Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
why? if you keep feeding the troll it might burst!
|
|
|
- Thread starter kettal
- Start date
- Status
why? if you keep feeding the troll it might burst!
gristle
Senior Member
Sad. Kamuix pretty much copied his post#429 into post #434. Not only does he lack any credible evidence to support his conspiracy claims, he can't even come up with an original post in response.
Kamuix, where is the evidence? Produce it.
Kamuix, where is the evidence? Produce it.
Kamuix
Active Member
I get your point i've even said over and over again that I get your point - You don't think i have evidence to support my claim - Fine.. I don't care I'm not here to provide the evidence you're looking for.
Why do you keep bringing things up we've already discussed? You're the one that leads this conversation in circles.
Same thing here remember I'm trying to get people to consider it because it's more then highly possible and to do more research for themselves. < Instead of addressing that, you just say the same thing over and over.
You address the same thing over and over and won't address anything else and we both know why. You have a one track mind and a very basic/easily conditioned mined as well, you're too far gone.
Grissie it's so obvious to me that you're in denial and you're obviously too blind to see why but think just for a sec..
You use the 'you have no evidence' thing not only to say i therefor must be wrong, but to avoid having to discuss or address anything and everything that I bring up.. you're mind is so unbelievably narrow. You also won't go into any depth what-so-ever, you take things I say and do out of context and try to use them against me (for example the 'came calling' thing) And manipulate things i say, and constantly generalize
I also find it strange that you're stretching your posts out so far but all you've done is re-word the same thing over and over against pretty much.. Is that some sort of a manipulation? or are you trying to intimidate me with lengthy posts because I can clearly see now that's it's the same thing re-worded a thousand times.
Why do you keep bringing things up we've already discussed? You're the one that leads this conversation in circles.
Same thing here remember I'm trying to get people to consider it because it's more then highly possible and to do more research for themselves. < Instead of addressing that, you just say the same thing over and over.
You address the same thing over and over and won't address anything else and we both know why. You have a one track mind and a very basic/easily conditioned mined as well, you're too far gone.
Grissie it's so obvious to me that you're in denial and you're obviously too blind to see why but think just for a sec..
You use the 'you have no evidence' thing not only to say i therefor must be wrong, but to avoid having to discuss or address anything and everything that I bring up.. you're mind is so unbelievably narrow. You also won't go into any depth what-so-ever, you take things I say and do out of context and try to use them against me (for example the 'came calling' thing) And manipulate things i say, and constantly generalize
I also find it strange that you're stretching your posts out so far but all you've done is re-word the same thing over and over against pretty much.. Is that some sort of a manipulation? or are you trying to intimidate me with lengthy posts because I can clearly see now that's it's the same thing re-worded a thousand times.
gristle
Senior Member
Yet another repetition of a prior post.
Reason? Kamuix has no evidence. Kamuix doesn't know what evidence is.
So he recycles old posts in a facile attempt at stonewalling.
Kamuix: where is your evidence to support your claim of a conspiracy? I challenge you to produce it.
Reason? Kamuix has no evidence. Kamuix doesn't know what evidence is.
So he recycles old posts in a facile attempt at stonewalling.
Kamuix: where is your evidence to support your claim of a conspiracy? I challenge you to produce it.
Kamuix
Active Member
Grissie wouldn't of bothered to keep posting if I or whoever is as crazy as he tries to make them look. He's still feeding the government lies and using the one line written differently each time to try and justify us being crazy all at once. He's obviously in denial for so many reasons, one being that he he only see's it in black or white with no gray area. It's either show "proof" or don't discuss it and if you do and/or think there's a conspiracy you're a crazy delirious person. Sound familiar? Also refusing to acknowledge how governments have taken countries over in the past and the fact that it's important to be skeptical of your government and ask questions etc.. Believe what the media/establishment/government tells you and shut up.
And when you discuss something like the more obvious lies behind the drug war or if you're just explaining logic behind something that he's doing, instead of addressing it he just accuses you of going off topic. He's obviously using that to defend himself from having to discuss outside the box and allows him to keep shooting out the stupid government lies. So in Grissie's mind the governments innocent until proven guilty and what he calls proof is questionable.
Yet another repetition of a prior last 30 posts.
Reason? Grissie has no evidence. Grissie doesn't know what evidence is.
So he recycles old posts in a facile attempt at stonewalling.
Grissie: where is your evidence to support your claim that everything the government has told us to this day is true even though they've been caught lying over and over? I challenge you to produce it.
Oh.. but there's another question you have to answer and that is, why is that just because i haven't shown what you call proof it's not allowed to be discussed? See i support discussing it but you obviously think it shouldn't be discussed unless your type of proof is shown, why is that?
Watch guys.. he won't address or answer the question.
And when you discuss something like the more obvious lies behind the drug war or if you're just explaining logic behind something that he's doing, instead of addressing it he just accuses you of going off topic. He's obviously using that to defend himself from having to discuss outside the box and allows him to keep shooting out the stupid government lies. So in Grissie's mind the governments innocent until proven guilty and what he calls proof is questionable.
Yet another repetition of a prior last 30 posts.
Reason? Grissie has no evidence. Grissie doesn't know what evidence is.
So he recycles old posts in a facile attempt at stonewalling.
Grissie: where is your evidence to support your claim that everything the government has told us to this day is true even though they've been caught lying over and over? I challenge you to produce it.
Oh.. but there's another question you have to answer and that is, why is that just because i haven't shown what you call proof it's not allowed to be discussed? See i support discussing it but you obviously think it shouldn't be discussed unless your type of proof is shown, why is that?
Watch guys.. he won't address or answer the question.
Last edited:
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
*Sigh* That picture, in order.
First. We can't say that Bin Laden organized the 9/11 attacks. Obviously he's the head of Al-Quaida, a terrorist organization, but it's like wondering why they persecuted SS officials for their war crimes rather than Hitler himself.
Second. Do you know what happened to the people who organized Operation Northwoods? The plan was immediately rejected and they were all fired. So that's really absolutely no proof that the American government is capable of committing acts of terrorism on their people.
Third. How many other steel framed buildings have had jet airliners crash into them? It's been proven again and again that the fires experienced at the WTC were definitely hot enough to destroy the structural integrity of the towers.
Fourth. I don't know stocks, but I don't quite understand how the FBI saying "Al-Quaida didn't do it" is proof that the US did. Really, if they actually wanted to be sneaky about it, wouldn't they want to stick it on the obvious blame figure, Al-Quaida?
Fifth. So the FBI shouldn't be investigating possible terrorists? Not to mention that Al-Quaida and Taliban members in fact were trained by the CIA and Us Military to combat the Soviets around the 90's.
Sixth. Do you know why Columbia and Clinton got so much money for investigation? Because they were mysteries! They had no idea what caused Columbia when it malfunctioned, and they had no idea whether Clinton was cheating or not. Do you know why the WTC went down? Well if you look at the videos, it would appear that a couple of planes crashed into them. Not sure if that could contribute.
First. We can't say that Bin Laden organized the 9/11 attacks. Obviously he's the head of Al-Quaida, a terrorist organization, but it's like wondering why they persecuted SS officials for their war crimes rather than Hitler himself.
Second. Do you know what happened to the people who organized Operation Northwoods? The plan was immediately rejected and they were all fired. So that's really absolutely no proof that the American government is capable of committing acts of terrorism on their people.
Third. How many other steel framed buildings have had jet airliners crash into them? It's been proven again and again that the fires experienced at the WTC were definitely hot enough to destroy the structural integrity of the towers.
Fourth. I don't know stocks, but I don't quite understand how the FBI saying "Al-Quaida didn't do it" is proof that the US did. Really, if they actually wanted to be sneaky about it, wouldn't they want to stick it on the obvious blame figure, Al-Quaida?
Fifth. So the FBI shouldn't be investigating possible terrorists? Not to mention that Al-Quaida and Taliban members in fact were trained by the CIA and Us Military to combat the Soviets around the 90's.
Sixth. Do you know why Columbia and Clinton got so much money for investigation? Because they were mysteries! They had no idea what caused Columbia when it malfunctioned, and they had no idea whether Clinton was cheating or not. Do you know why the WTC went down? Well if you look at the videos, it would appear that a couple of planes crashed into them. Not sure if that could contribute.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
If it wasn't a fraud then where are the bodies at the Pentagon? Haven't you ever wondered why they have never recovered so much of a chair or any part of the plane little alone even one drop of blood?
It was a missile from a nearby US airbase. Planes cannot run that long and low to the ground. I remember watching them "cleaning up" the Pentagon site. At the time, no evidence of a plane just a bunch of personnel setting up yellow tents throwing all the remnents in it.
There was no plane crash.........period.
For anyone who thinks this wasn't an inside job I have just one request......................find me any example at anytime anywhere on the planet where a plane hits something at ground level and results in no parts of the plane or even a body. If you have even heard of such a circumstance then I'll change my mind.
Hitler used this method to move into power.....................it's called the "big lie theory". It's premise is that if you continue to lie long long enough and the lies are so extreme people will eventually begin to believe it. It relies on the idea that if you state such an extreme lie continually people will start to think that they {gov't} could say such a thing all the time "so there must be something to it".
It was a missile from a nearby US airbase. Planes cannot run that long and low to the ground. I remember watching them "cleaning up" the Pentagon site. At the time, no evidence of a plane just a bunch of personnel setting up yellow tents throwing all the remnents in it.
There was no plane crash.........period.
For anyone who thinks this wasn't an inside job I have just one request......................find me any example at anytime anywhere on the planet where a plane hits something at ground level and results in no parts of the plane or even a body. If you have even heard of such a circumstance then I'll change my mind.
Hitler used this method to move into power.....................it's called the "big lie theory". It's premise is that if you continue to lie long long enough and the lies are so extreme people will eventually begin to believe it. It relies on the idea that if you state such an extreme lie continually people will start to think that they {gov't} could say such a thing all the time "so there must be something to it".
gristle
Senior Member
I'm leaving it entirely up to you to tell me how crazy you are. What I'm challenging you with is to provide evidence to support your claims. And not any type of "special" evidence that appears to so worry you, but actual verifiable evidence that supports your claims of a government conspiracy regarding 9/11.
Wrong again Kamuix, Find where I've defended any particular position on this thread. I'm challenging you on this. If you can't comprehend what I am asking, I will rephrase it for you yet again: back up your 9/11 claims with actual evidence to support your assertion of a government conspiracy. Do that, or finally admit that all you have is nothing but your own unsupported opinion on the matter.
We are not discussing drug wars, this thread is about whether 9/11 was an inside job. That is the topic of this thread (see the title). If you want to yammer on about your other dusty collection of conspiracy theories, start other threads. If you are unsure about the rules of this forum regarding staying on topic, take it up with the moderators of this forum. If you can't stay focussed, get help.
Katmix, at no point have I defended any particular position. You can search this thread to see that. However, you have failed to refute the standing account. I am pointing out that you have not shown that specific stated chain of events to be faulty in any way. You have not undermined its credibility. You have failed to support your nebulous claims of a government conspiracy. You haven't even bothered to define the nature of that claim. Regarding your accusation of repeated lies concerning 9/11, you can always try to provide specific examples of "government" lies regarding that event (and not conspiracy blog sites or Youtube video rants).
And in the minds of many other people as well, Kamuix. Presumption of innocence is a legal right in this and many other nations around the world, and the burden of proof regarding the accusation of guilt lies with those (that means you) who are making criminal accusations. This specific right is included in many legal codes and constitutions around the world. That means you must prove your case with evidence that can be examined and verified as factual and germane. In other words, you have a moral obligation to prove your accusation. That means evidence, Kamuix. Real, verifiable evidence that you must present, or admit that all you have is your own empty opinion.
Can you present such evidence, or finally admit that you have none?
This is so you Kamuix.
Last edited:
gristle
Senior Member
Bodies were recovered from the Pentagon site. Liquid blood would have boiled or burned away in the fire resulting from the explosive impact and ensuing jet fuel fire. The titanium engine shafts were recovered from the pentagon site. In fact, they were photographed and the images published not too long after the crash.
Not that you will accept any of this, of course.
If you are so certain, show verifiable evidence that would clearly indicate that there was no plane involved.
Virtually every high velocity crash results in a virtual "evaporation" of the aircraft and everyone aboard. Loads of pictures on the web.
Last edited:
Kamuix
Active Member
Alright then Grissie you want it? here it is: http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/evidence.html
You kind of have to get passed the way society tells you to think before you can look at this in a balanced way. Building 7 wasn't even hit by a place yet it fell perfectly straight down in seven seconds. There was tons of video cameras facing the pentagon when it was hit. they were immediately confiscated and then there was(and still is) a whole bunch of questions being asked about what really did hit the pentagon. one 5 frame video was released that didn't show what hit the pentagon. To prove that plane hit the building all they would have to do was release one of those videos.. Yet they didn't. These are two of the biggest examples of what could easily make a reasonable person skeptical. I know Grissie is going to post quoting this saying "That's not evidence" like he always does. But he uses that to justify avoiding the questions I ask him and a way to convince himself that I'm just a crazy delirious conspiracy theorists. We've gone far past that and I've countered him on it many times but he's conditioned and far too gone to wake up to reality.
The point is the problem isn't that i don't show enough evidence, that's a front you guys use to reject everything I say at once. The problem is you guys are conditioned into societies beliefs and until you get passed that and open your mind to other possibilities you won't get anywhere.
Explained.
I'm on offering that as proof. I even said specifically that i'm not offering it as proof. And I don't beleive you could of gave it much of a chance. So instead of addressing why the government acts so suspicious around those theories why you attack me over it not being proof? I wasn't offering it as proof. I was just using it as an some of the key examples. Keep beleiving that out government Isn't corrupt, go ahead. You claim to be a researcher who says the research doesn't add up? what a load of BS. You could not possibly have done good research.
Watch Loose change it cover a lot of things you should know.
EDIT:
Dude... you just did what you're accusing me of doing, you didn't answer the simple question. And as for me avoiding you, I've motherfucking addressed your "show evidence" lines a million frican times! Now narrow can the mind of a human get.. here we go again!
Oh.. but there's another question you have to answer and that is, why is that just because i haven't shown what you call proof you won't discuss it? See i support discussing it but you obviously think it shouldn't be discussed unless your type of proof is shown, why is that?
Watch guys.. he won't address or answer the question.
Now how many times have i said "Watch guys.. he won't address or answer the question."
and every time you never addressed or answered it. But than you accuse me to not addressing the only one argument you've ever made worded differently each time even though I have addressed it like a thousands times.. I mean.. what the hell.
You're exactly like one of my ex girlfriends who would try to turn things(that she did or were her fault) against me, but she was terrible at it because it was so obvious that she was manipulating yet she wouldn't admit to it and would keep doing it. That's you.. you're a little girl!
You kind of have to get passed the way society tells you to think before you can look at this in a balanced way. Building 7 wasn't even hit by a place yet it fell perfectly straight down in seven seconds. There was tons of video cameras facing the pentagon when it was hit. they were immediately confiscated and then there was(and still is) a whole bunch of questions being asked about what really did hit the pentagon. one 5 frame video was released that didn't show what hit the pentagon. To prove that plane hit the building all they would have to do was release one of those videos.. Yet they didn't. These are two of the biggest examples of what could easily make a reasonable person skeptical. I know Grissie is going to post quoting this saying "That's not evidence" like he always does. But he uses that to justify avoiding the questions I ask him and a way to convince himself that I'm just a crazy delirious conspiracy theorists. We've gone far past that and I've countered him on it many times but he's conditioned and far too gone to wake up to reality.
The point is the problem isn't that i don't show enough evidence, that's a front you guys use to reject everything I say at once. The problem is you guys are conditioned into societies beliefs and until you get passed that and open your mind to other possibilities you won't get anywhere.
Explained.
I'm on offering that as proof. I even said specifically that i'm not offering it as proof. And I don't beleive you could of gave it much of a chance. So instead of addressing why the government acts so suspicious around those theories why you attack me over it not being proof? I wasn't offering it as proof. I was just using it as an some of the key examples. Keep beleiving that out government Isn't corrupt, go ahead. You claim to be a researcher who says the research doesn't add up? what a load of BS. You could not possibly have done good research.
Watch Loose change it cover a lot of things you should know.
EDIT:
Dude... you just did what you're accusing me of doing, you didn't answer the simple question. And as for me avoiding you, I've motherfucking addressed your "show evidence" lines a million frican times! Now narrow can the mind of a human get.. here we go again!
Oh.. but there's another question you have to answer and that is, why is that just because i haven't shown what you call proof you won't discuss it? See i support discussing it but you obviously think it shouldn't be discussed unless your type of proof is shown, why is that?
Watch guys.. he won't address or answer the question.
Now how many times have i said "Watch guys.. he won't address or answer the question."
and every time you never addressed or answered it. But than you accuse me to not addressing the only one argument you've ever made worded differently each time even though I have addressed it like a thousands times.. I mean.. what the hell.
You're exactly like one of my ex girlfriends who would try to turn things(that she did or were her fault) against me, but she was terrible at it because it was so obvious that she was manipulating yet she wouldn't admit to it and would keep doing it. That's you.. you're a little girl!
Last edited:
gristle
Senior Member
Paranoid "truther" web sites and their affiliated friends who confuse a question for proof don't count. This is no different than any of the other slanted bloggers and ranters that you previously pasted up here. All the more evidence to suggest that you don't know what "verifiable" is - never mind evidence.
I think for myself, that's why I ask narrow-minded people like you to prove their assertions. Obviously you can't even handle the question - never mind the ongoing failure to prove your claims regarding a conspiracy.
A ton? Really? How many cameras is that? Where were they mounted? What was the recording frame rate of each camera? Are you aware that camera recordings are retrieved following a crime? They are part of the investigation. What exactly do you know about these cameras? Remember to cite your sources.
None of that proves your claim of a conspiracy regarding government involvement. None of it. If that's the best you can do, the word "weak" is far too kind. You are going to have to try harder to prove your claim. I've already told you what is necessary in order to support a claim. And take note, two videos were released and both show a plane.
No, the problem is that you show no evidence at all.
What does this even mean? You sound terribly confused. You are not offering proof, but want people to give it a chance? Do you have a problem with writing or with thinking?
Hey Kamuix, I've never once stated that I'm a researcher. Find where I have stated as much in this thread. In other words, find the evidence to support your claim. In addition, you make nothing but foggy and unspecific blanket generalizations regarding government corruption. You never attempt to describe anything with precision. Vague statements and baseless claims are your stock in trade. To call what you do BS is to insult bullshit.
Temper temper Kamuix. As you have not provided any verifiable evidence, nor have you bothered to define the nature of the conspiracy you claim to exists regarding 9/11, I'm going to challenge you once again to provide those, or finally admit that all your claims are merely your own unsupported opinion.
Because verifiable evidence is absolutely necessary in order to prove your accusations of government complicity in the events of 9/11. The burden of proof is on you to support your claims. If you don't have verifiable evidence, admit it and state that all you are expressing is your mere opinion, and nothing more.
That's all terribly difficult for you to understand.
You are quite the little sexist, aren't you Kamuix.
Kamuix
Active Member
Nope, but you like to manipulate everything I say.
urbandreamer
recession proof
One thing that's becoming clear: The al Qaeda threat was vastly overstated: http://blogs.reuters.com/afghanistan/2010/09/16/how-many-al-qaeda-can-you-live-with/
Ironically, they were trained by the CIA!
_____________________________________
What happened to the security video tapes from the gas station, hotel, traffic cameras etc on 911 surrounding the Pentagon? Show us the damn videos!
Gristle: Show me the damn plane! I see a tiny little military plane, not a passenger jet! Where did the other frames go and why is the time stamp wrong?
The real proof 911 was an inside job? This thread's poll.
Ironically, they were trained by the CIA!
_____________________________________
What happened to the security video tapes from the gas station, hotel, traffic cameras etc on 911 surrounding the Pentagon? Show us the damn videos!
Gristle: Show me the damn plane! I see a tiny little military plane, not a passenger jet! Where did the other frames go and why is the time stamp wrong?
The real proof 911 was an inside job? This thread's poll.
Last edited:
gristle
Senior Member
I've cited your words - confusions and all. Maybe the problem lies with what you are saying.
gristle
Senior Member
You're the one claiming the existence of an "inside job," you show me the videos or explain exactly what happened to them (evidence please). A criminal conspiracy has to be shown to exist. That requires evidence. Show me verifiable evidence of what you believe took place. That's all I've been asking for. Support your claims.
So you do see a plane, but you claim it's a military plane. Other conspiracy believers claim there is no plane, or that there is a missile, or that there was an empty passenger plane, or that the scheduled commercial airliner full of people hit the Pentagon, but that there were no people inside the Pentagon. In other words, there is no agreement among conspiracy believers, and certainly no evidence to back up any of the claims. Superficial conjecture and a string of questions is not evidence, nor is it proof of a conspiracy. That you will have to demonstrate.
- Status