Semantics in discussions between Debunkers and others

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
[Admin: thread split from: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/drills-on-the-same-day-as-terrorist-attacks.2094/page-2#post-62489]


Semantics... Debunkers profess not to like getting hung up in semantics.... but it does seem to be a weapon of choice:

The wtc's did not fall at freefall...
in their own footprint
No uniform collapse straight down
No pyroclastic flow
No molten steel
No staged terror attacks
FEMA was not involved...they only oversaw it...
Not an implosion...

The list goes on and on and...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Freeefall' and 'pyroclastic flow' and 'molten steel' are precise terms with specific meanings - not 'semantics' open to your personal interpretation, much as you seem to think everything should be.
 
'Freeefall' and 'pyroclastic flow' and 'molten steel' are precise terms with specific meanings - not 'semantics' open to your personal interpretation, much as you seem to think everything should be.
Are they really? Thanks for that. And what about 'common usage'... people are not stupid... they don't need you to tell them what things mean. Everyone who is aware, knows that the wtc's fell at virtual freefall and straight down like a demolition virtually into their own footprint and everyone saw the literal pyroclastic dust cloud.
 
They didn't fall at free fall speed, they didn't fall into their own footprints and while there was a DUST CLOUD it was not pyroclastic in any way. The fact that you and folks in the '9/11 truth movement' keep trying to change the meanings of words to fit your beliefs show the weakness of those beliefs.
 
They didn't fall at free fall speed, they didn't fall into their own footprints and while there was a DUST CLOUD it was not pyroclastic in any way. The fact that you and folks in the '9/11 truth movement' keep trying to change the meanings of words to fit your beliefs show the weakness of those beliefs.
Another one who doesn't understand common usage... obviously as you insist the metal onsite was not molten... as you have repeated over and over and over... but 'the population' know it was. We know what we mean and the fact you are in a tiny group that doesn't, means you have to dispute every last little word and this shows how weak your arguments are.
 
Are they really? Thanks for that. And what about 'common usage'... people are not stupid... they don't need you to tell them what things mean. Everyone who is aware, knows that the wtc's fell at virtual freefall and straight down like a demolition virtually into their own footprint and everyone saw the literal pyroclastic dust cloud.

If there's a dispute of the meaning of the word, then describe what happened instead.

This is not a WTC thread. No more WTC posts please.
 
If there's a dispute of the meaning of the word, then describe what happened instead.

This is not a WTC thread. No more WTC posts please.
My posts on it are self explanatory. There is the common usage of a word, (which people know full well) and then there is splitting hairs about semantics in order to debunk a universally known fact and portray it as debunked. i am sure you know full well what I am talking about Mick
 
My posts on it are self explanatory. There is the common usage of a word, (which people know full well) and then there is splitting hairs about semantics in order to debunk a universally known fact and portray it as debunked. i am sure you know full well what I am talking about Mick

Not really, but feel free to point it out in the appropriate thread.

I'm in favor of absolute honest clarity. I'm against semantical arguments. Just describe the facts, not if they fit a word.
 
Semantics... Debunkers profess not to like getting hung up in semantics.... but it does seem to be a weapon of choice:

The wtc's did not fall at freefall...
in their own footprint
No uniform collapse straight down
No pyroclastic flow
No molten steel
No staged terror attacks
FEMA was not involved...they only oversaw it...
Not an implosion...

The list goes on and on and...
yes, I was discussing this with mick in another thread about DBs and semantics and equate this idea with similar delusions that some CTs hold. It can be said that DBs often become 'lost in translation'.

and I agree that the towers fell at a speed inconsistant to the reported explanation. There are many inconsistancies with the story, however the plannd approach of debunk would be to analyze each individual claim, rename the claim into a completely different idea, and then debunk that new idea. This is the strategy of us as DBs.
 
From SR's post 25 at
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/drills-on-the-same-day-as-terrorist-attacks.2094/#post-58606
Setting up dupes for entrapment is not the same as staging an actual attack

Through to this post, (about 50 posts), the whole 'debate'... if you can call it that, was about the semantics of what constitutes 'staging an attack' and 'whether FEMA are literally responsible for a drill.

Unsurprisingly Grieves had enough of it and decided not to waste his time further, which was likely the intent.

At no time did any mod intervene but as soon as it starts going a way that is not liked... it has to be moderated. Well I think it reflects badly especially when debunkers, (and particularly you Mick), keep saying... 'Oh don't get bogged down in semantics' and then use it all the time to debunk.

Also it doesn't go unnoticed how Grieves is tasked with being 'impolite' to someone who makes crass statements quickly followed by the ilk of posts inferring Grieves has Nazi like intentions and statements suggesting he would want bombs going off to
I think that Grieves would rather argue than agree with anyone that doesn't share his conspiracy theories of the world. He can't seem to understand why preventing an attack is better than allowing one to happen.

The irony
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another one who doesn't understand common usage... obviously as you insist the metal onsite was not molten... as you have repeated over and over and over... but 'the population' know it was. We know what we mean and the fact you are in a tiny group that doesn't, means you have to dispute every last little word and this shows how weak your arguments are.

where there is no actual evidence for something you do NOT "know" it - you "believe" it.

thus always with CT's!:rolleyes:
 
where there is no actual evidence for something you do NOT "know" it - you "believe" it.

thus always with CT's!:rolleyes:
Well I am not allowed to mention molten metal... I have been moderated... so I have to let you get away with that one.:rolleyes:
 
Are they really? Thanks for that. And what about 'common usage'... people are not stupid... they don't need you to tell them what things mean. Everyone who is aware, knows that the wtc's fell at virtual freefall and straight down like a demolition virtually into their own footprint and everyone saw the literal pyroclastic dust cloud.
Because to actually adhere to the technical meaning of those terms would rob them of all their whizz-bang sensationalism, which is what the argument depends on.
If you actually redefine your terms to reflect what they are actually saying - freefall to mean 'quite fast', in their own footprint to mean 'spread out over several blocks' and pyroclastic to mean 'dust and and material debris that isn't actually over boiling temperature' - it doesn't actually have quite the wow-factor of dishonestly using a technical term incorrectly, which shows how weak the argument really is.
 
Because to actually adhere to the technical meaning of those terms would rob them of all their whizz-bang sensationalism, which is what the argument depends on.
If you actually redefine your terms to reflect what they are actually saying - freefall to mean 'quite fast', in their own footprint to mean 'spread out over several blocks' and pyroclastic to mean 'dust and and material debris that isn't actually over boiling temperature' - it doesn't actually have quite the wow-factor of dishonestly using a technical term incorrectly, which shows how weak the argument really is.
I can't really respond to you.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/drills-on-the-same-day-as-terrorist-attacks.2094/page-2#post-62515

This is not a WTC thread. No more WTC posts please.
Some events are quite whizz bang enough no matter what terms you use, even if the scientific meaning, rather than the common usage meaning, is a few seconds less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread moved, feel free to discuss how particular terms have been misused, or otherwise.

Please reference existing discussions if possible.
 
Words have meanings and you can not change them to fit your belief.

Oxy, you may want to argue about 'common usage', but if you were to show 100 folks on the street, 2 pictures, one of red hot metal on blacksmith's forge and another of something the one that was posted of bronze being poured and ask them which was molten, very few if none of them would choose the red hot metal as molten. Melt means to reduce a solid to a liquid, be it butter, or chocolate or metal. It doesn't mean make it hot..

Now lets try 'free fall speed' . The average person will remember the story of Newton from their science classes. They do understand the basics that it is caused by gravity where nothing impedes it. They might also know 'free fall' from sky diving, and know that it stops when the parachute is deployed. They would not believe an amusement park that advertised a roller coaster that was at 'free fall' speed. Free fall is not a word in common usage.

Ask that same 100 folks about 'pyroclastic flow' and most them will respond with 'WHAT?' Is is not in common use.

The only place that those words mean what you say they do is in the 9/11 truth movement, that is not common usage. It is more a 'slang' use.

Slang often involves the creation of new meanings for existing words.
Content from External Source
If I am chatting with a gaming friend, I might say " I might ask, "Is the TC demoed and have you sent the reins home?" They would know what I meant, but if I had to ask a non gaming friend or my hubby to log into my account to to do that (yes I have done that when my internet was out or I wasn't able to get on line). I would need to tell them that the Treasure Chamber needed to be demolished (and how to do it) and that the reinforcements needed to be sent home (and how to do it).


Free Fall and pyroclastic flow have clear definite meanings that are contrary to your slang use of them.
 
Free fall speed isn't even a real thing. They generally mean free fall acceleration. It's generally not an important distinction to make though, unless they are able to understand the distinction, and how it applies to, say, the stages of WTC7 collapse.

The most important thing is accurate communication, not using words to try to win an argument via semantic.
 
My posts on it are self explanatory. There is the common usage of a word, (which people know full well) and then there is splitting hairs about semantics in order to debunk a universally known fact and portray it as debunked. i am sure you know full well what I am talking about Mick

"Common usage" really? Just how common is the term "pyroclastic flow" ? I doubt many outside of geologists have ever heard the term. It's "common usage" is in reference to its specific definition :


A pyroclastic flow is a fluidized mixture of solid to semi-solid fragments and hot, expanding gases that flows down the flank of a volcanic edifice. These awesome features are heavier-than-air emulsions that move much like a snow avalanche, except that they are fiercely hot, contain toxic gases, and move at phenomenal, hurricane-force speeds, often over 100 km/hour. They are the most deadly of all volcanic phenomena.
Content from External Source
Please explain how the dust cloud was "literally" a pyroclastic flow in any way. Was the dust cloud fiercely hot? Was it traveling at phenomenal, hurricane like speeds? Did it kill anyone?

No. It was dust cloud. A cloud of dust is to be expected from any collapsing building. The term pyroclastic flow is used by truthers to exaggerate the cloud and imply it was somehow different than any other dust cloud from a collapsing building....when in fact it exhibited almost NONE of the characteristics that define a pyroclastic flow.

The use of the term pyroclastic flow in relation to the WTC is about deception- pure and simple deception.

Want more common usage? The most common usage of the term "staged" used in conjunction with the word "attack" is in reference to deadly attacks planned and carried out. A 30 second search will bear this out:

Iraqi insurgents stage deadly prison attacks
http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?tex...ly+Attacks+Across+Iraq http://wbur.fm/P7PXkI
Insurgents Stage Deadly Attacks Across Iraq

Gunmen stage deadly attack on north Nigeria church

Militants stage deadly attack on Pakistani army headquarters

Syrian Government Staged Chemical Attack on Own People

Militant and wife staged attack on DI Khan police




It seems to me that CTs often try to use terms that seem weighty and imply nefarious activity to lend credence to their theory but when held up to scrutiny their application falls short of objective analysis.

It's not splitting hairs to point out that their use of a particular word is not accurate especially when that word is designed to sway opinion and is fundamental to their premise.
 
Last edited:
"Common usage" really? Just how common is the term "pyroclastic flow" ? I doubt many outside of geologists have ever heard the term. It's "common usage" is in reference to its specific definition
Says who? You?... [...] It is likely true that technical details of many things are beyond the comprehension of many things but your statement goes way beyond that simple truth. The visual similarities of a volcanic pyroclastic flow and a demolition pyroclastic flow are not lost on people.

A pyroclastic flow is a fluidized mixture of solid to semi-solid fragments and hot, expanding gases that flows down the flank of a volcanic edifice. These awesome features are heavier-than-air emulsions that move much like a snow avalanche, except that they are fiercely hot, contain toxic gases, and move at phenomenal, hurricane-force speeds, often over 100 km/hour. They are the most deadly of all volcanic phenomena.
Content from External Source
Please explain how the dust cloud was "literally" a pyroclastic flow in any way. Was the dust cloud fiercely hot? Was it traveling at phenomenal, hurricane like speeds? Did it kill anyone?

The boldened text fits the description of the 9/11 pyroclastic flow, (i.e. most of the definition). The cloud flow was definitely hot, poisonous/toxic and fast moving. Visually it was identical to a volcanic pyroclastic flow... except it didn't come from a volcano did it and nobody suggested it did... we all know where it originated and therefore it was not exactly the same but then nobody said it was except people such as yourself making the false claim that others tried to say it was a pyroclastic flow.

The use of the term pyroclastic flow in relation to the WTC is about deception- pure and simple deception.
You say that as many times as you like... it has no substance and is fraudulent and deceptive in itself. It is an apt description of the event which looked, behaved and was composited of toxic, hot, fast moving gases and solids, which was coined by the public and the media alike.

Want more common usage? The most common usage of the term "staged" used in conjunction with the word "attack" is in reference to deadly attacks planned and carried out. A 30 second search will bear this out:

Iraqi insurgents stage deadly prison attacks
Insurgents Stage Deadly Attacks Across Iraq

Gunmen stage deadly attack on north Nigeria church

Militants stage deadly attack on Pakistani army headquarters

Syrian Government Staged Chemical Attack on Own People

Militant and wife staged attack on DI Khan police
[...] when I put "staged attacks" into a search engine, I get, (in order):

Modular Staging System - ModularStaging.Flowstore.co.uk
GUIL® Staging & Platforms - Spanish stage deck manufacturer
Staging Supplies UK - Standard or Bespoke Stage Supply
NY Times: ‘FBI Staged Terror Attacks’ Alex Jones ...
Staged Terror Attacks Planned After NSA Scandal - YouTube
Govt seeks Delhi input on ‘staged attacks’ – The .
Staged Terror Attacks Planned After NSA Scandal – Video .
Staged Terror Attacks to Follow NSA Leak - YouTube
NY Times: ‘FBI STAGED TERROR ATTACKS’ [VIDEO] – Secrets

And it goes on and on

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The point is, some words have multiple meanings. When you're trying to argue with someone over which meaning they were using in their argument, that's simply an attempt to derail the topic. Staged CAN mean to fully execute a plan. But again, like the example 'staged his own death' or 'staged a suicide' it doesn't mean you literally went through with it. It means to give the appearance of going through with it.
 
The point is, some words have multiple meanings. When you're trying to argue with someone over which meaning they were using in their argument, that's simply an attempt to derail the topic. Staged CAN mean to fully execute a plan. But again, like the example 'staged his own death' or 'staged a suicide' it doesn't mean you literally went through with it. It means to give the appearance of going through with it.
Yes agreed.

Obviously the meaning of words is important, otherwise we would be unable to communicate but when it gets down to protracted arguments over various interpretations it is obstructive and I suggest deliberately so.

On top of that it fools no one, (or at least not many:))

Anyone watching WTC7 fall can see it came down like a demolition, straight down, freefall, in its own footprint.

To start arguing about 'what about the penthouse' or 'this section moved 0.3 seconds before the other section' or 'It wasn't actually freefall acceleration all the time' is frankly farcical. People know what they saw and a lot of people are unhappy with the answers.

From Live Leak Poll... but link won't paste.
Poll What do people really think happened on 9/11?
The poll already expired - voting is no longer possible!
Results:
The planes did cause both the twin towers and building 7 to collapse and it was a genuine attack
(47) 44.34%
The buildings fell under controlled demolition and it was an inside job made to look like a genuine attack
(46) 43.4%
I'm unsure what to believe from conflicting evidence
(12) 11.32%
The buildings were just getting old
(1) 0.94%
Total Votes 106
Expiration Date 8/09/2013
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes agreed.

Obviously the meaning of words is important, otherwise we would be unable to communicate but when it gets down to protracted arguments over various interpretations it is obstructive and I suggest deliberately so.

Where I feel the meaning of words is important is when they are used as "evidence". If someone lists "pyroclastic flow" as evidence, then they obviously mean something different to "big cloud of dust". And so it deserves examining.

On top of that it fools no one, (or at least not many:))

Anyone watching WTC7 fall can see it came down like a demolition, straight down, freefall, in its own footprint.

To start arguing about 'what about the penthouse' or 'this section moved 0.3 seconds before the other section' or 'It wasn't actually freefall acceleration all the time' is frankly farcical. People know what they saw and a lot of people are unhappy with the answers.

Unfortunately "what they saw" is not always all you need to understand something. The details actually are important, and if you are reducing an argument to "it was a controlled demolition because it obviously looked like one", then really you don't have very much of a case. (and besides, WTC1/2 looked like the opposite of a controlled demolition, so where does your common sense logic take you then?)
 
