• 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.

Truthnetradio debate on 05-05 - MP3

nicepants

Graduate Poster
nicepants
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
1,723
Last night there were quite a few skeptics in the truthnetradio chat, and of course the twoofers were begging them all to call in. Well, one did. I didn't catch the whole exchange, but here's what I was able to record.

I love how many times the host uses the "fires don't melt steel" strawman.

Kudos to the debater, I can't recall his name.

MP3 Link 28:10 in length
 
Yes this recording proves the truthers are unable to use their brains.

I can not listen to idiots talk about the WTC when the most qualification they have is the limited ability to ask stupid questions. It is like talking to a bunch of people stuck by big stupid stick. Is this some cult which requires people to be stupid?

The BS comes out at rates too great to be real people, these are "pod" people. Pod peole who spew BS at supersonic speeds.

The funny stuff is when they say one thing and then use the opposite to support something else.

Dustified? OMG, torture worse than water boarding! Listening is torture! Who do I blame?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Yes this recording proves the truthers are unable to use their brains.

I can not listen to idiots talk about the WTC when the most qualification they have is the limited ability to ask stupid questions. It is like talking to a bunch of people stuck by big stupid stick. Is this some cult which requires people to be stupid?
Click to expand...
Memes that appeal to those whose critical thinking capacity is somehow impaired?
 
Seems like all this host ever does is say "well how do you explain this?"

the caller explains it, and the host moves the goalposts yet again

"but how do you explain that?"

Perhaps sometime I should call in and ask the HOST to explain a long laundry list of things...
 
nicepants said:
Seems like all this host ever does is say "well how do you explain this?"

the caller explains it, and the host moves the goalposts yet again

"but how do you explain that?"

Perhaps sometime I should call in and ask the HOST to explain a long laundry list of things...
Click to expand...
Same tactic as is used by proponents of ID.
 
nicepants said:
Perhaps sometime I should call in and ask the HOST to explain a long laundry list of things...
Click to expand...
"we dont know, THATS why we need a new investigation!"

of course then you just ask what they would do if a new investigation comes to the same conclusions as the last one, lol
 
And regarding a new investigation, no truther has ever been able to tell me:

- Who would conduct this investigation? (Not national science organizations, they're shills, remember?)
- Who would pay for it? (Not the government, then it wouldn't be independent, right?)

I don't see who that leaves to do the investigation, or pay for it...
 
I’ve just realised, defaultdotxbe, your avatar is a Tesseract, isn’t it?
 
An exerpt from the show:

Caller: "[we] are not saying that fire melted the steel"

Host: "Your side is saying all day that fire melted that steel. Oh come on"

Caller: "No they're saying the the fire WEAKENED that steel"

Host: "Weakened the steel, melted, doesn't matter."
 
Thanks much, NP, for posting the audio.

I got about 10 minutes through, and that was enough. Typical twoofer "debate" tactics. Almost hurled chunks when the hostie said the collapse of WTC7 was not "natural". NATURAL?!? I wonder what he WOULD consider is a natural collapse of a 500-foot tall building? And would it be squibful or squibless?
 
This exchange begins @ 2:27 in the MP3

Host: "Can you explain why World Trade Center 7 would collapse on its own footprint instead of collapsing in the direction of the damage, can you explain that"

Caller: "Well it doesn't have to collapse in the.....[cuts out] I mean, Everybody expects since all the smoke is coming out the back, you expect that all the damage is done to the back, right? I mean you're neglecting the fact that all the debris fell on the south side of World Trade Center 7 so that means that's where all the smoke is gonna come out. That doesn't mean that that's where all the damage was done. I mean, the fires could easily be burning in the middle of World Trade Center 7, they're not burning at the south side....not necessarily. I mean, you can't even see the fires in there but it's, you know it's....you can't just figure that all the fires are happening on the south because that's where the smoke is, that's just where all the windows are broken, so that's where all the smoke is going to come out. [pause] Right?"

Host: "Well. You know what? I just, hah....tha....that doesn't make sense. Ask him about are...are.."

Caller: "Why not?"

Host: "Why doesn't it make sense?"

Caller: "Yeah"

Host: "Because that building looked like a controlled demolition, look at it. Look at the video"

--------------------

Classic. The typical twoofer response "look at it, it looks like a cd!"
 
nicepants said:
This exchange begins @ 2:27 in the MP3

Host: "Can you explain why World Trade Center 7 would collapse on its own footprint instead of collapsing in the direction of the damage, can you explain that"
Click to expand...

Why is it that truthers whine and scream about pieces of steel being "ejected sideways", insisting that collapse isn't energetic enough to do that, yet moments later they will suggest that entire upper sections of buildings should have tipped over!!!

There is no consistency here.
 
I can't believe I talked to them for as long as I did. I wasn't expecting to talk about molten steel or the explosions in the sub-basement, and honestly I know very little about those things. I wasn't "evasive" about a damn thing. The only reason I didn't answer some of their questions is because they never even gave me a chance to talk.

Afterwards I talked to that Mike guy in the chatroom, and he said things like "hey it was great to talk to you man" and saying other friendly things, and then he goes back on the radio and rips on me some more after I've hung up. In fact they both talked about me behind my back for about 10 minutes. It kind of pissed me off...well, it pissed me off a lot when that happened, but what can you do? He was rude during the debate too, laughing at some of my answers and interrupting me every chance he got.

I was kicking myself for not pointing out the 100+ people who saw an object hit the Pentagon when he brought that up and said he'd shut up completely if he saw a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. There's also 30 people who specifically saw an American Airlines jet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom