431 replies to this topic

[Q24]

enzian, on 31 July 2010 - 03:33 PM, said:

Dawn Vignola is being told what to say.  It's not normal human behavior at all.  She is being told what to say.  It is evidence her testimony is fake.  If you refuse to acknowledge this point I see absolutely no reason in talking to you.  I didn't even bother to read the rest of your post.  Take care.

I acknowledge your claim though cannot support it when you provide no evidence.

You have…

• zero evidence that Vignola had to repeat the comments from Timmerman.
  
• zero evidence that Vignola or Timmerman are lying.
  
• refused to address a pertinent question regarding your claim.
  
• chosen to be wilfully ignorant to the very basic concept of interjection in an account.

You must understand that you need to give me reason to fall in line with your claim otherwise obviously it’s not going to happen.  You have been given the opportunity to support what you believe with evidence and logic but instead have shut down with stubborn repetition of your base claim as your only defence.  This is very telling and shows that your argument is poor; you cannot uphold your claim in honest discussion.

Quite honestly, I’d be running and hiding in your position too.

[enzian]

Basically your argument is that there is nothing weird about a "witness" being told what to say.  In my opinion it is just flat out silly.  It's the exact type of thing I would expect to hear at JREF.  Also, you are really arrogant and self-assured.  You and I probably agree on alot of things but your arrogance and closed-mindedness is really off putting.

[Q24]

enzian, on 31 July 2010 - 09:09 PM, said:

Basically your argument is that there is nothing weird about a "witness" being told what to say.  In my opinion it is just flat out silly.  It's the exact type of thing I would expect to hear at JREF.  Also, you are really arrogant and self-assured.  You and I probably agree on alot of things but your arrogance and closed-mindedness is really off putting.

My argument is that in this case there is nothing unexpected about one witness interjecting and adding details of what they saw into another witness’ account.  If we were talking about something more official like a police interview or witness evidence in a court of law then it would be different.  But here we are dealing with two members of the public who have just seen a dramatic event and are on a phone-in to a newsroom.  What is silly (and this is your argument) is to assume that as soon as one witness adds details to another’s account then that automatically makes them both liars… there’s no logic to it I’m afraid.

Those over at JREF certainly wouldn’t give you the time that I am.  I’ll accept the “arrogant and self assured” description which comes because I have reason to be extremely confident in what I’m saying.  I don’t need to be afraid of anything in these discussions because I always keep some sort of evidence or logic on my side.

As for “closed-mindedness” I can’t accept that one - heck, I believe in a grand Neocon/Zionist conspiracy behind 9/11.  If you want to talk about a closed-mind, you could start off by explaining why you refuse to view and respond to the security footage clearly showing the tail of an aircraft.  After that you could have another go at explaining how all of the witnesses missed the ‘flyover’ because your “invisible gorilla” attempt clearly does not cut it.  No wait, you didn’t even read my last post on any of that because I’m the one with the closed mind.  

Perhaps what is most off-putting to you of all is that you cannot uphold your position.

[Ove]

Edited by Ove, 11 September 2011 - 01:55 PM.

[Mario Lemieux]

I dare one of you to go up to someone and say 9/11 was planned. You'll get smacked in the face.

[Scott G]

Great link Ove. I've linked to it in the 9/11 Pentagon Attack thread I made up recently.

[Scott G]

Mario Lemieux, on 11 September 2011 - 08:58 PM, said:

I dare one of you to go up to someone and say 9/11 was planned. You'll get smacked in the face.

I've gone up to many people and told them this; I haven't been smacked once. Not everyone has such violent tendencies, even if they agree with the official story regarding 9/11. Many also recognize that such violent tendencies should be curtailed, not encouraged.

Edited by Scott G, 12 September 2011 - 06:34 PM.

[The Silver Thong]

Mario Lemieux, on 11 September 2011 - 08:58 PM, said:

I dare one of you to go up to someone and say 9/11 was planned. You'll get smacked in the face.

Is that why 70-84% of Americans now think the official story is fabricated.

[Scott G]

The Silver Thong, on 12 September 2011 - 07:30 PM, said:

Is that why 70-84% of Americans now think the official story is fabricated.

That sounds too good to be true. Last I heard it was significantly lower, though atleast it was in the double digits. Where'd you get that statistic?

[preacherman76]

The thing that stands out to me the most is the lack of video coverage of a 747 hitting the pentagon. Especialy considering its a known fact that some type of government agents, who claimed to be from the FBI, confiscated videos from every company in the surrounding area.

[13thDarkOne]

Raptor Witness, on 07 July 2009 - 07:40 PM, said:

I was once told by a military man, a man whom I believe to be truthful, that the U.S. army needs a war at least once a generation, in order to have seasoned officers capable of training the next batch of soldiers.  This is the way of the world.  It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't necessarily make it wrong.  After all, true freedom is not cheap nor easily obtained, and is very rare in history.

The need for a well trained army becomes even more crucial at the end of capitalist boom cycle.

You are always free, you always have a choice. When captivated you are free to try and run away, you are free to spit in your captive holders faces, you are free to curse at them, free to try and beat them criple, free to try and kill them.

In this case you might not be physically free, but you still are free on what you want to do.

As long as you can still make your own choices, you are, as I see it truly free.

[The Narcisse]

preacherman76, on 13 September 2011 - 10:01 AM, said:

The thing that stands out to me the most is the lack of video coverage of a 747 hitting the pentagon. Especialy considering its a known fact that some type of government agents, who claimed to be from the FBI, confiscated videos from every company in the surrounding area.

Your problem is you are using the word "confiscated" when describing the gathering of evidence by those who are investigating a crime. If a murder happens, or any other serious crime, within view of security cameras they are gathered as evidence and never seen again. They certainly don't watch them, make copies and then return the original footage to the owners of the cameras. Why should the plane crashing into the pentagon be any different?

We only have the clear footage of the WTC's because it was televised by news stations.

[Scott G]

The Narcisse, on 14 September 2011 - 06:33 PM, said:

Your problem is you are using the word "confiscated" when describing the gathering of evidence by those who are investigating a crime. If a murder happens, or any other serious crime, within view of security cameras they are gathered as evidence and never seen again.

By that logic, the idea is to remove evidence, not "gather" it. The reason evidence is gathered is -to- see it, not to hide it away forever more. In general, the evidence is presented in a trial. But, ofcourse, after 9/11, we got all these "national security" clauses that would permit the government to hide evidence, on the basis that to reveal it would endanger "national security". You might wish to consider what is meant by "national security". Perhaps it's more a matter of "elite security", that is, it protects the elites from the public eye, so that they can get away with such things as 9/11.