Question for De-bunkers and Truthers about the official account and the subsequent Pentagon cover-up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2blCqowwgo

If someone is willing to answer all of the questions raised in this video regarding the Pentagon strike, I'll be happy to accept the 9/11 commission report along with the idea that the official account is absolutely true and the government would never abuse it's power and will only serve the people that elected it :)

Assuming that someone takes the time to answer every question imaginable about the Pentagon strike, that would be no reason to accept the idea that "the government would never abuse it's power."

Oh, maybe you weren't serious.

Ha. Ha ha. Ha. *sigh*

The insinuation was for those who have bought into the delusion that terms like "false flags" and "conspiracies" do not exist. Government is there to serve the people, and would always make decisions to ensure the good of the public.

I've never heard of someone like that, anywhere.

Anyhow, your message is lost here. You'd need to give it to actual people who match your description.

This lets people know that all the text they need to read is in the title of the post and there is no text in the message field. When people are viewing threads one post at a time, there is no need to click on "nt" posts to see the rest of the message because there isn't anything other than the post title.

Check out the DU glossary for more info on commonly used terms and acronyms around here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x190
 

usual disinformation blah blah blah you would not keep seeing the same issues over and over again.

there would actually be something to "refute". Making an assertion without offering concrete proof, then daring your "opponent" to disprove it, is just another version of "trying to shift the burden of proof", dude. It's like trying to deal with some "born again" evangelical who's trying to proselytize you, who, when challenged to prove there is a "God", replies with "prove there isn't one".

Again, this is why you're not taken seriously here, dude.

"Again, this is why you're not taken seriously here, dude."

If people didn't take someone seriously they won't take the pains to go and rebuke the posts by the people questioning the official account. And, you're spending a good amount of time doing just that, mate

Try as you might to frame it as me (or any other debunker, for that matter) having a problem with someone "questioning the official account", the actual issue for me is the sloppy thinking and knee-jerk "anyone who opposes us must be a "bush supporter" mentality. I loathed the Bush administration and hope that W and Cheney are indicted, prosecuted and convicted. In the meantime, it does no good to make wild-eyed accusations on the basis of little to no concrete evidence and disaffect other progressives in the process. For the most part, "truthers" keep rebunking previous nonsense that has been roundly debunked over and over or recycles really inane questions that should answer themselves and/or don't even make logical sense.

I wasn't referring to you anyhow and I have no need to defend how I spend my time here to you or anyone else.

the video, otherwise you're just trying to shift the burden of proof.

See the original post was asking if all you self professed expert debunker's could refute the points in the video he put up a link for.
I am sure you can , after all with all the befuddled thinking you are always accusing us of it should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Gee I do not ever recall saying your a BUSH supporter.
Must be some more of your sloppy thinking and knee jerk assumptions.

"I have no need to defend how I spend my time here to you or anyone else."
Feeling a trifle defensive are we?

You and I both know there IS no proof of anything they are claiming. "They" will continue to make specious claims that support their fantasy world despite the best efforts of those that can actually think cogently. So it is effectively a waste of time and bandwith to ask them for proof. :hi:

in the Olson situation. She couldn't have been on a non-existent flight. Did Ted take her to Dulles? Has he ever been asked
to provide proof that she purchased a ticket? Has AA ever confirmed it? Did she drive to Dulles, take a cab, hitch a ride with
a friend, or take a bus? What do YOU think, VV? C'mon now, VV. Any Zwingester who can compose a sentence using "specious" and
"cogently" can surely give a well-thought-out explanation for some of those Barbara mysteries.

Bolo Boffin, we'll get to your special interest shortly. Let's investigate and try to figure out the Olson mysteries first.

1. "We know that 77 didn't crash"

2. " couldn't have been on a non-existent flight."

Wow it is easy to make up shit on the internet isn'it?

don't be so scared.

How do we know that 77 didn't crash? You mean aside from the fact that it wasn't even a scheduled flight on 9/11? VV - here's
a video that you should watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2blCqowwgo

After watching it, if you have any questions about it, you let me know and I'll try to help you
out. Don't just say "there's no proof". VV - it's silly to think that GWBush is gonna come on TV and confess. Cheney might, but
Bush sure won't. We have to weigh the evidence that's available. Fortunately, there's a ton of it. And, we have to THINK.

The Va. Dept. of Trans. had a camera focused on HWY 27, but they won't release the video of it. VV - think maybe the reason has to
do with the fact that NO 757 would be seen in it? Sure, they (and Randi) can come up with excuses to satisfy JREFers, but VV,
YOU know how to think. How much brainpower does it TAKE to figure out that the most logical reason why they won't release the
available videos (VDOT, Sheraton, gas station etc.) is because they don't support the OCT? You know as well as I do, VV, if
those videos showed FL 77, we'd have seen 'em a thousand times.

So, quit acting naive. You aren't fooling anyone by pretending that I'm making up "sh**". If that's the best you can come up
with, it's time to tell Randi adios. BUDDY BOY could give you a better excuse than that chickenshi* any day.

Dude, you've been exposed and just about everyone knows that the BTS is not a schedule. The problem with you is even after your claim has been exposed for the crock it is, you act like you have no reason to reconsider. You're doing a fine job of marginalizing the "truth movement" withoput help from anyone else, dude.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

since the BTS is an airline ontime performance database designed to to give travelers information about reliability, why in the world would AA record data for a flight that was hijacked and tragically crashed into the Pentagon???

This is getting dumber by the moment.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

AA says FL 77 wasn't a scheduled flight on 9/11.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics do NOT show:

* Lift-off time for FL77 on 9/11
* Tail number for AA 77 on 9/11


What is really dumb is trying (and sadly) being successful in getting the truth deleted, but even though you were able to
get my post deleted, you can't get the information supplied by AA and U.S. Gov't deleted. That information is more than
ample proof that there was no AA FL 77 on 9/11.

If AA 77 didn't fly, it didn't crash, and there's nothing you can do about THAT.

Please prove this rather stupid statement, dude.

It's also funny how you keep claiming that the BTS data proves that AA77 wasn't "scheduled", then you admit that the BTS data is not a schedule. And, FYI, if you'd bother to research the BTS, you'd find that it is the responsibility of the airlines to provide the data to BTS and you can find that in the CFR.

Again, dude, please find anywhere where AA has ever stated that AA77 was not scheduled that day. You'll come up empty-handed. As far as your posts being deleted, maybe if you followed the rules and ceased calling people names and accusing them of lying, that wouldn't happen.

n/t

if your claim about AA were true, do you honestly believe discussion of it would be largely confined to you yammering about it here on DU? It would be front page news and I'm certain AA's insurors would have filed a multi billion dollar lawsuit against them.

As for your silly BTS nonsense, you still have to explain why any reasonable person would expect that AA would post on-time departure and arrival results for a plane that never arrived at its destination because it was FUCKING HIJACKED AND CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON!

Seriously. dude. Use your brain.

why would I want to get something that exposes how goofy your claim is deleted?

If a reasonable person was walking down the street and found a bottlecap on the sidewalk, they'd conclude some careless slob dropped or tossed it there. If you found it, you'd claim it "proved" there was once a ultra-secret bottling plant, that the government was trying to hide, in the vicinity.

self-delete

a Boeing 757 was never found" Quite a claim. What's the source I wonder? All the rest...spools, intact windows, "like a missile". I wonder how many ACTUAL missiles these folks had been in close proximity to? Seen it all before rehashed again and again here. Explained to the ignorant. I stopped watching at 0233.

Talk about niave. "Its on the internets so it must be true!"

The questions raised in the video show just how absurd it is to even pretend to believe either the official account or the
subsequent cover-up.

So, why DIDN'T any 'em take you up on your challenge? Who knows? Why does baloney reject the meat grinder?

"debunk this or it must be true". Trying to shift the burden of proof on recycled claims that have already been discussed ad nauseum and debunked over and over.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl: