Dan Wallace vs. Mark Roberts video

if I was a twoofer that LAST debunker i'd want a fight with would be Mark 'De Nero' Roberts.

The clue is in the name.
 
Gravy said:
There's no need, my friend:
Click to expand...

Hehe, my bad :)

Then again, even Mad Dog Tyson had bodyguards. Then again, I guess he was dealing with people who were actually prepared to put their bodies on the line against him.

Unlike our coward friends from the cult of the 9/11 movement! :D

Regards

Mailman
 
mailman said:
Hehe, my bad :)

Then again, even Mad Dog Tyson had bodyguards. Then again, I guess he was dealing with people who were actually prepared to put their bodies on the line against him.

Unlike our coward friends from the cult of the 9/11 movement! :D

Regards

Mailman
Click to expand...

From what I've seen of their tactics, after watching a few of their videos
(especially around the camp at ground zero), the "twoofers" really want to make those who support the generally accepted story to become violent. They will hound somebody and piss on the graves of all those who died on 9/11 until they get a violent reaction, and then declare victory, because they got to you and will post the video to show that the only way the "official story" can be defended is through violence. Meanwhile, they stand there with a smug look on their face taking the role of the seemingly calm rational one. It's much the same as a KKK member at a public rally yelling racial slurs at the crowd of anti-KKK protesters. They want violence to break out, because in their reality it proves them right.

I'm not saying that a "twoofer" will never become violent, they are basically cultists and you are attacking a belief system that they can't defend, but at Ground Zero there is usually a few cops around to keep order.

I hope they never get your home address Gravy, because the hate mail will flood in. If any of them are threatening you can always go to the cops or Postal Inspectors. Also, if Dylan or AJ advocate the sending of hate mail to you, you can always take them to court.
 
Aphelion said:
See a doctor about my beliefs? What do you think he would prescribe for someone who thinks that Judy Wood doesnt believe the things she says?

Its clear shes acting. The way she makes up something more outrageous in each interview, the way her and Reynolds teamed up to discredit Jones. Jones is talking bull aswell but I believe he is genuine.
Click to expand...

Cler she is acting? I work next to people all day who are of various mental illnesses, I can only make an assumption but it certainly appears she is mentally ill. Take that with a grain of salt, but I know its more then what you have.
 
hellaeon said:
Cler she is acting? I work next to people all day who are of various mental illnesses, I can only make an assumption but it certainly appears she is mentally ill. Take that with a grain of salt, but I know its more then what you have.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that you work in Howard's office. ;)
 
hellaeon said:
Cler she is acting? I work next to people all day who are of various mental illnesses, I can only make an assumption but it certainly appears she is mentally ill. Take that with a grain of salt, but I know its more then what you have.
Click to expand...

And if she isn't mentally ill, but is acting, then she should be on the red carpet right now lining up for a gold statue of someone's uncle Oscar. Meryl Streep? Helen Mirren? Nah the best actress in the world right now is Judy Wood!
 
CHF said:
Hey Gravy,

Is there any way a debate can be set up between you and James Fetzer?

That is one I would absolutely love to see.
Click to expand...
He had actually agreed to such a debate, but thought better of it and suggested that I join the debunker side of the "national debate," in which he will be participating (if it happens). That was an intriguing idea, before the scholars had their great schism and half of them joined the "Star Wars" crowd.

These people are intellectual cowards. I don't think you'll see a prominent truther accepting a one-on-one debate with a knowledgeable debunker any time soon. My last attempt was with Kevin Ryan. He declined my challenge, although I offered to let him choose the date, location, moderators, and debate topics.
 
Gravy said:
He had actually agreed to such a debate, but thought better of it and suggested that I join the debunker side of the "national debate," in which he will be participating (if it happens). That was an intriguing idea, before the scholars had their great schism and half of them joined the "Star Wars" crowd.

These people are intellectual cowards. I don't think you'll see a prominent truther accepting a one-on-one debate with a knowledgeable debunker any time soon. My last attempt was with Kevin Ryan. He declined my challenge, although I offered to let him choose the date, location, moderators, and debate topics.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know what kind of information you carry with you. Quotes, pictures, etc? I notice in the Hardfire debates you have them with you as well.

This is one of the things that bothers me- that conspiracists have no information, they have purely manufactured facts, they lie- ignore evidence... etc. But what do scientists/skeptics have to do to combat that? We have to either memorize every aspect of the event- be experts on thousands of different details, hijackers, mechanics of the collapse- Pentagon, Towers, etc, etc etc... That packet of information you practically have to carry around with you in order to show them- no offense- but it sort of shows the defensive nature "we're" forced to take. If you're caught off guard and don't have your packet with you- you may have a lot of information available, still- but you can't show them anything... and it sort of gives the illusion of being on "even ground"...
 
Totovader said:
I'm curious to know what kind of information you carry with you. Quotes, pictures, etc? I notice in the Hardfire debates you have them with you as well.

This is one of the things that bothers me- that conspiracists have no information, they have purely manufactured facts, they lie- ignore evidence... etc. But what do scientists/skeptics have to do to combat that? We have to either memorize every aspect of the event- be experts on thousands of different details, hijackers, mechanics of the collapse- Pentagon, Towers, etc, etc etc... That packet of information you practically have to carry around with you in order to show them- no offense- but it sort of shows the defensive nature "we're" forced to take. If you're caught off guard and don't have your packet with you- you may have a lot of information available, still- but you can't show them anything... and it sort of gives the illusion of being on "even ground"...
Click to expand...
You're right: they are on the offensive (as well as being "offensive"), but that's the nature of the game. And they do need to be SHOWN, but the hardcore deniers get around that by not LOOKING. The showing is more for the public. At Ground Zero I post signs next to theirs, some of which are mocking and some of which are serious. I have simple flyers with internet links to hand out to people who take literature from them. In my binder I have mostly photos and graphics that are specific to the arguments they make, because that's most effective in a 15-second presentation. I do also carry lots of quotes and stats, but I generally only bring those out when someone challenges what I've said. I make their job more miserable by committing much of this stuff to memory so I can spew it out at will. At the Hardfire taping I had much more – killer backup material which included many Looser statements, but only got to use a fraction of it. I also had photos there which were filmed separately but didn't make it past the editing. So little time, so much debunking.
 
Why is it that truthers think that the WTC wouldn't have collapsed due to being struck by an airplane moving at 500mph? Do they really think that any building is impervious to an impact by a airplane?
 
The Demon's Head said:
Why is it that truthers think that the WTC wouldn't have collapsed due to being struck by an airplane moving at 500mph? Do they really think that any building is impervious to an impact by a airplane?
Click to expand...

Because Robertson did three pages of calculations in 1964 that proved it wouldn't, and while NIST's state-of-the-art finite difference model of the collision is clearly an oversimplification, three pages of handwritten arithmetic prove the matter beyond dispute.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Because Robertson did three pages of calculations in 1964 that proved it wouldn't, and while NIST's state-of-the-art finite difference model of the collision is clearly an oversimplification, three pages of handwritten arithmetic prove the matter beyond dispute.
Click to expand...


Three pages of arithmetic that don't consider one of the key elements of the event.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom