Originally posted by impressme
Here you go again making assumptions of what my ( agenda ) is.
For someone to make such a ridicules comment of one’s credibility I find that strange coming from you when you don’t post sources, or spout opinions as facts, if you weren’t so emotional about the fact that you are wrong I would have consider a real debate with you.

This is a rather strange claim, seeing I already said...SIX TIMES by my count...that I'm posting information from the 9/11 commission report. I've even taken to posting the exact page number and line number I'm getting my information from, and yet you STILL avoid looking it up. Heck, I even gave you a link to the actual report so you wouldn't have to buy it. It would be one thing if you had read it and you said it wasn't credible, but you take great pains to avoid reading it AT ALL. You certainly can't say the problem is on my end.

Let's nip this in the bud, right now. I don't know you, I don't know your politics, your favorite ice cream flavor, the sports teams you root for, or even if you're male or female. All I know about you is from what you post, and YOU posted, and I quote-

"I don’t care what anyone thinks and I don’t even care to prove what I have to say either. In my opinion this was the work of the Bush administration, not the work of 19 phantom hijackers. In my opinion there were bombs planted in all the WTC. "

-which to me is an open admission that you're going to believe what you yourself want to believe regardless of what anyone could possibly tell you, which for all practical purposes is the same thing as having an agenda. So, either your prior statement is false and you really are here for an open discussion, or the statement is true and you're not really honest about being here for "a real debate" with anyone. Please clarify my confusion- which one is it?

Again, this thread is about: I just saw “witness to 911” and your whole post is off topic.

...which brings me back to *another* subject. As you recall, I specifically asked you that, since you thought "witness to 9/11" wasn't a credible report, just what evidence *would* you find a credible explanation that, if the film had contained it, it would finally convince you your conspiracy stories are hogwash, without simply brushing it off as disinformation of one kind or another. So, I'm asking it again.

Anyone can Google anything about 911 and reliesed we have been lied to.

That's right, you ARE being lied to, namely, these self serving conspiracy websites are putting out complete rubbish and deliberately withholding balanced information, which prevents you from making an informed judgement on your own. I've already posted many examples of that and I'll post as many more examples as you'd like.

It has nothign to do with fear, or the hope that the gov't isn't lying to us, or any of those other worn out excuses you're using as a crutch to rationalize why people aren't listening you. It has everything to do with our recognizing a con job when we see one. As I said before, I don't see the problem as being with you, yourself, as you're obviously an otherwise intelligent person. You're simply the victim in all of this.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Remember, neutral readers of this thread, that Dave made a claim about an alleged piece of wreckage. He could not prove it and he withdrew his wreckage as evidence.

Wrong. I didn't prove where the photo came from, or should I say, I didn't care enough to look up who took the photo. You never proved why the object shown in the photo wasn't legitimate other than "you demanded to know who took the photo". It's obvious you wanted to imply the photo was gov't disinformation, without actually coming out and saying it was gov't disinformation.

BUT, as I said, there is plenty of other hard data I.E. photos by Mark Faram and Joel Meyerowitz as well as eyewitness accounts I.E. Joel Sucherman that already offer enough insurmountable obstacles for you, so I really didn't need it.

The null hypothesis is that there was some kind of explosion at the Pentagon. If you wish to present an alternative hypothesis, then you also need to prove that it is true.

The fact that flight 77 hit the Pentagon isn't an alternative hypothesis. It's the event that explains your null hypothesis.

Of course, this is staple material for the Logic 101 course that you so evidently failed.

The problem *isn't* that I can't prove it is true. The problem is that you devote yourself to disbelieving the proof that shows it to be true. As I recall, you attempted to attack the Mark Faram photo and you found out that you can't. Logic 101 therefore says that evidence that stands up to scrutiny is therefore credible.

Dave claims that stating an aircraft hit the Pentagon is equivalent to stating that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.
Basic set theory, let's define two sets for objetcs that could have hit the Pentagon:
A = {all possible aircraft}
B = {Flight AA77}

Clearly, B is a subset of A. Clearly, A is not a subset of B.

Dave claims that A is a subset of B. Dave, you are wrong. Plain and simple.

