Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

Legally confiscated is by definition a cover up.

Noun

* S: (n) cover-up (concealment that attempts to prevent something scandalous from becoming public)

You can't demonstrate that any attempt was made "to prevent something scandalous from becoming public." You're just getting more desperate.

Why don't you just admit that you have no evidence to support your claims, jprohet420, instead of making a fool of yourself?

Actually I have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Nope. You have yet to prove any of your claims.

As I implied, and of course as is the case, the official story itself is scandalous. Even if it went down EXACTLY AS STATED it would still be a scandalous event, and it was kept from the public.

You haven't demonstrated anything "scandalous was kept from the public" as you claimed. You haven't provided a stitch of evidence that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon. You haven't provided us with the statements of any of the over 1,000 people with direct access to the wreckage inside the Pentagon.

You have just made the same claims other 9/11 Deniers have with not a concern in the world that you have to back up your claims with evidence.

I am not desperate, I have made my point and backed it up with evidence, and you have not.

You're in denial. YOU have to refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon and, as everyone here can see quite plainly, you can't. Period.

So tell everyone here what you expect to accomplish in the real world?

Yes, this is a peeve. For example, some people believe that just because there were planes flown into the buildings, that the government is telling us the whole truth.

Nope. You have yet to prove any of your claims.

I have asked you to show a single claim I have made but not proven and you have not.

You haven't demonstrated anything "scandalous was kept from the public" as you claimed.

In other words you don't think that a terrorist attack on the pentagon is scandalous. You claim to believe that flight 77 hit the pentagon after it was hijacked by arabs. that is by definition scandalous. The government with held the evidence. My point has been well proven and your inability to comprehend the definitions of words yet again has been noted.

You have just made the same claims other 9/11 Deniers have with not a concern in the world that you have to back up your claims with evidence.

Again I have asked you to illustrate this and you have failed to do so. Show me the claim I made that is false. I keep asking nicely and you keep not doing it. Its rather nice for me really as I get these pretty stars next to may name and you get made a fool of on a daily basis.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Nope. You have yet to prove any of your claims.

I have asked you to show a single claim I have made but not proven and you have not.

You haven't demonstrated anything "scandalous was kept from the public" as you claimed.

In other words you don't think that a terrorist attack on the pentagon is scandalous. You claim to believe that flight 77 hit the pentagon after it was hijacked by arabs. that is by definition scandalous. The government with held the evidence. My point has been well proven and your inability to comprehend the definitions of words yet again has been noted.

You have just made the same claims other 9/11 Deniers have with not a concern in the world that you have to back up your claims with evidence.

Again I have asked you to illustrate this and you have failed to do so. Show me the claim I made that is false. I keep asking nicely and you keep not doing it. Its rather nice for me really as I get these pretty stars next to may name and you get made a fool of on a daily basis.

Look up the Fallacy of Equivocation, jprohphet420, then get back to us with your apology.

reply to post by jthomas


You have proven the OP over and over again.

My apologies that you represent having an I.Q. of 90.

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Yes, this is a peeve. For example, some people believe that just because there were planes flown into the buildings, that the government is telling us the whole truth.

And therein lies the self-delusion of 9/11 "Truthers."

Unfortunately for you and your 9/11 Denial Movement, none of us have to rely on what the government says or doesn't say.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

You have proven the OP over and over again.

My apologies that you represent having an I.Q. of 90.

I am sorry that facts reduced you to mumbling incoherently. Again, Look up the Fallacy of Equivocation, jprohphet420, then get back to us with your apology.

And you might even try bringing us the statements of those who had direct contact with the wreckage from inside the Pentagon, that which has frightened you so much.

You haven't been able to provide jack squat. You fail. You lost. I asked you to point out what I said that was incorrect many times and you can't even quote it.

You want to play investigoogler? Here?
Defeat
Fail
5th grade reading level.

Whenever you're capable of a coherent debate let us know.

Originally posted by jprophet420
You haven't been able to provide jack squat. You fail. You lost. I asked you to point out what I said that was incorrect many times and you can't even quote it.

You want to play investigoogler? Here?
Defeat
Fail
5th grade reading level.

Whenever you're capable of a coherent debate let us know.

Your further evasions duly noted. You're doing a spectacular job of discrediting yourself and your claims.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
You haven't been able to provide jack squat. You fail. You lost. I asked you to point out what I said that was incorrect many times and you can't even quote it.

You want to play investigoogler? Here?
Defeat
Fail
5th grade reading level.

Whenever you're capable of a coherent debate let us know.

Your further evasions duly noted. You're doing a spectacular job of discrediting yourself and your claims.

I haven't evaded a single thing, and everyone who can read and understand English can understand that. If you would like to quote something I said and debate it, thats great. Otherwise, continue rambling.

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
To answer the OP's original question, I have a theory about 9/11 debunkers. None of them actually believe the official story and they all believe it was an inside job.

People who actually believe the official story just accept it as a matter of fact and don't go out of their way to look for forums like this one unless directed to it through a friend or colleague etc. Those people then use their common sense and do their own research and more often than not come up with the same conclusion that 9/11 wasn't actually what they always thought it was.

Debunkers on the other hand, they just love to debunk. It doesn't matter what the topic is or what they actually believe because it's just entertainment to them.

The sad thing is that people let them, and encourage them, to write post after post of nonsense, which turn perfectly good threads into 20+ pages of childish, back and forth rubbish. Newcomers to the site then don't bother reading every post on every page and miss out on the well thought out posts written by genuine members.

The next time you read one of those posts just remind yourself, "This person doesn't actually believe what they're writing, they just want my reaction!"

I agree with you to a point, but most that have an agenda will not look at this with an open view and let the evidence take them to where it may. People defend their conspiracy to an almost ridicules level. They will Google something and find one nugget that meets their view amongst the 200k hits that don't and build a post around it. If they need an expert they dig until they find one even when 1000s of other experts say differently.
So now they get a few nuggets of information and a couple of self proclaimed experts and they build a post and then defend it for the next 500 replies. This in itself creates debunkers….

One of the biggest over looked area is as these conspiracy scenarios evolve, and the author continues to defend them, adding more and more to justify their belief, you start to see a situation that would take 10,000 people on the inside, billions of dollars and years of flawless planning to make it all happen, and one hiccup, one person on the inside exposed etc would open it all up for the world to see.

We know with the moon landings that any situation can be argued and even intelligently proved totally wrong even when the actual event happened. That is what lawyers and used car salesmen spend their whole life doing. Pick and choose the math and the evidence you want to one side your argument with and anything can look as the real deal.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
You haven't been able to provide jack squat. You fail. You lost. I asked you to point out what I said that was incorrect many times and you can't even quote it.

You want to play investigoogler? Here?
Defeat
Fail
5th grade reading level.

Whenever you're capable of a coherent debate let us know.

Your further evasions duly noted. You're doing a spectacular job of discrediting yourself and your claims.

I haven't evaded a single thing, and everyone who can read and understand English can understand that. If you would like to quote something I said and debate it, thats great. Otherwise, continue rambling.

Look up the Fallacy of Equivocation, jprohphet420, then get back to us with your apology.

Originally posted by jthomas

Look up the Fallacy of Equivocation, jprohphet420, then get back to us with your apology.

Look up.. Patronize, Condescend, Irony. Then have a think, then, look at your avatar, trying to put a point over to people by adding bits to a picture, whilst insinuating to the people that this is the sort of thing they get evidence from.

Now the irony bit, using frames that have been released by your 100% reliable friends the F.B.I., that have the incorrect date on, excellent way of putting across the `They do not edit or alter evidence`. P.O.V.

Originally posted by Seventh
Originally posted by jthomas

Look up the Fallacy of Equivocation, jprohphet420, then get back to us with your apology.

Look up.. Patronize, Condescend, Irony. Then have a think, then, look at your avatar, trying to put a point over to people by adding bits to a picture, whilst insinuating to the people that this is the sort of thing they get evidence from.

Now the irony bit, using frames that have been released by your 100% reliable friends the F.B.I., that have the incorrect date on, excellent way of putting across the `They do not edit or alter evidence`. P.O.V.

Why don't you 9/11 Deniers ever think?

Get back to us when you can articulate what in creation a time stamp has to do with the point being made.

Amazing....

posted by jthomas

Look up the Fallacy of Equivocation, jprohphet420, then get back to us with your apology.

posted by Seventh

Look up.. Patronize, Condescend, Irony. Then have a think, then, look at your avatar, trying to put a point over to people by adding bits to a picture, whilst insinuating to the people that this is the sort of thing they get evidence from.

Now the irony bit, using frames that have been released by your 100% reliable friends the F.B.I., that have the incorrect date on, excellent way of putting across the `They do not edit or alter evidence`. P.O.V.

Poor gullible jthomas will never figure it out. He loves being used as the village clown.

Dated 32 hours late, but the FBI still didn't finish the photoshopping.

jthomas Photoshopping and Evidence Manipulation

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48d006eea9cc.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by jthomas
Why don't you 9/11 Deniers ever think?

Get back to us when you can articulate what in creation a time stamp has to do with the point being made.

Amazing....

Uh....the time stamp is the first way to validate that security camera footage is from the time, date, and camera is it said to be from. The time stamp has a lot to do with it. You claim that the footage in your avatar is real solid government proof that a plane was flown into the building. According to that same government, the event happend on the 11th but your footage from those same people says the 12th. You know if some 'truther' were trying to use footage with any date other than 9/11 on it to make a point, you would jump all over that. Just asking what the date/time stamp has to do with anything clearly demonstrates that loyalty to the government and their "official" story is bilnd, deaf, and stupid.

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Why don't you 9/11 Deniers ever think?

Get back to us when you can articulate what in creation a time stamp has to do with the point being made.

Amazing....

Uh....the time stamp is the first way to validate that security camera footage is from the time, date, and camera is it said to be from.

Irrelevant. I am simply using the image to illustrate the flyover claim.

The time stamp has a lot to do with it. You claim that the footage in your avatar is real solid government proof that a plane was flown into the building.

I never stated any such thing. You won't find me stating any such thing.

According to that same government, the event happend on the 11th but your footage from those same people says the 12th.

Irrelevant. I am simply using the photos to illustrate what a flyover would look like from the vantage point of the security camera according to the scenario of CIT, Balsamo, and others. In other words, if a flyover had taken place, that's about what it would look like from the security camera location.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the video is accurate or not. No one disagrees that there was an explosion nor that the camera actually shows the Pentagon from that location.

You know if some 'truther' were trying to use footage with any date other than 9/11 on it to make a point, you would jump all over that. Just asking what the date/time stamp has to do with anything clearly demonstrates that loyalty to the government and their "official" story is bilnd, deaf, and stupid.

Too bad you have to resort to a Red Herring. Maybe you don't like my depiction of what a flyover should have looked like from that vantage point? Maybe you're upset that you realize that a flyover should have been easily seen?

Would you prefer Craig Ranke's depiction of the "supposed" flyover? OK:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/85c6f658630a.jpg[/atsimg]

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Now, back to the point. ANY flyover would have easily been seen all around the Pentagon by many of the hundreds of people on the freeways, bridges, in the parking lots, all around.

Balsamo, CIT, SPreston, Turbofan, and the whole lot have refused to provide any statements from anyone stating they saw a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon.

Now, it's your turn. Evidence and statements, please.

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by jthomas

Look up the Fallacy of Equivocation, jprohphet420, then get back to us with your apology.

posted by Seventh

Look up.. Patronize, Condescend, Irony. Then have a think, then, look at your avatar, trying to put a point over to people by adding bits to a picture, whilst insinuating to the people that this is the sort of thing they get evidence from.

Now the irony bit, using frames that have been released by your 100% reliable friends the F.B.I., that have the incorrect date on, excellent way of putting across the `They do not edit or alter evidence`. P.O.V.

Poor gullible jthomas will never figure it out. He loves being used as the village clown.

Dated 32 hours late, but the FBI still didn't finish the photoshopping.

jthomas Photoshopping and Evidence Manipulation

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48d006eea9cc.jpg[/atsimg]

You must be upset that I didn't use Craig Ranke's depiction of the flyover. It shows how easily any "flyover" would have been seen better than my depiction. Don't cry, Spreston, you can use that one instead:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/85c6f658630a.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by evil incarnate
You claim that the footage in your avatar is real solid government proof that a plane was flown into the building.

I never stated any such thing. You won't find me stating any such thing.

jthomas, please explain to all of us, why you won't state that the security camera images show that a plane was flown into the Pentagon?

reply to post by jthomas


Using a known inaccuracy to prove a point is also known as "failing".

[edit on 6-8-2009 by jprophet420]