Basic Question

[numeral]

I am surprised to find myself setting this poll.

[telecasterisation]

There will be a considerable number of people who do not view it so black and white, not to mention those who have not made up their mind.

I am unable to vote.

[thought criminal]

[blackcat]

[numeral]

[telecasterisation]

[thought criminal]

[numeral]

[physicist]

Four planes took off with passengers, crew and hijackers. Shortly afterwards, they were all destroyed - planes, people, everything. We couldn't even see part of a plane left. Hee hee, 3 of them just disappeared into buildings. No-one could be asked what happened. And no-one intervened.

This was all achieved by 19 hijackers and a few box-cutters. I think not.

And three large buildings fell down very quickly indeed.



On the balance of probability, I vote NO but I have many doubts about what happened.

[aerosol]

[numeral]

[numeral]

This poll has not proved to be wildly popular. It is due to expire today with only 11 votes cast, all denying it was a suicide operation. Over two hundred people viewed it but mostly declined to vote. I will start another poll that gives people more options to choose from and lets them avoid making such a stark choice.

[Bicnarok]

Whats next, "was it a plane or somet else poll"?

[Patrick Brown]

I also can't vote on this. I think the poll needs a "other" option.

[IronSnot]

I've voted, damned easy if you ask me.

Great idea for a poll. Might take it to DU.

[numeral]

[Mark Gobell]

Numeral, I voted, just for the record.

But then I have this incredible ability to see through the obscure hidden meaning of apparently simple questions.

Once you realise we have moved into an era of YEAH, NO and NO, BUT YEAH, BUT and NO,NO,NO,NO,YES you might be able to pay more attention to framing your incredibly complicated and poorly thought out questions in a way more suited to the 21st century.

[numeral]

[Mark Gobell]

[aerosol]

probability = certainty?

[Patrick Brown]

Can someone explain why my vote on this poll has been cast yet I didn't cast it!!!
Read here: http://911evidencebase.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=62

[Mark Gobell]

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

Ah. Clear as your usual mud tc.

And by your definition of "responsibility" you would argue that it should encompass the lady that served them breakfast in Portland ?

[telecasterisation]

I apologise if my response answered your question, people tend to thrive here on avoidance more than directness.

The nice breakfast lady would only be responsible if she had knowledge of their intentions. However, I am sure that if with she withheld the cornflakes, they would have picked a sandwich up on the way to the airport - so I doubt her contribution would have lent any weight to the proceedings either way.

Just to add, I have been in front of far more verbally dexterous and clever interrogators in a courtroom than anyone here.

[Mark Gobell]

No you haven't. I have.

[telecasterisation]

You misunderstand - I meant there is no-one here who can match a really clever experienced barrister - not, there is no-one here who has been in front of a cleverer interrogator.

Hopefully, this will again clear up your confusion.

[Mark Gobell]

Now that you've mentioned your resilient performances in court tc, perhaps you'd like to explain to the world how you would be able to avoid answering simple questions in a court of law.

You say the defendant was becoming aggressive Constable ?

Yes me lud in my opinion he was becoming aggressive me lud.

So then constable, why did you arrest him ?

Well me lud, he was swinging his fists and becoming very aggressive and to protect the safety of the little old lady and to prevent a breech of the peace, I arrested him for threatening behaviour me lud.

Ah, but you see Constable, how could you be sure that he was a threat to the old lady's safety, how could you be sure that he was about to breech trhe peace.

That's where me training kicked in me lud. As you know, as a policeman me lud, I have to be very careful and utterly, utterly precise about these matters, and I have full confidence that in my estimation me lud, he would, in all probablity have threatened the safety of the little old lady and commited a breach of the peace.

But you didn't know this for a fact did you Constable.

No me lud, not for a fact.

So Constable, you arrested this man on the balance of probability didn't you.

Yes me lud.

No further questions.

[Patrick Brown]

This poll question is like saying everything is black and white thereby neglecting the possibility that several parties are guilty (this is pure sophistry). Therefore the question is loaded against the possibility that terrorist were on the planes and the American government let it happen as an excuse to move into the middle east to take control of the oil i.e. They are both guilty.

I also am still asking why my my vote has been cast when I didn't cast it!
Read here: http://911evidencebase.16.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=62

[Mark Gobell]

So, Constable, what time did you arrive at the scene ?

Well, me lud, that depends on what time zone you mean ?

Time zone Constable ?

Yes me lud.

Please explain to the court what you mean by time zone Constable ?

Well me lud, time zone in the geo-chronological sense relates to the division of time around the world that each geographical area adopts as their default chronological empirical measure of time me lud.

Yes I see and how does that relate to this case exactly Constable ?

Well me lud. The defendant was from New York. I am from England. You, me lud are from Australia. I find it impossible to answer the question me lud unless I specifically know which time zone provides the context for an answer that I am otherwise unable to give. Me lud.