Oct Loyalist/"debunker" Guest/visitor List, Sign in here please Options

[dMz]

I referred to the rule which you claimed required me to post the answers to the questions in this thread. I have not taken anything out of context, I posted the rule in question word-for-word.

Tsk tsk Adam- there's more than ONE rule... Go take another look (or see my reply above for that matter).

Also you're getting a little "words in my mouth" here aren't you Adam? I didn't reference ONLY ONE rule anywhere did I? I think you'll find that Oceans Flow, the post above, and I have been talking about ALL the Debate Forum Rules (3 links, 10 questions now- thanks Adam, but your 9 answers are sufficient in this case). FWIW You did miss that quiz about ducks too...

FYI Adam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality."

[adam_zapple]

Tsk tsk Adam- there's more than ONE rule... Go take another look (or see my reply above for that matter).

Did I ever claim that there was only one rule? You accused me of taking that rule "out of context", but I posted it word-for-word. If the meaning of that rule is different than it's word-for-word explanation, please advise.

[painter]

. . .
2. What percentage(s) would you estimate that you support and/or believe the "Official" "boxcutter Arab" Conspiracy Theory (OT, OCT, or OGCT) on a scale of 0-100?

Probably 60-80%*, but I would have to know the exact narrative you're referring to.
. . .

I would like to pursue this answer a bit further with you, Adam. Rather than us putting forward a narrative, I'd prefer that you simply state your position.

In your opinion, what actually happened on 9/11 and who was responsible for it?

[adam_zapple]

I would like to pursue this answer a bit further with you, Adam. Rather than us putting forward a narrative, I'd prefer that you simply state your position.

In your opinion, what actually happened on 9/11 and who was responsible for it?

2 Commercial Airliners hit the WTC towers
1 hit the pentagon
1 crashed in a rural area

Terrorists were responsible.

Same question to you, Painter.

This post has been edited by adam_zapple: Jul 18 2008, 10:10 AM

[painter]

2 Commercial Airliners hit the WTC towers
1 hit the pentagon
1 crashed in a rural area

Terrorists were responsible.

Same question to you, Painter.

Well, that is about the skimpiest answer I could imagine and isn't at all satisfactory. To the question, "2. What percentage(s) would you estimate that you support and/or believe the "Official" "boxcutter Arab" Conspiracy Theory (OT, OCT, or OGCT) on a scale of 0-100?" you answered: Probably 60-80%*, but I would have to know the exact narrative you're referring to. Sixty to eighty percent agreement is certainly more than fifty percent agreement but still leaves a 20 to 40 percent disagreement rate with the OTC. To me, even 20% is a high disagreement rate. But as you indicate this is relative to the narrative being discussed. So what I'm asking you is, what is the narrative with which you disagree twenty percent to forty percent? Moreover, you note with your asterisk, "*My loyalties are to the laws of science and physics. It doesn't matter to me which side the government is on, I will side with science and physics." Fine, I have no problem with that. Using the standards of science, though, I don't understand how you can say what I've quoted above because the evidence doesn't support those claims and, worse, the official theory doesn't account for a lot of other evidence that has been accumulated.

So, again, I ask the question. I'm asking for a narrative, here, not a list.

EDIT -- just taking your list as presented above:

2 Commercial Airliners hit the WTC towers -- What evidence do you have to verify that claim?
1 hit the pentagon -- What evidence do you have to verify that claim?
1 crashed in a rural area -- What evidence do you have to verify that claim?
Terrorists were responsible. -- What evidence do you have to verify that claim?

[dMz]

2 Commercial Airliners hit the WTC towers
1 hit the pentagon
1 crashed in a rural area

Terrorists were responsible.

Same question to you, Painter.

I'm OK with the 1st line, except for the sourced evidence part...

On the next two lines though- I'd prefer a specific "1" exactly what hit just so that we don't need to go through this questioning multiple times again in the near future (it's an efficiency "hang up" that I've got and will freely admit to).

Then again, I owe Adam a bit more than the "duck" question at this point, so I'm willing to let this one go myself (Bad dMole!).

[adam_zapple]

Well, that is about the skimpiest answer I could imagine and isn't at all satisfactory. To the question, "2. What percentage(s) would you estimate that you support and/or believe the "Official" "boxcutter Arab" Conspiracy Theory (OT, OCT, or OGCT) on a scale of 0-100?" you answered: Probably 60-80%*, but I would have to know the exact narrative you're referring to. Sixty to eighty percent agreement is certainly more than fifty percent agreement but still leaves a 20 to 40 percent disagreement rate with the OTC. To me, even 20% is a high disagreement rate. But as you indicate this is relative to the narrative being discussed. So what I'm asking you is, what is the narrative with which you disagree twenty percent to forty percent?

There are many different narratives...I chose the figure because I did not know which particular narrative you were referring to. You call it the "boxcutter Arab", but I can't recall which particular narrative includes statements about boxcutters. Again, if you point me to a specific narrative, I'll give you a specific percentage.

Moreover, you note with your asterisk, "*My loyalties are to the laws of science and physics. It doesn't matter to me which side the government is on, I will side with science and physics." Fine, I have no problem with that. Using the standards of science, though, I don't understand how you can say what I've quoted above because the evidence doesn't support those claims and, worse, the official theory doesn't account for a lot of other evidence that has been accumulated.

Which specific evidence doesn't support those claims? No one theory is going to be able to account for every piece of evidence, expecting that is unrealistic.

So, again, I ask the question. I'm asking for a narrative, here, not a list.

Narrative: Hijackers took control of 4 planes. They may or may not have had weapons (some reported that the hijackers claimed to have bombs). Since previous hijackings of commercial aircraft in the US usually resulted in a safe landing, no one (on the first 3 flights) would have thought any differently. The policy of the airlines was to cooperate with the hijackers, which they did. Some or all of the air crews were either incapacitated or killed at which point the hijackers took over the controls of the aircraft and flew them into their targets, except for flight 93 which crashed in a field, presumably due to intervention by their passengers who knew that they would be killed if they did not react. The 2 wtc towers, after suffering the impacts of the jets and fires sparked by their large fuel load, both collapsed, damaging nearby structures including WTC7 which also collapsed.


2 Commercial Airliners hit the WTC towers -- What evidence do you have to verify that claim?

-People saw it (Many, including myself, on live television)

1 hit the pentagon -- What evidence do you have to verify that claim?

-People saw it. (AA77)

1 crashed in a rural area -- What evidence do you have to verify that claim?

-People saw it. (United 93)
Terrorists were responsible. -- What evidence do you have to verify that claim?

-People who saw the terrorists reported it.


Same question to you, Painter. Your narrative, please.

[painter]

. . .
-People saw it.
. . .

Given your stated allegiance to scientific principles, do you consider "people saw it" to be all that is necessary to establish fact?

As for my narrative, I don't have one exactly. What I have are a lot of pieces to a puzzle that doesn't make sense, so far as generating a comprehensive alternative narrative but, equally, belie the official narrative we're repeatedly given. I don't find that surprising, however, as my predisposition is that the events of 9/11 are an on-going, state sponsored, psychological operation -- a black-op, psy-op, social-driving mind-f*ck with a large counter-intelligence aspect that is meant to send people like myself chasing red geese in pursuit of wild herrings while the perps play croquet with pink flamingoes in a fun-house of mirrors so compartmentalized that even they don't know exactly who and how or what and why. Obfuscation is the name of the game. NO ONE is supposed to know what is really going on beyond their 'need to know' compartment.

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Ron Suskind quoting an unnamed White House source (most likely Karl Rove) in a 10.17.04 New York Times Sunday Magazine article.

What I know is the first and most important step in covering-up a murder is get rid of the murder weapon. To date, not ONE piece of airline wreckage has been positively identified by serialized part # by the NTSB as belonging to the alleged hijacked plane at its respective crash site. OR, if such has been positively identified by the NTSB, such identification is being withheld from the public despite repeated FOIA requests. This extraordinary fact is not reported by the corporate owned media. But, then, there are many extraordinary facts about 9/11 that aren't covered by said media -- such as the fact that the data retrieved from the alleged FDR of Flight 77, in many significant details, does not correspond with or corroborate the physical damage path found in the Pentagon and its environs; such as the fact that eyewitnesses, some of them Pentagon employees, emphatically state on record that the plane they saw and believe hit the building was traveling on a trajectory that makes it impossible for it to have caused said damage. There are many other things I could name that are established facts in regards to 9/11 that are not covered by the same said media and even much of the 'alternative' media as well. All of which reinforces my above predisposition that what we are dealing with here is a matter of national security of such extreme importance to those in power that their underlings aren't even allowed to discuss whether or not certain pieces of information are classified beyond their access level. From all of this I deduce that what we are dealing with here are high crimes, treason, mass murder and a conspiracy of such consequence that the fate not only of our nation but very likely the world depends upon our responses to it. Whether or not President Bush, for example, was privy to all the details of this operation from the outset of his installation in the Office by the Supreme Court is impossible for me to say. I can only say that his "reaction" to the news from his Secretary, not to mention that of his Secret Service entourage, upon being informed of the second WTC hit, that, specifically, "America is under attack," and that from that moment a state of emergency was in effect, putting into play COG (continuity of government) contingencies, is beyond counter intuitive. He just f*cking sat there on camera in a room full of remedial readers for a space of approximately 10 minutes while other allegedly high-jacked aircraft remained aloft, one of them in route toward what one would assume to be the most heavily monitored and defended air-space on earth.

I could go on and on and on with this but the point has been made. It isn't necessary to construct a compelling alternative narrative to de-construct a false narrative. As with scientific theories, all that is necessary is to show that the theory (in this case a narrative) does NOT account for all the factual evidence observed.

We have that in spades. Whatever the truth may be, it isn't what we've been told -- and the consequences, should they ever be fully embraced, are historically unprecedented.

[dMz]

There are many different narratives...I chose the figure because I did not know which particular narrative you were referring to. You call it the "boxcutter Arab", but I can't recall which particular narrative includes statements about boxcutters. Again, if you point me to a specific narrative, I'll give you a specific percentage.

FYI Adam:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/FO08301-1.jpg

(IMG:http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/FO08301-1.jpg)

Please try to be specific (re: percentage and so forth). (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[adam_zapple]

Given your stated allegiance to scientific principles, do you consider "people saw it" to be all that is necessary to establish fact?

No, but it is a pretty devastating piece of evidence to anyone who thinks that none of these planes actually crashed.

To clarify: When I say "people saw it", I'm not just referring to the actual impact, but the plane debris, victims, plane parts, etc witnessed by rescue workers, etc.

What I know is the first and most important step in covering-up a murder is get rid of the murder weapon. To date, not ONE piece of airline wreckage has been positively identified by serialized part # by the NTSB as belonging to the alleged hijacked plane at its respective crash site. OR, if such has been positively identified by the NTSB, such identification is being withheld from the public despite repeated FOIA requests.

We know which planes went missing, and they just so happen to match the descriptions of the planes people saw crashing. Interestingly enough, the passengers aboard each of the planes are also missing (though some of their remains were DNA-identified) and the planes in question haven't been seen since. What additional gain would there be in cataloging the serial numbers of each part in the wreckage? (or is this just excuse to claim that the evidence provided is insufficient?)

I snipped the rest of your post which contained various anomalies & interesting tidbits, none of which prove the existence of any such conspiracy. Does it bother you at all that you are not able to form any of these facts into a single cohesive narrative of what you believe actually took place? I would bet that if you could do so, there would be more anomalies in your own narrative than you've discovered in the "official story". (Would that then mean that your theory is wrong?)

[adam_zapple]

Please try to be specific (re: percentage and so forth). (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I can't be specific about my agreement with a narrative unless I know which narrative you're referring to. Please specify.

[grizz]

I can't be specific about my agreement with a narrative unless I know which narrative you're referring to. Please specify.

Are you saying that there is more than one official story?

[Alex_V]

"Debunkers" Take Note
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7462

This link brings up a forum error for me.

When you get done with the above, why don't you take a little while to tell us about yourself? Some helpful information should/shall include:

1. What other userID's do you frequently use online? At what websites or forums?
2. What percentage(s) would you estimate that you support and/or believe the "Official" "boxcutter Arab" Conspiracy Theory (OT, OCT, or OGCT) as told in the mainstream media (MSM), Kean-Hamilton 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST reports on a scale of 0-100?
3. Did you bring any of your associates with you? If so, how many are in your party? Please have them each sign this guest book too.
4. Why did you choose your particular userID? Does it have any significance or obscure reference that you would like to share with us?
5. Do you have any online websites or resources that you would like to recommend to us? Would these be "Gravysites" by any chance?
6. MOST IMPORTANTLY: What exactly do you hope to accomplish at or bring to this Forum?
7. Have we seen you under another userID here before? If so, which one(s)? [nicepants, Roark, Wibble, "foxy," etc.]
8. Do you have any favorite rhetorical techniques? Which ones?
9. Do you prefer to get "scientific data and facts" from a tour guide and from anonymous online followers of a stage magician?
10. Are you under the employment and/or contracted under agencies of the United States Government?

1. I am Alex_V on 911forum.org.uk.
2. Generally I would say I support the official theory - I don't know how to put a figure on that. 80? I am a particular 'supporter' of NISTs report on the twin towers.
3. I'm on my own.
4. It's my name.
5. I think Mark Roberts site is full of interesting info, but my favourite site on the subject is 911myths.com - it seems to me a sober and informative assessment of some of the issues around the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
6. For reasons I'm not sure I quite understand, I am interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories - I hope to engage in stimulating discussion about them.
7. no
8. no
9. lol. I respect the opinions of a great many people, and it doesn't matter if they're magicians or tour guides. Or for that matter if they are experts in para-psychology, mormonism, UFOs or even self-proclaimed messiahs. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
10. no

[dMz]

jthomas failed to sign in at this thread but 62 of his? posts later:

Hi, Im jthomas, a skeptic, split from Welcome Forum + merged with another skeptical thread
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=11380

More jthomas Speculation that Aa77 Did Not Fly Over The Pentagon, Edited due to over-ambitious use of the word "proof"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15355

EDIT: It looks like jthomas finally admitted to being "bje" at the illusionist site. I'm sure if he posts that same image a few dozen more times on a few more boards, no one will figure this out however... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[dMz]

"When a troll become persistent and personal, you may need to consider the possibility that it has fermented into an Internet Stalker - equally pathetic, if not more so - but sometimes requiring weedkiller." [I advise spraying around the forum liberally, particularly your Pentagon, AA77, and Debate sections, but YMMV. ]

Case(s) in point:
---------
"Dwight Shrute"

Disinfo Agents
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15791

Rants By Dwight,, Troofer Extraordinaire/Imposter [nice title BTW, whoever came up with that more accurate one (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) ]
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15793

the govt loyalist site Gls Demand Flight Path And Math
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15747
--------------
"Smrekar"

G Force Questions, Split From 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon Now On Google
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15269

Smrekar's Dialog on Lightpoles and Momentum
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15195

Smrekar's Dialogue on Richard Gage AE911Truth, Split from WTC7 Oddity
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15180

Smrekar "housekeeping", part 2
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15188

[dMz]

Have you seen this anonymous internet troll recently?

http://www.fotosearch.com/bigcomp.asp?path...109/1094465.jpg

[Boonedoggled]

1. Boonedoggled here and LCF. Boone 870 at ATS and the GL site. Boone at Gaffney's site.

2. 99

3. No

4. Nickname. No.

5. No

6. Knowledge and information.

7. No

8. No

9. No preferences.

10. No