3292 replies to this topic

[Liquid Gardens]

That's fine BR, I didn't think you'd get it anyway.  I have read and heard these conversations you deem 'unnatural and improbable', I see and hear nothing unusual about them.  I am suggesting that you not make certain negative statements out of respect for the families and the victims, unless and until you are very sure that your statements are actually correct.  Determining such vaguely defined and immeasurable things like 'unnatural and improbable' in reference to conversations isn't exactly scientific, I don't know what 'critical thinking' you could be applying to it that doesn't involve first presuming immodestly that your personal analysis is infallible.  I personally find the idea that you and whomever has done this 'analysis' know better than the victims' families whether or not they were actually talking to one of the victims to be entirely unjustified and grotesque.

There is nothing wrong with an appeal to emotion unless it is used fallaciously, which I haven't, so I don't know why you even mentioned it.  I'm not appealing to emotion anyway, I'm trying to appeal to a sense of tact and couth, not because I find the discussion upsetting or anything but because I think it reflects on you negatively.  But whatever, I wasn't really expecting any different of a response, as you were, carry on.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 13 November 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

  Is it really honest posting to put something up that is fake, and then after the post admit that it is fake?

Apparently, you've claimed to be a pilot, but your missteps and blunders on aircraft maneuvers, airframes, FAA regulations, and pilot associations tell a completely different story and as a result,  people saw through your deception routine.

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 November 2012 - 08:23 PM.

[Insaniac]

The fact, that there is still a debate on the 9/11 situation proves (or should) that something is not quite right.

SkyEagle, I respect your passion to debate, but I don't understand why, or how your entirely convinced your Government is telling you the truth.

Consider the possibilities, is perhaps the best advice I can give at this point. Just realise that everybody has the option to either tell the truth, or tell a lie.

Peace.

[booNyzarC]

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

The fact, that there is still a debate on the 9/11 situation proves (or should) that something is not quite right.

Does the fact that people who know that the world is round still debate members of The Flat Earth Society prove any measure of legitimacy of Flat Earther claims?

Does the fact that people who are well aware of the atrocities involved with the Holocaust still debate Holocaust Deniers prove any measure of legitimacy for the suggestion that there was no Holocaust?

You may want to double-check your logic.



Edit:  Second sentence didn't make sense.

Edited by booNyzarC, 14 November 2012 - 01:30 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

The fact, that there is still a debate on the 9/11 situation proves (or should) that something is not quite right.

SkyEagle, I respect your passion to debate, but I don't understand why, or how your entirely convinced your Government is telling you the truth.

Consider the possibilities, is perhaps the best advice I can give at this point. Just realise that everybody has the option to either tell the truth, or tell a lie.

Peace.

The government is not the only source of information concerning the 9/11 attacks and remember, there are non-government sources as well.

[Insaniac]

booNyzarC, on 14 November 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Does the fact that people who know that the world is round still debate members of The Flat Earth Society prove any measure of legitimacy of Flat Earther claims?

What the hell are you talking about?

What you speak of is a different subject. You cannot compare that topic to this one because the subject matter is entirely different. Therefor, irrelevant to 9/11.

Quote

Does the fact that people who are well aware of the atrocities involved with the Holocaust prove any measure of legitimacy for Holocaust Deniers? You may want to double-check your logic.

Again, entirely different subject. How can you possibly compare those scenarios with 9/11? Nonsensical.

Fact is, there are conflicting arguments on both sides regarding the September 11th attacks. That right there, tells you something isn't right. Somebody in the know is lying about something. Otherwise there wouldn't be this power-struggle between "Truther's" and the US Government. Thats my point.

That struggle exists because one side is trying to reveal the truth and the other side is trying to conceal it. Something is not right.

I think thats easy enough to comprehend. Also, thanks for the suggestion, but I think you should take your own advice.

[DONTEATUS]

The only truth is the facts of what happened that day !  Four Jets hit  un moveable objects,Lots of real people died ! Where can anyone not get this ?

[Insaniac]

skyeagle409, on 14 November 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

The government is not the only source of information concerning the 9/11 attacks and remember, there are non-government sources as well.

There are probably other non-Government sources that tell the same thing the US Government is claiming, right. I get that.

Doesn't necessarily mean it's true. For if it was, there wouldn't exist a conflict between "Truther's" and the US Gov.

Also, and humbly I say unto you, you didn't answer as to why you hold onto the belief that the US Gov can seemingly do nothing wrong. All Human's are flawed, including those who work for the Gov. What convinces you they are telling the truth?

Peace out.

[booNyzarC]

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

What the hell are you talking about?

What you speak of is a different subject. You cannot compare that topic to this one because the subject matter is entirely different. Therefor, irrelevant to 9/11.

Again, entirely different subject. How can you possibly compare those scenarios with 9/11? Nonsensical.

I'm talking about your failed logic.  I'll try to explain because clearly you didn't understand.

You said this:

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

The fact, that there is still a debate on the 9/11 situation proves (or should) that something is not quite right.

This indicates that in your opinion the very fact that people are debating the subject of 9/11, it suggests that there is some kind of legitimacy to the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement.  From a minimal standpoint, you're suggesting that there is something "not quite right" simply because some people say there is something "not quite right" and other people engage in discussions with those people; therefore validating the claimant.

This is a complete failure of logic.  The fact that people may debate about claims made regarding a topic does not in itself offer any credibility to the claims themselves.

The examples I provided mirror, and therefore illustrate, the exact same failed logic.

Do you understand?

[skyeagle409]

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

There are probably other non-Government sources that tell the same thing the US Government is claiming, right. I get that.

Did American Airlines and United Airlines report their aircraft crashed during the 9/11 attacks? Did the Boeing Aircraft Co., supply important information needed for the investigation? In addition, you have the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Institute of Architects in addition to demolition experts from companies such as, Protec Services confirming the WTC buildings collapsed due to fires, and yet, they are not government agencies.

[Czero 101]

Don't hold your breath, booNy... your first examples were perfectly clear and understandable, and if Insaniac didn't get those simple examples, I doubt "dumbing it down" any further will help...





Cz

[Insaniac]

booNyzarC, on 14 November 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

I'm talking about your failed logic.  I'll try to explain because clearly you didn't understand. This indicates that in your opinion the very fact that people are debating the subject of 9/11, it suggests that there is some kind of legitimacy to the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement.  From a minimal standpoint, you're suggesting that there is something "not quite right" simply because some people say there is something "not quite right" and other people engage in discussions with those people; therefore validating the claimant.

The idea was to wake people up as to realise something is suspicious. If the Government's "truth" is exactly that, why are we still debating?

I'm suggesting something is not right because I feel that way within my heart. Thats my number one reason. I feel something is wrong and doesn't add up in my mind regarding 9/11.

Also, neither of us are perfect, remember. None of us.

Quote

This is a complete failure of logic. The fact that people may debate about claims made regarding a topic does not in itself offer any credibility to the claims themselves.

Look, something is suspicious regarding 9/11. That much is clear.

It doesn't take a genius to notice.

One can either turn a blind eye to the truth, or face the issue with an open mind. Your choice.


Peace.

[Czero 101]

See?...






Cz

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 13 November 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Boo

Yessir, I know that Sky admitted it was fake.  I missed a few posts in there, but I did not realize it was fake until I challenged him on that point, having seen the identical footage at some other site.

How is that his fault?

Babe Ruth, on 13 November 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

The point is Boo, that he presented it as being true.  Why else even provide the video?  Is it really honest posting to put something up that is fake, and then after the post admit that it is fake?

No sir, it is not honest, and that is the point I was conveying to Crumar.  Once bitten twice shy.

Clarification was provided in my post which immediately followed his original post, and then acknowledged by him in the very next post.

How does your failure to read that sequence of three posts (648, 649, and 650... the second and third of which were extremely short...) and then his further clarification addressed directly to you in post 653 equate to skyeagle being dishonest?


I say again, the whole sequence simply illustrates that you were unobservant, not that skyeagle was being dishonest.  At this point, it also appears to illustrate that you may be learning impaired based on the fact that you continue to bring this up even though it has been pointed out to you multiple times now.  You might want to do your nearly non-existent credibility a favor and stop bringing it up.

[Insaniac]

skyeagle409, on 14 November 2012 - 02:18 AM, said:

Did American Airlines and United Airlines report their aircraft crashed during the 9/11 attacks? Did the Boeing Aircraft Co., supply important information needed for the investigation? In addition, you have the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Institute of Architects in addition to demolition experts from companies such as, Protec Services confirming the WTC buildings collapsed due to fires, and yet, they are not government agencies.

I've also heard Demolition Experts explaining fires cannot totally destroy steel, also stating the buildings were brought down due to controlled explosions - hence the concrete turning into dust.

How do we know the corporations that you listed, do not truly work for the Government? Just because they said so?

I'm willing to believe it's a possibility they don't, however I have my doubts. The Government is notorious for it's lies. Theres plenty of evidence for that.

I hope to share with you the following: Don't allow anyone to convince you. Always think these things through for yourself. Otherwise, you could easily be decieved and mislead.

Take care, and peace out.