BREAKING NEWS: Many More than 8 People at CIT Conference

LMAO! I didn't use C++ smart guy!



Please learn to read! I said NO THANKS TO YOUR CRAP CODE.

I have a copy of Warren's Code.

Go away.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by Ligon
He also claims he watched both planes approach for approximately 60 SECONDS, when he could have only seen it for one or two seconds max on the official flight path. This means that Keith Wheelhouse is a proven liar.

Prove this statement please.

Prove that Wheelhouse could only have seen the plane for one or two seconds max on the "official flight path".

Please show maps, POVs, heading and altitude data that demonstrates that Keith Wheelhouse is a liar when he says that he saw the plane for 60 seconds.

You called the man a liar, you prove that he couldn't have seen the plane for 60 seconds. And don't point me towards more CIT crap. I've seen it. They didn't prove it.

It's very impolite to ask a Truther a question. They can't answer questions. They are a educationally disadvantaged challenged group and drawing attention to their challenges just.... well.... highlights those challenges unnecessarily.

I think you know what I mean.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw
jthomas, please quote Boger stating that he saw 'Flight AA77' hit the Pentagon. I might have missed it. I recall him stating that he watched a plane hit the Pentagon.

Thanks to 9/11 Files for addressing this.

What did he address, jthomas?

Everything you can't.

Originally posted by jthomas
Everything you can't.

The quality of this response from you, shows how you're not able to defend your illogical claims.

Unlike you, I'm not married to the official government story. I'm not married to any particular theory.

You need to cherry-pick Boger to believe your story. You can't take Boger at face value, or it's good-bye official story with the plane flying NOC, according to Boger.

reply to post by jthomas

I will post my credentials then:

Associates Degree in Electronics Engineering, 3.7 gpa
Member of The National Vocational Technical Honor Society
5 years experience working on medium current ion-implantation systems, E.G. Varian e-500 and AMAT xr-80.
Certified process technician for Intel Corporation (trained to use SEM's)
Certified superuser (root computer access to a 2 billion dollar factory) for Intel Corporation
Linux system admin.

In no case am I "undereducated", and I'm willing to guess much more than YOU.

Originally posted by turbofan
LMAO! I didn't use C++ smart guy!
[edit on 15-7-2009 by turbofan]

Then why did you post the picture of a Visual C compiler? What is the point? I could post pics of my old Visual C compiler that I learned C++ on a decade ago, or maybe my old VB6 Pro compiler. What has either to do with C# or VB.Net?

I suspect you are just wasting my time turbo.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Everything you can't.

The quality of this response from you, shows how you're not able to defend your illogical claims.

I don't have any claims. You do. You can't support them.

Produce your eyewitnesses, reports, or physical evidence of a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon as an "explosion" took place at the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, just drum up the courage to admit it instead of whining incessantly.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

I will post my credentials then:

Associates Degree in Electronics Engineering, 3.7 gpa
Member of The National Vocational Technical Honor Society
5 years experience working on medium current ion-implantation systems, E.G. Varian e-500 and AMAT xr-80.
Certified process technician for Intel Corporation (trained to use SEM's)
Certified superuser (root computer access to a 2 billion dollar factory) for Intel Corporation
Linux system admin.

In no case am I "undereducated", and I'm willing to guess much more than YOU.

Cool. We beat you Intel guys with the first gighertz microprocessor developed for AMD

* By the way, that was not an attack but a good-natured jab at a fellow microlithography peer.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by 911files]

Originally posted by jthomas
I don't have any claims. You do. You can't support them.

Oh, jthomas, how short is your memory?

Back last November, I challenged you in another thread, to list my claims. You failed. You could not do it. It was the same thread where you had about two or three warnings in a row from the Moderators. I don't make claims about 9/11, as I wasn't there.

You made the cherry-picking claim about Boger that he saw Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. After I pointed out your error, 911Files had to correct you, by showing that Boger said 'plane', not 'Flight AA77'.

You are the one who is selectively making a claim about Boger's statement, not me.

You also made the false claim that there were only 8 people at the recent CIT conference.

You have been busy fabricating your mistaken claims, jthomas.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

I will post my credentials then:

Associates Degree in Electronics Engineering, 3.7 gpa
Member of The National Vocational Technical Honor Society
5 years experience working on medium current ion-implantation systems, E.G. Varian e-500 and AMAT xr-80.
Certified process technician for Intel Corporation (trained to use SEM's)
Certified superuser (root computer access to a 2 billion dollar factory) for Intel Corporation
Linux system admin.

In no case am I "undereducated", and I'm willing to guess much more than YOU.

By the way, what kind of SEM's does Intel use? We did not use SEM's per se, but ETEC systems. My first major project was to convert an electron scanning process to an LMS tool (as you know, not easy with sub-micron features) so we could keep the ETEC's free for production. You are obviously very familiar with many of the metrology techniques I use if you are in process control.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by turbofan
LMAO! I didn't use C++ smart guy!
[edit on 15-7-2009 by turbofan]

Then why did you post the picture of a Visual C compiler? What is the point? I could post pics of my old Visual C compiler that I learned C++ on a decade ago, or maybe my old VB6 Pro compiler. What has either to do with C# or VB.Net?

I suspect you are just wasting my time turbo.

Because you said I wouldn't know the difference! I have many more
compilers and a stack of books if you 'd like to see them. VB included.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by turbofan
LMAO! I didn't use C++ smart guy!
[edit on 15-7-2009 by turbofan]

Then why did you post the picture of a Visual C compiler? What is the point? I could post pics of my old Visual C compiler that I learned C++ on a decade ago, or maybe my old VB6 Pro compiler. What has either to do with C# or VB.Net?

I suspect you are just wasting my time turbo.

Because you said I wouldn't know the difference! I have many more
compilers and a stack of books if you 'd like to see them. VB included.

No, you can keep your pics. Thanks for wasting my time.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

I will post my credentials then:

Associates Degree in Electronics Engineering, 3.7 gpa
Member of The National Vocational Technical Honor Society
5 years experience working on medium current ion-implantation systems, E.G. Varian e-500 and AMAT xr-80.
Certified process technician for Intel Corporation (trained to use SEM's)
Certified superuser (root computer access to a 2 billion dollar factory) for Intel Corporation
Linux system admin.

In no case am I "undereducated", and I'm willing to guess much more than YOU.

By the way, what kind of SEM's does Intel use? We did not use SEM's per se, but ETEC systems. My first major project was to convert an electron scanning process to an LMS tool (as you know, not easy with sub-micron features) so we could keep the ETEC's free for production. You are obviously very familiar with many of the metrology techniques I use if you are in process control.

I worked in Implant, and the SEM's used in my department were oxygen ion based. Im pretty sure I'm not breaking any NDA by saying that, but thats all I can say. I don't remember the exact recipe for the ionization, just that it was oxygen. I moved out of implant, then out of the company. Prescott was the end of the line for me.

And I wanted to ask you while off topic (sorry), but thats one of the main things that bugs me about the "paint chips". The iron in them is 100nm iron spheres, but the aluminum is 40nm plates. If you work in a fab you know from personal experience rather than hearsay just how freaking hard it would be to create this. What are your thoughts on the aluminum "dust" that was distributed uniformly throughout the chips?

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Everything you can't.

The quality of this response from you, shows how you're not able to defend your illogical claims.

Unlike you, I'm not married to the official government story. I'm not married to any particular theory.

You need to cherry-pick Boger to believe your story. You can't take Boger at face value, or it's good-bye official story with the plane flying NOC, according to Boger.

Intellectually dishonest.

Admitting the acceptance of two mutually exclusive events. By accepting both, with one impossible if the other occurred, one can only draw to the conclusion you lack the capability to make a decision based on an analytical examination of events. SO, you eschew that difficult requirement to "make a choice" with regards to the veracity of someone's published comments. It is not only intellectual dishonesty but intellectual cowardice, as well. Can you make a decision? Well, ummm...no.

So. Let's try again on a different topic.

Who are the fly-over witnesses?

reply to post by jprophet420


I agree that sub-micron films and spheroids would be difficult to manufacture intentionally and require a very sophisticated process, but there may be some natural process at play that I am not familiar with. I'm a math guy and concentrated on measuring the stuff the ChemE guys cranked out and developing process controls to insure quality (SPC). Sorry, not much help in that realm.

Originally posted by trebor451
Intellectually dishonest.
Admitting the acceptance of two mutually exclusive events.

In your 25 years of working for the DOD, did they ever teach you to think outside the box, trebor? It appears not. For someone who wasn't there, you're sure trying to force an opinion based on what you've been told happened.

You and jthomas both cherry-pick Boger's witness statement to suit yourselves. You both do the exact same thing that you accuse 'truthers' of doing.

Originally posted by trebor451
So. Let's try again on a different topic.
Who are the fly-over witnesses?

You need to keep up with current events, trebor. Maybe those long days working with the DOD don't allow you the time to refresh threads, like you should. Unless you only refresh the threads that you're allowed to refresh?

jthomas has already admitted that no one knows how many witnesses there were or what they would have seen, with respect to a flyover.

Perhaps you and jthomas should get together and coordinate a more logical response. You're jumping in to try and rebut me, in place of jthomas, so you should at least be aware of what he has stated in the past.

Originally posted by trebor451
Admitting the acceptance of two mutually exclusive events. By accepting both, with one impossible if the other occurred, one can only draw to the conclusion you lack the capability to make a decision based on an analytical examination of events.

Trebor, I gotta say mate, I can see where tez is going with this and he is right.

I have even stated myself numerous times that there are additional scenarios that can accomodate the plane flying north of the Citgo and impacting with the Pentagon.

I can think of one particular scenario that I am very surprised CIT hasn't jumped onto.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Trebor, I gotta say mate, I can see where tez is going with this and he is right.
I have even stated myself numerous times that there are additional scenarios that can accomodate the plane flying north of the Citgo and impacting with the Pentagon.

Discombobulator, I've seen you post different scenarios before. If I could have easily found your post without too much searching, I would have included it, to show trebor that what his DOD thinking permits him to see, may not in fact be correct.

For someone who wasn't there that day, trebor sure likes to preach as though he knows every finer detail better than the rest of us. Maybe his 25 years of service in the DOD gives him exclusive access to information that the rest of us are not supposed to know?

[edit on 16-7-2009 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
Intellectually dishonest.
Admitting the acceptance of two mutually exclusive events.

In your 25 years of working for the DOD, did they ever teach you to think outside the box, trebor? It appears not. For someone who wasn't there, you're sure trying to force an opinion based on what you've been told happened.

You and jthomas both cherry-pick Boger's witness statement to suit yourselves. You both do the exact same thing that you accuse 'truthers' of doing.

Originally posted by trebor451
So. Let's try again on a different topic.
Who are the fly-over witnesses?

You need to keep up with current events, trebor. Maybe those long days working with the DOD don't allow you the time to refresh threads, like you should. Unless you only refresh the threads that you're allowed to refresh?

jthomas has already admitted that no one knows how many witnesses there were or what they would have seen, with respect to a flyover.

Perhaps you and jthomas should get together and coordinate a more logical response. You're jumping in to try and rebut me, in place of jthomas, so you should at least be aware of what he has stated in the past.

Are you functionally unable to provide an answer to *any* question I ask?

Are you physically unable to come to a personal belief based on an critical analysis of the existing information?

As far as the "fly-over" witness is concerned, it is apparent you cannot or will not provide any names of any "fly-over" witnesses. Which is fine, because the CIT/PfT team cannot provide any, so you will be in fine company. You can always, I suppose, fall back on Craig's standard cop-out, that being "absence of evidence is not evidence" (unless you are CIT/PfT, in which case "absence of evidence mean conspiracy, collusion, murderous intent, etc) but I would appreciate a straight yes or no answer.

Are you aware of any witnesses to any aircraft, other than the C-130 or the F-16's that arrived shortly after the event, that "flew over" the Pentagon in a manner that would suggest it was part of a choreographed and planned deception?

Originally posted by trebor451
Are you functionally unable to provide an answer to *any* question I ask?

In your alleged 25 years at the DOD, were you ever taught any critical thinking skills and were you expected to use them to examine what people actually type, instead of presuming what they don't type?

Originally posted by trebor451
Are you physically unable to come to a personal belief based on an critical analysis of the existing information?

I wasn't at the Pentagon, so I'm not quite sure what happened. I'm content to state that, trebor. Why should I rush to judge something that I don't know? There's lots of evidence to consider.

The Lloyde-lightpole evidence, as presented by CIT, is compelling. Even more so, is that every government story believer goes very quiet on the Lloyde-lightpole threads. They know how difficult it is to defend. CIT did well to expose this sore point for the official government story. Quite a lot hinges on Lloyde's story... and when he contradicts himself, it's not looking good for the government script.

Some of the people who attended the CIT conference may have been hearing about the evidence for the first time. It's a credit to CIT that they have given people a different perspective from the official story script. That's more than eight people as well... we don't believe jthomas' false roll call.

Originally posted by trebor451
As far as the "fly-over" witness is concerned, it is apparent you cannot or will not provide any names of any "fly-over" witnesses.

trebor, your lack of research is amazing because it defies logic for how someone with an alleged 25 year career in the DOD can so monumentally stuff things up - like you do.

Please, in all of my 3678 posts, show me where I conclusively stated that a flyover occured! Go on, do it! Quote me! Use all of your DOD data mining resources to quote me on it. Make sure that you have company approval though, they might not like you moonlighting on ATS threads. I know that the DOD wouldn't let you post from work, the government has better things to do than monitor conspiracy websites.

I don't need to provide flyover witnesses because I'm not definitely stating that there was a flyover. There might have been, I don't know - I wasn't there. I consider the possibility of a flyover, as I consider other possibilities too.

You really look rather foolish when you make claims that are patently false. I have to wonder about the quality of the DOD training programs, if your lack of critical thinking, logic and analytical precision is common amongst the employees there.

Edit: I note how you ignored Discombobulator agreeing with me, that you're not thinking outside the box. Ouch.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by tezzajw]