sleazy
Posts: 781
Joined: 11/23/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
No, sorry cant see anything that I would regard as selective, the statement I have read is consistent and matches the percieved facts.
You are easily fooled, sleazy. That is why you need to read my analysis in post 274.
You really think folks would trust me to send them into harms way and get them back out in one piece if I were gullible and unable to analyse data, assess risks, and all the other 5h1t that comes with planning semi-military operations?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
So just how many people are involved in this, and not one has let slip anything of substance? Sorry but there are limits as to how many people can be involved in anything and it still maintain enough secrecy, clutching at straws here.
Do not be an ostrich, sleazy.
Pick 40 people here, on CC, tell them a big secret, one that could earn them more cash than a small afrian country creates as GDP, see how long it takes to get out, now figure out just how many folks would be needed to pull of the kind of scam you claim, sorry, knowing people I just dont buy it.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. Actually his first sentence broadcast. (source CNN interview)
I am well aware of this first sentence, sleazy. When you peruse my post 274, you will see that I am also well aware what he is saying here - and it is not what you perceive it to be.
I contest you know what he was saying based on your own contradictions
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
See above. As it appears you are unaware of the full statement broadcast live on tv with a transcript available for some time afterwards I shall not be returning to your post 274 as it would appear to be based on an incomplete understanding of his statement.
Stop being an ostrich, sleazy. I expect better from you. Go to my post 274 and perceive.
I justified not going back to 274 and I stand by that.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Quarter mile up what? no aviator would claim quarter mile up in altitude, he would say 1300 feet, or flight level 13. I am not aware of any claims the C130 ever flew that low. Many people do live a quarter mile up the road, or the hill from a point. He also states "I am up" not "I was up", to me that would imply again not an an aircraft, try the context "where do you live", "I am quarter mile up from John". I also notice that particular comment is actually transcribed as a portion of 3 seperate disjointed statements.
I am well aware of linguistics, sleazy, as I demonstrate in post 274. Timmerman is telling selective truths aimed at giving his audience the false impression that he watched the crash from his apartment. Saying that he was nearly a quarter mile up was such a selective truth. Notice that he does not say that he was nearly a quarter mile up the road or up the hill. If he had been, no doubt he would have said so, but he was not. He was up, sleazy, up there among the birds and the clouds in his C130.
Notice he does not say he was in an aircraft, notice the sentence 1/4 mile up is INCOMPLETE, any conclusion drawn from that is akin to it was a car...... therfore it must have been a blue chevy. Here in this office that kind of guesswork can make the difference between catching an airplane home in the cabin with a beer, or in the hold in a sealed container.
Now allow me to clarify, did Timmerman claim to be in his appartment or not? I reference your 313 Timmerman at no time claims to have been in his apartment at the time that he witnessed the crash. Whereas now you are saying he did claim it but was a selective truth, when it would be an outright lie (based on no apartment building having a 16th floor anywhere near 1300ft high). So what is selective truth from Timmerman, and what is selective truth from you? I ask for one piece of credible verifiable evidence that he was in an aircraft, not your linguistic analysis with your own confusion as to what was even said.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
I would argue that point, but it has been gone over before, discounting evidence that is both valid and does not fit in with a preconcieved theory is overly selective.
My conclusion was not preconceived, sleazy. I am evidence obsessed, not hypothesis obsessed. I do not care either way whatever the evidence points at.
Step back, look at it from outside the box, how can you seriously claim to be evidence obsessed when you ignore all evidence and refuse to submit anything of substance for review. The wrong person is being labelled as an ostrich. If you do not care what the evidence points to why have you freely admitted you will ignore evidence that does not match your preconceptions?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Incorrect, the physical age of aircraft components is very difficult to determine due to the useage, a reasonably young aircraft (in years) can actually be very aged, Aloha Airlines are all too well aware of this. Also the maintainance requirements of aircraft lead to an awful lot of remove, replace, refurbish removed part. For a complete list of individual parts recovered please contact the NTSB, if there is an abscence of remote control gear it could be because none was ever present.
Whatever, sleazy. There is the composition of the paint down to isotopic and radio-isotopic differences and half-lifes and there is metal fatigue and whatever other ways there are to date airplane debris. As for remote control gear, if that was not expected, it may have been identified as not-airplane, therefore Pentagon material.
Please note, metal fatigue varies according to the usage of an aircraft, as I pointed out by referencing Aloha, therefore it is not a reliable indicator of airframe physical age. I am also unaware of any studies that show how the temperature variations and solar radiation etc affect paint, therfore I would take anything that used either of these as an attempt to disprove the wealth of other evidence as flawed.
I suggest you look at aircraft investigation procudures, if it might be from the aircraft it is treated as from the aircraft until proved otherwise. Imagine the team investigating such a massive event coming across a pile of unrecognizable electronics within the wreckage, are they going to say, "nah just a xerox", or are they going to make damn sure it is not part of the plot? Or are you going to add another few dozen people to your list of conspirators?
quote:
Why have witnesses that according to my research are not credible, testify to the nature of the plane if there was nothing to lie about? Also I know that there were no life people aboard that plane, if any - like frozen corpses - at all. Then also there is the testimony of Timmerman with his very obvious selective truths, and finally there is the same C130 associated with two crashes. Go figure.
Are your witness not credible that a jury would dismiss their evidence? Or not credible that you dismiss? One of those would hold weight with me if verifiable.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Hang on, lets get this right, you are evidence obsessesed by your own admission, and all physical evidence and a goodly sized chunk of other evidence says 757, yet you still hang on the words of one witness who claims 737, and you also claim you do not know, but claim 737 anyway? Why is it wise to fly in the face of all available evidence on the face of a couple of eyewitnesses? Would you expect the cop that investigates a traffic collision involving you, or the person suspected of breaking into your residence the same way?
It is the oldest trick in the manual of lieutenant Columbo and his colleagues: insist on an untruth that the murderer will do his utmost to disprove and in so doing establish his guilt. So, yes, I do hang unto. The murderer might offer me a piece of wreckage and say: "See, this part cannot possibly have been from a 737", whilst pointing at a part of the remote control instrumentation. Then I will be glad to agree with him.
So you admit it wasnt a 737 then? Leastways thats how reads to me. Jeez did you really expect some government conspirator to be watching this thread and let "the truth" out? What a waste of my time, discussing something you already agreed with
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
I still wonder what qualifies the person who claimed a 737 as an expert enough to base an entire theory on in the face of physical evidence as well as peer contradiction.
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Can it be that you suggest that I have claimed to be a 737 expert? I am not.
You claim your witness (I forget his name at the moment and am too damn lazy to go back) is an expert, however an equally qualified expert on the face of it contradicts him. what makes your witness more credible than any other?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Expert enough for you? Thats just the first one I pulled out at random as regards expert identification of 757 components within the pentagon, so I guess it is time to circle back to them all being planted.
So he or they looked at a couple of photographs and no doubt made accurate identifications. Good for them. Now what about those debris that they did not see on photographs, like pieces of burned and shattered remote control?
I suggest you look at what those items are made of, and how they are designed to handle extreme heat. Now go put your computer in a blast furnace, say a cool one, 500c for 30 mins, identify any remaining bits at component level.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
According to my witness list there are only 2 claims of a 757* at time of impact, others are clearly using 757 after the information was widespread knowledge. I have previously mentioned the three claims of a 737 and one of a 747.
* One claim is a 757 or A320, the other claim is of course Timmerman.
So the 737's have the majority?
Nope unidentifieds have the majority
However Steve O'brien claims a 757 or 767, so chalk another up for the "5" camp making it parity. Both are outnumbered by planes of indeterminate make/model/size with gear down, and by planes of commuter/business size!
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Not many for you to fully investigate, although to do any real investigation of merit either requires the consent of the party being investigated, illegal acts, or the support of the courts unless you rely on hearsay and that of course does not meet any evidential standard at all except as coroboration.
Quite. I wonder what that will bring up. I only scratched the surface - and it bled.
Come on then, you have all this evidence, how about some review, put your money on the table.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
Cleveland flight controller Stacey Taylor has asked a nearby C-130 pilot to look at Flight 93’s last position and see if they can find anything. Remarkably, this C-130 pilot. Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, is the same pilot who was asked by flight control to observe Flight 77 as it crashed in Washington earlier. He tells Taylor that he saw smoke from the crash shortly after the hijacked plane went down.
Published Oct 17th 2001 in The Guardian. Mentioned also on MSNBC 11th sept 2002 and by the investigation commission on 17 June 2004. Hardly a secret.
Various Pittsburgh media outlets also ran the story. And of course as all FAA radio conversations are recorded there is a matter of public record.
Cited source http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a936c130asked
Well done, sleazy.
For what? For bringing up stuff that people like democratic underground were talking about years ago? For mentioning something that is the focus of a museum display? Seriously if your research had not uncovered that little tidbit you need to practice your skills. Hey there is even a piece out there that names the rest of the flight crew, should you wish to dig.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
That was not adressed at you personally, hence the use of the word "people"  No hard feelings I hope
Not at all. I enjoy your contributions.
(I am sure, though, that it leaves one person whoms posts I blocked befuddled, as he mistakenly is convinced that I block those persons who disagree with me. Usually, though, I only block persons who use difficult to read fonts.)
I do not know who it was as I have thick skin when ot comes to insults, but it was on a thread similar to this one.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
So you have reached your conclusions on the basis of an incomplete investigation then? Personally I would regard investigations that have hundreds if not thousands of investigators involved and the sort of budgets I could only dream of as having more validity.
To be sure - as long as they do not disagree with mine.
Thank you, there it is from your own mouth, you have made up your mind and nothing will change it.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
I have not found any claims in this thread that cannot be debunked with a few minutes searching,
Except for my post 274.
Answer 1
I have not found that yet as I have not gone back to look for it
Answer 2
Debunked as it is a third party analysis by somebody who seems unsure what was said, therefore any interpretation of it is very suspect. And that is without even reading it
Pick either, both are valid in their own way.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: sleazy
and of course see my comments earlier about how would you feel if a cop drew conclusions in the same manner as you, but add incomplete to the mix too. Me? Personally I would be making so many complaints about that cop that professional standards (internal affairs) would be so far up his ass he would be shitting investigation statements for the rest of his all too short career.
It is well, then, that I am not a cop. I am Rule, and by definition and decree the highest authority.
Do you? Or do you just adhere to what you want to believe? (rhetorical)
_____________________________
Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C
|
RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread