Fact renders opinion unnecessary. We will have to disagree. The dictionary definitions were not for you, they were for me to see if you and I agree upon what those words mean. I have been doing debate for 20 years and have learned that semantics is a large cause of disagreement thus my liking to define words to see if I am on the same page definition wise as the person who I am debating. Then perhaps you should not have linked me to another thread where you made a claim of the MSM being puppets. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-9-11-when-why.507908/page-2#post-1067666607 Then quit derailing your own OP by linking me to other threads which talk about the MSM. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-9-11-when-why.507908/page-2#post-1067666607 OP previously answered. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-9-11-when-why.507908/page-2#post-1067665761
Yet every poster (including you) here states their personal opinion, many of these are based on facts. So whether you feel these are unnecessary or not is irrelevant within the context of a discussion forum. I gathered that from the first post I read from you. You posted those in response to my post and didn't explain the above. Ok, whatever. That's fine except that I don't debate anyone, I discuss, there is a difference. A debate is sort of a contest with an expected winner and a loser (or a draw). I'm not here to play games as already stated. So if you believe you're debating me, you're doing it without my participation. The link was in context to a response to your post. You decided to pick out one particular sentence out of an entire thread that was not central to the point of the thread and you're trying to expand it to an issue that's mostly irrelevant to the topic of this thread. See above and quit being hypocritical, you're the one trying to derail this thread even after I requested that you to get back on topic. Thanks, so that should end your non-contribution to this topic.
Defining the word debate to see if we agree upon it's definition. Debate 1. a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. synonyms: discussion, discourse, parley, dialogue; More verb 1. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner. Source Google Pick a single aspect of the 9/11 event and I will specifically address that. But be warned if you respond by linking me to an orgy of evidence I will focus on the first thing that catches my eye, in your previous link it was the MSM claim. I reject your claim of hypocrisy as it was you who posted a link to another thread for me to review thus taking us off topic. Blaming me is blame misplaced. We will have to disagree here.
You are way off topic and losing my interest as there's nothing in your post I'm interested in discussing other than one remotely interesting sentence. There are however 2 issues with it. First, I'm not picking anything, it's up to you to pick what you want to discuss and to do it in the appropriate existing thread or start your own. This one is not an every topic thread despite that it has strayed on occasion. I will then respond as I see fit or not. Second, I'm not interested in your "warning". I respond as I see fit or not regardless of your threats.
I guess I must have scared you off. It's too quiet in this section of the forum so I might as well stir things up a bit. Not to belabor the point but what's interesting about the above is that you demand proof for an opinion but you're saying you will immediately reject evidence (in the form of links) that could potentially lead to proof in order to focus on a potential triviality. That sounds to me like if you're confronted with some proof that may not be aligned with your personal view of the world you will derail the discussion. Which you already tried to do in this example, you said: So I posted links to two threads loaded with "irrevocable evidence that counters the government conclusion" for which you claimed you're "open minded to those who believe" they can present such evidence. And yet that's an obvious lie because not only did you not review any of the contents of those threads but you immediately closed your mind when you focused on the opinion that the MSM is a puppet of the US government, an opinion that's mostly irrelevant to the issues presented in those threads. And now you claim you're not interested in links to an "orgy of evidence". So despite your claim that you're open minded, it's more than obvious that you really are totally closed minded. So all you've done is validate my point. Just an off topic observation (only because it's too quiet in here), no need to respond though, it's rhetorical.
I used to be open to the idea that maybe some **** was off with the "official narrative". But then I met people like you.
That's the best reason I've heard yet to close your mind, "people like me". When one needs an excuse to close one's mind, it's always very easy to find one. Sorry, but I and "people like me" had nothing to do with 9/11 or the fraudulent investigations no matter how much you want that to be true. You're right, there's absolutely nothing "off" with the official narrative, sleep tight and let "people like me" rant like a bunch of tin foil hat wearing lunatics, we have no clue. We only post the facts and deliriously believe they show something's "off".
The trouble is that the collapse of a 1360 foot skyscraper that stood for 28 years is not about people. It is a physics and engineering problem. If aircraft impact and fire could cause that in less than 2 hours then it should be completely explainable with comprehensive and detailed information. When 15 years go by and "experts" do not discuss something as simple as variation in the thickness of the horizontal beams in the core down the building then something is peculiar. Where was the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower? When a supposed "expert" who claims it was a controlled demolition does not explain these anomalies then things are even more peculiar. Like he is a distraction for the disaffected but really doesn't want to cause problems for "official experts" who would have to address things that high school kids should understand. psik
No. All you do is post more and more reasons to not even want to slightly be associated with folks like you.
So you're saying the more facts I post about 9/11 the more reason you have that you don't want to be "slightly be associated with folks like me". You do realize you just validated exactly what I said, right?
And what is that that folks like us are what they are, facts posters? If you're more "into facts", what do you believe is not factual about the 29 facts I posted? You should be "into" all of them, no? Unless you believe none are facts.
the world trade center towers were completely turned to dust?????????? LOL!!!! no metal debris whatsoever? all turned to dust? hahaah!!!! too funny. this is why 9-11 Truth is a joke.
wtc 1 and 2 didn't collapse simply due to fire. 9-11 Truth will never be taken seriously if they continue such dishonest gimics
and yet many engineering schools and institutions have commended the 9-11 investigations that explained the collapses. you guys got nothing
my co-workers watched the wtc towers burn and predicted their collapse. you could even see the first tower starting to lean.
That's because you are threatened by so many facts. The lawyers call that willful ignorance, the shrinks call that behavior cognitive dissonance. It gives us the old saying "ignorance is bliss".
In post #17, I wrote the following in response to another poster: You've already had one post reported and removed because you apparently can't control your lack of maturity. Take it as a warning that I won't tolerate this kind of childish nonsense in any thread I create. Now having said that, what I posted is obviously metamorphic. Why is that obvious? Because if you had been following many of my posts on the subject, you would know I've posted quite a bit on the 9/11 debris. While a good deal of lower Manhattan and the Hudson River was blanketed by enormous volumes of mostly concrete and other dust particles, I also posted the following in another thread: But that's just one example, there are many, many others where I posted about the steel debris. So you can take your pretenses of amusement you know where. So back to my question that you deliberately avoided answering (and I'll re-phrase it for your convenience). Did any of them (your alleged engineering mavens) point to any (proportional) experiment that could confirm that a similar situation could completely destroy any steel frame high rise in like manner?
Congratulations, I'm glad to see we agree. 1. The discussion taking place is between YOU and I, not your phantom demons. 2. What is "dishonest" about an opinion we both agree on?
