Creative Speculation

Ace Acme

(1,464 posts)

18. The silliness was entirely yours.

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 01:28 PM

Oct 2013

I started out by correcting your silly claim that the "conspiracy theorist" label was not applied to non-conspiracist skeptics of the official accounts--a claim as absurd as claiming that the "communist" label has never been applied to non-Marxists.

You then made a non-sequitur response asserting that conspiracy theorists are not non-conspiracists--which is true, but has nothing to do with defending your stupid claim above.

You then accused me of having a reading comprehension problem, and called me a conspiracy theorist--nicely contradicting your original claim.

And that was when the thread had "substance". It's been silly since comment 1. You made it so.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

115 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory" [View all] damnedifIknow Jul 2013 OP

The sad thing about this interview... William Seger Jul 2013 #1

If you've never seen the "conspiracy theorist" label applied to anyone Ace Acme Oct 2013 #2

Bullshit. Conspriacry theorists don't "QUESTION" the official account William Seger Oct 2013 #3

You've changed the spec. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #4

Your compulsion to respond to every post William Seger Oct 2013 #5

You claimed that the "conspiracy theorist" label was not applied to legitimate skeptics Ace Acme Oct 2013 #6

LOL, are you walking back your "competent demolitionist" theory? William Seger Oct 2013 #7

Non sequitur, false dichotomy, straw man nonsense nt Ace Acme Oct 2013 #8

Priceless! William Seger Oct 2013 #9

And now we can add argument-by-emoticon to the list Ace Acme Oct 2013 #10

Except that wasn't intended as an argument William Seger Oct 2013 #11

Non sequitur, false dichotomy, straw man nonsense was your attempt at an argument nt Ace Acme Oct 2013 #12

Actually, that post wasn't an "argument" either William Seger Oct 2013 #13

I'm glad we agree on that. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #14

LOL William Seger Oct 2013 #15

When LOL is all you've got it's time to pack it in nt Ace Acme Oct 2013 #16

This silly thread was due for packing in several posts ago William Seger Oct 2013 #17

The silliness was entirely yours. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #18

Nope, it turned silly when you denied being a conspiracy theorist (n/t) William Seger Nov 2013 #19

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #20

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service joeglow3 Nov 2013 #21

Would you prefer the term "truther"? William Seger Nov 2013 #22

So now you're down to argument-by-emoticon and argument-by-label. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #23

Holy crap. zappaman Nov 2013 #24

When and where was it proven? Ace Acme Nov 2013 #25

You haven't actually read the report, have you? (n/t) William Seger Nov 2013 #28

Well, in this case, the argument WAS about the label William Seger Nov 2013 #26

"conspiracy theorist" has become an idiomatic expression Ace Acme Nov 2013 #29

"believed by lazy fools" William Seger Nov 2013 #30

The history of those alleged hijackers' training includes registered addresses Ace Acme Nov 2013 #31

KSM was not being tortured in April 2002 William Seger Nov 2013 #32

Fosri is a liar. His reports can not be verified and he admitted he lied. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #33

So, the best you can do is fart in the general direction of some of the confessions William Seger Nov 2013 #34

You're Quote Mining After I Already Pointed that Out Ace Acme Nov 2013 #35

Intellectual fraud much? William Seger Nov 2013 #38

You're changing the subject from column access to collapse initiation. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #40

Say what?! Changing the subject? YOU claimed easy column access William Seger Nov 2013 #42

Core column access from elevator shafts would have facilitated planting Ace Acme Nov 2013 #44

"I didn't say that..." William Seger Nov 2013 #47

I didn't say that. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #49

Sorry, but I don't take you as seriously as you do William Seger Nov 2013 #50

The distortion is entirely yours. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #51

Again, you want to make your reading comprehension issues my problem William Seger Nov 2013 #53

You're trying to make your mischaracterization of the record my problem. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #55

What "mischaracterization" is that? William Seger Nov 2013 #59

It was possible to access most of the main structural columns from the elevator shafts Ace Acme Nov 2013 #61

No, it was not William Seger Nov 2013 #63

Most of the main structural core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts Ace Acme Nov 2013 #64

You have a peculiar way of dealing with being wrong William Seger Nov 2013 #67

I wasn't wrong Ace Acme Nov 2013 #68

Hmm... could be we just disagree about the meaning of the terms William Seger Nov 2013 #72

This is quite interesting. AZCat Nov 2013 #74

Of course we disagree. You redefine terms to fit your rhetorical needs Ace Acme Nov 2013 #75

Holy cow William Seger Nov 2013 #78

As usual, you know not whereof you speak. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #80

As usual, you attach undue significance to your own interpretation William Seger Nov 2013 #81

NIST lied. The collapses were not explained. The 10 mysteries were not addressed. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #82

NIST did not lie. Collapse propagation had ALREADY been explained William Seger Nov 2013 #83

NIST does not credit Dr. Bazant for explaining the collapse Ace Acme Nov 2013 #84

Newton's Third Law? William Seger Nov 2013 #85

Newton's 3rd Law Ace Acme Nov 2013 #86

You're overlooking something simple William Seger Nov 2013 #87

Yes, when the debris becomes overwhelming, the tower falls. Duh. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #88

Say what? It seems you don't understand what Bazant is saying William Seger Nov 2013 #89

There is no insulating mat in the Verinage demonstrations Ace Acme Nov 2013 #90

This is like "debating" a brick wall William Seger Nov 2013 #91

IOW, your airy handwaving can not defeat fact and physical principles Ace Acme Nov 2013 #92

You can run but you can't hide William Seger Nov 2013 #93

The verinage videos show Newton's Third Law in Action. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #94

Oh, you never said the collapse has to be halted? William Seger Nov 2013 #95

Nobel Prize Awarded to Anonymous Internet Poster Ace Acme Nov 2013 #96

"How could we have been so wrong?" William Seger Nov 2013 #97

The point is irrelevant. Bazant's model does not resemble reality. NIST does not name him. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #98

It wouldn't be irrelevant if you actually wanted your "mysteries" solved William Seger Nov 2013 #99

Bazant's theory bears no resemblance to reality. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #100

You don't UNDERSTAND anything Bazant says William Seger Nov 2013 #101

I understand what he says just fine. What he says bears no resemblance to reality. nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #102

Good comeback. zappaman Nov 2013 #103

When did I show my inability to understand? Ace Acme Nov 2013 #105

You demonstrate it with every post. zappaman Nov 2013 #107

You make empty claims. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #108

Uh huh. zappaman Nov 2013 #109

Your pretenses bear no resemblance to reality William Seger Nov 2013 #104

The game here is not worth the candle of intelligent discussion. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #106

"If I put any effort into any posts..." zappaman Nov 2013 #110

But you've posted 53 times in this thread alone William Seger Nov 2013 #111

You have done far more typing, and far less thinking, than I. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #112

Whatever thinking you have done about Bazant's analysis ... William Seger Nov 2013 #113

I understand Dr. Bazant's analysis just fine. It ain't rocket science. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #114

So your best is to change the subject and try to ignore the fact that your expert Ace Acme Nov 2013 #36

Your dismissal of the confessions was so obviously lame... William Seger Nov 2013 #37

Uncorroborated hearsay accounts from admitted liars are not good evidence. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #39

Confessions to third parties are not considered to be hearsay William Seger Nov 2013 #41

"Confessions" to interested parties that are known to lie to achieve their objectives Ace Acme Nov 2013 #43

I though maybe you'd enjoy researching it yourself William Seger Nov 2013 #45

It is hardly an argument from incredulity to ask you to document your claims Ace Acme Nov 2013 #46

Done, and your predictable response: argument from incredulity William Seger Nov 2013 #52

I didn't "focus" on "paper". It was the first point of many. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #56

Osama's Alleged Confession is a Moot Point Ace Acme Nov 2013 #48

Once upon a time in a cave far, far away.... William Seger Nov 2013 #54

Do you have a point? Ace Acme Nov 2013 #57

Yep, point is: fairy tales don't make OBL's confessions moot William Seger Nov 2013 #58

Sibel Edmonds is not a fairy tale Ace Acme Nov 2013 #60

Bull William Seger Nov 2013 #62

Your claims sure are Ace Acme Nov 2013 #65

There's that reading comprehension thing again. William Seger Nov 2013 #66

There's your selective quoting again. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #69

Your dishonest arguments are becoming tiresome William Seger Nov 2013 #70

Your hysterical blindness is showing. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #71

LMAO William Seger Nov 2013 #73

Your claim that I gave up is fraudulent nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #76

Well, you're not even trying to justify your claim William Seger Nov 2013 #77

You blow so much smoke I don't even remember what my claim was. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #79

(Deleted misplaced reply) William Seger Nov 2013 #27

ah nevermind.. wildbilln864 Feb 2014 #115