Political Crossfire Forums

[Bull]

Free Thinkr wrote: Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Bull wrote: NAB wrote: No offense Bull, but I wonder who you would consider the troll? You obviously don't like Patriot replying to you, but he will go point by point on you guy's stuff. There aren't many who bother, and that wouldn't be considered trolling, at least not in my Net-book. Whereas I've seen many pro-Conspiracy types being COMPLETE trolls in this forum. :roll:

Maybe you were referring to the later? :roll:

I updated my post above.

And there are trolls on both sides. But using ad hominems, red herrings, and every argument fallacy in the book is not debating point by point. It's trolling. I'm not the first one to say this either, many people have called him out on it. You are fairly new, you haven't been through almost every 9/11 debate on this forum (back when it was more populated with Truthers who seem to have moved on now) Why do you think he was suspended? You don't see me getting suspended do you? Because I don't attack people to make myself feel better.
Isn't that pretty much exactly what you're doing now? Attacking Patriot to make yourself feel better? It's a lie to say that Patriot doesn't debate these issues point by point; he does, to an extent that I would like to but simply don't have the patience. You'd be right to say that he occasionally peppers those replies with insults, but then, often his replies are addressed to posts where there are insults. Not saying that somehow makes his insults okay, but just pointing out that it's a biased viewpoint to act as though Patriot is just trolling these posts and adding nothing of substance.

You should at least be honest with yourself in this regard.

Where in my post is an attack?
You're attacking Patriot's character.

Quote: I just stated that he uses argument fallacies in 90% of his posts (which is true).
No, it's not true.

Quote: Lots of times he just replies TO attack. Case in point is when he got into a debate with Roy L. on thermite. Disciple of Common had to put him on his ignore list because he got tired of his insults.
Well, insults are not fallacies. At least learn the difference if you're going to attack people for using fallacies.

But seriously, how do you expect people to react to such a self-evidently false argument? Thermite is not an explosive. Thermite is not used to demolish buildings. That people such as yourself and Roy claim it is, while simultaneously calling others deluded, is very irritating.

Quote: Listen, I don't mind debating with people who don't agree with me...it's the mud-slinging and childish antics that turns people off. We've had two threads locked in the past day because of troll posts. One, where people complained about a name change (like they care anyway)...and the other by William Amos which was intended to be a flame thread.

Saying it's something that goes on occasionally is just covering for him.
No, not really. I'm sure you've noticed that there's been probably 5 frequenters of this forum who have been permanently banned. Considering there is a general tendency among conspiracy nuts to have no manners, it's hardly surprising that the replies they get occasionally contain insults.

1. Attacking his character? By saying he trolls? Which he does...

2. Yea ok :roll:

3. That was just one example...he uses insults and fallacies. Anyone who had argued with him can see that (which you haven't). As far as the thermite goes...I don't know about it and how it's used. Roy L. knew about that stuff (which is why I stayed out of the discussion). Seeing as how Roy L. is currently MIA...I guess you're off the hook. For now ;)

4. I have manners (sometimes). And if you can honestly sit there and say only the pro-conspiracy crowd (depending on which conspiracy you're talking about) have been the only ones throwing mud, then you're obviously biased to your side of the argument. What usually happens is Patriot or someone else says something (usually when they're losing an argument), and the conspiracy person gets mad and says something back. The topic goes goes off course, and before you know it, you're arguing over something totally different.

By the way, who has been banned?

[Captain Lovebird]

Patriot911 wrote: :lol: So you're telling me that if the 9/11 commission had proof that the Pentagon mislead the commission and had instead committed 9/11 that the 9/11 commission would have just said "Gee. We think we were mislead"? :rofl: Use your head! They would have immediately brought everyone involved up on charges! :roll:

You obviously do not understand the implications and consequences of corruption. Declaring "if there was corrption then I know that the non-corrupt ones would do something about it," is painfully naive.

Corrption is marked by inaction as much as it is by direct action.

[Claudia Schiffer]

NAB wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: he! he! looks like our friend patriot has called for reinforcement...

Yes the reinforcements have arrived. How else could a "Governement Agent" like Patriot stand up to this blistering assault. :roll:

Jesus, do you really take yourself THAT seriously?

I have to cause I'm a top model :lol:

Seriously, i think you might be a bit naive here. I have no idea if he is an agent, military or working for a private group financed by super rich Republicans(yes, such group exist, I've seen it.), but he clearly has an agenda.

BTW, did you know that 90% of war is psychological... the military admits that.

And if George can wiretap peace activist to make sure they have republican cheerleaders on the other side of the street on a manifestation day, you can be certain they have people monitoring forums like this, trying to balance things.

P.S. I don't take myself seriously, but ''they'' do...

[Free Thinkr]

Bull wrote: 1. Attacking his character? By saying he trolls? Which he does...
In your opinion. You brought it up to attack his character.

Quote: 2. Yea ok :roll:
Yeah, ok.

Quote: 3. That was just one example...he uses insults and fallacies. Anyone who had argued with him can see that (which you haven't).
I'm actually pretty sure I have argued with him. I haven't denied that he uses insults, though I don't remember him using any fallacies.

Quote: As far as the thermite goes...I don't know about it and how it's used. Roy L. knew about that stuff (which is why I stayed out of the discussion). Seeing as how Roy L. is currently MIA...I guess you're off the hook. For now ;)
Well, all you need to know is that it's an aluminum and rust mixture that, once ignited, liquefies and releases tremendous amounts of heat. Thermite would be of little use in cutting beams, seeing as how its liquid and would drip down rather than cutting horizontally. Even still, there's the fact that it would take a considerable amount of time to melt through beams, rather than being an instant cut like you'd get with explosives, and indeed, what is claimed in conspiracy theories. I had but a casual acquaintance with thermite before this theory was posed, but even then it set my BS detector ablaze.

Quote: 4. I have manners (sometimes). And if you can honestly sit there and say only the pro-conspiracy crowd (depending on which conspiracy you're talking about) have been the only ones throwing mud, then you're obviously biased to your side of the argument. What usually happens is Patriot or someone else says something (usually when they're losing an argument), and the conspiracy person gets mad and says something back. The topic goes goes off course, and before you know it, you're arguing over something totally different.
That's pretty much my point. You lambaste Patriot for his insults, yet you know as well as I do that that cuts both ways. Don't even pretend Patriot is the sole instigator. It's not like you guys are above it and Patriot is dragging down the level of debate; he may use insults which is not good, but he's pretty well par for the course in that regard.

Quote: By the way, who has been banned?
There's been quite a few CS nuts who have been banned. When Patriot got suspended there was one particularly trollish one whose name escapes me at the moment; I believe that person was banned.

[Patriot911]

LOL! Yes, these are all my reinforcements from various government agencies. Some of them will be visiting some of you soon. :roll:

For the record, I have never asked anyone to participate in this forum. This isn't a contest and what I write stands on it's own unless someone can prove it is wrong. People like Free Thinkr, BigOMG, NAB and others have decided to add their voices to the mix, and as usual the conspiracy theorists are doing everything they can to shut them up. In contrast, I am trying to get conspiracy theorists to answer the questions raised by their own theories.

There are plenty of people on this board who think like I do, but have given up debating on this topic because of the muleheadedness of the conspiracy theorists and the plain fact that they are not out to look for the truth but to try and convince people their theories are true. I am here to show that the conspiracy theories are fatally flawed at every level and are based on nothing more than fluff. When someone tells me they can tell what happened inside a burning, structurally compromised building just by looking at it, well, I know they're either smokin some good stuff or full of the brown smelly stuff.

[Patriot911]

Captain Lovebird wrote: Patriot911 wrote: :lol: So you're telling me that if the 9/11 commission had proof that the Pentagon mislead the commission and had instead committed 9/11 that the 9/11 commission would have just said "Gee. We think we were mislead"? :rofl: Use your head! They would have immediately brought everyone involved up on charges! :roll:

You obviously do not understand the implications and consequences of corruption. Declaring "if there was corrption then I know that the non-corrupt ones would do something about it," is painfully naive.

Corrption is marked by inaction as much as it is by direct action.

You bring up some good points, and for the most part you are correct. Some corruption people accept and simply turn a blind eye to it. Chicago politics is a perfect example of this.

However, corruption on the scale of 9/11 is a whole different ballgame, wouldn't you agree? You are talking about the murder of 3000 American citizens by those who we've entrusted the running of our country to. You are also talking about a corruption that would have thousands if not tens of thousands of participants. It isn't just the non-corrupt ones that would do something about it. I honestly believe there would have to be at least a couple out of all those involved who would regret what they had done and come forth.

[Claudia Schiffer]

Patriot911 wrote: Captain Lovebird wrote: Patriot911 wrote: :lol: So you're telling me that if the 9/11 commission had proof that the Pentagon mislead the commission and had instead committed 9/11 that the 9/11 commission would have just said "Gee. We think we were mislead"? :rofl: Use your head! They would have immediately brought everyone involved up on charges! :roll:

You obviously do not understand the implications and consequences of corruption. Declaring "if there was corrption then I know that the non-corrupt ones would do something about it," is painfully naive.

Corrption is marked by inaction as much as it is by direct action.

You bring up some good points, and for the most part you are correct. Some corruption people accept and simply turn a blind eye to it. Chicago politics is a perfect example of this.

However, corruption on the scale of 9/11 is a whole different ballgame, wouldn't you agree? You are talking about the murder of 3000 American citizens by those who we've entrusted the running of our country to. You are also talking about a corruption that would have thousands if not tens of thousands of participants. It isn't just the non-corrupt ones that would do something about it. I honestly believe there would have to be at least a couple out of all those involved who would regret what they had done and come forth.

Looks someone did?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464951265935594207

Or maybe it's just a coincidence?..

Oh! but wait! Osama Binladen must have been an X-Fils fan! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Patriot911]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Captain Lovebird wrote: Patriot911 wrote: :lol: So you're telling me that if the 9/11 commission had proof that the Pentagon mislead the commission and had instead committed 9/11 that the 9/11 commission would have just said "Gee. We think we were mislead"? :rofl: Use your head! They would have immediately brought everyone involved up on charges! :roll:

You obviously do not understand the implications and consequences of corruption. Declaring "if there was corrption then I know that the non-corrupt ones would do something about it," is painfully naive.

Corrption is marked by inaction as much as it is by direct action.

You bring up some good points, and for the most part you are correct. Some corruption people accept and simply turn a blind eye to it. Chicago politics is a perfect example of this.

However, corruption on the scale of 9/11 is a whole different ballgame, wouldn't you agree? You are talking about the murder of 3000 American citizens by those who we've entrusted the running of our country to. You are also talking about a corruption that would have thousands if not tens of thousands of participants. It isn't just the non-corrupt ones that would do something about it. I honestly believe there would have to be at least a couple out of all those involved who would regret what they had done and come forth.

Looks someone did?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464951265935594207

Or maybe it's just a coincidence?..

Oh! but wait! Osama Binladen must have been an X-Fils fan! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Since this is the third time you've posted this lame video, I am assuming that is the best you can come up with as far as proof of a conspiracy. :lol: Sad really.....

[chilirainbow]

Being that the original posters quote was from the Washington Post makes it clear that their story was just a smear campaign against the current administration.

[Patriot911]

chilirainbow wrote: Being that the original posters quote was from the Washington Post makes it clear that their story was just a smear campaign against the current administration.

Oh, it gets worse than that. If you read down at the bottom of the article from the link, you see that this guy has an active interest in spinning and exaggerating the story even more since he makes money off of it.

Quote: Michel Chossudovsky's most recent book, which reviews in detail the events of 911 is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005. To order Chossudovsky's book America's "War on Terrorism", click here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

I love how they put in that disclaimer at the end to distance themselves from the conspiracy theorists.

[Free Thinkr]

Patriot911 wrote: chilirainbow wrote: Being that the original posters quote was from the Washington Post makes it clear that their story was just a smear campaign against the current administration.

Oh, it gets worse than that. If you read down at the bottom of the article from the link, you see that this guy has an active interest in spinning and exaggerating the story even more since he makes money off of it.

Quote: Michel Chossudovsky's most recent book, which reviews in detail the events of 911 is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005. To order Chossudovsky's book America's "War on Terrorism", click here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

I love how they put in that disclaimer at the end to distance themselves from the conspiracy theorists.
It's funny, Patriot: our conspiracy theorist friends are hyper-vigilant of government corruption, but have no vigilance whatever for scam-artist, book/video pushing, conspiracy theorists.

[cap'n queasy]

Patriot911 wrote: chilirainbow wrote: Being that the original posters quote was from the Washington Post makes it clear that their story was just a smear campaign against the current administration.

Oh, it gets worse than that. If you read down at the bottom of the article from the link, you see that this guy has an active interest in spinning and exaggerating the story even more since he makes money off of it.

Quote: Michel Chossudovsky's most recent book, which reviews in detail the events of 911 is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005. To order Chossudovsky's book America's "War on Terrorism", click here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

I love how they put in that disclaimer at the end to distance themselves from the conspiracy theorists.

It's not so much to distance themselves but to make sure they are involved in any lawsuits that may arise from this slander.

[Claudia Schiffer]

you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.

[Free Thinkr]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Check out Bush's neck and cheek! He's not HUMAN folks! He's been replaced by an alien host! This isn't even the same "Bush" that was seen on tv the other day giving a press conference. They are using multiple "Bush's" to pose as President Bush. Where is the REAL Bush? The Reptilians claim they killed the real one and are using clones to fool the public into thinking he's still alive. Just as they do with Cheney. The Aliens are taking over!



http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/

[Patriot911]

Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.

Man.... you would THINK the conspiracy crowd would get off this lame joke. Which is more expensive? To demolish a building using explosives or build a 110 story sky scraper, crash a plane into it, have it collapse into the building you want to collapse which starts a fire which collapses the building? If ignorance is bliss, conspiracy theorists have obtained Nirvana.

[Patriot911]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Check out Bush's neck and cheek! He's not HUMAN folks! He's been replaced by an alien host! This isn't even the same "Bush" that was seen on tv the other day giving a press conference. They are using multiple "Bush's" to pose as President Bush. Where is the REAL Bush? The Reptilians claim they killed the real one and are using clones to fool the public into thinking he's still alive. Just as they do with Cheney. The Aliens are taking over!



http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/

You would think the alien Cheney wouldn't have such an itchy trigger finger..... ;-)

[Bull]

chilirainbow wrote: Being that the original posters quote was from the Washington Post makes it clear that their story was just a smear campaign against the current administration.

Let me guess...because it's from the liberal media right :lol: ?

[Bull]

Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

[pikers]

Bull wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Claudia Schiffer wrote: you're not fooling anyone guys, not even close.

And don't you think demolition teams around the world would be out of work if it only took a fire to demolish a building huh? I mean think about it, people could save a lot of money by lightening up themselves fire.

No, the proof is there for all to see.
Uh, the same tired lie is trotted out for, what, the 100-millionth time? Fire didn't demolish any of those buildings; 2 suffered massive damage from a freaking jet slamming into them at 500mph, and the other suffered damage from the non-controlled collapse of one of the aforementioned towers.

You know what the problem with your argument is? The plane blew up on the OUTSIDE...and the official story (unless it's been altered for the up-tenth time) according to the 9/11 Commission (which is faulty) is that the FIRE brought down the building. You're making up excuses that not even the government uses :lol: .

Uh yeah, uh, dat's wha-happened... :-|

When a bullet hits the human body, it tends to break up, causing more damage on the inside than the outside. Or, it simply deforms dramatically, causing more trauma on the exit side than the entry.

"Blew up on the outside"... Holy Christ. :roll: