|
Real0ne -> RE: 15 Year Anniversery of the 9/11, The fraud lives on! (9/11/2016 9:24:21 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gauge
No. Read what I said, just because you can bring the items you mentioned into a court of law, does not make them factual. Therefore, you are not in court.
As far as your standards of argument goes, here is what I see:
Words, words words words words!
I post vid clips, some of the same that you used to convince yourself the koolaid is real and you call it nonfactual?
You see empty words in your posts, in fact you just made a thread demanding nonfactual responses only. Video clips are not words, and in order to understand and debate what I post people need to be competent in many venues.
quote:
Random series of Gifs without sourcing information on each frame, and no explanation as to what they supposedly supply as proof.
Words words words, words words!!!!
Fuck that, you want to litigate for the gubblemint, its your duty to provide the sources for their claims, the burden of proof falls on you not me.
The clips are evidence that contradicts their claims, thats how it works.
So prove up your official 'story'.
quote:
Do a search of my posts and you tell me where I have ever dodged or avoided any topic that I see fit to post to. I assure you, I can hold my own in a debate.
You just blew it in the above quote.
quote:
You just twisted my words to fit your agenda again. "Correcting" my "misapplication" of my own statement is... wait for it... twisting my words.
No, I did no such thing, again I pointed out how you are incorrectly applying your premise and corrected it, feel free to restate it and tell us what you 'really' meant.
quote:
I remember some rule on here that you are not allowed to link back to other threads... I may be wrong about what I remember, but there is something like it in place. I do not wish to receive a official email about it. If a moderator could clear up that rule for me, I would appreciate it.
No they dont want you going back and posting to some ancient thread, they want you to make a new one, there is nothing wrong with referencing a link back. That pretty much standard poicy on all boards
quote:
When you make a claim you have to support them with substance, whining that you posted it before is always a red herring and a dodge.
That only works when arguing with people who recognize what supporting evidence is. When you come out and say such crap after I post dispositive examples, things most likely wont fair well for you in the debate.
quote:
Where did I do that? You seem to know a lot about what I am thinking. I also used the word "If" re: lacking substance... in case you missed it... and you did.
So, tell me... what am I thinking now?
you were thinking about asking me what you were thinking, can we take the test up the academic scale a few notches? I already pointed out where you did that.
quote:
You are right, you never asked me what I presumed... you asked me if I was wasting your time and I answered you.
yes you did, and I checked, and nothing, you wasted my time.
quote:
Gee... let's see... practically all of lower Manhattan.
Great!! Then you should have no problem finding several people, as I have personally interviewed numerous people making the claim for LM and have not to date found one verifiable factual example.
quote:
Nope. I was raised to be a critical thinker and to use logic. I have spent a lot of time reading so called 9-11 "truth" sites. I have also spent time reading articles and watching TV documentaries from people with qualifications to debunk the so called "truthers". I sided with logic rather than speculation.
Logic, ok but that remains to be seen, so we shall see how well you do since the official story has long since been proven to be a farce so we shall have fun, starting with your providing all hatters to prove they saw a plane.
quote:
Yes Latin. I didn't bother to ask you anything in my statement because it was an illustration of a typical "truther" argument, not a response to any statement you had made, unless of course you did say those exact words somewhere and I missed them. If I did, I apologize.
Whats a typical truther argument? I have already posted several proofs you do not see on the average 'lets argue for the sake of argument' truther/debunker sites, so you can start there item by item.
Hmm lets see, after you get done trying to find a verifiable plane witness, explain how the conflagrating fuel defied physics and burst out the sealed part of the building instead of the alleged gaping hole.
quote:
quote:
Of course its pointless if you dont have a point and cant level any counter arguments. All I have seen from you in your responses is rhetoric and false analogies and literally an admission that you dont give a shit what you believe or if its grounded in reality.
I literally said that? Please show me where I said those exact words. If you cannot, then I did not literally admit any such thing. What you interpret from my statements are your own machinations, and not my actual words. If you haven't noticed, I am fairly good at saying exactly what I mean.
I can level many counter arguments (none of which you will believe), and you will no doubt twist my words, post more random Gifs with no sourcing and no detailed explanation as to what they "prove" so, this is really kind of pointless. You have your narrative of the day in question, I have my own. One is grounded fairly well in facts, and the other is based largely on speculation. I'll let you decide which is which.
Thats the whol problem when your counter arguments are nothing more than rhetoric, they are insuffiicent to establish any point, so you can believe your counterpoints have meaning though they are in fact meaningless, only facts and evidence to the fact has any value in this thread.
so you wanna rock n roll you better get crackin and take this above the rhetoric level.
Here is something for you to chew on. All those people who claimed to see a plane go into the building, I think we can agree that its aluminum v steel,
well here is steel v steel:
[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/steel%20vs%20steel.gif[/image]
Feel free to make your case.
Further more the photoshop or in this case 'avid' job is so piss poor anyone can see at a quick glance the herzerkoni clip is completely fake. See if you can find it
|
|
|
|
