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
Comments
-
-
-
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.If you would prefer to actually address what I said however...
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.
but it is, it is comparable in the same vein as your boston example pertains to the mural on the van.
It would, if it was a comparable example, but it is not.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?
so now videos and photos are on the same league as multiple eyewitnesses?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.
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?
the example i gave is very applicable, you just brought other information into the argument, ie the photos.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?
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 ...
there is no photo of osama bin laden organising 911, nor of the plane hitting the pentagon.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.
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.
no, that is 100% the wrong conclusion.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.
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.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
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.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.
they are not strawman arguments, they are your broken logic applied to other examples.And there's another strawman.
And another.
huh? so when 100 people say something it must be correct? you are muddling your bad point up even worse tbh.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.
are you confused? police see mural, they must be confused, but people see plane, they can't be ...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.
which is the more simple answer? that a plane flew into a building or people are wrong?
huh? now you admit there are witnesses for the van?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.
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?Lol, that's clearly 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 ....
huh? firstly no, you don't have to suppose anything. this is why you are wrong.And so we come to the point were you have to suppose vast conspiracies to support your idea, making your story implausible.
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 ...
huh? that is what i said? are you seriously unable to track conversations?Yes, I do realise that. It's pretty much the point I'm making.
well good for you, your whole argument is "people make mistakes" genius!!!
i'm not even going to bother replying, since we've finally established that your whole point was that "people make mistakes" ...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 will now counter your argument that you are in fact wrong because "people make mistakes" ...
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
But they are not an accurate representation of what I am saying, hence they are a strawman.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.
Like this, this is not the argument I made. It's a strawman.huh? so when 100 people say something it must be correct? you are muddling your bad point up even worse tbh.
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.
Another strawman.are you confused? police see mural, they must be confused, but people see plane, they can't be ...
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.
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.which is the more simple answer? that a plane flew into a building or people are wrong?
However all that stuff is there hence a plane hitting is the most likely explanation.
I never argued otherwise. All of previous arguments relied on that people saw a van.huh? now you admit there are witnesses for the van?
Why did you think otherwise?
Like perhaps thinking that an advertising campaign was a bomb threat?you know how trained police officers get confused with what they see...
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.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 ...
To assume that explanation, you must assume something like that.
And just an FYI, the Mythbusters are very publicly not believers in your side.
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.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!!!
As you said, people can interpret and describe things differently, such as an innocuous logo or advertisement being interpreted as depicting the attack.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" ...
You are now slipping back into your usual immature tactics, so repeating the above points you've ignored would be a waste of time.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 ...
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.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement