| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | your questions are nothing short of stupid and pointless |
So if you say "they" said something I have no right to ask who "they" is? If you say the Pentagon is one of the most secure location on earth, I can't ask you to back that up? I think you essential point is that your statements are not to be questioned, you refuse out of principle to back up what you say. Aren't you embarassed when I ask for your whistleblowers and you have to say "do a google search" because you can't back up your own claims? | Quote: | | if i say they have videos(and we know because they confiscated them) you say they have not. |
Wrong, YET AGAIN. We know there are cameras, we know the cameras have video, we have NO PROOF that the videos showed the plane, which you keep claiming they do. For the third time: if a camera in the right place pointing the right direction can't capture good images of the plane, why would a gas station camera a block away capture it? | Quote: | | i dont know who "they" are maybe i should of said the offical version claimed the plane at the pentagon vapourised in the earily stages only |
Show me the official report where "they" said the plane was vaporised. | Quote: | | the same as the pentagon claimed to have no video footage only to prove themselves wrong by releasing some. |
When did the Pentagon claim this? Why isn't a jury trial a valid reason for not releasing evidence? | Quote: | | but you do what you say im doing as well which is why i pointed out this is pointless unless based on evidence not stupid questions. |
Give me an example of evidence which nobody could claim was fakes, planted, based on lies, etc etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | your questions are nothing short of stupid and pointless |
So if you say "they" said something I have no right to ask who "they" is? If you say the Pentagon is one of the most secure location on earth, I can't ask you to back that up? I think you essential point is that your statements are not to be questioned, you refuse out of principle to back up what you say. Aren't you embarassed when I ask for your whistleblowers and you have to say "do a google search" because you can't back up your own claims? | Quote: | | if i say they have videos(and we know because they confiscated them) you say they have not. |
Wrong, YET AGAIN. We know there are cameras, we know the cameras have video, we have NO PROOF that the videos showed the plane, which you keep claiming they do. For the third time: if a camera in the right place pointing the right direction can't capture good images of the plane, why would a gas station camera a block away capture it? | Quote: | | i dont know who "they" are maybe i should of said the offical version claimed the plane at the pentagon vapourised in the earily stages only |
Show me the official report where "they" said the plane was vaporised. | Quote: | | the same as the pentagon claimed to have no video footage only to prove themselves wrong by releasing some. |
When did the Pentagon claim this? Why isn't a jury trial a valid reason for not releasing evidence? | Quote: | | but you do what you say im doing as well which is why i pointed out this is pointless unless based on evidence not stupid questions. |
Give me an example of evidence which nobody could claim was fakes, planted, based on lies, etc etc. |
why the HELL would i need to back up my claims when you have not backed up one so far?
where am i wrong about the video's? they confiscated them, show them if there is no plane fine.
i cannot be bothered with this you cannot prove anything wrong you just use circular arguements..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
all those demands for evidence yet im still waiting to see you link one piece  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that's a great response. You ask for evidence, I provide the 911 commission report, you link to a video of someone burning it. Nothing like a good book burning to convince me troofers aren't loons afraid of evidence.
The second video, nearly an hour long - as if i'm going to watch an hour of video when you don't address a single point I raise - is from renowned idiot David Ray Griffin. I can see why you like him, he says that the official story is that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. You asked why I assume things - well I assume you learn this nonsense from repeating what you hear on conspiracy videos, and here's the proof. This has been proven false to you over and over again, but you simply cannot let go of the version of the conspiracy theorists tell you. Now Griffin says lots of things aren't possible, but he doesn't explain why, and I have to wonder why if a professor of philosophy of religion and theology stands in front of a video camera and says 911 is impossible, without providing anything to back it up, you somehow find that authoritative.
But if you want to know how seriously Griffin takes evidence, read this.
http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pd f
Griffin is a joke. He cannot back up what he says, and his standards of evidence are laughable. He has no relevant qualifications and has done no useful orginal research.
Now explain how this works. I ask a question and then your post an hour long unrelated video by some clown without any comment of your own?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
olly onions
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Posts: 11
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | I think that's a great response. You ask for evidence, I provide the 911 commission report, you link to a video of someone burning it. Nothing like a good book burning to convince me troofers aren't loons afraid of evidence.
The second video, nearly an hour long - as if i'm going to watch an hour of video when you don't address a single point I raise - is from renowned idiot David Ray Griffin. I can see why you like him, he says that the official story is that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. You asked why I assume things - well I assume you learn this nonsense from repeating what you hear on conspiracy videos, and here's the proof. This has been proven false to you over and over again, but you simply cannot let go of the version of the conspiracy theorists tell you. Now Griffin says lots of things aren't possible, but he doesn't explain why, and I have to wonder why if a professor of philosophy of religion and theology stands in front of a video camera and says 911 is impossible, without providing anything to back it up, you somehow find that authoritative.
But if you want to know how seriously Griffin takes evidence, read this.
http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pd f
Griffin is a joke. He cannot back up what he says, and his standards of evidence are laughable. He has no relevant qualifications and has done no useful orginal research.
Now explain how this works. I ask a question and then your post an hour long unrelated video by some clown without any comment of your own? |
you linked the commission report which is lies. so i linked a video you choose not to watch because it an hour long which if you had of watched you would of found out why the commission report is lies.
you then complain about it being an hour like you have time to watch it whilst linking me to a 500+ page document, whats the differance?
what so you think it works like this, you link something i have to agree its correct? if you cannot be bothered to look at links i provide to at least understand where im coming from then whats the point?
ive read the commission report before, you link me to it like i dont know about it but you do not realise that the commission report is mainly what led to people calling for a new investigastion because it is full of lies.
the only joke here is the commisson report and the fact you try to use it as evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | so i linked a video you choose not to watch because it an hour long which if you had of watched you would of found out why the commission report is lies. |
I watched some of it, and responded to some of it. You have chosen to ignore all of my criticisms of it, just like you ignore all of my questions. Here's how it works - you ignore my questions, and then you ignore my responses to your questions. Then you complain and whine about how I won't debate. Why are you pulling this silly act for anyway?
Your video was an hour long talk about 911 conspiracy theories, which just like you, makes vague references to what "they" said. Just like you, it makes claims about the official story which are false, they are merely the conspiracy theory version of the official story.
Again, if a professor of theology stands at a podium and says WTC7 couldn't collapse due to fire alone, which was never the claim in the first place, and he provides no evidence or reasoning to back it up anyway, how can I debunk it? What is there to debunk? Do you want me to get the best pastry chef in london on video to say it could have collapsed due to fire? I honestly have no idea what you want me to do with this idiotic video.
Please explain why Griffin claims the Pentagon was defended by missiles, and as back up references a book which makes no such claim. Two years, two books, lots of talk and lots of "research" later, his evidence is revealed: anonymous sources, cited by a third party, from an entirely different unreferenced source (as I showed in the link I provided - merely 11 pages, which you also didn't read).
So I don't get what you want me to do here - you won't answer my questions, and when I criticise your sources, you won't respond. You say you are here to debate, but you persistently refuse to do so. Why not show a little courage and try answering rather than evading?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | so i linked a video you choose not to watch because it an hour long which if you had of watched you would of found out why the commission report is lies. |
I watched some of it, and responded to some of it. You have chosen to ignore all of my criticisms of it, just like you ignore all of my questions. Here's how it works - you ignore my questions, and then you ignore my responses to your questions. Then you complain and whine about how I won't debate. Why are you pulling this silly act for anyway?
Your video was an hour long talk about 911 conspiracy theories, which just like you, makes vague references to what "they" said. Just like you, it makes claims about the official story which are false, they are merely the conspiracy theory version of the official story.
Again, if a professor of theology stands at a podium and says WTC7 couldn't collapse due to fire alone, which was never the claim in the first place, and he provides no evidence or reasoning to back it up anyway, how can I debunk it? What is there to debunk? Do you want me to get the best pastry chef in london on video to say it could have collapsed due to fire? I honestly have no idea what you want me to do with this idiotic video.
Please explain why Griffin claims the Pentagon was defended by missiles, and as back up references a book which makes no such claim. Two years, two books, lots of talk and lots of "research" later, his evidence is revealed: anonymous sources, cited by a third party, from an entirely different unreferenced source (as I showed in the link I provided - merely 11 pages, which you also didn't read).
So I don't get what you want me to do here - you won't answer my questions, and when I criticise your sources, you won't respond. You say you are here to debate, but you persistently refuse to do so. Why not show a little courage and try answering rather than evading? |
you linked the commission report ive already read before you asked no questions it was just a link.
why you keep going on about the pentagon security ill never know. the pentagon is a military building and an important building at that, and you seem to have doubts that it even had any security at all when it would be a prime target if the u.s went to war(with a country who could defend themselves that is). so why dont you tell me what security the pentagon has seeing as though you obviously know.
and what do you expect me to do with your link to the commission report? it was reading that that made me question if we were being told the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | you linked the commission report ive already read before you asked no questions it was just a link. |
You haven't read it, that's why you keep referring to buildings falling due to fire alone and osama plotting 9/11 from a cave. | Quote: | | why you keep going on about the pentagon security ill never know. |
YOU linked to a Griffin video, Griffin talks about Pentagon security, and I responded with specific allegations about Griffin's use of garbage evidence on Pentagon security. Which part of this confuses you? | Quote: | | the pentagon is a military building and an important building at that, |
And therefore what? Why allude to things rather than saying them? What are its actual defences? | Quote: | | and you seem to have doubts that it even had any security at all when it would be a prime target if the u.s went to war(with a country who could defend themselves that is). |
External enemies. Which is why most defences point outwards.
Amazingly, you still won't say what you mean when you call it one of the most secure buildings. You will ask why I ask the question, you'll imagine what my opinion is the question , but you absolutely will not explain what you mean. Why?
Why do you take the word of a professor of theology on engineering questions?
How do I debunk hearsay from a professor of theology?
You say better footage of the plane exists, but you won't provide any explanation for how you know this. Why?
Why do you say "they" said the plane vaporised and then refuse to explain who "they" are or show where "they" said it?
Why do you say "they" claim no video exists and then refuse to say who "they" are or show when "they" said so?
Why did you claim there are lots of whistleblowers and then refuse to name any?
Why do you think evidence from a jury trial should be released to the public?
Why do you accept Griffin's use of anonymous sources, cited by a third party, from an entirely different unreferenced source as evidence?
Why do you demand evidence, and then refuse to give an example of evidence which you couldn't instantly dismiss as faked, planted, based on lies, etc?
Why do you come to critic's corner and then refuse to respond to criticism?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Could this issue be resolved by reviewing the contents of the FBI / NTSB Air Crash Investigation Report ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think these were fair questions Marky. Are you ever going to answer them?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Come on you coward show some bottle. Afraid of answering a few questions?
You only make it obvious how indoctrinated you are when you come to critics corner and then slink away when someone asks you to back up what you say.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | Come on you coward show some bottle. Afraid of answering a few questions?
You only make it obvious how indoctrinated you are when you come to critics corner and then slink away when someone asks you to back up what you say. |
And you only make it obvious how prejudiced you are when you deliberately refuse to recognize when someone HAS backed up what he says and then have the cheek to pretend that he has not.
"There is none so blind as those who do not wish to see." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Go ahead then, show me where he or anyone answered the following questions:
1. Why do you take the word of a professor of theology on engineering questions?
2. How do I debunk hearsay from a professor of theology?
3. You say better footage of the plane exists, but you won't provide any explanation for how you know this. Why?
4. Why do you say "they" said the plane vaporised and then refuse to explain who "they" are or show where "they" said it?
5. Why do you say "they" claim no video exists and then refuse to say who "they" are or show when "they" said so?
6. Why did you claim there are lots of whistleblowers and then refuse to name any?
7. Why do you think evidence from a jury trial should be released to the public?
8. Why do you accept Griffin's use of anonymous sources, cited by a third party, from an entirely different unreferenced source as evidence?
9. Why do you demand evidence, and then refuse to give an example of evidence which you couldn't instantly dismiss as faked, planted, based on lies, etc?
10. Why do you come to critic's corner and then refuse to respond to criticism?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
