Is it crazy to distrust the official 911 story?

Agnosticus_Caesar said:
[It just gives you a condescending tone.]

Those who consistently appeal to said fallacies, knowing that they are dishonest, DESERVE to be spoken down to.
Click to expand...

If you say so, but it just ensures that you will lose in a debate, as long as that person maintains his manners and does not return the insult.

I guess it is the difference in debating styles....you seem to be debating only to debate, whereas many people debate in order to garner support for their point of view.
 
You refer to "rhetoric", as it has a negative connotation. HONESTY, in situations where one is engaging in activities where honesty is the implied, or explicitly agreed upon criteria, should never be seen as a negative.

I find it ridiculous that you are trying to imply that it is.
 
[Baseless views do not necessarily make a person dishonest--- viewing those who cannot support their opinions as utterly dishonest is not exactly a value, though.]

I never said, nor implied that it did. Using a tactic you KNOW to be dishonest, MAKES THAT PERSON DIHONEST. How you can fail to comprehend that is staggering.
 
If I pretend that you said something that I KNOW you didn't say, just to try to make it SEEM that you are incorrect, that will ALWAYS be dishonest.


There are some tactics that are INHERENTLY dishonest.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
You refer to "rhetoric", as it has a negative connotation. HONESTY, in situations where one is engaging in activities where honesty is the implied, or explicitly agreed upon criteria, should never be seen as a negative.

I find it ridiculous that you are trying to imply that it is.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that rhetoric does often have a negative connotation, that is not how I am using the word-- although it does prove my point that comprehension is not the only factor in a debate.

As far as honesty is concerned, since when is honesty implied in debate? In my opinion applying honesty to rhetoric is like trying to apply rules to warfare--- you can make some general restrictions, but once the thing begins there is no fair or not fair, there is only a winner and a loser.

Logical fallacies (again, in my opinion) serve more as a means of examining some of the tools employed by the rhetor, and are mostly useless as a means of undermining the opposing party's argument--- as I said, people will believe as they wish no matter what evidence there is on either side.
 
If you think it is "okay" to use such dishonest tactics, because most people would use them to try to get people to agree with them, I can only see you as a contemptible person.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
[Baseless views do not necessarily make a person dishonest--- viewing those who cannot support their opinions as utterly dishonest is not exactly a value, though.]

I never said, nor implied that it did. Using a tactic you KNOW to be dishonest, MAKES THAT PERSON DIHONEST. How you can fail to comprehend that is staggering.
Click to expand...

But is it necessarily dishonest? There is, after all, more to life than evidence and fact.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
If you think it is "okay" to use such dishonest tactics, because most people would use them to try to get people to agree with them, I can only see you as a contemptible person.
Click to expand...

I think that it is necessary to utilise ethos and pathos alongside logos in order to achieve a rhetorical goal, yes.
 
Sorry, I have to shut down my logic circuits, and allow my processor to perform it's nightly maintenance subroutines. Tomorrow, I will see if a bios update allows me to not suffer a blue screen as I try to run the "Honesty is Not a Virtue Application"

All nodes...this workstation is shutting down.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
Sorry, I have to shut down my logic circuits, and allow my processor to perform it's nightly maintenance subroutines. Tomorrow, I will see if a bios update allows me to not suffer a blue screen as I try to run the "Honesty is Not a Virtue Application"

All nodes...this workstation is shutting down.
Click to expand...

I believe that is a misrepresentation of what I have said, but a good night to you anyway.
 
bravo said:
The conspiracy nuts just have to look at your allys to confirm you're all fuckin' nitwits...

Desh....Cypress...Froggie...
BlackAsCoal...Beefy...blackflag...
agnosticus-Caesar...Darla...tinfoil....

freekin' far left loonies and as stupid as rocks....

You all make a fine group, hardly a neuron working in the bunch
Click to expand...

Let's not forget Lt. Col. Bowman .. who has achieved far more than your dumb ass could ever dream of and who KNOWS the intricacies of flying heavy aircratft .. let me guess .. you don't know shit about that either.

What a fucking dummy.
 
Beefy said:
Intense fire though, can weaken it and make it more malleable. It doesn't have to liquify to compromise the structure of a highrise. It simply has to soften, and it can soften and did soften under the conditions on September 11th.
Click to expand...

What "intense fires"?

Study the properties of kerosene fires.

Look at the video of the impact and how quickly you didn't see much of any fires.

Take a gander at WTC7 with small LOCALIZED fires that COULD NOT have melted the supports in a uniform fashion and bring the building down at freefall speed .. nor would any so-called "weakening" have brought the building down uniformly.

Why didn't your "can't be reproduced in a lab" theory work here .....

images


Here's what was left after a seriously intense 17 HOUR fire ...

Madrid17.jpg


STILL STANDING .. as have ALL high rise multi-storied steel frame buildings have stood after fires throughout the history of planet earth.

That thing on the top of the building is a heavy construction crane .. still there.
 
Last edited:
Topspin said:
people who believe the conspiracy theories are right up there intillectually with the UFO believers:shock:
Click to expand...

Then answer the questions dummy.

You clown lemmings keep jumping in with Cartman-speak but don't have the fucking brains to intellectually challenge the arguments.

Does that UFO designation also apply to Bowman and a host of scientists, scholars, and combat pilots who have served this nation admirably as well?
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
[That at least is worthy a good laugh......]

Care to support that?

[
Amazing....you know Clinton got one that said the "same exact thing" in 1998...what a coincidence....]

Care to support THAT? Was he on vacation at the time?

[What parts were they...were they the parts of our military that check baggage at the airports....or maybe the parts of our military that check passengers arriving from overseas...ahhh well, no matter, they were off on maneuvers any way.....

I've already spent more time on your stupid post than it was worth, Tinkerbell...]

All you have done is APPEAL TO RIDICULE

I challenged you and your ilk to present a REASONED refutation, not your debate equivalent of a fart joke.
Click to expand...

Surely you could not have expected reason from these clowns.
 
The Alien coverup is a grand government conspiracy also. That's probably why the same truth seeking types are drawn to both topics.

If you believe A weather balloon crashed in Roswell, NM, you must be a 'special needs' citizen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top