Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
RedIbis said:
Reports of DNA at the Pentagon do not prove unconditionally that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

This is the only point that I've made and that you thus far have been unable to comprehend. It's really not my responsibility to keep explaining this.
Click to expand...


Ok, Joe Citizen purchases a seat on Flt 77

Pays with his credit card

Wife drops him off at the airport

Wife watches him get into the airplane that is labeled flt. 77

His baggage is loaded onto said airplane

the gate agent checks his ID, and allows him to board said plane

Said flight crashes into Pentagon

Joe Citizen's DNA is found at the Pentagon via his fingers being found, however, not attached to his hand where they SHOULD be

This is repeated HOW MANY TIMES???

Right. Totaally plausable that it is ALL 100% faked.

Retarded conclusions you have about reality.
 
RedIbis said:
Reports of DNA at the Pentagon do not prove unconditionally that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

Nothing proves anything unconditionally. Your objection is that the evidence available doesn't meet a standard of proof that you've deliberately chosen to be unreasonable. Your objection is therefore worthless.

Dave
 
Pardalis said:
In other words, what is your standard for evidence, do you have one or does it shift around according to your mood or your willingness to believe or disbelieve?

Remember, this is what you had to say about the victims DNA:

RedIbis said:
since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such DNA could have been reported without that flight having been at the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

But you can plug any type of evidence in the argument:

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such debris could have been reported without that flight having been at the Pentagon"

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such video could have been recorded without that flight having been at the WTC"

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such a core column could have been reported without having been at the WTC 7"

"since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such victim could have been reported without that person having been at the WTC"

So, according to your own logic, how do you go about and discriminate which statement is more likely than the other?
Click to expand...

Could you answer this please Red?

and this too:

Pardalis said:
What kind of evidence would satisfy you?
Click to expand...

You know I won't let this go until you answer, so might as well answer.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Nothing proves anything unconditionally. Your objection is that the evidence available doesn't meet a standard of proof that you've deliberately chosen to be unreasonable. Your objection is therefore worthless.

Dave
Click to expand...

He's playing exactly the right cards though, the denialist cards.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/impossible_expectations_and_mo.php
What I mean is the use, by denialists, of the absence of complete and absolute knowledge of a subject to prevent implementation of sound policies, or acceptance of an idea or a theory. So while moving goalposts describes a way of continuing to avoid acceptance of a theory after scientists have obligingly provided additional evidence that was a stated requirement for belief, impossible expectations describes a way to make it impossible for scientists to ever prove anything to the satisfaction of the denialist.
Click to expand...
Since Red refuses to answer what kind of evidence he would find convincing enough, we can only assume he has no standards for evidence, or such a high standard as to be impossible to meet, so therefore he puts himself in a position of constant deniability, he will always have a reason to deny the official story. No amount of evidence will convince him, and he knows this, this is deliberate.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
He's playing exactly the right cards though, the denialist cards.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/impossible_expectations_and_mo.php

Since Red refuses to answer what kind of evidence he would find convincing enough, we can only assume he has no standards for evidence, or such a high standard as to be impossible to meet, so therefore he puts himself in a position of constant deniability, he will always have a reason to deny the official story. No amount of evidence will convince him, and he knows this, this is deliberate.
Click to expand...


And yet he claims that Triforcharity's account of being harassed by a Truther was "exposed as a fabrication". Requests for Red to back up his own claim have been ignored.

Funny, that.
 
RedIbis said:
Reports of DNA at the Pentagon do not prove unconditionally that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

This is the only point that I've made and that you thus far have been unable to comprehend. It's really not my responsibility to keep explaining this.
Click to expand...

Ya know what red.

You are VERY right. Reports of the DNA of the passengers BY THEMSELVES do not unconditionally point to flight 77 as crashing at the pentagon.

But when you couple that with the following facts
1. the debris of a jet similar to 77 was found all over the pentagon
2. the eyewitnesses saw a jet similar to flt 77 hitting the pentagon
3. the radar tracks show it taking off and follow it to the pentagon
4. the debris are consistent with a jet striking a reinforced concrete building at 400+ mph
5. passenger affects match the DNA found
6. NO mystery jet landed anywhere and unloaded the passengers has ever been reported
7. HOw does the DNA of the people who took off that morning end up in a building on fire and in the debris which collapsed?
8. You have the reports of the people on flight 77 (known people) that their aircraft had been hijacked. (you can listen to the victims final minutes)

When you take ALL of that together, it is unmistakable that flight 77 struck the pentagon.
 
TruthersLie said:
Ya know what red.

You are VERY right. Reports of the DNA of the passengers BY THEMSELVES do not unconditionally point to flight 77 as crashing at the pentagon.

But when you couple that with the following facts
1. the debris of a jet similar to 77 was found all over the pentagon
2. the eyewitnesses saw a jet similar to flt 77 hitting the pentagon
3. the radar tracks show it taking off and follow it to the pentagon
4. the debris are consistent with a jet striking a reinforced concrete building at 400+ mph
5. passenger affects match the DNA found
6. NO mystery jet landed anywhere and unloaded the passengers has ever been reported
7. HOw does the DNA of the people who took off that morning end up in a building on fire and in the debris which collapsed?
8. You have the reports of the people on flight 77 (known people) that their aircraft had been hijacked. (you can listen to the victims final minutes)

When you take ALL of that together, it is unmistakable that flight 77 struck the pentagon.
Click to expand...

This is a good example why truthers prefer to take each bit of evidence in isolation and try to discredit it. When the entirety of the evidence is considered, it is overwhelmingly in favor of the commonly-held account of that day. No other narrative has ever been presented that even comes close.

Yet here we are, red arguing that the DNA reports don't prove anything unconditionally. Quite the statement.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Nothing proves anything unconditionally. Your objection is that the evidence available doesn't meet a standard of proof that you've deliberately chosen to be unreasonable. Your objection is therefore worthless.
Click to expand...


This is what RedIbis is doing: He's chosen to focus on a single piece of evidence, to the utter exclusion of all other pieces of evidence. He then "argues" that this single piece of evidence is not enough to claim that Flight 77 actually crashed at the Pentagon, as if there are people actually arguing that it is, by itself, enough.

Then again, he's lumping all of the DNA evidence under one umbrella, when, in reality, the "DNA evidence" consists of 63 separate points (more, if you want to count each of the, umm... body parts recovered).

So, while it may be enough to argue in, say, a murder trial that the defendant's DNA found at the scene isn't, by itself, enough to convict, I think it would be a little more difficult to argue that the presence of 63 distinct DNA samples at the scene is, even in itself, "meaningless".
 
Last edited:
Michael Chertoff questioned by CSPAN callers:



Funny how he immediately comes up with exactly the same disingenuous guilt-by-association-with-strawmen crap as the bottom-feeders in the debunking food chain on this forum do every day.
 
First caller is a moron who brought up the missing $2.3 trillion lie. Didn't watch past that.
 
Has bill smith really rolled out the missing 2.3 trillion again?

wow... it seems like 2006 all over...
5 minutes of reserach shows you that it was first reported 18 MONTHS before 9/11. Amazing that.

and that 6 months AFTER 9/11 they reported that 75% had been accounted for. And after the comptroller retired in 2004 it was up to 90%

absolutely amazing what 5 minutes of investigoogling will find.

pssss... bill, look up 911myths.com it really is a good source for all of your craptacular research skills.
 
TruthersLie said:
Has bill smith really rolled out the missing 2.3 trillion again?

wow... it seems like 2006 all over...
5 minutes of reserach shows you that it was first reported 18 MONTHS before 9/11. Amazing that.

and that 6 months AFTER 9/11 they reported that 75% had been accounted for. And after the comptroller retired in 2004 it was up to 90%

absolutely amazing what 5 minutes of investigoogling will find.

pssss... bill, look up 911myths.com it really is a good source for all of your craptacular research skills.
Click to expand...

Nah...I've dealt with MikeW already.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
First caller is a moron who brought up the missing $2.3 trillion lie. Didn't watch past that.
Click to expand...


Best part is following 4:30 into the video - watch Chertoff's face closely. The caller lists his military credentials and goes on to say that he to this day still sees a cover-up on 9/11. Chertoff wears his mask - friendly bored. Caller goes on "We know that Able Danger, which infiltrated ...".

Watch his smirk around 5:00. What a creepy guy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom