| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Witnesses List Broken Down; Split From original Thread For Debate | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 21 2008, 03:50 PM (133 Views) | |
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 21 2008, 03:50 PM Post #1 |
|
I didn't conclude anything other than what I have personally confirmed, that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo. There is NOTHING to support them actually "seeing" the impact of the plane. Ok, so you believe they all saw what they said they saw. But they all can't be right, their accounts are "mutually exclusive" right, Nicepants? Did any of those witnesses corroborate the details of the impact??? You're disgusting. How do you sleep at night? How do you look your loved ones in the eye?
Why would I be concerned about a flight path that falls on the north side of the Citgo? Your stupid, desperate, dispicable, distracting, reachy requirements mean nothing.
Did you get a specific answer from Lagasse when he was explaining that or did he say that no matter what, regardless, "it had to be on this side"?
Why not? More like "why?". Please explain why. Explain what you would have happened according to you, according to your best guess...no calcuations needed. Hmm, seems to me like that wouldn't be very scientific. So you are saying you wanted us to show Robert Turcios Lagasse's drawing and then ask him to explain it or to what, change his drawing or account? You are saying you wanted us to show Sgt Lagasse Turcios' drawing and then ask him to explain or to what, change his drawing or account? Is that very scientific? Wouldn't that be leading? Or would bringing Robert to the north side and asking him more specific questions be more scientific? After doing that, did Robert specify something a little more...um...specific? Yup. Lagasse wasn't even being shown Robert's account and he still conceded the plane could have been closer. But both are 100% it was on the north side.  You are out on a very weak limb and it is about to break. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 21 2008, 03:56 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 03:50 PM Post #2 |
|
They all 100% agree on where the plane was which was the north side. You are being deceptive and demanding completely unrealistic standards of proof. It is unrealistic to expect them to pin point the exact placement of exactly how far or close on the north side of the station it was. It is realistic to expect them to be able to tell in general what side the plane was on. It is unrealistic to suggest that all of them are wrong about the north side and that the plane was really on the south side. It is realistic to expect them to be approximately correct and place the plane in the same general vicinity. They only need to be approximately correct, they have room for 100's of feet of error while the official flight path has zero room for error. The fact that they all place it on the north side in general proves that they are in the very least approximately correct. We can logically conclude that the plane was between where they all put it which makes them only off by a very negligible 100 foot margin of error. In light of this evidence, is it more logical that they were all off by about 100 feet or that they were all drastically wrong by 500 to 800 feet? Please answer the question direct. Your answer will expose whether or not you have a confirmation bias.
That is because they do line up. They are only different by a very negligible 100 feet when their flight paths are averaged. This is completely understandable, acceptable, and even to be expected. Of course since the official flight path is 500 to 800 feet from ALL of them it is clear that none of their flight paths line up at all with the physical damage.
I interviewed Turcios a couple of days before. My interview with Lagasee was over 30 minutes long. I did not even think to show him Turcios' drawing because I had no intentions of skewing his interview with what someone else reported so I never even thought of such a thing. But Lagasse specifically stated that the plane could have been closer so this answers your question anyway plus if you average out their paths there is only a very negligible 100 foot difference which is in stark contrast to the 500 to 800 foot difference between all of their paths and the official story. In light of this evidence, is it more logical that they were all off by about 100 feet or that they were all drastically wrong by 500 to 800 feet? Please answer the question direct. Your answer will expose whether or not you have a confirmation bias. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 21 2008, 03:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 21 2008, 05:12 PM Post #3 |
|
That does not "line up". And they differ by 300 feet. You don't "average them first" and compute the difference between their account and the average, that's ridiculous.
How would showing him Turcio's drawing at the end of the interview have "skewed" anything?
We're not talking about averages, we're talking about the difference between the paths they drew.
Deciding that the truth is "whichever seems more logical" is using Personal Incredulity as evidence. There is no correct answer to your question.
It proves that they all agree on the north side, it doesn't prove that they are correct.
I'm sorry if my "unrealistic standard of proof" would involve further research when flight paths differ by 300 feet. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 21 2008, 05:33 PM Post #4 |
|
He says that he did.
That would have been a great question to ask during your interview. I don't recall from the interview the specific order of events he gave, but I thought that the part where he jumped into his car and grabbed the radio was post-impact.
Wow....you're right...I shouldn't expect you to follow logical methods or to be objective when evaluating your evidence...how awful of me.
Defensive much? Your witnesses don't agree, it's not my fault you haven't determined why.
