Stundie's "people who don't buy the official theory" thread

[stundie]

And if Rumsfeld was in his office, and Flight 77 hit that area of the building, and he was killed, doubtless we'd now be told this was a deliberate act because he was "about to go public on the Pentagon's missing trillions", as picking that exact point was just "too much of a coincidence" to be believed.

and the day after was Sept 11th 2001. What a great day for burying bad news like the Pentagons Missing Trillions (Still not accounted for!)

I suppose you'll defend Rumsfeld missing trillions as a oversight?

I'd love to hear how you lose or miss trillions of dollars!! hahahahaha!!

You guys just clutch at straws in desperation to defend your argument!!

 

[chipmunk stew]

You guys just clutch at straws in desperation to defend your argument!!

Do you still believe no Arabs were on flight 77?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You guys just clutch at straws in desperation to defend your argument!!

And conspiracy theorists wouldn't know critical thinking if it were presented wrapped in shiny paper accompanied with a nice little gift card signed, "Your friend, Sanity Claus."

 

[R.Mackey]

and the day after was Sept 11th 2001. What a great day for burying bad news like the Pentagons Missing Trillions (Still not accounted for!)

I suppose you'll defend Rumsfeld missing trillions as a oversight?

I'd love to hear how you lose or miss trillions of dollars!! hahahahaha!!

You seem to be setting us up for a "False Choice" logical fallacy, namely "either Rumsfeld balanced his books or 9/11 Was An Inside Job^TM".

Nobody here even considers financial mismanagement at the Pentagon a necessarily related event to Sept. 11th, and for good reason -- nobody has shown that there is a correlation. So no, nobody here is about to defend Rumsfeld. That's a topic for the Politics subforum.

You guys just clutch at straws in desperation to defend your argument!!

You have this precisely backwards. It is completely reasonable and self-consistent, indeed agrees with the observable evidence at cursory inspection, that four teams of extremist highjackers carried out the Sept. 11th attacks. The same cannot be said for the conspiracists' position -- not least because there apparently is no self-consistent conspiracy theory. I refer you to this thread if you disagree.

Therefore, we need make nor defend no argument. But we keenly await one from the opposition. Their claim, their burden of proof.

 

[maccy]

and the day after was Sept 11th 2001. What a great day for burying bad news like the Pentagons Missing Trillions (Still not accounted for!)

I suppose you'll defend Rumsfeld missing trillions as a oversight?

I'd love to hear how you lose or miss trillions of dollars!! hahahahaha!!

You guys just clutch at straws in desperation to defend your argument!!

Do you really believe that the pentagon is capable of secretly staging the 9/11 attacks in order to cover up its terrible accounting? If somebody can blow the whistles on trillions of dollars not being accounted for without being killed or otherwise silenced what does that say about the efficiency of the pentagon? If the USG is so powerful why is there accounting so screwed up? You'd think they'd be able to fake accounts if they were spending the money on something nefarious.

Also, let's assume the estimate of $2.1 trillion dollars is correct - what makes you think that it was Rumsfeld that "lost" this money and suddenly had to cover it up? $2.1 trillion doesn't disappear over the course of a few months... The defence budget would have been about $300 billion in 2001, if we assume it was the same level in previous years (which it wouldn't have been) and that the entire budget wasn't accounted for it would take 7 years to "lose" $2.1 trillion. I think we can at least duble the time period for these suspected failures of account to 14 years and I suspect that the allegations of money lost go over an even longer period (it'd be interesting to see a source for this if someone can find one).

Also, if 9/11 was supposed to distract from this, why was it still being addressed by the government in 2003?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

 

[stundie]

You Skeptics are hilarious!!

Well a few days have passed since I was last on here. More comments have come on here and I have to laugh at the rabid sceptics who ask for proof and so called debunking. The original thread started with me showing you the GLARINGLY obvious contradictions!

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. but……

Popular Mechanics 'Debunking 9/11 Myths', p. 44:
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, the floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process pancaking.

Obvioulsly I’m wrong because there is NO CONTRADICTION…..hahahaha!! As these comedians point out.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69197
NIST and Popular Mechanics didn’t contradict themselves as I stated in an earlier post because you sceptics have said that NIST were talking about the initial collapse and PM was talking about the actual collapse!

So, I see no conflict between NIST and PM (Despite PM being an agent of moloch etc etc) because NIST is describing the initial event, and pancaking describes the subsequent events.

(d) NIST was dealing with collapse initiation and PM was dealing with the collapse post initiation.

No, they are both right. The towers "pancake collapsed" as PM states but the inititiation of collapse wasn't the pancaking of the floors, it was the inward bowing of the exterior collumns as NIST states. PM isn't talking about the initiation but the collapse itself.

So what you sceptics believe is that NIST and PM did collaboration on the WTC collapse. Like when Tarrantino and Rodriguez produced the 1st & 2nd parts (Respectively) of that great mobster/vampire film From Dusk Til Dawn…………..Yeah!!

So using Skeptic logic theory NIST explain the initial collapse (The 1st Part) and PM explained the actual collapse(2nd Part)!!

Even though NIST CONTRADICTS the PM version of the collapse and THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PANCAKE THEORY AT ALL!!

I’m laughing as I type this because no doubt you Skeptics will still be trying to defend the following contradiction with plenty of double-speak!

Yet another sceptics says….

for my view on PM v Nist i think that you will always have conflict of opinion on what was a startlingly chaotic and highly complex event on 9/11. the time i would be possibly be worried is if ALL of those qualified experts agreed on the minutiae of what happened. i believe disagreement is healthy, it's only one of the avenues that lead to an honest conclusion. QUOTE]

So Bonavada agrees there is a difference of opinion? Yet all you other Skeptics think there is no contradiction. hahahaha!

I could laugh at you lot falling all over yourselves.

Then another one says…

When NIST is talking about pancaking in their faq, they are talking about the initation of collapse. The initation wasn't a pancake collapse. The sagging trusses pulled on the columns eventually causing them to snap.

Now then while the building were falling during the collapse, there was pancaking of floors. We know floors pancaking as we reports and seen large pieces of crushed floors sandwiched together.

So he agrees with NIST Pancaking theory, which they state they don’t agree with the Pancake theory…

More debunking and contradiction comes from.

I would also like to point out that "A) NIST is correct - and the "meticulous and scientific analysis" of PM is wrong after their pomposity about how careful and thorough they are in their "debunking". So can we trust them? " is a form of argumentum ad logicam, in that, even if PM is completely wrong on that one point, it does not automagically invalidate the rest of their points.

So PM can be wrong and we can still trust them, yet all the people mentioned in the list can be wrong, but we can’t trust them? (See Link!)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69198

Scroll through the posts to find plenty of debunkers telling me that such & such got this information wrong and so can’t be trusted, but Arkan_Wolfshade thinks that PM (A Hearst publication who are considered the founder of Yellow Journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism can be trusted still.

I'm going to wet myself here...

Waiting for someone to now debunk PM Yellow Journalism links now lol. PM can lie or get info wrong and yet we are still to trust them…hahahahaha!! I hope you guys see the irony in all of this.

--------------------------------------------------
Then regarding Norman Minetas testimony.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68450

Gravy [/B]has been around here a long time and is definitely an independent thinker, having amassed a great deal of information.

You had better take Gravy off that pedestal!!

I originally said…

I've now exposed lies from 2 so called Skeptics (infact a few from gravy) and I get the feeling this seems to be the case because there is plenty of other evidence other than the links I provide if you are prepared to look.

Then I get this….

Please list the lies you have exposed. The only thing you've exposed thus far, in this posters opinion, is your own ignorance.

So apathoid, because you are a great skeptic investigator and are too busy debunking things to actually READ through the thread, I'll highlight some of Gravys (Chief Debunker!) wild truths.

You type and type, but you're not willng to do your homework. Reports of two separate incoming planes came into the PEOC after the crash of flight 77. The first was flight 93. Reports were apparently based on its predicted location when it was out of radar contact (80 miles..."). The second plane was much closer ("15 miles...10 miles..."). That was a false alarm: a plane that was out of radio contact. The reports of the incoming plane are entirely consistent with what the "young officer" told Cheney. They are entirely inconsistent with Mineta's testimony. And since cross-referenced accounts agree that Cheney did not even enter the PEOC until after 9:52, we know that Mineta's memory is faulty.

1st lie
Dick Cheney was at POEC well before 9:52. Yet it was Lynne Cheney that arrives at POEC at 9:52 and joins her husband. ßWhat an outright lie?? Take your pick of links:-
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=9:52+am+lynne+cheney&meta=

Plus…”we know that Mineta's memory is faulty” How does gravy know this??…lol

WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT MINETAS TESTIMONY IS FAULTY??

This is a prime example of debunking with NO PROOF!! Then Gravy tries to quantify his lies by saying this…..

Keep in mind that Mineta was likely very distracted. He was dealing with the Coast Guard to try to get lower Manhattan evacuated. It's not as if he was sitting there twiddling his thumbs and waiting on Cheney's every word. There is no reason to believe he lied. There is every reason to believe that he misremembered.

Do your homework. This has all been covered here before.

Yet indeed, in other accounts, including those of Richard Clarke and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, Cheney reaches the bunker before the Flight 77 crash at 9:37 a.m. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 3-4; ABC News, 9/11/2002 (interview by Peter Jennings); 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003 Sources: Norman Mineta, Richard A. Clarke]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26_3.html
Secret Service agents burst into Cheney's West Wing office. "Sir," one said, "we have to leave immediately." Radar showed an airplane barreling toward the White House.

Is that the plane that was heading for the Pentagon? (Couldn’t be WTC 1& 2, they had already crashed & couldn’t be UA93, because that crashed at Shanksville) So using Critical Thinking…the only plane it could have been is…Yes Flight AA77!

So that’s that then. Cheney was at POEC before the flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, putting Minetas testimony back into the limelight. No one as yet still explained why Minetas testimony is either lies, perjury or he got the times wrong?? Excellent investigation work there sceptics!!

This is not just a misinformation or a little lie from Gravy, its a whopper!!

2nd Lie.

2) As has been mentioned, the asbestos fire protection in the north tower was only applied to less than half that building. In fact, it only went to the 38th floor.

Gravy is wrong again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

Scott Bass suggests that the World Trade Center towers could still be standing or at least would have stood for longer had a 1971 ban not stopped the completion of the asbestos coating above the 64th floor.[20] This was not mentioned in the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report on the Towers' collapse.

www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0111/msg00258.html
For more proof off that lie.

So Gravy has been around here a long time and is definitely an independent thinker, having amassed a great deal of information….Should that be MISINFORMATION.

You guys always use the “it’s been debunked”, “look through the threads.” Yet you seem to be prepared to lie in order that it fits your version of events.

The funniest thing in here, I've said that WTC is a white elephant, yet someone says it's not and that it was profitable. Yet...

George Pataki became governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

So if it was that profitable for the Port Authority, how comes George Pataki was privatising it in a cost cutting exercise?

If the WTC was that profitable...Why did the Port Authority give them a 99 Year lease?? I could go on..but thats another point and another thread...anyway....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You guys in your frivolous debunking have now decided in your logic too misquoted me with someone else.

9/11 was a result of an outdated protocol for protecting domestic airspace because everyone, including citizens like yourself, thought no one would be able to touch the US and shouldn't focus their attention on it.

Then later on in the thread Alt-F4 directs this thread of genius at me….

I was the somebody and my question to you had nothing to do with NORAD. You stated that an “outdated protocol was changed so that Bush/Cheney were the only ones who could give the order to shoot down!"

You see I never said that NORADs protocol was outdated, but yet you sceptics of got on your high horse to demand answers from things I never even posted.
------------------------------
The conclusion…

I was expecting intelligent debate instead, yet all I’ve received are smart alex answers and people telling me things, then providing no proof to back up there claims.

So you guys expect me to believe that there were no abnormal put options even though….

To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also [learned] that the firm used to buy many of the ‘put’ options ... on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.” Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc., which was bought by Deutsche Bank. “His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust—Alex Brown’s private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article161862.ece

That Norman Minetas is a liar or guilty of perjury, even though he has never been charged or there is any proof that he got his times wrong, other than he did! ßGreat investigation you guys!

That NIST and PM did a duet on the tower collapses? Not sure why? Couldn’t NIST be bothered to conclude on how the towers collapsed so they left it too PM??

I’ll give you credit, I could be wrong about the passenger lists on AA77 which I said didn’t have any Arab Names on, but hey I was basing that of information under the FOIA.

So that’s lies & misquoting to try and discredit me. Excellent work JREFers, I’m sure James Randi would be proud!

And of course there is nothing suspicious at all….As South Parks finest Officer Barbrady would say “There is nothing to see here!”

 

[Pardalis]

Yes, the "too many coincidences" argument is garbage, not least because you can argue just about anything is a "coincidence", if you want to see things that way.

Exactly. What is a coincidence if not subjective? It's an association we make about two unrelated events.

Besides, there are questions I always wanted CTists to answer:

-How do you measure the amount of coincidences in a given event?
-What is a reasonable amount of coincidences and what is not?
-How do you discriminate the reasonable coincidences from the suspicious ones?

 

[beachnut]

The point of my post was to prove that not everyone who doesn't believe the offical version of events are whack-jobs etc. The point is too prove that people who do not believe the offical version of events are ordinary people who look at all the discrepencies that the offical story says.

-------------------------
Major General Albert Stubblebine

-------------------------------------------

Capt. Russ Wittenberg

Quote:
"The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."

Idiocy. Why? A trained pilot who says that the manovuers were impossible. I would take the word of Russ Wittenberg than of someone who has never flew any of the planes unless you are a pilot.

--------------

As I stated, these names were not giving to prove or disprove what happened but too show you that it's not just crackpots who do not believe the offical story.

So your possible nut case General thinks the hole in the Pentagon was too small, he could be a nut case! Good job digging up a possible idiot! Since flight 77 did hit the pentagon then the size of all the holes and damage is consistent with flight 77 hitting the pentagon until you find evidence that it did not happen. Which means you have to erase all the DNA evidence, all the aircraft parts, and the poor video frame of the fuel fireball. Good luck!

Your next possible idiot, pilot Russ, is wrong; the act of flying flight 77 into the Pentagon could have been done better by most American Kids off the street with zero time in any aircraft! Just a fact you will have to live with, flying planes is easy if you do not have to learn how to do the real work. Flying into objects, large objects is easy. All beginner pilots manage some how to find a large object to land on and or fail and hit the object near the large object they are suppose to land on. Sort of like flight 77, he hit the very large pentagon and almost missed, not a good pilot, but he did it anyway.

Russ is wrong, you have picked a possible nut case ego centric pilot who can not get a simple proven occurrence right!

Wrong as they speak, what can I say, why waste time with your list, it is all full of false statements and faulty reasoning.


Russ is funny. He said it was impossible and he did not witness it. I say it is possible and I just studied the data and witnesses and I am a pilot and it seems Russ is wrong and could be a real nut case to say what he said without facts to back it up! I have flown kids with zero experience in planes and I have to say they could fly better than the terrorist.


Simple experiment proves Russ wrong.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade
I would also like to point out that "A) NIST is correct - and the "meticulous and scientific analysis" of PM is wrong after their pomposity about how careful and thorough they are in their "debunking". So can we trust them? " is a form of argumentum ad logicam, in that, even if PM is completely wrong on that one point, it does not automagically invalidate the rest of their points.

So PM can be wrong and we can still trust them, yet all the people mentioned in the list can be wrong, but we can’t trust them? (See Link!)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69198

Scroll through the posts to find plenty of debunkers telling me that such & such got this information wrong and so can’t be trusted, but Arkan_Wolfshade thinks that PM (A Hearst publication who are considered the founder of Yellow Journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism can be trusted still.

I'm going to wet myself here...

Waiting for someone to now debunk PM Yellow Journalism links now lol. PM can lie or get info wrong and yet we are still to trust them…hahahahaha!! I hope you guys see the irony in all of this.

That is not what I said. I clearly stated that if PM was proven wrong on one point of fact in their article, that it does not automatically invalidate any other point of facts in their article. Since PM is not dealing with a chain of evidence or logic, A->B->C->D, then you can not invalidate A, C, or D just by invalidating B. A, B, C, and D are all discrete elements and are not dependent upon each other.

I did not say they should be "trusted". Each point of fact needs to be looked at individually and supported, or debunked, as the evidence shows. Your attempts at discrediting PM by going back to Hearst, without demonstrating that the current PM is committing "yellow journalism" amount to nothing more than argumentum ad hominem.

Please deal with the facts.

And, for the love of Ed, please try to keep focused on one topic at a time.

 

[Pardalis]

So Bonavada agrees there is a difference of opinion? Yet all you other Skeptics think there is no contradiction. hahahaha!

Difference of opinion is not necesserally contradiction. Science is a process.

I could laugh at you lot falling all over yourselves.

Yeah, just try and make your silly theories work for a change...

Scroll through the posts to find plenty of debunkers telling me that such & such got this information wrong and so can’t be trusted, but Arkan_Wolfshade thinks that PM (A Hearst publication who are considered the founder of Yellow Journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism can be trusted still.

You win the Pullitzer prize for this nonsense. Can you read?

Plus…”we know that Mineta's memory is faulty” How does gravy know this??…lol

By elimination. All other accounts corroborate eachother, this one doesn't, so logically it's faulty.

Is that the plane that was heading for the Pentagon? (Couldn’t be WTC 1& 2, they had already crashed & couldn’t be UA93, because that crashed at Shanksville) So using Critical Thinking…the only plane it could have been is…Yes Flight AA77!

Yes, you seem to have a problem with logic do you?

What other plane had been highjacked? What other plane and its passagners are missing? Who's DNA did we find?

George Pataki became governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

So if it was that profitable for the Port Authority, how comes George Pataki was privatising it in a cost cutting exercise?

If the WTC was that profitable...Why did the Port Authority give them a 99 Year lease?? I could go on..but thats another point and another thread...anyway....

So according to your great logic, the best answer to this is because 9/11 was an inside job?

Wow.

 

[stundie]

So according to your great logic, the best answer to this is because 9/11 was an inside job? Wow.

This is the thing with you Skeptics....Again...Where did I ever say that this was proof of an inside job or that this was the best answer to an inside job??

I'll leave you to struggle to find the proof of that one.

Another skeptic misqouting me with erroneous judgements!!....Too Funny!! This debunking is easy, you just have to disagree...no logic whatsoever!!!!

 

[stundie]

Difference of opinion is not necesserally contradiction. Science is a process.

Contradiction
In logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other.

So NIST and PM do not fall under these catergories...lol

Your right science is process....Shame you don't follow it!!

 

[Pardalis]

This is the thing with you Skeptics....Again...Where did I ever say that this was proof of an inside job or that this was the best answer to an inside job??

OK, fine, if that's what you say.

So why do you bring this up? What does this have to do with 9/11?

 

[Oliver]

This is the thing with you Skeptics....Again...Where did I ever say that this was proof of an inside job or that this was the best answer to an inside job??

I'll leave you to struggle to find the proof of that one.

Another skeptic misqouting me with erroneous judgements!!....Too Funny!! This debunking is easy, you just have to disagree...no logic whatsoever!!!!

Logic is my keyword - Maybe you can make
sense of the truther-scenario, Stundie:


The problem i have is this:

I try to be the conspirator right now and i´m planning
to destroy the WTC:

How can i execute my plans the best way? Let´s see:
the 93 bombing is still in peoples mind and people believe
it was AQ.

The best thing would be to blow it with bombs, film the
whole mess by installing a crew at the building making
a documentary and say AQ did it again.

No one would doubt it.

But this is to easy. We need some planes for no
reason to attract the whole world and as much
cameras as possible to hide our secret inside job.

Then we crash no plane into nowhere at shanksville
and we say nevertheless it was a plane.

We blow up the highest buildings at the WTC-site
and make it look like controlled demolitions.

We also crash no plane into the pentagon but to
make it as authentic and believable as possible we
say it was a plane nevertheless.

Then we forget to involve our CIA-Osama and because
we forgot it and because we forgot that he is available
to make some cool footage, we have to fake some lousy,
doubtable video-evidence.

We also forget to start an own investigation that
affirms that the AQ-Gang did it without doubts...

We forget to put Osama on top of the FBI-most
wanted list and we forget the Hijackers that are
well and alive.

We also forget to think about why we are blowing
up the WTC and therefore we need to fake the
WMD evidence to go to war.

Seriously: Who writes this stuff?

Nothing personal at all. I simply don´t get it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Contradiction
In logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other.

So NIST and PM do not fall under these catergories...lol

Your right science is process....Shame you don't follow it!!

Rather than posting empty, condescending messages, perhaps you should elaborate on why you feel the NIST report and the PM article are incompatible.

 

[Pardalis]

Contradiction
In logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other.

OK, so how does PM and NIST contradict themselves in this way? How are their conlcusions "logical inversions of eatch other"?

 

[stundie]

That is not what I said. I clearly stated that if PM was proven wrong on one point of fact in their article, that it does not automatically invalidate any other point of facts in their article. Since PM is not dealing with a chain of evidence or logic, A->B->C->D, then you can not invalidate A, C, or D just by invalidating B. A, B, C, and D are all discrete elements and are not dependent upon each other.

I did not say they should be "trusted". Each point of fact needs to be looked at individually and supported, or debunked, as the evidence shows. Your attempts at discrediting PM by going back to Hearst, without demonstrating that the current PM is committing "yellow journalism" amount to nothing more than argumentum ad hominem.

Please deal with the facts.

And, for the love of Ed, please try to keep focused on one topic at a time.

You want PM comitting Yellow Journalism....Listen to Davin Coburn of said magazine getting pushed getting into a flap with questions he can't answer.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2064011173678536575

Funniest part is, David asking Charles Goyette to reframe the quesrtion!!

 

[stundie]

OK, so how does PM and NIST contradict themselves in this way? How are their conlcusions "logical inversions of eatch other"?

Its called logical incompatibility not inversions. This is not rocket science!

PM use the Panacke Theory. NIST Do not support it.<---Contradiction!! U

Do you see where the contradiction lies? Unless you wanna go down the 2 part road that you debunkers seem hooked on!! lol

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You want PM comitting Yellow Journalism....Listen to Davin Coburn of said magazine getting pushed getting into a flap with questions he can't answer.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2064011173678536575

Funniest part is, David asking Charles Goyette to reframe the quesrtion!!

I can't watch that video from work right now. Can you please quote the specific parts that meet with the definition of yellow journalism?

"Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or individual journalists."

 

[stundie]

Rather than posting empty, condescending messages, perhaps you should elaborate on why you feel the NIST report and the PM article are incompatible.

I do not feel they are anything. The statements are incompatible. Please read and tell which part you do not understand.

PM Support the Pancake Theory.

NIST Doesn't!

Its that simple!