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.

 

Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

page: 97
215
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
What makes you think that the media would publish an unverified story?


...and again he outdoes himself. Do you know anything about the media?

What makes you think they would wait to verify a story before publishing it?




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
How do you know that they didn't verify the story at the time? What makes you think that the media would publish an unverified story?

Show me that the media did verify the story and prove it happened? Again - where is the proof?

If the media proved the story, then you certainly haven't been able to find it. You've stuttered around here for 40 pages failing to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, pteridine.

I suspect that your failure with McGraw shows how easy it would be to think that a proof is valid, when it is very far from being true.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


See my post of 11/27/2009 @ 02:18 AM. Tezza and I are enjoying a discussion about the media. He thinks they check sources thrice over and get statements signed in blood with DNA verification. If you wish to contribute in a positive fashion, please do so.
Perhaps the "alarming information" is that the media did check a source for a human interest story. Maybe it was a stringer reporter. Independents are also part of the media, aren't they?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Show me a statement that they didn't. The story was Lloyde's story. What was checked 8 years ago is now lost. Do you believe that the story was planted because it was unverified?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Yup Lilly- he's outdone yet one more time with yet another logical fallacy (immediately above).


The argument from ignorance[1], also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1][2]), argument by lack of imagination[citation needed], or negative evidence[1], is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.


en.wikipedia.org...

These "debunkers" just can't seem to grasp the concept of "true because proven true WITH evidence."

Oh well, let's ride the fallacy-go-round for a few more laps about the "quality" of our corporate MSM...

This thread is an excellent example of why posters should avoid vague, broad thread titles IMHO.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
double post removed by author.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by rhunter]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by rhunter
 


"...or is false only because it has not been proven true."

Explain this part to me, rhunter.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rhunter
 


"...or is false only because it has not been proven true."

Explain this part to me, rhunter.


I would say that is why tezza has been repeatedly asking you to prove your claims (as true by providing actual, verifiable evidence)- so that we don't all collectively fall into that "false only because" end of the fallacy- that's a "slippery slope." We've been trying to help you out with this. It is fortunate though, because I don't think anyone has claimed that your, miichael's, jthomas', etc. claims are false yet, but the longer we all wait for evidence, the more that could appear to be the case- perhaps you guys should get crackin'.

As it stands you and bjthomas repeatedly asking people for "negative proof" is just becoming tedious, you should probably take small steps and concentrate on the first part of that external quote for a while.

But excellent job- it appears that you are beginning to actually read what is posted- that's a big improvement from what I remember.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
These "debunkers" just can't seem to grasp the concept of "true because proven true WITH evidence."

I think you must have missed this post of mine before your last, pteri. My computer seemed to think it was pretty important- it even posted it twice (but I e-deleted the 2nd one).

It already contained the answer to your last post BTW, but you've got 2 different versions of the answer now, so pick whichever you prefer. Let's add "verifiable" between "WITH" and "evidence" above though in the interests of clarity.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhunter
These "debunkers" just can't seem to grasp the concept of "true because proven true WITH evidence."


These "truthers" just can't seem to grasp the concept of "true because proven true WITH evidence."

Notice how well this fits?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
See my post of 11/27/2009 @ 02:18 AM. Tezza and I are enjoying a discussion about the media. He thinks they check sources thrice over and get statements signed in blood with DNA verification.

Another false statement attributed to me. I never made a general claim about the media, despite you trying to get one from me, pteridine.

You have a catalogued list of false statements in this thread, it doesn't do much for your credibility.

Try again this time and get it right.



Originally posted by pteridine
Show me a statement that they didn't.

Huh? You claim that the light pole hit the taxi. You have failed to prove this using any media or government source.

You continually post a media driven story in this thread, without providing any actual proof that the incident happened.



Originally posted by pteridine
These "truthers" just can't seem to grasp the concept of "true because proven true WITH evidence."

You have failed to do this, pteridine. You have not demonstrated that the light pole hitting the taxi ever happened.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Wow tezza! One side's level of "debate" has apparently regressed to an inversion of this old grade school "classic?":



It's hopeless with that crowd, I'm afraid.


Edit: I see that the reading comprehension has dropped again- that "verifiable" part of evidence seems to have been missed 2 more times.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by rhunter]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Tezzajw --- “The implications are obvious to those who think about them - why would the media drive a story that has never be(en) proven?”
What is Tezzajw saying here? This turn of phrase implies that the media had no real reason to report it because it wasn’t “proved.” At the time, Lloyde told them what happened and they reported it. This was a sidebar to the main event and happened long before advancing age and the CIT media moguls caught up with him. The casual reader will note that Tezzajw recently proclaimed Lloyde as "unreliable" and tried to cast doubt on Lloyde's original testimony.
Because he is making definitive statements about witness reliability and evidential standards and trying to control discussion, Tezzajw should list his standards of evidence and witness reliability for reporting stories for all to see.
He may begin with the everyday “St. Wombat girls basketball team wins big tourney” and work his way through “Feral rabbits devour hikers” to “Rio Tinto starts war with China” and on up to the big “Light post strikes Taxi windshield and casts doubt on reality and everything else."
Tezzajw, you are organized well and should have no trouble ginning up such a list. Get back to us when you have it done.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 


See my post of 11/27/2009 @ 02:18 AM. Tezza and I are enjoying a discussion about the media. He thinks they check sources thrice over and get statements signed in blood with DNA verification. If you wish to contribute in a positive fashion, please do so.
Perhaps the "alarming information" is that the media did check a source for a human interest story. Maybe it was a stringer reporter. Independents are also part of the media, aren't they?


I specifically asked you why you would think something.

Your response is to look at what you claim someone else said to you about something else and it is also a lie.

Amazing!

Please continue to insult truthers and behave like this. It all adds up nicely.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Let's not forget that CIT NOC "eyewitness", Robert Turcios, actually pointed to the correct south of Citgo flight path:

CIT eyewitness points to South side flight path.

"In another blow to CIT's North Side flight path claim, one of CIT's Citgo eyewitnesses actually points to the South Side flight path that we know AA77 flew in lining up to hit the Pentagon."



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 

You asked, I answered. Tezzajw was implying that since there was no proof that he approved of that the media would not publish about the taxi event...unless a grand conspiracy was at the root. Silly Tezzajw. The media publish what they will.
Now answer my question. What happened at the Pentagon on 911? Plane/ no plane? AA77/ other?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale
 

You asked, I answered. Tezzajw was implying ....


What grade are you in, Pterry? I will try to speak in English one more time to you before I have to admit there is no getting through your thick head.

I asked you a question about you. Your answer was wrong, a lie, and referred to someone else and not you.

"Pterry why are you blah blah blah?"

"Well um because Tezza did this and said that...."



I thought you were man enough to stand up to at least a tiny bit of scrutiny but I see here that whatever it is, you wish I was asking someone else what they want to tell me about things. Trust me, if I need any clarification from Tezza about anything, I am capable of directing a post there as well.

So let's add up the score. You either did not read what I asked or did not understand it so you are just plane wrong.

Your answer was not related at all and referred to something someone else supposedly said to you.

That same person corrected you in pointing out you were offering up a blatant lie.

Now you insist that is what I was asking you for.

Wrong. Deflective. Dishonest. Not very bright.

Now all I really want to know from you is why anyone should take any thing you say seriously. Your honesty and grasp of logic have both taken severe beatings in this thread. Any reason at all? I am not asking about ANYONE ELSE, JUST YOU.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 



Originally posted by pteridine
The media publish what they will.


You're mistaken. I suggest you take a look at this page:

Media Cover-up - Leading Journalists Expose Major Cover-ups in Media



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The casual reader will note that Tezzajw recently proclaimed Lloyde as "unreliable" and tried to cast doubt on Lloyde's original testimony.

Casual readers should note that pteridine's research does let him down. His failure with McGraw is proof that he did not research his own theory well enough to make a logical argument for it.

When will you realise, pteridine, that Lloyde has cast doubt on his story, not me?

Lloyde contradicted himself in his interviews with CIT. That makes him unreliable. Lloyde did it all by himself, I had nothing to do with it. I can only point it out to you, while you continue to ignore it.



Originally posted by pteridine
Because he is making definitive statements about witness reliability and evidential standards and trying to control discussion, Tezzajw should list his standards of evidence and witness reliability for reporting stories for all to see.

Throughout this thread, pteridine has been trying to make general claims rather than deal with the specifics of the story being discussed.

pteridine has failed to prove the light pole hit the taxi while his spin and dodging has also been in vain.

Lloyde discredits himself, pteridine. I don't need to list standards of evidence or witness reliablity. That's another one of your distractionary, smokescreen claims tossed up to take the attention away from your failure to prove that the light pole hit the taxi.



Originally posted by pteridine
He may begin with the everyday “St. Wombat girls basketball team wins big tourney” and work his way through “Feral rabbits devour hikers” to “Rio Tinto starts war with China” and on up to the big “Light post strikes Taxi windshield and casts doubt on reality and everything else."
Tezzajw, you are organized well and should have no trouble ginning up such a list. Get back to us when you have it done.

Casual readers, note the pointless off topic references in pteridine's statement above. His failure to prove that the light pole hit the taxi is only made more obvious when he resorts to typing about wombats and rabbits.

You have not proven your claim that a light pole hit the taxi, pteridine. Why have you not done this yet?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You said: "Do you know anything about the media? What makes you think they would wait to verify a story before publishing it"
Then when you chose not to understand my reference, you said "I specifically asked you why you would think something. Your response is to look at what you claim someone else said to you about something else and it is also a lie."
Diagnostics for true believers in the "truth movement" include the words "lie", "liar", "lying" and such. Another is that many seem to lack any sense of humor and cannot understand nuances of the language but read everything literally, much like Federal security agents and conservative Christians.

My reference that caused your outburst was to my post to Tezzajw, where I said "It is apparent that you completely fail to understand the media. You believe that all stories driven by them are proved and verified by them."

I implied that they did not wait prove and verify all stories, especially trivial human interest stories among the carnage. You must have missed this nuance.

For you, I will explain again what is going on. Tezzajw insinuated that because Lloyde is "unreliable", that the taxi-pole event is unproven. He can't accept Lloyde's initial statements anymore because years later the CIT circus showed up and confused an old man. So Tezzajw thinks that there should be some retroactive disqualification of Lloyde as a witness and since he is retroactively disqualified, the press must have published something that was ok then but is now not proved according to Tezzajw. Since they published something that is not proved he asks "why would they do that" implying a conspiracy that includes the unknowing press. To make this bit work he had to assume that they always validated their stories. Of course, that same press would sell their souls several times over for a good story or to meet a deadline.
This is a strange way of looking at things but, to be fair, I asked Tezza about his standards of publication and witness certification so I could understand how the retroactive disqualification of witnesses and press validation would affect things. Tezzajw refuses to answer and obfuscates and deflects, for to do so would require him to make definitive statements which is against the troll code. I can only assume that since he will not define his criteria that they must be whimsical and irrelevant. If that is his position, we must conclude that he doesn't care about the taxi incident and is merely trolling.
Back to my questions to you: 1. Do you have any theory of what happened at the Pentagon or are you also playing the "scholar-gathering-information-while-trolling" role? 2. Have you discovered any alarming information on this thread?



new topics

top topics



 
215
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join