You're one of those people who argues simply for the sake of arguing, aren't you? All right then, since you enjoy pretending to be obtuse, I will clarify my statement- expressing the statement that flight 77 hit the pentagon is equivalent to expressing the statement that an aircraft hit the Pentagon becuase, with flight 77 being an aircraft, the former statement is a subset of the latter statement, BUT expressing the statement that an aircraft hit the pentagon is not necessarily equivalent to expressing the statement that flight 77 hit the Pentagon becuase although flight 77 was an aircraft, it likewise includes non-flight 77 aircraft such as cruise missiles and predator drones and thus increases the membership of the set which negates an obverse relationship. There, that should clear things up for you.

If wasting my times and yours playing these childish games is what pleases you, fine, whatever floats your boat, but sooner or later you're STILL going to have to cough up a reason why we shouldn't believe AA77 was what hit the Pentagon. I've posted photo evidence and eyewitness accounts that show that an American Airlines aircraft hit the Pentagon so until you refute this, everything else you're posting here is 100% meaningless.

OK ... check this out guys.....

NIST cashed a $824.98 cent check for 2Tbytes of Models of WTC7's demise... they have not released it too A&E911truth... even though they approved it and set the price... we collected 825$ from the American People and it is held up in Legal...
we suspect the models where Dry Labed and it would be evidence if they were... so, until I have hard core facts that a foregin power did 911... I firmly believe "We dont know what happend on 911" the odds of the US GOVT involvement is so far beyond "Reasonible Doubt" that we could be hanging a lot of people who believed they were doing the right thing... and one patriot did the right thing... and 911 came un glued and spewed evidence all over the place... is there any doubt... well not much... now... they have not release any evidence that exonerates them from the suspects list... just the opposite they keep incremenating themselves more.

Originally posted by OnTheFelt

"Cui Bono?" "Cui Bono?" is Latin for "who benefits?"

Is there a connection between the rich flow of profit and market manipulations flowing from 9-11 and the stonewalling by the Administration and the agency members of the National Security Council?

Time has passed since September 11, 2001. As new budgets are approved, financial statements published, laws passed, taxes cut and stocks go up, it is easier to identify who benefited politically and financially from 9-11.

I am going to quote Noam Chomsky...who by no means whatsoever can be accused of being an accomplice of any gov't plot...who said that *everybody* benefitted from the 9/11 attack, if they were able to, and is therefore not a real indicator of culpability. China was able to implement repressive measures against their own troublesome Muslim populace, Britain was able to set up cameras in the streets to keep an eye on people, and investors ranging from highly selective funds to the average guy buying stocks on the Internet knew money was to be had in defense industries once war broke out. Al Qaida benefitted from it as well, since our heavy handed response was used to spread themsleves in areas where they didn't exist before I.E. Iraq.

I daresay that hordes of con artists running these conspiracy websites benefitted from it as well, since I doubt you'd buy any of their CDs books, T-shirts, baseball caps, etc, if they were pitching some other antiestablishment message. I despise these snake oil peddlers for being self serving and irresponsible, but I certainly can't accuse Dylan Avery of being behind the 9/11 attack becuase it created a market to sell his Loose Change flick in.

I feel like a teacher ringing the school bell. Ding ding ding, time for the daily lesson. Clearly, Dave, you didn't do all of your homework last night, as you're still making some of the same logical errors today, that you did yesterday.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I didn't prove where the photo came from, or should I say, I didn't care enough to look up who took the photo.

You couldn't prove that the photo was genuine. You withdrew it as evidence. We have established that.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The fact that flight 77 hit the Pentagon isn't an alternative hypothesis. It's the event that explains your null hypothesis.

Dave, your claim that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon is an alternative hypothesis. Until you realise this, you're not going to pass Logic 101 sticking to your failed beliefs.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right then, since you enjoy pretending to be obtuse, I will clarify my statement- expressing the statement that flight 77 hit the pentagon is equivalent to expressing the statement that an aircraft hit the Pentagon becuase, with flight 77 being an aircraft, the former statement is a subset of the latter statement, BUT expressing the statement that an aircraft hit the pentagon is not necessarily equivalent to expressing the statement that flight 77 hit the Pentagon becuase although flight 77 was an aircraft, it likewise includes non-flight 77 aircraft such as cruise missiles and predator drones and thus increases the membership of the set which negates an obverse relationship. There, that should clear things up for you.

Stating that an aircraft hit the Pentagon permits the possibility that Air Force One hit the Pentagon.
Stating that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon does not permit the possibility that Air Force One hit the Pentagon.

The two statements are not logically equivalent. They contradict each other. Logical equivalence can only be achieved, when the two statements are always equivalent.

Your initial claim was that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. You tried to present evidence to prove that some wreckage was from the alleged Flight AA77. After realising that you could not substantiate that evidence, you withdrew it.

You then backed out of your claim that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon and instead claimed that an aircraft hit the Pentagon. You tried to qualify that a little further by claiming that it was an AA aircraft, based on the colour of some pieces of scrap metal, that you alleged were wreckage.



You then argued that stating 'an aircraft hit the Pentagon' is the same as stating that 'Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon':

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Saying that an aircraft hit the Pentagon and saying flight 77 hit the Pentagon is the exact same thing becuase flight 77 was in fact an aircraft.

Originally posted by tezzajw
No, Dave. This is incorrect. Stating that an aircraft hit the Pentagon is not the same as stating that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Yes it is the same whether you want to admit it or not.

When I pointed out that this is logically false, using basic set theory, you tried to explain it in such a convoluted way and you ended up 'clarifying' yourself:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
expressing the statement that flight 77 hit the pentagon is equivalent to expressing the statement that an aircraft hit the Pentagon ...
BUT expressing the statement that an aircraft hit the pentagon is not necessarily equivalent to expressing the statement that flight 77 hit the Pentagon

Neutral readers to the thread will note that Dave has changed his stance about his initial equivalence claim. He now agrees with me, that his initial equivalence claim was wrong.

Dave has shown, by being schooled here in this thread, that he is prepared to admit his errors. There's still a lot of work to do, as he continues to deny the reality of a null hypothesis.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
you're STILL going to have to cough up a reason why we shouldn't believe AA77 was what hit the Pentagon.

I don't need to. You haven't come up with a single reason for why anyone should believe that it was the alleged Flight AA77 that hit the Pentagon.

You thought that you had nailed the proof, when you so eagerly posted that image of scrap with a 'serial number'. Typically, it fell far short of being verifiable evidence and you withdrew the claim.

I'm not going to believe that it was the alleged Flight AA77 just because you want me to. You have to prove it, Dave.

Now, your homework tonight: Read pages 1 through 5 of this thread and see where it all started to fall apart for you. Same time tomorrow?

[edit on 8-7-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by GoodOlDave
In truth, I don't know who took that individual photo (though I'd guess it was Mark Faram, as he's the one who took the photo of the big chunk of wreckage with AA colors, nearby)

Nearby Dave? Can you tell where the photo was taken looking at the grass Dave?

SPreston, you'll probably have to ask Dave one question at a time. We don't want to confuse him with too much right now.

I'm sure that he's still trying to figure out how he managed to contradict himself with regards to his earlier claim about what allegedly impacted the Pentagon:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Saying that an aircraft hit the Pentagon and saying flight 77 hit the Pentagon is the exact same thing becuase flight 77 was in fact an aircraft.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
expressing the statement that an aircraft hit the pentagon is not necessarily equivalent to expressing the statement that flight 77 hit the Pentagon

We should give Dave the time he needs to return to the thread, after he's done some clear thinking about his position.

posted by tezzajw

posted by GoodOlDave
In truth, I don't know who took that individual photo (though I'd guess it was Mark Faram, as he's the one who took the photo of the big chunk of wreckage with AA colors, nearby)

posted by SPreston
Nearby Dave? Can you tell where the photo was taken looking at the grass Dave?

SPreston, you'll probably have to ask Dave one question at a time. We don't want to confuse him with too much right now.

I'm sure that he's still trying to figure out how he managed to contradict himself with regards to his earlier claim about what allegedly impacted the Pentagon:

But they are such easy questions Tez.

I keep expecting Dave to hit the ball out of the park.

But he seems to be swimming in circles; mired in confusion.

Originally posted by impressme
See this is the problem everyone who has done just a “little research” on 911 already knows that the 911 commission report is a white wash of lies, perhaps if you spend a little more time away from those disinformation websites you would find out that it is YOU that has been deceive.

...and I will state...AGAIN...that if you're going to accuse the 9/11 commission report to be a whitewash of lies then it's your responsibility to have read the report to know what the lies even are. I don't have to tell you that simply saying "it's a whitewash of lies" entirely becuase you're blindly repeating someone else telling you "it's a whitewash of lies" is being uninformed and ignorant. I keep asking you to give me an example of such a lie and you can't even do that.

I invite you to prove me wrong- give me an example of just WHAT in the 9/11 commission report is a lie. Pick one. Any one will do.

I have read the entire 911-commission report cover to cover, and I can assure you what most people already know, that there was no accountability in our government. It makes it very clear that all of our government agency were doing their jobs on the morning of 911.

There is no flipping way you could have read the 9/11 report cover to cover and then make this claim. It specifically points out all the breakdowns in comminucation and information sharing, the breakdown in the chain of command, decisions that wasted time, and even outright dereliction of responsibility.

There is no flipping way you could have read the 9/11 report cover to cover and then ask the absurdly elementary questions you're asking, either. You were astoundedly surprised to hear that fighters were over NYC moments after the attack, and you even demanded to know what base they came from as if you thought you caught me in a lie. Both are right there in the report in black and white, and I even told you what page you could find it on.

I'll wager that you STILL don't know what base the F-15s came from, do you?

Furthermore, the government cherry picked what eyewitness they wanted to use to sell their lies, when in fact there were hundreds of creditable eyewitnesses that went on record who saw and heard something total different from what the government was telling.

Are you beating that dead horse, AGAIN? We already went over that "eyewitnesses saw/heard explosions" bit left, right, up, and down, and I've already shown NOONE is refuting those eyewitnesses saw or heard explosions. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked you what else they supposedly saw/heard other than just explosions, and all you could do is post "they saw/heard explosions" all over again.

When I say you really have no credibility, just why do you think I'm saying it?

1. To learn the truth about 911 from creditable sources, and creditable science.

I likewise showed you a credible report by a repudable MIT scientist that gave a perfectly reasonable NON conspiracy explanation of why the towers collapsed. Your response was unsurprising- complete silence.

2. To spread the word and to debate people by using nothing more than creditable well-researched facts and sciences and to post creditable sources.

You have provided no such thing. The only material you've provided was what YOU YOURSELF personally interpreted as being in support of your conspiracy claims, when a close examination showed it was not.

Let’s, clear this up for you, if you want to debate me then email the MOD to learn how to debate. Because you obviously do not know how when you learn the art of debating then come see me.

That is about as blatant an avoidance of the question as it gets. Dude, I'm not asking you for your mother's bras size. I'm asking whether you really did mean what you said about "not caring what other peopel think, you're goign to believe what you want to believe". You're avoiding commenting on YOUR OWN WORDS, now?!?

Lets get this straight right now, YOU do not know where I get my sources from, so stop “assuming” that you know, furthermore, just because I do not agree with your ridiculous “opinions” and “rants” doesn’t make me uninformed, or mislead, or duped by websites that YOU “think” are rubbish.

Asking you to clarify statements YOU YOURSELF made is neither an opinion nor a rant. As for the websites beign rubbish, I already said I can give you as many concrete examples of conspiracy website duplicity that you'd want. Exposing thos econ artists is the whole reason I'm here.

Your avoiding listening to the evidence against them is by no means a dismissal of the evidence due to lack of credibility.

No, you are sadly wrong, however, how can anyone reach you when you have been convinced of the OS fairytale.

Well, it's certainly NOT going to be by asking questions which you should already know if your previous statements were actually true, nor by constantly repeating debunked information like it was a religious mantra, or by avoiding simple questions with the same determination that vampires avoid sunlight. Doesn't it seem odd to you that I'll answer any and every question you post of me, but YOU are constantly avoiding questions I post to you?

Since you've recoiled from it twice already, here it is a THIRD time- just WHAT evidence would you accept as being legitimate, that would finally convince you that your conspiracy stories are wrong? If you're really here for honest debate then there has to be *something* under the sun.

Originally posted by tezzajw

You couldn't prove that the photo was genuine. You withdrew it as evidence. We have established that.

That of course does NOT mean I myself still do not hold it to be credible evidence. I simply recognize that YOU don't hold it to be credible evidence, and I withdrew it becuase there is plenty of other evidence to watch you attempt to weasel out of (I.E. the Joel Meyerowitz photos)

Dave, your claim that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon is an alternative hypothesis. Until you realise this, you're not going to pass Logic 101 sticking to your failed beliefs.

Alternative to WHAT OTHER hypothesis, may I ask?

You then backed out of your claim that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon and instead claimed that an aircraft hit the Pentagon. You tried to qualify that a little further by claiming that it was an AA aircraft, based on the colour of some pieces of scrap metal, that you alleged were wreckage.

Not once have I ever renounced the claim that flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. If by some childish manipulation on your part that you transmogrified it into appearing as if I was backing away from the claim, then allow me to clarify it now- I support the claim that flight 77 hit the Pentagon and this statement supercedes all other interpretations you've attempted to introduce.

Good grief, you really DO enjoy arguing solely for the sake of arguing.

Originally posted by tezzajw
No, Dave. This is incorrect. Stating that an aircraft hit the Pentagon is not the same as stating that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You know something? I went back and reread all the posts you made here in this thread, and I've come to the conclusion you have added NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY TANGIBLE WHATSOEVER to this conversation. Instead of discussing why I shouldn't believe that flight AA77 hit the Pentagon, or even why the material I'me relying on isn't credible, or even what really DID happen at the Pentagon, you've done nothign but argue over insignificant nonsense concernign subsets of logic, identifying chains of custody, and making appeals to imaginary third parties. SO, I will officially say that I really don't give a flip whether saying flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is logically or symantecally the same thing as saying an aircraft hit the Pentagon, whether it conforms to any associative logic thereof, or even whether Pepsi is better than Coke. My position is that flight 77 hit the Pentagon and so any attempt to obfuscate this position away from that statement is entirely your doing, not mine.

Thus, THE VERY NEXT THING I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU is why I shouldn't believe the photographic and eyewitness accounts that it was in fact flight 77. Either that, or post evidence which shows that some other cause is the actual explanation. If you're intending to post ANYTHING ELSE BUT why I shouldn't believe the photographic and eyewitness accounts that it was in fact flight 77, or why some other cause was actually what happened, then do not bother to post it. You will have proven yourself to be an individual who is here simply to play these children's games rather than participate in the discussion of 9/11 conspiracies, and I won't waste my time responding.

There, how's that for bringing the discussion back on topic?

Originally posted by Sanity

You obviously have nothing factual to bring to the table as far as 911.

I am in total disagreement with the above comment. If you honestly believe that, I can only conclude that your eyes and mind have been closed to for a long time. In my opinion, he is the most intelligent and fact based poster on this forum. It is obvious truthers can't handle that. If his posts are causing you so much grief it is not Dave's fault but rather your own.

You respond to every OS "non-believer" by hurling insults...

That is simply not true. A simple read through the post that he makes is proof that he does not engage in such behavoir. What kills me is that you sling the above accusation at Dave but yet your very first sentence to your above post stated this.

Dave, stick to driving the cab and watching cartoons.

O.K.

Your hypocrisy has been noted. Par for the course for most of the self called "truthers" on this site.




[edit on 7/8/2009 by Classified Info]

[edit on 7/8/2009 by Classified Info]

Sorry. Double post.

[edit on 7/8/2009 by Classified Info]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
That of course does NOT mean I myself still do not hold it to be credible evidence.

Dave, if you think that the evidence is credible, then why did you withdraw it? Don't you have the courage to push your convictions when they are scrutinised?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Alternative to WHAT OTHER hypothesis, may I ask?

The null hypothesis is that some kind of explosion caused damage at the Pentagon.

Lots of other alternative hypotheses have been posed, each would require proof.

The alternative hypothesis that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon needs to be proven. You can't do it. You withdraw evidence that you admit to believing.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
SO, I will officially say that I really don't give a flip whether saying flight 77 hitting the Pentagon is logically or symantecally the same thing as saying an aircraft hit the Pentagon, whether it conforms to any associative logic thereof, or even whether Pepsi is better than Coke. My position is that flight 77 hit the Pentagon and so any attempt to obfuscate this position away from that statement is entirely your doing, not mine.

In this paragraph, Dave has shown that despite being made aware of his logical errors and inconsistent thinking, he's still believing that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.

That's a fairly unshakable belief that you have there, Dave.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Thus, THE VERY NEXT THING I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU is why I shouldn't believe the photographic and eyewitness accounts that it was in fact flight 77.

Can you show me one photo that can prove the alleged plane was Flight AA77?

Can you show me one witness who can testify that they saw the tail number #N644AA on the plane?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You will have proven yourself to be an individual who is here simply to play these children's games rather than participate in the discussion of 9/11 conspiracies, and I won't waste my time responding.

They migth be childish games to you. However, doesn't it annoy you just a teensy little bit that you are in fact believing evidence that isn't as rock solid as you thought it was? If you can sleep at night, knowing that, then you've done well.

Other people, like me, don't necessarily believe what they are told. Asking questions leads to the truth.