|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
6th November 2013, 07:34 AM | #441 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
6th November 2013, 07:41 AM | #442 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
|
6th November 2013, 07:46 AM | #443 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
|
6th November 2013, 08:43 AM | #444 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 92
|
This is clearly a situation where context and reading comprehension will make or break you. You seem to have had the latter happen to yourself.
Quote:
Quote:
|
6th November 2013, 09:11 AM | #445 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
6th November 2013, 10:15 AM | #446 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
sonofgloin you are ridiculous. I challenge you find ANY one of your eye witnesses who doesn't think a plane crashed actually occurred. Maybe it's time you became a REAL investigator and talked to ANY of these people about what happened instead of taking their comments in a vacuum.
You're the worst investigator EVER. A court of law would eat you for lunch. |
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
6th November 2013, 10:54 AM | #447 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
6th November 2013, 11:36 AM | #448 | ||||||
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
All of the items you listed are extremely fragile, including the plane. What do you expect to happen to these items when they hit a concrete wall at 500mph?
Quote:
|
||||||
__________________
That really hustled my bones. |
|||||||
6th November 2013, 11:41 AM | #449 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
6th November 2013, 12:12 PM | #450 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
What does he want the coroner to have said? Contrary to what sonofgloin uh.... "thinks"... what's being refuted isn't the eyewitness, it's his/her twisted interpretation of the eyewitness that is being refuted. There's the information and testimony, and then there's the information and testimony with all of its associated context.
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
6th November 2013, 01:08 PM | #451 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
6th November 2013, 01:24 PM | #452 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
Too bad, Walter Ego's video channel is down. In one of his videos, a BBC reporter explains to an awkward-looking Dylan Avery what a simile is, as pertains to the coroner's words. I think I picked that up in 4th grade. The coroner had to go through all of those remains; it's so insulting to use his words to promote truther insanity. As I recall, Miller was "phlegmatic" about Avery's mis-use of his words.
|
6th November 2013, 03:23 PM | #453 | |||
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
Avery gets schooled on grammar and Wallace Miller refutes SOG:
|
|||
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
||||
6th November 2013, 03:26 PM | #454 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus |
|
6th November 2013, 03:27 PM | #455 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
6th November 2013, 04:12 PM | #456 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
sonofgloin is feverishly searching YooTwooferToob for more 'evidence'.
|
6th November 2013, 06:05 PM | #457 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
|
6th November 2013, 07:02 PM | #458 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
Why is it Truthers always seem to confuse normal speech and twist turns of a phrase into something it's not? Saying you couldn't tell it was a plane doesn't mean there was no plane there.
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
6th November 2013, 08:43 PM | #459 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
It's not that I'm chastising you or anything (it doesn't seem you took it that way in any event) but these people seem to be under the impression that when we don't agree with them we're somehow insulting the eye witnesses and claiming they're wrong when the "wrong" that's being pointed out is of an entirely different nature.
I'm not gonna bother spending a whole lot of time with Sonofgloin over this stuff because like pretty much every case it seems he's not going to pay much heed to that issue. That being... you can draw out practically anything the imagination can think up from a person's words when one ignores context, and sonofgloin is going the hyper-literal route with believing things. If somebody told him a tornado sounded like a freight train, then his line of logic dictates that a freight train is what flattened the neighborhood... despite every thing pointing to a tornado. It's maddening.... |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
6th November 2013, 09:57 PM | #460 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
You say completely disappear, and are about to quote mine people who saw thousands of aircraft parts all over the place. irony, and BS, are 911 truth in action
When is the last time you attended aircraft accident investigation school? Flight 93 is a classic high speed impact. All 911 truth claims are based on a lack of knowledge and an inability to do reality based research. it is true, most of 911 truth knowledge is based on lies, quote-mined nonsense, and ignorance Once again, there was an airplane in there. What is your point? The key here is small charred aircraft parts. I love it when 911 truth debunks themselves with their own fantasy. Not often are the general public witness to 500 mph impact. And it is ironic there are thousands of aircraft parts in photos of the area, and 911 truth can't see them. Eye check time. You mean the local coroner who said it was flight 93, and who identified all DNA profiles on flight 93? lol, you proved you and quote mine your way to nonsense. You proved nothing, you refute yourself, ignoring what Wally said in the end, what he found in the end; you take an out of context quote and build fantasy. Why do you make up lies based on nothing but a failed attempt to base a lie on a quote? Reality debunks your claims. The eye witnesses all agree it was Flight 93, and 19 terrorists. Gee whiz, the Wally has the DNA of the 4 nuts on Flight 93 who were too chicken to fight the passengers. Like 911 truth is too lazy to learn aircraft accident investigation to see their ideas and silly stuff like quote mining witnesses, and ignoring reality are nonsense. need some photos of the thousands of aircraft parts, which are from Flight 93, proved by RADAR, FDR, and DNA. oops, science steps in with hard evidence, blows away 911 truth lies based on quote-mined nonsense. ??? The basic problem is 911 truth can't read for comprehension... the Pentagon was not missing money, Rumsfeld was upset they could not account properly. LOL, does 911 truth read the original source before making failed claims>? Or what? |
6th November 2013, 10:08 PM | #461 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
6th November 2013, 10:56 PM | #462 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
Dafydd, the vast majority of my utube posts have been on the day observations from people who are still on the scene.......nothing wrong with presenting at the scene on the day eyewitness testimony whether it comes from utube or other media.
As I said in a previous post....all day long they are talking about secondary explosions.....then the very next day they never happened.....sanitized. GWB lied on camera regarding how he first learned about one of the planes striking the tower....and his brother was in charge of WTC security....it stinks....every bit of it stinks. Larry Silverstein and his kids attended the WTC every working day since he signed the lease just weeks before 9/11....but on 9/11 he and his kids did not get there. He gives some lame excuse about his bride forcing him to get a skin cancer check...mummy wrote me a note...he is such a poor liar, here he goes with a "folksy" demeanor telling his story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ScGZCqEyGM There are issues at EVERY crash site and at every level surrounding 9/11. Regarding national security on 9/11. All but one camera switched off at the Pentagon on 9/11 and no reaction to an aircraft entering the exclusion zone....and national air defense was busy with a training exercise on the day. The secret service left GWB sitting in an unfortified position rather than taking him to his reasonably secure limo just a minute away....it goes on and on and on and on. You believe whatever you like D.....I aint buying it and I'm certainly not about convincing the likes of yourself. Not that you have added anything to our exchanges except twofer this or twofer that, but I have diligently read all the relevant replies from others who must believe that I can be brought around to another conclusion, but none have swayed my thoughts. There are enough historical firsts and inconsistencies to surmise that Denmark has a refrigeration problem.....sport. |
6th November 2013, 11:09 PM | #463 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
There is when you make up nonsense. It is called quote-mining, and it does not support 911 truth claims.
No explosives were used on 911. Good luck with simile. His brother was not in charge of security. lol Bush did not lie about how he saw where the first plane hit, he left out "where". It is ironic you can't decode Bush. LOL, more nonsense. Military exercises would make the military more ready - NORAD does not shoot down hijacked planes, nor would they use armed aircraft to intercept them before 911. BS is king for 911 truth. ? 911 truth ignores evidence and fails. Where is the proof for any 911 truth claims? Only failed claims by 911 truth based on silly logic like this. 12 years, no facts from 911 truth. A perfect record of woo. A first? 911 truth can't reply with evidence, it will only be another fake study, another failed video, more quote mining, lots of lies, and zero evidence claims. They can't refute the RADAR, DNA, and physical evidence, so they make up claims of Pentagon Videos, explosives, thermite, etc. |
6th November 2013, 11:40 PM | #464 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
6th November 2013, 11:43 PM | #465 |
Misanthrope of the Mountains
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
|
Well nothing disappeared. But if you want a smoking crater give me a Boeing 757 that I can remote control into a steep dive.
Quote:
What he describes is consistent with a high speed, nearly vertical crash.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
|
|
7th November 2013, 12:03 AM | #466 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
BS is it BN? All the first respondents found small pieces of aluminium; they all commented that nothing was recognizable as plane parts.
Take it from the first on the scene, if they were told it was a bus and fuel tanker accident they would have taken it for that. No recognizable parts....again for you: "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise." - Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller" "I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing." - Photographer Scott Spangler" "I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash." - Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks of the Pennsylvania State Police"
Quote:
"John Marshall, a state police fire marshal and criminal investigator who found this piece of wreckage, said it was "600 yards from the crash site."
Quote:
Quote:
Nah mate...your ordinary.....very sheeplike, but good at it. |
7th November 2013, 12:18 AM | #467 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
That is no reply Rob....I will show you one of the facts I noted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs3O6Ekkog8 I can't believe GWB's line of "the TV was obviously on" ....that is a liars patter...to qualify what they say regarding something that should need no qualification, it gives their mind the time to concoct an answer. So there you go Rob me lad...your dead wrong china. |
7th November 2013, 12:26 AM | #468 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
As I said to BN Trav, if you told them it was a bus accident they would have said yes. I never said that 93 never ended up there, but that hole has nothing to do with 93....the people were there I believe the DNA, but as I mentioned the 40 foot wide hole and the official story is unacceptable to me, particularly when taken as a part of a conspiratorial whole.
|
7th November 2013, 12:30 AM | #469 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
7th November 2013, 01:23 AM | #470 |
Misanthrope of the Mountains
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
|
|
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
|
|
7th November 2013, 03:58 AM | #471 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 388
|
|
7th November 2013, 04:11 AM | #472 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
A month ago, I wrote:
And since SoG has returned regurgitating the same old stuff, it still seems appropriate. He doesn't believe what he writes. He is not attempting to persuade anyone that the patent nonsense he writes is true. He just enjoys the reaction he provokes. |
7th November 2013, 04:14 AM | #473 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
7th November 2013, 04:29 AM | #474 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
|
7th November 2013, 04:36 AM | #475 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
7th November 2013, 04:46 AM | #476 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
Like I said. sonofgloin you are the worst investigator EVER. Have you asked ANY of your eye witnesses yet if they think a plane actually crashed?
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
7th November 2013, 05:30 AM | #477 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
He makes the classic mistake of all CT's of not asking himself the fundamental questions about any of his own claims:
1. Is it true? 2. So what if it is? What does that change? He either can't or won't answer the first and he definately can't do the second since that would require putting his jumbled mess of random claims and cherry-picked mis-quotes into something resembling a comprehensive narrative of what happened. It is quite clear he is incapable of doing that so really this discussion is irrelevant. He refuses to present anything worth refuting. |
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
7th November 2013, 06:16 AM | #478 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
7th November 2013, 07:32 AM | #479 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
No, there is nothing wrong with it, but I believe you're putting far too much weight into initial observations to unfolding events from people who may or may not be qualified to make those observations.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
That really hustled my bones. |
|
7th November 2013, 07:41 AM | #480 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
Presumably English is your first language? In that case it's hard to imagine honest reasons you would be quote mining eye witness accounts looking for things to take out of context in support of your POV. Each one of your witnesses clearly states they saw the wreckage of a plane, so mangled as to be unrecognizable.
As a cop I've seen corpses, so mangled as to be unrecognizable as human. Does that mean they weren't there?
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|