911 Truth Movement

[lamb22]

Its OK, I worked it out (not the alien anal probe stuff).

 

[Disco08]

What "evidence" have I "ignored"? You mean neighbors who said he wasn't the type to kill his children? Have you read the links I put up where this is a common response to a killing? Are you being objective Disco?

Domestic violence definition. I'm surprised you need to have it defined. http://www.domesticviolence.nsw.gov.au/

I hope your not one to minimise DV.

No I'm not. There's no reason to think any of the reported incidents equate to Marshall being guilty of domestic violence. They amount to a few instances over many years. Usually violent people form clearly recognisable habits and that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The evidence you seem to be ignoring is the assertions by Madsen that both Neighbours could have been reasonably expected to have heard the 4 gunshots and that there are witnesses that say the crime scene was illegally cleaned before being investigated. Don't you see how these facts - if true - cast huge doubt on the police's version of events?

The book is just one example, but a telling one none the less. To called it a fact as you see it. When it was pointed out it never happened you went on the offensive. Then there was the grey plane that hit WTC2. After I pasted the photos of the wreckage showing windows and what not, you magically do your own research and conclude you proved to yourself it was a real airliner. Then there's the wreckage of the Philly crash which you claim plane debris was found miles and miles away, an improbable result for a plane crash. When it was pointed put the wreckage in question was string and paper so highly probable, you stop mentioning it and switch away. Not once have you conceded a point where someone else brought evidence showing the truthers were barking up the wrong tree.

Using the victims families as the reason for the truth movement was pathetic. When taken to task on that you wriggled and reacted with fake hurt that you weren't using them as a debating gambit but just stating the facts. Both sides could have used what the victims family want in their arguments, but only one person in this debate continuously used them.

There's a couple of examples, plenty more. In all of those you attacked anyone who didnt believe your version of events. You've shown no respect to anyone, other than Harry, in ths debate. Why do you think you deserve any in return ?

If that's as much credit as you're willing to give me I honestly couldn't care less about your respect.

All I ask of you is to provide an example or two of the accusations you're making and I offer you an invitation to you to discuss any topic you think I've scampered away from in a civilised manner.

 

[Baloo]

All I ask of you is to provide an example or two of the accusations you're making and I offer you an invitation to you to discuss any topic you think I've scampered away from in a civilised manner.

And I've told you there was no point because it's been done before and you reacted with calling my accusations hollow. So despite my better judgement I point out in detail the moves you make when confronted with data that invalidates your beliefs. You go on to single out the book again making it seem like that is the only point I have, and for you it's a point that is laughable. What's laughable is how you call it a fact as you see it when you used it then quickly change it to a throw away line when you realise you have been conned by some troofer site in a way few newbies do. You called it a fact dancer, not me. But anyway....

So I detail a few more examples of facts and the way you scampered from them. Now you're coming out with some crap about credit (I didn't intend to give you any credit so it must have been in error) and asking for specific examples again. I just gave you some. if you don't want to discuss them, or if you'd rather avoid them by dismissing them, that's your perogative and form so I really don't care.

But do yourself a favour and lay off the holier than thou high and mighty condescending attitude you develop with of anyone that's prepared to take you to task on your conspiracy theories. It's fairly transparent and I doubt you're fooling anyone.

 

[Disco08]

That's a lot of words for absolutely no substance.

I'm happy to discuss any of the points you've brought up. Name them specifically and lets go.

 

[tigertim]

No I'm not. There's no reason to think any of the reported incidents equate to Marshall being guilty of domestic violence. They amount to a few instances over many years. Usually violent people form clearly recognisable habits and that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The evidence you seem to be ignoring is the assertions by Madsen that both Neighbours could have been reasonably expected to have heard the 4 gunshots and that there are witnesses that say the crime scene was illegally cleaned before being investigated. Don't you see how these facts - if true - cast huge doubt on the police's version of events?

Neighbours not hearing gunshots ( but one heard something that could well have been them!) is in no way way "evidence" and you know that. Can you show me the evidence that the "crime scene was illegally cleaned before being investigated"?

 

[Disco08]

No I can't tim. I'm only going on Madsen's report. I'm happy to accept these things need to be substantiated but given Madsen's reputation I'm not prepared to dismiss them out of hand either.

One guy "heard something". Nothing specific. Not enough to investigate or call the cops. 4 9mm gunshots on a quiet night could reasonably be expected to arouse more interest than that.

 

[tigertim]

No I can't tim. I'm only going on Madsen's report. I'm happy to accept these things need to be substantiated but given Madsen's reputation I'm not prepared to dismiss them out of hand either.

One guy "heard something". Nothing specific. Not enough to investigate or call the cops. 4 9mm gunshots on a quiet night could reasonably be expected to arouse more interest than that.

Coroner put time of death at around 3pm I think, not night time.

 

[Disco08]

The coroner placed the TOD at the point in time the bodies were found.

 

[tigertim]

I just rechecked. He put TOD at somewhere between late Thursday night or Friday morning. I thought I read 3pm.

 

[Baloo]

That's a lot of words for absolutely no substance.

You've been quick with the personal insults disco, but until now I've laughed them of as more proof that you're struggling. But likening me to a troofer is seriously below the belt and uncalled for. I expect an apology.

 

[Disco08]

Better get comfy.

The requests I've made of you are both simple and uncomplicated. Put up or shut up.

 

[ROLLS ROYCE]

Gee, and my Carlton Game Day thread got locked within 4minutes and this argy bargy crap seems to be open slather. Me thinks this may be a biased forum. See ya.

 

[tigertim]

http://www.madcowprod.com/2013/02/26/dad-kills-kids-and-self-the-philip-marshall-story/

Here's a good article from an investigative reporter called Daniel Hopsicker.

 

[tigertim]

Gee, and my Carlton Game Day thread got locked within 4minutes and this argy bargy crap seems to be open slather. Me thinks this may be a biased forum. See ya.

I could post something about that being a conspiracy but that'd be lame!

 

[ROLLS ROYCE]

I could post something about that being a conspiracy but that'd be lame!

:hihi :hihi

 

[Disco08]

http://www.madcowprod.com/2013/02/26/dad-kills-kids-and-self-the-philip-marshall-story/

Here's a good article from an investigative reporter called Daniel Hopsicker.

What's good about it IYO tim? I'd read it a while ago and to me it's got 2 major flaws. The first is that Daniel falsely assumes that all authors of 9/11 literature are the same. That's blatantly ignoring the major point of Madsen's that "Marshall had stated that he was holding explosive information that would be revealed in his next book. The repeated professional-clean-ups of Marshall’s house after the murder suggest that the killers, and the agency or agencies employing them, were looking for a specific piece of evidence or information. (Marshall’s computer mysteriously disappeared after the killings, and its whereabouts remain unknown.)" That line of argument immediately invalidates the assertion that Marshall's murder is implausible because so many other 9/11 authors haven't been murdered. Secondly he recognises Madsen as a thorough and credible investigator and then asserts that in this case his efforts are insignificant because of the above flowed logic. Why not accept that Madsen is a good investigator and judge the major points on their merit?

Gee, and my Carlton Game Day thread got locked within 4minutes and this argy bargy crap seems to be open slather. Me thinks this may be a biased forum. See ya.

Sorry you feel that way RR but I can assure you that my decision to lock your massively premature gameday thread had nothing to do with any bias at all.

 

[tigertim]

What's good about it IYO tim? I'd read it a while ago and to me it's got 2 major flaws. The first is that Daniel falsely assumes that all authors of 9/11 literature are the same. That's blatantly ignoring the major point of Madsen's that "Marshall had stated that he was holding explosive information that would be revealed in his next book. The repeated professional-clean-ups of Marshall’s house after the murder suggest that the killers, and the agency or agencies employing them, were looking for a specific piece of evidence or information. (Marshall’s computer mysteriously disappeared after the killings, and its whereabouts remain unknown.)" That line of argument immediately invalidates the assertion that Marshall's murder is implausible because so many other 9/11 authors haven't been murdered. Secondly he recognises Madsen as a thorough and credible investigator and then asserts that in this case his efforts are insignificant because of the above flowed logic. Why not accept that Madsen is a good investigator and judge the major points on their merit?

Sorry you feel that way RR but I can assure you that my decision to lock your massively premature gameday thread had nothing to do with any bias at all.

I thought it was good because it showed the folly of believing in this conspiracy. To say Hopsicker ignored Madsens report because of what was written in Madsens report is not sensible. Just because Marshall said he had "explosive information" (how many 911 books have made that or a similar claim?) and Madsen wrote this now repeated but not proven fact about the site being professionally cleaned as more "proof" isn't dealing in facts at all.

And Hopsicker is a truther too so even you must respect his opinion. He has good credentials too.

Yes, Disco, judge the "facts" on their merit on not deal on unproven stories that prove nothing.

 

[Disco08]

Does Hopsicker's article say anything about the information Marshall apparently claimed to be holding or about the crime scene being illegally cleaned?

 

[tigersnake]

Robert Farquharson is one.

Another example of the pathological pattern of this thread. This dude unexpectedly kills his own children, a tragic event that happens too regularly. Thats not good enough for Disco, the fact his dude coached junior sport somehow makes the case irrefutebly unique, he makes this implication with a straight face (as far as I can tell). He makes a demand for examples, as has happened time and again, examples are provided. Does Disco make a concession? Nope, ignore pesky logical evidence that refutes extremely heresay-based tenuous conspiracy and carry on regardless.

 

[tigertim]

Does Hopsicker's article say anything about the information Marshall apparently claimed to be holding or about the crime scene being illegally cleaned?

Can't recall and I've fallen (again) into the trap of chasing my tail clarifying irrelevant issues ( which as we know is the MO of the theorist. Keep the opposition on their toes by getting them chasing red herrings!)

Anyway, the facts are that the police have declared it a murder/ suicide by Marshall and until there's genuine proof ( not fanciful stuff like he was a liitle league coach or the neighbours said he was a good dad) of anything otherwise it's all moot.