I don't think either Dawson or Revusky make good cases. Jonathan should not attempt to debate as he seems so unprepared and making embarrassing long pauses when he can't refute something only to come out w/ the idea that some things shouldn't be debated. Terrible attitude. I lean more to video fakery than actual planes, but the fakery side, at least Simon Shack, seems questionable also.
"making embarrassing long pauses when he can't refute something"
Hmm.. Well, okay... There is some validity to your criticism. It is true, in fact, that I was only invited to participate in the show that very morning, so it was just me speaking off-the-cuff with basically no preparation. So, yes, at certain junctures, I needed to think for a moment to consider how I was going to respond. I am not the kind of glib person who just always has some immediate answer to anything. Maybe you would prefer that, but if so, as Steve Martin was wont to say: "Well, excuuuuuse me."
"the idea that some things shouldn't be debated"
Well, yes, I did say that and I think my point was unassailable. After all, the specific examples I gave were "flat earth", the Easter bunny... There are "debates" that are a waste of time.
Moreover, to have a "debate" (if one is to call it that) with people who are obviously dishonest is bound to be a waste of time. There has to be a modicum of good faith on both sides, no?
No planes theory needs to be clarified. Does it mean there were no commercial passenger planes that were hijacked and flew to WTC and Pentagon? If so, then where are the passengers?
Or does it mean there were no planes of any sort at these targets? Are drones discounted? Are remote controlled planes discounted? Spy planes too?
Some people in the "studio audience" claimed they saw planes. What's your answer to that? I think you said they were few in number and must have been mistaken in any case. I suggest they might have been plants. I'm sure some that were interviewed were. But all of them not likely. Do you think the mistaken sightings may have been holograms?
What about Simon Shack? He's the main proponent of no planes. Do you trust his work? I did at first. Others questioned his "nose out" theory which I had accepted. Then he went from no planes to no deaths in the planes and at the targets. That's untenable to me.
Your attitude towards specifics seemed to be we don't need to get into these things because we know it couldn't have happened, so they become irrelevant questions. I think that's called tautological thinking.
Huh? No planes means that there were no planes. Maybe you can't get your head around that because it's just too simple. You are so accustomed to overthinking things and coming up with very complicated stories and...
"If so, then where are the passengers?"
Hmm, maybe critical thinking just ain't yo' thang. Dude, if there were no planes, there were no passengers.
"Or does it mean there were no planes of any sort at these targets? Are drones discounted? Are remote controlled planes discounted? Spy planes too?"
No planes means there were no planes. No passengers... Well, there could have been some flying carpets. After all, any story with some Ay-rabs in it should have some flying carpets. But no planes, no...
"Some people in the "studio audience" claimed they saw planes. What's your answer to that?"
Well, there, you got me, I have to admit. Touché. Yeah, it is a well-known scientific fact that nobody can say they saw planes unless there really were planes. Well, okay, on second thought... this would not be the first scientific law that was violated on 9/11, eh? So there we are: it is impossible for people to say they saw a plane if they didn't really see one, EXCEPT on 9/11.
"Then he went from no planes to no deaths in the planes and at the targets. That's untenable to me."
Well, if there were no planes then there were no deaths in the planes... like I said, critical thinking doesn't seem to be yo' thang. As for deaths not on planes, I suppose you've researched this. You couldn't possibly just be talking out of your ass, eh? Anonymous jackasses on the internet NEVER do that! So, okay, there were deaths somewhere, real people. Can you name some? Who is that you are sure died for real?
Ok, no planes, no deaths. Thanks for clarifying. But then when the buildings fell down or blew up, there couldn't have been any people in them. The evacuations must have taken place before working hours. Wouldn't someone have noticed?
Dude it’s hard to argue against the ultimate stupidity of the real planes doctrine. Since it’s already a reduction to absurdity where do you go from there?
It doesn’t matter even a little bit what we think might be the best way to carry off 9/11. What matters is what they did or did not do. And since they didn’t fly any planes into any buildings, presumably after thinking about it, they decided it wasn’t a good idea since they chose otherwise.
So if Kevin or Ryan think it would be better to fly the planes into the buildings well ……. they aren’t the ones who carried out the plot. Personally I don’t think it makes any sense to fly any plane into any building. It’s about as stupid a thing to do as can be imagined. Which might be one reason why they chose not to.
As to Ryan’s contention that they got all the DNA information from the people that were killed that day …… if you believe that why could that be a reason to do something truly idiotic and fly planes into buildings? Just get the DNA evidence from the people you murdered. A lot less hassle. No need to fly a plane into a building if it’s DNA you want.
Or you could be lazy and just get some Jew to type that they got the DNA evidence but if they really need a chain of custody you don’t fly a plane into a building to get it.
The planes talk is completely loopy from the start. It’s like hunkering down on the idea that the magician really did saw his assistant in half.
A case of criminal identity theft that has done immeasurably greater harm than Hawking is the "disappearing" of the Fatima seer Sr Lucia & her replacement by a proven impostor. This was done by the Judeo-Masonic powers who had infiltrated & colonized the Vatican, not wanting the Third Secret of Fatima revealed, which was supposed to be revealed in 1960, as Our Lady of Fatima asked. The Third Secret reveals the plans of those enemies of Christ & of the Catholic Church to overthrow the papacy (1958) & create a new counterfeit church under false popes, convening the false Vatican II Council (1962-65) which led to the creation of a new invalid Mass & invalid sacraments. This may sound irrelevant or incomprehensible to most readers, but it is of immeasurable importance in that it involves the temporary triumph of Satan, working thru his human agents, in overcoming the final obstacle to the coming reign of Antichrist in the world, having already overcome the European monarchies after WWI, their other principal obstacle.
And no plane was in Shanksville, just a big hole and a few pieces of debris scattered here and there. The "official report" says the soft earth swallowed up the plane!
And the explosion in the Pentagon just happened to be where about 140 auditors were trying to determine what happened to the $2.3 trillion (!!) missing from the Pentagon budget. They were all killed.
The Israeli "E-Team" ("Explosives Team") is an outrageous in-your-face mockery stunt essentially telling New York that they were going to blow up the Twin Towers, and the precise location of the first explosion on 9/11: www.realnewsandhistory.com/e-team-9-11
Also notice you are bringing up a planet which you know you left behind when you got kicked out of your University spot. Who will go after MI6 on fraud charges over their misuse of 3 or 4 very sick individuals?
Forget about fraud. If these guys want to wheel one gimp up to a cliff and throw him in the ocean then wheel another gimp into the studio, and abuse him to keep their science lies alive, which millionaire will sacrifice their position to do anything about it?
See how quickly the Jews laid former billionaire, pretty handy artist and proven businessman Kanye low? Took them about 48 hours.
So you go to put forward fraud charges. Who you going to charge? You would be just going into a wall of molasses and the first line of people who went along with the gyp you wouldn’t even have the heart to so much as malign.
I can have a go at Neil Tyson. But I wouldn’t want him dragged into court to find out why he was so gullible as to go along with this silliness even when he sees it close up. For one thing he seems like a good fellow.
I think people are pretty silly to accept photons so there is no telling who was fooled or who was in the usual kosher sandwich.
Kevin notice how in the early interview you are instinctively trying to favour a null hypothesis. But there is no null hypothesis in rational philosophy. There is no bipolar 2-hypothesis competition and no burden of proof.
To suggest otherwise is to allow the Jew to play tennis and he need not worry about the net. No theory gets a handicap off the swimming blocks.
The fakery behind Hawking was obvious from the start. It’s much worse than the Helen Keller nonsense. It ought not be a decades long project to just matter of factly reject such mainstream idiocy. If the mainstream asks for a handicap that’s a confession that their hypothesis is without merit.
"Kevin notice how in the early interview you are instinctively trying to favour a null hypothesis."
Well, yeah, this is something people do to tip the scales in their favor. They tacitly assume that the official narrative is true _by default_ and then they demand some impossible burden of proof from somebody on the other side of the debate.
That's the typical play when you're trying to defend an absurd narrative. You set the bar very low for yourself -- and demand some impossibly high standard of proof from the other side.
Kevin, though not such a bad fellow for the most part, does that a fair bit. Unfortunately. (He really should stop IMHO....) Thus, for example, when trying to uphold the planes story, he tacitly assumes that it is sufficient for him to argue that it is within the limits of the possible. So he would be arguing that it is _possible_ that the plane could be flown that fast at that low an altitude. Well, maybe (though I doubt it!) But the fact remains that something simply being possible does not mean it really happened!
But, of course, even arguing that the planes story is possible at all is a tall order. I am quite satisfied that it is impossible to demonstrate that it is true. And that is because it simply isn't true.
And, in my world, that people are coming up with these utterly baroque explanations involving two sets of planes and so on -- it's really a tacit admission that the whole thing is untenable. That was the point I was trying to get across at the end of the discussion.
Revusky...seems like a stand up guy to us..but for some of his unesecerily nasty detractors...we know you won't do it but..could you possibly at least start off with a modest modicum of intelligent adult politeness? These internet "gotcha" explosions
of snarky adolescent hate spasms are really getting tiring"..
The planes issue should never have been controversial. Since when a thin aluminium object moves through seven floors of thick steel reinforced concrete without deceleration until the end of the process, you know you are looking at an illusion.
I took about six years to realise this and actually someone pointed it out to me but had I been thinking straight that’s a one day affair. Because something that can’t happen is an illusion. So it comes down to how they created the illusion. And that comes down to computer images or holographs. Holographs at the time seemed a bit out there. But now Elvis still sings in Vegas, and extinct megafauna emerge from the concrete and fly around.
These deep state operations are like a magic trick. Once we kind of find where the trick lies we can section it off and not worry too much about how the magician worked.
For example with the Trump assassination attempt the magician has a rooftop poser. He has two shooters with supersonic in the building beneath the poser. And he has two shooters with subsonic silenced weapons on the trees. The supersonic guys are shooting over trumps microphone to create sound cover for the suppressed fire. So what’s the magic trick? What’s the illusion?
The windows look like they are shut but they aren’t. At that point I don’t need to know the mystery behind the shut windows. And I don’t know if some shooters were told to miss at the last moment. To me that’s all I can do when I get to the magicians illusion. No need to tear one’s hair out over it.
But to still not understand you are looking at an illusion. I blame Popper.
I don't think either Dawson or Revusky make good cases. Jonathan should not attempt to debate as he seems so unprepared and making embarrassing long pauses when he can't refute something only to come out w/ the idea that some things shouldn't be debated. Terrible attitude. I lean more to video fakery than actual planes, but the fakery side, at least Simon Shack, seems questionable also.
"making embarrassing long pauses when he can't refute something"
Hmm.. Well, okay... There is some validity to your criticism. It is true, in fact, that I was only invited to participate in the show that very morning, so it was just me speaking off-the-cuff with basically no preparation. So, yes, at certain junctures, I needed to think for a moment to consider how I was going to respond. I am not the kind of glib person who just always has some immediate answer to anything. Maybe you would prefer that, but if so, as Steve Martin was wont to say: "Well, excuuuuuse me."
"the idea that some things shouldn't be debated"
Well, yes, I did say that and I think my point was unassailable. After all, the specific examples I gave were "flat earth", the Easter bunny... There are "debates" that are a waste of time.
Moreover, to have a "debate" (if one is to call it that) with people who are obviously dishonest is bound to be a waste of time. There has to be a modicum of good faith on both sides, no?
No planes theory needs to be clarified. Does it mean there were no commercial passenger planes that were hijacked and flew to WTC and Pentagon? If so, then where are the passengers?
Or does it mean there were no planes of any sort at these targets? Are drones discounted? Are remote controlled planes discounted? Spy planes too?
Some people in the "studio audience" claimed they saw planes. What's your answer to that? I think you said they were few in number and must have been mistaken in any case. I suggest they might have been plants. I'm sure some that were interviewed were. But all of them not likely. Do you think the mistaken sightings may have been holograms?
What about Simon Shack? He's the main proponent of no planes. Do you trust his work? I did at first. Others questioned his "nose out" theory which I had accepted. Then he went from no planes to no deaths in the planes and at the targets. That's untenable to me.
Your attitude towards specifics seemed to be we don't need to get into these things because we know it couldn't have happened, so they become irrelevant questions. I think that's called tautological thinking.
"No planes theory needs to be clarified."
Huh? No planes means that there were no planes. Maybe you can't get your head around that because it's just too simple. You are so accustomed to overthinking things and coming up with very complicated stories and...
"If so, then where are the passengers?"
Hmm, maybe critical thinking just ain't yo' thang. Dude, if there were no planes, there were no passengers.
"Or does it mean there were no planes of any sort at these targets? Are drones discounted? Are remote controlled planes discounted? Spy planes too?"
No planes means there were no planes. No passengers... Well, there could have been some flying carpets. After all, any story with some Ay-rabs in it should have some flying carpets. But no planes, no...
"Some people in the "studio audience" claimed they saw planes. What's your answer to that?"
Well, there, you got me, I have to admit. Touché. Yeah, it is a well-known scientific fact that nobody can say they saw planes unless there really were planes. Well, okay, on second thought... this would not be the first scientific law that was violated on 9/11, eh? So there we are: it is impossible for people to say they saw a plane if they didn't really see one, EXCEPT on 9/11.
"Then he went from no planes to no deaths in the planes and at the targets. That's untenable to me."
Well, if there were no planes then there were no deaths in the planes... like I said, critical thinking doesn't seem to be yo' thang. As for deaths not on planes, I suppose you've researched this. You couldn't possibly just be talking out of your ass, eh? Anonymous jackasses on the internet NEVER do that! So, okay, there were deaths somewhere, real people. Can you name some? Who is that you are sure died for real?
Ok, no planes, no deaths. Thanks for clarifying. But then when the buildings fell down or blew up, there couldn't have been any people in them. The evacuations must have taken place before working hours. Wouldn't someone have noticed?
Dude it’s hard to argue against the ultimate stupidity of the real planes doctrine. Since it’s already a reduction to absurdity where do you go from there?
It doesn’t matter even a little bit what we think might be the best way to carry off 9/11. What matters is what they did or did not do. And since they didn’t fly any planes into any buildings, presumably after thinking about it, they decided it wasn’t a good idea since they chose otherwise.
So if Kevin or Ryan think it would be better to fly the planes into the buildings well ……. they aren’t the ones who carried out the plot. Personally I don’t think it makes any sense to fly any plane into any building. It’s about as stupid a thing to do as can be imagined. Which might be one reason why they chose not to.
As to Ryan’s contention that they got all the DNA information from the people that were killed that day …… if you believe that why could that be a reason to do something truly idiotic and fly planes into buildings? Just get the DNA evidence from the people you murdered. A lot less hassle. No need to fly a plane into a building if it’s DNA you want.
Or you could be lazy and just get some Jew to type that they got the DNA evidence but if they really need a chain of custody you don’t fly a plane into a building to get it.
The planes talk is completely loopy from the start. It’s like hunkering down on the idea that the magician really did saw his assistant in half.
A case of criminal identity theft that has done immeasurably greater harm than Hawking is the "disappearing" of the Fatima seer Sr Lucia & her replacement by a proven impostor. This was done by the Judeo-Masonic powers who had infiltrated & colonized the Vatican, not wanting the Third Secret of Fatima revealed, which was supposed to be revealed in 1960, as Our Lady of Fatima asked. The Third Secret reveals the plans of those enemies of Christ & of the Catholic Church to overthrow the papacy (1958) & create a new counterfeit church under false popes, convening the false Vatican II Council (1962-65) which led to the creation of a new invalid Mass & invalid sacraments. This may sound irrelevant or incomprehensible to most readers, but it is of immeasurable importance in that it involves the temporary triumph of Satan, working thru his human agents, in overcoming the final obstacle to the coming reign of Antichrist in the world, having already overcome the European monarchies after WWI, their other principal obstacle.
sisterlucytruth.org
whitesmoke1958.com
More on my X page, @rosaryknight
There were no planes on 911, just holograms, explosives & the media reading a script, with a few revealing exceptions.
Thin aluminum planes don't slice thru steel and concrete, they explode and bounce off in lots of pieces.
www.rumble.com/vbw6ip-911-truth-documentary-no-planes.html
www.brighteon.com/1c870542-7ccc-4d49-808d-196b377796b4 (Twitter/X won't allow this one)
And no plane was in Shanksville, just a big hole and a few pieces of debris scattered here and there. The "official report" says the soft earth swallowed up the plane!
And the explosion in the Pentagon just happened to be where about 140 auditors were trying to determine what happened to the $2.3 trillion (!!) missing from the Pentagon budget. They were all killed.
The Israeli "E-Team" ("Explosives Team") is an outrageous in-your-face mockery stunt essentially telling New York that they were going to blow up the Twin Towers, and the precise location of the first explosion on 9/11: www.realnewsandhistory.com/e-team-9-11
Also notice you are bringing up a planet which you know you left behind when you got kicked out of your University spot. Who will go after MI6 on fraud charges over their misuse of 3 or 4 very sick individuals?
Forget about fraud. If these guys want to wheel one gimp up to a cliff and throw him in the ocean then wheel another gimp into the studio, and abuse him to keep their science lies alive, which millionaire will sacrifice their position to do anything about it?
See how quickly the Jews laid former billionaire, pretty handy artist and proven businessman Kanye low? Took them about 48 hours.
So you go to put forward fraud charges. Who you going to charge? You would be just going into a wall of molasses and the first line of people who went along with the gyp you wouldn’t even have the heart to so much as malign.
I can have a go at Neil Tyson. But I wouldn’t want him dragged into court to find out why he was so gullible as to go along with this silliness even when he sees it close up. For one thing he seems like a good fellow.
I think people are pretty silly to accept photons so there is no telling who was fooled or who was in the usual kosher sandwich.
Kevin notice how in the early interview you are instinctively trying to favour a null hypothesis. But there is no null hypothesis in rational philosophy. There is no bipolar 2-hypothesis competition and no burden of proof.
To suggest otherwise is to allow the Jew to play tennis and he need not worry about the net. No theory gets a handicap off the swimming blocks.
The fakery behind Hawking was obvious from the start. It’s much worse than the Helen Keller nonsense. It ought not be a decades long project to just matter of factly reject such mainstream idiocy. If the mainstream asks for a handicap that’s a confession that their hypothesis is without merit.
"Kevin notice how in the early interview you are instinctively trying to favour a null hypothesis."
Well, yeah, this is something people do to tip the scales in their favor. They tacitly assume that the official narrative is true _by default_ and then they demand some impossible burden of proof from somebody on the other side of the debate.
That's the typical play when you're trying to defend an absurd narrative. You set the bar very low for yourself -- and demand some impossibly high standard of proof from the other side.
Kevin, though not such a bad fellow for the most part, does that a fair bit. Unfortunately. (He really should stop IMHO....) Thus, for example, when trying to uphold the planes story, he tacitly assumes that it is sufficient for him to argue that it is within the limits of the possible. So he would be arguing that it is _possible_ that the plane could be flown that fast at that low an altitude. Well, maybe (though I doubt it!) But the fact remains that something simply being possible does not mean it really happened!
But, of course, even arguing that the planes story is possible at all is a tall order. I am quite satisfied that it is impossible to demonstrate that it is true. And that is because it simply isn't true.
And, in my world, that people are coming up with these utterly baroque explanations involving two sets of planes and so on -- it's really a tacit admission that the whole thing is untenable. That was the point I was trying to get across at the end of the discussion.
Revusky...seems like a stand up guy to us..but for some of his unesecerily nasty detractors...we know you won't do it but..could you possibly at least start off with a modest modicum of intelligent adult politeness? These internet "gotcha" explosions
of snarky adolescent hate spasms are really getting tiring"..
The planes issue should never have been controversial. Since when a thin aluminium object moves through seven floors of thick steel reinforced concrete without deceleration until the end of the process, you know you are looking at an illusion.
I took about six years to realise this and actually someone pointed it out to me but had I been thinking straight that’s a one day affair. Because something that can’t happen is an illusion. So it comes down to how they created the illusion. And that comes down to computer images or holographs. Holographs at the time seemed a bit out there. But now Elvis still sings in Vegas, and extinct megafauna emerge from the concrete and fly around.
These deep state operations are like a magic trick. Once we kind of find where the trick lies we can section it off and not worry too much about how the magician worked.
For example with the Trump assassination attempt the magician has a rooftop poser. He has two shooters with supersonic in the building beneath the poser. And he has two shooters with subsonic silenced weapons on the trees. The supersonic guys are shooting over trumps microphone to create sound cover for the suppressed fire. So what’s the magic trick? What’s the illusion?
The windows look like they are shut but they aren’t. At that point I don’t need to know the mystery behind the shut windows. And I don’t know if some shooters were told to miss at the last moment. To me that’s all I can do when I get to the magicians illusion. No need to tear one’s hair out over it.
But to still not understand you are looking at an illusion. I blame Popper.