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.

 

Pennsylvania crash site coincidence?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


So, you are accusing people of lying without any basis.

And if I went to a single plane crash site, found one CVR or FDR and then said that the equipment was from the plane involved in the crash because there was no other earthly way to explain the equipment being there I would be "lying" because I did not show you a model or serial number match.

You have no clue what the word "lying" means. Why am I not suprised.




posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



I am stating that anoyone who states the FDR is from the plane is lying unless they have the proper evidence to back up that the FDR is from the plane.


Irrelevant, and a specious argument.

To simply wave away the FACT that the FDR was found in the wreckage of UA 93 and call everyone who "states" that FACT a "liar" is very disengenuous, and pure fluff and distraction.

FDRs (and CVRs) recovered from crash sites are routinely accepted as having been ONBOARD the airplane that crashed, because of the simple fact that THEY WERE FOUND THERE!!!! But, wait, there's more....ALSO, the data MATCHES one, and only ONE airframe/engine combination. AND the data matches what was known about the flight, as it was airborne, and before the crash.

This assertion/attempt to muddy the waters on this issue, and FACT, is a false flag operation, it would seem.

It's a bit like waving a red cape in front of a bull in the arena (nevermind that the bull is most likely colorblind, the motion attracts his attention, the color is for the Human audience...)

Meh!!!

I might as well be attempting to chat with a turnip.....



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Irrelevant, and a specious argument.

To simply wave away the FACT that the FDR was found in the wreckage of UA 93 and call everyone who "states" that FACT a "liar" is very disengenuous, and pure fluff and distraction.


If you are going to claim the the FDR is from Flight 93 then you must show evidence to support that claim.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



If you are going to claim the the FDR is from Flight 93 then you must show evidence to support that claim.


I assume that you have evidence to the contrary as you are calling everyone liars and the only honest way to call someone a liar is to be able to prove that what they said was wrong and they knew it was wrong and were intending to decieve.

Please look at the NTSB site, there is a signed document from the Vehicles Recorder Division to that effect. Unless he is a liar too, in which case it your turn to step up and present something.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by REMISNE
 



If you are going to claim the the FDR is from Flight 93 then you must show evidence to support that claim.


I assume that you have evidence to the contrary as you are calling everyone liars and the only honest way to call someone a liar is to be able to prove that what they said was wrong and they knew it was wrong and were intending to decieve.

Please look at the NTSB site, there is a signed document from the Vehicles Recorder Division to that effect. Unless he is a liar too, in which case it your turn to step up and present something.



OMG....you people just go in circles over and over, and totally disregard others comments, eveidence, and opinions.

TPTB must be real proud of some of you. You have turned out to be really good sheep indeed.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I assume that you have evidence to the contrary as you are calling everyone liars and the only honest way to call someone a liar is to be able to prove that what they said was wrong and they knew it was wrong and were intending to decieve.


I do not have to provide evidence since i did not make the claim.

Also all i have to do is show (which i have and can do) is that there is reasonable doubt in the official story.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
I assume that you have evidence to the contrary as you are calling everyone liars and the only honest way to call someone a liar is to be able to prove that what they said was wrong and they knew it was wrong and were intending to decieve.


I do not have to provide evidence since i did not make the claim.

Also all i have to do is show (which i have and can do) is that there is reasonable doubt in the official story.



Then you really don't understand what you are saying when you call someone a liar. You are making a claim.

You are claiming that someone is lying, not telling the truth, purposely trying to decieve. Simply saying "I doubt that what you say is correct" is a far and different cry from saying "you are lying" If you call someone a liar because you have a personal doubt, then that is a false accusation.

Please provide some evidence to back up your claim.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You are claiming that someone is lying, not telling the truth, purposely trying to decieve.


If someone claims something and cannot provide evidnece to support that claim then they are (lying).



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You are claiming that someone is lying, not telling the truth, purposely trying to decieve.


If someone claims something and cannot provide evidnece to support that claim then they are (lying).



Uh, wrong. That is not lying. Really, you have to understand what lying is if you are going to keep accusing people of it.

If I, or for that matter you, get in the witness box and say what they saw on the night of the crime, you are the evidence. If you want to accuse me of perjury you must prove that I knew what the truth was, that what I said was not the truth while I had knowledge of it and that I intended to decieve and in the case of perjury it also must be relevant to the case and have a potential bearing on the outcome of the trial.

