Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

i never agreed there was a flyover. Just that, someone, regardlss of timeframe between testimony, can give better testimony when placed at the location, than testimony not at location. If you dont agree, thats fine, but courts have many times, just review some cases. Undoubtedly, authorities dont rely on eye witness testimony. They also rely on video. As I said, I believe the testimony of a witness recalling at location, other than testimony not. As do many many many others..

Yes, courts rely on eyewitness testimony. As a result, many people have been sent to jail for crimes they did not commit. The full extent of this disaster remains to be seen. Judges aren't only incompetent when it comes to science, they are completely and utterly clueless. Most verdicts could have simply been established by roll of the dice, especially in a jury trial system, with jury members even more incompetent than the judge. The "justice system" is a full-fledged Kafkaesque horror show.

A courtroom is not a peer reviewed, scientific journal. A courtroom is a collection of fancy dressed, self-important charlatans maintaining the illusion of seriousness, competence, accuracy and gravitas. When it comes to empiricism and epistemology, the court room is a sick joke. Court room != scientific literature.

Why do you think I even asked you the question? Court system and science are oftentimes enemies. Judges are science flunkees. You think I asked you because I expected a sourced, competent reply? This is a demonstration of the falsity of your assertions, and so far, it's been shocking.

reply to post by snowcrash911


speaking of dodge ball. You still havent answered my question. I attempted to answer yours, and told you I would once I travel 1000 miles and get home. Now please.. Im awaiting! You will answer right? You do believe you are better than I. Do you not? And people who believe they are better surely will take the high road and courteously oblige.

reply to post by Myendica


I think you underestimate the negative effect of the passage of time on witnesses. CIT interviewed Sgt Lagasse at the Citgo, some 5 or 6 years after the event, and he was mistaken as to what pump he was at on 9/11; until his memory was jogged.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

speaking of dodge ball. You still havent answered my question. I attempted to answer yours, and told you I would once I travel 1000 miles and get home. Now please.. Im awaiting! You will answer right? You do believe you are better than I. Do you not? And people who believe they are better surely will take the high road and courteously oblige.

edit on 28-12-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

Hell no! I asked you a question and unless you at least attempt to answer it, I will not be giving free lectures on the topic of witness testimony. Do not turn this around. I asked you a question, you either respond to it or admit you were wrong. The onus of a fringe, ridiculous claim of quixotic physical evidence staging is on you. That's how it works, take it or leave it. And if you leave it, you have no basis whatsoever for your "witness accuracy" claims, which you use, baselessly, to support a hoax.

reply to post by snowcrash911


well then.. You are the most ignorant around. And my question had nothing to do with witness testimony. My question was.. Do you agree with every detail of the official story, regardless of how little or huge the detail is? I wish you the best in your attempt to get hateful responses out of ats members. I hope one day mods see how disruptive you are and take action. Then again, you probably have more than one account, cause thats the sort of person you seem to be. Good luck. Take care. And maybe someday, youll be less arrogant and more civil.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

well then.. You are the most ignorant around. And my question had nothing to do with witness testimony. My question was.. Do you agree with every detail of the official story, regardless of how little or huge the detail is? I wish you the best in your attempt to get hateful responses out of ats members. I hope one day mods see how disruptive you are and take action. Then again, you probably have more than one account, cause thats the sort of person you seem to be. Good luck. Take care. And maybe someday, youll be less arrogant and more civil.

A ban wish. How quaint and unusual for somebody losing an argument.

When I think of what CIT did to Lloyd England and his wife, Madeleine Zakhem, Father McGraw, Keith Wheelhouse, Mike Walter and pentagon researchers such as Russel Pickering and John Farmer, as well as myself and 9/11 researcher jimd3100, I can't muster any understanding. If you're looking for sympathy, I suggest you look between R and T in the dictionary.

reply to post by snowcrash911


i appreciate your distaste for me. It makes me a stronger person. With the words you use, I can see how people would think you werent 5 years old. Once again.. So long. Its pointless bickering with someone the liks of you. If you ever wanted to have a civil conversation, you can pm me or start a thread asking for my participation. Enjoy your time.. And relax. This arguement isnt going to be resolved anytime soon, and I can imagine how boiled your blood is.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

i appreciate your distaste for me. It makes me a stronger person. With the words you use, I can see how people would think you werent 5 years old. Once again.. So long. Its pointless bickering with someone the liks of you. If you ever wanted to have a civil conversation, you can pm me or start a thread asking for my participation. Enjoy your time.. And relax. This arguement isnt going to be resolved anytime soon, and I can imagine how boiled your blood is.

All the feet stomping and diversionary nattering aside, you still haven't posted references to the peer reviewed scientific literature, supporting your ostensibly fabricated claims about witness testimony accuracy. And on the basis of that, you are promoting a hoax with very real, very defamatory consequences for 9/11 victims.

You know: Aldo's "unfrozen cadavers", NWO cab drivers, journalists and priests, and a Jewish woman wearing *gasp* a crucifix around her neck. That's CIT in a nutshell. Are you not familiar with the garbage you're supporting?

Originally posted by Reheat
I totally agree. If it used ground speed I'd be dead many times over.... I've used them at low lever for hundreds of hours at speeds up to about Mach 1.2.

I fear for Balsamo's passengers. He quit being a flight instructor in 2001, and flies for the money now.

At least he isn't "instructing" people about radio altimeters in a professional setting. That's something, if little.

reply to post by snowcrash911


you know I havent said I agreed with aythin about cit, except that I believe witness testimony when the witness is brought back to the scene. You dont have a clue how to read do ya? Which is odd cause you toss around words that you seem to be pulling out of a thesaurus. Enjoy your hate.

reply to post by snowcrash911


you know I havent said I agreed with aythin about cit, except that I believe witness testimony when the witness is brought back to the scene. You dont have a clue how to read do ya? Which is odd cause you toss around words that you seem to be pulling out of a thesaurus. Enjoy your hate. ........i was gonna delete this double post, but perhaps you reading it twice will help you comprehend it.

reply to post by snowcrash911


Could you support this, pleas?:

He quit being a flight instructor in 2001, and flies for the money now.

I mean....when I worked as a pilot, I flew "for money" as well. It was, after all, a "job"....

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

you know I havent said I agreed with aythin about cit, except that I believe witness testimony when the witness is brought back to the scene. You dont have a clue how to read do ya? Which is odd cause you toss around words that you seem to be pulling out of a thesaurus. Enjoy your hate. ........i was gonna delete this double post, but perhaps you reading it twice will help you comprehend it.

edit on 28-12-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)

No, it is you who doesn't understand. I don't morally distinguish between NoC + impact theorists and flyover theorists. So, unless you are willing to retract your "accurate witness" malarkey, you are (at minimum) a NoC + impact theorist, which means Lloyd England is "in on it", the directional damage and the light poles were staged and you are promoting garbage.

Besides the obvious problems you're having producing evidence for your fantasies about witness accuracy, the apparent difficulty you have with "letting go" after losing, you also completely fail to understand the implications of your own positions. Triple fail. Oh and stop blaming me for your ignorance. It's not my problem, it's yours.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

Could you support this, pleas?:

He quit being a flight instructor in 2001, and flies for the money now.

Balsamo told me. You can ask him...

Originally posted by ProudBird
I mean....when I worked as a pilot, I flew "for money" as well. It was, after all, a "job"....

I didn't actually mean that disparagingly, again, I'm simply paraphrasing what Balsamo told me. It's in the aviator db too.

reply to post by snowcrash911


HERE is the difference and is, what's important to perception: -------

I didn't actually mean that disparagingly, again, I'm simply paraphrasing what Balsamo told me. It's in the aviator db too.

Whilst I (for example) am not trying to pump up my laurels (since I actually DO have the practical experience.....the "hands on", if you will.....that I am attempting to share here).

vis-a-vis the actual knowledge, of one who has ACTUALLY FLOWN the Boeing 757/767 family of airplanes. And, might, I may add....for many many hours. TO INCLUDE? Having earned a Type Rating (per the FAA) for said vehicles.....

I find SO, SO MANY of these discussions amusing, as a result.

reply to post by snowcrash911


apparently, competance isnt your strong suit. Ive stuck at an airport for a while now waiting for a flight. I dnt have a laptop.. I dont have means of sourcing, like I stated hours ago. I can agree wth one fascet and not another. So go ahead ad do yourself a favor, and learn to comprehend simple words. I have been speaking simply for you. You can enjoy yourself bating.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

HERE is the difference and is, what's important to perception: -------

I didn't actually mean that disparagingly, again, I'm simply paraphrasing what Balsamo told me. It's in the aviator db too.

Whilst I (for example) am not trying to pump up my laurels (since I actually DO have the practical experience.....the "hands on", if you will.....that I am attempting to share here).

vis-a-vis the actual knowledge, of one who has ACTUALLY FLOWN the Boeing 757/767 family of airplanes. And, might, I may add....for many many hours. TO INCLUDE? Having earned a Type Rating (per the FAA) for said vehicles.....

I find SO, SO MANY of these discussions amusing, as a result.

edit on Wed 28 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

I for one, am glad you're contributing, but as you know, we have pilots at the P4T forum, who not only flew 767's and 757's, they actually flew the exact same planes, that is, the exact tail numbers that flew into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11... Yet, they say the most ridiculous things. So, it seems experience and expertise are no guarantee for rational, evidence-based claims... What are they called again? Rusty Aimer and?

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by talisman

Reheat,,

If you call someone delusional, that only proves that you called someone 'delusional.'
You can give some evidence to show why their point of view is ludicrous, and argue against the evidence, not against the person with terms that are meant to inflame.

Look fellow,

This stuff has been discussed for years. There is no longer legitimate debate. It was settled years ago over and over again... It has been settled in this thread too... The fact that you are obviously not aware of that is not my fault.. You can do it your way, I'll do it mine. Now either stay on topic or remove yourself from the thread. See, I can play moderator too....

edit on 28-12-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Even *IF* what your saying is true, it does not give you the right to insult and call others stupid. You also made mention of "conspiracy forums"--Obviously, there is some real bias and intolerance of other ideas.

So if don't mind, take your insults elsewhere. (btw, my suggestion is NOT playing "moderator" but trying to abide by the rules here). I suggest you abide by those same rules.

reply to post by snowcrash911


LOL!!!! MY points, exactly.....let's recap, shall we?:

I for one, am glad you're contributing, but as you know, we have pilots at the P4T forum, who not only flew 767's and 757's, they actually flew the exact same planes, that is, the exact tail numbers that flew into the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11... Yet, they say the most ridiculous things. So, it seems experience and expertise are no guarantee for rational, evidence-based claims... What are they called again? Rusty Aimer and?

"quoted" in its entirety for emphasis.


"Rusty Aimer"?? oh dear, oh dear, WHERE oh WHERE do I begin??!?

Wait, you neglected to mention "Ralph Kolstad"!! Oh my, Oh my....Oh my!!!

Yet another appeal to authority example.

Oh, WAIT!!! What does that make ME????

Oh, what a bother........

[sarcasm unit now dis-engaged......]

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

apparently [sic], competance [sic] isnt [sic] your strong suit. Ive stuck [sic] at an airport for a while now waiting for a flight. I dnt [sic] have a laptop.. I dont [sic] have means of sourcing, like I stated hours ago. I can agree wth [sic] one fascet [sic] and not another. So go ahead ad [sic] do yourself a favor, and learn to comprehend simple words. I have been speaking simply for you. You can enjoy yourself bating. [sic] [??]

Next time you whine about "competence" try to spell it correctly, and when you complain about how others should learn how to "comprehend simple words", then try to spell "facet", "didn't", "isn't", "don't" and "with" correctly too. You can still revise history and soften the embarrassment somewhat by editing your comment. I do think grammar and spelling reflect on the competence of a comment's author.

So, anyways, Myendica, isn't it time to throw in the towel? By now, you're simply interfering with the thread. This isn't the place to ventilate your ignorance, I find it disruptive.