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.
Originally posted by mmiichael
I allude to an estimated number of people in some instances. This is in aid of making points. I do not carry lists of names for everything I mention.
Originally posted by tezzajw
You clearly stated that there were hundreds of people who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking over light poles. You have not supported this with hundreds of witness names or statements.
Why did you allude to these 'hundreds' of witnesses existing, when you have clearly failed to produce the evidence to support your claim?
You have just admitted that you don't carry the list of witness names, so how do you know that there were hundreds of witnesses who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles?
You appear to be fabricating this claim without any factual basis. I'll continue to call you out on it until you either prove it or retract it, mmiichael.
Originally posted by mmiichael
There were hundreds of witnesses. If you are incapable of reading what has already been written on this - you have a problem. It is against the rules to characterize contributors.
Originally posted by mmiichael
A theory of a plane flying over the Pentagon and the Flight AA77 crash being faked is under discussion here.
Originally posted by mmiichael
You have avoided providing any evidence for this claim for months.
Originally posted by tezzajw
It is CIT's formal position that the damage to the light poles must have been staged. This is mentioned in the video embedded in the OP.
To refute this, you claimed that there were hundreds of witnesses who saw Flight 77 flying low and knocking down light poles. But you have not supported your statement with complete evidence. You have not provided a complete list of names, and in your previous post, you admitted to not having a list of names.
You appear to have fabricated a claim to counter the OP, as you have made no attempt to provide your evidence to support your claim.
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by JPhish
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
So, now you have decided that it's a non-dabatable fact.
No, I haven’t decided that respondent conditioning occurring on 9-11 is a non debatable fact. It IS a non debatable fact.
That is what we call a "bare assertion."
You are so inane it is unbelievable. I already proved it was a non debatable fact. Without me having to say a word you should have known that it was a non debatable fact, but you are simply that ignorant I suppose.
Give yourself another logical fallacy point or show how it is a non-debatable fact.
Try not to use other logical fallacies to support it.
demanding negative proof again
Please state your testable theory of the 911 attack on the Pentagon or take another fallacy point for "failure to state."
You aren't doing very well at this, JPhish.
Please provide your references for these claims so I can properly scrutinize them.
There was no respondent conditioning concerning the flight path prior to the explosion. There’s nothing to wear off, because it never existed.
Who’s throwing out eyewitness testimony???
Originally posted by mmiichael
As realized in a legal cases, testimonies can sometimes be inconsistent. Material evidence is hard evidence.
Hard evidence shows beyond question Flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon 9:37 AM Sept 11, 2001.
Substantial reliable corroborating testimony exists.
Case was closed over 8 years ago.
Still videos trying to cash in on the dying Truther sub-culture.
wishful thinking (56) You are incorrect.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
You have not proved respondent conditioning, you have postulated respondent conditioning so that you may selectively discard witness testimony.
bare assertion (57) I know perfectly well what proof is.
You are unaware of the difference between a postulate and a proof. The arguments you make so that you may bias the outcome are overlaid with bombast and empty rhetoric.
Your logical fallacies are piling up and you don't even know it.
Yes it is actually, because you are the one making the claim that Lloyds cab was impaled by a light pole as a result of AA77 hitting into it.
My request that you state a testable theory is not "demanding negative proof."
Your refusal to do so is a "failure to state" fallacy.
bare assertion (59) Based on the events of this thread, I know a great deal more about the subject than you do. You didn’t even realize that respondent conditioning had taken place. Unless of course you are playing dumb, which wouldn’t be surprising since it’s a common tactic of internet trolls.
You have no idea what you are talking about and yet you want people to waste their time debating you.
My mistake. Regardless, if you think i have committed this fallacy, you are incorrect.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish
this site, www.don-lindsay-archive.org... among others, defines a "failure to state" fallacy as follows:
"Failure To State: if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic."
Since I did not make this up as you claimed, you are guilty of a bare assertion. By claiming that my statement was wishful thinking when you did not prove that it was wishful thinking, you are guilty of yet another bare assertion.
As to your theory, are you claiming that you somehow know which of the witnesses were aware of the events of the day and that all witnesses who were aware of the events would then expect to see any low flying aircraft crash into a building?
Not all of them, but most of them. Regardless, you’re raising the bar (60) now. It’s a FACT that respondent conditioning happened that day. You can admit that you were wrong now.
Can you prove that all witnesses were completely aware of the attacks and not one of those witnesses would wonder if the plane was coming in for a landing or was part of an emergency response until it struck the Pentagon?
raising the bar (61) I never claimed to be able to prove this, nor do I need to. Respondent conditioning took place. This is a fact. You denied it. Admit that you were wrong.
Can you prove that every witness would expect a crash and therefore see a crash?
One of the few logical things you have typed in this thread . . . I applaud you. They would see the crash they expected to see.
Based on this theory, what would the witnesses see if there was a crash? Would they see the crash they expected or something else?
Incorrect. I use classical conditioning all of the time. It can take as little as 5 seconds or less depending on what it is you are trying to condition the person to do or believe.
Further, respondent conditioning is another name for classical conditioning. This conditioning takes far longer than the ten seconds that you claimed.
Sorry you are wrong. Classical conditioning can take mere moments. Watch a magic act.
This means that the witnesses could not have been conditioned and that your claim has no basis.
Originally posted by JPhish
It is still wishful thinking on your part that respondent conditioning did not take place because it is a fact that it did.
Are you denying that nearly all of the witnesses in this thread were aware of what happened in New York City? Are you serious?!
Not all of them, but most of them. Regardless, you’re raising the bar (60) now. It’s a FACT that respondent conditioning happened that day. You can admit that you were wrong now.
raising the bar (61) I never claimed to be able to prove this, nor do I need to. Respondent conditioning took place. This is a fact. You denied it. Admit that you were wrong.
Can you prove that every witness would expect a crash and therefore see a crash?
Originally posted by pteridine
Why do you claim that I am raising the bar when I ask you to show the respondent conditioning proof.
straw man (62) I never claimed that.
Do two airplanes striking the WTC condition everyone to see any airplane striking any building?
Would a flyover then be seen as a second aircraft trying to strike a second building?
Well knowing what people think and expect is part of my trade and I’m very good at it. I’m not assuming anything. I know certain facts.
I claim that you have no way of knowing who expected what, yet you assume this as a fact.
Isn't that some kind of circular argument fallacy?
You are doubting that people on 9-11 knew what happened to the trade centers on 9-11 nearly an hour after it happened? Well i know for a fact that most of the witnesses on 9-11 presented in this thread knew what happened in new york and i have posted evidence to that claim
Am I serious? Yes. Was asking me in that manner part of a logical fallacy, something about incredulity?
I never said that. straw man (63). I know that most of them were conditioned and proof has already been presented in this thread that they were.
Since you do not know which witnesses, if any, were conditioned, should not all witness testimony then be discarded?
Why would you select some witnesses over others?
Your last statement looks like another bare assertion.
Originally posted by JPhish
I've already provided proof that respondent conditioning took place in my previous post and in posts prior.
At this point you are either delusional, not intelligent enough to comprehend the material, or purposely derailing/impeding the thread by playing dumb.