9/11 Pentagon: The Mystery of the Moved Taxi

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Yes. Just an observation.

Hi Narc...

What's up with your signature? It looks strangely "familiar":

I did a trace route on www.--------------.com... the Node Name is listed and maintained by the government...Location
Langley, Virginia MS 60
Network Used whois.nic.mil (for military network information) It was difficult to get the IP Address, It was spoofed and looped over 9 times. Anyway Langley, Virginia is where the CIA headquarters is. I'm more than concerned

Now where in the wild world of research did you find that?

Hi Skeptic Guy.


Oh I was just browsin' this blog one day and saw this paragraph, and thought it would make a cool sig. What do ya think?

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Oh I was just browsin' this blog one day and saw this paragraph, and thought it would make a cool sig. What do ya think?

Wonderful bit of "research" there dude... from both you and the blog owner who tried to use it for silly claims.

It's from here:
www.belowtopsecret.com...
(notice the date and mal-formed IP addresses)

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Oh I was just browsin' this blog one day and saw this paragraph, and thought it would make a cool sig. What do ya think?

Wonderful bit of "research" there dude... from both you and the blog owner who tried to use it for silly claims.

It's from here:
www.belowtopsecret.com...
(notice the date and mal-formed IP addresses)

Man, I might be mistaken. But I thought this thread that YOU created was about a Taxi being moved. Not blogs and sigs.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Man, I might be mistaken. But I thought this thread that YOU created was about a Taxi being moved. Not blogs and sigs.

The opening post in this thread is yours.

I suppose this might bring up questions about the quality of your research? Leading to further questions about the conclusions you're making in your arguments.

That post you're referencing is a simple April Fools post from 2004 (even indicated as such).

The blog author never noticed that. And never even noticed the IP's were malformed, and the subnets indicated are not US Military, but SprinkLink in the UK. I suppose we might think you've believed the blog author without doing your own check.

I brought it up here because this happens to be the primary thread in which you've been active.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

I suppose this might bring up questions about the quality of your research? Leading to further questions about the conclusions you're making in your arguments.

Ah yes, the "quality of my research".

Was it that 'quality' that inspired you to make this post a separate thread?

Or the 'quality' that shredded out about 4-5 posts demolishing that Catherder thread, showing "the quality" of HIS research?


Please man. You should have just let it go, SkeptiCoverlord. It's my sig, I can post what I want(as long as it's not vulgar, with nudity, in good taste). The very idea that you would go on the offensive like this publicly, speaks volumes.

Keep this kind of tripe in the U2U's please.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Ah yes, the "quality of my research".

Was it that 'quality' that inspired you to make this post a separate thread?

Or the 'quality' that shredded out about 4-5 posts demolishing that Catherder thread, showing "the quality" of HIS research?


Please man.

SLAP SLAP SLAP to quote Ronald Reagan "There you go again" As mentined in the other thread, you seem to like to slap these lables on everybody who dares to question the quality of your analysis. Really now if your position is so strong why the tiresome Ad Hominem attacks?

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Was it that 'quality' that inspired you to make this post a separate thread?

Yes... as you should know by our email exchange on the subject.

There just seems to be a great deal of inaccurate, wrong, and vengeful information about us being tossed about like dime store candy between children on a sugar feeding frenzy. The material in your sig is part of that... and frankly, it's irritating. (Not to mention that continuing to promote inaccurate information is unbecoming for someone concerned with accuracy.)

The issue seems relevant to this discussion. If we're being asked to examine photos you present, and trust your analysis, it's only fair to consider your research methodology in the larger sense.


[edit on 25-1-2006 by SkepticOverlord]

In other words, it's all about denying ignorance. Denying ignorance is not taking an April fools joke as fact. Whoever does that takes a fatal hit to their credibility...

Originally posted by FredT

SLAP SLAP SLAP to quote Ronald Reagan "There you go again" As mentined in the other thread, you seem to like to slap these lables on everybody who dares to question the quality

of your analysis. Really now if your position is so strong why the tiresome Ad Hominem attacks?

oh...you again?

I see no Ad Hominem.

I didn't slap a *label* on anybody. Catherder's research speaks for itself and it has been handled.

Much like you.

Now if it's all the same to you. I would like to add YOU to my ignore list.

Boy, I'm going through moderators like T.P.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The material in your sig is part of that... and frankly, it's irritating. (Not to mention that continuing to promote inaccurate information is unbecoming for someone concerned with accuracy.)

Sorry you feel that way.

I think the sig is funny. Isn't that what it was intended to be?

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
I think the sig is funny. Isn't that what it was intended to be?

Your know full-well it's taken from a source that is repeatedly attacking us with blatantly false information. Certainly you didn't expect your signature to go unnoticed?

Alone, it may have been amusing. After the repeated attacks, it's not. Sorry.





(In other news, we've obtained permission to repost Joe Quinn's article on ATS. Consider this advance notice that the member who posts it here has my permission to do so. I've contacted Joe and asked if there's anything he'd like to add for the ATS members.)

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Boy, I'm going through moderators like T.P.

I think it's time to flush the toilet on this crap...
.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
oh...you again?

I see no Ad Hominem.

I didn't slap a *label* on anybody. Catherder's research speaks for itself and it has been handled.

Much like you.

Please do put me on ignore. As far as "going" through Mods, dude you need to give fair warning before you say something funny, I have to go a get a napkin to clean the soda off the monitor.

Im not surprised you failed to see the Ad Hominem style (people are seldom capable of such introspection) or this subsequent attempt to distract from the fact that you have failed to debunk anything of CatHerders thread. But hey if you keep trying to slap on lables perhaps one will stick.

I am in the throes of a debate as to calssify this popst of yours as either an Appeal to Ridicule (and not a great one at that) or a your whole thoery is an Appeal to Authority

Yeah, so anyways...back to the moved taxi...

Mister_Narc you don't see a problem taking my text from an April fools joke completely out of context and using it in a way NOT intended? By doing this you present the quote in a way that suggests it may be hold some truth. I shouldn't need to say these things to someone that professes to be a "researcher". I mean this is fairly basic stuff.

All you have is your credibility and I'm afraid to say that yours is severely tarnished by your lack of understanding of this most basic of issues. When we gauge someones credibility these things certainly factor into the equation.

Are you interested in serious research or are you more interested in sensationalism?

Of course all the "moderators", owners, and lackey's feel my credibility is "tarnished".

I'm hurt.

It was edited and made no mention of ATS.com

Laugh it off.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Please man. You should have just let it go, SkeptiCoverlord. It's my sig, I can post what I want(as long as it's not vulgar, with nudity, in good taste). The very idea that you would go on the offensive like this publicly, speaks volumes.

Actually, Mister_Narc, I personally feel your transparency is the voice that speaks volumes.

From my viewpoint, this thread was separated from CatHerder's Pentagon thread as it deals with an entirely different aspect of the overall discussion.

Your continued reference to dismantling said material, as if it were the "written-in-stone" viewpoint of this entire community, is baseless, and without foundation.

In my opinion if the entirety of CatHerder's postings/conclusions were actually put forth, by the community of ATS, as the sole voice of said community you might have reason to do so, however, that is not the case.

If you actually took the time to digest the entire contents of ALL posts contained therein, you would clearly see it is not the single voice of a community, but rather an all inclusive representation of different viewpoints, resultant from the collaboration of many thoughts, ideas, and suggestions.

If your satisfaction is satiated by "handling" and "going through" Moderators, I can only feel sorry for your blinding acceptance of ignorance.

Just my $.02 ...

p.s. Mister_Narc,
The simple fact that your "sig" has been allowed to remain is a clear demonstration of the open community here on ATS. I would suggest you attempt the same elsewhere to gauge the results?!
[edit for BB code error]

[edit on 1/25/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Laugh it off.

Indeed you have been.

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Yeah, so anyways...back to the moved taxi...

Regardless of the various opinions related to the quality of the information in this thread (both for and against the theories presented), I feel this has been one of the most valuable threads on ATS in recent months, if not longer.

Why? More than anything else, this thread has clearly demonstrated we have a polarizing "conspiracy divide" very similar to the liberal-v-republican political divide in the US.

Here we essentially have two groups discussing details of one attribute of 9/11 conspiracy, the 757 and the Pentagon...

On one side, those who are convinced a 757 hit the Pentagon. Often classified by the "other" side as being shills or buying the official story.

On the second side, those who are convinced something else hit the Pentagon. Often classified as crazy by the "other" side.

For the most part, both sides of this issue firmly believe there are important 9/11 conspiracies to be uncovered. But because of this polarizing issue, we're unable to come to terms and examine important issues beyond what hit the Pentagon.

Where else are we witnessing the technique of feeding polarizing debates as a means of manipulation?

Hmmm...





(More on this later, the Overlord needs to visit the mountain and contemplate the implications.)

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
Please man.

Keep this kind of tripe in the U2U's please.

Why?

It is much more entertaining in public.

April Fool!