Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
RedIbis said:
Because people such as yourself keep asking me about him.
Click to expand...

And yet you seem quite content to ignore other queries on topics far more germane to 9/11 than Larry Silverstein and his dentures.

So why do you so readily and repeatedly return to a topic that you don't think has much relevance in the first place?
 
bill smith said:
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.....

<Bunch of prove quote mined, taken out of context, and use of similies removed for prevention of a headache>


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

Bill, I thought you said thata YOU were making the list? This entire list has been copied and pasted from another website. This is not YOUR list, this is someone ELSES list.

Care to address the previous post on just about every one of those quotes?

Also, when you quote someone, you usually provide a source. See my previous post about this proven bunch of BS. That is how you quote something.
 
johnny karate said:
And yet you seem quite content to ignore other queries on topics far more germane to 9/11 than Larry Silverstein and his dentures.

So why do you so readily and repeatedly return to a topic that you don't think has much relevance in the first place?
Click to expand...

I discuss a lot of topics here.
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...


Just out of curiosity, Red, let's suppose that you witnessed the following events, and then someone asked you about them later:

1. A rambunctious kid running thru a museum catches your attention, & you watch him as he collides with a stand, and see an expensive vase topple over & hit the floor.

2. You see a car, swerving down a road, finally lose control & smash into a parked car.

Would you say about those events:

"I saw the kid knock the stand, the vase fell and then it sounded like a vase breaking."

"I watched the car swerving down the street & then it sounded like one car hitting another one."

Or would you say, using factual statement:

"I saw the kid it the stand, the vase fell & I heard it break."

"I watched the car swerve down the street, lose control & heard it crash into the other car."

Or, using similes:

"I saw the kid it the stand, the vase fell & it sounded like someone threw a stone thru a window."

"I watched the car swerve down the street, lose control & hit the other car. It sounded like an explosion."

"... it sounded like ..."
"... it looked like ..."
"... it felt like ..."

Similes have a very specific usage & semantic context.

They describe events that we are describing, using descriptors that use comparisons to events that specifically did not happen. (No stone thru window. No explosion.)

You do not use "like" when describing events factually, i.e., related what did happen.

The use of the word "like" strongly implies that the users know that the event (i.e., explosions) did not really happen.


Tom
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Bill, I thought you said thata YOU were making the list? This entire list has been copied and pasted from another website. This is not YOUR list, this is someone ELSES list.

Care to address the previous post on just about every one of those quotes?

Also, when you quote someone, you usually provide a source. See my previous post about this proven bunch of BS. That is how you quote something.
Click to expand...

That was interesting Just got a warning.

'You will not post copyright-protected material in its entirety, including hotlinking to images or other media.'

I will pay close attention to the meaning of the word 'entirety' in the future.

entirety,n.........def...[ The condition of being total and complete ]
 
bill smith said:
That was interesting Just got a warning.

'You will not post copyright-protected material in its entirety, including hotlinking to images or other media.'

I will pay close attention to the meaning of the word 'entirety' in the future.

entirety,n.........def...[ The condition of being total and complete ]
Click to expand...

Par for the course....
 
tfk said:
Just out of curiosity, Red, let's suppose that you witnessed the following events, and then someone asked you about them later:

1. A rambunctious kid running thru a museum catches your attention, & you watch him as he collides with a stand, and see an expensive vase topple over & hit the floor.

2. You see a car, swerving down a road, finally lose control & smash into a parked car.

Would you say about those events:

"I saw the kid knock the stand, the vase fell and then it sounded like a vase breaking."

"I watched the car swerving down the street & then it sounded like one car hitting another one."

Or would you say, using factual statement:

"I saw the kid it the stand, the vase fell & I heard it break."

"I watched the car swerve down the street, lose control & heard it crash into the other car."

Or, using similes:

"I saw the kid it the stand, the vase fell & it sounded like someone threw a stone thru a window."

"I watched the car swerve down the street, lose control & hit the other car. It sounded like an explosion."

"... it sounded like ..."
"... it looked like ..."
"... it felt like ..."

Similes have a very specific usage & semantic context.

They describe events that we are describing, using descriptors that use comparisons to events that specifically did not happen. (No stone thru window. No explosion.)

You do not use "like" when describing events factually, i.e., related what did happen.

The use of the word "like" strongly implies that the users know that the event (i.e., explosions) did not really happen.


Tom
Click to expand...

And to expand on that a little, similies help to paint a picture in other peoples' minds about how you witnessed the event.
 
Bill,

Would you care to actually discuss what I said in that post?? And yes, I reported it, as 99% of that stuff I had already torn to shreds, and was just copy and pasted.
 
triforcharity said:
Bill,

Would you care to actually discuss what I said in that post?? And yes, I reported it, as 99% of that stuff I had already torn to shreds, and was just copy and pasted.
Click to expand...

You live and you learn Tri. the next long list will be my own particular ordering of explosion statements. I dare say I can make the new list(s) even more interesting and attention-grabbing than the previous ones while still staying inside the rules.

I or others can use the long list(s) of expert testimony to bludgeon it into people's heads that 9/11 was an inside job. You can ride around on the outside bleating about how it is all taken out of context/similies and so on and I wish you luck with that.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anybody who believes everything man builds will perform the same way hasn't got any grip on reality. Not that hard to see how stupid such an assumption is.
 
tfk said:
Just out of curiosity, Red, let's suppose that you witnessed the following events, and then someone asked you about them later:

1. A rambunctious kid running thru a museum catches your attention, & you watch him as he collides with a stand, and see an expensive vase topple over & hit the floor.

2. You see a car, swerving down a road, finally lose control & smash into a parked car.

Would you say about those events:

"I saw the kid knock the stand, the vase fell and then it sounded like a vase breaking."

"I watched the car swerving down the street & then it sounded like one car hitting another one."

Or would you say, using factual statement:

"I saw the kid it the stand, the vase fell & I heard it break."

"I watched the car swerve down the street, lose control & heard it crash into the other car."

Or, using similes:

"I saw the kid it the stand, the vase fell & it sounded like someone threw a stone thru a window."

"I watched the car swerve down the street, lose control & hit the other car. It sounded like an explosion."

"... it sounded like ..."
"... it looked like ..."
"... it felt like ..."

Similes have a very specific usage & semantic context.

They describe events that we are describing, using descriptors that use comparisons to events that specifically did not happen. (No stone thru window. No explosion.)

You do not use "like" when describing events factually, i.e., related what did happen.

The use of the word "like" strongly implies that the users know that the event (i.e., explosions) did not really happen.


Tom
Click to expand...

The obvious difference being that those who were at GZ and made these observations couldn't possibly have seen the source. Your analogy is ridiculous. You can't compare watching a vase fall off a table and the possible internal detonation of explosives.
 
RedIbis said:
The obvious difference being that those who were at GZ and made these observations couldn't possibly have seen the source. Your analogy is ridiculous. You can't compare watching a vase fall off a table and the possible internal detonation of explosives.
Click to expand...

Truthers tell us you can tell WTC7 was a controlled demolition just by watching a video of its collapse.

And yet no one who actually saw the collapse happen right in front of them has expressed a belief it was a controlled demolition.

What a strange contradiction.
 
johnny karate said:
Truthers tell us you can tell WTC7 was a controlled demolition just by watching a video of its collapse.

And yet no one who actually saw the collapse happen right in front of them has expressed a belief it was a controlled demolition.

What a strange contradiction.
Click to expand...

Please point me to your interviews with everyone who saw the collapse and what their stated beliefs are.

I've noticed how often you appropriate the non existence of information to be confirmation of your bias.
 
RedIbis said:
I discuss a lot of topics here.
Click to expand...

And avoid so many more.

Since you are unable to substantiate and unwilling to justify your accusations against Silverstein, I guess we'll just have to draw our own conclusons about why you seem to have such an axe to grind with him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom