Conspiracy Debunker Challenge!!
- Thread starter Deadtosin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
maybe you should start a thread
No thanks! LOL! But I did just watch the video you posted in your "where's the plane"? thread, and it does raise some valid points such as some of the eyewitnesses say that one of the planes (the 2nd one I think) went right over their heads "deadly quiet with the engine OFF". You would think a plane going thousands of mph AND flying so low would create a roar that would deafen everyone for life. So why did they not hear any sound? And please don't compare airliners to lawn mowers like Oncefallen did. LOL.
Have anybody ever noticed that she writes 3 paragraphs just to look smart? I suspect she's a wolf in sheep's clothing. She uses intellectual communication to amaze the masses & trick them to believe her. In a nutshell, what she said could probably be put in a sentence or two, but it still makes little sense except to believe the status quo of the government, whose statements never made sense either.
That's priceless. I'm guessing the Apollo moon landings were fakes, and that Pearl Harbor was staged.
Last edited:
So what if she uses 3 paragraph's with her answers? I've written longer replies than that on here in different forums. LOL. That doesnt mean I'm smarter or dumber than anyone else here. Although some ppl might want to debate that--lol!!
Yes, I've noticed that, I've almost addressed it a couple of times but then I decided to take Stephens advice on post 98.
C'mon now, some of you have used at least 6 to 8 paragraphs for your answers! Geesh! 3 paragraphs is nothing.
I'll just say what I've almost said before. If someone writes 3 paragraphs and fills it with long inconsequential words just to eventually state 2 sentences of substance then it becomes almost a way to lose the reader. Many people may not read at a college or above level and may think just by looking at her words that she is making some sort of irrefutable point. When in reality she only had two sentences that actually meant anything at all. I find it tiresome and boring reading sentences like-
"Specialists investigating the collapses almost unanimously disagree that a controlled demolition of any sort is required to understand and reconcile the structural response of the buildings."
word conjunctions like "almost unanimously" "understand and reconcile" structural response"
are all extravagant ways to say very simple things like. "the majority" "explain" "collapse"
C'mon now, some of you have used at least 6 to 8 paragraphs for your answers! Geesh! 3 paragraphs is nothing.
again the point isn't that it's 3 paragraphs, it's the amount of viable information in the paragraphs and as I've shown before a circus of words (in my opinion) designed to throw the reader.
true, true, true..I hate big words..lol..
lol - supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Except they aren't. "The majority" doesn't place enough emphasis on the extent of the consensus, and "unanimous" isn't an extravagant, excessive term by any stretch. "Reconcile" is an appropriate way of describing the way the official consensus fits into the bigger picture with respect to the "structural response" of the buildings, which in describing the events leading to the collapse of the towers implies far more than solely the collapses themselves, but rather how the towers reacted to sudden strains imparted by multiple catastrophic failures at key points in the buildings.
If you'd like to criticize my writing style, fair enough, but you're completely off topic.
Okay, lets play.
"Specialists investigating the collapses almost unanimously disagree that a controlled demolition of any sort is required to understand and reconcile the structural response of the buildings."- yours
"The majority of specialists investigating the collapses disagree that controlled demolition was required to explain the collapse of the towers." - mine.
when we talk about "explanations for how the towers collapsed" any and all structural integrity, gravity, cause and effect are included in that one word "explanations" of what? "how the towers collapsed." All that other jargon is useless.
if you want us to stay on topic please try to be clear, simple and to the point. That way everyone can follow what we are talking about and we don't have to utilize too much effort in communicating. I really don't mind talking to you but this could be FAR more efficient.
if you want us to stay on topic please try to be clear, simple and to the point. That way everyone can follow what we are talking about and we don't have to utilize too much effort in communicating. I really don't mind talking to you but this could be FAR more efficient.
Heh being a big fan of history (especially 20th Century History) I can tell you with verity that Pearl Harbor was not staged.
However, for the moon landing, I used to believe it was real too, but there is actually a fair bit of merit to the theory that the USA may have indeed faked the moon landing completely so as to have a propaganda victory over the Soviet Union.
I know nothing about the moon landing, so sorry, but can't debate that one wit ya!
Those two versions say very different things. It's like reading a bible verse in KJV and reading the same verse in The Message. Her version said exactly what she wanted to convey to the reader. Your version has some of the same information but it leaves out a fair amount of information that was in her version.
Again, "the majority" arguably doesn't emphasize the near-unanimity of the consensus, and can be construed to imply that a significant portion (albeit a minority) of specialists that were investigating would argue otherwise. In other words, it's a choice of diction that can be twisted. I'd also like to stress that "unanimous" isn't a complicated term. Fair enough?
"Of any sort" takes into account the different types of controlled demolitions that could've taken place as far as procedures and materials go, including demolitions using clean-cutting technology that (supposedly) produced the angled cuts cited in photographs that were posted earlier in the thread, which I explained in another post. Make sense so far?
"Understand" and "explain" are two choices of diction that wouldn't be out of place, and neither comes across as superfluous, but "reconcile the structural response of the buildings" is, again, a way of describing, from the engineers' points of view, how the structures responded to sudden strains that eventually produced catastrophic failures in the structural steel, and how this led to the bigger picture -- the collapses themselves.
We could say that the above is still unnecessarily wordy, but that's completely missing the point. I'm trying to coax a more substantive response from you so that we can take this to a more analytical, meaningful level, not devolve the conversation into the same paper-thin rhetoric you've been posting since the thread began.
Last edited:
Amazingly when I read her statement it looks very simple to me. There is no added information. She is explaining that in fact "IT WAS NOT UNANIMOUS" which defeats the purpose of using the word to begin with. "understand and reconcile" gives me no new information beyond "understand" "structural response" may be more specific than the building collapse but again say what you will. The buildings dropped straight to the earth accelerating in speed which by common sense is impossible. You can't "accelerate" through steel and concrete..
Anyway defend what you will good sir. I haven't seen you offer anything into this discussion but scoffing to this point anyway. Save this one defense of our friend here.