• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed George Soros and others targetted by Terrorist

The Big Dog said:
Lets hear from another expert:

Bomb Disposal Expert Claims Mail Bombs Are an ‘Obvious Hoax’
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight...

You were caught making a definite claim that wasn't supported by the reference you provided, and now to support your claim you are quoting an expert that:
1) Is not involved in the investigation in any way
2) Doesn't even seem to be working with complete information (His own statement contains phrases like "whatever that part is...")
3) From looking at his twitter feed, appears to be a Trump fan boy/sycophant
4) Is basing his analysis on things like "they should have built it like this...", ignoring the fact that whomever built the bomb may not have had any professional training, and/or is working with parts that they have available

Gee, I wonder why skeptics on this forum aren't falling all over themselves to accept your "proof". It seems just so rock solid.
 
theprestige said:
I think if you showed that the timer, detonator, and explosive were not connected, any sensible jury would conclude that they weren't intended to explode.
Click to expand...

No, you’d have to prove they were never connected. This would not be easy and require some pretty convincing evidence. Do you have such evidence in this case?
 
lomiller said:
Anonymous would be “experts” on twitter don’t carry any weight with me. If you have an actual argument WHY they “a hoax” then by all means take the time to write it out and take ownership of the claim. Your failure to do so only means you either don't understand the argument they are making or you don't really believe the argument they are making.
Click to expand...

"Anonymous," literally the very first word in the post was absolutely wrong. That is remarkable!

His name is Tom Sauer, say his name.
 
Segnosaur said:
Let me get this straight...

You were caught making a definite claim that wasn't supported by the reference you provided, and now to support your claim you are quoting an expert that:
1) Is not involved in the investigation in any way
2) Doesn't even seem to be working with complete information (His own statement contains phrases like "whatever that part is...")
3) From looking at his twitter feed, appears to be a Trump fan boy/sycophant
4) Is basing his analysis on things like "they should have built it like this...", ignoring the fact that whomever built the bomb may not have had any professional training, and/or is working with parts that they have available

Gee, I wonder why skeptics on this forum aren't falling all over themselves to accept your "proof". It seems just so rock solid.
Click to expand...

You know there is an extensive list of engineers and architects who believe this guy. That changes everything!
 
So Big Dog why should we listen to the one expert you found that says its fake but not the experts other people found that says they aren't?
 
Hmm I am reminded of the NY bomb that got disabled because it was thrown in the trash because the suitcase it was in was stolen. Does that mean it was not a real bomb if it was so easily disabled? After all it never blew up.

And of course the Times Square bomber really should get a reduced sentence because he didn't even know how to make a bomb that would blow up.
 
lomiller said:
No, you’d have to prove they were never connected. This would not be easy and require some pretty convincing evidence.
Click to expand...
I assume that calling the bomb technician to the witness stand, and having him testify that the components were not connected at the time he encountered the device, would do the trick.

Do you have such evidence in this case?
Click to expand...
That's the question.

I'm hoping that once the fuss over the "didn't explode; wasn't real" strawman dies down a bit, we'll be able to pursue an answer to that question in a more dispassionate and rational way.

---

"Functional" seems like a weird way to put it. The essential function of a bomb is to explode. To have 8(-plus?) bombs not explode suggests that they weren't actually functional bombs. Either the components weren't actually connected together into a functional bomb, or they were connected together wrongly... which would make the bomb non-functional.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Do we seriously have people arguing that these bombs "don't count" because they didn't go off?

Seriously?

I mean I know it is true, I can see people literally arguing that, but...
Click to expand...
Keep that in mind every time the TSA asks you to take your shoes off.
 
Drewbot said:
What are the possibilities?

1. A crazed right winger getting back at all the Dems who have gone after Trump Supporters

2. A Liberal who is trying to make the Trump Supporters look bad by targeting Dems who have targeted Trump.

3. An Isis (or other terrorist group) plot to only scare Dems who have gone after Trump.

4. A non political Crazy person who thought he would throw a wrench in the mid term election frenzy.


3 is a non-starter for me, I think at least one would have blown up if this was the case.
1 and 4, I think at least one would have blown up, or at least been functional.

2 is the only one who would have intentionally sent a non-functional device in my opinion.

Please add other possibilities if I'm leaving any out.
Click to expand...

5) A right winger who knew that non functional bombs would make other right wingers jump to the conclusion that it was #2. Which you just did.
 
The hair splitting in this thread is insane.

Someone either sent a bomb in a failed assassination attempt, or sent a realistic looking fake in an attempt to intimidate the targets. The result is very similar, regardless of the bomber's intent.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The hair splitting in this thread is insane.

Someone either sent a bomb in a failed assassination attempt, or sent a realistic looking fake in an attempt to intimidate the targets. The result is very similar, regardless of the bomber's intent.
Click to expand...

That is quite similar to what I said earlier.
 
The Big Dog said:
"Anonymous," literally the very first word in the post was absolutely wrong. That is remarkable!

His name is Tom Sauer, say his name.
Click to expand...

I was never under the impression he didn’t have a name so the fact he has one changes nothing. What argument are YOU making, if you don’ have one just admit your position is not based in evidence and move on.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The hair splitting in this thread is insane.

Someone either sent a bomb in a failed assassination attempt, or sent a realistic looking fake in an attempt to intimidate the targets. The result is very similar, regardless of the bomber's intent.
Click to expand...

Whether we should spend our time focusing on the results or focusing on the intent is an open question.
 
theprestige said:
I assume that calling the bomb technician to the witness stand, and having him testify that the components were not connected at the time he encountered the device, would do the trick.
Click to expand...

This doesn’t tell us whether they were connected when the bomb was mailed, so no it doesn’t “do the trick”
 
lomiller said:
I was never under the impression he didn’t have a name so the fact he has one changes nothing. What argument are YOU making, if you don’ have one just admit your position is not based in evidence and move on.
Click to expand...

You called him anonymous.... did you have some alternative definition of "anonymous" you wish to share with the group?

I have explained my position repeatedly with supporting citations to third party sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom