I'm sorry, but it wasn't straightforward at all. It was all over the place with tortured logic, and didn't really convey the straw man you were trying to create. Even when I tried guessing, in the end, for all your hysterics in this follow-up, you still aren't really clarifying what you mean. There's some rambling to sweep single about the Pentagon and "people dying that day," but you continue to avoid the very basic challenge put to you by me. I noticed you disappeared from the Tillman and Iran-Contra coverage you asked for that I provided. Are you learning as you go along?

Perhaps if you tried a different strategy besides rage-posting, your prose might be a bit more clear. Unfortunately, you bore ahead with the Tommy Hearns strategy, and get dominated by Round 3. This exchange is basically over, as you apparently can't really box.

If you want to be an adult, and cover 9/11 as a coincidence theorist with any weight, I'll be happy to engage you. If not, you're really just coming off as a drag on the 15 percenter camp, and I'll turn my focus on a more talented contributor.

Oh, they're quite readable. You're not fooling anyone while you scramble for the escape hatch delivering retreating fire. I'll ask you once more, and then when you ignore it yet again, we can all safely assume you possess situational burdens of proof:

How can someone who recognizes the depravity of men in power at every turn somehow start the 9/11 question from a position of "the U.S. govt would never!!!!"...?

For example, here's you creating a thread about the depravity of U.S. torture:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41...orture-611432/

In the thread, you rely on mere speculation far more that 9/11 alternative theorist do.

"My initial post was a little unclear, the real story here might be that both the Bush and Obama administrations threatened to withhold future information about terrorist activity in England if this information was revealed. Valuing the lives of an allegedly allied nation's citizens below political capital is pretty despicable. The British court is essentially calling their bluff on that."

Ouch.

So, where does the distinction lie for you? Can you flesh it out a bit? How is 9/11 different for someone who so vehemently hates abuse of power?

Still waiting. Why the situational storylines?

No, I win by hammering you with evidence. Over and over again until you address that specific evidence, or have a hissy fit and announce your retreat.

No, you just yell "half-assed nonsense" as many times as you need, louder each time, until your opponent gives up trying to get you to actually participate in the discussion.

Run along, then.

This is the repeated accusation from Fly, that I am a conspiratard. This time he follows up with some baseless psychobabble regarding my motivation for being a conspiratard. This is a simple and see through tactic: attack the poster personally not the argument.

Let's get some perspective here. In this segment of the discussion we are talking about the put options. The question is whether or not the terrorists tried to profit in the american and international securities market via insider trading. That in no way directly implicates the government as a co-conspirator, or any specific target of conspiracy theorists paranoid fears. Most people, including many financial experts and economists, reason that an investigation into this, if done properly, would necessarily lead to Bin Laden and perhaps expose some of his associates and NOT reveal some government conspiracy. So Obama has some shill trading for him in America? This is not validation of any conspiracy theory other than the one you blindly and obediently subscribe to.

Fly has recently added that questioning the official version, which he tries and fails to conflate with conspiratarding, is done by people to make them feel special. Fly, read the opinion polls I have linked to, idiot. Twenty five percent of the world shares my opinion of not knowing what happened. I don't consider that being special. Half of New York City believes in the government let it happen. So even if I was the conspiracy theorist you falsely claim I am, I would still NOT be special but, to the contrary, very typical.

You think this is a min bet but you're actually checking when that's not an option.

Hint: it would be better for your cause if you just didn't say anything rather than make posts of nothing like this which only serve to confirm that you've got nothing.

Ladies and gentlemen, FLY!

LOL wat.

When you tell someone else what his position is, and when you just make that **** up, you should at least try to be plausible. Nobody on Earth, well maybe a few high ranking NK officials, believes that "govt"(What does that even mean?) is always honest, just, and correct.

Why would you interrogate me about such nonsense?

Jiggs,

You did it again! Sentence by sentence. Dude that is not how the English language operates.

And again, just another pro tip, when you're doing that sentence by sentence wild flailing, it's actually super insulting when you keep asking me to defend arguments I didn't make that you guessed at from one sentence removed from context.

Read. For. Comprehension.

How about it was no grand conspiracy, only corresponding interests, maybe, even, letting a few things fly, fly?

I'm pretty sure the English language "operates" by way of sentences, yes.

So now that you've ignored my painfully clear challenge put to you for a third time, we can now safely presume that you can't make a distinction between your "oh noes, the U.S. does tortures!" and "you're a lunatic if you think the govt would do 9/11"...

Got it.

It's obvious you don't wanna talk about 9/11 evidence. You post based on feeling. Not actual events.

White flag accepted.

Horrible poker analogy theorem confirmed.

Lol deuces as always

Do you think the govt does chemtrails, Jiggs? HAARP? Covered up aliens at Roswell? Is in fact run by the aliens from Roswell?

What a nonsense question. This isn't about judging the ****ing morality of the govt(which, again, is not a person, but actually an organization composed of thousands of people!).

The United States government carried out an aggressive program of ****ing genocide under color of law. If I believed that Dick Cheney personally pushed the plunger on WTC 7, that still wouldn't be the worst thing I believed the government has ever done.

Though, of course, one thing has nothing to do with the other. You're railing against a strawman. A deeply insulting strawman, by the way. People who believe Al Qaeda did 9/11 don't do so because they have an unshakeable faith in the virtue of the US government, they do so because every alternative theory offered is literally nonsense and based on ****ing bull****. Don't ****ing lecture your betters, Jiggs. You don't even have the skepticism necessary to divine that maybe you shouldn't trust the ramblings of crazy people.

Literally the same post as where you're super excited to gotcha me with government misdeeds from half a century ago? Yeah, dude, you win.

Another nothing post.

p.s. we take liberties with poker analogies here, not that you even have the ability to point out why my analogy is bad.

bring in fatkid or someone ffs. Fly and gambool are just embarrassing.

You replied to my post with a completely nonsensical poker analogy, not much to do besides lol

lol at Fly calling Jigg's posts unreadable. Jiggs is probably the best expository writer, in terms of just writing technique, in the entire politics forum. FLy is just desperately grasping in order to steer the discussion into the gutter and away from material points germane to the issue raised in the OP.

Sorry had you wrong, just the impression I get from alot of your posts. Your posts just always seem very pro govt to me.

No. None of them. Focus, Fly. You're coming unhinged. Stick with what I've presented, not what you wanna extrapolate.

Never said it was. It was about you and your unmistakable inconsistency, which you still haven't really addressed.

I don't believe you understand what a straw man actually refers to. I was asking you a question. No where did I misrepresent your goofy position on the matter. Although, it is becoming clear.

Actually, no, they aren't all based on **** or bull****. Yet here you are yelling "literally nonsense" over and over again, without any substance of why.

Is this you claiming you're better than me? Well, certainly not with written debate, that much is clear. As for substance on this issue, it's hard to tell, because you don't seem interested in actually doing the work beyond yelling a lot and sounding - ironically - like a crazy person.

So, to review your laughable inconsistency:

Torture claims based on speculation and refuted by the U.S. government: Worthy of thread creation and outrage from people like Fly

9/11 U.S. shadow govt complicity in the greatest crime in U.S. history, for which endless evidence remains redacted, stonewalled and outright falsified: "I'm deeply offended anyone could EVER fathom this as a possibility!!!!!"

You're right. I do win. At least on showing how bad you are at this.

If you can't string together more than a few sentences maybe this isn't the topic for you. I see they are discussing Ted Nugent in the main. Maybe if you hurry you can be the first to add "lol nugent" to the discussion and feel witty.

Getting Jiggs back to the forum best moves mods every made IMO

Jiggs-

LOL that you don't think the government uses HAARP to punish foreign governments with earthquakes. You think that they were complicit in the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens, but when I bring up all these other bad things suddenly you're all "there's no way the US govt has been entirely infilitrated with lizard people!" Such naivete.

So, where does the distinction lie for you? Can you flesh it out a bit? How are chemtrails different for someone who so vehemently hates abuse of power?


P.S. Again, Jiggs, I think I've seen you call 9/11 the greatest crime in US history before, and it's really not. Even if it were true(and lol it's not, seriously) 9/11 wouldn't even make the top 10.

By way I'm 99% sure that this brief trip into the world of sarcasm is going to literally flummox Jiggs and we're going to spend the next few posts struggling with understanding whether I actually believe in HAARP earthquakes or not.

As soon as you do, I can happily reciprocate.

At this point, you appear desperate to deflect. Unfortunately, I'm not letting you off the hook. You either answer the question with how 9/11 is specifically different in terms of your own sensibilities, or you're dismissed as having no honest distinction whatsoever. Please do better than scream-typing "because it's all nonsense" over and over again.

Thanks.

Jiggs, I already answered your question.

It's not a moral judgment of character for normals, son. I don't think 9/11 couldn't be a govt conspiracy because OH MAN THATS JUST TOO EVIL, that's the strawman I talked about earlier. I believe 9/11 wasn't a govt conspiracy because that is the conclusion a reasonable examination of the facts demands.

I believe things that are supported(Tillman, Iran-Contra, etc.), I don't believe things that aren't(all of the "JUST ASKING QUESTIONS" bull**** you have about war games and the Saudis and WTC 7 or whatever).

That's how it works.

Finally.

Anyhow, if true and you really do it that way (serious doubts, considering how emotional you clearly get), it would seem our distinctions are quite similar then. We posit a hypothesis based upon known facts. If the facts don't posit a hypothesis of complicity, we reject the claim, as I do for HAARP, and other similar baseless paranoias. ... It's just that we arrive at those conclusions differently, probably because one of us conveniently throws out facts from consideration in the first place by pointing to the "reasonable examination" that was the omissions of the 9/11 Commission.

So, if the two commissioners of the entity you champion openly admit that the entire investigation was a farce, how can you keep coming back to it as a reference point without compromising your overall coincidence theory?

Now, do you want to keep talking about what a joke the 9/11 Commission fictional novel was, or shall we re-examine the painfully obvious individual occurrences of negligence by the entities you hold so sacred (at least on this one issue, anyway)?

Yawn, no substance.

I put a substantial post out, or what passes comparatively for substantial around here. You let it go so I assume, since you've posted since, you have no answer to it?

I'll give you yet another hint: just saying that the sec report (it's actually a heavily redacted "memorandum to the commission to summarize the scope and results of our investigation") trumps the academic paper I cited is not saying a damn thing- it's not an argument. I guess you choose to just troll rather than engage in a losing fight. Suit yourself.

Introducing the commission report into this discussion was about the dumbest thing team coincitard could do. But eventually they had to point to some grounding so it's referencing was perhaps inevitable.

Still waiting for someone to justify the commission's literal review of a review of an investigation that doesn't rise to Cliff Notes level of revelation wrt the put options. Like maybe just answer the question of how you would conduct an investigation and what you would share with the public compared to what they did. Just do something better than cutting and pasting the government saying "it's cool, trust us" for your big finish.