Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, so that's a plausible 9/11 conspiracy scenario

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN A PLAUSIBLE STORY CONCERNING HOW THE SUPPOSED 9/11 INSIDE JOB COULD HAVE EVEN POSSIBLY HAPPENED?????????

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

just tell a story that is the least bit plausible whenever you are delusional enough to think you can. Do I need to explain that again?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The idea on the 9/11 conspiracy is for you to give an even plausible form of a story YOU claim happened

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It looks like you can't even tell a possible version of an inside job story.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Now you tell me what could have even possibly happened. Nothing could have. It is impossible. Give me some retort, if you have any.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Are you ready to correct it and write the "real" or even possible in theory version of the story yet?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Tell me a version of the story that could have possibly happened.

Universal mind. I noticed this is your most recent debunking technique. To just no matter what keep saying it over and over. You should know that your going to find it pretty difficult from here because atleast 2 people, myself included. Know for certain that your specifically and purposefully spreading disinfo. And a bunch of other people have mentioned your inconsistently distracting repetitiveness. And refusal to face facts. Your weaving and dodging will continue to wake others up.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Universal mind. I noticed this is your most recent debunking technique. To just no matter what keep saying it over and over. You should know that your going to find it pretty difficult from here because atleast 2 people, myself included. Know for certain that your specifically and purposefully spreading disinfo. And a bunch of other people have mentioned your inconsistently distracting repetitiveness. And refusal to face facts. Your weaving and dodging will continue to wake others up.

That does not tell me a plausible version of a story you claim happened.

And I said I wasn't even going to ask that any more because you obviously have nothing to answer with. So the new issue is the one R.D. raised. What supposed evidence do you have that is not circumstantial? Posting a link to a thread does not answer that particular question. All of your points in that thread are bizarrely circumstantial.

What is your best piece of evidence?

You are so evasive.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

so I now have a different approach. I too want to ask if you have any evidence that is not circumstantial. Do you?

This approach will also fail. As circumstantial only makes up part of the evidence. Meanwhile I have evidence against what you claim. Always have from the beginning and always will. The truth doesn't change. Only disinfo and false theories change to stop the river of evidence becoming known. You can place a few stones in the way but your not going to stop it all. This is one thing we aren't just going to forget easily and let pass. The dam has broken and there is no way to contain what is essentially overthrowing the entire illusion of this manipulation. See the other thread for the evidence. You have already started to violate the other thread requirements if you continue I will report you to the administrators. I already said no defamation, straw man distracting or subversive irrelevant arguments. None of what you do.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

This approach will also fail. As circumstantial only makes up part of the evidence. Meanwhile I have evidence against what you claim. Always have from the beginning and always will. The truth doesn't change. Only disinfo and false theories change to stop the river of evidence becoming known. You can place a few stones in the way but your not going to stop it all. This is one thing we aren't just going to forget easily and let pass. The dam has broken and there is no way to contain what is essentially overthrowing the entire illusion of this manipulation. See the other thread for the evidence. You have already started to violate the other thread requirements if you continue I will report you to the administrators. I already said no defamation, straw man distracting or subversive irrelevant arguments. None of what you do.

Go tattle, and I will point to your endless stream of personal insults, such as your calling me a liar.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Universal Mind your response is dishonest and more lies.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

You keep avoiding it all and trying to distract with your evasive measures because there is nothing else you can possibly do to face it.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Universal mind you broken record

Stop breaking your own rules you decided you could make.

Now back to the question you keep refusing to answer... What "evidence" do you have that is not circumstantial? Be specific.

Now lets look at Universal Mind and his latest set of evasive responses. With his degree in law, combined with his degree in psychology. Repetition and word games are his only strategy for success rather than using the truth. So now I will repeat his repetitiveness and failure to respond to any material relating to 911.

Common questions asked by Universal Mind in response to 911 material.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Tell us specifically one piece of evidence

(no matter how much evidence)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Tell a plausible 9/11 inside job story.

(no matter how plausible)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

he burden of proof is on you

(no matter how much the burden of proof is on him)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What is your credible source for that information any way?

Even when all his sources are not credible and our sources debunk them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is the accuser's job to explain the things

(No matter how much he accuser's without explanation)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The burden is on them

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

does not qualify as an argument

(no matter how much it qualifies)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You won't make the connection between your "evidence" and your conclusion

No matter how obvious the connection.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Burden of proof is on the maker of a claim

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That was a dodge.

No matter how much he dodges, It's the other person he accusers.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That does not qualify as an answer.

No matter how much it qualifies.

Please quote your answers to those questions. I never saw them. And make sure you are actually answering the full questions I asked.

you never ask any proper questions relating to 911 evidence. You never explain anything. You fail to discuss anything significant. You repeat nonsense endlessly and I can never get you to give me anything that debunks all the information I give you that you refuse to read. That's because it's proven beyond a doubt and you have no choice but to ignore it. Not even one issue have you explained from my other thread. Don't pretend you have anything to base your lies and repetitiveness on. Any intelligent person can read the information I posted for themself.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

you never ask any proper questions relating to 911 evidence.

Like, "How did it happen or even could it have happened?" and, "How exactly is that information 'evidence'?" and, "What credible sources do you have?" and, "What is your argument?" Oh, okay.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

You fail to discuss anything significant.

Such as the multitude of holes in your conclusion and the fact that you have not even made a connection between your premises and your conclusion? Yeah, those issues are not significant.

P.S.- This conversation was fun, but I think at this point you are just being stubborn and I am just torturing you. You don't have an argument or explanations for the holes in your conclusion that you never connected to your premises, and I am not going to get you to admit that, so I am going to get off the bus here. Good luck to you.

Like, "How did it happen or even could it have happened?" and, "How exactly is that information 'evidence'?" and, "What credible sources do you have?" and, "What is your argument?"

We know how it happened. The buildings fell down because of explosives. If you ask why. Because science tells us steel metal grids don't give way like a pack of cards because of a fire.

The information is evidence because it reveals that the building doesn't fall down by itself. The sources are credible because they involve truthful and objective observations that can be verified and backed up by history. My argument is that the buildings didn't fall down without the use of explosives.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

We know how it happened. The buildings fell down because of explosives. If you ask why. Because science tells us steel metal grids don't give way like a pack of cards because of a fire.

The information is evidence because it reveals that the building doesn't fall down by itself. The sources are credible because they involve truthful and objective observations that can be verified and backed up by history. My argument is that the buildings didn't fall down without the use of explosives.

Okay, you sucked me back in for one more moment, but I am through trying to debate you on this. It is something I never could make happen, and I've put enough energy into the attempt. But since you suddenly want to act like you want to answer questions after you thought I was finished, I want to tell you that you did not answer the right questions.

When I asked how it happened, I was not talking about just the use of explosives. I said that would be easy to explain. That alone is not so far fetched. I am asking how the whole conspiracy stunt was pulled off, not just one event in it. Remember the questions I used to ask about how the airplanes were flown and how hijackings were faked? The questions about why Al Qaeda confessed and engages in such acts of such terrorism now, and how so many people were rounded up without any of them leaking what happened? Why none of the people who turned down the offer to join the conspiracy leaked? Why demolition experts everywhere were fooled into being so silent while people like you and Memeticverb notice things they don't? All of that stuff. I was asking how the conspiracy was pulled off or even possibly could have been pulled off. I was asking you to tell the story or even a plausible story, Mr. Prosecutor. See my first post in the 9/11 Truth thread.

When I asked how the information was evidence, I was not asking how it was merely evidence of explosives going off in the WTC. I was asking how it was evidence of the supposed conspiracy. How does it prove that the bizarre story happened? Why not terrorists planting bombs? Why not government incompetence in the areas you mentioned? How do you get from A to Q? That is what I was asking.

I asked what the credible sources of your claims are. Not "history". That's too vague. I am asking about information sources that have something to lose by lying. What makes you so sure the reports are true? I know right off some of them are false. Telling people not to fly that day? What? There was nothing abnormal about air traffic numbers that morning. Any way, I was asking specifically where you got such stuff.

When I asked for your argument, I was asking for a syllogism style case. An argument that starts with some premises that are verified and uses a logical step by step progression to your conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. You have not stated that case yet.

I will leave it to you to answer that. If you don't want to, I won't ask any more. I just wanted to make sure you knew the right questions since you answered the wrong ones.