[Moderated] So What Would You Think If This Were True?

[Lisa Simpson]

Everyone needs to stop making personal attacks. No one should to stoop to personal attacks to argue their point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[stateofgrace]

Aww, am I making you feel like a peon?

Sorry.

No you are making a mockery of a dreadful terrorist attack now answer the question.

What happened to Flight 77?

 

[Bell]

S4S:

Did AA77 hit the Pentagon?
Yes or no?

 

[Gravy]

S4S:

Did AA77 hit the Pentagon?
Yes or no?

I don't understand your question. I'm sorry to bring this up, but is English your first language?

 

[The Almond]

Perhaps I'm jumping into this argument late, but I don't know if the basis for this thread is a fair one. Skeptic is asking us to agree to change our positions in the debate based on evidence he's not presented. How is it logical to decide how you'll interpret the evidence before you actually see it? Isn't this the basis for jury screening in major trials? You don't want people to make up their minds before the entirety of the evidence has been presented.

To answer the question, Skeptic, I'll make up my mind when I see the evidence. The theory your supposed new evidence would support, that a cruise missle of some type hit the Pentagon instead of AA77, has not been shown, in my opinion, to adequately account for more of the data and observations than the current ASCE theory. That's the only way I would reverse my current opinion: Show me corroborated evidence which supports a theory that, in turn, accounts for more of the observed evidence other than that used to exclusively prove said second theory.

 

[W6102LA]

Wouldn't the C-130 have followed a similar flight path to Flight 77 ?

 

[LashL]

Perhaps I'm jumping into this argument late, but I don't know if the basis for this thread is a fair one. Skeptic is asking us to agree to change our positions in the debate based on evidence he's not presented. How is it logical to decide how you'll interpret the evidence before you actually see it? Isn't this the basis for jury screening in major trials? You don't want people to make up their minds before the entirety of the evidence has been presented.

To answer the question, Skeptic, I'll make up my mind when I see the evidence. The theory your supposed new evidence would support, that a cruise missle of some type hit the Pentagon instead of AA77, has not been shown, in my opinion, to adequately account for more of the data and observations than the current ASCE theory. That's the only way I would reverse my current opinion: Show me corroborated evidence which supports a theory that, in turn, accounts for more of the observed evidence other than that used to exclusively prove said second theory.

You're quite correct, TheAlmond, that s4s is attempting to goad people into taking and stating positions based on evidence that he claims to have but which he has never produced. It's rather silly, and quite indicative of his attention-seeking nature. He's acting like a little kid who says, "I know something you don't know" but, when pressed, cannot and will not produce any evidence whatsoever of that which he purports to "know". That is nothing new among tinhatters.

I think this is just another lingering result of the infighting at the LC boards where various troofers had been, for months, trying to outdo each other to prove that they were the "most important" among themselves. That's what led to the LC forum implosion a while back, and the mass exodus of most of its "admins" and most of its members.

Now that the board is back online with far fewer members and almost non-existent admins, the few who returned have the opportunity to be what they perceive to be bigger fish in their ever-shrinking pond, so people like Russell Pickering and s4s are feeling pretty full of themselves. What they still fail to comprehend, however, is that to the rest of the world, being a big fish at the LC forum is tantamount to being a hall monitor in grade 3.

It's nothing new for tinhatters to claim to have witnesses and evidence that prove that "911 was an inside job" but, surprise, surprise, when pressed, they never, ever present it their alleged witnesses or evidence for scrutiny.

 

[Horatius]

Perhaps I'm jumping into this argument late, but I don't know if the basis for this thread is a fair one. Skeptic is asking us to agree to change our positions in the debate based on evidence he's not presented. How is it logical to decide how you'll interpret the evidence before you actually see it?

We've secretly switched your old logic for NEW! CTLogik(tm)! It's far easier that plain old tired logic, and allows you to come to any conclusion you want to!

For only $199.95. No taxes, because we're CTLogikally(tm) proven they don't even exist!

Act now, before the NWO puts us all out of business and into the concrete of the new World Trade Center!

 

[Horatius]

scrutiny

Scrutiny? What are you, a facist? [/twoofer]

 

[The Almond]

It's nothing new for tinhatters to claim to have witnesses and evidence that prove that "911 was an inside job" but, surprise, surprise, when pressed, they never, ever present it their alleged witnesses or evidence for scrutiny.

Ok, here's another thing I've noticed. Skeptic states that he conducted interviews and, apparently, videotaped them, but why hasn't he published them? In other words, why not give the tape to some news outlet and allow it to be referenced and fact-checked independently?

 

[W6102LA]

Probably the plane that was seen on the North side of the Citgo

Tuesday morning, Knowles, 22, was watching the stunning live images of the of the World Trade Center burning from her apartment building about four miles west of the Pentagon. From behind the wall of windows in her 14th-floor bedroom she has an unobstructed view of the five-sided military fortress and the capital city directly behind it.
Planes never pass over her Fairfax County apartment, she said, so when a low-flying, high-speed plane buzzed the high-rise, she jumped up, ran to the windows and saw the rear of a jet heading toward Washington, D.C. A few seconds later, a second plane that seemed to be chasing the first passed over at a slightly different angle, she said.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/dailypress091501.html

 

[LashL]

Ok, here's another thing I've noticed. Skeptic states that he conducted interviews and, apparently, videotaped them, but why hasn't he published them? In other words, why not give the tape to some news outlet and allow it to be referenced and fact-checked independently?

Why not, indeed?

My guess is it's because they are painfully aware that their alleged witnesses and their alleged evidence will not stand up to scrutiny. Thus, they prefer to engage in the juvenile "I know something you don't know" game in order to preserve their self-deluded visions of themselves as big fish in little conspiracy theory ponds.

That's my working hypothesis, anyway, and they have demonstrated nothing to counter that hypothesis to date.

Unlike troofers, though, should evidence that appears to refute my working hypothesis come to light, I will consider it fully, completely, and openmindedly, and will be willing to adjust, change, and even reverse my findings if proper consideration of their alleged witnesses and their alleged evidence warrants it. (I won't hold my breath waiting for them to produce their alleged witnesses and alleged evidence, though).

 

[LashL]

Probably the plane that was seen on the North side of the Citgo

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/dailypress091501.html

Could be, as it is common knowledge that there was a second plane in the area (this has been discussed on various other threads previously, in great detail), but so far, "skeptic4sure" has not provided any evidence whatsoever - but only his juvenile "I know something you don't know" nonsense, so there is, as yet, nothing to refute.

I suspect that he hasn't proffered his alleged witness or his alleged evidence because he knows, if he is honest with himself, that not only is it NOT a "smoking gun" but that it is not even a starter's pistol, not even a child's capgun, and not even an Acme Corporation gun which, when fired, produces a flag that says "bang".

 

[T.A.M.]

Skeptic;

I can't wait to see this amazing evidence. It seems it is going to be revolutionary. So who do you have lined up first, Larry King, Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, Hannity, Glenn Beck.

I mean this new information is going to hang the president and his PNAC Cronies, so certainly all of the media must be waiting to get their hands on this stuff...maybe not.

Any way, like the rest of us here, I wait to see your "revolutionary" evidence.

TAM

 

[Squishua]

Isn't it obvious? There were really TWO planes!

No, no, no... there were THREE planes! They got the Pentagon with triangulated crossfire just like JFK!

The JFK assassination mastermind, disgruntled over his measly pension and lack of royalties, strikes back at the Military Industrial Complex with a hideous sense of irony.

 

[Gravy]

No, no, no... there were THREE planes! They got the Pentagon with triangulated crossfire just like JFK!

The JFK assassination mastermind, disgruntled over his measly pension and lack of royalties, strikes back at the Military Industrial Complex with a hideous sense of irony.

Welcome to the JREF forums, Squishua.

IMHO, Morgan Reynolds' single-plane theory trumps them all, even if it was stolen from The Onion.

 

[maccy]

On a related note, here's an interesting article about the problems of eyewitness memory

http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/eyewitness-memory.html

Edited to add:

and a couple of articles about how we perceive things

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connecte...illa05.xml&pos=portal_puff1&_requestid=347199
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B5245-6805-128A-A3C683414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=9

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Skeptic4Sure,

Present your evidence supporting your "blue line" claim, or stop this mental masturbation.

 

[W6102LA]

Eventually there will be plenty evidence for everyone.

Translation: What we have atm isn't evidence but with plenty of editing and dubbing we can eventually make it look like we do have some.

 

[ihaunter]

Let's just switch this around for a second.

Skeptic4Sure, if it could be proven that your alleged witness(es) is/are in error, whether in regards to which side of the Citgo station the plane flew or even which plane they saw (see above), then will you accept that AA77 hit the Pentagon as described?