Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Splott 'cover all angles' David at his very finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Splott 'cover all angles' David at his very finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Did anyone who can apply the "logic" Gluey was speaking about the other day really believe all the witness on the motorway besides the Pentagon were all lying about it being a plane?Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
A Plane? The question is was it one that was piloted, or hacked into and remote controlled.Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
That might be your question now, it certainly wasn't always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
It certainly wasn't on 9/10.Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
There are too many angles that have been created Lardy, which is why the controversy rages on some fifteen years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911...ttacks/5303012
I was referring to you saying, on the one hand, that we are swallowing the official report and then that no one here has have ever stood by it, as you would know if you could debate properly and read/understand what others are saying to you. How can it be both?Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
I'm not aware of making any such assertion. I've never seen anyone attempt to defend the official report, debate it in detail, or provide any evidence to substantiate its findings. I don't class attempts to discredit any other alternative explanation for 9/11 as an effort to justify or defend the official report. The two are entirely unconnected.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
If you're not aware, try reading the posts I quoted. :thumbup:
"Swallowing" refers to a lack of intellectual curiosity, intellectual laziness in other words, an unwillingness to critically analyze detail and arguments that were put forward in the report.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
No one at any time on here has ever defended the official 9/11 report.
Now I do agree with you there, Mr Splott. There are too many people on this board who think that posting up a link to a blog is sufficient for debate. Allow me to give you an example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
A few weeks ago, someone was saying that the Russians were banned from the Olympics without anyone from Russia being spoken to. I thought this was odd and, being intellectually curious, I naturally read the article he linked. It turned out, believe it or not, that he was entirely mistaken.
Was this deliberate subterfuge or did he simply misunderstand basic English? Impossible to say, of course.
He often claims others are idiots.
And most of his posts are links to opinions and articles not his own.
I think you will find that essentially the article was correct and specifically it depends on the definition of who or what organisation was not spoken to and whether it was custom and practice to consult with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
https://www.rt.com/sport/351957-wada...ussia-mclaren/
I could tell you Splottys opinion on something before he does, that to me suggests he's nowhere near as open minded as he likes to claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by شهرستان کاردیف
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
We all think we have our own minds. It is that theory that everything is predetermined isn't it.
Our DNA and upbringing, things we have no control over, they decide who we are what we do. I could decide to stub my toe thinking I decide whether I do it or not. But how I am wired makes the final decision.
He seems to think he some how different. When he is just another mush of atoms rehashing old cynical arguments.
The article may have been 'essentially' correct but your conclusions from it were anything but. :hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
The one thing you won't get is splottos opinion,because he's terrified of being wrong,what you will get is a link to someone else's opinion.
You don't support the official version of 9/11 and find fault with alternative explanations.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
The article, neat swerve by the way, is correct. The report writer, Mclaren, admits to not talking to Russia's official sporting organisation. So I've no idea what you are referring to.
What are you suggesting? If you don't support the official version you have to believe absolutely everything that opposes it? That's one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Official sporting organisation, hmm that's not what you said originally, now, is it? Neat swerve.
"Official sporting organisation, hmm that's not what you said originally, now, is it? Neat swerve."Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
This was widely reported at the time. It went to the heart of the controversy.
9/11 Lardy you have danced around for years on this. Either you back the official version, despite all the evidence that exposes the flaws in it, or you don't. It's not difficult even for you.
But that's not what you said originally, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
I've told you what I think of the official version many times. Unfortunately, you don't actually read what people are saying to you.
Lardy, I have the benefit of reading through the prior threads on the subject from 2011, 2012 etc. You have never backed the official report with your reasons why you think it's correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Trublue had to resort to conflating anyone who questioned 9/11 with also being a 'Holocaust' denier, while goslow just recycles flaming tactics and trolling that he was so famous for from 2009 onwards.
Over a long period of time all three of you have persistently engaged while never putting forward any form of opinion as to why you reject alternative views on the subject. All three of you have been incapable of putting forward any form of argument in favour of the official 9/11 Commission Report.
When have I ever said the official report is correct, Captain PDF?
I've also put forward plenty of my own opinions (never once copied from another blogger like you) when I disagree with alternative explanations. I've even done so in this thread.
That's not true. I think Holocaust deniers and and 9/11 "truthers" are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
You are both but that doesn't mean everyone is. Don't worry, I don't take offence, I'm used to you talking nonsense. :thumbup:
When have you ever stuck your head above the parapet and opined on anything Lardy?Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Your posting history on this subject has been one long drudge of negativity, nit-picking, irrelevant departures down side alleys always missing the bigger picture.
My earlier link shows quite clearly that it's impossible for anyone to defend the official report as you know only too well. Why? Because we have far too much countervailing information about what when on during the course of the report.
So we're left with having to seriously consider alternative scenarios and alternative explanations, for what took place, why it took place and who was ultimately responsible for it.
5th September 2011. 9/11 ThreadQuote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
Trueblu: "He may be poorly researched but his comment about the conspiracy theorists are often the
people who deny the holocaust is certainly a correct one. In fact we have one poster on here
who does both these."
:thumbup:
:hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Not every conspiracy theorist hates Jews like yourself, hence there can be a difference. :thumbup:
It's Zionism sweet cheeks, Zionism, and there are more Christian Zionists than there are Jewish ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
It's a political ideology that I oppose, not people from an ethnicity. You would know that if you asked my Jewish followers on Twitter who also oppose it.
:hehe:
My opinion is that there is all kinds of dodginess about 9/11 but it's masked by a lot of silly alternative theories which are just not plausible if you give them more than 5 minutes thought. These are the ones I 'nit-pick' over and I gave you an example of one earlier in the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck.........Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Lardy, if the glove does not fit, you must acquit.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
If you can't back the official report with 100% certainty then you must disregard it and look elsewhere.
Here are three sums:Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
2+2=4
3+4=8
4+5=10
If you can't back these sums with 100%certainty do you say they're all wrong?
The short answer is, yes. Why? Because the conclusions of the sum i.e. the cumulative result is totally wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Interesting response. So do you accept that planes hit the twin towers? Simple question, only a simple answer required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Everyone accepts that planes hit the twin towers. No one accepts that anything hit building 7. There is no evidence that the planes were piloted into the twin towers, in fact there is masses of expert opinion stating that trying to fly three jets at high speed precisely into buildings would be impossible for people without thousands of hours of flying experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Thus logically the theory relating to remote controlled flights is increasingly looking the most likely, as far as that part of 9/11 is concerned.
Your analogy with the sums illustrates the problem perfectly.
If the analogy fits then why would you say 2+2=4 is wrong? You should still think the correct things are correct.
I didn't. You did. You provided multiple examples of which, as I explained, the cumulative sum of which was inaccurate or if you prefer, wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
It's the same with the report, the cumulative amount of information doesn't match with the conclusions. The conclusions had to fit in with a desired political outcome and therein lies the flaw in the whole process.
Your analogy demonstrated that perfectly. Getting one detail right doesn't mean that the accumulation of details would necessarily be right. The pre-determined part of your analogy meant that your desired outcome was achieved.
Five pages of this and yet some still maintain that 10 blokes armed with stanley knives perpetrated 9-11?
It tells me they prefer to believe in fairytales than accept reality.
Have a look at just what has to be ignored and disregarded in order to stick to the official version of what happened and why it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.
https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpre...-911-evidence/
"The towers were brought down through controlled demolition"Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
http://www.globalresearch.ca/mysteri...l-hill/5544262