#911truthwinning: A call to all infowarriors aka how i learned to stop worrying and love Charlie Sh

Originally posted by bsbray11

Study the part where I quote myself. I quoted my own post that came immediately before yours, to respond to what you said. I responded to what you said, before you said it. Because I knew where you would choose to take issue with my words, again picking a totally worthless semantic argument that has nothing at all to do with 9/11 and everything to do with trolling.

You are literally beyond parody. Did this just go rushing over your head? You used the term you or your ten times, then called me a hypocrite for being personal.

Saying that 9/11 needs to be re-investigated is somehow in disagreement with reason?

Not necessarily, but neither is it scientific, which was your criticism of my comment.

For more clues about whether it's reasonable or not you might look at the other pronouncements of the person who said it.

If you think there is some point to your question then yes, because what will undoubtedly amount to an ad hominem is not by any stretch of the imagination a logical argument about anything.

That literally is a logical fallacy. You're accusing me of probably being about to make an ad himinem. Can you not see how worthless a line of argument that is?

You've been free to draw whatever conclusions about anything all your life, and that's why we're in such a disagreement already. When you draw conclusions you apparently are fond of using fallacious reasoning.

It's fallacious reasoning to assume that because you provide no evidence of any activity to further your desire for a "new investigation" that you haven't in fact done anything? And that your posturing is therefore shallow and fundamentally unserious? I don't think it is, and I'd love to see you try to expalin otherwise without waving me away, packing in words like "logical fallacy" and "semantics", and generally prattling on about how nobody understands you.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
Study the part where I quote myself. I quoted my own post that came immediately before yours, to respond to what you said. I responded to what you said, before you said it. Because I knew where you would choose to take issue with my words, again picking a totally worthless semantic argument that has nothing at all to do with 9/11 and everything to do with trolling.

You are literally beyond parody. Did this just go rushing over your head? You used the term you or your ten times, then called me a hypocrite for being personal.

You should read what the paragraph says instead of counting the words.

Originally posted by bsbray11
semantic argument that has nothing at all to do with 9/11

Or Charlie Sheen, either.


And despite the number of times I used the word "you" or some derivative, you still refuse to apply the same vitriol to your own argument. Yes, I am trying to draw your attention to what you are saying for a change.

It's fallacious reasoning to assume that because you provide no evidence of any activity to further your desire for a "new investigation" that you haven't in fact done anything?

Instead of being able to take my words at face value, you just have to keep confusing yourself don't you? Re-read my earlier post a few more times if you really don't understand. The problem is probably that you never read it to begin with.

I'm not sure what kind of logical fallacy it is to keep repeating "you just don't understand" in order to avoid something, or indeed if it technically is one. But one thing's for sure, it isn't working here, and it's not working in the wider context.

But then it isn't really supposed to, is it?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm not sure what kind of logical fallacy it is to keep repeating "you just don't understand" in order to avoid something, or indeed if it technically is one.

The fallacy was the "argument" you were trying to push on the last page of the thread, which was not an argument but trying to get into my personal life to no doubt try to find some ammo to throw some ad hom nonsense. If you were even worth such an "argument" I would just tell you to look in the mirror.



Don't you want to talk about Charlie Sheen anymore?

Don't want to direct your verbal assaults to the man who's winning?

reply to post by bsbray11


I don't understand how you can't get to grips with this. Nothing I've asked you is "personal" in the sense of being related to your private life. Quite the reverse. And it's an intellectually bankrupt line of argument to accuse me of being "about to do something". It may well be your suspicion that I'm about to launch an "ad nominem" attack on you, but until I do it's just baseless supposition.

As for Charlie, he's the spokesperson the Truth Movement deserve. Addled, and superficially impressive to grubby bedroom masturbators.

reply to post by Game_Over


Charlie IS part of the game--the game that's being played on you. He is "in on it"...as are many, many other people of Hollywood. He's doing all this to make it "appear" that he's being brought down by the government for talking about conspiracies in 9/11. By doing so, it makes people not only BELIEVE there is a conspiracy, but it makes people THINK they'll get brought down for talking about it.

reply to post by Game_Over


ugh. charlie sheen is a plague to the movement - i thank god everyday for architects and engineers! if i were convinced that the official story of 9/11 was TRUE, who am i going to listen to?

a drug addict, woman abusing, sex addicted fail actor OR respectable, college degree, architects and engineers?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It may well be your suspicion that I'm about to launch an "ad nominem" attack on you, but until I do it's just baseless supposition.

When you are asking me personal questions (and yes, what I do with this information outside of ATS is my personal life) that have nothing to do with either the OP or anything else about 9/11, I do have a basis to believe you are about to go wildly off-topic with ad hom. There is no other reason you would even ask what "campaigning" I do. I would love to see how you could tie that information into something actually relevant and logical about the OP or 9/11 in general without making it an ad hom towards me. Go ahead and try and see what you come up with. Show me what logical point you were going to make about 9/11 or Charlie Sheen with what I do to "campaign."


And further proof that it's not just "baseless supposition," is the irony of you immediately following this with -- can you guess? -- a disturbingly graphic ad hominem on all 9/11 "truthers":

As for Charlie, he's the spokesperson the Truth Movement deserve. Addled, and superficially impressive to grubby bedroom masturbators.

Who would have thought you would ever resort to such low trash of an ad hom? Oh yeah, me.

On one hand you spend multiple posts denying that you would resort to this fallacy, while simultaneously and blatantly using other examples of it. And you are too unobservant to even notice yourself doing this.

Your phrase "grubby bedroom masturbators" tells me more about yourself than you must realize. It's hilarious to read these kinds of insults from people who have apparently never read any Carl Jung, and don't understand the word "projection." Now I know what you must be doing when you're not sleeping, eating, or trolling ATS, though I would rather you keep those disgusting adjectives to yourself.

Originally posted by bsbray11

When you are asking me personal questions (and yes, what I do with this information outside of ATS is my personal life) that have nothing to do with either the OP or anything else about 9/11, I do have a basis to believe you are about to go wildly off-topic with ad hom. There is no other reason you would even ask what "campaigning" I do. I would love to see how you could tie that information into something actually relevant and logical about the OP or 9/11 in general without making it an ad hom towards me. Go ahead and try and see what you come up with. Show me what logical point you were going to make about 9/11 or Charlie Sheen with what I do to "campaign."

It's interesting that you put the term "campaigning" in quote marks. As though you have some issue with it as a valid form of expression, some residual contempt for it. And yet you claim to have evidence that the government murdered your fellow citizens, but still refuse to explain what you're doing about it, outside of arguing on an obscure corner of the internet.

My contention is that I assume you to be fundamentally unserious about your ideas. Your refusal to explain what efforts you've made to actually bring to justice or even publicise the activities of the perpetrators simply adds to this impression. I'm not interested in your "private life" and it's just idiotic to suggest that I "might be about to insult you". And in fact it comes across rather precious.

A small note - my point is that if what you do outside ATS is indeed all "personal" then you cannot be doing any campaigning, which by its nature is public. My suspicions would appear to be correct.

And further proof that it's not just "baseless supposition," is the irony of you immediately following this with -- can you guess? -- a disturbingly graphic ad hominem on all 9/11 "truthers":

As for Charlie, he's the spokesperson the Truth Movement deserve. Addled, and superficially impressive to grubby bedroom masturbators.

Oh dear. You've made a bit of a mistake. Note that I didn't actually say 9/11 Truthers were "grubby bedroom masturbators". You seem to think they are though... which is kind of telling.

Who would have thought you would ever resort to such low trash of an ad hom? Oh yeah, me.

On one hand you spend multiple posts denying that you would resort to this fallacy, while simultaneously and blatantly using other examples of it.

And you are too unobservant to even notice yourself doing this.