I may claim that I caught a snapping turtle last time I was fishing. There was no one else around and I released the turtle. Am I lying now because you have no physical evidence to examine?



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
If you want to accuse me of perjury you must prove that I knew what the truth was, that what I said was not the truth while I had knowledge of it and that I intended to decieve and in the case of perjury it also must be relevant to the case and have a potential bearing on the outcome of the trial.


Yes i do accuse you and others of perjury becasue reasonable doubt has constantly been shown against the official story. You know it but you keep on spreading the lies.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


weedwhacker, I see what you could mean about why the crash sites could look different. You say you study crash sites all the time, can you show me a picture of a crash site that is similar to the filght 93 site where most of the plane seems to be buried, and very little ground is charred? I have not seen many pictures of different plane crash sites, so I guess my point is I've never seen any site that looks as 'clean' as the Shanksville site and am curious if there are any out there. If so it could help prove your point.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
If someone claims something and cannot provide evidnece to support that claim then they are (lying).


This is hilarious Ultima1.

YOU made the claim over a year ago now that you had seen documents proving that Flight 93 was shot down. You made the claim that you would have them via FOIA request and that you would show all the world your proof.

You have yet to produce any proof of your claim. So be your own definition above, you were also lying.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
YOU made the claim over a year ago now that you had seen documents proving that Flight 93 was shot down. You made the claim that you would have them via FOIA request and that you would show all the world your proof.


For some reason the agency is being slow on responding with the document.

But i have proven that i requested and the agency responded. Something most people on here have a big problem with is proof.



[edit on 28-1-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Your standards for reasonable doubt are yours. Not agreeing with you is just not agreeing with you.

Some have higher standards.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Your standards for reasonable doubt are yours. Not agreeing with you is just not agreeing with you.

Some have higher standards.


I have the highest standards, the evidence i have for reasonable doubt will hold up in court.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


I have reasonable doubt about your court statement, also, but will defer to the courts. Perhaps an ATS member lawyer can explain all of this.

I tried a thread a while back asking those who disagreed with the "OS" what aspect they would investigate, how, why, and who would do it. I received few answers. Some were thoughtless "everything" type answers but a few explained their logic.

Maybe I will give it a snappier title and try again.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE


If someone claims something and cannot provide evidnece to support that claim then they are (lying).



Do you seriously believe this? It's one of the oddest things I've ever seen on this forum. And believe me, I've seen some truly tortured logic from some exceptionally stupid people.

I could tell you dozens of things about me, or things i know, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. By your reckoning I would be lying. And yet I most definitely would not be.

Furthermore, your ridiculously high standard for "evidence" means that anything brought to you that doesn't agree with your fairytale is automatically a lie. Good luck keeping an open mind amid the walls of illogic that you've erected for yourself.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
I tried a thread a while back asking those who disagreed with the "OS" what aspect they would investigate, how, why, and who would do it.


I would ask why the 9/11 commission was not given enough time or money to do a proper investigation.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I could tell you dozens of things about me, or things i know, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. By your reckoning I would be lying. And yet I most definitely would not be.


It does not matter what you can tell,, i can tell hundereds of things but i would need to show evidence to support what i claimed.


Good luck keeping an open mind amid the walls of illogic that you've erected for yourself.


I have a very open mind, its the people that still believe the official story that cannot have an open mind. They have to live in thier safe fantasy world.



posted on Jan, 31 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

It does not matter what you can tell,, i can tell hundereds of things but i would need to show evidence to support what i claimed.


Or else it's a lie? This is simply idiotic.

For example, write your first name in your next post, but provide no evidence for it. By your logic it's a lie until you provide some evidence for it. At which point it magically becomes true.

The point is that whether something is a lie or not has nothing to do with the evidence provided for it. It obviously has a lot to do with whether you choose to believe it or not, but that's different.



I have a very open mind, its the people that still believe the official story that cannot have an open mind. They have to live in thier safe fantasy world.



On the contrary, the world posited by non-CTers is far more frightening than the easily-soluble Truth Movement fantasy.

In the TM alternate universe a little cartel of nasty people are responsible for everything bad. Get rid of them and all will be wonderful.

This is why so many TM types firmly believe in a utopian fantasy that ends with mass show trials and executions of the "evil ones". It's a comforting way of looking at the world.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join