Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

If we're going to start talking fallacies here, how many times today have you made an Appeal to Authority?

Moot. Small, like rocket. Jet fuel. No hole in wall (compare WTC). Hole in Pentagon a) at ground level with no space for the rest of the plane, b) no parts to start with on lawn, c) no seats, luggage, etc.

Shanksville, no plane parts at all, but a perfect plane impression. Compare: Polish plane crash. Etc.

You can't be asking that with a straight face...:)

We DO know the salient truths about JFK's death now. Read Horne, "Inside the AARB" and Fetzer, editor of "Murder in Dealey Plaza," "Assassination Science" and "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax."

As to "never knowing for sure," this is a cop-out. We don't know all the names but we know many and the basic truth of the conspiracy as FACT is known now, even physically scientifically.

As to "not changing anything anyway," you are wrong. Brzezinski just warned his fellow Council on Foreign Relations memebers about the "Global Political Awakening" and that it might scuttle their (oh-so-wonderful, they think) plans for global government that they want to run.

We're having effect.

And as to "American conspiracy", injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere, in some sense. Plus, the people running some of these are affiliated beyond borders. Canada (through Lansky and the Bronfmans and the Europeans who later were implicated in the P2 Masonic Lodge and nobility and Vatican Banco Ambrosiano scandal of the 70s in Italy ... the link was the Permindex Corporation of Montreal).

According to MSNBC, the Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team located an intact seat from the cockpit at the Pentagon.

But I guess that was probably planted by the MIBs who snuck it onto the scened hidden under their coats?

.

No, an appeal to authority as an appeal to their work or expertise is not an Appeal to Authority fallacy.

An appeal to authority fallacy is what you guys did implicitly in saying that a Ph.D. who believes something, etc., is acting dumber than their Ph.D.: turned around, you show that you expect that Ph.Ds are to be trusted simply on the strength of the Doctorate. They may have relevant knowledge or not, due to their Ph.D., or they may have knowledge outside of their Ph.D.

To make a point about a person's character is, also, not necessarily a fallacious item, an ad hominem argument.

It is clear in these cases that using expertise (which might agree with socially adored power or not) or talking of character (which might be true about the person or not) is fine if the appeal in each case is not outside their ARGUMENT.

A bartender can be an excellent witness on car mechanics if he knows the mechanics; a mechanic may be certified but be unnknowledgeable about some feature asked (or have been bought off to lie). To appeal to the latter only due to the certification, is the appeal to authority fallacy.

Yup. (Not MIB but MIS -- men in suits.)

Get real.

No jet fuel, a flyover black box, no debris until after, a hole at ground level no more than 15 feet wide, a supposed spiral landing and then a hit on the ground with no disturbance to the lawn, the wrong trajectory (CIT witnesses, who said it was north of the Citgo, and they were right by that landmark), etc.

Sorry.
Planted.

I certainly am.

You a) don't know much about Icke IF you think he's all about the reptilians he thinks are BEHIND the other stuff he quite rightly exposes
b) are attacking the other's work on the witnesses ONLY because of his association with Icke -- to take it further, which one does not need to, your attack on his association even then, is on Icke where he is strong: the Illuminist history ---- links between the 18th century lords joining the Illuminati secet group, which was really a group for plotting actions that were anti-nation-state (at that time largely anti-monarchy at the same time).

You didn't even read my links, did you. How rude.

[link to www.america.gov]


"the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site"

[link to www.america.gov]


Passenger and Crew Remains Recovered at Pentagon Crash Site

In addition to the numerous eyewitness accounts, the remains of the passengers and crew on board American Airlines flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers on board American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims. These positive forensic identifications provide irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. In addition, rescue and recovery personnel at the Pentagon reported seeing the bodies of airline passengers. The September 14, 2001, edition of USA Today reported, “When [Army Sergeant Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped in their seats.”



Read more: [link to www.america.gov]

It is the combined evidence which makes this necessary: one seat? No jet fuel? Etc.?

It is not "finding a seat".

For then, whenever you find a knife you'll say, murder! Or whatever. And you'll never be able to distinguish a real murder from a faked suicide.

Give it up, Clare. You simply don't have the facts.

Now, come on.

If me mentioning Icke and the Snake Men from Space is an ad hom then THAT is an Appeal to Authority.

Are all of these eyewitnesses lying?


Eyewitness Accounts of Pentagon Attack

Following are some of the numerous eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash:

• Richard Benedetto: “It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly.”

• Omar Campo, a Salvadorean: “It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head.”

• Joseph Candelario: “I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it.”

• James Cissell: “I saw this plane coming in and it was low — and getting lower. … Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board.”

• Dennis Clem: “There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon.”

• Michael Dobbs: “It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle.”

• Penny Elgas: “… the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car …. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane — I could see the windows and the color stripes.”

• Cheryl Hammond: “We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running.”

• Joe Harrington: “… one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd.”

• Albert Hemphill: “The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus.”

• Terrance Kean: “I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon.”

• William Lagasse: “It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. … I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground.”

• Robert Leonard: “I … saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon.”

• Lincoln Liebner: “I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low.”

• Elaine McCusker: “I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating.”

• Mitch Mitchell: “I … saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it …. It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon.”

• Terry Morin: “The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines.”

• Christopher Munsey: “I couldn’t believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ….”

• Vin Narayanan: “I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet.”

• John O’Keefe: “I don’t know whether I saw or heard it first — this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ….”

• Steve Riskus: “I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines’ logo on the tail as it headed towards the building . … I clearly saw the ‘AA’ logo with the eagle in the middle.”

• James Ryan: “I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. … The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane.”

• Joel Sucherman: “… looking straight ahead there was a jet, what looked to be an American Airlines jet, probably a 757, and it came screaming across the highway … [and] hit the west side of the Pentagon.”

• Donald “Tim” Timmerman, a pilot: “I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon … and so I have quite a panorama. … It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.”

• Mike Walter: “I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. … It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. I saw the big ‘AA’ on the side.”

• Ian Wyatt: “I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane and then boom.”

Finally, The 9/11 Commission Report (chapter one, pages 25-26) states that on September 11, air traffic controllers at Washington’s Reagan National Airport instructed a C-130H cargo plane that had just taken off from the airport to try to follow the plane that had been spotted on radar as heading toward Washington. According to the report, “The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: ‘looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.’”

In sum, many people on nearby roads or in nearby buildings saw a large passenger plane hit the Pentagon and, as the above eyewitness testimonies demonstrate, numerous people specifically identified it as an American Airlines plane.



Read more: [link to www.america.gov]

Did you read my links? :))

Yes, they said so.
And yet, where's the plane? The jet fuel? The parts in the first impact moments? Why the flyover from the black box? A hole 15' wide and nothing else? Where DID that plane go?

And anyway, a 757 at that speed would have so much air resistance under it it could NOT have gotten within ground level distance to hit, unless crashing at a much higher angle, and THAT wouldn't work with the other trajectory issues and so on.

Wake up, dear.

I appealed to an authority, but did not do an Appeal to Authority fallacy. I am saying IT'S RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC: he is an expert. I am distinguishing his likely knowledge, saying he's not just any pilot ... and piloting is the POINT here, not his beliefs on other things.

Have you never met someone who believes in ghosts but is an excellent mechanic, or whatever? The fact they believe in one thing is not relevant NECESSARILY to the other thing.

IF however we found that he believes in ghosts and thinks the car runs by ghost energy, then that would be relevant.

Do you really mean to tell us that with your demonstrated lack of understanding of even the most basic science, that you can make such a judgement?

Give me a freaking break!

Again, Clare, are ALL these eyewitnesses lying?

Thanks for that link. (Mr. G. right?)

That pretty much settles that, I'd say.

Pentagon impact damage

[link to 911review.com]

In different ways they are mistaken or lying.

There WAS a flight, as determined by the CIT witnesses by the Citgo, but from the opposite direction. There was a flyover, as per the 300-feet-too-high black box data.

And you can never see faces in windows of passenger jets from any major (more than maybe 50 feet, and in some lights, not even that) distance or speed.

No jet fuel; impossible manoeuvres; hole too small and no other parts until after the cave-in of the building; wrong trajectory (lammposts are so funny: opposite trajectory from the Citgo witnesses who had a clear angle judgement view); most witnesses above were media and gov't ... but some saw SOMETHING and it seems the plane was painted with a stripe.

So?

No plane.

And why are you hanging on to planes? Just because they said there were some? Do you hang on to the hijackers' names, too? Many were false identities.

Yes, it does. Clare has been reading too many kook web sites that only present twisted versions to meet their twisted agendas. She is to invested to even recognize that.

Clare, your willingness to dispense with all logical thinking and to dismiss factual evidence is pretty amazing. What is it that has you SO warped that you will accept any kook theory that comes along?

Ho hum. You really don't get it, do you? I have better things to do with my time than read about conspiracy theories about the murder of a man decades ago. Glad that YOU know the salient truths, as if they matter. Too bad you don't have that kind of interest in ongoing matters you might be able to change IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY. You are an embarrassment.

No, you searching for meaningless "facts" in dark caverns of ignorance and charlatanry regarding matters that didn't even happen in your own country is a cop out. Living in the past, trying to right wrongs committed in the past that have no bearing on our future is a cop out. You are so busy minding America's business that you don't even see what's coming in your own, and it is home baked.


You are delusional. Your grasp on logic and your priorities are really messed up. There are plenty of current lies to be exposed, things that could make a difference. You are the cop out, playing conspiracy buster on your computer. Here's a tip for you. Not everything or even most things on youtube are true. Just because someone writes books and speaks out publicly doesn't mean its true. What happens in America is really none of your business unless they ask for your input. You are the worst kind of Canadian.

If you say that I have a bridge to sell ya in Armenia. :)

The other facts indicate they're lying.

I'm not familiar with how Google works or what exactly can be done to get one's site to show up under specific search terms, but it's too bad that the site you've linked doesn't show up closer to the top using many of the obvious search terms.

If a seemingly omnipotentl conspiracy was trying to keep this quiet I certainly think they should be able to manage that.

What basic science didn't I know?

I knew about Moon rotation just called it by its opposite name, revolution (because I am not dealing with scintist jargon all day; I got the concept). As to knowing it would START to rotate (relative to Earth) if actually stopped: this is a finer point which I did not know.

AND did not show that most of what I said before was false: I was speaking of levels of motion as they are NOW. I got all that right.

I DID make the wrong extrapolation that it would not START to rotate (relative to Earth) if physically stopped.

YOU are not remembering what I said, and didn't give it its due, in all the crapola around the discussion. So I have shown I have most things fine and that is clear if you were objective.

PLUS I now know it would START to rotate ...
in the sense of, if physically stopped with the Earth it would rotate more than it is, and would thus "break" tidal "lock" ---- which is a relationship over space on its revolution around the Sun. I got the latter, even, but didn't know it would show rotation if stopped physically.

All my perspective levels were fine and CLEARER THAN YOURS, for you just kept saying "it rotates" without a context.

The condemnation of a half-deaf audience.

I am a MAJORLY patriotic (but not jingoistic) pro nation-state Canadian. You must think I'm just absorbed in "their stuff." Nope. But here, I'll prove it to you at the same time as show you it's all connected:

Do you not know that the big conspiracies are affecting us here? Ignatieff is from old British Royalist family stock, supports nice social things but also Torture for the War on Terror (wrote about that in Harvard), internationalism in the sick sense (British Empire, modernized) ...

and Harper's into not only the torture, as you may have heard leaked lately, but also is an anti-nationalist.

NAFTA was set up through pre-set arrangements with Americans -- themselves traitors to their country for the sake of corporations and old power in Europe --

Read, "The Bilderberg Group: North American Union Edition" by Estulin for some fascinating treasonous Canadian info.

Great section on the Power Corporation and its Bilderberg links on the one hand, and its plants in gov't on the other (Bob Rae, through his brother, Chretien and Mulroney and Martin on the other, not to mention the 1995 near-separation of Quebec. Kissinger was livid when it didn't happen.)

That's just to start.

I also work for nationalist lobby groups, raising funds.

Point here is: LOVE Canada -- yes, do! You too! But we've basically almost lost it in other ways, as has the USA lost a lot of their real sovereignty ...

Hanging by a thread. The link? Those who stood up to globalism (not international co-operation but "internationalism"), such as JFK, and those who fight 9/11 War on Terror and so on ... are the MOST aware of how to keep nation states going.

Clare

Yes, you guys still think your position holds, even when it's cut down.

NO jet fuel at Shanksville and Pentagon; parallax prob's in NYC TV vids; wrong trajectory; fake AND deluded (saww the flyover) witnesses; etc.

Really, there were no planes.

And it was easier that way. Because you'll believe a couple of witnesses who can be shown to be mistaken and lying, instead of the physics AND the few witnesses who were by a landmark (the Citgo station near the Pentagon) and who dared to speak out.

DON'T BELIEVE YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS unless they really DO add up.

You somehow need a plane. Why?