Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Zlaya]

Seems like someone needs to attend a few first year law lectures...

Sounds like someone is not aware of what happened legally in the last 6 years.

How long were you away from the planet earth?

 

[A W Smith]

can you send me the $100 now?

You show me conclusive proof (and that means a primary source with a "verifiable chain of custody" - thanks Minadin) of ANYTHING that happened on flight 93 and i'll personally send you $100. Just to let you know, a written transcript released by the FBI does not cut it, nor does an audio recording you found on the web.

Just like my other questions about minimizing casualties, and the destruction of evidence, I find it more than a little interesting that while the USG was quoting Todd Beamer's alleged battle cry in their war propaganda, they were simultaneously suppressing the flight data recordings and when they finally did show it to the families years later, they were not even allowed to take notes. Why don't you explain the reasoning behind that.

That's a direct question for you, since you don't seem to be bothering with answering what I'm actually asking: Why did the USG feel the need to suppress the flight data and voice recordings from flight 93, which have still not been released to this day, and only let the families listen to the recording once and not let them take notes? You tell me right now how that fits into your grand theory of 9-11.

And $100, while not a huge sum, is on the table for that other challenge. You can hold me to that.

So government conspiracicts knew Linda Gronlund had a safe? and convinced her to make a call to her sister and reveal the combination?

Linda Gronlund, called her sister, Elsa Strong.
Elsa Strong says, "She said, 'Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.' And she said, 'Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them.' And then she got real calm and said, 'Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination.' And she just told me the combination of her safe. and then she just said, 'I don't know if I'm ever going to get a chance to tell you again in person how much I love you, but I'm really going to miss you.' And she said goodbye."

 

[thewholesoul]

“If you were any more inconsistent, your head would fall off.”

I fail to see the causal connection between inconsistency and heads falling off. Again your causal explanation is grossly lacking any semblance of plausability.

“Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes... I'm sorry to break this to you, but he was a fictional character.”

I thought i was quoting Sir Conan Doyle but perhaps your right, no correction, your always right and fictional charcaters can write their own screen play!!

So first and foremost let us clear one matter up. You are claiming that what moreli experinced – the first event – was the impact of the plane. What mackey claimed was that it was the compressed air produced by the falling elevator. I am not entirely clear what gravy asserts but it could be either a fireball or other elevators falling. This inconsistency between your explanations in relation to moreili’s testimony is a fact – its not debatable. Now if you have a problem with me pointing out that “your” current explanation is impossible, as you have proposed alternative explanations before, then you also have a problem with their explanations also. Heres another fact – they cant all be right. Moreli could not have been thrown to the ground by the impact of an airplane, the compressed air, a falling elevator and a firball all at the same time. And we know that moreli was thrown to ground a second time when he entered the south tower. So what is CAUSING him to be thrown to the ground. Its a perfectly valid question and no matter how many times you say it’s irrelevant or “it does not matter” – i will continue to ask the question in search of the MOST PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. And if you can see “no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events” – then you are clearly ignorant or unaware of the fact that other members in this forum present different versions of the event.

Now one tactic your increasingly averting to is poo-pooing the testimony of moreli.
Moreli “could be wrong” you say. I accept that, but i offered a distinction which you seem to have ignored. Of course he had no idea what was causing the events he was experiencing – he could very well be wrong there. But his experience of being thrown to the ground is not a matter of right or wrong – it either happened or it did not. Assuming it did happen, it is our job to explain how it happened or what caused it to happen. This is not an insignificant line of inquiry. If indeed you invited me here to provide witness testimony in support of rodriguez then you should at least acknowledge the relevance of my inquiry in trying to establish that link. I will incude further testimony in conjunction with one another at some point in time but i just want to get to the bottom of moreli’s testimony first.

The question raised in my previous post was whether morelli’s experience is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind the events he experienced. You robotically replied “Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.” Whose version? Mackey’s, gravy’s or yours?? More importantly is science backing up there version of events? We need to get to the bottom of this to eliminate the possibility of the explosive theory and to remove gad fly’s like me who will continue to ask those pesky questions and will not just accept the widely accepted scientific version of the events until it makes sense – to me.

But lets shift gear. I presented my reasons why i believe your explanation of morilli’s first event was impossible. So lets see some of those reasons and what you said in return.

(a) morellini could not have “heard” the plane impacting 90 floors above and even if he did it would not sound like what he described hearing. I supported this argument with other testimony from people on the 62nd floor and others even closer to the impact zone who did not hear anything. I am assuming that people closer to an impact of a plane are more likley to hear that impact. Now i accepted that the sound of the plane impacting may have travelled down the elevator shaft but if that was the case then why did morelli assume he heard something falling over in the floors above him and not in the elevator shaft? And would it sound like an “impact” of something “very heavy” falling over? I dont know what the sound of a plane impacting 90 floors above travelling down an elevator shaft would sound like but i seriously doubt it would sound like an “object” falling over. Plus felipe david standing infront of the same elevator shaft reported hearing an “explosion” below and morelli reported hearing an “explosion” above. If the sound travelled down the elevator shaft then why would it stop between david and morelli? Is this how sound travels? It appears completely implausible. now we know that mackey and gravy also share my personal incredulity because they espose different explanations to the particular event in question but does anyone else in this forum share my personal incredulity?

Arguments against:
(1) you highlight an irrelevant difference between “hearing” and “feeling” which is pointless because my argument is specifically addressing what he “heard” not what he “felt”. I address what he “felt” in subsequent arguments.
(2) Some pointless distinction between describing an event and explaining an event in the loading dock. Whatever morelli heard he assumed it came from the above floors – does that description satisfy?
(3) “structure and section” argument: basically being able to "hear" the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in. Question: does this argument explain how felipe david, standing next to the same structure on a section closer to the impact, did not “hear” the impact above him, like morelli, but “heard” something between himself and morelli? Does the “structure and section” argument explain the kind of sound that morelli heard and where he thought he heard it? (4) redectionist argument. Totovader trys to reduce morelli’s experience only to what he “felt” and not what he “heard”. These are two distinct and separte issues. (5) argumment from human perceptions: morelli had some sort of super human ability and could hear the impact of a plane 90 floors above becasue he was standing beside the elevator shaft in b4 eventhough felipe david standing beside the same elevator shaft on b1 did not hear a plane impact above him but heard something like an “explosion” below him.
(b) morelli could not have been thrown to the ground from a plane impacting 90 floors above and even if the shock waves travelled down the building it would not “throw him” to the ground. Again i am assuming that a person closer to an impact are more likely to “feel” the impact and be “thrown” to the floor. I checked the testimony of people on and above the b1 level up to the 88th level and nobody reported being thrown to the ground. The closest i could find was Greg Trevor 68th floor “I was nearly knocked to the floor by the impact of the first plane”. I found no reports below b4 of people being thrown to the floor. Now I thought that the fact that noone above or below morelli experienced being thrown to the floor that that would count for somethng...i was wrong. Although i accepted totovaders point that not everyone will experience the same thing when a plane impacts a building (and the variety of testimony supports him on this) - i cannot accept the claim that a plane impacting 90 floors above would cause morilli to be thrown to the floor (and the testimony overwhelmingly supports me on this one). would the shock waves have enough force to cause this effect from 90 floors above? I am not a physicist i dont know but i am personally incredulous that it would. A far more plausible explanation would be mackey’s which states that the compressed air produced by the falling elevator would cause morilli to fall over, even gravy’s explanation of a fireball ball exploding somewhere in the basement above or a collapsing elevator – but to imagine that the impact of a plane could do so is too much for me to conceptually swallow.
Aguments against: (1) “structure and section” again: if there was something unique to basement levels b2-4 structurally or otherwise that would not only conduct but intensify the shock wave from the plane’s impact and cause morilli to be thrown to ground, totovader has not provided any explanation to that effect. His argumnet rests on the plausible assetion that the structure of the building will not be “affected equally” by the impact. But i and others are personally incredulous that this structure would act so “unequally” in relation to what morilli witnessed. (2) i provided no evidence to support my argument. If you can use testimony to support your claim that people will recieve different experiences from a plane impacting then why is my use of testimony not count for anything? The testimony reveals that nobody on any other floor except b4 were thrown to the ground. (3) the burden of proof: maybe out of habit to debating truthers one of totovaders favourite punch lines is “prove it”. However what my friend fails to understand is that it is “his theory” or “his hypothesis” that is under scrutiny and in need of defence. I am openly saying that it is impossible, you say no it is possible, so i say prove it. But i know you are not a structural egineer or physicist so i do not expect or require that you provide some fantastic equation or structural anomoly that would prove your “structural inequality of impact theory”. Rather i simply urge you to use some common sense and ask yourself which is a more plausible explanation as to why morilli was thrown to the ground: was it (a) compressed air, (b) an elevator collapse (c) an exploding fireball on 1-3 floors above or (d) the impact of a plane 90+floors above? And just in case you feel like changing your mind (f) planted incentary devices??
Predictions is one part of the scientific method. Let us say for argumnets sake that we could construct the twin towers with the same specifications et cetera and recreated what happened placing morelli in the same position he was. I would predict that on no occassion would he be thrown to the ground by the plane impacting. What would you predict? Would say from the 100 trials he would fall everytime? Most times? Or on a few occassions? If you answered this question honestly you will understand why other explanations (a) (b) (c) or (f) are a lot more PLAUSIBLE.
I predict you will respond as follows: basically the “structure and section argument” on steroids. An intensification of the difference in human perceptions and memory. You will try to either belittle the use in trying to explain the experience of morelli, or say it is irelevant and so on. But if you are going to continue holding onto the belief that a plane impact caused morilli to be thrown to the ground instead of simply quoting one line from me and inserting one of your own beneath why dont you make a presentation with substantial arguments. How the shock wave could travel down the building, through what material it travelled down, and most importantly why this explanation is consistent with morilli’s testimony. Why dont you argue against the other explanations by mackey and gravy i.e. that their explanations are less plausible than yours? And if any one else out there feels that totovader is right then why dont you present an argument as to how the impact of a plane 90+ floors above caused morilli to be thrown to the ground.

if mackey or gravy object to the explanations i claimed they presented thye shoudl let me know.

 

[thewholesoul]

hey alfred packer,

thxs again for the link. you know its kind of embarressing i am definitely technicaly challenged. i managed how to quote one part and write under it, but what i want to learn is how quote and type, quote and type. i will get there however -

 

[T.A.M.]

Hmmm... very good points. I didn't consider those. And you're absolutely right about the emergency nature of the treatment dispensed; that's an important thing to keep in mind when studying what records exist regarding the treatment of victims at that time.

Anyway, I admit I was assuming there'd be a record somewhere that definitively centralized a complete list of the injuries treated. I quickly realized that was not the case; further research shows how ad-hoc everything was. I found (sorry! I closed the window and lost the link already) a different report on the cases treated by various emergency departments (broken limbs, concussions, etc.; as you predicted, there was only a single category referring to "respiratory" issues). I was somewhat dumbfounded that the methodology was mostly after-the-fact interviews. As best as I could tell, they did not refer to emergency departments' records to build the list of injuries; rather, they simply used such records to build lists of people they could contact.

I think we overestimate the recording capacity of the health care system, and organizations in general. The researchers saw the need to interview the victims directly to determine what injuries resulted. They gave no explanation why, but it was obvious that direct victim interview was their choice; I think it's due to the factors you listed above.

Anyway, I'm with you: I'd like to see a followup to that study, myself. Further medical care might have uncovered the sort of information I was looking for.

But, moving away from medical journals, I was also hoping to find reports of barotrauma in the mainstream news as well. I'm able to find mentions - mentions only, I'm afraid, no numbers or details - of extreme barotrauma associated with the victims of other bombings: The various Israeli bus bombings (that's where I discovered the term "White Butterfly", in a mainstream news report), the Madrid bombings, the first WTC attack, the Oklahoma City event... but no references to September 11th victims having suffered this. I figured there'd be some, even if from some survivors caught in the buildings during the collapse; it's reasonable to presume the pneumatic effect of the building collapsing would result in barotrauma injuries as well, but if it did, it seems to be lost in the description of the other injuries.

Blech... this is a real load of work. I don't think I'm going to go much further with it. But, thanks for the comment; if nothing else, I learned something new from all this.

You are welcome...

1. If the USA is anything like Canada, then you will quickly realize that most visits to the ER are injury specific, and unless severe trauma is suspected or indicated, you are treated for "what you came in for" and then d/c'ed home.

2. As far as barotrauma goes, yes I would say that if explosives were used, and anyone was near them, then some, SOME should have suffered barotrauma, particularly Tympanic. The pressure wave that occured when each building collapsed might have caused some barotrauma, no doubt, but appart from the 19 survivors, who else would be alive to check or complain about it?

Good luck with the research if you continue.

TAM

 

[A W Smith]

hey alfred packer,

thxs again for the link. you know its kind of embarressing i am definitely technicaly challenged. i managed how to quote one part and write under it, but what i want to learn is how quote and type, quote and type. i will get there however -

you have a private message with instructions and an example

 

[thewholesoul]

Back to the subject of free Willy and the basement explosives.

If there were explosives in the basement, what do YOU think they would have sounded like?

Do YOU think that there would have been sharp, very loud, cracks when the charges went off, or do you think that they would have sounded like a rumble of heavy furniture being dargged across the floor above you?

What do YOU think?[/QUOTE]


hey alfred,

first the sound of the explosive, if there were any, would depend on what type of explosive was used and to say what type of explosive was used would be speculation because i simply dont know.

second the sound of the explosives would depend from where one is situated so it may sound like moving heavy furniture for rodriguez in b1 or it may sound like something heavy falling over for morilli. other like felipe david simply say "explosion" without going into specifics.

i suppose the simplest answer is that explosives would sound like an explosion. however many things can sound like an explosion. so if i may turn the question back to you amigo. what do you think the sound of a fireball would make? would it sound like a heavy rumble of moving furniture?

 

[beachnut]

hey alfred,

first the sound of the explosive, if there were any, would depend on what type of explosive was used and to say what type of explosive was used would be speculation because i simply dont know.

second the sound of the explosives would depend from where one is situated so it may sound like moving heavy furniture for rodriguez in b1 or it may sound like something heavy falling over for morilli. other like felipe david simply say "explosion" without going into specifics.

i suppose the simplest answer is that explosives would sound like an explosion. however many things can sound like an explosion. so if i may turn the question back to you amigo. what do you think the sound of a fireball would make? would it sound like a heavy rumble of moving furniture?

Are you going to write a book or something? You still have no idea how to do the quote thing.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Anyone who reads my posts can clearly see I have a genuine interest in learning more about this issue, and posting my ideas.

I don't see it. Numerous attempts to inflate the importance of your "backyard knowledge", appeals to pity... You seem to be far more interested in arguing that your "ideas" are correct, rather than actually trying to learn anything.

 

[Gravy]

thewholesoul, please attend to your atrocious spelling and grammar. For instance, you've spelled "Morelli" three different ways.

And please separate your ideas into paragraphs, to make your posts more legible. Long, single-paragraph rants are a hallmark of nuttery.

 

[OldTigerCub]

hey alfred packer,

thxs again for the link. you know its kind of embarressing i am definitely technicaly challenged. i managed how to quote one part and write under it, but what i want to learn is how quote and type, quote and type. i will get there however -

thewholesoul,
I believe Chillzero pointed this out, but there is a "Help" link in the title bar that has lots of tutorials dealing with post formatting and other helpful hints. You can also use the "preview" button next to the "submit reply" button that will help you clean up errors in formatting, quoting, posting links and pictures...etc. It will take a little study and practice, but proper formatting makes posts here much easier for others to respond to.

 

[Totovader]

“If you were any more inconsistent, your head would fall off.”

I fail to see the causal connection between inconsistency and heads falling off. Again your causal explanation is grossly lacking any semblance of plausability.

“Yes, I'm familiar with the quote- it's from Sherlock Holmes... I'm sorry to break this to you, but he was a fictional character.”

I thought i was quoting Sir Conan Doyle but perhaps your right, no correction, your always right and fictional charcaters can write their own screen play!!

So first and foremost let us clear one matter up. You are claiming that what moreli experinced – the first event – was the impact of the plane. What mackey claimed was that it was the compressed air produced by the falling elevator. I am not entirely clear what gravy asserts but it could be either a fireball or other elevators falling. This inconsistency between your explanations in relation to moreili’s testimony is a fact – its not debatable. Now if you have a problem with me pointing out that “your” current explanation is impossible, as you have proposed alternative explanations before, then you also have a problem with their explanations also. Heres another fact – they cant all be right. Moreli could not have been thrown to the ground by the impact of an airplane, the compressed air, a falling elevator and a firball all at the same time. And we know that moreli was thrown to ground a second time when he entered the south tower. So what is CAUSING him to be thrown to the ground. Its a perfectly valid question and no matter how many times you say it’s irrelevant or “it does not matter” – i will continue to ask the question in search of the MOST PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. And if you can see “no inconsistency between Morelli's testimony and the widely accepted scientific version of the events” – then you are clearly ignorant or unaware of the fact that other members in this forum present different versions of the event.

Now one tactic your increasingly averting to is poo-pooing the testimony of moreli.
Moreli “could be wrong” you say. I accept that, but i offered a distinction which you seem to have ignored. Of course he had no idea what was causing the events he was experiencing – he could very well be wrong there. But his experience of being thrown to the ground is not a matter of right or wrong – it either happened or it did not. Assuming it did happen, it is our job to explain how it happened or what caused it to happen. This is not an insignificant line of inquiry. If indeed you invited me here to provide witness testimony in support of rodriguez then you should at least acknowledge the relevance of my inquiry in trying to establish that link. I will incude further testimony in conjunction with one another at some point in time but i just want to get to the bottom of moreli’s testimony first.

The question raised in my previous post was whether morelli’s experience is compatible with your explanation pertaining to the causal factors behind the events he experienced. You robotically replied “Morelli's account it compatible with the widely accepted scientific version of the events.” Whose version? Mackey’s, gravy’s or yours?? More importantly is science backing up there version of events? We need to get to the bottom of this to eliminate the possibility of the explosive theory and to remove gad fly’s like me who will continue to ask those pesky questions and will not just accept the widely accepted scientific version of the events until it makes sense – to me.

But lets shift gear. I presented my reasons why i believe your explanation of morilli’s first event was impossible. So lets see some of those reasons and what you said in return.

(a) morellini could not have “heard” the plane impacting 90 floors above and even if he did it would not sound like what he described hearing. I supported this argument with other testimony from people on the 62nd floor and others even closer to the impact zone who did not hear anything. I am assuming that people closer to an impact of a plane are more likley to hear that impact. Now i accepted that the sound of the plane impacting may have travelled down the elevator shaft but if that was the case then why did morelli assume he heard something falling over in the floors above him and not in the elevator shaft? And would it sound like an “impact” of something “very heavy” falling over? I dont know what the sound of a plane impacting 90 floors above travelling down an elevator shaft would sound like but i seriously doubt it would sound like an “object” falling over. Plus felipe david standing infront of the same elevator shaft reported hearing an “explosion” below and morelli reported hearing an “explosion” above. If the sound travelled down the elevator shaft then why would it stop between david and morelli? Is this how sound travels? It appears completely implausible. now we know that mackey and gravy also share my personal incredulity because they espose different explanations to the particular event in question but does anyone else in this forum share my personal incredulity?

Arguments against:
(1) you highlight an irrelevant difference between “hearing” and “feeling” which is pointless because my argument is specifically addressing what he “heard” not what he “felt”. I address what he “felt” in subsequent arguments.
(2) Some pointless distinction between describing an event and explaining an event in the loading dock. Whatever morelli heard he assumed it came from the above floors – does that description satisfy?
(3) “structure and section” argument: basically being able to "hear" the impact is not necessarily due to proximity, but rather to what structure you're next to or what section you may be in. Question: does this argument explain how felipe david, standing next to the same structure on a section closer to the impact, did not “hear” the impact above him, like morelli, but “heard” something between himself and morelli? Does the “structure and section” argument explain the kind of sound that morelli heard and where he thought he heard it? (4) redectionist argument. Totovader trys to reduce morelli’s experience only to what he “felt” and not what he “heard”. These are two distinct and separte issues. (5) argumment from human perceptions: morelli had some sort of super human ability and could hear the impact of a plane 90 floors above becasue he was standing beside the elevator shaft in b4 eventhough felipe david standing beside the same elevator shaft on b1 did not hear a plane impact above him but heard something like an “explosion” below him.
(b) morelli could not have been thrown to the ground from a plane impacting 90 floors above and even if the shock waves travelled down the building it would not “throw him” to the ground. Again i am assuming that a person closer to an impact are more likely to “feel” the impact and be “thrown” to the floor. I checked the testimony of people on and above the b1 level up to the 88th level and nobody reported being thrown to the ground. The closest i could find was Greg Trevor 68th floor “I was nearly knocked to the floor by the impact of the first plane”. I found no reports below b4 of people being thrown to the floor. Now I thought that the fact that noone above or below morelli experienced being thrown to the floor that that would count for somethng...i was wrong. Although i accepted totovaders point that not everyone will experience the same thing when a plane impacts a building (and the variety of testimony supports him on this) - i cannot accept the claim that a plane impacting 90 floors above would cause morilli to be thrown to the floor (and the testimony overwhelmingly supports me on this one). would the shock waves have enough force to cause this effect from 90 floors above? I am not a physicist i dont know but i am personally incredulous that it would. A far more plausible explanation would be mackey’s which states that the compressed air produced by the falling elevator would cause morilli to fall over, even gravy’s explanation of a fireball ball exploding somewhere in the basement above or a collapsing elevator – but to imagine that the impact of a plane could do so is too much for me to conceptually swallow.
Aguments against: (1) “structure and section” again: if there was something unique to basement levels b2-4 structurally or otherwise that would not only conduct but intensify the shock wave from the plane’s impact and cause morilli to be thrown to ground, totovader has not provided any explanation to that effect. His argumnet rests on the plausible assetion that the structure of the building will not be “affected equally” by the impact. But i and others are personally incredulous that this structure would act so “unequally” in relation to what morilli witnessed. (2) i provided no evidence to support my argument. If you can use testimony to support your claim that people will recieve different experiences from a plane impacting then why is my use of testimony not count for anything? The testimony reveals that nobody on any other floor except b4 were thrown to the ground. (3) the burden of proof: maybe out of habit to debating truthers one of totovaders favourite punch lines is “prove it”. However what my friend fails to understand is that it is “his theory” or “his hypothesis” that is under scrutiny and in need of defence. I am openly saying that it is impossible, you say no it is possible, so i say prove it. But i know you are not a structural egineer or physicist so i do not expect or require that you provide some fantastic equation or structural anomoly that would prove your “structural inequality of impact theory”. Rather i simply urge you to use some common sense and ask yourself which is a more plausible explanation as to why morilli was thrown to the ground: was it (a) compressed air, (b) an elevator collapse (c) an exploding fireball on 1-3 floors above or (d) the impact of a plane 90+floors above? And just in case you feel like changing your mind (f) planted incentary devices??
Predictions is one part of the scientific method. Let us say for argumnets sake that we could construct the twin towers with the same specifications et cetera and recreated what happened placing morelli in the same position he was. I would predict that on no occassion would he be thrown to the ground by the plane impacting. What would you predict? Would say from the 100 trials he would fall everytime? Most times? Or on a few occassions? If you answered this question honestly you will understand why other explanations (a) (b) (c) or (f) are a lot more PLAUSIBLE.
I predict you will respond as follows: basically the “structure and section argument” on steroids. An intensification of the difference in human perceptions and memory. You will try to either belittle the use in trying to explain the experience of morelli, or say it is irelevant and so on. But if you are going to continue holding onto the belief that a plane impact caused morilli to be thrown to the ground instead of simply quoting one line from me and inserting one of your own beneath why dont you make a presentation with substantial arguments. How the shock wave could travel down the building, through what material it travelled down, and most importantly why this explanation is consistent with morilli’s testimony. Why dont you argue against the other explanations by mackey and gravy i.e. that their explanations are less plausible than yours? And if any one else out there feels that totovader is right then why dont you present an argument as to how the impact of a plane 90+ floors above caused morilli to be thrown to the ground.

if mackey or gravy object to the explanations i claimed they presented thye shoudl let me know.

If you can't take the time and care to separate this out, properly quote it, and actually nurture your argument into something beyond incoherent babbling... I'm not going to take the time to respond.

 

[brasil]

A truly deep and profound post.

I had a moment of insight and figured out what you guys are good at and how that should be reflected in what I write here (and by "you guys" I mean the "regulars" on this board): you are good at debunking. I'll bet you guys could debunk the blue out of the sky. Ever try debunking an engine, because I certainly haven't. Everyone has to be good at something, I suppose. With that crystal clear revelation firmly in mind, I understood the proper relationship I can have with this thread: You are all amazingly good at debunking, and i am amazingly good at asking questions. Some have said I am annoyingly good at asking questions. So from now on, I ask, and You debunk. Even if I find I don't agree with your debunkinations, I can take those debunkination techniques and share them with the strategists at the less organized, yet much more fun "Loose Change." By the way, big props to Totovader for being as annoyingly good at debunkination as I am at asking questions.

Thus, I no longer have an opinion, just questions.

And I don't actually have any questions right at this specific moment either. Strangely enough, I don't think about 9/11 every waking moment. It's my understanding the Republicans are drafting a bill to make that illegal, but I doubt it will pass.

 

[thewholesoul]

glad you enjoyed gravy

 

[thewholesoul]

hey totovader.

so if i space it out and paragraph it etc, which i had done on word documnet but when i copy and pasted it onto this forum it just came out like you know what, you will respond?but i do apologise. however it is still legible.

 

[A W Smith]

hey totovader.

so if i space it out and paragraph it etc, which i had done on word documnet but when i copy and pasted it onto this forum it just came out like you know what, you will respond?but i do apologise. however it is still legible.

So I gues you do not know how to retrieve private messages from here either?

 

[thewholesoul]

i totally agree tiger, and thanks for help much appreciated.

 

[thewholesoul]

private posts, i am afraid not amigo, i am just one of those guys that can barely manage his hotmail. it was a struggle setting up youtube

 

[A W Smith]

private posts, i am afraid not amigo, i am just one of those guys that can barely manage his hotmail. it was a struggle setting up youtube

I understand... priorities.

Scroll all the way up to the top of this page you are reading. See that text thats flashing that says "private messages"??? its a hyperlink. Click on it

 

[AZCat]

<snip>and i am amazingly good at asking questions.

No, you're not.

So from now on, I ask, and You debunk.

You fail to understand. After reading your posts over the last couple of days, I fear that you never will. Please find someone in life who can sit you down and explain these things to you, because posts on an internet forum just don't seem to be getting through to you.