FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Previously hidden: ferocious WTC7 BBC World flamewar
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> WTC7 Salomon Brothers Building - the smoking gun of 9/11
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Poacher"]
AJ wrote:
The bottom line is that I'm still not 100% satisfied this has been sorted out, and if you look more closely at what I've been drawing attention to today (and stopped responding emotionally/reactively) you might learn something about forensics. Is there anything odd about the smoke behind Jane as it moves to her left?


Poacher wrote:
I have not responded emotionally/reactively.


In your self-appraisal you may well believe tha, but people are notoriously bad at self-appraisal.

Poacher wrote:
I might be able to teach you about forensics.


I suspect not, though I would welcome a demonstration Smile You presume too much Wink

Poacher wrote:
No there is nothing wrong with the smoke.


Nothing wrong? Maybe you are right, but where does it go between the at the end of the middle pane?

Poacher wrote:
Show me evidence of tampering with the video.


I'm not talking about tampering here, that was a point discussed in another post earlier today. Here, for the second time, I was asking whether the above provides evidence of greenscreen footage which was not live. BBC World loops footage, overlays banners over old footage, it does all sorts. In these earlier clips the anchor tells us that Jane lives in NY. This might have meant that she may have known the skyline better than we thought.

I'm not going to keep spelling all this out. Read the posts, look at the footage. I am not trying to persuade you or anyone else of any particular position. I am just encouraging healthy skepticism. Don't be so keen to accept "the truth" - it's far more elusive than people here ever make out and it takes time to go through the alternatives and one has to be prepared to be wrong. Smile

And for the record - you are wrong about the point about the intensional idioms being trivial. You haven't looked into it far enough, and until you do, you'll make a shed load of mistakes when you reason/judge/think/speak/write etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poacher
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AJ wrote:
I was asking whether the above provides evidence of greenscreen footage which was not live.


No it does not, and you have not yet provided anything that even approaches suspicion. You seem to be the forensic expert, please enlighten us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poacher wrote:
AJ wrote:
I was asking whether the above provides evidence of greenscreen footage which was not live.


No it does not, and you have not yet provided anything that even approaches suspicion. You seem to be the forensic expert, please enlighten us.


I can't tell at the moment as the thumbnails are too small and won't blow up as they are far too low res.

But if you look at the link to the thumbnails that I listed a few posts back, it doesn't look like what we discussed a few days back as a silver window frame can have been a reflection in that frame as the earlier shots from pre 14:00 now show a much larger "pane" to the left.

Now, she could be at a differnet location of course....

In the discussion a few days ago, I accepted that it may have been a reflection off a shiny surface, and that that sufficed to explain why the smoke there seemed to be going in the opposite direction to that coming in from the right (behind Jane - center). But in this earlier pre 14:00 footage of Jane, the smoke appears to be similar in desnity to that from the much later (17:00 or so) footage which is in dispute as to wheter it was greenscreen, but here, in the pre 14:00 shot, it also seems to stop at the window frame.

I am open to correction as always, but I thought someone else might have a look. The moving images will sort this out if and when they ever appear. As it is, only the audio is up and the tumbnails (why?). There are a few other (inonvenient) gaps in the days' sequence. Maybe they are looking into it too? Or maybe they just have better things to do??

What do you reckon?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AllThatWeSeeOrSeem
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 49
Location: North West

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:08 pm    Post subject: Which only goes to show Reply with quote

Whch only goes to show - we waste far too much time on disinfo-mongers -

AJ is about as silly as the BBC
Please remove

It shows they are scared now anyway

Next please

Wink

_________________
Random Acts of Kindness Each Day also make a difference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Poacher"]
AJ wrote:
Finally. Look up intensional idioms of propositinal attitude and the intensional or subjunctive conditional. Discover what's wrong with indirect quotation, and why the above idioms are restistant to logical quantification, and what that means for our natural use of language and "common sense" folk psychological reasoning. This is not a trivial point Mad Rolling Eyes


1 > looked it up
2 > it is a trivial point

For example. If I wrote "The Prime Mininster in 1980 began a programme of privatisation which is still with us today in 2007."

And you wrote "You said that Margaret Thatcher in 1980 began a programme of privatisation which is still with us today in 2007"

And I said "No I didn't!"

And you then said "Oh yes you did!"

Who would be telling the truth and who would be lying?

Once you have grasped that, you'll see why what I said was not trivial, and why what I've been saying for the past week might be worth some more careful thought Wink


Last edited by AJ on Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poacher
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AJ wrote:
Once you have grasped that, you'll see why what I said was not trivial, and why what I've been saying for the past week is worth some more careful thought Wink


No, what I said was that it was trivial of you to point it out in the context. Please keep up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poacher wrote:
AJ wrote:
I can't tell at the moment as the thumbnails are too small and won't blow up as they are far too low res. What do you reckon?


I reckon you could ask for the origional high res files as you are already in discussion with archive.com. As a forensics expert, it is irksome that you are suggesting there is a problem with the footage before you have seen the evidence. . . and you question my jumping to conclusions?


There is some jusification to that. I may well ask them. Good suggestion. I just thought people here may like to have a look. I have not asserted that there is a problem. I have just asked others to have a look. You asked me what I was drawing attention to. I was rather hoping others might make independent assessments. That is what I did here this week, and what I asked the www.archive.org folk to do (as did others - Janice Matthews seems quite sensible).

We need as many extensionally critical independent eyes and ears on this as possible. That's what "pursuit of truth" (science) is all about. The rules of evidence for science are supposed to be the same for law (although sadly they are not in practice). If people here wish to be taken seriously about 911 and the truth, they need to understand the rules and constraints of evidence. That is what the BBC (kindly I thought) had a go at the 911 evangelists for abusing.

To see what a bunch of Truth Terriers the BBC lot are, just watch Newsnight sometime, or have a look at this below (or see the 2nd episode of the BBC Conspiracy series on David Kelly (he had a real conflcit of interest over pursuit of truth and it was the death of him - and that requires one to understand the difficult role of the scientist in government). The UK 911 folk should be proud of the BBC. Rhetorical questions, but why are we in Iraq? Who are we supporting, and why? See below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6416657.stm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poacher
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AJ wrote:
To see how much a bunch of Truth Terriers the BBC lot are, just watch Newsnight sometime, or have a look at this. The UKL 911 folk should be proud of them. Why are we in Iraq? Who are we supporting and why?

I do watch Newsnight. You are off-topic again. . . please stick to the thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poacher wrote:
AJ wrote:
To see how much a bunch of Truth Terriers the BBC lot are, just watch Newsnight sometime, or have a look at this. The UKL 911 folk should be proud of them. Why are we in Iraq? Who are we supporting and why?

I do watch Newsnight. You are off-topic again. . . please stick to the thread.


OK, how about the rest of the post? Rolling Eyes Why not spend some time doing some helpful work on this rather than wasting time "reactively sparring".

It's a waste of both of our time Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poacher
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AJ wrote:
Why not spend some time doing some helpful work on this rather than wasting time "reactively sparring". It's a waste of my time Wink

I am. But not with you. You on the other hand have spent some considerable hours coming to the point you realise you need high res images. I would have thought that more of a waste of time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poacher wrote:
AJ wrote:
Why not spend some time doing some helpful work on this rather than wasting time "reactively sparring". It's a waste of my time Wink

I am. But not with you. You on the other hand have spent some considerable hours coming to the point you realise you need high res images. I would have thought that more of a waste of time.


That's all that was up! Have a look. I gave you the link but you didn't think. That I spent some time drawing attention to all that there was is something that I would have expected you to have said "thank you" for, not rush to post a silly response to.

It says it all really. I'm now calling you silly. As those up North used to say, "you know what thought did.... it followed a muck-cart thinking it was a wedding!". Why did they come up with that, and why do we regard Notherners as down to earth and no-nonsense?

After direct advice, you have not picked upon on any of what you have been told. The idioms of our folk psychology are not just unreliable, they are treacherous and the stuff that evangelists and other "evil dooers" Evil or Very Mad prey upon. Beware Shocked There are those out to vilify and to defend against vilification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/world/asia/05militarycnd.html?hp
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070303-100831-7760r.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/04/AR2007 030400403.html
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070304/COLUMNIST25  /703040305/-1/NEWS01
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10839.htm
http://www.ww4report.com/node/3280
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/world/ap/main2527421.shtml
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/7757

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23387672-details/Government %20accused%20of%20trying%20to%20derail%20cash-for-honours%20inquiry/ar ticle.do
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poacher wrote:

AJ allegedly wrote:
Why not spend some time doing some helpful work on this rather than wasting time "reactively sparring". It's a waste of my time Wink

So AJ corrected Poacher:

AJ actually wrote:
Why not spend some time doing some helpful work on this rather than wasting time "reactively sparring".

It's a waste of both of our time Wink


Is it getting through yet (albeit darkly?........this is not trivial).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AJ,
I`ve still got no idea what you`re on about at all really.
Once again: care to explain.

C.

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snowygrouch wrote:
AJ,
I`ve still got no idea what you`re on about at all really.
Once again: care to explain.

C.


Critically reflect on your choice of words in your first sentence/statement there, (it might help if you re-read the posts) Wink

"One can lead a horse to water......" Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just the response I suspected you would give.

I personally dont consider cryptic proverbs to be a valid discussion format. Apparently you do.

I belive your purpose here is clear for all to see. (hint: it isnt to have reasoned discussions and precipitate meaningful debate).

As for re-reading your posts, we`ll I did but only un-earthed several hundred lines of fairly meaningless hints & subtle dark suggestions.

As far as I`m concerned your entire posting history can be helpufully condensed into the following phrase:

"My that smoke in the background looks a bit odd"


Or did I miss some other profound item of forensic mastery?

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snowygrouch wrote:
Just the response I suspected you would give.

I personally dont consider cryptic proverbs to be a valid discussion format. Apparently you do.

I belive your purpose here is clear for all to see. (hint: it isnt to have reasoned discussions and precipitate meaningful debate).

As for re-reading your posts, we`ll I did but only un-earthed several hundred lines of fairly meaningless hints & subtle dark suggestions.

As far as I`m concerned your entire posting history can be helpufully condensed into the following phrase:

"My that smoke in the background looks a bit odd"


Or did I miss some other profound item of forensic mastery?


You certainly seem determined to keep informing me of your shortcomings with very little insight Rolling Eyes

How can I be held accontable for what you can't do or understand? That's largely down to your ability or lack thereof.

You need to do some more work on this I suggest Exclamation Wink

Don't shoot the messenger Mad Just look at the clips closely and ascertain whether it is live footage or a greenscreen projection. This may require the full streamed clip. I haven't checked whether it is up yet. That would be a far better use of yur time than this senseless bickering. You simply have not grasped the point that I have been making about the method to "pursuit of thruth" (see Quine 1990;1992;1995). The only way one ever gets that is through the Socratic Method or Scientific Method, and that is harder than you seem to appreciate. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

physicist wrote:
AJ wrote:
physicist wrote:
Jane Standley also did a long interview on BBC News 24 at around 9:30pm (UK time) in front of that very same window with WTC7 behind her.

So that puts her in the right time and place.

The building hadn't collapsed at that time. Even in "BBC World".


That's useful to know. Do you have a link?


I'll make a clip and upload it later.


Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EmptyBee wrote:
AJ, your whole hypothesis that this could be a fake falls down on several levels - which have already been pointed out to you multiple times in this thread, but to reiterate:


It isn't a matter of proffering an hypothesis, it's been a matter of checking the evidence. So any reasons that you or anyone else come up with as to why it isn't a credible hyothesis are irrelevant. You have made an erroneous assumption and used that as a premise to draw the wrong inference(s). Exactly what I have warned you and others against in fact.

EmptyBee wrote:
a) If someone faked this footage they would have to have known that the BBC didn't actually have the original tapes any more, as an easy exposure of the fake would be possible with access to the original footage. The only people that might know that would be people working within the BBC.


There you go. But as a quite independent response to this irrelevant point, that assumes the perpetrator thought of that, or that they cared. If all they wanted to do was smear/annoy the BBC it wouldn't matter if the BBC pointed it out to be a fake, the damage would have been done.

EmptyBee wrote:

b) The footage itself is damaging to the credibility of the BBC, but not enormously - it doesn't actually prove anything we didn't already know from other sources - i.e. that for whatever reason, the media were getting reports from at that WTC7 was expected to collapse an hour or more before it did. The earliest warnings circulated on the ground may have started circulating before midday, when the firefighting efforts were abandoned.


But it DID cause a lot of fuss didn't it. And lots of folk will still be believing that the BBC was in on some conspiracy. That's how these things are spun, just to keep the uncertainty and interest levels up.

EmptyBee wrote:
So while the film itself is pretty bizarre it's not concrete proof of anything we didn't already know.


It never needed to be. Once again, you are imputing psychological states (beliefs or intenTions, yes with a T this time and not an S) and one can spin those any which way one likes as they are not truth-functional. That's the point to be grasped. It's a poiunt about natural (rather than scentific) verbal behaviour and its hazards. Watch how words such as "think", "know", "believe", "said" etc work, and be wary. Same for the subjunctive conditional (IF - THEN)

EmptyBee wrote:
Endless pontification over its authenticity just muddies the waters.


But endless "pontification" about whether 911 was "an inside job" (which could mean all sorts of things - some benevolent/Hobson's Choice) or who killed JR Ewing or Diana, or how David Kelly died isn't? I think you've missed the principle here (see above).

Next time you decide to tell someone that it's all been explained before, perhaps you'll give some more thought to why they don't seem to have 'got it' eh? Look up "the principle of charity", again this is not as simple as it may first seem.

But never mind, I've made this difficult and rather subtle point as clearly as I could, and you're clearly not interested. So be it. It's your loss, not mine. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AJ,
Congratulations on your use of the words "erroneous" and "inferences"; both very clever words with loads of letters and everything. I`m so impressed I`m going to burn all my research as its no match for your verbal aerobatics.

I`m currently enjoying watching you trying -with increasing desperation- to claim the footage is fake or blue screen.

Always enjoyable waiting around for the week or two after a major news story for the "new members" to join up and start frantically attempting to debunk said story/s. Eight posts a dey eh? Not a bad effort.

I`d give you about......Ohhhh..say perhaps....10 days on the forum before you give up/get your fill of being rumbled as a rather poor damage limitation excersize.

Cheerio!

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snowygrouch wrote:
AJ,

I`m currently enjoying watching you trying -with increasing desperation- to claim the footage is fake or blue screen.


Try to understand this. I am not trying to prove anything one way or another. I have been trying to clear up anomalies.

You keep imputing intentions. That is something that you do. Do not ascribe those to me.

Try to understand the point that is being made here and you'll then stop seeing things the wrong way, and wasting a lot of time chasing chimera.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AJ wrote:
Snowygrouch wrote:
AJ,

I`m currently enjoying watching you trying -with increasing desperation- to claim the footage is fake or blue screen.


Try to understand this. I am not trying to prove anything one way or another. I have been trying to clear up anomalies.

You keep imputing intentions. That is something that you do. Do not ascribe those to me.

Try to understand the point that is being made here and you'll then stop seeing things the wrong way, and wasting a lot of time chasing chimera.


Well forgive me for imputing a psychological intention, but it's my guess that you see this video as just an 'anomaly' which you're desperately trying to rationalise away. It's clearly rattled you on some level or we wouldn't have several thousand words of your verbiage in this thread now would we?

Well the good news is the video has a legitimate sounding explanation given its context; there are other corroborating reports from CNN and CBS that the collapse was widely anticipated. All you need to be willing to accept is that the BBC simply got its wires crossed and reported the collapse as mistakenly, something quite feasible on as busy a news day as 9/11 I'm sure you'll agree. So if that's a sufficiently robust explanation for you, you can simply go back to sleep.

However, be warned that this anomaly is only one of hundreds that have aroused the interest of people looking into 9/11. Now you can simply dismiss them as based on faulty logic, chimerae and a waste of your time or you can look into them yourself and ask yourself just how valid any assumptions YOU have about the events of 9/11 are.

_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

EmptyBee wrote:

Well forgive me for imputing a psychological intention, but it's my guess that you see this video as just an 'anomaly' which you're desperately trying to rationalise away. It's clearly rattled you on some level or we wouldn't have several thousand words of your verbiage in this thread now would we?"


Why should I forgive you? I asked you not to do this, gave you good reasons, and yet you still do it. Mad


Last edited by AJ on Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:45 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still here AJ???

I`m not chasing anything, this board is where I am. I`m just commenting on you.

There you go talking about chimeras again. Your so full of it I`d stay away from sharp edges, you may well burst.

I dont recall you actually making EVEN ONE point of logical note EVER here so watch who you sling verbs at.

I`m very bored with you now, bye bye. *yawns widely*

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snowygrouch wrote:
Still here AJ???
I dont recall you actually making EVEN ONE point of logical note EVER here so watch who you sling verbs at.


Sadly, you are just showing 1) how little attention you have paid and 2) how little you know about logic and natural language.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:CmVP4Kgxvs8J:www.hup.harvard.edu/ca talog/QUIPUR.html+%22pursuit+of+truth%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James C
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AJ wrote:
EmptyBee wrote:

Well forgive me for imputing a psychological intention, but it's my guess that you see this video as just an 'anomaly' which you're desperately trying to rationalise away. It's clearly rattled you on some level or we wouldn't have several thousand words of your verbiage in this thread now would we?"


Why should I forgive you? I asked you not to do this, gave you good reasons, and yet you still do it. Mad


AJ,

Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet? You have spent days making an issue out of virtually nothing and what's more, you think yourself important enough to tell others not to post replies to you which you may take to be offensive.

You have made some fair comments but please stop harping on about this. Not only has the BBC admitted an error was made thereby confirming the tapes are real, we now have archive.org supporting the times and authenticity and yet still you talk as if you are right. I have looked through the thumbnails and my copy of the BBC footage and can see no evidence of any trickery or greenscreen type effect.

What is your mission here?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tomi01uk
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:06 pm    Post subject: STFU AJ Reply with quote

AJ I'm trying to follow this thread and all 911 news relevent to the movement and frankly you are driving me nuts with your dribble.

Who the hell are you to lecture any of us on anything? Are you omnipotent or something? Bet you want us to think you are very clever and wise. You are producing the opposite effect, believe me. In fact the word "thick" comes to mind primarily, regarding your endless, wordy, arrogant beyond belief postings.

What we need to prove, all we need to prove, is that there needs to be a full investigation with TEETH. Or a court case launched somewhere or some way that they can't squirm out of it as they are doing so now.
Got that? That takes people and energy and momentum and noise.. That's what the BBC issue is helping to provide. That and just a little closer to finding out who knew that building would collapse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Being a prize twit who thinks that pasting links in with "harvard" in the text makes him awfully intelligent.

His mission should be fairly obvious to everyone by now.
Ignore the twit.

(wait for it.....any moment now; he`s going to post an MIT linguistics paper here)

_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist

President Eisenhower 1961
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James C wrote:
What is your mission here?


I've been wondering the same.

Can I ask AJ do you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

Do you believe a further investigation is required?

Do you understand why your posting style is irritating many users?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
The Watcher
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 200

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James C asked:
Quote:
AJ,

.... What is your mission here?


50+ posts since Feb 27; all p*ss poor attempts to dismiss the BBC (& CNN) prescience over the 'collapse of WTC7?

I would hazzard a guess that AJ (aka Sh*t For Brains) is on the payroll of someone with an interest in protecting Auntie.

Keep this T*sser penned in Critic's Corner, where he can mass debate the issue to his heart's content.

The Watcher
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AJ
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James C wrote:

AJ,

Why do you have such a bee in your bonnet? You have spent days making an issue out of virtually nothing and what's more, you think yourself important enough to tell others not to post replies to you which you may take to be offensive.

You have made some fair comments but please stop harping on about this. Not only has the BBC admitted an error was made thereby confirming the tapes are real, we now have archive.org supporting the times and authenticity and yet still you talk as if you are right. I have looked through the thumbnails and my copy of the BBC footage and can see no evidence of any trickery or greenscreen type effect.

What is your mission here?


I have a bee in my bonnet about pursuit of truth! Not offensive, just stupid and irrational.

1) All that's discussed here could be described as a fuss about nothing.

2) What matters is how evidence is analysed, not what the subject matter is.

3) You have not substantiated why you conclude what you have, just have just told us what your beliefs are. What you should explicate is the evidence which led to your "belief" not just assert that you believe or don't. What value in such nonsense - ever? Are you going to count how many folk say yea and how many nay? That is not how pursuit of truth works, it is not a matter of votes for best rhetoric!

4) Try to grasp the substantial point there, instead of just lamenting about what you can't understand. Find out what you don't understand!

5) Incidentally, nearly all the inferences you made above are logically unsound and empirically false - that's induction for you. Try deduction instead.

Look into that and you'll see why.

I don't have a mission here other than to try to encourage those who assert that they're on a Truth Campaign to understand what pursuit of truth requires, and more importantly, what it proscribes. As I've said before, don't shoot the messeger. Either get an education, or just face up to the fact that there's really little respect for truth here at all, just a passion for gossip. Keep it up, you're behaving like a bunch of nattering, slighted, "women".


Last edited by AJ on Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> WTC7 Salomon Brothers Building - the smoking gun of 9/11 All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group