[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

Please clarify your question.

Who decides the progress of this thread, you?
Who decides the level of 'proof'.
How do you proceed if some obtuse person wants you not to?
I have presented evidence that 175 didn't hit the south tower. You mention the 'visual' evidence. Where is your 'visual' evidence?
Your response will be. MK asserted it, now prove it.
What standard of proof do you require?
The scientific absolute?
What happened to common sense. That is no longer relevant because someone says so?

 

[ktesibios]

I sent a post that must have been monitored, regarding missile defences. Basically, if they don't exist, why have they been made?

I am unable to extract anything even vaguely resembling meaning from the second sentence, and I don't think the trouble is at my end. It's been well-established that there were no antiaircraft defenses at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, so what on Earth is "why have they been made" supposed to mean?

Regarding posts being "monitored", this is a public forum. Anyone who wants to can "monitor", i.e., read, anything posted here by the simple expedient of typing the forum URL into a browser and clicking a couple of links to get to the sub-forum andd the thread. If the prospect of having people actually read what one has written inspires fear of being "monitored", the obvious remedy is to stay the @#$% away from the forum.

 

[Z]

I sent a post that must have been monitored, regarding missile defences. Basically, if they don't exist, why have they been made?

They are made for use in war zones and potentially hostile areas - not in 'safe' home air space.

Where has the money gone? Overseas. The vast majority of military equipment is in some other country. At home, we never felt a need for missile defenses, anti-aircraft guns, and the like. I was in the military up to October of '02, and on some of the most important military bases in the U.S. None of them even had standing missile defences or anti-aircraft weapons. If the U.S. were ever directly attacked by any enemy at all (using aircract), we were sitting ducks - because we always believed, up to 9/11, that no nation anywhere would be so stupid as to attack a major nuclear superpower.

We were wrong.

Needless to say, however, there were no anti-aircraft weapons (in any active posture) around the Pentagon, or Washington, D.C., or Ft. Bragg, or Ft. Sill, or Ft. Stewart, or McDill Air Base... and so on and so forth. There were, on occasion, active weapons on a few bases - during controlled live-fire exercises, or using mock weapons during field training.

So there you go - your 'rings of steel' nonsense shot to hell. Got anything better?

 

[CurtC]

Were any aircraft from Offutt involved in exercises on 9/11?

I'm not aware of any. I'd be surprised, since the Vigilant Guardian exercise was to simulate a bomber attack coming from outside the US, and Offutt is in Nebraska, the middle of the continent, and Offutt is not a base where fighters are kept at the ready. If you have evidence that there were aircraft from Offutt involved, please present it. Although I don't see how it relates to UAL175.

 

[Belz...]

What is the difference in meaning of 'fantastic' and the ludicrous 'fantastical'?

AGAIN, check a dictionary ? Why can't you be bothered to do any amount of research ? It took me all of 5 seconds to find it.

Fantastical is just another way of saying fantastic. As far as I can tell there is no difference. They are synonyms. I'm sure you know what that word means.

I sent a post that must have been monitored, regarding missile defences.

How do you know it was monitored ?

Basically, if they don't exist, why have they been made?

If they don't exist, then they haven't been made. Your question is nonsensical. And fantastical.

Then we have your mixing up the pentagon attack plane with 175 and Cleveland.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, not 175.

A B52 hit the Empire State.

WRONG again. Gosh, do you EVER get anything right ? The plane that hit Empire State was a B-25 which is significantly smaller than a B-52 and happens to be a propellor-engine plane.

Other than it didn't get into the building in its entirety and it didn't knock the building down

Of course not. It was lost in fog, which means it wasn't going at full speed with the express intent of damaging the tower. ALSO, you have to take into account that a 767 is a whole lot bigger than a B-25, and ALSO that the Empire State Building is NOT in any way, shape or form constructed like the WTC.

 

[Belz...]

Who decides the progress of this thread, you?

Heaven forbid. Otherwise you'd have to answer our points.

How do you proceed if some obtuse person wants you not to?

The only reason we can't proceed is because you have no idea what you're talking about.

What happened to common sense. That is no longer relevant because someone says so?

Common sense tells you the Earth is flat and that heavier objects fall faster. Common sense is also wrong, and for some reason NO ONE ever answers this point.

 

[calebprime]

Who decides the progress of this thread, you?

What happened to common sense. That is no longer relevant because someone says so?

Common sense is much debated here. There is some consensus that physical evidence and scientific studies trump everything. There is also a high value placed on logic.

It is agreed that common sense doesn't cover physics or scientific issues. It's good for crossing the street. It's a good antidote to philosophical skepticism, which is quite different from scientific skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

btw, if you can't have a reasonable conversation with Arkan_Wolfshade, you can't have a reasonable conversation with anyone.

Regarding posts being "monitored", this is a public forum.

I think he means "moderated".

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Who decides the progress of this thread, you?
Who decides the level of 'proof'.

To both: The thread's particpents.

How do you proceed if some obtuse person wants you not to?

Mu. No one individual, aside from a mod/admin (modmin?), has the power to stop the thread from going in whatever direction it goes.

I have presented evidence that 175 didn't hit the south tower. You mention the 'visual' evidence.

As I have already explained, more than once, in this thread; the visual evidence is the simplest starting point. Either the plane in the visual records does not match UA Flight 175, or it does match/is indeterminate. By resolving the most elementary of issues, it provides direction for what evidence/talking-points should be addressed next. You keep trying to move on to the 'why' of the plane being faked rather than addressing the fact that we do not agree 'that' it was faked.

Where is your 'visual' evidence?
Your response will be. MK asserted it, now prove it.

"He can be taught!" You made the claim, you substantiate it. I would think you'd be all over this if it were as obvious as you imply it to be.

What standard of proof do you require?
The scientific absolute?

It must be objective in nature, the results of the analysis must be reproducible, and the evidence should lead to the answer. Present it already. If you show us and we go, "Wow, that doesn't appear to be UA Flight 175 after all" then we can go on to "What is it?". As it stands, your claims are based upon multiple begging the question logical fallacies and don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

What happened to common sense. That is no longer relevant because someone says so?

"Common" sense says the world is flat, that the Sun circles the Earth, and that Pardalis' favorite animal is a member of the rodent family. All of which are incorrect.

 

[CurtC]

Fantastical is just another way of saying fantastic. As far as I can tell there is no difference. They are synonyms.

But the connotations are not exact. From dictionary.com:

Fantastic suggests a wild lack of restraint, a fancifulness so extreme as to lose touch with reality: a fantastic scheme for a series of space cities. In informal use, fantastic often means simply “exceptionally good”: a fantastic meal.

It's often helpful to use the "fantastical" word to show that you really mean the out-of-touch-with-reality meaning, and not the "exceptionally good" meaning. Belz, or whoever it was used the word, used it quite correctly. We wouldn't want MK to think that his ideas are really keen, would we?

 

[jsfisher]

AGAIN, check a dictionary ? Why can't you be bothered to do any amount of research ? It took me all of 5 seconds to find it.

Fantastical is just another way of saying fantastic. As far as I can tell there is no difference. They are synonyms. I'm sure you know what that word means.

The two differ in connotation.

"That's fantastic!" implies a sense of better than was expected, whereas "That's fantastical!" carries a sense of out of touch with reality.

Consider, "Malcolm Kirkman has made fantastical statements." Compare that to "Lisa Simpson is a fantastic moderator."

 

[Belz...]

It was Gumboot.

CurtC, your definition is for Fantastic. Dictionary.com says "also: fantastical", which suggests equivalence.

 

[pomeroo]

There is no such word as 'fantastical'.

Surprise! You're wrong. See--hell, see any dictionary.

In reply to the rest of your post allow me to refer you to my immediate previous posts.

Beautiful! All of those posts contained utter nonsense.

 

[pomeroo]

My posts are being monitored to such an extent that it's getting impossible to communicate. I'll try for a little while longer.

Everyone's posts are being moderated. Here is a suitable test for your critical thinking skills: do you think this phenomenon is attributable to the FACT that this is a MODERATED THREAD?

The plane that hit tower 2 was decidedly not 175.

You are wrong. It surely was Flight 175. All of your fabrications, errors of fact, and outright falsehoods have not made a dent in that reality.

 

[gumboot]

What is the difference in meaning of 'fantastic' and the ludicrous 'fantastical'?

"Fantastical" is a word, whether you like it or not.

A B52 hit the Empire State.

Wrong. The Empire State Building was hit by a North American B-25 Mitchell on July 28, 1945.

The maiden flight of the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress was 15 April, 1952 (hence the B-52 designation).

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

No NORAD fighters were involved in any exercises whatsoever on 9/11. Vigilant Guardian was a Command Post Exercise (CPX). It did not involve front-line units.

It only involved staff officers, command centre staff, and such people. It meant all staff were at their stations, where usually only a skeleton staff is maintained. The Vigilant Guardian exercise enhanced NORAD's response.

-Gumboot

 

[SOMERLED]

I am unable to extract anything even vaguely resembling meaning from the second sentence, and I don't think the trouble is at my end. It's been well-established that there were no antiaircraft defenses at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, so what on Earth is "why have they been made" supposed to mean?

Regarding posts being "monitored", this is a public forum. Anyone who wants to can "monitor", i.e., read, anything posted here by the simple expedient of typing the forum URL into a browser and clicking a couple of links to get to the sub-forum andd the thread. If the prospect of having people actually read what one has written inspires fear of being "monitored", the obvious remedy is to stay the @#$% away from the forum.

My posts, my written messages are 'monitored' before they appear.
I'm not sure if the name/title of the official who does this, but that happened on day two.

 

[jmercer]

My posts, my written messages are 'monitored' before they appear.
I'm not sure if the name/title of the official who does this, but that happened on day two.

Let me explain how this works...

This is a moderated thread, which means that posts you write will not appear until approved by a member of the moderating team. (At this moment, I just approved your post, for example.) Once approved, it appears in the thread.

No record of your post is maintained or documented outside of this thread; nor do we (moderators) edit or change the posts. If a post is deemed unacceptable due to a violation of membership rules, we simply deny the post and it never sees the light of day.

As I said, this only occurs if there is a violation of the rules, such as personal attacks, spam, etc.

Hope this clarifies things.

Regards,

jmercer

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I honestly don't think I have ever seen anyone on this forum be so consistently wrong about so many things.

I mean, even people like ChristopherA got most of the facts about 9/11 correct. Even Killtown has a better track record. The errors on display here are just phenomenal.

-Gumboot

Which is why I asked the gentleman to explain his agenda. He clearly possesses a degree of intelligence. So, considering the astounding level of innaccuracy in his posts, there must be some larger reason afoot.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The safest place in the world is on the roof of...an office building?

Unless you're in Palestine, the Labanon or Iraq.

Please explain how the Pentagon, a large office building, is the safest place in the world.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Especially Killtown, I recommend his site unreservedly.

That's it, everybody! Out of the pool! Show's over!