• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Missing our Troofs

You all know the parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant, right? One blind man feels the elephant's side and says it's a wall, another feels the tusk and says it's a spear, guy grabs the trunk calls it a snake, guy feeling the leg calls it a tree trunk, etc.... well, Jam is the sort of deliberate obsfucator who'll line up the wall, tusk, spear, and trunk testimonies and try to use them to claim there's no elephant. And that's all that needs to be said about how he misrepresents things; he takes individual perspectives and tries to lead people off into irrelevancies. That's what he does.

There's no need to beat the dead horse. He's done; there's nothing left to refute. I say it's time to put Jam on ignore. He's been soundly refuted in multiple threads now, and all we're doing is obscuring the signal with a lot of rehashing noise. Just let him blather.
 
jammonius said:
For the life of me, I do not understand the claim of "dodge"? What are you trying to do by going in that direction? Perhaps the reason I do not understand that sort of reply from you is that I do not post that way. I do not try to put people in the role of being in a chair needing to answer questions. That is a form of gotcha. You know I do not play gotcha in terms of initiating games like that and I also do not put myself in the gotcha chair, either.

If you want to play 20 questions with someone Macgyver, please do so with someone willing to do that. I am not. If you want to objectively figure out what can reasonably be said about the sound in the CM video, we can do that.

I have started the discussion along those lines by comparing the sound, objectively and factually, with that of the Dick Oliver video. Did you read my post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5863240&postcount=110
Click to expand...

What part of the question do you not understand?...pretty simple to me....what do you believe made the sound in the video that CM posted..im not playing "20 questions"...I asked you a straight question. Answer it and quit playing around. I've been straight with you...do me the honor of being straight with me.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
What part of the question do you not understand?...pretty simple to me....what do you believe made the sound in the video that CM posted..im not playing "20 questions"...I asked you a straight question. Answer it and quit playing around. I've been straight with you...do me the honor of being straight with me.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you are needless stubborn in your posting. While you quote my post containing a link, you apparently missed a portion of the post.

I will requote the salient portion for you:

"I also do not know what caused the approximately 2 seconds of sound prior to the crash sound. I do know, however, that the sound interval was a lot shorter than that of the Dick Oliver video that lasted some 6 seconds prior to the crash sound. I also know that there were secondary crash sounds clearly audible in the video, unlike the Dick Oliver video.

My suggestion is that someone carve out and post stills from the video to facilitate discussion of it, just like I did of the Dick Oliver video. I think we can all agree, much information can be gleaned from these videos if we look at them closely and objectively. Emphasis upon "objectively." For instance, the Dick Oliver video showed a bus or two or three. Accordingly, it was appropriate to admit that video showed buses. It was also appropriate to consider whether the buses were the source of the sound in that video, but that was hard for posters to do because there was a determination to conclude the sound heard was that of a jetliner.

Do posters agree the sound interval in the CM video prior to the crash was 1 to 2 seconds and not more than that? And, are posters willing to admit that sound interval differs from that of the Dick Oliver video?


Once again, please see post # 110

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5863240&postcount=110
 
jammonius said:
The most recent example is that post using the elephant and the blind men ditty.

That was blatant misrepresentation.

First of all, I have not quoted any witnesses who are blind. Most witnesses I have quoted were verifiably fully sighted and with competent hearing. I can say that because, for the most part, the witnesses I rely on come from the group of 503 first responders whose statements were reliably taken in the course of their work and professionally transcribed, such that they are actual evidence.
<snip>
Click to expand...

You feign obtuseness well, jammonius. But we are not fooled into thinking you have no concept whatsoever of an analogy. Clearly, the blind men feeling the elephant represent the idea that each only perceives a small portion of the whole, and makes his determination of what it is based only on that small portion.

By taking witness statements made regarding only a small portion of the whole event on 9/11, many at singular moments in time, you also can try to say that the whole was not "an elephant". The point of the parable is that you need to see or perceive the larger picture, which you avoid like the plague. :boxedin:
 
sylvan8798 said:
You feign obtuseness well, jammonius. But we are not fooled into thinking you have no concept whatsoever of an analogy. Clearly, the blind men feeling the elephant represent the idea that each only perceives a small portion of the whole, and makes his determination of what it is based only on that small portion.

By taking witness statements made regarding only a small portion of the whole event on 9/11, many at singular moments in time, you also can try to say that the whole was not "an elephant". The point of the parable is that you need to see or perceive the larger picture, which you avoid like the plague. :boxedin:
Click to expand...

Yet another judger of my posts. When are you folks, singularly and as a group, going to judge your own posts?

Sylvan, let me double check for accuracy, do you consider yourself to have a greater grasp of what you call "the whole" as it relates to 9/11 than I have?
 
jammonius said:
Sylvan, let me double check for accuracy, do you consider yourself to have a greater grasp of what you call "the whole" as it relates to 9/11 than I have?
Click to expand...

Dude. My 8 year old has a greater grasp of "the whole" than you do.
 
jammonius said:
Bell,

Thanks for your substantive post. I will reply a bit later as your post contains videos that have to be looked at and a witness statement, that of Chief Pfiefer, that has to be examined, as well. That takes time.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe that Pfiefer thinks that no plane hit the towers ?
 
I'm closing this thread temporarily while splits to a new thread and to AAH are made. It will reopen shortly.

ETA: Re-opened. Most of the posts that were essentially re-arguing stuff from the Dick Oliver thread that was previously sent to AAH have been split out to AAH as off-topic and derailing of this thread. However, as requested, a separate thread has been started called Analysis of sounds in 9/11 videos, and posts on topic to that subject have been split to that thread. The splits are not 100% clean because of some overlap in some posts that make it difficult to do so, but it should be reasonably clear why posts were moved to which threads.
Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Your posting style differs from mine. As people who engage in reasoned discussion normally understand that context is an important factor, I, in my posting, would have assumed you had the ability to make a reasoned attempt at proper contextualization and would not have posted in a way that called your ability to do that in question.

Further, had I thought you had posted something that demonstrated what I considered to be improper contextualization I would have likely said something like this:

It seems to me your claim lacks proper context because, followed by x,y,z where x and where y and where z would all be claims associated with a demonstration of improper contextualization.

Look, if you think I have taken something out of context, permit me to request you come right out and scream it; and, if you are so inclined, also say why. One other step might be indicated, but I know, that further step is a difficult one for some.

That step is:

Be prepared for a reasoned response from me either agreeing or disagreeing that something I said was not in proper context.

Context is an element of rational discussion.

Let me ask for sake of understanding: Do you think I do not know what contextualization is or means or what its importance is to reasoned discussion?
Click to expand...

No,you just dodge direct questions,as all truthers do.
 
Derek Johnson said:
I'm right here, how can I be of service?
Click to expand...

Today, 05:14 PM
Replies: 98
9/11 was an inside job to...
Views: 2,349
Posted By Derek Johnson
WTC 7 looked like a CD indeed.

WTC 7 looked like a CD indeed.
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 05:12 PM
Replies: 43
FBI supports Richard Gage and his CD-theory!
Views: 1,228
Posted By Derek Johnson
Quote: Gage's group of 600 Architects,...

Quote:
Gage's group of 600 Architects, Engineers and building professionals

I thought there was over 1100 Architects, Engineers and building professionals?
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 05:08 PM
Replies: 8
sad or hilarious?
Views: 301
Posted By Derek Johnson
Is witness statements of molten steel "evidence"?...

Is witness statements of molten steel "evidence"? Just asking.
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 05:07 PM
Replies: 50
Daily Show forums - hotbed for truthers
Views: 1,465
Posted By Derek Johnson
Unsupported? ....ok, was there or was there...

Unsupported?

....ok, was there or was there not molten steel witnessed in the WTC cleanup?
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 05:03 PM
Replies: 91
WTC Steel
Views: 1,405
Posted By Derek Johnson
Next day? Says who?

Next day? Says who?
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 05:02 PM
Replies: 8
sad or hilarious?
Views: 301
Posted By Derek Johnson
And what if they are right?

And what if they are right?
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 05:01 PM
Replies: 13
Question about the squibs in WTC.
Views: 449
Posted By Derek Johnson
You KNOW? How?

You KNOW? How?
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 05:00 PM
Replies: 27
AE911truth is now a 501c3 Tax-exempt Non-Profit
Views: 517
Posted By Derek Johnson
St. Richard...I like that

St. Richard...I like that
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 04:57 PM
Replies: 28
(Ed) Silverstein on phone with insurance company about controlled demolition
Views: 722
Posted By Derek Johnson
Not to hijack, but how in the dickens did this...

Not to hijack, but how in the dickens did this building, WTC 7, fall so fast?
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 04:55 PM
Replies: 42
Peer-review
Views: 794
Posted By Derek Johnson
No

No
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 04:54 PM
Replies: 18
We Are Change Beijing
Views: 497
Posted By Derek Johnson
No

No
Forum: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Today, 04:52 PM
Replies: 110
Missing our Troofs
Views: 2,117
Posted By Derek Johnson
I'm right here, how can I be of service?

I'm right here, how can I be of service?

-------

You can try reading threads instead of just posting like a maniac would.
 
orphia nay said:
You can try reading threads instead of just posting like a maniac would.
Click to expand...


Judging by our exchange in another thread, he is trying to get his post count up in order to link to something that we have probably never seen before and will completely convince us that 9/11 was an inside jo...


No, I didn't think I would be able to keep a straight face through all of that. :(
 
Hokulele said:
Judging by our exchange in another thread, he is trying to get his post count up in order to link to something that we have probably never seen before and will completely convince us that 9/11 was an inside jo...


No, I didn't think I would be able to keep a straight face through all of that. :(
Click to expand...

Relax, I had to post 15x to post a link. Rules.
 
OK, so start your thread already. You are going to start your own thread and not derail others, right?
 
Is this you, Derek Johnson?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/23161

Derek Johnson, a foundry expert and petition-signer of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, absolutely SHREDS the half-baked government NIST report on Building 7. Derek presents newly-FOIA'd modeling video from NIST that shows animated steel beams floating and spinning in mid-air. This is only part of the ludicrousness of the NIST report on WTC7 and newly FOIA'd docs that Derek obtained from NIST.
Click to expand...

ETA:

http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999446

Degree: B.S. Mechanical Engineering
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom