Truthers, how was this engine planted?

[Terral]

Hi Gam:

You have doubt about the structural design the towers used? I suggest you pick up a few books and read. There are articles about it ...

And 'that' cuckoo is how the little rusty hunk of metal was 'planted' by the Inside-job Murdering Bushie Administration-empowered FBI, CIA, NSA and FEMA working under the auspices of Dickless Cheney and the Department of Defense (What Really Happened) ...

Just ignore the Topic and keep on running your idiot mouths confused about nothing ...

GL,

Terral

 

[Fizz]

Hi Gam:

You have doubt about the structural design the towers used? I suggest you pick up a few books and read. There are articles about it ...

And 'that' cuckoo is how the little rusty hunk of metal was 'planted' by the Inside-job Murdering Bushie Administration-empowered FBI, CIA, NSA and FEMA working under the auspices of Dickless Cheney and the Department of Defense (What Really Happened) ...

Just ignore the Topic and keep on running your idiot mouths confused about nothing ...

GL,

Terral

you are claiming the engine was planted by picking up books and reading?

 

[CurveLight]

Hi Gam:

You have doubt about the structural design the towers used? I suggest you pick up a few books and read. There are articles about it ...

And 'that' cuckoo is how the little rusty hunk of metal was 'planted' by the Inside-job Murdering Bushie Administration-empowered FBI, CIA, NSA and FEMA working under the auspices of Dickless Cheney and the Department of Defense (What Really Happened) ...

Just ignore the Topic and keep on running your idiot mouths confused about nothing ...

GL,

Terral

you are claiming the engine was planted by picking up books and reading?

That's light years ahead of the fact you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that 95% of flight 93 was recovered.

 

[Fizz]

Hi Gam:



And 'that' cuckoo is how the little rusty hunk of metal was 'planted' by the Inside-job Murdering Bushie Administration-empowered FBI, CIA, NSA and FEMA working under the auspices of Dickless Cheney and the Department of Defense (What Really Happened) ...

Just ignore the Topic and keep on running your idiot mouths confused about nothing ...

GL,

Terral

you are claiming the engine was planted by picking up books and reading?

That's light years ahead of the fact you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that 95% of flight 93 was recovered.

like this?
CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001

 

[CurveLight]

you are claiming the engine was planted by picking up books and reading?

That's light years ahead of the fact you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that 95% of flight 93 was recovered.

like this?
CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001

Why repeat this shit? Is your standard of evidence the same for everything? If a government agency announces something that means it's true?

You have no actual evidence or you would have posted it.

 

[candycorn]

you are claiming the engine was planted by picking up books and reading?

That's light years ahead of the fact you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that 95% of flight 93 was recovered.

like this?
CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001

I wonder if Curveslight believes Africa really exists. I mean, the only evidence we really have of it being there is satellite imagery and maps made from those satellites. We all know that NASA--A GOVERNMENT AGENCY launches those satellites so, obviously, they must be lying about it being there. I've always doubted the existence of Antarctica.

Please wake me up if he ever says anything definative (sp?).

 

[Fizz]

That's light years ahead of the fact you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that 95% of flight 93 was recovered.

like this?
CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001

Why repeat this shit? Is your standard of evidence the same for everything? If a government agency announces something that means it's true?

You have no actual evidence or you would have posted it.

that is actual evidence. you continue to pretend it doesnt exist and claim there is no evidence.

do you have ANY evidence that the news article is incorrect?

is your standard for evidence if a government agency makes a claim it is automatically FALSE?

 

[CurveLight]

That's light years ahead of the fact you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that 95% of flight 93 was recovered.

like this?
CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001

I wonder if Curveslight believes Africa really exists. I mean, the only evidence we really have of it being there is satellite imagery and maps made from those satellites. We all know that NASA--A GOVERNMENT AGENCY launches those satellites so, obviously, they must be lying about it being there. I've always doubted the existence of Antarctica.

Please wake me up if he ever says anything definative (sp?).

NASA is the only way to verify Africa exists?

You should stick to posting nothing but ad homs. At least then you have a chance at hiding your stoopidity.

 

[CurveLight]

like this?
CNN.com - FBI finished with Pennsylvania crash site probe - September 24, 2001

Why repeat this shit? Is your standard of evidence the same for everything? If a government agency announces something that means it's true?

You have no actual evidence or you would have posted it.

that is actual evidence. you continue to pretend it doesnt exist and claim there is no evidence.

do you have ANY evidence that the news article is incorrect?

is your standard for evidence if a government agency makes a claim it is automatically FALSE?

On top of:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2183800-post367.html


What do you think lying will accomplish? I've addressed your link several times and have never pretended it doesn't exist. You want another chance to show everyone you will ignore basic logic? Your link is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Ignore that again.

But I will keep in mind by your standards if a government agency simply says something that means in your book it is true and you don't need any verification.

 

[Fizz]

[
What do you think lying will accomplish? I've addressed your link several times and have never pretended it doesn't exist. You want another chance to show everyone you will ignore basic logic? Your link is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Ignore that again.

But I will keep in mind by your standards if a government agency simply says something that means in your book it is true and you don't need any verification.

do you have any fucking idea what you are talking about? the fallacy of "appeal to authority" is when an the authority is not in expert in what is being discussed. obviously this is not the case with the FBI that was assisted by the NTSB.

now if a DNA expert was claiming that 95% of the plane was recovered you might have a point.

but you dont. you are just talking out of your ass again.

so once again i ask you. where is your evidence that the 95% recovered claim is not correct?

 

[DiveCon]

[
What do you think lying will accomplish? I've addressed your link several times and have never pretended it doesn't exist. You want another chance to show everyone you will ignore basic logic? Your link is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Ignore that again.

But I will keep in mind by your standards if a government agency simply says something that means in your book it is true and you don't need any verification.

do you have any fucking idea what you are talking about? the fallacy of "appeal to authority" is when an the authority is not in expert in what is being discussed. obviously this is not the case with the FBI that was assisted by the NTSB.

now if a DNA expert was claiming that 95% of the plane was recovered you might have a point.

but you dont. you are just talking out of your ass again.

so once again i ask you. where is your evidence that the 95% recovered claim is not correct?

he always talks out of his ass

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3PAW7zjgPw]YouTube - FBI Agent Explains How To Spot Liars[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk&feature=related]YouTube - 9/11 Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Mike Walter[/ame]

 

[Fizz]

feel free to randomly post videos irrelevant to the topic of the thread whenever you want...

 

[eots]

Thats ok you do enough of that for everyone

 

[DiveCon]

Thats ok you do enough of that for everyone

no, only dipshits like YOU do that

 

[Gamolon]

That is a double whammy on the fallacy of appeal to authority. You are saying we should believe the government's claim its conclusion supports its premise on the basis the government has said so. You are also ignoring experts, such as Dr. Q, disagrees with NIST's findings and that they have ignored Dr. Q's questions as well as refuse accountability by not letting other experts examine the same evidence they have used to reach their conclusions.

You have doubt about the structural design the towers used? I suggest you pick up a few books and read. There are articles about it. Photos that prove the articles correct.

I suggest you direct your questions about the tower's design to Mr. Robertson. He can set you straight. he has answered my emails concerning the towers.

I'm not doubting the structural design. I'm pointing out you are making a claim about the structural design you cannot support and you are claiming NIST is correct without verification and in the face of experts pointing out NIST's conclusions are bullshit.

If you are not doubting the design, then why did you ask me to post the link to the blueprints?

 

[CurveLight]

[
What do you think lying will accomplish? I've addressed your link several times and have never pretended it doesn't exist. You want another chance to show everyone you will ignore basic logic? Your link is the fallacy of appeal to authority. Ignore that again.

But I will keep in mind by your standards if a government agency simply says something that means in your book it is true and you don't need any verification.

do you have any fucking idea what you are talking about? the fallacy of "appeal to authority" is when an the authority is not in expert in what is being discussed. obviously this is not the case with the FBI that was assisted by the NTSB.

now if a DNA expert was claiming that 95% of the plane was recovered you might have a point.

but you dont. you are just talking out of your ass again.

so once again i ask you. where is your evidence that the 95% recovered claim is not correct?

"Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

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

"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."
Fallacies of Relevance: Appeal to Authority Overview and Introduction

Furthermore, the FBI are not the experts in aircraft recovery. That is what the NTSB does.

You have not provided any evidence but you want others to prove a negative while you have never proven in the affirmative.

 

[CurveLight]

You have doubt about the structural design the towers used? I suggest you pick up a few books and read. There are articles about it. Photos that prove the articles correct.

I suggest you direct your questions about the tower's design to Mr. Robertson. He can set you straight. he has answered my emails concerning the towers.

I'm not doubting the structural design. I'm pointing out you are making a claim about the structural design you cannot support and you are claiming NIST is correct without verification and in the face of experts pointing out NIST's conclusions are bullshit.

If you are not doubting the design, then why did you ask me to post the link to the blueprints?

To prove you were making claims you could not support.

 

[Gamolon]

I'm not doubting the structural design. I'm pointing out you are making a claim about the structural design you cannot support...

Exactly what claim am I making about the structural design? Please tell me.

 

[Gamolon]

I'm not doubting the structural design. I'm pointing out you are making a claim about the structural design you cannot support and you are claiming NIST is correct without verification and in the face of experts pointing out NIST's conclusions are bullshit.

If you are not doubting the design, then why did you ask me to post the link to the blueprints?

To prove you were making claims you could not support.

What claims?