Don't be fooled by Darwin's Monkeys

[RegieRocker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E&feature=channel_video_title

They reject truth.

[William Seger]

1. The truth about Stubblebine

... is that it's quite possible that he thinks the little voices in his head are giving him Psychic Intelligence, which he also undertook before being relieved of his command. But in the end, it never matters who believes what, but rather why they believe it.

Stubblebine, in support of his belief that it wasn't a 757 that hit the Pentagon: "I have been unable to find those wing marks."

It could be that Stubblebine made one too many attempts to walk through walls, but let's see if YOU will reject the evidence that he doesn't know what he's talking about:







This, along with piles of similar horseshit, were debunked years ago, RegieRocker. Sorry, but the fact that it keeps getting flung around shows who rejects any real attempt at finding the truth.

[RegieRocker]

2. You got nothing. That is all you have "he's physchotic because

he believes what he believes which is against what you believe". That's nothing. Zero. Nada.
What about this report?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFz7gLz7CVk&feature=related

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. nice projection, but Seger brought photographic evidence

It really doesn't matter why Stubblebine is wrong, only whether he is wrong.

What about this report?

What about that report? Are you suggesting that the plane actually landed? I can imagine how one eyewitness might have gotten that impression, but I can't imagine how thousands of other eyewitnesses would have missed it.

[RegieRocker]

4. The question has never been if anything hit the Pentagon

it's what hit it.

[RegieRocker]

7. Whoo hoo photographic evidence.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f0_1311359909

Here is my counter and I raise you one.

[William Seger]

8. Are you seriously accepting that as "photographic evidence"

... that there was no fire at the Pentagon? So you must believe all the photos that show the fire must have been faked?

[RegieRocker]

10. No wing marks, no fire from thousands of gallons

of jet fuel that supposedly caused Twin Towers to fall? Think about it. It melted steel and all things flammable in those buildings and brought 100 plus stories to come crashing to the ground like a controlled demolition but left desks, computer monitors and paper intact at the point of impact at the pentagon? That is the problem with lies, it's hard to spin so many and make them applicable in different scenarios where they must apply.

[William Seger]

13. Really?

It seems you're fully prepared to simply deny any evidence that's presented. Which makes your OP quite a pantload.

[RegieRocker]

16. Are you sane? The video clearly shows items that were not touched by fire at the point of entry.

[William Seger]

21. THIS is the "point of entry"

I asked if you believe, based on the video you offered, that all photos showing the fire were faked, which would also imply a lot of witnesses were lying. Answer that question first and then we can discuss sanity.

[William Seger]

23. Here's the photo from your video, btw

The "photographic evidence" you offer as proof that there was no fire actually shows a lot of fire damage:



At first, I thought this might be the stupidest argument I've ever seen from the "truth movement," but on reflection, it might not even make the Top 10.

[RegieRocker]

29. No it doesn't and it reinforces my point

[William Seger]

31. The only point that it reinforces is mine

... that you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on reality.

[RegieRocker]

33. It reinforces that you need to seek mental help immediately

[William Seger]

5. LOL. Yes, horseshit exactly like that

Years ago, "truthers" first started using a dishonestly edited version of that clip to have the reporter appear to be saying that no plane hit the Pentagon. Strangely, your video has the full context in which he's clearly saying that he's seen no evidence of a plane hitting NEAR the Pentagon and that the only crash site he's seen is the side of the building itself. Did you get confused about which version to post?

So anyway, I was asking if you can help Stubblebine find wing marks...?

[RegieRocker]

6. prove the "dishonestly edited version" and

I don't see any wing marks, evidently you do, so the task is yours with Stubblebine. More horseshit.

[William Seger]

9. There were many dishonestly edited versions

... which leave out the question that was asked, which was about reports that a plane crashed NEAR the Pentagon. It took about 5 seconds to find this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPxI4XUx2LE

So, your story is you don't see any wing marks either, and Mcintyre reported that no plane hit the Pentagon, and there wasn't any large fire at the Pentagon?

[RegieRocker]

11. You didn't prove the cnn report was edited. Until then....

[William Seger]

12. WTF? I didn't prove the report was edited?!

As I said, it was edited to leave out the question that was asked, which was about some reports that a plane crashed NEAR the Pentagon. This was deliberately done by a fraudulent "truther" to deceive gullible people into thinking Mcintyre was saying he didn't see any evidence of a plane crash at all. And it worked on you.

[OnTheOtherHand]

15. clearly the version you linked to is edited, but isn't there some conjecture here?

All I can tell for sure is that I cannot tell what point RegieRocker intended to make by posting that video.

If I'm following, your conjecture is that RR intended to link to a version in which the reporter appeared to be saying that a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon, and instead linked to a fuller version in which it's clear that the reporter said that the plane did crash into the Pentagon. That makes more sense than any alternative I have thought of -- but it's possible that RR was trying to make some other point.

[RegieRocker]

17. No you posted a video that also said no evidence of a plane.

So you understand post the video that is not edited. It's not that hard.

[OnTheOtherHand]

19. you have this backwards

The reporter is asked about an eyewitness who said that it appeared that the plane had landed short of the Pentagon. He replies that it may have appeared that way, but there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon -- the only site is the actual side of the building that is crashed in. And there are no large pieces of the plane anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Some people -- apparently including you -- want to construe this as a statement that the reporter sees no evidence that a plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon. On the contrary, the reporter is saying that there is no evidence that the plane crashed anywhere short of the Pentagon.

I guess it's possible to misinterpret his words whether or not one listens to the question to which he is responding. But it's very odd. He says that the evidence "would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon"; apparently you hear him saying that there is no evidence of a plane. :shrug:

[William Seger]

24. Now you're claiming he didn't say what he said?

Tell me the one about "rejecting truth" again.

[RegieRocker]

28. For some reason you're not comprehending it correctly. Not sure why.

Poat the entire unedited video that might help.

[William Seger]

30. Bullshit. You already posted enough of it

... to show that the one I posted took Macintyre's statement out of context. But even in that out-of-context version, here's what he said:

You know, it might have appeared that way (a response to the edited-out question, if a plane "landed short of the Pentagon"), but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Seems pretty clear to me which one of us is not comprehending what he said, "for some reason."

But there is actually more before that, where he talks about what he's seen (which includes the fire that you deny). Maybe this page will help you figure it out:

http://www.911myths.com/html/jamie_mcintyre_and_the_pentago.html

[RegieRocker]

34. What made the large exit hole? It certainly wasn't disintegrated it

couldn't have made the hole.

[William Seger]

37. "This was punched by the rescue workers to clean it out. "

... according to the renovation contractor:

http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0915/DoD.html

Next?

[RegieRocker]

39. Oh my god! You're seriously believe that malarky? Roflmao.

Look you keep avoiding the obvious and we are getting no where. Yes the stublebum video is questionable no doubt and the no plane hit the pentagon was not about "no plane" it was just to show peoples perceptions of what happened were varied. So I'll believe that the whole truth has not been discovered and you can believe it has. The problem with these things is unless your there it leaves one to take the msm and other eyewitness accounts as fact. I however don't buy it because of the unburned items with 1800 degree jet fuel able to burn steel but not a book and the exit hole which was shown before any contractors were there. Beside they torn down the whole section of the pentagon to repair it. Firefighters maybe but that it's all.

[William Seger]

40. In other words

... you'll continue to believe highly implausible things for no good reason. It doesn't matter to you that the "reasons" you gave have been shown to be horseshit, because "reason" really plays no part in it. You have convinced me, however, that you will stonewall any attempts to penetrate the barrier of ignorance you've erected around your delusions, so indeed we don't seem to be getting anywhere.

Except, of course, to demonstrate that your OP was a pantload.

[RegieRocker]

41. The description is you since, once again you are unable to

explain flammable items not incinerated and the edit hole explanation is ridiculous. The op has done and shown what was intended. Thanks.

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. of course he explained flammable items not incinerated

They weren't in the path of the plane or jet fuel.

You haven't offered any explanation of why you think the exit hole explanation is ridiculous, so for now, I'll assume you're wrong. Thanks.

[RegieRocker]

43. The whole span of the plane wing tip to wing tip should've

incinerated everything. Fuel tanks are located left center and right. Fuel should've followed in with the fuselage due to the center tank into the cavity igniting everything in came into contact with and the heat should've ignited items within a reasonable proximity to the fire. It did not.

[William Seger]

44. After further consideration, I think I was wrong

I think this really does belong on the Top 10 list of stupid "truther" arguments. Congratulations.

In the first place, the wingtips did not penetrate the building; they shattered against the wall. Any fuel that was in them (if there was any -- the plane wasn't completely full) would have exploded outside the building (and therefore would have been part of the fireball seen on the surveillance camera video).

In the second place, those two unburned rooms are on the fourth and fifth floors and off to the left of where the fuselage and engines entered the building on the first floor. We've seen a lot of "truthers" here who seem to have difficulty with spatial relationships, but that is not "reasonable proximity" to the "entry point" such that it would have been involved in the initial fire. The fire would have needed to spread to there, and you've offered nothing resembling a rational reason to be suspicious that it didn't. Fires are chaotic things, so they often do unexpected things, but that's only because we don't know all the factors involved in any given situation.

In the third place, your self-induced myopia is irrelevant in the face of the clear fire damage that the same photo shows to other rooms.

And finally, the prize-winner: You persist in ignoring the huge mountain of evidence and eyewitness testimony that there was a large fire. Anyone who can do that is too far out of touch with reality to be giving lectures about "truth."

[RegieRocker]

46. Your inablility to grasp reality shows you have no cognizant

abilities at all. You slither away with diatribe and prove noting. You have no spatial ability and I prove that in my photos. Quite the contrary, it is you who is having a hard time with ignoring obvious anomalies which bring questions to sane minds. Once again I will point out that it is you who thinks all those who oppose the msm facts believe that it wasn't a plane. This is where you show your ineptness at having real conversations. The very same thing you claim the "truthers" have. I find it hard to believe that a 757 hit the pentagon for the reasons my photos state. I in no way say it's impossible, I do say however it's odd that those things I point out in my photos exist.

In the first place, the wingtips did not penetrate the building; they shattered against the wall. Any fuel that was in them (if there was any -- the plane wasn't completely full) would have exploded outside the building (and therefore would have been part of the fireball seen on the surveillance camera video). Wrong it did penetrate the building and would have brought the burning fuel in with it, are you contesting the large hole?

And finally, the prize-winner: You persist in ignoring the huge mountain of evidence and eyewitness testimony that there was a large fire. Anyone who can do that is too far out of touch with reality to be giving lectures about "truth." Wrong again. I never said there wasn't a large fire. I said it should have burned the flammables in the cavity created by whatever.

So in retrospect I will give you the #1 spot of "No Conspiracy Nuts". You have given no hard facts or explanation for the questions I have posed. Only sputum. Have a nice day.

[William Seger]

49. Yeah, all I've proved is that you've failed miserably to substantiate a single claim

... and that you either don't quite grasp the concepts of "evidence" and "logical argument" or you have boundless ability to completely ignore both if they go counter to your baseless claims, and that the OP was a pantload. But what's a few more items on your long list of denials, huh.

[RegieRocker]

50. That it's all you got, more diatribe, no hard facts. A lame ass

Photograph with your lame ass overlay of a plane and lame ass assumptions. The best part is the left wing direction line is at a different angle than the other direction lines and a joke. You full of horse hockey.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. projection much?

Your inablility to grasp reality shows you have no cognizant abilities at all. You slither away with diatribe and prove nothing.... You have given no hard facts or explanation for the questions I have posed. Only sputum.

Ummmmmmm.

The fact remains: the unburned materials you've pointed to are well above where the plane crashed -- or, for the sake of argument, where the plane is said to have crashed. They aren't in the "cavity" formed by the impact. Accusing Seger of an "inablility to grasp reality," etc., etc., in no way addresses his point.

I in no way say it's impossible, I do say however it's odd that those things I point out in my photos exist.

That's what you were trying to communicate by linking to Stubblebine's video with the message, "Don't be fooled by Darwin's Monkeys.... They reject truth"? And you think all this reveals Seger's "ineptness at having real conversations"?

Fascinating.

One more:

Wrong it did penetrate the building and would have brought the burning fuel in with it, are you contesting the large hole?

Seger obviously didn't say that the plane (singular) didn't penetrate the building. He said that the wingtips (plural) didn't penetrate the building.

[RegieRocker]

53. The plane has 3 tanks one being in the fuselage. The mental block is

way beyond reproach obviously. I'm so done with trying to have a conversation with "no conspiracy nuts". They bring nothing valid to table in regards to questions about this topic. G

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. you are simply ignoring us, so you don't know what we bring to the table

No one contested that there was a central fuel tank. At best, that's bad reading on your part.

As I said, the fact remains: the unburned materials you've pointed to are well above where the plane crashed -- or, for the sake of argument, where the plane is said to have crashed. They aren't in the "cavity" formed by the impact.

It's interesting that you replied to my post by hurling insults, but without responding to that point.

[Flatulo]

47. Self-delete

Not nice.

[RegieRocker]

20. No you leave out my question

How is it that the purported jet fuel burning at thousand of degrees burnt everything including steel in the twin towers and caused them to collapse like a perfect demolition job but left desks, monitors, stools and paper items completely intact at the point of impact at the pentagon. Now if you can logically answer that question you might have done validity otherwise.......

[William Seger]

22. You need to start by figuring out where that section is

... relative to the "point of impact."



Looking at a photo that shows unburned items on the upper floors of that standing section and concluding that there wasn't any fire at all is not "logical."

[RegieRocker]

26. No I don't. The claim of fire destroyed the structure of the

twin towers is a massive statement. These items were at the point of impact, entry or exit area. Plus there should have been a massive area of the facade and roof charred black.

[William Seger]

32. In the first place, that's NOT the claim for either the towers or the Pentagon

In all three cases, it was a combination of structural damage from massive plane crashes, and then the fires.

In the second place, I recommend that you consult an optometrist at your earliest convenience, before you hurt yourself.

[RegieRocker]

35. Lol you try and avoid why flammable objects along the entry point to the

exit did not burn because you have no plausable explanation for it.
Maybe this video will help.
http://m.youtube.com/?errmsg=INVALID_STATE_ERR%3A%20DOM%20Exception%2011&rdm=4nwsci28t&reload=5#/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBmP2Vy8K0i0&v=BmP2Vy8K0i0&gl=US

[William Seger]

36. More bullshit. I already answered that nonsense

Those two unburned rooms are two floors above and off the left of the "entry point." Furthermore, the rooms behind and below those two rooms show clear evidence of fire damage, so claiming there was no fire is beyond absurd.

[RegieRocker]

38. You didn't answer a damn thing. You have no explanation for it at all.

[RegieRocker]

45. Ok I took the time.....

Next

I call your bullshit.

[William Seger]

48. See if this diagram helps you figure it out

1. The collapsed section is along an expansion joint, which is why it's perpendicular to the wall, not parallel to the plane's path.

2. Your "no burn marks from fuel" arrow points to an area where clearer photos show burn marks:



3. Your claims that "that amount of fuel should have melted the glass" and "the impact of the plane should have broken all the glass" are nothing but unsubstantiated personal incredulity, anyway, but you seem to be unaware that these were 2-inch-thick blast resistant glass, installed as part of the wall-strengthening renovation. In the chaos of the crash, some were broken and some weren't, and once again you're given no rational reason for thinking that's suspicious.

4. Beats me WTF you're trying to say about engine and landing gear "craters." If you mean craters in the floor, that didn't happen because the plane hit at a very shallow angle.

5. Some of your text is unintelligible, even after I make out what the text says.

[RegieRocker]

52. Still nothing.

1. The collapsed section is along an expansion joint, which is why it's perpendicular to the wall, not parallel to the plane's path.
That is just a hypothesis.

3. Your claims that "that amount of fuel should have melted the glass" and "the impact of the plane should have broken all the glass" are nothing but unsubstantiated personal incredulity, anyway, but you seem to be unaware that these were 2-inch-thick blast resistant glass, installed as part of the wall-strengthening renovation. In the chaos of the crash, some were broken and some weren't, and once again you're given no rational reason for thinking that's suspicious. Personal incredulity for which you are the master of. The glass I pointed out was in the impact area you were the one who is irrational.

4. Beats me WTF you're trying to say about engine and landing gear "craters." If you mean craters in the floor, that didn't happen because the plane hit at a very shallow angle. Maybe this picture will help you comprehend what a crater in the earth is from a foreign object.

.html?src=www

5. Some of your text is unintelligible, even after I make out what the text says. More diatribe.

[Make7]

14. This video is also interesting (starting at about a minute and a half in):

 
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5h5qh_krazy-rulers-of-the-nwo-the-rat-mas_news
 

[RegieRocker]

18. Stare at goats! Walk through walls! Didn't know he was that general.

Watched the movie. Ok so much for his thoughts on it. Good one.

[salvorhardin]

25. You should read the book that the movie was based on.

Jon Ronson is a very funny writer. He's like the Dave Barry of narrative nonfiction journalism.

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Who-Stare-Goats/dp/B003E7ET0I

[RegieRocker]

27. Well the movie was all I could take on the subject of

Men who stare at goats. I think you can understand.