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
1567911

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2 Millicent Fenwick


    I've been reading through all of this, and the only thing I can conclude is that King Mob is a Zionist troll who tends to obfuscate. As for the Dancing Israelis being Mossad, it was established early on in the investigation - the 2nd and 4th video on this page go over that - it was also mentioned in the Jewish Daily Forward very early on. As for the above linked blog being "biased" - well, that does not change the fact of the FBI report, which is viewable outside of said blog. It looks like this poster, KM, is the biased one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,686 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I've been reading through all of this, and the only thing I can conclude is that King Mob is a Zionist troll who tends to obfuscate. As for the Dancing Israelis being Mossad, it was established early on in the investigation - the 2nd and 4th video on this page go over that - it was also mentioned in the Jewish Daily Forward very early on. As for the above linked blog being "biased" - well, that does not change the fact of the FBI report, which is viewable outside of said blog. It looks like this poster, KM, is the biased one.

    If you've been reading through all of this, you would have seen this post:
    Penn wrote: »
    I will not give another warning after this. Stop being so aggressive in your posts. All of you. If you have a problem with a post or poster, or think they're trolling, report it.

    Any more accusations of trolling and the user gets a minimum one week ban.

    You just accused King Mob of being a troll, so take a week long stroll away from this forum.


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »
    ok, you are saying that incorrect deduction is equivalent to incorrect reporting :confused::confused::confused:
    If you prefer to stick to that childish strawman, then sure, you can believe that.
    well it is not a straw-man, it is what you are saying. it seems childish because it a silly argument to make, yet for some reason you are making it.
    King Mob wrote: »
    If you would prefer to actually address what I said however...
    i thought i did.
    King Mob wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »
    i'll try a different angle so ...

    so at no point was there a van there?
    I am not arguing that there was never a van, that's another strawman.
    look, i'm not saying that you are saying that there is no van, i'm saying that using your example of police misidentifying things, they could have misidentified "nothing" as a van, and then wrote a report on it.
    King Mob wrote: »
    davoxx wrote: »
    what about the buildings that the plane flew into? just because the police reported that planes flew into buildings, as you claim with your example, does not necessarily mean it actually happened, when there are much more plausible explanations.

    does that show you the fallacy in your example and the argument you are using to apply it in this context?
    It would, if it was a comparable example, but it is not.
    but it is, it is comparable in the same vein as your boston example pertains to the mural on the van.
    King Mob wrote: »
    With the planes we have 100's of hours of video, 1000's of photos, multiple eyewitnesses confirming the exact same thing independently, the resulting damage and found wreckage and human remains positively identifying the exact planes that crashed.
    so now videos and photos are on the same league as multiple eyewitnesses?
    what are police reports if not eyewitnesses?
    there is no footage or photos of the plane flying into the pentagon, yet for some strange reason you believe that?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Now had the example you are now using been applicable to what I'm actually saying, we would have no photos or video, no wreckage, no damage and a bare handful of witnesses who all give different and contradictory statements.
    Now if a police officer claimed that he saw a plane hit, and all of that stuff applied, would you believe him? Or would you look for a more plausible answer?
    the example i gave is very applicable, you just brought other information into the argument, ie the photos.
    in the scenario of the mural, the other information is that are other multiple eyewitnesses and more importantly that the police stopped the van and had a look at it ...

    King Mob wrote: »
    And it's the same here. There's no photo or video showing the mural (let alone any evidence that the van exploded) and everyone gave conflicting reports of the mural. And then the idea of a van having a mural does not make a lick of sense, no one has been able to offer even a stupid sounding conspiracy explanation for the van let alone a a sane rational one.
    there is no photo of osama bin laden organising 911, nor of the plane hitting the pentagon.
    was a photo taken of the mural on the van, and it is been held as classified?
    i don't know if this is real or fake, but is this the mural?
    http://investigate911.info/media/1/20111111-van_israel.jpg

    now regarding the van exploding, that is different to the mural, so it is not relevant in this argument, though the van clearly did not explode and kill the police men as they managed to report seeing the mural.

    can you show the statistical spread of the conflicting reports? you do realise that being humans, there will always be a degree of error and a degree of difference in interpretation of images.

    and what sane reason do you need for the mural? they painted a mural to celebrate their mission? they thought it would be funny to drive around town in the van distracting police?

    i've seen many sane reasons, but you can't seem to admit the exist.

    King Mob wrote: »
    So the most likely explanation from the verifiable evidence is that the van was an innocent deliver truck that had either a logo or an advertisement on it that was misconstrued by the police (or someone reporting it to the police) to be depicting an attack. The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it really wasn't, exactly like in the Boston example I posted.
    no, that is 100% the wrong conclusion.
    care to tell me the likelihood? what percentage confidence interval are you using?


    no wonder we've being going around in circles, you don't understand logic.
    "The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it really wasn't, exactly like in the Boston example I posted" incorrect. it was suspicious, in both cases.

    this does not imply "The most likely explanation from the verifiable evidence is that the van was an innocent deliver truck that had either a logo or an advertisement on it that was misconstrued by the police"

    and to sum it up in one sentence: your example is not in context and completely irrelevant and the logic you are using to join them is wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    well it is not a straw-man, it is what you are saying. it seems childish because it a silly argument to make, yet for some reason you are making it.
    i thought i did.
    Well unfortunately that is not the argument I am making, it's a dishonest strawman that you are trying to force because you can't actually address my real argument.
    davoxx wrote: »
    look, i'm not saying that you are saying that there is no van, i'm saying that using your example of police misidentifying things, they could have misidentified "nothing" as a van, and then wrote a report on it.
    And there's another strawman.
    davoxx wrote: »
    so now videos and photos are on the same league as multiple eyewitnesses?
    what are police reports if not eyewitnesses?
    And another.

    No they are not in the same league. But hundreds of people describing the same thing that is backed up with video, photo and physical evidence is much much stronger than a handful of conflicting witness reports none of which are supported by any other evidence.
    davoxx wrote: »
    there is no footage or photos of the plane flying into the pentagon, yet for some strange reason you believe that?
    Again, we've the resulting damage and wreckage that could have only been a plane. And of course all of the dozens of witnesses all confirming it was a plane.
    davoxx wrote: »
    the example i gave is very applicable, you just brought other information into the argument, ie the photos.
    in the scenario of the mural, the other information is that are other multiple eyewitnesses and more importantly that the police stopped the van and had a look at it ...
    Yes other information to show how it has much more evidence to support what had happened compared to the example of the van.
    And then I argue that this evidence is what distinguishes them.
    For the van you have a scant few witnesses all saying the mural was of different things. No video, no photos, nothing.
    davoxx wrote: »
    was a photo taken of the mural on the van, and it is been held as classified?
    i don't know if this is real or fake, but is this the mural?
    http://investigate911.info/media/1/20111111-van_israel.jpg
    Lol, that's clearly fake.
    And so we come to the point were you have to suppose vast conspiracies to support your idea, making your story implausible.
    davoxx wrote: »
    can you show the statistical spread of the conflicting reports? you do realise that being humans, there will always be a degree of error and a degree of difference in interpretation of images.
    Yes, I do realise that. It's pretty much the point I'm making.
    And since this is the cause, do you believe that this makes it possible that some people could interpret an innocent non-threatening image or logo etc as depicting the attack?
    davoxx wrote: »
    and what sane reason do you need for the mural? they painted a mural to celebrate their mission? they thought it would be funny to drive around town in the van distracting police?

    i've seen many sane reasons, but you can't seem to admit the exist.
    Really? Those are the sanest reasons you can come up with?
    Cause they don't actually sound sane at all.
    Maybe I can't admit they exist, because they don't.
    davoxx wrote: »
    no, that is 100% the wrong conclusion.
    care to tell me the likelihood? what percentage confidence interval are you using?
    Well seeing as you've not provide a single, sane, coherent alternative the confidence is pretty high.

    You keep using these terms, but I don't see why as none of them are actually applicable to a discussion.
    It's almost as if you are using them like technobabble to sound clever.
    davoxx wrote: »
    no wonder we've being going around in circles, you don't understand logic.
    "The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it really wasn't, exactly like in the Boston example I posted" incorrect. it was suspicious, in both cases.
    Unfortunately I do understand logic, above is pedantry however.
    If you prefer to focus on that, point can be written as:
    "The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it in fact was innocent, exactly like in the Boston example I posted"
    This is the point I was making, please address that, not strawmen, or grammar or what you think "logic" is.
    davoxx wrote: »
    this does not imply "The most likely explanation from the verifiable evidence is that the van was an innocent deliver truck that had either a logo or an advertisement on it that was misconstrued by the police"

    and to sum it up in one sentence: your example is not in context and completely irrelevant and the logic you are using to join them is wrong.
    But it does. I have an example of the police misidentifying something and treating it as suspicious when it was just an advertising campaign.
    I believe that the van was an example of the police misidentifying some and treating it as suspicious when it was just a logo or a piece of advertising on an innocent delivery truck.
    And since you cannot show how this is impossible or unlikely and you are unable to provide a sane, rational alternative explanation that is supported by anything, my explanation is most likely the case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And I say it's common sense that 3km is close.
    It's almost as if the word has a subjective meaning or something...


    No its not ..not in manhattan

    King Mob wrote: »
    But you are "thinking in behalf of the makers of the report". You are saying they meant a a different truck. You are saying that they could not have possibly meant what I am suggesting that they could have meant.
    I've suggested a pair of plausible explanations. Your alternative is a a second van for which there is no evidence for and presupposes a vast conspiracy.
    You have not been able to suggest why my explanations are wrong or implausible you have just stated they are and refused to support your argument.

    Again i believe the report if you don't explain/proof why and leave out your suggestion/maybe's and could have's this time


    King Mob wrote: »
    So now that you have not got the time table you have nothing at all to support the idea of a second van, besides your opinion of someone else's opinion.

    Like you have nothing that debunks the report
    King Mob wrote: »
    Like perhaps the police misidentifying something innocuous as a serious threat?
    Like maybe a completely innocuous advertising thing with a picture of a cartoon character made out of a children's toy?

    No that is not what the report says ....
    King Mob wrote: »
    So it happened then, why can't it happen on 9/11?

    And then what is the scenario you are suggesting that explains why there were these mural trucks in the first place?
    Can you provide the same thing you are asking me for, complete with evidence/proof?

    And since you believe the claims of the report, do you believe that the truck was "an innocent delivery truck"?
    Because you seem to be trying to suggest that it's a part of the conspiracy, counter to the claims of the report.

    So you're banning me from using examples for other situations while then using your own when it suits you.

    No i don't need to proof anything besides the second Van .. again A timeline could even rule that out (same van driving up to 6th and king later) ...

    You on the other hand need to backup your claims from the parts you don't believe from the report

    And you bringing up Wikipedia links to make your claim is not evidence/proof now is it


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well unfortunately that is not the argument I am making, it's a dishonest strawman that you are trying to force because you can't actually address my real argument.


    And there's another strawman.


    And another.

    No they are not in the same league. But hundreds of people describing the same thing that is backed up with video, photo and physical evidence is much much stronger than a handful of conflicting witness reports none of which are supported by any other evidence.


    Again, we've the resulting damage and wreckage that could have only been a plane. And of course all of the dozens of witnesses all confirming it was a plane.


    Yes other information to show how it has much more evidence to support what had happened compared to the example of the van.
    And then I argue that this evidence is what distinguishes them.
    For the van you have a scant few witnesses all saying the mural was of different things. No video, no photos, nothing.


    Lol, that's clearly fake.
    And so we come to the point were you have to suppose vast conspiracies to support your idea, making your story implausible.

    Yes, I do realise that. It's pretty much the point I'm making.
    And since this is the cause, do you believe that this makes it possible that some people could interpret an innocent non-threatening image or logo etc as depicting the attack?

    Really? Those are the sanest reasons you can come up with?
    Cause they don't actually sound sane at all.
    Maybe I can't admit they exist, because they don't.


    Well seeing as you've not provide a single, sane, coherent alternative the confidence is pretty high.

    You keep using these terms, but I don't see why as none of them are actually applicable to a discussion.
    It's almost as if you are using them like technobabble to sound clever.


    Unfortunately I do understand logic, above is pedantry however.
    If you prefer to focus on that, point can be written as:
    "The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it in fact was innocent, exactly like in the Boston example I posted"
    This is the point I was making, please address that, not strawmen, or grammar or what you think "logic" is.

    But it does. I have an example of the police misidentifying something and treating it as suspicious when it was just an advertising campaign.
    I believe that the van was an example of the police misidentifying some and treating it as suspicious when it was just a logo or a piece of advertising on an innocent delivery truck.
    And since you cannot show how this is impossible or unlikely and you are unable to provide a sane, rational alternative explanation that is supported by anything, my explanation is most likely the case.


    You can write down whatever you want and keep dodging questions with your straw man tactic but

    Again where is proof/evidence that the report is wrong ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No its not ..not in manhattan
    Says who exactly? What is this based on? Your opinion of what another persons opinion of a subjective word should be?
    How far away can something be considered "Close"?
    weisses wrote: »
    Again i believe the report if you don't explain/proof why and leave out your suggestion/maybe's and could have's this time
    I do believe the report.
    Why exactly should I leave out "maybe and could"? Should I just declare what they believed even though I can't actually know?
    Or should I just stick to suggesting what is the most likely explanation.
    weisses wrote: »
    Like you have nothing that debunks the report
    I am not trying to debunk the report.
    weisses wrote: »
    No that is not what the report says ....
    Well it says that the van was an innocent delivery truck.

    Do you know what the report does not say? That there were two vans with murals.
    That's you doing all the things you are trying to tell me not to do or accusing me of doing.
    You are claiming something that's not in the report. You are using "coulds and maybes".
    weisses wrote: »
    No i don't need to proof anything besides the second Van .. again A timeline could even rule that out (same van driving up to 6th and king later) ...
    That's great, so post the timeline if you can and want.

    Why are you continuing to bring this up. I'm not going to find a timeline I don't believe I can find in the first place. Nor do I need to find it to support my arguments.

    You however do need to the find it to support yours. Until you do your argument is unsupported. I believe it will remain so as I think the timeline cannot be found.
    weisses wrote: »
    You on the other hand need to backup your claims from the parts you don't believe from the report
    Which parts do I not believe from the report?
    Which claims have I made that require me to back them up?
    weisses wrote: »
    And you bringing up Wikipedia links to make your claim is not evidence/proof now is it
    Then you are either using a strawman or you simply did not understand the point I was making.
    My example shows that the police and misidentify something, take it as a serious threat, but later discover it was totally harmless. Which is what I'm arguing happened to the van. And that's what the report says.
    weisses wrote: »
    You can write down whatever you want and keep dodging questions with your straw man tactic but

    Again where is proof/evidence that the report is wrong ?
    Again, I don't believe the report is wrong, why do you think that?

    Also I think you don't actually understand what a strawman argument is....


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Says who exactly? What is this based on? Your opinion of what another persons opinion of a subjective word should be?
    How far away can something be considered "Close"?


    I do believe the report.
    Why exactly should I leave out "maybe and could"? Should I just declare what they believed even though I can't actually know?
    Or should I just stick to suggesting what is the most likely explanation.


    I am not trying to debunk the report.


    Well it says that the van was an innocent delivery truck.

    Do you know what the report does not say? That there were two vans with murals.
    That's you doing all the things you are trying to tell me not to do or accusing me of doing.
    You are claiming something that's not in the report. You are using "coulds and maybes".


    That's great, so post the timeline if you can and want.

    Why are you continuing to bring this up. I'm not going to find a timeline I don't believe I can find in the first place. Nor do I need to find it to support my arguments.

    You however do need to the find it to support yours. Until you do your argument is unsupported. I believe it will remain so as I think the timeline cannot be found.


    Which parts do I not believe from the report?
    Which claims have I made that require me to back them up?

    Then you are either using a strawman or you simply did not understand the point I was making.
    My example shows that the police and misidentify something, take it as a serious threat, but later discover it was totally harmless. Which is what I'm arguing happened to the van. And that's what the report says.


    Again, I don't believe the report is wrong, why do you think that?

    Also I think you don't actually understand what a strawman argument is....

    So finally you agree that the mural with the planes crashing into the WTC as mentioned in the report is accurate .... sigh


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well unfortunately that is not the argument I am making, it's a dishonest strawman that you are trying to force because you can't actually address my real argument.
    slow down there bud, i don't think you understand what a straw-man argument is to be honest. and claiming that my interpretation of your bad point is an dishonest strawman is unfounded.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And there's another strawman.


    And another.
    they are not strawman arguments, they are your broken logic applied to other examples.

    King Mob wrote: »
    No they are not in the same league. But hundreds of people describing the same thing that is backed up with video, photo and physical evidence is much much stronger than a handful of conflicting witness reports none of which are supported by any other evidence.
    huh? so when 100 people say something it must be correct? you are muddling your bad point up even worse tbh.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, we've the resulting damage and wreckage that could have only been a plane. And of course all of the dozens of witnesses all confirming it was a plane.
    are you confused? police see mural, they must be confused, but people see plane, they can't be ...

    which is the more simple answer? that a plane flew into a building or people are wrong?


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes other information to show how it has much more evidence to support what had happened compared to the example of the van.
    And then I argue that this evidence is what distinguishes them.
    For the van you have a scant few witnesses all saying the mural was of different things. No video, no photos, nothing.
    huh? now you admit there are witnesses for the van?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, that's clearly fake.
    well like i siad i have no idea, i'm sure you can show it is fake, perhaps you have a photo of it being fake?
    you know how trained police officers get confused with what they see, i wonder how an civilian can tell that that picture is fake ....

    King Mob wrote: »
    And so we come to the point were you have to suppose vast conspiracies to support your idea, making your story implausible.
    huh? firstly no, you don't have to suppose anything. this is why you are wrong.
    secondly, just because you assume that one has to suppose something does not make the story implausible.
    facts in real life make it implausible.

    you should watch mythbusters, it might explain things better for you ...

    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, I do realise that. It's pretty much the point I'm making.
    huh? that is what i said? are you seriously unable to track conversations?

    well good for you, your whole argument is "people make mistakes" genius!!!


    King Mob wrote: »
    And since this is the cause, do you believe that this makes it possible that some people could interpret an innocent non-threatening image or logo etc as depicting the attack?

    Really? Those are the sanest reasons you can come up with?
    Cause they don't actually sound sane at all.
    Maybe I can't admit they exist, because they don't.


    Well seeing as you've not provide a single, sane, coherent alternative the confidence is pretty high.

    You keep using these terms, but I don't see why as none of them are actually applicable to a discussion.
    It's almost as if you are using them like technobabble to sound clever.


    Unfortunately I do understand logic, above is pedantry however.
    If you prefer to focus on that, point can be written as:
    "The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it in fact was innocent, exactly like in the Boston example I posted"
    This is the point I was making, please address that, not strawmen, or grammar or what you think "logic" is.

    But it does. I have an example of the police misidentifying something and treating it as suspicious when it was just an advertising campaign.
    I believe that the van was an example of the police misidentifying some and treating it as suspicious when it was just a logo or a piece of advertising on an innocent delivery truck.
    And since you cannot show how this is impossible or unlikely and you are unable to provide a sane, rational alternative explanation that is supported by anything, my explanation is most likely the case.
    i'm not even going to bother replying, since we've finally established that your whole point was that "people make mistakes" ...

    i will now counter your argument that you are in fact wrong because "people make mistakes" ... :)


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    I do believe the report.

    ...

    I am not trying to debunk the report.


    ....

    Which parts do I not believe from the report?
    Which claims have I made that require me to back them up?

    huh? seriously? then wtf was the whole point of people make mistakes? unless you are trying to show that you made a mistake?

    i now agree, you should be banned from making/giving examples ...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    So finally you agree that the mural with the planes crashing into the WTC as mentioned in the report is accurate .... sigh

    No, that's not what I said or implied or believe.
    I have no idea how you can get that from what I wrote.

    To repeat myself to be be extra clear and to prevent you for making even more strawmen: I believe the report, however I believe that the police saw a mural that they interpreted as depicting the attack when this wasn't actually the case.

    Now I have a whole post of points there that I'm going to assume you're not going to address?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    No, that's not what I said or implied or believe.
    I have no idea how you can get that from what I wrote.

    To repeat myself to be be extra clear and to prevent you for making even more strawmen: I believe the report, however I believe that the police saw a mural that they interpreted as depicting the attack when this wasn't actually the case.



    Do you have any evidence/proof for the parts you claimed are wrong, if not then what point are you trying to make ? Besides pushing your idea's/thought/believes/assumptions ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    slow down there bud, i don't think you understand what a straw-man argument is to be honest. and claiming that my interpretation of your bad point is an dishonest strawman is unfounded.

    they are not strawman arguments, they are your broken logic applied to other examples.
    But they are not an accurate representation of what I am saying, hence they are a strawman.
    davoxx wrote: »
    huh? so when 100 people say something it must be correct? you are muddling your bad point up even worse tbh.
    Like this, this is not the argument I made. It's a strawman.

    When 100 people all report the same exact thing that is supported by other, more verifiable evidence then it's a safe bet that they are correct.
    That's my point.
    davoxx wrote: »
    are you confused? police see mural, they must be confused, but people see plane, they can't be ...
    Another strawman.
    One case we have a small handful of witnesses reporting conflicting things with nothing to support any of the reports over the others.
    In the other we have a huge number of witnesses all reporting the exact same thing supported by reams of other evidence.
    davoxx wrote: »
    which is the more simple answer? that a plane flew into a building or people are wrong?
    Well if there wasn't any of the other evidence like the photos or the video or the resulting damage, then I would look for a more likely explanation.
    However all that stuff is there hence a plane hitting is the most likely explanation.
    davoxx wrote: »
    huh? now you admit there are witnesses for the van?
    I never argued otherwise. All of previous arguments relied on that people saw a van.
    Why did you think otherwise?
    davoxx wrote: »
    you know how trained police officers get confused with what they see...
    Like perhaps thinking that an advertising campaign was a bomb threat?
    davoxx wrote: »
    huh? firstly no, you don't have to suppose anything. this is why you are wrong.
    secondly, just because you assume that one has to suppose something does not make the story implausible.
    facts in real life make it implausible.

    you should watch mythbusters, it might explain things better for you ...
    You are claiming that the reason there is no photos is perhaps that they were all confiscated. This requires that there was a conspiracy to track down every single person who took a photo and retrieve them all the while keeping that operation and the witnesses all quiet.
    To assume that explanation, you must assume something like that.

    And just an FYI, the Mythbusters are very publicly not believers in your side.

    davoxx wrote: »
    huh? that is what i said? are you seriously unable to track conversations?

    well good for you, your whole argument is "people make mistakes" genius!!!
    Yes, I've said this several times in many different variations. All my other points are responses to points others brought up to avoid this central point.

    As you said, people can interpret and describe things differently, such as an innocuous logo or advertisement being interpreted as depicting the attack.
    davoxx wrote: »
    i'm not even going to bother replying, since we've finally established that your whole point was that "people make mistakes" ...

    i will now counter your argument that you are in fact wrong because "people make mistakes" ... :)
    davoxx wrote: »
    huh? seriously? then wtf was the whole point of people make mistakes? unless you are trying to show that you made a mistake?

    i now agree, you should be banned from making/giving examples ...
    You are now slipping back into your usual immature tactics, so repeating the above points you've ignored would be a waste of time.

    If you would like to actually address them like an adult, I'd be happy to oblige.
    But honestly, not going to hold my breath.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Do you have any evidence/proof for the parts you claimed are wrong, if not then what point are you trying to make ? Besides pushing your idea's/thought/believes/assumptions ...
    Which parts am I claiming are wrong?
    Which claims do I need to support in your opinion?
    And I take it that's a no on addressing my points?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Which parts am I claiming are wrong?
    Which claims do I need to support in your opinion?
    And I take it that's a no on addressing my points?


    The part with the mural

    The part you claimed police could be panicking

    Basicly .. back up your claim about Everything you don't like or dismiss about the report with proof/evidence pointing towards your theory

    I looked back on thread and i think i answered most of them way earlier ...

    Are you actually worried about my lack of answering questions ??

    Have this for ya ... Asked for a reply about 6 times

    Can you give me the quote that i gave out to di0genes so i can give him my sincere apologies


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


    skipping to this ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    As you said, people can interpret and describe thing differently, such as an innocuous logo or advertisement being interpreted as depicting the attack.
    that is not what i said. your incorrect interpretation is dishonest.

    i said "you do realise that being humans, there will always be a degree of error and a degree of difference in interpretation of images."

    ie, people can be wrong in what they interpret, namely what you represent has been misinterpreted.

    to clarify, there will always be people who can't do maths. they are wrong at maths. there are also people who have different views on poetry, they are the CTers that you hate.


    King Mob wrote: »

    You are now slipping back into your usual immature tactics, so repeating the above points you've ignored would be a waste of time.

    If you would like to actually address them like an adult, I'd be happy to oblige.
    But honestly, not going to hold my breath.
    i tried to debate your point with you. but you change what you claim your point was, and then when we come to the end, you finally agree that your single point is "people make mistakes"

    i would like you to hold you breath. and failing that please stop posting bad examples.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    You are now slipping back into your usual immature tactics, so repeating the above points you've ignored would be a waste of time.

    If you would like to actually address them like an adult, I'd be happy to oblige.
    But honestly, not going to hold my breath.

    Your kidding here right?

    Care to backup your claim that i was giving out to was Di0genes

    You know the question you carefully ignored about 5 times

    Is that your idea of an adult discussion ??


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    skipping to this ...

    that is not what i said. your incorrect interpretation is dishonest.

    i said "you do realise that being humans, there will always be a degree of error and a degree of difference in interpretation of images."

    ie, people can be wrong in what they interpret, namely what you represent has been misinterpreted.

    to clarify, there will always be people who can't do maths. they are wrong at maths. there are also people who have different views on poetry, they are the CTers that you hate.
    So then since "there will always be a degree of error and a degree of difference in interpretation of images."
    Is it or isn't it possible that due to error and a a difference in interpretation of images, that an innocuous image or logo could be taken as depicting something it doesn't, such as an attack?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    The part with the mural

    The part you claimed police could be panicking

    Basicly .. back up your claim about Everything you don't like or dismiss about the report with proof/evidence pointing towards your theory

    I looked back on thread and i think i answered most of them way earlier ...
    Ok, and what part about the mural did I claim that's different to the report?
    What exactly am I dismissing from the report?
    weisses wrote: »
    Are you actually worried about my lack of answering questions ??

    Have this for ya ... Asked for a reply about 6 times

    Can you give me the quote that i gave out to di0genes so i can give him my sincere apologies
    And I refused to answer those questions because they were off topic and wasn't worth my time trawling back though the thread.

    If I concede this point, will you address the points I made?


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    And just an FYI, the Mythbusters are very publicly not believers in your side.
    fmi, what is my side?
    i seriously hope you are not saying that mythbusters are in your school of examples and fact finding ... that is slander, and i will email them should this be the case :pac:


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then since "there will always be a degree of error and a degree of difference in interpretation of images."
    Is it or isn't it possible that due to error and a a difference in interpretation of images, that an innocuous image or logo could be taken as depicting something it doesn't, such as an attack?

    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    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?
    It is. But this explanation requires a belief in a vast conspiracy that makes no sense and for which there is no evidence for.
    Or alternatively that the people who owned the van were somehow prophetic, again which is not supported by any evidence or sense.
    And both of these explanations are less likely than the possibility I presented.

    So again:
    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?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    davoxx wrote: »
    fmi, what is my side?
    That rubs me up the wrong way too. The answer is the "conspiracy side...:eek::eek::eek::eek:". It's just falsely attributing motive is all. Convenient huh?

    The thing is I'm not on any side to be perfectly honest. I'm trying to let the evidence guide me and the best evidence by a long, long way is the Police transmission.

    King Mob won't even comment on it. Funny innit?


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


    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.

    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?


    anyway ....
    King Mob wrote: »
    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?
    it is.

    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?

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, and what part about the mural did I claim that's different to the report?
    What exactly am I dismissing from the report?


    Already explained on thread and you are responsible for your own answers
    If your memory fails you just go back a few pages to look at your own anwsers

    If you want an adult discussion don't revert to less mature tactics

    King Mob wrote: »
    And I refused to answer those questions because they were off topic and wasn't worth my time trawling back though the thread.

    And how is this offtopic?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So in that case, you cannot say that the report supports what BB is claiming.
    You either have to: 1. Invent an entire van and separate bomb scare for which there is no evidence or 2. come to the conclusion that one of them is wrong.

    But since you "believe both", you then agree that a van exploded?
    And if this is the case, why did you give out to Diogenes for suggesting you believed a van exploded?

    King Mob wrote: »
    If I concede this point, will you address the points I made?

    I made a few other points as well during this debate you carefully avoided to answer ...will you address them ??


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.
    You've agreed that that my it's possible explanation and you cannot provide anything to exclude it as the explanation. Or provided anything to show that this parody of my argument is more likely or possible.
    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?
    Because these are only guesses I can make as to alternative explanations.

    But if you have one that actually makes sense please put it forward, I've been asking for them for sometime.

    The reason they are relevant is that to show that your strawman of my explanation you must provide an alternative explanation.
    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?
    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.
    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.
    My explanation does not require the police to be "retarded". And you've already agreed that it is possible for them to misidentify something.

    Your current tactic of trying to turn around everything I'm saying is silly and it's not going to work.
    I suggest actually addressing what I write.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Already explained on thread and you are responsible for your own answers
    If your memory fails you just go back a few pages to look at your own anwsers
    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".
    weisses wrote: »
    If you want an adult discussion don't revert to less mature tactics

    And how is this offtopic?


    I made a few other points as well during this debate you carefully avoided to answer ...will you address them ??
    Yea you see here I asked you a yes or no question and you avoided it.

    But since you refuse to engage in the absolutely pointless topic and it's not bothered to actually waste time on it, I'm just going to concede it.
    You did not get angry at Diogenes for insisting that you believed that the van exploded. I misread what was written. I was wrong.

    Now can we please actually address the topics on this page?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    That rubs me up the wrong way too. The answer is the "conspiracy side...:eek::eek::eek::eek:". It's just falsely attributing motive is all. Convenient huh?

    The thing is I'm not on any side to be perfectly honest. I'm trying to let the evidence guide me and the best evidence by a long, long way is the Police transmission.

    King Mob won't even comment on it. Funny innit?
    And honestly I believe this is an excuse to avoid needing to provide a coherent alternative.

    You are asking for a explanation for the vans, which as far as I can see is an attempt to imply that it draws the offical story into doubt.

    However even ignoring that I have provided an explanation (and you did ignore it after trying to strawman it) we are still left with the fact that you or any conspiracy theorist have provided any alternative explanation for the van at all.

    So since this is the case, why does this not call the conspiracy narrative into question like you clearly think it does with the official story?

    If you genuinely were just "letting the evidence guide you" why aren't you asking for a coherent explanation for the conspiracy? Why are you not applying the same standards to both sides?
    Why aren't you taking Weisses to task for holding the report he posted as accurate when you think it's a whitewash? Why aren't you asking about the holes in his two vans ideas?

    I'm more than willing to address the transmission, but since you are not willing to address this point above, I see it being a waste of time.

    And yes the Mythbusters are very much against the conspiracy theories. They wanted to do a show about it but couldn't figure out good experiments for it that would be entertaining, convincing and within budget. Somehow I think Davoxx would not be trusting their opinion there...


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    And yes the Mythbusters are very much against the conspiracy theories. They wanted to do a show about it but couldn't figure out good experiments for it that would be entertaining, convincing and within budget. Somehow I think Davoxx would not be trusting their opinion there...
    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 ...


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    I suggest actually addressing what I write.
    I agree, I also suggest you should actually address what you wrote too ...


Advertisement