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: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

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.


Even though I showed you could not back up your claims, I have no responsibility to do so. You are forced to convince the real world that you're claims are valid.

It's quite obvious you haven't done so. That you delude yourself that you have is your problem, no one else's. YOU are the one's making the claims.

Now stop evading your responsibility.




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
YOU are the one's making the claims.

Now stop evading your responsibility.




So you are not making any claims at all then? You doubt the government's version of events? You believe that something other than four planes being hijacked and used as weapons happend? I would love to hear your theory. You can just stick to the pentagon if you like. What is it that you think happend?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

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.


Whether you believe the video was edited or not is irrelevant to the fact that the video was never needed to begin with to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Your histrionics about the validity of timestamps is your way of ignoring that the preponderance of evidence from multiple sources converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. And it is simply not relevant to the illustration I am making.


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.


LOL. You have yet to prove me wrong on any of my points.


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.


That's a good illustration of why you are not paying attention. You will find NO POST of mine doing what you claim. Try to.


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


Ditto. I never have, never will, and you will not find any of my posts stating any such thing. So why are you making such false claims?


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.


Ditto. I never once said that. NEVER. How many times do I have to repeat that I used the frames to illustrate what a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon would look like according to the claims of SPreston, Balsamo, and CIT? And demonstrates why any jet flying over and away the Pentagon according to those flyover claims would be easily visible over a wide area.

So, why do you continue to make false claims. Particularly since CIT illustrates exactly the same thing?:




... whilst at the same time whatever did hit the Pentagon has been edited out.


LOL. So, you agree with me that someone standing at the security camera position should have seen a jet flying over the Pentagon as I depicted - and so did CIT - according to the flyover claims of SPreston, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and CIT?

Now, why can't SPreston, Balsamo, and CIT present any eyewitness reports from any of the hundreds of eyewitnesses who were all around the Pentagon and could easily see a low-flying jet flying over and away from the Pentagon IF that actually happened? When not one single report from any source has ever been produced?

WHY?

I dealt with the problem of the flyover claim one year ago and why a flyover should have produced multiple flyover reports of a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon:

Pentagon View Shed Analysis #1

Do you finally get it, Seventh?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
YOU are the one's making the claims.

Now stop evading your responsibility.




So you are not making any claims at all then? You doubt the government's version of events? You believe that something other than four planes being hijacked and used as weapons happend? I would love to hear your theory. You can just stick to the pentagon if you like. What is it that you think happend?


I don't have a "theory" Why should I?

I am asking you to back up your claims rather than evade them. You have to refute the evidence to support your claims. You haven't. Simple as that.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I don't have a "theory" Why should I?

I am asking you to back up your claims rather than evade them. You have to refute the evidence to support your claims. You haven't. Simple as that.



OK, and which claim is that? Please explain to me just which claim of mine that I need to back up?

BTW, does this mean that you are at least admitting that you do not believe the story we were told by our government and MSM either?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Even though I showed you could not back up your claims, I have no responsibility to do so. You are forced to convince the real world that you're claims are valid.


I have challenged you many many times to show me any claim I have made and to point out the fallacy in it. You have failed to do so every single time.

Some scrub gave you a star for you inaccurate comment, thats laughable. You have failed so many times that its laughable.

You sir, fail at life, hard.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Even though I showed you could not back up your claims, I have no responsibility to do so. You are forced to convince the real world that you're claims are valid.


I have challenged you many many times to show me any claim I have made and to point out the fallacy in it. You have failed to do so every single time.




Right here, my friend: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ooops! You forgot that one already? Methinks that you are so awash in denial that you have no idea how illogical you are.

And you still haven't apologized for engaging in the fallacy of equivocation.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Originally posted by jthomas





Whether you believe the video was edited or not is irrelevant to the fact that the video was never needed to begin with to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Your histrionics about the validity of timestamps is your way of ignoring that the preponderance of evidence from multiple sources converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. And it is simply not relevant to the illustration I am making.


Could you possibly stretch this any more?, here we have 2 sides plain and simple.. Truthers - GL`s, in your adamancy to prove the OS and thus one of your points it matters not that the perps have edited vital evidence. Let me get this straight.. You use a video that clearly shows no plane hitting the Pentagon to prove a point that is.. a plane hit the Pentagon... I see.






LOL. You have yet to prove me wrong on any of my points.


What are your points?.




That's a good illustration of why you are not paying attention. You will find NO POST of mine doing what you claim. Try to.


As above.




Ditto. I never have, never will, and you will not find any of my posts stating any such thing. So why are you making such false claims?


You`re side stepping again, your whole thesis and only point to prove is that a plane hit the Pentagon, using a mind boggling video.






Ditto. I never once said that. NEVER. How many times do I have to repeat that I used the frames to illustrate what a jet flying over and away from the Pentagon would look like according to the claims of SPreston, Balsamo, and CIT? And demonstrates why any jet flying over and away the Pentagon according to those flyover claims would be easily visible over a wide area.


We do not need an illustration to show us what a plane flying over the Pentagon would look like, thanks very much.




So, why do you continue to make false claims. Particularly since CIT illustrates exactly the same thing?:


What are my false claims?, that is not what a plane would look like flying over the Pentagon?, have I said this?.







LOL. So, you agree with me that someone standing at the security camera position should have seen a jet flying over the Pentagon as I depicted - and so did CIT - according to the flyover claims of SPreston, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and CIT?


No, all I have said is-that-there-should-be-a-plane-visible, not in the air above the Pentagon, not going underground, VISIBLE-VISIBLE-VISIBLE, sunk in yet Jthomas?





Do you finally get it, Seventh?


You are confusing me with someone else, go back, look at any of my posts and tell me where I have mentioned a plane flying over the Pentagon.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh

Originally posted by jthomas


Whether you believe the video was edited or not is irrelevant to the fact that the video was never needed to begin with to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Your histrionics about the validity of timestamps is your way of ignoring that the preponderance of evidence from multiple sources converges on the conclusion that AA77 hit the Pentagon. And it is simply not relevant to the illustration I am making.


Could you possibly stretch this any more?, here we have 2 sides plain and simple.. Truthers - GL`s, in your adamancy to prove the OS and thus one of your points it matters not that the perps have edited vital evidence. Let me get this straight.. You use a video that clearly shows no plane hitting the Pentagon to prove a point that is.. a plane hit the Pentagon... I see.


Why are you claiming I wrote something I never wrote?

Why not actually read and respond to what I actually wrote rather than make up a strawman? Do you actually think you are making a case by misrepresenting me post after post after post?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I will just take the fact that you have to ignore at least one of my posts for every page of this thread to mean that you concede my points. Sorry that you are not adult enough to just admit you might be wrong about something. It makes you look really desperate to prove something to someone though. Who? What?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
reply to post by jthomas
 


I will just take the fact that you have to ignore at least one of my posts for every page of this thread to mean that you concede my points. Sorry that you are not adult enough to just admit you might be wrong about something. It makes you look really desperate to prove something to someone though. Who? What?


You have not shown me wrong on anything. Period.

You just cannot admit that you have consistently misrepresented me and what I have written.

That, my friend, is your problem and only you can solve it.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

Even though I showed you could not back up your claims, I have no responsibility to do so. You are forced to convince the real world that you're claims are valid.


I have challenged you many many times to show me any claim I have made and to point out the fallacy in it. You have failed to do so every single time.




Right here, my friend: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ooops! You forgot that one already? Methinks that you are so awash in denial that you have no idea how illogical you are.

And you still haven't apologized for engaging in the fallacy of equivocation.





Again, you claim that I committed a logical fallacy but failed to point it out. You were unable to quote me and linked to another post not quoting me. If you wish to deny that the government is with holding the videotapes thats fine, but its true and theres nothing I can really do beyond the links to the .gov website that 100% agrees with me and not you.

Quit being such a 911 denier.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You have not shown me wrong on anything. Period.

You just cannot admit that you have consistently misrepresented me and what I have written.

That, my friend, is your problem and only you can solve it.


um....no.

I have not misrepresented you at all. You are here defending the government story and then you try to say you never made any claims that need to be proven. Ok, fine. What are you doing here then? Looking for the truth? Trying to teach others the truth? Just to be an ass to people that think differently than you?

If anyone is misrepresenting someone, it is you. I have already asked you twice to show me quotes where I said the things you claim I am saying. Nothing ever came. I asked you real, pertinent questions and you duck those until you have another chance to steer off topic and toss an isult out.

I asked what you think happend that day. Why is that so hard to answer? You have been on ATS defending the 'official' story for quite some time now and yet here, you cannot even declare that you believe it?

So, let me try again. Maybe if I can get you to answer this, then I can get you to answer some of the other questions. Probably not though. You seem more like a troll that is just here to berate people that believe in something different than you. Prove me wrong. Tell me what happend on september 11, 2001. I cannot even begin to convey in words how eager I am to hear your version of events that day.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

originally posted by evilincarnate
You are trying, you really are but no. If you provide zero proof to me, then you have no proven your case. I have offered no case to prove. I am not looking to brag. I would like to know what really happend.


If that's the case, then I don't care to try. But TBH, this is a weasel phrase by the TM to get out of providing convincing evidence. So I don't believe your statement of neutrality.

Also, when I was saying "you", it doesn't mean you specifically. It refers to the TM inside job believers.




When I say "you" I mean you. I would not bother to be so cryptic as to keep you from actually getting what I am saying. You seem confused enough. Why do you think that people like me who question the 'official' story have to prove something? I never claimed anything. I never said terrorists hijacked the planes. I never said Osama was behind it. I never claimed a plane was flown into the pentagon. These are all claims that were made by out government. They need to prove that their claims are true because so far, the storie(s) they have offered prove the opposite.

I want proof that flight 77 was flown into the pentagon. I want proof that a plane went down in shanksville. I want proof that those passports were found on the sidewalk. I want proof of DNA identifying the hijackers because no one can explain what they had to compare it to to indentify anyone. The government needs to prove its case. Not me.


[edit on 8/10/09 by evil incarnate]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Why do you think that people like me who question the 'official' story have to prove something?



You don't have to do anything, as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care any less.

But you DO realize that your version of events isn't accepted by anyone that matters, correct? The TM has a lot of claims, and a lot of questions. Good for you. Nobody cares except for your ilk on websites like this. What that means, is that you'll never accomplish anything as far as getting those questions answered, UNLESS you do in fact prove to those that matter that you are right.

But DO nothing. PROVE nothing. It's what the TM is good at.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


You do realize that the OS is accepted by less than half the population, right?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Half the population? Like the 13 people who showed up in Cincinnati? Please stop. What I find funny is how I am attacked when I speak up in the WTC forums but I believe we shot down 93. Like the OP states. I am one of those but that does not make me a truther


I do not need a title nor followers nor stars on a web blog to let me know that my research and conviction lead me to believe what I believe. I also think 587 was bought down Richard Reid style but you never hear that in the MSM and it is a much better story. Why believe the NTSB and FAA in one instance and not another.

In the years I have been in these forums I have asked for one thing to sway me in the WTC collapses. Evidence. And 7 years later there is dust and the FEMA guy who won;t post his videos. Everytime someone new who creates a log on posts against the anti OS they are pummeled but the new ones who paste and post the SAME rehashed stories are starred and flagged for what...starting another 14 page thread that ends in nothing...

My post about NADS applies to both sides....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Actually I have posted bot scientific and non scientific polls, all of which concur what I have stated. If you can post something to refute that, fine, if not take your no nads havin self somewhere where facts aren't important.





posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

You do realize that the OS is accepted by less than half the population, right?



You can kid yourself all you want. Nobody that matters, cares what you want to believe.

Cuz if you were right, you'd be getting your new investigation.

But since you aren't, that's proof that the TM is delusional on this issue.

I fail to understand how the TM doesn't understand this point. Let me put this in a way that hopefully you can understand.

Say you think you have a way that will increase sales, or efficiency at work. So you go to your supervisor and tell him/her. They listen, but reject to try your idea, even though many of your peers agree that you have a good idea.

No matter how much you and your peers are in agreement, it means nothing. And certainly, management is NOT obliged to answer your questions about why they're not trying your idea.

The truth is, they know more than you about the subject than you do. If you want movement on the issue, you MUST do the research, present your case, and prove your idea to them if you feel strongly about it.

The TM doesn't do this. They think that the present way of doing things (or the OS ) must be proven to them personally. But it is not human nature to give up on what you believe.

So the TM finds itself stuck in an endless feedback loop. The more it argues and gets rejected, the more they become convinced that they are correct. Which makes them argue even more, ad infinitum....

Have fun on that merry-go-round.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli


You don't have to do anything, as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't care any less.


If you do not care, then I can assume you have nothing to add or say to me.


But you DO realize that your version of events isn't accepted by anyone that matters, correct?


But, I guess you do care enough to ramble on. Listen sweetheart. If you can tell me what my version of events is, you might have something. I will not even bother reading the rest of your post until then.

If you have something relevant to add, go for it. If you just want to rant, do not use me as your excuse.

So, just what exactly is my version of events? I am simply asking someone else what their version of events is. Somehow, you magically got my version of events? Neat trick. What did I say happend exactly?

Either quote me or shut up.




top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join