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

NO!

Sorry, I have to run again.

Last Edited by George B on 06/02/2010 04:45 PM

Wonderful, when can we expect a preliminary report on your findings?

Ah good ole chemtrails, the swiss army knife in the conspiracists arsenal.

Is there anything chemtrails can't do?

Make their believers study the Scientific Method.....

How about some more irrelevent "dots" to connect:

6. Many gov'ts have built underground shelters. Chemtrails or PX?
7. Home HEPA filters became common in the 1980s & 1990s. Why?
8. There have been a lot of websites created dealing with asthma. Why?
9. Part of the Planet X story is "red dust". Fibreglass insulation is pink. Chaff is metallized silica glass. Connect the dots, people.
10. Bigfoot was a popular topic until the 1990s, just when chemtrails became the rage. Perhaps chemtrails are for mind control of Bigfoot researchers.
11. New diseases and new strains of diseases have appeared since the mid-1990s. Chemtrails?
12. Every time someone tests for "pollution" in the air, they find it. This never happened 20+ years ago when the air was pristine with zero pollutants.
13. The government was working on Regan's "Star Wars" program and look at how successful that's been, so doing the near impossible is possible --- kinda'.
14. Some undergrad wrote a paper saying it would be advantageous if the military could control the weather.
15. Some undergrad wrote a paper saying it would be advantageous if the military could time travel.
16. Some undergrad wrote a paper saying it would be advantageous if the military could make their troops invisible.
17. There are people claiming all three of the above are in existance. Subtle disclosure or fantasy?
18. The existence of Reptoid activist that are found in almost every developed country. Chemtrails connected to Reptoids? Connet the dots people.
19. Governments are greedy and dishonest.
20. Businesses are greedy and dishonest.
21. People are greedy and dishonest.
22. Because of the above 3 items, it is possible that giant, mechanical slugs are being unleashed on the populace who are blinded to this fact by chemtrail mind control.
23. <insert any irrelevent, fanciful or made-up BS here.>
24. loop to #23

I'm convinced.


R.

I'm mildly worried I might have "short-circuited" her with that long-ass post of mine yesterday.

Hope not. Didn't mean to "damage" anybody. :)

Anybody know how old she's purported to be? Like, I didn't just viciously engage somebody's grandmother yesterday, did I...?

Standard kOOk excuse.

Get proven, apparently!

Oh, how CONVENIENT! Always the same LAME excuses from kOOks when challenged to produce the 'damning' evidence they remember seeing once on some web site!

"Strongly suggested" = IOW, "I interpreted it to mean what my delusion predisposes me to believe"

You are nothing but a typical brain-dead kOOk idiot.

No, I have quite a bit more evidence to present:

I am probably typical of many people who visit GLP . . . curious and aware of much of the DOOM being pushed out of several media sources. I may have some basic scientific knowledge but have forgotten much more than I remember.

Debunking as a pastime and entertainment is to my experience a rather new science. However, while you (debunkers) see it more than likely as entertainment I see it as a public service.

My primary purpose is to gather on my time and effort all that the average person can realistically understand and go against a Thread Baron/s . . . self-proclaimed and or real experts on almost about anything.
I am the sacrificial Advocate on Chemtrails . . . you are the expert Opponent. The judge or judges will rule on the result of the Trial/Debate whatever.

PUBLIC SERVICE: with a reasonably thorough presentation of the evidence, its rebuttal, counter arguments and the final vote by a Judge. One can point to a point in time when there was a process and a result (if only temporary). I also think it can be rather entertaining as well. I am perfectly willing to be trashed but don't think I will go down easy. I really do believe there is something to the Chemtrail issue.

FINAL RESULT: You will help people understand there are many more positions on DOOM than the DOOMSAYERS are saying.

This is my proposal: see below:

I am tell the truth I have over 800 Gigs of scrambled data . . . do you really think that I would tell you that unless is was the truth? I knowing the reception I would get. I can assure you that I will find that info and much more.

This of course assumes that global warming is real, which has not been proven.


Wow, those are a lot of tin foil hat worries, none of which can be substantiated by serious research.


ROFLMAO. Zetas also claim that we can't see PX because of red dust, or because it is behind the sun. They can't make up their minds about why it can't be seen, except for fleeting moments when webcams and cellphones capture it. As for making people too ill to survive the pole shift, it Nancy's pole shift did happen, no living creature would survive. Period.

2 & 3 are already dead locks . . . these are already accomplished by good old CHAFF. It has been used in one form or another since WWII. Number 1, has been presented as totally possible (via the same concept that Chemtrails are thought to be) and will cost 1 Billion dollars a year to accomplish. The rest most . . . likely what you said! However, I will still research them.

Last Edited by George B on 06/02/2010 07:57 PM

Hi, you were KeepingItReal in a prior life? Are you not the Native Canadian/Mexican/South American healer. You have Mayan connections or heritage as well. Greetings! I have great respect for your heritage and abilities. We had a few discussions and I enjoyed them greatly.
Sorry, I must run . . . hope to talk some time in the future.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Makes no difference how much anecdote you have, it can be confirmed or falsified with one good experiment, an experiment the chemk00ks will NEVER perform.

You could not cause the sort of damage that clunker had.

Of course clunker was probably just a simple troll. No one could be that stupid on so many topics and possibly operate a computer.

That's what they ALWAYS say! You continue to prove yourself a kOOk, and 'chemtrails' bullshit.

Pathetic kOOk delusions of grandeur.

George, here is my suggestion:

Start a thread titled "I challenge "The Guy" to a civil debate on chemtrails" and keep bumping it until someone shows up.

Yep. Do that, George. It's the best chance you have of getting what you want.

Where George's plan won't work on GLP is the idea of having just 3 judges.

No one will respect that and everyone who wants to will weigh in.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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: