#81 24 Dec 2007 02:39 am |
why so ser- shut the fuck up. Rep: 38  Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 15,677 OFFLINE |
 Zucas wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Dupontx123 wrote:
Also Dupontx, how many times in history has a fire weakened the metal of a steel building to the point of its collapse. I’ll tell ya. 3. The North Tower, South Tower, and WTC 7. Only 3 in history. First have blazed longer, with higher temps, and on more floors in numerous steel building and not once, have the ever had the steel weakened and caused it to fall. Not only that but some have even had the planes crash into them with similar effects.
WTC 7 was brought down because one of the larger towers debris smashed the lower part of it. Also no other building has been hit by a 757.
Also the the WTC were only able to take a 707 not a significantly larger 757.
That’s not what the official report. Report stated that the building was weakened by the debris, but ultimately fell due to fires started up within the building that weakened the support system causing it to collapse. Get your facts straight.
The “Official Report” is a plane crashed into the pentagon.
You can’t choose what parts of what report you’re going to hold to be true.
There’s no conspiracy. Period.
But the official report didn’t say the plane caused the building to fall down. If your going to argue this try not to sound like such an idiot. Learn what really happened and what the official report says, then say what ya got to say. Otherwise ignorance is not welcomed here.
You pick apart what was said to happen, acting as if it were lies, but you conveniently keep the parts of their reports that fit your case.
If 9/11 is a lie set up by the government, using “official reports” forfeits your entire argument.
I’m finding discrepencies in the report and in people’s arguements in against it. If you had actually followed the entire arguement you’d have known this and not said a word. Now I suggest you actually read what has been stated previously before you make yourself look more like an ass.
According to you the government is willing to lie about something like... you know... thousands of people getting killed and thousands more as a side-effect, yet you’re willing to believe certain parts of their report.
It’s hypocritical and destroys the very foundation of your case. Want to make a case? Make it using zero government sources.
---
  | |
 | #82 24 Dec 2007 02:50 am |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 47 Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 38,687 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Atresac wrote:
Zucas wrote:
Dupontx123 wrote:
Also Dupontx, how many times in history has a fire weakened the metal of a steel building to the point of its collapse. I’ll tell ya. 3. The North Tower, South Tower, and WTC 7. Only 3 in history. First have blazed longer, with higher temps, and on more floors in numerous steel building and not once, have the ever had the steel weakened and caused it to fall. Not only that but some have even had the planes crash into them with similar effects.
WTC 7 was brought down because one of the larger towers debris smashed the lower part of it. Also no other building has been hit by a 757.
Also the the WTC were only able to take a 707 not a significantly larger 757.
That’s not what the official report. Report stated that the building was weakened by the debris, but ultimately fell due to fires started up within the building that weakened the support system causing it to collapse. Get your facts straight.
The “Official Report” is a plane crashed into the pentagon.
You can’t choose what parts of what report you’re going to hold to be true.
There’s no conspiracy. Period.
But the official report didn’t say the plane caused the building to fall down. If your going to argue this try not to sound like such an idiot. Learn what really happened and what the official report says, then say what ya got to say. Otherwise ignorance is not welcomed here.
You pick apart what was said to happen, acting as if it were lies, but you conveniently keep the parts of their reports that fit your case.
If 9/11 is a lie set up by the government, using “official reports” forfeits your entire argument.
I’m finding discrepencies in the report and in people’s arguements in against it. If you had actually followed the entire arguement you’d have known this and not said a word. Now I suggest you actually read what has been stated previously before you make yourself look more like an ass.
According to you the government is willing to lie about something like... you know... thousands of people getting killed and thousands more as a side-effect, yet you’re willing to believe certain parts of their report.
It’s hypocritical and destroys the very foundation of your case. Want to make a case? Make it using zero government sources.
You have apsolutely no idea what my opinion on this even is. Stop being such a dipshit and read the context of my words.
But seeing that you aren’t cause your a complete retard, I’ll explain it myself. Previously in an arguement he Dupontx stated that the official report states that the building was weakened by fire that caused the buildent to fall. I then returned stating that official report also said that jet fuel only burned for 10 mins, yet the building stood for 45 mins. The other sustainable fire was from things like desks, chairs, paper, ect. Things not hot enough to weaken steel. Thus I said there is a discrepency in the report, but mainly I take it as that fire couldn’t have done it.
Then his next response to that was that well the plane did crash into it. But then I referred back to him that, the report says that a plane was not what caused the building to fall, but the fire weakening it. NOt to mention if the plane had caused it to fall, it would have fell instantly.
So as I explained to you before, I first pointed out a discrepency in the official report, and then pointed out the discrepency in Dupontx’s arguement, who’s basis was the official report. I no way do I see the report as fact, as I jsut went doing that. I only referred to it, to catch him trying to weasel out of his own statements.
Idiot.
---
 
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #83 24 Dec 2007 02:56 am |
why so ser- shut the fuck up. Rep: 38Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 15,677 OFFLINE | LOL
Wow, you really get so riled up on petty little conspiracy theories? Mayhaps your way of literally slapping everyone across the face who had family members die in the attacks? Saying “your own government did it” while, guess what, offering ZERO motif they would have for murdering their own people?
I’m sure you get off to things like folding a twenty into the twin towers on fire. But whatever, as long as you can live in your blissfully ignorant world where nothing is as it seems eh?
I gotta say Zuc, sometimes I feel sorry for you. You definitely suffer from a severe case of paranoia. Everyone everyone says is a lie, unless it agrees with you that is.
But if you want to treat a flash video some college kids made as a work of fiction as your bible far be it from me to stop you.
---
| | #84 24 Dec 2007 03:00 am |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 47Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 38,687 OFFLINE | Ah, as I was just teaching Nerevar about the desperate tactics used in debate, now I get to teach you.
It seems you have used the desperate tactic known as diversion. This is where the user finds out that he has either been wrong, and ass for no reason, or some other form of that. Thus he tries to devoid himself from his previous posts and completley change the subject. Normally this is done through nitpicking of someone’s post to get them off topic, but also can be done like what is done here, through personal insults, normally by trying to demean the other arguer with a pathetic dominance tactic.
Plz I know every trick in the book. Say whatever you wnat but now I’ve owned you twice.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #85 24 Dec 2007 03:08 am |
why so ser- shut the fuck up. Rep: 38Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 15,677 OFFLINE | Zucas Zucas Zucas, you have never owned anyone, I’m sorry to say.
Slinging insults? I believe you were the first to do that.
I was just pointing out how hilarious it was that right now there’s probably a big ol' vein in your neck pulsing right through your flesh. You get so riled up about little shit.
You want a response? How about you respond to my previous request: Prove to me that 9/11 was a controlled demolition while using zero government reports. Since according to you the government lies and their “official reports” (which I’d like to wonder how you got your hands on anyway) are full of fallacies. You seemed to have employed diversion yourself on this part no?
Now, I’m not going to go through a long winded response to everything posted here because I don’t need to. Why? Because I’ve still torn the load-bearer out of your argument. Also, read these:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
I’m sure those links there will be happy to ruin your shit even further.
Me? I have a Christmas party to get my rest for. I’d suggest you get some sleep too Zucas, you need to relax and not let your little zany theories get you so hyped up.
---
| | #86 24 Dec 2007 03:14 am |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 47Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 38,687 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
Zucas Zucas Zucas, you have never owned anyone, I’m sorry to say.
Slinging insults? I believe you were the first to do that.
I was just pointing out how hilarious it was that right now there’s probably a big ol' vein in your neck pulsing right through your flesh. You get so riled up about little shit.
You want a response? How about you respond to my previous request: Prove to me that 9/11 was a controlled demolition while using zero government reports. Since according to you the government lies and their “official reports” (which I’d like to wonder how you got your hands on anyway) are full of fallacies. You seemed to have employed diversion yourself on this part no?
Now, I’m not going to go through a long winded response to everything posted here because I don’t need to. Why? Because I’ve still torn the load-bearer out of your argument. Also, read these:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
I’m sure those links there will be happy to ruin your shit even further.
Me? I have a Christmas party to get my rest for. I’d suggest you get some sleep too Zucas, you need to relax and not let your little zany theories get you so hyped up.
Another desperate attempt of diversion in your first part of this post, as you had no intentions of responding to the post before my last one, nor that one. If you had really had an advantage on my arguement you would have responded to it. INstead you avoided neatly, which is strictly shown through your unwillingness to even quote me.
Moving on, I don’t have to prove anything. I’ve presented info, with my own analysis. You on the other hand have simply provided links of other’s people opinions on this situation I got nothing to prove, as I’ve stated what was needed to be said. YOu on the other hand have not made clear your thoughts, nor opinions. I await your arguement for critquing.
Also, if you had evne read any of these posts you’ll have noticed I had gone back on previous statements, and said I wasn’t sure if this was a false flag terror attack. Not definite enough to say that. And instead I only said that the official report for what happened, is not 100% correct and full of flaws and discrepencies, some that might be intentional.
NOw one of the main rules I proposed in this is to have respect for your opposition, as what you might believe is just as qualified as what everyone else believes. Your superiority complex towards yourself and over the truthist is nonetheless disturbing. And the other main rule was to use facts. And the new rule I"m adding is read what was said. NOt everything people say in this forum is based off nothing else. AS I just previously showed you, those statements you took out of context came from a previous arguement where I was simply rebutting another statement.
Now show some intellect cause I know somewhere in that thick skull its there.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #87 24 Dec 2007 11:34 am |
why so ser- shut the fuck up. Rep: 38Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 15,677 OFFLINE | And you still avoid my post. Ain’t that a bitch?
I don’t need to quote you because your reply was RIGHT BEFORE MINE. The quote button would be used if there were other replies between yours and my own, to avoid confusion. If that’s your argument against me then it’s a pretty weak one, bud.
You want my opinions? How about the fact that every conspiracy theory in the world can be debunked with common sense? A popular one is how the plane crash into the pentagon is different from most other recorded plane crashes, considering the spread of the debris and such. While people will conveniently ignore the fact that what they are comparing the pentagon attack to are plane crashes in which the crash was avoided, not the main goal. But that’s just one. If you have any specifics, by all means ask away and I’ll be more than happy to tear them apart.
And for someone who says that personal insults is a sign of weak argument, you sure do make use of that tactic a lot.
---
| | #88 24 Dec 2007 11:41 am |
Live like an angel, die like a devil Rep: 20 Joined: 01 Apr 2007 Posts: 12,759 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
And you still avoid my post. Ain’t that a bitch?
I don’t need to quote you because your reply was RIGHT BEFORE MINE. The quote button would be used if there were other replies between yours and my own, to avoid confusion. If that’s your argument against me then it’s a pretty weak one, bud.
You want my opinions? How about the fact that every conspiracy theory in the world can be debunked with common sense? A popular one is how the plane crash into the pentagon is different from most other recorded plane crashes, considering the spread of the debris and such. While people will conveniently ignore the fact that what they are comparing the pentagon attack to are plane crashes in which the crash was avoided, not the main goal. But that’s just one. If you have any specifics, by all means ask away and I’ll be more than happy to tear them apart.
And for someone who says that personal insults is a sign of weak argument, you sure do make use of that tactic a lot.
This post wins the internet.
---
 | | #89 24 Dec 2007 03:25 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 47Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 38,687 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
And you still avoid my post. Ain’t that a bitch?
I don’t need to quote you because your reply was RIGHT BEFORE MINE. The quote button would be used if there were other replies between yours and my own, to avoid confusion. If that’s your argument against me then it’s a pretty weak one, bud.
You want my opinions? How about the fact that every conspiracy theory in the world can be debunked with common sense? A popular one is how the plane crash into the pentagon is different from most other recorded plane crashes, considering the spread of the debris and such. While people will conveniently ignore the fact that what they are comparing the pentagon attack to are plane crashes in which the crash was avoided, not the main goal. But that’s just one. If you have any specifics, by all means ask away and I’ll be more than happy to tear them apart.
And for someone who says that personal insults is a sign of weak argument, you sure do make use of that tactic a lot.
Sounds like you are angry with truthist. I suggest first of all anger management. Secondly this kinda arguing isn’t allowed in this thread. This thread is for sensible people, not crazed lunatics. And thirdly your anger is being taken out not only on the wrong thread by the wrong person. I suggest going to a truthist site and wasting your time doing that there.
And yes I use a lot of personal insults becuase I can. I use them better and more efficiently, not waste them like you.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #90 24 Dec 2007 03:27 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 47Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 38,687 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
You want my opinions? How about the fact that every conspiracy theory in the world can be debunked with common sense? A popular one is how the plane crash into the pentagon is different from most other recorded plane crashes, considering the spread of the debris and such. While people will conveniently ignore the fact that what they are comparing the pentagon attack to are plane crashes in which the crash was avoided, not the main goal. But that’s just one. If you have any specifics, by all means ask away and I’ll be more than happy to tear them apart.
Now for the only good part of that post. I really don’t see how this is a point at all. I suggest using some sources and facts, not to mention a picture representation of what you mean, as this kinda needs a picture. Otherwise this is just words that have no backing.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | | #91 24 Dec 2007 03:50 pm |
Agent of Chaos Rep: 47Joined: 10 Aug 2005 Posts: 38,687 OFFLINE | You know what Atresac, save it. This thread has gone to hell anyways. I wanted people to be able discuss this in a factual, yet opinionated fashion, while being respectful to others. Apparently that isn’t how its going, as people get a superiority complex with their own opinions, thinking that is the right one and no one else can be right. Takes the debate out of it all.
It’s just like the fucking religious discussions where people going in thinking to themselves, I have an opinion and it’s right and I won’t here anyone. Well sir you’ve done exactly that just like the rest of these degenerates that have posted here.
So I quit. I’m having it locked, cause you can’t discuss something with pathetic people like you.
---
It’s not about money. It’s about sending a message. Everything burns. | |
|
Previous Page - Locked |
Moderated by: Admins, Superusers |
»
Politics
» The 9-11 Terrorist Attacks: What Really Happened?
