Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

What is your theory, LD? You haven't provided a testable theory yet. Isn't there a "logical fallacy" called "failure to state" where you avoid defining your own position by continually asking questions and attacking responses?

Why don't you ask me what my theory is a few more times. I had said before that when you debunkers get tired of being called out for purposely trying to mislead, you just start back at the beginning of the season with reruns. We have had this discussion, you and I.

I am fairly sure that you do not even know what a "logical fallacy" is given the above statement but if you want to make fun of people for that sort of thing, try going for the people that use that phrase.

Why must I have a theory? What good would that really do for you or anyone else?

See, there is a great deal of difference between you and me. You apparently had no problem believing a story that was handed to you. I am waiting for someone to prove to me something happened. When I have seen sufficient proof, perhaps I can have a valid theory. Until then, what is your point?

If I do not present a theory, does that make yours automatically correct somehow?

reply to post by pteridine


listen, unless you want to accept my challenge, i'm through entertaining your trolling.

we've already proven that a plane took a NOC flightpath.

that proves that the plane did not hit any light poles

that means a light pole did not impale Lloydes cab as a result of a 757 hitting it.

that means the plane did not hit the building.

that means mike walter is lying.

that means there was a deception.

these are facts. If you would like to contest these facts;

Accept my challenge to discuss these things in the member debate section.

If you don't accept my challenge, it only proves to me once and for all that you are nothing more than a troll.

[edit on 12/9/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by Lillydale


Why must I have a theory? What good would that really do for you or anyone else?

See, there is a great deal of difference between you and me. You apparently had no problem believing a story that was handed to you. I am waiting for someone to prove to me something happened. When I have seen sufficient proof, perhaps I can have a valid theory. Until then, what is your point?

If I do not present a theory, does that make yours automatically correct somehow?

You're going to have to come up with one at some point. Otherwise the theory with the most acceptance (clue - currently not one which the Truth movement would endorse) is going to be, er, accepted.

It's been eight years plus. If you can't supply an alternative narrative chances are you will never be able to.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


There was a time when there were two theories about the earth.

1. It was flat and you would fall off the ends.

2. Monsters guarded the edges and would kill anyone trying to get that far.

Apparently, after 9 years the popular one became true?

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

There was a time when there were two theories about the earth.

1. It was flat and you would fall off the ends.

2. Monsters guarded the edges and would kill anyone trying to get that far.

Apparently, after 9 years the popular one became true?

Those weren't theoriesin the modern sense. They were pre-enlightenment superstitions used to explain away stuff that people lacked the tools to understand.

We have all we need to properly examine the events of 9/11. And the way that modern knowledge advances is, unfortunately for you, through a series of competing theories which are tested and refined against each other.

Currently you don't even have one to bring into the marketplace of ideas. Wonder why.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Those weren't theoriesin the modern sense. They were pre-enlightenment superstitions used to explain away stuff that people lacked the tools to understand.

I get it. Since you do not like the way my example makes your statement null, you change what is and is not a theory. What a joke. They were theories. I know it sucks but hey. There are many things that we are still in a 'pre-enlightenment' stage about. How many years ago was DNA matching a fantasy? I guess that means that most other crime solving techniques were just superstition? LOL.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Those weren't theoriesin the modern sense. They were pre-enlightenment superstitions used to explain away stuff that people lacked the tools to understand.

I get it. Since you do not like the way my example makes your statement null, you change what is and is not a theory. What a joke. They were theories. I know it sucks but hey. There are many things that we are still in a 'pre-enlightenment' stage about. How many years ago was DNA matching a fantasy? I guess that means that most other crime solving techniques were just superstition? LOL.

You honestly think that the theory of relativity is analogous to a an ancient Greek's belief in, say, centaurs? That they occupy the same intellectual space? You can't grasp that the way science and academic experiment are conducted in the modern era has almost nothing to do with the ways unsophisticated people made assumptions about their world hundreds of years ago?

Anyway, you misunderstood my original comment. Historical theories are complex pictures of reality. They are not axiomatically true or false with regard to historical events, but there are generally accepted models. They compete with and refine each other through academic debate. Yours won't be one of those competing in this way because you haven't even got one.

And FYI the enlightenment ended in the late 18th century. Your last couple of sentences suggest that you're spectacularly confused about what I meant when I mentioned it.

reply to post by Lillydale

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
I don't personally believe that. I do believe that he is one that circles the wagons.

I find that pretty entertaining considering the fact that someone using your screen name and avatar spent an entire post reminding michael of the MANY MANY MANY times he attributed a thought, theory, or quote to you.

I'm glad you're entertained, but I'm not sure what you find so amusing...

Originally posted by Lillydale
If you want to keep calling those innocent mistakes because of the heat of the moment, that is all you.

It certainly is my point of view. If both truthers and OSSers would give the other side more of the benefit of the doubt on whether or not the mistake was made intentionally, I think people would be able to sustain more amicable relations with their ideological opponents. Kind of like I do it, although since I'm frequently alone in my stance, I must constantly do a dance with my -own- side in order not to be seen as betraying the cause or what not. Admittedly, there are times when I enjoy the dance :-p.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by Lillydale


No, you not presenting a theory does not make mine correct. I wanted to see what your idea was, if you have one.

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by pteridine

 

listen, unless you want to accept my challenge, i'm through entertaining your trolling.

we've already proven that a plane took a NOC flightpath.

that proves that the plane did not hit any light poles

that means a light pole did not impale Lloydes cab as a result of a 757 hitting it.

that means the plane did not hit the building.

that means mike walter is lying.

that means there was a deception.

these are facts. If you would like to contest these facts;

Accept my challenge to discuss these things in the member debate section.

If you don't accept my challenge, it only proves to me once and for all that you are nothing more than a troll.

[edit on 12/9/2009 by JPhish]

We haven't proved any such thing. What you call facts, other people call theories. None of these things are facts. Stick to sleight of hand and don't let those bare assertions sneak up on you.

Originally posted by JPhish
A plane flew over the Pentagon, that’s all you need to know.

Provide proof that the Pentagon existed on 9/11. And don't give us any nonsense about so-called "eyewitnesses" to is existence. We want concrete proof.

reply to Lillydale's post #2340

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by scott3x
Clearly, I think that the truther side is more accurate than the OSS side, but I strongly believe that truthers frequently think that OSSers are trying to mislead, when in fact it may simply be that they themselves are mislead and have become entrenched on the wrong side of the fence.

Unfortunately, it is like this. The man clearly stated "YOUR" while talking to a specific person. He ascribed that theory to them and incorrectly.

Yes, I know.

Originally posted by Lillydale
He was afforded NUMEROUS opportunities to admit it was a mistake or prove it was correct and all he did was deflect

It seems to me that he never really understood what it was that KJ was saying he lied on. I tried to get him up to speed in post #2282, back on page 115, but he hasn't responded to it as of yet. It's possible that he missed it.

Originally posted by Lillydale
until eventually telling the next lie "I was ignoring you" when he was clearly responding all along.

Actually, Michael stopped responding to KJ's posts for 2 days. His last post before his temporary lack of responses to KJ was post #2218, on page 111. He didn't respond to him again until post #2263, on page 114, wherein he stated that he had been ignoring KJ's posts.

Originally posted by Lillydale
MM is the one that defined himself as someone who is trying to mislead. The method in use was by, and hold on to your behind here, attempting to mislead.

Lillydale, as I have stated to OSSers, you can claim a thing, but a claim is not proof of the claim. Personally, as I mentioned to KJ, I have seen no evidence that Michael has ever tried to mislead. If you believe that such evidence exists, by all means, point me to it.

Originally posted by Lillydale
Is it now fair for me start saying that all the debunkers are saying things and putting forth 'facts' they are not? Can I then pretend I was not caught over and over and over again for pages until eventually somewhat weaselly backing out of it altogether while still not apologizing or offering a correction? I would not do that because I know that it would be dishonest. I guess you are just telling me that I am that much smarter than MM that I can see that and he cannot.

I certainly believe that Michael has assumed certain things that aren't true. When I have seen him do this, I have pointed it out to him. I haven't seen him try to pretend anything, though. I have also at times come to believe that what some truthers have said is untrue, and at times I have pointed this out as well. I think there are a few problems here for everyone, and I believe these problems are working in tandem to hamper effective communication between the 2 sides:

1- People's memories are finite; things can be forgotten, and memories can become distorted as well.
2- People tend to filter what they hear based on their belief sets.
3- People can misunderstand each other.
4- People can make erroneous assumptions.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

You honestly think that the theory of relativity is analogous to a an ancient Greek's belief in, say, centaurs?

I mentioned cantaurs did I? Remind me when.

That they occupy the same intellectual space? You can't grasp that the way science and academic experiment are conducted in the modern era has almost nothing to do with the ways unsophisticated people made assumptions about their world hundreds of years ago?

Yes. This is not about the scientific method. You are stating that I must have one theory in order to counteract your theory or else yours wins. It really does not matter if the theories come from serious investigation or fever dreams. I am not the one that said there needs to be a theory behind me in order for anything I say to be valid. In fact, I was told in this thread that I should not even ask questions until I have my own theory to present. LOL. It looks like you and Pterry will be let down again.

Anyway, you misunderstood my original comment. Historical theories are complex pictures of reality. They are not axiomatically true or false with regard to historical events, but there are generally accepted models. They compete with and refine each other through academic debate. Yours won't be one of those competing in this way because you haven't even got one.

I did not realize this was a competition. I am simply looking for the truth behind 9/11. If you are looking for a game to win, I suggest you look elsewhere.

And FYI the enlightenment ended in the late 18th century. Your last couple of sentences suggest that you're spectacularly confused about what I meant when I mentioned it.

Unfortunately, this response shows that you are very confused about the premise you put forth to me. You demand I have a theory in order to make my questions valid and yet you are also the one who decides what theories are good and bad based on the century they come from? Ignorance is ignorance. If people thought you would fall of the earth because it was flat simply because they did not know any better, it is no different from you believing AA77 flew into the Pentagon because you do not know any better.

Instead of trying so hard to come across as outsmarting yourself, perhaps you can keep up with the actual things you said to me and then my responses would make more sense to you.

Originally posted by scott3x
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I'm glad you're entertained, but I'm not sure what you find so amusing...

Really? My appologies. I thought I had made it clear and since I was just repeating something K already pointed out, I thought you had it. See it is funny to watch you defend MMichael for what you say is NOT trying to put words in other people's mouths. Well, it is funny when you read this.

from you to mm

I never said that.

I never said that either.

Never said that either. Michael, I'm beginning to understand why people such as KJ get upset with you.

Again, didn't say this.

See, so when you defend him by saying he is not trying to be deceptive, it is funny.

It certainly is my point of view. If both truthers and OSSers would give the other side more of the benefit of the doubt on whether or not the mistake was made intentionally, I think people would be able to sustain more amicable relations with their ideological opponents. Kind of like I do it, although since I'm frequently alone in my stance, I must constantly do a dance with my -own- side in order not to be seen as betraying the cause or what not. Admittedly, there are times when I enjoy the dance :-p.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by scott3x]

Well I hate to have to break this to you but I am not here to make friends or read repeated attempts and missinfo. I did not sign up so that I could read people like MM, SF, WW, JT just say things that are BLATANTLY NOT TRUE so that someone else can come along later and get crap for correcting them. If it is a mistake, then why did he fight so hard to NOT ADMIT HE WAS WRONG. You do not defend yourself for 5 pages over a mistake and then try to take credit for admitting it was a mistake when you never have and on top of that lie and say you were ignoring the very posts you were replying to all along!!!!!!!


I am not sure I understand what your issue is to begin with. MM incorectly attributed one thing to someone else. He was called out on it being wrong. He could have admitted it was a mistake and it would have been over but instead here we are 5 pages later with you defending his choice to NOT simply admit he was wrong and let it go.

Now I know that Pteridine does not want any facts or evidence on that side and you are not too fond of people getting things right on this side. Got it.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Lillydale

 

No, you not presenting a theory does not make mine correct. I wanted to see what your idea was, if you have one.

Seriously, Pterry have you suffered from a head injury? Are you special in some way? You seem to have a bad habit of repeating yourself as if on a loop. Jthomas does it too. It almost seems like every few months you both just start back at the beginning of some script. Hmmmm. You have asked me this about 5 times now. See what my answer was any of those times.

Originally posted by scott3x
It seems to me that he never really understood what it was that KJ was saying he lied on. I tried to get him up to speed in post #2282, back on page 115, but he hasn't responded to it as of yet. It's possible that he missed it.

I will try this one last time. MMichael completely understood because he replied to it. He cannot be so stupid as to have twisted what he read into what he responded with and still be able to even use a keyboard. Moreover, he had already exchanged U2Us with me about it. It is nice of you to babysit but this is not the place.

If people cannot get their facts straight and cannot be honest, they need to be called on it and discredited or banned or shamed into silence because the only way to get to the truth is going to be to filter out all of the blatant lies. A good place to start would be with all the debunkers that have been WRONGLY attributing certain quotes and ideas to others around here lately. MMichael is not the first and will not be the last. It is all about little drops of poison all over the well. It kills serious debate and takes credibility out of both sides hands.

MM is pulling a Halpert and letting his credibility get shot in order to take Dwight out with it.

Originally posted by scott3x

Actually, Michael stopped responding to KJ's posts for 2 days. His last post before his temporary lack of responses to KJ was post #2218, on page 111. He didn't respond to him again until post #2263, on page 114, wherein he stated that he had been ignoring KJ's posts.

If you read along, the last response to KJ before this "ignoring" thing came about was specifically about this so he was following along. There is also the matter of the U2U exchange but hey, that is not mine or your business now is it.

Speaking of which....

if you have anything 9/11 or scott related to discuss with me, great. You need to let MM stand on his own. He has now had more than enough time to just admit he was wrong and still hasn't so you go ahead and defend that all you like but it will be on deaf ears here now. This is the biggest waste of time to derail a thread I have ever been sucked into and I am done.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


KJ

Talking about getting facts straight and being honest ; any chance of a straight answer to my post to you on p 116 ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

KJ

Talking about getting facts straight and being honest ; any chance of a straight answer to my post to you on p 116 ?

It was used in court so it had to be identified, correct? Which passenger was it?

To OS believers;

I have provided witnesses on video that previously supported the OS but now either support the NOC flight path, are inconclusive, or have been impeached.

CIT has provided witnesses on video who all describe a NOC flight path.

I presented a "Hit and Run" analogy which elucidates why the witnesses for CIT are reliable and why certain aspects of their testimonies and others are redundant.

After reviewing all of this evidence . . .

We're going to go back to the beggining so proper digression can occur.

I ask you one question.

A very simple question.

Answer in the form of

"Yes/No, because (enter explanation here)"

Nothing more nothing less. Just answer that one question and give an explanation for why you believe it to be true.

Was Lloyde England's cab impaled by a light-pole?

[edit on 12/10/2009 by JPhish]