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: 16
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by tezzajw

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


So far, so good...

But then, guess it's your perogative to steer your own thread into off-topic Land...


...notice that jthomas...proven the OP true. ..... He also asked people to prove a negative.....alleged impact ........


Speaking of humour.....or, is it irony? I'm such a "generalised" walking mass of illogic that I guess I can't tell the difference. Oh, wait....yes I can.

"Proving a negative" is EXACTLY what the "questioners" are demanding.

I see the "enquiring minds" that think they have the "truth" being illogical quite frequently. Sometimes it is necessary to use creative comparisons to attempt to get through, to illuminate for THEM, after reason and logic have failed.

Shame. Because, like a religion, the facts don't matter, even when faced with them.




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Psssssssssssssst. I asked you for some, any, even a little evidence of flight 77 crashing into the pentagon and you have failed to produce any how many pages in? Welcome back from ignore, the crap you are spewing now is priceless. Now tell me how I am wrong for not believing it but you do not have to and will not do anything to produce evidence because it is not worth your time. Please, take the time to do that.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.



Actually, I admotted to poor generalizations, yes.

But it's quite logical to do so, since I've come to the conclusion that trying to sort through everybody's own personal beliefs - some say squibs are proof of explosives, others say it's inconclusive.... some say planes hit the towers, others say they didn't...... well you get the picture. Cuts down on the effort of trying to address each individual, when they're all equally mad.

It's not woth the effort to sort out each individual, since you're all wrong anyways.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Psssssssssssssst. I asked you for some, any, even a little evidence of flight 77 crashing into the pentagon and you have failed to produce any how many pages in?



What am I, your own personal lackey?

Sorry kid, I'm not interested in wasting my time when you say there's no, as in zero, evidence that 77 hit the Pentagon.

Playing along just enforces the denial.

Tough love. Do it yourself.



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

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
What am I, your own personal lackey?

Sorry kid, I'm not interested in wasting my time when you say there's no, as in zero, evidence that 77 hit the Pentagon.


Then you have no reason to talk. What are you here for? You add nothing? You mock people for not having evidence when you yourself refuse to have any. What is your point exactly????

Here, the mic is yours. Stand atop this box. You have the floor. Please, dazzle us.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I think the denial and logical fallacies of evil and tezz is quite extraordinary starting with tezz's first paragraph in the OP.

We have their claims that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Imagine that - who knew? And who will ever know since they declare that interviewing the over 1,000 people with direct contact to the wreckage amounts to "the impossibility of proving a negative."

What more evidence of denial could one want?

Tezz's OP is a classic example of logical fallacies to boot, one that will serve as a classic example in critical thinking classes. But then "Truthers'" commission of one logical fallacy after another is why the 9/11 "Truth" Movement exists to begin with.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Tezz's OP is a classic example of logical fallacies to boot, one that will serve as a classic example in critical thinking classes.

jthomas, your responses in this thread have proven my OP true - over and over.

The logical fallacies are all your's.

You believe the official government story, yet you refuse to endorse the Pentagon Security Images. That contradictory piece of thinking proves my OP true.

Please, keep posting and bumping the thread. It serves as an information post for casual readers who might not understand the twisted, illogical thinking that some government believers choose to use.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Tezz's OP is a classic example of logical fallacies to boot, one that will serve as a classic example in critical thinking classes.

jthomas, your responses in this thread have proven my OP true - over and over.

The logical fallacies are all your's.

You believe the official government story, yet you refuse to endorse the Pentagon Security Images. That contradictory piece of thinking proves my OP true.

Please, keep posting and bumping the thread. It serves as an information post for casual readers who might not understand the twisted, illogical thinking that some government believers choose to use.


Keep illustrating your own logical fallacies for everyone, tezz.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Keep illustrating your own logical fallacies for everyone, tezz.



Dude, you are the one that decided that we all support the flyover story. That is exactly what the OP says. How do you not see this?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I think the denial and logical fallacies of evil and tezz is quite extraordinary starting with tezz's first paragraph in the OP.

We have their claims that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Imagine that - who knew? And who will ever know since they declare that interviewing the over 1,000 people with direct contact to the wreckage amounts to "the impossibility of proving a negative."


Keep telling yourself that. If it were true then the evidence would be really easy to show and yet......



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
here is a great post that shows the evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i should also put this in here:

www.snopes.com...



[edit on 8/18/09 by prizim]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
I think the denial and logical fallacies of evil and tezz is quite extraordinary starting with tezz's first paragraph in the OP.

We have their claims that there is no evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Imagine that - who knew? And who will ever know since they declare that interviewing the over 1,000 people with direct contact to the wreckage amounts to "the impossibility of proving a negative."


Keep telling yourself that. If it were true then the evidence would be really easy to show and yet......


...and yet you refuse to interview any of the 1,000 people who handled the evidence.

Duh.

You're just another CIT "good ole boy", evil.




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas

Keep illustrating your own logical fallacies for everyone, tezz.



Dude, you are the one that decided that we all support the flyover story. That is exactly what the OP says. How do you not see this?


This is what the OP says, as much as you have to deny it:




To me, there are two kinds of people with respect to 9/11.

Those who believe every single aspect of the official story. No questions asked, no need for any further investigations - case closed. If this is you, then you're a government story believer.

Then, there's everyone else. As long as some aspect of the official government story nags at your inner core, then by definition, you have to be a truther, as you're seeking the truth. Whatever that truth is, you have doubts and questions about the official story.


There it is - tezz telling YOU, in no uncertain terms that YOU are either a Truther or NOT.

And you bought into tezz's claim, hook, line, and sinker.

So don't bitch about being a "Truther" and accepting the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Flyover Theory." You just have to accept that your name is written all over it.

No less an "authority" than tezz told you so.






[edit on 18-8-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by prizim
 


That thread has great evidence that the fuselage from a 757 hit, but zero evidence that a winged aircraft hit the pentagon.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by prizim
 


Yeah thanks. I have already seen all the photos of scrap metal and paint. When were these parts identified by serial number as is standard opperating procedure??? They did not. Where is the evidence of the bodies of the passengers??? Any of them? This is the lack of evidence I was speaking of so thanks.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by prizim
 


That thread has great evidence that the fuselage from a 757 hit, but zero evidence that a winged aircraft hit the pentagon.


No, you are unable to make that claim since you haven't refuted the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You won't even do any interviews or get the statements of the over 1,000 people who had direct contact with the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

So, as you well know, you can't make any claim that there is "zero evidence that a winged aircraft hit the pentagon." Whether it's in this thread or not.

Sorry.

Just admit that fact and move on, jprohet420.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by prizim
 


Yeah thanks. I have already seen all the photos of scrap metal and paint. When were these parts identified by serial number as is standard opperating procedure??? They did not. Where is the evidence of the bodies of the passengers??? Any of them? This is the lack of evidence I was speaking of so thanks.


Provide the source(s) for your claim that "it is standard operating procedure" that parts need to be identified by serial number to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

That is a standard question that no truther has yet been able to answer in the many years since the claim was concocted by CIT. Mainly because they realize when they think about it what a silly claim it is.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There it is - tezz telling YOU, in no uncertain terms that YOU are either a Truther or NOT.

So don't bitch about being a "Truther" and accepting the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Flyover Theory." You just have to accept that your name is written all over it.

You couldn't have got it more wrong if you tried, jthomas.

Your delusional thinking has clouded your ability to think logically.

Being a Truther does not imply believing that a Pentagon flyover took place. Sure, some Truthers believe this, but others don't.

The fact that you can't understand this is quite telling and shows the serious holes in your logic. Again, you prove my OP true. You've done it in almost every post you've made in this thread.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by prizim
 


That thread has great evidence that the fuselage from a 757 hit, but zero evidence that a winged aircraft hit the pentagon.


No, you are unable to make that claim since you haven't refuted the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You won't even do any interviews or get the statements of the over 1,000 people who had direct contact with the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

So, as you well know, you can't make any claim that there is "zero evidence that a winged aircraft hit the pentagon." Whether it's in this thread or not.

Sorry.

Just admit that fact and move on, jprohet420.


Here you go. you tried to refute it there and lost then tried to bring it up here.

Originally posted by jprophet420
This thread was used in another thread, but i wanted to bump it as it completely debunks itself.

The thread points out that the hole is 16-20 feet wide. The space between the engines on the aircraft was 24 feet. The engines did not break the face of the wall. The engine debris was found on the inside.

Physically impossible unless they were special ninja engines that can walk through walls.


You were unable to ascertain the source so I reposted it.


Originally posted by jprophet420
www.airliners.net...


Look at the hole in the building

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole.


The source was of course this thread, which i had already stated and you have already either ignored or were not able to comprehend. Either one is fine to me because you fail again publicly attacking me instead of the content that I post.



[edit on 18-8-2009 by jprophet420]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join