So my Poli Sci class watched END-GAME.. and I skipped that day

Mark · Dec 14, 2007

hawkeyenick said:
I agree

There is actual proof to what the Dr is saying, there is none to the 9/11 conspiracies, only omissions of informations

There's tons of proof in anyone looks. Some people prefer to be blind. It's that simple.

traitorist · Dec 14, 2007

hawkeyenick said:
there is none to the 9/11 conspiracies, only omissions of informations

bullsh*t.

dirknb@hotmail.com · Dec 14, 2007

hawkeyenick said:
I agree

There is actual proof to what the Dr is saying, there is none to the 9/11 conspiracies, only omissions of informations

Then why does RP appear on his radio show? If his followers were such a threat to the campaign, don't you think he would avoid it like the plague?

Birdlady · Dec 14, 2007

Mark said:
There's tons of proof in anyone looks. Some people prefer to be blind. It's that simple.

No point in arguing with them. It will only suck energy from you that can be better used else where.

hawkeye is already on my ignore list for a reason. Next will be ridiculous. The list is growing!

Ridiculous · Dec 14, 2007

Mark said:
There's tons of proof in anyone looks. Some people prefer to be blind. It's that simple.

So I guess Ron Paul prefers to be blind then?

I think most truthers think that Ron Paul is secretly a truther, but doesn't come out and say so because it would destroy his chances of getting elected.

BTW Alex Jones produced End Game so discussion of him and his movement is valid ITT

Mark · Dec 14, 2007

Birdlady said:
No point in arguing with them. It will only suck energy from you that can be better used else where.
hawkeye is already on my ignore list for a reason. Next will be ridiculous. The list is growing!

Word

Mark · Dec 14, 2007

Ridiculous said:
So I guess Ron Paul prefers to be blind then?

I think most truthers think that Ron Paul is secretly a truther, but doesn't come out and say so because it would destroy his chances of getting elected.

BTW Alex Jones produced End Game so discussion of him and his movement is valid ITT

RP only the said the government wasn't directly involved. The government wasn't. A group in and out of the gov was.

RP has also said a new investigation is needed. Read between the lines.

hawkeyenick · Dec 14, 2007

Mark said:
There's tons of proof in anyone looks. Some people prefer to be blind. It's that simple.

No, there's none, which is why you provided none

I debated this for over 700 pages on ebaums, truthers want it to be an inside job, but there's absolutely no proof to it

hawkeyenick · Dec 14, 2007

Mark said:
RP only the said the government wasn't directly involved. The government wasn't. A group in and out of the gov was.

RP has also said a new investigation is needed. Read between the lines.

You need to back your claims before making assertions.

If I have to go over the rules of debate with you guys, I'm going to talk to you like the 5th grade mentality that you use.

Ridiculous · Dec 14, 2007

Mark said:
RP only the said the government wasn't directly involved. The government wasn't. A group in and out of the gov was.

RP has also said a new investigation is needed. Read between the lines.

Case in point. You think Ron Paul is secretly a truther.

But if you go by that logic, Ron Paul doesn't out himself as a truther because he knows it would keep him from getting elected. So if you believe that, don't you think it would be wise to distance Ron Paul from the truther movement as much as possible....?

Mark · Dec 14, 2007

hawkeyenick said:
No, there's none, which is why you provided none

I debated this for over 700 pages on ebaums, truthers want it to be an inside job, but there's absolutely no proof to it

There's a ton of proof, I'm not going to spoon feed someone who doesn't want to know.

You knowing won't make a difference, and I don't have the time to waste on you.

Daswiz · Dec 14, 2007

Mark said:
There's a ton of proof, I'm not going to spoon feed someone who doesn't want to know.

You knowing won't make a difference, and I don't have the time to waste on you.

Don't waste your time. Some people refuse to even find it plausible that 9/11 was an inside job, so no matter how many flaws you expose in the "official" story and no matter how many scientists, architects, and structural engineers are brought in to refute the idea that the WTC fell because of fires they will block it and refuse to look at it straight on. Just move on, arguing with him will not go anywhere.

Mark · Dec 14, 2007

Ridiculous said:
Case in point. You think Ron Paul is secretly a truther.

But if you go by that logic, Ron Paul doesn't out himself as a truther because he knows it would keep him from getting elected. So if you believe that, don't you think it would be wise to distance Ron Paul from the truther movement as much as possible....?

I said basically that he wasn't stupid.

He can see three buildings collapse at the speed of freefall and know it didn't just happen by chance.

Mark · Dec 14, 2007

hawkeyenick said:
No, there's none, which is why you provided none

I debated this for over 700 pages on ebaums, truthers want it to be an inside job, but there's absolutely no proof to it

You'd probably like this guy, he's right except about God and Ron Paul.

FKN Facts 9/11 The Emperors Clothes

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pqKBnKlDYdw

Mark · Dec 14, 2007

Daswiz said:
Don't waste your time. Some people refuse to even find it plausible that 9/11 was an inside job, so no matter how many flaws you expose in the "official" story and no matter how many scientists, architects, and structural engineers are brought in to refute the idea that the WTC fell because of fires they will block it and refuse to look at it straight on. Just move on, arguing with him will not go anywhere.

yep, you're right, thanks, moving on..

dirknb@hotmail.com · Dec 14, 2007

hawkeyenick said:
You need to back your claims before making assertions.

If I have to go over the rules of debate with you guys, I'm going to talk to you like the 5th grade mentality that you use.

literatim · Dec 14, 2007

hawkeyenick said:
Sorry to tell you, but micro and macro evolution are the same thing, what do you get after a few thousand micro evolutions?

A bird will still be a bird and a cat will still be a cat..

hawkeyenick said:
Macroevolution. Science does not split the two. You are getting your information from Kent Hovind, who is now in prison.

Macro-evolution is the study that a animal can evolve into a different genus, family, order, etc. Micro-evolution is the study of minor changes within the same species. Evidence for micro-evolution is not evidence for macro-evolution.

hawkeyenick said:
If I have to school you guys on evolution I will, but I'm warning you right now I'm not going to be kind.

Scary.

hawkeyenick said:
"Theory" in science is not the same thing as the generally used term "theory". Within the context of science a theory is testable and has been rigorously peer-reviewed. A theory is basically a fact.

Like String Theory? :rolleyes:

hawkeyenick said:
Creationism is still in the hypothesis stage. It's intellectual dishonesty. Within science, it's referred to as pseudo-science or junk-science. It doesn't qualify as a theory. You can't do experiments, so it's not even science.

Creationism is not an alternative for micro-evolution. It is a alternative for the theory that that lifeless matter be turned into living matter.

hawkeyenick said:
If you believe in Creationism over Evolution for scientific reasons, then you are an example of our failed school systems.

I've read both sides of the argument. I was taught evolution through all of my schooling like brainwashing. I also know that religion does not necessarily exclude it. I came to my own conclusion that evidence strongly opposes macro-evolution. How much of the other side have you read?

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters.htm

The problem with evolutionists such as Dawkins is that they backed themselves into a corner. If macro-evolution cannot happen, that means something else is the cause. What is it? They can't even consider the alternative brought up by those proposing Intelligent Design because their faith is that there is no higher power of any sort so it can't possibly be designed.

Shin505 · Dec 14, 2007

@dirknb

Don't forget Loose Change: Final Cut

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...235&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

dirknb@hotmail.com · Dec 14, 2007

Shin505 said:
@dirknb

Don't forget Loose Change: Final Cut

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...235&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Thanks!

hawkeyenick · Dec 14, 2007

Shin505 said:
@dirknb

Don't forget Loose Change: Final Cut

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...235&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Remember guys, the truth needs a new version every week.

So my Poli Sci class watched END-GAME.. and I skipped that day

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads