Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You never responded to my post pages ago.

Obviously it was too difficult for you, but that doesn't matter now.

I did respond to your post actually; but it was around the time i was having internet problems and it must have not posted do to an error. Nice faulty assumption though.

What I'm interested in is this:

You claim that "respondent conditioning" was responsible for eye witnesses error in thinking that a plane struck the Pentagon. Your evidence for this is that a plane did not strike the Pentagon, so respondent conditioning must be in evidence.

You can see what's wrong with this picture, right?

straw man that's not what i'm claiming at all.

Respondent conditioning took place, it is non debatable. 1 + 1 = 2. Non debatable. You are claiming that 1 + 1 isn't 2, that is how inane your argument is . . .

[edit on 12/28/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by dereks
You have not actually, that is just your opinion, and that opinion does notfit the known facts!

Nope it's a fact, if you want to challenge the fact that respondent conditioning took place, then accept my challenge to battle me in a member debate on the subject. Guarantee you won't, because you'd pretty much be arguing that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. Good luck.

And the same applies to you, you think as you have stated an opinion, that becomes fact!

Respondent conditioning on 9-11 is a fact. Any time you would like to challenge that FACT, you can accept my challenge to a member debate. Unless you are willing to, please leave the thread. We have no need for your opinions unless you are unwilling to back them up.

bye bye.

[edit on 12/28/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


You have not proven anything. All you are doing is stating that it is "non-debatable" and a "fact."
What a logician!

Originally posted by JPhish

I did respond to your post actually; but it was around the time i was having internet problems and it must have not posted do to an error. Nice faulty assumption though.

It's faulty to assume that because no response appeared you didn't respond? I should just assume that if no answer is made it's due to so-called "internet problems"? I'll bear that in mind.

straw man that's not what i'm claiming at all.

It is. Your proof described above is a classic example of circular reasoning.

Respondent conditioning took place, it is non debatable. 1 + 1 = 2

.

Nope. Because it is circular reasoning it isn't proof.

You say above that respondent conditioning involves neurolinguistic programming. Prove that NLP was used on every eyewitness at the Pentagon. By your own high standards of proof this should be easy to do, since you claim it is "already proved".

Non debatable. You are claiming that 1 + 1 isn't 2, that is how inane your argument is . . .

Actually it's more like your argument is

I know that 1+1=3 so 1+1 cannot be 2

I have a few higher up friends,,I'll make a few phone calls and see if I can shed some lite here.

Untill then.

ROCK HARD!!!

I myself have made a few calls and found out there was some strange phone calls made to China And Russia pror to this.

My higher ups are keeping quiet on this matter and also told me this is best left forgotton.





ROCK RULES!!!

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It's faulty to assume that because no response appeared you didn't respond? I should just assume that if no answer is made it's due to so-called "internet problems"? I'll bear that in mind.

No, you assumed something far different than what you are claiming now.

Previously posted by TrickoftheShade Obviously it was too difficult for you, but that doesn't matter now.

You assumed it was too difficult for me. Faulty assumption.

Previously posted by TrickoftheShade
What I'm interested in is this:

You claim that "respondent conditioning" was responsible for eye witnesses error in thinking that a plane struck the Pentagon. Your evidence for this is that a plane did not strike the Pentagon, so respondent conditioning must be in evidence.

You can see what's wrong with this picture, right?

Originally posted by JPhish
straw man that's not what i'm claiming at all.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It is. Your proof described above is a classic example of circular reasoning.

You are telling me what I am claiming? You’re either lying or mistaken because I never claimed such a thing; Choose one.

The moderators have permission to ban me if Trickoftheshade can find where I said “because a plane did not hit the pentagon, respondent conditioning must be in evidence.”

Guess what? You won't find where i said that, because I NEVER SAID THAT.

Not only is it gramaticaly incorrect but it is also completly illogical.

Respondent conditioning is a fact regardless as to whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.

Nope. Because it is circular reasoning it isn't proof.

You are now claiming that your own straw man is circular reasoning.

You say above that respondent conditioning involves neurolinguistic programming. Prove that NLP was used on every eyewitness at the Pentagon. By your own high standards of proof this should be easy to do, since you claim it is "already proved".

straw man. That is a blatant lie or a mistake, I never said that. That means you are lying or mistaken; pick one.

Actually it's more like your argument is

I know that 1+1=3 so 1+1 cannot be 2

false analogy

1 + 1 = 2 is a fact.

Respondent conditioning during 9-11 is a fact.

When you accept my challenge you can attempt to put your opinions up against facts.

Do you accept my challenge Trick?

Because last I checked, I said I no longer wanted opinions and am only interested in facts.

Bye bye

[edit on 12/28/2009 by JPhish]

I know we have probably forgotten by now, but the Topic is:

"Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information "

Any further Off Topic posts will be removed and the Member possibly warned.

