Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject:
wobbler wrote:
Quote:
And youre saying there is a plane ther but cant see one, make your mind up.
No, I said it's footage you claim shows no plane. I said nothing about what I think.
Though I personally believe there is sufficient footage of aircraft from a wide variety of sources (not to mention the application of Occam's razor, though I acknowledge this isn't an infallible law) to make me sceptical of NPT, I'm not trying to argue a case here; I'm simply pointing out the case you've stated so far appears to contradict itself in places. Though I don't subscribe to NPT, that doesn't mean I won't look at the arguments. I'm simply pointing out that you seem to argue two variants of NPT in different posts. If you wish us all to awaken from our 'delusion' (bearing in mind you were yourself a 'plane hugger' until very recently), you don't help your case by not being clear as to whether you believe the event was:
a/A hologram cloaking a missile that would be seen and filmed
b/There were no planes, hologramatic or otherwise.
Listen Wobblehead, as I have stated before it is quite possible that a hologram cannot be detected from all angles and distances, unlike a plane. The footage I have presented here totally adhere to this assertion. I will say it again, I believe missiles cloaked in holograms were used to thwack the twins. The fact that you have some people seeing them and others dont are validations of my theory. Unlike your real planes which, seemingly, disappear and randomly reappear and then proceed to smash through steel and out the other end like some Channel 5 sci fi film. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject:
Quote:
As a student of Gurdjieff since the 70's, I have studied the ego in some considerable detail. Live in the now Prole, focus on being, respond not react. And above all, when you know you are beaten, address the point openly, you will ultimately benefit and gain more respect.
Gurdijeff huh? Fascinating fella
"Within each man is a wolf and a lamb. We become free when we find the courage to balance them within ourselves" (or something to that effect)
Good stuff
Mind you, I'm of the opinion that he massively complicated his teachings to avoid being "disappeared" by the Soviet authorities if he said too much too explicitly: definately the thinking man's kind of "guru" _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
So Prole, let's say;
Your point about 'Listen to the reporter', has been completely and totally squashed. I responded telling you exactly why he never saw the plane from his ground level reporting position. You never replied - so that was game over for you.
You then accused me of stating that the voice in the video never said 'rocket'. Knowing this was not the case, I responded, reiterating exactly what I did state - I asking for a quote, you refused. Point to me once more.
You are highly predictable when compromised - you build something up and then ignore it when it is trounced - and I know it is trounced because you then move on to something else without mentioning the destroyed subject.
As a student of Gurdjieff since the 70's, I have studied the ego in some considerable detail. Live in the now Prole, focus on being, respond not react. And above all, when you know you are beaten, address the point openly, you will ultimately benefit and gain more respect.
Now toddle off and watch the clip where the woman says she "just saw the top of the building explode". Go and find it yourself, I am not running after you like some mother hen. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Listen Wobblehead, as I have stated before it is quite possible that a hologram cannot be detected from all angles and distances, unlike a plane. The footage I have presented here totally adhere to this assertion. I will say it again, I believe missiles cloaked in holograms were used to thwack the twins. The fact that you have some people seeing them and others dont are validations of my theory. Unlike your real planes which, seemingly, disappear and randomly reappear and then proceed to smash through steel and out the other end like some Channel 5 sci fi film.
Ah - an answer.
Thank you.
Quote:
it is quite possible that a hologram cannot be detected from all angles and distances,
Now you need to build that up beyond speculation to beef up your case. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 07 May 2006 Posts: 129 Location: SE London
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject:
wobbler wrote:
Quote:
Although Tony makes a good point that it was people representing themselves as 'the movement' acting with malicious intent, rather than the movement itself, which gave Ronson such a bad impression of it.
He gave a talk recently in my home town and mentioned in passing that he felt the UK 9/11 conspiracy theorists had been racist and irrational towards him, but that was pretty much all he had to say on the subject.
I personally feel the people who abused Ronson on this board should be deeply ashamed.
Absolutely. Shouting, swearing and crying 'shill' at people who dispute what you say is a singularly poor way of winning an argument. Not to mention the inherent contradiction in people claiming they want to fight oppression, stop war, win equality etc and doing so by being abusive and aggressive. That never ceases to amaze me.
Well said wobbler and jomper. I followed the Jon Ronson thread and felt he was treated with abuse he did not deserve. I'm not sure what his motives were for coming on this site, only he knows that. But imo it could have had a positive outcome.
Now toddle off and watch the clip where the woman says she "just saw the top of the building explode". Go and find it yourself, I am not running after you like some mother hen.
Okay, the 'off on a tangent' card is cool, somewhat softer than blatant name calling, but a sidestepping issue nonetheless. I understand your frustration, but you actually now expect me to go and find clips to rubbish before you find them?
That is actually quite original. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
prole art threat stated;
Quote:
Now toddle off and watch the clip where the woman says she "just saw the top of the building explode". Go and find it yourself, I am not running after you like some mother hen.
Okay, the 'off on a tangent' card is cool, somewhat softer than blatant name calling, but a sidestepping issue nonetheless. I understand your frustration, but you actually now expect me to go and find clips to rubbish before you find them?
That is actually quite original.
The only thing you are managing to rubbish is your own reputation. If you actually stayed in one place long enough we might begin to read from the same page.
Here is the clip which has been posted earlier on this darn thread.
Watch and more to the point listen carefully.
Link _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
The only thing you are managing to rubbish is your own reputation. If you actually stayed in one place long enough we might begin to read from the same page.
Here is the clip which has been posted earlier on this darn thread.
Watch and more to the point listen carefully.
Okay done that, what now? None of it points to NP. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
The only thing you are managing to rubbish is your own reputation. If you actually stayed in one place long enough we might begin to read from the same page.
Here is the clip which has been posted earlier on this darn thread.
Watch and more to the point listen carefully.
Okay done that, what now? None of it points to NP.
Telly it clearly points to no plane.
If you had been there yourself and saw only an explosion like this woman was are you saying you would have changed your mind after seeing a tv replay?
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
prole art threat wrote;
Quote:
The only thing you are managing to rubbish is your own reputation. If you actually stayed in one place long enough we might begin to read from the same page.
Here is the clip which has been posted earlier on this darn thread.
Watch and more to the point listen carefully.
Okay done that, what now? None of it points to NP.
What exactly do you believe? What exactly do you believe? Do you believe 19 hijackers did it? Where do you stand? Youre so arrogant and full of it but you havent the balls to standby a theory of your own. And dont give me that 'it's an ongoing investigation' cop out.
What do you believe? It's so easy to just nitpick other people's arguments isnt it? Why dont you bring something of your own to the table instead of just pulling down other people's research?
We could all do that, it is such a cop out and cowardice position. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject:
The thing is, Tele. Youre more of a critic than those deluded souls in 'Critic's Corner'. At least they believe in the 'official story'. In fact I may even make a request to the Mods for you to have your own section and we can call it 'Ultra Critic Corner'. Maybe we could then chuck you morsels of our theories for you to then only claw at, bite and spit out in revulsion like some deranged beast in the forum's cellar.
_________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Unless we can have a reasoned debate, then this is pointless.
THE most important piece of evidence missing from the 'live CNN' report is the location of the woman interviewed. We have been over this before -where was she standing?
You know nothing whatsoever about her circumstances. She may have been talking to someone when it hit, looked up hearing the explosion - missing the plane - she would have not seen it. She may have been crossing the road looking out for traffic - looked up hearing the explosion -missing the plane - she would have not seen it. There are dozens of scenarios.
The point is very very simple and clear - she is told the first impact was done by an aircraft. The second building explodes and she sees this but not the cause and then goes home to hear it was a plane on the news. 'Oh no, it was another plane - I am in shock!'
Simply look at the picture and tell me where the woman was in relation to the approaching aircraft? Put the first tower in between her and the plane - she only sees the explosion. Put her on the opposite side of the second tower to the approaching plane - she only sees the explosion.
This is reasoned debate, do not come back with more links or waffle - just state where the woman was standing at the time of the second impact and how you know this. If you don't know, say so.
If she was on or around the red stars, radiating backwards - she would not see the aircraft - ONLY the explosion - you can see this is a sensible and obvious question based upon the woman's statement. Without her location, her statement means nothing.
Try to stay focused on the matter in hand instead of all this attempted condescension, I know I rattle you, just don't make it so obvious that you can't deal with my questions.
Where was the woman standing?
_________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
So you are saying you have zero clue where she was standing? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
So to recap, you have now responded saying she was directly opposite the flightpath - so where does that place her? Don't forget your sources? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
The only reason you are now in this position. is because you bring items to the table with absolutely nothing to back them up with. TTWSU3 is partly to blame, he jollies you along knowing full well you are heading for a fall.
You post clips having watched a few seconds of them believing they conclusively show something to boost your story. The reporter who didn't see the plane - so obviously not in the helicopter as there was no engine/rotor noise in the background which is so characteristic of aerial observers reporting over radio.
I know you hate/loathe having your NPT view rubbished, but with just a little more thought and selective presentation you might get points across in a slightly different way, watch the videos and be objective, don't dive in, think things through first. Telling people to listen carefully to dialogue when that is the very thing you need to do (remember the street noises you simply 'didn't hear' placing the reporter on the street not in the helicopter).
Best of luck. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Tele been shilling from dust till dawn, that must qualify for a trolling record around here.
I bow to your obvious and very expert in-depth knowledge of trolling, but surely you meant 'dusk'? Although I am unable to equate direct questions to points made as 'trolling'. These are threads for debate, Uncle Prole has been squirming and weasling not I - I have been very direct.
I do however acknowledge you play the 'solidarity' card - NPT'ers must appear cohesive. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Last edited by telecasterisation on Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject:
The thing is, Tele, you appear to construe every link I post as conclusive evidence. It's not what I am doing. You have to keep up and keep joining the dots. Did you ever actually solve a crime when you was a Plod or was it just a never ending 'investigation in progress' whilst you theorised and drank endless cuppas? _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
The thing is, Tele, you appear to construe every link I post as conclusive evidence. It's not what I am doing. You have to keep up and keep joining the dots. Did you ever actually solve a crime when you was a Plod or was it just a never ending 'investigation in progress' whilst you theorised and drank endless cuppas?
As I stated in another thread, I do not drink tea, never have, or coffee. Fruit juice, soya milk and water.
Actually, you appear to construe every link you post as conclusive evidence, not I - I question them - you then avoid every possible reference to them when I point out you are in error. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Incidentally, where was that woman standing again?
The reporter on the ground clearly only saw the explosion - the people in the newsroom had a different perspective - they did see the plane. This explains perfectly why some people at street level had no opportunity to see the plane from their vantage point. Hence the woman missed the plane.
Can you supply some more clips that shoot you in the foot please? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
Incidentally, where was that woman standing again?
The reporter on the ground clearly only saw the explosion - the people in the newsroom had a different perspective - they did see the plane. This explains perfectly why some people at street level had no opportunity to see the plane from their vantage point. Hence the woman missed the plane.
Can you supply some more clips that shoot you in the foot please?
Boeings are BIG. The sky is MASSIVE. Two people dont see a plane when they are looking directly at the tower, bit of a coincidence and these are just witnesses we have on record. How many others never saw a plane, one wonders? The woman seemed most perplexed and astonished that she didnt see a plane. We have planes losing wings, we have planes going in one side and coming out of the other.
Did you watch this clip? Listen carefully to the astonished narration of the news anchormen. ->
Link _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Incidentally, where was that woman standing again?
The reporter on the ground clearly only saw the explosion - the people in the newsroom had a different perspective - they did see the plane. This explains perfectly why some people at street level had no opportunity to see the plane from their vantage point. Hence the woman missed the plane.
Can you supply some more clips that shoot you in the foot please?
Boeings are BIG. The sky is MASSIVE. Two people dont see a plane when they are looking directly at the tower, bit of a coincidence and these are just witnesses we have on record. How many others never saw a plane, one wonders? The woman seemed most perplexed and astonished that she didnt see a plane. We have planes losing wings, we have planes going in one side and coming out of the other.
Did you watch this clip? Listen carefully to the astonished narration of the news anchormen. ->
Oh dear, Tele seems to have gone all quiet. Maybe this is the clip that is the stake that breaks the beast's back.... _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Incidentally, where was that woman standing again?
The reporter on the ground clearly only saw the explosion - the people in the newsroom had a different perspective - they did see the plane. This explains perfectly why some people at street level had no opportunity to see the plane from their vantage point. Hence the woman missed the plane.
Can you supply some more clips that shoot you in the foot please?
Boeings are BIG. The sky is MASSIVE. Two people dont see a plane when they are looking directly at the tower, bit of a coincidence and these are just witnesses we have on record. How many others never saw a plane, one wonders? The woman seemed most perplexed and astonished that she didnt see a plane. We have planes losing wings, we have planes going in one side and coming out of the other.
Did you watch this clip? Listen carefully to the astonished narration of the news anchormen. ->
Actually I had two hours of scales to practice - every single day without fail.
However, you keep avoiding the obvious issue - if something is in the way, you simply will not see it.
Yes the woman and the news reporter were probably/possibly looking at the second tower, she didn't seem astonished not to see it, she was just surprised it was an aircraft, the rest of the world was shocked too.
The clincher question you miss/avoid/hate;
If the plane approached from the opposite side = how would they see it?
Answer the question;
If the plane approached from the opposite side = how would they see it?
With the tower in the way of the approaching plane = how would they see it?
There would be lots of people in no position to see the approaching aircraft, yet they would see the explosion.
Answer the question;
If the plane approached from the opposite side = how would they see it?
If a burning aircraft flew over your house now, how would you see it with the roof in the way?
Address the issue, don't waffle. I know you hate having your ideas nuked, but;
With the tower in the way of the approaching plane = how would they see it? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
Actually I had two hours of scales to practice - every single day without fail.
However, you keep avoiding the obvious issue - if something is in the way, you simply will not see it.
Yes the woman and the news reporter were probably/possibly looking at the second tower, she didn't seem astonished not to see it, she was just surprised it was an aircraft, the rest of the world was shocked too.
The clincher question you miss/avoid/hate;
If the plane approached from the opposite side = how would they see it?
Answer the question;
If the plane approached from the opposite side = how would they see it?
With the tower in the way of the approaching plane = how would they see it?
There would be lots of people in no position to see the approaching aircraft, yet they would see the explosion.
Answer the question;
If the plane approached from the opposite side = how would they see it?
If a burning aircraft flew over your house now, how would you see it with the roof in the way?
Address the issue, don't waffle. I know you hate having your ideas nuked, but;
With the tower in the way of the approaching plane = how would they see it?
Tele, get a grip, chill out, have some fruity juice. Listen, we have moved on now. I dont know where the woman was stood, just as I dont know the technical specifications of the filmmaking equipment used by the Naudet Brothers. I know, I really should and I have let myself down, so as I cannot confidently answer your question and supply you with such basic details we must endeavour to move onwards and upwards to the next Youtube link. Your undivided attention would be most desirable. Thanks. _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Link _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
I love the change of direction, you are a master of sidestepping.
Can you give me any idea of how many responses you plan to supply on this topic before we are off on another tangent?
One final point, you are prone to supplying anaked dat, in other words, you slap in a link with no explanation. A few pointers would be nice here.
Remember, only stuff you can back up from now on, not items from the The Wafflemeister's Encyclopedia Of Made Up Numpty Facts. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
