-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Disco08 said:
Want and deserve are two completely different things? Well yes, but you're now implying they 'deserve' something they didn't 'want'? Stranger still.
Baloo had you pinned to the canvass on that particular point. Which given your debating style, was an impressive achievement in my book.
It only seems strange to you because you can't get it into your head that I've never implied that all 9/11 victims want a re-investigation.
Just saying things over and over doesn't make them any less blatantly ridiculous.
You guys don't like what I have to say and you're looking for anything to discredit me. Problem is I'm genuinely trying to discuss this topic in a rational and civilised manner.
If you're going to insult me at least back it up. One example would do.
Just saying things over and over doesn't make them any less blatantly ridiculous.
You guys don't like what I have to say and you're looking for anything to discredit me. Problem is I'm genuinely trying to discuss this topic in a rational and civilised manner.
If you're going to insult me at least back it up. One example would do.
I just gave an example Disco, from my perspective, it was a very clear example. You came back with something about 'deserve and want are two different things', which on the face of it, makes sense, but within the context of how you have used 'deserve' in this thread, is misleading and confusing.
You asked me to back it up and provide an example of your modus operandi, which from where I sit is to confuse and go on tangents when you are pinned down. I did that, and you came back with more confusing comments, tangents, out of context semantics.
You asked me to back it up and provide an example of your modus operandi, which from where I sit is to confuse and go on tangents when you are pinned down. I did that, and you came back with more confusing comments, tangents, out of context semantics.
Even though I can't see how "deserve" and "want" could possbly be confused in any context by any clear thinking individual I'll accept that it genuinely confused you. Why then not just accept my word for it when tried to clear it up? Why the obviously personal vendetta?
You offered no such example either. You got either got confused or maliciously tried to invesnt an example where obviously none existed.
You offered no such example either. You got either got confused or maliciously tried to invesnt an example where obviously none existed.
Disco08 said:
On the first point, I thought you had been saying 'the families of those killed deserve another investigation'. I'd argue that the clear implication here is that the families 'want' an investigation. According to you, I musn't be a clear thinking individual.
Which brings me to the next point, re 'malicious' and 'vendetta', there is none on my part, and even if there was, it definately isn't 'obvious'. The fact you think there is underlines our different perspectives. And in my view is just more water-muddying.
Your post here highlights your love and use of the word 'obvious'. Niether of the subjects that you've described as 'obvious' here are obvious. Not to me anyway. Another tactic of yours, as I've mentioned repeatedly, gross overstatement. You aren't on your Pat Malone here, its not an uncommon tactic. I'm just pointing it out as I see it.
tigersnake said:
"The families of those killed deserve a proper investigation" is what I've said all along. That's based on my belief that the 9/11 commission was not a proper investigation. It has no similarity at all to "the families of those killed all want another investigation". You're not thinking clearly if you think it is.
tigersnake said:
How so? Am I backing away from the point?
I'll accept your word that you don't have a vendetta here though even though your incessant irrational critisism of my debating style makes it seem to me that you do.
tigersnake said:
If I'm overstating something pick me up on it. FWIW what I've been saying here does seem extremely obvious to me. The other time you accused me of "extreme language" I thought the words I used were perfectly valid and reasonable in their context. I explained that at the time too.
Disco08 said:
As I said, according to you, I'm not thinking clearly.
There is no vendetta. And according to me, who according to you is not thinking clearly, my criticism was rational.
Disco08 said:
I don't think its deliberately dishonest Disco. I think your perspective can get skewed, which has only emerged for me in this thread, (I've tried and failed to show that), and that is combined with an uncompromising, straight ahead, concede nothing style. Thats only my view.
You and others have alleged an implied massive conspiracy a few times. Last time we discussed this I suggested a simpler possibility. Did you see that?
That's not a trick either ant. Usually how it goes is I post a group of facts that clearly could be construed as evidence of something suspicious and then you guys either ignore it or dismiss it because the conspiracy you think is required to explain them is too complex and/or massive.
That's not a trick either ant. Usually how it goes is I post a group of facts that clearly could be construed as evidence of something suspicious and then you guys either ignore it or dismiss it because the conspiracy you think is required to explain them is too complex and/or massive.
By "something suspicious" I mean something suspicious. I don't claim to know exactly what would have been required to arrive at these results (if in fact Larry isn't just the luckiest man ever).
http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=47559.msg1534131#msg1534131
What's interesting too is your niggling ant. You've never been like that to me before.
http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=47559.msg1534131#msg1534131
What's interesting too is your niggling ant. You've never been like that to me before.
Disco08 said:
Now now Disco, if I'm mean to you it's just a sign of affection. And I really don't remember the "simple explanation" of how Larry did the arson job. Remind me.
But before you do, I gotta say that I find the "gosh darn it I'm just simple folks and don't understand all this conspiracy mumbo-jumbo but if I put A and 3 together and get suspicious, then that's suspicious" argument disingenuous.
Also don't really see how Larry claiming insurance on assets that he lost in a terrorist attack while 3000 or so people died, including many of his friends and employees, after which knuckleheads allege he orchestrated the whole thing, makes him the luckiest man alive either.
You're misunderstanding the point. I'm not saying "gosh darn it I'm just simple folks and don't understand all this conspiracy mumbo-jumbo". I'm saying I have no way of knowing how many people had to be involved if in reality all three towers were demolished. Beyond Larry and a demo team anyway.
It's you guys who are making those assertions and I don't see it as a reason to ignore or dismiss other interesting points.
Lucky Larry.
To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.
It's you guys who are making those assertions and I don't see it as a reason to ignore or dismiss other interesting points.
Lucky Larry.
Disco08 said:
To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.
evo said:
I haven't got the mind to enter into this debate nowadays, but I was right into this story from when it happened up until it's 10th anniversary (now 18 months ago), and unfortunately not many posters showed any interest in discussing it on the original 9/11 thread.
I remember agreeing with a comment you made on another thread sometime ago where you stated that you 'don't follow the herd', and that is exactly what I'm like when it comes to believing in a situation/event/topic, especially when you still have questions which remain unanswered or where the answer given still has no substance. Personally, I have seen and heard a lot of *smile* artists and connivers in the past regarding particular issues and luckily have never fell into a hole, which is why I've learnt to analyse a particular situation/event/topic in my own way rather than just accepting what one person/group tells you (or makes you want to believe).
As for what happened on 9/11, I sit somewhere near the fence and still see it as an 'inside job' on the basis that a lot of specific questions still remain virtually unanswered. I'm sure Patsy's highlighted those several times in his thesis-style posting ( ;D) and the latest one being why the mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed's trial keeps procrastinating (now we wait until 2016 for some reason). He was captured in 2003 and we still wait.....
One strange thing about 9/11 is that the events seem too distinct from other previous terrorist attacks and even after (Bali 2002, London 2005) where they only used bombing and/or hijacking, and yet here we have 2 planes smashing into tall buildings??. Seems a bit 'Hollywood-ish' for me. If it was the Arabs 100% in this plot and for whatever reason, why not just continue with bombs, as Central Station would've killed more than 3000 people (if that was on their criteria) all undergound and possibly above. There are many areas to analyse which is what causes these debates and what I don't like is when people fail to respect the other person's (peoples') point of view several times. I just keep thinking that if someone smells or senses that a corruption exists somewhere and in someway, then a conspiracy would also exist (e.g. Lance Armstrong, Essendon) which is what this is all about.