No, it would not be leading if done correctly. here's what you should have done. (assuming Turcios was interviewed first) -After Lagasse draws his flight path & gives his interview, you show him the drawing made by Turcios and ask questions: "Could the plane have been here?", "Could the flight path have been further south?", "Another eyewitness who was standing at x location reported that the plane was here, what do you think about that?". Then you see if his story changes. Then you bring Turcios back, show him Lagasse's flight path and ask similar questions. etc The key here is, you get each witnesses' claims PRIOR to asking them questions about the claims of others. (As opposed to asking questions like "a lot of people report seeing a C130 like this, did you see that?")
Both are also 100% on the impact, are they not? |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 05:34 PM Post #5 |
|
There were not 3 flight paths, there was one. You have to average them if you are going to consider all of the evidence. The average between them all shows a negligible 100 foot difference between all of them and the average. This is completely understandable and to be expected. 500 to 800 feet is ridiculously drastic and not a logical or viable consideration in light of this evidence.
How would showing him Robert's flight path change anything? Lagasse thought it was further out but admitted that it could have been closer. This was fully established.
Yes we are talking about the average. If you were going honestly consider all the evidence without bias this would be the logical thing to do. And then we sought out additional evidence to confirm or refute the north side and we found it. It was further confirmed.
Ahhhh! It proves that the evidence from all known and reported witnesses in a position to tell unanimously support the north side claim proving 9/11 was an inside job. The fact that you refuse to accept that confirmation on such a high level proves they were correct only demonstrates your confirmation bias in light of the fact that you have zero accounts from anyone who directly contradicts them in this critical claim that is fatal to the official story. The fac that you insist on accepting a far greater discrepancy in order to accept the official story proves your confirmation bias.
We have done further research. The north side claim was further confirmed. Even taking that 300 feet into consideration it still proves the official story false. For the official story to be correct they ALL would have to be much more drastically mistaken by 500 to 800 feet. No objective person could honestly consider this evidence and dismiss it in favor of a much more drastic and ridiculous discrepancy. That would prove a confirmation bias. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 21 2008, 05:59 PM Post #6 |
|
Arguments from Personal Incredulity are not evidence.
Perhaps Lagasse would have said ( as he did when told about the security footage of him at the other gas pump) "you know what.....maybe it was there" or perhaps he would have said "no way...it was definitely where I drew it". At least we could get a little more clarification.
When you talk about the difference between their flight paths and the OT, are you using averages?
What, other than the eyewitness accounts, was used to confirm the NOC claims?
Your witnesses also confirm the impact, which you refuse to accept. Who has the bias, again?
Firstly, arguments from personal incredulity are not evidence. The fact that you, personally, view one conclusion as more "ridiculous" than another is not evidence for or against either conclusion. The fact that there is a discrepancy as to the flight path is enough to warrant further investigation of your eyewitness accounts. |
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 06:13 PM Post #7 |
|
The north side testimony is not an argument from incredulity. But you most certainly are dismissing the evidence based on an argument from incredulity that the 300 feet is sufficient enough to dismiss the north side claim as valid. See how that works? It's not my argument from incredulity it's yours.
Yes well either response would still prove the north side and that 9/11 was an inside job. Furthermore he DID clarify that it may have been closer to the building so we most certainly did get more clarification in this regard. Why are you ignoring this fact?
There was 1 flight path. I consider all of their testimony and postulate a flight path based on this evidence. That is logical and scientific. You are dismissing all of their testimony based on the differences while choosing to accept a much GREATER discrepancy to suggest the official story is true. That proves a confirmation bias and is quite illogical and unscientific.
Sean Boger, Levi Stephens, and the route 27 witness that another researcher communicated with recently.
Circular logic. We have a lot of additional evidence proving the NTSB and RADES data fraudulent including more testimony and news reports proving the plane came from east of the Potomac. The north side evidence does not stand alone in proving a fraud on 9/11.
It is not an argument from incredulity to make a determination about evidence. You refuse to because you are caught in your own logic and you know that this proves 9/11 was an inside job and that you have nothing to directly refute it. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 21 2008, 06:26 PM Post #8 |
|
Nope. Read again: "500 to 800 feet is ridiculously drastic and not a logical or viable consideration in light of this evidence." That's your statement, and it's an argument from Personal Incredulity made by you, not me.
Apparently not enough clarification, since the flight paths are quite different.
One or more of their accounts is false based on only your evidence. Which witnessed flight path are we to accept, if we don't even know which one is correct?
That's not logical or scientific. You've drawn a flight path that wasn't drawn by ANY of your witnesses. How many of them did you present that flight path to and ask "does this look right?"
Please re-read the question for comprehension, noting the areas in bold.
This really is getting humorous, as you clearly have no idea what circular logic is. You accept only a % of what your witnesses say as true, that indicates a bias. Circular logic is like this: - You believe that there was a flyover - Therefore you only accept evidence that supports that conclusion - The evidence you accept leads you to conclude that there was a flyover (See how it forms a circle?)
You said yourself that news reports were not "confirmed sources"
It is if you say that one scenario happened because you believe it to be more likely. Edited by nicepants, Jan 21 2008, 06:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 21 2008, 06:34 PM Post #9 |
|
IVXX, This is getting ridiculous. Can we do something about Nicepants' "learning curve"? Please read these threads/posts involving Nicepants and realize that he is thread wasting. There is no need for he and Craig to keep going in these circles that Nicepants invents. There is 0 logic in his arguments and this has to be one of the saddest exchanges I've seen in a while. If his arguments were so effective, every Jrefer including Mark Roberts & his mole would be using it and challenging us. This technique is merely used here to tucker us out and to give readers the impression that he has a point, somewhere, somehow, if he acts confident enough and uses enough debate team/critical thinking "catch phrases". Please do something about him, it's exhausting just reading these repetitive posts. Craig is only responding to his repetition. Thanks, Aldo Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jan 21 2008, 06:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Craig Ranke CIT | Jan 21 2008, 06:36 PM Post #10 |
|
I only made it in response to your argument from incredulity of 300 feet which is much less of a discrepancy. Plus it's a straw man since our only claim is merely that the general north side claim is accurate and proves 9/11 was an inside job. All of the witnesses match perfectly in this regard.
Straw Man argument. The exact flight path has never been cited. The very general north side claim is all that is cited or necessary to prove 9/11 an inside job.
Straw Man argument. The exact flight path has never been cited. The very general north side claim is all that is cited or necessary to prove 9/11 an inside job.
Lagasse said it might have been closer. The exact flight path has never been cited. The very general north side claim is all that is cited or necessary to prove 9/11 an inside job. THAT is the evidence that we present and cite and in this regard they all match 100% perfectly. To suggest they had to all match down to the foot is a straw man argument.
Wrong. We look at the entire body of evidence and come to conclusions based on all of it. We know that all the witnesses unanimously agree on the north side claim and have much other evidence indicating the official story false lending credence to this claim.
I am only using that comparison as a response to your argument from incredulity/straw man argument about the difference in their flight paths being enough to dismiss the more general north side claim which is all that is required to prove 9/11 an inside job. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 21 2008, 06:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
| IVXX | Jan 21 2008, 06:48 PM Post #11 |
MDCCLXXVI
|
This thread is being closed until page 2 of this thread is being split and moved to the Skeptics forum for further debate. The thread will then be reopen. Honestly this debate is going in circles. While I see where you're coming from with the north side witnesses not putting the plane on the exact same path Nicepants, the fact remains the witness put it nowhere near where the official story does. |
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 21 2008, 08:06 PM Post #12 |
|
I agree that none put it near the OT....that's why their accounts need further investigation. Obviously one or more of them is mistaken and this needs to be cleared up. 2 accounts differ by 300 feet....a mistake of ~ 150 feet the other direction puts the plane south of the citgo. Unlike craig, I'm not ready to rule out the possibility that some or all of these witnesses could have been wrong about some of their statements. The fact that they agree on "north of citgo" doesn't mean that they are correct. |
|
|
|
| noeffects | Jan 22 2008, 12:22 PM Post #13 |
|
The witnesses say it was on the north side. Because the distances are not the same doesnt mean they were so off that it was acually on the south side. geez. People suck at guesstimating distances (ex. watch my roomate try and putt on the green). "Oh it was about a half a furlong up there yonder the north side"."about a football field north of the station". Come on Nicepants just say you think the witnesses are lying or they are not smart enough to determine north or south. What do these witnesses have to gain by lying about a north of citgo path ? Thate tripe about how u cant believe the witnesses because of some guesstimated distances is worthy of ridicule...absolute ridiculousnesses i says. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jan 22 2008, 01:14 PM Post #14 |
|
|
|
|
|
| nicepants | Jan 22 2008, 02:00 PM Post #15 |
|
quit with the name-calling. It's counter-productive. 2 witnesses report flight paths 300 feet apart. Is it your contention that both paths are correct? Edited by nicepants, Jan 22 2008, 02:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
6:59 PM Nov 29
