quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence Don't give me that you gave me a chance bullshit, you came at me like a bulldog as soon as I posted, there was no discourse with you, it was you, immediately attacking me,

you get what you deserve.

and i gave you a chance. i asked you to explain conspiracy theorists' obsession with first-responder errors, YEARS after those errors have been corrected. and you launched into the now painfully predictable regurgitation of known fallacies. the reason i "came at you like a bulldog" is because ignorant conspiracy theorists are my pet peeve.

i knew from that long list of lies you posted exactly how you would react, but i thought i'd give you a chance to prove me wrong. but, as it stands, im yet to be wrong about the 911 CT encounters. every single time one of you pops up we're expected to debunk the same fucking lies that were dealt with 2-3-4 years ago. its getting old.

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence I think the only one who needs to see a shrink here is you.

sorry, i didn't realise an intolerance for liars and charlatans was a disease. but if it is, you're right, i certainly need professional help!!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you get what you deserve. and i gave you a chance. i asked you to explain conspiracy theorists' obsession with first-responder errors, YEARS after those errors have been corrected. and you launched into the now painfully predictable regurgitation of known fallacies. the reason i "came at you like a bulldog" is because ignorant conspiracy theorists are my pet peeve. i knew from that long list of lies you posted exactly how you would react, but i thought i'd give you a chance to prove me wrong. but, as it stands, im yet to be wrong about the 911 CT encounters. every single time one of you pops up we're expected to debunk the same fucking lies that were dealt with 2-3-4 years ago. its getting old. sorry, i didn't realise an intolerance for liars and charlatans was a disease. but if it is, you're right, i certainly need professional help!!

It's a good book, I would encourage you to read it.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence It's a good book, I would encourage you to read it.

I have loads of friends already. Why on earth would I want to influence conspiracy theorists? The only thing that influences you is your never-ending quest for the woo. All I’d have to do is make a shitty blog post, full of discredited sources, lies, distortions and false experts, with a summary “super-sonic nano thermite did it!” and you’d be my bitch already.

Unfortunately, I like REALITY far too much.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence The latter for sure, the former is less concrete, but I think with further investigation could be proven in a court of law.

Ok, we all know the government fucked up with national security. What's new? What are you here for? I suspect it's because you believe the US government is behind 9/11. If that is your belief, I am here to make sure that...

a) You prove your case to the point where we are dumbfounded at why we haven't convicted someone of some crime (We'll probably be famous for that).

b) You admit that you have absolutely no case and there is no credible truth to your allegations.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Ok, we all know the government fucked up with national security. What's new? What are you here for? I suspect it's because you believe the US government is behind 9/11. If that is your belief, I am here to make sure that... a) You prove your case to the point where we are dumbfounded at why we haven't convicted someone of some crime (We'll probably be famous for that). b) You admit that you have absolutely no case and there is no credible truth to your allegations.

There's a difference between negligence, and criminal negligence. If we've established that the government is criminally negligent you shouldn't be looking at me for the burden of proof. If you don't think a case for criminal negligence is there, you need to re-examine the evidence. What I am not going to do however, is waste a bunch of my free time debating ad-nauseum with people who have more interest vested in their peace of mind, than the truth. I spent almost 2 years doing just that. And no amount of evidence presented no matter how validated or persuasive it is will sway individuals like that.

I'll put it like this, if you have a problem with any of the questions I'm asking, you have a problem with the victims familes, because they are the exact same questions they are still asking, and no one is listening, except the 'crazies'.

___________________

Last edited by iTranscendence on Jul-30-2009 at 04:39

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence There's a difference between negligence, and criminal negligence. If we've established that the government is criminally negligent you shouldn't be looking at me for the burden of proof. If you don't think a case for criminal negligence is there, you need to re-examine the evidence. What I am not going to do however, is waste a bunch of my free time debating ad-nauseum with people who have more interest vested in their peace of mind, than the truth. I spent almost 2 years doing just that. And no amount of evidence presented no matter how validated or persuasive it is will not sway individuals like that. I'll put it like this, if you have a problem with any of the questions I'm asking, you have a problem with the victims familes, because they are the exact same questions they are still asking, and no one is listening, except the 'crazies'.

quote:

Denialism: the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Examples of common topics in which Denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming Denialism, Holocaust Denial, HIV/AIDS Denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, tobacco carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship. We believe there are five simple guidelines for identifying denialist arguments. Most denialist arguments will incorporate more than one of the following tactics: Conspiracy, Selectivity, False Experts, Impossible Expectations/Moving Goalposts, and Argument from Metaphor/violations of informal logic.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

You've yet to post any documentation to back up the assertion you've made about the firefighters transmissions, or the hundreds of other eye witnesses who all said the same thing.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence You've yet to post any documentation to back up the assertion you've made about the firefighters transmissions, or the hundreds of other eye witnesses who all said the same thing.

Oh what, because I haven’t bothered to make a serious reply in here in the last 2 days since you joined? Lols, you presumptuous twat.

I suggest you read through the two-dozen or so threads made over the last 6ish years and then come back to me.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence If you don't think a case for criminal negligence is there, you need to re-examine the evidence.

If only I could count how many times I'v been told that! LOL. Like PKC pointed out, you're using rhetorical tactics, instead of answering the questions which I have directed at you. I'v looked at the "evidence". I'v watched Loose Change, Zeitgeist, listened to Alex Jones, and you know what? There is no case. If I am the judge, I would immediately throw it out of the court. All I want is a solid case.

quote:

There's a difference between negligence, and criminal negligence. If we've established that the government is criminally negligent you shouldn't be looking at me for the burden of proof. What I am not going to do however, is waste a bunch of my free time debating ad-nauseum with people who have more interest vested in their peace of mind, than the truth. I spent almost 2 years doing just that. And no amount of evidence presented no matter how validated or persuasive it is will sway individuals like that. I'll put it like this, if you have a problem with any of the questions I'm asking, you have a problem with the victims familes, because they are the exact same questions they are still asking, and no one is listening, except the 'crazies'.

So you believe the government is criminally negligent. Ok. I'll again post the same questions which you seem to not want to answer.

1) Who are you indicting?
2) What charges are you filing?
3) What evidence do you bring before the court to prove the accused committed the crime for which you are accusing them of?

And you never answered my questions about the supposed explosives in the WTC. You want to talk about molten steel, but then when confronted by skepticism, you resort to telling me I need to "re-examine the evidence"......in addition to moving the goal post from "the government did it" to "the government is criminally negligent".

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Jul-30-2009 at 06:00

Forgot to welcome you to the forum iTranscendence. You should post in the other threads too. Don't be a one topic poster!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton If only I could count how many times I'v been told that! LOL. Like PKC pointed out, you're using rhetorical tactics, instead of answering the questions which I have directed at you. I'v looked at the "evidence". I'v watching Loose Change, Zeitgeist, listened to Alex Jones, and you know what? There is no case. If I am the judge, I would immediately throw it out of the court. All I want is a solid case. So you believe the government is criminally negligent. Ok. I'll again post the same questions which you seem to not want to answer. 1) Who are you indicting? 2) What charges are you filing? 3) What evidence do you bring before the court to prove the accused committed the crime for which you are accusing them of? And you never answered my questions about the supposed explosives in the WTC. You want to talk about molten steel, but then when confronted by skepticism, you resort to telling I need to "re-examine the evidence"...

I already answered that and presented some preliminary evidence.

1. several gov agencies including FBI, CIA, NSA, FAA and NORTHCOM
2. criminal negligence

quote:

I believe there is ample evidence to show criminal negligence by several governmental agencies regarding 9/11. Including but not limited to: The destruction of 2.5 terabytes of data of operation able danger, which had been surveying mohammed atta for at least 18 months. (if you want to debate if you should believe shaffer or the FBI that's another debate) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9342936/ Key evidence that was destroyed by the FAA http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...6¬Found=true The censured testimony of nomran mineta the transportation secretary, from the final commission report. All the testimonies of the NSWBC (National Security Whistleblowers Coalition). Yes, thats right there is an entire group of whistle blowers who are screaming criminal negligence. http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm I believe once full proceedings were underway the full extent of what has happened will come to light, but that's all you need to get your foot in the door.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Forgot to welcome you to the forum iTranscendence. You should post in the other threads too. Don't be a one topic poster!

Thanks, I actually joined back in 07 with a different account trying to find new music, the suggestions I got here changed my landscape pretty drastically, so I thought I'd come back. Got opened up to the whole psychedelic downtempo world.

___________________