Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 9-11 Dancing Middle Easterners and their vans

Options
1567810

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    proof please ... show me where the Mythbusters show that they are against conspiracy theories.

    you might not have grasped it, hence why i pointed you out to it in the first place, but Mythbusters test myths, they are not for/against a myth. they evaluate it and then present their findings ...

    this shows how much your 'thinking' is worth by saying that i would not trust their experimental data ...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUPXhZIuJo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8jqea8R-bE

    davoxx wrote: »
    I agree, I also suggest you should actually address what you wrote too ...
    So back to immaturity.
    Well when you feel like actually discussing some, my points will be there waiting for you.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »
    you did not understand my question: Is it or isn't it possible that due to error and a a difference in interpretation of the report, that an image depicting an attack was seen while you think it was not?

    your reply does not make sense.
    I answered that it is possible then provided reasons why I think that it is not the most likely explanation.
    huh? so you agree that you can be mistaken in your interpretation of the facts, great!!
    then why must you set conditions? and why are those conditions not relevant to the question?

    do you understand relevancy? do you understand that regardless of whether there is a conspiracy or not, your interpretation should be the same, unless you are biased.
    King Mob wrote: »
    You've agreed that that my it's possible explanation and you cannot provide anything to exclude it as the explanation.
    i don't need to exclude it, you say it is possible, i said ok, you said it was likely, i asked for the confidence interval, you changed the subject.

    since you don't get it, i'll explain it with coins.

    what is the chances of getting 2 heads in two tosses?
    is it possible to get 100 heads in 100 turns?
    how LIKELY is that?
    how confident are you of that?

    granted, it's not the best example, but i'm off to <censored> so i'm not bothered by your relentless refusal to admit that your point was wrong.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Or provided anything to show that this parody of my argument is more likely or possible.
    it is the same broken logic on a different question to highlight the incorrectness of your point.
    King Mob wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »
    why would there need to be a conspiracy for you to misunderstand something?
    why would the people who owned the van being somehow prophetic have any reflection on whether you misunderstood the report?
    So then what other explanations do you have?
    err that they wrote down what they saw. Q.E.D.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because these are only guesses I can make as to alternative explanations.
    yes they are .. they are weak excuses, but at least you admit that they are guesses ... not logical deductions, just guesses to deny admitting to what was stated.
    i have no idea why you need to 'explain' it away, and even more strange is that you are now classifying yourself as one of those crazy cters that you think we are.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because these are only guesses I can make as to alternative explanations.
    you are the cter now, how about that ....
    King Mob wrote: »
    But if you have one that actually makes sense please put it forward, I've been asking for them for sometime.
    okay, one day i say a dog take a pee on a man's leg, i told my friend he drove a truck into the dog and set it on fire ... i said 'wtf' and he replied "dogs don't do that normally, it was an alien absorbing the man while playing a guitar, or a cowboy, these are the only guesses i can make as to alternative explanations of why the dog would do that, so i killed the dog". i slapped my friend and said 'there was no guitar', he said "well how else do you explain the dog peeing on the man?" ...

    the moral of this story is, stop looking for excuses, cters like you give people like mythbusters a bad name ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    The reason they are relevant is that to show that your strawman of my explanation you must provide an alternative explanation.
    it's not a strawman, look up strawman arguments, then come back.
    King Mob wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »
    anyway ....

    it is.
    Great, so why do you not think it is the explanation, without referring to silly strawmen of the points I'm making?
    i never said it was the explanation, i said it was possible.
    King Mob wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »
    but this explanation requires a belief in a vast conspiracy that makes no sense and for which there is no evidence for why would police lie?
    I am not saying nor have not said that the police lied.
    Another strawman.
    seriously go look up strawman and then come back, you seem to be using 'strawman' as your excuse now ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »
    or alternatively that the police who saw the van were somehow retarded and can not tell the difference between planes over a building and planes into a building, again which is not supported by any evidence or sense.

    and both of these explanations are unfounded, and unsupported nonsense.
    But we have an example of the police misidentifying something innocuous as a threat.
    huh? we have more examples of police correctly identifying a threat ... do you understand that?
    this is why i asked you what the likelihood was ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    My explanation does not require the police to be "retarded". And you've already agreed that it is possible for them to misidentify something.
    no, your explanation requires them to be so stupid that they see one thing but write down something different in the report .. either a lie or stupidity ... now i see what you are saying .. what did they lie? what is the conspiracy? ... for the record, i'm not on your side king mob, whatever that is, but the truth is out there and i hope you find out why those cops lied and put that mural description of an attack in the report ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    Your current tactic of trying to turn around everything I'm saying is silly and it's not going to work.
    well it normally does work, but it requires the person to understand their own point ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    I suggest actually addressing what I write.
    i suggest you learn basic statistics, some physics would help and maybe if you have time basic chemistry ... oh and logic ...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUPXhZIuJo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8jqea8R-bE

    So back to immaturity.
    Well when you feel like actually discussing some, my points will be there waiting for you.
    don't you see the irony of calling someone immature and then behaving like a child?

    i guess you wouldn't ...

    anyway, yes your broken points will still be there, torn to pieces just like the way i left them waiting for you to come back reuse them only to be destroyed again ...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    in the interest of fairness ...
    is it just me or does king mob actually have a point over "people make mistakes" hence "the mural description is a mistake" ...

    i'm beginning to doubt myself ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You posts are becoming incoherent. This is because you are either not reading what I have written or cannot understand what I have written or are simply unable to engage in an adult debate. Possibly all three.

    I have no interest in multi-quoting your ramblings.

    However the one point I could make out was very wrong.
    davoxx wrote: »
    no, your explanation requires them to be so stupid that they see one thing but write down something different in the report .. either a lie or stupidity ... now i see what you are saying .. what did they lie? what is the conspiracy? ... for the record, i'm not on your side king mob, whatever that is, but the truth is out there and i hope you find out why those cops lied and put that mural description of an attack in the report ...
    This is wrong on a few levels. First the cops did not write the report. No one has posted any links to the reports made by the police.
    Secondly my point does not require the police to lie at any point. No where did I claim they did and no one with any grasp of what I read could think I implied it.
    I've posted an example of how the police can misidentify something innocuous.
    How do you think they misidentified the items in Boston? Were they all stupid or lying then?

    And again, can you suggest a plausible alternative to explain why the vans were there at all? Can you explain how they are part of the conspiracy?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again this isn't a case of me misremembering anything. I'm am telling you directly I do not disagree with the report or believe that it is wrong.
    I am not trying to debunk it, or any of the points it made.

    In fact the only thing I'm saying is wrong is your interpretation of it, as is your conclusion that they are referring to a second van based purely on your opinion of the word "close".


    I believe the report

    You don't believe the statement made in the report about the mural ... so again where is the proof/evidence that the report is wrong

    And i Answered tour questions on threat i believe


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I believe the report

    You don't believe the statement made in the report about the mural ... so again where is the proof/evidence that the report is wrong

    And i Answered tour questions on threat i believe

    And so how does an "innocent delivery truck" wind up with a mural of the attacks exactly?

    I'm asking this question to determine whether or not there is any rational explanation for this in your narrative. If you can't provide one, say as much as that is an import point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And so how does an "innocent delivery truck" wind up with a mural of the attacks exactly?

    I'm asking this question to determine whether or not there is any rational explanation for this in your narrative. If you can't provide one, say as much as that is an import point.

    That's the million dollar question ... It's in the report so I must assume and do believe its correct.

    Again ..... where is your proof the report is wrong ... Provide that and we can discuss it


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    You posts are becoming incoherent.
    incorrect, you just can't understand the same broken logic applied to another scenario ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    This is because you are either not reading what I have written
    i have read what you wrote, remember your whole point is "people make mistakes"
    King Mob wrote: »
    or cannot understand what I have written
    i don't understand what you have written, it does not make sense.
    King Mob wrote: »
    or are simply unable to engage in an adult debate.
    ahh, childish insults. i am willing to have an adult debate, i guess the problem is i need to have it with an adult?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Possibly all three.
    or just that you have no point and that made a mistake. we all agreed that this was possible, you admitted it yourself ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    I have no interest in multi-quoting your ramblings.
    having no interest is different to not being able to ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    However the one point I could make out was very wrong.
    so now you have found only one point that was wrong, at least the others are right, even if you won't admit to that ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »
    no, your explanation requires them to be so stupid that they see one thing but write down something different in the report .. either a lie or stupidity ... now i see what you are saying .. what did they lie? what is the conspiracy? ... for the record, i'm not on your side king mob, whatever that is, but the truth is out there and i hope you find out why those cops lied and put that mural description of an attack in the report ...

    This is wrong on a few levels. First the cops did not write the report. No one has posted any links to the reports made by the police.
    Secondly my point does not require the police to lie at any point. No where did I claim they did and no one with any grasp of what I read could think I implied it.
    I've posted an example of how the police can misidentify something innocuous.
    How do you think they misidentified the items in Boston? Were they all stupid or lying then?
    so the one flaw in what i said was that the cops did not write the report?
    well i can clear that right up, the cops did write a report for the arrest, this report was used to compile the final report i believe.
    regarding the police reports of the onsite officers, you'll have to look for that yourself rather than being spoon fed ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    And again, can you suggest a plausible alternative to explain why the vans were there at all? Can you explain how they are part of the conspiracy?
    a plausible one or a king mob plausible one with space lasers mounted on unicorns? seriously i've suggested a very plausible reason, and you've dismissed it, while all you have as a reason is "people make mistakes, hence there was no mural" ...

    and then you create a conspiracy as to why the mural must have been incorrectly described, but then suggest that it was a mistake.

    if you really want to have an adult argument, as weisses said "You don't believe the statement made in the report about the mural ... so again where is the proof/evidence that the report is wrong"?

    after all the reason i got involved was i was in disbelief over your point ...

    what are you so scared of?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »

    what are you so scared of?
    Wasting my time trying to debate with some one who is unable to have an honest discussion and is unwilling to.
    Your points are becoming nonsensical and rambling, it's no longer worth my time trying to decode them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    That's the million dollar question ... It's in the report so I must assume and do believe its correct.
    So then how does an innocent delivery truck end up having a mural painted on it?
    Can you provide an explanation for this, yes or no?
    weisses wrote: »
    Again ..... where is your proof the report is wrong ... Provide that and we can discuss it
    Again, I don't believe the report is wrong, I just believe your interpretation is wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then how does an innocent delivery truck end up having a mural painted on it?
    Can you provide an explanation for this, yes or no?

    No.... does it rule out the mural if i can't explain it.. Its also not for me to explain it it is for you to explain/proof that its not accurately quoted in the report

    First i like you to show me that the report is wrong with their claim about the Mural

    There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.
    .....
    So again where do you have the proof evidence that the report is wrong in quoting the Mural the way it does

    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, I don't believe the report is wrong,

    So the quote from the report posted above is accurate ??

    If not what is wrong and what evidence do you have to support that ??
    King Mob wrote: »
    I just believe your interpretation is wrong.

    My interpretation is that i think the report is right ... what is wrong with my interpretation ??


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No.... does it rule out the mural if i can't explain it.. Its also not for me to explain it it is for you to explain/proof that its not accurately quoted in the report

    First i like you to show me that the report is wrong with their claim about the Mural

    There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.
    .....
    So again where do you have the proof evidence that the report is wrong in quoting the Mural the way it does


    So the quote from the report posted above is accurate ??

    If not what is wrong and what evidence do you have to support that ??


    My interpretation is that i think the report is right ... what is wrong with my interpretation ??

    So how come you cannot provide an explanation as to why an innocent truck would have mural on it exactly?

    Doesn't the fact that you can't and the concept seem contradictory?

    Again, you need answer these even if you can't offer an explanation as they are important to the point I'm making.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So how come you cannot provide an explanation as to why an innocent truck would have mural on it exactly?

    I don't need that explanation .. It was innocent at the time .. after the search and maybe they where on their way collecting their bomb .. all speculation
    King Mob wrote: »
    Doesn't the fact that you can't and the concept seem contradictory?

    No not at all I have little to do with the making of that report

    And again does the fact that i cannot answer it makes it contradictory ??

    As said above the fact they were innocent at the time doesn't mean they weren't on some holy mission ... maybe NY got a lucky break when they pulled over that Van .... again all speculation

    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, you need answer these even if you can't offer an explanation as they are important to the point I'm making.

    I'm done answering now i Think ... I leave the stage for you now KM to answer my questions

    After that I'm more then happy to continue this discussion on the points you want to make


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I don't need that explanation .. It was innocent at the time .. after the search and maybe they where on their way collecting their bomb .. all speculation

    No not at all I have little to do with the making of that report

    And again does the fact that i cannot answer it makes it contradictory ??

    As said above the fact they were innocent at the time doesn't mean they weren't on some holy mission ... maybe NY got a lucky break when they pulled over that Van .... again all speculation

    I'm done answering now i Think ... I leave the stage for you now KM to answer my questions

    After that I'm more then happy to continue this discussion on the points you want to make
    So seeing as you can't make sense of the report with your interpretation, ie cannot explain how the van could be innocent and have a mural (at least without inventing entirely new van and vast, nonsensical conspiracies), any honest person would start looking for a more reasonable explanation.

    Like for instance when the report says that the van was "innocent" it meant the painting on the side was likewise "innocent".
    Or at least this is how I read it.
    I don't believe the report is wrong. I just think you are taking a meaning from it that isn't there.

    So I assume that you likewise have all the stuff you're asking me for.
    You have evidence that the report was wrong in this case, right?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    double post


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So seeing as you can't make sense of the report with your interpretation, ie cannot explain how the van could be innocent and have a mural (at least without inventing entirely new van and vast, nonsensical conspiracies), any honest person would start looking for a more reasonable explanation.

    No i believe what is described in the report
    King Mob wrote: »
    Like for instance when the report says that the van was "innocent" it meant the painting on the side was likewise "innocent".
    Or at least this is how I read it.

    So now the painting described in the report is actually there ?? you are here on thread claiming it could be all a mistake or misinterpretation ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    To clarify, I believe the report. And I also agree with Diogenes when he suggests that the "mural" was something innocuous that was misinterpreted in the panic of the day.

    Make up your mind now will you

    So now King Mob has changed his view on the report and fully backs the claim that A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post .. Am i right ??

    King Mob wrote: »
    I don't believe the report is wrong. I just think you are taking a meaning from it that isn't there.

    I like you to backup your claim

    Because as quoted above YOU are the one taking a meaning from it that is not there !!

    Im the one here constantly saying that the report is accurate ... You are here Claiming that parts of it are wrong or could be interpreted differently

    King Mob wrote: »
    So I assume that you likewise have all the stuff you're asking me for.
    You have evidence that the report was wrong in this case, right?

    First Answer my questions please you still didn't do that


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No i believe what is described in the report
    But to make the report fit with the narrative you prefer you have to invent conspiracies and vans not in the report.

    weisses wrote: »
    So now the painting described in the report is actually there ?? you are here on thread claiming it could be all a mistake or misinterpretation ...
    Yes, I am, and have always been saying that there was something on the van (such as a logo or a advertisement) that was misinterpreted as depicting something it does not.
    Make up your mind now will you
    weisses wrote: »
    So now King Mob has changed his view on the report and fully backs the claim that A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post .. Am i right ??
    No, that's not what I said, implied or believe.
    A panel truck with what was believed to be a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post.
    weisses wrote: »
    I like you to backup your claim

    Im the one here constantly saying that the report is accurate ... You are here Claiming that parts of it are wrong or could be interpreted differently
    Well I do believe the report and that you are interpreting it wrong.
    I do not believe that the report is wrong.

    weisses wrote: »
    First Answer my questions please you still didn't do that
    I can't answer the questions because you are asking me to back up an argument I am not making.

    I have presented what my argument actually is: that when they said the van was innocent it meant the painting was likewise innocent.
    Now explain what's impossible about this explanation?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But to make the report fit with the narrative you prefer you have to invent conspiracies and vans not in the report.

    Im preferring nothing ... your assuming again

    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, I am, and have always been saying that there was something on the van (such as a logo or a advertisement) that was misinterpreted as depicting something it does not.
    Make up your mind now will you

    But again that is not what the report claims .. So that part of the report is wrong in your mind and yet you keep insisting that the report is accurate

    King Mob wrote: »
    No, that's not what I said, implied or believe.
    A panel truck with what was believed to be a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post.

    Again that is not what is in the report .. So do you have any evidence the report is wrong ? Other then maybe's ...could be's ...and might haves ?

    You are here disputing what is said but have absolutely nothing zero zip to back that up

    King Mob wrote: »
    Well I do believe the report and that you are interpreting it wrong.

    I interpreted the report as quoted below

    quote//
    There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.//end quote

    Is my interpretation of the direct quote from the report wrong? Please answer that so we can leave that one behind us
    King Mob wrote: »
    I do not believe that the report is wrong.

    That's the report below again ... So you think the report is right ?

    There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.


    King Mob wrote: »
    I have presented what my argument actually is: that when they said the van was innocent it meant the painting was likewise innocent.
    Now explain what's impossible about this explanation?

    Your argument ....unverifiable ... if not please show me

    Its not impossible, only that the official version is different and you have nothing ...absolutely nothing to back up your explanation and that's why it is nothing more then your vision on the report


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Wasting my time trying to debate with some one who is unable to have an honest discussion and is unwilling to.
    Your points are becoming nonsensical and rambling, it's no longer worth my time trying to decode them.
    that sounds like a personal attack to me. you can't attack my points, so you claim that i'm dishonest in dealing with your incorrect and at this stage stupid claims.

    you are not making any sense. i destroy one stupid point after another, you refuse to answer my points, and then you have the audacity to call me dishonest?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So then how does an innocent delivery truck end up having a mural painted on it?
    who said the truck was innocent?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you provide an explanation for this, yes or no?.
    wtf? are you asking for a reason how the van ended up with it was painted on?
    somebody painted it.

    can you provide a logical reason with sound underlying principles of physics or statistics as to why you think that the mural was different other than "i can't believe it so it must be wrong!!"

    you know post by post you seem more like a crazy cter, believing that there is a conspiracy to incorrectly label that mural as something it was not, despite the fact that the government says it was :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Im preferring nothing ... your assuming again

    But again that is not what the report claims .. So that part of the report is wrong in your mind and yet you keep insisting that the report is accurate

    Again that is not what is in the report .. So do you have any evidence the report is wrong ? Other then maybe's ...could be's ...and might haves ?

    You are here disputing what is said but have absolutely nothing zero zip to back that up

    I interpreted the report as quoted below

    quote//
    There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.//end quote

    Is my interpretation of the direct quote from the report wrong? Please answer that so we can leave that one behind us
    So where in the report does it mention anything about a second van? Or the same van coming back but with explosives?
    Where is your evidence supporting these explanations? How does any of it make sense with these explanations. Other then maybe's ...could be's ...and might haves ?

    weisses wrote: »
    That's the report below again ... So you think the report is right ?
    Yes, your interpretation is wrong.

    weisses wrote: »
    Your argument ....unverifiable ... if not please show me

    Its not impossible, only that the official version is different and you have nothing ...absolutely nothing to back up your explanation and that's why it is nothing more then your vision on the report
    Yes, it is unverifiable.
    But the same can be said for your explanations for what the report says and how it fits into your preferred narrative.

    Except what distinguishes mine is that it makes far fewer assumptions (ie. that police can misidentify something, and that you can read into stuff that isn't there) where as you explanations so far have relied on vast conspiracies or cock ups which you have been arguing can't happen.
    Furthermore my argument actually explains how a truck with a "mural" can also be innocent where yours cannot, by your own admission.
    And lastly you said that it's possible.

    So why exactly should we believe a version that has no supporting evidence, makes next to no sense, fails to explain anything and requires you to assume vast conspiracies when there's a much simpler possible explanation?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    who said the truck was innocent?
    Lol. Kind of all the proof I need you're not actually engaging in the discussion.:rolleyes:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol. Kind of all the proof I need you're not actually engaging in the discussion.:rolleyes:
    no seriously i must be reading the wrong report ... can you link it or point out which post it is in?

    and dmy, i am engaging, remember i rubbished your claim that "people make mistakes, look at boston, hence they must have made a mistake and imagined a mural, but for some reason they wrote it down wrong, like a conspiracy, it does not make sense to me, so i'll claim it was wrong" ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So where in the report does it mention anything about a second van? Or the same van coming back but with explosives?
    Where is your evidence supporting these explanations? How does any of it make sense with these explanations. Other then maybe's ...could be's ...and might haves ?

    Its not in the report ... did i mention it was in it ..

    I dont have any evidence ..said that before .... said i believed the video could be true

    You wanted a mature discussion but your making every effort to just do the opposite

    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, your interpretation is wrong.

    But how can it be wrong if you agree with the report and i for one support the report

    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, it is unverifiable.
    But the same can be said for your explanations for what the report says and how it fits into your preferred narrative.

    So for example same goes for the NIST report ??
    King Mob wrote: »
    Except what distinguishes mine is that it makes far fewer assumptions (ie. that police can misidentify something, and that you can read into stuff that isn't there) where as you explanations so far have relied on vast conspiracies or cock ups which you have been arguing can't happen.

    Ahum ..all you do is assuming yes .. but you failed to bring in any evidence or proof to support your claim ...That makes it a non valid one

    I only argued that the report was correct and you agreed with me ... or maybe not or only parts of it.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Furthermore my argument actually explains how a truck with a "mural" can also be innocent where yours cannot, by your own admission.

    what in YOURS do you mean... You explain a lot but proof nothing
    King Mob wrote: »
    And lastly you said that it's possible.

    Possible yes ... verified in report NO
    King Mob wrote: »
    So why exactly should we believe a version that has no supporting evidence, makes next to no sense, fails to explain anything and requires you to assume vast conspiracies when there's a much simpler possible explanation?

    You perfectly explained your own flawed reasoning there

    And again according to you, your version has the much simpler possible explanation ... Yet you cannot provide any evidence to support it .... Funny

    I believe the report and if you can't bring anything else in the debate to support your problems with the report you might as well pick up a mirror and start talking into it


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »

    You perfectly explained your own flawed reasoning there

    And again according to you, your version has the much simpler possible explanation ... Yet you cannot provide any evidence to support it .... Funny

    I believe the report and if you can't bring anything else in the debate to support your problems with the report you might as well pick up a mirror and start talking into it

    And what evidence have you to support your claims about the second van?
    And what about the evidence of the vast conspiracy you need to assume to support your version?

    Because if not then if you are applying the same standard to you own beliefs then you must agree that all of your rambling accusations about my explanation must apply to your half formed nonsensical versions.

    The difference again is that my explanations do not require jumps in logic or wild assumptions, and is as you admitted is possible.

    On the other hand your explanations require that you assume many things for which there is not a scrap of evidence for. None of your explanations actually explain anything, nor do they make any sense in the context of a conspiracy. And best of all your have to assume that the report you are so adamantly defending is flawed or lacking or part of a cover up (as in if we accept your ideas about a second van or the same van returning, why aren't they mentioned in the report? You must either assume they were part of the cover up or were too incompetent to find information.)

    So we have two separate explanations, one is illogical, nonsensical and fails to explain anything, another is, as you admitted, possible and since you can't find any flaws in it besides applying your double standard, we can see it's logical and consistent and explains pretty much everything in the scenario.
    So why should we accept your explanation over mine?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »

    You perfectly explained your own flawed reasoning there

    And again according to you, your version has the much simpler possible explanation ... Yet you cannot provide any evidence to support it .... Funny

    I believe the report and if you can't bring anything else in the debate to support your problems with the report you might as well pick up a mirror and start talking into it

    And what evidence have you to support your claims about the second van?
    And what about the evidence of the vast conspiracy you need to assume to support your version?

    Because if not then if you are applying the same standard to you own beliefs then you must agree that all of your rambling accusations about my explanation must apply to your half formed nonsensical versions.

    The difference again is that my explanations do not require jumps in logic or wild assumptions, and is as you admitted is possible.

    On the other hand your explanations require that you assume many things for which there is not a scrap of evidence for. None of your explanations actually explain anything, nor do they make any sense in the context of a conspiracy. And best of all your have to assume that the report you are so adamantly defending is flawed or lacking or part of a cover up (as in if we accept your ideas about a second van or the same van returning, why aren't they mentioned in the report? You must either assume they were part of the cover up or were too incompetent to find information.)

    So we have two separate explanations, one is illogical, nonsensical and fails to explain anything, another is, as you admitted, possible and since you can't find any flaws in it besides applying your double standard, we can see it's logical and consistent and explains pretty much everything in the scenario.
    So why should we accept your explanation over mine?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So seeing as you can't make sense of the report with your interpretation, ie cannot explain how the van could be innocent and have a mural (at least without inventing entirely new van and vast, nonsensical conspiracies), any honest person would start looking for a more reasonable explanation.

    Like for instance when the report says that the van was "innocent" it meant the painting on the side was likewise "innocent".
    Or at least this is how I read it.
    I don't believe the report is wrong. I just think you are taking a meaning from it that isn't there.

    So I assume that you likewise have all the stuff you're asking me for.
    You have evidence that the report was wrong in this case, right?


    No again .... sorry that i cannot make it any more simple for you

    The Burden of PROOF lies with you in claims about the mural .... i haven't seen any so far other then incoherent mumbling

    I believe the report you have problems with part of it ... so proof your point and proof me wrong ... simple

    King Mob wrote: »
    And what evidence have you to support your claims about the second van?
    And what about the evidence of the vast conspiracy you need to assume to support your version?


    Already anwsered that ...read before posting
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because if not then if you are applying the same standard to you own beliefs then you must agree that all of your rambling accusations about my explanation must apply to your half formed nonsensical versions.

    The difference again is that my explanations do not require jumps in logic or wild assumptions, and is as you admitted is possible.

    On the other hand your explanations require that you assume many things for which there is not a scrap of evidence for. None of your explanations actually explain anything, nor do they make any sense in the context of a conspiracy. And best of all your have to assume that the report you are so adamantly defending is flawed or lacking or part of a cover up (as in if we accept your ideas about a second van or the same van returning, why aren't they mentioned in the report? You must either assume they were part of the cover up or were too incompetent to find information.)

    First try to proof your point with the Mural ... then we discuss second Vans and possible other scenarios
    King Mob wrote: »
    So we have two separate explanations, one is illogical, nonsensical and fails to explain anything, another is, as you admitted, possible and since you can't find any flaws in it besides applying your double standard, we can see it's logical and consistent and explains pretty much everything in the scenario.
    So why should we accept your explanation over mine?


    Be very careful as to use the possible claim because already you are using it out of context ... it suits you to make your claim but is not valid

    You as a fact/proof evidence man should stop assuming other people's posts and address the points raised ... I know your view on it by now , now is the time to start believing en proof your version


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No again .... sorry that i cannot make it any more simple for you

    The Burden of PROOF lies with you in claims about the mural .... i haven't seen any so far other then incoherent mumbling

    I believe the report you have problems with part of it ... so proof your point and proof me wrong ... simple

    Already anwsered that ...read before posting

    First try to proof your point with the Mural ... then we discuss second Vans and possible other scenarios

    Be very careful as to use the possible claim because already you are using it out of context ... it suits you to make your claim but is not valid

    You as a fact/proof evidence man should stop assuming other people's posts and address the points raised ... I know your view on it by now , now is the time to start believing en proof your version
    So what is it you want me to prove exactly.
    That the mural wasn't a mural? I can't prove that any more than you can prove that it was a mural.
    That the authors meant that the mural was found to be innocuous when they said that the van was innocent? I can't prove that any more than you can prove the converse.
    That the police definitely misidentified what they saw? I can't prove it any more that you can prove that they did not misidentify it.

    This is kind of the point I've been trying to get you to address. But it's clear that you don't actually understand how evidence and proof work in a discussion.

    So what we are both doing is providing the possible explanations that explain all of the facts in a consistent manner and without making ridiculous assumptions.
    I have done so, you have not.
    My possible explanation is more likely than yours and barring you providing any additional evidence (which you admitted you cannot) then my explanation is the most likely.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So what is it you want me to prove exactly.
    That the mural wasn't a mural? I can't prove that any more than you can prove that it was a mural.
    That the authors meant that the mural was found to be innocuous when they said that the van was innocent? I can't prove that any more than you can prove the converse.
    That the police definitely misidentified what they saw? I can't prove it any more that you can prove that they did not misidentify it.

    This is kind of the point I've been trying to get you to address. But it's clear that you don't actually understand how evidence and proof work in a discussion..

    There is the official report claiming it to be, they surely knew what they were doing, so again ... i don't need to proof what's in it you need to proof what they are saying is wrong.

    And I know exactly how it works,

    So to proof the NIST report wrong all i have to do is to apply your tactics used here ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So what we are both doing is providing the possible explanations that explain all of the facts in a consistent manner and without making ridiculous assumptions.
    I have done so, you have not.
    My possible explanation is more likely than yours and barring you providing any additional evidence (which you admitted you cannot) then my explanation is the most likely.

    Sooo I believe the official story ... you have problems with that,, you don't provide any proof/evidence proper links whatever to back up your problems with it and you are telling me i make ridiculous assumptions ????

    So instead of trying to blame me for the report you might start to backup what your saying


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    There is the official report claiming it to be, they surely knew what they were doing, so again ... i don't need to proof what's in it you need to proof what they are saying is wrong.

    And I know exactly how it works,

    So to proof the NIST report wrong all i have to do is to apply your tactics used here ?

    Sooo I believe the official story ... you have problems with that,, you don't provide any proof/evidence proper links whatever to back up your problems with it and you are telling me i make ridiculous assumptions ????

    So instead of trying to blame me for the report you might start to backup what your saying
    Weisses, what points specifically do you require me to back up?
    I have asked you this several time but I can't provide you an answer if I don't actually know what you are asking for.
    I tried presenting a list of points and explained that I cannot provide concrete proof and then explained why such a thing is not nessesary for my argument.
    I've explained why neither of us can provide the concrete proof you seem to be demanding and explained how neither of our points or arguments need to rely on such proof.
    We are (or at least we should be) providing possible explanations and determining which is the most likely.
    And I detailed this in the post you aren't really addressing so much as ranting at.

    At this stage it's clear that you're simply trying to stall any discussion at all.


Advertisement