The FBI Has No Record of Any Evidence of the 4 Flights Used on 9/11

RedIbis said:
As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference.
Click to expand...

Ask the FBI where the evidence is. You're allowed to do that you know, you don't live in a police state.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Hold on there now, counsellor. You said, "in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes". Such a phrase requires evidence. Again, it shouldn't be hard to find such "numerous and blatant misquotes." This isn't a cherrypicked quote, it stands on its own. Everyone knows what you mean by it. No context is going to change what you are charging here. So back it up with an example.
Click to expand...


As I have said twice already, I will not accede to your demand that I respond to your cherrypicking. Yet, here you are continuing to cherrypick and continuing to demand that I respond to same. Unbelievable. You know full well that you are cherrypicking, and that what I actually wrote was, "...in light of your numerous and blatant misquotes, cherrypicking, unsupported accusations here (none of which you have ever apologized for) and particularly in light of your dishonest mis-attributing of quotes exposed in this very thread..."

How very dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

See also this post and this post. You seem to be trying desperately to avoid responding to them, particularly the latter.
 
RedIbis said:
As I asked right from the start, where's this evidence? Someone saying there's evidence isn't the same as actual evidence. I would expect you to understand that difference.
Click to expand...
The evidence is there; you are not trying at all to understand. Some would call that failure. Why are you are unable to comprehend the evidence? You have never posted any evidence to support your ideas. 11, 175, 77, and 93 have been proven to be the planes used on 9/11. With ease you ignore the evidence a grade school kid understands, but eludes you.

I know you can't prove 11, 175, 77, and 93 were not the planes, and it seems you will never accept what is common knowledge to rational thinkers. You even ignore DNA evidence! You ignore thousands of pieces of evidence to remain ignorant on the planes used on 9/11.
Why are you striving to remain in ignorance on 9/11?
 
beachnut said:
Why are you striving to remain in ignorance on 9/11?
Click to expand...
Because the truther ideal is to continue to ask questions until they find ones we cannot answer (to their satisfaction). They then feel they've "won". It's an ego thing.
 
RedIbis said:
You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box.
Click to expand...

"Hey Red, now you send a FOIA request for "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked."

Hey, Red, send that FOIA Request yet? Or just going to pout?
 
RedIbis said:
You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box.
Click to expand...

Have you apologized for the misquote that is this thread title?
 
Tbone said:
Have you apologized for the misquote that is this thread title?
Click to expand...

Are there quotation marks around the thread title? If not, it's not a misquote. You're free to disagree with my assertion, but at least understand what "blatant misquote" actually means. It's a serious charge that requires a very specific example. It hasn't been provided yet.
 
RedIbis said:
Are there quotation marks around the thread title? If not, it's not a misquote. You're free to disagree with my assertion, but at least understand what "blatant misquote" actually means. It's a serious charge that requires a very specific example. It hasn't been provided yet.
Click to expand...

I see, so you were lying, not misquoting.

Is that better?
 
RedIbis said:
You have to post one of my blatant misquotes. You've been unable to do so. It's very easy. Simply quote me and put it in a quote box.
Click to expand...

No, I don't have to post anything upon your demand, particularly as your demand was made above in yet another example of your vaunted cherrypicking technique.

But hey, if that's what it will take to get you to respond meaningfully to the issues and questions raised in this thread, look at post #208, which you are studiously avoiding, and which specifically references a blatant misquote by you in post #149.
 
LashL said:
No, I don't have to post anything upon your demand
Click to expand...

True, no one can force you to support your specious claim of my numerous blatant misquotes.

But it should be very easy if they're so numerous and so blatant. No need to respond with more rhetoric, just the example.
 
RedIbis said:
True, no one can force you to support your specious claim of my numerous blatant misquotes.

But it should be very easy if they're so numerous and so blatant. No need to respond with more rhetoric, just the example.
Click to expand...

Jesus...

