This is, according to alleged airfone records released after-the-fact. As documented above, the mainstream media gave us the "cell phone" story. So, now we have two contradictory official lines.
I am aware that another news article and the alleged airfone records state that Wainio used an on-board phone. The problem is that Newsweek was using a primary source (Wainio's stepmother) when stating that the call came from a cellphone. The FBI is also using that same primary source. Thus, we have a problem.
Quote:
|
Also, you're still not getting this logic thing (Or analogies...). If a magician says he's preforming actual wizard magic then he has to PROVE he's doing that since he made that claim. You're claiming that the government lied about what happened to the passengers on those flights. You have to prove that. The burden of proof is on you if you're going to make claims. To do so, you have to supply proof that supports your claim, your conclusion. Such proof would be that the passengers are still alive, that they were dropped off somewhere, etc. Otherwise you cannot make that claim. Simple logic. It's not really that hard to understand.
|
If I prove that the "Airplane Story" is impossible, then the "passengers" ball is thrown to the government.
Quote:
|
You are required to prove your claims. Do it, or don't make claims you cannot support with actual evidence.
|
I've made no claims about the passengers -- I've made the claim that the airplane stories were fake. If I can prove that, then the issue of the passengers is up to them, since they told the airplane story in the first place.
Quote:
|
"If" being the keyword there. The conspiracy theorist in this situation is you. And you're claiming that the government lied about what happened to the passengers. You're. Claiming. _______. You have to prove it now.
|
Proving that the airplane crashes were faked already proves that the government lied about what happened to the passengers.
Quote:
|
If I say I live in the woods and eat raw fish then that is evidence that I'm a bear. That doesn't support the conclusion that I actually am a bear though. I explained it to you pretty well. I don't see what you're not understanding about this, really.
|
Apples and oranges. You're talking about proving A to be B. I'm talking about proving that what we are told is "C" isn't really "C". If the evidence flies in the face of an airplane crash, then there wasn't an airplane crash.
Quote:
|
Yeah. I actually lived near an airport half my life. I've also been to a city. I've also met people who were mistaken about stuff, especially when they're scared and in a state of confusion. I also know how logic works, which is why I'm not making claims I can't back up or buying into silly conspiracy theories.
|
Witness after witness did not hear/see the airplane, despite the fact that they were looking up at the building and in the immediate area. Being scared/confused doesn't impede your vision or your ability to hear.
Quote:
|
Again, that's not evidence of what you claimed. Also, what was the cause then, if there was no airplanes? A missile? Explosives? What purpose would launching a missile or setting off some explosives in a field serve? Was there any missile or explosive debris found in the field that could not have possibly come from a plane? Or is "LOL THERE WAZN'T ENUFF FIRE OR CONTAMINATED WATER, THEREFORE NO PLANE DUUUURR HURR" all you have?
|
The indisputable fact that airplanes don't vanish upon impact, and the fact that they contain jet fuel is enough to throw the airplane story into question.
Quote:
|
I post an example of a logical fallacy, and you mimic the fallacy and use it as an argument? Seriously. Wow.
|
Would it be a logical fallacy if I threw a rock through a store owner's window, and he dismissed the possibility that a plane had hit his shop because the damage wasn't severe enough?
Quote:
|
Ever think the interpretations of the photography might possibly be wrong? Or is that completely outside the realm of possibilities?
|
It is, because I am interpreting nothing. All of this can be clearly observed.
Quote:
|
Well photographers definitely know their shit when it comes to the smell of commercial jet fuel, and are flawless and completely immune to error in general. So you have a point there, I guess....
|
What does this have to do with them being a photographer? The fact that they say they
didn't smell jet fuel indicates that they know the smell. Also, the simple fact is that if they had smelled kerosene, they wouldn't have said they didn't. Saying you didn't smell something is pretty definitive.
Quote:
|
Yes, because groundWATER and the ground are the same thing and all.
|
If there had been jet fuel all over the ground, the EPA tests surely would have come up with something.
Quote:
|
That settles it, if Susn McElwain didn't see a plane then there definitely wasn't a plane.
|
Unless she is lying, then no, there was no Boeing 757. She is too positive and her description is too detailed -- she is certainly not making a mistake. Had she seen a Boeing 757, these details would have no place in her account.
Quote:
|
Also, did that video you "debunked" really only have that small amount of points in it? Or did you miss some?
|
I tackled all of the video's points -- it just didn't address all of September Clues. The PDF did, however, so I'm going to look it over. I noticed the foreword was by Anthony Lawson (Maker of September Clues Busted), however -- that's a bad sign. :>