This is awesomely hilarious!
elmondo,
What are we to do with you? Your post doesn't point to proof of jetliner crashes. Your post points to the paltry, insufficient information that has been put out for public consumption and for purposes of distraction.
Jetliner crashes are not hard to prove and they are not vague events.
Yet, everything you or anyone else tries so mightily to point to results in uncertainty, ambiguity and contradiction.
Like I said above: There's nothing vague or insufficient about the flight path studies. They're based on 1. ATC radar data, and 2. FDR data. You'd have to not only posit that both are faked, but also claim that the originators as well as the investigators of the data - the FAA, the FBI,the airline companies, and the NTSB - lied about what they found.
Funny that. You present no evidence that this is the case. You can only try to paint it as "vague" and "insufficient". Utter fail on your part.
It's not a belief. There is no evidence of flights, let alone crashes.
Untrue. See all previous links provided in this thread. You are not only indulging in a belief, you are indulging in one that has been disproven.
Verifiable information for an event like 9/11 is essential. It is only in an emotionally driven, psyop world, where verified data is dispensed with. The most common way in which this was done for 9/11 was to respond to a legitimate question by saying "Oh, think about the victims" which served to squelch legitimate inquiry. Come to think of it, that tactic has been used in this thread, hasn't it?
"''Oh, think about the victims'', which served to squelch legitimate inquiry. Come to think of it, that tactic has been used in this thread, hasn't it?". Funny... what we were doing was showing
what the victims families themselves have testified happened. For example, I linked to Denna Burnett's own account of the phone call she had with her late husband during the event. But because it's inconvenient, notice how he miscasts the use of evidence in rebutting his claims.
Note, too, that he cannot deny the victims' families testimonies.
That claim is a) not true; and b) in any event, the first responders are among the best sources of information that contradicts the claim of a jetliner crash, could you but look at what the first responders actually said. The victims families are, likewise, among the best sources for casting doubt on the cell phone claims.
I showed Denna Burnett's source. Here are more links to many accounts from both first responders and investigators:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page2
Note these two links are nothing more than compendiums of links themselves. There are links and pulled quotes directly from first responders clearly and unambiguously testifying to the fact that they either saw a jet crash or helped clean up the aftermath.
Once again, I am recommending people look at the Felt family evidence; and, I am also suggesting that Big Al show the Felt family my posts.
At some point, Big Al is going to have to realize that it is he who is afraid of what they might say, not me.
Spot the logical fallacy here.
The claim, as articulated above, is not confirmed by the source document it relies on:
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00217.pdf
That document does contain what it claims are the times of GTE calls made, but it contains no information at all from GTE; and, instead, only "thanks GTE" for technical assistance, which, llinguistically, means that GTE had no input into that 3 pg. document at all.
False. The document was a summary of what GTE gave the investigators. The very records came
from GTE, and were validated by the engineers that GTE volunteered to the commision (Quote: "...
This information was derived from an exhaustive study of the GTE airphone records from Flight 93 (with expert technical assistance from GTE engineers)..."). GTE has more than vouced for the accuracy and legitimacy of the information,
they were the ones who gave it to the investigators to begin with.
And provided expertise to the investigators to assist them. So the only way Jammonius can disparage the validity of the information summarized in the document is to claim that GTE themselves fabricated it, then gave it to the commision. At this point, it's worth quoting what Ryan Mackey said back in 2007:
 |
"A Good Theory can be distinguished from a Conspiracy Theory as follows: When repeatedly exposed to scrutiny, the Conspiracy Theory requires more and more people involved, and more and more extraordinary events in order to prevent self-contradiction. A Good Theory, in contrast, remains approximately static in complexity as it is refined." |
Jammonius has to expand the conspiracy to ludicrous extremes to maintain any consistency in his claims. The stress on the claims is showing.
If by "data" you mean actual verified data of a plane crash, there is none with respect to FL 93, so maybe you did have enough time to post your reply. However, if that is the case, then your final declaration, where you claim: "ooops, sorry, Flight 93 did crash in Somerset County, Pa. on September 11, 2001..." is false.
So, switchpooint, what part of reality are you willing to acknowledge here? Will you acknowledge you did not look at all the data; or, will you acknowledge you looked at all the data (i.e., there is none) and still chose to espouse the existence of a non-proven jetliner crash?
Or, does your particular form of denial go deeper, still?
Funny... what did I say earlier about "verified"?
And here lies the irreducible delusion: That none of the evidence which exists is "verified".
We'll ignore the fact that truther incredulity is by no means a refutation of whether something is verified or not. We'll also ignore the fact that verification of the legitimacy of the evidence is given by the first responders to the crash site, as well as the victims families themselves. We'll also ignore that the legitimacy of other evidentiary materials has been established, for example the airphone calls, verified by
GTE themselves for the 9/11 Commision (and further supported by the airfone operators themselves). All that matters to the truther is that he can make the spurious claim of "verification", whether or not the evidence in question has truly not been verified. It doesn't even matter that the truther is wrong about his claim (see my links to the NTSB studies above); it only matters that he offers the claim.
Again, see all previous links.
jackanory,
I set up a viable procedure to do just that. Big Al says he knew Felt. I have already done exactly what you are suggesting, namely: requested contact with the Felt family. Big Al refused to do his part. As for what else I might do in that respect, I will get back to you.
At this point, I am still holding out for the possibillity that Big Al might cooperate.
Spot the
logical fallacy evident here.
________
The irreducible delusion has already been shown: Jammonius doesn't believe in the veracity of any of the proof at all. He gives no good reason for doing so, he simply disbelieves it. And he has to change his argument in response to clear refutations of his claims (use as an example his backpedaling on my pointing out that the NTSB
did indeed i
nvestigate the elements of the crash that were their responsibility. Problem is, nothing he says undoes the direction the evidence points in. Nothing he tries refutes any of the evidence that exists.
