Flight 77 maneuver

[Jango]

And then went on to say a whole lot more.

It's the "whole lot more" that makes your position untenable. You state your position and then insinuate that any other position is irrational.

Because in the grand scheme of things I.e. Knowledge, it is irrational. We know our ignorance expands into unknowable territories, yet we have firm unwavering POV's on subject matter wide and far, collectively speaking. In terms of 9/11, yeah, we can't know everything, which is openly acknowledged, but what isn't as widely acknowledged is that the very real gulf between What Is Known and What Is Not Known does not stimulate many of the debunkers into curiosity. You may not view that phenomenon as interesting, but I do, and not *just* for the Persona Management aspect.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10583923#post10583923

But as is usual with all your knee-jerk absolutist positions, you were compelled to backpedal away from it later in the thread, just like you tried to back away just now.

Nope. Let's follow the progression of that conversation to show what I was saying and meaning.

Post #76, I said:

I know that 28 pages in the 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 that specifically addresses 'Foreign Involvement' has been purposely withheld. I assume that you have known that for years now too. Obviously, neither of us knows (granted, another assumption) what it says word-for-word, but the subject matter in which it deals with and the 10+ years of stonewalling said pages isn't something to be left alone. How anyone outside of current employment with the government can say that we 1) shouldn't be pressing this & 2) have nothing whatsoever to worry about are weird cats, my man.

In Post #83, you quoted the above post but focused on this aspect:

...the 10+ years of stonewalling said pages isn't something to be left alone.

Your response was:

That's part of what I mean by "you imagine exists." Yes I'm well aware that at any given time there are literally millions of pages of government documents you can't see. But presuming that it must withheld for the reason you imagine (and not a different legitimate reason) is part of the conspiracist tap-dance. As along as any secret is held for any reason, you're going to insinuate that it would validate your belief if revealed. Conspiracy theories have been sold to a gullible public for decades on no better claim that exactly that -- "There's a secret, so it must be the secret I'm thinking of."

Which leads us to Post #91 where I said this:

I don't care what so-called justification is used: the information needs to be openly shared.

And I specifically highlighted this aspect of your previous post:

withheld for the reason

Now, re-read my post in Post #76. I did not indicate or say that *all* information should be made available to the general taxpaying public. I did, however, talk about one very specific instance where transparency needs to be attained, regardless of the justification for secrecy.

I'll re-quote myself again to see if you can pick up and what I was calling for to be declassified and shared:

I know that 28 pages in the 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 that specifically addresses 'Foreign Involvement' has been purposely withheld. I assume that you have known that for years now too. Obviously, neither of us knows (granted, another assumption) what it says word-for-word, but the subject matter in which it deals with and the 10+ years of stonewalling said pages isn't something to be left alone. How anyone outside of current employment with the government can say that we 1) shouldn't be pressing this & 2) have nothing whatsoever to worry about are weird cats, my man.

The problem there, as here, is that you don't own up to your prior absurdities -- except for one time whereafter I praised you for doing it. That you eventually can be led by your critics to a reasonable point of view is a point in your favor. But you lose that point when you continue to berate your critics for having shown the flaws in your thinking that you acknowledge by correcting them.

Surprise, I'm not always going to agree with you, just as you've probably seen me not agreeing with every conspiracy theory or theorist that comes down the pike.

 

[Mashuna]

I don't care if you take me seriously or not. I am not here to impress you, no matter what your self-inflated ego whispers to you.

And it is beyond the rhetorical "gotcha!" which is why it is funny: you do not see it even though the contorting logical gymnastics routine is clear to see.

You're just angry that I choreographed the routine, and over a hundred of your peers performed flawlessly for all to see.

I'm not sure why you're proud of your attempted dishonest argument, that was almost immediately spotted and called well in advance of your later attempted gotcha. Nor do I understand why you continue to act as though it supports your point in some way.

Wait, you're not a politician are you? That would explain a great deal.

 

[Jango]

I'm not sure why you're proud of your attempted dishonest argument, that was almost immediately spotted and called well in advance of your later attempted gotcha. Nor do I understand why you continue to act as though it supports your point in some way.

Wait, you're not a politician are you? That would explain a great deal.

Who says that I am proud? I proved the obvious, hip-hip-hooray for me

The deceit of many debunkers here have been properly exposed. They can't admit that there is a legitimate reason to question the Official Narrative of 9/11. Doubt is not allowed. That also exposes another narrative found herein that I have previously touched upon: a whole bunch of pseudoskepticism.

Debunkers here are set-up to only question what conspiracy theorists have to say. Ask yourself this: why are they not trying to debunk the statements of the government, or of businesses or of foreign organizations? Their responses focus only on the Accuser, and not the Accused who have ironically formed the accepted beliefs of the so-called skeptic debunker found here. Nope, can't question that.

After all, cockroaches scurry when exposed to light.

 

[GlennB]

The deceit of many debunkers here have been properly exposed. They can't admit that there is a legitimate reason to question the Official Narrative of 9/11. Doubt is not allowed.

That's a huge non sequitur when your "doubt" is an appeal to evidence you only assume might exist and which, if it exists at all, would need to support the CT view.

Although you can't see it, your approach is not an exercise in skepticism, it's an exercise in the rationalising of gullibility.

 

[Nick Terry]

Who says that I am proud? I proved the obvious, hip-hip-hooray for me

The deceit of many debunkers here have been properly exposed. They can't admit that there is a legitimate reason to question the Official Narrative of 9/11. Doubt is not allowed. That also exposes another narrative found herein that I have previously touched upon: a whole bunch of pseudoskepticism.

Horsehockey. The thing that cannot be 'admitted' to doesn't exist, because there is no such thing as a singular Official Narrative, much less one that needs capitalising in the pompous fashion you adopted above.

Debunkers here are set-up to only question what conspiracy theorists have to say. Ask yourself this: why are they not trying to debunk the statements of the government, or of businesses or of foreign organizations?

Because it really isn't about "debunking", but fact-checking and applying the tools of critical thinking. Whenever a politician makes an unsustainable assertion, they're called on it by countless commentators in the media or 'below the line', including on this forum. Debates in the politics forum here are even livelier than the discussions in the 9/11 forum, because ISF members do not think in lockstep politically.

Their responses focus only on the Accuser, and not the Accused who have ironically formed the accepted beliefs of the so-called skeptic debunker found here. Nope, can't question that.

Again, horsehockey. Skeptics of 9/11 conspiracy theories learned about 9/11 largely by watching the news on the day in question, if they are old enough. They then followed a developing story with varying degrees of interest, and then had the chance to read books written by journalists, academics or eyewitnesses/participants, as well as reports produced by the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the US federal government, along with potentially state-level materials.

Since skeptics of 9/11 conspiracy theories do not all live in America, the media sources conveying information about 9/11, Al Qaeda and related issues are global, as are the opinion pieces in op-ed pages they might have read. Many skeptics here are British, and a number are typical Guardian readers.

After all, cockroaches scurry when exposed to light.

Why are you describing the behaviour of Truthers when asked searching questions?

 

[Mashuna]

Who says that I am proud? I proved the obvious, hip-hip-hooray for me

Well, yes. You proved that you can misrepresent evidence. I agree that it was obvious, I'm just not sure why you want to.

 

[JayUtah]

Nope. Let's follow the progression of that conversation to show what I was saying and meaning.

No lengthy gyrations necessary. You made one of your infamous knee-jerk statements from which you had to recover. Just as you did here, and just as you have done at some point in nearly all your threads. Despite your critics' best attempts to bring you away from such absurd absolutism, you still treat them with undue condescension.

 

[JayUtah]

Who says that I am proud?

You won't stop crowing about how you got those silly debunkers.

The deceit of many debunkers here have been properly exposed. They can't admit that there is a legitimate reason to question the Official Narrative of 9/11. Doubt is not allowed.

Nonsense. Do you honestly think people can't read your poll thread for themselves and see the lengthy discussion about what might justify one answer or another? A discussion, I might add, in which you generally did not participate, in order to leave the question as ambiguous as possible.

As to the exposure of deceit, may I remind you that your likely ulterior motive and method in publishing it was identified and predicted long before you confessed to it.

 

[JayUtah]

Because in the grand scheme of things I.e. Knowledge, it is irrational.

Only to the solipsists. You've been given several excellent impromptu essays on sufficiency. Try addressing them rather than laughing at their authors and trying to drag them into your sophomoric rhetorical games.

 

[fess]

Flight 77 maneuver

Hey Jango, what was the outcome of the OP? In the maze of all the other conversations, I may have missed it. I haven't seen Flight 77 mentioned for quite some time.

Was the maneuver possible, or wasn't it? If it was, then the thread is done. If it wasn't, then explain why.

 

[Allen773]

Flight 77 maneuver

Hey Jango, what was the outcome of the OP? In the maze of all the other conversations, I may have missed it. I haven't seen Flight 77 mentioned for quite some time.

Was the maneuver possible, or wasn't it? If it was, then the thread is done. If it wasn't, then explain why.

The maneuver was this thread going wildly off-topic. Joke's on us.

 

[beachnut]

...
After all, cockroaches scurry when exposed to light.

Some advance, act as if they could stop you. You have limited experience with cockroaches. As with 911, the logic used is flawed. You make up lies based on preliminary collection of evidence, you make statements not supported with facts and evidence. You can't admit you messed up, so you do a gish gallop of BS.

Like your failed poll where the "official narrative" is, 19 terrorists did 911, they are responsible for all the damage. The answer is no reason do question it. And you answered your own poll wrong, double failure. You thought your poll was a yes, and it was a no for the "official narrative". Every thing you listed as the official narrative supports 19 terrorists did 911, the "official narrative", and your superior logic failed, as your ideas failed when exposed to light.

You can't figure out Hani's flying was poor, thinking the maneuver he did was too hard for even expert pilots; why? Because you googled it. You are gullible, and call your fellow posters cockroaches.

Then you have terrorists living on based, and trained by the military; but the source you used said "may have", and it was only people with the same names, or the terrorists using fake addresses.

 

[jaydeehess]

The maneuver was this thread going wildly off-topic. Joke's on us.

A 270 degree descending change in course into 'god-of-the-gap' territory.

 

[beachnut]

... instructors who were paid to train Hani said that he sucked, were amazed that he could do something like what he allegedly did: fly a 757 twenty feet off the ground at 460 knots.
...
What do you make of this obvious discrepancy?

Someone is fooled by the MSM, and failed to check the evidence. ?

The twenty feet off the ground? What did you mean by this?

 

[swright777]

...
Consider that it might be because you're not the brilliant political analyst and commentator you make yourself out to be, but are instead using the same old tricks every fringe theorist uses -- stuff we've all seen a hundred times before.

I've only seen it about 90 times. Gotcha!!1!11!

 

[gumboot]

Someone is fooled by the MSM, and failed to check the evidence. ?

The twenty feet off the ground? What did you mean by this?

To be fair he did fly the plane 20ft off the ground. Immediately before he flew it 19ft off the ground, which was immediately before he flew it 18ft off the ground, which was immediately before he flew it 17ft off the ground...

Heck, he was so good he flew it into the ground. How good is that?

 

[beachnut]

To be fair he did fly the plane 20ft off the ground. Immediately before he flew it 19ft off the ground, which was immediately before he flew it 18ft off the ground, which was immediately before he flew it 17ft off the ground...

Heck, he was so good he flew it into the ground. How good is that?

Yes, 77 did see 20 feet once, or more, before the murder of many.

 

[Wolrab]

Following Zeno's logic, there is no way the plane could hit the Pentagon.

 

[gumboot]

When ever anyone tries to argue that the 9/11 Hijackers were incapable of flying the four aircraft, I like to quietly point out that all four aircraft crashed, killing everyone on board. This is not generally accepted as an indicator of skillful flying ability.

 

[George 152]

When ever anyone tries to argue that the 9/11 Hijackers were incapable of flying the four aircraft, I like to quietly point out that all four aircraft crashed, killing everyone on board. This is not generally accepted as an indicator of skillful flying ability.

A fact which escapes the nutters.
I'm very proud of my flying skills that allowed me to avoid unwanted contact with the ground