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: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
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.


It is not irrelevant, you just have run out of real arguments. You ask what the time stamp has to do with the point being made. Everything since it clearly shows that what you are using to make your point is wrong to begin with. Then you paste an airplane where you think one should be and that makes it accurate somehow?




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I think I will try and make this a little easier for you. You have already proven the OP over and over again with this jouvenile little rant that says an awful lot of nothing. Let me offer you one last, simple chance to prove that the OP is wrong. Ready?


Originally posted by jthomas
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.


What evidence?

I was not there. I did not see what happend. I have to take someone's word for it. I have to go with the ones who have the most evidence. Do you have any?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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?


I don't see a plane hitting the Pentagon, do you?

Now, are you going to continue the deny that CIT and Balsamo claim a jet flew over the Pentagon rather than hit it?

What's the matter, cat got your tongue?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw

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?

I don't see a plane hitting the Pentagon, do you?

Thank you, jthomas!!! Thanks so very much!!!

Casual readers to this thread, look no further for proof that my OP is true.

jthomas, being the staunch government story believer, has shown us all how illogical he really is. When pressed to state his convictions about the security tape, he has backed out from claiming that it shows Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

He appears to not have the confidence to claim that the government released evidence is true. He seems to be trying to distance himself from this piece of evidence.

jthomas, how can you believe the official government story, yet refuse to accept that the security tape showed Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon???

Why won't you accept it, jthomas? Are you in fact a truther, who has doubts about the security tape showing Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon?

jthomas you have shown how true my OP is.


Originally posted by jthomas
Now, are you going to continue the deny that CIT and Balsamo claim a jet flew over the Pentagon rather than hit it?
What's the matter, cat got your tongue?

Casual readers to the thread, please also note how jthomas has again proven my OP true. I stated in the OP that some government story believers need to lump all truthers together - regardless of their individual beliefs or questions.

jthomas, the cat has not got my tounge. If you wish to discuss a flyover and you mention CIT and Balsamo, then ask them about it. This is not a flyover thread, despite your lame attempt to turn it into one! Here, it is plainly clear that jthomas is drifting and desperately trying to salvage some form of argument, based on false beliefs.

I am not a part of CIT, I do not speak for CIT. For you to think that I have to defend CIT is a massive logical failure on your part. You have proven my OP true.

jthomas, you've done wonders in this thread. You've helped to bump it. Now you've given it two strong proofs, as you've done exactly what I have described in the OP. You did it so well.

Thanks for your contributions. I couldn't have started this thread without you.

[edit on 7-8-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw

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?

I don't see a plane hitting the Pentagon, do you?

Thank you, jthomas!!! Thanks so very much!!!


You're quite welcome, tezz! I was confident that you would stick your foot in your mouth.


Casual readers to this thread, look no further for proof that my OP is true.

jthomas, being the staunch government story believer, has shown us all how illogical he really is.


You would be silly enough to make that claim. It actually shows the opposite, that I am far more logical than any 9/11 Truther ever could be. But like any good 9/11 Denier, you're stuck in your "Official 9/11 Denial Movement Story," ever ready to jump before thinking.

Thanks for confirming it!


When pressed to state his convictions about the security tape, he has backed out from claiming that it shows Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon.


Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.


In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.

But naive and gullible Truthers can't stand that fact. Tezzajw needs a strawman so he can stay afloat in his woo.

You see, what we all know in the real world that one does not need to rely on that security camera video to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon, or any video whatsoever. And therein lies your downfall, tezz, as you know there is all of the other evidence, massive evidence, from hundreds of independent sources that you can never debunk.

So, when I ask you 9/11 Deniers about your claims I know you aren't going to be able to support them.


jthomas, you've done wonders in this thread.


My pleasure. I love letting 9/11 Deniers like you show how silly you all are.


Thanks for your contributions. I couldn't have started this thread without you.


You're welcome. Educating 9/11 Deniers about reason, critical thinking, and the nonsense they believe in -- like cults and fundamentalist religions everywhere -- is a noble endeavor.

Now, tezz, get back to us with your proof that I have ever claimed a security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon. Remember the deal, if you can't demonstrate that, you will issue your retraction right here on ATS, correct?

Better get to work, eh?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

jthomas, the fact that you can't comprehend my argument is quite telling.

You believe the government story that Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. However, you stop short of stating that the security camera shows Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

The illogical hypocrisy is that you're prepared to believe that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon, but you're not prepared to believe that the security camera shows Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

The rest of your reply is so far off base from my argument, that it highlights your inability to understand my contention.

You have proven how illogical your position is, to support the government story, yet to deny the government evidence.


Originally posted by jthomas
So, when I ask you 9/11 Deniers about your claims I know you aren't going to be able to support them.

Your inability to understand my contention leaves you floundering and out of your depth, jthomas. I don't make claims about what happened on 9/11.

You make the claim that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon, but you won't support that security tape. Why not, jthomas? Don't you believe everything that your government wants you to?

Casual readers to the thread will note that jthomas will not endorse that the security tape shows Flight AA77 impacting the Pentagon.


Originally posted by jthomas
Now, tezz, get back to us with your proof that I have ever claimed a security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon. Remember the deal, if you can't demonstrate that, you will issue your retraction right here on ATS, correct?

You really must have trouble with basic reading comprehension. I never stated that you think the security camera shows Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.

I asked you why you don't believe that the security camera shows Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon. You misread that question, typically and then invented a false response.

jthomas, your contributions to this thread have been stellar. You have proven beyond all doubt that my OP is correct.

There are government story believers who willingly contradict themselves. Please, continue posting for us all. We want to know why you won't endorse the security camera footage? If you believe the government story, then why is this piece of evidence troublesome for you?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, tezz, get back to us with your proof that I have ever claimed a security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon. Remember the deal, if you can't demonstrate that, you will issue your retraction right here on ATS, correct?

Better get to work, eh?




Tsk tsk. That is really too bad. You are here promoting, almost prosteletizing to us about the believability of the government story of flight 77 crashing into the pentagon yet the best evidenc you could even claim to have, even you admit shows nothing? So...you just believe what you were told by Fox news because...?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

jthomas, the fact that you can't comprehend my argument is quite telling.


The fact is that you are trapped in your own contradictions and have to rationalize everything to fit your viewpoint.


You believe the government story that Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. However, you stop short of stating that the security camera shows Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon.


The fact that you are still under the illusion that there is some "government story" that one has to "believe" or not is why you can't focus on facts and reality. You guys invented the canard of the "government story", the "official story", and it keeps you happily in a fantasy world where you don't have to deal with the massive evidence from multiple independent and government sources.

You can't allow yourself to accept that the fact that the actual evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon never came from the government to begin with, nor was it possible for the government to control that evidence. It is why your canard that ALL of the evidence came from the "government" falls flat on its face.

And you fell for it.


The illogical hypocrisy is that you're prepared to believe that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon, but you're not prepared to believe that the security camera shows Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon.


The fact of how illogical your statement is escapes you. The FACT remains: the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon comes from multiple lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion.


The rest of your reply is so far off base from my argument, that it highlights your inability to understand my contention.


Your contention is clear as a bell and false.


You have proven how illogical your position is, to support the government story, yet to deny the government evidence.


Your belief in the canard of a so-called "government story" is what is keeping you from understanding reality. The FACT that the security camera video does not in itself show a jet is irrelevant and NOT in itself evidence that a jet hit the Pentagon. ALL of the other evidence confirms that AA77 hit the Pentagon - you just refuse to admit it to yourself and deal with it.


You make the claim that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon, but you won't support that security tape. Why not, jthomas? Don't you believe everything that your government wants you to?


LOL. Now you see can how silly your contention is - if you open your eyes and take your blindfold off.
You 9/11 Deniers are the only ones who desperately need to claim that there is only a "government story!"

After all, your complete inability to deal with the actual evidence from multiple independent sources is why you have to shut your eyes and pretend that its only a "government story."

Don't you think it's time to question those who led your down the garden path to believe in the canard of the "government story," tezz?

Maybe you'll sit down and question your own beliefs for a change. You may come to realize how silly and illogical all your 9/11 conspiracy theories really are.

Now, just WHEN will any of you 9/11 Deniers summon up the courage to present the statements of the over 1,000 people from multiple local groups who had direct contact with the wreckage from inside the Pentagon? How many more years do we have to wait before one of you will do that?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   

You 9/11 Deniers are the only ones...

Theres more of "us" than "you". "You" guys have yet to prove your case as "we" do. However we all went to war (against most of our will) over "your" official story. So start proving or start admitting treason.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

You 9/11 Deniers are the only ones...

Theres more of "us" than "you". "You" guys have yet to prove your case as "we" do.


You're the ones making claims - you gotta support them. YOU are the ones that have to convince the real world. But you can't.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


jthomas aren't you being just a little bit disingenuous with your sudden denial?

What does it say on the lower right corner of the still frame leaked way back in 2002?



Does it say plane?

And don't you have that exact same leaked still frame included in your avatar?

Isn't that called a flip-flop what you have now done jthomas?

I have bad news for you jthomas. You may no longer be qualified for CIT.

Citizens Investigation Team may not want you now with your proven flip-flopping.




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The FACT that the security camera video does not in itself show a jet is irrelevant and NOT in itself evidence that a jet hit the Pentagon.

jthomas, you believe the government story that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon.

jthomas, the government has stated that the security camera images show Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

jthomas, why are you not willing to admit that the security camera images show Flight AA77 hitting the Pentagon? What's the matter, don't you believe the government story that's been sold to you?

Now, think about it... go sort out your logic and come back when you feel you won't contradict yourself. You have to abide by the government story, as that's what you believe. Any deviation from it, will make you either a truther, or purely illogical.

You prove my OP more and more with each post you make.

Thanks for the thread bumps, points and exposure. It's great!



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Now, tezz, get back to us with your proof that I have ever claimed a security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon. Remember the deal, if you can't demonstrate that, you will issue your retraction right here on ATS, correct?

Better get to work, eh?




Tsk tsk. That is really too bad. You are here promoting, almost prosteletizing to us about the believability of the government story of flight 77 crashing into the pentagon ...


LOL. You just can't stand that there's no "government story" upon which anyone has to rely. The realization that you have accepted on faith the canard of the "government story" must be devastating to you.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

You 9/11 Deniers are the only ones...

Theres more of "us" than "you". "You" guys have yet to prove your case as "we" do.


You're the ones making claims - you gotta support them. YOU are the ones that have to convince the real world. But you can't.




I claim that the OS is inaccurate and we need a new investigation. Theres more people that take that stance than support the OS 100%, and this has been illustrated in scientific and non scientific polls. You're the "denial" expert here.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

You 9/11 Deniers are the only ones...

Theres more of "us" than "you". "You" guys have yet to prove your case as "we" do.


You're the ones making claims - you gotta support them. YOU are the ones that have to convince the real world. But you can't.




I claim that the OS is inaccurate and we need a new investigation. Theres more people that take that stance than support the OS 100%, and this has been illustrated in scientific and non scientific polls. You're the "denial" expert here.


AS long as you fool yourself with the canard of a so-called "official story" and refuse to refute the actual evidence you'll never convince the real world for the need of yet another investigation. Not one chance.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

You 9/11 Deniers are the only ones...

Theres more of "us" than "you". "You" guys have yet to prove your case as "we" do.


You're the ones making claims - you gotta support them. YOU are the ones that have to convince the real world. But you can't.




I claim that the OS is inaccurate and we need a new investigation. Theres more people that take that stance than support the OS 100%, and this has been illustrated in scientific and non scientific polls. You're the "denial" expert here.


AS long as you fool yourself with the canard of a so-called "official story" and refuse to refute the actual evidence you'll never convince the real world for the need of yet another investigation. Not one chance.


If by real world you mean the minority of people then yes. Otherwise you're just blowin' smoke.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

You 9/11 Deniers are the only ones...

Theres more of "us" than "you". "You" guys have yet to prove your case as "we" do.


You're the ones making claims - you gotta support them. YOU are the ones that have to convince the real world. But you can't.




I claim that the OS is inaccurate and we need a new investigation. Theres more people that take that stance than support the OS 100%, and this has been illustrated in scientific and non scientific polls. You're the "denial" expert here.


AS long as you fool yourself with the canard of a so-called "official story" and refuse to refute the actual evidence you'll never convince the real world for the need of yet another investigation. Not one chance.


If by real world you mean the minority of people then yes. Otherwise you're just blowin' smoke.



