Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just a pointer for UK forum members - BBC2 are running another Conspiracy Files programme tonight, "Conspiracy Files: Osama Bin Laden - Dead or Alive?", 9:30 - 10:30pm. From what I've read so far it seems that maybe they're more sympathetic to the conspiracy angle this time (ie: he's dead), but we'll know for sure soon enough.
 
RedIbis said:
It is certainly my opinion that Ol' Larry was lying during the PBS interview.
Click to expand...

So you now admit that Silverstein being a liar is merely your opinion as opposed to being substantiated fact.

You're making progress, Red!
 
MikeW said:
Just a pointer for UK forum members - BBC2 are running another Conspiracy Files programme tonight, "Conspiracy Files: Osama Bin Laden - Dead or Alive?", 9:30 - 10:30pm. From what I've read so far it seems that maybe they're more sympathetic to the conspiracy angle this time (ie: he's dead), but we'll know for sure soon enough.
Click to expand...
Mike Rudin is a dyed-in-the-wool shill. He has demonstrated this many times. Here is an article by him on the Bin Laden travesty. I will be interested to see what line Rudin takes this time as you say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8444069.stm
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
It's always been my opinion and I've always presented it that way.
Click to expand...


Hmmm... this strikes me as a statement of fact:
RedIbis said:
Now this is a flat out lie.
Click to expand...

...as opposed to an expression of opinion.

But I won't belabor the point. I am sure you're the best judge of what you intended to say, and I'm willing to take you at your word.

That being said, let me ask you this: When one is merely of the opinion that someone is lying without being able to substantiate that they are in fact lying, do you think it's fair for one to refer to that person as a liar?
 
johnny karate said:
Hmmm... this strikes me as a statement of fact:


...as opposed to an expression of opinion.

But I won't belabor the point. I am sure you're the best judge of what you intended to say, and I'm willing to take you at your word.

That being said, let me ask you this: When one is merely of the opinion that someone is lying without being able to substantiate that they are in fact lying, do you think it's fair for one to refer to that person as a liar?
Click to expand...

It's a fact that I think it's a lie.
 
RedIbis said:
It's a fact that I think it's a lie.
Click to expand...

And it might be a fact that you think the sky is green, but that doesn't mean the sky is green, does it?

So could you please answer the question: When one is merely of the opinion that someone is lying without being able to substantiate that they are in fact lying, do you think it's fair for one to refer to that person as a liar?
 
johnny karate said:
And it might be a fact that you think the sky is green, but that doesn't mean the sky is green, does it?

So could you please answer the question: When one is merely of the opinion that someone is lying without being able to substantiate that they are in fact lying, do you think it's fair for one to refer to that person as a liar?
Click to expand...

My opinion is based on LS's inconsistent comments, the fact that he won't name the commander, the fact that he claimed the N. Tower antenna caused the collapse of WTC 7, and the fact that there was no firefighting operation to pull.
 
RedIbis said:
My opinion is based on LS's inconsistent comments, the fact that he won't name the commander, the fact that he claimed the N. Tower antenna caused the collapse of WTC 7, and the fact that there was no firefighting operation to pull.
Click to expand...
Let's not forget the fact that you will twist words, interpret actions, and fabricate motives in any way necessary to satisfy your twisted, delusional and conspiratorial brain.

That is clear. My only question is, is it intentional?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
My opinion is based on LS's inconsistent comments...
Click to expand...

Example?

RedIbis said:
...the fact that he won't name the commander...
Click to expand...

"Won't" or merely "didn't"?

RedIbis said:
...the fact that he claimed the N. Tower antenna caused the collapse of WTC 7...
Click to expand...

Being misinformed is not the same as lying, is it?

RedIbis said:
...and the fact that there was no firefighting operation to pull.
Click to expand...

Now you're just splitting hairs. We know there were firefighters within the vicinity of the collapse zone. Whether they were actually fighting fire is irrelevant.

So now that you've explained why you are of the opinion that Silverstein is a liar, and it's in turn been explained to you why your opinion is not factually substantiated, perhaps you will answer the question I am now asking for a third time:

When one is merely of the opinion that someone is lying without being able to substantiate that they are in fact lying, do you think it's fair for one to refer to that person as a liar?
 
Not long ago I showed an example of government and industry corrupting science for their own aims. That was the fake manmade global warming science.

We all saw the Swine Flu debacle of recent months and the more intelligent among us could feel the strings being pulled. Another case of the corruption of science. Check this out if you doubt it.

http://www.flu-treatments.com/pandemic-definition.html

I assure you that NIST and 9/11 is right up there with the manmade global warming and Swine Flu scientific Shills.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Not long ago I showed an example of government and industry corrupting science for their own aims. That was the fake manmade global warming science.

We all saw the Swine Flu debacle of recent months and the more intelligent among us could feel the strings being pulled. Another case of the corruption of science. Check this out if you doubt it.

http://www.flu-treatments.com/pandemic-definition.html

I assure you that NIST and 9/11 is right up there with the manmade global warming and Swine Flu scientific Shills.
Click to expand...

We'll take your assurance with about a ton of salt.
 
Bill,

Instead of answering Johnny Karate's question, you go off on a rant on your soapbox about something completly unrelated.

Here are his points.

Originally Posted by RedIbis
My opinion is based on LS's inconsistent comments...

Example?


Originally Posted by RedIbis
...the fact that he won't name the commander...

"Won't" or merely "didn't"?


Originally Posted by RedIbis
...the fact that he claimed the N. Tower antenna caused the collapse of WTC 7...

Being misinformed is not the same as lying, is it?


Originally Posted by RedIbis
...and the fact that there was no firefighting operation to pull.


Now you're just splitting hairs. We know there were firefighters within the vicinity of the collapse zone. Whether they were actually fighting fire is irrelevant.

So now that you've explained why you are of the opinion that Silverstein is a liar, and it's in turn been explained to you why your opinion is not factually substantiated, perhaps you will answer the question I am now asking for a third time:

When one is merely of the opinion that someone is lying without being able to substantiate that they are in fact lying, do you think it's fair for one to refer to that person as a liar?

Emphasis mine.
 
bill smith said:
Given that 9/11 is so obviously an inside job it would be stupid and naive to think that many of the daily debunkers here are not professional agents of the perps.
Click to expand...

Bill.
What I am about to say here will probably result in my death at the hands of my superiors, but I can't sit by and watch you make a fool of yourself any longer. Please listen closely to what I am about to tell you.
The JREFers you debate with on a daily basis - JohnnyKarate, dafydd, and yes, even Gravy - are not shills. They are merely sheeple who have become our tool, who dedicate their lives to upholding our sham because they cannot see through the lies.
You don't think the real shills - me, for example - would risk having our identities compromised? No, no, no. That isn't how the NWO works. We hide our doings behind screens of innocent patsies. We are here, but you couldn't get us to touch the CT section of this forum with a ten-foot pole, because that would place our identities in jeopardy.
And, now that I've told you, I shall disappear again. Don't be alarmed if my posting style - grammar, vocabulary, use of punctuation - changes dramatically. If I haven't been replaced with someone else, I'll at least have been run through their pacification machines a couple times.
Remember, bill... it's always the person you least suspect.
 
Pure_Argent said:
Bill.
What I am about to say here will probably result in my death at the hands of my superiors, but I can't sit by and watch you make a fool of yourself any longer. Please listen closely to what I am about to tell you.
The JREFers you debate with on a daily basis - JohnnyKarate, dafydd, and yes, even Gravy - are not shills. They are merely sheeple who have become our tool, who dedicate their lives to upholding our sham because they cannot see through the lies.
You don't think the real shills - me, for example - would risk having our identities compromised? No, no, no. That isn't how the NWO works. We hide our doings behind screens of innocent patsies. We are here, but you couldn't get us to touch the CT section of this forum with a ten-foot pole, because that would place our identities in jeopardy.
And, now that I've told you, I shall disappear again. Don't be alarmed if my posting style - grammar, vocabulary, use of punctuation - changes dramatically. If I haven't been replaced with someone else, I'll at least have been run through their pacification machines a couple times.
Remember, bill... it's always the person you least suspect.
Click to expand...

I....will....obey.....
 
Pure_Argent said:
Bill.
What I am about to say here will probably result in my death at the hands of my superiors, but I can't sit by and watch you make a fool of yourself any longer. Please listen closely to what I am about to tell you.
The JREFers you debate with on a daily basis - JohnnyKarate, dafydd, and yes, even Gravy - are not shills. They are merely sheeple who have become our tool, who dedicate their lives to upholding our sham because they cannot see through the lies.
You don't think the real shills - me, for example - would risk having our identities compromised? No, no, no. That isn't how the NWO works. We hide our doings behind screens of innocent patsies. We are here, but you couldn't get us to touch the CT section of this forum with a ten-foot pole, because that would place our identities in jeopardy.
And, now that I've told you, I shall disappear again. Don't be alarmed if my posting style - grammar, vocabulary, use of punctuation - changes dramatically. If I haven't been replaced with someone else, I'll at least have been run through their pacification machines a couple times.
Remember, bill... it's always the person you least suspect.
Click to expand...

So you mean that the guys you mention are not Shills ? So they must be what I call 'Saps' in that case ? I once put together a post on the various types and grades of debunker. I can dig it out if you want to see it.
 
triforcharity said:
Bill,

Instead of answering Johnny Karate's question, you go off on a rant on your soapbox about something completly unrelated.

Here are his points.

Originally Posted by RedIbis
My opinion is based on LS's inconsistent comments...

Example?


Originally Posted by RedIbis
...the fact that he won't name the commander...

"Won't" or merely "didn't"?


Originally Posted by RedIbis
...the fact that he claimed the N. Tower antenna caused the collapse of WTC 7...

Being misinformed is not the same as lying, is it?


Originally Posted by RedIbis
...and the fact that there was no firefighting operation to pull.


Now you're just splitting hairs. We know there were firefighters within the vicinity of the collapse zone. Whether they were actually fighting fire is irrelevant.

So now that you've explained why you are of the opinion that Silverstein is a liar, and it's in turn been explained to you why your opinion is not factually substantiated, perhaps you will answer the question I am now asking for a third time:

When one is merely of the opinion that someone is lying without being able to substantiate that they are in fact lying, do you think it's fair for one to refer to that person as a liar?

Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...
Hey Tri. I am not really interested in Silverstein. I leave that to other people who think it has real significance. I often find that 'Lucky Larry' arguments end inconclusively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom