Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,295 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,629,625
Pageviews Today: 2,237,706Threads Today: 570Posts Today: 10,977
06:20 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

 
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 02:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
No, I know of that. But WHERE WERE THE REMAINS FROM?

Most of those investigators got the remains from others ...




And your source on that?

My guess is that you know nothing about this one way or the other and you're just winging it based only on your assumption that this can't be true.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

It has to be false. Due to the Citgo witnesses, the only carefully questioned witnesses, the flight was from the North. They were stationary, and in a key vantage point, asked a simple yes-no type question (which is where witnesses are at their best): this is what witness studies have found. "Left or right, which view over the stationary gas station? Left."

Wrong trajectory.

Plus no gas smell from someone refusing to be cowed by a hospital visit. And early reporters saying explosive smell, and no debris.

Plus black box (southerly direction) stopping short of the "hit" leaves probability it was a 2nd flyover.

And small hole (before wall caved in) with no place for the huge engines to go through, and no huge engines outside as clear evidence. Later, a photo showed up, of unclear provenance, of an engine.

There was no gas clean-up on record.

And the lawn wasn't scoured by a low-impact drag.

And the cabbie whose car had a light pole in it, his wife was FBI (or CIA, I don't remember) and the pole was clean through the centre, without any damage to the seats.

Staged event.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 02:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You guys have been busy while I was away.

:)

The speculations on me again are really funny.

As to the no-plane hypothesis, theory, conclusion, first

a) Handle the plane physics from the plane expert: Lear. You have only talked of his interest in the paranormal, etc. Newton was an obsessed mystical prophecy interpreter and alchemist, and most of is actual writings were on the spiritual and magic. Thus, be scientific and legally neutral: deal with the work of Lear in his expert field: piloting; ignore his other interests.

b) The Citgo witnesses are the determining witnesses, not because I say so, but purely rationally: when asked a simple polarized question (yes-no, left-right, etc.) on a salient experience, and when also from a good vanage point and reasonably stable (in this case from a fixed and excellent vantage point on the incoming flight), they said left, over the trees to their left. It is in such kind of questioning, when people were at a good vantage point and stationary enough to notice, that witnesses are at their best, in scientific studies of witness reliability.

c) The other witnesses you love to mention saw SOMETHING, and described various things. First, some had to be lying (plants) or embellishing (e.g., faces in the windows). Others saw a flight, but described various types of aircraft, and assumed the plane in the smoke had hit. This would be reasonable, given a possible smoke-and-mirrors flyover. Plus, they were moving (on a highway). All this is trumped for trajectory and vangage point, simplicity of question and cross-examination and time to notice their reaction -- when asked a simple question. They were stationary witnesses at the key angle vantage point along the trajectory, the Citgo witnesses. The others werent, and there are too few of them, possibly suspicious in itself. There should have been several hundred.

d) All passenger effects could have come -- from the dead patsies -- from another location, so they are not NECESSARY to the issue of plane locations or use at the final locations, hypothetically speaking. (Of course, this is sad emotionally that they were likely killed -- or most were killed? -- known from the pathologists' reports. Their SSNs are mostly active, though. So there is some question about their final fate even if you do want to believe in planes.)

e) We have a lack of jet fuel fire effects on an uncowed witness -- known to have had a visit by suits -- and a lack of same smells and effects noticed by the first reporter on the scene. At the Pentagon (and Shanksville) there was no massive oil fire: the fire engines spread water ... except on a truck which caught flame at the Pentagon.

f) The black box data shows the plane high and has a gap of the "end portion" -- excused on debunker sites, as "a question". But there should be no gap at all, first of all. Second of all, it means a loop hole for no planes, given the other problems around 9/11. It can be considered suspect, so imagine for a second it is. Plus, though it comes more from the south than north, unlike the Citgo witnesses, many planes were flying around when they shouldn't have, and it could have been a second flyover, to get a better (but incomplete) black box, to make the southerly approach feasible ... because there was a northerly approach from the Citgo witnesses, and they were in the best and most stable position, with a stable reference point to answer the clear question asked.

e) Other events of the day have been problematic, so the likelihood there was skulduggery here, too, is already high, even probably. Shanksville was a plane-shape (silly, from a prima facie point of view anyway). It had a small centre hole with some duty trashy bits in it. All nearby singed branches were cut off -- allowing no testing of what burned them, chemically speaking (jet fuel or other). There were no signs of jet fuel disaster or clean up from that. Not to mention, there was no major part of a plane, but for one engine in a bulldozer scoop, a smallish one, as if for a photo op. There was so little of a plane that it was remarked on by all. This prompted a claim that the plane had vanished completely into a mine shaft. If so, it must have been in quicksand, so to speak, for all parts, wing, tall tail, all engine parts, seats, people, etc. were gone (but for the one engie in the bulldozer. Yet, if such a thing were even possible -- and just for a moment let's say it were -- no efforts are on record of pulling out the major lights and rescue equipment with a massive search of this miracle mine, all night and day for days.

f) Parallax impossibilities exist in some of the WTC TV vids; this means that whatever happened in NYC, the vid content is suspect, and was pre-arranged, in large part. There are other problems (helicopters going backwards, timing issues with continuous soundtracks, etc., planes losing wings in frames -- sloppy CGI, it would seem -- etc.). But the parallax problems are a self-consistency issue: if impossible parallax exists, then no matter what happens with the rest of the case, no matter what was going on in 9/11 events in other parts of the case, the films were in part composites, scientifically absolutely, and independent of the position you take on 9/11 otherwise. ....... Yes, the events of the gov't could even be otherwise true -- let's say -- but parts of the vids remain optically constructed. Objects move in the far background without objects moving in the middle or foreground ... and vice versa. Once you get this through your senses, you then notice too that it may be they were not even done from a realistic vantage point, but in layers. The rest of the video problems are complex, but this one is simple and absolute -- unless all we know of optics is false. Since the latter is so highly unlikely as to be considered absolute, we know at least some of the "live" broadcasts were being shown from a compositry hub. What were they hiding? Pyrotechnics and plane flybys and maybe a missile painted AA?

Finally, everyone, again re. Lear: you cannot dismiss Lear as if he came to this idea as a wild notion; he came to it with serious pilot experience and back-up. It is that to which his expertise led him, not the other way around. And given the nature of relative weight of evidence, if you realize what the Citgo people mean, the gap on the tape, the extremely likely planted lampposts (which by the way would have caused the plane to careen and NOT to hit perfectly anyway, and likely to have left bits all along -- not just after the "suits" came later) ...

Then you will realize that there were no planes. None. Nada.

To comfort you: it's not just that someone dreamed up a silly notion of removing planes from 9/11. There DIDN'T HAVE TO be planes; it was easier without them (no mishaps), and cheaper. And we have evidence contrary to tendency, which shows it: evidence where people in perfect positions tell us there's no key aspect of the plane story. The others saw planes, but noticed the pyrotechnics.

Hollywood -- life and death, style.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 02:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And I know I'm basically a rube, but how in the world does someone like Fetzer get a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science, become a tenured professor and wind up championing someone talking the way Clair does?

I just don't get it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

Maybe you don't get the POSITION, and hence instead of seeing the weight in Fetzer's support of my position, you see him as suspect.

Turn it around.

It took him two years to emotionally face what the evidence points to: no planes. He first realized the video fakery and then realized it went beyond that. Like me, he didn't come to this position overnight.

By the way, the name's Clare -- Irish. (Claire is the French and feminine; Clair is French masculine or last name.)

Not offended. Just wanted to get that right. Made a note of it some time back for people.

Toodles.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 02:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And where is Clare? [...] I mean damn, did we run off the only chick in the room?
 Quoting: Returner 997

Nearly. If that's a concern, be reasonable and decent; not condescending and incomplete in handling expert witness affidavits, and so on.

Anyway, I was busy.

Thanks for the desire to have me here, even if it's only because I'm female.

:) :cool2:
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 02:57 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare, what would you consider a "proper" hole in the Pentagon? Especially considering the jet crash video that was posted yesterday along wth the fact that the plane is made of thin aluminum and the Pentagon of reinforced concrete.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 218281

The hole was at perfect ground level. Yet there was no shearing of the ground in front. What made such a hole? When engines didn't? And windows weren't broken?

Did you even know that in one of the photos of the several-ring-in, inner-ring hole (for an exit for survivors? or for the impression of a miracle nose-cone?) there was a painted note saying: punch out?

I think the perps were so sloppy that when they put their bunker-buster charge on it, they didn't even bother to remove the note to themselves.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 03:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
In the Real World


While it seems like a flippant accusation to say someone doesn't about the "real world," that is a large part of the problem here.

In the Real World, you can't just sneak bulldozers and trucks of debris into rural Pennsylvania and secretly make a fake crash site.

In the Real World, you can't sample someone's voice and create a digital simulation that would convince an intimate associate.

In the Real World, you can't set off an explosion in a building that exactly matches the fake videos you've made ahead of time. In the Real World, you can't simultaneously insert your fake videos into every conceivable media stream in NYC.

In the Real World, you can't send in Men in Suits to covertly plant plane parts at a scene inundated with media and all sorts of emergency responders.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

They didn't make fake vids ahead of time.

The claim here is they had compositry of the buildings and false skylines ready, from a hub. The plane was inserted in the 17-sec. delay after the explosions -- centering the frame (easy, ready to go) and run in real time. But they got the frame-up off-centre a tiny bit. See, the frame of the timing of the explosion was dead centre

gotbop

... that is, when the plane "hit" on the first "live" vid, it hit dead centre (an easy edit), but the camera had drifted a bit to the right by the completed plane entry about a second later, and they'd only left themselves 17 sec. of lead time. (There is a blip sound in all tracks for on the audio, for the studio shill talking heads to know when it was about to air.)

So anyway, with only 17 sec. it was fine time to just anchor the CGI to the pyrotechnics, but not enough time to adjust for the drift.

So the nose of the CGI plane came out the other side. In panic, someone turned the dial within human response time, on a manual edit called a "fade to black". This takes several frames to get to pure black, so it's not a glitch.

This shot was rebroadcast on every station, and when it was rebroadcast, only the top part of the shot was in frame now, and a BANNER WAS OVER THE PLANE IMPACT ALL ALONG THE BOTTOM. How stupid is that? Well, they were covering the mistake.



The fade to black was in all subsequent use of the shot, and this shot is now removed from the official record of the day on the News Archives ... which, by the way, have been re-edited from what was shown that day. There is a lot on this. You'd have to go over it all. Too much to type.

Re. inserting into "all NYC media": only the big 4 were on air with shots. All other stations were down (it was claimed it was because of the antenna on the WTC tower, but that was fine for most of the period in question). Only one NYC station was on air, a Fox affiliate.

bushfing

Re. the Pentagon fake plant parts: it's a military site. The reporters were kept away (the first reporter left) and others came after. It's easy to control the impressions. And some media had to know anyway: the fake vids show that.

In Pennsylvania, it was a remote field, and there was a DRILL going on right before this happened. The people commented on it. (They were probably doing this then.)

It is certainly possible nowadays to fake a voice; and we don't have many voices actually. We have Ted Olsen claiming he got a phone call, but his story has changed several times and the FBI said no completed call was on record. Other voices were of calm flight attendants (prob. on what they thought was a drill), a report by another, of a call from an attendant ...

Finally, please note: ALL OTHER SHOTS OF THE PLANE GOING IN HAVE PROBLEMS, and the ones you might be thinking of which show clear planes were all produced the evening of, and after. All were by "amateurs" who turned out to be CGI and graphics experts, and one even claimed his own tape had been given to the FBI. One was exposed as having been feeding his tape to CNN for their "live" coverage, and then he quickly admitted it was his ... though how was CNN already getting his tape of the live event? Didn't they have their own cameras? His explanation: he worked next door.

bsmeter2
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/03/2010 03:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
bsmeter2
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



That seems to sum up pretty much every post you have ever made here.

Good thing I had the Rev 6.5 Kazoo Grade Irony Shunts installed.

Last Edited by The Commentator on 06/03/2010 03:30 AM
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 990827
Germany
06/03/2010 03:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
600 pages ... too bad TLR isn't here to celebrate with us :(
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 03:51 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And I know I'm basically a rube, but how in the world does someone like Fetzer get a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science, become a tenured professor and wind up championing someone talking the way Clair does?

I just don't get it.


Most people are unable to differentiate emphatically stated bullshit from calmly spoken facts. Our world values style over substance. It's that simple.
 Quoting: Menow 988478

I backed up everything I said. Fetzer knew the evidence, too. I was stating it in detail -- the parts I covered, anyway -- and I only stated emphatically things already substantial facts. In that sense any emphasis is only from surety, not that I am not calm, too, when I want to be about it.

The fact is, it's ugly stuff, and interesting. So it can be stated emphatically or in a drone. It's still factual and logical; Fetzer knows that. He has pored over the vids and the witness logic -- and plane physics of flight as much as possible (relying on Pilots 4 9/11 Truth and Lear for the latter, to discuss the Boeing capabilities and what flight simulators can and can't do, because that's their area, though P4911T don't all agree there were no planes, but they agree it's highly questionable there were) -- etc.

Clare
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 03:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
600 pages ... too bad TLR isn't here to celebrate with us :(
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 990827

What does the # of pages do for you? Give you a thrill?

Most of it's just nasty posts.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
06/03/2010 03:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
bsmeter2



That seems to sum up pretty much every post you have ever made here.

Good thing I had the Rev 6.5 Kazoo Grade Irony Shunts installed.
 Quoting: The Commentator

Be careful there, Commentator...
I was using those and found that after about 10 posts in a row from clunk, even they got hot enough to burn you if you touched them...
Do they make anything stronger???
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
06/03/2010 03:56 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Debunker Talk LIVE Chat May 15 - Zetas 100% Wrong Yet Again!!
600 pages
18,000 posts
94,201 views
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 03:59 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
That seems to sum up pretty much every post you have ever made here.

Good thing I had the Rev 6.5 Kazoo Grade Irony Shunts installed.
 Quoting: The Commentator

Seems to you b/c you don't read them to understand. What if you're wrong? Hm? What kind of citizen would you be? Just consider it. Maybe you're afraid of being wrong and think you can't be ... but if you were, what would be so bad about that?

What if there were no planes, just pyrotechnics. So? So they lied in yet another way and it's another way into the events of the day. There are other ways: politics, physics of building collapse, cover-up of evidence, etc.

Finally, if you are afraid of being teased for a "silly idea" as you are teasing me, but it's how they did it ... then you are just not brave enough to face a truth which is uncomfortable because of people like you who would laugh.

However, no planes. Not necessary. Didn't happen with planes. Not a kooky notion -- it is knowable by what's NOT in the vids and what IS in some of the key testimony and timing and clean-up and so on.

So? So what? So no planes. So why is that so hard? If you were gonna do a play, would you build the full MacBeth castle? No. Just a few scaffolds and backdrop for an impression.

Cheaper, easier, guaranteed overall impression ... if there's suspension of disbelief -- through the the tragedy of the play. You've suspended your disbelief about lies; unfortunately, they lied and you should see the Wizard behind the curtain.
The Commentator

User ID: 587619
United States
06/03/2010 04:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
bsmeter2



That seems to sum up pretty much every post you have ever made here.

Good thing I had the Rev 6.5 Kazoo Grade Irony Shunts installed.

Be careful there, Commentator...
I was using those and found that after about 10 posts in a row from clunk, even they got hot enough to burn you if you touched them...
Do they make anything stronger???
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 763624



The Kazoo 6.5s are state of the art at the moment, perhaps we need a super version, the Clunker 1.0 and see how that does. As hot as those 6.5s get with clunker someone could burn the bloody house down!
non sufficit Orbis

Being a zetatard means never having to make sense.

"Nancy pays me to post on Her threads"

Free Store admits to being a paid zetadrool shill

NO max/bridget EVER!!!!!
NO luser EVER!!!
NO clunker EVER!!!!!
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 04:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
We need to explain these observations and put them into a coheent package -- with honesty, of their relative weight. Sometimes key witnesses (determined by their position of observation) trump 100 others with general observations.

And so on.

Some ideas are unpleasant, but if not impossible, and even maybe more desirable -- from a perp point of view -- then they may have happened.

In THIS sense have an open mind to let the evidence speak to you; not to have your mind be "so open as to fall out". There are some strange aspects pointing to no planes, and some combinations which seem extremely strong in that regard.

So ... consider it as a play for a moment. What do you REALLY need to make it happen? You don't need planes.

NOW you can look at the points and face the Citgo witnesses and April Gallop and Vid Parallax problems (and others) and no anti-oil fire extinguishing at the Pentagon (except the truck which was on fire) ... and so on.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
06/03/2010 04:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
We need to explain these observations and put them into a coheent package -- with honesty, of their relative weight. Sometimes key witnesses (determined by their position of observation) trump 100 others with general observations.

 Quoting: mclarek 986233


`coheen'ency has never been your strong point clunk
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 04:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
bsmeter2



That seems to sum up pretty much every post you have ever made here.

Good thing I had the Rev 6.5 Kazoo Grade Irony Shunts installed.

Be careful there, Commentator...
I was using those and found that after about 10 posts in a row from clunk, even they got hot enough to burn you if you touched them...
Do they make anything stronger???



The Kazoo 6.5s are state of the art at the moment, perhaps we need a super version, the Clunker 1.0 and see how that does. As hot as those 6.5s get with clunker someone could burn the bloody house down!
 Quoting: The Commentator

You are not responsive to new evidence, which may lead to the rejection of hypotheses previously accepted, and vice versa.

You must suspend various views in order to see if something works in a way you didn't think.

You have "The Method of Tenacity". You've made up your mind and don't allow any other information to affect or alter your point of view, i.e., what you thought previous to the points I've made. You won't even look at Lear's pilot work, and the absolute proofs of parallax impossibilities, and assessing the difference in the witnesses from Citgo vs the others.

My points are empirical tests -- ones that have consequences. You have to compare different hypotheses (general embracing theory) ... and must test each hypothesis, so they can show what the hypotheses would uncover. You test the hypotheses by the full evidence.

You do not lose your brain; instead, you compare evidence and data and seek to determine which hypothesis, OF ALL THE HYPOTHESES FULLY THOUGHT THROUGH, if true, would convey the best reference to the evidence IN FULL.

You have not handled the full, relative weight of the full evidence I have raised. Nor have you worked through each hypothesis.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 04:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I didn't just "believe" this stuff. You would be wrong to think that is how I am. I looked and compared and found serious problems with the key parts of saying there were planes, and ALSO found support for the suggestion there weren't.

God bless. (Or "Nature" give you a good day.) So to speak. Whichever you prefer as a good wish. :)
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 04:43 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
We need to explain these observations and put them into a coheent package -- with honesty, of their relative weight. Sometimes key witnesses (determined by their position of observation) trump 100 others with general observations.



`coheen'ency has never been your strong point clunk
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 763624

Attempt at an ad hominem (actually, ad feminam -- ha ha) fallacy: a typo.

Also, ad hominem insult using a general term which is intended to bully, whether a person deserves it or not.

Finally, generalization without support: "never" been "strong point". You have not understood what I said, and separated mistakes from misunderstandings in communications -- the lattermost being particularly obviously likely in a disruptive forum format.

So <shrug>
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/03/2010 05:09 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
NASA caught in new gaffe:

[link to climaterealists.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 763624
Australia
06/03/2010 05:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
LOL
<shrug> has been my view of your inane little posts for quite a while now clunk

I have watched your obvious (and I now believe deliberately intentional) twisting of every post in an attempt to show your `intelligence' (while unintentionally showing us in the process the total lack of it)

Despite many people showing your (deliberate IMHO) mistakes and why you were mistaken, in the end you showed your hand a bit too much.

ALL of your posts are nothing but a deliberate attempt to garner more attention- in other words you are nothing more than an attention whore.

And so the only thing to do with you is either ignore you outright (which some do) or ignore your attempts to twist things around to suit yourself and simply use you as a form of light comic relief.

So we do...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/03/2010 06:29 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
No, I know of that. But WHERE WERE THE REMAINS FROM?
Most of those investigators got the remains from others ...

And your source on that? My guess is that you know nothing about this one way or the other and you're just winging it based only on your assumption that this can't be true.

It has to be false.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Confirming my previous statement. You don't know anything specific about the recovery and DNA analysis of the remains of the plane passengers.

You're declaring it to be false solely because it doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/03/2010 06:40 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Since i didn't, and don't intend to, listen to her "interview" could you give a brief synopsis?
 Quoting: The Commentator


In a nutshell, about what we're getting here--maybe slightly more coherent in verbal form.

A vocal delivery similar in a lot of ways to Nancy Lieder, actually.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 985205
United States
06/03/2010 06:48 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Of course clunker was probably just a simple troll. No one could be that stupid on so many topics and possibly operate a computer.


No, she wasn't trolling in the sense of pretending to be stupid provoke a response. That was what was especially disturbing about it to me.

I listened to her podcast interview with Fetzer--she's for real. She was billed as some kind of expert by a guy with a PhD who seemed to be completely going along with her spiel without so much as batting an eye.



Since i didn't, and don't intend to, listen to her "interview" could you give a brief synopsis?
 Quoting: The Commentator

"Willful ignorance" suits you!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/03/2010 06:52 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
d) All passenger effects could have come -- from the dead patsies -- from another location,
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Could have? Once again, total conjecture. You don't know anything at all about the specifics of the collections of the remains or how such an alleged substitution would have taken place.