Gosh. It's been 8 years of you 9/11 Deniers blowing smoke and you still can't refute the evidence and convince the real world that any new investigation is needed.

Good luck. We'll be waiting.




posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Gosh. It's been 8 years of you 9/11 Deniers blowing smoke and you still can't refute the evidence and convince the real world that any new investigation is needed.

Good luck. We'll be waiting.


As I said thats simply not true and I've used science to back up my claims, and you have not. I have presented both scientific and non scientific polls that that say the evidence is not sufficient in the case of the OS to convince the people polled.

I would love for you to present any evidence on this, I have asked you, you have failed to do so. Your inability to present anything but your opinion is once again noted.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Originally posted by jthomas



The fact is that you are trapped in your own contradictions and have to rationalize everything to fit your viewpoint.



The fact that you are still under the illusion that there is some "government story" that one has to "believe" or not is why you can't focus on facts and reality. You guys invented the canard of the "government story", the "official story", and it keeps you happily in a fantasy world where you don't have to deal with the massive evidence from multiple independent and government sources.

You can't allow yourself to accept that the fact that the actual evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon never came from the government to begin with, nor was it possible for the government to control that evidence. It is why your canard that ALL of the evidence came from the "government" falls flat on its face.

And you fell for it.



The fact of how illogical your statement is escapes you. The FACT remains: the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon comes from multiple lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion.



Your contention is clear as a bell and false.



Your belief in the canard of a so-called "government story" is what is keeping you from understanding reality. The FACT that the security camera video does not in itself show a jet is irrelevant and NOT in itself evidence that a jet hit the Pentagon. ALL of the other evidence confirms that AA77 hit the Pentagon - you just refuse to admit it to yourself and deal with it.



LOL. Now you see can how silly your contention is - if you open your eyes and take your blindfold off.
You 9/11 Deniers are the only ones who desperately need to claim that there is only a "government story!"

After all, your complete inability to deal with the actual evidence from multiple independent sources is why you have to shut your eyes and pretend that its only a "government story."

Don't you think it's time to question those who led your down the garden path to believe in the canard of the "government story," tezz?

Maybe you'll sit down and question your own beliefs for a change. You may come to realize how silly and illogical all your 9/11 conspiracy theories really are.

Now, just WHEN will any of you 9/11 Deniers summon up the courage to present the statements of the over 1,000 people from multiple local groups who had direct contact with the wreckage from inside the Pentagon? How many more years do we have to wait before one of you will do that?



Let me get this straight...

A). You think truthers or deniers as you call them all live in cloud cuckoo land because.. they believe in videos that in your pov have been edited etc.

B). Every time you are proven wrong, which is many, you side step and character defamation as much as you possibly can without being forum banned.

C). You base your whole thesis on a video released by the powers that pull your strings/float your boat/grease your chain, whatever you want to call them.

D). The video in question is what you use as proof that a plane hit the Pentagon.

E). Even though, a camera that fails to record a massive great plane passing by a few hundred yards away, is still proof that a plane hit the Pentagon.

F). How?.

You ridicule people whom want the truth, by using as if it`s some form of Biblical Gospel, a video that shows absolutely nothing what so ever hitting the Pentagon, whilst at the same time whatever did hit the Pentagon has been edited out.

POT-KETTLE-BLACK.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
LOL. You just can't stand that there's no "government story" upon which anyone has to rely. The realization that you have accepted on faith the canard of the "government story" must be devastating to you.


There is no government story? Really? Then who is it that told me who organized this event? Who told me planes were used as weapons that day? Who told me that is what put a hole in the side of the pentagon? Who said that the perpetrators had all been identified? Who told me that they needed my money to send kids off to die in Iraq because Iraq was supporting the people that did what I am being told was done on 9/11?

This is my favorite part, when all you little OS promoters get so backed into a corner that you have to resort to trying to argue over whether or not there is an official story or an "Official Story." Call it whatever you want to call it. I call it what I was told by the president, his press secretary, the secretary of defense, and the vice president. The last time I checked, they were all in the government. When they all tell me a story, that is a government story no matter what you want to call it.

Please go ahead with this argument though, I am sure it will get you somewhere one of these times that you try to use it.




top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join