An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106:433]

[Thoreau72]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

and why would the government call it "ground zero" if a device were not detonated on that spot? That is the proper vernacular. Why would we thing it did not happen?

That is the $64,000 question.

The cynical answer would be that they were blatantly and cruelly stating the simple truth, that indeed it was the site of a nuclear event.

 

[Mark F]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

That is the $64,000 question.

The cynical answer would be that they were blatantly and cruelly stating the simple truth, that indeed it was the site of a nuclear event.

You people really need to start thinking more:

Ground zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

That is the $64,000 question.

The cynical answer would be that they were blatantly and cruelly stating the simple truth, that indeed it was the site of a nuclear event.

Or it could be the people were using a common term:

"The term has often been associated with nuclear explosions and other large bombs, but is also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction. The term is often re-used for disasters that have a geographic or conceptual epicenter."

Why do you guys believe the E-Vile folks purposely leave hints?

 

[Marvin]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Or it could be the people were using a common term:

"The term has often been associated with nuclear explosions and other large bombs, but is also used in relation to earthquakes, epidemics and other disasters to mark the point of the most severe damage or destruction. The term is often re-used for disasters that have a geographic or conceptual epicenter."

Why do you guys believe the E-Vile folks purposely leave hints?

Two things about this:

1. No crime can be totally perfect, the perpetrators have made mistakes.

2. there may be an additional plot to instigate divisions among citizens ( divide & conquer )

 

[Mark F]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Two things about this:

1. No crime can be totally perfect, the perpetrators have made mistakes.

2. there may be an additional plot to instigate divisions among citizens ( divide & conquer )

Lost the plot again

 

[ozeco41]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Lost the plot again

We need a fancy Latin name for "plotus losii deliberatum" <<< obviously my "Latin" ain't good enough.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

You people really need to start thinking more:

Ground zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thanks!

The term ground zero (sometimes also known as surface zero[1] as distinguished from zero point)[2] describes the point on the Earth's surface closest to a detonation.[3]

and do "reference" its use to anything but nukes, another typical debunker red herring

then again the medias use of "ground zero" would mean they may have told us truth and debunkers are simply in denial.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

We need a fancy Latin name for "plotus losii deliberatum" <<< obviously my "Latin" ain't good enough.

try this;

maximus rubeum allec sunt nobis

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Two things about this:

1. No crime can be totally perfect, the perpetrators have made mistakes.

2. there may be an additional plot to instigate divisions among citizens ( divide & conquer )

Methinks the term NON SEQUITUR fits here.

Why do you guys believe the E-Vile folks purposely leave hints?

 

[NWO_Spook]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

If you could prove your position, you would have a bit o' credibility.

That is somewhat ironic coming from a guy who believes the WTC was destroyed by nukes.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

sure but not when its allowed to freeflow, why the dishonesty or is it that you really did not know anything about it in the first place?

Try reading again before you make such stupid comments. You do not know, or are you able to determine the composition of the material with any method that can be considered reliable. THAT is the point for those of you with learning difficulties.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Try reading again before you make such stupid comments. You do not know, or are you able to determine the composition of the material with any method that can be considered reliable. THAT is the point for those of you with learning difficulties.

dood yo ushould know better than to quote debunker **** all the time.

The question is do you know why the elemental content for these purposes is completely irrelevant and how foolish debunkers and their parrots look for even going there in the first place?

 

[NWO_Spook]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

dood yo ushould know better than to quote debunker **** all the time.

The question is do you know why the elemental content for these purposes is completely irrelevant and how foolish debunkers and their parrots look for even going there in the first place?

More banal crap.The elemental content is relevant when truthers keep calling it steel and use it as evidence for Thermite usage, so get back to me when you've caught up with the rest of us.

Here's an idea, try thinking before you hit 'enter'.

 

[Quag]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

More banal crap.The elemental content is relevant when truthers keep calling it steel and use it as evidence for Thermite usage, so get back to me when you've caught up with the rest of us.

Here's an idea, try thinking before you hit 'enter'.

You are assuming he isnt doing this on purpose. IMHO that is an error on your part.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

You are assuming he isnt doing this on purpose. IMHO that is an error on your part.

Oh, don't worry, I'm fully aware of his games.