| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
better still ask the critics they are offical once they give an answer you must accept it and never question their answers. |
I have a feeling you don't really mean that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A careful discussion of the issue can be found here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
better still ask the critics they are offical once they give an answer you must accept it and never question their answers. |
I have a feeling you don't really mean that! |
if reasons are given without back up evidence or evidence that at least gives reason to believe it then no i don't mean it.
for example "it was more than likely" "it was proberbly" with no back up evidence or links or whatever, then you expect truthers just to believe it on your say so.
however in this case you provided a link to a website(is it new by the way ive never seen that one b4) although i see no mention of it explaining the damage to the west of the exit hole of the landing gear which was the original question asked by Zimboy, i admit i have no idea but i did'nt avoid it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
better still ask the critics they are offical once they give an answer you must accept it and never question their answers. |
I have a feeling you don't really mean that! |
if reasons are given without back up evidence or evidence that at least gives reason to believe it then no i don't mean it.
for example "it was more than likely" "it was proberbly" with no back up evidence or links or whatever, then you expect truthers just to believe it on your say so.
however in this case you provided a link to a website(is it new by the way ive never seen that one b4) although i see no mention of it explaining the damage to the west of the exit hole of the landing gear which was the original question asked by Zimboy, i admit i have no idea but i did'nt avoid it. |
Let me make it clear, marky, if I give an opinion you are free to accept it or reject it. I do not expect you to believe it on my say-so, similarly when you give your opinion, I am free to accept it or reject it.
On the other hand if I say something backed up by evidence, then I expect you to look at the value of that evidence, not my opinion.
So now I say that Zimboy did not talk about the exit hole made by the landing gear, although that was what the thread was originally about. Zimboy offered the thought that the plane might have been shot at by some defensive weapon before hitting the Pentagon, broke up in mid-air, and only part, such as a jet engine, hit the building, hence the hole was smaller than if the whole plane had hit. He was therefore talking only about the entry hole, not the exit hole, so what I posted was relevant. My evidence for this is on the previous page. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
better still ask the critics they are offical once they give an answer you must accept it and never question their answers. |
I have a feeling you don't really mean that! |
if reasons are given without back up evidence or evidence that at least gives reason to believe it then no i don't mean it.
for example "it was more than likely" "it was proberbly" with no back up evidence or links or whatever, then you expect truthers just to believe it on your say so.
however in this case you provided a link to a website(is it new by the way ive never seen that one b4) although i see no mention of it explaining the damage to the west of the exit hole of the landing gear which was the original question asked by Zimboy, i admit i have no idea but i did'nt avoid it. |
Let me make it clear, marky, if I give an opinion you are free to accept it or reject it. I do not expect you to believe it on my say-so, similarly when you give your opinion, I am free to accept it or reject it.
On the other hand if I say something backed up by evidence, then I expect you to look at the value of that evidence, not my opinion.
So now I say that Zimboy did not talk about the exit hole made by the landing gear, although that was what the thread was originally about. Zimboy offered the thought that the plane might have been shot at by some defensive weapon before hitting the Pentagon, broke up in mid-air, and only part, such as a jet engine, hit the building, hence the hole was smaller than if the whole plane had hit. He was therefore talking only about the entry hole, not the exit hole, so what I posted was relevant. My evidence for this is on the previous page. |
im glad you cleared that up, as some things need offical explainations and not just tom dick or harrys explaination on this or that forum, which is why you'll find many people calling for a new investigastion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zimboy69
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
better still ask the critics they are offical once they give an answer you must accept it and never question their answers. |
I have a feeling you don't really mean that! |
if reasons are given without back up evidence or evidence that at least gives reason to believe it then no i don't mean it.
for example "it was more than likely" "it was proberbly" with no back up evidence or links or whatever, then you expect truthers just to believe it on your say so.
however in this case you provided a link to a website(is it new by the way ive never seen that one b4) although i see no mention of it explaining the damage to the west of the exit hole of the landing gear which was the original question asked by Zimboy, i admit i have no idea but i did'nt avoid it. |
Let me make it clear, marky, if I give an opinion you are free to accept it or reject it. I do not expect you to believe it on my say-so, similarly when you give your opinion, I am free to accept it or reject it.
On the other hand if I say something backed up by evidence, then I expect you to look at the value of that evidence, not my opinion.
So now I say that Zimboy did not talk about the exit hole made by the landing gear, although that was what the thread was originally about. Zimboy offered the thought that the plane might have been shot at by some defensive weapon before hitting the Pentagon, broke up in mid-air, and only part, such as a jet engine, hit the building, hence the hole was smaller than if the whole plane had hit. He was therefore talking only about the entry hole, not the exit hole, so what I posted was relevant. My evidence for this is on the previous page. |
im glad you cleared that up, as some things need offical explainations and not just tom dick or harrys explaination on this or that forum, which is why you'll find many people calling for a new investigastion. |
sorry fo no reply in a while
ive been away so ill just read what uve said and be enlightend |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zimboy69
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
better still ask the critics they are offical once they give an answer you must accept it and never question their answers. |
I have a feeling you don't really mean that! |
if reasons are given without back up evidence or evidence that at least gives reason to believe it then no i don't mean it.
for example "it was more than likely" "it was proberbly" with no back up evidence or links or whatever, then you expect truthers just to believe it on your say so.
however in this case you provided a link to a website(is it new by the way ive never seen that one b4) although i see no mention of it explaining the damage to the west of the exit hole of the landing gear which was the original question asked by Zimboy, i admit i have no idea but i did'nt avoid it. |
Let me make it clear, marky, if I give an opinion you are free to accept it or reject it. I do not expect you to believe it on my say-so, similarly when you give your opinion, I am free to accept it or reject it.
On the other hand if I say something backed up by evidence, then I expect you to look at the value of that evidence, not my opinion.
So now I say that Zimboy did not talk about the exit hole made by the landing gear, although that was what the thread was originally about. Zimboy offered the thought that the plane might have been shot at by some defensive weapon before hitting the Pentagon, broke up in mid-air, and only part, such as a jet engine, hit the building, hence the hole was smaller than if the whole plane had hit. He was therefore talking only about the entry hole, not the exit hole, so what I posted was relevant. My evidence for this is on the previous page. |
im glad you cleared that up, as some things need offical explainations and not just tom dick or harrys explaination on this or that forum, which is why you'll find many people calling for a new investigastion. |
i dont think ull get a investigation in to the failiure of pentagon security
either they dont want u to know there defensive procedures or there embassesed that the thing got hit so easily |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
im glad you cleared that up, as some things need offical explainations and not just tom dick or harrys explaination on this or that forum, which is why you'll find many people calling for a new investigastion. |
But a new investigation is very unlikely unless it can be shown that a substantial matter was not previously investigated, or the previous investigations were significantly wrong in their conclusions. So far that has not happened. Someone's belief that the entry hole in the Pentagon was not big enough or that there is doubt about what caused the exit hole is certainly not going to do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
