Hi, let me respond here:
NutCracker said:
Cut the pseudo-intellectual bable. Physical evidence, RADAR data, photographic
evidence, phone-calls from the planes, FDR data, CVR recordings, etc.
Conversion of evidence.
Give me a single piece of evidence contradicting the accepted narritive. You
can't.
Give me a single piece of evidence in support of an alternative narrative. You
can't.
Give me an alternative narative. You won't.
Oh, I see what you're doing there. You're shifting the burden of proof to me.
But wait, I'm not accusing anyone, I didn't do anything based on something I
myself put forward and presented as evidence.
I'm just questioning the evidence I got along the official line. That's what skeptics
do, they question the data, they don't suck it up. It is not my responsibility
to provide an alternative narrative as soon as I find myself doubting something
officially presented as evidence. I'm afraid you have it all backwards.
The burden of proof is not on me, it's on those who support/promote/advocate/defend/suck up the official line.
If by "accepted narrative" you mean just the planes, you might want to follow this thread
and see if something convinces you. If you mean the whole 911 storyline than that would be
matter for another thread I guess.
Carlitos said:
You knew "next to nothing."
You read some truther sites, including "September Clues" (dot info), etc.
You came here, where 43 individual videos of the second plane impact are posted
in this thread, plus additional "hi res video" (posted by femr2), along with
dozens of firsthand witness accounts of both planes impacting the towers, along
with dozens of photographs of planes impacting the towers, along with links to
RADAR and even seismic evidence, along with photographs of physical evidence,
and links to all of the evidence presented in the Moussaui trial.
And now you are "on the fence."
Thanks for the logic lesson.
I'm very sorry to see what you're doing there, Carlitos - already you're
discrediting me, nudging me for flawed logic. Yet you know nothing about what
my research included. I've mentioned several times here that I'm not a
Noplaner yet you keep insinuating it. By "next to nothing" I mean what I saw
on TeeVee, as jamm has put it, because it never occured to me to question the
data then. And to make it clear, by "on the fence" I mean, I can see an aircraft
in the videos but I'm no longer sure if it is the same aircraft we were told it was
in reality. You see, some of the videos really look suspicious and may have
been tampered with and for me that's the key question. (see below)
I'm noticing "the dozens of firsthand witnesses" in your post though. On that I would
agree with you, we indeed have such reports. If I was a Noplaner, that would surely be
a problem for me. But I'm not.
As a side effect of this tangent of yours though, you mostly ignored all the comments and
questions I had for you in my last post. So that would be close to a... strawman argument,
right? I am unhappy about that, but what else can I do?
Dumb all over said:
By opining that you find it weird, it was clear to me you were not concluding
that clouds are made of cotton candy. Please, don't let me put words into your
mouth. Based on the notion that few people (if any) failed to mention an
approaching plane, what do you conclude?
This thread is about dissecting all known videos of the second hit. From the fact that
there's not one mention (with the "amateur" clip I already mentioned excluded) of the
approaching aircraft, especially not from the newspeople, I conclude that it is weird
to the point that it might not be a coincidence. In other words, I'm skeptical about it -
is that okay with you?
I do not represent the JREF in any way, shape, or form. The opinions expressed
here are my own. That's generally how it works on most internet forums.
Fair enough, that helps me, to an extent, understand so much spam posts in even just
this thread. Now let me ask you your own opinion on the issue of the ugly colored
footage. And before you do that, you may want to look at the following clip (10min),
it was made specially for debunkers:
www brasschecktv<dot>com/page/401.html
I thank you in advance for breaking it down for me.
For the person who created this thread, it is a black/white issue. Just read the
title of the thread. He has asked you, charmer, to look at the 43 Videos video
and, based on your viewing, to conclude whether there was a PLANE or NO PLANE.
You have reviewed the video, yes? So, what is your answer? Sitting on the fence
causes hemorrhoids.
Oh, sitting at the PC causes hemorrhoids much more often, so watch out
Anyway, I'm not bound to accept the divide-and-conquer paradigm from
you or from jammonius. I think that his effort to critically examine the videos is a
sound one and I agree with the others here that his conclusions put upfront about
DEWs are not. By decisively calling (NO) PLANE I'd be mentally prone to dismiss any
evidence that would point the other way. That's how divide-and-conquer works.
Instead, if I can find the time, I want to examine the evidence and possibly dismiss
it on factual basis.
So for me, if we are to examine the videos, the Plane-No plane question should apply for
the videos as well. Then if we can conclude somehow that one or more videos were manipulated
than we would be all getting on the fence as to what was actually there. Especially if
only _some_ of the videos are revealed to be suspicious in this way.
AJM8125 said:
Right. Then there are those who correctly identified it as a commercial
airliner. What about them?
...
Please see above.
You'll have to be more specific, I don't wish to sit through another truther
video.
Please pay more attention - I have referenced the clip in my first post. But
here it is again as a pseudo URL:
www brasschecktv<dot>com/page/92.html
But I'm afraid that under your standards, you would call it a "truther video".
If you don't wish to sit through it you're basically saying you refuse to look at the
source that is a reference for my argument. If that's the case, I don't know how
can we properly discuss this thing further.
It is not so much about truthers though - it is about mainstream media footage we all
could have seen right on 911. The relevant part about the planted eyewitness only takes
about first two minutes. What the clip basically shows is that the dust hadn't even settled
to the ground yet and _already_, through media dissemination, the whole world "knew" who did
it, why they did it and why the towers fell. Nothing suspicious there, right?
I'm very interested to learn your opinions on that though.
DGM said:
Why are people responding to charmer? This is Jammonius' thread, all attention
should be directed toward him, thecritta you back off too.
Oh, this is just priceless - so this is how you like to kill the messenger around here?
Are you really trying to shut me up here? I already saw dozens of "don't respond" spam posts
in this thread alone... Can you please post on topic without ad hominem insinuations next
time?
