• 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

See above. There comes a time when rational people have to stop engaging with insane people, for the greater good, in hopes that the insane might eventually find appropriate mental health care and eventually be cured. But to poke and prod at them after a certain point is just cruel.

Seriously.
 
wargord said:
With this post I will prove that not only have you never once provided a valid source but that you are a hypocrite and a liar.

---awsome smackdown snipped---

Now, until you can provide a "valid source" for the claims you make, no one will ever take you seriously here, not that they did anyway. But now you know that you are full of it, as proven by your own statements.
Click to expand...

I was going to make a similar post, but I'm glad you did it first, and did a much better job than I might have done!

All I have left to say is this:

Either the 9/11 Commission, the FAA, the NTSB, and the coronor's office in Shanksville are all lying, or...

A random jackass on the internet is gibbering through his hat.

Which is more likely?
 
aggle-rithm said:
I was going to make a similar post, but I'm glad you did it first, and did a much better job than I might have done!

All I have left to say is this:

Either the 9/11 Commission, the FAA, the NTSB, and the coronor's office in Shanksville are all lying, or...

A random jackass on the internet is gibbering through his hat.

Which is more likely?
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll put down my hat...

Sorry.
 
LashL said:
See above. There comes a time when rational people have to stop engaging with insane people, for the greater good, in hopes that the insane might eventually find appropriate mental health care and eventually be cured. But to poke and prod at them after a certain point is just cruel.

Seriously.
Click to expand...

As I'm sure we're all aware, it's really difficult sometimes to distinguish someone who is mentally ill from a troll with too much time on his hands who derives enjoyment from dishonoring the dead. If he is a troll, then he's a despicable waste of skin. If not, then...I hope he gets help. I really do.
 
Reactor drone said:
That's mostly an optical illusion because you're seeing the window from the inside.I've scaled the pic onto a 757 and painted the aluminium white to show how different it looks when you can only see the window.

Window spacing is determined by the distance between the fuselage frames.

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/aircraft/757windows.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

That's totally fake! The debris wasn't white! ;)
 
LashL said:
See above. There comes a time when rational people have to stop engaging with insane people, for the greater good, in hopes that the insane might eventually find appropriate mental health care and eventually be cured. But to poke and prod at them after a certain point is just cruel.

Seriously.
Click to expand...
Do I get a beer for being rational?
Two?








9/11 Chewy Defense said:
According to the Truth Movement, Flight 93 was "shot down" by a "jet fighter". ...

Also another silly theory that's going around is that they planted plane parts ...

Truthers can say all kinds of things about Flight 93, but they never really lived near Shanksville on 9/11.

...
Click to expand...
They do say all kinds of things, most of so idiotic you have to question their sanity.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but YOU decide both what defines a valid source AND a valid investigation?

What is your basis for determining what is and is not a valid investigation?
Click to expand...

agglerithm,

You're slipping, agglerithm. Is it still too early in the morning for you, or what?

For as ugly an attempt at misrepresentation as wargord's post was, wargord at least made an attempt to recall that I have already painstakingly laid out the basis for determining what is and is not a valid investigation.

Since you asked for this, I am here going to paste that part of wargord's post # 716 that recalls some of the posts where that differentiation was explained. Mind you, it should not be assumed that wargord did a proper job of summarizing what I actually said, but he does provide an attempt at summarization and at mentioning specific posts where I had done so. I thought you were one of those who had lauded wargord's post #716. How could you do that on one hand and not have the foggiest idea what he actually said about his understanding of my explanation of valid investigation, on the other? Hmmm...

Here, then is wargord's summary:

"Allow me to direct you to post #148 where you make the statement, "As you know, the drill is if you make a claim, you have to source it." And in post #185, using a selection from SkepticWIki.org's 'Burden of Proof' page, you further show that the onus of proof is on the claimer.
You then state that only a "valid source" can be used to prove ones claim.

In post #198 you establish your requirements for the authentication of "valid sources:" "notarization, affidavit of preparation by whom, to whom, when, etc."

In post #129 you make known your distaste of CNN. This distaste is seen as your not allowing it to be considered "valid evidence." This starts your list as to what you will accept as a "valid source." You also state in this post, "...hadn't your first duty, if you're going to challenge people, be that of posting up some proof..." Your statement establishes that if one is to challenge others it is the obligation of the challenger to post proof of his position first. This proof then must follow your established requirements of "valid sources."

In post #139 you state you wont accept evidence obtained from a newspaper. This new requirement is added to your list of what "valid source" is.

In post #141 you further reiterate that newspapers cannot be used as a "valid source."

Again, in post #143, you reiterate that newspapers cannot be used as a "valid source" with the statement, "I want you to post up a valid source (not some dumb newspaper)..."

In post #149 you make it clear that Zacarias Moussaoui is not a "valid source." Though this was in response to BigAl asking for the evidence in the Moussaoui trial that was accept as real by both the Defense and Prosecution.

In post #153 you ask why BigAl would use the 9/11 Commission Report as a "valid source" when it has been established that the report has been "repudiated and found to have been unreliable." This establishes that you do not consider the 9/11 Commission Report to be at all a "valid source" and it is added to the list.

In post #165 you imply that if a person in authority hasn't declared that photos taken of an incident are proof of that incident then it cannot be considered a "valid source."

In post #221 you reiterate your requirement of "validated and authenticated" sources.

In post #243 you reiterate that the 9/11 Commission Report cannot be used as a "valid source" because, "it encountered deception such that the commission's report is not considered by those who prepared it, including most recently, John Farmer, have warned us that the truth of 9/11 hasn't been told."

In post #252 you make it clear that the FAA cannot be used as a "valid source" because, "the FAA's actions are so tainted as to render meaningless any attempt to rely on what the FAA says..."

In post #323 you state that, "NTSB has only provided secondary analysis...," placing the NTSB on the list of non "valid sources."

In post #357 you assert that "the first responders are among the best sources of information..." for the crash of UA Flight 93. With this you have put the first responders at the top of the list of what a "valid source" is. One first responder, the only first responder, that you use is Wallace Miller. You use quotes attributed to him in newspapers, that you don't accept as a "valid source," in an attempt to prove that UA Flight 93 never crashed. You acknowledge that he clarified these quotes later on to have been taken out of context, though you assert these later statements from Wallace Miller are lies. Again, you didn't provide any "valid source" for this claim.

In post #386, after continually making the claim that military exercises were being conducted on 9/11 making cellphone and radio communications not reliable as a "valid source," you finally post a source for your claim. This source, however, is the 9/11 Commission Report which you have already established as not being a "valid source." So you have shown that your claim cannot be proven."

Side note: After the above quote from post # 716 there follows a reference to post # 226. I am going to comment specifically upon that because the misrepresentation of that post is glaring. See below.

So, agglerithm, please review the posts that wargord mentions and if there's anything that you find unclear or need further help with, let me know. However, don't ask for help on things that you don't need help on and don't engage in phony misrepresentation or act stupid as I will not reply in detail to dumb posts whose only purpose is to facilitate continuation of the denial mechanism.

In fact, post # 716 is a clever attempt to do just that as another overall objective it has is that of distracting away from the fact that the FBI's investigation and what it did to thwart the determination of what happened in Shanksville has been farily thoroughly derailed.

I now give it to post # 775 for posters to address the issue of accountability.

Point blank posters: Are you folks going to address the need for accountability for the FBI's botching the Shanksville investigation or not?

Pick your spokesperson, wargord, for example, and answer my question with a Yes or a No.

I think it fair for me to ask this of you as I have here dealt in detail with wargord's dirty little syllogism and did not try to skip over it at all. See more below.
 
wargord,

Your post # 716 contains the following:

"In post #226 you criticized Beachnuts photo of the crash site of UA Flight 93 because it did "not show conditions that are consistent with a jetliner crash." No sources were provided with that claim. This is in direct violation of what you, yourself, had established in posts 148 and 185.

Post 226 is not the only post in which you make claims and fail to provide any sources, let alone the "valid sources" that you say are required to be provided by those that make a claim."
Click to expand...

The misrepresentation in the above is based on the kind of evidence involved; namely: photographic evidence. You, wargord, and apparently you alone, will have noticed that I have said that photographs can be valid evidence and provide the sort of evidence that citizens can analyze, or words to that effect. I think the context of that statement also contained a reference to the work of Dr. Judy Wood. I think I also mentioned the fact that the recent story about the release of 3000 new photographs were said to be an important source. I think I also said those photos were not actually new and were already on Dr. Wood's website. Do you recall that post and is it one of those you've mentioned by number but not by content?

So, the point is, anyone can look at a picture (and its equivalent of '1000 words' as the saying goes) and make a determination as to what it shows. That is what I did and that is what I invite others to do.

Here, then, is post # 226:

"beachnut,

This replies both to the quoted post and to the most recent one where you reposted this photo:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg

Note: As to that photo, I have said its most prominent feature are the "3 pink sun spots" or words to that effect and that it shows no evidence of a jetliner crash at all. That is my interpretation of the photo. And others are invited to interpret it as they see fit.

There should not have been any confustion here, wargord. You engaged in misrepresentation.

The post # 226 continues:

"I think you remarked or quoted the fact that airdisaster.com has 2,519 photos of 519 air crash accidents.

[Note: airdisaster.com was a source that I posted up and relied on. beachnut was merely commenting on MY source.]

Post # 226 continues:

"I admit I haven't looked at all of them. However, among those that I have looked at, they all pretty clearly show conditions that are indisputably consistent with, well, plane crashes.

Your photo, big and blown up as it is, shows conditions that might be consistent with a UFO claim or a ghost claim, bedause of those pink circles, probably caused by sun glare, but your photo does not show conditions that are consistent with a jetliner crash.

There is no emotional condition strong enough for you to be able to post the above photo as proof of a jetliner crash.

I don't care how strongly you need to defend the official version of events, that photo does not do it. Are we clear on this, beachnut? Your photo shows nothing at all that would support a claim a jetliner crashed anywhere shown on that photo and it is ludicrous for you to try to say otherwise."

wargord, I here claim that comment on posted photographs is a fair and well understood process in message board exchanges. If you care to look, you will see that on this pg. 19 and on the prior pg 18 discussion of whether or not that photograph of that piece of tin said to have been found at Shanksville can somehow be a part of a Boeing 757 is taking place. What is being done in that discussion is, functionally, no different than that which post # 226 entails, IMHO.

But, while the recent and, perhaps, ongoing discussion of whether that piece of tin said to have been found at Shanksville can be a part of a Boeing 757 or not, one difference is that posters are now altering the photo and thus destroying its value as evidence because they are tampering with it. And, that is one reason why photos, in order to be considered evidence, have to go through a process of, you guessed it, VALIDATION, so as to make sure, among other things, that the photo hasn't been tampered with or altered.

We've gone full circle on this, posters. Your hero, wargord, has used a clever syllogism, but that is all that wargord has done and I have now responded reasonably fully to it. I hope posters here don't think we need to review each post, in detail. But, if you do, then by all means post them. In fact, we've already seen some repititon. lapman tried to go down that path of seeking desparately to show that my reference to the 9/11 Commission report; and, in particular, my reference to Gen. Arnold, was a contradiction. But, when shown the context, even lapman specifically said and I quote:

I [lapman] SIT CORRECTED. Is that correct, lapman?

So, up to post # 775 we go to see if anyone will comment on the FBI's wanton destruction of the Shanksville investigation.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
The principal form of misrepresentation that you have relied on is that of context ripping and of distortion of purpose. Your dumb and dirty trick appears to work because in a single post in a lengthy thread you combine so many posts where the sole and exclusive reference to them is their number and nothing at all of their content, let alone context or purpose is mentioned.
Click to expand...


This paragraph makes the bit at the end of this post quite amusing.

So, wargord, I don't expect you to stop using epithets, but I do expect you to now realize, again as I have said before, that whatever a poster says about another poster is almost always merely a reflection upon the poster who is making the claim or using the epithet and says nothing at all about the other poster.
Click to expand...

*Snork*
 
jammonius said:
Riddled with drivel and snivel so deleted the rest.

What is being done in that discussion is, functionally, no different than that which post # 226 entails, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Bolded mine. IMHO

There is no Honesty in your opinions.

One beer owed by me. Sorry
 
jammonius said:
wargord,

Your post # 716 contains the following:



The misrepresentation in the above is based on the kind of evidence involved; namely: photographic evidence. You, wargord, and apparently you alone, will have noticed that I have said that photographs can be valid evidence and provide the sort of evidence that citizens can analyze, or words to that effect. I think the context of that statement also contained a reference to the work of Dr. Judy Wood. I think I also mentioned the fact that the recent story about the release of 3000 new photographs were said to be an important source. I think I also said those photos were not actually new and were already on Dr. Wood's website. Do you recall that post and is it one of those you've mentioned by number but not by content?

So, the point is, anyone can look at a picture (and its equivalent of '1000 words' as the saying goes) and make a determination as to what it shows. That is what I did and that is what I invite others to do.

Here, then, is post # 226:

"beachnut,

This replies both to the quoted post and to the most recent one where you reposted this photo:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg

Note: As to that photo, I have said its most prominent feature are the "3 pink sun spots" or words to that effect and that it shows no evidence of a jetliner crash at all. That is my interpretation of the photo. And others are invited to interpret it as they see fit.

There should not have been any confustion here, wargord. You engaged in misrepresentation.

The post # 226 continues:

"I think you remarked or quoted the fact that airdisaster.com has 2,519 photos of 519 air crash accidents.

[Note: airdisaster.com was a source that I posted up and relied on. beachnut was merely commenting on MY source.]

Post # 226 continues:

"I admit I haven't looked at all of them. However, among those that I have looked at, they all pretty clearly show conditions that are indisputably consistent with, well, plane crashes.

Your photo, big and blown up as it is, shows conditions that might be consistent with a UFO claim or a ghost claim, bedause of those pink circles, probably caused by sun glare, but your photo does not show conditions that are consistent with a jetliner crash.

There is no emotional condition strong enough for you to be able to post the above photo as proof of a jetliner crash.

I don't care how strongly you need to defend the official version of events, that photo does not do it. Are we clear on this, beachnut? Your photo shows nothing at all that would support a claim a jetliner crashed anywhere shown on that photo and it is ludicrous for you to try to say otherwise."

wargord, I here claim that comment on posted photographs is a fair and well understood process in message board exchanges. If you care to look, you will see that on this pg. 19 and on the prior pg 18 discussion of whether or not that photograph of that piece of tin said to have been found at Shanksville can somehow be a part of a Boeing 757 is taking place. What is being done in that discussion is, functionally, no different than that which post # 226 entails, IMHO.

But, while the recent and, perhaps, ongoing discussion of whether that piece of tin said to have been found at Shanksville can be a part of a Boeing 757 or not, one difference is that posters are now altering the photo and thus destroying its value as evidence because they are tampering with it. And, that is one reason why photos, in order to be considered evidence, have to go through a process of, you guessed it, VALIDATION, so as to make sure, among other things, that the photo hasn't been tampered with or altered.

We've gone full circle on this, posters. Your hero, wargord, has used a clever syllogism, but that is all that wargord has done and I have now responded reasonably fully to it. I hope posters here don't think we need to review each post, in detail. But, if you do, then by all means post them. In fact, we've already seen some repititon. lapman tried to go down that path of seeking desparately to show that my reference to the 9/11 Commission report; and, in particular, my reference to Gen. Arnold, was a contradiction. But, when shown the context, even lapman specifically said and I quote:

I [lapman] SIT CORRECTED. Is that correct, lapman?

So, up to post # 775 we go to see if anyone will comment on the FBI's wanton destruction of the Shanksville investigation.
Click to expand...

You seem to be engaged in a heated debate with yourself.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
"I think you remarked or quoted the fact that airdisaster.com has 2,519 photos of 519 air crash accidents.

[Note: airdisaster.com was a source that I posted up and relied on. beachnut was merely commenting on MY source.]

Post # 226 continues:

"I admit I haven't looked at all of them. However, among those that I have looked at, they all pretty clearly show conditions that are indisputably consistent with, well, plane crashes.

Your photo, big and blown up as it is, shows conditions that might be consistent with a UFO claim or a ghost claim, bedause of those pink circles, probably caused by sun glare, but your photo does not show conditions that are consistent with a jetliner crash.
Click to expand...
Wow. You looked at all 2519 photos? First, look up what a lens flare is. Second, please show how the following looks like jetliner crash.
592.jpg

I don't care how strongly you need to defend the official version of events, that photo does not do it. Are we clear on this, beachnut? Your photo shows nothing at all that would support a claim a jetliner crashed anywhere shown on that photo and it is ludicrous for you to try to say otherwise."
Click to expand...
Fortunately, rational adults understand that all crashes look different. You have failed to provide even one shred of proof that the parts shown in the photos belong to anything other than an airliner. You make wild claims that you have failed to backup with any sort of evidence. Since high speed airliner crashes are extremely rare, most people, especially you, have no idea what to expect. Still waiting for your photo of a "cargo carrier" that has windows like that or a hub cap that looks anything like the aircraft engine part that was dug up.

So, up to post # 775 we go to see if anyone will comment on the FBI's wanton destruction of the Shanksville investigation.
Click to expand...
We are still waiting for your proof that this happened. Where is your proof that the CVR, FDR and DNA evidence would not be adequate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom