|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 164)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
Planting charges:
Just look at his eye. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, and here is the evidence that griffin is just a ing lying piece of .
the cell phone myth debunked
how someone so dishonest can fool so many of you idiotic turds is beyond me. |
LOL, yes, anyone agreeing with you is just a "lying piece of " or "intellectually dishonest" right PKC? :stongue: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Planting charges:
Just look at his eye. |
Your data is flawed... take note of the date, "3 May 2002." The tower's collapsed on 11 Sep 2001. Plus, Spidey's a good guy, not a goverment or CIA asset. That's two completely false pieces of data asserting an argument that is even more flawed. Clearly, you're incapable of seeing through goverment propaganda. I'm just curious why PKC hasn't jumped on you yet for being a "lying peice of " and "intellectualy dishonest"  ? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
thats beautiful.
f**kin terrorists. |
Tell me about it, but why are you rabidly supporting their policies if you're so pissed at the culprits ? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, yes, anyone agreeing with you is just a "lying piece of " or "intellectually dishonest" right PKC? :stongue: |
no, just 911 troofers. if you'd bothered to look at ANY of the research/explanations from the other side of the fence you would see david griffin is nothing but an opportunistic wit endeavouring to sell his books.
if he's not a liar then he's deliberately keeping the actual facts far away from his research, which amounts to the same thing. the fact he's still banging on about things that have been shown to be untrue really pisses me off, and it should you too. that is, if you really ARE someone committed to finding the truth. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no, just 911 troofers. if you'd bothered to look at ANY of the research/explanations from the other side of the fence you would see david griffin is nothing but an opportunistic wit endeavouring to sell his books.
if he's not a liar then he's deliberately keeping the actual facts far away from his research, which amounts to the same thing. the fact he's still banging on about things that have been shown to be untrue really pisses me off, and it should you too. that is, if you really ARE someone committed to finding the truth. |
All "proofs" are based on a set of antecedents. If the credibility of the set is highly questionable to begin with, I wouldn't consider an argument based on it to be a proof of anything whatsoever. The application of inductive reasoning to a weak set at best will give you a weak argument. In contrast, a set of mostly true antecedents, or a subset of that containing entirely true antecedents via the application of inductive reasoning does result in a strong argument. It's not an "absolute" of course, as it's still inductive in nature and not deductive. Also, take note of the fact that even in the case of deductive reasoning (which doesn't apply to a set of questionable antecedents), the fundamental underlying antecedents it boils down to are still nothing more than assumptions, with no genuine validity is a logical framework ;).
Your entire statement and argument is based on misuage of semantics and phrases virtually analagous to the term "proof." Clearly, that's "intellectually dishonest" as it doesn't even apply in a situation like this ;). |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
sorry, i dont speak spanish.
if you have an argument as to why you think griffin isnt a lying sack of , feel free to explain yourself. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
sorry, i dont speak spanish.
if you have an argument as to why you think griffin isnt a lying sack of , feel free to explain yourself. |
¿Qué?
Logic is "spanish" to most people ;), and they can't really critically think on their own as they simply lack the faculties, or have been trained to be quite irrational. |
|
|
| Krypton |
The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. takes a look at the 911 Truth Movement. . .
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
|
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
The Canadian Broadcasting Corp. takes a look at the 911 Truth Movement. . .
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
|
CBC rocks!!!:cool: |
|
|
| culorut |
And so do hot French actresses.
Marion Cotillard's 9/11 conspiracy theory
The 32-year-old French star has swept this year’s best actress awards, also receiving a Bafta, Golden Globe and a César for her performance as singer Edith Piaf in La Vie en Rose.
Miss Cotillard, who earned under £1 million in 2007, could expect her Oscar success to significantly increase her earning power. She is due to start filming Public Enemies with Johnny Depp.
But the actress faces a potential backlash in the US over comments she made in an interview in France. Footage which surfaced on the internet showed her questioning the New York terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the 1969 moon landing.
"I think we’re lied to about a number of things," she said, singling out September 11.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...otillard101.xml |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
singers, actresses and still no engineers.
who gives a what some moronic french actress thinks? i mean really. its getting ridiculous now. |
|
|
|
|
