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

[Horatius]

Hector the MouseSlayer is officially bored with you now. Put up or suffer the consequences!

P.S. Today's Dr. Who used the same quote as my sig. I'm almost famous!

 

[tsig]

It's amazing how you people can go from being such seething, venomous, hateful people to such caring and attentive citizens.

If you want seething and hateful I can give you a platefull of the best that the planet has to give.


Then serve it to the ones who come.

See who stays for dessert.

 

[Dog Town]

Boo!

Worth repeating...Boo! LMFAO!

DT

 

[Bell]

Hector the MouseSlayer is officially bored with you now. Put up or suffer the consequences!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/94904574d8b0e3f1c.jpg[/qimg]


P.S. Today's Dr. Who used the same quote as my sig. I'm almost famous!

What happened to your promise about:

I think it applies here

 

[stateofgrace]

"Lyte Trip and I are in possession of some very explosive detailed and documented information and evidence on the Pentagon.

Every time I speak with him on the phone on the subject, it sounds like someone is picking up another line in the house and pressing one button, then the redial button sequence.

This has happened multiple times.

Plus strange clicking, like someone picked up the other line, then hangs up.

The clicking sometimes happens any time I speak with anyone regarding the Pentagon info since this new evidence has arrived.

Please be aware that neither of us will commit suicide and will drive extra careful.

And all the information we have has already been presented, but now will be documented.

Please stay tuned and pray for us."

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...?showtopic=604

We’re watching you……………………

 

[Gravy]

It's true...

Stupid is the real gateway drug.


This Public Service Announcement is brought to you by the North American Anti-Stupidity Council​

 

[Bell]

The plane! The plane!

 

[tsig]

It's true...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879045628808c4d69.jpg[/qimg]

Stupid it the real gateway drug.​

Let my kitty go!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

No planes? I see lotsa planes!

 

[T.A.M.]

In the absence of a troll to feed, the JREFers, completely idle, decide to feed their delusions and insanity with pictures of arrested kittens and other LSD induced visuals.

TAM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Mark Roberts,

Let me ask you a question about Sgt. Lagasse, if Sgt. Lagasse said the plane was on the North side would you believe him or call him a liar?

If you believed him, would you accept 9/11 as an inside job? Because you would have to.

False dilemma
This fallacy typically involves asking a question and providing only two possible answers when there are actually far more. It seems to be a favourite of politicians, especially when trying to win support for a none-too-plausible policy. Take this classic example:

You're either with us or against us.​

The implicit argument here is that two possible positions exist with regard to the matter at hand: in favour or opposed. If we are not in favour, then, it follows that we must be opposed; and vice versa. The use of such tactics often give us the opportunity of appreciating fine—if overblown—rhetoric, too, like "do you support this war to defend our way of life or are you a cowardly, treasonous blackguard?" To expose the question as a false dilemma, all we need do is show that an alternative response exits. Other names for the same thing are the black and white fallacy, which immediately calls our attention to the shades of grey that are ignored, or the bifurcation fallacy.
Take another example:

Either you support lowering taxes or you're content to see this country go to hell in short order.​

The person presenting such a choice presumably advocates the lowering of taxes and is offering us a choice of two options. Since the second one seems unpalatable, he or she assumes we will lend our support to the policy. Taking the best possible reading of this situation, we might have the following:

P1: We can lower taxes or the country can go to the devil;
P2: No other options exist;
C: Therefore, a person not agreeing with lowering taxes is content to see the country fall apart.​

Even this does not precisely address the statement as given; for instance, we could hold no opinion at all on the matter, or be insufficiently informed to do so sensibly. These are alternatives, so the choice given is a false dilemma. In the above formulation we could challenge P2, since it seems unlikely that only one policy has been proposed. A single alternative would again make the choice a false dilemma. As before, this is a fallacy of presumption.

http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#false_dilemma

 

[LashL]

So you are either a dolt or you have no evidence. Which is it?

In S4S's case, this is not actually an either/or proposition. It's a safe bet that S4S is both a dolt and that he has no evidence.

 

[rwguinn]

In S4S's case, this is not actually an either/or proposition. It's a safe bet that S4S is both a dolt and that he has no evidence.

I gotta say, My hat's off to these guys.
They have made an art form of Circular reasoning
The damage is consistent with the plane passing S. of Citgo, but since the plane passed N of Citgo then disappeared, it must have been staged

 

[jaydeehess]

"Clearly Lloyd is lying or else the laws of physcis were violated

the only logical conclusion is that his account has been totally fabricated and staged.

Lloyd has somehow been compromised by the perpetrators."

Right, but did he make that quote as anoymous Pentagon researcher for LC or was he Craig the member of the Elite Pentagon research team who hasn't made any official claims in his presentation?

And honestly you should use another person than Lloyd, his account is going to suffer the most turmoil.

It absolutly has no bearing whatsoever whether or not he states this as a member of the Elite Pentagon research team. He , himself can be held acountable for defamation.

In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes an express or implied factual claim that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions provide legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to punish various kinds of defamation.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel.

His only defence would be to prove his allegations which would involve using 'research' gathered by the Elite Pentagon research team which would then implicate that group and should the evidence be found to be severely wanting the entire group could be found to have defamed Mr.England. Besides which your last sentence, "use another person than Lloyd, his account is going to suffer the most turmoil" implies that the Elite Pentagon research team will be releaseing a statement that indeed will defame Mr. England.(as per the definition above)


I suppose you are prepared for this possibility?

 

[Lyte Trip]

I suppose you are prepared for this possibility?

Sure.

But it won't happen.

Because I am right.

It will not be challenged and this much I promise you.

Lloyd's account is IMPOSSIBLE that's a fact.

I have evidence to prove it and it's going to come down to every single one of you either calling Lloyd or the multiple corroborated witnesses we have at the citgo station liars.

I did not out right accuse Mike Walter or Father McGraw of lying.

I will freely admit that I have suspected the possibility that they were lying and I will not retract that.


But Lloyd's account is physically impossible even without the new evidence.

I think jref needs a Lloyd thread.

 

[TheGrunion]

Sure.

But it won't happen.

Because I am right.

It will not be challenged and this much I promise you.

Lloyd's account is IMPOSSIBLE and this much is fact.

I have evidence to prove it and it's going to come down to every single one of you either calling Lloyd or the multiple corroborated witnesses we have at the citgo station liars.

I did not out right accuse Mike Walter or Father McGraw of lying.

I will freely admit that I have suspected the possibility that they were lying and I will not retract that.


But Lloyd's account is physically impossible even without the new evidence.

I think jref needs a Lloyd thread.

Evidence?

You don't have any evidence, boy.

 

[Dog Town]

I have evidence to prove it and it's going to come down to every single one of you either calling Lloyd or the multiple corroborated witnesses we have at the citgo station liars.

Tainted Citgo Witnesses Testimony, for a thousand, please...Alex!

 

[Lyte Trip]

Evidence?

You don't have any evidence, boy.

I've been a "truther" for a while now.

I'm sure some of you guys have seen me in other forums.

I have never bothered to come in here to "troll".

And I would never have chosen to waste my time in this wretched forum at all if it weren't for the fact that I personally now have strong evidence.

Since you guys are going to be the loudest critics (regardless of the evidence) I am simply doing my part to make sure you get your facts straight.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

 

[TheGrunion]

I've been a "truther" for a while now.

I'm sure some of you guys have seen me in other forums.

I have never bothered to come in here to "troll".

And I would never have chosen to waste my time in this wretched forum at all if it weren't for the fact that I personally now have strong evidence.

Since you guys are going to be the loudest critics (regardless of the evidence) I am simply doing my part to make sure you get your facts straight.

You're scared.

You're timid.

You're already worrying about corners and paint.

I can tell.

You don't have a shred of evidence that can be used to disprove what you call "The Official Story" and the rest of the world calls "reality".