It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Apalling argumentative skills

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I am not here for niceties or honing my etiquette skills.

I enjoy the unique blend of role-playing, anger management, sarcasm and logic presented here.


Notice how you mention logic separately from "role-playing, anger management, sarcasm."

My favorite kind of exchange is one that is logical, not emotional, and in fact no passions staining it at all if possible. So we're at odds on that one too.


So the order of my words are of importance because?

As far as being "at odds." Sorry, you have apparently mistaken me for someone who cares.

Regards...KK

[edit on 21-7-2009 by kinda kurious]




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Nope, never said anything about you having to care.

You mentioned logic separately from the others, sarcasm, etc. Because none of the other things had anything to do with logic. The others are what you get on FOX News, CNN, MSNBC, JREF, and most other forums online. ATS is actually particularly calm and well-moderated compared to other conspiracy forums. That's what makes it higher quality imo.

"Deny ignorance" means denying behaviors that promote ignorance too. Like having to insult people. That is what Buddhists call monkey-mind, because people insulting each other are like apes throwing poop at one another.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by BAZ752
reply to post by Grambler
 


I don't understand why this thread is being so closely scrutinised by the staff. I do however acknowledge that the premise of the thread probably warrants some level of observation, like any other thread, but it has to be purely because of the sensitivity of the subject at hand.



I think the OP was referring to the attention given the 9/11 area, not his/her particular thread.

Very good points all around. You CAN disagree and still be civil and friendly in this day and age, contrary to popular belief. When people start getting into absolutes one way or the other, blindly ignoring any other options, that is when it gets bad around here. Thankfully the Amigos and the Mods have set up a place where Civility to all others is demanded, kudos to them. Otherwise I would have been long gone if it just went into the sewer.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11 That is what Buddhists call monkey-mind, because people insulting each other are like apes throwing poop at one another.


That's odd because where I come from ape's throwing poop is a mating ritual. When the apes start flinging turds, it was our cue to skidoo. Nothing worse than an aroused, amorous primate as I'm sure you will agree.

As far as flinging poop, your point is well made. I can see that is an obvious advantage during live debate vs. these on-line forums.

I never realized Buddhists had such a logical sense of humor. Thanks for the tip.

Cheers

[edit on 21-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 


Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed...



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Okay, fine, but these links do nothing to refute what the 9/11 commission report covered. They either discuss the specific physical mechanics of the collapses, which the reports weren't set up to discuss to begin with, or they mention the aircraft were seen on radar, which noone is refuting becuase the problem was identifying their radar return amongst the cloud of other radar returns, not to mention, wondering where the heck they were going. Moreover, it doesn't answer the question on whether YOU YOURSELF actually read the 9/11 report like I had asked.

So since you obviously identify yourself as a truther, tell me, DID you read the 9/11 commission report? With your being a truther, it would necessarily be your responsibility to read it, you know. No need to post links, a simple yes or no will suffice.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
A commission set up by people hand picked by Bush to head it under jurisdictionally introduced new legislation which included the absence of - 503 first responders, the denial of false statements by Norad, gross incompetence by Norad - sending Jets in the completely wrong direction.

Bush stating he saw the 1st plane crash hit the tower, they still to this day state fire made the twin towers collapse and FEMA does not know how Building 7 collapsed, suspicious stock market investment investigations still going on. Video, audio, eye witness accounts, seismograph readings, all depicting various explosions and pointing towards CD`s completely overlooked.

Unresolved issues with flight 93, certain tests on the steel - neglected, and so much more.

Reading the commission report is akin to asking the Gestapo who was responsible for setting fire to the Reichstag building.



Many of those things you're saying weren't covered in the report (I.E. gross negligence and breakdown in communications) WERE covered, and many of the things you're saying is wrong in the report (I.E. how the fires instigated the collapse) WASN'T covered becuase that's not what the report was for. All the reasons you just posted for why you don't want to read it aren't even true!

