|
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, 09:24 AM | #281 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
29th December 2013, 09:26 AM | #282 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
False claim.
In the decade prior to 9/11 the only military intercept of a domestic flight was that of pro-Golfer Payne Stewarts private jet (remember, you brought him up. Its transponder was pinging, ground control had constant radar contact and its course, speed and altitude were constant. The intercept took IIRC 74 minutes. Was there 74 minutes of warning time to intercept any of the hijacked 9/11 flights? The military intercept international flights more frequently but we aren't talking about international flights here. It is a very important distinction.
Quote:
NEADS was conducted a week-long exercise at the time 9/11 happened. So what? So what is important. We need to know why it is relevant that a military training exercise was being conducted at the same time. Why should we care? Are military exercises highly unusual or are they in fact routine? If NEADS had not been conducting a military exercise would that also have been suspicious to you? Also, the 3 F-16's from Langley that flew east out to sea did so because that was the standard routine in a scramble and they had no clear orders to do otherwise, NOT because of any exercise NEADS was conducting. On what basis do you connect these two events?
Quote:
On what planet?
Quote:
Do you have after all of this time anything other than persona incredulity to present?
Quote:
Quote:
I have to note you still have not presented a case. You have not told us EXACTLY who did it and how many co-conspirators were required. You have not told us HOW they did it. You have not told us WHY they did it? Do I need continue? Here's and Occam's Razor explanation that beats yours hands down: A terrorist cabal with a long history of attacking the U.S. and American interests combines two favorites from the standard terrorist playbook (hijacking and suicide bombing) in order to finish a job they started in 1993 and achieve their political goals. We know what they did, we know when they did it, we know exactly how they did it, we know exactly who they were and we most importantly know WHY they did it. All of this backed by vast amounts of evidence - unlike your version which relies entirely on magical thinking and a false invocation of a scientific principal you clearly do not even understand. |
__________________
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, 09:30 AM | #283 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
^^^ Ouch.
|
29th December 2013, 09:34 AM | #284 |
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, 09:51 AM | #285 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
|
Five strikes he's out
1) DW claims that not explaining anything explains everything. False.
“Hitchens' razor is a principle in epistemology (philosophical razor). It states that the burden of proof (onus) in a debate lies with the claim-maker and if he or she does not meet it then the opponent does not need to argue against the unfounded claim. It is named for journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens (1949–2011), who formulated it thus:[1][2]” – wiki
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”- Hitchens DW's assertions are dismissed. And with evidence. 2) DW claims that it’s unlikely that a hijacker’s passport would have been found because only one file cabinet was found. False. Tens of thousands of personal items such as the hijacker’s passport were found at Ground Zero. No need to wonder. A quick search would have found this claim to be wrong. The odds are 100% that thousands of personal artifacts such as passports were recovered from Ground Zero: Passports, wallets, cell phones, shoes, clothing, keys, signs, computer keyboards, ID cards, a baseball, fireman’s helmets, uniforms and shoes, tools, flags, revolvers, watches, rings, a clock, firearms, badges, souvenirs, oxygen tanks, dolls, golf balls, name plates, lipstick, eyeglasses, approximately 4,257 human remains of the victims, 4,000 personal photographs, $78,318.47 in domestic and foreign currency, 54,000 personal items such as identification cards and drivers licenses. http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/l...s/recovery.pdf http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest....html#photo=13 3) DW’s understanding and application of Occam’s Razor is wrong. Occam’s Razor is not the simplest explanation. Occam’s Razor is the simplest explanation of two competing hypotheses that explain the observed facts. DW's false flag claims have no facts supporting it. When you have two hypothesis that both explain the observed facts, it is the simplest explanation requiring the fewest assumptions that one chooses. That is Occam’s Razor. DW has no evidence that the bandana was planted. 4) DW’s recent strongest “QED” proof of an “inside job” posted was his and Chandler’s claim that WTC7’s north wall immediately fell from completely still to free fall acceleration as a result of simultaneous explosives at all columns. This has been proven false, as the north wall first fell at less than FFA due to the resistance of the buckling columns. 5) DW’s claim that the three towers should have fallen through “the path of least resistance” (air only?) instead of through the vertical path of gravity is false. To be fair he has said he’s not very good at physics. Doesn’t it bother DW to be so wrong so often about his “evidence” and yet still believe in any one of the many Official Truther Stories of “CD” and “false flag?” The answer is obvious. 100% no. Has DW admitted being wrong about these five assertions (to name a few) and corrected his blog/posts of these mistakes in order to not mislead the uneducated and the gullible? The answer is obvious. 100% no. The first time it’s a mistake, thereafter it’s a lie. The Ironic Mirror Fallacy. I understand DW’s frustration. He has not explained anything except the obstinate will to believe what he knows ain’t so. |
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum |
|
29th December 2013, 10:02 AM | #286 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
And do you think this is our problem or your problem? Or in other words, do you feel this is because none of us can comprehend your obvious genius OR do you feel this is because you have utterly failed to present a reasonable, rational case?
For example,...
Quote:
Quote:
Are you afraid to vet your own claims for quality?
Quote:
What you derisively and not quite correctly refer to as the official story which is backed by 12 years of research and tens of thousands of items of evidence. It can name names, dates, track the money trail, explain exactly who did it, when, where, how and why. The we have your version, the FF which is based on zero evidence, just magical thinking derived from your careful cherry-picking of a tiny handful of those thousands of pieces of evidence and declaring they are the result of a FF because you say so because in your mind they are improbable. If you were a rational, intelligent person new to this subject and you were faced with a choice between these two sides which one would you chose and why? If you were to present your case to a prosecutor what do you think would be the response? |
__________________
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, 10:20 AM | #287 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
29th December 2013, 10:21 AM | #288 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
Let me burst this bubble.
You got many things wrong in your list. The vaporizing, the drills, the 2.4 trillions... But even without correcting these false assertions, there's another, higher-level point to make. I'll give you an alternative, VERY EASY explanation: "Secondary Effect of Terrorist Attack" (SETA). Of course I can elaborate, but FF is your claim, so it's your turn to elaborate. So far you have just a global claim that FF explains everything. I make also the global claim that SETA explains everything. Go ahead and say HOW does FF explain everything. Mine is as simple as yours: everywhere you put FF I put SETA. Except SETA doesn't leave out the many items you are leaving out of that explanation. It explains everything that happened that day and in the days that led to that day that are not anomalies, and leaves room for some anomalies. That's far more than FF can explain. Going about each and every item as "it's false" or "it was planted" without proof is a leap into unfalsifiable grounds, pretty much as the existence of any god is. The best hypothesis is the one that explains the most evidence. If it just explains a very reduced, chosen set of events and leaves out the rest of the evidence, then it's not the best hypothesis. I hope to have shown you both blades of the razor, the way you're (mis)using it. Let me turn your own argument inside out so you see how it plays: E.G., people wouldn't fly or not be in NYC on 9/11? Explanation, SETA. They didn't know it was coming. Your explanation? "its possible they were told in advance by who knows why and that somehoe implies a false flag." They had security concerns according to the reports. WHY? Because there was an imminent possibility of a terrorist attack. YOU DO NOT GET IT! I do not have to explain ANYTHING with anything but "Secondary Effect of Terrorist Attack!" It explains everything! Exactly how things developed after the attack, I do not know. But if -- I say it was -- it was a terrorist attack, they planned it out well. And all of the anomalies/oddities are explained and understood when it is recognized that the secondary effects of a terrorist attack are the plausible explanation. Thus, it was a terrorist attack. 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?" See? It plays both ways. Now let me ask something that is at the very core of your misunderstanding: No they cant. But since you seem to think so, would you please go ahead and explain them instead of handwaving them away? As Craig4 succintly puts it: |
29th December 2013, 10:23 AM | #289 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
29th December 2013, 10:29 AM | #290 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
29th December 2013, 10:34 AM | #291 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
29th December 2013, 10:44 AM | #292 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
You speak of JREF as a monolithic entity, and you continue to refer to an Official Story.
This is a Forum, not a think tank. If no one is coming to your side, it's because they long ago fled the debate. The events of that day and their subsequent interpretation and court evidence and cases form a common narrative, there is no tome with a government seal. I see you continue to argue in latter posts using ill-defined terms and avoiding providing evidence and causal mechanisms ("it was planted": how and by whom?). Your arguments are appearing increasingly desperate. I recommend you reassess your approach. Never forget the alternative all too many (occasionally myself) fail to consider: that they may be wrong, not only about their answers, also about the nature of their critics. |
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
29th December 2013, 10:59 AM | #293 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
Quote:
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
29th December 2013, 11:14 AM | #294 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
David, you were warned about the futility of trying to determine whether something was true or not, or whether something happened or not based on probability alone. Yet you can't help yourself. Your long post contains many assertions which are also incorrect, as has been pointed out to you. This is not going well for you.
I remind you that while you are distracted by anomalies and puzzles, there are a multitude of irrefutable facts supporting the basic understanding of the terrorist attacks, and which do not support your claim of an undefined 'FF'. The identities of the hijackers are established facts The jet crashes are established facts, in all four locations The fires and collapses at the WTC are established facts There is no credible evidence of controlled demolition. None of this can be refuted by a credible inquiry. That's why it was an Outside Job, not an Inside Job. No amount of your muttering, protestation and ill-informed nit-picking is going to change reality, or amount to anything significant. If you want to spend your time speculating on internet forums, with no hope of changing the facts, that's your choice I guess. Let us know how it works out for you. |
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
29th December 2013, 12:05 PM | #295 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
|
That was a brilliant post -- at least I think it was: I ended up skimming a bit myself! But it seems right to me. It inspired my question at #82. Other posters made similar points as well, about other artifacts.
I'm just looking for ways to startle David into a fundamental reassessment. We all see why his "explanation" doesn't explain anything, but apparently he doesn't. Not that I expect to succeed where others are failing, but it's good for us to try different approaches. |
29th December 2013, 12:44 PM | #296 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
29th December 2013, 12:49 PM | #297 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
David's approach is fundamentally wrong because he chose it specifically to confirm his delusions, not as a means towards discovering what really happened. Thus his conclusions based on that approach will always be wrong and at some level I suspect he may even know that. Why else the conscious choice to pursue probabilities rather than evidence the way a real investigator would?
Think about it this way; 9/11 was first and foremost a criminal act - well, lots of criminal acts actually. Hijacking, multiple counts of murder, kidnapping, destruction of property, immigration violations, etc, etc, etc,... In any criminal case investigators assign guilt or innocence by careful review of the evidence. David can not reach the conclusion he wants to reach based on the evidence, hence he has chosen a different route of his own creation based on probabilities whose values he gets to determine. Then he cherry-picks what factors he wants to assign probabilities (may of those factors being false to begin with) and weighs each of them in favor of the conclusion he wants to reach. It is an inherently biased approach geared purely to self-gratification and ego. David, if I may suggest a scenario: Say hypothetically that a person was murdered and a suspect apprehended. Would you want the prosecutors to take the case to trial based on evidence or on probabilities? Well, s/he is probably guilty so put em in the chair. I personally am unaware of any legal system where probabilities outweigh evidence and I suspect there is a pretty good reason for that. |
__________________
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, 12:52 PM | #298 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
29th December 2013, 01:04 PM | #299 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
29th December 2013, 01:05 PM | #300 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 2,424
|
Forgive me if I state what has already been said, but if you stay away from this forum for two days, you are confronted with 8 pages to catch up on, and I haven't read all 8.
It occurs to me that the concept of "odds" is inappropriate to ascribe to things which are planned. Things that happen at random, or have varying possibilities, can have odds. If I plan to walk to the mailbox on a non-holiday, what are the odds? Unless I die first, 100%. There is no randomness or chaos here that can be interpreted in a mathematical way. Just because something seems unlikely doesn't mean the odds are 0%. If it happened, the odds are 100%. There simply is no reasonable use of mathematics here. |
29th December 2013, 01:12 PM | #301 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
He has been told in a variety of ways - subtly - gently persuasive explanation through to outright blunt.
I've even posted him a comprehensive coaching course on "How To Make Your Arguments" All to no avail. The better and more comprehensive the response the more certain it is that he will ignore it. So typical truther behaviour. |
29th December 2013, 01:29 PM | #302 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
29th December 2013, 02:26 PM | #303 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
When you have a fantasy as silly as you have with endless FF, who could understand gibberish of 911 truth? ?you and 911 truth followers armed with woo?
lol http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html If it was not for your body of work, it would be probable you were making fun of 911 truth. You believe your lies. |
29th December 2013, 02:41 PM | #304 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Quote:
Its not a "tie" just because you claim that all of the minutia has a probability attached to it. So does every bit of the , so far unlisted, event that must have been undertaken in order to have your alternative scenario take place. Once that is in place one can compare probabilities. So you have some work to do. First of all, tell us what events took place to set up the alternative scenario you wish to adhere to. In fact, you may wish to visit the thread I created just for that purpose, which you seem to have not noticed yet.http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=271043 |
29th December 2013, 02:55 PM | #305 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Let's try this: One item -- the FBI collected videos from two places near the Pentagon within minutes after the Pentagon was hit. 1). Does everyone agree this occurred?
Why did they do this? Why so quickly? Why was the FBI even thinking in those terms (confiscating video)? Why would it even be necessary to collect the videos? This is just one item. I am not saying this one item proves anything. It does not prove 9/11 was a FF. Point: IF 9/11 WAS a FF, a simple and very reasonable explanation would be they had planned in advance to confiscate the videos for whatever reason. If 9/11 was not a FF, what is the reasonable explanation for the FBI collecting videos within minutes of the Pentagon being hit? What would that reasonable explanation be? |
29th December 2013, 03:00 PM | #306 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
29th December 2013, 03:03 PM | #307 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Agreed that FBI collected evidence - it happens to be part of their job. The "minutes" bit is truther hyperbole.
you cannot be serious. AND: Why do you keep posting this stupidity? You have been repeatedly told what it wrong with it AND you have been shown one way to make a reasoned argument to support a claim. Get serious please David. You are rapidly running out of support from those of us who are trying to help you. |
29th December 2013, 03:04 PM | #308 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
29th December 2013, 03:04 PM | #309 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
http://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/fbi-headquarters where is FBI headquarters? lol, how silly will your dots become? oops
Wow, how many minutes, exactly? Right you make up the dumbest claims, and this one is one of the silly ones. It is their job to collect evidence. A grade school kids knows this; why don't you? Right you do fantasy only, and can't figure out 911 given the answer and 12 years to do research. Like the quote button, evidence can't be found by 911 truth. |
29th December 2013, 03:12 PM | #310 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
|
|
29th December 2013, 03:14 PM | #311 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
Uhm, they were collecting evidence. That's their job.
The videos have been released to the public anyway, you can see them if you like. You don't even have a clue as to why they would 'confiscate' them even if there were a FF, so you have no point even by your own standards. This reminds me of the futile discussions I used to have with an associate who introduced me to 9/11 Truth. A lot of half-baked ideas with no relevance to the main facts of 9/11. The reason that most truthers get excited about the pentagon videos is that they think no plane hit the pentagon. It's a foolish idea based on more nonsense, barely worthy of discussion in late 2013. You might as well be arguing about the length of a unicorn horn, it's about as meaningful as what you brought up. |
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
29th December 2013, 03:16 PM | #312 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
meh, beachnut beat me to it
David, you've failed really badly here on JREF. You should just stop. At this point I suspect most people don't care what you write, it's frankly a bunch of drivel. Maybe you should try this stuff on some 3-year olds who don't know anything about anything yet. It might give you a fighting chance. |
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
29th December 2013, 03:21 PM | #313 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Holy Carp david!
Watch any real cop program like "48 Hours". When a store gets robbed the FIRST thing cops do is look to the video. If the store doesn't have video, or if other views are needed, or if the crime included something not in range of the store's cameras, they check nearby stores and banks to see what their cameras caught. Its City Police Department Detective 101. Pretty sure (that's sarcasm!) the FBI would get that same training. What's is the probability that the FBI, who's headquaters is basically down the street from the Pentagon, would immediately go in search of video of the events? 100% NEXT! |
29th December 2013, 03:25 PM | #314 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
29th December 2013, 03:41 PM | #315 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
Collecting evidence is what the FBI does. Duh. Seriously, now you are just being thick. BTW - Define "within minutes". How many minutes are we talking here? Given the close proximity of these video sources to the FBI headquarters is the number of minutes it took suspicious? Why?
But wait,...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the aftermath of the attack the FBI went around to local businesses and collected surveillance camera footage as possible evidence. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request the FBI identified 85 video's that it had acquired by various means and tagged as evidence in the 9/11 case. That does not mean there are 85 videos showing the attack but merely represents an accounting of the number of videos obtained, not what they show. One video for example was taken from a Kinko's in Florida. According to the FBI 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11." Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon." Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77." Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage, that would later be released in 2006 after being used as evidence in the Moussawi trial. It was taken by a low resolution Philips LTC 1261 TV security camera at a checkpoint in the entrance to a parking lot. This camera was recording at one frame per second and had a limited field of view of the impact site. This camera at its location would have been entirely incapable of taking a clear image of a Boeing 757 moving at 780 feet/237.9 meters per second. But of course we don't care about any of this. As I mentioned earlier the no video meme is a deliberate deception used by 9/11 Truth to avoid having to deal with the mountains of evidence that prove overwhelmingly that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. AND you acknowledge that none of this is proof of a FF. So why is this even a topic of discussion? Do you just enjoy wasting your time and ours? |
__________________
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, 03:48 PM | #316 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let me ask you a question: Why would a secret squirrel organization with the capability to pull off the 9/11 attacks and then frame Al Qaeda not just stage a coup in the country(Iraq/Afghanistan) that they - in your opinion - wanted to invade? Why not overthrow Saddam using an INSIDE JOB?. Why not do the same with the Taliban? I humbly ask this as an American whose Central Intelligence Agency actually did this in a number of countries in the late 1940s through the 1970s. We overthrew governments we didn't like and installed puppets. The Soviets did the same thing. No bombers, no paratroopers, no drones. If it was about Iraqi oil, why not install a friendly regime to get cheaper oil? The oil companies make money either way. You fail at black ops, so the faster you give up on false flag ops the happier you'll be. |
29th December 2013, 03:49 PM | #317 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Thank you. All I asked for was what your reasonable explanation was. You gave me one.
The FBI collected the videos within minutes because the FBI was close and that is what the FBI does, they collect evidence. I will accept it. Thank you. |
29th December 2013, 03:58 PM | #318 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
And what is your response to the incredibly pointless planting of a bandana in any possible scenario?
I thought you were seeking the simple and obvious truth. Why do you propose the bandana was a plant when it introduces extraordinary and futile complications? |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
29th December 2013, 04:12 PM | #319 |
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, 04:21 PM | #320 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
One more simple question. I am asking what is the explanation for the bandana surviving UA 93 in such good condition? It basically looks brand new.
I am not saying it is not "possible." I do not know what explanation has been given in the past from JREF. I simply want to know your explanation. What is it? Thank you. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|