonkers, twits, twats, wankers, punk shockers, lamers and losers, cabbage-patch, GI Joe and Berbie doll molesters, that mingle there in some disgusting orgy of idiocy ... ... I stole that line by the way; credit must to to: http://aepalizage.blogspot.com/
I stole that line by the way; credit must to to: http://aepalizage.blogspot.com/ Oh now that's a good one, Buck...
Hi Ed, Have you given any more thought to the idea that Operation Mockingbird was a real CIA program? Hearst came before OpMock (my abbreviatiation), so I'm not going to argue about Popular Mechanics, but I believe National Review was started by CIA. I'm not going to look up anything for you, you've acted in bad faith. I'll smile as two or three others search internet for this information, that I've capitalized, hint, hint.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
How's it going, cracker?
In 1963 after the Kennedy assassination Life magazine published 3 photos from the Zapruder film in reverse order so that the general public would believe the "official theory" of a lone assassin. When people with actual brains began saying and proving that WTC Towers 1, 2 and 7 were taken down by controlled demolitions, Popular Mecahnics published a piece of trash by Michael Chertoff's cousin saying that the buidlings collapsed by spontaneous combustion or some such nonsense. Popular Mechanics and Life magazine are guilty of conspiring to cover up treason and murder. William Pepper who represented the MLK family in their wrongful death lawsuit against Loyd Jowers said that the media should all be considered as unindicted conspirators.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
The Dallas Police that day - along with many other law officers - had no doubt in their minds that they had the right guy. Even Lee Harvey's OWN BROTHER, who had a chance to talk to LHO while in DPD custody knew his nutty brother did it. On another note - - have you ever seen the affidavit from the guy who was one floor below Oswald in the Texas School Book Depository building and heard everything? The guy heard the shots, heard the bolt action being worked, and heard the spent brass shell casings hit the wooden (yes, wooden) floors of the TSBDB.
Question: What is the decrease in tensile strength for 'typical' structural steel at 600 degrees C? Folow-up: What is the purpose of sprayed-on fire resistant/fire retardant?
1) The greatest living sniper in the Marines, Carlos Hathcock, tried several times at Quantico to re-create the shooting of JFK from the Texas School Book Depository window that Oswald was alleged to have made. Not one of the best snipers in the MArine Corps could re-create the shots the Warren Commission claimed were made. 2) Go to http://www.WTC7.net and look at the collapse videos. Before a fire gets to 6,000 or even 4,000 degrees it must go past 900 degrees at which point the windows would have popped out and melted as steel is more resistant than glass. The only way you can get to 4,000 without going past 900 degrees is with a cutting agent, such as, thermite and thermate. Placed at a 45 degree angle, the thermite would cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. But you would still need explosives charges to speed the collapse. The 47 story WTC Tower 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds even though we see no evidence of either damaged windows from a 900 degree fire or any structural damage from being struck by an airliner. To collapse at nearly the speed of a body in free fall is impossible except in a controlled demolition. Look at it mathematically, all of the many points of contact on each floor had to reach the same temperature 4,000 degrees at the same time (i.e. within 2 seconds of eah other.) Now what is that probability? One in a hundred, one in a thousand? But that happened on all 47 floors at the same time. Whar is that probability? 1/100 or 1/1,000 times itself 47 times. That by definition is a controlled demolition. Please look at the collapse videos of WTC 7 before responding. They should also have something about the 24 story steel girdered office building in Madrid that burned for 36 hours without the steel frame collapsing.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Go to http://www.WTC7.net and look at the No ... I asked a simple question that any first year civil engineering and many high-school students could answer ... that that was: how much tensile strength does structural-grade steel lose at 600 deg. C?
The greatest living sniper in the Marines, Carlos So, does that mean you are unaware of the affidavit from the guy who was one floor below Oswald in the Texas School Book Depository building and heard everything? You know, the one I explained where the guy heard the shots, heard the bolt action being worked, and heard the spent brass shell casings hit the wooden (yes, wooden) floors of the TSBDB. It is okay to admit that you don't know these things, that is why we are here, on these forums, as this is not 'real life' ...
How about a remedial course in mech enginnering - 2.002 Mechanics and Materials II Course Description This course provides Mechanical Engineering students with an awareness of various responses exhibited by solid engineering materials when subjected to mechanical and thermal loadings; an introduction to the physical mechanisms associated with design-limiting behavior of engineering materials, especially stiffness, strength, toughness, and durability; an understanding of basic mechanical properties of engineering materials, testing procedures used to quantify these properties, and ways in which these properties characterize material response; quantitative skills to deal with materials-limiting problems in engineering design; and a basis for materials selection in mechanical design.
How about listening to the Truth instead of people on the dole from the government and the CFR-AIPAC controlled Foundations? Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth! http://www.ae911truth.org/ You probably didn't bother looking at the www.WTC7 collapse videos. Please don't waste my time any more.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
Why? Does their steel have different properties than someone elses? That's the question I think needs to be addressed. And it's kinda telling that you can't answer a simple question a high-school kid could answer ...
Blah blah- Turkish built high rise apartment blocks- built in the most shoddy manner with sub standard material don't collapse in 9.0 earthquakes as completely as those towers did after being hit by basically big aluminum tubes and small fires burning for 40 minutes. Then of course there is building seven- enough said. Towers don't explode like that and come tumbling down - all three in the same manner despite being hit in different areas and one not hit all. ITS ABUSRD ON ITS FACE.
Paid shill alert! http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
Ron Paul for President
The internet wasn't around during the JFK assassination, but it is now helping to get important questions out. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3967677791931129793 Black Ops and PsyOps just aren't working as well as they once did. But the truth rings clear. It's why Ron Paul's momentum is from the grassroots efforts of ordinary folks on the internet.
Ron Paul for President
Uncle Ed, you'd be better off collecting boys soiled underwear.
The purpose of this documentary is to make sure that wacko 9/11 conspiracy theories remain wacko 9/11 conspiracy theories. And that's a good thing.
Do you think they will show/analyze WTC 7 coming down?
Then of course there is building seven- enough said. Towers don't explode like that and come tumbling down - all three in the same manner despite being hit in different areas and one not hit all. ITS ABUSRD ON ITS FACE. good lord, can you believe there's anyone with two working brain cells who cannot see that?
I like people looking into the 911 stuff. There are many unexplained things in the official story. These problems could be innocent or they could range all the way to a dark conspiracy. I can't say, and for that reason I think the more eyes on the subject the better. And I don't see any harm coming out of the informal investigations. What's wrong with trying to fact check a government story? Especially if the government is telling the truth. What makes me suspicious is the angry and hostile reaction that some people have to a study of this matter - and the determined effort I see to stop people from asking questions. I have to wonder where this is coming from. I've noticed that goobs and Freepers rarely form opinions on their own.
.
Yep - it's the Fruit of the Forbidden Tree phenomenon. It's like when a raunchy rap cd isn't selling too great and then they slap on a "Warning: Parental Advisory is Advised" label and the thing starts selling like hotcakes.
It will probably get some attention but nowhere near enough to please the typical conspiracy theorist.
If they even show video of WTC 7 coming down, I will be greatly surprised.
One thing is for sure, the documentary won't change anything. The 9/11 "truth" movement has peaked.
Yes, it might be risky to show/analyze the collapse of WTC 7 to a national audience. I doubt History Channel will be allowed to do so. They probably don't want a repeat of the Larry Silverstein "pull it" PBS fiasco.
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment.
You don't have to be an engineer or an architect. Anyone who has stacked toy blocks smells a rat. Look, I don't even suffer the deniers anymore. They are one of two things- shill trolling liars or stupid dopes who don't trust their own eyes and common effing sense. It really is too obvious to even discuss.
It really is too obvious to even discuss. well said. i'm going to do the same. their lack of shame irks me though.
Well, they have to be shameless when advancing absurdity. This song basically sums up what they are doing- denying the plainly obvious with a straight face while hoping we accept it because we just can't believe anyone would lie so plainly to our faces: Honey came in and she caught me red-handed Creeping with the girl next door Picture this we were both butt naked Banging on the bathroom floor How could I forget that I had Given her an extra key All this time she was standing there she never Took her eyes off me How you fi give the woman access to your villa Trespass and a witness all the hackling of the pilla You better watch your back before she turn into a killer Let’s review the situation that you’re caught up inna Now to be a true player you got to know how to play If she even say a night convince her say a day Never admit to a word weh she say And if she claim a you tell her baby no way But she caught me on the counter¡ wasn’t me She saw me bangin’ on the sofa¡ wasn’t me I even had her in the shower¡ wasn’t me She even caught me on camera¡ wasn’t me She saw the marks on my shoulder¡ wasn’t me Heard the words that I told her¡ wasn’t me Heard the screams getting louder¡ wasn’t me She stayed until it was over Honey came in and she caught me red-handed Creeping with the girl next door Picture this we were both butt naked Banging on the bathroom floor I had tried to keep her from what She was about to see Why should she believe me when i Told her it wasn’t me Mek she know say that she really nah no right fi vex A never you she see a mek de gigolo flex A smaddi else whe favor you inna de complex Seeing is believing so ya betta change ya specs You know whe a go bring hole heap of thing from in de past All the little evidence you better know fi mask Quick pon you answer and know how fi talk And if she pack the gun you better know fi run fast But she caught me on the counter¡ wasn’t me She saw me bagin’ on the sofa¡ wasn’t me I even had her in the shower¡ wasn’t me She even caught me on camera¡ wasn’t me She saw the marks on my shoulder¡ wasn’t me Heard the words that I told her¡ wasn’t me Heard the screams getting louder¡ wasn’t me She stayed until it was over Honey came in and she caught me red-handed Creeping with the girl next door Picture this we were both butt naked Banging on the bathroom floor How could I forget that I had Given her an extra key All this time she was standing there she never Took her eyes off me Want to tell her that I’m sorry for the Pain that I’ve caused I’ve been listening to your reason It makes no sense at all Need to tell her that I’m sorry for the Pain that I’ve caused You may think that you’re a player But you’re completely lost Cause I say¡ Honey came in and she caught me red-handed Creeping with the girl next door Picture this we were both butt naked Banging on the bathroom floor How could I forget that I had Given her an extra key All this time she was standing there she never Took her eyes off me
"You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." --------------------------------------- Words have meaning. Note the words, "decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Clearly Silverstein was associating the decision to pull with the result, the collapse. Note Siverstein did not say, they made that decision to pull and then the firemen were evacuated and then hours later we watched the building collapse. "Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment. But your only agenda is your lunch of salmon and spinach? No one believes that. Not with absurd replies like this one about Lucky Larry.
Ron Paul for President
He's probably hoping 'lurkers' believe that...
Here's some of the best evidence showing what Silverstein's words meant. "You know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.' Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Shaggadelic, man...
86% of Americans doubt the official tale while 63% believe absolutely it was an inside job.
Note the words, "decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Clearly Silverstein was associating the decision to pull with the result, the collapse. Note Siverstein did not say, they made that decision to pull and then the firemen were evacuated and then hours later we watched the building collapse. "Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Like I said, the tactic seems to be to assert absurdity with a straight face in the hopes that at least some people will question the plainly obvious because they are confused by the shamelessness of such audacious lies.
Must be true 'cause the TV told me so...
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7?
Gee, why would the FDNY decide to blow up WTC 7? How on earth did the FDNY manage to rig explosives in WTC 7 to bring it down?
Since it's your construct, you tell us.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Yep. The media told me . . . 19 Arab Hijackers whose pictures were on the tv in hours after 9/11 did the deed- and then they found a tape of OBL monologueing about his evil plan like a James Bond villian in a house in Afghansitan. And Saddam was a year away from Nukes. The media told me . . . And OBL had not one- but "many" huge "hi-tech" bunker caves complete with hydrolic lifts where he kept his tanks and long range artillery. The media told me . . . And drones could spray our cities launched from mysterious ghost ships that Saddam had. The Media told me . . . And Saddam killed half a million people and they were in mass graves never found. The Media told me . . . He had rape rooms. The media told me . . . He shredded people in plastic shredders. The media told me . . . He had tons of "WMD" and advanced programs that "no one could doubt after Powell's speech". The media told me . . . And the insurgents were just Saddam "Dead enders" numbering a few hundred. The media told me. Then they were "Zarqawi" Al Qaeders. The media told me. Then they were Iranian trained spies. The Media told me. Now they are both Al Qaeders and Iranian trained- oh- and Iran is a year away from nuking us. The Media tells me . . . And everyone fighting us in Afhganistan is "Taliban"- the media tells me. And Al Qaeda was all but defeated in 2004 the media told me . . . Now it is "reformed" and stronger than ever. The media tells me . . .
This sho' enuf a bizarre sight in the middle-a all this shit
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Since it's your construct, you tell us. Hmmmm. What would you call that? A red herring, a non sequitur, or a straw man? Elements of all three logical fallacies I think.
Hat trick? Where's that catalog?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
I think that the official spin on this one was that lack of evidence for mass graves is the proof that there were mass graves, in other words, the fact that we can't find them means that he hid them so well, and if he hid them so well, that means they exist! I kid you not - this was more or less the official neoconservative line about WMDs and mass graves.
I know it is. "Human Rights Watch"- a spook front group- said the reason why they can't find the half million bodies they bandied about in their reports before the war and that were splashed all over our truth telling fact checking media was that . . . and I kid you not . . . the records of where they were had been looted.
Believe it or not there is one. BeAChooser is still the reigning champ of the logical fallacy. He had posts that used up to 10 different ones at the same time.
Don't ever talk to badeye
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Anyone else notice Badeye refers to Neil McIver as a "tax scammer" on his FR homepage? Is that something Neil is aware of?
long history of hate from badbreath, almost sorry I brought it up.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
He's got some issues...
Now that's exactly the sort of remark that's likely to set him off. Good work. :)
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Most gay/pederasts do.
I bothered with him for a few months on LP several years ago, but rather quickly came to the realization that he is a game playing bizzare goof. I remember the thread I all but stopped posting to him . . . he literally denied having posted something he had just posted- on that very same thread- only two posts earlier- that everyone could see! I figured out he wasn't playing with a full deck and pretty much ignored him since. Saved myself a lot of grief as I saw him enrage quite a few people with his stupid act numerous times. Some posters have this assumption that everyone is on these boards is rational and posts in good faith and that if they just try to get their message across to the other person with good arguments they will persuade them to their side. Such posters open to argument and who respond to rational debate and rules of logic are about as rare as white caviar. Most posters simply want to defend their rote learned views no matter what- and will use whatever argument or method no matter how cheap or false to protect their little "ism", world view, or beliefs and are in no way open to rational arugment. Indeed, most are not even aware of what constitutes "evidence" in a debate, how to establish truth from falsehood, how to even follow the most linear of logical syllogisms or even be consistent for two paragraphs in their arguments. They don't know how to think in other words. And you can't help such people. No amount of discourse with them will ever accomplish anything. The key to these boards, to get something out of them, is to identify such people and ignore them entirely- while keeping an eye out for the far fewer posters who can think and are not just ideological rote spewing dopes.
I prefer to look at it as "Badeye" was chased off to FR even by Goldi-Dupes. There's always hope.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
It is called design for demolition. -------------------------------------------------------- http://www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/HC/Abstract.asp?PID=4626 Report: Design for Demolition Why design for demolition? In the past, structural engineers have paid scant attention to the problems associated with the eventual demolition of their structures. The likely reasons for this are, perhaps, firstly, that the lifespans of traditional buildings have been so long and uncertain that the problem of demolition has had little immediacy at the design stage. Secondly, the client who commissions the construction of a building is often not the client who commissions its demolition; economic considerations are thus sharply separated. Thirdly, techniques for the demolition of traditional gravity structures are reasonably straightforward, requiring little or no engineering input. P. Waldron and D.I. Blockley ---------------------------------------------- My comments: Any rational person would know that one day in the future the Towers would have to come down. No skyscraper has ever been built that will last forever. A design taking into the consideration the absolute fact that one day the building will be coming down sounds plausible to me. Consider a scenario where due to an earthquake,hurricane or a design flaw a building the size of the Towers or WTC7 in downtown Manhattan was in imminent danger of toppling. Time would be critical. You can make the case that a design which included the ability to rapidly prepare the building for demolition would be the responsible thing to do.
Great! Where's the evidence that the FDNY brought WTC 7 down?
It's not my construct. It's right there in Silverstein's quote.
http://www.wtc7.net/warnings.html Eyewitness Accounts of Foreknowledge of WTC 7's Collapse Dozens of responders who were in the vicinity of WTC 7 in the afternoon of the attack reported receiving warnings that the building would collapse. Several describe the evacuation of a zone around the building about a half hour before the 5:20 PM collapse. These witness accounts of these warnings and evacuation actions are one of two bodies of evidence indicating foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. An archive of transcripts of interviews of more than 500 members of emergency services contains at least 26 interviews that describe either warnings or foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse. The following table excerpts the phrases from each interview relating to expectations of collapse.
Evacuation of Collapse Zone Fire chiefs cordoned off and evacuated area around Building 7 in preparation for its collapse. That decision was not made lightly, becasue it it meant suspending search and rescue operations in and around the northern end of Ground Zero. A detailed article published in Fire Engineering Magazine describes that decision: Be that as it may, FDNY chief officers surveyed 7 WTC and determined that it was in danger of collapse. Chief Frank Cruthers, now the incident commander, and Chief Frank Fellini, the operations commander, both agreed that a collapse zone had to be established. That meant firefighters in the area of the North Tower had to be evacuated. This took some time to accomplish because of terrain, communications, and the fierce determination with which the firefighters were searching. At 5:30 p.m., about 20 minutes after the last firefighters evacuated the collapse zone, 7 WTC collapsed. It was the third steel-frame high-rise in history to collapse from fire -- the other two had collapsed earlier that day. 1 Firehouse Magazine ran series of articles with interviews of fire chiefs. Fire Chief Joseph Pfeifer describes Chief Nigro ordering people away from the building: Yes, I watched 7. At one point, we were standing on the west side of West Street and Vesey. And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey, which is a good ways up. And we stood there and we watched 7 collapse." 2 Fire Chief Daniel Nigro describes his reasons for creating the collapse zone: The biggest decision we had to make on the first day was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building heavily involved in fire. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt. I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain. 3 Chief Frank Cruthers recalls Chief Nigro convening a meeting of fire chiefs on the subject of establishing a collapse zone. Of primary importance early on in the operation was the structural condition of 7 World Trade Center. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini had been approached by several chiefs who were concerned about its stability. It had been heavily damaged in the collapse and was well-involved in fire. Chief Fellini had looked at it and described to us some damage to its south side; he felt that structural components of the building had been compromised. So when Chief Dan Nigro arrived at the command post, he convened a meeting of staff chiefs, and this was a major subject of the meeting. We were all in accord about the danger of 7 WTC, and we all agreed that it was not too conservative of a decision to establish a collapse zone for that building, move the firefighters out of the collapse area, and maintain that strategy. 4 Professional photographer Tom Franklin provides some detail about the timing of the evacuation: It was about 4 p.m., and they were anticipating Seven World Trade Center collapsing. The firemen were leaving en masse. 5 It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. 6 Mark Jacobson, reporter, New York Magazine described being surprised by a fireman's certainty that the skyscraper would come down: Hours later, I sat down beside another, impossibly weary firefighter. ... Then, almost as a non sequitur, the fireman indicated the building in front of us, maybe 400 yards away. 'That building is coming down,' he said with a drained casualness. 'Really?' I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. 'When?' 'Tonight ... Maybe tomorrow morning.' This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled. 7 Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT, describes hearing rumors that the building would be brought down: What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running. 8 Battalion Fire Chief John Norman describes the size of the collapse zone -- 600 feet in radius: After we found Chief Ganci, in addition to recon, I was detailed to make sure the collapse zone for 7 WTC had been set up and was being maintained. The sector commanders were trying to clear out of that area. We expected it to fall to the south, into the areas we were searching. 9 Now we're still worried about 7. We have guys trying to make their way up into the pile, and they're telling us that 7 is going to fall down - and that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building. 10 Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti describes resistance to the evacuation by firefighters who wanted to fight the fires in Building 7: Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out? ... At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there. ... There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance. 11 References
From who? Silverstein said the FDNY made the decision... "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." So if "pull" really does refer to a demolition, there should be evidence that the FDNY actually did bring WTC 7 down.
Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT, describes hearing rumors that the building would be brought down: What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running. 8
Rumors are not evidence.
Here is your evidence.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm Nails in the Coffin of Trade Seven Close-ups from WTC-7 Collapse Footage Show Unmistakable Signature of Demolition Charges
If Silverstein's "pull it" comment is to be held up as proof that WTC 7 was deliberately brought down then it has to be examined fully. Silverstein said the FDNY made the decision to "pull" the building. Therefore, the FDNY demolished WTC 7. Yet there is not a shred of evidence that is what really happened.
What evidence is there indicating that the FDNY planted the explosives? Answer: NONE.
What we know is WTC7 was a controlled demolition and the FDNY knew it was coming down.
I know that those who would hold up Silverstein's "pull it" comment as some great revelation are deluded.
It is a very small piece in what is a very large picture.
In the unfortunate use of the verb "pull," there is other evidence that Silverstein meant to implode WTC 7. There are audio recordings of the recovery crews at Ground Zero preparing to implode what was left of WTC 6. A Supervisory is shouting the news: "We are getting ready to PULL Building 6." What was left of 6 was then detonated in a controlled demolition. Therefore, "pull," in this context, means controlled demolition. Now, it has been argued that Silverstein meant the firefighters, and some of the quotations you cited, concerning the evacuation of the firefighters away from the Western section of Ground Zero, around Building 7, could be construed in this manner. The one chief kept talking about a "collapse," as opposed to a "pulling" of the building, and none of the quoted firefighters or officers seems to know the exact time, but there is urgency in conducting the withdrawal from the area. One firefighter said the building could come down in the morning as well as a more "imminent" time. The medical worker at triage mixes the two versions, using "collapse" and "bring down," reflecting two claims she heard. What is very obvious is that WTC 7 collapsed straight down, just like a controlled demolition, and Silverstein's comments are more in that direction than a "collapse." Silverstein has been party to more than one controlled demolition, and that is the context of the "lingo" he used that day. His remarks and the video are sufficient evidence for a reasonable suspicion that the building was "pulled." Just what that means, legally, I don't know, for the building would have to have been prepared for demolition in advance (in fact, far in advance), a stumbling block for the controlled demolition explanation of the destruction of WTC 7. I lean toward that explanation, with the video and the recorded statements of the supervisor of the WTC 6 clean-up being run through Silverstein's PBS remarks. What I don't know is: 1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled? 2. Was it legal to have the preparations made in advance for such an event? 3. How could firefighters have done it? Were they trained for such an action? Did they drill for it? Are such demoliton preparations SOP in NYC? If they are SOP, why hide the fact they did it? What argument can't be made is, IF Silverstein "pulled," or agreed to have the FDNY "pull" WTC 7, that is proof that the Towers were "pulled," and that if WTC 7 was "pulled," the entire incident was manufactured by George Bush or some other government cabal. That would take an investigation none of us are in a position to complete.
My opinion is that it was the Command Center/Tactical Operations Center for the mayor of NYC. It had to be destroyed.
Machiavelli suggested that such ploys are the correct approach to cowing the masses. I think that one was in the COMMENTARIES, rather than THE PRINCE. Basically, the ruler(s) should always do BIG outrages, not petty ones. The bigger the outrage, the more likely the ruler(s) will pull it off. The people become confused at the barely concealed nature of some hideous act, and are more confused at the flimsy, constantly changing, nature of the "official explanations." "They MUST be serious about this. It must be ME. I must be wrong about what I observed, for no one could tell a lie this absurd and hope to pull it off." It's been going on for a real long time now.
"The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." ~Joseph Goebbels
2. Was it legal to have the preparations made in advance for such an event? 3. How could firefighters have done it? Were they trained for such an action? Did they drill for it? Are such demoliton preparations SOP in NYC? If they are SOP, why hide the fact they did it? Excellent questions to which the conspiracy theorists have no answers. But then again, conspiracy theorists never have any answers.
1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled? My opinion is that it was the Command Center/Tactical Operations Center for the mayor of NYC. It had to be destroyed.
Silverstein's comments only create problems for 9/11 "truthers" because his comments raise questions the "truthers" can't answer. But that's the nature of the conspiracy theorist, they never have any real answers.
First,it is good to see your contributions on freedom4um.Your comments and insights are an asset to this forum. Second, I will cut and paste from a previous reply. ------------------------------------------------- Consider a scenario where due to an earthquake,hurricane or a design flaw a building the size of the Towers or WTC7 in downtown Manhattan was in imminent danger of toppling. Time would be critical. You can make the case that a design which included the ability to rapidly prepare the building for demolition would be the responsible thing to do. ----------------------------------------------- If such programs are in place,you would expect the information to be on a "need to know" basis since the information could be exploited by "real terrorists."
2. Was it legal to have the preparations made in advance for such an event? 3. How could firefighters have done it? Were they trained for such an action? Did they drill for it? Are such demoliton preparations SOP in NYC? If they are SOP, why hide the fact they did it Excellent questions to which the conspiracy theorists have no answers. 1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled? Why get's into specific operational details that we can only speculate about. Why send two planes into two Towers instead of two planes into one Tower? We don't have the necessary information to answer either of those questions. 2. Was it legal to have the preparations made in advance for such an event? Yes, it would be legal if the preparations included pre-planned locations to place the explosives in the event of an emergency and pre-wiring. 3. How could firefighters have done it? Were they trained for such an action? Did they drill for it? Are such demoliton preparations SOP in NYC? If they are SOP, why hide the fact they did it Agencies inside the federal government have specialized teams assigned specialized tasks that the public knows very little about.There is a team standing by right now to respond to a nuclear explosion or a biological attack. These specialized teams are trained for their assigned taskings and they do drill.If such demolition preparations are SOP, you can make the case information is on a need to know basis. why hide the fact they did it? Three buildings came down. All three appeared to be controlled demolitions. If you announce one was a controlled demolition, you open up a can of worms.
If you announce that it was a controlled demolition as part of a government conspiracy without any evidence, you're not likely to convince many people.
All the polls on the matter indicate otherwise. It was a major factor in the only poll that really counts, the last national election.
9/11 conspiracy theories played no role in the last election.
Why should anyone believe this crap? You failed to support your assertion (above) and you can't support it. Logically it doesn't stand. You'd have to prove that each and every person who voted in the last election was in no way influenced by 911 conspiracy theories - no exceptions - and you can't do this. On its face, and on its face alone, your statement is an over the top falsehood. But you know that.
.
I'm not sure what part of the world you are in, but the majority of Americans I am around have suspicions on various levels. From my point of view, you are in the minority. Just so you know, when you use the "Conspiracy Theorist" label.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... There is no evidence even remotely indicating that 911 conspiracy theories influenced voters in the 2006 election. So, in the absence of any such evidence, I most certainly can say that it wasn't a factor. If you believe people voted under the influence of 911 conspiracy theories, the burden is on you to support it. It's no different from all those claims of Saddam having WMD. Without any evidence of that WMD, there was no reason to believe he had any.
So what?
You made the assertion, now prove it up Mr. Propagandist. The words of an internet kook such as yourself are a nullity. Your bullshit rings very hollow.
.
So what? You are not being consistent here with the horseshit you just tossed out to me. You told me that there was no evidence that the 911 theories influenced the election. This guy above just gave you some evidence. This makes what you told me wrong. Instead of reconciling this, you tell the guy you dont' care if there is evidence that that the 911 theories influenced the election, e.g., "So what?". Better use your narrowing dodge now: I never said it was an animal, I said it was a dog.
.
There is no evidence that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election. There, it's proven!
Show me your support for this dishonest assertion Mr. Bald Faced Liar. I note you are not expressing this as an opinion - and that you never have expressed it as an opinion in this discussion. You are putting it out as a fact. So show us your proof.
.
No evidence has been presented showing that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election.
Can the dishonest dodge liar. And this is a dodge and you know it. You are putting words in my mouth. And you know it. This isn't the issue. The issue is your statement above: 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 election. I called you a bald faced liar to your face over this. Show us your proof for this assertion of fact or admit that you just made this up.
.
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911. Now you'll need a new lie.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
No evidence has been presented showing that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election. You claimed that the 911 theories had no effect on the election. The guy above gave you evidece. I rubbed your nose in this. You then try to change the subject and the focus with the quote above. You are dishonest. You now have evidence that the 911 theories affected the election. Show us your proof that they did not or admit that you lied to us.
.
Now you'll need a new lie. Now you have two pieces of evidence that contradict your assertion that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections. Show us the proof for your assertion or admit that you tried to lie to us when you made the assertion. Again, I note that you didn't present your idiot, arrogant assertion as an opinion. You tossed it out as a fact. There are no qualifiers anywhere. So now prove up your fact for us.
.
911 was touted as reason for invasion of Iraq, Saddam ties to al qaeda and all, so it's ubundantly clear that MC hasn't a clue as what he is talking about.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
I called you a bald faced liar to your face over this. Show us your proof for this assertion of fact or admit that you just made this up. The proof is the lack of evidence to the contrary.
I just gave you evidence, idiot.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Good for you.
Dakmar needs to prove he actually did vote libertarian because of 911.
Your claim is not evidence. It's just a claim.
I just gave you two pieces of evidence. An you have presented nothing to support your idiotic assertion. When pressed on this, you try to change the subject. The conclusion is that you are a liar and a propagandist. Now prove me wrong by supporting your assertion of fact that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections.
.
Are you calling me a liar? That's hilarious.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
No, you haven't.
It's just a claim. It certainly is. We just polled one person and got some evidence. You are just arguing about the quality of the evidence now. But you, as a dishonest propagandist know this. And this evidence he presented is a hell of a lot better than any evidence that you have presented to back up your claim - which is nothing.
.
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
Gotta love the arguing the specific when a general observation is claims, and vice-versa. Classic propaganda technique, wouldn't hold up two seconds in a Jr High debate.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Answer the question or leave. Are you calling me a liar?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
If you want to believe that 911 kookery influenced the 2006 election, go right ahead. I don't believe it.
No, you haven't. You are telling a deliberate lie here, but you know that. I gave you the Percy and Dakmar accounts on the thread above. But you know this. You are simply quibbling about the quality of the evidence. But you, as a dishonest shill, already know that. I gave you evidence to contradict you idiotic assertion of fact that 911 had no effect on the 2005 elections. Now back up your asserion or admit that you tried to lie to us.
.
Did I use the word liar? Read my posts slowly. Let the words sink in.
I don't believe it. This isn't the subject under discussion here. But you know that. What you are trying to do is wiggle out from your lie by changing the subject. But you know that. Anyone who would try this cheap tactic - such as yourself - is a dishonest shill. But you know that already.
.
I've told no lies. I've only stated my beliefs.
It's just a claim. Yep, you are calling me a liar. Since you refuse to answer even the simplest of questions I see no reason to engage you for any purpose beyond my own amusement.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Read my posts slowly. Let the words sink in. You called him a liar. Specifically, you disparaged his assertion as follows: Your claim is not evidence. It's just a claim. He claimed he gave you evidence to contradict your dishonest assertion and you implied that what he said wasn't true. You now try to escape this by playing word games: I never said it was an animal, I said it was a dog.
.
No, I said that a claim is not evidence. I could claim right now to really be Brad Pitt but without evidence to prove that I am Brad Pitt, it's nothing more than a claim. I'm sure you can't grasp that very basic concept.
Ok, you wiggle for half a dozen posts and then - when you realize you are trapped - you try to change what you originally said. You are a liar. You didn't express your claim about 911 and the election as an opinion, you expressed it as an absolute fact. You did this more than one time on the thread above. I called you on it and you failed to clarify the statement - instead, you tried to change the subject and leave you dishonest statement intact. You are a lying propagandist.
.
Clean is either olde Sinkspur or his bastard child.
If that were true I would be posting my support and defense of Bush. But there is not one single post where I even come close to doing that. Interesting.
He claimed to have evidence that contradicted you. He gave his statement as the evidence. And evidence is precisely what his statement was. You called him a liar by implying that his statement wasn't evidence. You then denied calling him a liar. You are a real piece of work. If you are going to be dishonest in this manner, you need to be much more careful than you have been on this thread.
.
Just as it's a claim that the WTC and Pentagon were attacked by al qaeda. So why should you care what anyone thinks if you have no rational standard of objectivity?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
No, you just attack anyone critical of him, as if that were not support. My advice to you is to use the reality you are given, you are lousy at creating it.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
I am Brad Pitt and I'm posting poolside from our villa in south France. Angelina is skinnydipping right now. Prove my claim is false.
I don't attack myself.
Interesting? Not really. Sinkspur was never interesting, he was just a sick person, and he was outed as a huffing, puffing liar.
Not really. It is very interesting that you would suggest I am a rabid Bush supporter yet there is not a single post from me expressing support for Bush. It also reflects extreme laziness on your part.
Angelina is skinnydipping right now. Prove my claim is false. Complete and utter Red Herring tossed out by a dishonest shill to save face. To be relevant, you should ask me to prove that your statement isn't evidence of the fact that you are Brad Pitt. I can't do this. You statement is evidnece of this fact. It's shitty evidence, but it is still evidence. Instead, you play word games and ask me to prove the statement false. Which has nothing to do with the discussion above. I said Dakmar's statement was evidence and I said nothing about it being true of false. But you know this. This new dishonesty proves up you lack of integrity.
.
It is in fact evidence that you are Brad Pitt, it just happens to be unreliable, as is any claim you make.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Wrong. A claim made by some guy on an Internet message board is not evidence. But since you'll obviously believe whatever somebody posts, Angelina is sitting in my lap right now feeding me grapes.
But back to the point. You said that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections. You put this out as an assertion of fact. There were no qualifiers on this bullshit claim. You made the claim more than once and when called on it, you tried to change the subject. Now ... Back up your bullshit or admit that you tried to lie to us. Post the article or study that supports your claim that the 911 theories had NO effect on the 2006 elections.
.
It will do for the purposes of your blanket claim that 911 was not a factor in anyone's vote in 2006. Unless you are calling me a liar.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Sinkspur you is....
My claims are as unreliable as yours.
Wound up pretty tight, huh? I suggest you have a couple beers with lunch or go smoke a bowl.
Where are all of my pro-Bush posts?
You are lying again. But you know that. Evidence is anything that tends to prove the assertion under question. You are trying to wiggle out of you lie by confusing evidence with the quality of the evidence. Two different things entierly - but you know that. This new dishonesty further proves your lack of integrity.
.
The same reason I didn't vote for Bush the second time, although I did the first time (forgive me, everyone). I smelled a big, stinking RAT after watching those buildings fall, and then listening to all the BS stories being spewed by the controlled media.
You are the only one calling me a liar, whereas you are called a liar hundreds of times a day, by dozens of different individuals. Who would an objective observer be more likely to believe?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Since you said 2004 I'm guessing MC will use that to try to prove his case.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Angelina just went to fetch me a scotch.
And you just gave your father a blow job.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
I have not called you a liar.
Good point. The 9/11 BS angered me so much I forgot to vote in 2006...just stayed home. Just like I will next year unless Paul is the 'R' nominee. Since that won't happen; I can just stay home and watch Hillary waltz in.
Fine, then you are saying that facts presented to make one's case is in no way a definition of evidence. Either way you appear to be a duplicitous dullard.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Internet postings are not facts.
So you are calling me a liar, and then lying about it. Clever. Are you Alberto Gonzales?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S Burroughs
Angelina just went to fetch me a scotch. Now you are using cheap word games to push your dishonesty. You know what I said about the nature of evidence is correct, but you don't like it and you don't want others to take it the heart. The definition puts you in a box. So you respond with a vague disparagement that you can later argue was just a simple statement of fact - if you are later called on this new dishonesty. You really are a dishonest sack of shit - but you know that.
.
If I wanted to call you a liar, I'd call you a liar.
You need a drink. Hell, you sound like you need the whole bottle.
Horseshit. I see facts posted on the internet every day. How does posting assertion on the internet make it false?
.
You need a drink. Hell, you sound like you need the whole bottle. Changing the subject. The last refuge of a lying sack of shit when caught out in his lies. Let's get back to the subject at hand. You made an assertion of fact that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections. There were no qualifiers in this assertion. You tossed it out as a stone cold fact. You did this more than once. When asked for proof of this fact, you squirmed and tried to change the subject. After getting hammered for many posts, you tried to revise your original statement by telling us that it was just opinion - you did this after you first tried to defend the statement as fact. Post your proof for you assertion that the 911 theories had NO effect on the 2006 elections or admit thay you were trying to foist a lie off onto this forum.
.
Jesus, you guys would be just as well off arguing with the Rain Man. 15 minutes to Wapner. 15 minutes to Wapner. 15 minutes to Wapner. 15 minutes to Wapner. 14 minutes to Wapner...
You seem to have these types of debates on the other forum, too. Someone gives you a fact, and you spin for hours on "proving" it. In this case, the proof is a personal voting record, of the poster. I don't even understand what more else you want around that.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... That's great....you have managed to post tons of stuff, all saying nothing specifically, and making you out to be a sterile, empty personality. Good for you!
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... You really are out-of-touch with human interaction.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... Oddly enough, you aren't the only person to pick up on that. There is something wrong in that department with this guy. I'm getting that picture too.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... Holy sh*t, Percy! You might be on to something...maybe 'Mister Clean' is just an experimental computer 'spin' program.
No proof has been offered. Only a claim. A claim, by the way, that is as valid as my claim of really being Brad Pitt.
Clean, I suggest going out and getting intimate with a human. Your posts are repetative, and boring as hell.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... You know all about boring, don't you?
Yes, Mr. "I walk around with wet naps", you nailed it. When people meet me, they definitely say, "Wow, too bad that guy is so boring...." That's me, boring.
Swimming around in my bourbon highball..... Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7? Hmmmm. They didn't. It went more like this: One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building's Fire Safety Director and former Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building's floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30. No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m. The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building?s condition and FDNY's capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor. He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified: - The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building. - The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations. - There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires. - They didn't have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building. At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed. BTW, Some of the guys (and gals) proposing 'wild' conspiracy theories can't even answer a basic question about the properties of steel that a sharp high-school science student could ...
They can't answer any questions but that's because they can't tolerate any questioning of their conspiracy theories.
Sunday, August 12 08:00 PM Monday, August13 12:00 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An Internet search for "9/11 conspiracy theories" yields nearly two million hits. Were the attacks on 9/11 perpetrated by the Bush Administration to advance its own interests? Could a government missile have hit the Pentagon? As outrageous as these ideas may sound, many people believe them. Why do these theories arise in the first place? An interview with James Miegs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, who refutes many of these theories. Watch as experts in the fields of aeronautics, engineering and the military put these theories to the test. The History Channel has changed the broadcast dates and, curiously, the program description. Monday, August 20 09:00 PM Tuesday, August 21 01:00 AM Saturday, August 25 08:00 PM Sunday, August 26 12:00 AM Examines the various conspiracy theories espoused on the Internet, in articles and in public forums that attempt to explain the 9/11 attacks. It includes theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition; that a missile, not a commercial airliner, hit the Pentagon; and that members of the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks in hopes of creating a war in the Middle East. Each conspiracy argument is countered by a variety of experts in the fields of engineering, intelligence and the military. The program also delves into the anatomy of such conspiracies and how they grow on the Internet.
I wonder if these are the kind of experts who will testify to about anything so long as you pay them enough money?
.. and who are they affiliated with.. those scientists who point out the facts have nothing to gain.. in fact much to lose..
#2. To: All (#0)
#3. To: christine (#1)
thanks for the headsup, Ringo, and welcome to 4um!
#4. To: Ringo Blankenship (#2)
(Edited)
Looks like it's progressed to somewhere between the ridicule and the fight...
#5. To: Ringo Blankenship (#0)
#6. To: Horse (#5)
bomb that went off in the Pentagon 3 1/2 minutes before the plane hit
#7. To: Horse (#5)
found it..
#8. To: Horse (#5)
If their expert is from Popular Mechanics,
#9. To: Ringo Blankenship, *9-11* (#0)
#10. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, Dakmar, Ringo Blankenship (#7)
#11. To: Horse (#5)
#12. To: Ringo Blankenship (#0)
Why do these theories arise in the first place?
#13. To: EdCondon (#12)
Why do these theories arise in the first place?
#14. To: EdCondon (#11)
Since when did they 'cross over' to be CIA assets?
#15. To: Ringo Blankenship (#13)
why does the History Channel feel the need to run a two hour special debunking them?
#16. To: Dakmar (#14)
#17. To: EdCondon (#16)
#18. To: Dakmar (#17)
#19. To: EdCondon (#18)
#20. To: Dakmar (#19)
#21. To: EdCondom (#20)
I don't care about you
#22. To: Dakmar (#21)
#23. To: EdCondon (#22)
#24. To: Dakmar (#8)
I wonder if they'll trot out Chertoff's cousin, whom Chertoff wasn't sure was his cousin or not at first.
#25. To: tom007 (#24)
#26. To: Dakmar, tom007 (#25)
have at it
#27. To: christine (#26)
#28. To: christine (#26)
#29. To: tom007 (#27)
#30. To: Dakmar (#23)
Too fucking stupid to get it to play, eh?
#31. To: EdCondon (#30)
(Edited)
Was that comment really neccessary?
#32. To: EdCondon (#30)
Me, personally, I think you are CIA,
#33. To: Dakmar (#15)
Because the American People deserve The Truth, you filthy Saddam Lover! :)
#34. To: Dakmar (#31)
#35. To: EdCondon (#34)
#36. To: EdCondon (#30)
but I did not have to become vulgar or call you a wanker or a twit.
#37. To: Ringo Blankenship (#33)
#38. To: Dakmar (#32)
#39. To: EdCondon (#38)
Why are some of you, like you, so ill-tempered and nasty?
#40. To: Dakmar (#35)
So you only believe centralized GOP sources, and not us "fringe" republicans?
#41. To: EdCondon (#40)
#42. To: Dakmar, Ed Condon (#37)
#43. To: Dakmar (#39)
#44. To: Dakmar (#41)
#45. To: EdCondon (#43)
#46. To: EdCondon (#43)
#47. To: christine (#36)
#48. To: Dakmar (#45)
#49. To: Morgana le Fay (#46)
actually, dakmar was hatched by solar heating crap on a log.
#50. To: Morgana le Fay, christine (#46)
#51. To: Morgana le Fay, FerretMike, Diana (#48)
don't tell christine i am buckeroo.
#52. To: Dakmar (#51)
#53. To: EdCondon (#50)
Can I toss Dakmires name into the punch bowl?
#54. To: Morgana le Fay (#52)
be quiet you negro.
#55. To: Dakmar (#54)
#56. To: Morgana le Fay (#55)
#57. To: All (#53)
#58. To: Dakmar (#56)
#59. To: Ringo Blankenship (#57)
#60. To: Ringo Blankenship (#58)
#61. To: Dakmar (#56)
I'm not the eggman? Shit!
#62. To: christine (#59)
if it's the last thing we ever do...
#63. To: Ringo Blankenship (#58)
Goo Goo Ga Jewb
#64. To: Morgana le Fay (#61)
would you be happy as the milk man?
#65. To: Dakmar (#60)
#66. To: Dakmar (#64)
#67. To: Morgana le Fay (#63)
you are giving JCHarris ideas.
#68. To: Dakmar (#64)
#69. To: Morgana le Fay (#66)
it might involve a race change operation.
#70. To: Morgana le Fay (#68)
can you do bird calls?
#71. To: Dakmar (#32)
- I think you are CIA,
#72. To: Flintlock (#71)
Now that you've been outed, does that mean I'll be free from your hideous mind-control techniques?
#73. To: Flintlock (#71)
#74. To: Dakmar (#73)
Are you Ed Condom?
#75. To: Flintlock (#71)
Now that you've been outed, does that mean I'll be free from your hideous mind-control techniques?
#76. To: Ringo Blankenship (#75)
#77. To: Dakmar (#73)
Are you Ed Condom?
#78. To: Flintlock (#77)
#79. To: Flintlock, Dakmire (#77)
If you double up my weekly brain-gravy injections
#80. To: EdCondon (#79)
That explains A LOT about you blokes; bonkers, twits, twats, wankers, punk shockers, lamers and losers, cabbage-patch, GI Joe and Berbie doll molesters, that mingle there in some disgusting orgy of idiocy ... ...
#81. To: EdCondon (#79)
#82. To: Flintlock (#77)
#83. To: EdCondon (#11)
#84. To: Horse (#83)
In 1963 after the Kennedy assassination Life magazine published 3 photos from the Zapruder film in reverse order so that the general public would believe the "official theory" of a lone assassin.
#85. To: Horse (#83)
... proving that WTC Towers ... Popular Mecahnics published a
#86. To: EdCondon (#84)
#87. To: Horse (#86)
#88. To: Horse (#86)
#89. To: Horse (#86)
#90. To: EdCondon (#89)
#91. To: Horse (#90)
How about listening to the Truth
#92. To: Horse (#90)
#93. To: , *9-11* (#87)
#94. To: Horse (#86)
1) The greatest living sniper in the Marines, Carlos Hathcock, tried several times at Quantico to re-create the shooting of JFK from the Texas School Book Depository window that Oswald was alleged to have made. Not one of the best snipers in the Marine Corps could re-create the shots the Warren Commission claimed were made.
#95. To: EdCondon (#91)
a simple question a high-school kid could answer ...
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#96. To: Ringo Blankenship (#0)
An Internet search for "9/11 conspiracy theories" yields nearly two million hits. Were the attacks on 9/11 perpetrated by the Bush Administration to advance its own interests? Could a government missile have hit the Pentagon? As outrageous as these ideas may sound, many people believe them. Why do these theories arise in the first place? An interview with James Miegs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, who refutes many of these theories. Watch as experts in the fields of aeronautics, engineering and the military put these theories to the test.
#97. To: Mister Clean (#96)
#98. To: Burkeman1, Mr. Clean, EdCondon (#92)
Blah blah- Turkish built high rise apartment blocks- built in the most shoddy manner with sub standard material don't collapse in 9.0 earthquakes as completely as those towers did after being hit by basically big aluminum tubes and small fires burning for 40 minutes.
#99. To: Ringo Blankenship (#97)
#100. To: ... (#99)
What makes me suspicious is the angry and hostile reaction that some people have to a study of this matter - and the determined effort I see to stop people from asking questions. I have to wonder where this is coming from.
#101. To: Ringo Blankenship (#97)
Do you think they will show/analyze WTC 7 coming down?
#102. To: Mister Clean (#101)
#103. To: Ringo Blankenship (#102)
If they even show video of WTC 7 coming down, I will be greatly surprised.
#104. To: Mister Clean (#103)
#105. To: Ringo Blankenship (#104)
They probably don't want a repeat of the Larry Silverstein "pull it" PBS fiasco.
#106. To: christine (#98)
#107. To: Burkeman1 (#106)
Look, I don't even suffer the deniers anymore. They are one of two things- shill trolling liars or stupid dopes who don't trust their own eyes and common effing sense.
#108. To: christine (#107)
their lack of shame irks me though.
#109. To: Mister Clean (#105)
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment.
#110. To: Mister Clean (#105)
They probably don't want a repeat of the Larry Silverstein "pull it" PBS fiasco.
#111. To: robin (#110)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#112. To: All (#109)
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment.
#113. To: robin (#110)
#114. To: Burkeman1 (#108)
#115. To: who knows what evil, robin, Burkeman1 (#111)
He's probably hoping 'lurkers' believe that...
#116. To: honway (#109)
There was no "fiasco" involved in Silverstein making that comment. . . .
#117. To: Burkeman1 (#116)
#118. To: honway (#112)
Uh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.
#119. To: honway (#109)
Note Siverstein did not say, they made that decision to pull and then the firemen were evacuated and then hours later we watched the building collapse.
#120. To: Mister Clean (#118)
Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7?
#121. To: Dakmar (#117)
Must be true 'cause the TV told me so...
#122. To: Burkeman1, mr clean (#121)
#123. To: Dakmar (#120)
Why would the NYFD blow up WTC 7?
#124. To: Burkeman1 (#123)
#125. To: Burkeman1 (#121)
And Saddam killed half a million people and they were in mass graves never found.
#126. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#125)
in other words, the fact that we can't find them means that he hid them so well, and if he hid them so well, that means they exist! I kid you not - this was more or less the official neoconservative line about
#127. To: Dakmar (#124)
Where's that catalog?
#128. To: Burkeman1, badeye the ohio coon (#127)
#129. To: Dakmar, christine (#128)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#130. To: who knows what evil (#129)
#131. To: Dakmar (#130)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#132. To: who knows what evil (#131)
#133. To: who knows what evil (#131)
He's got some issues...
The uncertainty of the outcome is what frightens people.
#134. To: who knows what evil (#131)
He's got some issues...
#135. To: Burkeman1 (#134)
(Edited)
#136. To: Mister Clean (#119)
(Edited)
Gee, why would the FDNY decide to blow up WTC 7? How on earth did the FDNY manage to rig explosives in WTC 7 to bring it down?
#137. To: honway (#136)
You can make the case that a design which included the ability to rapidly prepare the building for demolition would be the responsible thing to do.
#138. To: Dakmar (#120)
Since it's your construct, you tell us.
#139. To: Mister Clean (#137)
Where's the evidence that the FDNY brought WTC 7 down?
#140. To: Mister Clean (#137)
(Edited)
1. World Trade Center Disaster: Initial Response, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
2. WTC: This Is Their Story, http://firehouse.com, 4/2002
3. Report from the Chief of Department, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
4. Postcollapse Command, Fire Engineering, 9/2002
5. Newseum, Running Toward Danger, 2002, page 204
6. The After-Life of a Photo that Touched a Nation, Columbia Journalism Review, 3/1/2002
7. The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll, New York Magazine, 3/27/2006
8. Interview with Indira Singh. 'Ground Zero 911, Blueprint for Terror, Part One', Guns & Butteer, 4/27/2005
9. Search and Rescue Operations, Fire Engineering, 10/2002
10. WTC: This Is Their Story, http://Firehouse.com, 5/2002
11. WTC: This Is Their Story, http://Firehouse.com, 8/2002
#141. To: honway (#139)
Dozens of responders who were in the vicinity of WTC 7 in the afternoon of the attack reported receiving warnings that the building would collapse.
#142. To: Mister Clean (#141)
So if "pull" really does refer to a demolition, there should be evidence that the FDNY actually did bring WTC 7 down.
#143. To: honway (#142)
Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT, describes hearing rumors that the building would be brought down
#144. To: Mister Clean (#143)
Rumors are not evidence.
#145. To: Mister Clean (#143)
(Edited)
#146. To: honway (#144)
Here is your evidence.
#147. To: honway (#145)
Close-ups from WTC-7 Collapse Footage Show Unmistakable Signature of Demolition Charges
#148. To: Mister Clean (#147)
What evidence is there indicating that the FDNY planted the explosives?
#149. To: honway (#148)
What we know is WTC7 was a controlled demolition and the FDNY knew it was coming down.
#150. To: Mister Clean (#149)
#151. To: honway (#109)
#152. To: roughrider (#151)
1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled?
#153. To: Burkeman1 (#116)
Like I said, the tactic seems to be to assert absurdity with a straight face in the hopes that at least some people will question the plainly obvious because they are confused by the shamelessness of such audacious lies.
#154. To: roughrider (#153)
#155. To: roughrider (#151)
1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled?
#156. To: Fred Mertz, roughrider, Mister Clean (#152)
To: roughrider
#157. To: Ringo Blankenship (#156)
#158. To: roughrider (#151)
3. How could firefighters have done it? Were they trained for such an action? Did they drill for it? Are such demoliton preparations SOP in NYC? If they are SOP, why hide the fact they did it?
#159. To: Mister Clean (#155)
1. IF it was "pulled," why was it pulled?
#160. To: honway (#159)
Three buildings came down. All three appeared to be controlled demolitions. If you announce one was a controlled demolition, you open up a can of worms.
#161. To: Mister Clean (#160)
you're not likely to convince many people.
#162. To: honway (#161)
It was a major factor in the only poll that really counts, the last national election.
#163. To: Mister Clean (#162)
(Edited)
9/11 conspiracy theories played no role in the last election.
#164. To: Mister Clean (#155)
#165. To: ... (#163)
You'd have to prove that each and every person who voted in the last election was in no way influenced by 911 conspiracy theories - no exceptions - and you can't do this.
#166. To: PercyDovetonsils (#164)
I'm not sure what part of the world you are in, but the majority of Americans I am around have suspicions on various levels.
#167. To: Mister Clean (#165)
There is no evidence even remotely indicating that 911 conspiracy theories influenced voters in the 2006 election.
#168. To: Mister Clean (#166)
I'm not sure what part of the world you are in, but the majority of Americans I am around have suspicions on various levels.
#169. To: ... (#167)
You made the assertion, now prove it up Mr. Propagandist.
#170. To: Mister Clean (#169)
(Edited)
There is no evidence that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election.
#171. To: ... (#168)
This guy above just gave you some evidence.
#172. To: Mister Clean (#171)
No evidence has been presented showing that 911 kookery was a factor in the 2006 election.
#173. To: Mister Clean (#171)
#174. To: Mister Clean (#171)
This guy above just gave you some evidence.
#175. To: Dakmar, Mister Clean (#173)
(Edited)
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911.
#176. To: ... (#174)
#177. To: ... (#172)
The issue is your statement above: 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 election.
#178. To: Mister Clean (#177)
#179. To: Dakmar (#173)
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911.
#180. To: ... (#175)
Now you have two pieces of evidence that contradict your assertion that the 911 theories had no effect on the 2006 elections.
#181. To: Dakmar (#178)
I just gave you evidence, idiot.
#182. To: Mister Clean (#177)
The proof is the lack of evidence to the contrary.
#183. To: Mister Clean (#181)
#184. To: ... (#182)
I just gave you two pieces of evidence.
#185. To: Mister Clean (#181)
Your claim is not evidence.
#186. To: Dakmar (#183)
Are you calling me a liar?
#187. To: ... (#182)
When pressed on this, you try to change the subject.
#188. To: Mister Clean (#186)
#189. To: ... (#185)
And this evidence he presented is a hell of a lot better than any evidence that you have presented to back up your claim - which is nothing.
#190. To: Mister Clean (#184)
just gave you two pieces of evidence.
#191. To: Dakmar (#188)
Answer the question or leave. Are you calling me a liar?
#192. To: Mister Clean (#189)
If you want to believe that 911 kookery influenced the 2006 election, go right ahead.
#193. To: ... (#192)
What you are trying to do is wiggle out from your lie by changing the subject.
#194. To: Mister Clean (#191)
Your claim is not evidence.
#195. To: Mister Clean (#191)
Did I use the word liar?
#196. To: ... (#195)
He claimed he gave you evidence to contradict your dishonest assertion and you implied that what he said wasn't true.
#197. To: Mister Clean (#193)
I've told no lies. I've only stated my beliefs.
#198. To: ... (#197)
You are a lying propagandist.
#199. To: Cynicom (#198)
Clean is either olde Sinkspur or his bastard child.
#200. To: Mister Clean (#196)
No, I said that a claim is not evidence.
#201. To: Mister Clean (#196)
I could claim right now to really be Brad Pitt but without evidence to prove that I am Brad Pitt, it's nothing more than a claim.
#202. To: Mister Clean (#199)
If that were true I would be posting my support and defense of Bush.
#203. To: ... (#200)
He gave his statement as the evidence.
#204. To: Dakmar (#202)
No, you just attack anyone critical of him
#205. To: Mister Clean (#199)
Interesting.
#206. To: Cynicom (#205)
Interesting?
#207. To: Mister Clean (#203)
I am Brad Pitt and I'm posting poolside from our villa in south France.
#208. To: Mister Clean (#203)
#209. To: ... (#207)
You statement is evidnece of this fact. It's shitty evidence, but it is still evidence.
#210. To: Mister Clean (#203)
#211. To: Mister Clean (#209)
A claim made by some guy on an Internet message board is not evidence.
#212. To: Mister Clean (#206)
It also reflects extreme laziness on your part.
#213. To: Dakmar (#208)
It is in fact evidence that you are Brad Pitt, it just happens to be unreliable, as is any claim you make.
#214. To: ... (#210)
Now ... Back up your bullshit or admit that you tried to lie to us.
#215. To: Cynicom (#212)
Sinkspur you is....
#216. To: Mister Clean (#209)
A claim made by some guy on an Internet message board is not evidence.
#217. To: Dakmar (#173)
I voted Libertarian in part because I thought the GOP was covering up several details of 911.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#218. To: Mister Clean (#213)
#219. To: who knows what evil (#217)
#220. To: ... (#216)
Evidence is anything that tends to prove the assertion under question.
#221. To: Mister Clean (#220)
#222. To: Dakmar (#218)
You are the only one calling me a liar,
#223. To: Dakmar (#219)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#224. To: Mister Clean (#222)
I have not called you a liar.
#225. To: Dakmar (#224)
Fine, then you are saying that facts presented to make one's case is in no way a definition of evidence.
#226. To: Mister Clean (#225)
#227. To: Mister Clean (#220)
Evidence is anything that tends to prove the assertion under question.
#228. To: Dakmar (#226)
So you are calling me a liar
#229. To: ... (#227)
You really are a dishonest sack of shit - but you know that.
#230. To: Mister Clean (#225)
Internet postings are not facts.
#231. To: Mister Clean (#229)
You really are a dishonest sack of shit - but you know that.
#232. To: ..., Dakmar (#231)
The uncertainty of the outcome is what frightens people.
#233. To: Mister Clean (#181)
#234. To: Mister Clean (#199)
#235. To: Mister Clean (#209)
But since you'll obviously believe whatever somebody posts, Angelina is sitting in my lap right now feeding me grapes.
#236. To: Dakmar (#221)
To: Mister Clean And you just gave your father a blow job.
#237. To: PercyDovetonsils, dakmar, minerva, christine (#235)
You really are out-of-touch with human interaction.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#238. To: PercyDovetonsils (#233)
In this case, the proof is a personal voting record, of the poster.
#239. To: Mister Clean (#238)
#240. To: PercyDovetonsils (#239)
Your posts are repetative, and boring as hell.
#241. To: Mister Clean (#240)
#242. To: Mister Clean, horse (#118)
Link
#243. To: EdCondon (#242)
BTW, Some of the guys (and gals) proposing 'wild' conspiracy theories can't even answer a basic question about the properties of steel that a sharp high-school science student could ...
#244. To: All (#0)
UPCOMING SHOWS
#245. To: All (#244)
Each conspiracy argument is countered by a variety of experts in the fields of engineering, intelligence and the military.
#246. To: Ringo Blankenship (#245)
I wonder if these are the kind of experts who will testify to about anything so long as you pay them enough money
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest