Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Moving On]

So, I went to the trouble of researching the statute and the relevant sections of the US Code and writing a lengthy and thoughtful response. But coming back to the thread and going back through the past several pages to catch up, it's apparent that the thread has become just a morass of tinhat BS, unworthy of the standards of this site.

Russell appears to have dropped all pretence at being an objective or legitimate researcher and has outed himself as a heavy gauge tinhatter, in addition to proving himself incapable of comprehending context and perspective - which are absolutely and fundamentally necessary to any legitimate researcher.

A couple of other heavy gauge tinhatters who lack any analytical skills whatsoever and who have not exhibited even the most basic skills required to conduct a conversation, let alone a legitimate discussion or debate, have posted hundreds of posts each over the past two days without any content of value or any evidence of intelligence. These hundreds of posts amount to nothing but juvenile, unsubstantiated and downright ridiculous nonsense, without even a scintilla of evidence that they have even the most tenuous grasp on reality.

So, screw it. I'm not going to bother posting the results of my research on this thread at this time since I have to sleep soon and I won't be around to read any responses to it until tomorrow night at earliest, and by then the thread will likely be buried in another avalanche of meaningless posts by tinhatters, which I'd rather not have to wade through.

Good night, folks.

LashL

I am very sorry to hear that.

I was very much looking forward to it.

Russell

 

[jessicarabbit]

You wish, "hun".

Unlike you, I actually back up what I say, and my research skills are second to none.

I challenge you to find one thing I have not backed up.

 

[LashL]

LashL

I am very sorry to hear that.

I was very much looking forward to it.

Russell

I'll post it elsewhere tomorrow, and I'll be happy to email it to you in the interim, but I'm just not not content with posting it in the midst of a BS thread such as this one where idiots like "jessicarabbit" respond with stupid and meaningless one-liners to any rational or researched post.

You know how to reach me.

 

[LashL]

I challenge you to find one thing I have not backed up.

That's easy. 98.6% of the posts you've written on this thread, for starters.

You're out of your league, "hun".

 

[jessicarabbit]

That's easy. 98.6% of the posts you've written on this thread, for starters.

You're out of your league, "hun".

No I meant just one example. As your research skills are second to none you shouldn't have trouble finding one example.

 

[LashL]

No I meant just one example. As your research skills are second to none you shouldn't have trouble finding one example.

Here you go:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=498819

98.6% of these hundreds will prove my point. Pick any 98.6% you wish. You have not demonstrated that you are worthy of any more of my time than you've already taken up since I've actually read nearly all of your 300 posts over the past two days.

Even you know, if you're honest with yourself, that what I have said about your posts is absolutely true. You can pretend otherwise all you like, but nobody with two or more arcing brain cells will believe your pretence.

 

[qarnos]

Just a synopsis by somebody else:




Here is another computerized demolition product.
http://hiex.bc.ca/products.html

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

 

[jessicarabbit]

Here you go:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=498819

98.6% of these hundreds will prove my point. Pick any 98.6% you wish. You have not demonstrated that you are worthy of any more of my time than you've already taken up since I've actually read nearly all of your 300 posts over the past two days.

Even you know, if you're honest with yourself, that what I have said about your posts is absolutely true. You can pretend otherwise all you like, but nobody with two or more arcing brain cells will believe your pretence.

So you can't point to a single post that I haven't backed up? Next time your going to make accusations at least try and have some evidence handy hun

 

[Moving On]

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

EXCELLENT work!!!!!!

 

[LashL]

So you can't point to a single post that I haven't backed up? Next time your going to make accusations at least try and have some evidence handy hun

I've just pointed you to hundreds of them. Do try harder, "hun".

 

[qarnos]

No I meant just one example. As your research skills are second to none you shouldn't have trouble finding one example.

How about this one from the previous page of this thread?

 

[jessicarabbit]

How about this one from the previous page of this thread?

It seems LashLs research skills are second to quarnos'. Shame when you can't handle a lady on your own.

 

[CptColumbo]

It seems LashLs research skills are second to quarnos'. Shame when you can't handle a lady on your own.

Well there's one.

 

[gumboot]

task ---------------------------- probability
hijacking Flight 11 ---------------- 1/2
hijacking Flight 175 --------------- 1/3
hijacking Flight 77 ---------------- 1/4
hijacking Flight 93 ---------------- 1/4
evasion of intercepts by Flight 11 -1/2
evasion of intercepts by Flight 175 -1/3
evasion of intercepts by Flight 77 - 1/8
evasion of intercepts by Flight 93 - 1/8
hitting the North Tower ----------- 1/2
hitting the South Tower ----------- 1/2
hitting the Pentagon -------------- 1/4

Who came up with these statistics? Do they know anything about 9/11?

The obvious one that jumps out at me is the second category - the statistical probability of each of the 4 flights evading intercept is 1. Well, if you assume UA93 didn't crash, it might be a fraction smaller than 1, but otherwise...

As for the others... both scenarios are very close to a 1 probability. Again, UA93 scores a slightly lower probability as the hijacking of that flight occured much later than the others.

Hitting the targets, also close to 1 probability. Slightly better odds for Pentagon than for WTC, due to increased size, and higher difficulty of success in training programme (Pentagon can be hard to spot in MS Flight Simulator).

-Gumboot

 

[CptColumbo]

Welcome back russell. I hope your nap gave you the sharpness of mind to avoid the sidesteps you are sure to face.

There's another one.

 

[CptColumbo]

CIA hun, got to be.

yetanother one.

 

[CptColumbo]

They do seem to use very structured organised tactics here. They claim they just don't like to see 911 lied about but that doesn't explain their determination. Its very intriguing.

Well, that just doesn't make sense.

 

[CptColumbo]

I suspect the CIA has called in all the troops to help brief google on the widening of the operation.

Another example.

 

[CptColumbo]

Shall I continue?

Or do you concede the point?

 

[CptColumbo]

Hes also reliable. Its frustrating that all witnesses who support the official version are believed but ones that go against it are branded "confused".

This is from the first page of this thread.

Can you back up that statement?