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:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
'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.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
'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.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
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.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

Marcus Mudd

Member
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.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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:

MikeC

Closed Account
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:
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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:
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
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.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thread moved, feel free to discuss how particular terms have been misused, or otherwise.

Please reference existing discussions if possible.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
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.

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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
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 :

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:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
"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.
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:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
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.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
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.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
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 survey done on a biased site is not reflective of what the average person thinks.

Here is a good example of a useless poll

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
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
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:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It is a cloud. Check out meaning #2 and #3


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cloud

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.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
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.)
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
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.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
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'.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
[...]

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.


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:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
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.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
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.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
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.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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
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!
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:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Gunguy45 Debunkers vs. Debaters. How can we have constructive discussions? Practical Debunking 54
Des O Discussions with chemtrailers on facebook Contrails and Chemtrails 216
Critical Thinker Claim: Correlations Between Media Preference and Coronavirus Infection Rates Coronavirus COVID-19 11
Mick West Debunking Correlations Between 5G deployments and Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
N 11.10.18 between 19:50- 20:12 o clock unknown luminous phenomenon spotted over nocturnal sky in Germ Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
Trailblazer Sharp boundary between contrails and clear sky Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Bass In Your Face Curvature Experiment showing relation between x-axis and z-axis Flat Earth 15
M Difference between the impact of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols and Contrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC 95,000 kids, 20 years of science - no connection between Autism and MMR Health and Quackery 1
T Debunk: Chemtrails leave no space between aircraft and the beginning of the trail. Contrails and Chemtrails 7
FreiZeitGeist Debate between Pilot Steven Kneussle and Mark McCandish on "The Truth denied" Contrails and Chemtrails 3
FuzzyUK Corellation between Perigee moons and earthquakes? Science and Pseudoscience 3
AluminumTheory The Parallels between Conspiracy Theories and Action/Sci-Fi movies Conspiracy Theories 9
WavedRhyme The MOD admits spraying the UK public between 1940 and 1979 in secret trials Contrails and Chemtrails 56
Critical Thinker Anyone else notice a positive correlation between CT's and Ron Paul supporters? Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Gap between contrails and engines Contrails and Chemtrails 8
M Relative humidity difference between persistent and non-persistent contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 41
Related Articles



















Election 2020

Related Articles

Top