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

reply to post by snowcrash911


Oh, Jeebus Crisp!!!

Aldo Marquis' latest brainfart (from P4T forum):......

I can't stop laughing...

This sort of stuff is what we usually have to pay money to see!!

Farce that it is, and a comedy.....but, here we get it for FREE!!

*Bless* the "Internet" for that!!! WHAT A GEM!!!!! (of sorts)

reply to post by ProudBird

but I am not sure they are attempting to take a picture with their phone.

-- Aldo Marquis

"The first commercial deployment in North America of camera phones was in 2004."

en.wikipedia.org...

Now we know for sure the footage is fake!!

reply to post by ProudBird


Grab the popcorn ProudBird... I wonder what's up next!

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by ProudBird

 

but I am not sure they are attempting to take a picture with their phone.

-- Aldo Marquis

"The first commercial deployment in North America of camera phones was in 2004."

en.wikipedia.org...

Now we know for sure the footage is fake!!

edit on 30-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

A point for me....ummmm...

I'm not sure were ANY *quote* of mine as written here on ATS is appropriated.

Care to discuss?

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by ProudBird

 

Grab the popcorn ProudBird... I wonder what's up next!

YES......indeed. A full development of entertainment is to ensue.....(smacking of lips, what what?)

Originally posted by ProudBird
A point for me....ummmm...

I'm not sure were ANY *quote* of mine as written here on ATS is appropriated.

Care to discuss?

Don't know whatcha mean, but I'm quoting Marquis again from here and the cameraphone bit is from Wikipedia...

Or do you mean licensing of what you write on ATS?

reply to post by snowcrash911


PLEASE SEE my edit above, and take it in that vein....

UmmmmKay?

reply to post by ProudBird


Oh, okay

reply to post by snowcrash911


There is SO MUCH to explain....in order to *counteract* the nonsense and *BS* that spews from that "othersite"....

It would take *literally* thousand of hours.

I say *thousands* of hours because, well THAT is what a proper pilot has, in order tp properly comprehend this stuff.

Oh and I *deliciously* await the next iteration of Rob Balsamo's idiocy..........oh, Joyous Occasion!!

It is "foretold"....!!!

Aldo marquis is absolutely right.

This was pointed out around 3 years ago in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cheers

ereply to post by djeminy


The statement of the Century, Ladies and Gentlemen!!:

Aldo marquis is absolutely right.

"Nuf said. End. /close thread.

Originally posted by ProudBird
ereply to post by djeminy

 

The statement of the Century, Ladies and Gentlemen!!:

Aldo marquis is absolutely right.

"Nuf said. End. /close thread.

edit on Fri 30 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Weedwacker = Closed "mind".

Originally posted by djeminy
Weedwacker = Closed "mind".

Good, because a rational mind ought to be closed to nonsense, and open to sensible information, as in: "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

Aldo is declaring a video fake because it doesn't show flyover. This is the fallacy of begging the question:

(1) There is a flyover.
(2) A video which should show this flyover, does not.
(3) Therefore, the video is fake.

The premise is different from the conclusion, but is controversial or questionable for the same reasons that typically might lead someone to question the conclusion. (Wikipedia)

This would be a normal line of reasoning:

(1) The video would show a flyover if there was one.
(2) The video does not show a flyover.
(3) Therefore, there was no flyover.

Every time this happens, Aldo is forced to declare yet another piece of evidence fake, and in doing so drifts further and further away from reality and sanity, stubbornly insisting on demonstrating the unsurpassable absurdity of his own claim.

Djeminy, your terse and desperate comments underscore the hopelessness of CIT's position, and it seems to me you're only dropping by to compensate for the collapse of the flyover farce with some witless gestures of defiance.

reply to post by snowcrash911


I love the "fallacy argument". So, since you said:

This is the fallacy of begging the question:

I decided to look it up, to refresh memory (for all involved, here).

"Fallacy of Begging the Question"

^ ^ ^ Mode #1.

Next, we have another viewpoint, courtesy the "Free Encyclopedia" [which seem to be begging for donations lately, ironically.......so might not remain viable (sadly)] ....(for future reference, for those who might come across these ATS threads in year 4125. AS an example....side note, for those of you with time machines? PLEASE send me a 'U2U"? Thanks in advance) .......for instance....assuming the Human species is still around then.....what, what?)

Where was I? Oh, yes.....the "other" link:

Wikipedia and the "Argument From Fallacy, otherwise known as "Begging the Question"

(This is fun!!!!)

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by djeminy
Weedwacker = Closed "mind".

Good, because a rational mind ought to be closed to nonsense, and open to sensible information, as in: "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

Aldo is declaring a video fake because it doesn't show flyover. This is the fallacy of begging the question:

(1) There is a flyover.
(2) A video which should show this flyover, does not.
(3) Therefore, the video is fake.

The premise is different from the conclusion, but is controversial or questionable for the same reasons that typically might lead someone to question the conclusion. (Wikipedia)

This would be a normal line of reasoning:

(1) The video would show a flyover if there was one.
(2) The video does not show a flyover.
(3) Therefore, there was no flyover.

Every time this happens, Aldo is forced to declare yet another piece of evidence fake, and in doing so drifts further and further away from reality and sanity, stubbornly insisting on demonstrating the unsurpassable absurdity of his own claim.

Djeminy, your terse and desperate comments underscore the hopelessness of CIT's position, and it seems to me you're only dropping by to compensate for the collapse of the flyover farce with some witless gestures of defiance.

Any person who believes that any kind of information being supplied by the 'government' or any of their alphabet departments should be taken as gospel truth, would be considered nothing but a 'nitwit' by the more wise and more advanced people in any society.

snowcrash, you have reduced yourself to become nothing but a poor 'entertainer'.

Your posts are all 'entertaining', but as you lack self-awareness, you would be completely unaware about the fact that the 'entertainment' you perform, has a diametrically opposite effect than to the one you intend.

The most 'entertaining' aspect of your 'show', is how amazingly quickly you become an 'instant expert' on virtually any subject you engage yourself in!


All of a sudden, like lightening from a blue sky, you, an IT 'nerd', 'knows' more about aviation than highly knowledgeable, responsible, hardened, professional Pilots and Navigators with many years of experience.


Now, "That's Entertainment" - and i truly hope you're paid well for your pathetic "performances"!


Cheers

Originally posted by djeminy

All of a sudden, like lightening from a blue sky, you, an IT 'nerd', 'knows' more about aviation than highly knowledgeable, responsible, hardened, professional Pilots and Navigators with many years of experience.

And just WHO are these highly knowledgeable, responsible, hardened, professional Pilots and Navigators with many years of experience? If you are referring to Ballsucker's pfffft this posts needs to go into the hoax bin immediately...

I fit the description you've made above and I haven't seen snowcrash get anything wrong about any of the aviation issues yet. I've read some of your posts and you wouldn't know the difference anyway.. That's why you refer to the charlatan and FRAUD at pffft in such reverent terms... You literally have no clue what you're talking about. None at all....

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Many interviews conducted in 2006....

5 years later.

....were simple reinforcements of what the same witnesses described in their 2001 CMH and LOC interviews

Not by a long shot. The 2006 "interviews" were conducted by a couple of amateurs with a bias confirmation and the entire "interviews" were never released so you don't know what they contain.

Is that clear?

Is what clear?

Yay, give that guy a star

George Aman NEIT interview

I thought it was going to hit this building here. So I was just looking out here and I see this airplane coming down here and I thought it was coming, going to hit this building. And I said good God Almighty. So I'm just petrified. I'm looking. The plane flies right over the parking lot here... When I seen he was kind of turning and gliding when he came across here, across the parking lot...

CIT interview:






William Middleton CMH interview

William Middleton: As I made a turn to come back I heard this whistling noise as if it was coming behind me. So when I turned to look, I seen this big large airplane beside me.

CMH officer: Where were you at?

Middleton: Uh Patton Drive. ...And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon

CIT interview (@36 minutes)

Google Video Link

Middleton: Well, this is our parking lot, right here.

Q: Yeah, so...

Middleton: That's--- It came right over the parking lot.

Q: Oh, it looked like it came right over the parking lot like that. Ok.

Darrell Stafford CMH interview

and this is just about on top of the building, scraping the building .. guess it was pretty big to be on top of you......The wing span was out here somewhere

CIT interview (same video above)

Stafford: Yeah , it over the Navy Annex. It was flat. It was just like it was on top of the roof. Landing on the roof. And just like it barely made it over the roof. And then, when it got beyond that point, and we started to scatter, it started to bank to the right, still coming forward. And that's when I, myself, and Donald Carter, decided, hey, let's get away from it. And, by then, it banked and it was kinda over the cemetery and probably crossed over Columbia Pike more on this side, then. And when it banked like that, we ran toward it and ran up the hill

i659.photobucket.com...

CNN Special 2009

www.cnn.com...

He said that "9/11 was quite a day. I saw the plane approach the Pentagon, coming over the Naval Annex. We were kind of mesmerized by it, but we knew we wanted to get out of the way. I and one guy ran toward the plane as it went toward the Pentagon, and we actually went under the wing of it as it passed over. In a matter of seconds, we ducked for cover. I peeked over my shoulder, and moments later, I saw the big old ball of fire and heard the explosion, and it was unreal. It was like somebody turned on a gigantic heat lamp on the back of your neck.

And the Lagasse jive about him being "incorrect" about which pump he was at? What, 20ft? He's still in no position to see the OCT path.

Your claims about interviews being "withheld"...what are you talking about?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by snowcrash911
GEOMETRY POP QUIZ FOR ALDO MARQUIS AND "ONESLICESHORT"

The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).

- Terry Morin

Source: web.archive.org...://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

For predictable SPAM responses committing the Nirvana fallacy, please see here.

Please answer either (A) or (B). Do not dodge or deflect. Answer directly, without woolly, self-aggrandizing, diversionary rhetoric and without the usual wall of flyover marketing lies. Take your time.

edit on 27-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Nice dodge Snowcrash. Is the barrel that you're bent over comfortable?

Neither of those paths will line up with the directional damage.

Both of them will require a LEFT BANK that is nowhere to be seen in the Stutt "data".

You can spam all you want and cry "nirvana fallacy" when you're wriggling to get out of that corner every time I ask the simple question as to whether Morin was looking above his head within the Navy Annex or looking across Columbia Pike at the Navy Annex carpark.It's that simple. Witnesses aren't computers but they're not morons either.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hey, is this path "parallel" to the Navy Annex in any way, shape or form?

Apologies if this has been ..ahem..answered?

I know you guys are busy running a sewer of ad homs and rants against a guy who you haven't the cojones to confront at his own forum. Proudbird, Snowcrash and Reheat, why hide here to throw insults when you can go straight to the source and "put him right"?

Just wondering.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


"He" bans anyone who doesn't kowtow to him. There is little point in giving "his" silly website the "traffic", nor the attention.

It plays neatly into "his" megalomania, actually.

"He" simply isn't worth it. The "rules" over "there" are capricious, and up to "his" personal whim.

Far better to point out the ridiculousness from here, an actual moderated and fair site....

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Apologies if this has been ..ahem..answered?

By you? No. And there's a whole laundry list of other things which you deliberately ignore and then move on as if nothing happened... as predicted and discussed in the previous pages.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I know you guys are busy running a sewer of ad homs and rants against a guy who you haven't the cojones to confront at his own forum. Proudbird, Snowcrash and Reheat, why hide here to throw insults when you can go straight to the source and "put him right"?

Just wondering.

I will debate Balsamo at Balsamo's well known heavy-handed administrative whim when Easter and Pentecost coincide on the calendar.

Balsamo's appalling, dictatorial, and cowardly treatment of Warren Stutt, encouraged by your sycophantic adlibs, speaks volumes.

Balsamo is a disruptive loser, but he can still talk to me using his sock puppet "Pink Panther" at 911oz, one of the few forum venues where he isn't banned yet. Each time he does so, I immediately respond.

What's your excuse?

(A) or (B), OneSliceShort. No more excuses and "witty" non-responses.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

"He" bans anyone who doesn't kowtow to him. There is little point in giving "his" silly website the "traffic", nor the attention.

It plays neatly into "his" megalomania, actually.

"He" simply isn't worth it. The "rules" over "there" are capricious, and up to "his" personal whim.

Far better to point out the ridiculousness from here, an actual moderated and fair site....

That pretty much sums it up.

See, TPE/OSS, we agree on this and I hadn't even read PB's comment yet when I hit "reply".