Twoofer Strategy

[eots]

The problem with a new investigation is that truthers will not be satisfied with the "investigation" unless it is done by truthers themselves. If done by anyone else, truthers will claim that they are government puppets.

nonsense...

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition

 

[Synthaholic]

Well kids it's been 9 years and you've gotten nowhere.

It's been nearly 50 years, and the truth about Kennedy's assassination still hasn't come out.

So what's your point?

 

[BrianH]

The problem with a new investigation is that truthers will not be satisfied with the "investigation" unless it is done by truthers themselves. If done by anyone else, truthers will claim that they are government puppets.

nonsense...

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." 911truth[/B].org/joinus.php]Sign the Petition

This says nothing about who will do the investigating; only that they want an investigation. And like I said, truthers will not be satisfied unless it's them who get to do the 'investigating'
Re-read my post, and then re-read your post. Nonsense to you...

 

[PhysicsExist]

The problem with a new investigation is that truthers will not be satisfied with the "investigation" unless it is done by truthers themselves. If done by anyone else, truthers will claim that they are government puppets.

nonsense...

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." 911truth[/B].org/joinus.php]Sign the Petition

This says nothing about who will do the investigating; only that they want an investigation. And like I said, truthers will not be satisfied unless it's them who get to do the 'investigating'
Re-read my post, and then re-read your post. Nonsense to you...

***Senator Gravel read the “Pentagon Papers” into the Senate record in 1971, and thus helped bring an end to the Vietnam war.

The plan for the NEW 2012 California Initiative ​

-Focus attention of the Global 9/11 Truth Movement on an actionable goal

-Necessitate the raising of substantial funds to finance the initiative campaign

-Have a website to facilitate citizen participation, fundraising, and financial transparency

-Seek out and vet distinguished, qualified persons, to serve on the commission

-File identical initiative measures in several states to make the 9/11 Initiative a national issue

-Circumvent the government and the media by going directly to the people

-Result in a commission with subpoena powers and the necessary public funding

-Create an official body untainted by political interests able to pursue the facts surrounding 9/11 regardless of where they lead​

LISTEN TO HIM INTRODUCE THE BILL HERE:
Sen Mike Gravel in Berkeley presents draft for the California 911 Truth Initiative to be on the ballot in Nov. 2012 on Vimeo
Sen Mike Gravel in Berkeley presents draft for the California 911 Truth Initiative to be on the ballot in Nov. 2012 on Vimeo

Investigate Building 7 | A Call to Reexamine the Most Important Event of Our Time - Home

Sir, 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[candycorn]

The record clearly shows that you said you'd start a thread where the stipulations would be in effect. Since the thread never started, the stipulations do not exist--sort of like any evidence of LIHOP. Also; you yourself said, "further negotiation", not 'debate started'.

I made the last proposal; your turn to counter; I'm guessing you're now going to claim some victory (laughs). Whatever gets you through the night.

I'm guessing you'll also ignore the challenge:

Okay...I'll go on without you...please tell us what witness is going to flip when they are placed under oath? Whose story will change? Be specific.

Don't worry, everybody I debate on 9/11 gets their ass handed to them; why do you think rimjob won't debate anybody ever again?

For some reason, you appear to be a very excitable individual.

Actually far from it.

When you're ready to calm down, debate with some semblance of respect, and lose the condescension, we can get started.

No, we still have to agree on rules. You need to modify the insanely easy rules you tried to make for yourself. I understand that the only hurdles you can clear are low hurdles but we're not going to do that.

The bet, from the start, was for you to debate without resorting to insult.

We never got started.

You lost. I can play that game also, but it gets no one anywhere. \

In your mind so of course it is invalid.

The challenge was for me to show how a new investigation is entirely warranted.

No, thats the bullshit standard you tried to suggest. I called you on it and now you don't know what to do. The standard is for you to prove LIHOP as you swear happened. Good to see you've already abandoned your boisterous claims and we haven't even gotten started [laughs]

For you to claim no inconsistency was ever found in the first "investigation" shows this is going to be an easy game.

See, this is what twoofers do. I never said that; I said the word "inaccuracy" on the major points of the 9/11 Commission Report. It would, in fact, be an "easy game" if you're going to mis-quote me 3 times in one sentence.

I'm ready to proceed when you're ready to calm down. If you'd prefer to wait until you're more relaxed after your vacation, that is also fine.

I've already stated:

I made the last proposal; your turn to counter;

I expected to see something this morning but you went with the personal attack No surprise.

 

[candycorn]

Well kids it's been 9 years and you've gotten nowhere.

It's been nearly 50 years, and the truth about Kennedy's assassination still hasn't come out.

So what's your point?

If you're going to claim you can prove X, you have to prove X. Not simply broadcast a lot of conjecture and pass it off as proof.

To Jiggs credit; he's all but come out and said that the controlled demolition and missile crowds are full of shit. He says he can prove LIHOP. I simply set that as the standard; he can't and wants to prove a 4th investigation is needed or, I'm sorry, 'ethically warranted' using the most nebulous of criteria.

 

[Synthaholic]

Well kids it's been 9 years and you've gotten nowhere.

It's been nearly 50 years, and the truth about Kennedy's assassination still hasn't come out.

So what's your point?

If you're going to claim you can prove X, you have to prove X. Not simply broadcast a lot of conjecture and pass it off as proof.

I do not need to prove X in order to call into question the government's official findings. Maybe you believe in magic bullets, but I do not.

To Jiggs credit; he's all but come out and said that the controlled demolition and missile crowds are full of shit.

No he hasn't. He has only stated that he is willing to argue LIHOP.

He says he can prove LIHOP. I simply set that as the standard; he can't and wants to prove a 4th investigation is needed or, I'm sorry, 'ethically warranted' using the most nebulous of criteria.

Wrong again.

How do expect anyone to take your posts seriously when you can barely read comprehensively?

 

[JiggsCasey]

No, we still have to agree on rules. You need to modify the insanely easy rules you tried to make for yourself. I understand that the only hurdles you can clear are low hurdles but we're not going to do that.

What you've done above is admit that a new investigation IS fully warranted, considering you've called my challenge along those lines "insanely easy" to accomplish.

Ironically, you appear to be desperate to RAISE the hurdle so high as to be impossible to clear. That sounds like a person who's not very confident in the official story in the first place. I mean, if this were such an easy game for you, and the Team Bush story so rock solid, we would guess you'd be like "whatever then, game on... you got nothing anyway."

To your crowd, if we don't provide every detail, including Cheney's breakfast order and tie color that morning, then that somehow means nothing has been shown to be nefarious whatsoever. Such a notion is truly laughable, and further evidence of profound hubris by a fading number of Americans who can't stand the idea that their leaders might have facilitated unethical behavior -- despite a long, LONG history of them doing just that.

Essentially, and this is common for coincidence theorists, your defense strategy is like telling the judge: "your honor, unless we can see the entire case, review all witness testimony beforehand, and hear assurance that you might actually rule against us, we insist that you throw the case out. In fact, we're going to leave the court unless you satisfy our every whim before litigation even commences."

We never got started.

In terms of the challenge put to you to actually attempt to debate civilly? We "got started" the moment you said "sure, your move."

You lost the bet. Just deal with it.

The debate can continue, and you can attempt to redeem yourself. It's not too difficult to avoid acting childish. And it will certainly help your position in the view of onlookers. Suggesting I'm "retarded" over and over again will hinder your position, make no mistake.

No, thats the bullshit standard you tried to suggest. I called you on it and now you don't know what to do. The standard is for you to prove LIHOP as you swear happened. Good to see you've already abandoned your boisterous claims and we haven't even gotten started [laughs]

I can assure you, candy, when it comes to 9/11 and the most ruthless administration in U.S. history, I've never not "known what to do" nor "abandoned" any claim. You'll learn that as we go along. It will be you who will be left scrambling for explanation, to the point of amusing extrapolation and coincidence buttressing.

See, this is what twoofers do. I never said that; I said the word "inaccuracy" on the major points of the 9/11 Commission Report. It would, in fact, be an "easy game" if you're going to mis-quote me 3 times in one sentence.

This isn't going to go well for you if you're mired in semantics arguments over the difference between "inaccuracy" and "inconsistency."

I expected to see something this morning but you went with the personal attack No surprise.

There was no personal attack anywhere in my post, even by the most victim-addled rationale. Calling someone an "other retard?" Now that is a personal attack.

Anyhow, despite your objection to the burden of proof level, I'll get to it then. In the next 48 hrs or so, I'm going to create the ultimate "Let it happen on purpose" thread for you and I to dance through. I do hope you have at least read the 9/11 Commission Report, as a crucial frame of reference.

 

[candycorn]

It's been nearly 50 years, and the truth about Kennedy's assassination still hasn't come out.

So what's your point?

If you're going to claim you can prove X, you have to prove X. Not simply broadcast a lot of conjecture and pass it off as proof.

I do not need to prove X in order to call into question the government's official findings. Maybe you believe in magic bullets, but I do not.

Few care what you believe. Fewer are going to do anything about it.

To Jiggs credit; he's all but come out and said that the controlled demolition and missile crowds are full of shit.

No he hasn't. He has only stated that he is willing to argue LIHOP.

He says he can prove LIHOP. I simply set that as the standard; he can't and wants to prove a 4th investigation is needed or, I'm sorry, 'ethically warranted' using the most nebulous of criteria.

Wrong again.

How do expect anyone to take your posts seriously when you can barely read comprehensively?

Don't care; you're responding to me.

 

[candycorn]

No, we still have to agree on rules. You need to modify the insanely easy rules you tried to make for yourself. I understand that the only hurdles you can clear are low hurdles but we're not going to do that.

What you've done above is admit that a new investigation IS fully warranted, considering you've called my challenge along those lines "insanely easy" to accomplish.

Yeah when you use your bullshit "ethically warranted" standard.

Ironically, you appear to be desperate to RAISE the hurdle so high as to be impossible to clear. That sounds like a person who's not very confident in the official story in the first place.

Sorry you're having trouble proving your bullshit theory.

I mean, if this were such an easy game for you, and the Team Bush story so rock solid, we would guess you'd be like "whatever then, game on... you got nothing anyway."

I'll play your game but only on an even playing field.

To your crowd, if we don't provide every detail, including Cheney's breakfast order and tie color that morning, then that somehow means nothing has been shown to be nefarious whatsoever.

Total shit. Now you're just being funny.

Such a notion is truly laughable, and further evidence of profound hubris by a fading number of Americans who can't stand the idea that their leaders might have facilitated unethical behavior -- despite a long, LONG history of them doing just that.

Prove LIHOP and you won't have to worry about any of it.

Essentially, and this is common for coincidence theorists, your defense strategy is like telling the judge: "your honor, unless we can see the entire case, review all witness testimony beforehand, and hear assurance that you might actually rule against us, we insist that you throw the case out. In fact, we're going to leave the court unless you satisfy our every whim before litigation even commences."

Not sure what that means...provide a roadmap to explain your retarded view of the world.

I do know that

Nobody is stopping you from going to any court in the land and presenting your evidence. Yet you're too scared to do so.

Nobody is stopping you from addressing the evidence with every elected official in the land.
Yet you're too scared to do so.

We never got started.

In terms of the challenge put to you to actually attempt to debate civilly? We "got started" the moment you said "sure, your move."

No dickless, you said you were going to start a thread; you never did. If thats the case, you've had 9 years. I say you've had long enough. I'm pronouncing the movement dead. Go home. Is that going to work? No dickless...

The debate can continue, and you can attempt to redeem yourself. It's not too difficult to avoid acting childish. And it will certainly help your position in the view of onlookers. Suggesting I'm "retarded" over and over again will hinder your position, make no mistake.

Your retarded posts make you look retarded. If you can prove something, prove it. If not, well, the "onlookers" can make their own mind up. Rimjob will still be here to give you a Lewinsky whenever you want it.

I can assure you, candy, when it comes to 9/11 and the most ruthless administration in U.S. history, I've never not "known what to do" nor "abandoned" any claim. You'll learn that as we go along. It will be you who will be left scrambling for explanation, to the point of amusing extrapolation and coincidence buttressing.

{laughs}

See, this is what twoofers do. I never said that; I said the word "inaccuracy" on the major points of the 9/11 Commission Report. It would, in fact, be an "easy game" if you're going to mis-quote me 3 times in one sentence.

This isn't going to go well for you if you're mired in semantics arguments over the difference between "inaccuracy" and "inconsistency."

Life hasn't gone well for you since you can't quote people and lie about the importance of doing it. Typical twoofer tactics; seen them over and over. Someone calls you on it and you downplay your dishonesty. Creative Dreams has been sent packing time and again.

I expected to see something this morning but you went with the personal attack No surprise.

There was no personal attack anywhere in my post, even by the most victim-addled rationale. Calling someone an "other retard?" Now that is a personal attack.

Anyhow, despite your objection to the burden of proof level, I'll get to it then. In the next 48 hrs or so, I'm going to create the ultimate "Let it happen on purpose" thread for you and I to dance through. I do hope you have at least read the 9/11 Commission Report, as a crucial frame of reference.

Only after we agree to the rules; 3 posts per side, MLA quoting style, no videos, etc... refer to the earlier posts if you're not too retarded to read them.

 

[JiggsCasey]

LOL.... You just farm-raped the rules. How can we agree to them if you can't even get past rules No. 1 and 2?

You appear very uncomfortable with this challenge. So much so that you've punted to your default persona. Rage isn't going to win the debate for you. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.

 

[candycorn]

LOL.... You just farm-raped the rules. How can we agree to them if you can't even get past rules No. 1 and 2?

You appear very uncomfortable with this challenge. So much so that you've punted to your default persona. Rage isn't going to win the debate for you. Sorry. Doesn't work that way.

What-ever. Sorry I smothered your "ethically warranted" plank in the crib. Awww...and you were counting on that weren't you? (laughs).

 

[JiggsCasey]

Hiding behind such unsolicited and insecure behavior proves you can't do this. It's clear you lack the intellectual capacity to have this discussion. I'll find someone else from your team who can do what you clearly can't. No problem.

Thanks for trying.

 

[candycorn]

Thanks for trying.

Wow, you ran and hid quicker than I thought. Eventually all you retards do. You're not the first; you won't be the last.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Thanks for trying.

Wow, you ran and hid quicker than I thought. Eventually all you retards do. You're not the first; you won't be the last.

No, i didn't run nor hide. I merely prefer to choose a more talented and challenging opponent. Huge difference.

 

[candycorn]

Thanks for trying.

Wow, you ran and hid quicker than I thought. Eventually all you retards do. You're not the first; you won't be the last.

No, i didn't run nor hide. I merely prefer to choose a more talented and challenging opponent. Huge difference.

I'm not going to debate that there are smarter people out there than either of us; but your cowardice is obvious, pronounced, and undeniable. I'll be watching you get decapitated by others. No difference. (laughs).

 

[JiggsCasey]

I'm not going to debate that there are smarter people out there than either of us; but your cowardice is obvious, pronounced, and undeniable. I'll be watching you get decapitated by others. No difference. (laughs).

It your world, it's "cowardly" to refuse to engage in rage-addled, sophomoric banter? I'm just trying to focus on a topic with someone not intensely insecure, that's all. Helps the discussion advance, not remain mired in mud-slinging and Turrets.

It's a shame you couldn't meet the challenge put to you. It would have been enjoyable watching you pretend the 9/11 money trail didn't need to be followed in order for justice to be done.

 

[candycorn]

I'm not going to debate that there are smarter people out there than either of us; but your cowardice is obvious, pronounced, and undeniable. I'll be watching you get decapitated by others. No difference. (laughs).

It your world, it's "cowardly" to refuse to engage in rage-addled, sophomoric banter? I'm just trying to focus on a topic with someone not intensely insecure, that's all. Helps the discussion advance, not remain mired in mud-slinging and Turrets.

I thought you were going to find someone else to bother? I know, it's all about whoever is paying you the attention you so desperately desire...How sad.

No, what is cowardly is to set your threshold of victory so pathetically low then run like a little bitch when someone doesn't let you play by such rules in lieu of an authentic debate.

It was fun watching you deny, deny, back down, and now squeal like a little girl. I was surprised it happened so quickly though.

 

[JiggsCasey]

LOL... The irony is priceless. Take care, candy.

Too bad you couldn't grow up and debate without hiding behind perpetual homophobia.

 

[candycorn]

LOL... The irony is priceless. Take care, candy.

Too bad you couldn't grow up and debate without hiding behind perpetual homophobia.

Project much?

Just to review these are the stipulations you're running from:

Your List:

1. no personal attacks whatsoever. ... not even vague allusions to personal insinuation. Not that we both aren't quite talented at insulting the other, but just to cut through the endless loop of "you're gay/nazi/retarded" nonsense and stay focused.
2. no straw man creation. ... along those lines, agree to read each other's prose very carefully, and only remark on what's been presented, not what one of us THINKS or extrapolates what the other must therefore believe.
3. we both agree to at least speed read each other's presented link, and get the basics down... if not read it entirely, on good faith.
4. we both agree that evidence is not necessarily proof, and can tell the distinction.

My list:

• Links are to be to specific webpages; i.e. I can't point you to cnn.com as my source.
• I move we do not link anything; just cite the source with a website address if applicable but it must include the aurthor's name in your citation (no he said, she said) and when they said it at the very least. I'm envisioning a bibliography; just like you did in European Literature your Freshman year.
• No videos of any kind, all arguments must be made in either your or my words only
• 3 Post limit; You present, I respond, You counter, I counter; summations from us both. Just like most testimony in courts of law are handled (testimony, cross, re-direct, re-cross, closing arguments)
• 3 Day Time Limit. So if you start on Sunday, I have the rest of Sunday, Monday, and most of the day on Tuesday to cross. If I don't respond by Wednesday, I concede. When I respond on Tuesday, you get the balance of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday for Re-Direct. Then I have until Saturday for re-cross. I'm flexible on this one.
• If the thread you create is corrupted by ANY other poster, absolutely no comment is made by either of us pro/con, favor/unfavor, good/bad about the post. It doesn't exist in that thread. Now you can quote it in another thread...like this one for example...but for the debate purposes, you get 3 posts, I get 3 posts; no more, no less.

And in dispute your lame:

• that the burden for me is to show that a new enquiry is ethically warranted. ... not necessarily to provide a conviction.

and my:

1. 9 years have passed; you need to start proving something not just making a "jilted lover's" case. Make your case, I do promise to read every word but the bar is going to be set much higher than "ethically warranted" whatever the hell that means.

All it took was for me to require you prove something and that sent you packing. 9 years; you can't prove anything. Freakin' hilarious!

Well, now run off and find someone else to bother.

To Quote Creative Schemes; it's interesting that when you're asked to prove something you start making homophobia references.
(Laughs).