So you're accusing specific investigators of being part of the conspiracy without even knowing who they are, probably a lot of people, people whose names are no doubt in the public record.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/03/2010 07:23 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here you go, Clare. Take a look at this page and explain how this would have been faked:

[link to www.dmort.org]

Pennsylvania Morgue Site

In their first response, the DMORT DNA team, headed by Dr. Joyce deJong, worked closely with personnel from the Armed Forces DNA Identification Lab (AFDIL). Given the particulars of the crash, DNA identification played a primary role in this response. The DNA team had trained earlier in 2001 at AFDIL, and the coordinated response with AFDIL proved beneficial.

The DMORT Family Assistance Center team, who had just completed training a few weeks before September 11, had their first chance to deploy to Pennsylvania and New York. In Pennsylvania, the team was headed by Cindy Arnold. The FAC team worked out of the Seven Spring Mountain resort, the site of the family center established by United Airlines. They worked closely with United, the Red Cross, and the NTSB to collect victim information. The national travel restrictions posed some problems in obtaining records, and some families chose not to travel to the assistance center. Collecting family reference blood samples for DNA analysis was established. A DMAT nurse collected and documented the samples from family members and helped to collect direct reference samples.

Given the legal investigative aspects of the crash, a decision was made to produce written protocols for each section of the morgue operation. Under the direction of Marilyn London, each section of the morgue operation produced a written protocol explaining how the section worked. These protocols were compiled, producing a document describing the particulars of the United 93 morgue operation. These protocols will serve as a tool to describe morgue procedures in the event of legal proceedings.

Given some of the concerns involving the numbering and processing of remains at previous responses, a triage station was established. Staffed by a pathologist, an anthropologist, and a dentist, the triage team sorted through the remains, first separating personal effects from remains. Once the personal effects were transferred to the FBI, the remains were examined to ascertain their potential for identification. Potentially identifiable remains were assigned a sequential number, a file was created, and the specimen was carried through the morgue operation. Non-identifiable remains were stored in containers, weighed daily, and stored in a separate area of the refrigerated truck. The triage process helped to focus work on remains that would most likely lead to identification, eliminated unidentifiable remains from the morgue flow (also reducing unnecessary paperwork), and greatly simplified the numbering system.

The DMORT response began on September 13 and concluded on September 25. While on site, ten positive identifications were made through dental and fingerprint examinations. As of December 2001, 40 of the passengers and crew had been positively identified. Four unique DNA profiles, representing the terrorists, have also been isolated. Thus, all passengers and crew have been identified to the extent possible.

DMORT III and their colleagues from Regions IV, V, IX, and X are honored to have served the brave passengers and crew of United 93, the "flight of heroes". The support and camaraderie between the local officials, the FBI, and the DMORT teams proved invaluable to team morale. While isolated from the events in New York and Washington, the team focused intently on their work. Each team member held a deep understanding of the importance of their role in providing the highest level of care to these victims.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 990945
United Kingdom
06/03/2010 07:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You've made up your mind and don't allow any other information to affect or alter your point of view,
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


That certainly describes YOU, idiot TROLL.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 990945
United Kingdom
06/03/2010 07:33 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
And where is Clare? [...] I mean damn, did we run off the only chick in the room?

Nearly. If that's a concern, be reasonable and decent; not condescending and incomplete in handling expert witness affidavits, and so on.

Anyway, I was busy.

Thanks for the desire to have me here, even if it's only because I'm female.

:) :cool2:
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Nobody really wants you hear, because your posts are a pathetic waste of internet bandwidth. You are a useless TROLL.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/03/2010 09:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
No, I know of that. But WHERE WERE THE REMAINS FROM?
Most of those investigators got the remains from others ...

And your source on that? My guess is that you know nothing about this one way or the other and you're just winging it based only on your assumption that this can't be true.

It has to be false.



Confirming my previous statement. You don't know anything specific about the recovery and DNA analysis of the remains of the plane passengers.

You're declaring it to be false solely because it doesn't fit your predetermined conclusion.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583


She's also conveniently ignoring the fact that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses caught in traffic right beside the Pentagon and not a single one reported any "fly-over".

Clare just sits with her fingers in her ears and doesn't hear any evidence that contradicts her ridiculous made-up story.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/03/2010 09:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You are not responsive to new evidence, which may lead to the rejection of hypotheses previously accepted, and vice versa.

 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Clare, that describes you perfectly.

News