Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[femr2]

exactly the same question could be asked of the other side.

And regularly is. The kind of response then given is of the form *fighting for the truth*, *pushing for a new investigation*, etc. Rightly or wrongly, there is a clear motive.

I don't *get* the motive behind making thousands of posts with the intent being to have fun, bait *twoofers*, etc.

But it's always rather a sinister tactic to question the right of your opponents to debate you at all, don't you think?

Interesting interpretation of the written word. Verging on paranoia I would say. Who is questioning your right to, er, debate, as you put it ? Not me. Write what you please. Sinister ? That's just funny. Opponents ? Don't know who they are. Don't think there's much room for anyone to oppose much of what I have to say here, unless you want to do a tfk and try and argue for the sake of it. I present verifiable data for the most part.

It seems as if you're trying to win the argument by silencing the other side, not by presenting superior arguments.

And again a slightly delusional interpretation. Very strange. What argument are you referring to ? How am I attempting to silence the other side ?

In fact, it's exactly the behaviour that truthers like to accuse "the government" of engaging in, despite the fact that this tactic never seems to prevent them from framing the accusation.

I suggest that, regardless, you have a look in the mirror.

Dave

femr2.

 

[The Big Dog]

And regularly is. The kind of response then given is of the form *fighting for the truth*, *pushing for a new investigation*, etc. Rightly or wrongly, there is a clear motive.

I don't *get* the motive behind making thousands of posts with the intent being to have fun, bait *twoofers*, etc.

Interesting interpretation of the written word. Verging on paranoia I would say. Who is questioning your right to, er, debate, as you put it ? Not me. Write what you please. Sinister ? That's just funny. Opponents ? Don't know who they are. Don't think there's much room for anyone to oppose much of what I have to say here, unless you want to do a tfk and try and argue for the sake of it. I present verifiable data for the most part.

And again a slightly delusional interpretation. Very strange. What argument are you referring to ? How am I attempting to silence the other side ?

I suggest that, regardless, you have a look in the mirror.

femr2.

Wait, are you really whining on an internet message board about other people's posting on an internet message board using the smuggest tone imagineable? Seriously?

Well that seems like a rock solid use of your and our valuable time. Good for you. You might want to take your own advice about the mirror, sport.

 

[femr2]

We don't have to spend countless hours analyzing every pixel, shake and shimmy of every 9/11 video made. We just need to point out the obvious and most of that has not changed in years.

If that is so, why bother ? What is the motivation ?

You mention my tracing data in passing. There's very good reason for performing the traces, and an awful lot of information has been gleaned from such, not least the early motion for both WTC1 and WTC7. The reaction from most *debunkers* to the presentation of that information has been frankly hilarious. Not a clue about the purpose, usefulness or meaning of the results. Funny s***

 

[TruthersLie]

I figured by the simpleness of your responses you may have never used google and that anything of substance from your posts would a longer shot than three steel framed buildings and their contents being pulverized into dust and the US air defense system circumvented 4 times on the same day.

Holy smelly sockpuppet...

So did you figure out the "missing 2.3 trillion?"
How about the "missing 85 videos?"

Now we are onto the first time in history, concrete pulverized in the air, and the racism card.

Woo hoo!!!!

p.s. did you bother to READ the links yet?
p.p.s. did you figure out what deep throat (source) really did?

 

[carlitos]

Not a clue about the purpose, usefulness or meaning of the results.

Indeed. Whose fault is that?

 

[femr2]

Wait, are you really whining on an internet message board about other people's posting on an internet message board using the smuggest tone imagineable? Seriously?

Nope. Asking about motivation, clearly. Perhaps a re-read. Interpretation of the written word is getting rather bizarre roun'ere.

Well that seems like a rock solid use of your and our valuable time.

Only spare-spare time pal

 

[femr2]

Indeed. Whose fault is that?

The answer is in the question. Early motion. Should be obvious. Clearly isn't. Funny.

 

[TruthersLie]

My guess would be that truthers seek to remove the blame for 3000 murders from those who did it, and place that blame onto those who didn't. That's far less quaint than claiming a Hollow Earth.

Wowsers... it is the day of the 3 and 4 year old accounts making their posts at the same time...

I think we should petition the moderators to delete any old accounts that have not posted in the last 2 years who have less than 10 posts... That is where pdoh made most of his fakes... 3 years ago (he admitted to it on the DBS site before it was shut down.)

 

[carlitos]

The answer is in the question. Early motion. Should be obvious. Clearly isn't. Funny.

Again, your lack of clarity is your problem.

What early motion?

What should be obvious?

What clearly isn't?

What [is] funny?

Have you ever taken an English class? Have you ever seen one of these?

 

[The Big Dog]

Nope. Asking about motivation, clearly. Perhaps a re-read. Interpretation of the written word is getting rather bizarre roun'ere.

Only spare-spare time pal

Ahhh, I see, not whining, asking about motivation, are ya?

Not whining then? Hmmmm, sounded like whining to me.

But you were asking about motivation? Welll that is quality use of your spare spare, init?

Here's mine: none of your damn business. Does that work for you? Are you good with that, the whole, none of your business?

I can also go with, motivations are irrelevant and your whole request for that is a prelude to an ad hominem attack.

But I'm thinking I'm going to stick with none of your *********** business. You cool with that?

 

[Dave Rogers]

And regularly is. The kind of response then given is of the form *fighting for the truth*, *pushing for a new investigation*, etc. Rightly or wrongly, there is a clear motive.

And the same is, potentially, true of the side that's fighting to preserve the truth, and not to have the populace misled by disinformation and misunderstanding of the type that, I'm sure you'll agree, fuels all the 9/11 theories except the one you personally happen to believe in. Some debunkers honestly believe that false accusations of mass murder are a bad thing.

I don't *get* the motive behind making thousands of posts with the intent being to have fun, bait *twoofers*, etc.

And others simply enjoy pointing out absurdities. That this is a significant sector of the population is demonstrated by the popularity of, for example , Louis Theroux, whose entire career is based on doing this in a subtle and sympathetic way.

Interesting interpretation of the written word. Verging on paranoia I would say. Who is questioning your right to, er, debate, as you put it ?

"...your employer provides you with an internet connection to do your job, not spread your message..."

Seems fairly clear to me.

Opponents ? Don't know who they are.

Yes you do. You're one of the masters of the no-claimer position, which we all understand is the synthesis between proposing trutherism and not having to defend it. You work through innuendo and implication, and back off from any definite claims of wrongdoing.

And again a slightly delusional interpretation. Very strange. What argument are you referring to ? How am I attempting to silence the other side?

"...your employer provides you with an internet connection to do your job, not spread your message..."

I suggest that, regardless, you have a look in the mirror.

And I suggest that you read what you've posted, which is much the same thing.

Dave

 

[femr2]

Ahhh, I see, not whining

Correct.

asking about motivation, are ya?

That's right.

Not whining then?

No.

Hmmmm, sounded like whining to me.

Not my problem.

But you were asking about motivation?

That's right, again.

Welll that is quality use of your spare spare, in[n]it?

The ongoing response is interesting in it's own way.

Here's mine: none of your damn business. Does that work for you?

Work ? Strange turn of phrase. I can only guess your aggressive reaction belies some personal embarrassment about how you choose to conduct yourself.

Are you good with that, the whole, none of your business?

Not really. Open up. Tell the world

I can also go with, motivations are irrelevant and your whole request for that is a prelude to an ad hominem attack.

You can *go with* whatever you please, but I'm afraid you're wrong to suggest a pre-conceived intent. More paranoid behaviour. Interesting.

But I'm thinking I'm going to stick with none of your *********** business.

Go for it I didn't think any of you would be embarrassed, but there you go.

You cool with that?

I'm cool. Snickering slightly.

 

[femr2]

And the same is, potentially, true of the side that's fighting to preserve the truth, and not to have the populace misled by disinformation and misunderstanding of the type that, I'm sure you'll agree, fuels all the 9/11 theories except the one you personally happen to believe in. Some debunkers honestly believe that false accusations of mass murder are a bad thing.

So, you are *fighting the good fight* then ?

You're one of the masters of the no-claimer position, which we all understand is the synthesis between proposing trutherism and not having to defend it. You work through innuendo and implication, and back off from any definite claims of wrongdoing.

Incorrect.

And I suggest that you read what you've posted, which is much the same thing.

Incorrect. I posted a comment made externally, by someone other than myself, as I made very clear, and pointed out that I thought it was humerous.

The ongoing reaction to it is equally humerous.

 

[The Big Dog]

Work ? Strange turn of phrase. I can only guess your aggressive reaction belies some personal embarrassment about how you choose to conduct yourself..

So not cool with the whole none of your business then, hmmm?

Instead, speculate about "some personal embarrassment" now that is what I expected! You are a truther, afterall.

You see, it has to be "some personal embarrassment" it could not be personal connection to the events of 9/11, not to a truther, certainly not to a person like femr2, sitting behind his computer consprira-spanking.

femr2, I'm still going to go with it ain't none of your business, and wait with eagerness your next snarky, whiny post.

Keep on truthering, truther! Ten years is coming up, and you folks have some catching up to do with the birthers.

Thanks for posting!

ps: You might want to look up the definition of "paranoid," because it ain't as apt an insult as you think it is, you "clever" bird.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, you are *fighting the good fight* then ?

Sometimes I'm trying to correct misinformation. I think you'll agree that a great deal of what's posted on this forum by truthers is quite absurd. I think it's a good thing that those absurdities should be pointed out.

I posted a comment made externally, by someone other than myself, as I made very clear, and pointed out that I thought it was humerous.

Another classic no-claimer position. You post a quote as a deniable way of posting an opinion, so that, when it's challenged, you can quickly disclaim responsibility for the statement. It's a classic piece of cowardly passive aggression, and it fools nobody.

Dave

 

[carlitos]

it's ≠ its
humerous ≠ humorous

Try harder.

 

[oody]

Wowsers... it is the day of the 3 and 4 year old accounts making their posts at the same time...

I think we should petition the moderators to delete any old accounts that have not posted in the last 2 years who have less than 10 posts... That is where pdoh made most of his fakes... 3 years ago (he admitted to it on the DBS site before it was shut down.)

Thanks for the welcome! I'm nobody's sock, but one can never be too careful, apparently. If you really believe that people who joined the forum a few years ago for other reasons should be purged, or otherwise prohibited from posting in 9/11 threads, I'll be happy to kick that proposal around with you over in FM.

Do you disagree with my contention that it's the implicit shifting of blame for the 3000 murders, which makes general-purpose debunkers more likely to argue against 911 conspiracy than, say, hollow earth?

 

[ozeco41]

it's ≠ its
humerous ≠ humorous

Try harder.

that's a funny bone to pick.

 

[femr2]

Sometimes I'm trying to correct misinformation. I think you'll agree that a great deal of what's posted on this forum by truthers is quite absurd.

I think a great deal of what's posted on this forum is quite absurd, regardless of what camp they have been placed within.

I think it's a good thing that those absurdities should be pointed out.

Sure. Forever ? Same thing over and over again ? Futile ?

Another classic no-claimer position. You post a quote as a deniable way of posting an opinion, so that, when it's challenged, you can quickly disclaim responsibility for the statement. It's a classic piece of cowardly passive aggression, and it fools nobody.

Nonsense. Much of my time here is spent laughing at that kind of ridiculous inference and misinterpretation. Spurious claims about my intent and motivation from simply making a point of motivation. There's a phrase for the turn-around there, but can't recall it

 

[femr2]

it's ≠ its
humerous ≠ humorous

Try harder.

I've lost count of the number of times I've made those two specific typo's. We all have our foibles