9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - Why it matters that there were no planes

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Why it matters that there were no planes
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject:

Fallious wrote:

I guess that includes me? You are under the impression that this is a constructive discussion. I don't agree. I operate from the position that NPT is a disinfo device designed to cause division, I stamp on their crappy idea of evidence when its presented on the forums but I don't believe it’s possible or worthwhile to attempt to reason with these people.

However, I am watching this thread with interest, and I hope to be proven wrong.

Would you care to explain why you don't think this is constructive ?

Nobody is asking anyone to reason with anyone here.

Both sides have the opportunity to develop and agree their own best evidence on separate threads without any bickering.

If you think that NPT is disinfo, now is your time to make your case, surely. Calmly and thoughtfully without any disruptions.

I'd be interested to know of your ideas about how else we can achieve some kind of outcome on this issue Fallious.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

So, if the defence proposed abandoning DNA matching in a murder case, would that be a reasonable request?
Both sides would be on a DNA-testing "island", where such forensic techniques were no longer admissible.
Would that make for a fair case?
Personally I think the prosecution would be slightly mad to accept these terms.

Mark G - there are many films, TV broadcasts (and contemporaneous recordings thereof), photos and witness testimonies that lead to the very reasonable conclusion that real aircraft hit the Towers.

To abandon this evidence to strenghten your position would be to choose to adopt the way of self-delusion. What for? The thrill of a good argument?

While you're here - in an earlier post I asked for any evidence that hologram technique capable of creating the solid image of an airliner at several hundred feet in broad daylight actually exists. Can you help with that?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

So, if the defence proposed abandoning DNA matching in a murder case, would that be a reasonable request?

Yes. It would be a reasonable request if both sides had been in court for 5 years arguing about whose DNA evidence is reliable.

Ignatz wrote:

Both sides would be on a DNA-testing "island", where such forensic techniques were no longer admissible. Would that make for a fair case?

Yes. See above.

Ignatz wrote:

Personally I think the prosecution would be slightly mad to accept these terms.

That depends on whether the prosecution thinks it has a stronger case. If they did think that they should present it and not agree to the no DNA deal.

Ignatz wrote:

Mark G - there are many films, TV broadcasts (and contemporaneous recordings thereof), photos and witness testimonies that lead to the very reasonable conclusion that real aircraft hit the Towers.

Agreed. There are many photographic and videographic artefacts that both the prosecution and defence relies on. After 5 years of legal arguments neither side can agree about which ones are real or fake.

Ignatz wrote:

To abandon this evidence to facilitate your debate would be to choose to adopt the way of self-delusion. What for? The thrill of a good argument?

Anyone could have contributed to forming the idea or any other idea and still can. Equally, anyone could have sat here for X years arguing the toss over whose Videos and Pictures are real and fake, as the have.

I was trying to get to a point where those arguments are seen by both sides as unhelpful and never ending. If you have another stratregy, then let's hear it.

Ignatz wrote:

While you're here - in an earlier post I asked for any evidence that hologram technique capable of creating the solid image of an airliner at several hundred feet in broad daylight actually exists. Can you help with that?

No.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

Yes, I have a strategy.

I have a home video recording of the actual live TV broadcast of the aircraft impacting WTC2.

I have 8000 sworn eye-witness testimonies that state my video is a true representation of what actually happened that day.

My "strategy" is that we take this as overwhelming evidence that the aircraft impact was real.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Fallious
Moderate Poster

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

Yes, I have a strategy.

I have a home video recording of the actual live TV broadcast of the aircraft impacting WTC2.

And yet, you are so often accused of being a shill, that'd be the last video we'd trust Wink

.

Anyway, on the issue of video surely the first place to ask is with someone with experience in video analysis, composition, encoding etc? ahem...

Though I’ve seen plenty of people with this experience debunking NPT, I haven't seen a single one arguing for it - Can that at least be considered a string in the bow of the anti NPT argument? The fact that though the video and photographic evidence is disputed by NPT's that dispute is not supported by anyone with equal qualifications to those saying the images are real.

After all, if we continue the DNA case the Judge would ultimately decide if the two opposing arguments for and against the validity of the DNA are equally weighted. In this case we don't need a judge, because, well AFAIK NPT doesn’t have a single image expert supporting it.
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:11 am Post subject:

Fallious wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

Yes, I have a strategy.

I have a home video recording of the actual live TV broadcast of the aircraft impacting WTC2.

And yet, you are so often accused of being a shill, that'd be the last video we'd trust Wink

Indeed.

And as for DNA, the argument would not be "my" DNA evidence vs "your" DNA evidence (which could be fruitful), but whether DNA evidence is admissible at all. And it is.
Mark G's line of argument seems to say "Let's agree to leave DNA evidence out of it entirely". Which is just silly.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:03 am Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

I have a home video recording of the actual live TV broadcast of the aircraft impacting WTC2.

I have 8000 sworn eye-witness testimonies that state my video is a true representation of what actually happened that day.

My "strategy" is that we take this as overwhelming evidence that the aircraft impact was real.

And the NPT side, no doubt will wheel out their eye witnesses to the contrary and will also no doubt have a well qualified expert to question the validity of your home recordings.

Covening a panel of experts to validate all videographic and photographic evidence would be fantastic if it could be achieved. Of course it would have to include many different disciplines including aviation experts etc.

In the absence of such a panel all folk have done is argue about whose vids and pics are real, which as we all know has got nobody anywhere and caused a great deal of friction and continues unabated to this day.

My silly idea was to try and find a way to drop this pointless argument and replace it with some debate.

Ignatz, if you or anyone else is going to question the validity of the NPT video & pictorial exhibits then any reasonable person would expect you to accept they would then criticise yours.

That being the case we would be back to square one again.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:10 am Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

If the evidence from both sides of the debate were equally strong then yes, we'd be thrashing around pointlessly.

It isn't.

Telecaster, among others, has already described the implausibility of arranging a hole for the "non airliner" to pass into.
Snowygrouch has provided calculations to explain why an airliner would make such a hole.
I think marky described how difficult it would be to scatter large lumps of smashed airliner in the streets of Manhattan without being noticed.
Thousands of people saw the airliners hit with their own eyes.
Nobody has provided a scrap of evidence that hologram technology even exists that can create an impression of real planes in a city's sky.

NPT is weak to the level of absurdity, and one (but only one) of the reasons for that is the strength of the visual evidence to the contrary.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:33 am Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

If the evidence from both sides of the debate were equally strong then yes, we'd be thrashing around pointlessly.

It isn't.

I'm sure the other side have been trying to argue that it is, for some time now.

Ignatz wrote:

Telecaster, among others, has already described the implausibility of arranging a hole for the "non airliner" to pass into.

So, is Telecaster an expert witness ? If so you could use his arguments for non NPT. Problem is we're not using videos and pics here. Besides, Tele seems to have some issues surrounding that body of evidence, which was my prime exhibit for ditching it all in the first place.

Ignatz wrote:

Snowygrouch has provided calculations to explain why an airliner would make such a hole.

Agreed. Does that mean an aircraft did make them holes then ? If so, all you have to do is prove your case Iggy and we can all go home.

Ignatz wrote:

I think marky described how difficult it would be to scatter large lumps of smashed airliner in the streets of Manhattan without being noticed.

I'm pretty sure as I guess you must be that the other side would and have been arguing to the contrary. Besides, we're back into the loop of potentially suspect photographs again here aren't we ?

Ignatz wrote:

Thousands of people saw the airliners hit with their own eyes.

Again, I'm sure you are well aware that both sides will wheel out their eye witnesses.

Ignatz wrote:

Nobody has provided a scrap of evidence that hologram technology even exists that can create an impression of real planes in a city's sky.

Agreed.

Ignatz wrote:

NPT is weak to the level of absurdity, and one (but only one) of the reasons for that is the strength of the visual evidence to the contrary.

Again, I'm sure that their experts will argue the same for your case.

So, my question is - what's your plan then ?

Since all you seem to be doing here is applying more glue to the shoes that have kept you all stuck right where you are.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

telecasterisation
Banned
Banned

Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:57 am Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

Agreed. Does that mean an aircraft did make them holes then ? If so, all you have to do is prove your case Iggy and we can all go home.

'Larry, why do you keep letting Mark use your computer?'

'Yes, I know, it can get a bit wearing, but he is a friend. He's involved with something to do with this 9/11 thing, you know where they think it was all the Jews or the government or the French who did it. He has to keep replying to people in a chatroom or somewhere about holes in buildings and doesn't want to broadcast his own IP to the world. Can you take him up another tea?'
_________________
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

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

So, my question is - what's your plan then ?

My plan?

If I were any kind of disinfo agent my plan would include the following :
"Dear Mark Gobell - You have opened my eyes. How I was so blind to the glaringly obvious truth of NPT I cannot explain.
But, that's all in the past now.
Here's £20,000.
Please use this money, as you see fit, to convey the truth of NPT to the ignorant masses.

Best regards, Ignatz"
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

Mark Gobell wrote:

So, my question is - what's your plan then ?

If you think that's my plan, Iggy, you really have missed the point sir.

Question still stands though:

What is your plan ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

Mark Gobell wrote:

So, my question is - what's your plan then ?

If you think that's my plan, Iggy, you really have missed the point sir.

Question still stands though:

What is your plan ?

My plan is to ask you to stop being so obscure and just state what you hope to achieve from these lines of questioning (etc). What is your point? It's a long way from being clear.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject:

Quote:

If people are going to cling onto videos, TV and photographs then this issue will never move anywhere.

To that end could we agree that there is little point in using the "my TV /Youtube/Google vids & photos are real, yours are fake" argument anymore ?

That's the middle ground that would be really helpful to get to imo.

Quote:

I am not going to advocate one theory over another.

Quote:

My silly idea was to try and find a way to drop this pointless argument and replace it with some debate.

Quote:

I was suggesting that both sides abandon TV, Video & Photographs for the sake of moving the debate forward, to make some progress.

That way, both sides are standing on a little island, together, where no TV, videos or photographs matter anymore.

This means that you will not have to prove your TV, video and photographs are real and the other side's are fake and the other side will not have to prove that theirs are real and yours are fake.

The reason I think this could be fruitful is that neither side can presently prove that their TV, videos and photographs are real or fake and by agreeing that they are therefore worthless as evidence, on both sides, the debate can then move on to other items of evidence.p

Apologies if any of this is obscure Iggy.

I will try and be more explicit for you in future.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

Quote:

I am not going to advocate one theory over another.

Quote:

My silly idea was to try and find a way to drop this pointless argument and replace it with some debate.

Quote:

Apologies if any of this is obscure Iggy.

I will try and be more explicit for you in future.

You are correct in one respect. We're arguing in circles.

But that's because I still have my contemporaneous video of WTC2 getting smacked by an actual airliner, which matches exactly with films, TV documentaries being aired today etc etc.
And I won't abandon that evidence to suit anybody's agenda, because it's real evidence. Witnessed by my solicitor neighbour, sealed, put in a bank vault and unopened to this day.
What I'd like you to explain is this -
The prosecution has overwhelmingly powerful evidence of a certain nature, photographic evidence for the sake of argument.
The defence has distressingly feeble photographic evidence to support its case.
The defence proposes abandoning photographic evidence entirely.

Well, no. Why?

This seems to be your proposal, which I can't begin to comprehend, which is why I'm assuming I'm missing something and interpreting your posts as "obscure".

Disputing NPT isn't "pointless".
You should advocate one theory over another.
Sitting on an island devoid of 9/11 visual evidence is to remove oneself slightly from reality. The evidence is real.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave

Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:55 am Post subject:

Which is, as I understand it precisely what the NPT contingent are claiming. We're back to my vids and pics are better than yours again aren't we. If you want to stay there then that's your prerogative Iggy. I was making a suggestion that could possibly bring both sides closer together, whilst not abandoning their pet theories. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject:

Mark Gobell wrote:

I was making a suggestion that could possibly bring both sides closer together, whilst not abandoning their pet theories.

Which "both sides" ?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

Jump to:

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