Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
tempesta29 said:
The man in charge of our "defense" had never heard of one of a handful of buildings, the third tallest, to be destroyed on 9/11/01?
Click to expand...

Not shocking at all. Interesting that you're surprised he said he hadn't heard of it because it was the third tallest building to come down that day, and not because that's where the operation was planned (according to the TM).

Why did it need to be destroyed again? I just love hearing that explanation.
 
RCory said:
Not shocking at all. Interesting that you're surprised he said he hadn't heard of it because it was the third tallest building to come down that day, and not because that's where the operation was planned (according to the TM).

Why did it need to be destroyed again? I just love hearing that explanation.
Click to expand...

To destroy the secret decoder ring factory in the basement of course.
 
If 911 was an inside job, would Rumsfeld know the cover story? This has to be the dumbest made up anomaly 911 tries and fails to tie to their moronic conspiracies.
 
beachnut said:
If 911 was an inside job, would Rumsfeld know the cover story? This has to be the dumbest made up anomaly 911 tries and fails to tie to their moronic conspiracies.
Click to expand...


The best I can come up with is that Rumsfeld's ignorance is part of the cover story. If you consider the truther claim that WTC7 is the elephant in the room that the mainstream media doesn't talk about and the general public is unaware of, then Rumsfeld's ignorance can only be part of a concerted effort to "ignore" the collapse of the building.

I've never heard of a truther actually connecting those two things ("What about building 7?" and Rumsfeld's ignorance), though, so here I am making up fantasies for them. That one's on the house, truthers.

Otherwise, it's just another case of this:

the-evidence_1.gif

the-evidence_2.gif

the-evidence_3.gif
 
Childlike Empress said:
We both don't know what goes on in his head (and I assume we can at least agree that this is a good thing), but obviously I think i'm closer to the truth and have a better grasp on his inner workings than you.
Click to expand...

Since you've already made it clear that you think you know my opinions better than I do, it's hardly surprising that you think you have an inside line to Rumsfeld's inner thoughts too. Since telepathy is one of the powers that would qualify for Randi's million dollar prize, have you thought of applying?

But then, I'm delusional enough not to realise that paloalto's personal perceptions are irrefutable proof of LIHOP, so what would I know? I'm not even perceptive enough to understand why you're arguing for pure LIHOP in a WTC7 MIHOP thread when you know perfectly well that they contradict each other.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
But then, I'm delusional enough not to realise that paloalto's personal perceptions are irrefutable proof of LIHOP, so what would I know? I'm not even perceptive enough to understand why you're arguing for pure LIHOP in a WTC7 MIHOP thread when you know perfectly well that they contradict each other.

Dave
Click to expand...

:D

You is a bad, bad man.
 
tempesta29 said:
How could you have known on 9/11 that WTC 7 wasn't attacked by terrorists? There were countless explosions noted by eyewitnesses on 9/11, many having come from WTC 7. Do you generally find "assuming" to be a useful tool in investigative work?

Besides, all you have to do is be a casual news reader to know about WTC 7.
Click to expand...

WTC7 was surrounded by responders all through the day, and no-one noticed any terrorist activity.
Rather, many people (often with relevant expertise and qualification to make such calls, such as senior fire fighters) noticed that the building was fully involved in huge fires, was cracking and moving and about to collapse.
Again, if the building was rigged, that would constitute a law enforcement issue, which the military is explicitly barred from participating in.
 
tempesta29 said:
I can't figure out if that was a red herring or a straw man, but it was definitely one or the other. ...
Click to expand...

If you tried to determine if it is a red herring, but fail, then chances are, it isn't.
If you tried to determine if it is a strawman, but fail, then chances are, it isn't.

This, or you don't know what red herrings and strawmen are.
 
tempesta29 said:
I can't figure out if that was a red herring or a straw man, but it was definitely one or the other.
Click to expand...

Well, practice makes perfect, you know. Keep trying, and before long you'll be able to spot either, as well as a broad and interesting range of other informal fallacies - such as, for example, moving the goalposts.

tempesta29 said:
Are you doubting that the possibility of secondary devices were reported near ground zero?
Click to expand...

Oh, look!

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I'm not even perceptive enough to understand why you're arguing for pure LIHOP in a WTC7 MIHOP thread when you know perfectly well that they contradict each other.
Click to expand...


That's unfortunate, because there is no contradiction. The CIA and FBI leaders didn't tell the investigators about the plot, but maybe they used the time to tell somebody else? It's perfectly possible that protecting the patsies was part of building the legend. The conspiracy doesn't have to end there. They had to present some story to the public after all, didn't they?
 
Childlike Empress said:
That's unfortunate, because there is no contradiction. The CIA and FBI leaders didn't tell the investigators about the plot, but maybe they used the time to tell somebody else? It's perfectly possible that protecting the patsies was part of building the legend. The conspiracy doesn't have to end there. They had to present some story to the public after all, didn't they?
Click to expand...

And you think I'm delusional.

Dave
 
Childlike Empress said:
That's unfortunate, because there is no contradiction. The CIA and FBI leaders didn't tell the investigators about the plot,
Click to expand...

You don't know this, and have zero evidence, instead you invented this, correct? Do you believe this is true? Then Dave is correct in diagnosiung you as deluded: "A delusion is a belief that is either mistaken or not substantiated that is held with vehemence."WP
Childlike Empress said:
but maybe they used the time to tell somebody else? It's perfectly possible that protecting the patsies was part of building the legend. The conspiracy doesn't have to end there.
Click to expand...

Hm. Maybe. Possible. Doesn't have to be so.
We all can invent little just-so-stories when the day is long enough.

Childlike Empress said:
They had to present some story to the public after all, didn't they?
Click to expand...

Yep. or well, maybe. It's possible. Doesn't have to be so. Some story, maybe. But not your story. Because you invented your story. No one can force "them" to tell your just-so-story to the public.
 
Childlike Empress said:
And again ... you (kind of) ask me a question, I answer it, you ignore the answer and return with some more empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Well, like begets like. Your mixture of invention and speculation is pretty fact-free, so it doesn't really warrant a serious reply. And there's no point asking you to outline a feasible sequence of events that features elements of both LIHOP and MIHOP, because you realise that the result will be so laughable that you'll make any excuse to avoid even trying.

Go on, prove me wrong on that one. Outline a feasible combined LIHOP/MIHOP scenario that doesn't make me laugh out loud.

Dave
 
Childlike Empress said:
You're correct. That's not possible. Reason is your irreducible delusion (see above).
Click to expand...

Well, then, I'll take that as an admission that you can't outline a reasonable combined MIHOP/LIHOP scenario. In which case, you have very little grounds for claiming they're compatible.

And it's good to see that you've retreated to the classic no-claimer position of refusing to outline a scenario on the grounds that it won't be taken seriously. Good luck on convincing anyone that you have a valid argument from that position.

Dave
 
I explained to you why "supporting pure LIHOP" and additionally "supporting" "MIHOP" facts is not a contradiction. I hope you understood it (read your post in that other thread, too).
 
Childlike Empress said:
Again ... you make it up as you go along. You forgot your own classifier "... which doesn't make me laugh out loud".
Click to expand...

And you said that the reason it would inevitably make me laugh out loud is that "Reason is your irreducible delusion". So what you've said boils down to: you can't come up with a scenario that I would take seriously, because I would analyse it using reason. I'm happy with that as an admission.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom