Creative Speculation

eomer

(3,845 posts)

44. It had to be hundreds but couldn't have been hundreds? Why couldn't it have been a few or a dozen?

Mon Feb 6, 2012, 08:25 AM

Feb 2012

I'm with you that it probably couldn't have been hundreds and therefore probably wasn't hundreds. But how do you get from there to the conclusion that it had to be zero? You're not being logical, Logical. Why couldn't it have been one more than the ones that are alleged, or two more, a dozen more, etc?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

146 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here is the problem with the 911 conspiracy theory's...... [View all] Logical Dec 2011 OP

I don't have an answer to your question, but one has to look at the evidence teddy51 Dec 2011 #1

The cracking of the Enigma Code was not leaked until the 1970s after it was offiically announced. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #2

And that allso goes for the capture of a German sub with the enignama machien zeemike Dec 2011 #28

If you were asked to participate in either operation, what would you do? cpwm17 Dec 2011 #29

Well that is a fair question and a fair point. zeemike Dec 2011 #30

There's no way that there's the expertise to pull it off cpwm17 Dec 2011 #31

Well then how does the mob and other organized crime do it? zeemike Dec 2011 #32

Since mob informers are the key to most police investigations hack89 Feb 2012 #39

But that is because their are police and law enforcement. zeemike Feb 2012 #40

You are naive if you believe that. zeemike Feb 2012 #41

you would have to be a sociopath BobbyBoring Feb 2012 #37

Well I would know only what I needed to know to do my part of the plan zeemike Feb 2012 #46

You've been watching too many movies Confusious Feb 2012 #43

And you perhaps not enough history. zeemike Feb 2012 #45

Nope, not me Confusious Feb 2012 #47

Well I never saw it in the movies zeemike Feb 2012 #49

do I detect some contempt from you about people that you consider CTers? Confusious Feb 2012 #50

Do you know what disinformation is? zeemike Feb 2012 #53

So you're spreading disinformation? Confusious Feb 2012 #55

Well it is astounding to me that people can buy that . zeemike Feb 2012 #56

"that is just basic science" William Seger Feb 2012 #57

The first frame is before the impact.of the head shot. zeemike Feb 2012 #59

Nope William Seger Feb 2012 #61

No that is the frame where the bullet struck zeemike Feb 2012 #64

Utter nonsense William Seger Feb 2012 #68

Well look this is not nonsense zeemike Feb 2012 #69

If the Zapruder film is REALLY what made you believe that Oswald didn't shoot JFK, William Seger Feb 2012 #71

You mean to tell me zeemike Feb 2012 #72

in what sense do you "see" that? OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #73

Because if the bullet did not strike in 312 zeemike Feb 2012 #74

didn't you just say yourself... OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #75

Well let me try again to explain. zeemike Feb 2012 #76

OK, let's think about this OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #77

Some good points zeemike Feb 2012 #78

meh OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #79

Well how about we just declare you the winner zeemike Feb 2012 #80

This is NOT a "small point" William Seger Feb 2012 #81

Now this is how you control the discussion... zeemike Feb 2012 #84

yo, if you're so free from fear, get the heck out of fetal position OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #82

We are discussing it on your terms. zeemike Feb 2012 #83

jeepers OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #85

Again we are back to math. zeemike Feb 2012 #86

so you don't think the head changes position from 312 to 313? OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #87

Well let me try to be clear. zeemike Feb 2012 #89

well, no OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #91

Really? zeemike Feb 2012 #95

"And you cannot explain that backward movement with any thing that makes sense" William Seger Feb 2012 #97

Well you can't prove a negative zeemike Feb 2012 #100

Another myth. Actually, it IS sometimes possible to prove a negative William Seger Feb 2012 #105

This is getting kinda bizarre William Seger Feb 2012 #93

OK...so the ejected material is several feet away zeemike Feb 2012 #96

In other words, you've got nothing William Seger Feb 2012 #98

Now with the ridicule. zeemike Feb 2012 #101

Your theory is all assumption and no fact. zappaman Feb 2012 #102

The facts presented is what we see in the film. zeemike Feb 2012 #107

Here's what's ridiculous about it, by the way William Seger Feb 2012 #108

No that is not what I said. zeemike Feb 2012 #109

"The shutter on frame 313 was open for 1/30 of a second" zappaman Feb 2012 #110

Frames per second is different from shutter speed. zeemike Feb 2012 #115

The camera's manual says a nominal 16 fps and 1/35th sec exposure William Seger Feb 2012 #119

Well thanks for looking that up zeemike Feb 2012 #120

WTF? William Seger Feb 2012 #112

No sir the shutter speed is all that is relevant. zeemike Feb 2012 #116

I seriously doubt that a timeline is going to unconfuse you, but let's try: William Seger Feb 2012 #118

I get what you are claiming. zeemike Feb 2012 #121

So you have no explanation for the forward head snap William Seger Feb 2012 #122

Can't let it end when you say inertia is imaginary physics zeemike Feb 2012 #123

No, it's your claimed "DELAY due to inertia" that's imaginary William Seger Feb 2012 #124

Well I can't compete with that zeemike Feb 2012 #125

Hopeless William Seger Feb 2012 #126

You are right it is hopeless zeemike Feb 2012 #127

This may be the most ridiculous thing I've read about the JFK assassination in some time. zappaman Feb 2012 #99

there is only one reason I am still here zeemike Feb 2012 #103

"this is like a case study in how debunking CTs work" William Seger Feb 2012 #106

it's kind of hilarious-- if a "conspiracy theorist" had presented this as proof he'd be laughed at. NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #137

It's motion blur caused by camera motion William Seger Apr 2012 #139

that may be, but your data is still inconclusive NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #141

Neither William Seger Apr 2012 #142

Frame 313 is not an instant, it is a duration. And during that duration the head may have travelled eomer Feb 2012 #88

OK, where does that get us? OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #90

Back to square one. eomer Feb 2012 #92

See gif in post #93. There was no forward motion before frame 312 William Seger Feb 2012 #94

"square one" was trash talk about "the power of fear" OnTheOtherHand Feb 2012 #104

Well, you've just proved my point Confusious Feb 2012 #58

I want to listen and have been listening. zeemike Feb 2012 #60

I've seen IN PLANE SITE zappaman Feb 2012 #62

Well a 757 is consistent with what I saw zeemike Feb 2012 #66

Really Confusious Feb 2012 #63

You present questions that are easy to answer zeemike Feb 2012 #65

Well if you make up stuff Confusious Feb 2012 #67

Well I don't have all the answers...and no one could zeemike Feb 2012 #70

Two other things Confusious Feb 2012 #51

Have you seen the original movie The Day The Earth Stood Still? zeemike Feb 2012 #54

A brief visit to one secure in their findings..... AlwaysQuestion Apr 2012 #132

Well thanks for that vote of confidence. zeemike Apr 2012 #133

Jeez, what a pantload William Seger Apr 2012 #134

Do you believe? AlwaysQuestion Apr 2012 #136

Ohmygawd, do you actually READ what I write? William Seger Apr 2012 #138

Then why the cover up? tblue Dec 2011 #3

Plenty of reasons for a coverup without positing guilt in the 9/11 attack Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #6

I remember people telling me.... lib2DaBone Dec 2011 #4

We have no idea what happened to that drone hack89 Dec 2011 #19

Regardless of what happened to that drone, there's no connection to 9-11 cpwm17 Dec 2011 #20

You seem to ignore terrafirma Dec 2011 #27

You need to read "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," Peace Patriot Dec 2011 #5

That's the problem with EVERY conspiracy theory RZM Dec 2011 #7

But if the conspirators know that someone will eventually talk.... Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #9

Exactly RZM Dec 2011 #10

Not quite. You miss the point. Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #11

Of course there have been conspiracies RZM Dec 2011 #12

Compelling evidence? You want it; you got it. Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #13

Wow. Ed Asner and some random blogger RZM Dec 2011 #14

15 unnatural deaths within a year! Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #15

Nope zappaman Dec 2011 #16

You mean like the 9/11 Commission conspiracy to not talk about Building 7 in their Report? Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #8

The 9/11 Commission Report was not meant to be an exhaustive examination of all aspects Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #17

theories Tunkamerica Dec 2011 #18

You're conflating and collapsing all conspiracy theories into a single monolith (npi), coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #21

Truthers rarely correct other truthers when they promote total nonsense cpwm17 Dec 2011 #23

I grant you a lot of it is nonsense, but there are some troubling coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #24

The put options on United and American were explained. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #25

Thank you for that. At some point, I am going to have to make time coalition_unwilling Dec 2011 #26

Oh, please. You believe THAT? Remember Me Dec 2011 #33

Thanks for your opinion. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #34

Yeah, you'd think Remember Me Dec 2011 #35

One major airline (Ansett Australia) was folding at the time KDLarsen Dec 2011 #36

"So it is fair to criticize almost all truthers for any truther nonsense." ocpagu Apr 2012 #140

It's called COMPARTMENTALIZATION, dude! Uranus Needs Men Dec 2011 #22

I want to know who is behind the Unwarranted Apostrophe Conspiracy. Codeine Feb 2012 #38

Hasn't stopped the UK libodem Feb 2012 #42

It had to be hundreds but couldn't have been hundreds? Why couldn't it have been a few or a dozen? eomer Feb 2012 #44

What would the scenario be in which only a few know? Ohio Joe Feb 2012 #48

That would be the scenario in which only a few were part of the consipiracy. eomer Feb 2012 #52

... which really just demonstrates the pointlessness of idle speculation. William Seger Feb 2012 #114

Leads that the "investigation" didn't follow; additional parties surely were involved. eomer Feb 2012 #117

WT7 didn't have enough damage to fall like that in my opinion deadinsider Feb 2012 #111

"Damage" was not the reason for WTC7's collapse William Seger Feb 2012 #113

Heck, we might as well argue here too right? cbrer Feb 2012 #128

Nope William Seger Feb 2012 #129

That actually cbrer Feb 2012 #130

NIST simulation deadinsider May 2012 #144

Finally getting back 2 u... deadinsider May 2012 #145

Oh, well, nothing else going on around here, so... William Seger Jun 2012 #146

The steel portions of the Madrid tower collapsed due to fire. hack89 Apr 2012 #135

People who haven't mastered the difference between plural and possessive... JackRiddler Apr 2012 #131

911? dukie Apr 2012 #143