|
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. |
29th December 2013, 01:22 AM | #241 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Wow. Nobody understands what is going on here but me.
Have I once said this is PROOF of inside job/false flag? If I did, and I am sure I did not, I retract it. All this does is to point out clearly that the "official story" is so ridiculously implausible because the odds against it being correct are so (astronomically) high that to continue to defend/believe it is ... well ... to be perfectly euphemistic, unreasonable. I know we have not put reasonable numbers/odds to each item, but when you start multiplying, the numbers get really really big, very very quickly. Using false flag as the explanation and assigning odds that explain each and every thing, the probability of it being a false flag is, if not 100%, nearly. What everyone is trying to do is get me to explain each and every item. You do not get it. I already have: False flag. I will not get into a spat about whether or not I, or you, can give THE explanation for an individual occurence. I know what your explanation is every time: "it is not impossible." Hopefully -- but apparently not given what is continued to be thrown back at me -- you can figure out my explanation for each and every thing is "FALSE FLAG.!!" E.G., people told not to fly or to not be in NYC on 9/11? Explanation, False Flag. They knew it was coming. Your explanation? "its possible there is a reasonable explanation." They were told not to fly. WHY? YOU DO NOT GET IT! I do not have to explain ANYTHING with anything but "False Flag!" It explains everything! Exactly how they did the false flag, I do not know. But if -- I say it was -- it was a false flag, they planned it out well. And all of the anomalies/oddities can be easily explained and understood when it is recognized that is the plausible explanation. Thus, it was a false flag. 100% proof? No. I contend 99.9999999....%. How many 9's after the decimal do you have to have to even get to saying, "Ok, how about we call it a tie?" |
29th December 2013, 01:28 AM | #242 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
29th December 2013, 01:29 AM | #243 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
29th December 2013, 01:37 AM | #244 |
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... |
|
29th December 2013, 01:41 AM | #245 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Wow, you have proved you are not a pilot now. Four hijacked planes, some changing mode 3, some turning off the transponder. They were confused, because, since you forgot, these planes become big time emergencies. You know, flight emergencies, even if the pilots never talked. Wait, the Flight 93 pilots were screaming as they were killed, did you miss this? You claim to be a pilot, but can't do flight stuff. Why? Never got your ATP? Did you pink that ride, making up lies about flight?
Is all of this in your failed ideas from 5 years ago? http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html No false RADAR blips, this is another lie. Did you make this one up, or plagiarize it? Wrong, the military does not intercept airlines over the USA before 911 for whatever reason. The skies over the USA were civil, not military. You make this up as you go, and common sense can't hack it here. The intercepts you don't list, were all over the water, in the ADIZ; and if you were a real pilot, you would know this. Nope, not over the USA. Sorry, you missed this boat. In minutes? lol, you failed to read the NTSB report. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=103846 The FAA can request the military to shadow planes, but it is not in minutes, it is in an hour or more. The fighters can't travel though airspace filled with flights, they might hit someone. It appears you never flew large jets as claims, making up lies fighter can go where they want in peace time. You were debunked on 911. 12 years of failure for 911 truth. You can't explain anything, you have lies - lies are formed in your fantasy version of 911, one that makes fun of the USA, the dead and more. When did the light bulb on 911 go off? When will you retract your silly FF lies? |
29th December 2013, 01:47 AM | #246 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Originally Posted by david.watts
E.G., people told not to fly or to not be in NYC on 9/11? Explanation, False Flag. They knew it was coming. Your explanation? "its possible there is a reasonable explanation." They were told not to fly. WHY? abaddon: This never happened. Fine, it did not happen. I will almost take your word for it since I have not looked in to this stuff closely for a long time. But please reference where it can be shown it did not happen. And even if you can, I will move to the next item. There are very many. I will give everybody a few. I will give everybody that coincidences happen. But how many coincidences for very unlikely things is it reasonable to use "coincidence" as an explanation. Same thing, all it is saying it was a coincidence is saying "it is possible." |
29th December 2013, 01:56 AM | #247 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
|
We know exactly what is going on.
You are incredulous about and closed-minded to the "official story". You think "false flag" is an explanation, even though it raises a multitude of questions and gives no answers. You do not have proof of a false flag. You do not have any standards of evidence. You do not acknowledge answers to your questions. I suggest that you are here to proselytise, not to learn. |
29th December 2013, 01:56 AM | #248 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
How about since you made the claim, you tell us who did get such a call? Also, are you a pilot?
|
29th December 2013, 01:58 AM | #249 |
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... |
|
29th December 2013, 02:00 AM | #250 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
29th December 2013, 02:07 AM | #251 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
You, like everyone else, doesn't get it. I can not "prove" it was a false flag. I am not trying to.
THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT!! Listen in everybody. POINT: OFFICIAL STORY CAN NOT BE PROVEN. INSIDE JOB/FALSE FLAG CAN NOT BE PROVEN. BUT WHICH IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THE BEST EXPLANATION? IT IS FALSE FLAG BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS ONLY BASED ON POSSIBILITIES -- IN SOME CASES VERY IMPLAUSIBLE/CONTORTED POSSIBILITIES. IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED FALSE FLAG EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN. THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE 100% PROOF IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. SIMPLY, THIS IS SIMPLY PROOF, NOT JUST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT FOR ALL/EVERY INTENT AND PURPOSE, WAY WAY BEYOND THAT. |
29th December 2013, 02:11 AM | #252 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
beachnut, short and simple reply to most of what you responded: Remember Payne Stewart?
|
29th December 2013, 02:13 AM | #253 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
|
29th December 2013, 02:14 AM | #254 |
...tart
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
|
Not to fly.
|
29th December 2013, 02:18 AM | #255 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
|
29th December 2013, 02:23 AM | #256 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
ozeco, I have shown I do not have to explain anything other than with "FF." What do you want me to explain? The collapses? I do not have to. I am not trying to. ALL of this from my end is about which is (a very much) better explanation, NOT PROOF, for EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED ON 9/11!! CAN'T ANYONE GET THAT THROUGH THEIR HEAD?
|
29th December 2013, 02:28 AM | #257 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
|
Shouting that the official story is just claiming "it's possible" and that "false flag is 100% certainty" does not make it so.
Glad you admit you have no proof of a false flag. Are you going to improve your standards of evidence now? |
29th December 2013, 02:38 AM | #258 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
There is nothing to "debunk".
If I were to state that GWB secretly warned the Vietnamese in advance of 911 which is why there wasn't a single Vietnamese casuality, how would you prove me wrong? It is your affirmative claim that there exists some communication, circulated amongst some group of people giving advance warning to stay away/do not fly. You have no evidence that there was any such communication at all. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
29th December 2013, 02:38 AM | #259 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Apparently the very large MOUNTAIN of criticism of me is ok. I mean, I am a truther.
Ok, maybe I have dished out some criticism. I don't think its been very much. At least until the last few posts which are well after you made the comment. But I am getting a little bit tired of explaining time after time what this is all about. And have you really not noticed all of the criticism and snide remarks that have come my way? |
29th December 2013, 02:41 AM | #260 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Lost.
One set of moveable goalposts. Anyone with knowledge as to where they went please post it here. David I have had more than enough of your dishonest nonsense. I have tried as much as any member here to help you but your pattern of denial and evasion gets worse. There is no point me or any of us offering help if you are not prepared to enter into reasoned truthful discussin. You cannot be as silly as you pretend with your posts. |
29th December 2013, 02:45 AM | #261 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Don't lie by innuendo. There has been a lot of criticiam of the rubbish you post PLUS a hell of a lot of good advice which you ignore. Some of our members may also have offered criticism of you rather than what you post. I doubt that I have BUT I also doubt that you can tell the difference.
You have never explained your claims despite multiple requests that you do so AND my explanations of the sort of thing that is required. More evasive posting "come my way"??? I have noticed and made some very strong criticisms of the nonsense you post. If any of mine were "snide" please identify them and I will make them explicit. Your posts are illogical and engage in multiple forms of truther debating trickery. If you want them all identified I could do so for you. BUT it would be far easier for all of us if you simply stopped twisting, distorting and evading, posted your claims and backed those claims by evidence, reasoned arguments and explanations. |
29th December 2013, 02:51 AM | #262 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
|
the problem with this is,
IF IT WAS A terrorist attack, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED terrorist attack EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN. |
29th December 2013, 02:55 AM | #263 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
|
|
29th December 2013, 02:58 AM | #264 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Last post tonight.
Given what I have given and explained time and time again about what this is all about: Do you think the Official Story is more reasonable than FF? If so, state your reasons please. Reference: From me (#251): BUT WHICH IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THE BEST EXPLANATION? IT IS FALSE FLAG BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS ONLY BASED ON POSSIBILITIES -- IN SOME CASES VERY IMPLAUSIBLE/CONTORTED POSSIBILITIES. IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY. IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY. THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN. SO, IF IT WAS A WELL PLANNED FALSE FLAG EVERYTHING WENT AS PLANNED. THEY PLANNED IT TO HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED AS PLANNED. THINGS DID NOT UNFOLD AS A POSSIBILITY, IT UNFOLDED ACCORDING TO PLAN. THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE 100% PROOF IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB. SIMPLY, THIS IS SIMPLY PROOF, NOT JUST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT FOR ALL/EVERY INTENT AND PURPOSE, WAY WAY BEYOND THAT. |
29th December 2013, 03:02 AM | #265 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
|
|
29th December 2013, 03:05 AM | #266 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Repeated lie - you have not explained
Yes - there is no case for FF so no matter what may be wrong with the "Official Story" is must be better than the non-existent case for FF The official story has been explained. Most of us have formed similar viewpoints with some minor differences. So there are many reasonable explanations similar to the "Official Story" No one has ever made a claim for FF. Any claim which exists eg the so called "Official Story" must be better than one that doesn't exist. |
29th December 2013, 03:09 AM | #267 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Sorry, this is the last post:
So I might be able to figure out exactly what it is that you do not understand, please explain back to me what it is you think I am trying to do. I have attempted a number of times to explain very clearly what is I am trying to do. How do you interpret my explanations? Thank you. Until tomorrow, good night. |
29th December 2013, 03:12 AM | #268 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
Yup.
The official story has evidence. The false flag fantasy not only has no evidence, but requires such grossly contorted and complex scenarios as to be a parody of itself. This is just wrong. Not only is it not 100% proof, not only is it not proof beyond reasonable doubt, it is 0% proof. It is, however, total fantasy. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
29th December 2013, 03:16 AM | #269 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
29th December 2013, 03:35 AM | #270 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
29th December 2013, 03:37 AM | #271 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
We understand; you're just wrong. What you are trying to make your made up story as valid of a position as the true story. Your ideas are not valid. It seems similar to the "teach the controversy" tactic used by creationists. Sorry, won't work your idea is not a competing theory.
ETA: Are you a pilot? |
29th December 2013, 03:41 AM | #272 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
|
The rest of his argument is crazy, but that bit is correct with the corrections. (Although the terrorists were pleasantly surprised the buildings collapsed.)
Two can play the pedantry game! Everyone join in! It's more fun than identifying strawmen and shifting goalposts! |
29th December 2013, 05:41 AM | #273 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
Oh, look!
|
Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 29th December 2013 at 05:42 AM. Reason: Between the Parrot & the Pumpkin. What would you do, Buddy? |
|
29th December 2013, 06:32 AM | #274 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
|
David,
Are you sure you have thought this through? Let us momentarily assume for the sake of argument that your list of, umm, circumstances would provide compelling evidence of a false flag attack. If that were so, then under what weird definition would the attack be "WELL PLANNED"? I can think of ways to rationalize that position after the fact, but it doesn't seem that any of them would naturally lead you to write about this in the way you did. The analogies to creationism seem very much on point, with the caveat that in most creationist accounts, it is in no way surprising that the Creator leaves evidence of His handiwork everywhere, whereas we might expect false flag attackers to have a different set of incentives. If you haven't studied creationist apologetics, and if you aren't a creationist, you might find it instructive. ETA: Although I deliberately chose not to wade into the details, it certainly would be interesting to know whether you have any response to abaddon at #239. As matters stand, you have no explanation of the bandana whatsoever, even though you seemed to think it was excellent evidence up to there. |
29th December 2013, 08:59 AM | #275 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
That isn't Occam's Razor, that is the Chimpanzee part of the brain at work. You are merely flinging poop. Using that logic you can simply will the events to be whatever you wish without having to provide a single shred of actual proof.
Its asinine. BTW - The simplest explanation for the recovered bandana and the thousands of other recovered items of personal effects is they ended up their as the result of a plane crash. You still lose. We know the plane crashed. We know what people were on board. We know they were carrying these personal effects. Those personal effects were recovered at the site of the plane crash. Occam's Razor says they were deposited by the plane. |
__________________
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. |
|
29th December 2013, 09:11 AM | #276 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
29th December 2013, 09:13 AM | #277 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
29th December 2013, 09:18 AM | #278 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
My question is why would it be unreasonable to look at the facts as observed and make the connections from those. The concerns over "probability" stopped at the moment the attacks took place.
No... most people responding realize that the events already happened irrespective of their future probability of repeating. And thus, the logical "jump" comes from examining the connecting facts of what already happened instead of on questions of if it can happen again. Whether you understand the difference between future probability and 20/20 hindsight, how evidence standards are, or are playing games (I can care less what it is you're doing)... you should be capable of making your connections without relying on something as useless as perceived probabilities of occurrence. But if you don't want to make that logical leap, then nothing about what you've been told is going to ring. The short and sweet response to this is you've grossly and misleadingly simplified the rebuttals to your points. I don't know about other people, I can't read their minds... but I don't get concerned with impossibility or possibility. The event already happened, the only thing that is relevant is how it happened, and when lead to it succeeding. That requires a chain of evidence, which dwelling all of your brain matter on discussing probability doesn't discuss, period. If you don't understand that, then I frankly, really don't know what you're expecting out of the exchange. |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
29th December 2013, 09:23 AM | #279 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
29th December 2013, 09:23 AM | #280 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|