What do you believe in that hasnt been proven to exist?

[Cyberman]

"If you can give any other explanation" is a textbook argument from ignorance and a shifting of the burden of proof. I'm not the one trying to present a case; I'm just consideringyours. Present it something I can assess and I will assess it.

[goombah111]

"If you can give any other explanation" is a textbook argument from ignorance and a shifting of the burden of proof. I'm not the one trying to present a case; I'm just consideringyours. Present it something I can assess and I will assess it.

then F**KING ASSESS IT. stop dodging.

this is a debate. if you want me to sit here writing until you believe me then we are wasting our time.

i presented my argument for controlled demolition.

so if you have no argument then we are done here.

this isnt a lecture.

if you want to make an official stance for both of us, i suggest im for Controlled demolition, and im assuming your for Planes. or we can do "muslims vs US gov"

you prove planes, ill disprove planes.

ill prove controlled demo, you disprove controlled demo.

reasonable? or would you like to make your own terms?

[Cyberman]

i presented my argument for controlled demolition.

No you didn't, you gave a pdf paper regarding molten steel and said you believe it was controlled demolition.

If that's your case, then there's nothing to assess. The one thing needs to substantiate the other. I could just as easily give a screengrab from Independence Day and say it was aliens.

Connect the dots. Make me believe what you believe.

so if you have no argument then we are done here.

I don't have a dog in this race. I'm not trying to prove anything, so of course I don't have an argument. I'm listening to yours

if you want to make an official stance for both of us, i suggest im for Controlled demolition, and im assuming your for Planes.

you prove planes, ill disprove planes.

ill prove controlled demo, you disprove controlled demo.

Once again, I'm not making a stance, official or otherwise. We have the situation as presented - the official version, if you like - and you are proposing something other than that. Make me see it.

Still, if you want me to prove planes: (image tucked away out of sensitivity)

---

---

Looks like a plane to me.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, that's always been what's puzzled me about the 9/11 conspiracies. How did these people NOT see planes fly into those buildings? I mean, that's sort of like watching a wildebeest stampede crush a village and then trying to blame all those flat huts on anything BUT wildebeest.

Boru

[goombah111]

Yeah, that's always been what's puzzled me about the 9/11 conspiracies.  How did these people NOT see planes fly into those buildings?  I mean, that's sort of like watching a wildebeest stampede crush a village and then trying to blame all those flat huts on anything BUT wildebeest.

Boru

thats not at all the argument of most theorists.

[Foxaèr]

I believe that believers are batshit crazy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, that's always been what's puzzled me about the 9/11 conspiracies.  How did these people NOT see planes fly into those buildings?  I mean, that's sort of like watching a wildebeest stampede crush a village and then trying to blame all those flat huts on anything BUT wildebeest.

Boru

thats not at all the argument of most theorists.

I didn't present any arguments of any 9/11 crazies (I won't dignify them with the term 'theorists').

Boru

[goombah111]

i presented my argument for controlled demolition.

No you didn't, you gave a pdf paper regarding molten steel and said you believe it was controlled demolition.

If that's your case, then there's nothing to assess. The one thing needs to substantiate the other. I could just as easily give a screengrab from Independence Day and say it was aliens.

Connect the dots. Make me believe what you believe.

so if you have no argument then we are done here.

I don't have a dog in this race. I'm not trying to prove anything, so of course I don't have an argument. I'm listening to yours

if you want to make an official stance for both of us, i suggest im for Controlled demolition, and im assuming your for Planes.

you prove planes, ill disprove planes.

ill prove controlled demo, you disprove controlled demo.

Once again, I'm not making a stance, official or otherwise. We have the situation as presented - the official version, if you like - and you are proposing something other than that. Make me see it.

Still, if you want me to prove planes: (image tucked away out of sensitivity)

---

---

Looks like a plane to me.

good job, you proved planes were there. 

now prove that they took down the towers. i can prove that they couldnt, or at least provide evidence to support it.

so are you going to be part of this discussion or not? 

if not, im not gonna sit here talking to myself

---

thats not at all the argument of most theorists.

I didn't present any arguments of any 9/11 crazies (I won't dignify them with the term 'theorists').

Boru

you said something about them not seeing planes...we saw planes, we just dont think they are the sole reason the towers fell.

especially WTC7
especially WTC7
especially WTC7

[Cyberman]

It's not my thesis that planes dropped those buildings. I'm not trying to prove anything.

Last call - make your case or leave the stage.

[goombah111]

It's not my thesis that planes dropped those buildings. I'm not trying to prove anything.

Last call - make your case or leave the stage.

my thread, gtfo.

i didnt want to prove anything, you asked to discuss it.
if you had any knowledge on this subject you might have shared it by now.
you believe blindly. you must be a theist.