Bunyip has a metal bamboo stick be careful xochinla
>Hit a nerve with that one..did I ?
So, when your attempt to argue is a colossal shitpile of nonsense and failure, you take pride in an entertained fantasy that you were able to "hit a nerve". Well then, I suppose congratulations are in order. Stay classy my friend.
>hehehe
So, when your attempt to argue is a colossal shitpile of nonsense and failure, you take pride in an entertained fantasy that you were able to "hit a nerve". Well then, I suppose congratulations are in order. Stay classy my friend.
>hehehe
lol...the last resort of the internet debate loser...wheel out the potty-mouth.
>Bunyip has a metal bamboo stick be careful xochinla
I'm not concerned about the lowest form of intellectual scum that is interested only in irritation of others for its own sake and which cares nothing for truth or genuine inquiry and dialog.
I'm not concerned about the lowest form of intellectual scum that is interested only in irritation of others for its own sake and which cares nothing for truth or genuine inquiry and dialog.
HAHAHA...like shooting fish in a barrel.
>HAHAHA...like shooting fish in a barrel.
Make that self-admitted intellectual scum, pathetically attempting to hide blatant failure to present argument behind the facade of just being a troll... but go ahead and pat yourself on the back a little bit harder for "hitting a nerve", if that's something you need to do to feel proud of yourself.
Make that self-admitted intellectual scum, pathetically attempting to hide blatant failure to present argument behind the facade of just being a troll... but go ahead and pat yourself on the back a little bit harder for "hitting a nerve", if that's something you need to do to feel proud of yourself.
Yes, I saw that you posted hours of videos. You've created a new logical fallacy: ad video argumentum.
Were there jets? Was it demolition? Who did it? Since when has the US needed an excuse to start foreign wars? State *your* 9/11 narrative.
The steel beams didn't melt (they lost strength below their melting temperature) and the buildings didn't freefall.
Were there jets? Was it demolition? Who did it? Since when has the US needed an excuse to start foreign wars? State *your* 9/11 narrative.
The steel beams didn't melt (they lost strength below their melting temperature) and the buildings didn't freefall.
>Yes, I saw that you posted hours of videos. You've created a new logical fallacy: ad video argumentum.
They are just videos. It is the facts and information they contain that need to be addressed as to whether they are true. It would be a fallacy to claim that just because there are some videos that this necessarily means claims are true, just as much as the opposite: the claims are untrue because of posted videos about them. The only meaningful way to proceed is to address the *contents* of the videos, and their veracity (or lack thereof), piece by piece.
Were there jets? Was it demolition? Who did it? Since when has the US needed an excuse to start foreign wars? State *your* 9/11 narrative.
I already did. But you keep asking me to without an adequate response to what I already posted. I'm not going to have this conversation unless you can show some intellectual honesty.
>The steel beams didn't melt (they lost strength below their melting temperature) and the buildings didn't freefall.
We all saw them fall, and it took merely seconds. You have in no way adequately addressed the fact that no such fire could weaken and collapse such a building made of solid steel, and there are no other such examples you can give of that type of building collapsing like that from fire damage. And quite frankly the belief that that could happen indicates such a level of stupidity that I am disinclined to converse further about it unless you can demonstrate something more intelligent other than flat denials of the blatantly obvious.
Besides the physics of the collapse, there is so much more evidence as to the perpetrators of the event, but of course you don't want to address any of that. Unless you have some valid critique of either my statements or the contents of one of the books or videos referenced, or present actual evidence and documentation (as I have done) to counter it (rather than flat assertions), I'm not going to bother even responding to it.
They are just videos. It is the facts and information they contain that need to be addressed as to whether they are true. It would be a fallacy to claim that just because there are some videos that this necessarily means claims are true, just as much as the opposite: the claims are untrue because of posted videos about them. The only meaningful way to proceed is to address the *contents* of the videos, and their veracity (or lack thereof), piece by piece.
Were there jets? Was it demolition? Who did it? Since when has the US needed an excuse to start foreign wars? State *your* 9/11 narrative.
I already did. But you keep asking me to without an adequate response to what I already posted. I'm not going to have this conversation unless you can show some intellectual honesty.
>The steel beams didn't melt (they lost strength below their melting temperature) and the buildings didn't freefall.
We all saw them fall, and it took merely seconds. You have in no way adequately addressed the fact that no such fire could weaken and collapse such a building made of solid steel, and there are no other such examples you can give of that type of building collapsing like that from fire damage. And quite frankly the belief that that could happen indicates such a level of stupidity that I am disinclined to converse further about it unless you can demonstrate something more intelligent other than flat denials of the blatantly obvious.
Besides the physics of the collapse, there is so much more evidence as to the perpetrators of the event, but of course you don't want to address any of that. Unless you have some valid critique of either my statements or the contents of one of the books or videos referenced, or present actual evidence and documentation (as I have done) to counter it (rather than flat assertions), I'm not going to bother even responding to it.
Crap @xochinla
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.