Mike Bellone's shocking claim on "Conspiracy Theory"

page: 13
38
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
Who said "like no other buildings in the world"? This is why people have such a dim view of truthers, you use hyperbole to the point of addiction. Other buildings which also use tube frame design are the sears tower, (willis tower now) and the John Hancock center. However neither of those buildings have had a 747 fly into them.


That is actually the excuse handed out by your team. Look around ATS. There is no shortage of OSers citing the uniqueness of the tower design in the reason for its near perfect collapse. This is not a truther one, sorry.



There would need to be certain similarities yes. Not limited to but including a non random series of explosions designed to cause a progressive collapse. In the case of the WTC towers, the effect was achieved by the fire weakening the steel to approximately 10% of regular strength coupled with the shearing of enough outer support columns to create a failure, which the structure itself then turned into a progressive collapse. Neither factor alone would have done so, but both together did.


I hate to point out the obvious to you but...here we go...

You pointed to a page that contained a huge factual error about how buildings are brought down. You claimed the site was factual. I showed you it was wrong in its information about controlled demos. You conceded that you did not know that and were wrong, as was the site. A post later, you are an expert on how all controlled demolitions must work?
Are you serious? Care to source any of your above garbage so it looks like real info or should we just put the same faith in it we can your sources that youtube debunked in 2 minutes?

You then go on to regurgitate what you have been told about why they came down. I was already told that same BS but thanks.


No, your interpretation of what is being argued is flawed.


Then why have you not just simply shown me any fact in that statement yet? It is a sentence; a statement. If you cannot find a fact in it by now, how on earth can you tell me I am confused?


Whats "full of crap" is your inaccurate hyperbole, inaccurate descriptions of the arguments being made, and strawman arguments in general.


Nope.

All 4 points were wrong. One was incorrect, 3 were just opinions based on assumption. Show me the facts. Show me some evidence. Show me something other than a list of opinions following a lie and convince me. Just arguing more opinion about it does not help.




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
"This is why people have such a dim view of truthers, you use hyperbole to the point of addiction. Other buildings which also use tube frame design are the sears tower, (willis tower now) and the John Hancock center. However neither of those buildings have had a 747 fly into them. No, your interpretation of what is being argued is flawed."

Actually, your interpretation of what type of aircraft allegedly flew into the Twin Towers is what's flawed. 747, really? And you expect people to take your theory of collapse seriously when you can't even get the model of aircraft correct?

Talk about having a dim view. You may want to consider turning on your highbeams and starting over from scratch.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Doglord
Look, I sympathize with you. The "truthers" are, for the most part, incapable of using logic, reason, or even being rational when it comes to 9/11. Their response is emotional not rational, and from what I've seen few if any do any actual research. But that's to be expected really, because if they weren't like that, they wouldn't be "truthers"


Thank you, Doglord. I have alway made my position known-

a) the only reason there's "so much evidence" of conspiracies and coverup is becuase these damned fool conspiracy web sites are intentionally manufacturing it. The game of con artists coming along and saying, "everything you know is wrong and I'll tell you the truth if you give me money" is as old as the hills. It's simply wrapped in a new package now


ROFLMAO! Seriously? This is an answer from someone who lacks historical knowledge.

Here, enjoy this read 33 Conspiracy Theories that turned out to be true!

Now Dave, let me know something...are these 33 are all 'manufactured' by the website or simply compiled via historical fact into a web page?



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


So...

You pointed to one flaw in the wording of his argument.
And that makes him "dim"?

Maybe he simply committed a typo? Did you ever think about that?

You should learn how to debate son.

Why did you not focus on his actual arguments?

I would harp on your grammar and syntax, but it is way too easy to point to your flaws in logic.

Argument ad hominem is how you guys roll. You come in here and point to one tiny flaw in the wording of a person's argument (flaws that are usually due to typos), and then you run with it.

I do not see you trying to debate any of his actual arguments, but I see a veiled attack on him personally.

Put your pitiful personal attacks back in the tool case and learn a bit of logic.

You committed so many errors of logic and reasoning with so few words.
I am genuinely impressed.

If I could give you a star for being ridiculous and contemptuous, then I would, but until then, I think that I will settle for simply showing how shortsighted you are.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Josephus23]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
I would harp on your grammar and syntax, but it is way too easy to point to your flaws in logic.



...and yet you did not. Why is that? The sentence above is grammatically incorrect by the way.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Josephus23
I would harp on your grammar and syntax, but it is way too easy to point to your flaws in logic.



...and yet you did not. Why is that? The sentence above is grammatically incorrect by the way.

Cheers


Cheers.



I was trying to sounding high and mighty to cover up the planes being 767's.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Josephus23
I would harp on your grammar and syntax, but it is way too easy to point to your flaws in logic.



...and yet you did not. Why is that? The sentence above is grammatically incorrect by the way.

Cheers


Cheers.



I was trying to sounding high and mighty to cover up the planes being 767's.


I guess that makes sense then. I am just worried you might come down with that disease you get from the types of foxes that live in swamps. The first symptom is telling people you can tear up their argument and then proceeding NOT to. I know you are better than that, so take some vitamin c and take care of yourself.

[edit on 1/19/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I'm gonna get flamed for this i just know it but let me throw this one out ? The OS believers say the collapses were 'natural' due to fire one of the reasons being not enough time to wire the buildings ? But...what if... the buildings were 'wired' when they were built ? Just a whacky thought but there you are ! I await the full force of derision !



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Bump.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
How did the government know who were the actual terrorists if the black boxes were not found and no video is available of anyone boarding the plane?
(just as a side note... why would suicide bombers bring their passports with them on a domestic flight? They all had drivers licenses, but it doesn't matter because they were not needed back then. Only a ticket hoss.)
Shall we continue?
Let's...


Wow dude, I never thought of that. How did they really know? lol I feel like an idiot for never questioning that



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
I'm gonna get flamed for this i just know it but let me throw this one out ? The OS believers say the collapses were 'natural' due to fire one of the reasons being not enough time to wire the buildings ? But...what if... the buildings were 'wired' when they were built ? Just a whacky thought but there you are ! I await the full force of derision !


Or what if a foreign intelligence agency managed to do this through deception? "By way of deception, thou shall do war"...that's the motto of the MOSSAD, who just happened to be "documenting" the collapse of the towers while break dancing in the process. If the urban moving systems story is 100% correct, and there were explosives in the van, who says these weren't demolition explosives? Of course there is nothing on paper that links these two things, but it's food for thought. Instead of the "US Government rigged it to explode" what about changing thought process to "maybe someone just as deceptive and powerful as the US managed to do this"?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
STOP THE MADNESS!

Terminal Velocity

This is an old thread, apparently bumped for the purpose of trolling. Some of the comments from bygone days do not meet our current standards for courtesy.

Current comments are expected to, however, and repeatedly failing to meet them is not recommended.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

ROFLMAO! Seriously? This is an answer from someone who lacks historical knowledge.

Here, enjoy this read 33 Conspiracy Theories that turned out to be true!

Now Dave, let me know something...are these 33 are all 'manufactured' by the website or simply compiled via historical fact into a web page?


First of all , I notice you're quoting drivel that originally came from Alex Jones, so all you've done is to irrefutably prove you ARE getting all your material from those damned fool conspiracy web sites so don't even attempt to deny it at this point. Second of all, these "conspiracies" aren't even conspiracies-

-the Manhattan Project wasn't a conspiracy, but a top secret military operation to create a superweapon;
-the Gulf of Tonkin wasn't a conspiracy, but a mixup in communication which they eagarly ran with anyway because they were chomping at the bit to enter the war in Vietnam.
-Operation Paperclip isn't a conspiracy; it was grabbing German scientists at the end of WWII to advance US science and to make sure they didn't wind up building missiles for the Soviets
-Bohemian Grove isn't even a conspiracy; it's a resort out in the middle of the woods where rich republicans can get drunk and act like college frat boys out of the public eye. It's the 1%er's version of Burning Man.
-Northwoods isn't anything at all. It was thrown into the trash and the guy who came up with it was sacked.

...and on and on and on. So are you REALLY telling me that some resort out in the woods where rich republicans can get drunk and act like college frat boys is supposedly proof there's some complex spooky-scary world wide plot to stage a terrorist attack and frame a third world country that not even the Soviets thought was worth fighting over? I mean, that genuinely makes perfect sense to you?

Alex Jones has raped you and raped you thoroughy, dude.
edit on 26-7-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by homervb
I'm gonna get flamed for this i just know it but let me throw this one out ? The OS believers say the collapses were 'natural' due to fire one of the reasons being not enough time to wire the buildings ? But...what if... the buildings were 'wired' when they were built ? Just a whacky thought but there you are ! I await the full force of derision !


It's not "flaming" to point out how impractical an idea is. For one thing, those weren't robots building the towers, but real live people, so they'd need to be setting up these explosives right there in the middle of all these workers putting the thing together. There's literally no way they could conceal such a thing. For another, these explosives would need to have been sitting around for thirty years in the cold of winter, absorbing moisture from the air while it was raining, being baked during summer heat waves, etc. There'd be no way these explosives wouled still be active after all that time. Either that' or the explosives would naturally separate from their binders like nitroglycerine does out of dynamite and become super sensitive, meaning they'd have blown up spontaneously in a severe windstorm. That doesn't even include the fact that there'd be absolutely no reason for them to even do it thirty years ago.

Interesting scenario, but like most conspiracy theories, it's not workable in the real world.



new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join