911 Pentagon Video Released

[Prometheus]

LOL - I am sure I have a good handle on the English language, unlike you... but, yes, to attempt to use name calling and my own jokes against me in order to descredit my thoughts on your conspiracy theory is - in fact - ad hominem, since they are clearly attacks against me and not my positions.

And your name calling and jokes against us in order to discredit your thoughts on YOUR conspiracy theory isn't? You're discrediting yourself here pal.

 

[mooK]

Prometheus, please stop with the derogatory comments!

Anyway, Xarog, do you have Prometheus on ignore or something? I don't understand why you're making such a fuss about his debating methods if you've been paying attention to the way Prom goes about it. At least Ignacios follows a consistent logical train of thought, he even adds humour and humility to the debate.

Prom, on the other hand just regurgitates the same thing over and over telling himself how he's smashing Ignacio's posts out of the water. When in actual fact he doesn't even know where he stands in the issue anymore.

EDIT: Prom, I'm gonna try and explain this concept to you again. That Xenu theory was a joke, he made it to highlight how idiotic your theory was. Similar to the way Jabulani brought up the Spaghetti Monster, or are you still struggling with the question of why he did that?

 

[Highflyer_GP]

And your name calling and jokes against us in order to discredit your thoughts on YOUR conspiracy theory isn't? You're discrediting yourself here pal.

Yup he's been doing it for a while now

@mooK: discrediting someone whose qualifications exceed your own by referring to them in a derogatory manner does not constitute humour IMO. Let's not forget who started being derogatory towards other posters, Prometheus therefore has a right to retaliate with a derogatory comment if he so chooses.

 

[Prometheus]

Desperate times call for desperate measures - you realise people can easily go back into the thread and see for themselves who came up with conspiracy theories? Now you are resorting to out and out lies in order to discredit me.... a sad day for kooks everywhere.

Commented on that already.

Academics themselves use being published as the credibility signifier - or are you that oblivious to how scientific research works? He is a kook as are you - in your case, you and kilo imagine missiles and nukes - in his, he imagines Christ visited the Mayans.... his views on the WTC may or may not make him a kook, they are just not credible. I am calling him cuckoo for his Mayan fantasy alone.

Has no bearing on the topic. You also can't prove him incorrect. We didn't imagine missiles and nukes. The eye-witnesses say they saw missiles and I never said I believe the nukes theory. YOU made that up again in order to discredit.

 

[ignacio]

Firstly I didn't make the posts in bold you idiot. Secondly I merely corrected your thinking on the programming issue as your thinking was flawed. We were speaking hypothetically as you had already assumed a conspiracy. I was also just stating the official version of what happened to JFK. I.e. head flung violently backward, rear skull and brains blown back onto the trunk lid. Shot from oswald came from back. "Magic" bullet from the front. Clearly not the truth. Tell me there is not a conspiracy there. Oh yes, you're afraid to comment on that.

Well - did I say you did make the posts? I was presenting the kook conspiracies as presented in this thread to counter your lie that the kooks were only interested in pointing out the irregularities.

"We were speaking hypothetically"..... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... I demand to have kilo return, you are becoming seriously unhinged, his dementia has boundaries. What a cowardly way to back out of your kooky propositions!

I will make a note to chat with you about the JFK conspiracy some day (since you are dying to do so), until then, lets finish up with your current one.

 

[ignacio]

And your name calling and jokes against us in order to discredit your thoughts on YOUR conspiracy theory isn't?

Would someone please translate this line for me.

 

[mooK]

Would some please translate this line for me.

Unfortunately, they're yet to come up with an internet translator engine for this kind of thing.

 

[ignacio]

Commented on that already.

Has no bearing on the topic. You also can't prove him incorrect. We didn't imagine missiles and nukes. The eye-witnesses say they saw missiles and I never said I believe the nukes theory. YOU made that up again in order to discredit.

I am still waiting for the eyewitness link... I think that would give us something to debate, as fun as this bitch-fest is.

 

[Xarog]

Anyway, Xarog, do you have Prometheus on ignore or something? I don't understand why you're making such a fuss about his debating methods if you've been paying attention to the way Prom goes about it. At least Ignacios follows a consistent logical train of thought, he even adds humour and humility to the debate.

I did not see Prometheus resorting to ad-hominems to prove his case - if you can show me where he did it, then I will happily call him on it too.

The real problem I have with ignacio's posts is that he's effectively trying to say that the only sane conclusion is that the official story is true, and that everyone else with a differing opinion cannot be believed because they are insane. It's the lowest of the lowest of debating techniques, and it's designed to stifle any kind of intelligent debate whatsoever. This tactic has been used over and over and over again by people trying to stifle legitimate criticism, and I refuse to tolerate it under any circumstances.

Ignacio : I see you're ignoring my posts again, I'm sorry to see I was wrong to expect better of you.

 

[Prometheus]

Prometheus, please stop with the derogatory comments!

As long as he keeps on calling people kooks in order to discredit them I WON'T.

At least Ignacios follows a consistent logical train of thought, he even adds humour and humility to the debate.

Ignacio follows a consistently illogical train of thought, he thinks he adds humour by adding humiliation to the thread. There corrected.

Prom, on the other hand just regurgitates the same thing over and over telling himself how he's smashing Ignacio's posts out of the water. When in actual fact he doesn't even know where he stands in the issue anymore.

Reminds me of ignacio regurgitating the same old reports over and over and it was HIS OWN reports that smashed themselves to pieces. I know where I stand: official "published" reports shown as inaccurate by themselves and nuclear physicists.

EDIT: Prom, I'm gonna try and explain this concept to you again. That Xenu theory was a joke, he made it to highlight how idiotic your theory was. Similar to the way Jabulani brought up the Spaghetti Monster, or are you still struggling with the question of why he did that?

He said that JFK was off topic and therefor we "should stick to the topic" when HE brought up the Xenu example. Don't you get it? He is showing us that he is a hypocrite. Doesn't want to comment on JFK, but wants us to comment on Xenu. I only wanted to know why he doesn't want other people to do the same. Are you struggling to understand that.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Ignacio : I see you're ignoring my posts again, I'm sorry to see I was wrong to expect better of you.

He also seems to have a form of selective argument i.e. he won't conceed when somebody else is correct, rather choosing to be ignorant that they said anything at all. He only says something where he's in a position to tackle somebody directly instead of tackling their argument.

 

[icyrus]

Reminds me of ignacio regurgitating the same old reports over and over and it was HIS OWN reports that smashed themselves to pieces. I know where I stand: official "published" reports shown as inaccurate by themselves and nuclear physicists.

Wait, hold on. I know we are going in circles here but if this is true howcome it isn't major news? Howcome it hasn't been challenged officially? Did I miss something? (Which is entirely possible)

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Wait, hold on. I know we are going in circles here but if this is true howcome it isn't major news? Howcome it hasn't been challenged officially? Did I miss something? (Which is entirely possible)

For the same reason that Bin Laden was named on the news within 12 minutes of the actual event. How can you be sure that the news isn't being used to promote propoganda?

 

[Prometheus]

Well - did I say you did make the posts? I was presenting the kook conspiracies as presented in this thread to counter your lie that the kooks were only interested in pointing out the irregularities.

Stop assuming you know what I am thinking. You were presenting it was my line of thought. Again, I only pointed out the irregularities. GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD.

"We were speaking hypothetically"..... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.... I demand to have kilo return, you are becoming seriously unhinged, his dementia has boundaries. What a cowardly way to back out of your kooky propositions!

You REALLY are demented.

I will make a note to chat with you about the JFK conspiracy some day (since you are dying to do so), until then, lets finish up with your current one.

Don't care if you do or not. This is about the Pentagon video.

Would someone please translate this line for me.

Finally acknowledging you don't know what's going on. Here goes...
You assumed we said there is a conspiracy. You have been resorting to name calling and jokes to discredit something which you came up with.

 

[ignacio]

As long as he keeps on calling people kooks in order to discredit them I WON'T.

What should I call your particular worldview? Special? I am only taking the lead of our resident kookie style commentator, which is to call a thing what it is (if you are calling it what it is, it is not ad hominem - so the logic goes)

He said that JFK was off topic and therefor we "should stick to the topic" when HE brought up the Xenu example. Don't you get it? He is showing us that he is a hypocrite. Doesn't want to comment on JFK, but wants us to comment on Xenu. I only wanted to know why he doesn't want other people to do the same. Are you struggling to understand that.

I said JFK wasn't germane with respect to proving your current conspiracy; simply put, your current conspiracy shouldn't require someone to believe in the JFK conspiracy.
No - I didn't actually want a comment or any serious dicussion on Xenu - it was a joke that evidently went way over your head.

 

[icyrus]

For the same reason that Bin Laden was named on the news within 12 minutes of the actual event. How can you be sure that the news isn't being used to promote propoganda?

This isn't reason.

Think about it - what would have made a more perfect campaign for the democrats than this? What would be a more perfect counter point for Iran to use than this?

 

[mooK]

"he real problem I have with ignacio's posts is that he's effectively trying to say that the only sane conclusion is that the official story is true, and that everyone else with a differing opinion cannot be believed because they are insane."

That's not the feeling I get from reading his posts. He believes in the official story, he did not automatically label people as insane based on their belief of a conspiracy, but rather the steps they took in getting to that belief. Which involved leaps of faith and the selective ignorance of many things.

Anyway, I don't know how long you've been reading this thread but IMO Ignacio's been level-headed throughout the discussion and he's been a breath of fresh air source of reason even if he has been using insults. Personally I don't mind them, I think it's kinda pathetic the way people get all hissy about it, almost like they want to turn this into congress instead of an internet forum. These discussions would be really bland without them.

So call me an Ignacio cock-sucker if you will, but I'm a lot more comfortable on his side than I would be on theirs.

 

[ignacio]

I think you are taking this far too personally - as one of the original respectable kooks and not a kookie eater, I will try to bring you back to your old cheery ways:

Stop assuming you know what I am thinking. You were presenting it was my line of thought. Again, I only pointed out the irregularities. GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD. You REALLY are demented.

Don't care if you do or not. This is about the Pentagon video.

Ok - so regarding that Pentagon video, I agree that it isn't very revealing. In that case, should we rather evaluate eyewitness reports?

 

[Xarog]

What should I call your particular worldview? Special? I am only taking the lead of our resident kookie style commentator, which is to call a thing what it is

You can call it wrong, if you like - but then it's polite to give your reasons and sources as to why you say it's wrong. But he's not complaining how you're branding his worldview - he's complaining that you're calling HIM a kook. There's a huge difference between the two.

(if you are calling it what it is, it is not ad hominem - so the logic goes)

When you claim that what kooks say are ALL lies, then it's an ad-hominem.

No - I didn't actually want a comment or any serious dicussion on Xenu - it was a joke that evidently went way over your head.

I didn't see anyone laughing, nor did I see any attempt to show that it was a joke, via the use of smilies, as is standard practice on forums. I think you're simply claiming it's a joke now because someone called you on it.

 

[mooK]

If we had started talking about JFK 10 pages ago, we'd be talking about JFK now. We're not talking about Xenu now, well, you are but then again... You're SPECIAL.