"Leaving Islam?" Bus Ads Censored in Detroit--Lawsuit

[Doboji]

Your imagining I said anything to suggest otherwise exposes your lack of the emotional fortitude necessary to address the topic rationally.

Wut?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Wut?

He's saying the planes did hit, but something else brought the towers down. Don't even bother arguing with a truther; everything is a conspiracy under a cover-up under a conspiracy to them.

 

[kylebisme]

Rather, the problem is arguing with a falser, because you guys project false beliefs on others to dismiss them; like Doboji did when arguing about the planes, and like you did with your "everything is a conspiracy under a cover-up " nonsense. Again, it's a matter of emotional fortitude; instead of addressing the painful reality of the physics of how the towers came down which I mentioned, a falser scrambles for excuses to dismiss any facts which conflict with his beleifs.

That is the psychological issue behind your dispute with me here. The massive cover-up, which as many note couldn't have enough people in on it, surely doesn't have many people in on it at all. The rest of you are just along for the ride, unwilling to face the ugly truth of State Crimes Against Democracy.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Rather, the problem is arguing with a falser, because you guys project false beliefs on others to dismiss them; like Doboji did when arguing about the planes, and like you did with your "everything is a conspiracy under a cover-up " nonsense. Again, it's a matter of emotional fortitude; instead of addressing the painful reality of the physics of how the towers came down which I mentioned, a falser scrambles for excuses to dismiss any facts which conflict with his beleifs.

That is the psychological issue behind your dispute with me here. The massive cover-up, which as many note couldn't have enough people in on it, surely doesn't have many people in on it at all. The rest of you are just along for the ride, unwilling to face the ugly truth of State Crimes Against Democracy.

Go ahead and create a thread about the "truther" view of 9/11 works. Really - it will be a fun argument.

 

[kylebisme]

Feel free to keep deluding yourself with whatever monolithic "truther view" you have, I've no interest in anything of the sort. I did once make a thread to discuss the physics of how WTC 7 came down, where you can find a bunch of your fellow falsers wallowing in denial of it while trying to talk about anything but that topic. Granted, it is locked now, but feel free to start a new thread on the topic of the physics of either WTC 7 or the towers came down, and I'll happily join the discussion.

 

[adlep]

If they accept donations I may have just found a new charity to donate to.

Ditto!

 

[Doboji]

Rather, the problem is arguing with a falser, because you guys project false beliefs on others to dismiss them; like Doboji did when arguing about the planes, and like you did with your "everything is a conspiracy under a cover-up " nonsense. Again, it's a matter of emotional fortitude; instead of addressing the painful reality of the physics of how the towers came down which I mentioned, a falser scrambles for excuses to dismiss any facts which conflict with his beleifs.

That is the psychological issue behind your dispute with me here. The massive cover-up, which as many note couldn't have enough people in on it, surely doesn't have many people in on it at all. The rest of you are just along for the ride, unwilling to face the ugly truth of State Crimes Against Democracy.

Well... let's examine this post for a moment.

What is the point of the first paragraph: Attempts to discredit opponents point of view by using the term "falser" to describe the opponent. Name calling is a common logical fallacy argument against the person. The issue being discussed, and the evidence related to that issue has no relevancy to the name of the person making the argument. I could be called "Iliealot" and that would have no impact whatsoever on the argument proposed.

The poster goes on to back up his "falser term" by asserting... that a "Falser" is emotionally weak, and therefore unable to objectively evaluate the evidence at hand. Again argument against the person.. the poster makes an enormous assumption that the opponent hasn't viewed the evidence and made an objective opinion, thus making the opponents point of view invalid. (you know what they say when you assume things, you make an ass out of u and me. )

My conclusion... the poster is wasting my time. He only wishes to release his emotional fury... he has made no actual argument, and doesn't appear interested in doing so. Therefore I will state a portion of my argument one time, and then place the poster on ignore, so as to avoid being baited into more deadend worthless conversation.

I've heard two version of stories by the so called "truthers"..

1) A missle hit the pentagon
I believe this to be false based on eye witness accounts I've heard from people I know who witnessed the attack as well as emergency rescue personnel I know who went in after the attack, and from having spent some time in the Pentagon myself.

2) Secondary explosions took down the towers.
Beyond the fact that the temperature discussions I've heard before make sense to me. The motive doesn't make sense either. The US government felt that 3 planes hitting major US buildings and landmarks, wasn't a sufficient simulated Terrorist attack? They felt they had to completely fell the towers to make their case? I don't buy it, makes no sense whatsoever.

Therefore I conclude... that based on all the evidence I've ever seen... based on statements by the Al Queda folks.. based on common sense and logic. Terrorists managed to hijack 4 planes on Sept 11 2001. They crashed 2 of those planes into the World trade center... the high temperatures of the burning jet fuel combined with trauma to the structure, caused the building infrastructure to liquify and collapse. Another plane crashed into the Pentagon. And a fourth plane was stopped probably by the passengers onboard... as the audio evidence suggests... or perhaps it was shot down... but I highly doubt it.

The only govt conspiracy that even remotely makes sense here... is maybe they shot down the 4th plane... But again extremely unlikely.

 

[Doboji]

He's saying the planes did hit, but something else brought the towers down. Don't even bother arguing with a truther; everything is a conspiracy under a cover-up under a conspiracy to them.

I'll never understand how anyone can be stupid enough to believe that crap... it's really remarkable. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... on any level. It's really pretty bizarre. Very much in the same vein as holocaust deniers.

 

[piasabird]

Then there are the Christian Science nuts who harass ex-members till they go nuts.

 

[irishScott]

Feel free to keep deluding yourself with whatever monolithic "truther view" you have, I've no interest in anything of the sort. I did once make a thread to discuss the physics of how WTC 7 came down, where you can find a bunch of your fellow falsers wallowing in denial of it while trying to talk about anything but that topic. Granted, it is locked now, but feel free to start a new thread on the topic of the physics of either WTC 7 or the towers came down, and I'll happily join the discussion.

Whatever makes you feel special at night.

 

[Doboji]

Feel free to keep deluding yourself with whatever monolithic "truther view" you have, I've no interest in anything of the sort. I did once make a thread to discuss the physics of how WTC 7 came down, where you can find a bunch of your fellow falsers wallowing in denial of it while trying to talk about anything but that topic. Granted, it is locked now, but feel free to start a new thread on the topic of the physics of either WTC 7 or the towers came down, and I'll happily join the discussion.

Have you seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Whippersnapper's Law: As the number of posts in a thread relating to Islam or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict approaches infinity, the probability that the thread will go off topic approaches 100%.

 

[jonks]

Have you seen this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

Dobo: this has been done to the tune of an over 80 page thread. Enjoy the insanity within:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=329108

 

[werepossum]

Whippersnapper's Law: As the number of posts in a thread relating to Islam or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict approaches infinity, the probability that the thread will go off topic approaches 100%.

LOL I could actually see that law having legs.

 

[kylebisme]

Well... let's examine this post for a moment.

What is the point of the first paragraph: Attempts to discredit opponents point of view by using the term "falser" to describe the opponent.

Rather, I used it in response to his using "truther" in a derogatory manor as an attempt to discredit me, and "because you guys project false beliefs on others to dismiss them", as I exemplified above. Yet again your response doesn't address what I said, but rather obfuscates around it, as does the video you linked in your later post. Again, if you'd like to discuss the topic of the physics of how either WTC 7 or the towers came down, feel free to start a new thread on it, and I'll happily participate. However, as long as you are unwilling to address that matter, I've no interest in discussing 9/11 with you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Relevance 100%

You Fail, sorry.

Yep because the Christians threatened Matt and Trey for depicting Jesus. No wait...

The problem we are having isn't with Muslims or Christians from a thousand years ago. It's about who's threatening NOW.

 

[palehorse]

The problem we are having isn't with Muslims or Christians from a thousand years ago. It's about who's threatening NOW.

:thumbsup:

 

[Doboji]

Rather, I used it in response to his using "truther" in a derogatory manor as an attempt to discredit me, and "because you guys project false beliefs on others to dismiss them", as I exemplified above. Yet again your response doesn't address what I said, but rather obfuscates around it, as does the video you linked in your later post. Again, if you'd like to discuss the topic of the physics of how either WTC 7 or the towers came down, feel free to start a new thread on it, and I'll happily participate. However, as long as you are unwilling to address that matter, I've no interest in discussing 9/11 with you.

Well I suppose rather than get infuriated further at your obtuseness... I'll just take solace in the fact that your utter stupidity makes me feel that much more confident in my point of view.

Happy Lunacy!

 

[kylebisme]

...I'll just take solace in the fact that your utter stupidity makes me feel that much more confident in my point of view.

Rather, your just deluding yourself with false confidence due to your lack of any objective basis for your position, and hence you are left slandering of me in defense of your inability to discuss the physics of how the WTC buildings came down. On the other hand, my position is based on immutable and unchangeable laws of physics, and hence no amount of slandering or anything else will ever effect it.