chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Or cussing, or racial/ethnic slurring, or copyright violations, or whatever.
CYA is a smart choice, I think.
What JohnDoeX thinks we are afraid to post
- Thread starter T.A.M.
- Start date
CYA is a smart choice, I think.
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
Just like John Doe to expect the people at the NTSB or FBI to drop whatever else they were doing because someone calls them and claims their data is wrong.
John doe if you read this why don't you or the Loose change crew pay for an expert independent analysis of the data. If this analysis supports your claims then maybe a nice professional letter to the proper department backed with expert analysis might get a response from the authorities. I sincerely doubt you can get an independent expert analysis that agrees without doing something akin to opinion shopping.
Also John what was done on this and another thread was much more than
Why don't you either come here and debate the points (since critical analysis is frowned upon at the LC board) or address them on the Loose change site. Maybe put your data up on the PPRune site and see what the response is.
If you only put your conclusions on the LC site don't expect much more than a lot of smilies with high fives
John doe if you read this why don't you or the Loose change crew pay for an expert independent analysis of the data. If this analysis supports your claims then maybe a nice professional letter to the proper department backed with expert analysis might get a response from the authorities. I sincerely doubt you can get an independent expert analysis that agrees without doing something akin to opinion shopping.
Also John what was done on this and another thread was much more than
Why don't you either come here and debate the points (since critical analysis is frowned upon at the LC board) or address them on the Loose change site. Maybe put your data up on the PPRune site and see what the response is.
If you only put your conclusions on the LC site don't expect much more than a lot of smilies with high fives
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,542
Why would they need independant expert analysis? They _are_ experts.
Interesting audio. He was very polite, (so I kinda doubt it was JDX) but I wish he would have phrased his question a bit better. He kept saying he had a question about the FDR before he mentioned flight 77 and the Pentagon, but that was probably just nervousness.
Did anyone else think he sounded Canadian? I thought I detected a fairly distinct "aboot" in one of his earlier calls.
ETA: I see Dog Town agrees he's Canadian.
Yeah, I wanted to comment about that, but thought I might have heard wrong. JDX is from NY state, isn't he?
CurtC
Illuminator
I think this was pointed out earlier, the guy who makes the phone calls goes by the name "shure" over there. It's like a pathetic version of The Jerky Boys. I heard his call to Ben Chertoff at Popular Mechanics, and pathetic is the only way to describe it.
His attitude about it all brings home to me, something I have been thinking about for a while now, and that is motive.
You ever notice how protective these guys are over their own work. For instance, the Flight77.info site shaites all over Judicial Watch, because according to flight77.info, it was their FOIA request that got the pentagon tapes released.
I think "shure' as he is called, makes these calls so that he is seen as a "maverick" an "action" guy amongst the movement.
Watch every time he makes a call, he posts a link to it over there, the LC gang stick their noses up his a-hole, and he feels gratified.
The thing I love about this attitude they have, is that it always lead to splits in the group as a whole. The worst perps of this are the scholars themselves. Look how jealous Reynolds and Woods got over Jones and his work...what happened, they took their toys and left the scholars.
pathetic, but as long as it keeps them fractured as a group, I am all for it.
TAM
You ever notice how protective these guys are over their own work. For instance, the Flight77.info site shaites all over Judicial Watch, because according to flight77.info, it was their FOIA request that got the pentagon tapes released.
I think "shure' as he is called, makes these calls so that he is seen as a "maverick" an "action" guy amongst the movement.
Watch every time he makes a call, he posts a link to it over there, the LC gang stick their noses up his a-hole, and he feels gratified.
The thing I love about this attitude they have, is that it always lead to splits in the group as a whole. The worst perps of this are the scholars themselves. Look how jealous Reynolds and Woods got over Jones and his work...what happened, they took their toys and left the scholars.
pathetic, but as long as it keeps them fractured as a group, I am all for it.
TAM
CurtC
Illuminator
Heh - take a look at this thread over at LC. Shure got into an argument at another board, asked for reinforcements back at LC, and THE_DECIDER registered but was frustrated that the registration process takes a couple of days. So shure posts his login and password to that board, right there in a public forum, so THE_DECIDER can help immediately. Apparently, either THE_DECIDER or someone else posted inflammatory stuff under shure's login over at the other board.
CurtC
Illuminator
LC Lounge -> I'm Under Attack On Forum, need people to speak up.....
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
Translation:I painted myself into a corner, and am too big a wuss to admit it. So someone else should defend my erroneous information.
bignickel
Mad Mod Poet God
This is what "Bart" thinks is a 'strawman'
"Seemingly"? Evidently, this means finding the holes in your opponent's argument 'just makes him look bad.' No wonder they keep yelling that Gravy is using 'strawman' arguments; he keeps finding problems with their evidence and logical reasoning.
Have any of our posters over there been able to tell them what a 'strawman' argument actually is?
(Bolding mine)
"Seemingly"? Evidently, this means finding the holes in your opponent's argument 'just makes him look bad.' No wonder they keep yelling that Gravy is using 'strawman' arguments; he keeps finding problems with their evidence and logical reasoning.
Have any of our posters over there been able to tell them what a 'strawman' argument actually is?
This has probably been said before, but reason me this...
Let us assume that JDXs calculations are right (which I doubt), then...
If the big bad evil gubmint hit the pentagon with a missile, either launched from a secret location, or from a fly-over jet, and hence faked the whole plane hitting it, than why, ON THIS EARTH, would they fake INCORRECT Data. Seems to me a very STUPID thing for the masterminds of 9/11 to have done.
Now if the CTers argue that they didn't fake the data for the FDR, but rather used the FDR from the "flyover plane", than answer me this...WHY, WHY, WHY?
Why, ON THIS EARTH, would you take the FDR from a "flyover" jet, knowing the FDR data would be wrong, and plant it in the debris to be found and analyzed.
Or if the CTers say there was no FDR at all, but just some cooked up numbers, than why, ON THIS EARTH, would you cook up the wrong numbers?
There reasoning makes no sense to me...can someone help me understand their reasoning, their theory, anything here...please...my head is about to spin 360.
TAM
Let us assume that JDXs calculations are right (which I doubt), then...
If the big bad evil gubmint hit the pentagon with a missile, either launched from a secret location, or from a fly-over jet, and hence faked the whole plane hitting it, than why, ON THIS EARTH, would they fake INCORRECT Data. Seems to me a very STUPID thing for the masterminds of 9/11 to have done.
Now if the CTers argue that they didn't fake the data for the FDR, but rather used the FDR from the "flyover plane", than answer me this...WHY, WHY, WHY?
Why, ON THIS EARTH, would you take the FDR from a "flyover" jet, knowing the FDR data would be wrong, and plant it in the debris to be found and analyzed.
Or if the CTers say there was no FDR at all, but just some cooked up numbers, than why, ON THIS EARTH, would you cook up the wrong numbers?
There reasoning makes no sense to me...can someone help me understand their reasoning, their theory, anything here...please...my head is about to spin 360.
TAM
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
JDX's pet phrase is ask questions, demand answers (if you've parented 6 year olds, you'll recognize that attitude). You won't get JDX to espouse any alternatives. All he want's to do is find holes in the the official story. Disingenuous, yes. Intellectually dishonest, you betcha. Child like in it's simplicity and depth, now were on the same page.
JDX's act has worn thin. He offers nothing of substance, which of course still makes him the intellectual wizard and expert analyst so lacking in the LC crowd.
Russ Pick is an honest, albeit misguided researcher. His big mistake is failing to wear his tin foil hat 24x7 and consume liquids other then kool aid. He's falling out of favor with the loosers.