TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- 10 Year Anniversary 9/11 Tribute Thread
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker I'm suspecting that you have very little insight as to why I think your understanding is so impaired.

I'm happy when I can read a sentence you wrote without feeling the need of interglot. Maybe I really should start using interglot.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i think there's a reasonable amount of evidence to conclude you don't quite get where the actual experts sit re the 911...uh... "debate". you also seem pretty lazy, repeating known falsehoods when by now you should have easily been able to find some factual information. i appreciate much of this would be in english, but you seem more than capable in that regard. let 911 go. it's a waste of your time.

How many times have we seen reports by experts and reports by other experts showing the opposite e.g. The effect of mobile phone radiation on human health.
But regarding 911 shown me the way, as I didn't read hundreds of sites yet and also find it difficult to judge what's factual information and what's not.

Also if I post a link to a site it doesn't mean I believe all of it. I just think some interesting points can be found on it. I'm more into the science then the conspiracy interested.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-MB I'm happy when I can read a sentence you wrote without feeling the need of interglot. Maybe I really should start using interglot.

I'm actually not trying to antagonize you with this observation. It just seems like a lot of your problems with people on this board result from your failure to understand what you're responding to. It's not just something that happens between you and I. While it's apparent you comprehend that there is a disagreement to be argued, the finer points made by the person you're arguing against are somehow lost. You might have a general idea of what's being said but you are so unaware of its importance that when you reply, it looks as though you're casually dismissing it.

Hence my frustration with your posts. I don't think you're stupid. I just think you're not understanding what's being said and when you post in reply to me, I'm not even sure where to begin in order to correct such a misunderstanding.

quote:

Originally posted by Mattinsanity

RIP

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker I'm actually not trying to antagonize you with this observation. It just seems like a lot of your problems with people on this board result from your failure to understand what you're responding to. It's not just something that happens between you and I. While it's apparent you comprehend that there is a disagreement to be argued, the finer points made by the person you're arguing against are somehow lost. You might have a general idea of what's being said but you are so unaware of its importance that when you reply, it looks as though you're casually dismissing it. Hence my frustration with your posts. I don't think you're stupid. I just think you're not understanding what's being said and when you post in reply to me, I'm not even sure where to begin in order to correct such a misunderstanding.

In general for mechanical engineers, language is not their strongest point and I'm not an exception. But between all bullshit replies for a non-native English speaker I think its even more difficult to separate the finer point. At least if your observation is right I think I can draw that conclusion. Also I think often what I try to say is misunderstood, so it's going wrong in both directions and ending nowhere (or ending up blacklisted...)

time to get paid blow up like the world trade...

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-MB In general for mechanical engineers, language is not their strongest point and I'm not an exception. But between all bullshit replies for a non-native English speaker I think its even more difficult to separate the finer point. At least if your observation is right I think I can draw that conclusion. Also I think often what I try to say is misunderstood, so it's going wrong in both directions and ending nowhere (or ending up blacklisted...)

That is true, where both directions are concerned. There's even an example of me asking for clarification from you, in this thread. I want to steer clear of putting the onus on you to make any exchange understandable. At the same time, I'm having a difficult time being able to tell that you actually understand what's being discussed, when it comes to the finer points of a discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker That is true, where both directions are concerned. There's even an example of me asking for clarification from you, in this thread. I want to steer clear of putting the onus on you to make any exchange understandable. At the same time, I'm having a difficult time being able to tell that you actually understand what's being discussed, when it comes to the finer points of a discussion.

Well when speaking to someone repeating what someone says but using other words often helps to clear things.
Strange thing is that for my job explaining to US colleagues, English, Italian, French, German, Spanish and Asian (mostly sales) people technical matters, I'm the one figuring out what they don't understand. But probably that's easier if you're an "expert" in your field.

quote:

Interglot: The word onus exists in our database, but we currently do not have a translation from English to Dutch.

But good there is, although just two would be nice:

quote:

Synonyms for "onus": burden; load; encumbrance; incumbrance; concern; worry; headache; vexation

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN didn't hear too many. certainly much of it was discredited nonsense.

Question, if there are 10 points and you think, know or are convinced 6 are nonsense, then it's like 6 is more then half so it's all nonsense?

Just wondering if there is any gray possible between black or white.

quote:

Originally posted by Zyklon_Jay time to get paid blow up like the world trade...

Biggie predicted 9/11

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-MB How many times have we seen reports by experts and reports by other experts showing the opposite e.g. The effect of mobile phone radiation on human health.

Ahhhh, so you�re from the �sometimes science is wrong so I can believe in any old nonsense� school of thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-MB But regarding 911 shown me the way, as I didn't read hundreds of sites yet and also find it difficult to judge what's factual information and what's not. Also if I post a link to a site it doesn't mean I believe all of it. I just think some interesting points can be found on it. I'm more into the science then the conspiracy interested.

I�ve already provided this link which covers 90% of truther nonsense.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-MB Question, if there are 10 points and you think, know or are convinced 6 are nonsense, then it's like 6 is more then half so it's all nonsense? Just wondering if there is any gray possible between black or white.

Let�s put this in perspective champ. I first came across 911 CTs in 2004. Since then, I have seen hundreds of nonsense claims ranging from mini-nukes to holograms to directed energy weapons. Thus far, not a single claim has turned out to be true AND relevant, nor have any of the conclusions drawn been remotely compelling. Every single claim I am familiar with, and that was in the video in question, is irrelevant or nonsensical. I see no reason to follow up on the odd claim that I haven�t heard already. I have eaten as much dog shit as I am going to.

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen lol...short haired white dude with head bowed down in shame.

Wayne Rooney, post hair plugs.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On [IIMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/2e31gr6.jpg[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-MB Well when speaking to someone repeating what someone says but using other words often helps to clear things. Strange thing is that for my job explaining to US colleagues, English, Italian, French, German, Spanish and Asian (mostly sales) people technical matters, I'm the one figuring out what they don't understand. But probably that's easier if you're an "expert" in your field. But good there is, although just two would be nice:

I only speak one language and don't have an engineering degree so...

Well, at least your are very good in speaking that one.
Some even can't do that. I'm average in speaking three foreign languages.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Ahhhh, so you�re from the �sometimes science is wrong so I can believe in any old nonsense� school of thought. I�ve already provided this link which covers 90% of truther nonsense. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies

Wait, both can be scientific and still be wrong, that has happened often in the past.

But please tell me why did you say "didn't hear too many" instead of "didn't hear any"? Is the first just a way of saying the second?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN You mean the F16�s that were unloaded? http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...cODK_story.html I see nothing unusual about a plane upside down as terrorist pilots attempt to maintain control of the mutinying passengers. There is no evidence to support 93 being shot down.

Here's why I believe it was.

1, I was living an hour away from NY when the attack happened. I never turn on the TV first thing in the morning, but I couldn't find my watch so flicked it on and 15 seconds later saw the second plane hit, live.
Later that day I was watching coverage on a local TV station, and some news crew had tracked down the owner of the land where 93 went down and interviewed him live. His exact words were "I saw the plane, it was upside down, hurtling towards the ground with thick smoke coming from the underside"

To this day, I have scoured the web and I have never seen that piece of tape repeated. I would doubt whether I truly saw it if my GF didn't happen watch it with me.

Now while I take all witness accounts with a pinch of salt, that guy had no reason to lie, and the fact that one witness account has never been repeated, although not proof in any form, makes me question what happened.

so 2, Official Norad and white house records show that the authorization to shoot down any more planes were given directly after the second plane crashed, meaning at latest by 9:45am, or 25 minutes before 93 crashed.

3, Norad records show that there 3 F16's dispatched to flight 93 that morning, but none apart from Penney have ever spoken to press. (and by the way, that WP artical you referenced did not start life as an interview, it was a press release put out by the USAF - google it). In fact, none of the other pilots have ever been named due to "security concerns".

4, The F16's position was recorded over DC at 9:35m - at 500 mph (not even close to their top speed) they would have intercepted the jet in less than 15 minitues. What did they do for that 15 minutes?

5, 93 was only 15 minutes away from DC when it went down. The f16's were coming from the opposite direction meaning their closing speed was halved but still somehow didn't make it the jet in 35 minutes.

6, The f16's were officially listed at flying at only 24% of their top speed, which is A) against emergency intercept protocol B) far slower than the F15's the were sent to the WTC. No reason for this has ever been given, and no one has been reprimanded for this "mistake".

7, F-16 cruising speed is 577MPH and has a max of at least 1,800 mph according to their stats. If they were doing say, 1000mph (or about 17 miles a minute)these F-16's were less than 2 minutes out of unclassified missile range from 93 at 9:45am.

8,According the accident investigators, debris patterns clearly indicated that the plane came apart before impact. This fact has never been reconciled with the official line.


9, The Nashua Telegraph reported the an account by air traffic controllers that day. One controller stated he saw at least one f16 in "hot pursuit" that did circling maneuvers so that he did not go past it flight 93. No one else has ever published this story or interviewed that controller further.

10, The line that they "had no idea where 93 was" was debunked by cheyney himself shortly after 9/11 in an interview with NBC. He stated along with the shoot down authorization, "F16's and AWACS were present" as "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate".

11, Ever since Bin Laden's project Bojinka in 1995 became known, US military practiced Hijacked plane take downs for high value targets.

I could go on but to summarize my reasons for at least considering it are:

-There were f16's in the air that had more than ample time to reach 93.
-The official authorization to destroy any more planes had been given in good time, prior to even the pentagon being hit, let alone 93.
-The timeline from NORAD and the whitehouse all makes sense apart from for the three F16's for interception of 93 (where pilots apparently did nothing and ground staff took record time to get off the ground, and somehow still were not armed)
-The eyewitness report from the landowner saying 93 hit the ground upside down already smoking.
-Investigators concluded debris showed it was broken up prior to impact
-The "lets roll" story (while I believe they made an attempt) makes a heroic and perfectly neat story (as opposed to the president having to admit he killed US citizens to protect the Whitehouse).

I'm not completely sold, but there's just too many strange unanswered questions to ignore the possibility.

LOL, so my boss went to NY last Sunday for a board meeting. Flight with Continental from Brussels was pretty cheap on 9/11. After a lot of bullshit questions they could enter the plane. (The morons asked him what he did yesterday.)
First thing he noticed: no headphones...fuck. Then the message the entertainment system was broken, sure it was....
Then two times during the flight: It is very nice weather in NY. Half an hour before descent: Bad weather and turbulence in NY, fasten your seatbelt and stay seated.
People were like: assholes, just say that because of security reasons people should remain in there seats and don't give us this crap.

quote:

Originally posted by Trance-MB Wait, both can be scientific and still be wrong, that has happened often in the past. [/qutoe] Except there�s nothing scientific about truther nonsense of course. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Trance-MB But please tell me why did you say "didn't hear too many" instead of "didn't hear any"? Is the first just a way of saying the second?

More or less the same thing. When I know a bunch of claims are complete nonsense (or the inference of them is nonsense) then I am not driven to find out any more because I know there�s an almost 100% chance that they too will be bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Here's why I believe it was. 1, I was living an hour away from NY when the attack happened. I never turn on the TV first thing in the morning, but I couldn't find my watch so flicked it on and 15 seconds later saw the second plane hit, live. Later that day I was watching coverage on a local TV station, and some news crew had tracked down the owner of the land where 93 went down and interviewed him live. His exact words were "I saw the plane, it was upside down, hurtling towards the ground with thick smoke coming from the underside" To this day, I have scoured the web and I have never seen that piece of tape repeated. I would doubt whether I truly saw it if my GF didn't happen watch it with me. Now while I take all witness accounts with a pinch of salt, that guy had no reason to lie, and the fact that one witness account has never been repeated, although not proof in any form, makes me question what happened. so 2, Official Norad and white house records show that the authorization to shoot down any more planes were given directly after the second plane crashed, meaning at latest by 9:45am, or 25 minutes before 93 crashed. 3, Norad records show that there 3 F16's dispatched to flight 93 that morning, but none apart from Penney have ever spoken to press. (and by the way, that WP artical you referenced did not start life as an interview, it was a press release put out by the USAF - google it). In fact, none of the other pilots have ever been named due to "security concerns". 4, The F16's position was recorded over DC at 9:35m - at 500 mph (not even close to their top speed) they would have intercepted the jet in less than 15 minitues. What did they do for that 15 minutes? 5, 93 was only 15 minutes away from DC when it went down. The f16's were coming from the opposite direction meaning their closing speed was halved but still somehow didn't make it the jet in 35 minutes. 6, The f16's were officially listed at flying at only 24% of their top speed, which is A) against emergency intercept protocol B) far slower than the F15's the were sent to the WTC. No reason for this has ever been given, and no one has been reprimanded for this "mistake". 7, F-16 cruising speed is 577MPH and has a max of at least 1,800 mph according to their stats. If they were doing say, 1000mph (or about 17 miles a minute)these F-16's were less than 2 minutes out of unclassified missile range from 93 at 9:45am. 8,According the accident investigators, debris patterns clearly indicated that the plane came apart before impact. This fact has never been reconciled with the official line. 9, The Nashua Telegraph reported the an account by air traffic controllers that day. One controller stated he saw at least one f16 in "hot pursuit" that did circling maneuvers so that he did not go past it flight 93. No one else has ever published this story or interviewed that controller further. 10, The line that they "had no idea where 93 was" was debunked by cheyney himself shortly after 9/11 in an interview with NBC. He stated along with the shoot down authorization, "F16's and AWACS were present" as "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate". 11, Ever since Bin Laden's project Bojinka in 1995 became known, US military practiced Hijacked plane take downs for high value targets. I could go on but to summarize my reasons for at least considering it are: -There were f16's in the air that had more than ample time to reach 93. -The official authorization to destroy any more planes had been given in good time, prior to even the pentagon being hit, let alone 93. -The timeline from NORAD and the whitehouse all makes sense apart from for the three F16's for interception of 93 (where pilots apparently did nothing and ground staff took record time to get off the ground, and somehow still were not armed) -The eyewitness report from the landowner saying 93 hit the ground upside down already smoking. -Investigators concluded debris showed it was broken up prior to impact -The "lets roll" story (while I believe they made an attempt) makes a heroic and perfectly neat story (as opposed to the president having to admit he killed US citizens to protect the Whitehouse). I'm not completely sold, but there's just too many strange unanswered questions to ignore the possibility.

Hey, you�ll believe whatever you will. What I said was there is no evidence to suggest the fight was shot down. And there isn�t. if, as you say, the orders were given to shoot down any more hijacked craft, and they did shoot down 93, then that�s what we would�ve been told (eventually). There was no need to make up a story about 93. Everyone would understand the necessity of shooting it down. I�ll see your single eye witness and raise you several dozen:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1

The claim that passengers attempted to re-take the plane is also well supported:

quote:

After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

No blast or evidence of being shot at is recorded or mentioned by anyone.

Ive just returned from a short visit of a truther website, something that i tried very hard to avoid in the past...and for good reason, i cant seem to stop laughing. This guy in the space of a few paragraphs "mathematically prooved" that whatever hit the pentagon was travelling ot as the snail like 500-800mph which would indicate it was a plane but at 9204 mph (yes thats not a typo, he really wrote 9204mph), and then that the reason that OVER A HUN DRED WITNESSES SAW THE DAMN PLANE CRASH, was that the missle was disguised as a 757 with holograms...


Im troubled that people with that level of stupidity walk among us, and we dont even realise it. I mean this people dont even know they are stupid. They just go about their daily lives never realising just how stupid they are. I find that troubling.

very good

After reading the post that the topic owner posted, Ican not keep silence, unbelievable! Why !?I have never saw such a wonderful post that can touch my heart deeply in my life for galloping in the BBS today. topic owner you let me know a sentencethat is ��there is people always better than you, and there is sky always higher than the sky that you can see.��Thank you in advance! After reading this post, Ireplied at once, because I am afraid the four-letter post will pollute this brilliant post. If Ican notleave my name follow thiswonderful topic, even if I die, Ican not keep peace! How proud thatI can leave my name follow this wonderful post! Topic owner, please pardon my selfishness! No matter how beautiful words that I used to describe your post is not enough. And now I just want to say: your post is best, no one can beyond you! I would like to read your post with my whole life.This post original in conception, the unique subject, clear paragraph, strange and changeful story, clear thread, and undramatic with uncommon. The literary power that the topic owner show us is strong, every sentence can be classical, the topic owner should be our quintessence about the literature.From the viewpoint of the art, maybe this post is not succeed, but the significance of this article is bigger than the succeed. It called ��riding horse, handling sword, whole universe just stay in my mind��topic owner is the real leader of the BBS! Originally, I have already desponded to this forum with slop over. But after I reading your post, I see the wish of this forum. It is you, give the fire to forum in the night, you make the forum alive, it is you, save me from the cold. Originally, I want not want to reply any post in this community, but your post give me enthusiasm ,I tell myself, I must reply this post, Ican not confuse! This is a post that never appeared in a hundred year. Oh, Jesus! Let me see such a wonderful and splendid post in my limited life. Your world like the �� wonderful song breaks the silence�� and �� the sunshine through the cloud��, let��s see the wish and the future. shocking thunderclapcan not be the 0.01percent of master��s mien, wonderful and brilliant can notassimilate to your literary talent! Touch my heart, touch my soul! Your shine light the land, your tear moisten the plants! Thought your deeply words, let me feel your soul, your sharp eyes like the eagle, your agile action like the tiger. It looks see your ground body when you write the wonderful and grandiose article, and your hero��s mettle when you watch around and handle the sword. Topic owner , how brilliant your words are! I live in the community for a long time, and saw different people came from all corner of the society, I think nothing can touch me, but you give me a new experience. You are really different from the others, you are the real master, the wonderful intonation, the brilliant sign, and the magnificent words. No matter how many IDs you change, I can find you in thousands of people, you must be the strongest ID.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.