[Hans Norling]

Originally Posted by DouglasReed

No, Jon baby, don't tell me what my argument is. I'll make my arguments say exactly what I mean them to say.

Yeah, and I answered them on point, hence if you argue that the Flight 93 plane crash was fake, because there was not enough visible debris in the impact zone, then all other plane crashes that follow the same e.m.o would be equally fake right? Otherwise, if this is not your "logic", then you argument is hypocritical either way, so when you find yourself in a hole of a logical fallacy Martin, stop digging.

As for your "responses" that are mostly quotes that profess to refute what you claim my argument is, I will now, and intend in the future, to simply ignore them.

What else is new, this is what those desperately clinging to kooky claims tend to do when faced with the pesky facts that contradict their emotional attachments, they whine, they ignore, they lambast, anything but to put up or shut up. No offense.

And I recommend you respond in your own words if you expect anyone else to do more.

I do respond in my own words, however it just so happens that pertinent information if say quoted by an expert on wireless communcation, posted in Wireless Week, leaves me quite justified in quoting that bit of relevant information wouldn't you say?

They most certainly cannot, which is well-known to anyone in the industry. Not now, and certainly not eight years ago. People on planes are typically told to turn them off, simply to avoid interference with the plane's own equipment. But you go right ahead and try making a cell phone call from an airplane and see what happens.

I never said they would function well, or even for any notable long period of time. The case you were handed with was rather evident, cell phones can and have been used in planes while en route, usually it doesn't work but often enough for a period of time that it refutes your claim of magic cell-phone communication. Ergo, the case is that it is highly possible a smidgin number of cell phone calls made it through for a few seconds, from several hundred passangers who likely had them and possibly tried to call as well.

Oh yeah, the old I'm-a-stupid-person-who-parrots-things-I-read-on-the-Internet line. I'll bet lots of people reading our exchange are taken in by that one.

Well they should. Previously, you issued the "highjackers are still alive" canard, the "flight manifest" nonsense etc. Why else would you peddle such obvious and thoroughly debunked truthernoia unless you didn't care what was correct or not, as opposed to what confirmed your need for conspiratorial satisfaction?

As I said, this kind of stuff goes in the trash where it belongs. It's just another part of your poor magician's repetoire. Try to get people to look off in another direction, and generally bore them to death if they oblige you.

Erhm okay, pleading no contest I see, got it.

Yes, that's what I believe. You managed to get that one right.

Then your idea and belief on the matter is not only disturbing, but crazy, imo.

As I said earlier, then you'd be ready to confront her husband with that repulsive argument, telling him his wife and the mother of their children never existed, seeing as you have made a lot ado about being the big guy and confronting people in the flesh. Why don't you accuse her family, husband and sons of being delusional or liars then?

My argument is crushed is it? I see. So the fact that Mrs. Lyles was, according to all official sources, named Mrs. Castrillo when her 1997 license -- recovered from an airplane that wasn't there, and entered into evidence by lawyers in a Federal trial -- was issued is now no longer relevant, eh? How did that happen? I didn't see it. It was too fast for me. My argument got crushed so fast I completely missed it.

Yeah yeah, you clearly misssed.

"Cee Cee Lyles went in to the FL DMV in June of 2001, and changed her name. Her new license included the ORIGINAL ISSUE date of 1997 and the DUPLICATE DATE of 2001."

And the response from the FL Drivers License Office, my emphasis added.

That is correct. It will show both the original and duplicate dates.

My suggestion here Martin, is that you deny the whole thing as nonsense and keep ignoring it despite the facts telling you otherwise, because it is destructive to your argument.

Heck, on my wife's driver's license, even after renewal, still has her maiden name, for some reason that none of us has bothered to do anything about at the moment.

Oh oh, going by your reasong this means my wife doesn't exist, or the Swedish Secret Police is up to something. Holy cow, what on earth am I going to do?!?

I mean come on, Martin? You can't be serious, stop jesting.