Thank you

Semper

reply to post by JPhish


Your claim that respondent conditioning allowed witnesses to see the plane strike the Pentagon was central to the "alarming information," requires that you prove respondent conditioning. Your analogies are not proof. Your assertions are not proof. Your claims of this being non-debatable are not proof. Your claims of this being a fact are a logical fallacy and have been since the beginning of this aspect of your argument.
Show how all the witnesses were conditioned or show how this conditioning would work with whatever limitations there would be. Describe what would have been seen had the conditioning worked. Would the plane have become invisible or would a second plane seem to have appeared?
You have a long way to go before anyone but the true believers accepts this theory.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by JPhish

 

Your claim that respondent conditioning allowed witnesses to see the plane strike the Pentagon was central to the "alarming information,"

Straw man (66) I never claimed that. Respondent conditioning CAN NOT change what people see; it can influence what people perceive.

requires that you prove respondent conditioning.

Respondent conditioning occurring on 9-11 is a fact. If you would like to challenge that FACT, accept my challenge to a member debate. If not, you are off topic since we have already established that it is a fact.

Your analogies are not proof.

Straw man (67), I never said they were.

As usual you are either lying or completely wrong.

It is a fact that respondent conditioning took place, it requires no analogy. If you would like to challenge that FACT, accept my challenge to a member debate. If not, you are off topic since we have already established that it is a fact.

Your assertions are not proof.

straw man (68) I never claimed they were.

As usual you are either lying or completely wrong.

It is a TRUTH that respondent conditioning took place, it requires no assertions. If you would like to challenge that TRUTH, accept my challenge to a member debate. If not, you are off topic since we have already established that it is a TRUTH.

Your claims of this being non-debatable are not proof.

Sorry, but something being non debatable is proof that it is true. It is non debatable that the sun exists, it is non debatable that 1 + 1 = 2. It is non debatable that respondent conditioning took place on 9-11. If you seriously think it is debatable, accept my challenge to a member debate. If not, you are off topic . . .

Your claims of this being a fact are a logical fallacy and have been since the beginning of this aspect of your argument.

No they’re not actually, because claiming a fact is a fact is not a logical fallacy. However what you just said is a bare assertion (69)

Show how all the witnesses were conditioned or show how this conditioning would work with whatever limitations there would be.

What’s the point of explaining to you how the sun affects our planet, if you refuse to believe that the sun exists? When you admit the fact respondent conditioning occurred I will explain to you whatever I can . . .

Describe what would have been seen had the conditioning worked.

Respondent conditioning CAN NOT change what people see; it can influence what people perceive.

After the “Twin Tower Event”; anyone in the world who was privy to the situation in New York, would be predisposed to believe that any large airplane flying low in the vicinity of an important building of a critical city in America, might be hijacked, and if hijacked would attempt to intentionally crash into that important building.

This is a fact.

Would the plane have become invisible or would a second plane seem to have appeared?

That’s not how it works. Can you elaborate on the question?

You have a long way to go before anyone but the true believers accepts this theory.

It’s not a theory that respondent conditioning occurred on 9-11, it is a
FACT.

I’m not sure of what theory you are referring to.

In relation to the OP, respondent conditioning is a very important factor that must be considered.

[edit on 12/29/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
Respondent conditioning occurring on 9-11 is a fact. If you would like to challenge that FACT, accept my challenge to a member debate. If not, you are off topic since we have already established that it is a fact.

I can't see anyone debating you as you set up your own rules which defy consistency and coherence.

And then you ignore the most important aspects of what you are discussing. Any witness testimony of what happened at the Pentagon at 9:37 AM Sept 11, 2001 is secondary to the hard fact that a 90 ton Flight AA77 exploded there and wreckage with passengers was cleaned up and analyzed.


It didn't appear either by magic or convoys of trucks carrying fake airliner parts. The plane was tracked from the minute it took off from Dulles Airport to the second it crashed 77 minutes later.

Too much solid evidence and consistent reportage to even question.

Your arguments are analogous to discussing whether a buffalo stampede occurred based on inconsistencies in years later witness reports - but ignoring the dead buffaloes and all the damage.

I strongly recommend another hobby. Debating is not your forte'.

Originally posted by mmiichael
I can't see anyone debating you as you set up your own rules which defy consistency and coherence.

Um, I wouldn’t be setting up the rules; the rules are in the member debate section on these forums. We debate and less biased judges would decide who the victor is. Part of the rules is backing up your opinions with facts. Something you have thus far been incapable of doing.

I’d be willing to debate ALL SEVEN OF YOU AT ONCE. That’s how bad your arguments are.

How about it fellas?

Me vs seven OS believers.

It’s amazing that not one of you have the brass to actually back up your opinions.

And then you ignore the most important aspects of what you are discussing. Any witness testimony of what happened at the Pentagon at 9:37 AM Sept 11, 2001 is secondary to the hard fact that a 90 ton Flight AA77 exploded there and wreckage with passengers was cleaned up and analyzed.

bare assertion I’m not ignoring anything. Of course if you are so sure of this opinion of yours, you could attempt to prove it in a member debate against me. But ofcourse you would fail, which is why you won’t.

It didn't appear either by magic or convoys of trucks carrying fake airliner parts. The plane was tracked from the minute it took off from Dulles Airport to the second it crashed 77 minutes later.

straw man that’s not my position.

Too much solid evidence and consistent reportage to even question.

bare assertion Well then employ that solid evidence you claim to have in a debate against me. Talk is cheap.

Your arguments are analogous to discussing whether a buffalo stampede occurred based on inconsistencies in years later witness reports - but ignoring the dead buffaloes and all the damage.

false analogy I’m not ignoring anything.

I strongly recommend another hobby. Debating is not your forte'.

Says the guy who refuses to debate me with actual judges.

I'm done here until someone private messages me and accepts my challenge.

Until then, have fun with your delusions.

[edit on 12/29/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


So when are one of you OS believers going to step up and debate with JPhish?

You could form an 'OS Team' and combine your knowledge.....

What are you scared of???

JPHISH, thank you for hanging around and exposing the fallacies of some of the repetitive OS posters. Their failure to accept your challenge only shows how much confidence they have in their arguments.

Great work amigo, I look forward to the member's debate should any accept your challenge, peace.

[edit on 29/12/09 by vehemes terra eternus]

reply to post by JPhish


You said; "Sorry, but something being non debatable is proof that it is true. It is non debatable that the sun exists, it is non debatable that 1 + 1 = 2. It is non debatable that respondent conditioning took place on 9-11."

Of course, you have this backwards. If something is proved true it is considered non-debatable. If you claim that something is non-debatable that is not proof that it is true (191).
By defining respondent conditioning as being effected by previous events you can say that anyone who was aware of the WTC may have expected planes to strike tall buildings. Certainly, New Yorkers seeing a plane would wonder what tall building it was going to strike. You cannot say that all Pentagon witnesses were aware of the attacks or would have expected planes to strike the Pentagon, which is not a tall building. Near Washington, DC those same people would be expecting military planes to be flying and, that close to DCA, would expect to see airplanes approach to land. The daily commuters see and hear planes landing all the time. I would estimate that the witnesses who were present did not know what to expect or what was happening until it happened. How long would it take a witness to make the connections that a low-flying plane near the airport was in the wrong place, was not landing, was not a military plane, and might crash into the Pentagon? Longer or shorter than the time it took to crash from the time they became aware of it?
Your concept that witnesses who claimed NOC were correct on a hastily estimated course but wrong on an impact because of conditioning remains unsupported. A flyover plane did not become invisible because of conditioning. Witnesses not seeing the final approach did not report a plane flying away.

[edit on 12/29/2009 by pteridine]

Originally posted by JPhish

You assumed it was too difficult for me. Faulty assumption.

Is it still too difficult? Or perhaps you've got computer problems again.

You are telling me what I am claiming? You’re either lying or mistaken because I never claimed such a thing; Choose one.

The moderators have permission to ban me if Trickoftheshade can find where I said “because a plane did not hit the pentagon, respondent conditioning must be in evidence.”

I can't be bothered to look now - I'll do it later at some point. But even if you haven't said this then your premise is mistaken anyway, because you haven't proved that respondent conditioning took place in every eyewitness that saw the Pentagon crash. Which is what you would need to do.

Guess what? You won't find where i said that, because I NEVER SAID THAT.

Not only is it gramaticaly incorrect but it is also completly illogical.

It's not grammatically incorrect. But since you wrote it yourself anyway and then subsequently spelt grammatically wrong we'll gloss over it.

Respondent conditioning is a fact regardless as to whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.

You have no proof of that whatsoever. Certainly you've presented none.

straw man. That is a blatant lie or a mistake, I never said that. That means you are lying or mistaken; pick one.

You said that respondent conditioning involves NLP. You said that it was used to persuade all eyewitnesses who saw a plane crash that the plane had crashed. Therefore NLP was used on every one of those eyewitnesses.

Look, obviously you're talking complete nonsense, but I'm just trying to show you how ridiculous your argument is by indulging it. Anyone with a scrap of common sense would look at the mass of physical data and make the conclusion that a plane struck the Pentagon. You choose to fiddle around with undergrad logic and semantics instead because it allows you to maintain your fantasy.

1 + 1 = 2 is a fact.

Respondent conditioning during 9-11 is a fact.

You keep saying it. That doesn't make it so. The analogy absolutely stands - you can keep writing that 1+1=3, but no one of any note will believe you.

Do you accept my challenge Trick?

What challenge? What are you talking about?