Question about Shanksville crash

[Liability]

You completely ignored the links I provided but want me to respond to yours? What else have you ignored? The comparisons to Stack and twa flight 800. The fact there are two variation on the appeal to authority fallacy. Let's provide another example for you bitches to ignore. In a criminal trial the prosecutor is the leading authority. Can prosecutors simply say what happened and send people to jail with no evidence? By your logic judges and juries should simply believe what the prosecution says without asking for evidence. You truly are a scary breed of stoopid.

When giving "examples," the ones chosen should make sense. Yours don't, fucktard.

A prosecutor is an authority in some things. So is the judge. So is the defense attorney. so are the witnesses who were there and thus in a position to speak with more authority on the events than any of the other folks just mentioned, you asshole.

If a lawyer at a trial calls an "expert witness" on some matter of importance to determining the facts, that expert gets cross examined not just on his general expertise, but also on any biases AND on WHETHER or NOT he happens to be talking from a position of any specific knowledge of the relevant facts in dispute. The expert is not called for the purpose, you moron, of engaging in the fallacy of an appeal to authority. You don't have the foggiest goddamn notion about the term of logic you keep erroneously bandying about, you menstrual blood clot imbecile.

But when the FBI, working with the NTSB, engages in a hands on investigation AT the location, their observations and conclusions ARE relevant and their expertise is clearly genuine; and it is NOT in any way a fallacy to seek their factual testimony and their expert conclusions precisely BECAUSE they have the requisite expertise.

AGAIN, you are a lying imbecile. What you are attempting to argue (but for some reason you remain far too dishonest to use the correct terminology) is that they may be "lying." Anything is possible, but that one is a fucking stretch and there are no sound reasons to speculate along those stupid lines, you asshole.

Your argument still has NOTHING to do with the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

Wrong again douche bag lying pussy drippings.

Testimony about a fact is -- in effect -- a fact, for purposes of reconstructing an event.

The fallacy does not lie in the fact that an authority on the topic is cited. The fallacy occurs (if at all) when the alleged expert is in fact not sufficiently expert on the point for which he or she is cited AS an expert.

Ignore that again you random rancid lying pussy.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

so planes that have stuck the ground have never been re-constructed ? Are all of your statements just your assumptions ?

a plane that power-dived nose first in pa at 400+ mph has not been re-constructed.

A plane that blew up at altitude, and fell into the ocean has been re-constructed.

Absolute enough for you?

it might be if they were the only two such plane crashes in history

They are the only 2 crashes we are discussing in this twisted truther conspiracy thread.

 

[DiveCon]

LOL. That's funny, Crashing into water is the same as flying full speed into the ground. LOL

Maybe I should clear my Ignore list. At least for a while...LOL Water and Ground..LOL

It becomes even funnier when you consider the scenario of a plane blowing up and loose pieces falling into the ocean = flying into the ground at full speed.

In other words, 2 or 3 ton pieces of metal falling at roughly 100 mph equal a 65 ton plane crashing at 400+ mph. Wonder why none of my science teachers ever taught me that these are equal in kinetic energy?

Guess you missed the point. The NTSB did a 4 year investigation parallel to a terrorist investigation by the fbi. That made sense because the agencies investigated with respect to their areas of expertise. So why couldn't the same happen with 9E? Hell, we even have a post 9E terrorist attack with a plane hitting a federally owned building, exactly like 9E and the NTSB did their own investigation.

The other point is even though it crashed in the ocean they were still able to recover enough to rebuild a large fuselage. Do you get it yet dumfuk?

You completely ignored the links I provided but want me to respond to yours? What else have you ignored? The comparisons to Stack and twa flight 800. The fact there are two variation on the appeal to authority fallacy. Let's provide another example for you bitches to ignore. In a criminal trial the prosecutor is the leading authority. Can prosecutors simply say what happened and send people to jail with no evidence? By your logic judges and juries should simply believe what the prosecution says without asking for evidence. You truly are a scary breed of stoopid.

i didnt ignore your link. i read it. i also read mine. i still dont see how you are coming to the conclusion that the FBI and NIST are not authorities on an airline hijacking and crash. please state who is more of an authority than them.

twa 800 was an airplane that exploded while climbing over water. i dont see how that relates to an airplane intentionally put into the ground at high speed . i dont even see the relevance of comparing the investigations when twa 800's cause was unkown and flight 93's cause was known to have been hijacked even before it hit the ground.

The NTSB did not do an investigation. Tomorrow we will discuss reasons why you don't stick your bare hands in an open flame.

WTF????????

 

[Liability]

so planes that have stuck the ground have never been re-constructed ? Are all of your statements just your assumptions ?

a plane that power-dived nose first in pa at 400+ mph has not been re-constructed.

A plane that blew up at altitude, and fell into the ocean has been re-constructed.

Absolute enough for you?

it might be if they were the only two such plane crashes in history

Troofer scumbzag lying pussy id-eots:

There have been numerous plane crashes in history, you hapless helpless hopeless homo-humpin' hermaphrodite.

So, get busy. Show us an example of one of the crashes of a large passenger jet crashing into soft soil (like reclaimed mining dirt) where the aircraft came down at a speed of around 500+ mph at a roughly 40 degree angle and where the debris was able to be reconstructed. If you can do all of that, you might have the beginning of a point.

Until then, you remain now, as always, a lying full of shit scumbag Troofer.

 

[DiveCon]

really? then where did the transcripts of the voice recorder come from?

The fbi you dumfuk. Let me educate you again. In december 01' the fbi announced they decoded the cvr but the first time it was released was in april 2006 at ZM's trial. Even when you try to deflect you reveal new layers of complete ignorance about 9E.

if the NTSB didnt investigate any of flight 93 then where did these come from?
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf

(gee, that took me a whole 10 seconds to prove you lied again)

actually, you proved he is a fucking idiot, once again

 

[SFC Ollie]

The fbi you dumfuk. Let me educate you again. In december 01' the fbi announced they decoded the cvr but the first time it was released was in april 2006 at ZM's trial. Even when you try to deflect you reveal new layers of complete ignorance about 9E.

if the NTSB didnt investigate any of flight 93 then where did these come from?
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf

(gee, that took me a whole 10 seconds to prove you lied again)

actually, you proved he is a fucking idiot, once again

Not difficult to do.

 

[CurveLight]

When giving "examples," the ones chosen should make sense. Yours don't, fucktard.

A prosecutor is an authority in some things. So is the judge. So is the defense attorney. so are the witnesses who were there and thus in a position to speak with more authority on the events than any of the other folks just mentioned, you asshole.

If a lawyer at a trial calls an "expert witness" on some matter of importance to determining the facts, that expert gets cross examined not just on his general expertise, but also on any biases AND on WHETHER or NOT he happens to be talking from a position of any specific knowledge of the relevant facts in dispute. The expert is not called for the purpose, you moron, of engaging in the fallacy of an appeal to authority. You don't have the foggiest goddamn notion about the term of logic you keep erroneously bandying about, you menstrual blood clot imbecile.

But when the FBI, working with the NTSB, engages in a hands on investigation AT the location, their observations and conclusions ARE relevant and their expertise is clearly genuine; and it is NOT in any way a fallacy to seek their factual testimony and their expert conclusions precisely BECAUSE they have the requisite expertise.

AGAIN, you are a lying imbecile. What you are attempting to argue (but for some reason you remain far too dishonest to use the correct terminology) is that they may be "lying." Anything is possible, but that one is a fucking stretch and there are no sound reasons to speculate along those stupid lines, you asshole.

Your argument still has NOTHING to do with the fallacy of "appeal to authority."

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

Wrong again douche bag lying pussy drippings.

Testimony about a fact is -- in effect -- a fact, for purposes of reconstructing an event.

The fallacy does not lie in the fact that an authority on the topic is cited. The fallacy occurs (if at all) when the alleged expert is in fact not sufficiently expert on the point for which he or she is cited AS an expert.

Ignore that again you random rancid lying pussy.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

It's even funnier you try to say that a testimony is "in effect" a fact. Ignore it all again Snitch Bitch.

 

[DiveCon]

if the NTSB didnt investigate any of flight 93 then where did these come from?
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf

(gee, that took me a whole 10 seconds to prove you lied again)

actually, you proved he is a fucking idiot, once again

Not difficult to do.

i know
its been done so many times its rather funny

 

[DiveCon]

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

Wrong again douche bag lying pussy drippings.

Testimony about a fact is -- in effect -- a fact, for purposes of reconstructing an event.

The fallacy does not lie in the fact that an authority on the topic is cited. The fallacy occurs (if at all) when the alleged expert is in fact not sufficiently expert on the point for which he or she is cited AS an expert.

Ignore that again you random rancid lying pussy.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

It's even funnier you try to say that a testimony is "in effect" a fact. Ignore it all again Snitch Bitch.

you really are insane

 

[CurveLight]

really? then where did the transcripts of the voice recorder come from?

The fbi you dumfuk. Let me educate you again. In december 01' the fbi announced they decoded the cvr but the first time it was released was in april 2006 at ZM's trial. Even when you try to deflect you reveal new layers of complete ignorance about 9E.

if the NTSB didnt investigate any of flight 93 then where did these come from?
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf

(gee, that took me a whole 10 seconds to prove you lied again)

Nice strawman you useless ****. Do you actually think you accomplish anything with that bullshit?

 

[Liability]

a plane that power-dived nose first in pa at 400+ mph has not been re-constructed.

A plane that blew up at altitude, and fell into the ocean has been re-constructed.

Absolute enough for you?

it might be if they were the only two such plane crashes in history

They are the only 2 crashes we are discussing in this twisted truther conspiracy thread.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

Wrong again douche bag lying pussy drippings.

Testimony about a fact is -- in effect -- a fact, for purposes of reconstructing an event.

The fallacy does not lie in the fact that an authority on the topic is cited. The fallacy occurs (if at all) when the alleged expert is in fact not sufficiently expert on the point for which he or she is cited AS an expert.

Ignore that again you random rancid lying pussy.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

It's even funnier you try to say that a testimony is "in effect" a fact. Ignore it all again Snitch Bitch.

Your ignorance is showing, bitch. No shock there. It always shows.

What I said was (ho hum) once again exactly correct.

Why do we accept testimony of witnesses, you shit for brains puddle fucker? Is that too hard for you? Stop sniveling, bitch. I'll give you the answer: It is to permit the "finders of fact" (i.e., the jury, a jury that wasn't THERE) to determine what the facts were.

You weren't at the Flt. 93 crash site, pussy drippings. So, like most of the rest of us, you have to base your assumptions on the observations (recorded in one form or another) of folks who WERE there and -- in some instances -- filter it through the expertise of people who properly grasp things like physics, etc.

The problem with scum like you is that you are so thoroughly biased, you adhere to your idiotic preconceived notions DESPITE the actual credible evidence; you fail to base your conclusions ON credible evidence and logic. You are a Troofer and therefore impervious to reason and hostile to truth. You suck the corn out of the shit of Satan as it comes out of his steaming anus in hell, you lousy excuse for a human being.

 

[Liability]

The fbi you dumfuk. Let me educate you again. In december 01' the fbi announced they decoded the cvr but the first time it was released was in april 2006 at ZM's trial. Even when you try to deflect you reveal new layers of complete ignorance about 9E.

if the NTSB didnt investigate any of flight 93 then where did these come from?
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf

(gee, that took me a whole 10 seconds to prove you lied again)

Nice strawman you useless ****. Do you actually think you accomplish anything with that bullshit?

Accomplishment: He fully exposed you as the filthy fucking scumbag pussy liar you almost always are.

 

[eots]

liewabilty debwunked you he called you a pussy drippings..you have been debwunked

 

[Liability]

liewabilty debwunked you he called you a pussy drippings..you have been debwunked

Id-eots is still debzzzzunkzing his own stupid self because id-eots makes up his own wordz at wandom becuz id-eots is a fwucking wetard!

Newsflash for id-eots: "debwunk" is still not a real word. It's not interesting and nobody is gonna start following the imbecile "lead" of a lying pussy Troofer like you.

Every time you use that non-word, people laugh AT you all the more.

Tell us all again how Flt 93 never crashed, id-eots. That's always good for a laugh.

 

[eots]

LIEWABILTY is driven by the herd mentality of what people say or if they might laugh he is a funny little man that needs to fill his post with inane obscenities to try to mask the fact he has Little to say

 

[Liability]

LIEWABILTY is driven by the herd mentality of what people say or if they might laugh he is a funny little man that needs to fill his post with inane obscenities to try to mask the fact he has Little to say

Says the scumbag lying Troofer pussy who (like a dutiful sheep) follows the lead of assholes like the crew over at PrisonPlanet.

Sorry, asshopper, but the truth is, you are a fucking retard and a liar. You have no credibility because you say absolutely ridiculous things all the time and have no valid evidence to rely upon. None.

 

[eots]

LIEWABILTY is driven by the herd mentality of what people say or if they might laugh he is a funny little man that needs to fill his post with inane obscenities to try to mask the fact he has Little to say

Says the scumbag lying Troofer pussy who (like a dutiful sheep) follows hte lead of assholes like the crew over at PrisonPlanet.

Sorry, asshopper, but the truth is, you are a fucking retard and a liar. You have no credibility because you say absolutely ridiculous things all the time and have no valid evidence to rely upon. None.

Liewabilty debwunked me he called me asshopper and used the prison planet strawman...debwunking is so much easier than debunking

 

[DiveCon]

LIEWABILTY is driven by the herd mentality of what people say or if they might laugh he is a funny little man that needs to fill his post with inane obscenities to try to mask the fact he has Little to say

Says the scumbag lying Troofer pussy who (like a dutiful sheep) follows hte lead of assholes like the crew over at PrisonPlanet.

Sorry, asshopper, but the truth is, you are a fucking retard and a liar. You have no credibility because you say absolutely ridiculous things all the time and have no valid evidence to rely upon. None.

Liewabilty debwunked me he called me asshopper and used the prison planet strawman...debwunking is so much easier than debunking

something that doesnt exist is always easier, dipshit

 

[CurveLight]

it might be if they were the only two such plane crashes in history

They are the only 2 crashes we are discussing in this twisted truther conspiracy thread.

Wrong again douche bag lying pussy drippings.

Testimony about a fact is -- in effect -- a fact, for purposes of reconstructing an event.

The fallacy does not lie in the fact that an authority on the topic is cited. The fallacy occurs (if at all) when the alleged expert is in fact not sufficiently expert on the point for which he or she is cited AS an expert.

Ignore that again you random rancid lying pussy.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

It's even funnier you try to say that a testimony is "in effect" a fact. Ignore it all again Snitch Bitch.

Your ignorance is showing, bitch. No shock there. It always shows.

What I said was (ho hum) once again exactly correct.

Why do we accept testimony of witnesses, you shit for brains puddle fucker? Is that too hard for you? Stop sniveling, bitch. I'll give you the answer: It is to permit the "finders of fact" (i.e., the jury, a jury that wasn't THERE) to determine what the facts were.

You weren't at the Flt. 93 crash site, pussy drippings. So, like most of the rest of us, you have to base your assumptions on the observations (recorded in one form or another) of folks who WERE there and -- in some instances -- filter it through the expertise of people who properly grasp things like physics, etc.

The problem with scum like you is that you are so thoroughly biased, you adhere to your idiotic preconceived notions DESPITE the actual credible evidence; you fail to base your conclusions ON credible evidence and logic. You are a Troofer and therefore impervious to reason and hostile to truth. You suck the corn out of the shit of Satan as it comes out of his steaming anus in hell, you lousy excuse for a human being.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.

 

[CurveLight]

if the NTSB didnt investigate any of flight 93 then where did these come from?
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_aa77_ua93_study.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight _Path_ Study_UA93.pdf

(gee, that took me a whole 10 seconds to prove you lied again)

Nice strawman you useless ****. Do you actually think you accomplish anything with that bullshit?

Accomplishment: He fully exposed you as the filthy fucking scumbag pussy liar you almost always are.

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

(1. FBI says 95% flight 93 recovered. Therefore it is true 95% has been recovered)

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."
Http://www.atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority.htm


Ignore it again Snitch Bitch.


(or is it you are sooooo fuxxing stoopid you still have not learned there are two main ways to commit the fallacy?)