Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: Kintaro on 17 November 2005, 16:33
-
http://forum.kintarolabs.org//index.php?topic=150.0
-
Yeah ... so very true. Uhhh ... next step is ?
Protests ... Bush says: they have the right to stay out there (thinking: I dont care, I can do anything I want ... they can kiss my ass)
I've been there, I've seen the look on the protestors' faces ... disappointment is an understatement
Vote against Bush ? Supposedly he can't go for a third term in office ... I don't think too much stands in his way ... also I think they might have "accidetally" lost a few of the rivals' ballots or had a few undead people vote ... like there is any way to check ... like your vote makes a difference (the electoral college decides ... and yes they can go against the popular vote ... and yes thier pockets are large
It looks bleak to me ... a tidbit of hope (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1117/p01s01-uspo.html)
Oh almost forgot ... I'm predicting US invades Syria and Iran simultaneously in 1 to 4 months (December - January) ... based on how long it took the Iraq war to start (I might be wrong)
Hey and that's a nice picture of you ... is it you ?
-
Laukev7 can tell you some interesting facts about the voting machines.
Also, the voting system in America is pretty easy to just 'modify' the database and the vote outcome. It has been shown to be very easily done on an MSNBC article a while back.
-
Hmmmm ... so this is an online database ?
-
I've just been to newamericancentury.org. It's a fucking joke. They support the idea of "American global leadership". Fuck that. If there is to be a world government they have to grow the fuck up and realise that a little line on a map means utterly nothing. I think that a world government would be interesting, even good if it was done properly. But part of doing it properly is realsing tht the world is round, we all live on the same one and that the only place countries exist is in our heads, there are no borders in nature. FUCK PATRIOTISM!
@H_TeXMeX_H, I went to that link and it's slightly reassuring that their "drawing a line in the sand" as they put it. The only problem is that they are not doing it because it's wrong but that the polls are dropping.
-
I wrote an essay about the PNAC for Political Science last year (posted here (http://www.heatedebates.com/viewtopic.php?t=2710)). Those same people called for a 'new Pearl Harbor' event in a document published a year before 9/11.
If you would look at the signatures of their manifesto, you would notice that many of the original founders (including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) are high officials of the Bush regime.
-
What kind of explosive set-up can take a shower of burning fuel and hot metal, have several floors taken out of it, destroy a section of the cental column here ALL of the wiring runs through. And still explode on command. All without being detected.
Hell, I'd be impressed if the evil boogeyman government could conspire to deliver my mail correctly.
-
They probably hired a very good demolition company ... you're right, they are way too clumsy and error ridden to do it themselves.
-
What kind of explosive set-up can take a shower of burning fuel and hot metal, have several floors taken out of it, destroy a section of the cental column here ALL of the wiring runs through. And still explode on command. All without being detected.
Hell, I'd be impressed if the evil boogeyman government could conspire to deliver my mail correctly.
That's funny, no one said anything about explosives. But it looks like the possibility that your beloved government would stage events to fulfill its agenda gets you riled up.
-
So nobody really died in the attacks ? or were they already dead ?
-
How the FUCK do you do a controlled demolition without explosives.
DO NOT FUCKING STRAWMAN ME YOU TURD.
Me getting "worked up" is irrelevant. I am only concerned about the facts. Don't try to bullshit around with your appeal to emotion.
-
Why wouldn't anyone have died? They were murderous enough to send more than 2000 young people to their deaths based on lies.
How the FUCK do you do a controlled demolition without explosives.
Who talked about a controlled demolition?
-
It is IN THE FUCKING FLASH THAT KINTARO LINKED.
Recognise this? It's what you are doing.
(http://www.saulmoran.com/strawman.jpg)
-
My, aren't you angry, skyman. ;)
BTW, that picture is really you!
Awesome flash, Kintaro!
-
Appeal to emotion.
Besides, you get pretty pissed off at me when we debate on other things. I don't pussyfoot around things and don't act angry. So fuck off if you don't have a real argument.
-
Appeal to emotion.
You're mixing up your fallacies, skyman. That's not an appeal to emotion, since I wasn't arguing anything, as you admitted yourself.
-
oohhh ohhhh ... heated debate here, wonder who's gonna win
come on you know you wanna duke it out :D
here is me ... click it NOW !!!
(http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/7043/bloodytinman5uu.th.jpg) (http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bloodytinman5uu.jpg)
who says you can't edit with the gimp ? made this in 5 min ... most of it was finding the image to modify ... what you don't like my masterpiece here :(
-
What kind of explosive set-up can take a shower of burning fuel and hot metal, have several floors taken out of it, destroy a section of the cental column here ALL of the wiring runs through. And still explode on command. All without being detected.
Hell, I'd be impressed if the evil boogeyman government could conspire to deliver my mail correctly.
If there were explosives they wouldn't need to be very close to the impact and I'm sure you can build very resistant explosives these days.
-
You know, that picture DOES look like me, you weaken my argument so you can easily tear it down. A strawman.
A controlled demolition requires a large degree of engineering, and modification of the structure of the building itself. You don't just stick a bunch of TNT by a column and hope for the best.
Linear shaped charges don't do their work by blast effects. They actually cut the metal like a knife. A focused jet of molten metal is created by the charge. The jet cuts through the metal. This requires placing the charges at a very specific orientation and distance from the metal. This is where all the prep time comes in. Metal has to be exposed. Holes are cut in beams to allow the charges to be placed. It's not as simple as Hollywood would have you believe. The way the WTC was designed and built, the charges would have to use valueble office space. the hell it wouldn't be noticed. There is no evidence for the WTC to have been demolished by a controlled demolition.
-
There is no evidence for the WTC to have been demolished by a controlled demolition.
No shit there isn't, it was shipped off to China (http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm).
-
The steel that was shipped off was steel that could not be identified, NIST took samples from the steel that they could identify from where in the building, and it helped in their investigation of the collapse. It is the steel from the periphery and stuff that was mangled beyond recognition that got mangled.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Try harder next time.
-
and it helped in their investigation of the collapse.
Whose investigation? The one sponsored by the government? The very same investigation that's being questioned?
-
Look you little shit. You can disagree with the conclusion, but I am talking about COLD HARD FACTS. If you want to deny the inclusion of the data that NIST took from the collapse site samples. Then you have NOTHING but a few pictures to stand on. YOU CAN'T HANDWAVE AWAY EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF ITS SOURCE!
[SIZE=7000]YOU HAVE PROVIDED ZERO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF THE WTC COLLAPSE BEING A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. NOW ADDRESS MY FUCKING POINTS.[/SIZE]
-
YOU CAN'T HANDWAVE AWAY EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF ITS SOURCE!
Yes I can. Evidence can be fabricated. The government that conducted the investigation was the same one that fabricated evidence to invade Iraq, and I will only trust the analysis of an independent investigation.
-
Iraq is irrelevant to this discussion. This is strictly about the collapse of the WTC. DON'T CHANGE TO THE FUCKING SUBJECT.
Show me evidence of the evidence in question being fabricated. Not iraq, or any tangential examples, but evidence of the WTC collapse evidence itself being faked.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
-
Iraq is irrelevant to this discussion.
Iraq is irrelevant, but the fact that your government is a bunch of liars isn't. In court, when a person is found guilty of making up evidence, then he is discredited.
Show me evidence of the evidence in question being fabricated. Not iraq, or any tangential examples, but evidence of the WTC collapse evidence itself being faked.
You can't present evidence that they fabricated the evidence unless they make it available. That's the point of an independent investigation.
-
The second-hardest thing to prove is a conspiracy (incidentally, Sauron, for the same reason you cited - absence of evidence be not necessarily evidence of absence).
[offtopic]Anybody care to guess at the hardest? ;)[/offtopic]
-
Unless you show you show me factual evidence that the evidence that NIST gathered is faked. IT FUCKING STANDS. You are trying to send me off on a tangent. NOW WORK WITH WHAT YOU FUCKING HAVE.
The government lied about something not relevant to this discussion. Therefore using that is not enout to toss the PHSYICAL EVIDENCE GATHERED.
-
Unless you show you show me factual evidence that the evidence that NIST gathered is faked. IT FUCKING STANDS.
I can't possibly provide you evidence when I have no access to it. You're admitting yourself that I can only look at pictures. I maintain that there are very compelling arguments to be made for controlled demolition, and an independent investigation is needed to verify them.
You've been yelling at me to give you evidence. I'm not the one who came up with the controlled demolition theory, so I'm not the one you should ask for evidence. I'm not an expert, and I don't claim to be. All I can do is search the web for hours for articles, and I can't guarantee that the evidence I will provide will be correct, or will represent the opinions of the experts who analyse the official theory.
You can yell at me for hours to give you evidence or shut up, all I'm going to give you is circumstantial evidence involving political activities. You can type 'shut up' in bold and large characters all you want, but I will remind you that I am currently the one, aside from two other members, who has the authority to arbitrate on who gets to speak.
-
So, you have no information to back up your story. It rests on the idea that the evidence that is out there is faked, without any proof of forgery. I can't buy that tale.
Nice appeal to authority there. Your argument wins because you are a mod. :rolleyes:
-
So, you have no information to back up your story. It rests on the idea that the evidence that is out there is faked, without any proof of forgery. I can't buy that tale.
'My' story? I'm not the one who posted the flash. My only story is that the PNAC called for a 'new Pearl Harbor' event in its policy document. You can try to refute that as much as you want; the writing is on page 51 of the pdf file.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)
As for my 'appeal to authority', your indiscriminate use of fancy-sounding classifications shows how little you know about real logics. I'm not appealing to authority, because my reminder that you don't have the power to shut me up has nothing to do with my argument.
In fact, you were getting so worked up trying to defend the Bush regime that you didn't even notice that I never actually took part in your debate. You're shrieking alone and making yourself look ridiculous.
-
It's pretty difficult to garner humor from complete arrogant brain-washed dolts, but after reading Laukev's posts I realised now it's not that hard.
The bombing of the WTC was staged? Are you out of your mind?
-
"Defending the 'Bush regime'" The only point I have been making is that the idea of a controlled demolition does not fit the data we have. You were defending the idea of a controlled demolition, THAT was the debate. Don't try to play this off on me like it is my fault.
You only continued this "debate" by goading me on because you wanted to make me look like an ass? Did I read that right?
-
The bombing of the WTC was staged? Are you out of your mind?
Like the guys who planned to crash their own airplanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods) to justify an attack on Cuba, you mean?
-
Like the guys who planned to crash their own airplanes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods) to justify an attack on Cuba, you mean?
Funny, I thought that Robert MacNamara AND Kennedy rejected that plan. Which DID NOT involve the killing of american civilians.
The US military has plans FOR EVERYTHING. Thats just one of them.
-
Funny, I thought that Robert MacNamara AND Kennedy rejected that plan.
They weren't neocons, and they did intend to kill Cuban refugees And Kennedy wasn't a total moron like Bush.
-
Just what the fuck is a "neo-con" I keep hearing it being thrown around like it is the boogeyman. I would like to know just what a neocon it.
-
Just what the fuck is a "neo-con" I keep hearing it being thrown around like it is the boogeyman. I would like to know just what a neocon it.
People bent on fucked up shit like 'American global leadership' who lie to their people and use 'pearl harbor' events to justify wars of conquest.
-
I have made NO MENTION of my personal political standing in this thread. DO NOT FUCKING STRAWMAN ME YOU TARD.
I can't make it any clearer than this. No data = no conspiracy. End of story. You have no conclusive evidence of a conspiracy, you have no conspiracy.
-
Removed.
-
Do you have any proof that it wasn't? Oh yeah a bunch of people whom are imployed by the government said it wasn't.
-
I don't you realise how LARGE the public sector is in terms of employment. Not every government employee is part of some huge conspiracy. And since the mechanism proposed by the official report fits the data. It works, simply as that.
-
No shit there isn't, it was shipped off to China (http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm).
An error occurred while loading http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm:
Unknown host http://www.china.org.cn
-
The second-hardest thing to prove is a conspiracy (incidentally, Sauron, for the same reason you cited - absence of evidence be not necessarily evidence of absence).
[offtopic]Anybody care to guess at the hardest? ;)[/offtopic]
hmmm hardest thing to proove ... what could it be, what could it be ... could it be ... prooving that God exists in the real world (not only in your head) ?
P.S. There's enough :mad: anger :mad: in this thread to fuel my car for 1 billion years (if anger could be used as fuel of course)
-
An error occurred while loading http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm: (http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm:)
Unknown host www.china.org.cn (http://www.china.org.cn)
Remove the trailing colon.
-
Bush is more of a wingnut than even Ballmer IMO...
-
Oh man...
I thought we got rid of this crap from this forum. Can this political shit and take it to heatedebates.com. This is a fucking COMPUTER FORUM.
-
Omg Nott Fuckkkingggg Polllllatikkkkkk$!
Polllllatikkkkkk$ $ux Fuckkkingggg $hitttttttt!
-
HELLO, I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU, UNINFORMED PEONS, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO THE WTC, AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE.
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES:
BUSH, ISRALE, EX-KOMMUNIST OFICIALS, CHINEZE, MEKSICANS.
ITS COMONLY KNOWN THAT TEH ISRAELIS AND THE AMERIKKANS AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ARE GOOD FRIENDS AND ARE SO GOOD THAT THEY WOULD HAVE POLITICAL BUTT SEX SO TO SPEAK. BCUZ TEH ZIONIST PIGDOG ROBOTS R TRYING 2 TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND THE AMERIKANZ R TRYING 2 DO TEH SAME THING THEY TEAMED UP AGAINST THE STUPID ARABS BECAUSE ARABS ARE MEAN AND MAKE ME SAD ( :( ) AND THEN TOOK OVER PLANE TO CRASH INTO ARABS IMPORTANT BUILDING LIKE THE U.N AND THE MEXICAN EMBASY IN IRAK AND ANYWAY THEY GOT CONFUSED AND CRASHED THE FIRST PLANE INTO WTC BUT THEN THEY REALIZED "OOPS WERE DUM " SO THEY CALLED OTHER PLANES AND TOLD THEM 2 ATTACK TEH U.S BECAUSE IT WOULD LOOK LIKE ARABZ DID THAT SO THEY WOULD KILL THE ARABS IN RETURN WITH A CAUSE AND THEN EUROPE AND FRENCH BCUZ ITS COMMONLY KNOWN THAT THE FRENCH AND OR EUROPEANS ARE FULL OF FAGS AND ARRTABS AND FAGS AND ALSO THEY LIKE ORAL SEX WITH TEH SAME SEX LOL WUT A BUNCH OF FAGS LOL WORD? SO ANYWAY THE CHINESE DONT LIKE US SO THEY DECIDED TO ALSO ATTACK PENTAGON AND THEN EVERYBODY WOULD THINK THAT THEY DIDNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT SO IT WOULD BE LIKE A STEALTH ATTACK IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, AND I MEAN A STEALTH ATTACK BY THE CHINESE. AND THEN THE AXE-COMMIES THOUGHT H"EY MAYBE IF THE CHINESE DID THIS WE CAN DO IT TOO AND WE WILL HELP THE COMMIEUNIST CAUSE BY BLOWING THINGZ UP" SO THEY TRIED DOING THIS AND ALSO CRASHED INTO THE BUILDING AND THEN THEIR SECOND PLANE THEY HIJACKEDD SLAMMED INTO GROUND BECAUSE CAPPIE PIG-DOGS STOPPED THEM.
DISKUSS.
[SIZE=0]This sentence is to stop vB from uncapitalizing the post.[/SIZE]
-
Plagiarised. (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-5542.html)
-
Plagiarised. (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-5542.html)
His point wasn't to be original.
-
His point wasn't to be original.
No, but he didn't attribute his source. He keeps annoying people with 'OMG AD HOMIENM!!1, then he should stick to his standards.
-
No, but he didn't attribute his source. He keeps annoying people with 'OMG AD HOMIENM!!1, then he should stick to his standards.
Ad Hominem is discounting an argument because of its source, you dick.
If anybody reading this thread has any questions regarding 9/11. I strongly suggest that you read this thread at Bad Astronomy on the subject. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793) It is very informative, and full of good information on the subject.
-
Here's a more complete ressource, with both sides of the issue:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=0 (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108&st=0)
Keep up calling me names, skyman. People are going to sympathise with you.
-
Ad Hominem is discounting an argument because of its source, you dick.
Cannot this be valid? Say a, normal, child saying that relativity is all BS?