Your example of "asking the Gestapo" isn't entirely applicable either. If by innuendo you're saying your viewpoint is that Congress was behind the 9/11 attack (either that, or you chose your analogy poorly), it still becomes your responsibility to understand what their excuse for the attack is so that you can document their response and (presumably) catch them in a lie. How can you honestly say you simply want to find out the truth behind the 9/11 if you DON"T want to learn what other people are saying? Truth never has to run and hide from falsehoods, you know. It's falsehoods that have to run and hide from the truth.

Rather than being an analogy of asking the Gestapo who was responsible for setting the Reichtag on fire, a more applicable analogy is why the pope would refuse to read Charles Darwin's "Origins of the Species"- It has nothing to do with wanting to find the truth and everythign to do with wanting to protect a personal agenda. I say this becuase it's becomign increasingly obvious from their behavior that the goal of the conspiracy proponents isn't to learn the truth on anything, but for the conspiracy proponents to actively convince others to believe what they themselves want to believe, regardless of what the truth really is. It should be little wonder then why the conspiracy proponents are encountering such great difficulty in convincing mainstream public of anything.

I invite you to show me why I am incorrect in anything I just posted here.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



In one easy statement... if the commission was solely based on finding out the truth why were 503 1st responders blocked from going?.

Who knows more about the truth than those who experienced it 1st hand?.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There's no level of evidence YOU would accept that is possible for any of US to deliver. We don't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend, or really any money at all as far as I'm concerned, we've never had authority to look at any of the debris, or even the buildings' structural documentation.

Tell me what you would want, as proof, that is possible without any of those things?


Of course. I would accept as irrefutable proof that a conspiracy to blow up the towers with CDs is an insider comes forward to spill the beans like insiders did during every OTHER gov't conspiracy (Watergate, bombing of Cambodia, Iran-contra, etc etc etc). They don't have to come out in the open themselves, an anonymous leak to news sources will suffice. They don't even need to be involved themsleves, since the guy who exposed Watergate was the #2 man in the FBI and was still in a position to know what was going on. I would even accept someone drinking too much and blabbing details of things he shouldn't have known to some bartender.

Now let me ask YOU- what would YOU accept as proof that your conspiracy stories are false, WITHOUT dismissing it outright as gov't disinformation?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Ruh Roh. I thought we were discussing 'Argumentative Skills."

This seems to be getting heated.

Me thinks I will skidattle back over to UFO boards.

Yall have fun now, ya hear.

Regards...KK

[edit on 22-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
In one easy statement... if the commission was solely based on finding out the truth why were 503 1st responders blocked from going?.


For the obvious reason that the commission was simply unable to interview everyone in the world. They interviewed the NYPD, the NYFD, the NYPA, the FAA, NORAD, the airforce, gov't officials, baggage handlers, etc etc etc, many of whom responded before your first responders did.

What are you anticipating that any of these 503 first responders would say that'd contradict what the 9/11 commisison report contains, exactly?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Ruh Roh. I thought we were discussing 'Argumentative Skills."


We ARE discussing "argumentative skills". I'm pointing out the fallacy of using the argument that the 9/11 commission report is dishonest when the critics making such a claim never even read the thing to even know why the report is dishonest.

IfI were to simply say, "Loose Change is a pack of lies" without ever actually watching it and was unable to provide a single example of a lie, you'd be all over me like Rosie O'Donnel on a chocolate cake. How is this any different?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Seventh
In one easy statement... if the commission was solely based on finding out the truth why were 503 1st responders blocked from going?.


For the obvious reason that the commission was simply unable to interview everyone in the world.

What are you anticipating that any of these 503 first responders would say that'd contradict what the 9/11 commisison report contains, exactly?


It is not obvious to me why the commission did not interview every single person involved at every single scene that day. It is not obvious, it it blatant disregard for relevant facts, corroboration and eye-witness accounts.

If they were able to speak we wouldn't have to theoretically answer your proposed question regarding supposition about what they have to say. They would have said it and what they said would have been part of the record.

Deflection. Twising, irrelevant arguments.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hazelnut
It is not obvious to me why the commission did not interview every single person involved at every single scene that day. It is not obvious, it it blatant disregard for relevant facts, corroboration and eye-witness accounts.


Becuase there are thousands and thousands and THOUSANDS of people involved on one way or another and there's simply no way they can interview everyone, or the commission would *still* be interviewing peopel even now. They'd obviously want to concentrate on interviewing the people who had direct knowledge of the events and the perpetrators (I.E. the girlfriend of Mohammed Atta) rather than people with little to no useful information (I.E. the clerk working at the 7-11 that Mohammed Atta bought a slurpie from).


If they were able to speak we wouldn't have to theoretically answer your proposed question regarding supposition about what they have to say. They would have said it and what they said would have been part of the record.


This statement makes no sense. Are you honestly trying to say the 9/11 commission report is lying to us becuase of information it DIDN'T include...? How does that discredit the information it DID include?

And while we're on the subject, let me ask *you*- did YOU read the 9/11 commission report?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
There's no level of evidence YOU would accept that is possible for any of US to deliver. We don't have tens of thousands of dollars to spend, or really any money at all as far as I'm concerned, we've never had authority to look at any of the debris, or even the buildings' structural documentation.

Tell me what you would want, as proof, that is possible without any of those things?


Of course. I would accept as irrefutable proof that a conspiracy to blow up the towers with CDs is an insider comes forward to spill the beans


Sorry, I can't force anyone to come forward, either. If they did, you wouldn't believe them anyway, you'd just say they were trying to become famous or make money or one of the other tried-and-true cop-outs to considering something.

So pretty much there IS no evidence you would accept that we could provide. Until you think of something better, why not just stop demanding unreasonable things from us? Settle for more circumstantial evidence maybe (at least from us), or petition NIST or something. Then you would have your head on a little straighter about how to go about this whole thing.


Now let me ask YOU- what would YOU accept as proof that your conspiracy stories are false, WITHOUT dismissing it outright as gov't disinformation?


Well, a reproducible global collapse mechanism would be nice, or even a reproducible initiation mechanism since NIST just left theirs as a hypothesis and never tested it, but I already know no one here could provide either of those things. Remember, like I said, not even the structural documentation is in public domain.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Not only did they tell those particular first-responders not to come, Rudy Giuliani testified to there being a FEMA bio-terror drill scheduled for Sept. 12th that had them setting up a command post inside of WTC7 on September 10th. So FEMA was actually in WTC7 the evening before 9/11 setting up a command post, is the effective and practical truth of those "bio-terror exercises" that never actually happened, obviously. They used the command post to operate out of during the 9/11 attacks obviously, for FEMA, OEM and Giuliani's office to keep radio contact with police, firefighters and EMS, basically taking the role as the acting authority over all those groups since FEMA is a federal agency.

And....they removed that part of Giuliani's testimony, both from the final book, and from their website. Now that is AT LEAST very suspicious to me, because that is information that I am very interested to know as a concerned citizen, because it suggests to me that some FEMA officials knew in advance what was going to happen at the WTC the next morning. Unless you want to believe it was just a coincidence, which is fine, but I don't believe in coincidences, and coupled with the wargames on 9/11 and the NRO drill and other "convenient coincidences," something is obviously fishy about the fact that the commission doesn't even want to CONSIDER what this information implies, even for one second, when the thought would naturally cross any investigative mind.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry, I can't force anyone to come forward, either. If they did, you wouldn't believe them anyway, you'd just say they were trying to become famous or make money or one of the other tried-and-true cop-outs to considering something.


Not true, becuase, being insiders, they would have verifiable details of the conspiracy that no crackpot or scam artist would know. All he would need to do is show how a brand new security guard at the WTC arranged delivery of a few thousand pounds of explosives, or how a NYPA building inspector suddenly received gigantic amounts of money, or phone records showing the janitor had plenty of contact with the CIA, to start upsetting the apple cart. The hordes of Woordwards and Bernstein wannabes lookign through garbage cans for the material for their next Pullizer prize for investigative reporting would take care of the rest.

This is exactly how all the OTHER gov't conspiracies from Watergate to Iran-Contra to outing that CIA agent were sniffed out, so it stands to reason this is how THIS conspiracy would be sniffed out, if it in fact actually existed.


So pretty much there IS no evidence you would accept that we could provide.


No, I would accept a reasonable explanation of how these tons of explosives even got into heavily occupied buildings in the first place without anyone seeing them and without having to rely on hordes of secret agents and disinformation shills planted throughout all walks of life, with everyone else being as dumb as a bag of hammers.


Until you think of something better, why not just stop demanding unreasonable things from us?


I am not demanding unreasonable things from anyone, and in fact, the things I ask are quite reasonable. In another thread I'm simply asking whether anyone actually read the 9/11 commission report they're refuting so passionately, and to date, I can't even get a simple yes or no answer out of anyone. Earlier in this thread I posted a calculation of how many thousands of man hours it would have to take to rig the buildings and noone wants to touch that with a ten foot pole, either.

That reminds me- have *you* read the 9/11 commission report?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Seventh
In one easy statement... if the commission was solely based on finding out the truth why were 503 1st responders blocked from going?.

For the obvious reason that the commission was simply unable to interview everyone in the world.

In other threads, we have witnessed how Dave has failed Logic 101.

This thread has been discussing argumentative techniques and we see how Dave has failed to make any inroads into passing Logic 101.

Dave, the question posed to you was why didn't the Commission interview 503 people. You then decided to destroy Logic 101 and claimed that the Commission can't interview everyone in the world. You need to read the question posed to you, with an intent to understand it.

No one expected the Commission to interview everyone in the world. Interviewing 503 people, is not logically equivalent to interviewing everyone in the world. You have created a false excuse, a strawman, for why you think that Commission should not have interviewed 503 people.

Your glaring inability to argue in favour of your official story has been obvious in other threads and it also shows up in this thread.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Okay, fine, but these links do nothing to refute what the 9/11 commission report covered. They either discuss the specific physical mechanics of the collapses, which the reports weren't set up to discuss to begin with,


Weren't set up to, but did, and turned out later to be incorrect. Yeah, I read it. To point out just one example of how you are wrong that nothing in the links refute the 911 commission report, I point out that the initial witnesses to the pentagon 'crash' were enlisted military individuals who specifically said that there was a helicopter prior to the crash, not a plane.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Not true, becuase, being insiders, they would have verifiable details of the conspiracy that no crackpot or scam artist would know. All he would need to do is show how a brand new security guard at the WTC arranged delivery of a few thousand pounds of explosives, or how a NYPA building inspector suddenly received gigantic amounts of money, or phone records showing the janitor had plenty of contact with the CIA, to start upsetting the apple cart.


Ok, then I'm curious what excuses you can think of when you read things like this:


THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.�known as the �Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,� according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.
Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source.


www.newsweek.com...

The title of that article was "Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases : The Pentagon Has Turned Over Military Records On Five Men To The Fbi."

Looks like the hijackers may have had some sort of connection to our military after all, right? I wonder what the result of anybody trying to follow up on that was.


The hordes of Woordwards and Bernstein wannabes lookign through garbage cans for the material for their next Pullizer prize for investigative reporting would take care of the rest.


The major media has never attempted to follow those lines of investigation from everything I have seen, even without knowing any details of the issue yet. You realize that all the pundits and "anchors" they have on Fox News on a 24/7 basis are just taking cues off of memos sent to them by the company's executives, right? Just as an example of how media is run in this country.


Have I read the report? I read the chapters relevant to the WTC, that's about it, besides skimming things about the hijackers. I read all that online. I don't care about the rest because I know enough about how "journalism" and congressional "investigations" work in this country to have no reason to believe any of it, the whole number of different things that can be manipulated to paint a certain picture. And it's not like it hasn't already been accused of corruption by people involved with it anyway.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join