Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

page: 60
61
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
"I'm being paid to come to a site in which people claim highly outlandish claims to post fake reasonable arguments?"

Don't really care what you are paid to do. However, it is quite perplexing (to say the least) that you (and several of your other debunker buddies) have this overwhelming desire to counter "highly outlandish claims". If these claims are so outlandish, do they really need a response from someone who is intelligent enough to eat up every piece of garbage the Government and the media throw their way?




posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
However, it is quite perplexing (to say the least) that you (and several of your other debunker buddies) have this overwhelming desire to counter "highly outlandish claims".


What is much more perplexing is those who come here and make up silly stories like Jews being found with vans full of explosives, holographic planes, explosives being used etc. etc, with nothing at all to back up those claims!!

Why do they make such silly stories up?



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
dereks-

Here is the information that relates to 9/11 about Israelis arrested with vans full of explosives.
The information is all extremely well documented and can be seen in this rather jazzy video.

The first two minutes are a bit slow, but it's all pretty important. The video provides a way
to see all of the different media sources that reported the Israelis and the explosives.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by nickspm
Here is the information that relates to 9/11 about Israelis arrested with vans full of explosives.
The information is all extremely well documented


Except there were many claims made that day about bombs going off that were not true, just like the stories about the Israeli's and trucks with explosives - none of them turned out to be true.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"I'm being paid to come to a site in which people claim highly outlandish claims to post fake reasonable arguments?"

Don't really care what you are paid to do. However, it is quite perplexing (to say the least) that you (and several of your other debunker buddies) have this overwhelming desire to counter "highly outlandish claims". If these claims are so outlandish, do they really need a response from someone who is intelligent enough to eat up every piece of garbage the Government and the media throw their way?


I find it more perplexing that you think I shouldn't be trying to help people understand logic. I honestly prefer not to see people blindly accepting something based on broken reason. I want them to see more than rhetoric and fallacy. In that sense, I'm more of a truther than the truthers here. I do my best not to use any "tactics" to discredit your posts. I attack the information and scrutinize it with logic.

I mean, isn't that generally you guys' stance? To look at (impression of a truther) "how obvious it is that WTC 7 had to be a controlled demolition. Why, a school-child could tell." Even though logic dictates that if you're going to say it was controlled demolition, you have to have something to back it up. It's known for a fact that the building was damaged by debris, and that fires were started. According to NIST, the fires were also in the generator room, which was positioned where it was because WTC 7 wasn't built from the ground up, but on a pre-existing structure.

So, you are allowed to use non-expert opinion and fallacy, and I'm not allowed to use logic and reason. Okay.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by nickspm
Here is the information that relates to 9/11 about Israelis arrested with vans full of explosives.
The information is all extremely well documented


Except there were many claims made that day about bombs going off that were not true, just like the stories about the Israeli's and trucks with explosives - none of them turned out to be true.


dereks,

Could you provide your news sources that substantiate your claim that there were absolutely no Israelis in white vans linked with explosives on 9/11 in or around the New York area?



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Originally posted by jfj123
Just to play devils advocate...Could those explosions be related to flamable substances that caught fire from the original impact fires?


That's a question for the independent inquiry to consider when the US Justice System is restored.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 



That's a question for the independent inquiry to consider.....


And exactly how do you go about "considering" that question - even with a so called "independent inquiry"? You're independent, correct? So what do you think? Is there anyway to satisfy you as to what the cause of the explosive sounds that were heard ten years ago?



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by JohnJasper
 



That's a question for the independent inquiry to consider.....


And exactly how do you go about "considering" that question - even with a so called "independent inquiry"? You're independent, correct? So what do you think? Is there anyway to satisfy you as to what the cause of the explosive sounds that were heard ten years ago?


I would use a novel approach that didn't occur to the 9/11 Commission. I would listen to the testimony of eye-witnesses and question them to gather as much detail as possible to determine what happened on the day and when. If after that, we could not come to a reasonable conclusion about the nature of the explosions, then I'd accept that they would remain of unknown cause. In the end, the secondary explosions would be less important than the forensic evidence and where that had disappeared, I would hold the feet of those responsible in the coals (figuratively or otherwise) until the whole conspiracy unravelled.

Any chance that I could get picked to head the inquiry?



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper

I would use a novel approach that didn't occur to the 9/11 Commission. I would listen to the testimony of eye-witnesses and question them to gather as much detail as possible to determine what happened on the day and when.

Well to start, eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Above and beyond that, it happened almost a decade ago.


Any chance that I could get picked to head the inquiry?

Sorry but there's a huge line behind people who think holographic planes hit the WTC's, Aliens beemed up the WTC's, Energy beams destroyed the WTC's, Anti-matter bombs blew up the WTC's, etc... You'd need to convince those people to let you on the inquiry board



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


fortunately, most of the eye witness testimony is recorded. The investigation is over, the 9/11 commission had their shot, now the public can choose to believe it or ignore it. The alternative media like loose change already investigated it, so there's really nothing else except a witch hunt which won't happen and will just make you look crazy. America got bam boozled on 9/11 but because of the cultural awakening all their most recent false flag attacks have fizzled.

dirty underwear butter



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


then why would the israelis go on a talk show in order to say they weren't mossad agents? most likely they were part of the sayanim, but that's besides the point, how could they be filming this if they had no prior knowledge?



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules
how could they be filming this if they had no prior knowledge?


So you think anyone that filmed the WTC's had prior knowledge?

This is just one of the things wrong with truthers, they do not actually stop and think things through, just cut and post what they read on those damn fool conspiracy sites



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to post by jfj123
 


fortunately, most of the eye witness testimony is recorded.

But again, eye witness testimony is now and always has been notoriously unreliable.


The alternative media like loose change already investigated it, so there's really nothing else except a witch hunt which won't happen and will just make you look crazy.

The clowns from loose change didn't investigate anything but their bank account. They've changed their stories a number of times when they've been caught lying.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


well then i guess all the eyewitnesses that did see the planes hit the towers does not count either then in that case...what an absolutely ridiculous thing to say...then when people go to court the eyewitnessses accounts dont mean a thing and the prisons are full of people that are in jail cause of eyewitness testimony....how silly does that statement sound now....



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by nickspm
 


Here is the original news "flash" item that sparked the van full of explosives claptrap...

www.breakingnews.ie...

"Reports from New York are saying three people have been arrested with a van of explosives.
The van was stopped along the New Jersey turn-pike near the George Washington Bridge.
It was not clear why police stopped the van but when they did they found it was laden down with tonnes of explosives."


What most truthers ignore is this...

www.breakingnews.ie...

"NYPD officers have confirmed the arrest of three men on the New Jersey turn-pike.
However officials denied any explosives were found in the van"

Those two reports went out on the wires seventeen minutes apart. One more case of the media in a rush to get a story out, before they have the facts.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Lord Jules
 


Do some research. They showed up and started filming AFTER the first plane had hit the WTC. In other words, they were acting like every other person in New York with a camera at that point.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by jfj123
 


well then i guess all the eyewitnesses that did see the planes hit the towers does not count either then in that case...

Never said that. I like the way you're doing what you've been accusing me of
Funny how it's ok for you to do it but not me

You'll also notice that not only do we have eye witness reports of planes hitting the towers but we have physical evidence from a variety of different sources.


what an absolutely ridiculous thing to say...


In a 2005 article in the journal Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (Vol. 12, No. 1, pages 43-65), Loftus examined his distance-as-filtering hypothesis that, as a face moves further away, its details become progressively courser and more difficult to recognize.
Comparing the relationship between losses in clarity due to size or blurriness allowed Loftus to develop a formula to approximate the amount of detail people who have 20/20 vision lose at a range of distances in normal daytime light.

"We know enough about the visual system that we now can create a visual depiction of what is lost at any given distance," Loftus says. "When an image is far away, the image shrinks in size on the retina and, as a result, loses details."

The formula, Loftus says, allows expert witnesses-like himself-to use a specific mathematical relationship between image quality and distance to visually simulate the conditions under which an eyewitness observed a crime.



Iowa State University experimental social psychologist Gary Wells, PhD, a member of a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice panel that published the first-ever national guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony, says Loftus's model suggests that crime investigators need to think about eyewitness evidence in the same way that they think about trace evidence.
"Like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the crime," he says.

www.apa.org...


But it is not just the thorny issue of recognizing a face that confuses witnesses. Witnesses' recollection of every aspect of an incident can be contaminated by what they hear from other people.

Forensic psychologist Dr Fiona Gabbert has been working at Aberdeen University with Professor Amina Memon on the distortions in eyewitness recollection.
"Memories are very vulnerable to error. If you witness a crime and then read a local news report everything can be combined in your memory at a later date," she said.

"It can be hard to distinguish between what you saw, and another source of information.
"If there are two people witnessing a crime it is very likely that you are going to ask the person next to you or say 'I can't believe what just happened'."

In studies at the university, subjects were shown very slightly different versions of the same event, such as a crime filmed from different angles.
The subjects are allowed to talk and then a statement is taken as if they are talking to the police.
Dr Gabbert said 70% of participants reported witnessing at least one thing they could not possibly have seen themselves.

Let's re-read this part shall we ?
"70% of participants reported witnessing at least one thing they could not possibly have seen themselves."
WOW ! 70% is a pretty big number, don't you think?


Even when given a "source monitoring test", where the participants are asked to highlight what they saw and what might have come from other sources, 50% will report an item from their discussions with other people as their own.

"It is a true memory error - you are really thinking that you have seen it. It is horrifically scary," Dr Gabbert continued.
"There are criminal cases where witnesses identified the same innocent person. It goes to show your memory is so easily influenced. You discuss your memories with people every single day."

Now lets allow for a decades worth of memory error and let's re-interview those witnesses...hmmmm, that'll work.


And even without the influence of other people, retaining an accurate recollection of a complex event is not easy.

Mr Roberts said stress was a major factor in distorted testimony.
"When you see a very violent episode you are likely to be under great stress that adversely affects your ability to recall events accurately.

"There is also a well-known effect called 'weapon focus'. If you are watching an event where someone is brandishing a gun you don't recall as much information - psychologists think naturally your focus is on the weapon."

news.bbc.co.uk...


Psychologists Jason Chan of Iowa State University, Ayanna Thomas from Tufts University and John Bulevich from Rhode Island College wanted to see how providing false information following a recall test would affect volunteers’ memories of an event that they witnessed.
A group of volunteers watched the first episode of “24″ and then either took an immediate recall test about the show or played a game. Next, all of the subjects were told false information about the episode they had seen and then took a final memory test about the show, said an Iowa State release.

The results were surprising. The researchers found that the volunteers who took the test immediately after watching the show were almost twice as likely to recall false information compared to the volunteers who played the game following the episode.
The results were published in the January issue of Psychological Science.

www.impactlab.net...

Now I could post info all day about how eye witness testimony is unreliable but let's be honest, we both KNOW that eye witness testimony can be very unreliable. The only reason you are suggesting otherwise is that I'm not on the same side as you in this argument



then when people go to court the eyewitnessses accounts dont mean a thing and the prisons are full of people that are in jail cause of eyewitness testimony....how silly does that statement sound now....

Read everything I posted above.....how silly does your statement sound now
????



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


vipertech0596-

The claim that the Dancing Israelis were acting like every other person in New York is false.
The Israelis were celebrating the attacks. You didn't see New Yorkers celebrating 9/11, unless
maybe they were working for Mossad. That's why several eyewitnesses reported these
guys to the police and their van pulled over by the police.

There were several reports about the van with explosives that came out hours earlier than what you have here from breakingnews.ie.

CNN reported "tonnes of explosives inside the van" that were found by law enforcement. Dan Rather also went into details about how much damage the explosives could have done.

Apparently there were two vans at a minimum.

The stories about the van(s) were killed very quickly because they cast a spotlight on the fact that the official version or grand narrative of 9/11, the press was starting to push from very early on, didn't add up.

Again if you follow the money trail it goes back to the CIA. If you follow the trail of the actual people that were found to have explosives in the area on 9/11, it goes back to Mossad.



The video is very informative.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nickspm
 


Dan Rather back-tracked on his explosives in van story :-

www.911myths.com...

There is absolutely no evidence for any explosives in any van in New York on 9/11.





top topics
 
61
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join