• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Flight 93

jammonius said:
1--The curiously worded statement of the Moussaoui trial exhibts already discussed where it was finally acknowledged by tom that the photographs would need to be verified by, among other things, experts. Do you recall that?
Click to expand...

Typical truther BS.

1. You have not demonstrated in the slightest that it was "curiously worded".

2. You are attempting to use MY words to suggest that the gov't has not met its burden of proof that those parts are from UA93. When I said explicitly the opposite.

Typical lying by a truther who doesn't know the meaning of the word "honesty".


Tom

BTW, while looking thru the evidence for this trial, I stumbled on this chilling passage.
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200056T.pdf

This transcript records the guys that you are defending, repeatedly slicing some poor soul, while he/she begged for his/her life.

I hope you're proud of your buddies...

But it was "just a boxcutter..."
 
I believe, based on his behaviour, the best description of jammonius is given by this small item of confectionary..........

 
Sigh. You Americans and your lack of knowledge of classic UK confectionery.
It's a Jammy Dodger.
Ah, I can almost taste the synthetic ersatz pseudo-jam substitute.
 
catsmate1 said:
Sigh. You Americans and your lack of knowledge of classic UK confectionery.
It's a Jammy Dodger.
Ah, I can almost taste the synthetic ersatz pseudo-jam substitute.
Click to expand...

mmmmmmm......synthetic ersatz pseudo-jam substitute........
 
catsmate1 said:
Sigh. You Americans and your lack of knowledge of classic UK confectionery.
It's a Jammy Dodger.
Ah, I can almost taste the synthetic ersatz pseudo-jam substitute.
Click to expand...

Based on jammonious' track record of avoiding direct answers like the plague, I think that we've stumbled upon a perfect nickname.

It don't get much better than "Jammy Dodger".

LoL.


Tom
 
A jammy dodger is also a name for some one who is very,very lucky,the last thing that I would say about Truthers.
 
dafydd said:
A jammy dodger is also a name for some one who is very,very lucky,the last thing that I would say about Truthers.
Click to expand...

I'd say Richard Gage is pretty lucky. Here's a guy who can't hold down a job in his field, has no exceptional talent, no prospects, and yet here he is jetting around the world being embraced by his adoring fans.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I'd say Richard Gage is pretty lucky. Here's a guy who can't hold down a job in his field, has no exceptional talent, no prospects, and yet here he is jetting around the world being embraced by his adoring fans.
Click to expand...

And all it cost him was his human dignity. He wasn't using it, anyway.
 
Bump.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5681773&postcount=53

Originally Posted by AJM8125
Attention is called to post #73.

It's a pretty straight forward question.
Click to expand...

jammonius said:
False. Post # 73 contains a plain as day example of a question that presumes what hasn't been proven. It is a laugh out loud stupid question structurally exactly like the old ditty that is used to illustrate the kind of fallacy post #73 is. The standard ditty for exposing the kind of stupid question posted in #73 is: When did you stop beating your spouse? The question presumes spouse beating without proving it occurred. Very few people fall for the kind of stupid questioning put forward in post #73 any more. It is a wonder that its poster does not grasp this.
Click to expand...

[Mods-I hope quoting this from AAH and placing it in its proper thread hasn't violated any rules - I've reported this post in order to bring it to your attention]

If it's such a stupid question jammonius, then why won't you answer it? It isn't a fallacy. It isn't a trick question. Your analogy is wrong. I'll state it again:

How many United Airlines 757's crashed in Shanksville Pennsylvania on September 11th 2001?

One? Three? None? What is it?
 
Last edited:
AJM8125 said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5681773&postcount=53

[Mods-I hope quoting this from AAH and placing it in its proper thread hasn't violated any rules - I've reported this post in order to bring it to your attention]

If it's such a stupid question jammonius, then why won't you answer it? It isn't a fallacy. It isn't a trick question. Your analogy is wrong. I'll state it again:

How many United Airlines 757's crashed in Shanksville Pennsylvania on September 11th 2001?

One? Three? None? What is it?
Click to expand...

ajm,

I could agree that phrased as follows, your question is not a stupid one or a trick question, etc.; rather, it is merely one that doesn't add much to the discussion, whether it is answered or not. And, I hasten to add, not all questions have to add much, some can add little and still be considered worthwhile. In my opinion, your question is not wothwhile, given the point reached in this discussion.

You've asked:

How many United Airlines 757's crashed in Shanksville Pennsylvania on September 11th 2001?

The issue here is now a bit different. The above question is not the one you previously asked and is phrased differently from how you posted it before.

Your prior question was:

"What other United Airlines 757 crashed in Shanksville Pensylvania on 9/11/2001 jammonius?"

The phraseology "other United Airlines 757" is presuppositional.
 
Whatever. It's clear you fear the question because you'd rather toss another word salad rather than just answer the bloody question.

So don't even bother, you've said as much as I care to hear.
 
AJM8125 said:
Whatever. It's clear you fear the question because you'd rather toss another word salad rather than just answer the bloody question.

So don't even bother, you've said as much as I care to hear.
Click to expand...

ajm,

As you can see, I did not find it necessary to make any accusations against you for changing your question. Please keep that in mind in the event of further dialogue. What I am getting at here is that I would like for you to respond politely as I did to you.

all the best
 
AJM8125 said:
Some of the problem probably lies with the troofer's inability to conceal evidence. Take the murky, unfocussed image they try to present as evidence:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=2540[/qimg]

Sharpen it up a bit:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=2542[/qimg]

Hubcaps anyone?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=2543[/qimg]


:whistling
Click to expand...

ajm,

You do realize that you are tampering with photographs, correct? Once you start tampering with them, you very quickly get onto a slippery slope of making one change after another until, pretty soon, you have made the photo useless as evidence because of the tampering.

However, when one looks at the photos it is not possible to say that a jet engine is seen in any of the ones you've posted, let alone jet engines from a Boeing 757.

What is truly appalling here is that it would have been simple to just show a part number from the surviving assembly in the way that we are given to understand is the norm for jetliner crash investigations.

I would have thought that given the way debunkers use the "demand more proof" tactic, that it would have been elementary to them that the common myth has a problem here.

The issue of what misleading photographs show or do not show did not need to occur. All they had to do was what is generally called "a normal investigation."

Can we all agree the FBI, for reasons that are unclear, did not record and/or document the 9/11 scenes by documenting jetliner debris based on part numbers?

Can we agree on that much, posters?

Because there are no jetliner debris parts identified by part number, the argument about what misleading pictures show or do not show cannot ever be resolved. The FBI, then, has made it impossible to verify the 9/11 myth.

And, for those of you who need to hold onto the 9/11 myth, you have a problem. Your problem is that it is not possible to rationally and reasonably confirm that the common myth is true.

That is too bad.
 
jammonius said:
ajm,

You do realize that you are tampering with photographs, correct? Once you start tampering with them, you very quickly get onto a slippery slope of making one change after another until, pretty soon, you have made the photo useless as evidence because of the tampering.

<another incoherent, vapid word salad snipped>
Click to expand...

jammonius,

I see a compressor section of a turbofan jet engine. You see a hubcap. Go with your delusion if it helps you sleep at night. I frankly couldn't care less.
 
You need to show that other airline crash investigations rely solely on part and serial numbers as the way that they identify an aircraft after a crash. Go on. I'll wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom