Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Riiiiiiight...and I have asked you to spell out what you believe.

I missed it.


19 hijackers>4 planes>3 buildings>fire> buildings fall.

Feel better now?

Great, now please explain to me how you know there were 19 hijackers. Why did they hijack the planes? Why did they fly them into buildings? I hope you have some evidence.

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Great, now please explain to me how you know there were 19 hijackers. Why did they hijack the planes? Why did they fly them into buildings? I hope you have some evidence.

From airline passenger manifests.

So they could crash them.

To ruin the buildings.

Your turn....

[edit on 11-8-2009 by Joey Canoli]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420
50,000 people recently signed a petition championing the cause I endorse. What about you? Have you had such support? I don't think so.

No, 50k people didn't sign a petition that said the 9/11 was an inside job.

You're kidding yourself again.

You're being a condescending ass again. Quote me where I said 911 was an inside job or admit you're wrong. You won't do either.

reply to post by jprophet420


So your "cause" is what then exactly?

To just "ask questions"?

That tired old bs line?

Please tell me you've got something better than this.

Be specific.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


As I said you wouldn't do either.

To answer your question in full I want a new investigation that addresses all of the anomalies and inconsistencies in the OS.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

As I said you wouldn't do either.

To answer your question in full I want a new investigation that addresses all of the anomalies and inconsistencies in the OS.

Quit hiding behind the canard of an OS. Either refute the evidence or just admit you can't.

Sheesh....

reply to post by jthomas


www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

For starters.



[edit on 11-8-2009 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by jthomas
Quit hiding behind the canard of an OS. Either refute the evidence or just admit you can't.

You've already refuted some of the official government evidence, jthomas.

You have stated that you can not see a plane in the Pentagon Security Images. You refuse to endorse that piece of government supplied evidence.

Why?

You have perfectly highlighted the contradictions that some official government story believers find themselves in, when they pick and choose the parts of the official government story that they want to believe.

Originally posted by jprophet420
You're being a condescending ass again. Quote me where I said 911 was an inside job or admit you're wrong. You won't do either.

I get it now. jthomas and joey fritoli are tag team partners. Neither one has presented anything informative, evidential, or productive. They have both wasted pages telling us that no one cares, we are wrong in what we believe (nevermind that neither of them seems to actually know what anyone in this thread does believe) and generally been derailing and insulting.

Thank you both, Thomas and Joey Cameltoey for proving the OP at in at least one way on EVERY SINGLE PAGE OF THIS THREAD so far.

Jobs well done. You not only lived up to the OP's, my, and I am sure some other's expectations but you exceeded them beyond anything anyone could ever ask. I give you stars and applause both for all of your posts. I put them with the bodies I am being told were pulled from the plane that crashed into the pentagon. Go look for them there.

The bottom line is that this thread has wonderfully shown them both to be little more than trolls with nothing to back up anything they say. The ask questions, ignore the answers and then deride you for not answering. They in turn, completely avoid answering questions and do not see the irony. (See calling me a coward for not saying what I believe even though I was not asked and me having to ask said name caller three times and still have not gotten much. Apparently irony impaired.)

If they had something to say, they have had plenty of chances to say it. If they wanted people to understand that they are right, they have not even given proving that an attempt. They contradict each other, themselves, and common sense. Others would say it is our fault for indulging them - feeding the trolls as it were.

I say let them chow down on this thread. Seeing as how they completely missed that the OP is not about 9/11 or the specifics of what happend or the 'official story' or even whether or not you can call the story given to us by the government a 'government story' or not; this thread is about how people like them behave. They apparently felt as though we all needed examples that we could look at while we discuss their regular routine of circular logic, projecting, obfuscating, and distracting.

I thank them both and am more than happy to keep playing if they want to.

P.S. I just wanted to add that I am in a good mood and going to enjoy myself here at home for a while so I am not even reading Joey Pasta Fagioli's post until later. They get more and more like a gnat that just needs to be swatted at with each new one.

[edit on 8/11/09 by evil incarnate]

Originally posted by jprophet420

To answer your question in full I want a new investigation that addresses all of the anomalies and inconsistencies in the OS.

Ok then.

Now, you DO realize that to get this new investigation means that you need to convince those that matter, such as structural engineers, fire engineers, etc..... that your so called "anomalies and inconsistencies" are just that, and not just the misunderstandings of an uneducated buffoon, right?

I believe Noam Chomsky had the perfect line about this. Something like," it is beyond ridiculous to believe that any of the TM could ever be educated enough after a few hours of investigoogling to be able to understand what is being discussed in these engineering reports."

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Neither one has presented anything informative, evidential, or productive.

You're missing the point that I've been making in this thread.

Namely, that I, nor anyone else from this side of the fence on this issue needs to refute anything you say. We don't, and we never did. When we do, it's at our leisure, and for our enjoyment at watching you squirm.

Nor do we need to prove anything in the "OS" to you, for the same reasons.

The only thing that SHOULD matter, to YOU, is that you be able to convince those that matter that there indeed IS a need for another investigation.

So complain away about how I'm not playing fair, or whatever. Who cares what you feel? Not me. You're nothing. A nobody. And nobody cares what you want except your mommy, so go get your cheese from her to go along with your whine.....

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Thank god I had an education BEFOREHAND to help me through it all.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Thank god I had an education BEFOREHAND to help me through it all.

Then I'd sue my university to get my money back if I were you.

Cuz it sure isn't doing you any good.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

Thank god I had an education BEFOREHAND to help me through it all.

Then I'd sue my university to get my money back if I were you.

Cuz it sure isn't doing you any good.

Ah personal attack, brilliant. I wonder what college teaches those tactics? I want to go there now, I've obviously been duped.

reply to post by jprophet420



Yeah, well we all get carried away at times. Hopefully you got as good a laugh out of reading it as I did writing it, LOL....

Anyways, I've always been curious about the main point, one that no one in the TM really addresses.

You do realize that it doesn't matter whether or not you win a debate on an internet forum, right?

Getting your new investigation depends on you convincing SE's and FE's on your views, right?

And that you're NOT going to get a NI unless you do that, right?

Because of that, I fail to understand what you think you're accomplishing by patting each other on the back.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And Pilots for 9/11 Truth conclusion is that AA77 "flew over and away from the Pentagon."

So now you can get back to providing us with the eyewitnesses statements of any jet "flying over and away from the Pentagon."

You see, jprophet420, you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too. When you make claims then you are forced to deal with ALL of the implications of those claims. You cannot pretend they don't exist as CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and SPreston are doing.

One of the implications of the flyover claim is that you have to deal with the fact that there were hundreds of people immediately around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, in the parking lots, and in other buildings in a position to see a flyover. And by CIT's own illustration and mine in my avatar, any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon would be easily seen, particularly as according to the flyover claims, the jet was low, flying fast, and would have been deafening LOUD. And many people would have been in a line-of-sight position watching a jet approaching them as an explosion went off behind the jet.

- I have illustrated the flyover claim in my avatar at left.
- I have given you a view shed study showing the geographic area within a 2-mile radius of the center of the Pentagon from which a jet could be seen flying over and away from the Pentagon.
- I have used CIT's own flight path to illustrate their own claim of a flyover.

And yet, there is not one single person nor one single media report, testifying to any flyover whatsoever.

And you sit right here in these threads watching SPreston continue to avoid dealing with having to produce eyewitness statements of any jet "flying over and away from the Pentagon." Post after post, year after year. And no alarm bells go off in your heads.

So, jprophet420, if you think you will get anywhere in the real world without dealing with the implications of a flyover claim you're very sadly mistaken.

You have a choice. You can continue to be led around by the red herrings SPreston, CIT, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth count on you following, or you can begin to understand why claims have implications.

And you can ask yourself why SPreston continues to avoid addressing his claims of a flyover. And why he counts on you not asking questions about his claims.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Neither one has presented anything informative, evidential, or productive.

You're missing the point that I've been making in this thread.

Not a bit. Your point is quite clear - spend pages of posts telling me that I need to prove my negative and that you do not care anyway. How is that going so far?

Namely, that I, nor anyone else from this side of the fence on this issue needs to refute anything you say. We don't, and we never did. When we do, it's at our leisure, and for our enjoyment at watching you squirm.

Nor do we need to prove anything in the "OS" to you, for the same reasons.

So you admit that you just believe the "OS" without any proof or even evidence at all? Really? You really want to spend time on a forum about conspiracies telling people over and over again that you simply believe what government officials told you without ever proving any of it to you? Because our government is always honest?

The only thing that SHOULD matter, to YOU, is that you be able to convince those that matter that there indeed IS a need for another investigation.

Why are you worried about what should matter to me? You have no idea what does, will, and should matter to me. Unless you want to take the time to really find out, you should stop just saying things because you are capable of saying them. You should be interested in the truth, at least on this site.

So complain away about how I'm not playing fair, or whatever. Who cares what you feel? Not me. You're nothing. A nobody. And nobody cares what you want except your mommy, so go get your cheese from her to go along with your whine.....

Awwe shucks. You would be hurting my feelings if it were not for the fact that I was here and you came in and made yourself a part of MY conversation. You butted in and have since tried to say over and over again that you do not care. Who is holding you on ATS at gunpoint? If you do not care, then go away. I would also be hurt if you did not call me a whiner after I have already pointed out that you and Thomas have done nothing in this thread but whine/

And to top it all off, to end your uninformative useless little rant, you just fill the paragraph with personal attacks. You have no idea who I am or what I am like. If you want to get personal, come on over and be personal right here - outside of the safety of your anonymous deskchair.

You could say something intelligent. You could offer insight. You could present information that apparently those of us that have some doubts have been missing. Instead, you remind us over and over that you do not care yet want to make sure we know it, over and over and over. Either you say nothing but personal attacks because that is all you have or you are just kind of a jerk. I am sorry I even wasted time reading that empty little post. I think I can wait until I have reallllllly nothing to do to get to the other one if it is going to be as informative and clever as this.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Quit hiding behind the canard of an OS. Either refute the evidence or just admit you can't.

You've already refuted some of the official government evidence, jthomas.

You have stated that you can not see a plane in the Pentagon Security Images. You refuse to endorse that piece of government supplied evidence.

Why?

You have perfectly highlighted the contradictions that some official government story believers find themselves in, when they pick and choose the parts of the official government story that they want to believe.

I know you're having a hard time with facts, but try to focus, tezzajaw, focus::

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Get back to us if you are still confused about the meaning of "evidence".

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jprophet420
You're being a condescending ass again. Quote me where I said 911 was an inside job or admit you're wrong. You won't do either.

I get it now. jthomas and joey fritoli are tag team partners. Neither one has presented anything informative, evidential, or productive.

Just because you don't like being the ones having to support your claims is no reason to get upset and blame others for your inability to present evidence for those claims.

It's your responsibility to back up your claims.

Either concede that you cannot or start backing your claims up with evidence.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jprophet420
You're being a condescending ass again. Quote me where I said 911 was an inside job or admit you're wrong. You won't do either.

I get it now. jthomas and joey fritoli are tag team partners. Neither one has presented anything informative, evidential, or productive.

Just because you don't like being the ones having to support your claims is no reason to get upset and blame others for your inability to present evidence for those claims.

It's your responsibility to back up your claims.

Either concede that you cannot or start backing your claims up with evidence.

You sir have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. In the link that you provided, which is just a link back to my thread, I ask the question "flight 77 where are you", not make any claims. I don't care what any particular groups conclusion is, I only care about the evidence, and it is evidence that I provide.

So whenever you say it is my responsibility to back up my claims, and I have made no claims, it becomes more than obvious that you have not read and understood what I have presented.

And of course you do so without refuting any content of the thread.

And you were the one crying about fallacy of equivocation.