The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan

The very first one of your links I click on and I find an absolute LIE in the first three sentences...and you chastise other posters for THEIR research? I dont think so.

reply to post by bsbray11


No, what YOU refuse to understand is Mr McIntyre's own words. He clearly states that all the evidence indicates the entire plane hit the building. If the plane had hit the ground first, then you would see the large pieces of the aircraft lying on the ground outside the building. That is what Mr McIntyre was speaking of that day...and which he has continued to affirm ever since that French freak published his book.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Yes. Clarity, and full context.

What a concept!!!

And the "truther" lies go 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round.......

Are you serious? Did you even read his post?

Again, the full quote:

MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, 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.

I'm sure it's been a while "weedwhacker" but in English grammar, there are two parts to every sentence: the subject and predicate. The subject is who or what's doing something, and the predicate is what it's doing.

This,

"which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse"

is called the predicate of the sentence. It's not a complete statement and specifically the subject is missing.

What "would indicate"? The predicate doesn't say what is indicating (the verb). For that we have to find the subject, the thing that is doing the indicating.

So we go to the subject of the sentence:

"There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around"

Now we see the subject is actually "no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that," which is doing the indicating.


This is the context. It fits his whole answer.

If you can't figure that much out, I wouldn't trust you to figure out the context of anything anyone is saying.

reply to post by bsbray11


And again he fails to read the question that Mr McIntyre was responding to....

Which was basically, "Jamie, did the plane hit the ground first?"

And to which he was saying there are no large parts outside the building, which would be the case had the plane hit the ground first.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
No, what YOU refuse to understand is Mr McIntyre's own words. He clearly states that all the evidence indicates the entire plane hit the building.

That's not so clear to me. Can you show me the quote where he says "all the evidence indicates the entire plane hit the building"?

What I read is:

"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."


He is clearly saying that what would indicate an entire plane hit the Pentagon, is not there.

Large tail sections -- not there.

Wing sections -- not there.

Fuselage -- not there.

"nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate...."


He isn't saying "none of these plane parts were anywhere around so therefore obviously a plane was there."

If the plane had hit the ground first, then you would see the large pieces of the aircraft lying on the ground outside the building. That is what Mr McIntyre was speaking of that day...and which he has continued to affirm ever since that French freak published his book.

Does he say anything about debris laying on the ground outside of the Pentagon?

Absolutely not.

Instead he says the opposite, very plainly:

"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."


"Nothing like that anywhere around" is not "it was all laying on the lawn," or even remotely similar. They're completely contradictory.

reply to post by bsbray11


Man, this is hilarious. Reading comprehension fail:

You said, to vipertech:

Include the whole sentence.

"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."

Which WAS INCLUDED IN HIS POST!! Right there, read it again!

You are doing just what you accused Jim of doing: butchering the guy's words.

NO, he did not.


Now, with your "conspiracy-colored glasses firmly entrenched on the bridge of your nose, you STILL can't understand the words....and you can tell what they mean, by the punctuation and comma placement:

He didn't just say "which would indicate the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon," he said there was NOT evidence "which would indicate the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon."

McIntyre did NOT say it that way!! He did not imply that there was "not" evidence of the plane hitting the Pentagon!!! You are trying (and failing) to twist, as an act of ....desperation?

Not to mention if your interpretation were correct, he would contradict himself within the same paragraph. After all he did also say this:

McIntyre doesn't "contradict" himself....

"You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon".

The context? You attempt to alter the context....again.

The POINT that was being made, per the question asked, paraphrasing: 'Did the airplane hit the ground anywhere near the Pentagon?'

McIntyre's words are VERY, VERY clear throughout. To those who do not try so, so hard to alter their meaning...and fail at doing so....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is truly tragic, in the way the "truth movement" fail to comprehend, as a group, is even when they HEAR it in the actual words of McIntyre, they STILL can't understand it in context!! SO, not your fault, I suppose, IF you were also duped by that crap "mock"umentary "Loose Change".....as this person who posted a clip on YouTube apparently is (was?):



Every time....McIntyre is adamant, and clear.....there is nothing "crashed near" the Pentagon. To put words into his mouth, he says, essentially, that no other airplane (nor American 77) hit OUTSIDE the Pentagon, on the ground anywhere, and then subsequently hit the building. He says quite clearly, that the airplane was "in" the building, as a result of the impact, based on the context of his words. The ONLY debris, as he noted, was what was left over from the impact, and (although he did not specifically mention it) the explosion on impact, which scattered thousands of bits all directions.

