it_is_the_light wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 3:05pm:


You don't need to be in a position of authority to point out that this clown is a pilot and NOT a structural engineer or an aircraft engineer or even an aircraft crash investigator, these are merely facts that seem to be undisputed.

He is a pilot, that is not in dispute but he wasn't speaking just from the position of a pilot was he, or haven't you seen your own 'evidence' yet?

Richdude wrote on May 11^th, 2018 at 11:58pm:


I see what you did there, asked and answered your honour.

As a rule of thumb, if Light makes a claim and his source is conspiracy websites and not a single credible source, and the explanation for the lack of actual evidence is yet another layer of conspiracy, it's a safe bet it's bullshit.

There is also the laws of physics to take into account.

I'm lucky that while I never explored it as a professional field I do have some engineering and mathematics background and training.  A big part of that is an understand of critical thinking and the importance of being able to prove something, peer review and most importantly knowing when you've reached the end of your understanding.

Short version, a fully functioning bullshit detector.

I think this is why Light and I don't get along because his bullshit detector is calibrated in reverse. 

"Question every accepted form of understanding, blindly accept the fantastic and unproven"

Every time I follow him down the rabbit hole and consume the hours of crap he posts, compose and respond with a considered and factual reply, often with full citation of the evidence that formed my opinion on the subject (unlike he who only searched for information to support his opinion, again he's got it in reverse), it's always met with a pathetic childish finger in the ear "la la la la" style reply and every effort to ignore the truth.

Every time. 

It's like he's worried he'll lose some sort of standing by admitting he was wrong.  It would be the opposite in fact.  But he's so focused on winning and losing that he doesn't care about the truth.  There are far too many people like that in the world today, but especially on these forums.

He has not once learnt a single thing and just digs his heels in and rewrites his conspiracy to try and counter the new facts that have been presented to him, all the while claiming he's posting truth and everyone else is part of the conspiracy. 

He also tries, but fails, to use the language that other have to prove him wrong, in reverse, against them.

You're similar in that you take a very adversarial approach. 

Again, rather than evaluate your position, you attack those who don't agree and take your opponents inability to explain a situation as an immediate validation of your point of view regardless of how factual it may be.

There is nothing wrong with not understanding something.  That is step one of discovery.  But making claims from that lack of understanding is simply argument from ignorance and doesn't prove a thing.

"I have a video of a white dot in the sky, it's a UFO.  It must be aliens".

Nope, it's unidentified, discussion over.

These are all classic failings when it comes to identifying the truth of a situation.  Thank goodness outside of cry babies on Internet forums, especially in the scientific community, there are the basic rigours of the scientific process designed to weed out this flawed thinking.  Sadly this only feeds the true conspiratards, but I digress.

On the topic of our little conversation within this thread, because I question the truth of this "cloaking technology" that has been demonstrated under a very controlled lab tests, there is no evidence that it can scale up to practical applications. 

Optical camo can only work from one point of view, much like this scene (fictional I might add just in case you can't tell) from Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol,



(Skip ahead to ~7:30 when 2 points of view or more start to mess with the illusion)

In the context of this thread, why are we even bringing up the possibility of this currently based on credible sources, non-existent technology in 2018, let alone what was available in 2001 anyway?

Are we adding another layer to the conspiracy because some of the footage shows exactly what happened, but that doesn't match the conspiritards position, therefore there must have been cloaked invisible aircraft involved?

You've both done a great job at avoiding that question so far.

What's the point?

https://www.activistpost.com/2019/03/bombshell-lawsuit-claims-fbi-knowingly-hid-...

Bombshell Lawsuit Claims FBI Knowingly Hid Evidence from Congress of Explosives Used on 9/11

Matt AgoristSeptember 11th
MARCH 27, 2019

In yet another major move from the great folks over at the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and 9/11 victim family members Robert McIlvaine and Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, a joint federal lawsuit has been filed to assess any evidence the FBI may have known about that contributed to the destruction of the towers on 9/11 which they may have kept from Congress.

The complaint

https://www.ae911truth.org/fbi

cites the failure of the FBI and its 9/11 Review Commission to assess key 9/11-related evidence that the FBI can be shown to have had, or been aware of, regarding:

the use of pre-placed explosives to destroy World Trade Center Buildings, 1, 2, and 7;
the arrest and investigation of the “High Fivers” observed photographing and celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11;
terrorist financing related the reported Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers;
recovered plane parts, including serial numbers from all three crash locations;
video from cameras mounted inside and outside the Pentagon; and
cell phone communications from passengers aboard airplanes.
According to the press release on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, this is evidence relevant to the 9/11 Review Commission’s and the FBI’s compliance with the mandate from Congress, which should have been assessed by the FBI and the 9/11 Review Commission and reported to Congress. The complaint also cites the destruction by the FBI of evidence related to the “High Fivers.” Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has joined in bringing the counts that involve the evidence of the World Trade Center’s explosive demolition and evidence related to the “High Fivers,” while the other plaintiffs are party to all counts.

As TFTP previously reported, a monumental step forward in the relentless pursuit of 9/11 truth took place last December when a United States Attorney agreed to comply with federal law requiring submission to a Special Grand Jury of evidence that explosives were used to bring down the World Trade Centers. Then, earlier this month, the group behind the submission, the Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, announced the filing of a “petition supplement” naming persons who may have information related to the use of said explosives.

According to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the 33-page document contains 15 different categories of persons who may have information material to the investigation, including contractors and security companies that had access to the WTC Towers before 9/11, persons and entities who benefited financially from the WTC demolitions, and persons arrested after being observed celebrating the WTC attacks.

A names-redacted version of the petition supplement, which was filed with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York on February 14, 2019, has been made available to the public. The un-redacted version filed with the U.S. Attorney today will remain undisclosed in the interest of maintaining the secrecy, security, and integrity of the grand jury proceeding.

As TFTP reported in December, for the first time since 9/11 the federal government is taking steps to hear evidence that explosives may have been used to destroy the world trade centers.

The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry successfully submitted a petition to the federal government demanding that the U.S. Attorney present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of yet-to-be-prosecuted federal crimes relating to the destruction of three World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 (WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7).

After waiting months for the reply, the U.S. Attorney responded in a letter, noting that they will comply with the law.

“We have received and reviewed The Lawyers’ Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc.’s submissions of April 10 and July 30, 2018. We will comply with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3332 as they relate to your submissions,” U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman stated.

According to the petition, dozens of exhibits were presented as evidence that explosives were used to destroy all three world trade centers.

Finally we may see some justice for the 3,000 souls that perished that day. As well those in law enforcement and the media who covered up this crime.

Robert Mueller, Brennan, Cheney and many others know that their heads are on the line.