"Hey Red, now you send a FOIA request for "evidence collected after September 11, 2001 has corroborated the fact that American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were the aircraft hijacked."

Hey, Red, send that FOIA Request yet? Or just going to freaking whine and pout?
 
RedIbis said:
LasL said:
No, I don't have to post anything upon your demand
Click to expand...

True, no one can force you to support your specious claim of my numerous blatant misquotes.

But it should be very easy if they're so numerous and so blatant. No need to respond with more rhetoric, just the example.
Click to expand...


Jesus, man... do you have ADD? There was more to LashL's post than the small portion you quoted.

LashL said:
No, I don't have to post anything upon your demand, particularly as your demand was made above in yet another example of your vaunted cherrypicking technique.

But hey, if that's what it will take to get you to respond meaningfully to the issues and questions raised in this thread, look at post #208, which you are studiously avoiding, and which specifically references a blatant misquote by you in post #149.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
True, no one can force you to support your specious claim of my numerous blatant misquotes.

But it should be very easy if they're so numerous and so blatant. No need to respond with more rhetoric, just the example.
Click to expand...


You really are hilarious, RedIbis, with your nonsensical cherrypicking - yet again, even after it has been pointed out to you several times above, you continue to make disingenous and dishonest posts.

Furthermore, I pointed you specifically to the very posts in this thread in which a blatant misquote by you was noted, quoted and commented upon, and you are still ignoring that reality.

You really aren't fooling anyone but yourself, RedIbis.


Readers: Follow this exchange for a demonstration of the RedIbis trolling technique of intellectually dishonest posts, as well as nonsensical and extremely silly and juvenile posts full of lies ... it's not pretty.
 
LashL said:
You really aren't fooling anyone but yourself, RedIbis.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's fooling himself. He knows he's a liar, and deliberately ignores all evidence that contradicts his fantasy. But it's OK to lie for The Truth™, right RedIbis? Is that how you justify it?

Readers: Follow this exchange for a demonstration of the RedIbis trolling technique of intellectually dishonest posts, as well as nonsensical and extremely silly and juvenile posts full of lies ... it's not pretty.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it is very well documented her what a dishonest fraud RedIbis is. Frankly, I'm shocked he still even posts here after he has been called out time and time again on this kind of thing.
 
WildCat said:
I don't think he's fooling himself. He knows he's a liar, and deliberately ignores all evidence that contradicts his fantasy. But it's OK to lie for The Truth™, right RedIbis? Is that how you justify it?
Click to expand...

Pious Fraud:

a fraud done to accomplish some good end, on the theory that the end justifies the means.

For example, a church in Canada had a statue of Christ which started to weep tears of blood. When analyzed, the blood turned out to be beef blood. We can reasonably assume that someone with access to the building thought that bringing souls to Christ would justify his small deception.

In the context of debates, a Pious Fraud could be a lie. More generally, it would be when an emotionally committed speaker makes an assertion that is shaded, distorted or even fabricated. For example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was accused in 2003 of "sexing up" his evidence that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Around the year 400, Saint Augustine wrote two books, De Mendacio[On Lying] and Contra Medacium[Against Lying], on this subject. He argued that the sin isn't in what you do (or don't) say, but in your intent to leave a false impression. He strongly opposed Pious Fraud. I believe that Martin Luther also wrote on the subject.

Above is quoted from A List Of Fallacious Arguments
 
Last edited:
So many times I see truthers argue points that, even if proved to be correct, would not change the overall conclusion.

Yet they do it anyways.

Truther: "UBL isn't on the most wanted list poster"

Logical thinker: "So, does that mean he didn't do it".

Truther: "No but...."

Logical thinker: "So then whats the point? Who do you think did 9/11?"

Truther: "I don't have a theory, just asking questions"

I am so sick of this. Truthers do nothing but nitpick 9/11 but offer no real solid evidence. Just trying to poke holes in a window screen.

They must know that 90% of their questions are irrelevant to the big picture yet they continue anyways.

Sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom