9/11 - What convinced you?

[OpIv37]

GB "assured" us his friends were dead.

Taking the word of the authorities, when the authorities themselves are suspects, is hardly assurance.

Try again.

well if they're not dead, where are they? Did the government take them some place? Was it against their will, or were they co-conspirators? If it was against their will, how did the government manage to subdue and transport 4 plane loads worth of people to some remote location without anyone noticing? And if they were co-conspirators, how did the government get 4 plane loads of people to willingly give up everything they know in life for whatever "cause" they were promoting, and how did they keep that many people from talking?

Oh wait, I know- you don't have to know how Criss Angel, elephant... blah blah.

See, this is why no one takes you seriously.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Or have you jus reached the point, like gameboy, where flinging baseless allegations is enough?

The irony of this statement is unbelievable.

[Spartacus]

and you accuse me of a straw man argument?

Yes.

And if you are trying to claim mine is too, you are incorrect.

[gameboy]

What exactly are you challenging here? Do you think Burlingame is alive somewhere? The issue is whether he died crashing into the Pentagon, and your outlandish standard of proof for that.

Not to quibble, but I've dealt with this guy before.
He didn't die crashing into the Pentagon.
His throat was cut before that.

[OpIv37]

No one has ever taken off on their wife before?

one person, sure.

4 plane loads at the same time? no.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I am ASKING gameboy how he can assure us his friends are dead.

I thought that was obvious.

At he told you at length. He said that he had no doubt Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, that his friends remains were discovered there, tested against DNA samples provided by the family, and they matched.

And you started off setting up your impossible prove-a-negative standards that no one could ever reach.

[Spartacus]

well if they're not dead, where are they?

Did I say they were, or weren't, dead? Of course not.

They very well could be dead.

You see, that's what a strawman is.

Beating up on a position that no one has taken.

[Spartacus]

one person, sure.

4 plane loads at the same time? no.

Another strawman.

Was I referring to every passenger or just Burlingame and his wife?

[OpIv37]

Another strawman.

Was I referring to every passenger or just Burlingame and his wife?

Well, then, what is your theory on the other passengers? Even if you are right about him, you still haven't accounted for everyone else on that plane or the other 3 planes.

[Spartacus]

At he told you at length. He said that he had no doubt Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, that his friends remains were discovered there, tested against DNA samples provided by the family, and they matched.

In other words, HE can't assure us of what he knows, he can only assure us of what he's been told.

[Spartacus]

Well, then, what is your theory on the other passengers?

Why? What difference does it make?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

In other words, HE can't assure us of what he knows, he can only assure us of what he's been told.

...and we're back to the argument that he can't accept a fact unless he personally confirms it himself.

[Muktar al-Portlandi]

Not knowing what really happened has no relevance to whether or not the gov't is lying.

That's just logic.

Then why does not knowing what Criss Angel really does have relevance to whether the gub't is lying?

- - - Updated - - -

...and we're back to the argument that he can't accept a fact unless he personally confirms it himself.

I can't personally confirm your assertion, so he can accept a fact.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Not to quibble, but I've dealt with this guy before.
He didn't die crashing into the Pentagon.
His throat was cut before that.

Shiva and I have been discussing this before as well. In a thread back on Buffalorange.com, he posted a link that suggested that several of the tenants of the WTC towers had financial connections to the Bush Administration, and so they could have allowed access to the plotters to plant bombs. This is the exchange we had starting off that whole side-discussion.

http://www.buffalorange.com/showthre...=1#post3202505

...
That said, his claim is that the planes deliberately struck specific companies' offices? That would be a staggering feat of airmanship.

Not really, if they were remote controlled.

But I have to ask, why haven't you exhibited any concern about the staggering feat of airmanship required to do a 450mph 270 degree turn while descending 4000 feet to strike the Pentagon exactly at ground level?

So being a pilot, I'll ask for your comment on that.

[OpIv37]

Why? What difference does it make?

Are you serious?

What difference does it make? If you are stating that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, then you have to account for the plane and the people that were on it. Otherwise, your theory makes far less sense than the government's story that you don't believe.


Are you really this obtuse, or are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

[gameboy]

Lots of challenge here, but when does this clown submit a theory on how this happened?

[Spartacus]

...and we're back to the argument that he can't accept a fact unless he personally confirms it himself.

He can, if he wishes for whatever reason. I don't have to.

Don't forget, the people that handle, analyze and report the "evidence" are not unimpeachable.

But it is curious that GB would claim he could provide the tech who did the analysis.

You would think their identity would be classified.

But, I guess being an ONI agent has its perks.

[Spartacus]

Are you serious?

What difference does it make? If you are stating that a plane did not hit the Pentagon, then you have to account for the plane and the people that were on it.

Where did I state a plane did not hit the Pentagon?

As a matter of fact, I've said several times over the years I believe a plane hit the Pentagon has a high degree of probability.

[Muktar al-Portlandi]

He can, if he wishes for whatever reason. I don't have to.

Don't forget, the people that handle, analyze and report the "evidence" are not unimpeachable.

But it is curious that GB would claim he could provide the tech who did the analysis.

You would think their identity would be classified.

But, I guess being an ONI agent has its perks.

Not as good as those at Berger.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

He can, if he wishes for whatever reason. I don't have to.

Right, and your unreachable standards are the topic ATM.

Don't forget, the people that handle, analyze and report the "evidence" are not unimpeachable.

Sure, but you're impeaching them for the simple reason that they are government employees and no more.

But it is curious that GB would claim he could provide the tech who did the analysis.

You would think their identity would be classified.

But, I guess being an ONI agent has its perks.

Why would you assume this? They are lab techs, not spies or commandos. Indeed, they might not even have been servicemen. My colleague's partner was offered a position at Dover Air Force Base in the joint complex that replaced the AFIP, and he's a civilian.