It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There Was No Missile At the Pentagon - But the Plane Did Not Hit

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple


Is this a joke?

You just start picking arbitrary objects south of their reported flight path so that you can claim that their "north side" claims are unanimous?


No.

Not a single "arbitrary object" was mentioned.

According to the official data, reports, and the physical damage the plane HAD to be completely south of Columbia Pike, completely south of the Navy Annex, and completely south of the citgo at all times.

All confirmed first-hand eyewitness accounts unanimously support the opposite.

This proves 9/11 was an inside job and forces you to make desperate irrelevant arguments like this:



Guess what...I can use your faulty logic to say that all eyewitnesses unanimously place the plane on a "south side" approach. (South of 10th street)


Wrong.

You have presented no first-hand eyewitness accounts at all let alone one that contradicts the north side approach witnesses.

Why do you have such disdain for evidence?





Why have you cut out the part of the animation that shows the plane hitting the Pentagon?


Actually no I did not cut it there. That is where National Geographic stopped that part of the animation and continued it with this one depicting the plane entirely on the north side of the gas station:



But even if these 2 animations showed the plane hitting we know for a fact it is impossible for a plane directly over the Navy Annex, north side of Columbia Pike, and north of the citgo as they depicted (and all the confirmed first-hand eyewitness evidence unanimously supports) to have cause the physical damage.

You know this.

Why are you playing dumb?





Except that the data contained therein included the flight data of the impact plane...including other prior flights.


You have no evidence for this at all.

You are accepting what you have been told based on nothing but pure faith in the government and a cult like belief in the official 9/11 story.

Not to mention a complete disregard for true skepticism, critical thinking principles, and independent verifiable evidence.






You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand what the fallacy of "affirming the consequent" means.

Just as a murder weapon and a body are evidence in a murder trial:

Plane pieces in the pentagon = EVIDENCE
DNA of victims = EVIDENCE
The flight data recorder = EVIDENCE
Statements from eyewitnesses = EVIDENCE

Please learn and understand what these logical fallacies are before continuing to incorrectly accuse others of using them.



Those were all text book cases for affirming the consequent so clearly you are the one who does not understand what it means.

Since you are having trouble with this let me explain it for you.

affirming the consequent:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.


Your argument:

Pieces of the plane found inside the Pentagon = evidence for a plane hitting the building.

affirming the consequent breakdown:


If a plane hit the Pentagon then pieces would be found inside the Pentagon.

Pieces of plane were found inside the Pentagon.

Therefore a plane hit.


LOGICAL FALLACY......not evidence.



Same logic applies to your fallacious argument regarding the alleged black box and DNA.

You're welcome for the critical thinking lesson.

Why do you have such disdain for evidence, true skepticism, and critical thinking principles?










[edit on 3-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Guess what...I can use your faulty logic to say that all eyewitnesses unanimously place the plane on a "south side" approach. (South of 10th street)


Wrong.

You have presented no first-hand eyewitness accounts at all let alone one that contradicts the north side approach witnesses.


Every flight path you've presented is south of 10th st. N. So explain to me how the plane being south of 10th street contradicts your "north side approach witnesses".


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



Except that the data contained therein included the flight data of the impact plane...including other prior flights.


You have no evidence for this at all.


There are approximately 25 hours of data on the FDR which include flights made by the plane prior to it's crash at the Pentagon.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand what the fallacy of "affirming the consequent" means.

Just as a murder weapon and a body are evidence in a murder trial:

Plane pieces in the pentagon = EVIDENCE
DNA of victims = EVIDENCE
The flight data recorder = EVIDENCE
Statements from eyewitnesses = EVIDENCE

Please learn and understand what these logical fallacies are before continuing to incorrectly accuse others of using them.



Those were all text book cases for affirming the consequent so clearly you are the one who does not understand what it means.

Since you are having trouble with this let me explain it for you.

affirming the consequent:

If P, then Q.
Q.
Therefore, P.


Great, you can copy & paste, but you still don't understand it.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Your argument:

Pieces of the plane found inside the Pentagon = evidence for a plane hitting the building.


Again, you are wrong:

Stating "Q is evidence of P" is not affirming the consequent.

Affirming the consequent is assuming that P is true based solely on the fact that Q is true.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
affirming the consequent breakdown:

If a plane hit the Pentagon then pieces would be found inside the Pentagon.

Pieces of plane were found inside the Pentagon.
Therefore a plane hit.

LOGICAL FALLACY......not evidence.


That's not what I'm saying...please try to keep up.


Let's get back to my actual claim:

"Pieces of the plane found inside the Pentagon = evidence"

Please state whether you agree with the following:
-Eyewitness statements about the flight path of the plane are evidence.
-Eyewitness statements about the plane hitting the pentagon are evidence.
-Human remains found inside the pentagon are evidence.
-Plane parts found in and around the pentagon are evidence.
-The data contained in the FDR is evidence.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Is this a joke?

You just start picking arbitrary objects south of their reported flight path so that you can claim that their "north side" claims are unanimous?


It's obvious in the context of this conversation that when he said "on the north side" he meant on the ONA/NOC flight path. "The north side" approach includes ONA. This is why the video in which all of the "north side" witnesses accounts (including the ONA witnesses) are presented is called The North Side Flyover.

The fact is that they all witnessed the plane on this flight path, as you know.

You are just (unsuccessfully) trying to play semantic word games to muddy the water and distract from the overriding point.

It's also a fact that most of them do *not* claim to have witnessed the plane hitting the building.

Given this fact, it is clear that they would report the same thing regardless of whether it really hit or they were deliberately fooled by a flyover timed perfectly with the explosion.

Therefore, while their statements about their ASSUMPTIONS about where the plane went after they saw it *are* evidence, they are *not* evidence that the plane impacted the building as opposed to flying over it. If that is what you are trying to imply by calling these statements "evidence" you are once again playing word games and trying to spread confusion.

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Ligon]



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Every flight path you've presented is south of 10th st. N. So explain to me how the plane being south of 10th street contradicts your "north side approach witnesses".


Their placement of the plane fatally contradicts all official reports, data, and the physical damage proving the plane did not hit the building.

10th street has nothing to do with all official reports, data, and physical damage nor is it where anyone claimed the plane flew.

Therefore your argument is irrelevant.



Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

There are approximately 25 hours of data on the FDR which include flights made by the plane prior to it's crash at the Pentagon.



Except that you have no evidence that any of this data came from a black box found inside the Pentagon.

You assert this solely based on pure faith and a cult like belief in the official 9/11 story.

Why do you have such disdain for true skepticism and insist on believing what you are told by the government in spite of a large body of corroborated independent verifiable evidence contradicting this?






You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand what the fallacy of "affirming the consequent" means.

Just as a murder weapon and a body are evidence in a murder trial:


There has been no trial so none of the below has been presented at all let alone within the context of charges in a trial.

YOUR personal belief and assertion here is that it is evidence that the plane hit the Pentagon and therefore did not fly on the north side approach. Right?

If so this is a logical fallacy which is why you have now abandoned this claim and removed the discussion from this context to make the more general and irrelevant claim that it is simply "evidence" in general.

Evidence for what?

Certainly NOT evidence countering the north side approach proving the plane did not hit.




Plane pieces in the pentagon = EVIDENCE


Evidence that some relatively small plane pieces were found in the the pentagon? Yes.

Evidence against the north side approach or for the notion that a plane hit the Pentagon?

Nope.

If the latter was your claim (which it was) you would be affirming the consequent. If not you have no relevant point.

Faulty logic and faith based claims to not refute direct evidence for a north side approach proving the plane did not hit.



DNA of victims = EVIDENCE


Evidence that the government issued a report claiming DNA from victims was recovered from the Pentagon? Yes.

Evidence against the north side approach or for the notion that a plane hit the Pentagon?

Nope.

If the latter was your claim (which it was) you would be affirming the consequent. If not you have no relevant point.

Faulty logic and faith based claims to not refute direct evidence for a north side approach proving the plane did not hit.



The flight data recorder = EVIDENCE


Evidence that the government released data several years after the event claiming it came from a black box found in the Pentagon? Yes.

Evidence against the north side approach or for the notion that a plane hit the Pentagon?

Nope.

If the latter was your claim (which it was) you would be affirming the consequent. If not you have no relevant point.

Faulty logic and faith based claims to not refute direct evidence for a north side approach proving the plane did not hit.



Statements from eyewitnesses = EVIDENCE


Only first-hand witness statements are evidence. 2nd hand reports are simply hearsay.

You have not provided a single first-hand witness statement contradicting the north side evidence.

This is because all that exist unanimously support the north side approach proving the plane did not hit.



Please learn and understand what these logical fallacies are before continuing to incorrectly accuse others of using them.


I understand them just fine and have proven how you are desperately relying on them as a means to dismiss scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence proving the plane did not hit.






Affirming the consequent is assuming that P is true based solely on the fact that Q is true


Precisely which is EXACTLY what you did in all examples given.

You are assuming that the plane hit the building based on the fact that plane parts were found in the building.

It's even worse when considering the DNA and alleged black box data because you have to rely on complete faith to even consider the notion that they were found in the building at all.

That is faulty logic.





That's not what I'm saying...please try to keep up.



Really?

Ahhhh! Ok, then my apologies.

So now you have admitted that the debris, the alleged black box, and the alleged DNA are NOT evidence against the north side approach or evidence that the plane hit the building!

Great job!

You have made excellent progress. Thanks for being honest.

I'm very proud of you as this is an extremely important concession on your part.






[edit on 3-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Plane pieces in the pentagon = EVIDENCE


Evidence that some relatively small plane pieces were found in the the pentagon? Yes.

Evidence against the north side approach or for the notion that a plane hit the Pentagon?

Nope.

If the latter was your claim (which it was) you would be affirming the consequent. If not you have no relevant point.


Are you playing dumb or do you really not understand this?

Affirming the consequent would be a statement like the following:

Ducks have beaks,
That animal has a beak,
therefore it is a duck.

The logic that follows is NOT affirming the consequent:

An animal has feathers
it has a beak
it has webbed feet
it quacks like a duck

All of these things TOGETHER are evidence that the animal is a duck.

Affirming the consequent would be taking any one of these facts concluding that it is a duck based solely on that fact.


Now let's look at the logic of your theory:

If the plane was "on a northern approach", it couldn't have impacted,
eyewitnesses report it on a "northern approach"
therefore, it didn't impact.

Your entire theory is an affirmation of the consequent because you make a conclusion based on ONE factor...ignoring all of the other contradictory factors. That would be like concluding that the animal above was a duck simply because it had a beak, ignoring the fact that it doesn't quack like a duck, or have webbed feet, etc.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Actually that is not true either.

In many cases ONE opposing fact can disprove a previous theory (or Govt. story) incorrect.

Just as if I said that your theoretical animal was observed to breathe underwater - therefore it cannot be a duck!

And isn't that the real crux of the matter here - no matter how implausible we think it would be the Govt. would plant evidence - it certainly is possible and they certainly had the motivation to do so.

Is it possible that you should turn your razor sharp beams of incredulity at the fact that Hanjour couldn't possibly fly a Jet, and that our air defense could have EASILY intercepted a hijacked plane up for that long, and that DOZENS of cameras on the Pentagon would have witnessed the event in perfect clarity, and that it would be REDICULOUS to not just crash the plane onto the roof of the building rather than execute a risky, extended, turn and pulling off a near impossible impact into that specific accounting wing of the Pentagon.

Where is your skepticism there???





[edit on 4-3-2009 by TruthMagnet]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

posted by adam_zapple

Now let's look at the logic of your theory:

If the plane was "on a northern approach", it couldn't have impacted,
eyewitnesses report it on a "northern approach"
therefore, it didn't impact.


Nah. You deniers love to twist the facts and pretend only one fact is in question.

The aircraft damage path was along the "southern approach" through the downed light poles and low and level inches above the lawn and not banking to the right and on a direct line between the small hole in the outer wall and the small Exit Hole in the C-Ring inner wall

If the aircraft was "on a northern approach" then it could not have impacted along the actual damage pattern nor struck the downed light poles far to the south

eyewitnesses reported the actual aircraft in evidence on a "northern approach" and above the standing light poles and banking to the right and too high to fly inches above the lawn

eyewitnesses reported the actual aircraft in evidence Over the Naval Annex and far north of the "southern approach" and far north of the downed light poles and banking to the right

therefore, the actual aircraft in evidence did not impact the Pentagon wall nor did it strike the downed light poles.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by adam_zapple

Now let's look at the logic of your theory:

If the plane was "on a northern approach", it couldn't have impacted,
eyewitnesses report it on a "northern approach"
therefore, it didn't impact.


Nah. You deniers love to twist the facts and pretend only one fact is in question.

The aircraft damage path was along the "southern approach" through the downed light poles and low and level inches above the lawn and not banking to the right and on a direct line between the small hole in the outer wall and the small Exit Hole in the C-Ring inner wall

If the aircraft was "on a northern approach" then it could not have impacted along the actual damage pattern nor struck the downed light poles far to the south.


You're still affirming the consequent because the conclusion of no impact is based solely on the fact that these eyewitnesses reported a different flight path. You assume that they are correct (even though the other evidence contradicts them) and based on that you assume there was no impact.

Let's reverse your logic:

If the aircraft flew a northern approach..it could not have impacted
It impacted
Therefore, the eyewitnesses who reported it on a northern approach are incorrect.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Is it possible that you should turn your razor sharp beams of incredulity at the fact that Hanjour couldn't possibly fly a Jet,


-argument from personal belief/incredulity


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
and that our air defense could have EASILY intercepted a hijacked plane up for that long,


--argument from personal belief/incredulity


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
and that DOZENS of cameras on the Pentagon would have witnessed the event in perfect clarity,


-argument from personal belief/incredulity


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
and that it would be REDICULOUS to not just crash the plane onto the roof of the building rather than execute a risky, extended, turn and pulling off a near impossible impact into that specific accounting wing of the Pentagon.


-argument from personal belief/incredulity

Additionally...how would FAKING a plane crash be any less ridiculous or risky than an actual plane impact.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Where is your skepticism there???


Let's hypothesize, just for a moment, that someone hired us to carry out the Pentagon attack. What benefit would there be in FAKING the crash, then having to plant all of the evidence in broad daylight, somehow get the plane out of the area unseen, then get the remains of the passengers back to the pentagon to be found by cleanup/rescue workers...then fake the radar data, fake the FDR data (wrongly of course) and fake damage (light poles) on the WRONG flight path...and pay a hundred or so people to say that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon.

Why go to all of the additional trouble to NOT crash a plane at the Pentagon...when actually CRASHING the plane would yield the same result with less risk, less cost, less possibility of someone seeing something they shouldn't, etc?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Your entire theory is an affirmation of the consequent because you make a conclusion based on ONE factor...ignoring all of the other contradictory factors. That would be like concluding that the animal above was a duck simply because it had a beak, ignoring the fact that it doesn't quack like a duck, or have webbed feet, etc.


Nonsense.

There is plenty more independent evidence contradicting the official story and you have provided zero independent evidence contradicting what has been presented.

You continually try removing sentences and words from the context of the entire discussion as a means to assert your fallacious fallacy analogies that simply don't apply.

Your faith does not refute evidence and neither do your deceptive debate tactics.






[edit on 4-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

-argument from personal belief/incredulity




Actually, no - these arguments are from the evidence:

- Tesitmony that Hanjour's own Flight School teachers found him incompetent to fly small personal aircraft

- History of the US Airforce intercepting planes with an avg. intercept time of minutes the year before in over 67 "non-emergency" intercepts

- Fact that Govt. confiscated 84+ surveillance tapes - and that the Pentagon has been confirmed by insiders to have extraordinary personal surveillance of the facilities.

- Fact that Pentagons own drills focused on the danger of a passenger Jet lowering right down on their roof for maximum damage - and fact that the plane is shown to purposefully avoid doing that in favor of a bizarre manuevered attack.




Let's hypothesize, just for a moment, that someone hired us to carry out the Pentagon attack. What benefit would there be in FAKING the crash, then having to plant all of the evidence in broad daylight, somehow get the plane out of the area unseen, then get the remains of the passengers back to the pentagon to be found by cleanup/rescue workers...then fake the radar data, fake the FDR data (wrongly of course) and fake damage (light poles) on the WRONG flight path...and pay a hundred or so people to say that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon.

Why go to all of the additional trouble to NOT crash a plane at the Pentagon...when actually CRASHING the plane would yield the same result with less risk, less cost, less possibility of someone seeing something they shouldn't, etc?



First of all - like Craig has said - they had TOTAL control over the crime scene - a conflict of interest in an impartial investigation right there.

But any staging in this crime scene would have to take in account the bigger crime committed on 9/11 - which would make more sense for such an elaborate staging in this particular area.

(and you are taking there word on what was or was not recovered)

So, I feel we must conclude - either you are paid to argue with 9/11 investigators, or you truly are emotionally unable to view ALL the facts of the 9/11 crime with true impatiality.

In either case - it appears you will continue to appeal to emotion and/or personal attacks instead of real evidence, and you could care less about the truth in this particular matter.

That is why all legitimate "Truthers" are eager to embrace a truly independant investigation of 9/11 - because we are quite confident a legitimate look at the eveidence of that day will vindicate our extreme skepticism of the official Govt. conspiracy theory.



[edit on 4-3-2009 by TruthMagnet]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I quote adam's response:



Let's hypothesize, just for a moment, that someone hired us to carry out the Pentagon attack. What benefit would there be in FAKING the crash, then having to plant all of the evidence in broad daylight, somehow get the plane out of the area unseen, then get the remains of the passengers back to the pentagon to be found by cleanup/rescue workers...then fake the radar data, fake the FDR data (wrongly of course) and fake damage (light poles) on the WRONG flight path...and pay a hundred or so people to say that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon.


then I quote another of his words to respond to his response to another memeber.


--argument from personal belief/incredulity


TruthMagnet has an amazing argument to adam zapple, can't wait to see his response.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Are you playing dumb or do you really not understand this?

Affirming the consequent would be a statement like the following:

Ducks have beaks,
That animal has a beak,
therefore it is a duck.


It could also be a Platypus, surely!



The logic that follows is NOT affirming the consequent:

An animal has feathers
it has a beak
it has webbed feet
it quacks like a duck


This could be a Swan imitating the quack of a duck, surely!



All of these things TOGETHER are evidence that the animal is a duck.


All of these things, together, 'could therefore' be evidence of a quack-imitating Swan, surely!



Affirming the consequent would be taking any one of these facts concluding that it is a duck based solely on that fact.


But isn't that exactly what you are doing yourself, AZ!



Now let's look at the logic of your theory:

If the plane was "on a northern approach", it couldn't have impacted,
eyewitnesses report it on a "northern approach"
therefore, it didn't impact.

Your entire theory is an affirmation of the consequent because you make a conclusion based on ONE factor...


And here you're now deliberately lying, because you would be well aware that CIT and
many others are making their conclusions based on a host of other incriminating factors, too many to mention here.... but that you of course know all about anyway!



ignoring all of the other contradictory factors.


Again, you are deliberately lying here, as you would also know that all 'contradictory
factors', on numerous occasions, has been dealt with and found wanting.

Shame on you, buddy!





[edit on 4-3-2009 by djeminy]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Your entire theory is an affirmation of the consequent because you make a conclusion based on ONE factor...ignoring all of the other contradictory factors. That would be like concluding that the animal above was a duck simply because it had a beak, ignoring the fact that it doesn't quack like a duck, or have webbed feet, etc.


Nonsense.

There is plenty more independent evidence contradicting the official story and you have provided zero independent evidence contradicting what has been presented.


You are the one trying to claim that the plane did not hit, therefore the burden of proof for that claim falls on you. Thus far, you have failed to fulfill this burden. Logical fallacies and cherry-picked eyewitness statements do not refute physical evidence no matter how much you try to spin it.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet

Originally posted by adam_zapple

-argument from personal belief/incredulity




Actually, no - these arguments are from the evidence:

- Tesitmony that Hanjour's own Flight School teachers found him incompetent to fly small personal aircraft


Is that the same instructor who stated:
"There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."

Hanjour flew well enough to pass MULTIPLE flight exams and be issued a Commercial Pilot's license. Your assertion that he couldn't have flown the jet is an argument from personal belief.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
- History of the US Airforce intercepting planes with an avg. intercept time of minutes the year before in over 67 "non-emergency" intercepts


In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts.

Additionally, the plane's transponder was turned off, making it more difficult for controllers to locate it.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
- Fact that Govt. confiscated 84+ surveillance tapes - and that the Pentagon has been confirmed by insiders to have extraordinary personal surveillance of the facilities.


Even if that's true, it doesn't mean that "DOZENS of cameras on the Pentagon would have witnessed the event in perfect clarity".


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
- Fact that Pentagons own drills focused on the danger of a passenger Jet lowering right down on their roof


Because they were near an airport.


Originally posted by TruthMagnetfor maximum damage - and fact that the plane is shown to purposefully avoid doing that in favor of a bizarre manuevered attack.


Your claim that a roof impact would cause more damage is unsupported.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet


Let's hypothesize, just for a moment, that someone hired us to carry out the Pentagon attack. What benefit would there be in FAKING the crash, then having to plant all of the evidence in broad daylight, somehow get the plane out of the area unseen, then get the remains of the passengers back to the pentagon to be found by cleanup/rescue workers...then fake the radar data, fake the FDR data (wrongly of course) and fake damage (light poles) on the WRONG flight path...and pay a hundred or so people to say that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon.

Why go to all of the additional trouble to NOT crash a plane at the Pentagon...when actually CRASHING the plane would yield the same result with less risk, less cost, less possibility of someone seeing something they shouldn't, etc?



First of all - like Craig has said - they had TOTAL control over the crime scene - a conflict of interest in an impartial investigation right there.


They didn't have complete control over civilian rescue workers, fire fighters, and commuters on the road.

Whom do you think should have had control over the scene?


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
So, I feel we must conclude - either you are paid to argue with 9/11 investigators, or you truly are emotionally unable to view ALL the facts of the 9/11 crime with true impatiality.


So...not only do you believe they staged this elaborate conspiracy...but they screwed up so bad that they hire people to argue with you on message boards? haha I don't think the Government is at all worried about what you're saying.

You still never answered my question...what's the benefit of staging the attack in this way. Why not just fly the plane in like the other 2 attacks? There's no purpose for this conspiracy to make people think that it was a plane without actually using one.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Are you playing dumb or do you really not understand this?

Affirming the consequent would be a statement like the following:

Ducks have beaks,
That animal has a beak,
therefore it is a duck.


It could also be a Platypus, surely!


Exactly.

Originally posted by djeminy


The logic that follows is NOT affirming the consequent:

An animal has feathers
it has a beak
it has webbed feet
it quacks like a duck


This could be a Swan imitating the quack of a duck, surely!


You would need additional evidence in order to show this to be the case.


Originally posted by djeminy


All of these things TOGETHER are evidence that the animal is a duck.


All of these things, together, 'could therefore' be evidence of a quack-imitating Swan, surely!


Not without additional evidence.


Originally posted by djeminy


Affirming the consequent would be taking any one of these facts concluding that it is a duck based solely on that fact.


But isn't that exactly what you are doing yourself, AZ!


No. I'm taking ALL of the evidence, as a whole, and forming a conclusion based on it.


Originally posted by djeminy


Now let's look at the logic of your theory:

If the plane was "on a northern approach", it couldn't have impacted,
eyewitnesses report it on a "northern approach"
therefore, it didn't impact.

Your entire theory is an affirmation of the consequent because you make a conclusion based on ONE factor...


And here you're now deliberately lying, because you would be well aware that CIT and
many others are making their conclusions based on a host of other incriminating factors


No...CIT concludes that the plane didn't crash based solely on what the eyewitnesses state. Then based on this conclusion, they conclude that any evidence contradicting them is faked, forged. It's like claiming that the animal from our example is a cat, wearing a fake beak, fake webbed feet, and talking like a duck.


Originally posted by djeminy


ignoring all of the other contradictory factors.


Again, you are deliberately lying here, as you would also know that all 'contradictory
factors', on numerous occasions, has been dealt with and found wanting.


Not lying. The eyewitnesses are contradicted by any evidence of an impact. This would include:
-The eyewitnesses themselves who reported an impact
-Parts of the plane at the impact site
-Bodies of passengers at the impact site
-DNA from passengers identified at the impact site
-Data from the FDR...recovered at the impact site
-Security camera footage from the pentagon
etc, etc

The only "dealing with" that's been done with the above is that CIT claims that it's all faked.



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arsenis
I quote adam's response:



Let's hypothesize, just for a moment, that someone hired us to carry out the Pentagon attack. What benefit would there be in FAKING the crash, then having to plant all of the evidence in broad daylight, somehow get the plane out of the area unseen, then get the remains of the passengers back to the pentagon to be found by cleanup/rescue workers...then fake the radar data, fake the FDR data (wrongly of course) and fake damage (light poles) on the WRONG flight path...and pay a hundred or so people to say that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon.


then I quote another of his words to respond to his response to another memeber.


--argument from personal belief/incredulity


TruthMagnet has an amazing argument to adam zapple, can't wait to see his response.


It was a question, not an argument. (My mistake for omitting the question mark)

The question still stands:

Let's hypothesize, just for a moment, that someone hired us to carry out the Pentagon attack. What benefit would there be in FAKING the crash, then having to plant all of the evidence in broad daylight, somehow get the plane out of the area unseen, then get the remains of the passengers back to the pentagon to be found by cleanup/rescue workers...then fake the radar data, fake the FDR data (wrongly of course) and fake damage (light poles) on the WRONG flight path...and pay a hundred or so people to say that they saw a plane hit the Pentagon?

[edit on 5-3-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

So...not only do you believe they staged this elaborate conspiracy...but they screwed up so bad that they hire people to argue with you on message boards? haha I don't think the Government is at all worried about what you're saying.

You still never answered my question...what's the benefit of staging the attack in this way. Why not just fly the plane in like the other 2 attacks? There's no purpose for this conspiracy to make people think that it was a plane without actually using one.



I do not believe they screwed up even a little - they were in total control of the crime scenes and the major media - and the plan thus had plenty of leeway for dealing with the main logical inconsistancies.

They did - however - in my opinion - underestimate the tenacity of amateur investigators on the internet - who had both the time, means, and the motivation, to do extensive citizen journalism and detective work.

As for alloting BILLIONS for public relations and DoD contracted agents to post online - it is well know this is standard proceedure in both the US and Iraq now:

Here is just one recent example.

As for the motivation to not just fly a plane into the Pentagon, it is not neccesary for us to theorize this to disprove the Govt.'s offical story - and expecting investigators at this stage to do so is often a strawman (read: Cop Out) argument - but it certainly could be because they wanted the accounting department specifically destroyed to cover up the missing 2.1 TRILLION Dollars Rumsfield discussed the Day Before 9/11.

It also could be they did so to minimize the damage to themselves - much like a murderer might shoot himself in the shoulder to avoid suspicion of a crime - but who is psychologically unwilling to deal a more significant blow to himself.

Again - all ivestigators need to do is show that the Govt's case and official investigation is physically impossible (and illogical) - and a new truly international AND impartial investigation can be demanded.

The fact that you purposefully ignore the many, many, MAJOR inconsistancies in the Govt's story - and only focus on the implausability of a coverup - by a Govt. which has been proven to have faked intelligence many times previously - shows an extreme and unproductive bias in your posts.

Perhaps you are legitimately unable to accept that the US Govt. could be complicit in a False Flag attack - despite historical precedence - but perhaps your goal (much like a defense lawyer) - is to simply troll as much as possible to attempt to create unreasonable doubt where there can really be none.

I, myself, am not completely in agreement that nothing hit the Pentagon that day - but I find the witness testimony quite compelling that the Passenger Sized Jet witnessed on the North Side approach - could not have flow the path presented by the US. Govt.

Of course - if they had nothing to hide - they could of just showed us the multitude of tapes confirming there story - so the question we must ask is - do they?

There actions alone seem to indicate the answer is YES!



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT








Affirming the consequent would be a statement like the following:

Ducks have beaks,
That animal has a beak,
therefore it is a duck.

The logic that follows is NOT affirming the consequent:

An animal has feathers
it has a beak
it has webbed feet
it quacks like a duck

All of these things TOGETHER are evidence that the animal is a duck.


Adam,

We dont always quack.

You would be surprised of the noise I can make.


D.Duck



posted on Mar, 5 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet

Originally posted by adam_zapple

So...not only do you believe they staged this elaborate conspiracy...but they screwed up so bad that they hire people to argue with you on message boards? haha I don't think the Government is at all worried about what you're saying.

You still never answered my question...what's the benefit of staging the attack in this way. Why not just fly the plane in like the other 2 attacks? There's no purpose for this conspiracy to make people think that it was a plane without actually using one.



I do not believe they screwed up even a little - they were in total control of the crime scenes and the major media - and the plan thus had plenty of leeway for dealing with the main logical inconsistancies.


Then why would they intentionally fake damage along a flight path OTHER than the one that they flew the plane?


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
They did - however - in my opinion - underestimate the tenacity of amateur investigators on the internet - who had both the time, means, and the motivation, to do extensive citizen journalism and detective work.

As for alloting BILLIONS for public relations and DoD contracted agents to post online - it is well know this is standard proceedure in both the US and Iraq now:

Here is just one recent example.

As for the motivation to not just fly a plane into the Pentagon, it is not neccesary for us to theorize this to disprove the Govt.'s offical story - and expecting investigators at this stage to do so is often a strawman (read: Cop Out) argument


Strawman is not the same as a cop out...this question is neither. As with any conspiracy, there must be some motivation, some benefit. Thus far no one has provided an example of a benefit of faking the plane impact.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
- but it certainly could be because they wanted the accounting department specifically destroyed to cover up the missing 2.1 TRILLION Dollars Rumsfield discussed the Day Before 9/11.


Wow...you're just falling for these truther claims hook, line, and sinker. The money was never missing. Here's what he actually said:


Lou Dobbs: You pointed out today in your speech, as you have previously, that if you achieve savings of only five percent, the Pentagon budget is so vast that that would save some 18 billion dollars. How quickly could you save that five percent? Because you have about two million employees. No company in the world has anything approaching that.

Rumsfeld: Well, it takes some time. And, indeed, as you know, sometimes you need to invest some money upfront to make savings. For example, we're going to have to revamp our financial system so that we can actually understand what's taking place. At the present time, the financial systems aren't capable of tracking some 2.6 trillion dollars worth of transactions.




Originally posted by TruthMagnet
It also could be they did so to minimize the damage to themselves


If the damage which occurred was less than what would have been experience by the impact of a 757, but if damage was a concern, there are smaller planes which could have been hijacked.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Again - all ivestigators need to do is show that the Govt's case and official investigation is physically impossible (and illogical) - and a new truly international AND impartial investigation can be demanded.

The fact that you purposefully ignore the many, many, MAJOR inconsistancies in the Govt's story - and only focus on the implausability of a coverup - by a Govt. which has been proven to have faked intelligence many times previously - shows an extreme and unproductive bias in your posts.


I've pointed out the fact that several of your "MAJOR inconsistencies" are simply arguments from personal belief and/or outright lies.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Perhaps you are legitimately unable to accept that the US Govt. could be complicit in a False Flag attack


That's not the case. If the evidence supported it...I would believe it, as would most Americans.


Originally posted by TruthMagnetbut perhaps your goal (much like a defense lawyer) - is to simply troll as much as possible to attempt to create unreasonable doubt where there can really be none.


Just trying to keep any vulnerable young people from falling for the lies of the truth movement that I once fell for....and point them towards websites or resources where they can research the claims of both sides of the issue and come to their own conclusions.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
I, myself, am not completely in agreement that nothing hit the Pentagon that day - but I find the witness testimony quite compelling that the Passenger Sized Jet witnessed on the North Side approach - could not have flow the path presented by the US. Govt.


All of these eyewitnesses also stated that the plane hit the Pentagon. It's highly likely that they simply misjudged the location of the plane as it flew over them at hundreds of mph.


Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Of course - if they had nothing to hide - they could of just showed us the multitude of tapes confirming there story - so the question we must ask is - do they?


Which tapes? The tapes you assumed to exist in an earlier post?
They've already released one..and the response from truthers is "it's a fake!"

Truthmagnet - you obviously are very interested in the subject of 911truth, and I applaud the fact that you've looked into these events more than most of the general public, however you are continually citing claims made by truthers that have long ago been shown to be wrong, or outright lies. I ask that you please research these claims before just assuming that they are true because someone else said so.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join