911 contradictions

The RODOH Lounge is a place for general discussion, preferably non-Holocaust. The Lounge is only lightly moderated but please keep this a friendly place to chat with and get to know your fellow board participants.
Post Reply
montgomery2
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by montgomery2 »

If we can continue on anything Werd, it would be an examination on what causes you, and people like you, to get into these crazed conspiracy theories. One idea I've heard is that Americans can't bring themselves to accept that what the twin towers represented to them was so easily taken apart by a few Saudis on airplanes. They see it as a mockery of everything America stands for.

I think there could be some truth in that. But that's because of my personal feelings that it's not possible for people like you to be so fukking lame as to not be able to see the facts staring you in the face. Is that what's behind your conspiracy theories Werd?

What can it be to cause these sort of people to deny that which is as plain as the nose on their faces. And why do they persist when they have been so completely humiliated as in the way Werd was humiliated in no more than a half hour?

On another issue: This doesn't speak will for the Holocaust Denier side. They are left with having to try to make a reasonable apology for Werd!

And I don't have to even say, that's a piss off! Perfectly reasonable and valid theories being put forward by the denier side, then we have to deal with this sort of batsht crazed lunacy!

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9601
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by been-there »

montgomery2 wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:27 pm
If we can continue on anything Werd, it would be an examination on what causes you, and people like you, to get into these crazed conspiracy theories. ...it's not possible for people like you to be so fukking lame as to not be able to see the facts staring you in the face. Is that what's behind your conspiracy theories Werd?

... we have to deal with this sort of batsht crazed lunacy!
Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "argument against the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim.
There are many subsets of ad hominem, all of them attacking the source of the claim rather than attacking the claim or attempting to counter arguments. They are a type of fallacy of relevance.

The fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy, as it focuses on the source of the argument, at the expense of focusing on the truth or falsity of the actual argument itself.

An ad hominem should not be confused with an insult, which admittedly attacks a person, but does not seek to rebut that person's arguments by doing so — that type of rhetoric is better termed as poisoning the well.

. . . . . .
Conspiracy: two or more parties coming together to the detriment of a third party. Conspiracies happen quite often. The term conspiracy theorist has become an ad hominem that allows people to ignore certain lines of logic.”
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

montgomery2
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by montgomery2 »

been-there wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 6:29 pm
montgomery2 wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:27 pm
If we can continue on anything Werd, it would be an examination on what causes you, and people like you, to get into these crazed conspiracy theories. ...it's not possible for people like you to be so fukking lame as to not be able to see the facts staring you in the face. Is that what's behind your conspiracy theories Werd?

... we have to deal with this sort of batsht crazed lunacy!
Argumentum ad hominem (from the Latin, "argument against the person") is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the claim-maker, rather than engaging in an argument or factual refutation of the claim.
There are many subsets of ad hominem, all of them attacking the source of the claim rather than attacking the claim or attempting to counter arguments. They are a type of fallacy of relevance.

The fallacy is a subset of the genetic fallacy, as it focuses on the source of the argument, at the expense of focusing on the truth or falsity of the actual argument itself.

An ad hominem should not be confused with an insult, which admittedly attacks a person, but does not seek to rebut that person's arguments by doing so — that type of rhetoric is better termed as poisoning the well.

. . . . . .
Conspiracy: two or more parties coming together to the detriment of a third party. Conspiracies happen quite often. The term conspiracy theorist has become an ad hominem that allows people to ignore certain lines of logic.”
The debate had ended been-there because Werd ran away from it and so I resorted to the full on attack against him, in disgust. and now he's going to be quite legitimately seen as a discredit to the H.D. side.

But been-there, saw it ain't so that you too are a supporter of some kind of conspiracy theory on 911 and the twin towers??

If you are then let's start all oover again where I started with Werd. I apologized to him and offered to keep it right on topic. I'm making the same offer to you! There's nothing I enjoy more than a debate on a 911 conspiracy theorist! We'll start with a clean well. State your case.

Werd
Posts: 10317
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd »

The debate had ended been-there because Werd ran away from it
Lie.
Me:
Again, anytime you want to bring up something, I will address it. I just speculate more often than not, it will be something that has already been addressed and refuted.
Montgomery:
If we can continue on anything Werd, it would be an examination on what causes you, and people like you, to get into these crazed conspiracy theories.
My enlarged text doesn't extend to AD HOMINEM FALLACIES. So you would rather play psychologist than play scientist and investigator. Ad hominem indeed. You already promised back here you wouldn't behave like that again after you did it the first time.
I ask you to bring up issues relating to the collapse of the towers, and you BALK AT THE OPPORTUNITY and want to use ad hominem fallacies.

WHO IS REALLY RUNNING AWAY???
it's not possible for people like you to be so fukking lame as to not be able to see the facts staring you in the face. Is that what's behind your conspiracy theories Werd?
So does that mean you'll also be choosing to ignore the Israeli/Mossad role in 9-11 as well?
viewtopic.php?p=112549#p112549
viewtopic.php?p=94294#p94294
And the magical Atta passport?
Will you also ignore the architects and engineers at the beginning of this topic who give GOOD SCIENTIFIC REASONS to doubt the government's explanation?

I think I know the answer to that one. :lol:

Werd
Posts: 10317
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd »

I do recall Montgomery bringing up the issue of how they planted secondary devices (and also thermite as has been exposed), without anyone noticing or making enough of a fuss to the media, their bosses, etc. Does he want to discuss it or not? It's up to him. Because I have many resources on the strange power down that happened before the disaster. It was NOT to plant all the bombs because that would have taken a lot of time. This is what many conspiracy theorists do not understand. The 'power down' was to make sure everything was in place, ready to go for the 11th. The buildings were largely empty, unoccupied, leading up to this power down on the weekend before Tuesday the 11th, and during the power down and even a few times prior, many security cameras and other features were disabled.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06- ... osives-911
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2 ... efore-911/
https://www.disclose.tv/wtc-had-power-s ... ack-313253
On another issue: This doesn't speak will for the Holocaust Denier side. They are left with having to try to make a reasonable apology for Werd!
Holocaust revisionism has been going on since the 1970's and the explosion of the Auschwitz myth also happened before September 2001. Holocaust revisionism stands on its own now just fine because it stood on its own fine BEFORE September 2001. So your attempt to make some ontological connection between the arguments of holocaust revisionism and 9-11 is nothing but an exercise in fallacy. :lol: You are engaging in a smear tactic. A personal attack. After you promised never to do it again.

Been-there I suggest you and I stop engaging Montgomery unless he truly has something to bring to the table and challenge us with. I did like the power down issue I had to mention because of his skepticism about how they got the building wired since he falsely believes it would have been too full of people and in full view of fully functioning security cameras at the time. That was a good one he brought up. But given what I linked to that others have assembled, he has to try another avenue. However, if he wants to balk at the opportunity to bring up a constructive issue ONCE AGAIN LIKE HE ALREADY DID IN THE PAST, and then leave in a huff and pat himself on the back, then let him. We can let Montgomery's own disruptive, evasive and fallacious behaviour speak for itself to the casual reader of this topic.
Last edited by Werd on Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9601
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by been-there »

Image
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

montgomery2
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by montgomery2 »

been-there wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:34 am
Image
What's that? A way of saying that you're a 911 conspiracist without having to say it?

Let's get into it boys. Both you and Werd are denying me the huge entertainment value of talking to 911 conspiracists.

It's all about the two of you being ashamed of your silly beliefs isn't it!

Have another go at it with the same evidence you presented the first time Werd, and I'll give you so brand new answers!

And been-there, you're going to have to say whether you are one of them or not. Otherwise bugger off.

Werd
Posts: 10317
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd »

Montgomery can't stop lying and pretending he doesn't know been-there is a 9-11 skeptic like me.

He was first informed of that fact on Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:46 pm
He was informed again on Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:20 pm

montgomery2
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2018 1:04 pm
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by montgomery2 »

Werd wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:07 pm
Montgomery can't stop lying and pretending he doesn't know been-there is a 9-11 skeptic like me.

He was first informed of that fact on Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:46 pm
He was informed again on Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:20 pm
It's not fair for me to take your word for it Werd. I'm waiting for been-there to say so himself.

But I'm much more interested in hearing from you right now and so I want to go back to the question/answers replies I made to you and hear your responses. if you don't want to do that then there isn't going to be a discussion.

I would consider that highly unfair of you to deprive me of the pleasure.

Here is is in a nutshell Werd: You attempted to say that the tower didn't fall to the middle because there would be no side being the side of least resistance. And I answered by telling you that is not the reality of the situation. What happened in that regard was exactly what one would expect. One side maintained more resistance and that caused the top of the tower to fall to one side. And then I explained how any model would demonstrate exactly the same tendency to not fall symetrically. And you appear to fear answering that!

Your other theory was something to do with how the remains of the tower was pulverized into dust and you seemed to suggest that would be consistent with explosive charges. I told you that wasn't of any consequence simply because the lower part of the tower simply wasn't pulverized as it was falling. And so there doesn't seem to be any further attention needing to be paid to that issue.

I believe your position to be that the airplanes did minimal damage to the twin towers and the catastrophic damage that caused them to fall was done by explosive charges. If that's correct then you might want to state that is your theory.

Let's deal with these issues that were your own choices on how you wanted to start off this debate. There's no need to deal with your claims that some architects have given evidence that reinforces your theory yet. As there is no need to deal with my submissions which will be offered that virtually thousands of engineers have accepted the government's evidence.

Werd
Posts: 10317
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 911 contradictions

Post by Werd »

It's not fair for me to take your word for it Werd. I'm waiting for been-there to say so himself.
Second link:
Werd wrote:
Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:20 am
montgomery2 wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:39 pm
So could you humour me and say whether or not you are a 911 theorist who doesn't buy the official story of the airplanes doing all the damage?
Could you stop being disingenuous and pretending you don't know that I have already informed you that been-there IS a 9-11 skeptic like me?
viewtopic.php?p=133732#p133732
Stop being so full of shit. Or maybe you're just lazy and haven't read the first page in this topic LIKE I TOLD YOU TO, as it would indeed reveal what been-there thinks about 9-11.

We don't humour those who are disingenuous and/or lazy.
Can you guess which topic is hyperlinked with the big text?

THE ONE YOU'RE READING RIGHT NOW.

Go back to page one and you will see FOR YOURSELF that been-there is a 9-11 skeptic like me. MAKE ONE MOUSE CLICK AND SCROLL DOWN AND READ JUST ONE PAGE. YOU LAZY LIAR!!!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests