Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope. What you bolded is your own self-perception and your little deliberate misunderstanding isn't very clever. I posted my nice Ninja Turtle pic which describes the irreducible delusion. Have a nice day.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Nope. What you bolded is your own self-perception and your little deliberate misunderstanding isn't very clever. I posted my nice Ninja Turtle pic which describes the irreducible delusion. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

You too, and good luck with trying to convince people of the merits of a theory you won't reveal by lying to them about what they believe. I'm not sure who it's supposed to work on, but as I said I don't share your special insight into the thought processes of others.

Dave
 
I just don't see the point of the WTC 7 building being the main focus of the entire "building what?" campaign period. WTC 1 & 2 were the iconic buildings and would hold the most weight in the supposed "CD debate." If I were looking to play a "gotcha" game on knowing whether they existed I'd have targeted that instead, not WTC 7.

How it's all supposed to prove a massive conspiracy then... I have no clue..
 
Oystein said:
[ETA]
To underscore this point, look at the opening post of a thread that Dave Rogers just resurrected - the date of writing is 11th jund 2007:

[/ETA]
Click to expand...

Thank you. I was thinking along these same lines but was too lazy to go searching for evidence.
 
Dave Rogers said:
The no-claimer position is to merely hint that black is white, while at the same time indirectly implying that it's green too.

Dave
Click to expand...

A very dark green. I call it night-green.
Or a very very bright green. Depending.
;)
 
Oystein said:
Balloney. Between 2006 and 2009, the truth movement happily pointed out to everybody who couldn't care less that the American public did NOT know about Building 7, as if that incident was swept under the rug on purpose by the evil NWO. The current (or recent?) truther campaign "Building What?" entirely hinges on the notion that the general public is unaware of this particular building and its collapse.

And now you come along and claim the opposite? Priceless!
[ETA]
To underscore this point, look at the opening post of a thread that Dave Rogers just resurrected - the date of writing is 11th jund 2007:

[/ETA]
...
Click to expand...

And here is our very own Tempesta, trying doublespeak:
tempesta29 said:
I don't understand what you're talking about, quite frankly. I think AE911Truth's list is, in fact, meaningful. Showing how many architects or engineers exist in NY and NJ shows little more than the fact that most people haven't even heard of WTC 7. We know Rumsfeld hasn't.
Click to expand...
vs.
tempesta29 said:
...There are countless Americans who know of building 7...
Click to expand...
 
This is actually indicative of the entire Truther mindset. You see a lot of them overlooked the collapse of WTC7 on the day it happened. I mean it was broadcast, I remember it quite clearly, but they didn't see it. So when they came across the information years later it was like newly found knowledge for them. And because of this many ascribed much more significance to its collapse than was ever warranted. Many assumed its collapse must have been kept hushed up because of the fact that they didn't know about it. That immediately put the entire narrative of the building's demise in a conspiratorial light for them.
 
Travis said:
This is actually indicative of the entire Truther mindset. You see a lot of them overlooked the collapse of WTC7 on the day it happened.
Click to expand...
You have to excuse them for that, few were more than 10 years old then.
 
grandmastershek said:
Is CE willingly demonstrating she never read the report? Of course not. The answer to such a conundrum is only with in the first few pages. As we know truthers always read the reports they criticize themselves.
Click to expand...
She's also not willing to produce the complete theory she claims to have because she thinks we'll make fun of it and hurt her widdle feelings.
 
Dave Rogers said:
The no-claimer position is to merely hint that black is white, while at the same time indirectly implying that it's green too.

Dave
Click to expand...
Then when someone asks for clarification of their position, to claim it's irrelevant.
 
Travis said:
This is actually indicative of the entire Truther mindset. You see a lot of them overlooked the collapse of WTC7 on the day it happened. I mean it was broadcast, I remember it quite clearly, but they didn't see it. So when they came across the information years later it was like newly found knowledge for them. And because of this many ascribed much more significance to its collapse than was ever warranted. Many assumed its collapse must have been kept hushed up because of the fact that they didn't know about it. That immediately put the entire narrative of the building's demise in a conspiratorial light for them.
Click to expand...

It must be nice to conflate a large group of unrelated people, assume they all think the same things, ascribe the same beliefs to them, label them and hold each of them responsible for whatever one of them says or does.

You realize that this is actually the opposite of logical discourse. Or maybe you don't.
 
000063 said:
She's also not willing to produce the complete theory she claims to have because she thinks we'll make fun of it and hurt her widdle feelings.
Click to expand...

How are the truthers ever going to reveal to the world 'what really happened' if they won't tell us what they think really happened. There's a flaw in the logic there,Childlike Empress,have you spotted it? Tell us your full theory,I promise not to laugh.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
It must be nice to conflate a large group of unrelated people, assume they all think the same things, ascribe the same beliefs to them, label them and hold each of them responsible for whatever one of them says or does.

You realize that this is actually the opposite of logical discourse. Or maybe you don't.
Click to expand...
Truthers would not recognize logical discourse even if it sandbagged them over the head. Tell me 'what really happened',give me your full theory,or are you keeping that a secret,just like Java Man and Childlike Empress?
 
RedIbis said:
It must be nice to conflate a large group of unrelated people, assume they all think the same things, ascribe the same beliefs to them, label them and hold each of them responsible for whatever one of them says or does.

You realize that this is actually the opposite of logical discourse. Or maybe you don't.
Click to expand...

I always forget that Red is kind of a Truther snob, and gets quite upset when someone lumps him in with other truthers that are "inferior" to him.

qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.

Anyway, I wonder if truthers get upset with Red when he won't answer a simple "bandit" related question.

Makes the No Planers and Space Beamers look bad, Red.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom