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: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 



very little of it, but your damned if i'll align myself with raving nutjobs who seem to have invested so much of their personality in the truth movement that they can't see the wood for the trees and think their very life depends on not giving a single inch.


Pot calling kettle!




posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Splitting hairs? That's the oddest thing anyone has written yet.

In fact, the so-called "Official Story" is a 9/11 Denial Movement canard, and always has been. There is no "official story." It's standard methodology of all denial movements to hide behind that made-up canard specifically to avoid having to deal with actual evidence. We've all known that all along.



Are you really this desperate? If you could keep up, you are mocking the use of the words "official story" when actually the original phrase here was "government story." If you really need to win an argument soooo badly that you want to say there was no such thing called that either, I am sorry but that is weak. You know very well that the phrase "government story" was not a proper name but a reference. It was a reference to the story our government started feeding us from the time the first plane hit on. Every lie they told, every 'explanation' they had, every excuse and so on. You know that as well as anyone else reading this and yet you want to argue about the proper name? Well, if that makes you feel like a big girl, have at it.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   
A little help here in a simplified way.
When your government and or it's agents lie to you, and you know it.
Should you accept it's OS? (Official Story) or report.
Or think of it as BS and search for reason instead.
If you accept the lies does that make you an accessory to the lies?
If you are to lazy to question the lies are you not inviting more?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Splitting hairs? That's the oddest thing anyone has written yet.

In fact, the so-called "Official Story" is a 9/11 Denial Movement canard, and always has been. There is no "official story." It's standard methodology of all denial movements to hide behind that made-up canard specifically to avoid having to deal with actual evidence. We've all known that all along.



Are you really this desperate? If you could keep up, you are mocking the use of the words "official story" when actually the original phrase here was "government story." If you really need to win an argument soooo badly that you want to say there was no such thing called that either, I am sorry but that is weak. You know very well that the phrase "government story" was not a proper name but a reference. It was a reference to the story our government started feeding us from the time the first plane hit on. Every lie they told, every 'explanation' they had, every excuse and so on. You know that as well as anyone else reading this and yet you want to argue about the proper name? Well, if that makes you feel like a big girl, have at it.


This is why you guys are known as 9/11 Deniers.

It's too bad that you are so stuck in denial of the fact that the majority of the actual, verifiable, evidence did not originate with, nor was ever controlled by, the government, no matter what the government says or does not say about it.

This is why you 9/11 Deniers are deluding yourselves and will never get anywhere. The problem is entirely YOURS and nobody else's. You are stuck with your heads in the ground and NEVER willing to question the origin or validity of your own crazy beliefs or begin to understand the nature of evidence or the irrational implications in which your claims result.

You can't let ago of silly "anomalies" or claims of "withholding" evidence as MAJOR revelations of a conspiracy at work while completely shutting out of your awareness that the conclusions of what we know happened on 9/11 is derived from hundreds of independent lines of evidence. You must DENY evidence and reality to keep your "Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" alive.

Get real and wake up from your dreams.

Sheesh...



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   

It's too bad that you are so stuck in denial of the fact that the majority of the actual, verifiable, evidence did not originate with, nor was ever controlled by, the government, no matter what the government says or does not say about it.

In that case I challenge you to find one example where I partake in this action. I'll start by showing you the evidence I have that directly refutes the statement you just made.


Confiscated videos

I have heard a lot about all of the videos that have been confiscated, and I think most people assume that the videos are all from the pentagon surveillance cameras. I found this list searching for flight 77 videos...



www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1-8-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
This is why you guys are known as 9/11 Deniers.

It's too bad that you are so stuck in denial of the fact that the majority of the actual, verifiable, evidence did not originate with, nor was ever controlled by, the government, no matter what the government says or does not say about it.


What verifiable evidence? Please enlighten us. You mean the plane parts that were never identified? The DNA that had no reference to be matched to but was? The NIST report? The worthless footage? What verifiable evidence are you talking about?


This is why you 9/11 Deniers are deluding yourselves and will never get anywhere. The problem is entirely YOURS and nobody else's. You are stuck with your heads in the ground and NEVER willing to question the origin or validity of your own crazy beliefs or begin to understand the nature of evidence or the irrational implications in which your claims result.


Then it should not bother you. You are now free to go to some alien bases on Mars thread and take up residence there. This is of no consequence to anyone including you so just leave it and be gone.


You can't let ago of silly "anomalies" or claims of "withholding" evidence as MAJOR revelations of a conspiracy at work while completely shutting out of your awareness that the conclusions of what we know happened on 9/11 is derived from hundreds of independent lines of evidence. You must DENY evidence and reality to keep your "Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" alive.

Get real and wake up from your dreams.

Sheesh...



100s of lines of evidence? I cannot wait. All this time and somehow I have missed this overwhelming evidence. I cannot even begin to convey how excited I am in anticipation of it.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
as you've admitted that you're after the truth about 9/11.


so you feel you've won something now or what? are you now going to come round to my house to make sure i tattoo "truther" across my forehead? am i no longer allowed to think that people that believe the twin towers were shot with lasers from space are idiots?

what exactly is your point?


Originally posted by impressme
Pot calling kettle!



care to explain what theory exactly i've invested myself in? if you've got something to say, say it.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

It's too bad that you are so stuck in denial of the fact that the majority of the actual, verifiable, evidence did not originate with, nor was ever controlled by, the government, no matter what the government says or does not say about it.

In that case I challenge you to find one example where I partake in this action. I'll start by showing you the evidence I have that directly refutes the statement you just made.


Confiscated videos

I have heard a lot about all of the videos that have been confiscated, and I think most people assume that the videos are all from the pentagon surveillance cameras. I found this list searching for flight 77 videos...



www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1-8-2009 by jprophet420]


This is just an example of why I wrote this:

"You can't let ago of silly "anomalies" or claims of "withholding" evidence as MAJOR revelations of a conspiracy at work while completely shutting out of your awareness that the conclusions of what we know happened on 9/11 is derived from hundreds of independent lines of evidence. You must DENY evidence and reality to keep your "Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" alive.

And I have written about the videos many times, most recently here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is quite clear that any videos are completely irrelevant to knowing that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. It is only through denying the existence of all the other evidence and its convergence on the inescapable conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon that 9/11 Deniers like jprophet pretend one has to have videos to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That is transparently nonsensical and shows how deep in the woo 9/11 Deniers have gotten.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
This is why you guys are known as 9/11 Deniers.

It's too bad that you are so stuck in denial of the fact that the majority of the actual, verifiable, evidence did not originate with, nor was ever controlled by, the government, no matter what the government says or does not say about it.


What verifiable evidence? Please enlighten us. You mean the plane parts that were never identified?


Feel free to demonstrate that AA77 was not identified, nor its parts.

Go ahead, make my day.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Feel free to demonstrate that AA77 was not identified, nor its parts

Go ahead, make my day.



I already asked you to prove it was. If you just want to play hot potato then please find someone else to play with.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Let’s say I believe in official account of 911 except for the motivation of the terrorist and who might be the puppet masters behind them,

Huh?

Would you care to explain exactly what it is that you do not believe about the official story?

When you define why you're unsure about the terrorist motivations, then your position might make sense.


Well I believe events happened as they did...i.e. aircraft hit the 3 buildings and terrorist caused it to happen...straight and foward, but I'm open to futher evidence as it may come forth as to who was really behind the terrorist as their puppetmasters.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


You didn't answer my question, and you claim to have refuted something I said in another thread. Follow that link and there is nothing factual that you wrote that debunks what I said. No link to any evidence to support your case, shame.

Skills indeed.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Feel free to demonstrate that AA77 was not identified, nor its parts

Go ahead, make my day.



I already asked you to prove it was. If you just want to play hot potato then please find someone else to play with.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by evil incarnate]


Another epic fail from a 9/11 Denier.

Sorry, Bubba, the burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders. You can't even give us a source for your claims.

You forget that its YOUR silly 9/11 Denial Movement claiming there's no evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon while you simply refuse to refute the evidence from multiple sources that it did.

You ain't gettin' nowhere trying to pull a Craig Ranke evasion.

Gosh...




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


You didn't answer my question, and you claim to have refuted something I said in another thread. Follow that link and there is nothing factual that you wrote that debunks what I said. No link to any evidence to support your case, shame.

Skills indeed.


Go ahead, be my guest, make any case you want about videos.

I can wait.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Feel free to demonstrate that AA77 was not identified, nor its parts
Go ahead, make my day.

jthomas, the burden of proof is upon the people who believe that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.


Originally posted by jthomas
Another epic fail from a 9/11 Denier.
Sorry, Bubba, the burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders. You can't even give us a source for your claims.

Another epic fail from a government story believer.

It is clear, as I pointed out in the OP, that jthomas has murdered Logic 101.

The burden of proof, to identify the alleged parts and wreckage, belongs to those people who make that claim that they came from Flight AA77.

jthomas your miserable failure to understand this logic is quite telling.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Another epic fail from a 9/11 Denier.

Sorry, Bubba, the burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders. You can't even give us a source for your claims.

You forget that its YOUR silly 9/11 Denial Movement claiming there's no evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon while you simply refuse to refute the evidence from multiple sources that it did.

You ain't gettin' nowhere trying to pull a Craig Ranke evasion.

Gosh...



How does the burden of proof fall upon me? For one thing, anyone with half of a brain knows that it is near impossible to prove a negative. Secondly, I asked you for proof first. You cannot offer it up so you ask me for proof and now somehow the burden shifts to me? I do not think so. This another epic fail for you, OS purporters, our educational system, and your parents genes.

What multiple sources? Where is this evidence from multiple sources? It seems to me that if it actually existed, you would have had no problem putting it up here in my face for me to choke on. You did not. You can not. You can ask me to prove my point all you like. That does not prove yours, it only shows that you are so desperate to avoid it that you are willin to pull any poor argument out of your behind.

I hope you realize that with these desperate attempts to lie and obfuscate do more to make people question you and the OS than anything I have said.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


You didn't answer my question, and you claim to have refuted something I said in another thread. Follow that link and there is nothing factual that you wrote that debunks what I said. No link to any evidence to support your case, shame.

Skills indeed.


Go ahead, be my guest, make any case you want about videos.

I can wait.

I've already completely proven you wrong. You said there was no cover up, I showed it to you. I illustrated the videos being with held.


It's too bad that you are so stuck in denial of the fact that the majority of the actual, verifiable, evidence did not originate with, nor was ever controlled by, the government...


The link that I provided 100% refutes your statement.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Star, and flag. The truth movement is just that; a quest for the truth. The government wants dumb ignorant sheeple.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones
 


Well said, nice and simple and to the point.
golden fleese on an other thread posted this info about
operation NORTHWOOD.
You can find it on any search. Kinda bone chilling considering what is going on recently.
Comments please!



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Feel free to demonstrate that AA77 was not identified, nor its parts
Go ahead, make my day.

jthomas, the burden of proof is upon the people who believe that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.


Sorry that evasion doesn't work. You have to refute ALL the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You haven't and your refuse to. You have had almost 8 years and you have never refuted ANY of the evidence.


Originally posted by jthomas
Another epic fail from a 9/11 Denier.
Sorry, Bubba, the burden of proof is entirely on your shoulders. You can't even give us a source for your claims.


Another epic fail from a government story believer.

It is clear, as I pointed out in the OP, that jthomas has murdered Logic 101.

The burden of proof, to identify the alleged parts and wreckage, belongs to those people who make that claim that they came from Flight AA77.


9/11 Deniers like you don't have a clue what logic is.

Let's try again:

You have PLENTY of sources who had direct access to the wreckage both inside and outside the Pentagon, over 1,000 people.

When asked to present their statements, you 9/11 Deniers have REFUSED. Ever since CIT was asked to present their statements they have simply refused and every 9/11 Denier since then has refused.

Now you're trying again to desperately to evade your responsibility to deal with ALL of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

If you don't believe it did, then DEMONSTRATE by REFUTING the existing evidence. It's your claim, its your responsibility. None of us have to do anything except wait for you to perform. And when confronted with your responsibility to perform, you whine incessantly that the rest of the world has to do your homework for you.

Way back when Darwin proposed his theory of natural selection, it was his burden of proof to demonstrate it. In the interim 150 years later the evidence for natural selection from multiple lines of evidence was accepted by scientists and the burden of proof shifted to evolutions detractors. Now we have religious fundamentalists and Creationists trying to cast doubt on evolutionary biology by making claims that are not demonstrated and misrepresent facts in order to "cast doubt" on evolution.

9/11 Deniers are like Creationists. It's the nature of Denial.

We'll continue to hold your feet to the fire, tezzajw, and remind you of your evasions of responsibility.




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join