Fandom Forums - View Single Post - The 9/11 Conspiracy
View Single Post
Old 10-15-2009, 10:17 PM   #124
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
Miburo's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Originally Posted by SimonCP View Post
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.
Okay. Good. So, based on that information you came to the conclusion that that calls made were IMPOSSIBLE and use that conclusion to support the claim that the plane wrecks were faked?

And you don't think there are any logical fallacies in your argument? Wow. Seriously, read up on non sequiturs. Holy shit.

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.
Not really. One source is from a woman who had talked to her stepdaughter before her death, where it's entirely possible that she mistakenly thought or said the call came from a cell phone; and the other is a phone record of calls made to the woman.

And like I said, your premises don't support your conclusion here.
If I prove that the "Airplane Story" is impossible, then the "passengers" ball is thrown to the government.
You haven't done that either.
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.
You said that the government lied in regards to what happened to the passengers. I can quote exactly where you said they were lying, and it was in response in regards to the passengers. That's a claim about what happened to them. You have to prove your claims.

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.
What the fuck are you talking about? You're using premises that don't directly support you conclusions and claims. My analogy is perfectly spot-on. You are saying A and B=Not plane crashes. "Not plane crashes" is your conclusion. That "not" doesn't mean anything in this particular scenario.

But if it makes you happy, I eat raw fish and live in the woods. Therefore I'm not a human. Same thing. Happy? Still a non sequitur. Your logic still sucks.

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.
Are there zero witnesses claiming to have heard or seen a plane? Or are you just ignoring them like you did with the on-board phone thing?

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.
Did anyone claim that the planes did vanish upon impact? Now this is a strawman argument on your part. You're claiming that they vanished, therefore there was no planes since planes don't vanish. I don't think anyone thinks they did vanish. They think they crashed into fucking buildings. It's entirely possible you're just mistaken about them vanishing.

Also, "throwing it into question" doesn't prove your claims any.

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?
Actually, technically yeah. It would be a non sequitur since his premise doesn't support his conclusion. He's not wrong, of course. But his logic is. If he would say it wasn't a plane because it was a brick then he'd be good to go. A =/= B. That's logically sound.

Which is irrelevant, because you're not saying "I am being skeptical and nothing more" here. You're making your own claims. You're not saying "This doesn't make any sense to me." You're saying "There was no planes, the government lied about what happened to the passengers." So you have to logically prove those claims. Which you have yet to do.

It is, because I am interpreting nothing. All of this can be clearly observed.
I looked at a few pictures and can see chunks of plane and shit. And you've already been caught red-handed with not taking into account all information with the phone thing. Before I brought up the on-board phone records you were saying that they were all cell-phone calls and using that as "proof" that they were fake. You didn't even take the on-board phones into consideration.
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.
Again, non sequitur. If I say I didn't smell wild onions in my backyard when I went out there a bit ago that just means I didn't personally smell any wild onions. You cannot conclude that I know what wild onions smell like based on that. You cannot conclude that there are no wild onions out there. You can only conclude that I personally didn't smell them. Again, lrn2logic.
If there had been jet fuel all over the ground, the EPA tests surely would have come up with something.
If they were testing groundwater like you said multiple times? No groundwater contamination doesn't mean there wasn't any jet fuel.
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.
Yeah, that's the logical conclusion. She didn't see it, so it must not have existed. Do I really have to explain how this, like almost every other argument of yours, is a non sequitur too? Really? Really?! Come on.

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. :>
Cool. Go for it.
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-21-2009), zer0systm (10-16-2009)