Mark Bingham's Obituary was ready 13 days before 9/11

reply to post by snowcrash911

In short, you SUCK at image forgery,

Yes Indeed I do. I have no interest in making a livelihood out of deceitful forgery creation. So I will take your statement as a compliment and as a demonstration of my good nature.

Originally posted by septic

Here is a link for readers who would like an idea of the contents that was missing from the rubble pile:

So what's your claim here? That in the middle of Manhattan all this stuff was secretly removed from the buildings before they collapsed? That these items were beamed out of the buildings by teleportation devices? That everything was dematerialized by death rays?

Originally posted by DelMarvelSo what's your claim here? That in the middle of Manhattan all this stuff was secretly removed from the buildings before they collapsed? That these items were beamed out of the buildings by teleportation devices? That everything was dematerialized by death rays?

You're still being optimistic. In the other thread.... well... he's defending a "witnesses/photos/everything is fake"-position using... NIST photos to prove his "point"!

Originally posted by snowcrash911

You're still being optimistic. In the other thread.... well... he's defending a "witnesses/photos/everything is fake"-position using... NIST photos to prove his "point"!

edit on 12-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

What's the other thread called?

Originally posted by Glargod
]Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by impressme

 

Its far more easier to fund and run your own terror cell, than to fake it all.

I agree, but consider where the funding comes from and who the cell participants are.

I say, it is easier to fund, run your cell, make it happen, then point the finger at a convenient target and let the consequences generate revenue (consider the event of 9/11 as a financial investment)

Yes, well its what I said, is it not? Of course all the terrorists were from an intimate ally of the us, with the "head" being a family member of a family that has intimate ties to the bush family, on a buisness level and a personal level.

The "Column 145 to 152" thread. See index. It's still going.

reply to post by snowcrash911

Proof of what? Absolute proof exists in mathematics and in vodka. Silence by any party doesn't specifically prove any theory. I agree there is a cover-up, still, cumulative evidence must be considered, and each claim shall have to be scrutinized on its own merits. I see your point, but, given the many hoaxes and wild goose chases 9/11 researches are asked to indulge, only to find such claims dubious, speculative, baseless, wholly unwarranted or blatantly false, one should ask how much of the supposition "the government is the suspect" is the product of a circular argument. Such fallacies must be avoided.

edit on 12-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

I find it remarkable that you cannot give any credible sources to disprove my claim except to give your opinion of disbelief. [color=gold]baseless, wholly unwarranted or blatantly false
If you feel I have lied to the readers on this thread, then please prove it.
Are you suggesting that our government never lies?
Are you suggesting that our government would not stage a false flag event to get the population to support an illegal war? It’s not the first time the United States was behind a false flag event to get us into a war, care to challenge me on this?
Are you suggesting that our government doesn’t know how to falsify documents?
Are you suggesting that all these claims that I have made are:

[color=gold] I see your point, but, given the many hoaxes and wild goose chases 9/11 researches are asked to indulge, only to find such claims dubious, speculative, baseless, wholly unwarranted or blatantly false, one should ask how much of the supposition "the government is the suspect" is the product of a circular argument.

Then let’s see you disprove my accusations since you are accusing me of lying.

Originally posted by impressme
I find it remarkable that you cannot give any credible sources to disprove my claim except to give your opinion of disbelief. baseless, wholly unwarranted or blatantly false

Argument from ignorance. Again.

Originally posted by impressme
If you feel I have lied to the readers on this thread, then please prove it.

Straw man argument.

Originally posted by impressme
Are you suggesting that our government never lies?

No, I'm not.

Originally posted by impressme
Are you suggesting that our government would not stage a false flag event to get the population to support an illegal war?

No, I'm not.

Originally posted by impressme
It’s not the first time the United States was behind a false flag event to get us into a war, care to challenge me on this?

No, because the United States did things which fit that description. However, the Gulf Of Tonkin was a made up attack, not American troops dressed as Vietnamese, and Northwoods was never actually executed, thanks to Kennedy, who was later murdered, in my opinion, by LBJ. You're welcome to provide examples of actual false flag attacks true to the definition of the term.

Originally posted by impressme
Are you suggesting that our government doesn’t know how to falsify documents?

Are you fond of asking rhetorical questions?

Originally posted by impressme
Then let’s see you disprove my accusations since you are accusing me of lying.

Straw man argument.

Bingo!



You're debating your conveniently altered version of me, not me.

reply to post by snowcrash911

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by impressme
I find it remarkable that you cannot give any credible sources to disprove my claim except to give your opinion of disbelief. baseless, wholly unwarranted or blatantly false

Argument from ignorance. Again.

Because I mention the fact that you couldn’t give a source for your opinions stating that I am telling fallicies that I am now [color=gold]Argument from ignorance. Again.
Thank you for demonstrating just how oblivious and self-contradicting you are on this topic and in answering my few questions.

reply to post by impressme


Okay fine. Obviously, this remark by you is true:

The fact is the government doesn’t like us asking questions, their silence on this event (911) is proof enough.

I concede, and I regret ever having challenged that in the first place.

reply to post by snowcrash911

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by impressme

 

Okay fine. Obviously, this remark by you is true:

The fact is the government doesn’t like us asking questions, their silence on this event (911) is proof enough.

I concede, and I regret ever having challenged that in the first place.

The fact is you haven’t proved me wrong in any of my above claims but just to give your disbelieving opinions and nothing more.

Originally posted by impressme
The fact is you haven’t proved me wrong in any of my above claims but just to give your disbelieving opinions and nothing more.

You've committed numerous fallacies, which you alluded you don't even know or understand. Time to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and read up on skeptical philosophy and logic, before embarrassing yourself even further.

Your claims, the majority of them, are excruciatingly stupid, fallacious and meaningless. You may maintain any attitude you wish, you'll be treated twice as bad as you treat me.

How enjoyable to see Let'sRoll getting the props it deserves here. Jayhan and his band of kooks are one of my favourite sources of 911 of laughs.

Among the numerous inanities, insanities and downright oddities that function as "exploring the truth" over there, I particularly like how Jayhan has become an exemplar of a trick that runs right through lots of conspiracy theories but at which he is undoubtedly the master - the source that you really, really hope they don't click and read.

Check out how Jayhan footnotes this cracker

"FYI - We were also informed quietly via the FBI that the Flight 93 drama never occurred. This came out in trial of one of the alleged hijackers;

9/11 Flight 93 Passenger Uprising Theory Discounted - LA Times"

The last sentence is a link to an article in the cited newspaper. Clicking the link, one is led to an article of which the first sentence is

U.S. investigators now believe that a hijacker in the cockpit aboard United Airlines Flight 93 instructed terrorist-pilot Ziad Samir Jarrah to crash the jetliner into a Pennsylvania field because of a passenger uprising in the cabin.

Phil has taken the title of the article - which is refering to the theory that passengers entered the cockpit - and pretends that it means that the whole uprising has been proved to be fake.

Anyone who reads the link and the source, even in the most cursory fashion, would see what nonsense this is. The very first sentence destroys his supposed revelation. So why on earth does Phil link to it? I can only assume that he desperately hopes that either people won't read it, or, like say Septic, they are so keen to believe the nonsense he retails that they'll just ignore what the piece tells them.

Anyway, big hand for Phil. He always brightens my day.

reply to post by snowcrash911

The fact is you haven’t proved me wrong in any of my above claims but just to give your disbelieving opinions and nothing more.

As everyone can read you still have not disproved any of my claims.

You've committed numerous fallacies,

Please show with evidence to where I have told any lies?
Anyone can make claims but can you prove them?

Your claims, the majority of them, are excruciatingly stupid, fallacious and meaningless.

The majority of whom? Please show in this thread where I have made such a statement?

What about the timestamps of other pictures? Surely there are several pictures related and unrelated to 911 which have been edited in a similiar manner, such as pictures of victims of other disasters. Does the metainfo on their pictures turn out to be odd as well? If that is the case, whatever they do to watermark the picture might not alter the metadata of their pictures.

Originally posted by impressme
As everyone can read you still have not disproved any of my claims.

Argument from ignorance. (Again)

Originally posted by impressme
Please show with evidence to where I have told any lies?
Anyone can make claims but can you prove them?

You do not appear to understand what "logical fallacies" are... Apparently you're a bit mentally limited.

Originally posted by impressme
The majority of whom? Please show in this thread where I have made such a statement?

I could source previous examples, but the irony is, you're a repeat offender, and you've committed another logical fallacy in the comment I'm responding to alone. I agree that describes you well.

Originally posted by Cassius666
What about the timestamps of other pictures? Surely there are several pictures related and unrelated to 911 which have been edited in a similiar manner, such as pictures of victims of other disasters. Does the metainfo on their pictures turn out to be odd as well? If that is the case, whatever they do to watermark the picture might not alter the metadata of their pictures.

It appears there's still some misunderstanding about the EXIF data discussed in this thread. The EXIF data is not from any camera. The EXIF data was added by Associated Press.

To further clear up confusion, Google when Bingham graduated.

The EXIF data is not from any photo camera. I hope this registers this time along.

I've always thought the entire events of 9/11 were staged by people within the american government and nothing I've seen can convince me otherwise. The first time I seen the attack on the pentagon my first words were that it's been bombed. Never did I think that a plane had hit it.

Originally posted by khegs202
I've always thought the entire events of 9/11 were staged by people within the american government and nothing I've seen can convince me otherwise.

This is what is known as a non-falsifiable belief, which is an attribute of pseudoscience. (See Karl Popper)

Your belief is religious; however more similar to that of a cult. There's nothing wrong with questioning 9/11 or suspecting government involvement; there is something wrong with non-falsifiable beliefs, imo.

Hypothetical question for snowcrash911.

Suppose the "Time created" portion of the Exif/IPTC data for the Bingham photo had been appropriate for an office hours manipulation of the photo on August 8, 2001. Would that make it reasonable to believe that the CNN obit page for Bingham had been created prior to 9/11?