9/11 families mount unprecedented challenge to NIST in new filing

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,945
Reaction score
128
Points
85
Proof is proof
I'm still waiting for your proof about the frames per second.
Do your own math.
Why would I help you prove your silly claim?

Use more Latin!
its irrelevant at this point since you dont have any pics with anything that looks like a plane, a waste my time.


In In re W.R. Grace & Co., 355 B.R. 462, 481 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), the court held “Anecdotal evidence' means reports of one kind of event following another. Typically, the reports are obtained haphazardly or selectively, and the logic of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" does not suffice to demonstrate that the first event causes the second. Consequently, while anecdotal evidence can be suggestive, it can also be quite misleading.”

what that means is your whole premise is based upon a fallacy!

The court recognized that when your premise is illogical the consequent has to be illogical.

Which means shit in shit out.

Which means you and your pals, faun and corny are trying jam illogical bullshit down everyones throats because none of you are smart enough to comprehend that your guv played you for fools that you are, by feeding your 'imaginations' and IMAGINE you did and continue to do, I dont.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
59,075
Reaction score
8,673
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Proof is proof
I'm still waiting for your proof about the frames per second.
Do your own math.
Why would I help you prove your silly claim?

Use more Latin!
its irrelevant at this point since you dont have any pics with anything that looks like a plane, a waste my time.


In In re W.R. Grace & Co., 355 B.R. 462, 481 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), the court held “Anecdotal evidence' means reports of one kind of event following another. Typically, the reports are obtained haphazardly or selectively, and the logic of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" does not suffice to demonstrate that the first event causes the second. Consequently, while anecdotal evidence can be suggestive, it can also be quite misleading.”

what that means is your whole premise is based upon a fallacy!

The court recognized that when your premise is illogical the consequent has to be illogical.

Which means shit in shit out.

Which means you and your pals, faun and corny are trying jam illogical bullshit down everyones throats because none of you are smart enough to comprehend that your guv played you for fools that you are, by feeding your 'imaginations' and IMAGINE you did and continue to do, I dont.

what that means is your whole premise is based upon a fallacy!

Which premise in which post?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
59,075
Reaction score
8,673
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
Try to find enough brain cells to realize that you posted a pic with no plane in it,

There's a plane. It's moving very quickly.
WOW you think people are stupid enough to believe that, well my be you.
This vid is where you pics came from.
WOW you think people are stupid enough to believe that

You don't believe the plane was moving very quickly?

What do you believe? Be specific.
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,945
Reaction score
128
Points
85

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
62,479
Reaction score
8,549
Points
2,030
the best footage that they can release is five frames?

How many frames do you expect with a plane at that speed?
What plane?
I didnt see a plane, please show me any original footage that supports your plane claim.
If you see a plane please point it out.
And you wonder why you get kicked off so many other message boards?

How’d the wreckage get there?
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
62,479
Reaction score
8,549
Points
2,030

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
59,075
Reaction score
8,673
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
the best footage that they can release is five frames?

How many frames do you expect with a plane at that speed?
What plane?
I didnt see a plane, please show me any original footage that supports your plane claim.
If you see a plane please point it out.
And you wonder why you get kicked off so many other message boards?

How’d the wreckage get there?

Watch out, Cuckoo knows Latin.
 

ranfunck

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
439
Reaction score
120
Points
80
WOW you think people are stupid enough to believe that

You don't believe the plane was moving very quickly?

What do you believe? Be specific.
What plane? moron.
Did you even watch the vid
What do you believe? Be specific.
Dosnt matter what I believe.
You are the one who said flt 77 crashed into p if you watched the vid you will clearly see the vid was Photoshopped. It shows no plane like you claim.
You are a looser like cornhole don't know if you are payed to post or just that fucking stupid.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
59,075
Reaction score
8,673
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
WOW you think people are stupid enough to believe that

You don't believe the plane was moving very quickly?

What do you believe? Be specific.
What plane? moron.
Did you even watch the vid
What do you believe? Be specific.
Dosnt matter what I believe.
You are the one who said flt 77 crashed into p if you watched the vid you will clearly see the vid was Photoshopped. It shows no plane like you claim.
You are a looser like cornhole don't know if you are payed to post or just that fucking stupid.
You are the one who said flt 77 crashed into p

As opposed to what crashing into the Pentagon?
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
62,479
Reaction score
8,549
Points
2,030
WOW you think people are stupid enough to believe that

You don't believe the plane was moving very quickly?

What do you believe? Be specific.
What plane? moron.
Did you even watch the vid
What do you believe? Be specific.
Dosnt matter what I believe.
You are the one who said flt 77 crashed into p if you watched the vid you will clearly see the vid was Photoshopped. It shows no plane like you claim.
You are a looser like cornhole don't know if you are payed to post or just that fucking stupid.
Poor baby...too afraid to share your thoughts?

Just as I have always said, the worst thing you can do for a conspiracy kook like yourself is had your the microphone. You have nothing to say except 'un huh'. It explains why the "truth movement" to which you've dedicated your miserable life has gotten nowhere in 20 years.
 

ranfunck

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
439
Reaction score
120
Points
80
WOW you think people are stupid enough to believe that

You don't believe the plane was moving very quickly?

What do you believe? Be specific.
What plane? moron.
Did you even watch the vid
What do you believe? Be specific.
Dosnt matter what I believe.
You are the one who said flt 77 crashed into p if you watched the vid you will clearly see the vid was Photoshopped. It shows no plane like you claim.
You are a looser like cornhole don't know if you are payed to post or just that fucking stupid.
You are the one who said flt 77 crashed into p

As opposed to what crashing into the Pentagon?
Not playing your game, you made the claim flt77 crashed in the p prove it oh that's right you cant.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
62,479
Reaction score
8,549
Points
2,030
WOW you think people are stupid enough to believe that

You don't believe the plane was moving very quickly?

What do you believe? Be specific.
What plane? moron.
Did you even watch the vid
What do you believe? Be specific.
Dosnt matter what I believe.
You are the one who said flt 77 crashed into p if you watched the vid you will clearly see the vid was Photoshopped. It shows no plane like you claim.
You are a looser like cornhole don't know if you are payed to post or just that fucking stupid.
You are the one who said flt 77 crashed into p

As opposed to what crashing into the Pentagon?
Not playing your game, you made the claim flt77 crashed in the p prove it oh that's right you cant.
The wreckage proves it; the passenger remains proves it; the flight data tracking proves it; the eye witnesses prove it.

You're just too juvenile to accept the truth.
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,945
Reaction score
128
Points
85
The wreckage proves it; the passenger remains proves it; the flight data tracking proves it; the eye witnesses prove it.

You're just too juvenile to accept the truth.
Still enjoying getting your ass handed to you I see.

n In re W.R. Grace & Co., 355 B.R. 462, 481 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), the court held “Anecdotal evidence' means reports of one kind of event following another. Typically, the reports are obtained haphazardly or selectively, and the logic of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" does not suffice to demonstrate that the first event causes the second. Consequently, while anecdotal evidence can be suggestive, it can also be quite misleading.”

what that means is your whole premise is based upon a fallacy!

The court recognized that when your premise is illogical the consequent has to be illogical.

Which means shit in shit out.

Which means you and your pals, are illogical nut cases trying jam illogical bullshit down everyones throats because none of you are smart enough to comprehend that your guv played you for fools that you are, by feeding your 'imaginations' and IMAGINE you did and continue to do, I dont.
 

candycorn

Alis volat propriis
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
62,479
Reaction score
8,549
Points
2,030
The wreckage proves it; the passenger remains proves it; the flight data tracking proves it; the eye witnesses prove it.

You're just too juvenile to accept the truth.
Still enjoying getting your ass handed to you I see.

n In re W.R. Grace & Co., 355 B.R. 462, 481 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), the court held “Anecdotal evidence' means reports of one kind of event following another. Typically, the reports are obtained haphazardly or selectively, and the logic of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" does not suffice to demonstrate that the first event causes the second. Consequently, while anecdotal evidence can be suggestive, it can also be quite misleading.”

what that means is your whole premise is based upon a fallacy!

The court recognized that when your premise is illogical the consequent has to be illogical.

Which means shit in shit out.

Which means you and your pals, are illogical nut cases trying jam illogical bullshit down everyones throats because none of you are smart enough to comprehend that your guv played you for fools that you are, by feeding your 'imaginations' and IMAGINE you did and continue to do, I dont.
If you don't think a plane crashed there (you don't think planes were involved in NYC either), please explain the wreckage. You can't. You won't. Its your crazy theory...you just aren't man enough to back it up. I would imagine you've gone through most of your miserable life not measuring up to even the minimum requirements of manhood. Poor baby.
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,945
Reaction score
128
Points
85
If you don't think a plane crashed there (you don't think planes were involved in NYC either), please explain the wreckage. You can't. You won't. Its your crazy theory...you just aren't man enough to back it up. I would imagine you've gone through most of your miserable life not measuring up to even the minimum requirements of manhood. Poor baby.
The problem you got corny, is you are too stupid to comprehend even the courts agree that you are batshit crazy.

You are a masochist and simply enjoy getting your ass handed to you.


n In re W.R. Grace & Co., 355 B.R. 462, 481 (Bankr. D. Del. 2006), the court held “Anecdotal evidence' means reports of one kind of event following another. Typically, the reports are obtained haphazardly or selectively, and the logic of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" does NOT suffice to demonstrate that the first event causes the second. Consequently, while anecdotal evidence can be suggestive, it can also be quite misleading.”

what that means is your whole premise is based upon a fallacy!

The court recognized that when your premise is illogical the consequent has to be illogical.

Which means shit in shit out.

Which means you and your pals, are illogical nut cases trying jam illogical bullshit down everyones throats because none of you are smart enough to comprehend that your guv played you for fools that you are, by feeding your 'imaginations' and IMAGINE you did and continue to do, I dont.
:spank:

By all means let me know when you have valid evidence to proof FLT77 was found in the P.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top