Bigfoot73 said:
We were both quoting from the same website, only you were quoting from the Associate members list , not the Full members list.
Actually I was quoting from both (as well as their other lists).
Bigfoot73 said:
It shouldn't need to be said that it is the full members who wrote the content of the site. Obvious really.So why ignore that?
The fact that the site was written by the full members (including the theatre lecturer, presumably) is neither here nor there since all they've done is parrot Olmsted's work on this particular issue. They've added nothing new.
Bigfoot73 said:
Your several statements of why the associate members don't deserve your attention are irrelevant , as it was the full members who wrote what you chose to ignore . I don't see why you brought the associates into it.
Quite. I don't know why Scholars For 9/11 Truth brings them into it except maybe to boost their numbers. They offer nothing of value. For what it's worth neither do many of the full members on the basis of their qualifications.
Bigfoot73 said:
Then you go on to say Scholars For Truth are prepared to dupe those who don't check their bona fides - but their bona fides are just fine and it looks like you are trying to dupe people into thinking they aren't.
Some of them aren't even scholars. Claiming that you're a scholar or labelling others scholars in order to lend credibility to your argument is pretty devious to me. Even when they are scholars they're not neccessarily qualified to speak on the subject anymore than a non-scholar.
Bigfoot73 said:
If you don't pretend to know whether a qualified expert's opinion is accurate how do you know the pro-official explanation experts are accurate?
I don't - I weigh the other pieces of information and arguments which I can understand in order to see which is most probable and then decide which I consider most likely. What do you do - accept the opinion of a handful of experts and ignore the many more who argue against them? Unless, of course, you have a wealth of expertise which puts you on the same level of expertise as the scholars and the pilots. I'd wager that you don't.
Bigfoot73 said:
You claim so many more experts don't support the conspiracist view , just like you claim most people think the Pentagon film shows a plane.Perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence for either of those claims, especially as you seem to find numbers more important than anything else. I think you would be very lucky to find substantiation for either claim, particularly the Pentagon film.
The fact is that no comprehensive poll ever taken - either of laymen or expert - has produced a result which shows a majority believing in a pro-active government conspiracy. Yes, there is Scholars For 9/11 Truth but it's a small portion of the world's scholars (an even smaller portion of the world's experts ie those who're qualified in the relevant areas). Given the easy acces to the Pentagon crash footage one might expect expert and layperson alike to have had their mind changed. Where then are the polls reflecting this?
Bigfoot73 said:
No, I'm afraid I can't find anything about why the autopsy report is so inaccessible. I suspect it's because public availability would reveal data which would lead to people questioning the official explanation for the events of 9/11 - such as the absence of the names of the hijackers.Perhaps you could suggest another possible reason.
I could but it would only reflect what I 'suspect' ie an opinion based on an absence of knowledge.
Bigfoot73 said:
Likening Dr Olmsted to serial killers is not worthy of a response - in fact it wouldn't matter if an associate member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth had got their hands on the report provided they could read well enough to see that there WEREN'T ANY ARAB NAMES ON IT !
Evoking a doctor as some kind of authority provokes those kinds of repsonse. It's worth no more. Nonetheless you're ignoring the link you've already been given explaining the flaws in Olmsted's work - not to mention the implausibility of those spinning the tale neglecting to make up a few names.
Here is that link again. Do you still think Olmsted's work has anything valid to say?
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_arabs.html
Bigfoot73 said:
Has it not occurred to you that if there were, the government might just have come out and said so in protest at Crippen's, sorry, Olmsted's scandalous misrepresentation?Well, don't you ?
The government has many tasks to fulfil but rebutting claims which nobody takes seriously is not and should not be a priority. If you ask the average man and women if they believe the official version or not it's unlikely that too many will say no as a result of this apparent gaff. It's not a commonly discussed 'fact'.
Bigfoot73 said:
Come to think of it why hasn't the US government clarified the issues around the other plane's passenger lists, or indeed anything at all that the sceptics seem to think needs just a few i, s dotting and t,s crossing?
Any opinion on that? Bit of expansive thinking for once maybe?
Because the sceptics, as you call them, will simply return with another series of unsubstantiated and illogical claims. Memetics might best explain this phenomenon.
Bigfoot73 said:
There does indeed appear to be yet more confusion over the black box issue.I didn't say the voice recording stopped working 2 seconds before the supposed impact. I said that the government said the entire voice recording was unusable. The last data of any sort was from 2 seconds before the impact. I am not going to check how many times I have said anything about the black box data and I'm not saying it again - you're looking for inconsistencies in what I've said when there aren't any.
Nope. You quite clearly said that the cockpit voice recorder stopped working 2 seconds before the impact:
Bigfoot73 said:
As for the black box/missile issue. It was 3 days before the black box was 'recovered' from the Pentagon. Apparently the cockpit voice recorder data was unusable, the first time that has ever occurred in the history of black boxes. It stopped recording 2 seconds before the alleged impact, again something without precedent or explanation.
You seem to be confusing a disparity in the data from the flight recorder with the lack of function from the cockpit voice recorder - it's 2 separate issues.
Bigfoot73 said:
Priding yourself on your rationality is leading you into a formulaic and regimented mode of thought - no, actually you've always had that and it's no substitute for genuine intellectual bandwidth.
I wouldn't say I pride myself on my rationality but I do value it and I certainly don't feel ashamed of it. And nor should you.
Bigfoot73 said:
Why, pray tell , are you so sure a missile would have taken up more of the frame than this incomplete object in it? What exactly is an incomplete object when it's at home?
It's an object which can not be viewed in its entirety. Whatever object appears in the gate footage is incomplete - the entire object is not in the frame. Therefore it must be part of a larger object. The footage shows nothing much bigger than a thin spear. This is apparent when cross-referenced with the Doubletree footage.
Bigfoot73 said:
Can't be an airliner or you'd have said so.Why are you insisting that I claimed it was a missile when I said it could be a missile , drone or small plane?
I didn't insist you said it was an airliner. I said that on the basis of there being nothing visually comparable to a plane in the gate footage it would have to therefore be a missile. If this is not the case then you'd have to explain what kind of apparently tiny narrow plane - invisible to the camera - caused so much damage to the Pentagon when it crashed. That's expansive thinking - following a series of logical deductions to see where it
takes us, not just fantasising about things.
Bigfoot73 said:
You're so good at nitpicking every detail of what i said how come you got that one wrong.Why does what I said about the black box keep eluding your cognitive faculties? How did you miss the scholars' full members' list?
It didn't, it hasn't and I didn't but it's not really about me. Let's just stick to the subject in hand.
Bigfoot73 said:
So now you think it was an airliner? Really? You weren't convinced yesterday so perhaps it was me reminding you that as a sceptic you actually have to think it was that has convinced you? Perhaps you momentarily let your eyes get the better of your preconcieved ideas. Way to go Ted !!!
No, I was farily confident then that it was an airliner and I explained my reasons why. No change of mind required. It's fairly simple to follow, really.
Bigfoot73 said:
Why is it larger than any small executive jet?
Look at the Doubletree footage again. It's evidently a large object. And why would they use a small executive jet anyway? It makes no sense. They already had to bust up an American Airlines flight to get debris from it. You've done the classic CT trick - take a few nebulous witness reports at odds with the official story and other witness reports and placed your faith in them as infallable testimony.
Bigfoot73 said:
Whatever it is you are having a hell of a time convincing yourself it's a Boeing 757, aren't you?
No. I'm having a hell of a time convincing you that it is. There's none so blind as those etc etc. I believe it to be a big plane. It doesn't have to be a 757 - the fact that a plane hits the Pentagon (and a fairly large one at that) leads me to believe the official story to be correct. The alternative would be to say that AA77 never existed or has been disappeared, that the American government flew a plane into a building they didn't expect to be captured on film instead of hitting it with a missile or setting off a bomb and a whole load of people have turned a blind eye to it. All this with no coherent motive.
Actually the more I think of it the more I'm convinced. Thanks for helping me examine the unlikely alternatives.
Bigfoot73 said:
The only reason you have to think it is one is that the US government said so when they released the security gate film, regardless of the fact that it isn't.
No. The Doubletree footage convinces me although the reasonable explanation of the limitations of the CCTV footage are not uncompelling in themself. That and all the other evidence and arguments eg debris, lack of motive, lack of an explanation as to what happened to the flight and its passengers and so on.
Bigfoot73 said:
You say I haven't provideda coherent explanation of what it might be when I have , and i will spare you the capitals : missile or drone or small exexuctive jet. got that? I do believe I said as much before. Coherent enough I think , just like it was the first time
Coherence doesn't include three completely distinct and problematic explanations. The only thing that's coherent is your disbelief. The reasons behind that are not coherent, sadly.
Bigfoot73 said:
Ah yes, Ms Keller. Five years after the event she suddenly comes out and says she was lying all along.What's more some nameless FBI agent is prepared to back her up .Says he's checked her phone records, she and Atta never spoke on the phone and so she must be telling the truth this time round.
Well, she has to be lying at least once. She's produced no evidence that she was telling the truth the first time around so why disbelieve her now?
Bigfoot73 said:
Which raises a few questions. Why did the Feds not check the records of phone calls between her and a terrorist responsible for the deaths of thousands before, like the day they went looking for her ?
How do you know they didn't and just dismissed her as a result? They've got better things to do than worry about what a small army of believers in daft theories believe.
Bigfoot73 said:
Why did she leave it so long if it was never true ?
Conversely why would the authorities take so long to force her to change her story, especially when she claimed she had pressure put on years before? It's idle speculation on the mind of a potentially unstable person. Pointless.
Bigfoot73 said:
Why did she claim otherwise in the first place? Why dishonestly link herself with a mass murderer?
Attention? Selling her story? Who knows? I guess you figure Shannon Matthews is still out there somewhere in a basement desperately hoping to be reunited with her mother. No? Then why the difficulty in understanding a stripper's desire to make an exhibition of themself or get paid for something a little rum?
Bigfoot73 said:
If the FBI knew, why not clear the poor woman's name in the first place?
It's not their job to guard the reputations of people inflicting ignominy on themselves. It's not a criminal matter, for a kick off.
Bigfoot73 said:
Apparently Atta and Keller's neighbours Tony and Vonnie LaConca told the G-men that Atta stood bail for Keller,saying they could find his surname on the South County jail paperwork. I can't think of any reason at all why it shouldn't be there, or any reason why they wouldn't look.
Are your neighbours in the habit of showing you bail release forms?
Bigfoot73 said:
No. Please continue...
Bigfoot73 said:
apparently her 'real' boyfriend was one Mohamed Arajaki,
Although that's the name on the bail release form, oddly enough. Do go on...
Bigfoot73 said:
who was 6 inches taller than Atta. A noticeable difference would you not think? Funny how nobody noticed it at the
time!
This statement makes no sense on any level. There's basically no way to respond to it.
Anyway here's a few more details you might find interesting:
Please click here - really, it will help
Bigfoot73 said:
I wonder if I may crave a favour: it would be just triple organically grown peaches with double helping of cream from Jersey cows and extra 90% cocoa solids fairtrade chocolate vermicelli of you if you would indulge this pitiable old wingnut by having a gander at those piccies of the 737 engine.Of course I realise I probably haven't answered any of your points at all, but that could only mean I haven't got any answers and if so then pronouncing on them would make for a delightful coup de grace for you .
Wouldn't it?
One of the things I've noticed after another bout of 9/11 'research' (hell, truthers and their like honestly think that's what they're doing so I might as well commandeer the word for my own ends) is how frequently the claims made to support the conspiracy theory turn out to be absolute bunk - ill-researched, dishonest and distorted nonsense which discredits the beliefs of those unfortunate enough to find themselves repeating them. Conversely they simply reinforce belief in the other direction.
There's a whole lotta memeplex goin' on.