Skygate 911[W:39:279]

[Sunzi]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

"booNy" isn't deserving of too much admiration, he is the one mike had sourced for the ACARS information, and then miraculously shows up here based on what he claims was just a google search, to debate me. The timing all coincidental of course... :roll:

Instead of debate, his posts are littered with ad homs and personal attacks. He got dinged by the mods (according to him), blames it on me... and has been crying ever since that I am the one who offers only "character assassination". :lamo

I have given him a second chance for debate, to contact us and we will set up a mutually agreed upon venue using real names (and not hide behind some screen to make it easier for him to sling personal attacks again), of course we haven't heard anything from him.

I've had him on ignore since last week as well. Because as you can see, he is unable to debate the topic, and attempts to derail threads.

Is this how all your instructors in pilots for truth talk about others? Wow, was that in the instructor handbook? Wait, this is in the 911 truth handbook; when challenging everyone to debate, put them all on ignore and win by default.

Darn, you are busted. At pilots for truth forum you are the protector of the truth and you move all those who question pilot for truth's offer no theory claptrap, to the debate section, a ghetto for all who know the truth and would ruin your fantasy sections.

The ironic part is... anyone can discover this by going to your forum and seeing you in action, or lately, inaction. With less than 0.2 percent of all pilots falling for the fantasy you push, there is not much action at your forum. Almost zero. Growth is what?

On ignore? Like pilots for truth do with evidence, RADAR, FDR, and DNA. Is that what pilots for truth instructors do? Ignore evidence? That will protect pilots for truth fantasy nonsense, not debating. You challenge all to a debate and leave; put all who challenge you on ignore and attack them? You attacked someone again. You can't help it. I have a link where you ... lol, it is funny; better debate. OOPS, pilots for truth don't have evidence. Missing the Big E. lol\\
Don't get upset... You can use your evidence, aka nothing, and join the Bigfoot followers.

Take Monday off; the NWO is off on MLK day, we will be back for your fantasy presentation of ignore, on Tuesday.

Wow, a new tactic, or is this one of your plagiarized ways of avoiding reality?


Why do you attack people when you could present evidence to support the OP's fantasy?

You don't have evidence.
Isn't it a great pleasure to have people who answer the question for you so you are not taxed with having to make up something, like 11.2gs, or a fake Vg diagram. Want to debate those?

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

"booNy" isn't deserving of too much admiration,

Direct personal attack. Poisoning the well.

he is the one mike had sourced for the ACARS information, and then miraculously shows up here based on what he claims was just a google search, to debate me. The timing all coincidental of course... :roll:

Implying that I am lying when I say I found this forum all on my own. Poisoning the well.

Instead of debate, his posts are littered with ad homs and personal attacks.

No they aren't. I attempted to debate you and you avoided all points again and again, focusing instead on your effort to steer away from the core points over and over by introducing strawman arguments, twist things that I had said into things that they weren't, and any other manner of tactics that you could come up with to expressly avoid directly confronting the actual issues. I admit that I got fed up with that and expressed myself in a slightly more blunt manner than perhaps is agreeable to the forum here. It pales in comparison to what I've seen come from someone else...

More poisoning of the well.

He got dinged by the mods (according to him), blames it on me...

Blatant lie. I take full responsibility for my own actions, and have already expressed as much here.

Baiting and more poisoning of the well.

and has been crying ever since that I am the one who offers only "character assassination". :lamo

I'm not crying, merely citing specific examples as they occur. Be thankful I'm not taking the time to go back through all of your posts to do the same.

More baiting, more poisoning of the well.

I have given him a second chance for debate, to contact us and we will set up a mutually agreed upon venue using real names (and not hide behind some screen to make it easier for him to sling personal attacks again), of course we haven't heard anything from him.

I accepted your debate challenge right here in this forum. It isn't my fault that you refuse to debate me and instead hide behind excuses.

I've had him on ignore since last week as well. Because as you can see, he is unable to debate the topic, and attempts to derail threads.

The post of yours which I responded to was not on topic. You derailed the thread long before I arrived. I just pointed out this latest instance of your tactics.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

Direct personal attack. Poisoning the well.




Implying that I am lying when I say I found this forum all on my own. Poisoning the well.




No they aren't. I attempted to debate you and you avoided all points again and again, focusing instead on your effort to steer away from the core points over and over by introducing strawman arguments, twist things that I had said into things that they weren't, and any other manner of tactics that you could come up with to expressly avoid directly confronting the actual issues. I admit that I got fed up with that and expressed myself in a slightly more blunt manner than perhaps is agreeable to the forum here. It pales in comparison to what I've seen come from someone else...

More poisoning of the well.




Blatant lie. I take full responsibility for my own actions, and have already expressed as much here.

Baiting and more poisoning of the well.




I'm not crying, merely citing specific examples as they occur. Be thankful I'm not taking the time to go back through all of your posts to do the same.

More baiting, more poisoning of the well.




I accepted your debate challenge right here in this forum. It isn't my fault that you refuse to debate me and instead hide behind excuses.




The post of yours which I responded to was not on topic. You derailed the thread long before I arrived. I just pointed out this latest instance of your tactics.

With all due respect to your layman status, and despite your apparent significant technological knowledge of computerized gizmos like flight data recorders, when it comes to analysis of FDR, I must go with Dennis Cimino's interpretation over yours. He worked in the business, while it appears you have not.

As to ACARS, that the unit assigned to UA93 was still communicating within the system 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed at Shanksville, is perfectly logical.

Why?

Because anybody and everybody that was there that day is on the record as being unable to find a wrecked Boeing. Everybody who had anything to say or video, was unable to find a Boeing.

Until the FBI showed up, at which time stories started being changed...:shock:

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

With all due respect to your layman status, and despite your apparent significant technological knowledge of computerized gizmos like flight data recorders, when it comes to analysis of FDR, I must go with Dennis Cimino's interpretation over yours. He worked in the business, while it appears you have not.

You're discussing this with the wrong person. I've done no work on the FDR analysis.

As to ACARS, that the unit assigned to UA93 was still communicating within the system 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed at Shanksville, is perfectly logical.

You may think that it is logical, but the data does not support this idea. Quite the opposite in fact, the data and documentation proves that none of the aircraft were receiving messages through ACARS after they had crashed. The twisted version that P4T attempts to push is flawed and incorrect.

Why?

Because anybody and everybody that was there that day is on the record as being unable to find a wrecked Boeing. Everybody who had anything to say or video, was unable to find a Boeing.

Until the FBI showed up, at which time stories started being changed...:shock:

Yes this seems to be the untenable position that most adherents of the "no plane in Shanksville" fiction attempt to hold onto. It is, of course, completely incorrect and untrue. A great deal of wreckage was retrieved from the site, DNA was retrieved and verified from the site. It requires a strict adherence to one's own ignorance of these facts to hold onto the notion that there was "no plane in Shanksville."

Cheers.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

Here's how I see it:

There is so much more information that negates the presence of a Boeing at Shanksville, it would make perfect sense if the data from ACARS agreed with what all the people on the ground, and overhead in helicopters observed: no Boeing to be found. It wasn't there and that's why nobody could see it. Occam's Razor.

You say the data does not support that, meaning that it could not have communicated with the system because it was crashed already. If it had crashed already, somebody would have seen it, but they didn't. Your claim that it did not communicate with the system because of the data you have observed and interpreted is the heart of the argument. Your interpretation of the data is the heart of your argument.

In fact, experts and practitioners of the ACARS system made certain statements that seem pretty straightforward to me. I'm not sure of your qualifications in the ACARS game?

Apologies for having confused you with the FDR controversy. eace

 

[PilotsForTruth]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

Your claim that it did not communicate with the system because of the data you have observed and interpreted is the heart of the argument. Your interpretation of the data is the heart of your argument.

Exactly.

At the risk of drifting more off-topic....

The argument "booNy" attempts to make is based on a document which he has not verified, and in fact he was mistaken of its origin. It was created a month before the 9/11 Commission Report was published... was never sourced in the 9/11 Commission Report (as were the documents provided by P4T which do not support the govt story).... The "data" in which "booNy" has provided is essentially a document he found on the web.

When this was pointed out to him, he had no other choice but to personally attack me and our organization... was dinged by the mods (according to him), then blamed me for "baiting" him.

:lamo

That same document/data is what "booNy" relies upon for his entire analysis and conclusions. I can manipulate the same document in less than 30 mins using Microsoft Paint and then a jpg to pdf converter.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

It's tough duty, having to defend a damn lie. :3oops:

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

It's tough duty, having to defend a damn lie. :3oops:

Oh, I dunno. I see adherents of the 9/11 truth movement doing it all the time. Some even make it seem easy when they've mastered the techniques and tools of the trade.

 

[Sunzi]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

...
VG Diagram Explained - Skygate

...

The video is a continuous collection of made up sayings which mean nothing. Not a surprise since pilots for truth prime directive is "offer no theory" but in reality they "offer silly fantasy theories" based on ignorance. Why look it up when pilots for truth can make it up and sell it on DVD to people who love fantasy about the murder of many by 19 terrorists. Ironically pilots for truth claim they can't hit the WTC or the Pentagon in the safety of a simulator, and the terrorist pilots were able to hit them. Makes you wonder with the 900 plus foot wide Pentagon, how pilots for truth are as pilots with 150 foot wide runways. They can't hit 200 foot wide towers, or 900 foot wide big offices, how do they land?

At 03:43

Vd is a hard limit ...

Another made up lie from pilots for truth. They keep making up new definitions for Vd. First they say Vd is the start of structural failure and support it with no source, they said so. The same old logic that made up 11.2gs is used here. Pilots for truth say so, so it is so.

Golly gee, there a some passengers who lived through the hard limit, and on 911 we see Boeing jets can fly over Vd and crash with no major parts falling off. Proved wrong by video, RADAR, and eye witnesses on 911.

Golly gee, are pilots for truth trying to back in military aircraft did it, and say the military are in on it? I was on active duty on 911, and no pilots in the USAF would do it. But pilots for truth fantasy has no "hard limit".

Pilots for truth call Vd = a hard limit.
Vd is defined as, Design diving speed.
What does Boeing say? WDBS?> VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft,
Nobody says a hard limit but pilots for truth, who made it up.

Pilots for truth make up stuff to support stuff they make up; a Gish Gallop type of logic based on nonsense.

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

Exactly.

At the risk of drifting more off-topic....

The argument "booNy" attempts to make is based on a document which he has not verified, and in fact he was mistaken of its origin. It was created a month before the 9/11 Commission Report was published... was never sourced in the 9/11 Commission Report (as were the documents provided by P4T which do not support the govt story).... The "data" in which "booNy" has provided is essentially a document he found on the web.

Part of it is based off the data that is available from Warren Stutt's web site, but not all of it. Your fiction is refuted even without that data, however the fact that it likewise refutes your fiction is icing on the cake.

In terms of when the PDF file was created, it is irrelevant. If I open up a spreadsheet that I created prior to the year 2000 and printed it to file today, the PDF file would have a modified date of today. The data within is still from prior to 2000. You're really grasping at straws if you think the created date of the PDF is representative of when the data was collected.

In order for you to invalidate the data you would need to make your own FOIA request of the same data and discover that your data is different in some way. You have not done that, you will not do that, you seem content by merely raising "doubt" about the data which has already been retrieved. This does not seem to be the stance of a true truth seeker to me, but maybe I have higher expectations than others.

Likewise with regards to the documentation which I have thoroughly referenced, quoted from, and provided screenshots for (the ARINC specifications in use at the time). Yet, you're apparently unwilling to obtain your own copies of this very same documentation in an effort to refute what I have provided. Why would you not do that if you are so convinced that the documentation I have shared is not valid?

When this was pointed out to him, he had no other choice but to personally attack me and our organization... was dinged by the mods (according to him), then blamed me for "baiting" him.

:lamo

I've already expressed that I take full responsibility for my own actions. More than once. I can only assume that you continue lying about this in an effort to get under my skin. Funny really, although it is yet another instance of your tactics on display for all to see.

By the way, you can keep attempting to bait me as much as you want if it makes you feel good about yourself. I'm not biting.

That same document/data is what "booNy" relies upon for his entire analysis and conclusions. I can manipulate the same document in less than 30 mins using Microsoft Paint and then a jpg to pdf converter.

Again, it is only for part, and is merely the icing on the cake. Again, you'd have to take some steps to actually show that it was manipulated. And again, I highly doubt if you could have fabricated a dataset like that no matter how hard you tried. However if you really wanted to prove your capabilities in this area, I suppose you could request the data via FOIA and then change it once you got it so that it seemed like it was different, couldn't you?

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

It's tough duty, having to defend a damn lie. :3oops:

Classic HD MA.

 

[PilotsForTruth]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

It's tough duty, having to defend a damn lie. :3oops:

Agreed. Especially when people like "booNy" make posts like this...

".... I swallowed your baits hook, line, and sinker. And then when I bluntly and honestly responded to the things you were saying it was interpreted with a zero tolerance mindset. Infraction reversed, threadban not. I suppose that you are happy about that though. The one person here most capable of directly confronting your ACARS lies and propaganda silenced in your pet thread. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually sparked by you reporting the post, though I have no evidence to support it. Congrats on a win. It must feel good when there are so few of them for you to actually celebrate." - Source, http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...government-story-w-7-a-14.html#post1062796044​

... and then "booNy" spends the rest of his time crying and claiming he is taking "personal responsibility"... .yet refuses to contact us directly for a debate using real names in a mutually agreed upon venue.

:lamo

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

I'm curious as to why real names are important.

 

[PilotsForTruth]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

I'm curious as to why real names are important.

I think "booNy" said it best, it is called "personal responsibility".

What he does not understand (or perhaps he does), How can anyone be held "personally responsible" for their actions when they call themselves "booNyzarC" ("CrazyNoob" spelled backwards)?

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

I'm curious as to why real names are important.

Because if you claim "The cloudless daytime sky is blue" and you use your real name then the claim is true.

If you use a pseudonym or handle - the claim is false. So the sky is "not blue".

(the example shared as "code" for some years ozeco and femr2)

Seriously of course is is an evasion trick - the issue is "Is the claim true" and the truth of a claim is a matter of fact, not dependent on:
1) Whether claimants uses real names or "handles";
2) The level of qualification. If a claimant with PhD says the sky is not blue possession of the PhD does not correct the error OR overrule a no degree persons counter claim as to blueness; AND
3) The last of the triumvirate of evasive heresies. It matters not if it is published peer reviewed.

If it it is true is is true.

If it is false it is false.

 

[Sunzi]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

... and then "booNy" spends the rest of his time crying and claiming he is taking "personal responsibility"... .yet refuses to contact us directly for a debate using real names in a mutually agreed upon venue.

:lamo

All your evidence for all your fantasies. :lamo = pilot for truth evidence. All pilot for truth evidence summed up with :lamo

And then you attack someone, a personal attack, and have this in your signature.
On ignore due to constant use of personal attacks as their primary "debate style" - 505, booNyzarC, ozeco41, Sunzi, Tristan1961

You need to add reality, RADAR, DNA, FDR, and more to your list of "On Ignore".

Yes, you do consider all evidence as a personal attack, but it attacks your fantasy, lies and nonsense you have on 911.

You can't prove any of your claims, and ironically can't get that Pulitzer Prize for fantasy, and never will, no newspaper will take this, :lamo as evidence for your fantasy you can't define.

If true you would have the biggest story since WaterGate, but here you are, making personal attacks on other, crying about names. BooHoo


Balsamo,
You issue a call for debate, and then you issue ...
On ignore due to constant use of personal attacks as their primary "debate style" - 505, booNyzarC, ozeco41, Sunzi, Tristan1961
Which tactic is this?
The issue a debate, and ignore all debaters, card. lol, you are living up to 11.2gs at speeds raised to Vd logic. 11.2[SUP]Vd[/SUP]Logic

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

I think "booNy" said it best, it is called "personal responsibility".

What he does not understand (or perhaps he does), How can anyone be held "personally responsible" for their actions when they call themselves "booNyzarC" ("CrazyNoob" spelled backwards)?

And I think Ozeco just said it much better than any kind of misinterpretation you could ever come up with.

Cheers.

Edit to add:

And Sunzi too.

 

[booNyzarC]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

On another note, I think the last few posts from Rob make it quite clear that he is reading my posts regardless of whether or not he has me on "ignore." Probably as one of the "guests" currently viewing the page right at this moment in an alternate browser, although that last part is just an assumption on my part.

So much for any remaining excuse to refuse debating me right here on this forum in regards to ACARS on the grounds that, "Gosh, I just didn't see him accept..."

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

I think "booNy" said it best, it is called "personal responsibility".

I see.

What he does not understand (or perhaps he does), How can anyone be held "personally responsible" for their actions when they call themselves "booNyzarC" ("CrazyNoob" spelled backwards)?

I'm a bit apprehensive about the phrase "held personally responsible for their actions" in this context. What sort of actions would those be? Making bull**** arguments? Now, what should be done to someone to hold them responsible for bull**** arguments? And bull**** in whose eyes? Assuming there was some sort of consensus on an outcome of a debate, I think losing the debate is generally considered the penalty for a bad argument. If no consensus, then what?

I'm guessing this boils down to reputation associated with an identity. If someone can be shown to be wrong (or full of **** as the case may be), their reputation takes a hit. I'm not sure that's a good thing generally but, regardless, it's irrelevant to the debate itself. Do you feel someone will conduct themselves differently or present a better argument if their reputation is at stake?

I ask for a couple of reasons. The first is (and this should go without saying): the merit of an argument is independent of the person making it. If a debate rises or falls on the personalities involved, then it's a matter of opinion and a personality contest, not facts, evidence and reason - all of which are independent of identity. Some subjects might go that touchy-feely in sociology or music or whatever, but that should not be the case here. If it is, then perhaps a firm resolution is out of reach.

Second, my name is not Kat Dorman. I'm not going to argue with you but I've damn sure argued with many over a lot of things. None of these things required an ID to debate*, yet I've found anonymity being used as a shield to avoid arguments (that have already been lost). It's used as an inappropriate appeal to authority in cases where an attempt is made to sway those who cannot evaluate the merits of the argument themselves. In other words, it doesn't really affect the veracity of any debate which can be argued objectively, so there has to be some other reason for making it an issue.

Consider me sensitive to it because it's been used to wave away my arguments when they become inconvenient. This is the internet, for god's sakes. Everything visible to everyone. Maybe YOU bear no malice towards your opponent, and statements like holding someone "personally responsible" just seems sort of scary and chilling on the surface and really connotes nothing...

...but in a cult of personality, maybe the same is not true for everyone.

I will not reveal my name to win an argument on the internet. I consider anyone giving up their anonymity in this arena at this stage to be foolish. I'm not suggesting you are foolish for being open about your identity; it's not only admirable in context, it's pretty much mandatory given your activities. I stress that last word - you are an activist. That's cool. Not everyone is an activist, and not everyone wants to expose themselves to potential harrassment over a position. Most people can not tolerate controversy with their employers or clients. This is a controversial subject. Do you think it matters if someone is right or wrong in a debate on some obscure forum when their boss just got 250 emails from people denouncing him as being incompetent and fraudulent? I think they'll get ****-canned. I don't think losing livelihood over an internet debate is the least bit prudent.

You have chosen to stake your reputation on your position, and clearly this is far more important to you personally than a trivial argument in some forum. Understand this is not the case for the majority of people you encounter in places like this. I think you do, actually. This is no reason to discount their arguments or declare any sort of victory. Just my opinion and two cents.



* uhh, except JREF, that is. They, too, (as an organization) demanded my ID to continue the precious ****ing debate. That was many years ago, and I'm still shown as "suspended".

 

[PilotsForTruth]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

I see.
I'm a bit apprehensive about the phrase "held personally responsible for their actions" in this context.

I wasn't the first one to use the phrase in such context.

With that said, can anyone be held "personally responsible" for their actions when their actions are based on anonymity?

Do you really feel people will act the same when their identity is known vs. if not known?

* uhh, except JREF, that is. They, too, (as an organization) demanded my ID to continue the precious ****ing debate. That was many years ago, and I'm still shown as "suspended".

Funny you should bring up the JREF. I tried to register there with my real name. I was denied registration. Many "Truthers" have been "suspended" by the JREF until they faxed 3 forms of ID to their office in FL.

Have you ever heard of such an absurd policy for an internet forum?

I haven't.

The only reason I bring up real names with regard to "booNy", is because he has already demonstrated he prefers to use personal attacks from the comfort of his anonymity. I am trying to minimize such attempts if he truly wishes to actually debate P4T (or me). This way, he can truly be held "personally responsible" for his actions, as will I. I use my real name... why should I debate anyone who attacks me personally from the comfort of their anonymity?

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

Well said as usual Kat.

There is one other factor which I don't think you mentioned:

You have chosen to stake your reputation on your position, and clearly this is far more important to you personally than a trivial argument in some forum. Understand this is not the case for the majority of people you encounter in places like this. I think you do, actually. This is no reason to discount their arguments or declare any sort of victory. Just my opinion and two cents.

It is not a level playing field. Some of us have professional reputations - mine not particularly vulnerable to "leakage" from the world of Internet CT discussion into the "real world". Mainly because there are realities flowing from 2014-1941= a bigger number than I care to think much about. :roll:

But other rational members such as yourself are vulnerable.

Not so the manic fringe of the truth movement leaders - because they have already prostituted any professional reputation they may have held. Whether those in the front ranks - Gage, Jones - or the lesser players in the side shows like P4T.

So their reputation is already shot to pieces and posting more idiocies will not make it lower. No basis for a defamation action if you put it legally. Remember the Harrit defamation case. No claim in law - the only benefit of "suing" was the publicity - from his perspective probalby the realistic goal.

The other reason that our - your and my - reputations are not very vulnerable is that what we post is inevitably well reasoned and honest. BUT we still risk reputation for even engaging in the idiocies of CT discussion.

Gage et al are already exposed and their reputation cannot be further damaged. Ours potentially can. Mine not so exposed because of the realities of 2014-1941

* uhh, except JREF, that is. They, too, (as an organization) demanded my ID to continue the precious ****ing debate. That was many years ago, and I'm still shown as "suspended".

I tolerate it and (mostly) ignore the trolling trash.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

I wasn't the first one to use the phrase in such context.

With that said, can anyone be held "personally responsible" for their actions when their actions are based on anonymity?

Do you really feel people will act the same when their identity is known vs. if not known?

The real issue remains - are claims true or not true?

The fact that you rely so strongly on personal denigration whilst you are not prepared to enter into reasoned discussion is strong circumstantial evidence that you have nothing substantial to say.

 

[Kat Dorman]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

I wasn't the first one to use the phrase in such context.

Okay, I'll grant you that. The interpretations may still differ.

With that said, can anyone be held "personally responsible" for their actions when their actions are based on anonymity?

To a certain extent, yes. To someone without integrity, very possibly not. Although... I've seen people I've judged to be deficient in integrity still jealously guard the reputation of their internet identity. Someone with integrity cares about being right or wrong in an objective sense and admits they're wrong if they can be persuaded. I know, that excludes the majority of people posting in forums. It's not fair to use it as a crutch, though.

Do you really feel people will act the same when their identity is known vs. if not known?

Mostly not. Very few would be so abrasive and rude in real life. It's an opportunity to get in a brawl day after day and still get no bruises, for sure. I think modern humans benefit from this outlet, in moderation (NOT forum moderation, though). I do get jiggy with people in circumstances where I simply couldn't in real life. Of course a lot of people hide behind their anonymity but then their arguments invariably suck as well. Ignore them.

It's not always negative. Within the 9/11 debate, I've used a handful of handles. It's never influenced my approach to anything in regards to argumentation. I don't run. I don't evade. I don't lie. On the last, that's not true in my "real" life. I lie all the ****ing time, mostly trivial stuff to avoid hurting other people's feelings or avoiding disputes with no good end but also sometimes to cover my ass at the expense of no one. Here, I can do as I please! I can be myself. But, anyway, I've posted the most serious stuff as OneWhiteEye and Kat Dorman and I actually do care about protecting the reputation of those pseudo-identities. That's why I admit when I'm wrong - to protect my credibility. If it didn't matter, "piss off" would do quite well.

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks like that. I see "Booze in NYC" and I do recognize CrazyNoob from (I think) JREF. ozeco, jaydeehess, psikeyhackr... I see the same names all over the place. I do think people care quite a bit about those fake names. It's them. And that's as close to them as you need to get to have a valid debate IF they have one to offer. If you send them packing, everything they ever wrote under that name takes the associated credibility hit. They can either face the music or surface under another name and start building their reputation again from scratch. That's a real penalty. They don't need to get any flak in their personal lives over it.

 

[Sunzi]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

... Do you really feel people will act the same when their identity is known vs. if not known?

Why did you fail to use your real name? What did you say about gravy?

... Funny you should bring up the JREF. I tried to register there with my real name. I was denied registration. Many "Truthers" have been "suspended" by the JREF until they faxed 3 forms of ID to their office in FL.

You were banned at JREF, you can't be civil.

...Have you ever heard of such an absurd policy for an internet forum?

When you are banned, like you have been a few times at JREF, they ask for more. You have posted at JREF under fake names, acting as someone else; until they kicked you out.

...I haven't.

You ban people at pilots for truth before they post, and then don't put the ban sign up, you don't let them post. Have you heard of forums doing that? Your forum is censored, not to let the truth in. Free speech is banned.

How is your real name going now, is pilotsfortruth your first name, or last? Why were you banned with so many socks at JREF?


Balsamo,
You issue a call for debate, and then you issue ...
On ignore due to constant use of personal attacks as their primary "debate style" - 505, booNyzarC, ozeco41, Sunzi, Tristan1961

 

[PilotsForTruth]

Re: Skygate 911[W:39]

To a certain extent, yes. To someone without integrity, very possibly not. Although... I've seen people I've judged to be deficient in integrity still jealously guard the reputation of their internet identity. Someone with integrity cares about being right or wrong in an objective sense and admits they're wrong if they can be persuaded. I know, that excludes the majority of people posting in forums. It's not fair to use it as a crutch, though.

Would you consider a person who uses the following phrases one who is of "integrity" and is truly looking for a serious "debate"?

Would you debate such a "person" if this is what they offered for a "rebuttal" from the comfort of their anonymity?

"If pffft offered information on their (your?) website I wouldn't see it because I never visit that cesspool which you call home."

"You are extremely good at ineffective rebuttals. I commend your proficiency in lackluster research and analysis techniques..."

"It's too bad that you don't possess that level of brilliance, "

"As it currently stands you are probably the laughing stock of "911 truth", much as you have been for years, and much as you are likely to remain for many more years to come."
​

Of course a lot of people hide behind their anonymity but then their arguments invariably suck as well. Ignore them.

Exactly.