So, to be clear, and point to topic (sort of): This little example is directly to the false claims, deceptions and lack of veracity of the OP, and any further assertions by same should be considered critically, as evidenced by these clear misstatements of fact in this instance.

reply to post by bsbray11

Absolutely not.

I so love it when truthers fail to read links and then run off at the fingers.....

Had someone actually bothered himself to read the transcript, he would have found the first statement made by Mr McIntyre...

And, Jamie, you got very close to where that plane went down.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Judy.

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

". I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane"

Im sorry, what were you saying about Mr McIntyre not mentioning seeing ANY wreckage.....


And again, the link to the transcript....

transcripts.cnn.com...

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Since you think you know all there is to know about video fakery, for example, let's start there. I have a piece that I linked above to "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11". Take that as your target and tell me what we have wrong.

I understand you're new here, but I already suggested how to go about that debate. You either have to start a new thread with your subject of "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", or we can have a moderated debate set up in the debate forum where only you and I can respond. A third choice is both of us can debate the subject on the ATS Live radio show. They've asked numerous times for a no-planer/video fakery proponent to come on the show, but nobody has yet to oblige.

Your choice:

1. Start a new thread.

2. Have a moderated debate set up in the debate forum.

3. Agree to appear on the ATS Live radio show.

Debating the subject in this thread would be off-topic. So, your choice is one of the above. Let me know which one you decide to go with. If you decide to do the radio show or debate forum, I'll get ahold of the right people and set it up.

Tell me about the radio show. That might be an interesting way to go. Tell me how it would be done. Thanks.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Excellent posts, bsbray11. You are right on target. None of what would be expected if the official account were true was present. And that is true at the alleged hit point, which was on the ground floor, long before that section of the building collapsed. You are making excellent points, where the opposition is simply ignoring them. That's bad.


reply to post by bsbray11

Actually, giving this more thought, the radio option really doesn't work because so much of the evidence is visual. Let me give this more thought. If we do it on a separate thread, then others can participate? But if it is a one-on-one debate, then only you and I can contribute?

reply to post by JimFetzer

Whatever you decide to do please link it in this thread , so we can at least observe thankyou .

Originally posted by JimFetzer
If we do it on a separate thread, then others can participate? But if it is a one-on-one debate, then only you and I can contribute?

Correct. A separate thread in the 9/11 forum, everyone can participate. If you prefer a one-on-one debate where only you and I can respond, then it has to be set up in the debate forum. Be sure to check out the debate forum and look at some of the debates so that you can familiarize yourself with the rules and restrictions of debate to see if that is even a route you want to go.

The debate rules are usually in the first post in each debate thread. Let me know which route you'd like to take.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

2. Have a moderated debate set up in the debate forum.

So the ATS admin are going to be the judges, the same one's who haven't been too no-planer friendly in the past?

Originally posted by bsbray11


is called the predicate of the sentence. It's not a complete statement and specifically the subject is missing.

What "would indicate"? The predicate doesn't say what is indicating (the verb). For that we have to find the subject, the thing that is doing the indicating.

So we go to the subject of the sentence:

"There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around"

Now we see the subject is actually "no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that," which is doing the indicating.


This is the context. It fits his whole answer.

If you can't figure that much out, I wouldn't trust you to figure out the context of anything anyone is saying.

edit on 2-2-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

If your understanding of physics is as poor as your grammar it's no wonder you have such difficulty with the twin towers.

Never mind that his sentence - which is admittedly ambiguous - becomes crystal clear as soon as you read anything else he said and put it in context.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
"GoodOlDave" ought to change his handle to "LazyThoughtlessOlDave". What he is implying is that none of the studies accessible via the internet is worth reading!? That is so thoughtless that I find it incredible he bothers to post. And since the study of the staging of the Naudet video would take at least a half-hour to read, I can see he prefers the short-cut of simply substituting his gut-feeling for actual research. I hope he doesn't think anyone is impressed by the arrogance he displays here, which is a stunning reflection of his massive degree of ignorance.

You are horribly mistaken. It is not my obligation to show why the people behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites are wrong. It is the obligation of the people behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites to show why the eyewitness accounts are wrong, in this case, the Naudet brothers, and they fail miserably.

I admit I didn't read the entire report, but I DID see the Naudet video...TWICE...and I can see in the first few paragraphs that this guy is offering nothing but personal opinions and selective quotes. For one thing, he claims how suspicious it was how everyone else was herded away while the Naudet brothers were allowed in, which is idiotic since they were allowed in specifically because they were accompanying the firefighters. The moment that one of them was separated, he was told to get lost by the cops regardless of the permission slip from the NYFD he attempted to show them. Then there's THIS little gem:

"Where, for one example, in a Manhattan street scene at 8.45 am on a working Tuesday, is the moving traffic? The vehicles in the picture are all parked, and given that two of them belong to the Fire Department and are displaying emergency lights, it would be illegal to overtake them, or park behind them in the same block. "

How old are you that it needs to be explained to you why traffic came to a standstill during 9/11- everyone stopped to gawk at what was happening at the WTC. This whole writeup is 0% proof of anything and 100% grasping at any straw looking for excuses for why the author shouldn't have to believe his conspiracy claims are false, and it is either through an enormous gullibility on your part why you would accept such an absurd treatise, or outright disingenuous behavior on your part to pass off someone's personal opinions as being factual in order to pursue your own political agenda.

How many times do you intend to play the "secret agent" card before you realize it only hurts your own credibility, not anyone else's. Why do I even need to point this out?

Can i ask you Jim, what are your opinions on the notion that most/all video footage released as live feeds on 9/11 was prerecorded computer generated imagery and can therefore shed little to no light on the actual means and mechanisms of collapse. Can i also ask of you your views on the clear notion that most/all victims of 9/11 are no more than computer generated variations of stock images with no real life existences and that the entire episode is one hugh money and power driven fraud where most/all eyewitness testimony should be discounted on the grounds of complicity. Pay little attention to hooper,weedwacker,bonez, goodoldave or vipertech. To me they are just trying to earn their pay. Do you think that the ideas of fakery(plane, media and victim) cuts too close to the bone, and thus, when these valid areas are broached, a brick wall is swiftly encountered( exposing true motivations and allegiances).

reply to post by pshea38


How incredibly hilarious!!!! Oh, the "truth", the "truth".....it hurts so good........

Pay little attention to hooper,weedwacker,bonez, goodoldave or vipertech. To me they are just trying to earn their pay.

Delusions, anyone?? I got delusions on sale!!!~ $5 each!! Get yer delusions here, only $5!! Two for $9!!!!

Get 'em while they're hot!!!! Going fast!!!!

______________________________________________________

edit: OK, couldn't help it, needed to be said. A DECADE on, and we still get that kind of crap???

But.....let's let the questions stand.....can't wait for the OP to reply. Really, we all wish to see a response to EACH question asked. Just for posterity's sake, mind you......

this forum is like a project to some of you isnt it ?

Pay little attention to hooper,weedwacker,bonez, goodoldave or vipertech.

I agree; no need to waste your valuable time with these geniuses and their outstanding sense of logic. There is also a few others you will be able to pick off immediately - they seem to be bored and are just here to get their jollies.

ATS was a much better site until the ownership had the "brilliant" idea of doing away with the ignore button, making us read the extended amount of redundant rubbish these individuals shovel out on a daily basis. This will give you a hint as to ATS' agenda on the 9/11 issue.

Also, as a previous poster mentioned, I do not think you are going to get a fair shake on ATS debating against the Official 9/11 Fairy Tale. Those of us who have attempted to provide valid information and have attempted to have a productive discussion about 9/11 have been treated rather rudely and unfairly by the mods and the admins. On the other hand, those that promote the Official Fairy Tale consistently get a free pass and are freely permitted to urinate all over the place. All this coming from a site which allegedly promotes manners and decorum.

If you hang around here long enough, you'll know what I mean. In fact, I think you have already experienced this rude and ignorant behavior first hand. What these geniuses do not realize is that by their odd behavior in defending complete idiocy, they are just drawing more suspicion to the Fairy Tale.

PS: Loved your article about the alleged video editing hack job on the Zapruder film. I always thought there was something odd about the strange continuity in that film. At least now we know where they got the idea to fake 9/11.