Stardust Hotel Imploded in Las Vegas

scooby said:
What isn't, this post?
Or the other one you just posted describing a different false dilemma fallacy?
Click to expand...


Scooby, you are trying to spin out of the question by bringing something else up, cut it out.

Answer the question put to you.


What is the one phrase CT's hate the most?

Prove it
 
Guy with GED for 9/11 Truth sez on his myspace blog that 3/13 was an inside job! Could **** be true???!!!1!!?
 
Scooby,

are you 12?

Seriously kid: of all the stupid things I've seen posted on-line in the past 10 years, what you just posted was surely in the top 5.

You claim explosives downed the WTC and you admit they are loud.

How is it any sort of logical fallacy to ask you for a video showing what should be obvious charges going off?

What horrifically absurd logical thought process allowed you to reach that conclusion?
 
Ahhhh, how refreshing to return and see scooby still tap dancing through the tulips, especially when I was sure he'd have abandoned this thread and fled by now.

scooby, you have made two distinct claims here. That the WTC towers were demolished with explosives, and that those explosives were not quiet. Video after video after video of known CD's show that explosive demolish charges are very audible over large distances. I can links to dozens of them, or better yet just send you to implosionworld.com where they have a stockpile of hundreds. Why can't you link to one video or recorded phone conversation that includes explosions?

You're claiming it's a false dilemma, it's not. This isn't a case where there are multiple options. It is fact that close recording devices would record the sounds of demolition charges; we've seen it in dozens of CD videos. In fact I'd go as far as to say that there probably isn't a video taken using sound and within a kilometre of a CD that doesn't have the sound of the charges going off. Yet you can't provide one from the WTC. Why not? There are videos that were taken near the foot of the towers at the time of the collapse, I know, I've seen at least 3 of them, if not more. There are recordings of phone calls from the towers still in progress at the time they collapsed, I know, I've heard at least two of them (one's from the south and I think the other was from the north) They are incredibly haunting, but guess what, no Kaboom.

You claim that explosives went off, you claim that were noisy. You have the chance to prove it, but instead all you do is act like a toddler who's had his biscuit taken away and throw a temper tantrum, shout abuse, wave your hands in the air, and kick your feet on the ground and cry "I don't wanna!"

Why is that? Hmmm? Why can't you prove what you claim? Why do you act like a 3 year old when the heat is put onto you? Surely if you case was so strong you could provide the evidence instantly because you'd know the evidence. I can. I know exactly where to locate video and phone conversations that show no explosions. That's because I looked at the evidence to formula my point of view, so I had to go and find the evidence. I didn't formulate my view and then go to CT sites and plug in their claims.

It's quite obvious to everyone here that you don't have any evidence, that you have been pulling your claims out of thin air and now that you have been stapled to the mat on a claim, you are simply lost on how to respond with evidence so instead you have started waving your hands in the breeze. You know, at least Dylan has one thing down pat better than you, when he realises he's in over his head, he shuts up and acts like a coma victim. You just wallow in your ignorance and try and bluster your way out of it. Well sorry, but that simply doesn't work here. We want evidence and it's totally apparent you don't have any.

You are quite literally a waste of time and space. I think you need to go back to basic CT training, you can't hack it with the big dogs. Try going back to the sandpit called LCF and learn a bit more, and then come back when you're ready to play this seriously.

Until then, do yourself a favour and either put up, or shut up.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Lao said:
Scooby, you are trying to spin out of the question by bringing something else up, cut it out.

Answer the question put to you.


What is the one phrase CT's hate the most?

Prove it
Click to expand...

No I'm pointing out quite successfully the disingenuous nature of the posts that gumboot is making, first he creates a false dilemma, and then when that is pointed out, he denies it, pretends to restate it, but actually creates another, separate, false dilemma.

This is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, as any sensible person would realise and I have no intention of taking it seriously.

That you and many others here leap to it's defence, under the banner of 'critical thinking' - well, isn't that strange.

Mr Randi better order a revolving coffin, because he's going to have a fair bit of turning in his grave to do when he casts his skeptical eye over what's been going on here, and a heart attack if he looks now. Has he dealt with 911 'conspiracy theories' by any chance, including the offical story? I've had a look and failed to find any of his pronouncements on the issue. Any links to analysis from the man himself? Because Uri Geller must be laughing his head off, what with the number of spoon benders on this forum. This is after all, the essence of the 'official story' - the transmutation of solids on a grand scale. Does he post here?

And you seem to have mixed up the responsibilities - I see a lot of this. It's not for anyone to prove anything prior to a criminal investigation. The proof comes afterwards. The responsibility sits with the US Govt, to adequately explain the events of 911, and this has still not been done.
 
gumboot said:
It's not really a false dilemma fallacy...

You claim explosives were used. Explosives make noise. Videos exist of the buildings prior to, during, and after collapse, that captured sound. Therefore, for your claim to be true, some of these videos must have captured the explosions.
Click to expand...

scooby said:
No I'm pointing out quite successfully the disingenuous nature of the posts that gumboot is making, first he creates a false dilemma, and then when that is pointed out, he denies it, pretends to restate it, but actually creates another, separate, false dilemma.
Click to expand...
"Quite successfully?" Dream on.

It's only a "false dilemma" if he presents you two extreme choices and doesn't allow you to p'doh pick anything else. He hasn't done that. He's asking YOU to explain why, since you think there were explosives, nobody heard them.

Since he's giving you the freedom to make your own explanation, it's not a false dilemma. So come off your high horse, and answer the question already.

scooby said:
And you seem to have mixed up the responsibilities - I see a lot of this. It's not for anyone to prove anything prior to a criminal investigation. The proof comes afterwards. The responsibility sits with the US Govt, to adequately explain the events of 911, and this has still not been done.
Click to expand...

The US Govt is not required to explain why you think there were explosives. This is your gig, scooby. Hop to it.
 
scooby said:
blah blah blah BS by a tinhatter
Click to expand...

Oh, come on, "scooby", drop the sock already. It is obvious that you haven't a clue what you're talking about; your sockpuppets are becoming legion; you simply spout the same mindless drivel that your prior incarnations and your fellow conspiracy theory believers spew; and it is obvious that you are incapable of responding meaningfully to the questions posed to you. It is equally obvious that you think you're fooling people here, but here's a hint - you are not.
 
CHF said:
How is it any sort of logical fallacy to ask you for a video showing what should be obvious charges going off?
Click to expand...

On the third re-write eh?

This bears no relation to your original statement ...

1. "I've been waiting a long time to see a WTC video with clear explosives going off.Surely you should have no trouble finding one. If there was a demolition on 9/11 that is..."

If there was a demolition on 911, video will have captured it, and I will have the video. A triple I believe? Probably a fishing expedition to get me to post links to video with explosions that can be heard, again, I've already posted one somewhere I think, and lets face it, you were there. Probably aware that about 9000 confiscated video clips are still being withheld by the US Govt. To do: nothing - who cares?

2. "You claim explosives were used. Explosives make noise. Videos exist of the buildings prior to, during, and after collapse, that captured sound. Therefore, for your claim to be true, some of these videos must have captured the explosions."

A reduction of the previous, video's exist showing the collapse. If it was a controlled demolition, some video's will definitely show this. Ignoring other variables - like oh for instance - distance? And the fact they do exist? To do: nothing - who cares?

3. How is it any sort of logical fallacy to ask you for a video showing what should be obvious charges going off.

Fiction. And bold at that considering your previous posts are just sitting there.

Now again, I really can't be arsed to go through this kind of thing time and time again.

I agree to disagree, and reserve the right to make my own judgement, as you have done - no amount of 'critical thinking' preached at me by someone else has any place challenging that as I am sure you should agree.

Unlike the majority of what I see here, and in the spirit of critical thinking (I would say its at the heart of it) - I would urge people to do the same, and they have done.
 
Still dodging and weaving I see.

If there was a demolition on 911, video will have captured it, and I will have the video.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to learn to read again too. The statement was "Surely you should have no trouble finding one" not "and you will have the video". Have you even bothered looking? No? Didn't think so.

Probably a fishing expedition to get me to post links to video with explosions that can be heard, again, I've already posted one somewhere I think, and lets face it, you were there.

If you have posted one previously, post it again, let's see it instead of all your dancing and handwaving. All you have to do to shut us up is post the link to a video or phone conversation recording that shows audible explosions.

Ignoring other variables - like oh for instance - distance? And the fact they do exist?
Click to expand...

Again ignoring half the postings. Videos exist that were taken at the foot of the towers, I have pointed out this to you many times and I have pointed out that phone conversations from INSIDE the towers was being recorded at the time they fell. You're claiming distance is a total red herring and attempt to weave your way out of the tight spot you got yourself into, it's not going to work, but hey, I'm sure you'll enjoy the dance.

I agree to disagree, and reserve the right to make my own judgement, as you have done - no amount of 'critical thinking' preached at me by someone else has any place challenging that as I am sure you should agree.
Click to expand...

So you're admitting that you hsave no evidence for your viewpoint, nor can you provide any evidence of your view point but because that's what you want to believe, you're going to continue to believe it anyway.

Now really that doesn't worry me. If you want to believe something on pure faith, well that's up to you, but its time to start admitting that you have no evidence of your claims and beliefs, know of no evidence of them and that your position is based entirely on faith. You do that, we might even leave you alone as long as you don't start claiming your position is more then faith based.
 
scooby said:
On the third re-write eh?

This bears no relation to your original statement ...

1. "I've been waiting a long time to see a WTC video with clear explosives going off.Surely you should have no trouble finding one. If there was a demolition on 9/11 that is..."

If there was a demolition on 911, video will have captured it, and I will have the video. A triple I believe? Probably a fishing expedition to get me to post links to video with explosions that can be heard, again, I've already posted one somewhere I think, and lets face it, you were there. Probably aware that about 9000 confiscated video clips are still being withheld by the US Govt. To do: nothing - who cares?
Click to expand...

I must have missed when you posted those videos where explosions can be heard. So if you wouldn't mind, post them again.

scooby said:
2. "You claim explosives were used. Explosives make noise. Videos exist of the buildings prior to, during, and after collapse, that captured sound. Therefore, for your claim to be true, some of these videos must have captured the explosions."

A reduction of the previous, video's exist showing the collapse. If it was a controlled demolition, some video's will definitely show this. Ignoring other variables - like oh for instance - distance? And the fact they do exist? To do: nothing - who cares?
Click to expand...

Distance doesn't matter when it comes to 9/11 Eyewitnesses. It's strange how a video that was shot so far away can pick up more sounds than those shot from say...inside the towers and at the foot of the buildings.

Like this one in the case of the South Tower collapse, and this one in the case of the North.

scooby said:
3. How is it any sort of logical fallacy to ask you for a video showing what should be obvious charges going off.

Fiction. And bold at that considering your previous posts are just sitting there.

Now again, I really can't be arsed to go through this kind of thing time and time again.

I agree to disagree, and reserve the right to make my own judgement, as you have done - no amount of 'critical thinking' preached at me by someone else has any place challenging that as I am sure you should agree.

Unlike the majority of what I see here, and in the spirit of critical thinking (I would say its at the heart of it) - I would urge people to do the same, and they have done.
Click to expand...

Very well, I respect your choice.:)
 
scooby said:
And you seem to have mixed up the responsibilities - I see a lot of this. It's not for anyone to prove anything prior to a criminal investigation. The proof comes afterwards. The responsibility sits with the US Govt, to adequately explain the events of 911, and this has still not been done.
Click to expand...

All right, here's the explanation. The reason that there was no sound of explosives was that there were no explosives. I can't see a flaw in that reasoning.
 
scooby said:
If there was a demolition on 911, video will have captured it, and I will have the video. A triple I believe? Probably a fishing expedition to get me to post links to video with explosions that can be heard, again, I've already posted one somewhere I think, and lets face it, you were there. Probably aware that about 9000 confiscated video clips are still being withheld by the US Govt. To do: nothing - who cares?
Click to expand...

Sound isn't like light, Scooby. There's no such thing as a "listening angle" as there is with a "viewing angle". If there were explosives, they would be on every single video taken within a very large area that recorded sound. How would these "confiscated videos" prove your point?

Look, this is typical CT behaviour. When presented with a rebuttal, you posit that the proof that the rebuttal is spurious must be hidden, buried, concelaed by dark forces, rather than simply acknowledging that said proof just doesn't exist. There is no way you can be wrong, because you believe all the evidence that disproves your assertion is faked and all the evidence backing up your claim is buried or censored before you even start examining the case as it stands.

A reduction of the previous, video's exist showing the collapse. If it was a controlled demolition, some video's will definitely show this. Ignoring other variables - like oh for instance - distance? And the fact they do exist? To do: nothing - who cares?
Click to expand...

Where are those videos? And, as above, why don't all the other videos have sound. No such thing as a listening angle. You know that, if you think about it for more than a millisecond and without a predetermined political agenda. If I film something with a camcorder and you're screaming from the top of your lungs behind me, that screaming will be on the tape.

Simple point of fact that you have yet to address: if the towers, or WTC7, were brought down with explosives, there would be a series of loud explosions on every single video taken. Explosives aren't silent, you've already admitted as much. Why, then, aren't there recorded explosions on ALL the collapse videos?

Fiction. And bold at that considering your previous posts are just sitting there.

Now again, I really can't be arsed to go through this kind of thing time and time again.
Click to expand...

Going through it once would be nice.

From your turn of phrase, I note you're British. Your name wouldn't be Paul, would it?

I agree to disagree, and reserve the right to make my own judgement, as you have done - no amount of 'critical thinking' preached at me by someone else has any place challenging that as I am sure you should agree.

Unlike the majority of what I see here, and in the spirit of critical thinking (I would say its at the heart of it) - I would urge people to do the same, and they have done.
Click to expand...


Problem is, Paul, you're not using any kind of "judgement" whatsoever. You have a preconceived conclusion and are inventing "evidence" which supports it and ignoring evidence which contradicts in. Flatly ignoring. You're not even attempting to engage in any kind of meaningful debate.

Imagine what kind of world we'd live in if everyone, and all debates, were approached in the same way as you're approaching this one. If people decided what they wanted the results of drug trials, or qualitative studies, or engineering safety tests were in advance, and when legitimate questions were raised they were ignored...
 
scooby said:
No I'm pointing out quite successfully the disingenuous nature of the posts that gumboot is making, first he creates a false dilemma, and then when that is pointed out, he denies it, pretends to restate it, but actually creates another, separate, false dilemma.

This is ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, as any sensible person would realise and I have no intention of taking it seriously.

That you and many others here leap to it's defence, under the banner of 'critical thinking' - well, isn't that strange.

Mr Randi better order a revolving coffin, because he's going to have a fair bit of turning in his grave to do when he casts his skeptical eye over what's been going on here, and a heart attack if he looks now. Has he dealt with 911 'conspiracy theories' by any chance, including the offical story? I've had a look and failed to find any of his pronouncements on the issue. Any links to analysis from the man himself? Because Uri Geller must be laughing his head off, what with the number of spoon benders on this forum. This is after all, the essence of the 'official story' - the transmutation of solids on a grand scale. Does he post here?

And you seem to have mixed up the responsibilities - I see a lot of this. It's not for anyone to prove anything prior to a criminal investigation. The proof comes afterwards. The responsibility sits with the US Govt, to adequately explain the events of 911, and this has still not been done.
Click to expand...


Scooby, you were asked a question.

Answer it.

Quit playing semantics, quit dodging and weaving, quit trying to introduce new conspiracies and quit hemming and hawing.

Focus like a laser beam and answer the question.

You are displaying the typical CT behavior, when cornered, you spin, and do everything but answer the question.

Is it any wonder that the world laughs at kooks?
 
And you seem to have mixed up the responsibilities - I see a lot of this. It's not for anyone to prove anything prior to a criminal investigation. The proof comes afterwards. The responsibility sits with the US Govt, to adequately explain the events of 911, and this has still not been done.
Click to expand...

It has been adequately explained. You disagree? Ok, then I guess the onus is back on you. How are your silent bombs coming along?
 
Well, its obvious that some NWO lackey was putting negative sound generation devices which nulled out the sounds from the detonations.

Yeah, thats it! That must be the case! Its completely against logic and reason, so it is the only option.

(note, simplicity won't work for a CT, when challenged, they needlessly make their solution more complex. Kinda like in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil has to make a needlessly more complex way to kill his foes!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom