Flight 77 and intercepts

[Laura]

Do you mean you can't write the word for male chickens? So I wonder what a -John Thomas--fight looks like?
[Sorry I just HAD to try it for myself! It really does change it! ]

LOL! You can blame it all on me! I'm an Aquarian with Cancer ascending and a Virgo moon... I wouldn't participate on the forum if I had to constantly read low and negative energy language, so the tekkies installed the censor. It does produce funny results when inappropriately applied! Equally, if you know how it works and need to bypass it, you can get creative.

 

[mattnapa]

Again Vulcan the person who puts themselves in the position to question the legitimacy of every fact has an unfair advantage in any discussion. Do you have positive assertions to make on what happened, or only questions for other's assertions.

 

[truth seeker]

Again Vulcan the person who puts themselves in the position to question the legitimacy of every fact has an unfair advantage in any discussion. Do you have positive assertions to make on what happened, or only questions for other's assertions.

So are you saying that there are some "facts" that are to be questioned and others that are not? If that's the case, how would anyone ever determine what is indeed factual? How do you determine what is truth and what is not?

Vulcan is not attacking you but rather trying to find out where you received the information that leads you to your assertions. There's no need to be defensive.

One of the things we do here on this forum is to question ourselves. We also question each other. This is the only way to get as close to the truth in any subject as we can. This is because it is difficult for any of us to see anything clearly on our own. Therefore anyone who comes with any assertion will be asked how and why they believe what they do. It's not a personal attack on anyone but rather the method in which we work on ourselves individually and collectively.

edit: clarity

 

[anart]

Again Vulcan the person who puts themselves in the position to question the legitimacy of every fact has an unfair advantage in any discussion. Do you have positive assertions to make on what happened, or only questions for other's assertions.

This is actually a bit of a paramoralism, coupled with an attack-based deflection.

 

[Gonzo]

Hi Calypso, as has been mentioned, it is habitual to question anyone presenting what one might believe as truth, when it usually turns out to be opinion. There is an excellent thread on the forum about opinions. I can't find it right now as I'm on my BlackBerry, but the forum search is quite powerful.

Everyone here is committed to helping each other grow and develop their critical, discerning functions, which ultimately leads to awakening from illusion and development of increasing awareness.

When I first came to the forum and saw this questioning, I experienced several reactions. First off, I was raised to believe the only reason someone would question what you are saying is because they held the opposite belief. This couldn't be further from the truth here.

After a lengthy forced examination of what you might be presenting, you may find agreement is closer than you originally thought. Or, conversely, you may find weaknesses in your thought processes you hadn't originally noticed and may find your beliefs adjusting to new information.

The idea is to never have a fixed belief, rather a working hypothesis subject to change as new information is accessed.

As well, I used to identify too much with people being questioned and felt those questioning to be inconsiderate of their feelings. I have since changed that, once I identified the role my overly critical father played in my life.

Please know that all efforts here are out of dedication and love to humanity and its potential to escape the control matrix within which we are trapped.

Finally, it is important for you to know the purpose of this forum (you really have to read the newbie section) so you can understand why we are gathered here and what the ground rules are. The moderators and senior members do an excellent job of keeping the multitudes of opinion spammers, psychopaths and others hell-bent on taking us off our mutual and individual paths of growth and development.

Oh yeah, and it is also important to know that the 911 Truth movement is compromised with many members now repeating planted poppy-cock, inadvertently becoming agents of disinformation.

Welcome, BTW.I do hope you honestly try to keep your defenses and emotions at bay as nobody here means you any harm.

Gonzo

 

[Laura]

Thank you, Gonzo, for summing it up so well. One of my favorite questions is: "Sez Who?"

 

[Vulcan59]

Again Vulcan the person who puts themselves in the position to question the legitimacy of every fact has an unfair advantage in any discussion. Do you have positive assertions to make on what happened, or only questions for other's assertions.

No, I have no assertions to make nor do I want to be at an advantage. That's not my intention. I was merely asking "Sez Who" to which you responded the "official record of the 9/11 commission" and so now I am asking, what are the details? As Ark always says, "the devil is in the details."

 

[mattnapa]

So are you saying that there are some "facts" that are to be questioned and others that are not? If that's the case, how would anyone ever determine what is indeed factual? How do you determine what is truth and what is not?

Since the answer is no to the first question there is no. As to the second it is up to you as much as me to answer that. I am tired of being put in the position of the ultimate justifier of fact. If you want to have a discussion about it fine, but I do not feel like I should be the only one being grilled

Vulcan is not attacking you but rather trying to find out where you received the information that leads you to your assertions. There's no need to be defensive.

You are the one reading definsivenees and attack into my statements.

One of the things we do here on this forum is to question ourselves. We also question each other. This is the only way to get as close to the truth in any subject as we can. This is because it is difficult for any of us to see anything clearly on our own. Therefore anyone who comes with any assertion will be asked how and why they believe what they do. It's not a personal attack on anyone but rather the method in which we work on ourselves individually and collectively.


edit: clarity

Thats fine but those who question assertions hamay have those questions questioned as well


Mod's note: Edited to fix the quotation boxes.

 

[mattnapa]

Again Vulcan the person who puts themselves in the position to question the legitimacy of every fact has an unfair advantage in any discussion. Do you have positive assertions to make on what happened, or only questions for other's assertions.

This is actually a bit of a paramoralism, coupled with an attack-based deflection.

Anart- You have never even answered why you felt it was necessary for me to read posts here that had nothing to do with my posts. So please do not lecture me until you answer that. and maybe then you could skip the hyperbole


Mod's note: Edited to fix the quotation boxes

 

[mattnapa]

Vulcan- Pardon my frustration with Anart. I presented some other points in my message before last which I felt went unacknowledged. They included the contradiction in quoting and questioning the 9/11 commission at the same time. I asked you to give me a sense of what you thought good evidence is, and the danger that ultimate scepticism precludes all discussion. It seemed you ignored all these points in favor of a continued questioning of the facts I have presented. Don't get me wrong the questions you ask are certainly legitimate in some sense, but when all else is excluded I find the discussion becomes more of an inquisition than discussion.

You stated that a tech log exists for all aircraft. How do you know that? Even if I were to say that the 9/11 commission used the tech logs, used radar reports, etc that would still be no proof that they were real. Certainty is on the way out with technology and those who control it. I have no illusions about that. You would probably find me at the front of the line with the claim nothing is certain. So that is why I ask again that we develop some agreement on what things can be more certain than others, rather than this infinite regress of questioning which will only lead to foundationalism.

So yes I could probably go back and dig away at the records of the 9/11 commission to see what the claims are for the evidence they used, but what difference would it make they could still be lies. My point is that this is official record true or not, should be discussed and known in the public arena. I think an equally valid tract in discerning truth is to examine what is given at face value and to determine whether the story makes sense, as opposed to a tract which questions facts for their initial validity before considering the totality of the overall story

 

[anart]

Anart- You have never even answered why you felt it was necessary for me to read posts here that had nothing to do with my posts. So please do not lecture me until you answer that. and maybe then you could skip the hyperbole

Calypso, I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to lead you by the hand. The forum search engine is more than capable of helping you find what has been covered (in-depth) on this forum before you write another post on something - a post that amounts to noise and nothing more. It is externally considerate to understand that you are not the only person on the forum, and that an enormous amount of time and energy has already gone into discussing such topics. The information is there - freely available - if you simply put in the smallest amount of effort.

Your attitude at this point is completely unacceptable. Please either get up to speed on the material here and drop the belligerent attitude or your posting privileges will be revoked.

 

[mattnapa]

anart- I doubt you have the ability or the knowledge to lead me anywhere on the subject. but you go ahead and hide behind your smug attitude without proving a thing. I searched for flight 77, and guess what I got my thread only. There is no vast background discussion here unless it is very well hidden. Even if such a discussion exists there is no logical reason why it should be necessary for an already well informed person to review them in order to participate here. I think that you, anart, have some necessity involved in proving what you say here as well. If you wish to claim you are so advanced in your knowledge of the intercept, and that the group has already thoroughly taken in the subject then prove it. Instead of rising to the challenge for proof, you shrink to personal attack of the questioner in order to justify your lack of participation. If being busy is a problem I have no problem with you spending less time on this thread

 

[anart]

anart- I doubt you have the ability or the knowledge to lead me anywhere on the subject. but you go ahead and hide behind your smug attitude without proving a thing. I searched for flight 77, and guess what I got my thread only. There is no vast background discussion here unless it is very well hidden. Even if such a discussion exists there is no logical reason why it should be necessary for an already well informed person to review them in order to participate here. I think that you, anart, have some necessity involved in proving what you say here as well. If you wish to claim you are so advanced in your knowledge of the intercept, and that the group has already thoroughly taken in the subject then prove it. Instead of rising to the challenge for proof, you shrink to personal attack of the questioner in order to justify your lack of participation. If being busy is a problem I have no problem with you spending less time on this thread

Hi Calypso, it will obviously benefit you, and the forum, for you to have a 'cooling off period' since you appear to be unable to abide by forum guidelines and behave in a generally respectful and productive manner.

For this reason, your posting privileges have been temporarily restricted.

Hopefully this will give you an opportunity to calm down a bit and decide whether or not you wish to participate sincerely on this forum.

 

[Vulcan59]

You stated that a tech log exists for all aircraft. How do you know that? Even if I were to say that the 9/11 commission used the tech logs, used radar reports, etc that would still be no proof that they were real. Certainty is on the way out with technology and those who control it. I have no illusions about that. You would probably find me at the front of the line with the claim nothing is certain. So that is why I ask again that we develop some agreement on what things can be more certain than others, rather than this infinite regress of questioning which will only lead to foundationalism.

So yes I could probably go back and dig away at the records of the 9/11 commission to see what the claims are for the evidence they used, but what difference would it make they could still be lies. My point is that this is official record true or not, should be discussed and known in the public arena. I think an equally valid tract in discerning truth is to examine what is given at face value and to determine whether the story makes sense, as opposed to a tract which questions facts for their initial validity before considering the totality of the overall story

Well I was a military pilot for about 11 years and currently am a commercial pilot with an airline for the last 21 years or so, and so tech logs do exist since I had to fill them up both in the military and commercial world! If the report had use the tech log entries as evidence or perhaps a tape recording from the tower or even some radar returns, then we can say okay, that's something we need to confirm but lets go on with the other details see where they lead us. But if there is no such evidence then I could just as well say that maybe there were no aircraft scrambled at all. That can be a possibility too, no?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Also keep in mind that there are several "official versions" of jet scrambling on 911. David Griffin documents all the contradictory statements in his books (I think Debunking 911 Debunking has the most extensive analysis). Griffin tends to agree with the reports that say the jets were scrambled earlier than the Commission says they were, but even then, who can you really trust?