Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Speaking of the protec report, i wonder where that rebuttal jazzz was working on is?beesonthewhatnow said:Oh for fucks sake...
9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
MikeMcc said:
No mike, i don't care if i'm taken seriously or not. I don't care what anybody thinks about me, coz there's nowt i can do about it, and nowt i wanna do about it.
I'm unsure about the controlled demolition. While it seems to me there was one, i find it very difficult to imagine how it was all set up, and done so without anybody noticing.
And y'see, from my position, which i've mentioned a few times down the years, i don't really believe anything or anybody (except science) outside of my own experiences. I've seen how 'experts' get it wrong, i've seen how people lie according to the agenda they're on. I've seen the machinations of politicians and those in power, protecting their power.
So any report that says categorically it was this or that, or wasn't this or wasn't that, well that's all it says. It doesn't mean that it's the truth. I'm sceptical of all versions of 911, and until stuff goes to the court none of us will ever know.
But the likes of you and many others here seem to have taken the position that it was not lihop or mihop, seem to somehow categorically know it wasn't an inside job, and seem to have plenty of evidence that it wasn't. YOU ALL SEEM TO KNOW. I don't know. But up to you mate, if that protec report categorically says it wasn't a CD on the towers, then you just go ahead and believe it. And if you think i'm a nutjob, then you just go ahead and think that man.
Who the fuck cares? It's only life mate.
MikeMcc said:
Yeah i know, i was dealing in the opposite of exaggeration whatever that is!
You've actually made me curious to maybe read this report, because of your words 'so conclusive'.
If you have the time and inclination mike, perhaps you can tell this sceptic of experts and conclusiveness what makes you accept its findings as being fact?
Also, if you know where it is, a link to the report? At over a hundred pages it'll be a bit of a search to find it...
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Just google "protec report 9/11"
beesonthewhatnow said:
Okay, just done that. I'm sorry if this is repeated stuff on this thread (but then at over 100 pages this might not be the first time!), but if i've got the right thing, then i cannot for the life of me equate this report with mike's words that it
"completely refutes the idea of a controlled demolition"
and
"is so conclusive."
I read this, not all of it, but after establishing to my mind that the authors have signposted some kind of agenda in writing it, i stopped. They seemed at great pains to bolster both their own integrity, and to display objectivity. If one has integrity and objectivity, it is not necessary to spend time establishing it.
This report is an example of why i find it difficult to trust anything out there that has not been proven by science.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
Incidentally, just who is, or what is implosionworld??
Given that they are posting about such a contentious subject with all of the theories that have been published I would say that was absolutely essential for them to give the information to those who aren't in the industry to show the credentials that they have.fela fan said:
It's a pity you didn't bother to read the asssertions that were made in the document.
Implosionworld appears to be an industry news webpage where different companies can post up the work they are doing, news stories, etc. It's a trade site in the same way that Drives & Controls is for the industry that I am in.
I did go on to reading a few of their assertions, and that to me is exactly what they were, 'assertions'. I'd like to ask you though how you can read assertions and then take this to be conclusive evidence that they are talking factually and truthfully. Assertions = conclusive evidence??
The industry i'm in is language, and i'm sorry mike, but before they even get to their assertions the language they've used makes it all look so very dodgy.
Incidentally, even if not you personally, many have cautioned against taking stuff from the internet and producing it as evidence for one's position.
I'd take that protec report with a tiny pinch of salt.
The industry i'm in is language, and i'm sorry mike, but before they even get to their assertions the language they've used makes it all look so very dodgy.
Incidentally, even if not you personally, many have cautioned against taking stuff from the internet and producing it as evidence for one's position.
I'd take that protec report with a tiny pinch of salt.
Loki said:
Now now loki, you're not reading very closely! I said i 'did go on to reading....'.
And when i did come to reading it some of what they said i felt seemed reasonable to me as a layman. But no more than reasonable, and nothing at all to do with being conclusive.
Yoohoo, you said you gave up reading it, right herefela fan said:
Loki said:
Loki, sorry, i'm beginning to get a memory that english is not your first language? I'm only saying that because 'i did go on to...' means that having not done something i then indicate that i then did do that something.
I recall with great clarity that post of mine, and the fact that after it i then went back to the article when i had a bit more time. My curiosity had been piqued by mike.
Loki said:
I read the preamble. Then several hours after saying that i'd not read any more of it, i returned to answer mike because by that time i'd read a lot of the actual assertions in the article. I made that clear to mike by saying that i "did go on to reading...", which i did several hours before that post, and subsequent to the post you keep on quoting.
If you can't be arsed mate, don't start it all off! My language is perfectly clear, and i'm here to continue this with you until you ignore me or accept that you've not read things properly. All in the interests of not being mistaken you understand!
Ah now! That's where you're going wrong, don't you see!laptop said:
You are going to look up the appropriate defintion. What you should be doing is making one up which perfectly fits your needs ...
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
editor said:
Is 911 conspiracy bollocks too contraversial?
And yes laptop seeing as FF is offended by my use of facts and logic he cannot respond to me, mirrors offend him. Unless they are those fun house mirrors that distort things. He's down with those.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
So Jazzz, this point by point analysis of that report....
8den said:
Oi stalker, i told you to stop bothering me. I told you i'd not be engaging in any debate with you, yet you continue to stalk no doubt praying for some kind of reaction from me: well you have one now, enjoy it, it's gonna be yer only one. You're a serial offender, and need to do some growing up. I'll give you a few years yet before you can behave properly.
Now, stop stalking people, you internet creep.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