Your phrase "grubby bedroom masturbators" tells me more about yourself than you must realize. It's hilarious to read these kinds of insults from people who have apparently never read any Carl Jung, and don't understand the word "projection." Now I know what you must be doing when you're not sleeping, eating, or trolling ATS, though I would rather you keep those disgusting adjectives to yourself.

edit on 29-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

Interesting that you bring up Jung. His work on archetypes and their relationship with narratives pretty much explains why conspiracists think as they do. Essentially it's deeply comforting to impose some sort of order on the frightening chaos you see in front of you.

But I digress. It's Freud you should probably be concentrating on if you genuinely find masturbation "disgusting".

Of course I'm assuming that you've made yet another error and don't know what an adjective is. Or perhaps you are actually revolted by the word "grubby". Either way you should probably seek help.

I know I said I was finished with this thread but I just couldn't resist.

It's only been a week since the OBL death fraud but notice how quickly the tide has begun to turn this time.

Now that many, MANY more of us are aware, the games don't work as well.

Go ahead and read the comments section on any news site.

Look at what the international news is saying.

Gov't officials are scared. Posters here who cling to fantasies are working overtime trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

It's too late my friends.

Go ahead and repeat this simple phrase to yourself over and over in the mirror...

#911truthwinning

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
My contention is that I assume you to be fundamentally unserious about your ideas.

Well there you have it. The point you are trying to make has nothing to do with the OP or 9/11 in general, but of course is directed at me personally. And furthermore you admit that you "assume" this since I refuse to divulge any personal information at all to you, for good reason which has just been demonstrated: you only try to use it to as ammo to sling insults, because that's the best you can do.

Of course I'm assuming that you've made yet another error and don't know what an adjective is. Or perhaps you are actually revolted by the word "grubby". Either way you should probably seek help.

When you're done ranting about your masturbation sessions and want to get back to something remotely related to the OP, and also not involving insulting me personally, I'll still be here, for better or worse.

Originally posted by Game_Over
I know I said I was finished with this thread but I just couldn't resist.

It's only been a week since the OBL death fraud but notice how quickly the tide has begun to turn this time.

Now that many, MANY more of us are aware, the games don't work as well.

Go ahead and read the comments section on any news site.

Look at what the international news is saying.

Gov't officials are scared. Posters here who cling to fantasies are working overtime trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

It's too late my friends.

Go ahead and repeat this simple phrase to yourself over and over in the mirror...

#911truthwinning

I dont think it has to do with us, it has more to do how it has been presented.

"We killed bin laden, got him good, shot him in the FACE. Body? No sorry we already dumped it in the sea because, because. NO PICTURES ! Buh bye".

I will suggest that it is actually do to "us"!

You see if you could trace 9-11 back to when it happened and if as many people were "aware" of how these operations work then we would have been much more critical of the inconsistancies, omissions and distortions regarding 9-11 AS IT HAPPENED.

If you re-investigate 9-11 you will find that just like the OBL story, it changed and morphed as it happened and eventually turned into the official story.

If as many of us then, were paying attention, as now, we would have turned that tide long ago too.

So I do see a direct correlation.

And that does indeed prove to me that we are #911truthwinning.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Well there you have it. The point you are trying to make has nothing to do with the OP or 9/11 in general, but of course is directed at me personally.

Either you're unaware of how argument develops, or you've forgotten the progress of this thread.

If you remember, you became irate at the notion that 9/11 "Truth" wasn't "winning". You then admitted that "most Americans" haven't heard of Building Seven.

I remarked that this must be rather galling for the truth movement, since they have apparently been publicising "obvious" evidence of a demolition of that building for a decade. Indeed it's hardly redolent of a "winning" strategy. I also remarked that this was probably because in actual fact there is very little campaigning done.

This angered you, and you talked about demonstrations and campaigns and so forth, none of which you claim to have attended or aided. This, it's my contention, is typical of someone who ascribes to 9/11 Truth conspiracies, and is just one of many reasons not to take the pronouncements of the TM particularly seriously.

You became obsessed with the notion that I was trying to smear you personally, even though you admitted I hadn't. You persist with the idea that my asking if you have been involved in 9/11 Truth campiagning is a personal question, which is laughable. Further, your chief reason for umbrage at the query appears to be the mystifying conviction that I will somehow mount an ad hominem attack with the information.

Either way, this point - which is subsidiary, yes, but not entirely OT - is secondary to the thrust of the thread, which is that victory for 9/11 Truth's narrative is assured. You admit that

- most Americans haven't heard of building seven
- most pepole haven't even looked at the evidence regarding 9/11
- a reinvestigation remains unlikely

In my book that doesn't constitute "winning".

When you're done ranting about your masturbation sessions

Where have I done that?

You are a hypocrite. Not only do you frequently mount ad hominem attacks, but you also lie about what I've written. If those weren't your constant whines about others' posts this would still be an impoverished stance. But given that all you bang on about is how people are trying to smear you and lie about you it's really quite unbeleivable.

Except of course it's not, because cultists always exonerate their own behaviour even when it falls below standards they expect of others. Because they are on the side of righteousness, so any tactic is permissable.

And you definitely don't know what an adjective is.

and want to get back to something remotely related to the OP, and also not involving insulting me personally, I'll still be here, for better or worse.

edit on 6-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

I know you'll still be here. Still "winning" in your mind on a little corner of the internet. While outside, in a forum you apparently refuse to engage with, 9/11 Truth becomes ever more vapid and irrelevant.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well there you have it. The point you are trying to make has nothing to do with the OP or 9/11 in general, but of course is directed at me personally.

Either you're unaware of how argument develops, or you've forgotten the progress of this thread.

If you remember, you became irate at the notion that 9/11 "Truth" wasn't "winning".

Nope, already you screwed the context of the conversation up.

I know you could write a book of nothing but sarcastic comments and personal attacks, but I'm still waiting on some kind of logical argument, that's actually relevant to the OP or even 9/11 in general. Scummy comments on internet forums only serve as an emotional outlet to what would otherwise surely give you cancer.


You could even redirect your insults to Charlie Sheen himself, and it would at least be more on topic, and you would still be able to insult someone (though it still would also not amount to a rational argument). Tell me that wouldn't be a win-win situation.

reply to post by bsbray11


I don't know if you've become confused, or if you're just emotionally stretched by this sort of thing because you're overinvested or something. I don't really care. But your responses are just meaningless. I haven't insulted you and I haven't become personal towards you. My posts are on topic - the last one specifically lays out an argument related to the exact subject of this thread.

I suspect that you're simply resorting to this strategy of pretending to be disgusted and insulted because you've run out of ideas. You need to maintain your belief and in the face of cogent argument you can't. So - ironically - you have to convince yourself that I've crossed some behavioural or moral threshold. It's not particularly edifying, to be honest.

Wait... Charlie Sheen, the one that was found with the and I quote "boat load of coc aine" and strippers? Reliable?

reply to post by Game_Over


So, Troofers,

Now that you have declared victory, will you be going home and moving on?

reply to post by bsbray11


Thanks for your answers in this thread, you have been very polite in the face of a hypocrite.

And to a general point - how can we not believe in these types of conspiracies, after all its a fact that nearly the entire world's media is controlled by a small handful of poeple (see Chomsky et al) and that laws and taxes are made to help the rich - read more history.

Two totally global fake wars and all we get is some guys going 'oh if you believe it you are grubby, no come-backs"

If the question is 1984 then the answer really is 1776.

Peace and keep up on the whole deny ignorance thing.

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Thanks for your answers in this thread, you have been very polite in the face of a hypocrite.

I assume you mean me.

Perhaps you can point out instances of my hypocrisy?

Or failing that - which you most likely will - have a go at showing where 9/11 Truth is "winning". If you manage the latter at least you'll be on topic.

If you can't do either I imagine we'll have to surmise that your post was something of a failure.