‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, government dupes crazy and hostile

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Nov 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ridicule, BJ? I thought you were 'above' that.

    Wouldn't you like to have all possible resources at your disposal, 'truthseeker'?
     
  2. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And for me to do so, you have to answer the two questions.

    And no.... you still don't know what a straw man is.
     
  3. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The fires were random, the heat wasn't.

    "Millisceconds?" Where the hell did you get that idea? The collapse took at least ten seconds.
     
  4. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He made it up.

    But he's actually talking about the initial failure that commenced the collapse. Of course, the video and photographic evidence proves that that didn't take milliseconds either. And of course no controlled demolition has ever required anything to happen in milliseconds.

    So... like I said... he made it up.
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    as usual lefty is wrong.

    correct the comencement

    16 posts now and still waiting.

    as an example

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please bear in mind, that Koko already derailed his own thread about a psychological study he didn't read. He's not interested in truth, logic, math, or science. He's interested in maintaining his delusional belief that golf ball sized pocket nukes, hurricanes, or spaced based energy weapons were used to change the steel in the building at the atomic level. It doesn't matter how obviously or often he has to contradict himself to do this. His integrity does not matter. After all, he thinks he's just a screen name here and your purpose his to help him prove his fantasy to himself. It says so right in that study he didn't read, and in other studies conducted by the researchers he thought were on his side.

    Here's what you're up against:

    He's been shown that he's wrong chemically.
    -He has no clue how the iron limit affects his claim that steel was ripped apart atomically.
    -He has no clue how the pyrophoric nature of iron would affect his claim that steel was turned to dust.
    -He has no clue what critical mass is or how it affects his claim that a golf ball sized nuclear weapon could even exist.

    He's been shown that he's wrong physically.
    -He has no clue how much energy is required to do what he claims happened, or what he claims didn't happen.
    -He has no understanding of the conservation of momentum, or how to apply it in the context of a closed system.
    -He has no understanding of the conservation of energy, or how it pertains to an inelastic collision.
    -He knows nothing about Euler's or Young's contributions to the field of mechanics, or why that knowledge would be crucial to understanding the collapse.

    He's been shown that he's wrong logically.

    He's been shown that he's wrong theoretically

    He's been shown that he's wrong mathematically.

    He's been shown that he's wrong by skeptics and truthers alike.

    Good luck to you, but if you convince him he's wrong that would be a first on any subject.
     
  7. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have nothing to correct. You have. You just posted evidence that it was a gradual collapse. The front center of the building is falling before either end or the back side.
     
  8. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, I would like to know the "Official Position" Hannibal in a private link. That is so transparent. Like mud. If you want to be transparent then communicate transparently.
     
  9. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Koko... if you can't answer the two questions, we can't proceed.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Please bear in mind, that Koko already derailed his own thread about a psychological study he didn't read. He's not interested in truth, logic, math, or science.

    no evidence exists that koko did not read the study, however going back you wil discover that plenty of evidences exists that fang would hope for everyone to believe the same without his providing any evidence of such as was repeatedly demanded of him.

    He's interested in maintaining his delusional belief that golf ball sized pocket nukes, hurricanes, or spaced based energy weapons were used to change the steel in the building at the atomic level. It doesn't matter how obviously or often he has to contradict himself to do this. His integrity does not matter.

    Nothing was said with that regard, more propaganda and lies.


    After all, he thinks he's just a screen name here and your purpose his to help him prove his fantasy to himself. It says so right in that study he didn't read, and in other studies conducted by the researchers he thought were on his side.

    More unfounded propaganda and another personal attack without any evidence what so ever, how incredibly LAME and cowardly is that


    Here's what you're up against:

    He's been shown that he's wrong chemically.

    No he is not, PROVE IT


    -He has no clue how the iron limit affects his claim that steel was ripped apart atomically.

    Never made that claim.

    -He has no clue how the pyrophoric nature of iron would affect his claim that steel was turned to dust.

    Oh I busted and handed you your ass in spades on that and sent you back to school, still all butthurt I see.


    -He has no clue what critical mass is or how it affects his claim that a golf ball sized nuclear weapon could even exist.

    Thats insane talk since they are well known to exist by anyone who is not a total science neanderthal.

    He's been shown that he's wrong physically.

    Another line of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) where will it end no one knows!

    -He has no clue how much energy is required to do what he claims happened, or what he claims didn't happen.

    More yapping for the sake of yapping, no evidence what so ever to be found in support of his bull(*)(*)(*)(*).


    -He has no understanding of the conservation of momentum, or how to apply it in the context of a closed system.

    More yapping for the sake of yapping, no evidence what so ever to be found in support of his bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

    -He has no understanding of the conservation of energy, or how it pertains to an inelastic collision.

    More yapping for the sake of yapping, no evidence what so ever to be found in support of his bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

    -He knows nothing about Euler's or Young's contributions to the field of mechanics, or why that knowledge would be crucial to understanding the collapse.

    More yapping for the sake of yapping, no evidence what so ever to be found in support of his bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

    He's been shown that he's wrong logically.

    Lie!

    He's been shown that he's wrong theoretically

    Lie!

    He's been shown that he's wrong mathematically.

    Lie!

    He's been shown that he's wrong by skeptics and truthers alike.

    Lie!

    Good luck to you, but if you convince him he's wrong that would be a first on any subject.

    yeh good luck to anyone who wants to come out here and try to baffle us with bull(*)(*)(*)(*) as the previous is trying to do.


    [​IMG]
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    you should consider getting help from someone who understands, gradual takes hours or even days and rarely if ever goes into freefall.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83

    I keep telling you that I have no intention to respond to your strawman until you address the original issue.


    the first thing you need to do is make sure you address the issue at hand that koko HAS NEVER MOVED ANY GOAL POST, YOU HAVE. A strawman is a question you made up to move the goal posts. This is not real difficult. Then again....

    Dont anyone answer his strawman question till he responds to the issues please.

    Perilica has now dodged

    "Explaining how all load bearing columns suffered global symmetrical failure within milliseconds of each other from random office fires across a 200 x 200 ft building.
    "

    in 18 subsequent posts.

    NOTHING you have said gets us any closer to your answering or explaining how this magical global symmetrical failure occurred in 3 WTC buildings. Hint the hat has very little to do with it.


    18 posts and counting

    [​IMG]

    not getting any younger here son
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Read my post again, 'truthseeker'. I asked for a link to a post already made here.
     
  14. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Koko... if you can't answer the two questions, we can't proceed.
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I have no intention to respond to your strawman until you address the original issue.

    Perilica has now dodged

    "Explaining how all load bearing columns suffered global symmetrical failure within milliseconds of each other from random office fires across a 200 x 200 ft building.
    "

    in 19 subsequent posts.

    NOTHING you have said gets us any closer to your answering or explaining how this magical global symmetrical failure occurred in 3 WTC buildings. Hint the hat has very little to do with it.


    19 posts and counting

    [​IMG]

    not getting any younger here son
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I asked a question.

    any 5th grade child understands the difference between an assertion and a question. butt still smarting I see. LOL
     
  17. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Above board. Honesty is the best policy.
     
  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then provide the link I asked for and let's examine the multiple investigations.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    NOW
    Back to where we were prior to the trolls rude interruption.

    Perilica I have no intention to respond to your strawman until you address the original issue.

    Perilica has now dodged

    "Explaining how all load bearing columns suffered global symmetrical failure within milliseconds of each other from random office fires across a 200 x 200 ft building.
    "

    in 19 subsequent posts.

    NOTHING you have said gets us any closer to your answering or explaining how this magical global symmetrical failure occurred in 3 WTC buildings. Hint the hat has very little to do with it.


    19 posts and counting

    [​IMG]

    not getting any younger here son
     
  20. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    82,612
    Likes Received:
    9,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    oh look, its a 9-11 Trougher waiting for a new investigation to start.

    ;)
     
  21. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    yes it is.

    - - - Updated - - -

    "Explain how all load bearing columns suffered global symmetrical failure within milliseconds of each other from random office fires across a 200 x 200 ft building."


    oh and btw
    See trougher is the opposite of a truther. you sure you want to follow his foolishness LMAO
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your assertion is false, no matter how often you say it. You cannot answer the facts presented, so you wail and whine.

    And yes, we know you are a 'trougher', you have made that clear. No need to keep crowing over it.
     
  23. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've quoted it in every post. Keep ducking, Jojo.
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jojo fits his own definition. Classic.

    Still waiting for you to answer the two simple questions posed to you, Jojo.

    skeleton-computer_zpsa209c1f0.jpg
    Not getting any younger here, son.
     
  25. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,633
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83

    Trolling The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame.

    The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.
    Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccesful troll.

    Signs that your trolling is succesful:
    *Your victim screaming in all-caps at you.
    *Personal attacks (Calling you a retard, idiot, etc).
    *Being an Internet Tough Guy.
    *Making a crude remark, before quickly logging off before you can retort.

    Signs that your trolling is unsuccesful:
    *Your victim identifying you as a troll.
    *Identifying yourself as a troll.
    *Your efforts being ignored.
    *Being counter-trolled (See below)



    An internet troll is a person who uses anonymity to cause frustration, anger, impatience or to generally be disruptive for no seemingly good reason EXCEPT to be that nuisance.

    Most are souless bastards, touched by daddy/priest, and in the stead of coping with that trauma in a healthy way, take out their aggression, anger, impotence, frustration on others.

    -have problems forming real-life relationships; have a hard time attracting members of the opposite/same sex,generally introverts. Though some are 'trolls-in-hiding', most are skill-less loners.

    General troll behavior:disruptive forum posts; the posts are generally off-topic, or unnecessarily combative. Each contemporary popular website has its own sub-genre of troll

    -can be male or female, mostly males, including the popular 'gender bender'44 yo man that acts like 14 yo girl





    What Motivates Internet Trolls?


    A White House national security aide, with access to the country's foremost policy makers and closely guarded secrets, blew it all for the chance to write racy, inflammatory and mean-spirited messages on Twitter.
    Jofi Joseph, a director in the non-proliferation section of the National Security Staff at the White House, was fired after it was revealed that he was anonymously taunting senior administration officials, mocking politicians from both parties, and criticizing the policies he was helping to develop.


    Under the handle @natsecwonk, he also revealed internal government information.
    In short, he was a troll.


    Trolls are anonymous Internet users who intentionally provoke others by writing inflammatory posts. They can be found in the comments sections of sites like YouTube and congregating in the darker corners of the Internet, on sites like 4chan.com.


    "I'm a fan of Obama, but his continuing reliance and dependence upon a vacuous cipher like Valerie Jarrett concerns me," Joseph once tweeted, referring to the president's senior advisor.


    He wondered if Huma Abedin, former aide to Hillary Clinton and wife of scandal-plagued Anthony Weiner, "was wearing beer goggles when she met Anthony Weiner," and called Sarah Palin and her family "white trash." White House sources said officials there spent months wondering who was behind the handle, before Joseph was unmasked and fired.


    But why write spiteful things online if there are real-life consequences? What motivates trolls like Joseph?
    Lack of inhibition resulting from anonymity online is a phenomenon psychologists call the Gyges affect, after a Greek myth about a shepherd who possessed a ring that could make him invisible.


    "Cyber-psychologists often talk about the disinhibition affect. People do and say things online that they wouldn't do in real life," said John Suler, a cyber-psychologist at Rider University in New Jersey. In cyberspace, the face-to-face cues people rely on to curb inappropriate behavior is missing.


    "People can't see you. You can't see them. You can't see if people are cringing or looking uncomfortable, and so trolls continue to say things they would never say in a room full of people, Suler told ABCNews.com.


    But anonymity alone does not breed trolls, said Claire Hardaker, a professor at Lancaster University in England who studies Internet troublemakers. Trolls often have some sort of personal grudge, she said.


    "Motivations seem to be as varied as the individuals who are found to troll -- they can be trivial, for example, boredom, psychological, e.g. emotional/social issues, political, e.g. the righting of (perceived) wrongs, personal, e.g. grudges against exes," Hardaker said in an email.


    "If the behavior goes 'unpunished' each time, it can readily escalate into more and more serious abuse so that the individual may not even themselves realize that they've gone from being mildly offensive to actually engaging in potentially criminal activity," she said.


    you want a classic example of what these shrinks are talking about? Look at Hannibals troll tactics. demanding I respond to a strawman questions that were used to circumvent and do an enrun around my question then pretending those strawman questions are facts, pretending and deceitfully falsifying what I said has somehow been proven incorrect, (when it has not), and of course failing to quote anything to that effect because it does not exist then lying about it and jerking off in this thread.

    (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Psychopathic troll.


    Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

    In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

    The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
    “If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page