Political Crossfire Forums

Patriot911 · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 6852 Location: Denver, CO

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: You might be more convincing if you picked one point and just argued that till you win or lose. I don't know about other people, but I kinda get lost in these "quote forests" you like to build..

Brevity is the Soul of wit..

When you make one point, and make it well, people tend to remember it better..

That said, you have *not* given any evidence that would hold up in a court of law (per one of the many zillions of comments you made here).

Carry on.. :-D

Once again you prove just how ineffective a debater you are. Expert witnesses are most definitely evidence that holds up in a court of law. Video and audio evidence? Absolutely admissable. The video doesn't show the flashes associated with high explosives and the audio doesn't have the distictive sound of explosives being used. The NIST report is a report done by a credible government agency with the help of experts in their fields. The forensic examiners and demolitions experts who saw the debris are also considered expert witnesses who are admissable as evidence in a court of law.

Sorry, but once again just your lame claim that something is true doesn't make it true. Try again.
Sure..

The only problem is that all the expert witnesses, audio + video + seismic evidence, etc that you're going to find will vouch for the fact that WTC7 was brought down by bombs..

Whose team are you playing for anyway? :lol:

Here's my favorite expert witness testifying on video/audio:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=silverstein&hl=en

Once again you prove your ineffectiveness. Care to back up your claim that all my evidence proves bombs were used when every piece of evidence specifically proves there was no bomb?

And of course we've been over Silverstein. Here is how it broke down just in case you forgot. You came up with the totally whacked out theory that Silverstein, in a subconcious fit of guilt, admitted to the destruction, but in another subconcious twist, blamed it all on the fire department. Lets see.... what would hold up in court. The twisted interpretation of someone practicing quack psychology with zero credentials or the man's own words? Hmmm..... I am betting the judge and jury will go with Silverstein's own words and not your f'ed up interpretation. :lol:

Thanks for the laugh.... the idea of Psholtz as an expert witness. :rofl:

Mighty Oak · Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:04 pm Post subject:

I've just realized what the poll said "Was 911 a Conspiracy?" 6 Yes--15 No's

Whats going on here?

911 was a conspiracy.

Whether you believe the Governments theory or not.

Thats programing for you.

NAB · Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject:

Mighty Oak wrote: I've just realized what the poll said "Is 911 a Conspiracy?" 6 Yes--15 No's

Whats going on here?

911 was a conspiracy.

Whether you believe the Governments theory or not.

Thats programing for you.

While your assertion is true (there was a conspiracy to commit violence), I think you're overlooking the intention of the poll and the forum within it's located. The obvious intention of this particular poll was to ask if a conspiracy by the US government to commit the acts that occurred on 911, thus the many NO's.

Now if the poll could be changed to reflect "who" was behind the conspiracy on 911, then you'd probably have a different response on the "yes" part. :wink:

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

Mighty Oak wrote: I've just realized what the poll said "Was 911 a Conspiracy?" 6 Yes--15 No's

Whats going on here?

911 was a conspiracy.

Whether you believe the Governments theory or not.

Thats programing for you.
That's why I haven't answered the poll yet..

The question is phrased in a completely absurd way...

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 3500 Location: Tulsa, OK

Mighty Oak and psholtz:

Oh please, anyone who is not able to infer the intention behind the poll – especially with the added context of the link provided – then that individual shouldn’t even be posting their “logical” cognitive excrements.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

JDHURF wrote: Mighty Oak and psholtz:

Oh please, anyone who is not able to infer the intention behind the poll – especially with the added context of the link provided – then that individual shouldn’t even be posting their “logical” cognitive excrements.
I don't infer what the meaning of your poll is.

9/11 was a conspiracy no matter how you look at it.

There was no "lone hijacker".. There were at least 19 who conspired together. If you believe the government, there was a 20th guy who's now in some sort of prison playing the role of patsy-fall-guy.

A better title would have been: "9/11 was an inside job" (yea/nea)

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 3500 Location: Tulsa, OK

psholtz wrote: I don't infer what the meaning of your poll is.
That’s because you are severely inept with regards to logical exercises. For allegedly working with logic at Stanford you seem to be extraordinarily unfamiliar with logical inferences.
psholtz wrote: 9/11 was a conspiracy no matter how you look at it.
That it was, but, I was asking if it was a conspiracy as put forth by those the link addressed, was it a conspiracy on the part of the US government is the clear question.
psholtz wrote: There was no "lone hijacker".. There were at least 19 who conspired together. If you believe the government, there was a 20th guy who's now in some sort of prison playing the role of patsy-fall-guy. A better title would have been: "9/11 was an inside job" (yea/nea)
Agreed, but only an absolute fool would not understand the clear inference made by the poll as it stands. Twenty people understood it, the fact that you and some other individual have a problem with it only further illustrates your being an irrational anomaly.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

JDHURF wrote: psholtz wrote: There was no "lone hijacker".. There were at least 19 who conspired together. If you believe the government, there was a 20th guy who's now in some sort of prison playing the role of patsy-fall-guy. A better title would have been: "9/11 was an inside job" (yea/nea)
Agreed, but only an absolute fool would not understand the clear inference made by the poll as it stands. Twenty people understood it, the fact that you and some other individual have a problem with it only further illustrates your being an irrational anomaly.
I had a problem w/ the sloppy semantics of the question.

If your question were a legal contract, I would never have signed it, due to its obvious loopholes and ambiguity.

For this reason, I didn't vote in it.

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 3500 Location: Tulsa, OK

psholtz wrote: JDHURF wrote: psholtz wrote: There was no "lone hijacker".. There were at least 19 who conspired together. If you believe the government, there was a 20th guy who's now in some sort of prison playing the role of patsy-fall-guy. A better title would have been: "9/11 was an inside job" (yea/nea)
Agreed, but only an absolute fool would not understand the clear inference made by the poll as it stands. Twenty people understood it, the fact that you and some other individual have a problem with it only further illustrates your being an irrational anomaly.
I had a problem w/ the sloppy semantics of the question.

If your question were a legal contract, I would never have signed it, due to its obvious loopholes and ambiguity.

For this reason, I didn't vote in it. :lol: This is a forum on the PCF, it's not a legal contract you silly goose. If you have an aversion for voting for something that can only be taken wrongly by someone foolish enough to ignore the context in which it lays then don't vote, I surely couldn't care less.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

JDHURF wrote: This is a forum on the PCF, it's not a legal contract you silly goose.
The human Soul is held accountable and responsible for every thought, every word and every act it commits while entombed w/in the human body made of flesh-and-blood. As such, every word you speak, every act you take, every thought you think is a contract you are signing w/ God every moment of your life.

I don't enter into such contracts lightly.

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 3500 Location: Tulsa, OK

psholtz wrote: JDHURF wrote: This is a forum on the PCF, it's not a legal contract you silly goose.
The human Soul is held accountable and responsible for every thought, every word and every act it commits while entombed w/in the human body made of flesh-and-blood. As such, every word you speak, every act you take, every thought you think is a contract you are signing w/ God every moment of your life.

I don't enter into such contracts lightly. Jesus-tap-dancing-christ you are out there. In any case I am a secular humanist, atheist, and as such your above voodoo is laughably irrelevant to me.

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

JDHURF wrote: Jesus-tap-dancing-christ you are out there. In any case I am a secular humanist, atheist, and as such your above voodoo is laughably irrelevant to me.
After glancing at your profile, shall I share w/ you some of my conspiracy-theories regarding Tusla-based Oral Roberts University, CIA mind control and Project Monarch?

I'm sure you'd get a real kick of out them.. :lol:

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 3500 Location: Tulsa, OK

psholtz wrote: JDHURF wrote: Jesus-tap-dancing-christ you are out there. In any case I am a secular humanist, atheist, and as such your above voodoo is laughably irrelevant to me.
After glancing at your profile, shall I share w/ you some of my conspiracy-theories regarding Tusla-based Oral Roberts University, CIA mind control and Project Monarch?

I'm sure you'd get a real kick of out them.. :lol: That sure sounds rich. I’m not a big fan of ORU but, and I live within a few blocks radius of the school, there is no reason to believe it is involved with any conspiracy. But please, by all means, share!

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

JDHURF wrote: psholtz wrote: JDHURF wrote: Jesus-tap-dancing-christ you are out there. In any case I am a secular humanist, atheist, and as such your above voodoo is laughably irrelevant to me.
After glancing at your profile, shall I share w/ you some of my conspiracy-theories regarding Tusla-based Oral Roberts University, CIA mind control and Project Monarch?

I'm sure you'd get a real kick of out them.. :lol: That sure sounds rich. I’m not a big fan of ORU but, and I live within a few blocks radius of the school, there is no reason to believe there it is involved with any conspiracy. But please, by all means, share!
I'll do so tomorrow.. probably in another thread.

Getting late tonight, and there's a *lot* to say on this subject.

For now, just know that basically *all* US universities are merely extensions of the Pentagon and are engaged in little else other than military weapons development and research. This is as true of Oral Roberts as it is of Stanford, Harvard or MIT.

Like I said, I'll bring up more tomorrow .. remind me if I forget.. :wink:

JDHURF · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 3500 Location: Tulsa, OK

Next time I get on the PCF I'll be sure to look for your thread and if it doesn't exist I'll be sure to remind you. So, while you were allegedly at Stanford, did you participate in the conspiracy, whether aware of it or not? :lol:

psholtz · Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 23468 Location: California

JDHURF wrote: Next time I get on the PCF I'll be sure to look for your thread and if it doesn't exist I'll be sure to remind you. So, while you were allegedly at Stanford, did you participate in the conspiracy, whether aware of it or not? :lol:
We all participate in the conspiracy, no matter where we are.

Pretty much every act you do in modern America today contribute in some way, shape or form to the advancement of the military-industrial complex (matrix?). Pretty sinister system. It's hard to identify a way out.