Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[johnny karate]

You are someone who has an especially pernicious habit of accusing me of lying by making narrow, semantic distictions.

I'm not one for posting animated laughing dogs, but if I was, no post in recent memory would be more deserving. But instead of arguing why you think replacing the word "they" with "we" in order to completely alter a statement's meaning could be defined as a "narrow, semantic distinction", I'll just let the link in my signature speak for itself.

Check post #1961, read what I wrote, compare it to how you are now characterizing my comments and determine if you are lying by your own standard.

You have repeatedly accused Larry Silverstein of lying.

In post# 1961, you said this:

To be clear, I don't think LS has much significance for the larger narrative of 9/11. His ramblings on PBS are just preposterous enough to be interesting, but not particularly relevant to understanding 9/11 as a whole.

Based on these two facts, I asked you this:

What was the point of repeatedly accusing Larry Silverstein of lying in a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory discussion forum when you now admit you don't think anything he said has relevance?

So how exactly did I mischaracterize your comments?

 

[RedIbis]

I'm not one for posting animated laughing dogs, but if I was, no post in recent memory would be more deserving. But instead of arguing why you think replacing the word "they" with "we" in order to completely alter a statement's meaning could be defined as a "narrow, semantic distinction", I'll just let the link in my signature speak for itself.




You have repeatedly accused Larry Silverstein of lying.

In post# 1961, you said this:



Based on these two facts, I asked you this:



So how exactly did I mischaracterize your comments?

I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time on something so tedious, but here goes:

I said the following:
I don't think LS has much significance for the larger narrative of 9/11

His ramblings [...][are] not particularly relevant to understanding 9/11 as a whole.

To which you suggested, "you admit you don't think anything he said has relevance"

Bolded to make the rather obvious point. You really should be concerned I have to point out the difference between my qualified statements and your absolutist ones.

 

[beachnut]

...
His ramblings on PBS are just preposterous
...

Calling him a liar; you need to stop quibbling and own up to your own thoughts. You pointed to your own failure to understand.

(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
I understand why you are upset you don't really understand what you post, or why you post it.

Are you saying Larry is not a liar and everything he says is true?

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time on something so tedious, but here goes:

I said the following:
I don't think LS has much significance for the larger narrative of 9/11

His ramblings [...][are] not particularly relevant to understanding 9/11 as a whole.

To which you suggested, "you admit you don't think anything he said has relevance"

Bolded to make the rather obvious point. You really should be concerned I have to point out the difference between my qualified statements and your absolutist ones.

I apologize for misinterpreting your statement.

Allow me to once again rephrase: What was the point of repeatedly accusing Larry Silverstein of lying in a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory discussion forum when you now admit you don't think anything he said has much relevance?

 

[RedIbis]

I apologize for misinterpreting your statement.

Allow me to once again rephrase: What was the point of repeatedly accusing Larry Silverstein of lying in a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory discussion forum when you now admit you don't think anything he said has much relevance?

Apology accepted.

Because people such as yourself keep asking me about him.

 

[RedIbis]

Calling him a liar; you need to stop quibbling and own up to your own thoughts. You pointed to your own failure to understand.

(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
I understand why you are upset you don't really understand what you post, or why you post it.

Are you saying Larry is not a liar and everything he says is true?

When I said his ramblings are preposterous I was talking about Silverstein. No need to take it personally, though I can see why you would.

 

[Childlike Empress]

When I said his ramblings are preposterous I was talking about Silverstein. No need to take it personally, though I can see why you would.

*cough*

 

[triforcharity]

Here's a couple more. I can produce dozens more like this if you want.

Paramedic Daniel Rivera: “[D]o you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear ‘Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop’? That’s exactly what—because I thought it was that.” [City of New York, 10/10/2001]

Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio: “It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion.” [City of New York, 10/12/2001]
The Guardian will report that police on the scene said the collapse “looked almost like a ‘planned implosion’ designed to catch bystanders watching from the street.” [Guardian, 9/12/2001] .Readers also see post #1970 just above.

I doubt that readers find you in any way convincing Tri. The opposite applies I suspect. But just in case I offer you another opportunity to reject the following scientific study as quotemining and /or hyperbole. See this as more rope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

And I can continue to post the complete quotes, and how they use similies and hyperbole.

PS, that is not a scientific study. That is hog****. When someone ONLY looks for the words "explosion" or "bomb" you will get false and misleading results. It is the textbook example of how to quotemine someone's statements.

Its crap.

 

[bill smith]

And I can continue to post the complete quotes, and how they use similies and hyperbole.

PS, that is not a scientific study. That is hog****. When someone ONLY looks for the words "explosion" or "bomb" you will get false and misleading results. It is the textbook example of how to quotemine someone's statements.

Its crap.

Thanks Tri. Yoou are almost as useful to the Truth Movement as Larry Silverstein is.

 

[triforcharity]

Useful as a **** sandwich.

BTW, have you found a quote that wasn't taken out of context, quotemined, or that doesn't use hyperbole and similie??

Have you found ONE verifiable firefighter who was there that day that BELIEVE to this day, that it was a controlled demolition??

I'll wait. This could take a while, but I have a few days off.

 

[bill smith]

Useful as a **** sandwich.

BTW, have you found a quote that wasn't taken out of context, quotemined, or that doesn't use hyperbole and similie??

Have you found ONE verifiable firefighter who was there that day that BELIEVE to this day, that it was a controlled demolition??

I'll wait. This could take a while, but I have a few days off.

Lets see if the readers will be impressed by the sheer quantity and quality of the explosion reports Tri. I have begun to put together the first draft of a long long list. At some point some reader is going to say ''Jeez man, this is just too much. It had to be an inside job. My God....we did it ourselves '' Then we can hit the whole internet with the list. And you can help to perfect it.....

Breach of rule 4 removed.

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

**************************

Here's a video on the WTC explosions. I see that the hit cpunter has gone up by anything up to a million since I last showed it a month or two ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw


***************************
Here is a scientific Study of the Firefighter Testimonies. the oral histories "were originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner on Sept. 11, who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective memory."
Was he saying that he gathered these testimonies before they could be deliberately corrupted by the perps ? I think so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

************************************

Video analysis of the collapse f WTC1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page Video analysis WTC1

*************************************
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192 reference link
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=richard_banaciski_1 reference link

 

[DGM]

Lets see if the readers will be impressed by the sheer quantity and quality of the explosion reports.

Ah Bill, The "readers" know what similes are. It would carry much more weight if these people came out and believed there were bombs. Sorry, try again some time.

 

[beachnut]

Ah Bill, The "readers" know what similes are. It would carry much more weight if these people came out and believed there were bombs. Sorry, try again some time.

She better take her similes and go get the Pulitzer Prize for proving 911 was an inside job. How many beers do I owe?

Is there a Figure of Speech Pulitzer Prize?

 

[RedIbis]

Ah Bill, The "readers" know what similes are. It would carry much more weight if these people came out and believed there were bombs. Sorry, try again some time.

Since when is belief necessary for proof?

 

[DGM]

Since when is belief necessary for proof?

When it comes to people describing something it makes a lot of difference. I saw a tornado once and yes I described it as sounding like a freight train. Did I think a freight train demolished the houses I saw later? No.

 

[RedIbis]

When it comes to people describing something it makes a lot of difference. I saw a tornado once and yes I described it as sounding like a freight train. Did I think a freight train demolished the houses I saw later? No.

I just think it's a weak argument to say that because "like" can be used figuratively, it can't possibly be descriptive of real events and refutes the precision of some of these observations.

 

[DGM]

I just think it's a weak argument to say that because "like" can be used figuratively, it can't possibly be descriptive of real events and refutes the precision of some of these observations.

It would be a very weak argument if that was all the evidence against bombs in the building. Reality says that's not the case.

 

[RedIbis]

It would be a very weak argument if that was all the evidence against bombs in the building. Reality says that's not the case.

How does a gravity driven collapse explain those observations?

 

[DGM]

How does a gravity driven collapse explain those observations?

Large things crashing into other large things make noise. How do you expect people to describe something (to a laymen) they've never heard before? Would you expect a firefighter to explain to a reporter that "it sounded like floors pancaking"?

 

[beachnut]

How does a gravity driven collapse explain those observations?

Go drop something from 1300 feet; something big. Something with the kinetic energy of 1,020,000,000,000 joules. You know how many tons of TNT that equals? Need some noise, sound is being made and clearly heard, floors hitting each other on 911 right on the speed of collapse, bang, bang,...

you missed a lot to think about by not taking engineering in college, and you avoid the knowledge to make up for it by effectively plugging your ears and running around the playground going na, na, na ...

How many beers does it take to reach the delusional plateau you have achieved after 8 years of negative learning?