Really Typhoon, you're a tsunami of entertainment. I like to imagine this discussion as an action sequence, with you frantically dodging every substantive point in the hope of finding something easier to grab onto.
I literally JUST asked you where I said that, after your first attempt to deflect the conversation this way. Which would imply that I don't believe that, wouldn't it?
Let's go back to one of those bullets you're trying to dodge:
You need to learn what an ad hominem attack is. Here's a useful definition.
"When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized"
-42 Falacies
This is a fallacy in formal logic because an argument stands or falls on its own merits. The basic form of this fallacy is, "You are arguing that things fall when you drop them. You are an idiot. Therefore, your argument is incorrect."
Some good examples can be found in your posts, such as your continued attempts to discredit BS's arguments by trying to attach a political label to the arguer.
Would you like to apologize for your own ad hominems now, and hypocritical accusations of others?
Or you could try engaging with the actual points here, instead of trying to deflect the conversation to something someone isn't saying. You know, your favorite "putting words in someone's mouth" deal. Do you *only* accuse people of committing fallacies that you commit yourself? Is that where you heard of them in the first place, from people responding to your own arguments?
I recommend you reread your source: "This essay shows that there is little evidence to support the idea of foreign ownership and much that contradicts it."
What if a president came out against it and was shot?
I'd say that President Kennedy did no such thing (here is the unedited speech), and that even if he had, you would be furnishing us with a textbook example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Now, on the matter of the commentary in that video... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not endorse it, because you've just demonstrated that you don't vet your own sources before posting them. But -- and this is important -- do not link us to an insane antisemitic screed again.
"recommend you read"
by foreigners... are they foreigners? Who said anything about foreigners owning it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
"Current region United Kingdom, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, United States"
In wiki it says they are US....
Are you telling me that the Rothschild's do not own any part of the Federal Reserve?
in the article
"Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank's district" I wonder who owns these banks...
I believe we need a judge. Lets start point by point.
I will start with the point that the 1hr smoldering office fires, are not enough to warp the 2in steel coulombs to an even collapsing point.
Do you want to rebut this point? Please start here.
I will then go on to argue with references to 2,400+ engineers and architects that KEY EVIDENCE for the use of demolition charges follows:
-Rapid onset of destruction,
-Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
-Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
-Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYCuAa0eFKg&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO
-Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds
-Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”(see pic below)
-Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
-Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
-Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
-Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
This and other evidence that can be presented later, will then conclude that the government story of what happened on 9/11 is a lie.
if this was the case the building would have fell to the side
And if the ones in the center of the building failed first it would still fall to the side? The fact that where the planes hit, took out the structural integrity of the side of the building and yet didn't tip over, negates your argument.
You provided a link to what happened before, not how they got them. but lets not continue with the sarcastic quote story any more!
I agree they could have got them. But did not happen in the 9/11 case.
How do you know Al-Qaeda didn't plant bombs in the towers in addition to flying planes into the towers? Do you have documented proof that some government agency placed explosives instead of Al-Qaeda? Because we have documented proof of Al-Qaeda detonating bombs in the towers in 1993. However, we have no documented occurrence of the government doing the same at the WTC.
-Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
Objects fall at free-fall when their motion is not hindered. Objects that fall at near-freefall do so because their motion is being hindered. Thus, each floor falls into the next floor and collapses it and a chain reaction happens. However, this slows down the acceleration of the debris slightly. In a controlled demolition, the debris falls at free fall.
"You realize that in order for this to be even slightly plausible, the pilot of the plane would have to fly the plane into the exact floor to avoid damaging the charges and also to keep from accidentally setting any off prematurely. IE set charges at floor 90 fly plane into floor 93."
The ones that the pilot crashed into did go off. Molten steel can be seen running down the side. (pic below)
"And if the ones in the center of the building failed first it would still fall to the side? "
How were the center ones damaged if the plane didn't hit it?
"How do you know Al-Qaeda didn't plant bombs in the towers in addition to flying planes into the towers?"
It could have been Al-CIAda, but I have put forward the argument that it is Israeli Mossad
"Do you even know what you are talking about? Or what I am asking?"
No, your questions are too short. e.g. "In what unit of measure? Cubits?" I do not know what you were referring to, so I assumed the number I said. Sorry.
"recommend you read"
by foreigners... are they foreigners? Who said anything about foreigners owning it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
"Current region United Kingdom, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, United States"
In wiki it says they are US....
You're a Rothschild conspiracy theorist, and you don't even know the family businesses are based out of London and Geneva? There are no doubt some Rothschilds in America -- it's a big family -- but the Rothschild groups are undeniably "foreign elements".
Are you telling me that the Rothschild's do not own any part of the Federal Reserve?
No, Dr. Edward Flaherty is telling you that. "If the U.S. central bank is in the grip of a banking conspiracy, then Mullins and Kah have certainly not uncovered it." You are citing an article that argues directly against your theory, and do not even realize it. No, it's worse than that -- you've even been shown that it argues directly against your theory, and have decided to double down on it.
Do you not know or just not want to acknowledge that this is a minority of the engineering and architectural community? Wikipedia gives an overview of reactions by their colleagues. The scientific consensus is that the towers came down because of the airplane impacts. So if we're having an argumentum ad populum contest here, you lose.
Hey Typho0nn, I'm really quite impressed that you've managed to put this all together. I honestly never expected to get away with bribing all those Engineers, but hey: here we are fifteen years later and we've still got most of the country fooled. Talk about money well spent. It's not really a secret anymore though; we've already accomplished everything that dropping the buildings was meant to accomplish. It's kind of an open secret these days.
Hey, once you own 90% of the media in a country, reality is pretty much whatever you say it is. And no matter how good of points you make, and how much photo evidence you show, we're just going to smother it with Here Comes Honey Boo Boo reruns anyways. But keep fighting the good fight; I for one find it inspiring.
-
@Blinking Spirit: It's been fifteen years man. You can drop the act. We basically own the world now, and you're still arguing with people on Magic the Gathering forums? No one will ever believe him anyways.
"here are no doubt some Rothschilds in America" =/= "foreign elements"
"And again you're just throwing out unsupported assertions."
Debunk them then, we are debating....
"you're"
Attacking the person, not my argument.
"argumentum ad populum contest here"
No, please present your 'facts' against mine, as I have presented my 'facts' and/or 'evidence' and/or 'unsupported assertions'. You made an 'unsupported assertions' calling them 'unsupported assertions'.
I will start with the point that the 1hr smoldering office fires, are not enough to warp the 2in steel coulombs to an even collapsing point.
Do you want to rebut this point? Please start here. If not, I have conceded to you already. And will no longer respond to you. (Again) (summarize your argument again please, like I have done with my 'facts'. If you are still going with the same argument I cannot respond)
**Are there any other mods here, do you find Blinking Spirits argument techniques to be viable in a court?**
I would like a neutral opinion.
**Are there any other mods here, do you find Blinking Spirits argument techniques to be viable in a court?**
I would like a neutral opinion.
Blinking Spirit hasn't really done anything in this thread except ask (often sarcastically, sometimes obliquely) that you actually support the claims you're making, which you have repeatedly failed to do.
**Are there any other mods here, do you find Blinking Spirits argument techniques to be viable in a court?**
I would like a neutral opinion.
Blinking Spirit hasn't really done anything in this thread except ask (often sarcastically, sometimes obliquely) that you actually support the claims you're making, which you have repeatedly failed to do.
So you think his methods are valid in court?.... I'll assume so.
Now, which claim, and how have I failed in supporting it?
Please go through one by one.
I will explain how Blinking Spirits responses do not prove that the government story is closer to reality.
"Was it?" - I can say yes and that is the end.
"So they say." - Yes they, do and the point is finished.
"Did you see them?" - In court lawyers do not see the crime, they call witnesses.
"So no video evidence of these alleged vans then? Convenient." - This is a strong point, but there are witness. If there were no vans, then the explosives could have been set by different means. Not having video evidence of these vans, does not prove that the trade Centers can be taken down by office fires.
"Did he really, though?" - Yes, easy response, point finished.
"And here you just swallow the official narrative?" - this is incorrect because there are lots of points about the 'official narrative' I disagree with.
"How do you know the beams were steel and concrete?" - The beams were not concrete, the floors were. But easy to find the designs. If the beams in the center were reinforced concert it would have made my case stronger. But it is now your job to prove that 2in thick steel can be melted/warped to collapsing point from office fires.
"Gravity is just a theory!" - the sky is blue, this is not an argument just a point about nature.
"That's what all the cool people on the internet are saying, but you don't really believe it, do you?" - Simple answer yes.
"Well, I believe it was a flying elephant, because there is no video evidence of a cruise missile hitting it, nor cruise missile debris." shows that he will believe in anything, easy to destroy this argument.
"Whereas normally they have interceptor wings flying close air patrol around all major national landmarks and places of business at all times!" No they don't military records do not indicate that. This does not give a reason why they took so long to scramble jets.
"Says who?" Says the president.
"How do you know what they know? Did you ask them? Are you in league with them?" Why you would ask a lawyer this is beyond me, but lawyers come to conclusions that are based from other 'facts' or witness reports to form their argument. A lawyer being in league with the terrorists would end in a re-trial.
"Pssh. That's just what they want you to think." Is this enforcing my argument? He is agreeing with me.
"How do you know the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia? Have you ever been there?" The US has not declared war against Saudi Arabia, they are allies. Once again I do not have to go there to know.
"What makes you think there's opium and oil in Afghanistan?", It doesn't matter what I think, we are arguing the facts. But I can reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Afghanistan and this question enforces my point.
"his is getting boring, so let's just cut to the chase: what war with ISIL?" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, calling out boring and not staying up to date with current wars is pretty bad for an argument in court. It might make you look rather silly in front of a judge.
"...yeah, probably." I should not have said that in the first place, I was leaving it open for other people to add in.
"This is me being nice. You don't want to know what I really think, but it rhymes with schmantisemite." - ORDER IN THE COURT!!!!!!!!!
Most of his arguments are ad hominem, there are no counter facts in what he has said.
We've already told you what an ad hominem actually is and given examples of how you've made them Typhoon. You should really read some stuff sometime. Like that article you cited which was actually arguing AGAINST your position.
I will then go on to argue with references to 2,400+ engineers and architects that KEY EVIDENCE for the use of demolition charges follows:
-Rapid onset of destruction,
-Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
-Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
-Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYCuAa0eFKg&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO
-Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds
-Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”(see pic below)
-Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
-Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
-Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
-Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
This and other evidence that can be presented later, will then conclude that the government story of what happened on 9/11 is a lie.
1 and 2. There's not a rapid onset of destruction. The destruction grows exponentially due to the snowball effect caused by the accumulation of unevenly supported weight at the top of the buildings.
3, 4, and 5. These are entirely consistent with bursts (and not explosions) due to air compression caused by the sudden collapsing of the upper floors. Lateral ejection of materials cannot be caused by detonations used in building implosions. The only way to reproduce that effect is by unidirectional explosives which don't cause sufficient structural damage to bring towers down.
6. Once again, these are not explosions, these are air bursts caused by air compression.
9. Show me the evidence.
7, 8 and 10. Yes, entirely consistent with "the towers collapsed" fact.
I will explain how Blinking Spirits responses do not prove that the government story is closer to reality.
As you've been told several times, it is not your opponent's job to prove you wrong, or to prove the contrary position. It is your job to prove your position true. If you fail to make your case for whatever conspiracy you ascribe to, there's nothing else that needs to be said.
I will start with the point that the 1hr smoldering office fires, are not enough to warp the 2in steel coulombs to an even collapsing point.
Do you want to rebut this point?
"Was it?" - I can say yes and that is the end.
"So they say." - Yes they, do and the point is finished.
...
"Did he really, though?" - Yes, easy response, point finished.
Really? You think a lawyer can just say "This is true" and the court has to accept it? Well, they can't.
"So no video evidence of these alleged vans then? Convenient." - This is a strong point, but there are witness. If there were no vans, then the explosives could have been set by different means. Not having video evidence of these vans, does not prove that the trade Centers can be taken down by office fires.
And here you're just blatantly assuming your conclusion. "Maybe my evidence is a complete crock, but I believe there was a controlled demolition anyway!"
"And here you just swallow the official narrative?" - this is incorrect because there are lots of points about the 'official narrative' I disagree with.
Is there any rhyme or reason to which parts you agree with and which parts you disagree with? What criteria do you have for determining whether a claim is true? Other than "I agree with the parts that are consistent with the conspiracy theory and disagree with the parts that are not", I mean.
"How do you know the beams were steel and concrete?" - The beams were not concrete, the floors were. But easy to find the designs. If the beams in the center were reinforced concert it would have made my case stronger.
How can we trust the designs? If, as you allege, so much documentary evidence has been faked, why not they?
"That's what all the cool people on the internet are saying, but you don't really believe it, do you?" - Simple answer yes.
And now you've completely reverted to saying the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner, without ever once addressing the photographic and eyewitness evidence that it was. Some "open mind" you've got.
"Well, I believe it was a flying elephant, because there is no video evidence of a cruise missile hitting it, nor cruise missile debris." shows that he will believe in anything, easy to destroy this argument.
It's called a reductio ad absurdum, and it's a perfectly valid argument form. Your logic that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon can just as easily prove that absolutely anything hit the Pentagon, therefore it is bad logic.
"Whereas normally they have interceptor wings flying close air patrol around all major national landmarks and places of business at all times!" No they don't military records do not indicate that. This does not give a reason why they took so long to scramble jets.
So if I give a reason, you'll believe it? Okay. "They needed to fuel up the fighters."
"How do you know what they know? Did you ask them? Are you in league with them?" Why you would ask a lawyer this is beyond me, but lawyers come to conclusions that are based from other 'facts' or witness reports to form their argument.
"How do you know the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia? Have you ever been there?" The US has not declared war against Saudi Arabia, they are allies. Once again I do not have to go there to know.
Once again you rely on documentary evidence of the same sort that you are prone to question when it contradicts your position.
"What makes you think there's opium and oil in Afghanistan?", It doesn't matter what I think, we are arguing the facts. But I can reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Afghanistan and this question enforces my point.
Again, Wikipedia, and again you apparently haven't read it. As has already been pointed out in this thread, Afghanistan is not a major producer of oil. In fact, it imports the stuff.
"his is getting boring, so let's just cut to the chase: what war with ISIL?" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, calling out boring and not staying up to date with current wars is pretty bad for an argument in court. It might make you look rather silly in front of a judge.
Documentary evidence, how trust, you should know the drill by now (but something tells me you don't). Also, it's pretty ridiculous for you to complain about a comment on boredom with "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz".
Most of his arguments are ad hominem, there are no counter facts in what he has said.
There is a man who can only cook microwave macaroni and cheese. One day, he wanders into the kitchen of an amateur chef who is preparing a nice pot roast. As he watches, his bafflement and frustration grows, until finally he can contain himself no longer: "Where is is your microwave?!" he demands. "Where is your macaroni? Where is your cheese? You don't know how to cook!"
@BS
"unsupported assertion does not need to be debunked"
It was your claim that they are 'unsupported assertion' you have to prove how they are.
"now you're so desperate that"
Ad hominem
"Then your Your assertions are unsupported if you have not presented support for them."
So I'm spouse to call witnesses that he has 'unsupported assertion' as irrelevant.
Your assertions are unsupported if you have not presented support for them.
""Your assertions are unsupported if you have not presented support for them."" easy to say when you call witnesses irrelevent.
"The only rebuttal I need is this: prove it."
I have referenced experts a number of times. Do you want me to reconstruct 9/11, for your idiocracy?
"For the third time: it is not my intention, nor is it my onus, to prove that."
Well you are not debating that side I am no longer debating you, you are only questioning and ad hominem my arguments.
I have conceded to you and your 'debating' techniques. A number of times now, i would like to get back to debating facts.
"Really? You think a lawyer can just say "This is true" and the court has to accept it? Well, they can't."
Well if you want to respond with simple questions and not bring your own facts, YES then they can!!!!
If that was your cross examination...... the Judge would be on the floor laughing!!!!
"So call witnesses."
I have, do you want me to re-reference it?
"And here you're just blatantly assuming your conclusion."
I can quote you on all your assumptions if need be :)... (flying elefants being one), you have already proven yourself a liar!!!!
My other assumptions: Leftie... (which then you lie about being not, and trolled it out for ages, and still have not answered after making it my 'first hurdle')
How does video evidence of vans mean that the government story is closer to reality?
"What criteria do you have for determining whether a claim is true?"
They fit in the physical laws of the universe.
-witnesses accounts, the likes of 118 FDNY reporting hearing explosions.
"How can we trust the designs?"
Maybe we can, maybe we can't.
Are you questioning the designs that the government story agrees with... please continue and point out how we cannot trust the designs.
It is now you job to prove we cannot trust the designs now.
"so much documentary evidence has been faked,"
Go on prove the designs are fake, bring in some EVIDENCE!!!!
"No, it's not, it's your job to prove that they cannot."
Yes it is! That is my arugment....
"(And it's already been proved that they can in this thread anyway.)"
Claiming victory, did you not say something about assumptions before.... We need a neutral judge for this...
"And now you've completely reverted to saying the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner"
No I would still like evidence. Preferably video evidence
"addressing the photographic"
Link please, you seem to 'discredit' all mine witnesses and eyewitness evidence pretty quickly.
Did you see a plane hit it? Are you sure it was not an elephant like you have claimed? Are you changing your story?
"Your logic that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon can just as easily prove that absolutely anything hit the Pentagon"
No that is your logic. Your logic is elephants can fly.... My logic would not prove that absolutely anything can hit the pentagon, you are putting words in my mouth. This is called leading... and is not a tactic usable in court
"So if I give a reason, you'll believe it? Okay. "They needed to fuel up the fighters.""
No I will not believe it you need proof! Like a witness, or an average time that it takes to fuel up the fighters. It makes me wonder why the US Air-Force does not have the filled and waiting. Is it standard procedure to leave the Fighters empty? Was the whole Air-Force empty of fuel?
-8:14: Flight 11 is hijacked
-8:42–8:46 (approx.): Flight 175 is hijacked
-8:50–8:54 (approx.): Flight 77 is hijacked.
-8:58: Flight 175 takes a heading toward New York City.
-9:03:02: Flight 175 crashes
-9:03: President Bush enters a classroom
45 min they had to get the second one...
-9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon
and 1 hr and 23min to fuel up before the pentagon attack!!!!!!
"Wikipedia, and again you apparently haven't read it." "not major producer of oil"
"not major producer" =/= not producing
"Geological Survey estimated that Afghanistan has as much as 36 trillion cubic feet (1.0×1012 m3) of natural gas, 3.6 billion barrels (570×106 m3) of oil"
please learn to read...
" how trust, you should know the drill by now"
So are you saying there is no war with ISIL now? please provide evidence.
"There is a man who can only cook microwave macaroni and cheese. One day, he wanders into the kitchen of an amateur chef who is preparing a nice pot roast. As he watches, his bafflement and frustration grows, until finally he can contain himself no longer: "Where is is your microwave?!" he demands. "Where is your macaroni? Where is your cheese? You don't know how to cook!""
...Easily enough to change the story for you. You are such a good story maker
There is a man who can only sarcastically question. One day, he wonders into a thread of an amateur debater who is debating about 9/11. As he watches, his bafflement and frustration grows ("is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive"), until finally he can't contain himself no longer: "Was it?!" he demands. "Did you see them? So they say. Pssh. That's just what they want you to think!!!""
1 and 2. There's not a rapid onset of destruction. The destruction grows exponentially due to the snowball effect caused by the accumulation of unevenly supported weight at the top of the buildings.
3, 4, and 5. These are entirely consistent with bursts (and not explosions) due to air compression caused by the sudden collapsing of the upper floors. Lateral ejection of materials cannot be caused by detonations used in building implosions. The only way to reproduce that effect is by unidirectional explosives which don't cause sufficient structural damage to bring towers down.
6. Once again, these are not explosions, these are air bursts caused by air compression.
9. Show me the evidence.
7, 8 and 10. Yes, entirely consistent with "the towers collapsed" fact.
Thank you Daniel09DD for your reasonable questions about facts!
"There's not a rapid onset of destruction."
The coulombs gave way at the same time.
"unevenly supported weight at the top of the buildings."
This would make one side fall first
"sudden collapsing of the upper floors."
Here you have used sudden but then, in the above argument you said there was no rapid onset of destruction.
Lateral ejection can be seen 20 to 60 stories down where the floors collapsing did not provide the air pressure.
"Once again, these are not explosions, these are air bursts caused by air compression. "
How do they happen 60 stories below the 'crush zone'?
"7, 8 and 10. Yes, entirely consistent with "the towers collapsed" fact."
Molten steel found at the base is consistent with the 'collapse' story?
How did the steel melt in the 'collapse story'?
Thank you again Daniel09DD, responding to you is quite refreshing, sorry I missed it in all the garbage.
I can live with being half right. I would have sworn I thought I've seen you claim legal experience before. Might have that mixed up with someone else though; I'm awful at keeping names straight.
Edit: Just how much longer is this going to keep going? I'm running out of popcorn.
The great thing about conspiracy hypothesists is that they're basically one knotted hive-mind of tangled ideas. There's a lot of monkeys in these barrels. I like to see how long it takes to get around to the moon landing.
The moon landing *was* a hoax though. I've got the pictures to prove it
Edit: Just how the heck to we post photos on here, anyways?
I believe America did go to the moon, JFK was the man!!!!! <3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwFvJog2dMw
Obama be like.... Lets bomb a hospital... Derrrrr
Maybe you can start another thread tho, I want to discuss 9/11 here
Really Typhoon, you're a tsunami of entertainment. I like to imagine this discussion as an action sequence, with you frantically dodging every substantive point in the hope of finding something easier to grab onto.
I literally JUST asked you where I said that, after your first attempt to deflect the conversation this way. Which would imply that I don't believe that, wouldn't it?
Let's go back to one of those bullets you're trying to dodge:
Would you like to apologize for your own ad hominems now, and hypocritical accusations of others?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
So if I don't believe that the fires could have warped the steel for them to collapse evenly, I cannot believe the timeline?
Is that the argument?
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Or you could try engaging with the actual points here, instead of trying to deflect the conversation to something someone isn't saying. You know, your favorite "putting words in someone's mouth" deal. Do you *only* accuse people of committing fallacies that you commit yourself? Is that where you heard of them in the first place, from people responding to your own arguments?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I'd say that President Kennedy did no such thing (here is the unedited speech), and that even if he had, you would be furnishing us with a textbook example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Now, on the matter of the commentary in that video... I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not endorse it, because you've just demonstrated that you don't vet your own sources before posting them. But -- and this is important -- do not link us to an insane antisemitic screed again.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
by foreigners... are they foreigners? Who said anything about foreigners owning it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family
"Current region United Kingdom, Germany, France, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, United States"
In wiki it says they are US....
Are you telling me that the Rothschild's do not own any part of the Federal Reserve?
in the article
"Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank's district" I wonder who owns these banks...
I believe we need a judge. Lets start point by point.
I will start with the point that the 1hr smoldering office fires, are not enough to warp the 2in steel coulombs to an even collapsing point.
Do you want to rebut this point? Please start here.
I will then go on to argue with references to 2,400+ engineers and architects that KEY EVIDENCE for the use of demolition charges follows:
-Rapid onset of destruction,
-Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
-Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
-Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYCuAa0eFKg&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO
-Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds
-Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”(see pic below)
-Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
-Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
-Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
-Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
This and other evidence that can be presented later, will then conclude that the government story of what happened on 9/11 is a lie.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Who said anything about "all". Please reread my comment and reply when you actually correctly read what I wrote. Thank you.
And if the ones in the center of the building failed first it would still fall to the side? The fact that where the planes hit, took out the structural integrity of the side of the building and yet didn't tip over, negates your argument.
How do you know Al-Qaeda didn't plant bombs in the towers in addition to flying planes into the towers? Do you have documented proof that some government agency placed explosives instead of Al-Qaeda? Because we have documented proof of Al-Qaeda detonating bombs in the towers in 1993. However, we have no documented occurrence of the government doing the same at the WTC.
2,400+ people is the shear strength of the floors? Do you even know what you are talking about? Or what I am asking?
Further explanation needed.
Objects fall at free-fall when their motion is not hindered. Objects that fall at near-freefall do so because their motion is being hindered. Thus, each floor falls into the next floor and collapses it and a chain reaction happens. However, this slows down the acceleration of the debris slightly. In a controlled demolition, the debris falls at free fall.
This technicality makes your assumption invalid.
When 500,000t of steel rains down from the sky, stuff makes noise.
In controlled demolitions this does not happen. Thus, this is a freak occurrence and does not support your controlled demolition argument.
When any building falls, it creates concrete dust and does not indicate one thing or another. Other then concrete was used to construct the building.
Sound waves and pressure waves travel faster then the objects in the "crush zone".
Explain. Are you saying that 220 floors of the buildings never fell to the ground?
Proof that it was steel/iron and not Aluminum?
Documentation needed
Documentation needed
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
The ones that the pilot crashed into did go off. Molten steel can be seen running down the side. (pic below)
"And if the ones in the center of the building failed first it would still fall to the side? "
How were the center ones damaged if the plane didn't hit it?
"How do you know Al-Qaeda didn't plant bombs in the towers in addition to flying planes into the towers?"
It could have been Al-CIAda, but I have put forward the argument that it is Israeli Mossad
"Do you have documented proof that some government agency placed explosives instead of Al-Qaeda?"
There is a police witness that he talked to Mossad
https://archive.org/stream/9-11CopBreaksSilence-IsraeliMossadInvolvementInAttacks/9-11CopBreaksSilence-IsraeliMossadInvolvementInAttacks_djvu.txt
"Do you even know what you are talking about? Or what I am asking?"
No, your questions are too short. e.g. "In what unit of measure? Cubits?" I do not know what you were referring to, so I assumed the number I said. Sorry.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
No, Dr. Edward Flaherty is telling you that. "If the U.S. central bank is in the grip of a banking conspiracy, then Mullins and Kah have certainly not uncovered it." You are citing an article that argues directly against your theory, and do not even realize it. No, it's worse than that -- you've even been shown that it argues directly against your theory, and have decided to double down on it.
Do you not know or just not want to acknowledge that this is a minority of the engineering and architectural community? Wikipedia gives an overview of reactions by their colleagues. The scientific consensus is that the towers came down because of the airplane impacts. So if we're having an argumentum ad populum contest here, you lose.
And again you're just throwing out unsupported assertions.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hey, once you own 90% of the media in a country, reality is pretty much whatever you say it is. And no matter how good of points you make, and how much photo evidence you show, we're just going to smother it with Here Comes Honey Boo Boo reruns anyways. But keep fighting the good fight; I for one find it inspiring.
-
@Blinking Spirit: It's been fifteen years man. You can drop the act. We basically own the world now, and you're still arguing with people on Magic the Gathering forums? No one will ever believe him anyways.
"And again you're just throwing out unsupported assertions."
Debunk them then, we are debating....
"you're"
Attacking the person, not my argument.
"argumentum ad populum contest here"
No, please present your 'facts' against mine, as I have presented my 'facts' and/or 'evidence' and/or 'unsupported assertions'. You made an 'unsupported assertions' calling them 'unsupported assertions'.
I will start with the point that the 1hr smoldering office fires, are not enough to warp the 2in steel coulombs to an even collapsing point.
Do you want to rebut this point? Please start here. If not, I have conceded to you already. And will no longer respond to you. (Again) (summarize your argument again please, like I have done with my 'facts'. If you are still going with the same argument I cannot respond)
**Are there any other mods here, do you find Blinking Spirits argument techniques to be viable in a court?**
I would like a neutral opinion.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
So you think his methods are valid in court?.... I'll assume so.
Now, which claim, and how have I failed in supporting it?
Please go through one by one.
I will explain how Blinking Spirits responses do not prove that the government story is closer to reality.
"Was it?" - I can say yes and that is the end.
"So they say." - Yes they, do and the point is finished.
"Did you see them?" - In court lawyers do not see the crime, they call witnesses.
"So no video evidence of these alleged vans then? Convenient." - This is a strong point, but there are witness. If there were no vans, then the explosives could have been set by different means. Not having video evidence of these vans, does not prove that the trade Centers can be taken down by office fires.
"Did he really, though?" - Yes, easy response, point finished.
"And here you just swallow the official narrative?" - this is incorrect because there are lots of points about the 'official narrative' I disagree with.
"How do you know the beams were steel and concrete?" - The beams were not concrete, the floors were. But easy to find the designs. If the beams in the center were reinforced concert it would have made my case stronger. But it is now your job to prove that 2in thick steel can be melted/warped to collapsing point from office fires.
"Gravity is just a theory!" - the sky is blue, this is not an argument just a point about nature.
"That's what all the cool people on the internet are saying, but you don't really believe it, do you?" - Simple answer yes.
"Well, I believe it was a flying elephant, because there is no video evidence of a cruise missile hitting it, nor cruise missile debris." shows that he will believe in anything, easy to destroy this argument.
"Whereas normally they have interceptor wings flying close air patrol around all major national landmarks and places of business at all times!" No they don't military records do not indicate that. This does not give a reason why they took so long to scramble jets.
"Says who?" Says the president.
"How do you know what they know? Did you ask them? Are you in league with them?" Why you would ask a lawyer this is beyond me, but lawyers come to conclusions that are based from other 'facts' or witness reports to form their argument. A lawyer being in league with the terrorists would end in a re-trial.
"Pssh. That's just what they want you to think." Is this enforcing my argument? He is agreeing with me.
"How do you know the US didn't invade Saudi Arabia? Have you ever been there?" The US has not declared war against Saudi Arabia, they are allies. Once again I do not have to go there to know.
"What makes you think there's opium and oil in Afghanistan?", It doesn't matter what I think, we are arguing the facts. But I can reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Afghanistan and this question enforces my point.
"his is getting boring, so let's just cut to the chase: what war with ISIL?" zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, calling out boring and not staying up to date with current wars is pretty bad for an argument in court. It might make you look rather silly in front of a judge.
"...yeah, probably." I should not have said that in the first place, I was leaving it open for other people to add in.
"This is me being nice. You don't want to know what I really think, but it rhymes with schmantisemite." - ORDER IN THE COURT!!!!!!!!!
Most of his arguments are ad hominem, there are no counter facts in what he has said.
**BANG BANG BANG** ORDER!!
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
1 and 2. There's not a rapid onset of destruction. The destruction grows exponentially due to the snowball effect caused by the accumulation of unevenly supported weight at the top of the buildings.
3, 4, and 5. These are entirely consistent with bursts (and not explosions) due to air compression caused by the sudden collapsing of the upper floors. Lateral ejection of materials cannot be caused by detonations used in building implosions. The only way to reproduce that effect is by unidirectional explosives which don't cause sufficient structural damage to bring towers down.
6. Once again, these are not explosions, these are air bursts caused by air compression.
9. Show me the evidence.
7, 8 and 10. Yes, entirely consistent with "the towers collapsed" fact.
As you've been told several times, it is not your opponent's job to prove you wrong, or to prove the contrary position. It is your job to prove your position true. If you fail to make your case for whatever conspiracy you ascribe to, there's nothing else that needs to be said.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
This thread is a very entertaining read.
An unsupported assertion does not need to be debunked. Quid gratis asseritur gratis negatur: what's freely asserted is freely denied.
Wait, now you're so desperate that you're taking the use of the second person pronoun as an ad hominem attack?
Then your "2,400+" people are completely irrelevant, and you should not bring them up again.
Your assertions are unsupported if you have not presented support for them. You have not presented support for them. Therefore they are unsupported.
The only rebuttal I need is this: prove it.
For the third time: it is not my intention, nor is it my onus, to prove that.
Really? You think a lawyer can just say "This is true" and the court has to accept it? Well, they can't.
So call witnesses.
And here you're just blatantly assuming your conclusion. "Maybe my evidence is a complete crock, but I believe there was a controlled demolition anyway!"
Is there any rhyme or reason to which parts you agree with and which parts you disagree with? What criteria do you have for determining whether a claim is true? Other than "I agree with the parts that are consistent with the conspiracy theory and disagree with the parts that are not", I mean.
How can we trust the designs? If, as you allege, so much documentary evidence has been faked, why not they?
No, it's not, it's your job to prove that they cannot. (And it's already been proved that they can in this thread anyway.)
And now you've completely reverted to saying the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner, without ever once addressing the photographic and eyewitness evidence that it was. Some "open mind" you've got.
It's called a reductio ad absurdum, and it's a perfectly valid argument form. Your logic that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon can just as easily prove that absolutely anything hit the Pentagon, therefore it is bad logic.
So if I give a reason, you'll believe it? Okay. "They needed to fuel up the fighters."
Show me.
Okay. What are those facts or witness reports?
No, I'm not. Read it again.
Once again you rely on documentary evidence of the same sort that you are prone to question when it contradicts your position.
Again, Wikipedia, and again you apparently haven't read it. As has already been pointed out in this thread, Afghanistan is not a major producer of oil. In fact, it imports the stuff.
Documentary evidence, how trust, you should know the drill by now (but something tells me you don't). Also, it's pretty ridiculous for you to complain about a comment on boredom with "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz".
There is a man who can only cook microwave macaroni and cheese. One day, he wanders into the kitchen of an amateur chef who is preparing a nice pot roast. As he watches, his bafflement and frustration grows, until finally he can contain himself no longer: "Where is is your microwave?!" he demands. "Where is your macaroni? Where is your cheese? You don't know how to cook!"
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Bob: "Invisible unicorns secretly control the US Healthcare system."
James: "What's your proof?"
Bob: "Try to prove that they don't!"
James: "Why?"
Bob: "Because even if I don't have proof, how does that make the government story true?!"
James: "..."
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
"unsupported assertion does not need to be debunked"
It was your claim that they are 'unsupported assertion' you have to prove how they are.
"now you're so desperate that"
Ad hominem
"Then your Your assertions are unsupported if you have not presented support for them."
So I'm spouse to call witnesses that he has 'unsupported assertion' as irrelevant.
Your assertions are unsupported if you have not presented support for them.
""Your assertions are unsupported if you have not presented support for them."" easy to say when you call witnesses irrelevent.
"The only rebuttal I need is this: prove it."
I have referenced experts a number of times. Do you want me to reconstruct 9/11, for your idiocracy?
"For the third time: it is not my intention, nor is it my onus, to prove that."
Well you are not debating that side I am no longer debating you, you are only questioning and ad hominem my arguments.
I have conceded to you and your 'debating' techniques. A number of times now, i would like to get back to debating facts.
"Really? You think a lawyer can just say "This is true" and the court has to accept it? Well, they can't."
Well if you want to respond with simple questions and not bring your own facts, YES then they can!!!!
If that was your cross examination...... the Judge would be on the floor laughing!!!!
"So call witnesses."
I have, do you want me to re-reference it?
"And here you're just blatantly assuming your conclusion."
I can quote you on all your assumptions if need be :)... (flying elefants being one), you have already proven yourself a liar!!!!
My other assumptions: Leftie... (which then you lie about being not, and trolled it out for ages, and still have not answered after making it my 'first hurdle')
How does video evidence of vans mean that the government story is closer to reality?
"What criteria do you have for determining whether a claim is true?"
They fit in the physical laws of the universe.
-witnesses accounts, the likes of 118 FDNY reporting hearing explosions.
"How can we trust the designs?"
Maybe we can, maybe we can't.
Are you questioning the designs that the government story agrees with... please continue and point out how we cannot trust the designs.
It is now you job to prove we cannot trust the designs now.
"so much documentary evidence has been faked,"
Go on prove the designs are fake, bring in some EVIDENCE!!!!
"No, it's not, it's your job to prove that they cannot."
Yes it is! That is my arugment....
"(And it's already been proved that they can in this thread anyway.)"
Claiming victory, did you not say something about assumptions before.... We need a neutral judge for this...
"And now you've completely reverted to saying the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner"
No I would still like evidence. Preferably video evidence
"addressing the photographic"
Link please, you seem to 'discredit' all mine witnesses and eyewitness evidence pretty quickly.
Did you see a plane hit it? Are you sure it was not an elephant like you have claimed? Are you changing your story?
"Your logic that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon can just as easily prove that absolutely anything hit the Pentagon"
No that is your logic. Your logic is elephants can fly.... My logic would not prove that absolutely anything can hit the pentagon, you are putting words in my mouth. This is called leading... and is not a tactic usable in court
"So if I give a reason, you'll believe it? Okay. "They needed to fuel up the fighters.""
No I will not believe it you need proof! Like a witness, or an average time that it takes to fuel up the fighters. It makes me wonder why the US Air-Force does not have the filled and waiting. Is it standard procedure to leave the Fighters empty? Was the whole Air-Force empty of fuel?
-8:14: Flight 11 is hijacked
-8:42–8:46 (approx.): Flight 175 is hijacked
-8:50–8:54 (approx.): Flight 77 is hijacked.
-8:58: Flight 175 takes a heading toward New York City.
-9:03:02: Flight 175 crashes
-9:03: President Bush enters a classroom
45 min they had to get the second one...
-9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon
and 1 hr and 23min to fuel up before the pentagon attack!!!!!!
"Wikipedia, and again you apparently haven't read it." "not major producer of oil"
"not major producer" =/= not producing
"Geological Survey estimated that Afghanistan has as much as 36 trillion cubic feet (1.0×1012 m3) of natural gas, 3.6 billion barrels (570×106 m3) of oil"
please learn to read...
" how trust, you should know the drill by now"
So are you saying there is no war with ISIL now? please provide evidence.
"There is a man who can only cook microwave macaroni and cheese. One day, he wanders into the kitchen of an amateur chef who is preparing a nice pot roast. As he watches, his bafflement and frustration grows, until finally he can contain himself no longer: "Where is is your microwave?!" he demands. "Where is your macaroni? Where is your cheese? You don't know how to cook!""
...Easily enough to change the story for you. You are such a good story maker
There is a man who can only sarcastically question. One day, he wonders into a thread of an amateur debater who is debating about 9/11. As he watches, his bafflement and frustration grows ("is inconsistent, frustrating, and completely unproductive"), until finally he can't contain himself no longer: "Was it?!" he demands. "Did you see them? So they say. Pssh. That's just what they want you to think!!!""
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Thank you Daniel09DD for your reasonable questions about facts!
"There's not a rapid onset of destruction."
The coulombs gave way at the same time.
"unevenly supported weight at the top of the buildings."
This would make one side fall first
"sudden collapsing of the upper floors."
Here you have used sudden but then, in the above argument you said there was no rapid onset of destruction.
Lateral ejection can be seen 20 to 60 stories down where the floors collapsing did not provide the air pressure.
"Once again, these are not explosions, these are air bursts caused by air compression. "
How do they happen 60 stories below the 'crush zone'?
"Show me the evidence."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oVs_94VHk8&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO
"7, 8 and 10. Yes, entirely consistent with "the towers collapsed" fact."
Molten steel found at the base is consistent with the 'collapse' story?
How did the steel melt in the 'collapse story'?
Thank you again Daniel09DD, responding to you is quite refreshing, sorry I missed it in all the garbage.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
I can live with being half right. I would have sworn I thought I've seen you claim legal experience before. Might have that mixed up with someone else though; I'm awful at keeping names straight.
Edit: Just how much longer is this going to keep going? I'm running out of popcorn.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Edit: Just how the heck to we post photos on here, anyways?
I believe America did go to the moon, JFK was the man!!!!! <3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwFvJog2dMw
Obama be like.... Lets bomb a hospital... Derrrrr
Maybe you can start another thread tho, I want to discuss 9/11 here
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru