thats what i been trying to tell him,if he wants answers just go back and read through all our posts on this thread.except dont do what darth krieger and others did Allies,ignore the facts and live in denial about it.Its annoying having to repeat the same thing that we repeated many times before previously which just went through one ear and out the other of people like darth krieger and others that were on here before you.want to clear that up so you dont again mistakenly think I am including you in there. 😄
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Again, there are [B]200 Points that explain the holes in the official story. until they are adressed, the official story will remain false. [/B]
And again, what about the HOLES in your 200 Points? Are you willing to address them? Of course not, but your story isn't false because of it. Practice hypocrisy much?
Again, let's debate point by point the inconsistencies on both sides of the argument. The challenge is there. Are you willing to present your argument in your own words and settle this, or are you going to continue to take shots at the official story, but run and hide when the shots are thrown at you? I can guarantee you'll go for the latter.
Facts hold up under scrutiny. You refuse to discuss the problems with your explanation. Therefore, you have yet to state any facts.
Originally posted by LMM
And again, what about the HOLES in your 200 Points? Are you willing to address them? Of course not, but your story isn't false because of it. Practice hypocrisy much?Again, let's debate point by point the inconsistencies on both sides of the argument. The challenge is there. Are you willing to present your argument in your own words and settle this, or are you going to continue to take shots at the official story, but run and hide when the shots are thrown at you? I can guarantee you'll go for the latter.
Facts hold up under scrutiny. You refuse to discuss the problems with your explanation. Therefore, you have yet to state any facts.
Again, you never addresssed the points at all!
I'll debate you, but, if you continue to use crappy souces like wikipedia and debunk911. then I should be able to use Infowars and prison planet.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
ashtar,I thought you were done debating people who dont want to listen like LMM? Like I said,Im not on here debating anybody anymore,only to congratulate Deano for taking to people to school like he has.thats all you should come on for as well.
I stopped debating, because the points were ignored. LMM is willing to post the 200 points david postes, and debate them one by one with legitimate sources, I'll continue.
dude havent you learned by now your wasting your time with him,that he will be just like darth and avoid the facts? that he only selectively addresses points as well and ignores others just like him? I sometimes wonder if they are the same person.The only person that I have ever found to be reasonable about the trade centers is grand which is why I dont come on here and discuss it anymore because he got tired of the discussion as well.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Again, you never addresssed the points at all!
I'll debate you, but, if you continue to use crappy souces like wikipedia and debunk911. then I should be able to use Infowars and prison planet.
I've never used crappy sources such as wikipedia and debunk911. You're fine to use infowars and prisonplanet as long as the source fully quoted is from objective material such as an eyewitness account or a legitimate expert member of a scientific field.
As for never addressing your points, I provided direct documentation of both the 9/11 Commission and the NIST report about the contributions to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. You didn't address them at all, just said they were not legitimate sources.
I have brought up the blatant misquotes used on conspiracy websites, provided the full quotes of the speakers, and you ignored that as well.
I'll leave it you. Pick a point, and we'll discuss it. You can use the 200 smoking guns if you want, but they will be discussed one by one. You will not be allowed to bring up another one until we both agree to move on.
Others may contribute if they desire, but only if they are providing sourced information. Deano is not allowed to post his David Icke quotes that he is so fond of. David Icke is not a legitimate source for anything.
Alex Jones and David Icke theories and video shows are totally off limits. Alex Jones is a journalist, not a scientist. He also tends to not let his participants speak if they disagree with him.
You may start with a post presenting your topic and the information you possess. You will give me time to respond. We will create a new topic and have it run through or we can create topics for each point. The choice is yours.
Ashtar, if you are willing to participate in this type of discussion in good faith, you will be a better person that any other conspiracy theorist I have ever met.
The ball is in your court. Do you agree?
Originally posted by LMMAs for never addressing your points, I provided direct documentation of both the 9/11 Commission and the NIST report about the contributions to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. You didn't address them at all, just said they were not legitimate sources.
Your lying as usual, I addressed them many times, I can go back and grab quotes of me addressing them. I told you several time already, the NIST doesn't explaining the structural behavior of the building, nor how the structure behaved during it's fall.
Originally posted by LMM
I have brought up the blatant misquotes used on conspiracy websites, provided the full quotes of the speakers, and you ignored that as well.
I wasn't even debating anymore, and attacking weak arguments that I did't make is a strawman .
Originally posted by LMMI'll leave it you. Pick a point, and we'll discuss it. You can use the 200 smoking guns if you want, but they will be discussed one by one. You will not be allowed to bring up another one until we both agree to move on.
Originally posted by LMMYou may start with a post presenting your topic and the information you possess. You will give me time to respond.
Ashtar, if you are willing to participate in this type of discussion in good faith, you will be a better person that any other conspiracy theorist I have ever met.
The ball is in your court. Do you agree?
I'm not posting jack, the amount of times I've had to repeat myself is ludacris. If you want to debate, find the guns and tell me what's wrong with them point by point.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Your lying as usual, I addressed them many times, I can go back and grab quotes of me addressing them. I told you several time already, the NIST doesn't explaining the structural behavior of the building, nor how the structure behaved during it's fall.
No, I am not lying. The NIST report explained the conditions that caused the buildings to fall. You repeatedly said that a plane crash alone, nor a fire alone could fell a skyscraper. I provided you with confirmed evidence that it could, and you denied it.
I wasn't even debating anymore, and attacking weak arguments that I did't make is a strawman.
I'm poking holes in your theory, and you won't address them. That's not strawman.
No, you pick a point and explain why it's wrong. you asked to debate so, your going to have to go back and elaborate on all the 200 guns that were posted and you intially ignored.
That is not how a debate works. Obviously you're completely unprepared to discuss this like adults. You want a person to refute all 200 points at once so you can jump from one to the other. I present a structured way to do that, and you refuse.
I'm not posting jack, the amount of times I've had to repeat myself is ludacris. If you want to debate, find the guns and tell me what's wrong with them point by point.
Again, you are proving that you don't want a structured discussion. You want to be allowed to jump to another point the moment you can't defend one. Your goal is to confuse the issue.
Thank you. You've destroyed any shred of credibility that you may have had. I hope the skeptical take notice of this. As any learned man would tell you, it is the job of a researcher to prove a specific theory, not disprove it. But I supposed I shouldn't expect you to be an educated person.
I appreciate you, yourself, proving that your statements have no teeth. If you truly believed in this farce of a theory, you'd be willing to allow it to be scrutinized in this public forum. Like many of the ostracized "experts" that Alex Jones and his cronies produce, your statements cannot stand up to the scrutiny of educated members of the community.
Originally posted by LMM
No, I am not lying. The NIST report explained the conditions that caused the buildings to fall. You repeatedly said that a plane crash alone, nor a fire alone could fell a skyscraper. I provided you with confirmed evidence that it could, and you denied it.
Yeah, you are lying. You just claimed I never responded to your post about the NIST report, when I did.
The Nist claimed that a plane and fire created a pancake cllapse. yet, have made no attempt to explain how a pancake collapse works and the structural behavior of the building before the collapse. Instead they state the obvious. "A plane hit the tower, and it fell" My question is how?
Originally posted by LMM
I'm poking holes in your theory, and you won't address them. That's not strawman.
By attacking arguments that I did not make, how does that make sense?
😕
Originally posted by LMM
That is not how a debate works. Obviously you're completely unprepared to discuss this like adults. You want a person to refute all 200 points at once so you can jump from one to the other. I present a structured way to do that, and you refuse.
When did I claim I want you to refute "ALL" 200 points? I've been asking for someone to address those points since know one but, darth kreiger touched them. And the sources for his rebuttal was word of mouth.
If you won't touch I';m not debating, I refuse to post new points when there is 200 points lying around here.
Originally posted by LMM
Again, you are proving that you don't want a structured discussion. You want to be allowed to jump to another point the moment you can't defend one. Your goal is to confuse the issue.
Twisting my words as usual, I asked YOU to address one point at a time.So, we can debate them one by one,But, If I jump to the next point without reaching a conclusion. Then hold it against me, but, don't expect me to present the points again.
Originally posted by LMM
Thank you. You've destroyed any shred of credibility that you may have had. I hope the skeptical take notice of this. As any learned man would tell you, it is the job of a researcher to prove a specific theory, not disprove it. But I supposed I shouldn't expect you to be an educated person.
I appreciate you, yourself, proving that your statements have no teeth. If you truly believed in this farce of a theory, you'd be willing to allow it to be scrutinized in this public forum. Like many of the ostracized "experts" that Alex Jones and his cronies produce, your statements cannot stand up to the scrutiny of educated members of the community.
There hasn't been one educated post in this thread, just constant flaming and neglecting points. Your opinion of me doesn't matter, post facts, and we'll debate until then , don't waste my time.
Despite the ownage of Conspiracys going on, I must interject!
Do NOT say we never went for your points, remember when I did, and you wouldn't LET me prove them wrong? Oh right, you won't mention that. By the way the 200 Guns, most of them have little or no relation to 9/11 Attacks
I never used Glenn Beck as a source....❌ I merely pointed out how he had a guy come on his show, and with Evidence, debunked 3 Major Theorys.
Wikipedia can be used as a source, it sites it's info from other Official Sources, Lrn2Wiki.
I choose not to debunk you people with Evidence/Proof because no matter what, Evidence debunking you is GOVERNMENT LIES! You should look back at the 200 Guns Refuted Thread.
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Despite the ownage of Conspiracys going on, I must interject!Do NOT say we never went for your points, remember when I did, and you wouldn't LET me prove them wrong? Oh right, you won't mention that. By the way the 200 Guns, most of them have little or no relation to 9/11 Attacks
I never used Glenn Beck as a source....❌ I merely pointed out how he had a guy come on his show, and with Evidence, debunked 3 Major Theorys.
Wikipedia can be used as a source, it sites it's info from other Official Sources, Lrn2Wiki.
I choose not to debunk you people with Evidence/Proof because no matter what, Evidence debunking you is GOVERNMENT LIES! You should look back at the 200 Guns Refuted Thread.
When you attempted to debunk the 200 points, you didn't use any credible sources. You only used word of mouth or wikipedia.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Yeah, you are lying. You just claimed I never responded to your post about the NIST report, when I did.The Nist claimed that a plane and fire created a pancake cllapse. yet, have made no attempt to explain how a pancake collapse works and the structural behavior of the building before the collapse. Instead they state the obvious. "A plane hit the tower, and it fell" My question is how?
The building was designed to pancake in the event of collapse. Every engineer has publicly stated that fact.
By attacking arguments that I did not make, how does that make sense?
😕
You have supported every conspiracy post made in this forum. Now you're going to say that just because you didn't post the specific statement, you're going to believe everything stated by conspiracy theorists except for the misquotes? Well, those are major points that are strewn throughout the conspiracy websites. And yet you refuse to address them? You don't get to ignore points that show your idols are lying.
When did I claim I want you to refute "ALL" 200 points? I've been asking for someone to address those points since know one but, darth kreiger touched them. And the sources for his rebuttal was word of mouth.
If you won't touch I';m not debating, I refuse to post new points when there is 200 points lying around here.
I have refuted the quotes from firefighters listed in the 200 smoking guns by posting the full quotes. You once again failed to address that. I will not waste time refuting all 200 at once. You ignore the ones that are refuted and bounce to another immediately.
Twisting my words as usual, I asked [B] YOU to address one point at a time.So, we can debate them one by one,But, If I jump to the next point without reaching a conclusion. Then hold it against me, but, don't expect me to present the points again.[/B]
As I said before, it is not my responsibility to disprove the 200 points, it is your responsibility to prove them, in your own words. I am not here to debate Alex Jones. I am here to debate you. You must have an understanding of the material you are sourcing for people to believe you. Why do you think Deano is not taken seriously? Because all he does is quote others. He has never demonstrated an understanding of what he is reading.
You've already proven that you won't discuss this as an adult, but you continue to post. If you aren't going to waste your time, why are you still here?
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Despite the ownage of Conspiracys going on, I must interject!Do NOT say we never went for your points, remember when I did, and you wouldn't LET me prove them wrong? Oh right, you won't mention that. By the way the 200 Guns, most of them have little or no relation to 9/11 Attacks
I never used Glenn Beck as a source....❌ I merely pointed out how he had a guy come on his show, and with Evidence, debunked 3 Major Theorys.
Wikipedia can be used as a source, it sites it's info from other Official Sources, Lrn2Wiki.
I choose not to debunk you people with Evidence/Proof because no matter what, Evidence debunking you is GOVERNMENT LIES! You should look back at the 200 Guns Refuted Thread.
This is pathetic. These guys don't even play by the rules they try to us to. They just change them as they go along.
Originally posted by LMM
The building was designed to pancake in the event of collapse. Every engineer has publicly stated that fact.
Yet, there hasn't been any successful explanation of the structural behavior of the "pancake collapse". If I'm wrong post one, and I'll conciede my point.
Originally posted by LMM
You have supported every conspiracy post made in this forum. Now you're going to say that just because you didn't post the specific statement, you're going to believe everything stated by conspiracy theorists except for the misquotes? Well, those are major points that are strewn throughout the conspiracy websites. And yet you refuse to address them? You don't get to ignore points that show your idols are lying.
What are you talking about, I argued deano several times in this forum. Where have you been?
Originally posted by LMM
I have refuted the quotes from firefighters listed in the 200 smoking guns by posting the full quotes. You once again failed to address that. I will not waste time refuting all 200 at once. You ignore the ones that are refuted and bounce to another immediately.
That was the most hypocritical post ever, you complain about me jumping points (When I don't) And ignore questions I asked 20 pages ago about the structural behavior. Perfect example of a strawman, you grab the weakest point, refute it, and apply it to me. i myself claimed I don't dwell in eye witness accounts much.
Originally posted by LMM
As I said before, it is not my responsibility to disprove the 200 points, it is your responsibility to prove them, in your own words. I am not here to debate Alex Jones. I am here to debate you. You must have an understanding of the material you are sourcing for people to believe you. Why do you think Deano is not taken seriously? Because all he does is quote others. He has never demonstrated an understanding of what he is reading.You've already proven that you won't discuss this as an adult, but you continue to post. If you aren't going to waste your time, why are you still here?
Alex jones didn't write the smoking guns, shows how ignorant you are. The smoking guns are compalations of news articles, which you can read yourself. So, Why would I have to put news articles in my own words, how does that make sense?
and I'm still here because I gave you an ultimatum, Duh.
I asked you"Do you want to debate the guns one by one, or continue to ignore them?"
And these smoking guns are barely refenced...there are no dates associated with when the statement as published.
I also agree that they jsut throw in random other shit that is coincidnetal, simply to make their case seem more plausible. If 9-11 is such a government conspiracy...surely there is enough evidence to debunk it using specificaly related events.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
When you attempted to debunk the 200 points, you didn't use any credible sources. You only used word of mouth or wikipedia.
I tried to tell you your wasting your time with him.The fact that he uses wikepedia as his source and NOW debunking 9-11- a propagation piece for the government, should tell you he isnt interested in knowing the truth and wants to continue believe the lie just like king of kings and darth and others.thier really not worth the effort.I thought we agreed on that?