• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Peanut gallery: The WTC 1,2,7 collapsed from impact damage and fires

BS1234 said:
Chipmunk has offered nothing whatsoever in support of his proposition. In the above post appears no evidence, no logic, indeed no indication that Chip has any idea what is being debated.

He has provided a single link to the NIST homepage.

This does not merit any further response. Is this the best that JREF members can do?
Click to expand...
How about you find one flaw in the NIST analysis and go from there? Surely a genius such as yourself can expose that pack of voodoo science...
 
6) Most Shameless Self-Promotion in a Project Intended To Honor The Victims of 9/11

7) Mined Quote Altered Most From Its Original Meaning
 
WildCat said:
How about you find one flaw in the NIST analysis and go from there? Surely a genius such as yourself can expose that pack of voodoo science...
Click to expand...
So using a report filled with research and facts is too much for poor TS? Once again someone accepted his challenge and once again, unable to formulate a response to facts, he not only moves the goal posts, he also takes his ball and runs home.
 
I call that ceding defeat, Wildcat.

BSer666 was given a scientific paper written by dozens of scientists and engineers and refused to respond.

The game's over, Chipmunk won.
 
That... was pathetic.

He didn't even attempt to debate anything.

Poor, sad, sorry Seeker...
 
I guess he was dissapointed that couldn't find a way to a buck off of that short debate.
 
I hesitantly suggest TS1234 has a point.

He complained all Chipmunk posted in defense of the resolution was a link to NIST's homepage. Of course, we all know the real reference is to the NIST report, but should not that link have been to the report itself, in either HTML or PDF format?

Were that the case, one could really make the argument TS1234 is unwilling to debate the facts. Right now he's stepping out on a technicality, one that unfortunately was provided for him.
 
Blue Mountain said:
I hesitantly suggest TS1234 has a point.

He complained all Chipmunk posted in defense of the resolution was a link to NIST's homepage. Of course, we all know the real reference is to the NIST report, but should not that link have been to the report itself, in either HTML or PDF format?

Were that the case, one could really make the argument TS1234 is unwilling to debate the facts. Right now he's stepping out on a technicality, one that unfortunately was provided for him.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but TS is every bit as guilty as anybody else of it. Anybody truly interested in finding the truth would NOT have done that.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce, in this corner, wearing villainous black, TruthSeeker1234.

And in this corner, wearing a marmalade pantsuit, any JREF member!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2wyhgP0FVo
(have computer volume on)
 
Last edited:
Truthseeker1234 said:
Let's see. A guy links the NIST homepage.

I link the Scholars for 9/11 truth homepage.

What kind of debate is that? That would be very stupid. I want someone who can explain the NIST report to curious laypeople. That is your challenge. Put it in your own words, cite your sources, and spell it out for the audience. Most people don't even know what the official story is, except that Suicidal hijackers did it with jet crashes and fires.
Click to expand...

Oh, man, even I can do this. Ready? Here goes...


The planes hit the buildings. The buildings fell down.


How'd I do?
 
Apparently, BS5678 now wants pictures...

...and once again, Reality nails Satire with a one-two punch.
 
If you want to debate a CTer, you have to speak their language.

1. Find a suitably blurry, pixelated video capture of the towers collapsing.
2. Hapahazardously scribble circles and arrows all over it with MSPaint.
3. Post it on the internet. No need to explain exactly what it's supposed to prove. The best caption is probably "This picture speaks for itself!"
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Chipmunk has offered nothing whatsoever in support of his proposition. In the above post appears no evidence, no logic, indeed no indication that Chip has any idea what is being debated.

He has provided a single link to the NIST homepage, which he himself appears to distance himself from, as he does not purport to represent the "official theory", whatever that may mean to Chipmunk. We have therefore a short list of what is NOT present, yet no indication that Chipmunk has any explanation whatsoever for the "collpases" on 9/11.

Given the complete lack of evidence, the lack of reasoning, the lack of any cited facts of any kind, the lack of any picture data, the lack of eyewitness testimony, there is nothing. Chip has utterly failed to even show up for, much less advance his argument.

If you went on TV Chip, and stood there and said, "The government studied it, go read the report", how persuavive do you think that would be to the audience?

This does not merit any further response. Is this the best that JREF members can do?
Click to expand...



Is he whining?
11107451d849d38964.gif


:D
 
As usual, I'm late to the party. But anyway, here are two contributions.

1.) My suggestion for an award category:
"Best Instrumental Background Music Unrelated to Documentary Content"

and 2.) Here's another little bit of a tune to help keep out those annoying CT Ohrvurms:

Coup-coup-ka-choo, Mr. Chipmunk Stew,
JREF loves you more than you will know.
Ed bless you, please, Mr. Chipmunk Stew.
Ninjas hold a place for those who slay,
Hey, hey, hey

Reading through the websites on a Sunday afternoon.
Waiting for a nine-one-one debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose.
 
I just read TS's response in the debate thread. Now his excuse is that he doesn't like Chipmunk's opening salvo?

Does this person have no shame or self respect at all?

TS, you're a lying, gutless coward. Prove me wrong or stop posting your crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom