|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/04/2007 : 13:36:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer said:
| And tell me, Sunshine, did any of these scenarios have the hijackers ramming a building? |
Yes, I posted the link. Here it is again.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise
"Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
|
And as was shown above, the answer was no.
|
Are you claiming the NORAD spokesman is lying?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/04/2007 : 14:49:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer said:
| And tell me, Sunshine, did any of these scenarios have the hijackers ramming a building? |
Yes, I posted the link. Here it is again.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise
"Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
|
And as was shown above, the answer was no.
|
Are you claiming the NORAD spokesman is lying?
|
No, I'm saying you are lying about what the NORAD spokesman is saying. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 15:32:26 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer, I quoted him.
"Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
So, when a quote is presented that disagrees with you the person that presents the quote is a lier?
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 18:05:28 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the more detailed information about propane, Dude. I can see your point about it not being an ideal FAE propellant.
Here's a hypothesis: Al Qaeda (or other) bombmaking pros could have suggested that terrorists operating in Britain avoid all connection with high explosive ingredients, such as those used in the earlier London subway bombings, as the Brits are now doubtless watching the sources of those ingredients like hawks. But they hadn't yet clamped down on patio barbequing activities, so that less than ideal propellant, propane, may have been suggested.
I understand that there are a heap of actual Al Qaeda manuals of all sorts, many of which are available on Jihadist Web sites. It would be interesting to see one on FAE and propane, wouldn't it? And it would be interesting to see the full list of ingredients in those cars. (I can understand why the Brits might not want to publish such a list, especially if it constituted an effective recipe for a bomb.)
Even a failed bombing by a group of trusted doctors is a success by Al Qaeda's twisted standards: At a minimum, Brits and others become even less trustful of their Muslim and Central Asian miniorities. After all, if doctors would try to murder innocents like this, how much more dangerous is that surly taxi driver, Ahmed, over there? Such a reaction would help to further alienate Eurpoean Muslims, keep them from assimilating into those Western nations, and provide a better recruiting environment for the Jihadis.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/04/2007 18:11:14 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 20:39:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, I quoted him.
"Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
So, when a quote is presented that disagrees with you the person that presents the quote is a lier?
|
When you get a chance to pry yourself down from the cross you've nailed yourself to (also an odd game fundies play), try researching the entire quote. It does not say what you assume it does. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 20:43:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, I quoted him.
"Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
So, when a quote is presented that disagrees with you the person that presents the quote is a lier?
|
When you get a chance to pry yourself down from the cross you've nailed yourself to (also an odd game fundies play), try researching the entire quote. It does not say what you assume it does.
|
Do you really read words and make up meanings as you go?
Are you just fooling around?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 18:29:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, I quoted him.
"Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
So, when a quote is presented that disagrees with you the person that presents the quote is a lier?
|
When you get a chance to pry yourself down from the cross you've nailed yourself to (also an odd game fundies play), try researching the entire quote. It does not say what you assume it does.
|
Do you really read words and make up meanings as you go?
|
No, that's your job. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 18:59:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, I quoted him.
"Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
So, when a quote is presented that disagrees with you the person that presents the quote is a lier?
|
When you get a chance to pry yourself down from the cross you've nailed yourself to (also an odd game fundies play), try researching the entire quote. It does not say what you assume it does.
|
Do you really read words and make up meanings as you go?
|
No, that's your job.
|
Why did you post all of the above but edit; without comment, part of what I said?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 20:20:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, I quoted him.
"Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday."
So, when a quote is presented that disagrees with you the person that presents the quote is a lier?
|
When you get a chance to pry yourself down from the cross you've nailed yourself to (also an odd game fundies play), try researching the entire quote. It does not say what you assume it does.
|
Do you really read words and make up meanings as you go?
|
No, that's your job.
|
Why did you post all of the above but edit; without comment, part of what I said?
|
What is because it was a provocative rhetorical question meant to evoke an emotional response?
I'll take obvious answers to leading questions for $200, Jerome. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2007 : 21:50:34 [Permalink]
|
"Are you just fooling around?"
This is not rhetorical.
This is not provocative.
This was not "meant to evoke an emotional response".
You really should know the meanings of words before you string them together to make a sentence.
The question was to discern if you are just fooling around. Based on this response the answer is no. You really think you mean the things you write.
No offense meant.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 16:01:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
"Are you just fooling around?"
This is not rhetorical.
This is not provocative.
This was not "meant to evoke an emotional response".
You really should know the meanings of words before you string them together to make a sentence.
The question was to discern if you are just fooling around. Based on this response the answer is no. You really think you mean the things you write.
No offense meant.
|
OK, that's it.
Obviously, you are not interested in having a serious conversation.
This will be the last communication between you and I concerning any matter outside my official duties here.
Have a nice life. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 16:24:02 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer said:
| This will be the last communication between you and I concerning any matter outside my official duties here. |
I am sorry to hear that. I honestly could not tell if you were only just playing a game and fooling around.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 18:37:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why did you post all of the above but edit; without comment, part of what I said? |
I am not sure I understand why you're asking this question, JEROME DA GNOME, since it was clear Valiant Dancer's reply was solely to the quoted portion of your post.
Many people here will answer a portion of a post they disagree with, leaving out the parts that do not need to be contested. There are several reasons to do this; among them are agreement with the point, the perception that a question is rhetorical, or any number of other reasons. In the future, if you feel a question of yours is inadequately answered , you should say so. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 18:46:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why did you post all of the above but edit; without comment, part of what I said? |
I am not sure I understand why you're asking this question, JEROME DA GNOME, since it was clear Valiant Dancer's reply was solely to the quoted portion of your post.
Many people here will answer a portion of a post they disagree with, leaving out the parts that do not need to be contested. There are several reasons to do this; among them are agreement with the point, the perception that a question is rhetorical, or any number of other reasons. In the future, if you feel a question of yours is inadequately answered , you should say so.
|
That is what I did.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
UK: Holy Smoke!
