Attention all sinister secret agents we have a problem !

page: 15
15
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Are you really asking why I would be concerned that people try and slander me by saying that I'm part of the problem? That i'm in some way culpable? I don't think that even needs an answer.


How can someone slander an anonymous person on the internet? If you were known to the public then it might be a different case, but you are just an anonymous blip on a 9/11 forum. Why are you so touchy if you have nothing to hide?


You've researched 911 but never come across the phrase 'truther'? Such a thing is not possible, and either means you're trying to play some silly word game, or you're straight up lying. Well I suppose there's a third option, you didn't research it at all.


Just because you say it's not possible that I have not heard the term turther until now doesn't mean you are correct. I know myself, you do not know me or anything about me, and whether you want to believe me or not makes no difference to me whatsoever.

I do not use slang ad hominem terms in my vocabulary, so why would I know every slang term like the tem truther? I know the urban dictionar exists, but I never use it, I like to use the Oxford English dictionary, not slang dictionaries. If you like to make your vocabulary up from slang dictionaries that is your choice.



These people exist. It's not wacky, it's sad. It's sad that I'm having to explain to you how I'm comparing the logical leaps and methods of belief used.


I personally think some of the stuff you come out with is wacky. Why are you sad? When you say sad, do you mean you feel really down? You don't have to explain anything to me, especially not with wacky unrealted analogies. I'm fully capable of working things out for myself without wacky comparisions to religion. As I say, I'm only interested in 9/11 on this forum, if you care to have a conversation about your religious beliefs then you are talking to the wrong person. Go to a church, you can discuss wacky beliefs all day long there, they welcome people that reinforce religion. They might try and extract money from you though, so be careful!


You're using the same belief structure. The same arrogant position that no evidence needs to be shown, the same dismissal without cause of alternate explanations.


Again, you are sounding incoherent. I will welcome evidence, that is what I base my conclusions on, but when you fail to provide it when asked, then anything you say will naturally be dismissed until the evidence shows up. Like the WTC7 20 story hole evidence I'm still waiting for. It would seem that you are very arrogant, I am trying to be civil, and the ad hominem keeps flowing from you. People that behave as such are more like internet trolls, not substance, just a never ending river of ad hominem.

When you actually post some on topic evidence, instead of wacky theoires about things unrelated to 9/11, then we can engage like adults, and I will then be happy to have a serious debate with you. It seems this is all some game to you?


No, that's not what I said. I can't think of a single group or organisation that puts across a consistent and coherent alternate hypothesis. AE911Truth for example, have members who claim micro-nukes were used. Even their front page list of evidence is inconsistent.

If you think there is a group with a coherent and consistent alternate hypothesis, I'd love to see it. I doubt they exist.


I'm not talking about groups, that is something you just plucked out of nowhere, I'm talking about individual professional people that are not part of any group. There are many that have expertise in their field, who have looked at the 9/11 OS evidence and found problems with it. They draw upon their expertise in their field to isolate elements of the OS, and disect it scientifically.


Except that's nonsense, and the experts in those fields have almost universally decried these theories. Of course there's a few people who believe in anything, but that's not a huge shock. Can you name a single major issue that hasn't been addressed by the community of experts in that field?


Oh I see, you do not accept there are experts in this world, maybe you think you are an expert in every professional field, and no one else can be more of an expert that you? I have listed the experts already, structual engineers, Fire experts, pilots, to name a few, and I have posted factual documents and videos already, if you have not taken time to look at all the evidence people present, dismissing it all before analysing it, then you cannot for one minute make any claims to know it all. It appears your own research is very lacking. A researcher worth their salt will look at all the evidence, and then base their conclusions on that, instead of just accepting what the media and government tells them, and then claiming to be an 'expert'. It is clear that I am talking to someone who will only accept the OS, and will not do any further research into all the available evidence. Jack of all trades, master of none.


I was a methodist by the way, but I left that nonsense


I said that as a joke seeing as you seem to be fixated with mixing religion and 9/11 together. Try scientific analysis of the evidence and stick to that alone. Bringing religion into a 9/11 forum just makes you come across as wacky.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





I don't agree with you. You think they should be prosecuted under a law you cannot name. I think they should have been investigated and their failures, where culpable - should have seen them censured. I imagine careers were ended or curtailed, but I don't feel that this happened in the open environment in which it should.



I'm glad to see that you base your believes on facts..... Like your imagination that careers were ended or curtailed.

You're a joke
edit on 6-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Well done on not responding to the entirety of my post. I imagine you found the other stuff a bit difficult to process or something? Or just a bit rational? Certainly less of a joke than someone who leaps to conclusions based on whatever they happen to be feeling at any given moment.

As you can see above, I wrote "I imagine" that careers were damaged. The atmosphere inside the secret services after 9/11 was one of enormous embarrassment. The CIA lost a huge amount of standing and behind the scenes I would think that the people charged with assessing the risks regarding Al-Qaeda had their careers irretrievably damaged. I don't know this for a fact, but I know enough surrounding it to suspect it's the case. That we don't know more about it I consider pretty disgraceful, as I've said.

But since I introduced it into the discussion as an obviously speculative notion it's pretty dense of you to pick it out as though it is a sourced fact and complain that I'm relying on it.

But to then ignore everything else because you somehow naively think I've claimed something that I haven't... well, I don't think it's me that's the joke.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by thegameisup


Trickoftheshade even admits in this thread that they have not read the NIST report, how can they be an expert on 9/11 without even looking at what they are defending?


Oh man. Another person who just makes stuff up.

Just what the Truth Movement needs.


Yeah, I'm just 'making it up' you obviously have a short memory!

Hereis the thread link again that proves you have said you have not read the NIST report.

Trickoftheshade states they have not read the NIST report.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now who is making stuff up?!



That's over a year old. How are you so certain I haven't read it since?


Well when I first posted the link to that thread you said I was making it up that you had said you had not read the NIST report. I was just providing the link again to say that you could not deny you had said that.



Nope. Look above. I said you were making up that I had said in this thread that I hadn't read the NIST report.

And indeed you were.


You left out my initial link to the other thread to where you stated you had not read the NIST report, and that is what I was going off. When I said 'in this thread' there was a link below it to the other thread, it seems you conveniently left that link out, but I know what I meant, and that is all that matters. I could see the lie, even if you tried to present a comment to hide that you lied.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


I assumed you meant this thread, that's all. You still made quite a lot of other stuff up. And your assumption that I should defend the NIST report is a strawman anyway. I don't demand that you defend the vicsim hypothesis, for example.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup
How can someone slander an anonymous person on the internet? If you were known to the public then it might be a different case, but you are just an anonymous blip on a 9/11 forum.

You may not know my real name, but "exponent" is my handle here. The fact that nobody can show me being in any way biased towards the 'official story' and nobody has any reason for me to be biased is why I am concerned about my reputation. Of course this doesn't matter to many people, but to me it does.


Why are you so touchy if you have nothing to hide?

What would I possibly have to hide?


Just because you say it's not possible that I have not heard the term turther until now doesn't mean you are correct. I know myself, you do not know me or anything about me, and whether you want to believe me or not makes no difference to me whatsoever.

I do not use slang ad hominem terms in my vocabulary, so why would I know every slang term like the tem truther? I know the urban dictionar exists, but I never use it, I like to use the Oxford English dictionary, not slang dictionaries. If you like to make your vocabulary up from slang dictionaries that is your choice.

I can't imagine what sort of 'research' you have done where you have not come across this term. It even appears at the start of paragraph 2 on the wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org... .. Some research you must have done.


They might try and extract money from you though, so be careful!

Sounds familiar!


Again, you are sounding incoherent. I will welcome evidence, that is what I base my conclusions on, but when you fail to provide it when asked, then anything you say will naturally be dismissed until the evidence shows up. Like the WTC7 20 story hole evidence I'm still waiting for.

What evidence would you like? There are grainy photos, composite photos which show a clear gash and eyewitness accounts from several firefighters recorded immediately after the event. That seems pretty convincing to me, and the 'demand unattainable evidence' canard is an old one in this forum. As long as you apply your standards of evidence equally I have no problem, but what evidence do you actually want?


It would seem that you are very arrogant, I am trying to be civil, and the ad hominem keeps flowing from you. People that behave as such are more like internet trolls, not substance, just a never ending river of ad hominem.

You keep using 'Ad Hominem' incorrectly. Perhaps you should spend more time studying your dictionary.


When you actually post some on topic evidence, instead of wacky theoires about things unrelated to 9/11, then we can engage like adults, and I will then be happy to have a serious debate with you. It seems this is all some game to you?

It's actually a hobby to me. I couldn't care less what your beliefs end up being, just silly claims like there being no reasonable evidence for a gash in the front of WTC7. If your standard of evidence is 'multiple photos and firefighter accounts' for every event, then I fail to see how you could believe in any alternate theory at all.


I'm not talking about groups, that is something you just plucked out of nowhere, I'm talking about individual professional people that are not part of any group.

I talked about groups.


There are many that have expertise in their field, who have looked at the 9/11 OS evidence and found problems with it. They draw upon their expertise in their field to isolate elements of the OS, and disect it scientifically.

Name a single one please.


I have listed the experts already, structual engineers, Fire experts, pilots, to name a few

These are not names.


A researcher worth their salt will look at all the evidence, and then base their conclusions on that, instead of just accepting what the media and government tells them, and then claiming to be an 'expert'. It is clear that I am talking to someone who will only accept the OS, and will not do any further research into all the available evidence.

Nice implication here, but it's a false one. I have never claimed to be an expert.

It seems to me you want to believe you're the arbiter of truth and that you can just keep asking for evidence to dismiss a claim. Name a single alternate claim that's supported with this much evidence please.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I find it difficult to process any of your posts without getting tagged by the mods.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 





You left out my initial link to the other thread to where you stated you had not read the NIST report, and that is what I was going off. When I said 'in this thread' there was a link below it to the other thread, it seems you conveniently left that link out, but I know what I meant, and that is all that matters. I could see the lie, even if you tried to present a comment to hide that you lied.


It's not his fault I guess.. it seems like he has trouble understanding what he reads.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I find it difficult to process any of your posts without getting tagged by the mods.


Don't worry. Ignorance and stupidity makes people angry and encourages them to react violently - hence the desire to prosecute people, hang them and so on. It's a function of insecurity.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


I find it difficult to process any of your posts without getting tagged by the mods.


Don't worry. Ignorance and stupidity makes people angry and encourages them to react violently - hence the desire to prosecute people, hang them and so on. It's a function of insecurity.


There's a name for people like you in my neighborhood, I just can't use that type of language here.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

As usual, the disinfo crap that you post is diametrically opposite the truth:

THE DELETED REPORTS
FROM THE HISTORIOGRAPHY
OF 9/11

By Christopher Bollyn

As any journalist or historian knows, when a major catastrophe occurs it is extremely important to monitor the first news reports because they often describe a very different version of events than those produced after government spin doctors have gotten their fingers in the story. The earliest reports, which are often more candid and honest than those that follow, need to be preserved for history.


Good grief you are a piece of work. From day one I've been saying you conspiracy people are getting all this conspiracy nonsense from the con artists and crackpots running those damned fool web sites, so what do you do to contest this? You grab an article from one of the very con artists and crackpots runnign those damned fool conspiracy web sites. Chris Bollyn is one of the biggest loons pushing that "Jewish World Order" conspiracy to the point where he even accused the Jews of setting up those Danish Newspapers for the whole cartoons of Mohammed bit.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Christopher Bollyn

If you want to listen to that crackpot and his deranged explanations on how Israel pillaged Iceland and how the Prime Minister of Sweden was assassinated by the Zionists to protect their world media monopoly, go right ahead, but the fact that cannot be refuted is that the Associated Press released an erroneous report stating flight 93 landed in Cleveland and they later retracted it. The fact can likewise not be refuted is that conspiracy theorists repeatedly mention the former and religiously negled to mention the latter, even though it can be revealed in a 30 second Google search.

Why you say this is "disinformation crap" is beyond me. I suspect it's becuase you know you're losing this debate so you resort to dragging in these weird nonsequitor tangents becuase you don't want to admit you're wrong. The original point was about how you're claiming the FBI and CIA had a better work relations than what the 9/11 Commission report said, remember?



The two stories, one from Cleveland and one from Albuquerque, are essential to understanding what happened on that awful day, but both have been excised from the publicly accessible body of historical writing about 9/11.


That's becuase it was shown to be incorrect and it was retracted. Who the flip is going to purposely teach people incorrect things entirely to placate you conspiracy people? That ain't denying ignorance, guy, it's embracing it like it a drowning man holds onto a life preserver.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Aww Dave, did you find somebody else who screwed up and then try to use that to discredit everything he ever did in his life and then proceed to use that against everything that I write and do?

I guess it's really true that you can't teach an old dog new tricks.





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join