Continuous, unrelenting personal attacks noted and reported.
Based on your inexperienced attempt at identifying jet engines, which lacks foundation.
Based on your uninformed expectations for how impact damage should appear, for which you provide no foundation.
Further expectations leveled without foundation.
A suppositional conclusion drawn from no demonstrable body of fact and no expert foundation.
Cart before the horse. You have not proven the engine was planted. You have noted what, from your lack of foundation, appear to be inconsistencies in the evidence. You have lept to the conclusion that the explanation for those inconsistencies is that the evidence was planted. You explicitly avoid considering or testing any other conclusion, or even your own conclusion.
In fact, your conclusion that the engine was "planted" is supposition based entirely on your uninformed opinion for what you think you should be seeing instead. It's as begged a question as a question can get.
From the supposition that the parts were planted, you infer the existence of operatives to do so, and you display obvious confirmation bias in asserting that the people you say the video shows unloading "heavy equipment" must be those planting evidence.
You assert this as the only rational conclusion, and you completely ignore all the reasons given for why it isn't rational.
No, that is not my argument.
You are the one affirmatively claiming not only that the found footage is relevant, but that the identification of the incident as the planting of evidence is a foregone conclusion. You are the one making affirmative claims while flatly denying any obligation to prove that your analysis is the correct one.
I'm simply disputing your fervent desire to railroad your conclusions through without any sort of critical observation or consideration.
Straw man: I am suggesting no such thing. You beg the question that the engine parts were necessarily planted, hence you propose to limit all my rebuttals to those that can explain that proposition.
I reject the proposition that the engine parts were necessarily planted. Hence I am under no obligation, under the notion of subverted support, to explain "how they got there," or to otherwise explain away the purported actions of FBI agents.
Elaborations in attempting to shift the burden of proof do not make it any more acceptable.
Straw men are usually indefensible because they are constructed by the interlocutor precisely to be so.
My position is simply the null hypothesis. Until proven otherwise, the engines found near the vicinity of a crash site are most likely those from the crashed airplane. Until proven otherwise, the activities of a group of people nearby at an earlier time are most likely unrelated.
For all your bluster in telling everyone within the sound of your voice how irrational, indefensible, and "typical" my arguments are, you manage to avoid addressing a single point in any of them. And you have now completely abandoned your discussion of your Apollo claims. Unlike you, my credibility doesn't seem to rely on having to tell readers how they should interpret the course of the argument. I presume they can see for themselves which of us is the most evasive.
How do you imagine this observation proves any part of your fairy tale?
I don't want to waste a lot of time on this guy, who is one of the worst who posts here while pretending to be superior. We have an engine that is not from a Boeing 767 sitting on an undamaged sidewalk under a steel scaffolding instead of being embedded in the ground.
We have a white van with agents wearing FBI vests unloading something heavy. Since the engine component was planted, someone has to have planted it. We are talking about a simple relationship between effect (the planted engine) and cause (the men in vests planting it).
Given the available evidence, your stance is irrational and indefensible. We are confronted with two hypotheses: (h1) it is an engine from the Boeing 767 that is alleged to have hit the South Tower; (h2) it is a planted engine that did not come from any Boeing 767.
Given (h1), what is the probability that it would be sitting on an apparently undamaged sidewalk, under a steel scaffolding and not even come from a Boeing 767? The answer, of course, is that the probability is zero, which means (h1) is incompatible with the evidence.
Given (h2), what is the probability that it would be sitting on an apparently undamaged sidewalk, under a steel scaffolding and not even come from a Boeing 767? The answer, of course, is that it would be relatively high--if those who were doing this were following a script.
Your position requires that, by the sheerest coincidence, a white van is at the intersection of Church & Murray where men in FBI vests are unloading something heavy. Leave the dolly out of it, since it may have come later. But we clearly have no coincidence but a relation of cause and effect.
No other alternative, such as spontaneous materialization, has any plausibility at all. I recommend you study inference to the best explanation, because your approach has nothing to recommend it. In this instance, you have completely missed the boat. Nice try, but a mediocre attempt to explain way a clear proof of fakery on 9/11.
