• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132:1312]

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:
Keeping Bman on-task is hard enough without even more irrelevant derails. Our current status is he has been posed two questions which he thinks/claims he has answered: The first by passing the buck and the second with one of his usual badly thought out and ambiguous analogies that doesn't even apply when a direct answer was called for.
Click to expand...

You know your first question was to get a speculative answer so that you can attack the speculative answer for being speculative. We don't know the details like "column 1 has x lbs of y"... and would never get that answer. The fact that you ask this, especially given your track record, is just a way to bait for an answer that you can attack.

The second, well, I answered using analogy for a purpose and that was to bypass your preconception of the actual power structure of the world... It's quite simple, because terrorism is to use the fear generated for a political objective, if you are scaring the people to get them to tolerate more authoritarian government policies, then it's about dominating the people. Where, real terrorism, by that I mean real as opposed to the state sponsored terrorism that happens more often than not, would target the power structure, to put those in power in fear to get them to cave into the political objective...

If a person even made a threat to perpetrate such an attack, even in passing, the effort would be snubbed out long before it was ever accomplished, as opposed to the state sponsored attacks, like the boston bombing, like 9-11, like OKC bombing, etc... they would not be so close to the FBI and other groups that investigate the matters, for weeks or months before and after, they would not get resources from those agencies.... they would be STOPPED by those agencies.

Luckily, the people that know who the real targets of terrorism should be ALSO know that the situation is not desperate enough to warrant such a thing, the backlash would far outweigh the benefits, and that the real goal is to bring humanity to an enlightened state of affairs as opposed to the barbarism and tyranny of eras past.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:
You know your first question was to get a speculative answer so that you can attack the speculative answer for being speculative. We don't know the details like "column 1 has x lbs of y"... and would never get that answer. The fact that you ask this, especially given your track record, is just a way to bait for an answer that you can attack.

The second, well, I answered using analogy for a purpose and that was to bypass your preconception of the actual power structure of the world... It's quite simple, because terrorism is to use the fear generated for a political objective, if you are scaring the people to get them to tolerate more authoritarian government policies, then it's about dominating the people. Where, real terrorism, by that I mean real as opposed to the state sponsored terrorism that happens more often than not, would target the power structure, to put those in power in fear to get them to cave into the political objective...

If a person even made a threat to perpetrate such an attack, even in passing, the effort would be snubbed out long before it was ever accomplished, as opposed to the state sponsored attacks, like the boston bombing, like 9-11, like OKC bombing, etc... they would not be so close to the FBI and other groups that investigate the matters, for weeks or months before and after, they would not get resources from those agencies.... they would be STOPPED by those agencies.

Luckily, the people that know who the real targets of terrorism should be ALSO know that the situation is not desperate enough to warrant such a thing, the backlash would far outweigh the benefits, and that the real goal is to bring humanity to an enlightened state of affairs as opposed to the barbarism and tyranny of eras past.
Click to expand...

All that prattle.....

It is obvious to any student of history that YOUR knowledge or terrorism is *ahem* a bit lacking.

And plenty of ACCUSATIONS without merit...

The "state sponsored attacks, like the boston bombing, like 9-11, like OKC bombing"? Really?

Boston Bombing a "state sponsored attack"? WHAT STATE?

9/11 a "state sponsored attack"? WHAT STATE?

And OKC? A "state sponsored attack"? WHAT STATE?

And please.... Do not duck and run.

Are you REALLY ACCUSING THE US of those attacks?
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:
If a person even made a threat to perpetrate such an attack, even in passing, the effort would be snubbed out long before it was ever accomplished, as opposed to the state sponsored attacks, like the boston bombing, like 9-11, like OKC bombing, etc...
Click to expand...
Seriously: lol

Bman, speaking from on high with his vast education and experience on the subject.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:
You know your first question was to get a speculative answer so that you can attack the speculative answer for being speculative. We don't know the details like "column 1 has x lbs of y"... and would never get that answer. The fact that you ask this, especially given your track record, is just a way to bait for an answer that you can attack.
Click to expand...

The first question, how would you have done it is indeed purely speculative. But it has absolutely nothing to do with knowing the details of anything that happened or that you think might have happened. The question was a thought exercise, designed to get people working the problem front to back for a change instead of back to front. The reason you are too scared to answer it is because you are still trying to work it back to front and because of that you can't come up with a rational, plausible answer that matches any of the myriad of CD scenario's you have been floating around here.

Hence your evasion by inventing a 3rd party to do your thinking for you.

Anyone who is not a conspiracy theorist and wasn't trying hard to justify pre-conceived notions would have no difficulty whatsoever answering the question.

The second, well, I answered using analogy for a purpose and that was to bypass your preconception of the actual power structure of the world... It's quite simple, because terrorism is to use the fear generated for a political objective, if you are scaring the people to get them to tolerate more authoritarian government policies, then it's about dominating the people. Where, real terrorism, by that I mean real as opposed to the state sponsored terrorism that happens more often than not, would target the power structure, to put those in power in fear to get them to cave into the political objective...

If a person even made a threat to perpetrate such an attack, even in passing, the effort would be snubbed out long before it was ever accomplished, as opposed to the state sponsored attacks, like the boston bombing, like 9-11, like OKC bombing, etc... they would not be so close to the FBI and other groups that investigate the matters, for weeks or months before and after, they would not get resources from those agencies.... they would be STOPPED by those agencies.

Luckily, the people that know who the real targets of terrorism should be ALSO know that the situation is not desperate enough to warrant such a thing, the backlash would far outweigh the benefits, and that the real goal is to bring humanity to an enlightened state of affairs as opposed to the barbarism and tyranny of eras past.
Click to expand...

Your analogy was as usual, poor and inappropriate,... unless for example, you really regard the Pentagon, the headquarters of the most powerful military on earth as being at pawn level. And how exactly does one frighten an opponents pawns in a Chess game??? Also, the question calls for a direct answer with details specific to the event. Analogy in this case is just another form of evasion, your way of not answering a direct question over a claim you made. The question is again, how would attacking those targets better accomplish the goals of this particular group of terrorists. You don't want to answer that. Doing so requires thinking. First and foremost you need to both know and understand what it was they were trying to accomplish before you can even begin to speculate on an answer. I have seen no evidence that you do understand or have even attempted to. So instead you address the issue in broad generalities and ambiguities when we are really talking about specific targets for specific people for specific reasons.

If you were to reverse the question on me I wouldn't have to employ any analogies to explain why the 9/11 attackers chose those particular well-known symbols of American economic, military and political power. I would be specific, direct and non-evasive and importantly I would only have to be asked once. No need to chase me for weeks. More importantly, I can describe why those were better targets for this particular group to achieve its specific objectives then your targets.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

There is another basic reason why the Bman style truther claims are wrong.

His (generically "their") claim is that you (we, the accepted narratives) are wrong.

Actually it is more that he is of the opinion that his opponent is wrong.

And he only has two sub options which are:

A) He can claim "You are wrong BECAUSE..." - and specify why; OR

B) he can claim "I believe you are wrong but I have no basis to support that belief."

Most truther claims belong in "B)" but most truthers will not admit that they haven't got a clue why they hold the belief.

Which is one of the reasons they rely on "Reversed Burden of Proof" AKA "I cannot do the reasoning but you dear debunkers do have the reasoning skills so rather than me explain why - you use your skills to show why not by proving that I am wrong."

And that situation is a back handed compliment to debunkers - recognising that at least some of us can think when their side en bloc cannot - and that is true even if only a minority of debunkers do the thinking.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:
The first question, how would you have done it is indeed purely speculative. But it has absolutely nothing to do with knowing the details of anything that happened or that you think might have happened. The question was a thought exercise, designed to get people working the problem front to back for a change instead of back to front. The reason you are too scared to answer it is because you are still trying to work it back to front and because of that you can't come up with a rational, plausible answer that matches any of the myriad of CD scenario's you have been floating around here.

Hence your evasion by inventing a 3rd party to do your thinking for you.

Anyone who is not a conspiracy theorist and wasn't trying hard to justify pre-conceived notions would have no difficulty whatsoever answering the question.



Your analogy was as usual, poor and inappropriate,... unless for example, you really regard the Pentagon, the headquarters of the most powerful military on earth as being at pawn level. And how exactly does one frighten an opponents pawns in a Chess game??? Also, the question calls for a direct answer with details specific to the event. Analogy in this case is just another form of evasion, your way of not answering a direct question over a claim you made. The question is again, how would attacking those targets better accomplish the goals of this particular group of terrorists. You don't want to answer that. Doing so requires thinking. First and foremost you need to both know and understand what it was they were trying to accomplish before you can even begin to speculate on an answer. I have seen no evidence that you do understand or have even attempted to. So instead you address the issue in broad generalities and ambiguities when we are really talking about specific targets for specific people for specific reasons.

If you were to reverse the question on me I wouldn't have to employ any analogies to explain why the 9/11 attackers chose those particular well-known symbols of American economic, military and political power. I would be specific, direct and non-evasive and importantly I would only have to be asked once. No need to chase me for weeks. More importantly, I can describe why those were better targets for this particular group to achieve its specific objectives then your targets.
Click to expand...

In that case, I answered your question... I would hire mercenaries with no allegiance to the country... then I would hire them for a suicide mission afterwards.

That's a direct answer to the question...

As for the analogy... in a tabletop chess game, No, the pawns can only move under very strict rules... however, people in real life are not under such rules...

But you could also say that even the king is subservient to the player, and so kings are subservient to a higher power than themselves... do you understand the purpose of analogy? If so, then why the deliberate obfuscation of what was not intended to be taken quite so literally in the first place.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

ozeco41 said:
There is another basic reason why the Bman style truther claims are wrong.

His (generically "their") claim is that you (we, the accepted narratives) are wrong.

Actually it is more that he is of the opinion that his opponent is wrong.

And he only has two sub options which are:

A) He can claim "You are wrong BECAUSE..." - and specify why; OR

B) he can claim "I believe you are wrong but I have no basis to support that belief."

Most truther claims belong in "B)" but most truthers will not admit that they haven't got a clue why they hold the belief.

Which is one of the reasons they rely on "Reversed Burden of Proof" AKA "I cannot do the reasoning but you dear debunkers do have the reasoning skills so rather than me explain why - you use your skills to show why not by proving that I am wrong."

And that situation is a back handed compliment to debunkers - recognising that at least some of us can think when their side en bloc cannot - and that is true even if only a minority of debunkers do the thinking.
Click to expand...

What are you even trying to talk about here?

I would point out that this post is a non-sequitur, but you don't even attempt to show what you are talking about to say that this logic follows anything beyond your train of thought.??

Are you drunk posting or something?

Funny... you try to go with the pretending you are the paragon of logic and then give a props to the most flagrant troll on the forum?
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:
In that case, I answered your question... I would hire mercenaries with no allegiance to the country... then I would hire them for a suicide mission afterwards.

That's a direct answer to the question...

As for the analogy... in a tabletop chess game, No, the pawns can only move under very strict rules... however, people in real life are not under such rules...

But you could also say that even the king is subservient to the player, and so kings are subservient to a higher power than themselves... do you understand the purpose of analogy? If so, then why the deliberate obfuscation of what was not intended to be taken quite so literally in the first place.
Click to expand...

And they would __________________________________________________________________________________________________ .
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:
The question is again, how would attacking those targets better accomplish the goals of this particular group of terrorists. You don't want to answer that. Doing so requires thinking. First and foremost you need to both know and understand what it was they were trying to accomplish before you can even begin to speculate on an answer.
Click to expand...

That's his circular logic at play. He denies that it was a real "terrorist group" as the world commonly defines it and instead thinks it was the US government. So he doesn't need to figure out what al Qaeda's motive would've been.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

And the explosives are placed at this time ________________________________________________________________________________.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:
In that case, I answered your question... I would hire mercenaries with no allegiance to the country... then I would hire them for a suicide mission afterwards.

That's a direct answer to the question...
Click to expand...

No it isn't. That is a tacit admission you can not think. The question, posed to you repeatedly and in increasing levels of detail to avoid any confusion was for YOU TO DEVISE THE MECHANISM. If you are unable to do so then just say so.

As for the analogy... in a tabletop chess game, No, the pawns can only move under very strict rules... however, people in real life are not under such rules...

But you could also say that even the king is subservient to the player, and so kings are subservient to a higher power than themselves... do you understand the purpose of analogy? If so, then why the deliberate obfuscation of what was not intended to be taken quite so literally in the first place.
Click to expand...

Still missing the point - which is about why this particular group of terrorist chose the targets they did to achieve their specific goals - and still engaging in ambiguity rather than address what is a very simple question requiring a direct answer so you can validate a claim you made. Most people would be eager to validate their own claims instead of dancing around them. Again, I would require no such ambiguity and no use of analogy - which as you should well know, is not evidence.

Why do you find it so difficult to be specific and direct when defending your own position?
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

OldWorldOrder said:
That's his circular logic at play. He denies that it was a real "terrorist group" as the world commonly defines it and instead thinks it was the US government. So he doesn't need to figure out what al Qaeda's motive would've been.
Click to expand...

Its convenient anyway.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:
Its convenient anyway.
Click to expand...
The truth movement denies that terrorism exists... that there are groups of disgruntled people around the globe who organize insurgencies and conduct operations against who they perceive as their oppressors. The USS Cole, Nairobi Embassy bombing, Khobar towers were to them... staged intel ops and the natives are completely passive and content. Despite the hundreds of suicide terrorists incidents around the world many originating and taking place in the ME... they truthers want people to believe that the insiders staged an attack as a false flag.

It's laughable... their naivete really.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

It's the great contradiction: that the US government is evil and engaged in evil practices the world over is a given, but that anyone would dare attack it? Absolutely not, that's just more of the evil it's engaged in...that no one ever defies via violence.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

OldWorldOrder said:
It's the great contradiction: that the US government is evil and engaged in evil practices the world over is a given, but that anyone would dare attack it? Absolutely not, that's just more of the evil it's engaged in...that no one ever defies via violence.
Click to expand...

CT's can't grasp that anyone who hates the U.S. government as much (or more) than they do would actually act on that hatred, because they simply can not be bothered.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:
CT's can't grasp that anyone who hates the U.S. government as much (or more) than they do would actually act on that hatred, because they simply can not be bothered.
Click to expand...

lmao

"Since all I do is post on this conspiracy theory forum, and I hate them so much, how could anyone else do anything more?!

I love it. I wonder what Bman's response to this would be? I think I know it, though, and it boils down to what all conspiracy theorists innately believe: that there's more control and general centrality of influence than there really is. Every conspiracy theorist, deep down, is an optimist. They believe that there's an evil power controlling things, sure, but if some good people could get in control of the system, everything would be right in the world. That's optimistic and ignores that in reality there's lots of parties acting out of self-benefit in a lot of ways, whether they're people, organizations, or states. They think that if someone good could just grasp the reins of whatever power the Illuminati or whatever has, everything would be fixed. There would be no Boston Marathon bombings, no 9/11s, no OKC bombings.

The idea that there could be a world where there wasn't some evil organization pulling all the strings, but horrible things still happen en masse to good people...it scares them. They can't handle it, so they retreat into delusion.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:
Koko keeps telling us it was Thermal Cutters. Now its "charges". Hmmmmmm,...
Click to expand...

Nothing new. We all know some believe it looks "just like a controlled demolition."
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

If terrorists were like CT's they would spend all their time "fundraising" and posting on interweb forums to raise awareness, all the while hoping someone else will carry out their suicide attacks for them since they can't be bothered.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:
No it isn't. That is a tacit admission you can not think. The question, posed to you repeatedly and in increasing levels of detail to avoid any confusion was for YOU TO DEVISE THE MECHANISM. If you are unable to do so then just say so.
Click to expand...

That's not the question you asked... If that was what you wanted to ask, then that's what you should have said.


Still missing the point - which is about why this particular group of terrorist chose the targets they did to achieve their specific goals - and still engaging in ambiguity rather than address what is a very simple question requiring a direct answer so you can validate a claim you made. Most people would be eager to validate their own claims instead of dancing around them. Again, I would require no such ambiguity and no use of analogy - which as you should well know, is not evidence.

Why do you find it so difficult to be specific and direct when defending your own position?
Click to expand...

even providing direct answers you still make a point to misunderstand, twist, or whatever to not get the point.
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Moderator's Warning:
Let's try to keep this discussion civil, folks. Remember, try to address the POSTS, not the Posters. If there continues to be personal attacks and general snarkiness then there would be heavier Mod action
 
re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Sorry, PSK, but you can't expect people to take conspiracy theories seriously. Not all opinions are created equal and websites that want to be taken seriously shouldn't pretend they are. You can't have things like kat sung's thread without people chortling, and to censor the chortles just encourages ignorance. Silly ideas get treated in a silly fashion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom