-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
tigersnake said:
The irony of this paragraph is supreme. Just awesome.
There are no untruths or halftruths in the sentence you quoted. None. The planes did factually hit just below the floors that housed the US's 2 largest bond security companies. They did sustain the heaviest losses. The SEC did enact a state of emergency for the first time in history as a result. The state of emergency is the only time fund trusts can be cleared without any of the usual scrutiny.
The fact you want to call these facts untruths and halftruths without even knowing what they're referring to says everything you need to know about this entire thread.
tigersnake said:
They're not my truther mates. They're lifelong commercial pilots and air traffic controllers. They have an absolute wealth of experience.
I also didn't come up with anything. I was trying to discuss the contents of the essay. Is it really too much to ask to be able to that in a civilised manner?
Disco08 said:
tried that. Fair dinkum. Assertion after assertion gets knocked down at best, or seriously called into question at worst. You either move on and pretend it didn't happen (or maybe don't even know it happened), chuck a little tantrum (eg, Poppa 'what would you know'), change the goalposts, and then start all over again. Its crazy.
Another example of this is the bond selling fallacy. Soda posted some very clear evidence on why it wasn't a coincidence at all. You just carried on regardless, keep making assertions about this bond-selling 'coincidence' (ie conspiracy), as if its been somehow proven or accepted, it hasn't. Very far from it. As an issue, its done and dusted.
If there was a neutral debating referee on this thread, you'd be down to a very small number of points, as they have been knocked down one by one. But there isn't. So the annoyingness continues.
So the appeal to Noam was spot on but you don't actually realise what the truth movement is mostly objecting to? Fair enough.
All rubbish. Why would anyone ignore all the expert opinion and completely accept the word of some guy on the internet who says he's flown a plane?
Where did Soda post any evidence relating to BEFT? You didn't even know what it was a minute ago and now you're saying "As an issue, its done and dusted"? LOL.
You've rarely if ever even tried to rationally discuss any fact in this thread. It's all bland statements and insults such as your last post that are so far from the truth they could almost be lumped in with the 9/11 CR. Then when I stand up for myself you have a sook and say you're out of here. You did that on page 6 from memory (or was it page 3?). You really should have stuck to it then.
The 9/11 CR doesn't actually exist?
tigersnake said:
All rubbish. Why would anyone ignore all the expert opinion and completely accept the word of some guy on the internet who says he's flown a plane?
Where did Soda post any evidence relating to BEFT? You didn't even know what it was a minute ago and now you're saying "As an issue, its done and dusted"? LOL.
You've rarely if ever even tried to rationally discuss any fact in this thread. It's all bland statements and insults such as your last post that are so far from the truth they could almost be lumped in with the 9/11 CR. Then when I stand up for myself you have a sook and say you're out of here. You did that on page 6 from memory (or was it page 3?). You really should have stuck to it then.
antman said:
The 9/11 CR doesn't actually exist?
Sorry snake Soda did say that he/she thought there should have been back up copies of the records destroyed at the Pentagon. He/she obviously didn't realise that there were back up copies and that they were destroyed when WTC7 collapsed primarily due to office fires. I pointed that out but perhaps you missed it.
Disco08 said:
Geez. I did discuss rationally a while ago. During phase 1, I had the mistaken belief that we were having a reasoned argument. Wrong. I tried to isolate single issues and stick to them for the sake of achieving something, anything, in that instance it was a few things, the Silverman insurance claim amongst them. Someone else had a crack at the holograms, someone else had a go at the occurance of the pentagon crash. Then in phase 2 I stupidly waded back in to try and illustrate your strange, irrational way of debating by isolating single rhetorical devices you use, fail, water off your disco-duck back, nothing doing. Now phase 3, total exasperation and frustration. Having read Poppa's posts for years, and knowing him to be a consistent, logical bloke, I take him at his word that he has flown a plane, and his posts on the actual mechanics and requirements of flying a plane, anonymous internet bloke or no, sounded completely rational, logical and convincing to me.
But not to you.
The post and link I read that Soda posted basically said, in lengthy terms, that there was nothing suspicious about any trades prior to 9/11. And Laid out the evidence. I must be taking crazy pills.
The trades we were talking about then have nothing to do with the BEFT. Not to mention that that page did a completely hopeless job of explaining the abberations in trading evident around 9/11. It explained one example by referring to the 9/11 CR and ignored many other examples and the overall anomalous nature of 9/11 trading. But if you only want to read that and accept it without digging any further that's up to you.
So poppa's convincing to you but a collection of highly credentialled commercial pilots and experienced air traffic controllers are just conspiracy nuts worthy only of being ignored? LOL.
I reread up to page 4 where you first called it quits. Presumably that was the phase 1 where you "had the mistaken belief that we were having a reasoned argument" and all I saw was you quitting when I tried to make a couple of perfectly valid points. I'm sorry you feel my debating stye is so dishonest but really can you either just come here and discuss the topic or leave it alone altogether? Discussing my debating style is boring and a complete waste of time.
So poppa's convincing to you but a collection of highly credentialled commercial pilots and experienced air traffic controllers are just conspiracy nuts worthy only of being ignored? LOL.
I reread up to page 4 where you first called it quits. Presumably that was the phase 1 where you "had the mistaken belief that we were having a reasoned argument" and all I saw was you quitting when I tried to make a couple of perfectly valid points. I'm sorry you feel my debating stye is so dishonest but really can you either just come here and discuss the topic or leave it alone altogether? Discussing my debating style is boring and a complete waste of time.
So it seems.
As adults we shouldn't have to. And I mildly resented the accusation that I'm not open to being convinced by evidence the first time you accused me of that. That's completely untrue and a pure copout on your behalf and to be frank - insulting.
Is there any aspect of 9/11 you'd like to discuss or should we just agree to disagree about my open mindedness, objectivity and any other aspect of my debating style you find annoying?
tigersnake said:
As adults we shouldn't have to. And I mildly resented the accusation that I'm not open to being convinced by evidence the first time you accused me of that. That's completely untrue and a pure copout on your behalf and to be frank - insulting.
Is there any aspect of 9/11 you'd like to discuss or should we just agree to disagree about my open mindedness, objectivity and any other aspect of my debating style you find annoying?
You're insulted? Geez that's rich. The accusations and insinuations you've thrown around to a litany of people accusing them of being complicit to terrorism and profiting from it! And precious Disco is insulted because someone has questioned his openness! Hypocrite much?Disco08 said:
;D
It's like a series of the X-Files in here. Lots of questions and few answers. Time and time and time again...
It's like a series of the X-Files in here. Lots of questions and few answers. Time and time and time again...
Disco08 said:
By my reckoning, as a result of debate by various posters on this thread, which at times I've found very interesting:
the assertion that crudely trained terrorists couldn't fly a plane into a huge building: skittled
The assertion that there was Anomolous trading before the attack: skittled
The assertion that Silverman conspired to attack his own buildings to collect on insurance: skittled
The assertion that the pentagon attack didn't happen: skittled
The assertion that there was no wreckage: skittled
The assertion that the buildings were demolished: skittled to my mind, but I could see how some people might just think it was just brought into serious doubt
there's probably more, who really cares anymore
I'd ask you to explain assertions 1, 2 & 3 but there's little point right?
Nope. You?
All I've ever said is that there needs to be a proper investigation. While the evidence to me suggests complicty I admit the possibility that incompetence and anomaly are to blame. To that end I've never accused anyone of anything. Can you find a post where I've made an out and out accusation?
tigertim said:
Nope. You?
All I've ever said is that there needs to be a proper investigation. While the evidence to me suggests complicty I admit the possibility that incompetence and anomaly are to blame. To that end I've never accused anyone of anything. Can you find a post where I've made an out and out accusation?
Disco08 said:
That's your fall-back position, which you take refuge in as soon as anyone points out the flaws in the many elaborate conspiracies you "imply". We've just had a great example of that - computer controlled planes that crash into carefully targeted offices in order to conceal evidence of CIA wrongdoing, hoarding and trading. A complex conspiracy if there ever was one.
As soon as anyone points out the absurdly complex chains of evidence that such a theory depends upon, you are back to "oh I'm just a rational mature adult who wants an unbiased investigation".
Seriously Disco, your intellectual flatulence is increasingly repetitive.
Your inability to accept my word at face value says it all. It's not a fall back position. It's the same position I've held and stated all along. I'm happy to discuss the "absurdly complex chains of evidence" as soon as you can clarify exactly what you mean by that.
I'm interested in learning about and discussing 9/11. I thought I could do that here but clearly that's a lot easier said than done. The BEFT essay is a perfect example. There's been no objective analysis of what's presented at all. All any of you want to do is dismiss it as quickly and as disdainfully as possible.
But congrats on yet another post with a personal jab. You guys are nothing if not consistent.
I'm interested in learning about and discussing 9/11. I thought I could do that here but clearly that's a lot easier said than done. The BEFT essay is a perfect example. There's been no objective analysis of what's presented at all. All any of you want to do is dismiss it as quickly and as disdainfully as possible.
But congrats on yet another post with a personal jab. You guys are nothing if not consistent.
