Okay, Mystic: What happend?
Tell us what actually happend.
Printable View
Okay, Mystic: What happend?
Tell us what actually happend.
Yeah, I have only talked about remote control devices. That's such an honest statement. The truth is that I have debated in such a way that you don't know what to do but dodge and lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
Al Qaeda exists for the very purpose of pulling such attacks. They were pulling them in different parts of the world before 9/11. They are pulling them in Iraq and Afghanistan now and have pulled several in Europe. Do you think they don't exist? The conclusion that the American government pulled the 9/11 attacks is not the only remaining conclusion regarding the narcissistic interpretations of engineering matters. If you come to the conclusion that the U.S. government could not have committed the attacks just like you have with Al Qaeda, are you going to conclude that voodoo spirits were responsible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Mystic is saying that he can't come up with counterarguments to what are very conveniently the majorly obscure points of the microscopic minority of engineering/demolition views, so it is therefore reasonable to have no limits on the amount of absurdity involved in what he concludes based on that. That is an extremely illogical way of thinking.
The Truth. Can You Handle The Truth.
I don't think Universal or keeper is ready to progress beyond this aspect of the debate. Omnius Deus however seems to have more potential here.
First off, I am not the one debating you.
Second, you aren't answering Universal's question.
Mystic, I have explained that it is illogical to believe absurd circumstances just because you cannot explain other circumstances. That has been my theme for a while, and you refuse to address it.
cannot explain very obscure demolition interpretations
V
V
V
(very long leap)
V
V
V
conclusion that inherently accepts the existence of profoundly absurd circumstances
So my argument is not only that your conclusion involves absurd circumstances and that your premise is based merely on obscure interpretations that you are not qualified to understand the full scope of what ifs and but ifs they call into question. I am also arguing that it is illogical to go from one to the other. What is your counterargument?
http://www.illuminati-news.com/graph...epublicrat.jpg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HEm_m1SzX-M
Faces in clouds type stuff? Is that what you would call debating properly? :roll: My point stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
Not really because you never believed in UFOs either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDOOZ_IPb6Y
Get with the times skeptic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKPeMuKQ9yE
Since we are so on topic :roll:...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ToaeOvqIFx0
lol Universal. Come join the good side. You know you want to.
:dreaming: Okay! Yaaaaaayyyy!!!:woohoo:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
In a note of actual argument, since I have only seen that pos loose change when it comes to conspiracy videos and found myself thinking, "WTF that's not true" to about half the claims made in it, I can understand at least where Um is coming from. Some of the facts people use to debunk the offical story are far from facts.
But that doesn't make it even remotely possible for the events to take place like the official story said. These aren't some obscure demlitions experts, these are actual government officials who were silenced and had to make their claims in obscurity because the mainstream media ignores them. That's why I made the conclusion that the terrorists did hit us, and that the government just decided to pull the buildings because A. it explains why they covered it up and B. I didn't have all the evidence. The fact is we still don't have all the evidence and we won't until we can actually hold the people who covered information up accountable.
It doesn't mean they did it, but why do they nervously ignore the issue? Why is no one in the media or government addressing the few aspects of loose change that are true?
So to put it in your theist atheist model it goes like this. I'll even give you the benefit of putting myself on the theist side.
theist: I'm not saying the big bang didn't happen, just that because of this nebula bs it couldn't have happened the way the scientists are saying it did.
atheist: then how did it happen?
theist: I don't know, I wasn't there. God was there, though, and he should fucking tell us and stop being such a bitch about it.
atheist: the nebula bs was thought up by obscure radicals trying to bring down the scientific community
theist: contrarily by seeing this information they are supporting the scientific community by trying to find the truth instead of just letting a potentially grave misunderstanding influence a misinformed perspective on the universe. Just because the big bang is the answer scientists give us does not mean it's necessarily true. With my imagination I could think of a hundred different beginnings to the universe, and if I just ignore the evidence I'm sure I could make any of them appear right in my head, it doesn't make them right. Our job as far as discovering how the universe began obviously isn't over because of this evidence and we shouldn't just let the big bang be the accepted truth because it's the one we've been fed.
Why cant anyone refute this evidence (which is scientifically supported by hundreds of architects and engineers, eminent PhD level scientists from around the world, and countless other PhD educated academics. Where are all the similarly qualified experts supporting the official story?Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
This debate explains the division of our country over this issue pretty clearly. See, there are two types of people in this debate, those that looked at the evidence and believe there is a conspiracy, and those that ignored the evidence and believe the conspiracists are crazy.
I really hope you don't think the government has an obligation to address Loose Change. If they do that, they might as well start addressing Bigfoot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They don't want to give credibility to the absurd by treating it like it has basis in reality. It would not be in the interests of credibility or efficiency to start commenting on each night's Art Bell program.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
As for your dialogue, you did not represent the amazing leap I discussed. I have said that I don't have much disagreement with people who say, "I have looked at the evidence, and it seems that the big bang did not happen the way the vast, vast majority of PhD theoretical physicists say it did even though I don't know enough to understand the potential counterarguments to what the dissenters are saying." What I think is astoundingly outlandish is saying, "A microscopic percentage of theoretical physicists say the big bang could not have happened according to the official story, and I agree with the microscopic minority because they are experts and the silence of the masses should just be overlooked because in my very limited understanding of the but ifs and what ifs of the scenario, I cannot say how the microscopic minority is wrong. Therefore.... (leaping... leaping... leaping...) the Flying Spaghetti Monster had to have created the universe by sprinkling glittery magic sand on a statue of Lord Banana and singing "It's a Happy, Happy Universe".
I disagree. I think two types of people are those who admit that they don't know the ins and outs of demolition and don't take obscure claims regarding evidence and leap to fantasy land conclusions and those who have looked at obscure takes on evidence and think they know enough to understand the full spectrum of how demolition works and go from there to saying things that are absolutely insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
whenever someone mentions something important. For example strong evidence. Because your always skeptical you bring out this spaghetti Monster garbage. Just accept that you will not address what memeticverb has posted. Why don't you explain why it isn't evidence. Instead your response is about as relevant and useful as the flying spaghetti monster.Quote:
Originally Posted by universal mind
You must be completely absent minded to believe only those things which the majority believe in. That is not a qualification to test if something is correct. There is no leap of conclusion. So this is totally different. We understand enough to conclude it's evidence. Just like we know enough that the earth is round. There is no expert counter argument to the earth being round even when it was first discovered and everyone disagreed. Imaginary 'what ifs' don't count when it is certain. Same as there is no expert argument against the laws of physics when it comes to 911. It's just that your religiously brainwashed to the extent where you cannot accept any other possibility.Quote:
A microscopic percentage of theoretical physicists say the big bang could not have happened according to the official story, and I agree with the microscopic minority because they are experts and the silence of the masses should just be overlooked because in my very limited understanding of the but ifs and what ifs of the scenario, I cannot say how the microscopic minority is wrong.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...t_MVC-027S.jpg
First weird thing in this picture is none of that rubbish is burnt. How did it get there and where is the plane. Second look at the size of that hole. That does not fit the plane. find the Measurements and you'll find the hole does not fit the plane. Besides what about the wings of the aircraft? Did they fall off before it hit? Impossible. That's what a missile impact looks like. Even the video footage shows no plane just an explosion.
Here is the explosion with no plane from the hotel security camera. Funny the hotel has enough security to take a video but all the pentagon cameras failed or the footage got lost magically. Or they simply refuse to release it. Refuse to release what would prove to us the truth. Only once this video got released were they forced to release something. So afterwards here is what the government did release. STILL NO PLANE
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...7/plane911.jpg
Such a big explosion and impact. Yet only a clean hole and no wing marks of any airplane. Whatever hit it had no wings. NO wreckage. No footage. No evidence of a plane.
King 4 News
That is not honest at all. How many times do I need to make the same point? :horse: I do bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster every time somebody says, "I can't explain this. Therefore I conclude ____________ (Insert preposterous statement.)" It's extra laughable when the person with the conclusion doesn't know enough to know whether there are possible explanations that illustrate that the present theory has not been proven wrong. I have seen the demolition debates go to, "But they could melt this way and fall that way if such and such is the case, but they couldn't do that and that under the other circumstances X,Y, and Z," and "Oh, but they couldn't under these five factors, but they could when the wind blows and the sun adds heat and these other things don't happen." I am going to say this one last time. If you ignore it yet again, then good luck to you. I don't know enough to be able to cover the full scope of that debate, and neither do you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
You are either not reading my posts or are being completely intellectually dishonest. I have illustrated several instances of your intellectual dishonesty, so you know what my theory on that would be. I will say this one last time also, and if you still ignore it, good luck to you and your diagnosable delusions. If you can understand supposed lies about the demolition story involved int the biggest shock in American history and the biggest news story in the history of the world, then so can the actual experts. The vast masses are not making anything of what you are talking about, so in my nonexpert assessment, I see the probability as lying with the masses of experts and not nonexpert punks on the internet and the handful of experts who are members of your hate cult. That is not as simple as majority is automatically right. The actual point is that I don't start baaaaahing like a sheep just because nonexperts who believe in numerology and prophecy and a microcopic minority of experts who have financial and hateful agendas claim something about an area I don't understand in its entirety. And once again, I sure as Hell wouldn't leap to the land of Oz even if I thought I did understand the engineering debate in its entirety. Did you catch it that time? Now stop lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
Especially with your flying Spaghetti Monster.Quote:
I sure as Hell wouldn't leap to the land of Oz
Especially? I might say especially with unreported vanished airplanes and mass ambitions of people to keep working in a building their bosses fired a missile at while they were working in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6...mpirateag3.pngQuote:
Especially? I might say especially with unreported vanished airplanes and mass ambitions of people to keep working in a building their bosses fired a missile at while they were working in it.
Ahoy! Universal mind. Your Addled! Avast! Belay your Bilge! Gangway Corsair, Going to Keelhaul you Poxy, poxed.
Arrrrrr! Me hearties, No quarter!
http://www.dougronan.com/ontario/ima...lane/oops9.jpg
Hurry! Hide the airplane! Dammit I hope nobody is watching.
Fine, ignore loose change, pretend it never existed. They still have an obligation to explain how molten steel was running down the building like lava even though jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. They still have to explain to all the demolitions experts saying the type of destruction they described would have left the steel beams intact. Just because you assume if Fox News doesn't report it its not true does not make that so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Albert Einstein was laughed at at first as well. In fact many people that first heard his ideas were so quick to write it off as absurd he barely got through his theory the first time without ensuing laughter. All great realizations by our culture were suppressed by the beginning, the church called it blasphemous, the masses like you just write it off because it doesn't fit your narrow perspective on reality and farbeit from us to try and reach an understanding that doesn't fit into the masses' confirmed reality. No society just automatically accepts a controversial truth in the beginning. Rather, history has shown us that people that tell the truth get crucified. Just because you choose to attach yourself to popular opinion does not make you right.Quote:
As for your dialogue, you did not represent the amazing leap I discussed. I have said that I don't have much disagreement with people who say, "I have looked at the evidence, and it seems that the big bang did not happen the way the vast, vast majority of PhD theoretical physicists say it did even though I don't know enough to understand the potential counterarguments to what the dissenters are saying." What I think is astoundingly outlandish is saying, "A microscopic percentage of theoretical physicists say the big bang could not have happened according to the official story, and I agree with the microscopic minority because they are experts and the silence of the masses should just be overlooked because in my very limited understanding of the but ifs and what ifs of the scenario, I cannot say how the microscopic minority is wrong. Therefore.... (leaping... leaping... leaping...) the Flying Spaghetti Monster had to have created the universe by sprinkling glittery magic sand on a statue of Lord Banana and singing "It's a Happy, Happy Universe".
I don't know the ins and outs, but the demolitions experts do and they're pretty much unanimous. Find me a single demolition expert that thinks the offocial story is true and I will find you 30 that don't.Quote:
I disagree. I think two types of people are those who admit that they don't know the ins and outs of demolition and don't take obscure claims regarding evidence and leap to fantasy land conclusions and those who have looked at obscure takes on evidence and think they know enough to understand the full spectrum of how demolition works and go from there to saying things that are absolutely insane.
Take a look at the buildings after the planes hit.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ma_picture.jpg
Now take a look at how they fell down. And give yourself a reality check.
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/...6/911tower.jpg
http://www.doglegs.net/cclovett/coll...orth_Tower.jpg
http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/i..._collapse2.jpg
that's exactly what a building looks like when the metal gets weak from jet fuel, then falls down naturally. Not like a demolition conspiracy :wtf2: