• 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!

Dutch Intellectuals Apologize to Putin

ecofarm said:
We did that, it was a fraud. The name attributed to the letter was done so without the knowledge or consent of the professor.

That's why one should not use antisemitic, racist neo-nazi conspiracy theory propaganda sources. Especially ones that lure mentally disabled vets and use 'Veterans' as a cover name.

Case in point and closed.
Click to expand...


Or, as Bill Maher would say, "Oh, I kid the professor!" What if someone unbeknownst to us is trying to urge the professor to come out in public, and spoofed his name? Anything is possible really, but it's clear the professor did NOT write the sentiment expressed in the OP. :mrgreen:
 
Fledermaus said:
The irony.... A false flag about a false flag....
Click to expand...

Oh you're just sore Maus, sore about an operation that backfired?

That's were they screw up when they write those scenarios soooo crazily that they don't realize that what is required for the scenario, is against the laws of physics. Or, not in compliance with the laws of physics.

Nor common sense. :mrgreen:
 
Henry David said:
Oh you're just sore Maus, sore about an operation that backfired?

That's were they screw up when they write those scenarios soooo crazily that they don't realize that what is required for the scenario, is against the laws of physics. Or, not in compliance with the laws of physics.

Nor common sense. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

What does that mean in GROWNUP SPEAK?

Your buddy got caught foisting a lie.
 
Henry David said:
Or, as Bill Maher would say, "Oh, I kid the professor!" What if someone unbeknownst to us is trying to urge the professor to come out in public, and spoofed his name? Anything is possible really, but it's clear the professor did NOT write the sentiment expressed in the OP. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

This is the absurd tactic that conspiracy theorists use. Take some bizarre supposition that has no basis in fact and with zero substantiation or evidence, and present it as a likely possibility. Pretty much every proposed theory presented by conspiracy theorists can be defined in that way.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is the absurd tactic that conspiracy theorists use. Take some bizarre supposition that has no basis in fact and with zero substantiation or evidence, and present it as a likely possibility. Pretty much every proposed theory presented by conspiracy theorists can be defined in that way.
Click to expand...

no ****?

aside from the fact its a fallacy, if you think that last statement holds more water than a screen door wanna see if you can go 10 rounds?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/199827-911-planes-hijacked-crashed-into-buildings-so-evidence.html
 
KokomoJojo said:
aside from the fact its a fallacy
Click to expand...

Note he didn't say 'every', and no, it is not a fallacy. Just using 9/11 as an example:

1). Energy Beams and 'dustification'

2). Thermite cutters or Thermite/Thermate/Nano-Therm*te/Supercalafragilistic Thermate

3). Hologram planes, and/or no-planes

4). Mini-Nukes

5). UBL is a CIA asset

6). The 'pull it' myth

7). The Shanksville 'no-plane' fantasy

8). The Pentagon Missile myth

9). The 'Lost Trillions' Myth

10). The Controlled Demolition as a pretext for war fantasy

11). The Silverstein insurance scam myth

12). The 'Dancing Jews' fairy tale

And many more...

None of which can be substantiated. So, in effect the statement: "Take some bizarre supposition that has no basis in fact and with zero substantiation or evidence, and present it as a likely possibility", is not a fallacy. Note he never stated it was a universal rule, but "Pretty much every proposed theory presented by conspiracy theorists can be defined in that way", and based upon the stories promulgated by 9/11 truth, he is correct in his appraisal.
 
KokomoJojo said:
no ****?

aside from the fact its a fallacy, if you think that last statement holds more water than a screen door wanna see if you can go 10 rounds?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/199827-911-planes-hijacked-crashed-into-buildings-so-evidence.html
Click to expand...

Not a fallacy and NWO_Spook is right on target. I do not debate with folks who's entirety of their position is based on the appeal to the absurd logical fallacy. Some remote possibility that has no substantiation is not a fact nor should it be entertained as being a fact. Conspiracy theories are named as such for a reason.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not a fallacy and NWO_Spook is right on target. I do not debate with folks who's entirety of their position is based on the appeal to the absurd logical fallacy. Some remote possibility that has no substantiation is not a fact nor should it be entertained as being a fact. Conspiracy theories are named as such for a reason.
Click to expand...

yeh its a well known pejorative created by the cia to put down anyone who dissented against the official jfk assassination fantasy.

pick your poison! Either way you end up on the short end of the stick LMAO
 
KokomoJojo said:
yeh its a well known pejorative created by the cia to put down anyone who dissented against the official jfk assassination fantasy.

pick your poison! Either way you end up on the short end of the stick LMAO
Click to expand...

No, the short end of the stick always ends up with you folks who argue from the appeal to the absurd position. 1000 people with tons of evidence say one thing; one guy who makes suppositions and great and absurd leaps of logic says another and you want to believe the latter. That's OK with me, but other than being an interesting story and lacking logic, there's not much more to it. Makes for good action-adventure fictional stories, though.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Note he didn't say 'every', and no, it is not a fallacy. Just using 9/11 as an example:

1). Energy Beams and 'dustification'

2). Thermite cutters or Thermite/Thermate/Nano-Therm*te/Supercalafragilistic Thermate

3). Hologram planes, and/or no-planes

4). Mini-Nukes

5). UBL is a CIA asset

6). The 'pull it' myth

7). The Shanksville 'no-plane' fantasy

8). The Pentagon Missile myth

9). The 'Lost Trillions' Myth

10). The Controlled Demolition as a pretext for war fantasy

11). The Silverstein insurance scam myth

12). The 'Dancing Jews' fairy tale

And many more...

None of which can be substantiated. So, in effect the statement: "Take some bizarre supposition that has no basis in fact and with zero substantiation or evidence, and present it as a likely possibility", is not a fallacy. Note he never stated it was a universal rule, but "Pretty much every proposed theory presented by conspiracy theorists can be defined in that way", and based upon the stories promulgated by 9/11 truth, he is correct in his appraisal.
Click to expand...

Lets use 911 as an example!

How about anticonspiracy theorist loony toon debunkers?

1) buildings that fall faster than gravity is capable of pulling them down?

2) How about the building 7 where debunkers claim the building fell but the paint continued to stand.

3) Then there is the wtc facade was made of glass.

4) How about the thermate cutter charges they claimed did not exist but did.

5) claim massive fires in wtc 2 but cant put their finger on it.

6) cant explain what evidence is but demand to see it.

7) Oh and 4 planes but cant find enough wreckage to fill a radio flyer!



Not a shred of evidence to prove the official story!

1). Energy Beams and 'dustification'
Proven to exist

2). Thermite cutters or Thermite/Thermate/Nano-Therm*te/Supercalafragilistic Thermate
Proven true to be extremely functional



Here they are in action! Look how well they work!


3). Hologram planes, and/or no-planes
Proven true, no wreckage and cgi, not "holograms".

4). Mini-Nukes
Proven true, mrr's been around since 1950's.

5). UBL is a CIA asset
Proven true, a member listed in the cias al qaeda.

6). The 'pull it' myth
Proven true by demolition experts.

7). The Shanksville 'no-plane' fantasy
Proven fact, No wreckage, no plane

8). The Pentagon Missile myth
Unproven either true or false.

9). The 'Lost Trillions' Myth
Proven true rumsfelt admission

10). The Controlled Demolition as a pretext for war fantasy
Proven true, war was declared as a result.

11). The Silverstein insurance scam myth
Proven true, one claim turned down

12). The 'Dancing Jews' fairy tale
Proven true by their own admission

The only thing I see coming from the anticonspiracy crowd is blind ignorance to bog down the threads and force truthers to teach them what they should have but didnt learn in the government schools.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, the short end of the stick always ends up with you folks who argue from the appeal to the absurd position. 1000 people with tons of evidence say one thing; one guy who makes suppositions and great and absurd leaps of logic says another and you want to believe the latter. That's OK with me, but other than being an interesting story and lacking logic, there's not much more to it. Makes for good action-adventure fictional stories, though.
Click to expand...

SHOW ME!





FFS show me the debris from the 4 planes already!

Crashed planes are always completely policed so lets see it! OR do you really expect me to believe it when you cant produce it? Do ya? Now thats absurd.

I have asked for all this material evidence countless times and debunkers simply go silent move along their merry way.

And btw lean to popular opinion has no bearing on the facts or truth of an argument.


but nice try.

and as you can see, despite your incorrect labeling, not 'supposition', and naked assertions as you and nwo made but pure kick ass material evidence.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is the absurd tactic that conspiracy theorists use. Take some bizarre supposition that has no basis in fact and with zero substantiation or evidence, and present it as a likely possibility. Pretty much every proposed theory presented by conspiracy theorists can be defined in that way.
Click to expand...

Where did I claim it to be likely?
 
KokomoJojo said:
Lets use 911 as an example!
1). Energy Beams and 'dustification'
Proven to exist

2). Thermite cutters or Thermite/Thermate/Nano-Therm*te/Supercalafragilistic Thermate
Proven true to be extremely functional

3). Hologram planes, and/or no-planes
Proven true, no wreckage and cgi, not "holograms".

4). Mini-Nukes
Proven true, mrr's been around since 1950's.

5). UBL is a CIA asset
Proven true, a member listed in the cias al qaeda.

6). The 'pull it' myth
Proven true by demolition experts.

7). The Shanksville 'no-plane' fantasy
Proven fact, No wreckage, no plane

8). The Pentagon Missile myth
Unproven either true or false.

9). The 'Lost Trillions' Myth
Proven true rumsfelt admission

10). The Controlled Demolition as a pretext for war fantasy
Proven true, war was declared as a result.

11). The Silverstein insurance scam myth
Proven true, one claim turned down

12). The 'Dancing Jews' fairy tale
Proven true by their own admission

The only thing I see coming from the anticonspiracy crowd is blind ignorance to bog down the threads and force truthers to teach them what they should have but didnt learn in the government schools.
Click to expand...

What a pack of lies. Obviously, you need to bone up on the subject a bit more. Energy beams and dustification? LOL

It is clear you completely missed the point in your zeal to insult those opposed to your whacky ideas, but then, that's quite common on here.
 
NWO_Spook said:
What a pack of lies. Obviously, you need to bone up on the subject a bit more. Energy beams and dustification? LOL

It is clear you completely missed the point in your zeal to insult those opposed to your whacky ideas, but then, that's quite common on here.
Click to expand...

Yet is latest post you respond. Isn't it telling he doesn't say anything that applies to 9/11

1). Energy Beams and 'dustification'
Proven to exist

If it exists, does that mean it was used to take down the towers? Nope.

Koko's whole list is that way. And not all statements by K are true., but K knows that.
 
mike2810 said:
1). Energy Beams and 'dustification'
Proven to exist

If it exists, does that mean it was used to take down the towers? Nope. Koko's whole list is that way.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is how he makes 9/11 truth look stupid. He shows us that something exists and then the states emphatically that it is conclusive proof of the said item's usage on 9/11. Of course, anyone with the lowest grasp of logic can discern that it is merely a desperate ploy, but Barnum knew his audience well.


And not all statements by K are true., but K knows that.
Click to expand...

Damn few, if any are true in my experience.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Exactly, that is how he makes 9/11 truth look stupid. He shows us that something exists and then the states emphatically that it is conclusive proof of the said item's usage on 9/11. Of course, anyone with the lowest grasp of logic can discern that it is merely a desperate ploy, but Barnum knew his audience well.




Damn few, if any are true in my experience.
Click to expand...

Yep, if he responds one of the most common used reply will

prove that energy beams were not used on the Towers.

(reverse burden of proof).

Pretty much why I read his post for fun, but don't reply much any more. Its a childish game.
 
mike2810 said:
Yep, if he responds one of the most common used reply will

prove that energy beams were not used on the Towers.

(reverse burden of proof).

Pretty much why I read his post for fun, but don't reply much any more. Its a childish game.
Click to expand...

I understand, I just like exposing his lies.

Note the following examples:

. The 'Lost Trillions' Myth
Proven true rumsfelt admission
Click to expand...

No, this is false. The funds were recovered. 9/11 truth continues to push this as a fact and it is false.

10). The Controlled Demolition as a pretext for war fantasy
Proven true, war was declared as a result.
Click to expand...

See how he tries to manipulate the information? Sure war was declared as a result of the attack, but what he is trying to do is imply that was a result of a 'false flag'. Of course that is nonsense as we both know, and he has no proof that the WTC was engineered as a pretext.

11). The Silverstein insurance scam myth
Proven true, one claim turned down
Click to expand...

This is just a lie. Silverstein IRCC challenged the initial payout figure. Whatever the case, the insurance companies payed him out, thus absolving him of any culpability in a supposed 'scam'. The story in itself is too ridiculous for the average IQ, but 9/11 truth will peddle it at least until the money stops flowing.

12). The 'Dancing Jews' fairy tale
Proven true by their own admission
Click to expand...

See, again he uses half-truths to mendaciously try and gain some credibility? Sure, they watched the attacks and they admitted it on Israeli television, however, any involvement in the attack is sheer fantasy.


So his tactics have been exposed yet again, but it won't stop 9/11 truth from telling lies and making up dumb stories.
 
mike2810 said:
Yep, if he responds one of the most common used reply will

prove that energy beams were not used on the Towers.

(reverse burden of proof)...
Click to expand...
He also has his own parody definition of "burden of proof" - intended to fool truthers. (the amusing aspect is that it is circularly self defeating - he uses his false definition of burden of proof to avoid his burden of proof to prove his claim that the definition of burden of proof is......<< and THAT is the "simplified version". :mrgreen:
mike2810 said:
Pretty much why I read his post for fun, but don't reply much any more. Its a childish game.
Click to expand...
thumbup.gif
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Why post a supposition so absurd as to violate any reason then?
Click to expand...

Since when does "what if" equate to "probably" ?

Why is the scenario absurd? Do you know the professor? His friends and acquaintances?

I see it as a possible and plausible scenario, nothing more.
 
You do realize the Professor involved denies writing that letter, don't you??
 
Yes RAMOSS, that was determined several days ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom