| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| regicide wrote: |
You have ascended to new lows, MOS.
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| The effing testicular lesion himself, who purports to be concerned about the assassination of Kennedy, yet doesn't hesitate to post pictures from Kennedy's autopsy that were illegally stolen from his postmortem records. |
This little-known book...bla bla bla |
Look who's talking. You know that any photos from Kennedy's autopsy that are on the Internet MUST have been stolen from his autopsy records. You purport to be concerned about Kennedy's assassination, yet you didn't have the decency to refrain from posting those photos until I called you out on it. It shows that you are obsessed with this whole issue and will go to any lengths to justify your neurotic opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Incidentally, your sentence is an opinion, not a fact. An opinion that the engineering analyses that have been done to explain the collapse of the two towers are "convoluted pseudoexplanations". |
[/quote]
You have concluded that the objective engineering analyses that have been done that contradict your statement are "convoluted pseudoexplanations". That is your opinion. It is not a fact.[/quote]
Leave it to you to completely miss the point of my sentence and instead focus on the peripheral comment. That seems to be your MO, MOS: avoid the point and attack instead some minor detail.
That is why I simplified it for you and gave you another go.
"No steel skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire before or after 9/11."
Is that a fact or an opinion? A simple one-word answer will do but feel free to expand, as I know you will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You assume they were stolen , although I have no indication of that. And anyway, how does that diminish the value of this proof even if they were stolen.
In fact, in bolsters my case because if you assume they had to be stolen, the government must have been hiding them as part of their cover-up.
But in the final analysis you are just an idiot; because these documents are available at the National Archives. But even with evidence like this , MORONS like you still continue with your nonsense.
The photos are available here:
CAUTION - EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTOS
http://www.jfklancer.com/aphotos.html
Folks: This is your brain on MOS: CAUTION SCARY STUFF ( BRAIN MISSING COMPLETELY )
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Look who's talking. You know that any photos from Kennedy's autopsy that are on the Internet MUST have been stolen from his autopsy records. You purport to be concerned about Kennedy's assassination, yet you didn't have the decency to refrain from posting those photos until I called you out on it. It shows that you are obsessed with this whole issue and will go to any lengths to justify your neurotic opinions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Incidentally, your sentence is an opinion, not a fact. An opinion that the engineering analyses that have been done to explain the collapse of the two towers are "convoluted pseudoexplanations". |
|
You have concluded that the objective engineering analyses that have been done that contradict your statement are "convoluted pseudoexplanations". That is your opinion. It is not a fact.[/quote]
Leave it to you to completely miss the point of my sentence and instead focus on the peripheral comment.[/quote]
Wrong. YOU deliberately misquoted ME, and when I called you out on the fact, you yourself provided my original quote showing that you lied about what I said. It's not my fault that you either lied on this thread, or were careless about your statements.
| Quote: |
That is why I simplified it for you and gave you another go.
"No steel skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire before or after 9/11."
Is that a fact or an opinion? A simple one-word answer will do but feel free to expand, as I know you will. |
That's not what you asked me. You said, "No steel skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire before or after 9/11, convoluted pseudoexplanations to the contrary notwithstanding." I don't know why we have to keep going around in circles about this. Your opinion as to these "convoluted pseudoexplanations" is an OPINION. Without even researching the issue, it's clear that engineering studies have been done to refute your statement, and you simply refuse to accept their validity. So anything I would say on the issue would be pointless, you're not going to believe anything anybody says that doesn't support your preconceived opinions on your 911 conspiracy nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Secret Service did nothing when the shots rang out in Dealy Plaza on November 22, 1963.
The United States Secret Service DOES NOT JUST SIT OR STAND THERE WHEN SHOTS HAVE BEEN FIRED AND HAVE HIT THE POTUS.
ANSWER MY QUESTION: WHY DIDN�T THE SECRET SERVICE
MOVE WHEN THE SHOTS RANG OUT?
THAT IS THEIR JOB. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER?
NO ONE DISPUTES THESE FACTS.
ALTGEN'S 1: SHOTS HAVE BEEN FIRED AND THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN HIT IN THE BACK AND THE NECK. THE AGENTS ARE AWARE OF THE SHOTS AND JOHNSON'S MEN ARE COVERING HIM. THE JOHNSON FOLLOW UP CAR DOOR IS OPEN AND GUNS ARE DRAWN.
THEY HAVE SIX SECONDS TO MOVE AND PROTECT THE PRESIDENT BUT DO NOT!
UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE AGENT ROY KELLERMAN IN THE FRONT SEAT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE SITTING WHERE HE WILL REMAIN WHEN THE SHOTS RANG OUT. HE WILL, HOWEVER LOOK BACK ONCE AT THE INJURED POTUS AND THE DRIVER ROY KELLERMAN WILL LOOK BACK TWICE AT THE PRESIDENT--WHO IS CHOKING ON A BULLET
AGENT CLINT HILL IN THE FOLLOW UP CAR, THE QUEEN MARY, IS ONLY A FEW FEET BEHIND KENNEDY, AND ALTHOUGH ASSIGNED TO MRS. KENNEDY, DID NOT MOVE FORWARD UNTIL THE FATAL SHOT WAS FIRED. HE HAD OVER SIX SECOND FROM THE TIME OF THE FIRST SHOT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE ALTGEN'S PHOTO
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
The Secret Service did nothing when the shots rang out in Dealy Plaza on November 22, 1963.
The United States Secret Service DOES NOT JUST SIT OR STAND THERE WHEN SHOTS HAVE BEEN FIRED AND HAVE HIT THE POTUS.
ANSWER MY QUESTION: WHY DIDN�T THE SECRET SERVICE MOVE WHEN THE SHOTS RANG OUT? THAT IS THEIR JOB. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER?
NO ONE DISPUTES THESE FACTS.
ALTGEN'S 1: SHOTS HAVE BEEN FIRED AND THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN HIT IN THE BACK AND THE NECK. THE AGENTS ARE AWARE OF THE SHOTS AND JOHNSON'S MEN ARE COVERING HIM. THE JOHNSON FOLLOW UP CAR DOOR IS OPEN AND GUNS ARE DRAWN.
THEY HAVE SIX SECONDS TO MOVE AND PROTECT THE PRESIDENT BUT DO NOT!
|
I TOLD YOU I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SECRET SERVICE "STAND DOWN" IS OR WAS AND I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS WHAT IT IS/WAS.
ROBERT ALTGENS **TOOK** THE PHOTOGRAPH. HE WAS THERE. YOU WEREN'T. HE KNOWS BETTER THAN YOU OR ANYONE ELSE WAS WHAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH SAYS AND MEANS, AND HE SAYS IT DOES NOTHING TO ALTER THE FACT THAT KENNEDY WAS KILLED BY OSWALD. THOSE ARE HIS WORDS, NOT MINE.
THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE AT THE TIME SAID WHAT HAPPENED. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Incidentally, your sentence is an opinion, not a fact. An opinion that the engineering analyses that have been done to explain the collapse of the two towers are "convoluted pseudoexplanations". |
You have concluded that the objective engineering analyses that have been done that contradict your statement are "convoluted pseudoexplanations". That is your opinion. It is not a fact. |
Leave it to you to completely miss the point of my sentence and instead focus on the peripheral comment. |
Wrong. YOU deliberately misquoted ME, and when I called you out on the fact, you yourself provided my original quote showing that you lied about what I said. It's not my fault that you either lied on this thread, or were careless about your statements.
| Quote: |
That is why I simplified it for you and gave you another go.
"No steel skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire before or after 9/11."
Is that a fact or an opinion? A simple one-word answer will do but feel free to expand, as I know you will. |
That's not what you asked me. You said, "No steel skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire before or after 9/11, convoluted pseudoexplanations to the contrary notwithstanding." I don't know why we have to keep going around in circles about this. Your opinion as to these "convoluted pseudoexplanations" is an OPINION. Without even researching the issue, it's clear that engineering studies have been done to refute your statement, and you simply refuse to accept their validity. So anything I would say on the issue would be pointless, you're not going to believe anything anybody says that doesn't support your preconceived opinions on your 911 conspiracy nonsense. |
You insist on continuing to miss the point that
| Quote: |
| "No steel skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire before or after 9/11." |
Cut the crap. You won't be able to bog me down with your invective-filled, purposely-missing-the-point disinformation. Just say whether you agree with the statement or not. It is a simple question. I am trying to have a discussion of fact here, not get into a pissing contest. If you were really interested in arriving at the truth you would be, too.
Maybe you have a legitimate reason not to be, e.g. you already know it. So please, enlighten us: what exactly happened on 9/11, and who did it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
You insist on continuing to miss the point that
| Quote: |
| "No steel skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire before or after 9/11." |
|
Then why did you add to the end of your original statement, "convoluted pseudoexplanations to the contrary"? What "convoluted pseudoexplanations" are you talking about? It's obvious that you have researched the issue far more than I have, and have run across explanations regarding the collapse of the twin towers due to fire, that you either disagree with or (more probably) don't have the technical background to understand.
The original point of this whole thing was that you claimed I was being deliberately misleading when I labeled your original statement as an opinion, not a fact. I couldn't care less about fire theories; I called you out when you misquoted me. When you re-posted your statement, and my statement, in their entirites (sp):
| bacasper wrote: |
| No steel skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire before or after 9/11, convoluted pseudoexplanations to the contrary. |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Incidentally, your statement is an opinion, not a fact. |
I pointed out that my statement could only be understood correctly in the context of what you originally said.
I'm not interested in debating you on a lot of 911 conspiracy nonsense. If I was, I'd go to the appropriate thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
|
ANSWER MY QUESTION!
ROBERT ALTGENS TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPH. HE WAS THERE. YOU WEREN'T.
HE KNOWS BETTER THAN YOU OR ANYONE ELSE WAS WHAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH SAYS AND MEANS.
HE SAYS IT DOES NOTHING TO ALTER THE FACT THAT KENNEDY WAS KILLED BY OSWALD. THOSE ARE HIS WORDS, NOT MINE.
THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE AT THE TIME SAID WHAT HAPPENED.
WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IT TOOK ME THREE CLICKS OF A MOUSE BUTTON TO DISCOVER WHAT ALTGENS SAID!
WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
Disinformation is deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government, intelligence agency, corporation or other ENTITY for the purpose of influencing opinions or perceptions.
A common disinformation tactic is to mix truth, half-truths, and lies. Disinformants sometimes seek to gain the confidence of their audience through emotional appeals or by using semi-neutral language interlaced with threads of disinformation. |
| igotthisquitar wrote: |
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
6. Hit and Run
9. Play Dumb
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
19. Ignore facts
25. Vanish
Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
1. Avoidance
|
"And by their fruits ye shall know them ..."
DAMN RIGHT! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| We are losing the battle to the tinfoil hat forces. Check this forum. We are being overrun. |
Losing the battle? YOU'RE BEING FREAKIN' SLAUGHTERED!
Believe the Warren Report: 19%
Don't believe it: 81%
If only it were a mere football game... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| We are losing the battle to the tinfoil hat forces. Check this forum. We are being overrun. |
Losing the battle? YOU'RE BEING FREAKIN' SLAUGHTERED!
Believe the Warren Report: 19%
Don't believe it: 81%
If only it were a mere football game... |
|
I wish something could be done about all these fringe weirdos who still believe that Oswald alone killed Kennedy with a magic bullet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
ANSWER MY QUESTION: WHY DIDN�T THE SECRET SERVICE
MOVE WHEN THE SHOTS RANG OUT? |
Given that the last Presidential assassination was more than 60 years prior, I somehow doubt that any of the Secret Service agents on hand had any actual experience with assassination attempts. A slow reaction time is hardly proof of a conspiracy. In fact, conspirators usually have an over exaggerated reaction time. They know what's coming and want to prove their loyalty. See references to firefighter-arsonists for example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
