911 Pentagon Video Released

[pupa]

Conspiracy's abound , Kooks, Kookoo's what a load of cr@p, Everyone that can read is suddenly a expert just because he can read on the internet. They read to much in the Wikipedia. Everything USA is a conspiracy, But everything South Africa is OK, yet so corrupt and racist (reverse discrimination), that's why the USA and other first world county's look at is with or in disdain! What makes You guys such Anti USA Assholes? None of you know anything anyway that's why you have so much time to waste here, arguing about everything Anti USA! in fact you all know nothing about it but what you dig up on the net and believe everything you read, senseless cr@p. SHAME! Again if someone starts to fail in debate the race card came out, how predictable! When you are pro USA you are a racist, in the eyes of the race zealots here. Ditto

YOURE ALL F@KING COOKOO! NUTS, NUTTERS, FRUITCAKES, LOONEYS, LOONS, MENTALISTS AND ALL THOSE AKA AS THE INSANE


http://my.opera.com/desection/blog/index.dml/tag/mad

 

[neio]

@ kilo39, sorry mate you just got own3d, big time.

 

[Prometheus]

So there you have it: kooks are delusional and humourless... how sad.

Yes, descrediting the source is a valid approach if we are talking authors of scientific papers - because - and I am sure you and the fellow kooks are well-versed in this - any old kook can make **** up and post it on the internet(s) today.

Rather, I am doing the kooks a favour:

There you go again with the assumptions. So because someone has said something that you don't want to believe they are automatically a kook which gives you reason not to beleve anything they say. Nice going there. You really are delusional. If everyone was like you we would still be in the dark ages.

if they get all upset by my skepticism and refuse to play any more, that is entirely their loss.

No, it's delusionism

but in your delusional little mind, they are all liars and part of the conspiracy, because you have pre-judged it to be a true conspiracy, so anything contrary must be false: they are all little Hitlers lying about the reichstag.

No, you made that assumption. No one else said it.

Thanks for all of the research, dude! Obviously you missed my lottery winner post... go back and read about the illogical conclusion you are making.

Go back and read about all the illogical conclusions you are making.

You really are a voice of sanity

No, he's confused by all your ad hominems.

and yes, I will take the 26 eyewitnesses (at least) who saw a plane over conspiracy kooks who say it wasn't a plane "just cause it was a missile".

Fine. I will take the 26+ witnesses who saw a missile over the trolls who say it wasn't one because they don't want to believe it.

I think based on your usage above, if one is shown to be a kook, then calling them a kook is not ad hominem.

Ok, so I will call you a mindless arrogant internet troll who is unable to apply scientific reasoning to prove something. All your posts prove it so it's no ad hominem.

They work like the worst pharmaceutical companies: what is the point of curing something, when you can benefit by dragging out its treatment endlessly?

Reminiscent of your style of reasoning if one can even call it reasoning.

so get back to us when you find the logical fallacies in this post http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=542030&postcount=192 or behind Dominic's eyewitness link.

Old news, smashed to pieces over and over again. .

 

[ignacio]

@ kilo39, sorry mate you just got own3d, big time.

Kilo is a good sport - he is fun to banter with because "he really believes what he writes". As I have said before, he is a respectable kook. The people who I have no respect for - on the other hand - are the kookie eaters: they don't know if a conspiracy is true or not, they don't really care, all they know is they want to believe in it just because (in this case) they hate the USA. The kookie eaters are truly dishonorable and intellectually dishonest and warrant all derision that is heaped on them.

 

[Prometheus]

@Prometheus: We'll have to wait for the videos to be released - although I'm not sure how security camera's can effectively "lie". (I.E. Doesn't matter who released them; although yes it's quite hard to see if it's a plane)

Thanks for seeing that. Now is only some other people will realise it.

Also you might want to check facts regarding a Tomahawk missile to support your theory about the size of the hole.

I didn't have a theory. I only said some people saw something that looked to them like a missile. I don't know what kind it would have been, but there is certainly something that should be investigated there. For instance why the eye-witnesses were still there and weren't swept away by the wake if it was a plane.

 

[ignacio]

My second favourite kook returns... thanks for the recap, I am glad you are enjoying my words! So now that you are ready to be serious again lets address this:

Fine. I will take the 26+ witnesses who saw a missile over the trolls who say it wasn't one because they don't want to believe it.

Can you provide the link to the witnesses who saw something other than a plane? I really want to read their testimonies. Thank you.

 

[pupa]

Fine. I will take the 26+ witnesses who saw a missile over the trolls who say it wasn't one because they don't want to believe it.
.

Where is these witnesses, why did they not come forward just after it happened, Why was it not reported, Why do the opposition in USA not run with it and make an issue of the so called conspiracy, Why only 26, there should be hundreds more? Remember the UFO landing in Durban a few days back, How varied are the reports, PPL make believe and eventually even believe themselves! Again a lot of Bull! ask Bush he will tell you the truth and yet you wont believe him! or am I wrong? I think most of your guys will grovel in his presence, but he will look at you as South African with the disdain You deserve!

 

[pupa]

Rephrased

Thanks for seeing that. Now is only some other people will realise it.

I didn't have a theory. We know you do not have one, just believe what jokers on Internet say I only said some people saw something that looked to them like a missile. I don't know what kind it would have been, but there is certainly something that should be investigated there. "Do you really think this was not investigated, are the South African time-wasters the USA's investigators now too, must be as it is years after the effect and typical ZAR, always late For instance why the eye-witnesses were still there and weren't swept away by the wake if it was a plane. " How far were they, Why did shrapnel not hit them? Did they at all see anything or only heard the noise and saw massive smoke and flames and assumed a missile attack?

If USA knew it was a "self injury" to give credence to the war in Iraq as claimed, why would they hurt their economy by shutting down all flights, close all borders, crash in the two towers, down their own plane with witness cellphone accounts from loved ones. Don't You freaks see how feeble this sound to the rest of the world, even the guys that stated this conspiracy's is laughing at you!

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Kilo is a good sport - he is fun to banter with because "he really believes what he writes". As I have said before, he is a respectable kook. The people who I have no respect for - on the other hand - are the kookie eaters: they don't know if a conspiracy is true or not, they don't really care, all they know is they want to believe in it just because (in this case) they hate the USA. The kookie eaters are truly dishonorable and intellectually dishonest and warrant all derision that is heaped on them.

Ad hominem again. Absolutely nothing to do with tackling the argument, and everything to do with tackling the person. I think it's time you pulled your head out of your arse and realised how full of shit you are. You say you're not a scientist, so that gives you absolutely no right to discredit a scientist or an engineer because their views don't fall in line with yours. You do not have the qualifications nor the grey matter to challenge their views, so you hide behind scientists and engineers whose views do fall in line with yours.

 

[eye_suc]

You say you're not a scientist, so that gives you absolutely no right to discredit a scientist or an engineer because their views don't fall in line with yours. You do not have the qualifications nor the grey matter to challenge their views, so you hide behind scientists and engineers whose views do fall in line with yours.

am i reading this right?

i am very reluctant to reread this whole thread, since most of it is drivel... could somebody maybe provide a synopsis of whats going on here? a-z

 

[Highflyer_GP]

am i reading this right?

i am very reluctant to reread this whole thread, since most of it is drivel... could somebody maybe provide a synopsis of whats going on here? a-z

Indeed most of it is drivel and senseless name-calling. Basically we have 2 sides: those who think that there's more to the official explanation, and those who stand by the official explanation.
Here's where things go a bit off. When the skeptics try to justify their reasons, they are met by direct personal attacks and name-calling by the likes of Ignacio, just because their reasoning doesn't fall in line with his. He self-admittedly confessed to not being a scientist, yet he sees fit to label scientists and engineers who don't share his views as kooks.

 

[Prometheus]

Ah, more assumptions, nice going you blabbering idiot.

Some might call it lying, but I prefer to think of you as detached from reality, like most kooks

As I have said before, he is a respectable kook.

The people who I have no respect for - on the other hand - are the kookie eaters

My second favourite kook returns...

So there you have it - far from being racist (one of your fabrications) - it is has its roots in cuckoo... which you clearly are.

Finger points right back at you.

As before, I am not descrediting the FEMA report, I am questioning your ability to challenge the report: what scientific training do you have it do so? In lieu of training, which published scientist backs up your claims?

It's the reports themselves that are flawed and contradictory. They discredit themselves by running circles around what really happened and describing only what should have happened according to them

findings. With regards to that, we have numerous published and peer reviewed papers vs. one unpublished and questionably peer reviewed paper.

Ah, published but contradicting themselves. Lets see now:
A number of published but proven inaccurate papers vs. one unpublished but very explanatory report. You believe the former right?

So - as nice as it is that you have returned and have done so in good spirits - I repeat that I am not going to engage you in the dicussion of dust and liquifying, because I have no idea how such systems would behave in such circumstances. And neither do you.

So you admit that you have no clue, but believe reports that doesn't explain anything over those that do coming from a scientist.

they don't know if a conspiracy is true or not, they don't really care, all they know is they want to believe in it just because (in this case) they hate the USA. The kookie eaters are truly dishonorable and intellectually dishonest and warrant all derision that is heaped on them.

So assumptive it doesn't even merrit a response.

Can you provide the link to the witnesses who saw something other than a plane? I really want to read their testimonies. Thank you.

No, don't want to. You missed it the first time and it's not my fault. Ask kilo to do it, I told you I think he was the one who posted them.

 

[icyrus]

You say you're not a scientist, so that gives you absolutely no right to discredit a scientist or an engineer because their views don't fall in line with yours. You do not have the qualifications nor the grey matter to challenge their views, so you hide behind scientists and engineers whose views do fall in line with yours.

The thread is long so I may have missed something, but didn't he say that a scientist/engineer's views that aren't published in a respectable journal or properly peer reviewed are not worth much?

Thats not "discrediting" a scientist, its saying the scientist has not yet earned credibility.

 

[ignacio]

am i reading this right?

i am very reluctant to reread this whole thread, since most of it is drivel... could somebody maybe provide a synopsis of whats going on here? a-z

Nah - just reread the thread... it is far from drivel: it has highs and lows, fine examples of rhetoric used to devastating effect, a few times the kooks thought they had the upper hand, and a few times they were smashed by the sane people, and even vice versa... it has its jokes, its attacks, its sorrow, its joys, its rage... we laughed a lot, we cried a lot, and have all emerged better men from it - slightly more misinformed, but with a great comraderie that is borne out of incredible animosity. If published, it would clearly be a bestseller.

 

[Roman4604]

could somebody maybe provide a synopsis of whats going on here? a-z

3rd party bystanders point of view ... the argument is what happened on 9/11; either ....

1. Terrorist highjack 4 commerical airliners and hit 2 x skyscrapers, 1 x Pentagon & 1 x farmer's field

vs.

2. The US Gov conspired to hit 2 x skyscrapers, 1 x Pentagon & 1 x farmer's field to legitemise the invasion of middle east

vs.

3. Variation on 2. where US Gov spices things up by using a mix of airliners and missles to hit 2 x skyscrapers, 1 x Pentagon & 1 x farmer's field

That's my take???

 

[ignacio]

More of my highlights and then...

No, don't want to. You missed it the first time and it's not my fault. Ask kilo to do it, I told you I think he was the one who posted them.

So - kilo - old buddy, can you post the link again? Prometheus has gone all sour and doesn't want to play any more.

 

[ignacio]

Thats not "discrediting" a scientist, its saying the scientist has not yet earned credibility.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[ignacio]

3rd party bystanders point of view ... the argument is what happened on 9/11; either ....

1. Terrorist highjack 4 commerical airliners and hit 2 x skyscrapers, 1 x Pentagon & 1 x farmer's field

vs.

2. The US Gov conspired to hit 2 x skyscrapers, 1 x Pentagon & 1 x farmer's field to legitemise the invasion of middle east

vs.

3. Variation on 2. where US Gov spices things up by using a mix of airliners and missles to hit 2 x skyscrapers (and then use nuclear weapons to destroy them), 1 x Pentagon & 1 x farmer's field

That's my take???

Nice summary... one addition within. Not making this up - go back into the thread for evidence.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

The thread is long so I may have missed something, but didn't he say that a scientist/engineer's views that aren't published in a respectable journal or properly peer reviewed are not worth much?

Thats not "discrediting" a scientist, its saying the scientist has not yet earned credibility.

See - why you may be getting so angry with me is because I am unwilling to engage you on the level of whether things should turn to dust or liquify: my contention ALL along is that I don't have the scientific training to come up with or prove theories related to these phenomena

The point is who is he to comment if he is not one himself? Who decides what a respectable journal is? One without any scientific background (by his own admission)? Likewise who determines who a credible scientist is? One without any scientific background (by his own admission)? Basically his opinion on scientists/engineers (whatever their own view is) means squat because he lacks the qualification and training to comment on their credibility. Credibility is determined by your peers, people qualified in the same field as you. Not by somebody who has no mind of his own and has to hide behind a stance taken of someone whose opinion falls in line with his own.

I repeat that I am not going to engage you in the dicussion of dust and liquifying, because I have no idea how such systems would behave in such circumstances.

He even admits that he has no clue, and when explained to him exactly how it works, then people are labelled as kooks. Basically all he's added to the discussion is that he stands behind someone else because their opinion falls in line with his. Even when he posts links, he didn't take the time to quote extracts from his links and comment on it in order to try and disprove the opposition. All he did was post links, which suggests that he never took the time to read through them himself to try and understand them, he simply posted links and tells us to go read them. Yes, this is the same whacko that thinks he has a right to determine the credibility of someone with qualifications way beyond his own.

 

[Prometheus]

Where is these witnesses, why did they not come forward just after it happened, Why was it not reported, Why do the opposition in USA not run with it and make an issue of the so called conspiracy, Why only 26, there should be hundreds more? Remember the UFO landing in Durban a few days back, How varied are the reports, PPL make believe and eventually even believe themselves!

Why? Why don't I know about the UFO? Things aren't always black and white. Why don't you ask them why no one believes them and why no one wants to report that which they have come forward with. Don't forget who controls the media and that it's hard for any reporter or news agency to go against the grain. Don't forget that people who watched both CNN and BBC during the war with Iraq said it was like watching two completely different wars. It's a proven fact that the media is biased.

Ask Bush he will tell you the truth and yet you wont believe him! or am I wrong?

Why should I believe him on anything? Where is the weapons of mad destruction he said was in Iraq? Let him show them to me. He said they were there and they haven't even found the technology needed to make them.

I think most of your guys will grovel in his presence, but he will look at you as South African with the disdain You deserve!

The only one you can speak for is yourself. Let him look at me however he wants to. He's the biggest hypocrite of them all so why do I have to be afraid to tell him what I think of him.

Rephrased

Don't interleave your thoughts with mine. Give an explanation as to why the plane didn't sweep them away with the cars on the highway if they were so close as they claim they were instead of saying they only heard a noise and assumed it was a missile. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO SAID THEY WERE VERY CLOSE AND SAW A PLANE

If USA knew it was a "self injury" to give credence to the war in Iraq as claimed, why would they hurt their economy by shutting down all flights, close all borders, crash in the two towers, down their own plane with witness cellphone accounts from loved ones. Don't You freaks see how feeble this sound to the rest of the world, even the guys that stated this conspiracy's is laughing at you!

Dont you see what is being debated here. It's actually the freaks like ignacio who said that "this is a conspiracy therefor the reports are all lies". WE sane people at least are actually debating the reports. But if you believe the reports to be accurate then please tell us why you believe so. If not then you would be better of not commenting on things you don't know anything about.