Last edited:
If the dust cloud from the collapse of the towers were a pyroclastic flow then the "heat" in the flow would have injured or killed the people it overwhelmed.
 
Where I feel the meaning of words is important is when they are used as "evidence". If someone lists "pyroclastic flow" as evidence, then they obviously mean something different to "big clodu of dust". And so it deserves examining.

Josh summed it up best IMO

When you're trying to argue with someone over which meaning they were using in their argument, that's simply an attempt to derail the topic

This goes to the heart of the 'debate' between SR and Grieves. Grieves put a logical argument and the meaning was unambiguous but as so often happens, SR, (in this particular case), deliberately set out to derail the topic by disputing what 'staged attacks' meant. Well you can argue that there is an alternative meaning all you like but the meaning used by Grieves was unambiguous and widely used so end of story... or it should have been. But no it had to be argued to the nth degree to drive him to distraction and to add insult to injury totally unfounded and unwarranted allegations of a very impolite nature were levelled at him.

Unfortunately "what they saw" is not always all you need to understand something. The details actually are important, and if you are reducing an argument to "it was a controlled demolition because it obviously looked like one", then really you don't have very much of a case. (and besides, WTC1/2 looked like the opposite of a controlled demolition, so where does your common sense logic take you then?)

If there is a valid reason to dispute the meaning of a word or words... then fair enough but to do so in such a vexatious manner is not right and is not conducive to a sensible discussion.
 
If the dust cloud from the collapse of the towers were a pyroclastic flow then the "heat" in the flow would have injured or killed the people it overwhelmed.
Ok so if I spill a hot cup of coffee on myself I will die will I? No, and do you dispute the cloud was hot or fast moving or toxic... I didn't think so but you don't say... 'Oh if it was toxic... everyone would have been dead', do you? Why not, because you know full well there are levels of toxicity, heat and speed.

Like I said... Nobody is suggesting there was a volcano that brought down the towers so your argument is specious at best.
 
It was not a pyroclastic flow, it was a dust cloud. Why do you insist on calling it Black, when it was white? Callit what it was, Dust cloud, don't use a word that is not applicable to this situation, just to make it sound worse.


A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current[1]) is a fast-moving current of hot gas and rock (collectively known as tephra), which reaches speeds moving away from a volcano of up to 700 km/h (450 mph).[2] The gas can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F).
Content from External Source
A survey done on a biased site is not reflective of what the average person thinks.

Here is a good example of a useless poll

The Democratic-leaning polling firm, which provided its results to Talking Points Memo, found that 29 percent of Louisiana Republicans said Obama was responsible for the Katrina response. Twenty-eight percent put the blame on President George W. Bush, whose administration did in fact oversee the federal response to Katrina. Nearly half (44 percent) of the Louisiana Republicans polled didn't know who to blame.
Content from External Source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/obama-hurricane-katrina_n_3790612.html

A biased polling group, polling a biased group and no evidence of the question asked. To say that most folks in Louisiana blame Pres Obama for the Katrina response would be foolish
 
But here's the problem:


They use it as a bullet point in their list of evidence. As if an explosive-free collapse would produce a different type of dust cloud.

But it wouldn't. Collapses without without explosives produce basically the same type of dust cloud. See:

And here's a couple more clouds of dust, both from small buildings, both without explosives:








So at the very least "pyroclastic" implies something that is used as evidence. If they wrote: "big cloud of dust", that would be vastly more accurate and less misleading.

Why do you insist on using "pyroclastic flow"? Why not "cloud of dust"?

Don't you want to be more accurate?
 
Last edited:
But here's the problem:


They use it as a bullet point in their list of evidence. As if an explosive-free collapse would produce a different type of dust cloud.

But it wouldn't. Collapses without without explosives produce basically the same type of dust cloud. See:










So at the very least "pyroclastic" implies something that is used as evidence. If they wrote: "big cloud of dust", that would be vastly more accurate and less misleading.

Why do you insist on using "pyroclastic flow"? Why not "cloud of dust"?

Don't you want to be more accurate?


Because it's not a 'cloud' :p

Sorry, just kidding around, in relation to other topics about semantics
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is a cloud. Check out meaning #2 and #3


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cloud

cloud (kloud)
n.
1.
a. A visible body of very fine water droplets or ice particles suspended in the atmosphere at altitudes ranging up to several miles above sea level.
b. A mass, as of dust, smoke, or steam, suspended in the atmosphere or in outer space.
2. A large moving body of things in the air or on the ground; a swarm: a cloud of locusts.
3. Something that darkens or fills with gloom.
4. A dark region or blemish, as on a polished stone.
5. Something that obscures.
6. Suspicion or a charge affecting a reputation.
7. A collection of charged particles: an electron cloud.
Content from External Source
To be honest, not using correct terms clouds the issue, that is the point we have been making. (#5)

On 9/11 the skies were free of clouds. After the impact of the planes, clouds of smoke rose to the sky. As each tower fell, a tremendous dust cloud rolled down the streets near them. The day became clouded with fear and apprehension. Dust from the collapses and the smoke from the fires clouded the lower Manhattan skyline.
A cloud of suspicion has been attached to the official reports, by some groups.

Sorry I couldn't figure out how to get meanings #4 and #7 in.
 
Haha nice job
But no, it's not about using correct terms, it's about people picking their own definitions and using that to say the term doesn't fit the argument. Again, back to 'staged'.
Like say, if you were to call out Mick and say definition one of cloud is the correct usage and that he was incorrect in using it in 'cloud of dust'. Which is what I was doing satirically in the previous post (although I didn't go out of my way to pick a definition that didn't fit, I was just illustrating the point.)
 
v. staged, stag·ing, stag·es
v.tr.
1. To exhibit or present on or as if on a stage: stage a boxing match.
2. To produce or direct (a theatrical performance).
3. To arrange and carry out: stage an invasion.
4. Medicine To determine the extent or progression of (a cancer, for example).

both meanings 2 and 3 are common.

The dust cloud from the towers falling was not even close to being a pyroclastic cloud or flow. Free fall speed is a meaningless term, although it is sometimes missed use by some. Molten means Melted, not hot.
 
v. staged, stag·ing, stag·es
v.tr.
1. To exhibit or present on or as if on a stage: stage a boxing match.
2. To produce or direct (a theatrical performance).
3. To arrange and carry out: stage an invasion.
4. Medicine To determine the extent or progression of (a cancer, for example).

both meanings 2 and 3 are common.

The dust cloud from the towers falling was not even close to being a pyroclastic cloud or flow. Free fall speed is a meaningless term, although it is sometimes missed use by some. Molten means Melted, not hot.

Right, I'm not trying to argue for pyroclastic flow at the WTC. I'm still stuck on 'staged'.
 
If I were to stage 9/11, I'd say it's around #3, bargaining. Although it varies all the way from #1 to #5, depending on the individual.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/000617

Anyway drifting a little off topic here. My point is that we should avoid arguing about the meaning of words, and instead describe what happened with non-disputed words.

My problem with AE911 is that they don't do this. They use a word where they seem to be either shoehorning in their own interpretation, or implying something that was not the case.
 
[...]

It is likely true that technical details of many things are beyond the comprehension of many things but your statement goes way beyond that simple truth. The visual similarities of a volcanic pyroclastic flow and a demolition pyroclastic flow are not lost on people.


A pyroclastic flow is a fluidized mixture of solid to semi-solid fragments and hot, expanding gases that flows down the flank of a volcanic edifice. These awesome features are heavier-than-air emulsions that move much like a snow avalanche, except that they are fiercely hot, contain toxic gases, and move at phenomenal, hurricane-force speeds, often over 100 km/hour. They are the most deadly of all volcanic phenomena.
Content from External Source

The boldened text fits the description of the 9/11 pyroclastic flow, (i.e. most of the definition). The cloud flow was definitely hot, poisonous/toxic and fast moving. Visually it was identical to a volcanic pyroclastic flow... except it didn't come from a volcano did it and nobody suggested it did... we all know where it originated and therefore it was not exactly the same but then nobody said it was except people such as yourself making the false claim that others tried to say it was a pyroclastic flow.

BS. Pyroclastic flows are "fiercely" hot. They incinerate that which they touch- ie: pompei- which is what makes them so deadly. 1000s people were engulfed in the dust cloud- no one was incinerated or even indicated it was hot. Pyroclastic flows "move at phenomenal, hurricane-force speeds" -100s of miles per hour. The dust cloud on 9/11 moved much slower. People were able to outrun it. Thus, 2 of the Prime characteristics of pyroclastic flows were missing from the dust cloud. Yet, you claim they were "identical". [...].

This isn't nit picking- this is showing that by definition the dust cloud on 9/11 was not a pyroclastic flow. It was neither deadly hot or moving at extremely fast speeds. The fundamental basis of the claim is false.

Plenty of people said it the dust cloud was "pyroclastic flow". Mick, in an earlier thread, showed plenty of google hits on that very claim. Even AE9/11 claimed it was initially until they changed to "pyroclastic like". Suggesting nobody made the claim is simply ignoring the facts. If they didn't we wouldn't be discussing it.

You say that as many times as you like... it has no substance and is fraudulent and deceptive in itself.

BS. It is the truth. If not then why not call every dust cloud from collapsing buildings "pyroclastic flows"? They deliberately use the term to mislead and promote their agenda even when the claim has no basis in fact.

[quote="Oxymoron, post: 62607, member: 1029"
How strange, when I put "staged attacks" into a search engine, I get, (in order)
And it goes on and on so I guess you are debunked yet again.[/quote]

BS. I provided numerous examples in newspaper headlines of common usage of staged attack meaning a planned and executed attack and somehow I am "debunked"? Fascinating.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I were to stage 9/11, I'd say it's around #3, bargaining. Although it varies all the way from #1 to #5, depending on the individual.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/000617

Anyway drifting a little off topic here. My point is that we should avoid arguing about the meaning of words, and instead describe what happened with non-disputed words.

My problem with AE911 is that they don't do this. They use a word where they seem to be either shoehorning in their own interpretation, or implying something that was not the case.
I agree, it's best to keep it honest and straightforward. Mainstream media is notorious for over sensationalizing stories. So are conspiracy theorists.
 
The point is, some words have multiple meanings. When you're trying to argue with someone over which meaning they were using in their argument, that's simply an attempt to derail the topic. Staged CAN mean to fully execute a plan. But again, like the example 'staged his own death' or 'staged a suicide' it doesn't mean you literally went through with it. It means to give the appearance of going through with it.

Hi josh,

First you say staged can mean to fully execute a plan....then you say it means to give an appearance...as if that is the definitive usage...and yet you acknowledge words can have multiple meanings....seems contradictory.

I showed plenty of newspaper headlines that used "staged" in they same manner that I used it...it is a common and accepted use of the term. "They staged deadly attacks".

For the record, I was not the one instigate the debate over the meaning of the term. I assumed my understanding and usage of the term was clear. I assumed staged attacks meant to plan and carry out attacks- just like you read in the headlines. It was Grieves who got on his high horse to try and tell me I was wrong...even though I was not.

I do understand how others might interpret the meaning differently in this context...however, if we were to go with that usage the correct wording should have been something like the FBI staged fake terror attacks...as the attacks were never real.
 
For the record, I was not the one instigate the debate over the meaning of the term. I assumed my understanding and usage of the term was clear. I assumed staged attacks meant to plan and carry out attacks- just like you read in the headlines. It was Grieves who got on his high horse to try and tell me I was wrong...even though I was not.

But you were wrong. Like you say "staged" has multiple meanings. If it is unclear what usage a person was using, they you should ask them, not tell them.
 
But you were wrong. Like you say "staged" has multiple meanings. If it is unclear what usage a person was using, they you should ask them, not tell them.
Nailed it on the head...

SR:
I do understand how others might interpret the meaning differently in this context...however, if we were to go with that usage the correct wording should have been something like the FBI staged fake terror attacks...as the attacks were never real.

Then maybe you should have simply responded to his first post and offered that as a better way to word his post. Look where things ended up.
 
BS. Pyroclastic flows are "fiercely" hot. They incinerate that which they touch- ie: pompei- which is what makes them so deadly. 1000s people were engulfed in the dust cloud- no one was incinerated or even indicated it was hot. Pyroclastic flows "move at phenomenal, hurricane-force speeds" -100s of miles per hour. The dust cloud on 9/11 moved much slower. People were able to outrun it. Thus, 2 of the Prime characteristics of pyroclastic flows were missing from the dust cloud. Yet, you claim they were "identical".

Talk about cherry picking. Commonly people put a number of words together to make a sensible, coherent sentence and people tend to read the whole sentence to derive meaning rather than just read each word individually and assign their own interpretation. The "identical" quote you cite is 4th word in on this Sentence:
"Visually it was identical to a volcanic pyroclastic flow... except it didn't come from a volcano did it and nobody suggested it did... we all know where it originated and therefore it was not exactly the same but then nobody said it was except people such as yourself making the false claim that others tried to say it was a pyroclastic flow."

Unfortunately you seem to have made some serious errors, (given your penchant for exactitude) (in red).

"move at phenomenal, hurricane-force speeds"... is not mandatory, especially once it has extended some distance.
"100s of miles per hour". Factually incorrect. It may move at 100kmh, (60mph)... it may move at 5mph near the extent of its range and various speeds betwixt.
Same rationale with heat and toxicity etc and all the other little minor bits and bobs.

This isn't nit picking- this is showing that by definition the dust cloud on 9/11 was not a pyroclastic flow. It was neither deadly hot or moving at extremely fast speeds. The fundamental basis of the claim is false.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pyroclastic
Science Dictionary
pyroclastic (pī'rō-klās'tĭk) Pronunciation Key
Composed chiefly of rock fragments of explosive origin, especially those associated with explosive volcanic eruptions. Volcanic ash, obsidian, and pumice are examples of pyroclastic materials.
Content from External Source
Please note, whilst it is especially associated with volcanic eruptions... It doesn't have to be!
Volcanic ash etc are examples but not exclusively so!
flow (fl)
v. flowed, flow·ing, flows
v.intr.
1.
a.
To move or run smoothly with unbroken continuity, as in the manner characteristic of a fluid.
b. To issue in a stream; pour forth: Sap flowed from the gash in the tree.
2. To circulate, as the blood in the body.
3. To move with a continual shifting of the component particles: wheat flowing into the bin; traffic flowing through the tunnel.
4. To proceed steadily and easily: The preparations flowed smoothly.
5. To exhibit a smooth or graceful continuity: The poem's cadence flowed gracefully.
6. To hang loosely and gracefully: The cape flowed from his shoulders.
7. To rise. Used of the tide.
8. To arise; derive: Many conclusions flow from this hypothesis.
9.
a.
To abound or teem: coffers flowing with treasure.
b. To stream copiously; flood: Contributions flowed in from all parts of the country.
10. To menstruate.
11. To undergo plastic deformation without cracking or breaking. Used of rocks, metals, or minerals.
v.tr.
Content from External Source
Plenty of people said it the dust cloud was "pyroclastic flow". Mick, in an earlier thread, showed plenty of google hits on that very claim. Even AE9/11 claimed it was initially until they changed to "pyroclastic like". Suggesting nobody made the claim is simply ignoring the facts. If they didn't we wouldn't be discussing it.
And so it was. It fits the definition AND it describes the event most effectively and descriptively.

BS. It is the truth. If not then why not call every dust cloud from collapsing buildings "pyroclastic flows"? They deliberately use the term to mislead and promote their agenda even when the claim has no basis in fact.
Sorry... I must have missed all the CT claims that the towers were bought down by a volcano. Got any links?

[quote="Oxymoron, post: 62607, member: 1029"
How strange, when I put "staged attacks" into a search engine, I get, (in order)
And it goes on and on so I guess you are debunked yet again.[/quote]

BS. I provided numerous examples in newspaper headlines of common usage of staged attack meaning a planned and executed attack and somehow I am "debunked"? Fascinating.

You said:
The most common usage of the term "staged" used in conjunction with the word "attack" is in reference to deadly attacks planned and carried out. A 30 second search will bear this out
A 30 second search falsifies what you said.

Why don't you admit it and move on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top