IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Reply
Old 29th December 2013, 09:24 AM   #281
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually he would need to present a case in order to be wrong.
I think it has been suggested to him...

...once or twice.

ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 09:26 AM   #282
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
We'll have "hijacked airplanes" so let's make sure things are very confused. I got it, false radar blips. But what about military interception? I mean something like 100 times a year they intercept aircraft all over the US for whatever reason -- no radio response, off course, what ever -- within MINUTES!!
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:
Well how about having a drill on same day, same time that sends fighters out to sea?
More false claims.

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:
Hey, any video cameras around the Pentagon that might show what we are going to hit the Pentagon with? Check it out. Oh, a Hotel and a Citgo have cameras. Not sure what they will show. So dispense quickly after and confiscate them. That should take care of that.
The missing video meme is a deliberate deception by Truthers, an attempt to distract observers from the overwhelming physical evidence that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. Or are you going to now also claim (again without any proof) that the engines, landing gear, thousands of other bits of plane large and small, FDR, the remains of everyone on board and all of their personal effects were planted? And oh yeah, the 136 witnesses who are on record as seeing Flight 77 hit (and zero on record as seeing anything else) are all paid shills, right? That makes more sense than terrorists combining two of their favorite pastimes - hijacker and suicide bombing - into one?

On what planet?

Quote:
And on and on. So how do you explain false radar blips on same day? "It's possible". How do you explain fighter intercepts way away? "Coincidence". How do you explain multiple video confiscation within minutes? "Possible reasonable explanation." ALL "possibles" or "possibilities."
Easily - the confusion of a chaotic event. Not exactly uncommon. Where is you proof it was anything else.

Do you have after all of this time anything other than persona incredulity to present?

Quote:
How can they ALL be explained VERY EASILY? "Planned False Flag."
Planned by who? Can you name a single suspect based on the evidence?

Quote:
It goes on and on. I say it was a well planned false flag which can easily explain every single item I chose to point out. You have to -- many times contort -- to find a "possible" explanation for EVERY SINGLE THING!!
Well, when you carefully cherry-pick your claims and ignore the vast quantities of other evidence which overwhelming prove what really happened then yes, you can make the events of that day fit any fantasy you want.

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.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 09:30 AM   #283
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
^^^ Ouch.



ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 09:34 AM   #284
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
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.
And the intercept pilot was already in the air (on a training mission no less).
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 09:51 AM   #285
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Five strikes he's out

1) DW claims that not explaining anything explains everything. False.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Wow. Nobody understands what is going on here but me.
<snip>
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?"
“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.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Coincidences and highly unlikely things do happen. But, how unlikely were they? How many very unlikely things happened? How many coincidences are required to explain away many very unlikely things? The answer would be many.

How likely is it that many very unlikely things happened during one event?

I mean, what were the odds that one hijacker's passport would be found AND only one filing cabinet would be found?

I wonder.
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.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
"It" is EVERYTHING can be explained by "False Flag."
And explained easily. All you can come up with is "it's possible."

For example, to take the "pristine" bandana found from UA 93, you can only come up with it's not impossible. Okay, I agree. It is not impossible. But with FF, its easy -- it was planted. Which is the simpler "occam's razor" explanation? -- it was "planted." And that goes for every example I posted. The occam's razor explanation for EVERYTHING is FF. Therefore, the simplest explanation for all of 9/11 is FF. No contest.

That is the "it."
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.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
You cannot see "it?" …..
Wow. Nobody understands what is going on here but me.
YOU DO NOT GET IT! I do not have to explain ANYTHING.
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
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 10:02 AM   #286
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Wow. Nobody understands what is going on here but me.
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:
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.
If I am reading you correctly you admit you have presented no proof of a FF/IJ yet at the same time you claim this complete absence of proof is in fact proof the official story is false?

Quote:
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.
I'm curious, have you applied your hypothetical probability generator to your claims of a FF to see how probable or improbable that is? So far I have only seen you claim "this is improbable therefore FF". I have not seen you make any attempt to rule on whether FF is actually more, equally or less probable.

Are you afraid to vet your own claims for quality?

Quote:
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.!!"
Yes, we know. Basically, in your world the two opposing sides boil down to this:

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.

Last edited by Mark F; 29th December 2013 at 10:02 AM. Reason: spelling
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 10:20 AM   #287
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually he would need to present a case in order to be wrong.
Yeah, I was more talking about his whole approach being wrong. Of course, if he has an idea about how 911 happened I have no doubt that would be wrong too.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 10:21 AM   #288
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
To put in another way:

Everything you have in defense of official story is that all of the many "things" that happened 'are not impossible.' E.g., (I believe I am right about this) ozeco said, not that we have proved WTC7 to be a fire-induced collapse, we have only proven it possible.
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.


Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
How can they ALL be explained VERY EASILY? "Planned False Flag."
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.


Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Occam's Razor!
I hope to have shown you both blades of the razor, the way you're (mis)using it.


Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
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?"
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:
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
And all of the anomalies/oddities can be easily explained and understood when it is recognized that is the plausible explanation.
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:
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Wow. Nobody understands what is going on here but me.

Snip
No, that would not be the problem.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 10:23 AM   #289
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Do you think the Official Story is more reasonable than FF?

If so, state your reasons please.
In a nutshell: because evidence, and not unfalsifiable conjecture, backs it.

ETA: or as BasqueArch puts it quoting Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

Last edited by pgimeno; 29th December 2013 at 10:25 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 10:29 AM   #290
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
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.
I also tried to make a similar point in my post #58. I guess it fell into the tl;dr category.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 10:34 AM   #291
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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.
I still think he's sincere. I know that wishful blindness is powerful enough to make someone look that silly.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 10:44 AM   #292
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
What? I have divined something? I only want to know whether or not I have it correct the
reasons the "official story" is said at JREF to be the "null." If I do not have it correct, my next point does not apply.
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
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 10:59 AM   #293
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by david.watts
We'll have "hijacked airplanes" so let's make sure things are very confused. I got it, false radar blips. But what about military interception? I mean something like 100 times a year they intercept aircraft all over the US for whatever reason -- no radio response, off course, what ever -- within MINUTES!!
Demonstrably false. Mr. Watts, please either retract or defend your use of this claim.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 11:14 AM   #294
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 12:05 PM   #295
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I also tried to make a similar point in my post #58. I guess it fell into the tl;dr category.
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.
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 12:44 PM   #296
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
And the best answer is?................................To use a quantum mechanics analogy, the wave function has already collapsed, the observation has already been made. Probability is now meaningless. (LSSBB)

!!!!!!!! Priceless.
Education required to understand answer (4years at $10,000 per year) = $40,000.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 12:49 PM   #297
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
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.
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.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 12:52 PM   #298
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
YES....but don't keep circling the point...move forward.

"We" have said "Cat has no pulse" "Cat is squashed flat due to MVA"

And all you keep repeating is that the cat had crossed the road thousands of times and the probability of it getting run over was very low. And you imply "The cat is still alive" but don't actually get round to saying it.

And we keep saying "The probability on this occasion was 100% - see the cat is dead."

So over to you to prove that the cat is still living.

Change out of metaphor mode whenever it suits you.


PS
Its a long story but some years back my neighbour had a cat - and it frequently crossed the road in front of our adjoining properties.

It successfully crossed the road 3765 and one half times.

I don't think it had a 1:3766 chance of being alive. I thought - still think - it was 100% dead.
It's a Norwegian Blue and it's just pining for the fjords.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:04 PM   #299
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
I'm back. Not intoxicated but neither am I sober. But don't think it is necessary to be totally sober to respond to some of this ... stuff that came back.

Not a single one of you gets my case. I am not totally surprised but I thought maybe at least one of you would have at least an inkling and acknowledge it.

Let's start with the basis of everyone being neutral; a simple hypothetical. Everyone of us having just learned of 9/11 12 years after. No knowledge of any particular things. For the first time we are introduced to particular items that occurred. Based simply on the items -- no previous knowledge -- I presented, do I not make a case that the most likely explanation is FF?

Yes or no.
I'm pretty sure the Free French had nothing to do with it.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:05 PM   #300
Sherman Bay
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.
Sherman Bay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:12 PM   #301
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
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.
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.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 01:29 PM   #302
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Pretend you were planning an horrific horror show of a false flag for whatever reason. I say it was to get a "blank check." You won't pretend so let me do it for you.

We'll have "hijacked airplanes" so let's make sure things are very confused. I got it, false radar blips. But what about military interception? I mean something like 100 times a year they intercept aircraft all over the US for whatever reason -- no radio response, off course, what ever -- within MINUTES!! Remember Payne Stewart? Well how about having a drill on same day, same time that sends fighters out to sea? Not only is everyone confused with false radar blips, there won't be any fighters close enough. And maybe we can confuse any attempted communications with NORAD etc..
That should work. Hey, any video cameras around the Pentagon that might show what we are going to hit the Pentagon with? Check it out. Oh, a Hotel and a Citgo have cameras. Not sure what they will show. So dispense quickly after and confiscate them. That should take care of that.

And on and on. So how do you explain false radar blips on same day? "It's possible". How do you explain fighter intercepts way away? "Coincidence". How do you explain multiple video confiscation within minutes? "Possible reasonable explanation." ALL "possibles" or "possibilities."

How can they ALL be explained VERY EASILY? "Planned False Flag."

It goes on and on. I say it was a well planned false flag which can easily explain every single item I chose to point out. You have to -- many times contort -- to find a "possible" explanation for EVERY SINGLE THING!!

A well planned False Flag? That very easily and in a straight forward, unambiguous, very clear, easy to understand manner, explains EVERYTHING!!

Occam's Razor!

Put a guess at reasonable odds on every explanation the Official Story Requires? I mean, what are the odds? But I agree with you, "it's not impossible!"
You pull out Occam's Razor then use it to slit the throat of your own argument.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:26 PM   #303
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Wow. Nobody understands what is going on here but me.

...?"
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.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:41 PM   #304
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
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?"
Quote:
How probable is an "inside job"
Given that truthers wish to invoke an unnamed vastly powerful, massively funded, shadow organization capable of pulling off the mass murder of thousands while video cameras run, I must ask what are the odds that such was the case for the events of 9/11/01?

My opinion, that given the fact that this organization's very existence has never been illustrated as true, and that all the various mihop 911 conspiracies imbue this unknown agent as having almost god-like powers and ability, that it if extremely improbable
.
If you wish to debate on the issue of probabilities then YES you DO have to answer some questions.
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

Last edited by jaydeehess; 29th December 2013 at 02:42 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 02:55 PM   #305
david.watts
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?
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:00 PM   #306
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
If 9/11 was not a FF, what is the reasonable explanation for the FBI collecting videos within minutes of the Pentagon being hit?
Can you prove nefarious intent? Or are you going to rap around improbabilities again?
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:03 PM   #307
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
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?
Agreed that FBI collected evidence - it happens to be part of their job. The "minutes" bit is truther hyperbole.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
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?
you cannot be serious.
AND:
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post

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?
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.

Last edited by ozeco41; 29th December 2013 at 03:05 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:04 PM   #308
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
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?
Yep, they must be covering something up. Why on earth would they want to collect any form of evidence at the scene after all they are not truthers.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:04 PM   #309
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
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?
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.

Last edited by beachnut; 29th December 2013 at 03:08 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:12 PM   #310
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Let's try this:
No, let's not. As long as you're ignoring criticisms of your previous posts, why on earth should anyone chase your goalposts?
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:14 PM   #311
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
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?
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:16 PM   #312
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:21 PM   #313
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
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?
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!

Last edited by jaydeehess; 29th December 2013 at 03:24 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:25 PM   #314
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
BUMP!
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
If you wish to debate on the issue of probabilities then YES you DO have to answer some questions.
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, events 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
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:41 PM   #315
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
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?
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:
This is just one item. I am not saying this one item proves anything. It does not prove 9/11 was a FF.
Then so what? Why do we care? Why are you wasting our time with it if you can not even establish it is significant?

Quote:
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.
Point: IF 9/11 WAS a TERROR ATTACK a simple and very reasonable explanation would be they were looking for any evidence that could identify what happened.

Quote:
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?
See above. It is such a freakin no-brainer I honestly do not understand ANYONE who is too thick to grasp it. Any videos shot in the vicinity of the attack potentially contained evidence. Collecting evidence is part of the FBI's job. Are you saying the FBI should not collect evidence?

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.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:48 PM   #316
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Quote:
THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT!! Listen in everybody. POINT: OFFICIAL STORY CAN NOT BE PROVEN. INSIDE JOB/FALSE FLAG CAN NOT BE PROVEN.
The official story has been proven. What we all saw was what we got. Al Qaeda staged a successfull attack on targets in NYC and DC.

Quote:
BUT WHICH IS MUCH MORE LIKELY THE BEST EXPLANATION?
The one where all the evidence points to the conclusion that Al Qaeda did it. Troofers have zero evidence.



Quote:
IT IS FALSE FLAG BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS ONLY BASED ON POSSIBILITIES -- IN SOME CASES VERY IMPLAUSIBLE/CONTORTED POSSIBILITIES.
That's where your theory fails - none of the false flag theories are possible because they aren't consistant or provable in any way known to mankind.

Quote:
IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG, EVERYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED VERY SIMPLY.
No, just the opposite in fact, you've come to this dance too late and you look like a boob. A to fake what we saw on 9/11 would involve thousands of people. Money changes hands, consciences change, people talk.


Quote:
IT WAS NOT JUST A POSSIBILITY, IT WAS A 100% CERTAINTY.
Nothing is ever a 100% certainty. Nothing ever has been or will be.

Quote:
THEY PLANNED IT. THEY WANTED IT TO HAPPENED. THEY EXPECTED IT TO HAPPEN.
Babbling.

Quote:
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.
What was their end-game, their desired result?

Quote:
THIS IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE 100% PROOF IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
Do you understand you're train of though just fell apart?


Quote:
IMPLY, THIS IS SISMPLY PROOF, NOT JUST BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT FOR ALL/EVERY INTENT AND PURPOSE, WAY WAY BEYOND THAT.
In 8 pages you have yet to offer any proof to support your claims. Do you understand what proof consists of? I doubt you do.


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.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:49 PM   #317
david.watts
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.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 03:58 PM   #318
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
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...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 04:12 PM   #319
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post

I thought you were seeking the simple and obvious truth.
No, he wants an explanation that takes into account his world fantasy of the existence of "them".
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2013, 04:21 PM   #320
david.watts
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.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.