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.

 

Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So now you can get back to providing us with the eyewitnesses statements of any jet "flying over and away from the Pentagon."

You see, jprophet420, you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. When you make claims then you are forced to deal with ALL of the implications of those claims. You cannot pretend they don't exist as CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and SPreston are doing.

Again, in this post, jthomas has demonstrated how true the OP is.

jthomas has built a strawman argument based upon the incorrect premise that jprophet420 has claimed that there was a Pentagon flyover.

Due to his own shortcomings, jthomas has lumped jprophet420 in with the beliefs of CIT and P4T. jthomas then proceeded to erroneously attack jprophet420 to 'prove' his 'claims'. jthomas has failed to understand that jprophet420 is not CIT or P4T.

With members like jthomas posting in this thread, I never had any doubt that the statements in the OP would be proven correct over and again.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Great, now please explain to me how you know there were 19 hijackers. Why did they hijack the planes? Why did they fly them into buildings? I hope you have some evidence.


From airline passenger manifests.
So you are saying that have had in your posession the manifests? Not images of them or told what they said, you have had them where you could feel and see the originals???????? How did you manage that?

Did the manifest list them as terrorists or hijackers? This way I will know what to be on the lookout for.

You will have to try a lot harder than this.

What does the manifest actually tell you?

19 men with these names may or may not have been on these 4 planes.

That is it. Even if you have each orignal manifest in your posession, what on the manifest would tell you that any of the people on it were terrorists or potential terrorists? What exactly would tell you anything above and beyond the names of people that were supposed to be aboard those planes.

Massive fail here. Let's hope you get smarter.


So they could crash them.

To ruin the buildings.


What??????? This is even new for me. Wow, ok. How do you know the planes were taken over to be crashed into buildings after we cross out your first point? See how that works? More importantly though, who told you it was to ruin the buildings? I have heard what I thought were all the reasons given and not one of them was a simple as "ruin the buildings."

Sorry pal but unless you can fix your first answer, I have little more for you than pity.

Your turn....

[edit on 11-8-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


As I said you wouldn't do either.

To answer your question in full I want a new investigation that addresses all of the anomalies and inconsistencies in the OS.


Quit hiding behind the canard of an OS. Either refute the evidence or just admit you can't.

Sheesh....




Every night a unicorn gallops through my house walls and brings me bars of gold and free wishes. I have photos, bars of gold, reports, even a peer reviewed analysis.

There must be such a unicorn then right? Refute the evidence or just admit that you cannot.

Speaking of old canards...



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Anyways, I've always been curious about the main point, one that no one in the TM really addresses.

You do realize that it doesn't matter whether or not you win a debate on an internet forum, right?

Getting your new investigation depends on you convincing SE's and FE's on your views, right?

And that you're NOT going to get a NI unless you do that, right?

Because of that, I fail to understand what you think you're accomplishing by patting each other on the back.


I am compelled now to then ask why people like you, throatyogurt - cameron, Thomsilla, etc hope to accomplish by coming here and insulting people and then spitting out the same tired old talking points we already got ad nauseum from the last administration and their mouthpieces.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Only read the OP.

Tezzejw- I respect you as a fellow truther, but you seem to contradict yourself in you Original Post.

You want to "lump" everyone who have the smallest problem with the "official story" as a truther.

But a couple paragraphs later, you get agry at the debunkers for lumping us all together.

Uniting all truthers sounds like a wonderful thing, but it's impossible. As you have different types. There are truthers who believe No planes were involved at all on 9/11. You have some who will say 1 plane was used.

Some as you said will only have a problem with 93 being shot down, but believe the rest.

You have, Mihops, and Lihops.

Unfortunately the Official story believers have thier "9/11 commission report".

Where as us truthers do not have a book that 90% of us can agree on.

They have us divided amongst ourselves. They can throw spokks into the truth movement like no-planers to make the movement look silly.

Unfortunately just like the JFK assasination, the crime has been commiteded, and they got away with it, and no one will ever be charge because there are too many differing theories on what really happened.

With JFK- the goverment had the "Warren Commision".

Will 9/11- the goverment put together the "9/11 Commission".

The best we can hope for is to push them hard enough to have to come up with a revised report, probably entitled "9/11 Case Closed", where hopefully they'll shoot themselves in the foot. Actually just forcing them to make another Report would be a clear win for the truth movement.

But as I said it's so easy for them to divide us. The best we can do is not fall for another False Flag attack, and do not support anywar following one. But unfortunately, I think the next one will be the last one they'll need, they won't even have to bother to cover it up.

Heck they barely even tried to cover this up. In my opinion anyone with half a brain should realize 9/11 was an inside job.

Anyhow keep fighting the "good" fight, and I'll continue to support your posts as I usually do. Good Luck.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jprophet420
You're being a condescending ass again. Quote me where I said 911 was an inside job or admit you're wrong. You won't do either.


I get it now. jthomas and joey fritoli are tag team partners. Neither one has presented anything informative, evidential, or productive.


Just because you don't like being the ones having to support your claims is no reason to get upset and blame others for your inability to present evidence for those claims.

It's your responsibility to back up your claims.

Either concede that you cannot or start backing your claims up with evidence.

You sir have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. In the link that you provided, which is just a link back to my thread, I ask the question "flight 77 where are you", not make any claims. I don't care what any particular groups conclusion is, I only care about the evidence, and it is evidence that I provide.


Sorry, once again YOU used as SUPPORT for your claims - and gave them specifically to me as support for your claims - claims by those who cannot support those claims. You provide no evidence.

You engage in the fallacy of appealing to authority by providing quotes of claims from those who claim that "AA77 flew over and away from the Pentagon." Now you refuse to take any responsibility for relying on those claims in your defense.

Your dodging and evasiveness is quite clear.

We're tired of your refusal to take responsibility for what YOU write and YOUR USE of claims from those who cannot support them. When you realize that those claims are nonsense you try to move the goal posts again. Sorry, buddy, those tactics don't work in the real world.

I consistently demonstrate that you cannot back up anything you claim and you demonstrate the 9/11 Denier trait of weaseling out of taking responsibility for what you write and claim.

Enough of your nonsense. You're just demonstrating why your "9/11 Truth Movement" never amounted to squat.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213

Unfortunately the Official story believers have thier "9/11 commission report".


So you fell for the "Official Story" canard too. Particularly since that canard started within 48 hours of the 9/11 attacks, years before the 9/11 Commission was even conceived.

What you, and all 9/11 "Truthers" don't want to admit to yourselves or anyone else is that the vast majority of the evidence never originated with, nor was ever in control of, the "government."

The shock of that fact is too much reality for 9/11 Truthers to take as the realization that they fell for the propaganda of their own Truther leaders for so many years is too much to bear.

How comforting it has been for you to believe in a fantasy black-and-white world of 9/11 Truthers versus "blind and ignorant 'official story' believers", sheeple as you like to call them. But the shock of finding out that there is no "official story" that any rational person "believes" is truly too much for "Truthers" to bear. Yes, that is just one of the reasons why you all are known properly as 9/11 Deniers.

You cannot accept the reality that what we know about 9/11 came from multiple, independent, disconnected sources. It is far easier for you to believe what you have been fed from your leaders - that ALL evidence originated with, and is controlled by, the "government", and is just "a story the government wants you to believe."

That belief is held by - and promoted by - every single denial movement around and it thrives because those who promote it know that there are those gullible enough to accept it on faith.

Nonetheless, NO denial movement ever achieves what it professes to believe in so religiously. The Holocaust still happened, the Earth is still round, the moon landings still occurred, Oswald was the lone shooter.

So when you choose to believe there's an "official story" and "official story believers", just remember that the real world is getting a good laugh.

Any questions?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

jthomas has built a strawman argument based upon the incorrect premise that jprophet420 has claimed that there was a Pentagon flyover.



Pssst..... jprophet used Pilots for 9/11 Truth to support his claims. Obviously, you never read jprophet's post using Balsamo's claim that AA77 couldn't have hit the light poles, etc., and therefore flew over and away from the Pentagon. Isn't it profound that no one denies that AA77 - or a decoy - approached the Pentagon? And that you and jprohet420 agree? And that - somehow - AA77's "disappearance - has to be explained? And the ONLY way any of you can do it is by "claiming" that AA77 - or a decoy meant to "fool us" - "flew over and away from the Pentagon?"

See the top photo of my avatar, Pilot's for 9/11 Truth depiction of the beginning of the so-called "flyover."

Sorry, tezz, neither you, jprophet420, CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, nor any other person in the world can have their cake and eat it too. You don't have special privileges to claim you can choose only part of the whole claim.

Just thought you'd want to know what you hadn't thought about - or are trying to wiggle out of.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Nola213

Unfortunately the Official story believers have thier "9/11 commission report".


So you fell for the "Official Story" canard too. Particularly since that canard started within 48 hours of the 9/11 attacks, years before the 9/11 Commission was even conceived.

What you, and all 9/11 "Truthers" don't want to admit to yourselves or anyone else is that the vast majority of the evidence never originated with, nor was ever in control of, the "government."


You have obviously fallen victim to something even worse than using the word 'official.' You seem to think that "OS" means "Story completely and totally owned by the government from start to finish."

I have not even got the slightest clue why you think that but it is cute watching you mistakenly feel like you have swatted such a stumper out of the air. Official Story refers to what we were told by our whitehouse, what was 'reported' to us on the news, what we were told by the NIST report, etc. If you really think quabbling over whether or not the official report is actually called "The Official Report" is going to win any arguments, then by all means keep at it.

That has to be the stupidest and least signifigant point of contention in any of this. Here you have people arguing over who is to blame for the murder of 3000 Americans and you think you have it all wrapped up over a word, even though you cannot back up or prove ANY of that story, no matter what you want to call it.

Seriously now, what is it you think you accomplish with this? For one thing, the very word 'canard' was retired after you used it the first 70 times. Second, what do you want to call the story, the narrative, the explanation that has been excepted and portrayed by officials in charge of the country at the time? You pick a word for that story and we can all move on to your next lame attempt.

eg-arguing that truthers cannot prove anything other than a plane flying into the pentagon because they have no evidence and that you know a plane flew into the pentagon because, well you have no evidence....



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
hope to accomplish by coming here and insulting people and then spitting out the same tired old talking points


Personally, my hope is that a few of the TM realize what disgusting wastes of skin they are.

My hope is that they grow up and realize that since it is a fact that virtually zero SE's and FE's listen to their rants, that they realize that the TM view is wrong.


we already got ad nauseum from the last administration and their mouthpieces.


Ah, this explains YOUR irrationality. Bush Derangement Syndrome.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
My hope is that they grow up and realize that since it is a fact that virtually zero SE's and FE's listen to their rants, that they realize that the TM view is wrong.


we already got ad nauseum from the last administration and their mouthpieces.


Ah, this explains YOUR irrationality. Bush Derangement Syndrome.


Ah so my ability to acknowledge what a detriment Georgy W. was to this country tells you that I have a mental illness that prevents me from being logical? Sorry, my appologies. I should not try to confuse you with all these words. Will it help if I begin to abbreviate everything I write because you seem to be missing everything I say. This last post of yours must be your last. You have run so far out steam that abbreviations are all you have left.

The best refutation you have is to call me irrational for believing Bush was a bad president. I was not Clinton's biggest fan either, so now what does that make me? Do not even bother. If you can add something to this thread that even remotely relates to the OP or actually making a point or proving a point of the opposition wrong, then have at it man. If you are only here to continue to tell me that I am wrong and prove it with an unfounded personal attack - please start a thread for it. You will miss me when I stop offering you bait.

p.s. I completely forgot to compliment your amasing ability to completely avoid any and all real questions posed to you while still being brazen enough sift through until you find one you think you have a clever little answer for. I guess I should take this post to mean that you were wrong about the manifests and since that is all you presented as evidence, you are wrong about 9/11 all the way around. Thanks for being man enough to admit that you were wrong and are merely here to illustrate the point made in the OP.

[edit on 8/12/09 by evil incarnate]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry, tezz, neither you, jprophet420, CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, nor any other person in the world can have their cake and eat it too. You don't have special privileges to claim you can choose only part of the whole claim.

jthomas, I've schooled you multiple times about your incorrect quote.

You have never been able to quote me stating that I am a part of any group or that I believe another group's concensus.

In this thread, you have monumentally failed Logic 101 and proven my OP true.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nola213
Only read the OP.
Tezzejw- I respect you as a fellow truther, but you seem to contradict yourself in you Original Post.
You want to "lump" everyone who have the smallest problem with the "official story" as a truther.

I don't use the word truther to represent a combined movement. There will never be a united "Truth Movement", as individual truthers believe different things.

I use the word truther to represent people who have questions about what happened that day. Each person has different questions about what happened. People can agree and disagree with each other, but still be truthers.

People like jthomas, for example, believe the official government story, don't question anything and accept what they have been told. If you read more than the OP, you'll see that jthomas has contradicted himself and shown my OP correct... jthomas, while believing the official government story, will not endorse that the Pentagon Security Images depict Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

You might have misinterpreted how I use the word truther.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

jprophet used Pilots for 9/11 Truth to support his claims


Lets review the claims I made...

Oh wait, I haven't made any.


We have expert testimony from on the tower...
I, Robin Dirk Hordon, declare, under the penalty of perjury:
1. I am a former Air Traffic Controller who worked at the Boston ARTCC [Air
Route Traffic Control Center] located in Nashua, NH, and further, worked the specific
airspace in which American Airlines flight Eleven [AA11] went off course and showed
signs of an “in-flight emergency” before being considered a “hijacked aircraft” on
September 11, 2001.
2. As an employee of the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], in addition to
performing all the skills and requirements of an Air Traffic Controller, I also served for
several years in a management capacity [in an “Area Office”] which is charged with
developing and coordinating airspace and procedural changes, improvements and
modifications, and this included working closely with the U.S. Military aviation
operations.

He goes on to list more credentials before arriving at the conclusion..
37. After analyzing all the radar data available to me from the FAA via the 84th
RADES Radar Squadron, a military facility tasked with monitoring and recording all
radar data fed into it from its various military radar sites, FAA radar sites, and joint use
radar sites, I have concluded that three of the four airliners, AA11, UA175 and UA93
were kept in full and positive radar contact from just after lift off at their departure airports up until their respective crash points as follows:
AA11-Boston to WTC1
UA175-Boston to WTC2
UA93-Newark to Shanksville, PA
38. AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio, and was NEVER re-
radar identified. The high-speed eastbound primary radar target eventually seen by
Danielle O’Brien at Dulles Tower-Potomac Approach and on a heading towards
Washington, D.C., which then made a large turn into, or over, the Pentagon, has been
PRESUMED to be AA77, but that presumption is based upon unreliable evidence found,
or placed, at the Pentagon crash site, or misread in a reverse-engineered identification
process.


We have experts in the air...
I, and the following listed members of Pilots For 9/11 Truth, completed our analysis
and arrived at conclusions that we published in a press release dated March 26, 2007:
Glen Stanish 15,000+ Total Flight Time American Airlines, ATA, TWA,
Continental Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret) 30,000+ Total Flight Time Former
Pan Am, United United States Air Force (ret) Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
John Lear Son of Bill Lear Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation More
than 40 years of Flying 19,000+ Total Flight Time Captain Jeff Latas USAF
(ret) Captain - JetBlue Airways Ted Muga Naval Aviator - Retired Commander,
USNR Col Robert Bowman USAF (ret) Directed all the “Star Wars” programs
under Presidents Ford and Carter - 101 combat missions
John Panarelli Friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #11
11,000+ Total Flight Time Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery
Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford United States
Marine Corps (ret) 10,000+ Total Flight Time 303 Combat Missions
Captain Dan Govatos 10,000+ Total Flight Time Former Chief Pilot of Casino
Express airlines Director of Operations Training at Polar Air George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.) Licensed Commercial Pilot and Aircraft Mechanic Dennis
Spear Army Aviator (ret) 7000+ Total Flight Time Operations Officer, Aviation
Safety Officer Captain Joe H. Ferguson 30,000+ Total Flight Time (ret) USAF
(ret)
10. We concluded that:
(1.) The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support
official events.
(2.) All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
(3.) The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact
the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object
traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
(4.) The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
(5.) If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100
feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
(6) The NTSB and FBI have been contacted and refuse to comment.
The foregoing is true and correct.
Dated : June 18, 2009
/S/
Robert Balsamo



We have experts on the ground...
I'm George Nelson. I served four years of enlisted service and 30 additional years as a commissioned officer in the Air Force.

Please, let me begin by saying, that I get no pleasure or personal satisfaction whatsoever from speaking out in opposition to the US government's official conclusions, and the 911 Commission's official report, of the tragedy that occurred on September 11th, 2001.

I'm a trained aircraft accident investigator. I completed the University of Southern California's accident investigation course in 1989. I was an aircraft maintenance manager throughout my military career and was assigned additional duties as a member of accident investigations for the Air Force.

In every case of an aircraft loss, an accident investigation was always conducted and a report was issued through command channels, and it made no difference if the loss was due to an obvious accident or if it had been shot down by enemy fire. An investigation was always conducted, and a report was always filed, even if the plane was under 5,000 feet of water and not recoverable.

In the case of all four reported aircraft losses on 9-11, each one was reported to have been carrying commercial passengers aboard scheduled commercial airliners. Federal Aviation regulations in Part 121, governs the operations of all scheduled airlines that operate inside the United States, including foreign airlines, which transit through our airports in commercial operations. In the case of each aircraft loss that occurred on 9-11, the regulations are very clear and unambiguous-- investigations were required, and the reports would have covered the loss circumstances in excruciating detail, including all collateral damage incurred.

I guess there could be a legit reason to forgo an investigation...

Heres an expert in intel analysis...
In reference to Retires 2 Star General Albert Stubblebine...
Bert is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy (West Point, class of 52) who enjoyed a distinguished 32 year career in the U.S. Army. He retired as the Commanding General of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). Prior to this assignment he commanded the US Army Electronics Research and Development Command (ERADCOM). During his active duty career he commanded soldiers at every level. After his retirement he served as the VP for Intelligence Systems with BDM, a major defense contractor. He has brought these experiences to leading-edge medical research and development in collaboration with his wife Rima E. Laibow, M.D.

He is a long-term out-of-the-box thinker who redesigned the U.S. Army?s Intelligence Architecture while serving as the Commanding General of the U.S. Army?s Intelligence School and Center. This intelligence restructuring earned him his place in the Intelligence Hall of Fame.

Among his other accomplishments, he participated in a special task force which defined the requirements of the U.S. Army for future conflict. Many of the innovations he developed helped the U.S. to conduct the First Gulf War effectively and swiftly with a very low casualty rate.



Obviously, you never read jprophet's post using Balsamo's claim that AA77 couldn't have hit the light poles, etc., and therefore flew over and away from the Pentagon.


Nobody read it Jthomas, because I never posted anything like that.


Sorry, tezz, neither you, jprophet420, CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, nor any other person in the world can have their cake and eat it too.


Certainly not while people remain ignorant and belligerent.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Wow jprop
Thanks for posting that.
What more can I say.
Except thanks OP also!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas


Unfortunately the Official story believers have thier "9/11 commission report".


So you fell for the "Official Story" canard too. Particularly since that canard started within 48 hours of the 9/11 attacks, years before the 9/11 Commission was even conceived.

What you, and all 9/11 "Truthers" don't want to admit to yourselves or anyone else is that the vast majority of the evidence never originated with, nor was ever in control of, the "government."




I have not even got the slightest clue why you think that but it is cute watching you mistakenly feel like you have swatted such a stumper out of the air. Official Story refers to what we were told by our whitehouse, what was 'reported' to us on the news, what we were told by the NIST report, etc.


You see? The "Official Story" is used routinely by your 9/11 Denial Movement to mean anything you want it to mean. Now you have expanded the definition to include tens of thousands of people all of whom you believe were "in on it" to tell us a "story."


That has to be the stupidest and least signifigant point of contention in any of this.


Why do you think I keep nailing you for using the term?


Here you have people arguing over who is to blame for the murder of 3000 Americans and you think you have it all wrapped up over a word, even though you cannot back up or prove ANY of that story, no matter what you want to call it.


Here you are verifying that you believe there is an "Official Story", now including tens of thousands of people, all primed to deliver a "story."

That's right, you are verifying exactly what I have written, that you cannot deal with the multiple independent, disconnected, widely separated sources of evidence that converge on the conclusion of what happened on 9/11. To you and all 9/11 "Truthers" evidence doesn't exist. Instead it's all "just an 'official story.'" Everyone is "supposed" to believe it's just a story, according to you.

And you all made up that canard to hide the fact that you can't actually refute any of the evidence.


Second, what do you want to call the story, the narrative, the explanation that has been excepted and portrayed by officials in charge of the country at the time?


Thanks for illustrating my point by giving the term "Official Story" a new, meaning, the "official" meaning you tried to deny at the beginning of your post, that it's all just an expected explanation by "officials in charge of this country."

Now that you have helped illustrate my point you give up your canard and start refuting the massive evidence that you have never been able to refute.

You can no longer hide behind your canard, evil incarnate, as we have told you for 8 years. Don't even try that ploy again.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

If you can add something to this thread that even remotely relates to the OP or actually making a point or proving a point of the opposition wrong, then have at it man.



Do you know what the OP is?

Fine, I'll stick to that then.

Why do we use poor generalizations -

1- after years of trying to educate the fools that are the TM, it has become tiresome, and we sometimes wrongfully lump all you idiots into the same box. We attribute beliefs/claims to the TM as a whole, cuz they're all equally stupid.

2- since the TM is going nowhere, and never has, it is a shortcut to lump all you idiots into the same box.

3- the fools that are the TM doesn't understand that the so-called "OS" has not been challenged by anything other than a tiny, tiny minority of SE's, FE's, ME's, etc... and by zero of any qualified SE's, FE's, ME's, etc, that are still working and would face professional consequences from backing any CT theory.

In conclusion, it doesn't matter that we use poor generalizations when we represent what ant particular TMes has said, cuz you idiots are nobodies. Your opinions mean nothing. Your claims are stupid.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jprophet420
You're being a condescending ass again. Quote me where I said 911 was an inside job or admit you're wrong. You won't do either.


I get it now. jthomas and joey fritoli are tag team partners. Neither one has presented anything informative, evidential, or productive.


Just because you don't like being the ones having to support your claims is no reason to get upset and blame others for your inability to present evidence for those claims.

It's your responsibility to back up your claims.

Either concede that you cannot or start backing your claims up with evidence.

You sir have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. In the link that you provided, which is just a link back to my thread, I ask the question "flight 77 where are you", not make any claims. I don't care what any particular groups conclusion is, I only care about the evidence, and it is evidence that I provide.


So let's review your statements, shall we?


"We have expert testimony from on the tower..."

"We have experts in the air..."


"WE"?

Then you quote Rob Balsamo:


We concluded that:
(1.) The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support
official events.
(2.) All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
(3.) The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact
the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object
traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
(4.) The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
(5.) If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100
feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.
(6) The NTSB and FBI have been contacted and refuse to comment.
The foregoing is true and correct.
Dated : June 18, 2009
/S/
Robert Balsamo

www.abovetopsecret.com...



So whenever you say it is my responsibility to back up my claims, and I have made no claims, it becomes more than obvious that you have not read and understood what I have presented.


Let's not forget what you have previously written, jprophet420:


"This guy is an expert, and came to the conclusion that the hole in the pentagon was not made by a boeing 757-200. He looked at the evidence with a trained eye and came to a logical conclusion. I have examined the pictures also, measured the hole in the pentagon with gimp (a photo editor), and came to the same admittedly amature but scientificaly sound conclusion. The hole is not nearly high up enough or large enough to have been made by a 757."

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I guess this means you "have not made a claim", eh?



"I feel bad for everyone who lost someone on September 11th, and am determined to find out how they were lost. The story that has been presented is incorrect and needs to be rectified. "

www.abovetopsecret.com...


No claim there either, jprophet420?

So, you have used Balsamo and Pilots for 9/11 Truth as the "experts" you "have", the very ones whose very claims and conclusions are premised on "AA77 flying over and away from the Pentagon", who will not provide any evidence of anyone witnessing that so-called "flyover." And, to boot, you make the "scientifically sound conclusion" that no 757 could have made the "hole" in the Pentagon.

No claims there, eh, jprophet420?

This is just another illustration of why your 9/11 Truth Movement is viewed as intellectually dishonest weasels.



[edit on 13-8-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Why do you repeatedly reference a flyover? Accusations that I partake in fallacy of equivocation are unfounded and yet you engage in the same activity that you choose to mock. Just because Citizens Investigation Team came to the conclusion that there was a flyover does not mean that I also arrived at the same conclusion. You are not separating evidence from conclusions, I am merely asking people to look at the evidence provided and the rebutal is almost invariably character assassination. I do agree with the testimony provided by Albert Stubbledine, and all of the other things that I posted. I am not interested whatsoever in forming and a hypothesis myself, I am interested in an investigation looking at all of the presented evidence in an unbiased light.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Why do you repeatedly reference a flyover? Accusations that I partake in fallacy of equivocation are unfounded and yet you engage in the same activity that you choose to mock. Just because Citizens Investigation Team came to the conclusion that there was a flyover does not mean that I also arrived at the same conclusion. You are not separating evidence from conclusions, I am merely asking people to look at the evidence provided and the rebutal is almost invariably character assassination. I do agree with the testimony provided by Albert Stubbledine, and all of the other things that I posted. I am not interested whatsoever in forming and a hypothesis myself, I am interested in an investigation looking at all of the presented evidence in an unbiased light.


I'm tired of your weaseling. I have demonstrated that you claim of not making claims is FALSE. I have demonstrated that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too by relying on the claims of sources whose claims require a flyover taking place. But, oh no, you just want to leave out the flyover claim and keep the rest that sounds good.

Sorry, jprohphet420. I know you hate be called out on your claims but we in the rational world are going to hold you to them. The most reasonable thing you can do is come clean and admit you cannot make any legitimate claim that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. But if you decide to continue to pretend that you aren't making claims as you clearly have done, and use sources and their claims for support, hen you are going to have to deal with the implications of those claims forthrightly. So far, you're evading your responsibility.

So no more weaseling, ok?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join