Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In EVERY example under the definition you chose (which was WAY down the list, by the way - had to dig DEEP for that one, eh?!), the term used is "pull down". Since you're so hip on using the dictionary to prove your position, explain why the word "down" is missing from the famous(ly taken out of context) quote.
Also, it would be IMMENSELY helpful to your position if you had an ACTUAL demo expert or ten backing you up. But you don't. All you have is a bunch of like-minded truthers digging through the bottom of the barrel of dictionary definitions (instead of real-life demo industry jargon, but you can't use that, because the terminology you claim exists, doesn't) to TRY and come up with something that proves your wildly inaccurate theory. Why is that, I wonder...
Quote:
Originally Posted by niedo
and while your'e at it, deal with the actual collapse of WTC-7.
"Deal with" it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by niedo
look at it on video, notice the very controlled and uniform fall, the relatively small debris field, and ask yourself what thats indicative of…
It's indicative of a building collapsing.
You must be part of the YouTube generation. Let me guess - "your eyes don't lie", right? Cuz watching a grainy video in a four inch box on a screen is EXACTLY the same thing as being there!
Quote:
Originally Posted by niedo
and put some swagger into it!
You sure are hung up on my username. What's up with that? Are you picking up another unhealthy obsession?
Angry? I'm not angry. Wow, you guys sure do have thin skin. I guess that explains why you're so defensive about your ridiculous positions.
Here, I'll explain it AGAIN for you.
The 9/11 attack is the most researched and reported on event IN HUMAN HISTORY. The facts have been discovered, and they support "the official story" (aka "reality"). That's it. It's done. Case closed.
If you disagree, it's up to YOU to prove YOUR theory. That's how science, logic and the world in general works.
Not sure why you believe that because it is reported on so much, that that makes it the gospel truth. Oh yeah, because you believe everything you hear on TV. The ones who find discrepancies need to prove something? Those are the only ones who have.
Not sure why you believe that because it is reported on so much, that that makes it the gospel truth. Oh yeah, because you believe everything you hear on TV. The ones who find discrepancies need to prove something? Those are the only ones who have.
who watched tv....oh yeah YOU
sorry deary I was there in NYC..I saw the plane... I was a first responder, actually trying to help...where were you...5th grade???
Ok. First, the Scripps Howard poll (the basis of the article at the first link).
These kind of polls irk me. They don't ask a question - they make a statement, and then give you a narrow range of options for agree/disagree. IMO, they're not granular enough. This is the type of poll you're most likely to use if you want to elicit a specific response. So right off the bat, I have an issue with this it, but it's accepted as a valid type of poll, so I'll deal with it.
First statement: "Federal officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to prevent them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
See what I mean? They're TELLING you something, in a matter of fact way, and then asking you if you agree or not. Most people want to be agreeable - it's in our nature. I'd take this poll much more seriously if they phrased their questions in a more neutral way, which brings me to my next point...
They give three possible responses: Not likely, somewhat likely, and very likely. So two thirds of the possible answers provide the pollster with (effectively) the same answer. That's how it's being sold, right? Even you did it - you lumped the two latter responses into one percentage, to help prop up your position. That's the same thing the pollsters did. It's by design. They WANTED those results, and they set up their poll to get them.
Oh, it should also be noted that this poll is from 2006, which was a time during which people were starting to get pretty war-weary, and the anti-Bush hysteria was at its peak. The results could be pretty heavily skewed because of those things. I'd be interested to see what the results of the same poll would be if it were taken today.
Also, it's got a margin of error of +/- 4%. That's a pretty wide margin for a proper scientific poll, but not outside the realm of acceptability. Just one more reason to raise an eyebrow about it.
So that's the first statement. The results, btw, were 59% "not likely," 20% "somewhat likely" and 16% "very likely." Presumably, 5% didn't answer, since those numbers only add up to 95%. That missing five percent, coupled with the 4% margin of error and the poor choice of answers should give you some serious concerns about the validity of this poll.
If you look at the rest of the questions and the corresponding results, it becomes pretty clear that most people don't actually buy into the specifics of the conspiracy theories being promulgated. For instance, only 6% believe that explosives were planted in the towers, and the same number (probably the same people) believe that the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missile. I see these percentages as statistically insignificant in the context of this topic. You could probably find a group of people of which 6% believe that the earth is flat, too. It's meaningless. Hell, you can practically throw that number out, based solely on the margin of error...
So all this poll really did is prove that 6% of people (give or take two thirds of that number) are lunatics, and a separate, relatively small number of people think that the government might have known something was going to happen and didn't try to stop it. Beyond that, there's nothing there that's very remarkable.
I was going to get into the Zogby poll, too, but I've already spent more time than I typically care to on a truther thread response, and besides, dinner's been ready for a half hour now.
and??? so 36% are just being sheeple and following a few nuts and their happy go lucky videos...loose change was a well done video...but blatantly false
In EVERY example under the definition you chose (which was WAY down the list, by the way - had to dig DEEP for that one, eh?!), the term used is "pull down". Since you're so hip on using the dictionary to prove your position, explain why the word "down" is missing from the famous(ly taken out of context) quote.
Also, it would be IMMENSELY helpful to your position if you had an ACTUAL demo expert or ten backing you up. But you don't. All you have is a bunch of like-minded truthers digging through the bottom of the barrel of dictionary definitions (instead of real-life demo industry jargon, but you can't use that, because the terminology you claim exists, doesn't) to TRY and come up with something that proves your wildly inaccurate theory. Why is that, I wonder...
"Deal with" it?
It's indicative of a building collapsing.
You must be part of the YouTube generation. Let me guess - "your eyes don't lie", right? Cuz watching a grainy video in a four inch box on a screen is EXACTLY the same thing as being there!
You sure are hung up on my username. What's up with that? Are you picking up another unhealthy obsession?
i have not provided any theories; only questions!
I suggest you learn the difference between the two :hand:
and as far as being there; there are plenty first hand accounts from those in the area that day that claim they heard sequenced and seemingly systematic secondary explosions.
again, regardless of how much swagger (fake or not) you have regarding the 'official story' about one of the most horrific (and yes, unexplained) events in American and human history; there are still many of us who continue to have questions and to question!
again, regardless of how much swagger (fake or not) you have regarding the 'official story' about one of the most horrific (and yes, unexplained) events in American and human history; there are still many of us who continue to have questions and to question!
deal with it!
What part or parts are "unexplained?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
