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: 15
21
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

"Oil rigs" isn't even a sub-field of structural engineering. He is a structural engineer. That's what his expertise is because that's what he does for a living, and has done for a good number of years, including large and expensive projects. His opinions are still his opinions but he is an expert in his field, which is structural engineering. I would be completely confident in his work. He is legally responsible for everything he does.


Yeah, and if you needed that heart valave replaced, then any surgeon will do, correct?

Liver transplant specialist - sure.
orthopedic surgeon - sure.
brain surgeon - sure.

Sorry, but he may well have the general schooling needed, but has not, from what i can see, worked in buildings at all. FAR from being an expert.

And of course, he provides zero evidence for anything he says. He does not challenge any of the accepted engineering theories put forth by NIST, Bazant, Zhou, etc.

So he for sure realizes that they're correct, and must attack it through innuendo, cuz that's all he's got.




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420


tr.v. in-put-ted or in·put, in·put·ting, in·puts Computer Science
To enter (data or a program) into a computer.




Notice how the enlarged word is spelled.

Now go check your own spelling.

Little hint - it helps when you make try to make an arrogant comment, that your own post at least is spelled correctly, and uses proper caps.

Otherwise, it just proves your projection of your own failures onto others.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

I never really thought about it these people do seem to show more arrogance than knowledge.



That's funny.


Cuz every troofer here repeatedly says that the evidence is obvious proving a CD, etc. And yet, your TM is going no where but down the toilet.

This is because you say that everyone else in the world are sheeple, are you are the only ones smart enough - since you educated yourself investigoogling - to "know" the truth about 9/11.

THAT'S what I call arrogance.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
You know, I thought that Charles Pegelow rang some bs bells for me, so I did a little investigoogling myself.

Seems like bsbray's "expert" was a nuke proponent too!!!

LMFAO.

So yeah, go ahead and use him as your authoritative voice. Go ahead and trot him out in front of Congress, or tv, or whomever you decide.

That would be too funny. I't make a great PPV. If nothing else than for the comedy.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420


tr.v. in-put-ted or in·put, in·put·ting, in·puts Computer Science
To enter (data or a program) into a computer.




Notice how the enlarged word is spelled.

Now go check your own spelling.

Little hint - it helps when you make try to make an arrogant comment, that your own post at least is spelled correctly, and uses proper caps.

Otherwise, it just proves your projection of your own failures onto others.


It proves my point quite well actually, that jackasses will debate you to no end without debating the content of your post. If Einstein didn't capitalize the theory of relativity it would not change the context at all. The grammar police can go pound salt. I'm not being graded. However I am being observed and my content is better than the characters in question time after time. The observers agree daily and thats all i care about.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Cuz every troofer here repeatedly says that the evidence is obvious proving a CD, etc.

This is simply not the case.

You prove my OP correct with your ill-informed comment. You also show how you have not understood the thread that you have been posting within.

Thanks for your regular bumps though. They have helped to keep the topic alive and expose the extremely poor logic that debunkers use.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Cuz every troofer here repeatedly says that the evidence is obvious proving a CD, etc.

This is simply not the case.

You prove my OP correct with your ill-informed comment. You also show how you have not understood the thread that you have been posting within.


My appologies for jumping on tezzajw's reply to the big ravioli but uh...can he quote any of the things he keeps saying? When did I say the evidence obviously proved a controlled demo, when did you say that? I see people (including myself) that say the only thing that is obvious is that the official story has holes in it; big holes.

It is cute watching his little statements in these quotes...argue about spelling because you cannot argue the facts - good job Spamoli!

Joey Canoli is a liar, a sheister, a fraud. If he is not ignorant and dimwitted, then he is a paid shill. I have been pretty active in this thread and I have never once said that a controlled demolition is obvious.

Quote me Canoli!

Then, when you do, I hope someone replies with it in quotes so I can see it.

Or... admit you are just making things up. Just like that crap about no structural engineers, well maybe virtually none, ok none that matter, ok very few...blah blah blah.

He does not understand the premise of the thread or else he is part of the truth movement trying to set up straw men to kick down or some other crazy thing. I do not understand it at all but I know for a fact that he has lied now at least twice and this time he is lying about me and you and everyone else in this thread. I may be wrong but I am pretty sure that not one person has said it is obvious there was a controlled demo in this thread. I know I have not and that is at least one wrong on him.

pssssssssst...Canned Hammioli, if you have to make stuff up to prove your point...then your point must be fraudulent from the start.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I find it rather interesting that I asked these 'skeptics' to prove to me that flight 77 flew into the pentagon and now one ran to hide and the other is debating proper spelling. If you cannot prove the official story, distract everyone. I guess they learned that from the Bush administration.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I told someone else why we use poor generalizations already.

It's cuz the TM doesn't matter one bit. And we don't care if we make an error lumping (SNIP) into one big pile.

And everytime the TM implies that the FDNY was in on the "pulling of 7", they show their disrespect for those heroes. It shows just how cowardly the TM as a group really is.

And guys like Tony Szamboti, who said 2 years ago that he was gonna bring a court case against... someone.... cus he;s got some "proof" that can't be refuted.... and then does nothing. Coward.

And I mean come on, you've got the the stupidest of the stupid in your group - no planers, nukers, space beamers.... so stupid, in fact, that they are an insult to all things that try to be stupid.

Your group deserves zero respect.

Like I said, argueing facts with the TM is meaningless at this point. You are convinced that there are unanswered questions that anyone cares about, or believe that you have proof of an inside jobby job. There is no argueing with the religious zeal that the TM displays. It's a waste of time.

Anymore, it's all about trying to make the TM see the truth in the fact that they have failed miserably. I constantly point out that it doesn't matter if a few non-experts say that the NIST, or Bazant, or Zhou are in error.

The fact remains that the TM must convince to the demonstrated experts that there is something wrong with their work. But you can't. And yet, the TM remains convinced that they are correct.

Now that's what I call illogical....





Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 17-8-2009 by asala]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Care to prove that statement?


Thanks to an anonymous friend, now I cannot even escape this crap when I put it on ignore. Do I care to prove that statement? I already have. I was told that flight 77 flew into the pentagon. There is no proof or evidence that any such thing ever happend. I would call that a pretty big hole for starters.

-As much as I appreciated the chance to defend my words, I would really appreciate no one forwarding me any more of this pointless claptrap. I put Floey Claphavinglonely on ignore because he is a nuissance and little else. He has not proven anything, shown evidence of anything he said. He is a parrot and only knows what he is supposed to repeat. He can repeat it all he likes but I think I gave him more than enough chances to say something worth reading. He failed to do so over and over. I had to ask the same question repeatedly over 3 page before he even attempted to answer and that answer was barely even logical, let alone a point of any kind. If he would just go back and read the OP, or have someone read and then explain it to him, I am sure he would realize how foolish he is being.

Unknowy Crabmeatonly - put me on ignore and then you do not have to read my logical points and I do not have to read your senseless responses second hand or third hand. You are clearly not even reading half of what you respond to and just plain making things up. You claim people are saying things they never said and when asked to provide at least one quote to prove that...you fall so very short. Stop lying and stop trying so hard to prove the OP over and over and over and over. If you have anymore personal attacks for me, please feel free to U2U me. The thread is no place for your ego games.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I told someone else why we use poor generalizations already.

So you have admitted that my OP was correct. You agree with it. You admit that some debunkers use very poor, illogical arguments...

Joey, why has it taken you this long to agree with me???

You're not exactly a star performer for the debunkers, when you agree with my OP. Think about the illogical position that you taken in this thread and what it's done for your credibility.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
There is no argueing with the religious zeal that the TM displays. It's a waste of time.

Yet, despite that, you've spent a lot of time in this thread. Again, you contradict yourself.

If truthers are a waste of time to argue with, then why do you do it?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yet, despite that, you've spent a lot of time in this thread. Again, you contradict yourself.

If truthers are a waste of time to argue with, then why do you do it?


I think he is afraid that we just might forget for a moment how little he cares or how little any of what any of us have to say matters. Obviously he feels that your OP has not been proven well enough so he is here to make sure. You claim that people like him suffer from illogical generalizations and here he is 15 pages in calling everyone that doubts the official story twoofers, retards, religious zealots (I am afraid he does not know what the words religion or zealot mean but he is going for the dictionary right now,) and claiming that we all believe the same things and all have the same evidence and on and on.

Basically, he read the OP and said, "How can I spend 10s of pages backing this up whilst coming across like a rightwing Bushloving head ostrich. I say bravo. Thanks to Canoli, you really do not even need to say anything, he just keeps making the point for you, over and over and over.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
There is no argueing with the religious zeal that the TM displays. It's a waste of time.

Yet, despite that, you've spent a lot of time in this thread. Again, you contradict yourself.

If truthers are a waste of time to argue with, then why do you do it?


Might want to check my posts.

I rarely argue facts anymore with the TM.

It's proven to be useless.

So I've decided to point out to you that you've accomplished nothing, and point out why that is.

Namely, cuz you can't convince anyone except your own little group about your theories, ot holes, or whatever regarding 9/11.

My guess is that this will go right over your head too. No surprise there.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

There is no proof or evidence that any such thing ever happend.


Hilarious.

No evidence at all, eh?

Now there's denial folks.

What this wonder REALLY means, is that NOTHING will convince him.

This is a perfect example of why I don't argue facts with the TM in general anymore. Especially when you run into this high level of denial.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

You claim that people like him suffer from illogical generalizations


Illogical generalizations?

No, we make poor generalizations, and you guys know why now.

It's cuz you don't matter.

You're nothing, nobodies, nobody listens to you, and they never will.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Please stop the personal attacks.

Further examples of changing usernames for the purpose of derision WILL also be acted upon.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate


I was told that flight 77 flew into the pentagon. There is no proof or evidence that any such thing ever happend. I would call that a pretty big hole for starters.



Since the actual topic here is "Poor debunker illogical generalisations" and 'why?', I'd argue that the above three sentences proves quite illogical from the other side.

BUT, the point of this thread isn't to argue the merits of either "story", n'est pas?

Isn't fair to say that the mere IDEA of the OP is a form of arrogance? Because, what is more readily seen is a continual cry for 'more'!! when it comes to evidence, or what is scoffed at as lack of evidence.

MUCH of this scoffing is not fact-based, but "generalised" from dubious multiple web sources, and usually there is a great deal of, possibly unintentional, obfuscation from what really amounts only to rumour-based tidbits of incoherent, disjointed and sometimes completely incorrect accounts. Like, in the game of "secret", where a whisper, repeated often enough, morphs into something wholly different from what it started.


Notice that nowhere, as much as I wanted to, did I use the phrase "neutral readers of this thread..."
I dare not be that disingenuous.....



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Since the actual topic here is "Poor debunker illogical generalisations" and 'why?', I'd argue that the above three sentences proves quite illogical from the other side.

Hey, Tim. For once you're sticking to the topic. Well done.

After reading through the thread, you will notice that Joey has admitted the OP is true. He's admitted that some debunkers use poor, illogical generalisations.

You'll also notice that jthomas has proven the OP true. He's refused to endorse the Pentagon Security Images, despite his belief in the official government story. He also asked people to prove a negative, with regards to the alleged impact of Flight AA77 into the Pentagon.

So, yes... the OP has been proven numerous times, with generous help from some debunkers.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Notice that nowhere, as much as I wanted to, did I use the phrase "neutral readers of this thread..."
I dare not be that disingenuous.....
Casual readers to this thread should note that TJ still has his sense of humour. Even when posting in a thread that has proven to be true, weedwhacker Tim still manages to remain polite - unlike some other debunkers.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join