9/11

Loser

 

Uhm Vance, you guys were discussing the black boxes, right or not? Why not look for the source when he repeatedly asks for it? You don't recall it anymore? That happens all the time. Is he a loser for craving the answer to his reasonable question (which is simply your source) which you refuse to give and that is the only reason he ask for it more than once? Or is he a loser for noticing you are avoiding his question and holding on to it? Just wondering.

Another thought: why keep answering him with calling names like loser or saying you don't care anyway? Isn't it better to simply shut up those cases? Why resort to such pity name calling (when most people on here seem to find the person resorting to that to be the loser)?

 

Thaaaaank you!!

 

From what I can see, vance asked storch what he believes about 9/11 and who is behind it. He asked twice. vance believes that it was radio signal, not black box, that was heard. It's not possible sometimes to answer questions for which one does not assume the basis for the question. In other words, storch is asking questions about the black box but vance can't answer because vance believes it was radio signal. vance acknowledged that the questions are impossible (or impossible for him) to answer.

 

Ah, and that is a reasonable excuse to simply resort to insults? That would be a curious conclusion coming from you, Gina!

 

Since we're both on the ignore list we could actually have a private chat here.

 

When you have a discussion both people get to ask questions and expect an answer. I gave him some answers but he refuses to answer my question to him. I am not going to keep this a one side Q&A. I have the source but until I get a little from him I am done.
I called him a loser for not having the ability to have a real conversation.

 

She has obviously read my post

 

No, there is a thread in random thoughts called "Who Was Behind 9/11," and I gave my answer there. If he has a problem with my answer, then he can address it there. And you need to re-read this thread. Vance did not say that he believes that it was a radio signal and not the black box that he heard; he said that it later came to be believed that the signal that investigators picked up was not from the black box, but from something emitting the same frequency. And according to Vance himself, he says he has the source, but isn't going to provide it. So, so much for your contention that it is an impossible question for him to answer. He says he can.

Asmo correctly reminded Vance that he had made the unfounded statement that no black box was found. I provided testimony from someone who worked at Ground Zero that three of the four black boxes were found. I also provided proof that the Director of the New York Emergency Management Office sent a letter to the Governor of New York stating that investigators had picked up the signal from one of the black boxes. Don't know if you understand how debate works, but it was then up to Vance to provide evidence for his claim that it was later beieved that the signal picked up by investigators was from something else emitting the same frequency. Instead, he tried to change the subject and then accuse me of not cooperating.

 

For your edification, Vance, the discussion began with your assertion that no black box was found. The discussion continued when I said that a witness working at Ground Zero testified that three of the four black boxes were found. You then contended that one man's word does not make it true. I responded by telling you that investigators picked up a signal from one of the black boxes in the WTC debris. You then claimed that it later came to be believed that the signal that investigators picked up was not from the black box, but from something emitting the same frequency. And me, being the curious fellow that I am, asked you to cite the source for your claim. And that's when you decided to end the discussion and become belligerent.

 

It isn't my contention, they are his own words:

I'm not following the other thread and I don't know if vance is aware that you answered the question he keeps asking you in this thread but now he is aware.

 

Answer the question I posed to you. 2 way street chief.

And "proof" is not ONE persons statement.

 

vance, he said he answered that question in the other thread.

 

You must be in the habit of refusing to finish discussions. You must also be in the habit of refusing to accept what is put before your eyes. I've already shown you that, in a 9/18/01 executive summary to New York Governor George Pataki, Edward Jacoby, Director of the New York State Emergency Management Office, said that investigators had identified the signal from one of the black boxes in the WTC debris. I also told you that these investigators included “14 personnel” of U.S. Army’s CECOM (Communications Electronics Command), in addition to FBI and USAR (Urban Search and Rescue), from whom “a ten-man team is using acoustic sensors and direction finders to locate the audio transmitters (pingers) on the recorders. The NTSB was involved, too, helping to set up six observation/camera points to help guide FDNY and USAR to the area emitting the signal.

In response to that, you said that it later came to be believed that the signal came from something else emitting the same frequency. I asked you to cite the source from which you found this information. And instead of answering, you changed the subject, and you insisted that I answer your question. Tell me, Vance, if it's a two-way street, why have you not answered my question concerning the source of the statement you made? I did ask my question first. Go ahead and look. So, why don't you end this discussion by simply citing the source of your idea that it later came to be believed that the black box signal was from something else?

 

I am not here to answer every single question you have. Answer my question and then I will answer another one of your questions. Simple as that, two way street and you have not answered my question.

 

He never said that to me when I asked him, nor did he provide a link.

 

It's over, Vance. It was over just as soon as you refused to cite the source for something you said.

 

Yes it is over as you will not answer a question I pose to you.

 

One issue at a time, Vance. In order to conclude the issue of the black box, and then move onto the next issue, you must cite the source for your assertion that the pinging signal picked up by investigators was later found to be coming from something else. If you don't provide the requested citation, then my point stands, and yours falls. So, are you able to cite the source, or not?

 

Conversations involve many different aspects and points. They all inter twin together.

And my point has not failed as can you site me anything else except for 1 man who said they found black boxes?