MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
News to me too.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
CIT.....Time to call it a day
- Thread starter Mr.Herbert
- Start date
News to me too.
With regard to the BBC, some folks in the States would say that many of the news readers and reporters come across, in selection and tone, as consistently anti-American.
I suspect it may partly be a result of the English plummy accents used, which sound snide (again, to Americans, though they may not be able to say why).
Maybe we need a "BBC conspiracy thread." Though I rarely listen to it anymore -- changed my commuting times.
I suspect it may partly be a result of the English plummy accents used, which sound snide (again, to Americans, though they may not be able to say why).
Maybe we need a "BBC conspiracy thread." Though I rarely listen to it anymore -- changed my commuting times.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Hmmm, TC is suddenly quiet......Odd...
Hi Ron,
Glad you could make it...How's the "counting cards" business treating ya. Good i hope.
What exactly do you want to debate? In order to have a debate, you need to quote a claim made by the opponent that you would like to debate. You have not done so. We are still waiting. Please quote a claim from our website you would like to debate. Also, it appears "Hardfire" wants to use our banner and name to promote their DVD sales. www.customflix.com...
(ETA#2 - if above link doesnt work, try this www.createspace.com... if they remove that as well, just go here and look up debates with Loose Change on DVD. www.hardfire.net... nice mug they have for sale there.. huh?)
Yes, thats right folks, The people who accuse us of "making money off 9/11" are in fact hypocrites.
I have told Ron that P4T refuses to promote "Hardfire" and will set up another venue. They have declined to debate in any other more neutral venue agreed upon by both sides and it appears they only want to debate on "Hardfire" who will not donate to our organization any part of the proceeds of their DVD sales of our proposed "Debate". Talk about a stacked deck.
But again, you first need to quote a claim you would like to debate. You havent done so. And why does Hardfire/Mark Roberts refuse to debate CIT?
By the way Ron, is it customary for "rationlists" to delete their own post(s) content, when shown their claims are incriminating to the govt story, as did your "star rationlist" Beachnut... twice?
If your star "FDR Expert" cant get his claims under the "rational category", how do you expect to do so when you have zero aviation knowledge?
ETA: I told Ron he was being taped at the start of the phone call. He could have hung up. He didnt. Thats consent. Matter of fact his words were, "Thats ok... i feel anything i say i can stand behind, so it shouldnt matter if im recorded". (off the top of my head)
Again, if we refuse to debate, and if im "tony soporano" as JREFers claim, why does JREF ban "tony" when attempting to debate?
Ron, you run around saying "P4T refuses to debate". That is a lie, and makes you a liar. Your own JREF community proves it. If you would like to be more accurate, try using "P4T refuses to promote the hypocritical nature of Hardfire with Host Ron Wieck and that Ron Wieck refuses to submit a claim he would like to debate". That would be more appropriate and would make you less of a liar.
How about you get Beachnut over here and we'll hash it out. Think he can post without ad homs? Or deleting his own post content? Cause i dont think the mods here will tolerate his preferred debate style he displays at JREF (which in fact break JREF rules as well).
ETA #2 - First link worked initially, then started to have errors. Fixed link.)
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1
(4th post down)
That was Rob's last exchange with Ron. Ron never returned to ATS to reply. We are still waiting for Ron to submit a quoted claim from our site, properly sourced, in which he would like to debate.
Ron continues to go around shouting "The bogus pilots refuse to debate!", when Ron hasnt made it clear exactly what he would like to debate and when asked, he runs away. I guess he just likes to argue for the sake of hearing himself shout pointless drivel.
Ron, keep making claims of "Bogus pilots".. It only hurts you, especially since your behavior is very different on the phone. Why do you suddenly become so brave from behind your screen on a forum in which you know your opposition has been banned? I think i know why.
I think it maybe about time someone gives your phone a ring......
The problem for you is while you can summarily dismiss an eyewitness you cannot dismiss seven eyewitnesses corroborating the same claim.
Let me remind everyone here that one of JREF's favorite argument for the Pentagon attack is "people saw the plane hit".
If you would like to have a thread which debates the actual subject and includes not 1 single eyewitness account of what took place there I'm more than open to it but that definitely won't work well in your favor.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Please, please answer this one question.
What media outlets and what authorities have CIT contacted regarding their evidence?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Actually the "favorite" argument is the physical evidence that was found at and in the Pentagon.
Last edited:
April 1 was yesterday. The BBC has been far-left for a very l-o-n-g time. The network issued an in-house memo addressing its bias, a commendable example the three major American networks would do well to emulate.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
When your definition of eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the Pentagon excludes people who actually said they saw the plane hitting the Pentagon, it's a bit tricky to find a rational basis for debate.
Dave
Last edited:
The fraud Craig Ranke fled when we established that absolutely nobody--not a single person--observed his imaginary "flyover" of the Pentagon. The notion that a real commercial airliner would dive to near ground-level, head straight toward the Pentagon, and then zoom up at the last moment is beyond asinine. To label such fantastic, imbecilic crackpottery as absurd is being far too kind.
The bogus "pilots" cannot respond to Mackey's demonstration that their math is hopelessly flawed.
You cannot cope with the physical evidence of the crash.
The Penta-conmen admit that they will never attempt to show their nonexistent "evidence" to any real news outlet.
It's time to bring the curtain down on a truly rotten show.
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
That is false! How can you be this obtuse?? The argument is: how can CIT seriously contend that these witnesses support your flyover theory when each of them clearly state that the plane hit the Pentagon?
We point out (constantly and repeatedly) that your only evidence destroys your own theory.
If they are right about the path, they must be right about the impact. So you FAIL.
How can you seriously expect anyone to accept your argument that your witnesses are credible on the path, but not credible on the impact?
Of course, you cannot, yet CIT continues making itself look foolish.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
But yet Aldo, Craig, et. al. summarily dismiss those same wittnesses claim that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The words "cherry picking" and "hypocrits" come up.
Did you see the video where the police officer was mistaken about which gas pump he was at? Did you see where Aldo or Craig had to remind him of which pump he was at.
Now notice how the interviewers lead the wittnesses from then on.
Notice how they "only" interview those four wittnesses. Dishonest.
Their theory is crap, Thier video is crap. That's why thier forum is about as active as roadkill.
Face it, the movement is all but dead
Yes but it was pointed out to my attention that we can't rely on eyewitnesses even when they corroborate each other.
I was told that we then have to lean towards the evidence which I am told proves AA77 impacted the Pentagon. So I asked for a thread to debate this topic without ever using any account from an eyewitness since they are all so unreliable.
Seems odd to me but I learn new things here all the time.
Dom
If they are right about the impact then they are right about the flight path, either way you still FAIL.
Do you get it yet?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Now all you have to do is draw that line and show it to be possible. Wait isn't that the challenge?
CurtC
Illuminator
Paging TC329, paging TC329, you're needed in this thread.
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
The above is one simple question, why are you avoiding it?
ATM I think you have unfinished business in this and the other thread. But I'm willing to give it a crack when you've sorted this out a bit. Looking forward to it...........
BV
In the new Loose Change forum, Aldo Marquis states that CIT are taking their "Pentacon evidence" through legal channels.
here
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
round, and round we go............
The one interesting thing in this thread was TC saying that he might accept that the plane hit the Pentagon.
The CIT aside, I have to wonder then, are we here all in agreement then that the plane hit the Pentagon?
TC?
If a plane hit the Pentagon then it solves the problem of the aircraft parts and the human remains. It solves the problem of how a bloody large portion of the ground level wall went missing and the 20 foot diamter hole in the second floor wall.
All that is left then is TC and CIT's claim that this plane came in on a flight path that put it to the north of the Citgo station.
In order for that path to be correct then it has been shown that the plane would be in a 30 -60 degree bank depending on the speed of the aircraft. It also requires an explanation for the downed lamp poles. Finally it must require that any statements that put the plane south of the Cigo station be thrown out.
The CIT and TC ignore bank angle and g forces on the aircraft.
The CIT and TC must postulate covert subterfuges that toppled poles or removed poles and planted broken ones at the time that the plane went by.
The CIT and TC claim over and over that 7 witnesses cannot all be wrong but do not reconcile the fact that they are now stating that all those who say the plane was to the south are wrong. To this end the again invoke a subterfuge that allows them to disregard many of these witnesses by claiming that they are not misremembering but rather that they are lieing.
The fact is that the claims of subterfuge are made up entirely by the CIT. They are fictions born in the minds of the CIT. This brings us back to the flyover cliam made by the CIT. This is of course the most prominent fiction created by the CIT. It is therefore not surprising that TC is willing to throw that claim out.
The one interesting thing in this thread was TC saying that he might accept that the plane hit the Pentagon.
The CIT aside, I have to wonder then, are we here all in agreement then that the plane hit the Pentagon?
TC?
If a plane hit the Pentagon then it solves the problem of the aircraft parts and the human remains. It solves the problem of how a bloody large portion of the ground level wall went missing and the 20 foot diamter hole in the second floor wall.
All that is left then is TC and CIT's claim that this plane came in on a flight path that put it to the north of the Citgo station.
In order for that path to be correct then it has been shown that the plane would be in a 30 -60 degree bank depending on the speed of the aircraft. It also requires an explanation for the downed lamp poles. Finally it must require that any statements that put the plane south of the Cigo station be thrown out.
The CIT and TC ignore bank angle and g forces on the aircraft.
The CIT and TC must postulate covert subterfuges that toppled poles or removed poles and planted broken ones at the time that the plane went by.
The CIT and TC claim over and over that 7 witnesses cannot all be wrong but do not reconcile the fact that they are now stating that all those who say the plane was to the south are wrong. To this end the again invoke a subterfuge that allows them to disregard many of these witnesses by claiming that they are not misremembering but rather that they are lieing.
The fact is that the claims of subterfuge are made up entirely by the CIT. They are fictions born in the minds of the CIT. This brings us back to the flyover cliam made by the CIT. This is of course the most prominent fiction created by the CIT. It is therefore not surprising that TC is willing to throw that claim out.