911 Pentagon Video Released

[ignacio]

I won't deny that it's possible that they had some kind of hand in it, but I wouldn't go so far as to believe it outright.

So I suppose you could say I'm skeptical, but I do admit it's possible. I've seen V for Vendetta!

Anyway, my major gripe is that the whole thing turned out so beautifully that I think it was impossible to plan, I just don't have enough regard for them to pull off something like it.

But if they did, RESPEK YO! Those cats are smart!

But they didn't fly the 747's with remote controls or have explosives under the Towers.

You really are a voice of sanity rising above the "JFK was a conspiracy, therefore 911 is a conspiracy" or "America is the Great Satan, therefore 911 is a conspiracy" din. The kooks have taken a healthy skepticism and made it into a disease.

 

[Xarog]

Yah - so the irony of you launching into an ad hominem against me is lost on you...

Calling your attitude dispicable and giving my reasons is not an ad-hominem.

as was the joke about being on guard.

Riiiiight.

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

Ipse dixit.

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

That's not an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem is attacking the character of the poster in order to give your argument credence. Calling me an idiot would be an insult. Claiming that you can't believe anything I say because I'm an idiot is an ad-hominem.

Oooh - so very vile indeed! When you unbunch your panties, show me the place we I tried to "prevent" you kooks from doing what you do best - spreading misinformation, pseudo-science, and untested hypotheses?

You started it the moment you didn't have the guts to argue the case on it's merits, and started to referring to anyone who disagreed with you as a kook.

Rather, I am doing the kooks a favour:

Nice ad-hominem.

The US government is only one scource of information in this case - the rest are scientists or researchers or eyewitnesses...

Who do you think gave the scientists and researches their physical evidence? Eyewitness accounts are dodgy - always have been and always will be.

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,

You are not an authority on what goes on in my head.

so anything contrary must be false: they are all little Hitlers lying about the reichstag.

False conclusion drawn by false assumptions on what I do and do not think. Again an ad-hominem, because you're trying to prove your argument by assassinating my character.

Yawn - proving what? Does it even remotely follow that disinformation to confuse an enemy means you would therefore nuke buildings in NYC?

Aha, something addressing the merits of the arguments at last!

I've already told you exactly what it means in my previous post : It's erronious to assume that everything that comes from a govt. source or mass media is 100% true.

Sadly, it's still a strawman, as I've never once claimed that the WTC towers were nuked.

Again, more evidence of your "US govt sucks and are yucky, and I will make sure to make up or understand the facts to prove this". Appears that your whole drive is one big ad hominem against the US.

It's not an ad-hominem to claim that you can't trust the US govt because they tell lies, and then showing all the times they lied - it's a valid argument.

Liars should not be trusted to tell the truth. It would be an ad-hominem if I said you couldn't believe what they said because they were murderers.

 

[ignacio]

What can be said - not much added here... but lets see:

[Random ad hominem attacks...] Who do you think gave the scientists and researches their physical evidence? Eyewitness accounts are dodgy - always have been and always will be.

LOL - once more an ad hominem attack against the US gov (they provided info and therefore the info cannot be trusted). Dodgy eyewitnesses? Good enough for a court of law... 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". The fact is that you use the word dodgy to discredit what eyewitnesses see... woah - something you accuse me of! Hypocrisy, another common theme among kooks.

Sadly, it's still a strawman, as I've never once claimed that the WTC towers were nuked.

You think this is all about you? Go back and look what the other kooks have been saying while you were away....

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

 

[Xarog]

What can be said - not much added here... but lets see:

Not my fault if you're spewing bilge.

LOL - once more an ad hominem attacks against the US gov (they provided info and therefore the info cannot be trusted).

No, they have lied, thus what they say cannot be trusted merely by virtue of the source.

Dodgy eyewitnesses? Good enough for a court of law...

Not always. Usually there has to be other corroborating evidence for a judgement to go past reasonable doubt.

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"

Never once claimed it was a missile instead of a plane. Nice strawman.

The fact is that you use the word dodgy to descredit what eyewitnesses see... woah - something you accuse me of!

Eyewitness reports are unreliable, thus why it's the exception rather than the rule that people get prosecuted on eyewitness accounts alone. That makes them dodgy. Sorry if I wasn't as clear before, but it's no ad-hominem.

You think this is all about you?

The way you phrased your statement made it about me. You distinctly asked what if I thought that the fact that govts have been known to use disinformation was proof that the WTC towers were nuked, and you did so in a manner that suggested that I had previously made such a claim. That's a strawman.

Go back and look what the other kooks have been saying while you were away....

Well, you claim I'm a kook, then you claim all kooks cannot be trusted, and that we all spout wild conspiracy theories. Nice smear campaign you have going there. That makes it about me, too.

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

Claiming their argument is unreasonable because they are a kook is an ad-hominem, and a logical fallacy. You're shooting yourself in the foot over and over again - why not try addressing the issue for a change? Or is that too much of a challenge?

 

[ignacio]

Maybe I will just have to wait for the other kooks to wake up... you aren't adding anything. Again, go back and read what the other kooks have to say about missiles and nukes before complaining of strawmen. If you don't believe that nukes and missiles were used, then you are already far less kooky than them... congratulations! It appears your kookiness is only limited to hating the US and distrusting anything that comes out of it (small things like scientific research, eyewitness reports...).

 

[Xarog]

Maybe I will just have to wait for the other kooks to wake up... you aren't adding anything.

LMFAO - I respond to fallacies and then you claim I'm not adding anything to the debate; but that's only because YOU WEREN'T POSTING ANYTHING WORTHY OF DEBATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Again, go back and read what the other kooks have to say about missiles and nukes before complaining of strawmen.

You implied I held a position I did not, that's a strawman. In this thread I have only stated that the US govt is not a credible source by virtue of being the US govt (Their claims may well be supported by evidence though, but I'm not getting into that on either side, for now).

Yet you saw that as a reason to claim I was a kook, and that I was utterly delusional, simply because I showed your trust in certain sources to be unwarranted. Infact, I shot the entire thrust of your debate to pieces, and you responded that I wasn't adding anything. How telling that you cannot argue against my real position.

Instead you have to resort to attempts to assassinate my character, as shown below :

It appears your kookiness is only limited to hating the US and distrusting anything that comes out of it (small things like scientific research, eyewitness reports...).

 

[ignacio]

Their claims may well be supported by evidence though, but I'm not getting into that on either side, for now

Let us know your fantasies when you get a chance, so we can debunk those as well.

A lot of blabbering, but, yes, we get the idea - you hate and distrust the states - can you now tell us where you stand on the current kook positions covered in this thread: US gov bombed the WTC (likely nuclear) and missiled the Pentagon.

If you are just going to whine on and on about distrusting the gov - don't bother... we really do get it at this stage. Let's hear your conspiracy positions instead.

 

[Xarog]

A lot of blabbering, but, yes, we get the idea - you hate and distrust the states - can you now tell us where you stand on the current kook positions covered in this thread: US gov bombed the WTC (likely nuclear) and missiled the Pentagon.

I told you, I'm not getting into it. I haven't examined the evidence on either side, my arguments thus far are irrelevant to the evidence on either side, as all I'm doing is calling you on your illigetimate debating tactics.

If you are just going to whine on and on about distrusting the gov - don't bother... we really do get it at this stage. Let's hear your conspiracy positions instead.

I have conspiracy positions? I'm sorry, I didn't know that - perhaps you'd like to tell me what they are. (That's the second time you're falsely assuming to be an authority on what goes inside my head. Are you naturally this stupid, or do you have to try at it?)

 

[icyrus]

I'll never understand this. Could someone explain? Links, theories and "facts" aside - if the evidence that the "official story" is a lie is so sound and undeniable; if the official reports are so wrong that they have been "torn to shreds" then why is the debate consigned to internet message boards and conspiracy sites?

Why is there no public outcry? What isn't the government being help responsible for it? Why are countries that would love to show up the current US government not using this as a bargaining chip? Iran for example.

Why?

I understand that people will believe whatever they want, but such evidence, if its as sounds as the people backing the conspiracy theories make out, should hold up in court right? Why have there been no cases?

Why?

I'm not looking for a flame war or more links to "facts". I'm hoping someone can answer why this hasn't left the realm of conspiracy theory.

All this back and forth and yet no one from the conspiracy side will tackle these questions? I wonder why...

 

[ignacio]

I told you, I'm not getting into it. I haven't examined the evidence on either side, my arguments thus far are irrelevant to the evidence on either side, as all I'm doing is calling you on your illigetimate debating tactics.

Ah, just another kook apologist/commentator.... utterly pointless, you do realise kookie eater tried this approach before? Come back when you have something to actually say.

At least kilo and prometheus have the balls to take and defend a position - they are respectable kooks, after all. Your big contribution is "don't trust the states" - thanks - I thought we covered that in the video taping protestors thread... I guess you just can't help repeating yourself.

 

[ignacio]

All this back and forth and yet no one from the conspiracy side will tackle these questions? I wonder why...

Do you actually think conspiracy kooks want to prove a conspiracy true?

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

A kook without a conspiracy has nothing to obsess about: the very purpose of their lives is tied up in all of these fantasies.

 

[Xarog]

Ah, just another kook apologist/commentator.... utterly pointless, you do realise kookie eater tried this approach before? Come back when you have something to actually say.

I have said lots. I've explained why your method of debating is critically flawed, and you have only been able to respond with ad-hominems and strawmen. I'm still waiting for a real response for you, but you seem unable to provide it. At this point I'm starting to guess it's because you can't - but I don't like to jump to conclusions.

At least kilo and prometheus have the balls to take and defend a position - they are respectable kooks, after all. Your big contribution is "don't trust the states" - thanks - I thought we covered that in the video taping protestors thread... I guess you just can't help repeating yourself.

My position is this : There are several events regarding the WTC attacks that are strange and ill-explained by the official story. Certainly, there is not enough credible evidence to declare the war on terror and the political results of that 'war' justified. That's all just a big farce to turn US citizens into docile little sheep that jump up and put their hands on their hearts as soon as they see a flag, and to allow the US to get away with its illegal wars of aggression.

Regarding the video protestors thread, since you mentioned it : You didn't respond to my last post.

 

[ignacio]

I have said lots. I've explained why your method of debating is critically flawed, and you have only been able to respond with ad-hominems and strawmen. I'm still waiting for a real response for you, but you seem unable to provide it. At this point I'm starting to guess it's because you can't - but I don't like to jump to conclusions.

Take up my debate style in your blog... this thread is trying hard enough to stay on-topic regarding 911 without your derailment attempts.

My position is this : There are several events regarding the WTC attacks that are strange and ill-explained by the official story. Certainly, there is not enough credible evidence to declare the war on terror and the political results of that 'war' justified. That's all just a big farce to turn US citizens into docile little sheep that jump up and put their hands on their hearts as soon as they see a flag, and to allow the US to get away with its illegal wars of aggression.

What a cute position - so while we concentrate on the WTC bombing and Pentagon missile theories, you should start another thread about US hegemony, indoctrination and illegal wars, mkay?

Regarding the video protestors thread, since you mentioned it : You didn't respond to my last post.

You likely had nothing to say - more of the same... US bad, don't trust, maybe a few haliburtons. I will possibly go back there if I am really bored.

 

[Xarog]

Take up my debate style in your blog... this thread is trying hard enough to stay on-topic regarding the WTC without your derailment attempts.

I'm not interested in your debate style - I'm calling you to account for your blatant logical fallacies.

What a cute position - so while we concentrate on the WTC bombing and Pentagon missile theories, you should start another thread about US hegemony, indoctrination and illegal wars, mkay?

I said I wasn't getting into it. You bitched and bitched until you finally got an answer out of me, then you bitch some more saying that I should start my own thread - can't have your cake and eat it, china.

You likely had nothing to say - more of the same... US bad, don't trust, maybe a few haliburtons. I will possibly go back there if I am really bored.

 

[ignacio]

I'm not interested in your debate style - I'm calling you to account for your blatant logical fallacies.

I am sure you have a lot to rail about in this world, like the evil US empire or why you weren't born a girl, but, while fascinating stuff, it is not relevant to this thread, 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.

I said I wasn't getting into it. You bitched and bitched until you finally got an answer out of me, then you bitch some more saying that I should start my own thread - can't have your cake and eat it, china

Yup - got the old US=evil rehash, but it didn't deal with the conspiracies under discussion, so I suggested taking it elsewhere.

 

[Nom Chompsky]

@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)

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

 

[Xarog]

I am sure you have a lot to rail about in this world, like the evil US empire or why you weren't born a girl, but, while fascinating stuff, it is not relevant to this thread, so get back to us when you find the logical fallacies in this post http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost...&postcount=192 or behind Dominic's eyewitness link.

No. I'm calling you to account for the logical fallacies you've made, period. And it's entirely relavent to this thread, because you try and base your arguments on those fallacies.

Yup - got the old US=evil rehash, but it didn't deal with the conspiracies under discussion, so I suggested taking it elsewhere.

After you asked me, in this thread, what my position was. I oringally didn't want to post it, but you just had to keep moaning, didn't you? And look, you're still moaning, as quoted above.

 

[kilo39]

Excuse me dropping out of this thread guys - and for any rudeness that may have ensued. Let me explain one small thing (or two) to ignacio. Ignacio - every time you use the word kook you are being racist - kook has its root in gook - and we all know where that came from. So - your fascist language, demeanour, and method is totally unacceptable and if you wish any kind of decent debate then I advise you stop using the language.

To go quickly back to where I dropped out - and I am going to tell you this - yet again - I am using your references - and arguments aside as to the validity of references - we'll go right back to the first one:

Your quote:
No, my boy, you may be starting with something that resembles my credible experts, but then you are adding your own facts, conjecture and interpretation. I am simply asking for a single published scientist who backs up any of your "theories".... otherwise I can only dismiss them as more kook rubbish.

Okay - now - the reference that I used - which you are discrediting above - comes from the OFFICIAL FEMA REPORT. Credentials good enough for you?

Explain to me (without the use of the word kook or any other derogatory term) - how you would like to explain away the electron microscope evidence - from the official FEMA report (just in case you have forgotten.) So electron microscopes lie. The official FEMA report is bogus? Is that your implication.

 

[ignacio]

You REALLY cannot help making things up, can you? Some might call it lying, but I prefer to think of you as detached from reality, like most kooks. So onto your first piece of misinformation/lie:

Let me explain one small thing (or two) to ignacio. Ignacio - every time you use the word kook you are being racist - kook has its root in gook - and we all know where that came from.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/kook

Main Entry: kook
Pronunciation: 'kük
Function: noun
Etymology: by shortening & alteration from cuckoo
: one whose ideas or actions are eccentric, fantastic, or insane

http://www.answers.com/kook (wow - did the author meet you?!)

Term used to describe a regular poster who continually posts messages with no apparent grounding in reality. Different from a troll, which implies a sort of sly wink on the part of a poster who knows better, kooks really believe what they write, to the extent that they believe anything.

The kook trademark is paranoia and grandiosity. Kooks will often build up elaborate imaginary support structures, fake corporations and the like, and continue to act as if those things are real even after their falsity has been documented in public.

While they may appear harmless, and are usually filtered out by the other regular participants in a newsgroup of mailing list, they can still cause problems because the necessity for these measures is not immediately apparent to newcomers; there are several instances on record, for example, of journalists writing stories with quotes from kooks who caught them unaware.

So there you have it - far from being racist (one of your fabrications) - it is has its roots in cuckoo... which you clearly are. Let me guess, you are now going to defend yourself, say "we all know it is gook", blah, blah, blah... just be a man this once, be sane this once, suck it up and accept a SIMPLE fact for a change: kook is not racist.

To go quickly back to where I dropped out - and I am going to tell you this - yet again - I am using your references - and arguments aside as to the validity of references - we'll go right back to the first one:

Your quote:
No, my boy, you may be starting with something that resembles my credible experts, but then you are adding your own facts, conjecture and interpretation. I am simply asking for a single published scientist who backs up any of your "theories".... otherwise I can only dismiss them as more kook rubbish.

Okay - now - the reference that I used - which you are discrediting above - comes from the OFFICIAL FEMA REPORT. Credentials good enough for you?

Explain to me (without the use of the word kook or any other derogatory term) - how you would like to explain away the electron microscope evidence - from the official FEMA report (just in case you have forgotten.) So electron microscopes lie. The official FEMA report is bogus? Is that your implication.

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? 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 - and neither do you. So, while it may be fun for us to speculate on these matters, I leave it to scientists to actually do the research and modelling, and to report their findings. With regards to that, we have numerous published and peer reviewed papers vs. one unpublished and questionably peer reviewed paper.

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 discussion of dust and liquifying, because I have no idea how such systems would behave in such circumstances. And neither do you.

 

[neio]

Roflmao. Nice post ignacio.