Poor debunker illogical generalisations - why?

Originally posted by jthomas
No, you are unable to make that claim since you haven't refuted the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

That is because there is none. There is no way to refute evidence that has yet to materialize. I will refute all the evidence you have that flight 77 hit the pentagon. First, you have to come up with some. Thus far we have zero evidence that a plane crashed there let alone flight 77. Where are the wings? Where are the people?

This is my second warning in this thread. Civility is not an option, it's a requirement.


Civility & Decorum are Expected

Courtesy is mandatory



[edit on 18/8/09 by masqua]

reply to post by prizim

here is a great post that shows the evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i should also put this in here:

www.snopes.com...

What is the evidences that prove conclusively that a Boeing crashed in the pentagon?
Your fist link wasn’t proof, nothing but some pictures that does not prove anything. Where are the wings of this aircraft? It certainly didn’t leave any damage on the pentagon walls and it didn’t break any windows at the impact hole, wow! Where is the damaged to the ground? (There is none) look at the ground floor of the pentagon there is no damage, the ground floor should have been torn to pieces and gouged heavily from the weight of the Boeing, there is none to say the lease. Nothing just the information that the FBI wants YOU to believe. The FBI is hoping to deceive your eyesight they want to tell you a story and push these photos at you and pray that you can’t THINK for yourself, oh, and to TRUST them LOL.

Your second link is nothing but a disinformation website I would try and pick your reading material more carefully. I read some of the editor responses and they are illogical unscientific, and mostly opinionated, and quite laughable.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
There it is - tezz telling YOU, in no uncertain terms that YOU are either a Truther or NOT.

So don't bitch about being a "Truther" and accepting the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Flyover Theory." You just have to accept that your name is written all over it.

You couldn't have got it more wrong if you tried, jthomas.]

Learn to read what you wrote or retract the claims

Your delusional thinking has clouded your ability to think logically.

Logic trumps you every day. To be logical is to understand why your first 3 paragraphs are complete logical fallacies and why you never would have written them to begin with. But you are not being logical.

Being a Truther does not imply believing that a Pentagon flyover took place. Sure, some Truthers believe this, but others don't.

Than there cannot be "two kinds of people with respect to 9/11." A perfect example is precisely that CIT and others are deemed "government disinfo" by a large faction of the "9/11 'Truth' Movement'" even though CIT meets your definition.

Sorry, buddy, you goofed. There are not "two kinds of people with respect to 9/11" as you claim.

But you don't have a clue why your first three paragraphs are logical fallacies anyway and renders your whole argument meaningless.

I look forward to your retraction.






[edit on 19-8-2009 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by prizim

 

That thread has great evidence that the fuselage from a 757 hit, but zero evidence that a winged aircraft hit the pentagon.

No, you are unable to make that claim since you haven't refuted the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

You won't even do any interviews or get the statements of the over 1,000 people who had direct contact with the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

So, as you well know, you can't make any claim that there is "zero evidence that a winged aircraft hit the pentagon." Whether it's in this thread or not.

Sorry.

Just admit that fact and move on, jprohet420.

Here you go. you tried to refute it there and lost then tried to bring it up here.

Originally posted by jprophet420
This thread was used in another thread, but i wanted to bump it as it completely debunks itself.

The thread points out that the hole is 16-20 feet wide. The space between the engines on the aircraft was 24 feet. The engines did not break the face of the wall. The engine debris was found on the inside.

Physically impossible unless they were special ninja engines that can walk through walls.

You were unable to ascertain the source so I reposted it.

Originally posted by jprophet420
www.airliners.net...

Look at the hole in the building

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole.

The source was of course this thread, which i had already stated and you have already either ignored or were not able to comprehend. Either one is fine to me because you fail again publicly attacking me instead of the content that I post.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by jprophet420]

What part of "No, you are unable to make that claim since you haven't refuted the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon" don't you still understand?

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
No, you are unable to make that claim since you haven't refuted the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

That is because there is none. There is no way to refute evidence that has yet to materialize. I will refute all the evidence you have that flight 77 hit the pentagon. First, you have to come up with some. Thus far we have zero evidence that a plane crashed there let alone flight 77. Where are the wings? Where are the people?

I don't have to come up with a single thing. You forget that you cannot claim the massive body of evidence available to everyone, including you, exists. That you wish to deny that is one reason why you 9/11"Truthers" are known "Deniers."

When I give you further opportunities to vet the evidence, you deny any evidence exists

You still refuse to interview any of the 1,000 people who had direct contact with the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

You don't want to know what they saw and handled.

Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and CIT - crack "citizen investigators" do not want to interview those people or get any of their statements.

Neither does Rob Balsamo or any of his Pilots for 9/11 Truth. They have refused to as well when asked.

Neither do regulars here, turbofan, SPreston, JPrpohet420.

All of you avoid actual evidence. And you prove it every day.

Just another reason why the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is a joke.



[edit on 19-8-2009 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry, buddy, you goofed. There are not "two kinds of people with respect to 9/11" as you claim.

No, there are many kinds. There are the no-planers, nukers, etc. Some people believe in certain theories and other people just have questions. I was told that flight 77 crashed into the pentagon. Then I was shown a huge lack of evidence that that happend. I do not just believe whatever I am told. I guess that you do. The OP explains how you cannot see the difference between me and say...CIT. Sorry buddy, but that is really your problem. Just because you want to lump us all together does not make us the same. I believe there were planes in NYC hitting the towers. I do not believe and nukes or lazers were used. I do not believe in the flyover theory. I do question the complete lack of universal rules of physics on that day as well as the Pentagon crash scene that looked nothing like a plane crashed there. I also have a problem with the PA crash because the coroner said that there was nothing, not a drop of blood, not a thing to collect and yet days later...everyone id'd by DNA. Still no plane parts but they managed to find everyone's DNA. Thank god they had everyone's DNA on file so they could ID the terrorists.

We are not all the same. You just have no answers for all of our questions. You can argue about the flyover so that is what you keep going back to. Fine, you win. No flyover. Sorry that you cannot address any of my other questions but that does not make me the same as every other person that doubts the official story.

Originally posted by jthomas

I don't have to come up with a single thing. You forget that you cannot claim the massive body of evidence available to everyone, including you, exists. That you wish to deny that is one reason why you 9/11"Truthers" are known "Deniers."

Where is this massive body of evidence????? Please just point me to it.

When I give you further opportunities to vet the evidence, you deny any evidence exists

Ummm...when did that happen? I think you are making things up, again

You still refuse to interview any of the 1,000 people who had direct contact with the wreckage from inside the Pentagon.

You don't want to know what they saw and handled.

Well, at this point they would just be people telling me a story. Who cares. If a plane crashed there, there would be plenty of evidence that is more compelling than some person's story.

Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and CIT - crack "citizen investigators" do not want to interview those people or get any of their statements.

Neither does Rob Balsamo or any of his Pilots for 9/11 Truth. They have refused to as well when asked.

Neither do regulars here, turbofan, SPreston, JPrpohet420.

Uh yeah, thanks. I do not believe that I ever asked for a list of people that do or do not want to do something.

All of you avoid actual evidence. And you prove it every day.

When?????? You need to stop just saying things and back something up for once. I have yet to be presented with any evidence. Why do you keep just making stuff up?

Just another reason why the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is a joke.

Cool, then maybe you should find something else to do. I am amazed at the time and energy you guys are putting in here to tell us we do not matter and that no one, including you, cares.

[edit on 8/19/09 by evil incarnate]

reply to post by jthomas


I am directly refuting it with the evidence available to both of us. According to the evidence that I have presented it is physically impossible. Thats what refute means. So if you have any evidence that the information i posted is false lets hear it. otherwise it is completely refuted.

reply to post by jprophet420

I am directly refuting it with the evidence available to both of us. According to the evidence that I have presented it is physically impossible. Thats what refute means. So if you have any evidence that the information i posted is false lets hear it. otherwise it is completely refuted.

Good luck, getting a response on your question. Jthomas is the “prime example” of what this thread is about. You may as well have this same conversation with a coffee table.

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

I am directly refuting it with the evidence available to both of us. According to the evidence that I have presented it is physically impossible. Thats what refute means. So if you have any evidence that the information i posted is false lets hear it. otherwise it is completely refuted.

Would you allow me to arrange an interview with you with CNN to break the news to the world? The BBC? Al Jazeera?

How about a press release on PR Newswire?

Don't you think it's ridiculous that you are keeping this "breaking news" from the American public?

What's holding you back from revealing the "truth" to the world, jprophet420?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jprophet420

 

I am directly refuting it with the evidence available to both of us. According to the evidence that I have presented it is physically impossible. Thats what refute means. So if you have any evidence that the information i posted is false lets hear it. otherwise it is completely refuted.

Good luck, getting a response on your question. Jthomas is the “prime example” of what this thread is about. You may as well have this same conversation with a coffee table.

It was fun watching Barney Frank nail a Denier.

What's even funnier is that we skeptics and rational people know you would get the same treatment from Frank if you dared hold up one of your 9/11 Denial Movement signs in front of him.

But then you are all too chicken to go out in public. It's the nature of the beast.

So, am I to assume that not one "Truther" here understands the logical fallacies in tezz's first three paragraphs?

If any of you see those logical fallacies make yourself known here.

Originally posted by jthomas

It was fun watching Barney Frank nail a Denier.

Quite possibly the finest thing that scumbag has ever done.

Although, given Mr Frank's, uhhhh, orientation..... the phrase "nail a Denier" takes on another meaning....

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry, buddy, you goofed. There are not "two kinds of people with respect to 9/11" as you claim.

No, there are many kinds.

Thank you. Then you confirm that tezz's opening statement is false.

There are the no-planers, nukers, etc. Some people believe in certain theories and other people just have questions. I was told that flight 77 crashed into the pentagon. Then I was shown a huge lack of evidence that that happend. I do not just believe whatever I am told. I guess that you do. The OP explains how you cannot see the difference between me and say...CIT. Sorry buddy, but that is really your problem. Just because you want to lump us all together does not make us the same.

Sorry, evil, you agree with tezz and lump everyone that doesn't agree with you and asks you to back up your claims as "government story believers," no? That started soon after 9/11. Do you now want to also reject that claim from tezz, also?

Yes or no?

I do question the complete lack of universal rules of physics on that day as well as the Pentagon crash scene that looked nothing like a plane crashed there.

Sorry, that is a "claim" for which NO positive evidence has been presented whether you believe the claim or not.

I also have a problem with the PA crash because the coroner said that there was nothing, not a drop of blood, not a thing to collect and yet days later...everyone id'd by DNA.

Provide your source for that "quote" by the coroner. Please note also that every time I have asked for sources everyone runs and hides and never provides one. Step up to the plate and provide the EXACT quote and the SOURCE. I bet you can't, but you can prove me wrong.

We are not all the same.

Then you agree with me that tezz's OP is FALSE.

Now, will you accept the converse? Will you agree that ANYONE who questions YOUR claims, just as you believe you can question the claims of OTHER "Tuthers", has legitimate questions, too?

Or will you pigeonhole them as tezz does as NOT "seeking the truth" and THEREFORE is imagined as some "government story believer?"

To put it more succinctly, isn't it fallacious for tezz to claim that NOBODY can ask YOU or HIM questions about 9/11 "Truther" claims? Isn't tezz saying directly and unequivocally that anyone "asking questions" of 9/11 Truthers that are uncomfortable and inconvenient is not legitimate?

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Cool, then maybe you should find something else to do. I am amazed at the time and energy you guys are putting in here to tell us we do not matter and that no one, including you, cares.

That begs the question, what are YOU doing here? Really.

Originally posted by jthomas
So, am I to assume that not one "Truther" here understands the logical fallacies in tezz's first three paragraphs?
If any of you see those logical fallacies make yourself known here.

It's amusing watching you scramble for some support, jthomas.

You have polluted this thread with your illogical fallacies and you've proven the OP many times over with your contributions.

You believe the official government story... yet you refuse to endorse the Pentagon Security Images. Is it that difficult for you to put your name to the Pentagon Security Images by stating that they show Flight AA77 impacting the Pentagon?

Please, keep up the support for this thread with your daily bumps and illogical offerings.

Originally posted by evil incarnate
We are not all the same.

Originally posted by jthomas
Then you agree with me that tezz's OP is FALSE.

jthomas, would you care to read what I stated in my OP?
Here it is, for your benefit:

Originally posted by tezzajw
There's a lot of infighting amongst truthers. Many have their own pet ideas with what happened. That's fine, whatever. Their common goal is seeking the truth, even though some of them go about it in strange ways.

See, jthomas, in my OP I stated that many truthers have their own ideas. They do not all think the same way. evil incarnate was correct. He has not contradicted my OP by stating that truthers are not the same.

You're wrong, jthomas. Again. Like so many other times in the past.

Originally posted by jthomas
To put it more succinctly, isn't it fallacious for tezz to claim that NOBODY can ask YOU or HIM questions about 9/11 "Truther" claims?

It's more fallacious of you to think that all truthers have claims, jthomas.

Many truthers don't make claims. They only want the truth.

Some truthers do make claims, so you're free to question those truthers.

If you read and understood my OP, you would have seen that I stated this:

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't care how ridiculous some truther theories are... they can say what they like. Their particular pet theory isn't the one that's being sold in History books.

See, jthomas... it's clear that I don't care about many truther claims.

jthomas, with the time and effort that you have spent in this thread, by now I would have thought that you should have read and understood the OP.

Try again.

Originally posted by tezzajw
jthomas, would you care to read what I stated in my OP?

Already have. Why do you think I'm asking if anyone spotted your logical fallacies?

He has not contradicted my OP by stating that truthers are not the same.

Tezz, you're just digging yourself in deeper. Let's review:

Originally posted by jthomas
JT: Sorry, buddy, you goofed. There are not "two kinds of people with respect to 9/11" as you claim.

EVIL: No, there are many kinds.

JT: Thank you. Then you confirm that tezz's opening statement is false.

That's funny that you now have to claim that "there are two kinds of people with respect to 9/11" really means there are many kinds of people with respect to 9/11. Love your change in definition. How fitting.

Keep it up, tezz - 9/11 Deniers always end up contradicting themselves when cornered and trying to weasel out of it.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
So, am I to assume that not one "Truther" here understands the logical fallacies in tezz's first three paragraphs?
If any of you see those logical fallacies make yourself known here.

It's amusing watching you scramble for some support, jthomas.

You have polluted this thread with your illogical fallacies and you've proven the OP many times over with your contributions.

You believe the official government story... yet you refuse to endorse the Pentagon Security Images. Is it that difficult for you to put your name to the Pentagon Security Images by stating that they show Flight AA77 impacting the Pentagon?

Please, keep up the support for this thread with your daily bumps and illogical offerings.

LOL! How confused you are, tezz.