T1B

Moving Sale wrote:My Bad.

Congratulations. You've just made your first accurate statement in this thread.

Jimmy Medalions wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:My Bad.

Congratulations. You've just made your first accurate statement in this thread.

TVO: "Congratulationth! I thalute you for your witty thtatement!"

Scary to think he's a practicing lawyer.

Yuck it up fuckstains.

It's better than actually bringing something to the table.

Oh wait. You don't need to bring anything to the table...

according to ya'll the government has already done that for you.

This has nothing to do with the government. I was questioning you and your claims regarding 77. You certainly didn't do anything to prove to me that a single point of yours had any validity or carried any weight worth investigating, and you dodged anything I brought up that you had no answers for, tried to redirect the argument on 77 to WTC7 when you saw you were getting creamed in it, or else you just dismissed what didn't jive with your version of reality.

Fortunately for me I don't live in your area, so I won't accidentally hire you. God help those who do.
really, you represent very poorly.

One of TVO's clients after his artful defense of a speeding ticket.

The only thing about 9/11 that puzzles me is why they didn't go after Bush. Back then it was pretty easy to get an advance copy of POTUS' advance itinerary (hell, USATODAY printed at least a two day listing). It seems unlikely that they would simply go after the White House w/o knowing whether or not he would be there. Did someone chicken out?

Diego in Seattle wrote:The only thing about 9/11 that puzzles me is why they didn't go after Bush. Back then it was pretty easy to get an advance copy of POTUS' advance itinerary (hell, USATODAY printed at least a two day listing). It seems unlikely that they would simply go after the White House w/o knowing whether or not he would be there. Did someone chicken out?

who' knows exactly where he'd be when this went down? he could've been at his hotel, in his limo, or anywhere?

the White House is a pretty simple target with a lot more symbolism.

Mister Bushice wrote:You certainly didn't do anything to prove to me that a single point of yours had any validity or carried any weight worth investigating,

That is because you are a dumbass. Simple question. Did the plane hit the lamp posts?

and you dodged anything I brought up that you had no answers for, tried to redirect the argument

You're banging out fallacy after fallacy and I'M dodging?

on 77 to WTC7 when you saw you were getting creamed in it, or else you just dismissed what didn't jive with your version of reality.

Why would I care if a fallacy does not jive with my argument?
As for WTC7... got any answers? I thought not.

Moving Parrot wrote:BRAWWWK...fallacy

Moving Parrot wrote:BRAWWWK...fallacy

Moving Parrot wrote:what didn't jive with your version of reality.

JIVE? What, have you slipped into the 1920's, hepcat? Gonna cut a rug?

Moving Sale wrote:Why would I care if a fallacy does not jive with my argument?

The word you are looking for, "counselor" is JIBE.

MS furiously checks online dictionaries to find even one that backs him up. Instead, he finds numerous examples of other dimwits using the wrong word. Now he'll claim it's "spelling smack," despite the fact that he made the error twice.

What IS jive is your constant dropping of the word "fallacy."

Oh, and your paranoid conspiracy theories. Those are really jive.

As for WTC7... got any answers? I thought not.

There was a 20-story hole in the side and the building was on fire. After a while, it collapsed.

Next.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: MS furiously checks online dictionaries to find even one that backs him up. Instead, he finds numerous examples of other dimwits using the wrong word. Now he'll claim it's "spelling smack," despite the fact that he made the error twice.

You have completely lost touch with reality. MB typed 'jive.' Once. I typed back 'jive.' Once. Did I correct him? No. So fucking what? You can't even read ONE page of a thread without making a reading error and I am suppose to believe your 'reading' of the events of 911?

You make errors all the time. Do I bring them up 'sua sponte?' No. Do I LIE and say you made them twice to somehow bolster my position? No. Are you a fucking tard that can't post ONE time without including a fallacy (or lie which in itself is a fallacy) in his post? Yes.

Now yell BODE or lie some more or post anything but a scientific explanation of my queries.

Dolt.
***
Fester,
It was damaged on {if you are MtLR you spell it 'one.' } one side but fell straight down. Huh?
Also, it fell too fast to not have been damaged on all floors. I know that takes science to understand, but...

Moving Sale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:You certainly didn't do anything to prove to me that a single point of yours had any validity or carried any weight worth investigating,

That is because you are a dumbass. Simple question. Did the plane hit the lamp posts?

Flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C. at 9:37 AM EDT, killing all of its 53 regular passengers, 5 hijackers, and 6 crew. As the aircraft hurtled towards the Pentagon at 400 miles per hour, it clipped several street lampposts (one of which fell onto a taxi cab, injuring the driver as it was about 20 feet off the ground. Its right wing hit a portable generator that provided backup power for the Pentagon, and the left engine hit an external steam vault before it slammed into the Pentagon.

The taxi driver being one of the witnesses you totally ignored.

and you dodged anything I brought up that you had no answers for, tried to redirect the argument

You're banging out fallacy after fallacy and I'M dodging?

Yes. you ignore the fact of dozens of credible eyewitnesses, you ignore the fact that extreme heat would vaporize most parts of the plane and would be hot enough to melt aluminum thus eliminating most visible evidence of the plane, you fail to recognize the time line reality, you provide no proof of another plane crash that might have been flight 77. You didn't address those issues at all, AND you tried to redirect the argument towards the WTC tower 7. I call that dodging.

on 77 to WTC7 when you saw you were getting creamed in it, or else you just dismissed what didn't jive with your version of reality.

Why would I care if a fallacy does not jive with my argument?
As for WTC7... got any answers? I thought not.

This conversation is not about WTC7, it is about flight 77 and again, what fallacy are you referring to? be specific. Your argument is that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon because the hole was too small, among other things. I counter with credible eye witnesses who all tell the same story about impact, a timeline that meshes with the impact, and the melting of aluminum backed up by my own personal eyewitness of a fire that melted stainless steel as proof that it can happen.

Where exactly is the fallacy in that? You keep using the word, but you never give any details on what you're talking about.

Fester,
It was damaged on {if you are MtLR you spell it 'one.' } one side but fell straight down. Huh?
Also, it fell too fast to not have been damaged on all floors. I know that takes science to understand, but...

Read this:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Uncle Fester to TVTiptoes wrote:Read this:

I laughed.

Mister Bushice wrote: it clipped several street lampposts

With what? Its wings? Its engine? How far were the poles found from their bases? The taxi driver was close enough to have a pole hit his car after the pole was taken out by 77 and he can still hear? If the engines took them out how did the poles not get sucked into the engine? If it was the wings how did the engines not scrape the ground? How far is it from the first downed pole to the pentagon?
Your story is laughable.

you ignore the fact of dozens of credible eyewitnesses,

Credible how? Like the taxi driver?

you ignore the fact that extreme heat would vaporize most parts of the plane

That is a lie. I stated that many parts were found. Parts of what I don’t know, but they were not melted as you lied… errrr said.

and would be hot enough to melt aluminum thus eliminating most visible evidence of the plane,

Now that might be true as Al melts at 1220F.

you fail to recognize the time line reality,

Time line reality? Huh?

you provide no proof of another plane crash that might have been flight 77.

That is a fallacy. That I have addressed… specifically.

AND you tried to redirect the argument towards the WTC tower 7. I call that dodging.

Not redirect. I’m will to discuss both at the same time. Are you? Of course not.

This conversation is not about WTC7, it is about flight 77 and again, what fallacy are you referring to? be specific.

I WAS SPECIFIC! LEARN TO READ!

If A then B….
Remember?

Your argument is that flight 77 did not hit the pentagon because the hole was too small, among other things.

Inter alia.

I counter with credible eye witnesses who all tell the same story about impact,

People say lots of stuff. I would rather deal in the physical evidence.

a timeline that meshes with the impact,

Timeline Smimeline. Nothing about your timeline proves anything other than it is possible you are right which means it is possible that you are wrong.

and the melting of aluminum

One thing you might have got right, but that I never said wasn’t true. Proves nothing.

backed up by my own personal eyewitness of a fire that melted stainless steel as proof that it can happen.

Back to your ‘kitchen sink is a plane’ theory again? You are Wack.

Where exactly is the fallacy in that? You keep using the word, but you never give any details on what you're talking about.

I did too. I even did it wrong and then corrected myself. CAN YOU READ!

Now about WTC7?

Moving Sale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote: it clipped several street lampposts

With what? Its wings? Its engine? How far were the poles found from their bases? The taxi driver was close enough to have a pole hit his car after the pole was taken out by 77 and he can still hear? If the engines took them out how did the poles not get sucked into the engine? If it was the wings how did the engines not scrape the ground? How far is it from the first downed pole to the pentagon?
Your story is laughable.

Have you ever watched an airplane wing in turbulence? it moves in an arc of several feet. Do you actually think a plane being flown by a rookie pilot will be level? What is the height of a light pole 25- 30 feet? That certainly falls within the realm of possibility

you ignore the fact of dozens of credible eyewitnesses,

Credible how? Like the taxi driver?

Yes, he faked his injuries too, right?

you ignore the fact that extreme heat would vaporize most parts of the plane

That is a lie. I stated that many parts were found. Parts of what I don’t know, but they were not melted as you lied… errrr said.

and would be hot enough to melt aluminum thus eliminating most visible evidence of the plane,

Now that might be true as Al melts at 1220F.

Wait a minute. In one sentence you said they were not melted, in the next you say its possible? Sort it out. The melted parts would be solified pools of metal, or they were vaporized. The intact parts would not be recognizable due to the impact and fire. Also within the realm of possibility

you fail to recognize the time line reality,

Time line reality? Huh?

Yes. The fact the plane was within miles and minutes of the pentagon when it was last seen on radar, then the impact into the building happened. Coincidence? Come on!

you provide no proof of another plane crash that might have been flight 77.

That is a fallacy. That I have addressed… specifically.

Yes I recall you said "someone reported" a plane went down "In kentucky" and you said " The plane could be anywhere"

THAT is specific? I thought you dealt in facts?

AND you tried to redirect the argument towards the WTC tower 7. I call that dodging.

Not redirect. I’m will to discuss both at the same time. Are you? Of course not.

That is correct. Start another thread, or read festers linked article in this one. It answers your questions.

This conversation is not about WTC7, it is about flight 77 and again, what fallacy are you referring to? be specific.

I WAS SPECIFIC! LEARN TO READ!

If A then B….
Remember?

THAT is specific? really. If a plane is spotted within 20 miles and 10 minutes of a building, then said plane disappears from radar and the building is hit by an object dozens of witnesses identified as a plane....

I counter with credible eye witnesses who all tell the same story about impact,

People say lots of stuff. I would rather deal in the physical evidence.

Good. then produce the plane.

a timeline that meshes with the impact,

Timeline Smimeline. Nothing about your timeline proves anything other than it is possible you are right which means it is possible that you are wrong.

You sir, are a kook. You want to deal with physical evidence of which there is none to prove a missle was launched at the pentagon. No radar images, no post impact evidence. You want to deal with physical evidence, yet you can't produce the one piece of physical evidence that would make us all wrong and you right. Sucks for you.

backed up by my own personal eyewitness of a fire that melted stainless steel as proof that it can happen.

Back to your ‘kitchen sink is a plane’ theory again? You are Wack.

No it's "Metal can melt in even an ordinary structural fire, how much more so in a fire where jet fuel is involved" theory. Keep up.

Moving Sale wrote:You have completely lost touch with reality. MB typed 'jive.' Once. I typed back 'jive.' Once. Did I correct him? No. So fucking what? You can't even read ONE page of a thread without making a reading error and I am suppose to believe your 'reading' of the events of 911?

OK, in my "quoting" fury, I misapplied one "jive" error. Mea culpa.

You still fucked up by using the completely incorrect word on your own. Very nice, especially for someone who likes to needlessly toss out legal phrases like sua sponte. You can't have it both ways, trying to impress folks with your alleged legal acumen and rhetorical flourishes when you make errors that would be more appropriate coming from a Wal-Mart cashier.

Moving Sale wrote:You make errors all the time. Do I bring them up 'sua sponte?' No.

Excuse me, "counselor," but I believe your pants are currently on fire.

You drop the "fallacy" line on seemingly every occasion when a thread gets going "fast and furious."

Moving Sale wrote:Are you a fucking tard that can't post ONE time without including a fallacy (or lie which in itself is a fallacy) in his post? Yes.

That, "counselor" would be a lie.

You know, that egregious, horrible thing you claim to not indulge in?

So...does this make you a plain old fibber or a full bore hypocrite?

TVTiptoes has run out of takes.

titlover wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:The only thing about 9/11 that puzzles me is why they didn't go after Bush. Back then it was pretty easy to get an advance copy of POTUS' advance itinerary (hell, USATODAY printed at least a two day listing). It seems unlikely that they would simply go after the White House w/o knowing whether or not he would be there. Did someone chicken out?

who' knows exactly where he'd be when this went down? he could've been at his hotel, in his limo, or anywhere?

the White House is a pretty simple target with a lot more symbolism.

So is Air Force One. I would think that they would have at least targeted AF1, if not POTUS himself (back then it would have been easy to know where he would be, and even today one can find that out by monitoring local newspapers w/in 2-3 days of an attack).

Mister Bushice wrote: What is the height of a light pole 25- 30 feet?

You didn't answer the question. What part of the plane hit the poles?

Yes, he faked his injuries too, right?

Says who? I'm just saying they were not from 77.

In one sentence you said they were not melted, in the next you say its possible?

Learn to read. I said the Al could melt as it melts at 1220F while Steel melts at about 2500F. Big difference eh?

The fact the plane was within miles and minutes of the pentagon when it was last seen on radar, then the impact into the building happened. Coincidence?

Could be. Proves nothing.

THAT is specific? I thought you dealt in facts?

I do and the fact is that it is a fallacy to say I can not produce the plane so it must have crashed into 77. How many times do I have to type that before you are going to get it?

THAT is specific? really. If a plane is spotted within 20 miles and 10 minutes of a building, then said plane disappears from radar and the building is hit by an object dozens of witnesses identified as a plane....

Don't know why you have to insist it is not a fallacy.

You want to deal with physical evidence of which there is none to prove a missle was launched at the pentagon. No radar images, no post impact evidence. You want to deal with physical evidence, yet you can't produce the one piece of physical evidence that would make us all wrong and you right. Sucks for you.

The physical evidence points AWAY from 77. That is my point.

No it's "Metal can melt in even an ordinary structural fire, how much more so in a fire where jet fuel is involved" theory. Keep up.

Then why were many pieces of metal found?

Mike,
"That, "counselor" would be a lie." You have posted once without using a fallacy? That is news to me.

Moving Sale wrote:I said the Al could melt as it melts at 1220F while Steel melts at about 2500F. Big difference eh?

Looking at the current weather in San Luis Obispo, I'd say the melting point for midget attorneys is 64 degrees.

Moving Sale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote: What is the height of a light pole 25- 30 feet?

You didn't answer the question. What part of the plane hit the poles?

How could anyone but an eyewitness know that? I would guess some part of the wings, unless it came at an angle or was wobbling. Too many factors to take into account without an investigation by a qualified person, which was done to the satisfaction of all except a handful of conspiracy nuts bent on finding anything that would lead to another conclusion.

Yes, he faked his injuries too, right?

Says who? I'm just saying they were not from 77.

More conspiracy theory stuff? You don't even have any solid evidence to say WHAT it was from.

In one sentence you said they were not melted, in the next you say its possible?

Learn to read. I said the Al could melt as it melts at 1220F while Steel melts at about 2500F. Big difference eh?

And Jet fuel can burn as high as 3,000 degrees.

THAT is specific? I thought you dealt in facts?

I do and the fact is that it is a fallacy to say I can not produce the plane so it must have crashed into 77. How many times do I have to type that before you are going to get it?

Taking all the information available together, your claim is more of a fallacy. Single out a few anomalies and there are questions, but as a whole, it just doesn't hold water.

THAT is specific? really. If a plane is spotted within 20 miles and 10 minutes of a building, then said plane disappears from radar and the building is hit by an object dozens of witnesses identified as a plane....

Don't know why you have to insist it is not a fallacy.

It isn't. It is a probable scenario based on the facts available.

You want to deal with physical evidence of which there is none to prove a missle was launched at the pentagon. No radar images, no post impact evidence. You want to deal with physical evidence, yet you can't produce the one piece of physical evidence that would make us all wrong and you right. Sucks for you.

The physical evidence points AWAY from 77. That is my point.

Several very specific facts point away, but given the nature of this crash it is no surprise there would be anomalies in expected results. The circumstances were singular.

No it's "Metal can melt in even an ordinary structural fire, how much more so in a fire where jet fuel is involved" theory. Keep up.

Then why were many pieces of metal found?

Not all metal parts were subject to sufficient heat for long enough. Not entirely a surprise.

Mister Bushice wrote:How could anyone but an eyewitness know that?

One could know how far it is from the bottom of the body up to the wings and then know the height of impact on the poles, or they could just swallow Bush's cock hole.

Get back to me when you have something RESEMBLING physical evidence to show that 77 hit the pentagon.

Moving Sale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:How could anyone but an eyewitness know that?

One could know how far it is from the bottom of the body up to the wings and then know the height of impact on the poles, or they could just swallow Bush's cock hole.

Get back to me when you have something RESEMBLING physical evidence to show that 77 hit the pentagon.

I never really believed in the whole alternate realities theory. It is clear now to me that they do exist and your brain resides there.

you need fucking help, or a hobby.

sayin.

Moving Sale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:How could anyone but an eyewitness know that?

One could know how far it is from the bottom of the body up to the wings and then know the height of impact on the poles, or they could just swallow Bush's cock hole.

Get back to me when you have something RESEMBLING physical evidence to show that 77 hit the pentagon.

Get back to YOU? Bah. I'm not the one with the case to make. Last I checked the official version is flight 77 hit the pentagon, and you have done absolutely nothing here to refute that.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:How could anyone but an eyewitness know that?

or they could just swallow Bush's cock whole.

Last I checked the official version is flight 77 hit the pentagon.

So you are going with the "swallow Bush's cock whole" option... Check.

I have presented many facts that would get a non-braindead person to thinking. (From the lampposts which you "guess" was hit by some part of the wing to the punchout hole which you never even addressed.) You are not such a person, no worries.
Go ahead and ride along thru life in blissful ignorance, makes no never mind to me.

Carry on.

titlover,
Do YOU have a ny PE that shows how I am wrong? That is what I thought.

jesus MS you need to get a grip.........you're hatred of Bush is clouding any semblence of reasonability you have.....

the sheer number of people that would have had to have been a part of such a "conspiracy" is staggering.....

how would you keep them all quiet.....

Felix wrote:jesus MS you need to get a grip.........you're hatred of Bush is clouding any semblence of reasonability you have.....

the sheer number of people that would have had to have been a part of such a "conspiracy" is staggering.....

how would you keep them all quiet.....

No doubt. It has been shown that the President can't even get a freakin hummer in the Oval Office without it becomming front page news. How the fuck is he supposed to orchestrate this kind of conspiracy?

MS, I'd LOVE to be able to say that 9-11 was nothing more than the Riechstag Frie Part II, but it simply is not true. There are too many witnesses giving the same testimony. And, though they are hardly expert witnesses, I suspect that they are all well able to tell the difference between a missle traveling at 2000 MPH and and a 757 traveling at subsonic speeds.

Felix wrote:jesus MS you need to get a grip.........you're hatred of Bush is clouding any semblence of reasonability you have.....

That is a lie. I have stated MANY times that AQ may have hit the pentagon with something other than 77 and Bush is doing the Country a service by 'covering up' what happened. But don't let facts get in your way.

the sheer number of people that would have had to have been a part of such a "conspiracy" is staggering.....

how would you keep them all quiet.....

Who would believe them if they talked? Not you.

BS,
Et tu?

Moving Sale wrote:Who would believe them if they talked? Not you.

you're saying that people who were involved in this conspiracy are afraid to talk about what would be the biggest news story in the history of the world out of fear of being ridiculed..........


tough to argue with logic like that......

BSmack wrote:I'd LOVE to be able to say that 9-11 was nothing more than the Riechstag Frie Part II, but it simply is not true.

Good to know you'd LOVE to have innocent US citizens slaughtered for the pursuits of US government.

Dumbfuck.

Felix wrote:you're saying that people who were involved in this conspiracy are afraid to talk about what would be the biggest news story in the history of the world out of fear of being ridiculed..........

Who said that? Who said anything about being afraid to talk or in fear of ridicule? Can you read? I asked a simple question. 'Who would believe them?' Can you answer the question? Without committing the fallacy of putting words in my mouth?

Moving Sale wrote: Who said that? Who said anything about being afraid to talk or in fear of ridicule? Can you read? I asked a simple question. 'Who would believe them?' Can you answer the question? Without committing the fallacy of putting words in my mouth?

I've noticed that when you lock on a word, you're like a fucking pitbull that's locked on your arm and just won't let go....

apparently your "arm of the month" is the word fallacy....

Insofar as your "question", I don't know who would but certainly somebody would....

look at how many people believe that Brigham Young professor and his theory the WTC was brought down with a "controlled demolition".....he certainly wasn't afraid to speak out....

but "who would believe them" is not an argument........

how many people do you estimate would have to be involved in this "conspiracy" to pull it off........

that includes air traffic controllers, employees of American Airlines.....etc....

Felix wrote: apparently your "arm of the month" is the word fallacy....

You stop using them and I'll stop pointing out that you are using them. Mmmmkay?

look at how many people believe that Brigham Young professor and his theory the WTC was brought down with a "controlled demolition".....he certainly wasn't afraid to speak out....

Not quite the same thing is it? We are talking about someone from the inside.

but "who would believe them" is not an argument........

I know that. If I was using it as an argument as to why no one has come fwd, it would be a fallacy, but I am not. It was just asking a question prompted by your post. Can to answer it?

how many people do you estimate would have to be involved in this "conspiracy" to pull it off........

What Conspiracy? The one with Bush covering up AQ's use of something other than 77 to 'hit' the pentagon?

that includes air traffic controllers, employees of American Airlines.....etc....

More than 19.

Moving Sale wrote: The one with Bush covering up AQ's use of something other than 77 to 'hit' the pentagon?

so al Queda used a missle eh?

where was this missile fired from and how did they get rid of the launch system.....where was it fired from......how did AQ get the missile and launching system into the US......what about the black box they recovered from the wreckage of Flight 77.........how'd AQ dummy that up......what about the witnesses on the ground...how did they convince them all that they saw a 767 jet as opposed to a missile.....how many people at the FAA had to have been involved in this......

save it bud, you're fucking delusional.....

Who said they used a missile? Can you read?

77 was a 757-200 not a 767 so if your eyewitnesses saw a 767 then they are wrong now aren't they?

so the government had this plan all laid out on the off chance terrorists would hijack some planes and fly them into buildings.......

remarkable......

Who said that? You really need to learn to read.

Next.