alienentity
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4,325
But wouldn't someone who is suffering from such impairment be al least sometimes right by accident?
Sure, in the same way that a broken watch is still correct twice a day.
But wouldn't someone who is suffering from such impairment be al least sometimes right by accident?
I think this is not true. Look here.
No, it doesn't. If you paid close attention to my timeline, you'd understand. I will specify.
Day 0 - 9/11
Day 2 - Tracy arrives home and smells the smell
Day 3 - Tracy views Ground Zero for the first time, or actually just really whatever was visible above a ten foot fence, which wasn't much.
Day 100 - Tracy still smells the smell and swore that nobody would ever convince her that the smell was an ordinary fire
Year 3.5 - Tracy hears about no planesYear 4.5 - Tracy finds out about Judy Wood
Year 5 - Tracy decides in favor of no planesYear 8 - Tracy dumps TV video fakery in favor of 3D projected image
Year 8 - Tracy collects her first dust sample and decides it was metallic foam
What should be obvious is that I was on the case for years before I heard a darn thing about no planes or even considered the idea. Same with Judy Wood. In the early years, I was working without the benefit of Dr. Wood's wisdom.
Why did the construction guys water down the dump trucks? Is this type of watering rig normal at all deconstruction sites? What was producing all the dust?
It's a fairly natural way of saying one is suspending judgment, though it does lead to confusion sometimes.
In any case, the "error" is merely one of imprecise wording. There are surely many more reasons to criticize Woods than this.
Damn kids. We haven't even scratched the surface of children's involvement in this conspiracy!
I am very confused right now. The only evidence we have of an impact here is a video of a plane on a track. I was under the impression that video evidence counts for nothing, as no-planers tell us. Dr. Judy Wood could have faked this video, for all I know.
Adding to my confusion, this does not look that much different from videos of UA 175. The plane appears to stay intact as it plows into the wall. Given that the wall is completely different and the plane is different, yet there is still substantial similarity, why should this undermine the reality that a plane hit WTC 2?
It's a fairly natural way of saying one is suspending judgment, though it does lead to confusion sometimes.
In any case, the "error" is merely one of imprecise wording. There are surely many more reasons to criticize Woods than this.
In other words, you can't even begin to answer the question as to how you can differentiate between genuine Truther opposition and false, Government Truther disinformation agents?
Yep. That's what I thought.
I'm more interested in the answer to the question "What does a train wreck look like?"
Dave
It means that she is suspending judgment on that point. There is nothing at all odd about that.
There are many propositions which I have no opinion on. I do not believe that the 10^80th digit of pi is 7. I also do not believe that it is not 7.
Unfortunately, in plain English, the phrase, "I do not believe X," often means "I believe X is false." Just another unfortunate ambiguity in natural language.
I don't understand this. The energy weapons, they did this. So where are the energy weapons in your answer? Are you a scientist? If there are no energy weapons, then how did it happen? A plane doesn't do this, so it had to be the energy weapons. I do not know how they did it or where the energy weapons are, but it had to be the energy weapons. And they are very simple. A child could aim it and another child could fire it. But you would need to be an adult to design and build it. So that's three people, and only 1 of them is an adult.
Do you see anything wrong with my logic? And I am not on drugs. So stop saying I am.
Check out the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM
We should have seen a similar impact at the south face of WTC 2, had one occurred.
No evidence of impact? No impact. No impact? No plane.