International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

Elagabalus 18th January 2020 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958560)
How do you figure?

If a plane could do this, you would try to explain it.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

The plane actually flew into the building. That's how I would explain it. It even made a plane shaped hole.

yankee451 18th January 2020 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12958567)
The plane actually flew into the building. That's how I would explain it. It even made a plane shaped hole.

Once again, dear reader, the Television trumps common sense, as well as the physical evidence. So strong is the mind control tool called Television.

pgimeno 18th January 2020 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957700)
Logically it makes no sense for the perpetrators to...

:i:

Start with "shoot missiles and fake videos when they could just fly planes into the buildings".

Go on with "try and convince thousands of people of collaborating in a huge mass murder".

Continue with "expect that NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE be filming at the time of the 2nd impact" (lest the missiles or the explosion without a plane be caught on camera).

I could go on, but it's insane enough just with that for starters

Elagabalus 18th January 2020 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958568)
Once again, dear reader, the Television trumps common sense, as well as the physical evidence. So strong is the mind control tool called Television.


Smh. What about the people filming with handheld video cameras? Did they film something that wasn't there and then the G-men showed up at their doorstep and took their film away? And then replaced it with CGI? Your theory is just silly.

BStrong 18th January 2020 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958559)
Funny, because from what I can tell, it's been kicking Skeptic butt.

Comedy Gold:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


The sad thing is that you actually your believe what you're posting, and it's sadder still that in your pov is that a plan of action conceived by religious fundamentalists and carried out by 19 disposable humans can't be true but a fantasy construct based in science fiction and (at a minimum) of thousands is true.

I met one of your intellectual cousins irl last year:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=340162

What is it with CTists in general and 9/11 wingnuts in particular that they must always reject reality for fantasy? Are their perceptions so delusional that they require a fantasy of their own creation ?

yankee451 18th January 2020 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12958584)
Smh. What about the people filming with handheld video cameras? Did they film something that wasn't there and then the G-men showed up at their doorstep and took their film away? And then replaced it with CGI? Your theory is just silly.

Quote:

Any real witness that caught a photo or video of the explosion would be able to verify their images with the images of the explosions in the public record, and would simply assume they missed the plane. But even if someone did see what really happened, and still didn’t get the clue that the authorities were at fault, where would that someone turn if they wanted to report it? To the police that planted the plane parts? To the fire department that set fire to the cars? To the media that broadcast fraudulent video? To the government that was about to declare war on the world? Even if they did report the truth, why would the authorities tell we the people when they were selling us a terrorist attack?
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

yankee451 18th January 2020 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958586)
Comedy Gold:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


The sad thing is that you actually your believe what you're posting, and it's sadder still that in your pov is that a plan of action conceived by religious fundamentalists and carried out by 19 disposable humans can't be true but a fantasy construct based in science fiction and (at a minimum) of thousands is true.

I met one of your intellectual cousins irl last year:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=340162
.

What is it with CTists in general and 9/11 wingnuts in particular that they must always reject reality for fantasy? Are their perceptions so delusional that they require a fantasy of their own creation ?


Yes, and you actually believe what you saw on television, simply because you saw it on television. That doesn't bode well for the gene pool

Elagabalus 18th January 2020 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958524)
If that's the case, I'd better address you by your Latin name..

Non Compos Mentis.


Or scemo.

Robin 18th January 2020 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958497)
We all have access to the same information. That doesn't change. That you refuse to use the same photographs of the impact holes we all have access to to explain how they do not support my conclusions, and instead, better support yours, tells me you aren't interested in an honest debate. Instead you offer one evasion after another, ending with a false dichotomy.

I am using the same photographs as well you know.

So much for your alleged "honesty"

DGM 18th January 2020 03:57 PM

Wow............this is still going on. :rolleyes:

yankee451 18th January 2020 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12958621)
I am using the same photographs as well you know.

So much for your alleged "honesty"

When I am treated with respect I return it in kind. If not, bummer for you.

BStrong 18th January 2020 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958604)
Yes, and you actually believe what you saw on television, simply because you saw it on television. That doesn't bode well for the gene pool

I believe what I saw because after having been around in various places since the 1970's and having lived in garden spots like Lebanon and Saudi in the early 1980's and having almost become a grease spot from what we now call IED's .

I know that there are folks that are happy to kill and die for their religious delusion.

I also know and have posted in this thread a detailed account of crimes committed by U.S. service members where other service members came forward to report the crimes and in some cases threatened to stop the actors from continuing the crimes with violence.

You live in a science fiction world where this is an inexhaustible pool of socio & psychopaths that will simple salute and bend to the work when ordered by "They" That. Is. Not. The. Real. World.

The world isn't a comic book. You may have a comic book universe in your head but the world doesn't begin to work the way you assert - you are stating flat out that a plan involving religious idiots and hijacking is too incredible to believe and some up with the cluster **** of a no-plane theory? The P.G & E. CTist in the thread I started was an Icke fanboy - which nut job have you hitched your wagon to? Maybe you're just a lone wolf CTist.

yankee451 18th January 2020 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958647)
I believe what I saw because after having been around in various places since the 1970's and having lived in garden spots like Lebanon and Saudi in the early 1980's and having almost become a grease spot from what we now call IED's .

I know that there are folks that are happy to kill and die for their religious delusion.

I also know and have posted in this thread a detailed account of crimes committed by U.S. service members where other service members came forward to report the crimes and in some cases threatened to stop the actors from continuing the crimes with violence.

You live in a science fiction world where this is an inexhaustible pool of socio & psychopaths that will simple salute and bend to the work when ordered by "They" That. Is. Not. The. Real. World.

The world isn't a comic book. You may have a comic book universe in your head but the world doesn't begin to work the way you assert - you are stating flat out that a plan involving religious idiots and hijacking is too incredible to believe and some up with the cluster **** of a no-plane theory? The P.G & E. CTist in the thread I started was an Icke fanboy - which nut job have you hitched your wagon to? Maybe you're just a lone wolf CTist.

Few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

BStrong 18th January 2020 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958641)
When I am treated with respect I return it in kind. If not, bummer for you.

It's your comic book theory that won't get any respect.

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958554)
The impact evidence proves the videos were faked. Using them as proof of something is a circular argument.

False the impact evidence shows a large object caused an Aluminum oxidation event so they are consistent with the videos until you explain in your theory how that occured.

BStrong 18th January 2020 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958649)
Few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

Stereotypes aren't your friend.

Watch the series "Leavenworth" for a look inside how the real world works: It does'nt feature superheros so you might need to watch it more than once to get it.

https://www.starz.com/us/en/series/4...sodes?season=1

“Leavenworth” is based on the controversial true story of Clint Lorance, a former lieutenant serving a 19-year sentence for murder at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth.

Fresh screwy Lt. orders troops to fire on unarmed civilians, two casualties, what happens next? His platoon immediately reported the incident, testified at trial, LT convicted of murder, later the numb-nuts-in-chief pardons him and two other service members.

He was guilty as hell, but the platoon Sgt. and the EM's did the right thing..

pgimeno 18th January 2020 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958600)
But even if someone did see what really happened, and still didn’t get the clue that the authorities were at fault, where would that someone turn if they wanted to report it? To the police that planted the plane parts? To the fire department that set fire to the cars? To the media that broadcast fraudulent video? To the government that was about to declare war on the world? Even if they did report the truth, why would the authorities tell we the people when they were selling us a terrorist attack?

To the public on the internet, where they can do it anonymously?

No such thing has happened after 18 years. Don't you expect someone by now would have already screamed foul? Especially given that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are known worldwide?

Keep digging.

beachnut 18th January 2020 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958649)
Few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

so you don't want people to swear to support and defend the Constitution? Why are you unpatriotic to those who faithfully serve?

And you have been in the military? I doubt it.

Yes, we are indoctrinated, and here is what we are indoctrinated with...
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

What is your oath of office,... to lie and mock the murder of thousands?

I was on active duty on 9/11. It appears you are bias against your fellow Americans who serve in the US Military. Why is that?

Axxman300 18th January 2020 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGM (Post 12958630)
Wow............this is still going on. :rolleyes:

Low hanging fruit is fun.:thumbsup:

yankee451 18th January 2020 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12958672)
To the public on the internet, where they can do it anonymously?

No such thing has happened after 18 years. Don't you expect someone by now would have already screamed foul? Especially given that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are known worldwide?

Keep digging.

Read what you're commenting on again.

Axxman300 18th January 2020 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12958567)
The plane actually flew into the building. That's how I would explain it. It even made a plane shaped hole.

2 identical planes flew into two identical buildings leaving identical impact scars on the exterior. I'm no scientist but I think this one's a slam-dunk.

yankee451 18th January 2020 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12958677)
so you don't want people to swear to support and defend the Constitution? Why are you unpatriotic to those who faithfully serve?

And you have been in the military? I doubt it.

Yes, we are indoctrinated, and here is what we are indoctrinated with...
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

What is your oath of office,... to lie and mock the murder of thousands?

I was on active duty on 9/11. It appears you are bias against your fellow Americans who serve in the US Military. Why is that?

Like I said...

yankee451 18th January 2020 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958689)
2 identical planes flew into two identical buildings leaving identical impact scars on the exterior. I'm no scientist but I think this one's a slam-dunk.

According to the television. But not according to the photographs. Hmm...

Axxman300 18th January 2020 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958696)
According to the television. But not according to the photographs. Hmm...

This based on the photographs including the ones you post.

yankee451 18th January 2020 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958701)
This based on the photographs including the ones you post.

30 pages later, I must have missed your explanation. The floor is yours.

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958715)
30 pages later, I must have missed your explanation. The floor is yours.

Small Question for you, if I tossed a coin in the air, and shot a 22 bullet into it would it go though the coin and what would the resulting impact damage be?

curious cat 18th January 2020 06:05 PM

I am getting sucked in again - against all of my principles of not getting in disputes with people undeniably certifiable ;-). This is not an attempt to convince the OP about anything. I do can identify the border between "feasible" and "futile" :-). I am doing this purely as a mental exercise in logic.
So, we have an irrefutable evidence a plane hit the building. There is a whole mountain of evidence supporting it. We know which plane it was, we know who was in control, we know how they got aboard, we can explain virtually all what happened during and after the impact. Any attempt to dispute this evidence is ridiculous and destined for failure.
The only "serious" piece of "evidence" conflicting the above is a piece of aluminium cladding that seems to defy the straight logic. So, let's try just a straight logic to explain what we see. It is like watching a magic show. For a hour or so you are watching stuff you KNOW is entirely impossible. But is is happening, right? Yes, because you are missing the background of the tricks.
So, we know the cladding wasn't in its original position when the column behind it has been severed. I agree with the OP on that point. All the analogies with broken bones etc are valid in general, but they don't really fit to the exact situation we are having here. So, a sequence of events is becoming to emerge: the first part of the wing damaged the cladding and cause the top end to disconnect from the structure. The next part pushed the cladding aside (possible due a hydraulic action in the fuel tank) and it starts falling down pivoting around its bottom attachment. The wing comes apart (possibly again due to the hydraulic action) at the point of the column on the right, leaving it and our cladding now in front of it relatively undamaged, while the other columns were being severed. The tail section of the wing has arrived containing whatever part has "drilled" the circular hole in the column on the right, giving a glancing blow to our cladding bending it back up (the bend near the bottom of it supports this part) and moving it back left to its original position.
Possible? Yes. Likely? No. But have you ever heard about people winning first division in lottery twice in a row? Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Did it happen? Yes.
What I am presenting is probably only one of the possible scenarios and there may be others - similarly unlikely but plausible explanations. Every each of them will be many times more probable than the sick fantasy the OP is trying to sell us. There is no point whatsoever trying to find some truth in these.

turingtest 18th January 2020 06:20 PM

My hat is off to anyone who tries, but...if you're seriously arguing with a guy who is either not quite bright enough to properly understand the concept of "circular argument," or not honest enough to properly apply it, you're wasting your time. If, OTOH, you're arguing with him only because it's as good a way for you to pass the time as it is for him, and you don't expect anything more from it than some entertainment, carry on; just don't lose the proper perspective.

For myself, I can only say that I've never seen a better example of the typical CTist "anti-consilience" approach. Yankee's entire premise, his "physical evidence," is a few photographs of the building and his personal, uninformed incredulity that an airplane could have done it- that's it, he has nothing else. And every other bit of evidence- eyewitnesses, video, actual physical evidence such as airplane parts and passenger DNA found in the wreckage, the absence of the airplanes and those passengers afterward, etc.,- is made to conform to that deliberately narrowed viewpoint; his "explanations" for all those things are nothing more than necessary rationalizations, handwaves at all evidence that contradicts one bit rather than examining the one bit in light of all the others. So, congratulations, yankee- you may not agree with your fellow CTists on the details, but you're exactly like them in your broad methodology.

One other thing- you are, in fact, making a positive claim- that the damage to the building is inconsistent with having been done by an airplane in a way that is testable by a simplistic, brute-force experiment involving running a wing into a mock-up of the building (which is a silly way to test the proposition, but we'll go with it for the sake of an entertaining argument). So, a couple of questions-

1) What parameters are you setting to establish whether or not the damage done in your test effectively reproduces that done on the actual building? What's the basis for comparison? Just that one bit of cladding? Will you claim that, if that's not replicated, the test is successful (from your POV)? Surely you at least understand that a chaotic event like flying a plane into a building can't be so exactly reproduced as to duplicate the same outcome twice? If a baseball player knocks a ball out of the park, nicking a light pole on the way out and then breaking a car's windshield in the parking lot- would you claim that no baseball could have done the damage to the pole or car on the basis that no test could exactly replicate the trajectory it took to do that damage?

2) Since you're making another positive claim- that it was missiles that did that damage- are you willing to test that the same way? Will you, at some point, test for what you say did do the damage as well as for what you say didn't, by putting a missile analog through the same building mock-up, with the same criteria that, if that cladding damage isn't exactly replicated, it shows that it couldn't have been a missile that did it? In fact, it seems to me that you would want to do this test first, since it would (by your standards) establish positively what you can only otherwise claim by a negative.

njslim 18th January 2020 06:34 PM

Wow............this is still going on.

There is no time limit on mental illness ………...

ProBonoShill 18th January 2020 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958036)
See the thing is the evidence I've brought to the table discredits the stories of the victims. Your outrage is misplaced. I'm not the one that lied to you, just the one that burst your bubble.

Physics proves me right, hence your penchant for relying on emotionally charged tales of faux victims.

The moronic drivel you post isn't evidence Skippy.

Oh and the victims can't tell stories cause they're dead. But since in your delusional world you believe them to be alive and living among us, please prove it.

ProBonoShill 18th January 2020 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958037)
Nope, it's the truth. Anyone can check for themselves.

Most of us aren't in need of psychiatric help, no need to check.

yankee451 18th January 2020 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12958747)
My hat is off to anyone who tries, but...if you're seriously arguing with a guy who is either not quite bright enough to properly understand the concept of "circular argument," or not honest enough to properly apply it, you're wasting your time. If, OTOH, you're arguing with him only because it's as good a way for you to pass the time as it is for him, and you don't expect anything more from it than some entertainment, carry on; just don't lose the proper perspective.

For myself, I can only say that I've never seen a better example of the typical CTist "anti-consilience" approach. Yankee's entire premise, his "physical evidence," is a few photographs of the building and his personal, uninformed incredulity that an airplane could have done it- that's it, he has nothing else. And every other bit of evidence- eyewitnesses, video, actual physical evidence such as airplane parts and passenger DNA found in the wreckage, the absence of the airplanes and those passengers afterward, etc.,- is made to conform to that deliberately narrowed viewpoint; his "explanations" for all those things are nothing more than necessary rationalizations, handwaves at all evidence that contradicts one bit rather than examining the one bit in light of all the others. So, congratulations, yankee- you may not agree with your fellow CTists on the details, but you're exactly like them in your broad methodology.

One other thing- you are, in fact, making a positive claim- that the damage to the building is inconsistent with having been done by an airplane in a way that is testable by a simplistic, brute-force experiment involving running a wing into a mock-up of the building (which is a silly way to test the proposition, but we'll go with it for the sake of an entertaining argument). So, a couple of questions-

1) What parameters are you setting to establish whether or not the damage done in your test effectively reproduces that done on the actual building? What's the basis for comparison? Just that one bit of cladding? Will you claim that, if that's not replicated, the test is successful (from your POV)? Surely you at least understand that a chaotic event like flying a plane into a building can't be so exactly reproduced as to duplicate the same outcome twice? If a baseball player knocks a ball out of the park, nicking a light pole on the way out and then breaking a car's windshield in the parking lot- would you claim that no baseball could have done the damage to the pole or car on the basis that no test could exactly replicate the trajectory it took to do that damage?

2) Since you're making another positive claim- that it was missiles that did that damage- are you willing to test that the same way? Will you, at some point, test for what you say did do the damage as well as for what you say didn't, by putting a missile analog through the same building mock-up, with the same criteria that, if that cladding damage isn't exactly replicated, it shows that it couldn't have been a missile that did it? In fact, it seems to me that you would want to do this test first, since it would (by your standards) establish positively what you can only otherwise claim by a negative.

Everything you say applies to you fine fellows.

1. If/when the test ever occurs, the parameters will be agreed upon in advance by all concerned parties. Even a simple FEA on the interaction between the massive wing tip and the flimsy cladding should suffice.

2. Any tests would be done ad transparently and as accurately as possible.

ProBonoShill 18th January 2020 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958085)
I guess this is a red herring fallacy.


My dear mother passed away in November, 2018. You can Google my name, Steve De'ak, and learn all you'd like to know about me and my relatives. You'd get along with Christopher Bollyn, who has done the same. Is this why you don't use your real name and face on the Internet? So that you can say anything you want without fear of repercussions?

Cool story bro.

Tell us Steve, if 9/11 was an inside jobby job why is the CIA allowing you to spew your nonsense all over the interwebs? How come they haven't come calling and eliminated you? I mean you're such a smart guy, exposing the ruthless government and their murder of almost 3000 people, why haven't they taken you and your buddy Feltzer out yet? Please explain.

beachnut 18th January 2020 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958694)
Like I said...

You are the indoctrinated one. Indoctrinated in woo. Did you try to join the military and not make it?

Is this why you make up lies about missiles?

Stopping wars by spreading lies. Are you upset the taliban was beat up, UBL is dead, or was Saddam your buddy?

The videos are real, they show 757's breaking the shell of the WTC, which physics can explain, and you can't.

Bigfoot uses the same method you use, fantasy - except your fantasy is mocking the murder of thousands.

ProBonoShill 18th January 2020 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958137)
Still no. As explained repeatedly already, not all of those were broadcast live. The ones that WERE broadcast live, or almost live actually, were from the perspective of the north face of the north tower. How do you figure the crash was shown live, when the alleged plane crashed into the south face of the south tower, which was not visible in the live footage. Do your research and, please, stop foaming at the mouth.

Evidence please.

Footage of the plane crash from 18 separate sources.

Where's you missile footage Steve? Don't have any? How sad.

ProBonoShill 18th January 2020 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958420)
Have you read the OP?

Yes we have, thanks for the free comedy!

ProBonoShill 18th January 2020 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958525)
His.

My conclusions are based on the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damaged steel cladding that was sharply bent in a completely different direction than the CGI jet was traveling.

Physics fail!

Why do you suck at science so bad?

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958093)
Hell yes. The original claim was that a jet cut through a steel building, which the EVIDENCE proves didn't happen. The burden of proof is on the original claimant.

Well, no. The impact and resultant cascade of physical events (not “a jet cut through a steel building”) is the null hypothesis, supported by an untold amount of witness testimony, physical evidence, and subsequent research and analysis. In short, it is the commonly-accepted understanding of the thing. Any challenge to it, including yours, therefore has the burden.

Quote:

I'm just a guy calling BS to it, and providing extraordinary evidence to boot. You guys suck at this.
No, a couple of photos as well as a stream of outlandish assertions & claims is hardly evidence, much less that which could be considered extraordinary.

And call B.S. all you like; it makes no difference to, really, anyone.

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958118)
I use my real name and face because I mean what I say. The only people I have a beef with already know everything there is to know about me. I don't have a problem with people who live in fear and think using a pseudonym will protect them, however naive that is, but I have no patience for ad hominem fallacies slung by people who hide behind anonymity. I wasn't asking them to "show themselves" as much as I was mocking them for slinging mud from the shadows.

The skeptics have been wrong about so many things, from which tower they're looking at, to whether the south face of the south tower is visible when looking at the north face of the north tower. They don't admit they're wrong because they don't have to. They won't have to face friends, family and co-workers for their mistakes. They can say anything they want without having to admit error. And they do. Often. Just read the thread. I suspect there would be fewer blowhards here if they proudly signed their names to their screed.

Pointing out the flaws in 2+2=banana is valid whether the person doing so is anonymous or known to be the king of Siam. By the same token, the person positing fruit-based math is not granted an extra measure of credibility simply because their identity is known, unless of course their credentials/knowledge/skill set can be shown to be relevant. Even then, a specific position and its supporting information should be our concern.

Regnad Kcin 18th January 2020 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958345)
They were selling us planes, but launched missiles.

Who is “they?” Be specific. Also, please provide evidence of these launched missiles.

Quote:

All radar data can be faked, as you, an alleged pilot, already know.
If you are alleging phony radar data, please provide proof.

Quote:

Considering the most likely suspects are the people who provided the alleged radar data, why do you think it has merit?
Who are these “most likely suspects?” Names and agencies, please. Also, shifting the burden of proof.

Quote:

Why do you think radar data from the most likely suspects overrides the physical evidence that discredits it?
Assuming facts not in evidence.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.