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: 18
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I posted something along these lines awhile back but this may help.

Let's just say that the odds of each of these events actually occurring is only a mere 1,000 to 1 against it.

One high rise, on fire with some upper story damage collapses. First time in world history.
Second building, on fire with some upper story damage collapses for the second time in world history.
Third building, on fire with some lower story damage collapse for the third time in world history.
All three collapses on the same day and same place.
The building is a vertical collapse
The second building is a vertical collapse
The third building is a vertical collapse
The first building falls within two hours of impact
The second building falls within two hours of impact
The first building collapses at near the speed of gravity
The second building collapses at near the speed of gravity
Just before the first building collapses and earthquake shakes the base of the building.
Just before the second building collapses an earthquake shakes the base of the building.
Just before the third build collapses an earthquake shakes the base of the building.
Any two buildings would happen to experience earthquakes moments before they collapse.
Dark smoke (lot temperature) would proceed the collapse of the first building.
Dark smoke would proceed the collapse of the second building.
Dark smoke would proceed the collapse of the third building.
The third building would be demolished to a vertical collapse by fire fighters while the building is on fire.
The third build would be demolished to a vertical collapse when such an operation, by the worlds best demolition companies would normally take months of preparation.
The third build would be demolished by firefighters who would know that event would possess a much greater risk to the area than just letting the building burn.
Firefighters would ever think, plan or coordinate such an activity after their people had just died in two other collapses.
The first building is reduced to rubble and dust.
The radio tower of one of the buildings lands vertical.
The second tower is reduced to rubble and dust
The third build is reduced to rubble and dust
A 10 ton beam of steel is shot put a quarter mile away into the side of another building
The buildings would have come under new ownership only a few months before the event.
Large, distinct populations would have, at random decided not to come to work that day.
A group of foreign kid could successfully take over and maintain control of 3 major airliners on the same day.
The video of the airliners doesn’t indicate the planes expected.
Video shows one solid and one not solid wing.
Planes #1 would be guided through the buildings and accurately hit their targets.
Plane #2 would be accurately flown into it’s target.
Kids failing cessna training could successfully take a major airliner off of autopilot and fly it anywhere near it’s target.
Kids failing cessna training could slow a plane to an improbable speed and still navigate the plane to its target.
A plane would hit the pentagon and collapse entirely into a hole half the diameter of the fuselage alone.
The fencing in front of the impact would be untouched.
Parts of an airline, unlike the one identified would be the only items found outside the impact.
Multiple videos taken would not be usable to identify the delivery vehicle.
The identity of the perpetrators would be identified within hours of the event so accurately that no corrections where needed later.
Some of the perpetrators would be seen alive after the event.

Let’s stop there –– we have 42 improbabilities and all of them we’re giving just a 1 in 1,000 chance of occurring. That’s 1 with 42 *3 (126) zeroes after it! And this is just a partial list. So it’s basically common sense that the story being told is ridiculous beyond belief.




posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
If you want to post debunked claims as real, you can prove anything.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Unfortunately I don't have a large audience, but for what its worth utterly owning you in a debate once again has made my day.


What's holding you back from revealing the "truth" to the world, jprophet420?


Nothing. I notice you were not able to refute it, even though you posted many sentences.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


Unfortunately I don't have a large audience, but for what its worth utterly owning you in a debate once again has made my day.


Since I have shown you can't support your claims, you're stuck in your world of denial, jprophet.


What's holding you back from revealing the "truth" to the world, jprophet420?



Nothing.


But you won't. Do you mind if I do it for you?


I notice you were not able to refute it, even though you posted many sentences.


I have shown that you can't support your claims - and won't.






[edit on 19-8-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



It was fun watching Barney Frank nail a Denier.


So what! What does that have to do with this topic? (nothing)


What's even funnier is that we skeptics and rational people know you would get the same treatment from Frank if you dared hold up one of your 9/11 Denial Movement signs in front of him.

But then you are all too chicken to go out in public. It's the nature of the beast.


I am not in any Denial Movement period. I find it appalling that you consider everyone who doesn’t believe in the OS in some kind of movement. Do you have any sources of who runs this movement because all movement have a leader. Beside your childish ridiculing do you have anything to debate about this topic?

(Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?)

This thread topic is based on the behavior and generalizations that you are displaying. You have no facts or sciences to back your OS claims because there isn’t any. You are only parroting what the media, and the 911 Commission, NIST reports which have already been debunk years ago by real sciences and whistle blowers who worked with NIST and the 911 Commission, all who are very creditable.
I am only here to learn what I can about 911 because the truth is very important to me.

Why don’t you present something that is a “provable fact” as to why people who claim demolition to the WTC was not true? I would like to hear what you have to say I would like to see your proof with creditable sources and links, and don’t hand me the NIST reports because that has been proven false.

I was hoping you could answer to why flight UAL 93 was still air born and miles pass the alleged crash site in Shanksvile , Pennsylvania according to government records released under the FOIA.

Since you are sold on the OS please explain to what happened to the Boeing 757 massive airplane engine that they never recovered at the Pentagon. A Boeing 757 has two engines only one was found.

Please explained how a massive airplane as a 757 plowed into the Pentagon and NOT break any windows in the above and both sides of the impact hole? Please explain why there is no ground damaged or any damaged to the foundation floor of the pentagon, not one single gouge in the concrete.

Tell you what jthomas, if you can present me the undeniable facts that is supported by real sciences to all of these questions with real creditable sources YOU will have won me over and I will reframe from posting in the 911 threads altogether because then I know I have been wasting my time and energy supporting a lie that I was convince was true.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 20-8-2009 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Since I have shown you can't support your claims, you're stuck in your world of denial, jprophet.


Hmmm, so what does it mean that I have shown that you cannot support your claims?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas
 


It was fun watching Barney Frank nail a Denier.

What's even funnier is that we skeptics and rational people know you would get the same treatment from Frank if you dared hold up one of your 9/11 Denial Movement signs in front of him.

But then you are all too chicken to go out in public. It's the nature of the beast.



I find it appalling that you consider everyone who doesn’t believe in the OS in some kind of movement.


I've already reminded you that there is no so-called "OS." So why would you say such a silly thing? There is only the massive evidence from numerous independent sources, the majority of which never came from, nor was ever controlled by, the "government." You know that so you really must stop using that silly canard of some mystical "OS."

As far as there not being some "kind of movement," I'm sure you'll soon be hearing from the 9/11 "Truth" Movement demanding an explanation.

Have a swell day.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


You do a lot of reminding but not a lot of explaining good sir. I am still waiting for your explanation of how the engine got inside the pentagon when it did not pass through the wall. You make a lot of claims but I haven't seen you able to answer this question. Have fun with that.


Since I have shown you can't support your claims, you're stuck in your world of denial, jprophet


And for the record, no you haven't. I shared the source twice.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


So you are just going to pretend that I did not ask you how those terms relate to you when you cannot back up your claims either? You know you are just talking to talk and not to make sense now. You cannot back up your claim, you cannot even present evidence. Anything you apply to others whom you say cannot back up their claims must then also apply to you, no?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



I've already reminded you that there is no so-called "OS."


You did WHEN? And besides YOU who said there is no OS?


So why would you say such a silly thing? There is only the massive evidence from numerous independent sources, the majority of which never came from, nor was ever controlled by, the "government."


Who is telling the OS, YOU, or the government? Your numerous independent sources are WHO? Oh you mean the NIST and the 911 commission report all working for the GOVERNMENT! Which was all controlled by the government and that is a fact.


You know that so you really must stop using that silly canard of some mystical "OS."


I agree the OS is mystical but why are you defending it?


As far as there not being some "kind of movement," I'm sure you'll soon be hearing from the 9/11 "Truth" Movement demanding an explanation.


I am still waiting, I haven’t heard anything yet.

The OP of this tread had it peg right on and YOU have proven him right so far.

You Sir, have a swell day.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


There is no "official" (government-commissioned) story, yet "twoofers" are likened to a formal organization? This guy is the very definition of Orwellian in his thinking.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I've already reminded you that there is no so-called "OS." So why would you say such a silly thing?


and I already asked you what you want to call it then. The narrative handed out by government officials through the use of television, radio, and print. They told us a story about hijackers crashing planes into buildings. What do you want to call that story if not "official story?" I have asked more than once. Going to dodge me again?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 




There is no "official" (government-commissioned) story, yet "twoofers" are likened to a formal organization? This guy is the very definition of Orwellian in his thinking.


You mean jthomas?

[edit on 21-8-2009 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
I've already reminded you that there is no so-called "OS." So why would you say such a silly thing?


and I already asked you what you want to call it then. The narrative handed out by government officials through the use of television, radio, and print. They told us a story about hijackers crashing planes into buildings. What do you want to call that story if not "official story?" I have asked more than once. Going to dodge me again?


As long as you are hoodwinked by your 9/11 Denial Movement that "all of the evidence comes from the gubmint", you'll forever be stuck in the fantasy world that it's all just a "government story."

Learn to think and reason. Make a list of all of the sources of evidence about 9/11.

And don't pull the standard 9/11 Denial evasion, "What evidence?'



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


WoW. you should do the same. The news archives are at the top of the page and have worlds of information. People reporting secondary explosions long before the second plane hits wtc1, witnesses on site at the pentagon that report explosions with no planes BEFORE flight 77 allegedly hits. Theres tons of information in those newscasts that you disregard daily. You should take a look at them instead of calling everyone who does not believe the entire government account a "denier".



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


WoW. you should do the same. The news archives are at the top of the page and have worlds of information. People reporting secondary explosions long before the second plane hits wtc1, witnesses on site at the pentagon that report explosions with no planes BEFORE flight 77 allegedly hits. Theres tons of information in those newscasts that you disregard daily. You should take a look at them instead of calling everyone who does not believe the entire government account a "denier".


I really am sorry that you still do not understand the meaning of the term "evidence."



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
As long as you are hoodwinked by your 9/11 Denial Movement that "all of the evidence comes from the gubmint", you'll forever be stuck in the fantasy world that it's all just a "government story."

Learn to think and reason. Make a list of all of the sources of evidence about 9/11.

And don't pull the standard 9/11 Denial evasion, "What evidence?'



You are dellusional. Thanks again for proving the OP. I never once claimed that all of the evidence came from anyone.

You are dodging the question that I have now asked you TWICE. Cannot answer it? You are little more than some disinfo agent (not paid, volunteer and bad at it) who cannot actually follow one line of thought for more than a post at a time.

Answer the question I asked you and prove that you have something to say here or else just admit that you are simply stuck on one rebuttal and trying to use it over and over again where it does not fit.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
As long as you are hoodwinked by your 9/11 Denial Movement that "all of the evidence comes from the gubmint", you'll forever be stuck in the fantasy world that it's all just a "government story."

Learn to think and reason. Make a list of all of the sources of evidence about 9/11.

And don't pull the standard 9/11 Denial evasion, "What evidence?'



You are dellusional. Thanks again for proving the OP. I never once claimed that all of the evidence came from anyone.

You are dodging the question that I have now asked you TWICE. Cannot answer it? You are little more than some disinfo agent (not paid, volunteer and bad at it) who cannot actually follow one line of thought for more than a post at a time.

Answer the question I asked you and prove that you have something to say here or else just admit that you are simply stuck on one rebuttal and trying to use it over and over again where it does not fit.


What part of your inability to support your own claims don't you still understand?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I certainly do good sir, and this is the best part about debating you:

You claim the people that post here "deny' the evidence. Then I post EVIDENCE that refutes the government story, which you DENY exists. Then you IMPLY that it is not evidence, which certainly is a form of denial.


Evidence \Ev"i*dence\, noun [F. ['e]vidence, L. Evidentia. See [Evident].]

1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.


Its sad that you don't even care enough to get it right.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


I certainly do good sir, and this is the best part about debating you:

You claim the people that post here "deny' the evidence. Then I post EVIDENCE that refutes the government story, which you DENY exists. Then you IMPLY that it is not evidence, which certainly is a form of denial.


Evidence \Ev"i*dence\, noun [F. ['e]vidence, L. Evidentia. See [Evident].]

1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof; the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.


Its sad that you don't even care enough to get it right.


Sigh... it must be nice to live in a world unburdened by reality.

It's really too bad that you have to continue to weasel.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join