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

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data, not information, but it your case fantasy may be acceptable.

In other words, a comedy show!

Thanks!

New stuff I think, "L00n" something or other....

Bullshit. Many university atmospheric science programs have the capability to do in situ measurements, as do a number of private groups, Battelle Memorial Institute to name one.

Really, you ought to study more before you shoot your mouth off, kid.

Last Edited by The Commentator on 06/03/2010 06:48 PM

I always said luser was the prototypical ningtard.

Bump for success over ZetaTalk!

No, you don't need to fret over this. Considering what she's put us through, you were kind. Her atrocious grammar, ridiculous mingling of words and endless comma splicing is just not readable after awhile. Though she considers it simply "creative writing", I can't read her posts anymore. They are increasing the pain in my already painful headaches. I was finally able to pinpoint the cause, BTW: a sinus infection. I was beginning to think I had some sort of new brain condition going on, maybe a clarebolism, and I even had a CT scan of my brain done a couple of weeks ago. That's one thing I love about the DR, the CT scan only cost about a hundred dollars.

Never spray water on a jet fuel fire? Funny, I could only find 911 people saying this. The firefighting pages I looked on said they even use jet fuel in training and sometimes they even separate the fuel from the water when they are done. I'm not going to ask Clare to show me where firefighters don't spray water on jet fuel because she doesn't answer hardly any questions. And come on - missiles, witness disposal? Just the fact that people can't keep their mouths shut is enough to show that you can't just make a whole slew of people disappear, whether it is willingly (paid off) or unwillingly. Yeah, I see a few problems with the official version. But that doesn't mean it's automatically the kooky version, instead! It's not the only other option!

I can relate to the "embarrassment to your gender" comment. I see a show like The View and I just crawl with embarrassment for women everywhere. Those dippy dips sit there trying to appear all smart and "with it" and they gab on for an hour without really saying anything. It's how I came to understand the phrase "hen party". Then I find this site and a new, apt term arises: attention whore. That's all they are on The View. When I traveled long distance to stay with a friend, she insisted on subjecting me to the torture of this show every morning. I can assure you it is quite painful to watch.

One more thing. . . after reading over and over about the people who didn't smell jet fuel. . . I don't really think this fits in anywhere in the arguments, but it shows that strange things happen around accidents. One day I was approaching an intersection to turn left. The car that was waiting at the stop sign where I was going to turn had just stopped. It was an old man. I clearly saw him stop and look to the left, then slowly turn his head to the right and look again. Then instead of the standard "look back to the left again", he just went forward to cross the intersection and he drove right into the path of a small pickup truck going approximately 40 mph coming at me. I was pretty close and slowing down to turn left when the pickup slammed into the driver's side of the old Cadillac the elderly black man and his wife were in.

I was actually the first person to run over and see if everyone was okay, which they were. The ambulance and police were there in no time and I gave a statement. But what was so strange was that I kind of felt the "shock wave" or whatever you'd call it, since it was such a hard hit and it was so close to me. And for the next hour, I had the distinct taste of metal in my mouth. It began as soon as the "shock" happened, a weird feeling in my mouth accompanied by the taste of metal. Very strange. I can't explain it. I was sitting in my car with windows up and AC running when it happened.

Just some bs to show there's still another chick on the thread and that she can actually spout some grammar that's easy on the eyes.


okay, quiz time!



:african:

a) first lady
b) person burned by jet fuel
c) Michael Jackson before his surgeries




a) Mr. T in church
b) 911 underground witness
c) Skinny Pete




a) what my headache feels like
b) what really happened to the 911 plane passengers
c) what the execs at BP deserve




a) oral herpes gone awry
b) 911 survivor
c) what I would be willing to endure just to not to have to watch The View again




a) family guy
b) burning the candle at both ends
c) what the hell is this, anyway????




a) clarebolism
b) witness to what really happened at 911
c) Ralphie on Christmas day

No response to the linked accounts of the involvement of the DMORT forensic teams with their many civilian investigators.

How could this have been faked, how could all these people have been covertly recruited into the conspiracy beforehand and how would they all have all been kept quiet for a decade?

And this is just one aspect of what happened.

Cluck cluck cluck...more chicken scratch.

This thread is the graveyard of the deflunkers as they all posture up and try and prove their worth to their "masters". Funny shit, indeed!

SHR picked you twerps off nicely!

Are you really thick about law and hypothesis, both?

Each witness and piece builds with each other.

They saw a plane, yes. They would not have seen a flyover, but rather a puff of smoke.

Other suggestions (such as the silly hole, the lack of debris initially, the fire trucks which didn't spray foam except at a truck -- though maybe they did have to get jet fuel fires further in -- the lampposts and the nature of a North fly instead of South, and the black box info which stops short of anything really really close to the P ...

these show the witnesses from Citgo are valuable for having seen the North fly, and no more. From there on in, other items show if it was a hit or not likely.

Look at the building hypothesis: the cabbie's story is so implausible (like so much else) that we are thrown back on the simpler though untasty smoke and mirrors issue.

Why do you want a plane anyway?

I thought someone was going too far when I heard it as a NOTION, i.e., they didn't stop asking questions and they didn't NEED to go that far in their hypothesis questions ...

but they do. Deal with Citgo, lack of foam spray, no jet fuel in the first ring, the "punch out" hole in back, the improbability (impossibility?) of a single hole and no major external tail, wings, etc. (huge plane), the timing of the photos ...

and the other sites, where there was video fakery/hoaxed impressions (NYC) and Shanksville which was a laugh, the phone calls which were impossible if in the air, the silly box cutter heroics when pilots' doors lock from the inside anyway, and if they killed someone in there, how would they get him out and the place would be thick with blood ...

Oh come on.

You really haven't read the Citgo testamony, have you?

They all state that they saw the PLANE plow into the Pentagon, a trajectory that would have missed the Pentagon entirely if the northern route was real. They were obviously mistaken about the northern pass, as their own testamony clearly shows.

Isn't it funny how you talk about evidence "building", but yet dismiss literally HUNDREDS of eyewitness accounts that agree and go out of your way to accept FOUR that are obviously mistaken BY THEIR OWN WORDS! Are you THAT stupid?

Good evening Clare . . . I see you are ready for a fight!

As a career RF engineer, this is just another kook piece of foolishness that you idiots keep trying to use. It is patently false.

When I said "look at the building hypothesis" I mean they hypothesis being built and see what it accounts for elegantly, that the other does not: the other has to go against the spirit of many details which specifically speak of fakery and physical extreme unlikelihood or impossibility -- aerial feats combined with building physics, firefighter actions and cabbie centred, clean-through both front and back windshields without a scratch. What kind of force would put a whole lamppost perfectly horizontal and centred in a relatively speaking small object such as a car AND not scratch anything?

LOL!

OL!

OL!

Nope.

They say they saw the Plane along the North toward the Pentagon.

In cross-examination it would be determined that they didn't have to actually see it hit. They could have seen it very close and an explosion.

Have you ever read court transcripts? The key issue is the trajectory is wrong. Anything else they could have been fooled.

Shill, you lost this argument, what, 7 years ago.

Are you really this stupid? This thread is the last refuge of the lonely deflunkers and their stupid arguments. Truly fitting, I might add!

Where is your evidence of this?

No, they plainly said they saw it hit. As did hundreds of others.

Give it up.

Has anyone debunked this . . . if this 737 instructor pilot is not telling the truth . . . what is the truth? Start a 1:38 to get the start of the discussion.



Last Edited by George B on 06/04/2010 12:19 AM

The truth is, as was posted today, HUNDREDS of eyewitnesses saw an American Airlines 757 fly into the Pentagon. NONE saw any "flyover".

End of story.

Clare, you're just going to continue to ignore this?

The witnesses are specific cases: there are two types: ones which saw the plane go AT LEAST near and an explosion but were not at a key vantage point; the others saw something -- could have been a small missile from a plane or the plane itself in flyover -- but the hole was a perfect low hole of only 15 feet and no outside debris 'til later.

But that's only part of it.

The other impossibilities add up with the incongruities.

Too much to type.

For plane dynamics see Lear. For vid info see particulary September Clues (12 parts: the parallax stuff is mostly in Part 9, but it's the conclusive stand-alone optics proof, but he just marshalls it with everything else so it flies by, so to speak; pause it and think carefully). Then move on to all the "amateur" vids: the ones from that day and the ones put out later with false soundtracks, weird edits, same viewpoints, etc.

By the way, not everything is as solid as the rest. But there are enough solids ... which secondly combine in solid ways ... to know.

For instance, why the "punch out" painted on the inner ring hole (which again was perfect -- and to give the impression of a miraculous nose cone? -- with no debris on the outside there, except some building pieces from the blast ---- no major piece to have made the hole).

Etc.

Wake up. There's coffee brewing.

:)

It's not a pleasant thought; but the reason this has been so slammed in 9/11 Truth circles is that it OPENS THE QUESTION OF TV FAKERY AND MEDIA COMPLICITY, plus it's a direct access to knowing the whole thing was a fraud. That's why you were sold planes so strongly.

You're unbelievable, "mclarek". In fact, I'm going to recommend this thread to a couple of my friends. And I think it's important that they tell all of their friends, too. It's important for people to know that there are individuals like you in the world. It matters. And I don't feel obligated to explain why.

First, I'm about 4 or 5 pages back, but I love this:

"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."

I mean, how does a reasonable, rational person even respond to that?

A "loop hole"? You're seriously resting your faith in a huge part of this scenario of yours on a "loop hole"?

It "CAN" be considered suspect?

So let's "IMAGINE" it is...?

My God...

You hang a substantial amount of your "proof" for this claim on a small handful of witnesses at Citgo SOLEY because they had the BEST vantage point? You make it sound like they enjoyed the ONLY vantage point.

I'm actually willing to assume, just for the sake of this "debate", that these "Citgo" people did have "the best" vantage point. Good. Great.

It doesn't mean that because there's was THE BEST that all others are considered INVALID. The witnesses stuck in traffic (you claim they're not "reliable" because they were in motion but in fact I've read many of them were stuck in traffic) had a clear view of the Pentagon. None of them say they saw a plane go over the horizon of some apartment buildings- and then a big cloud of smoke appeared.

They say, CLEARLY, they watched it fly into the Pentagon.

Butu they're not reliable because the people at Citgo were a little closer? Is that how low your standards are?

So the only reilable eyewitness to the Kennedy assassination should be the guy who was ABSOLUTELY closest to the motorcade from the sidewalk? Everyone else, including the Zapruder film, is unrelaible because it's NOT THE BEST vantage point?

You claim the knocked over light poles were staged. How? When? Where are all the witnesses to light poles being knocked over- by anything other than a plane?

I'd sure notice people here in Philly knocking over light poles. Particularly if I was driving by (or would I be "unreliable" because I was "in motion"?)

Why didn't the Citgo people see that happening? You can maybe convince me they had "the best" view of the Pentagon, but if that's the case you CAN'T simultaneously convince me they didn't notice "the suits" out there knocking over the poles.

In fact, produce ONE eyewitness to that. Or one eyewitness of suits "dropping" airplane "parts" on the lawn of the Pentagon?

Where did they hide them? Under their coats? Where did they collect these "parts" from? In other words, if they brought them to the Pentagon and "dropped them on the lawn" they must have gotten them from somewhere? Was there a big truck parked around back with a pile of fucked up, smoking airplane parts stacked in the rear?

See, it's these logistical-issues which, in the end, decimate your 9/11-"Truth"-theories. You can't account for them. Just like you can't account for the missing passengers.

And then you have the balls to clalm it doesn't matter.

And you make it sound like CGI'ing the New York videos would be "easy". Which is literally jaw-droppingly astounding.

What about the amateur videos? You're talking about "fade outs" or whatever- meanwhile nearly every person in the world watched the second plane hit LIVE without any "fade outs".

Right now I'm wondering if, by the time I'm caught up in this thread, you've had the decency to address, concretely, the dilemma of these missing passengers. I'm gonna guess- no. But we'll see.

The irony is, I'd at least respect if you could give a coherent theory as to what happened to them. Even if I don't agree with it- so what. Just to state that you've even remotely considered the question would be enough.

But in order to do that you'd have to face up to the inherent fatal discrepencies in these ideas of yours. And I don't think you'd release your grip on those for anything...

How come I've never seen either of you two posting in a single other thread besides this one? Ever?

And you have the balls to claim someone else is a "cancer" to this site...

This is a very short clip and I think it also says a lot.

Whoah. That's a lot of eyewitnesses, "mclarek"...

It doesn't require much thought or research to realize that the "no plane" theory would require the complicity or active involvement of at least thousands, probably tens of thousands of people in some glaringly nefarious activity.

This would include an enormous number of people throughout the media, civilian responders from multiple agencies and many relatively low level government employees and military personnel. Just for starters. Plus all the significant others that would have been confided in.

The assumption that all these American would have kept quiet about such frankly evil activity for all these years is beyond ridiculous

It's insulting.

You mean stupid arguments such as: The world will not be destroyed by PX in 2003?

After all, that's the argument that directly leads to the eventual creation of this thread...