countezero
Registered Senior Member
:shrug:
:shrug:
It doesn't even make sense as an attempted paraphrase of my post,or bear much relation to anything I said. What are you thinking, when you pull that shit ?count said:
Sometime, as an exercise, you might try simply repeating what I write, without looking at it. Pick something really simple, and see if you can do it.
OK, very slowly, just for you: The list there is of notable events in human history that have been investigated. In particular, the list is of events that I am suggesting have been investigated more thoroughly than the event called 9/11. By including it in that list, I am suggesting that the sinking of the USS Titanic has been investigated pretty thoroughly, and more thoroughly than the events of 9/11. The reason for making the list was to present specific examples in counter to a claim of countzero's, that the event called 9/11 was "probably the most documented and investigated event in human history". I felt I should include some specific examples, because just laughing at that claim would require a dependence on the imagination, reflective consideration, common sense, and at least casual familiarity with specifics, of some people who don't seem to avail themselves of those things unless their noses are rubbed in something.john said:
Square?
countezero
Registered Senior Member
Oh, please. Here you go, arguing about arguing again. I directly quoted what you wrote and responded to it. If you don't like what I wrote, go fuck yourself, it's my opinion.
Here's your nonsense, verbatim, again:
"It isn't ruled out immediately by the visible evidence. It doesn't require huge and ludicrously vulnerable conspiracies with no apparent motive and every chance of failure.
I wouldn't bet a nickel of my own money on it, on any odds."
My response is to posit that you think this is possible or plausibe in one breath, then back away and say you wouldn't bet on it in another. This is a cheap rhetoric trick. It's like when lawyers ask loaded questions in front of juries that they know will be objected to, but they ask them anyway because they want the jury to hear it.
And for the record, wiring an entire building for demolition and keeping it secret would require "ludicrously vulnerable conspiracies" well before the charges were taken advantage of.
they used to do these tests where they would test mice, and then they would put a bunch of mice living together in crowded condition, and they would record the mice going crazy from this overcrowding... literally they were recording the descent into insanity by the mice in the experiment...
that's what threads like this on the web are like to me... people openly documenting their own descent into paranoid insanity... it's freaking scary... and the most dangerous sort of paranoid crazy person is always the one who thinks he's/she's got it all figured out...
it's unsettling to know people are out there that think like this... they are so completely lost in ignorance and paranoia all this insane stuff makes sense to them...
that's what threads like this on the web are like to me... people openly documenting their own descent into paranoid insanity... it's freaking scary... and the most dangerous sort of paranoid crazy person is always the one who thinks he's/she's got it all figured out...
it's unsettling to know people are out there that think like this... they are so completely lost in ignorance and paranoia all this insane stuff makes sense to them...
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
I never argued that a Judge didn't play a role, you're the one who brought this argument to excuse Bush for refusing to go on the record about 911. Only a guilty person would refuse, innocent people are cooperative not secretive and deceptive.
That crime scene was a clusterfuck from day one. Being that almost the entire neighborhood was allowed to walk through the home and contaminate the crime scene. The Ramseys were home that entire day. No killer sits and writes and 3 page ransom letter at the scene of the crime with the Parents up stairs. . Using materials that were located up stairs on the Kitchen Table. Patsy's very own sharpie, and her legal pad.
Name one case that you can recall where the innocent man refused to tesitfy? T
superstring01
Moderator
You're right. We should just dispense with the Fourth & Fifth Amendments, presumption of innocents, and habeas corpus altogether. I mean, after all, the innocent are cooperative and it's only the guilty who refuse to be unreasonably interrogated and investigated.
~String
So why do you make such responses, or "pull that shit" as I phrased it?count said:
Deliberate trolling? Asshat stupidity ? Some kind of habit of insult that requires misrepresentation of stuff just to prove you can do it ? The same kidn of motive that leads kids to poke caged animals with sticks ? What is going through your mind ?
Last edited:
countezero
Registered Senior Member
That's right, Ice. Ignore the substance of my post and put the onus back on me, because once again you're obtuseness and your rhetorical games have been called out...
countezero
Registered Senior Member
Agreed.
No, you showed your ass because you talked about a process you know nothing about. Or at least nothing beyond what you learned in a five minute Google search.
I've worked as a paralegal and I covered courts as a reporter for a number of years. I've worked with DA's, sat in Grand Jury sessions. Your understanding of the legal process, of guilt and innocence is childish and not really worthy of comment.
Plus, as I have said, Bush and Cheney both cooperated with the 9/11 commission, a small little fact that torpedoes your entire claim of a cover-up.
Wow. That's impressive. Too bad none of it stood up enough for a DA to prosecute, huh?
Sure, I'll pick one that I know will piss you off: OJ Simpson.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Don't try to spin it because you were proven wrong. What I posted was correct and legally accurate, end of story.
Plus, as I have said, Bush and Cheney both cooperated with the 9/11 commission, a small little fact that torpedoes your entire claim of a cover-up.
I believe this is the third DA to preside over this case. This entire case is a clusterfuck.
Ofcourse it pisses me off that a guilty man got away with murder. This is another clear example of your devoid intellectual capacity. Instead of providing an example to support your position you decided to give in to your primal impulses and attempted to insult me. You fail at debating.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Don't get me wrong, I agree with the 5th Amendment in principle. But you have to admit in most high profile cases the guilty people always plead the 5th. OJ, Mark McGuire, R. Kelley, Robert Blake, Greg Anderson (Barry Bond's Trainer), the numerous amount of aids who pleaded the 5th in the Alberto Gonzales investigation, just to name a few. Can you recall any case where you believed the defendant was innocent even though they pleaded the 5th?
superstring01
Moderator
My belief as to a person's innocence/guilt does not in any way alter the reality.
~String
countezero
Registered Senior Member
Nor does it change the 2,000 years of history behind the burden of proof, String.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
I'll take that as a no.
superstring01
Moderator
No. You'll take it as a "you're full of idiotic shit." I'm not the one inventing wild conspiracies and then supporting them with non-information. You're asking my opinion regarding specific realities. Reality doesn't alter based upon my opinion.
~String
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
You're the idiot who can't recall one case where you believed the person was innocent even though they pleaded the 5th. How fucking hard is that? You can't that's why. I didn't ask you if the person was actually innocent. I asked you to name one, just one case where you thought the person was innocent, but they pleaded the 5th. How can you have an opinion on something that you have no historical reference to base it on. Like I said, you don't have any references, any examples, so next time you challenge me put up or STFU! Your eloquent insults are getting old string. Add something to the discussion for a change besides tearing down anyone who has an opinion other then yours.
Please, go and speak to "Barry Jennings" or watch this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q
"Barry Jennings" is a Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority. He was inside WTC7 on the day of 911.
If you don't accept his testimony, then you realy like to put your head in the sand and let everything else happen around you.
Some people here also think Pat Tillman was fragged by his own guys due to his political beliefs.
Once you've commited yourself to that plane, lateral movement isn't terribly difficult, it seems.
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
I agree, any case where a soldier was killed by friendly fire, where all of the material evidence was burned prior to the formal investigation doesn't warrant any suspicion. Especially after the US Army went on the record weeks after the incident and determined he died as a result to enemy fire, even though their own internal investigation found the complete opposite days after the incident.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/2005-05-04-tillman-investigation_x.htm