Replies

"It was the article that you posted, hence, it was 'your' article."

Sorry to see that you got messy pants about it. The article was linked by the thread author.

Government
Source: Reed Irvine, Accuracy In Media
Published: 12/14/01 Author: SubMareener
Posted on 12/14/01 6:05 PM Pacific by SubMareener

Such articles are the property of their authors and/or publishers. In this instance, the author was Reed Irvine and his publisher was Accuracy In Media. To assist the readers, I used that link to prepare and post a full text copy. It was accordingly not my article. Here are some additional cautions applicable to this subject:

Important Legal Notice:
Free Republic has been enjoined from allowing users to post full text articles from the Los Angeles Times (LAT) and Washington Post (WP). Please do not post full text from these sources until and unless we can get this order overturned on appeal. Any full text articles from LAT or WP will be deleted in compliance with this court order.

You went on to my following comment about Reed Irvine:

"He's been dumbed down by his advisors, none of whom are expert witness report analysts, etc."

"ex·pert (kspûrt) n. A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject."

You then added: "This is a weak strawman argument - I don't claim that Irvine is an expert on any thing.".

straw man n. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

This thread is about Reed Irvine and what he said in his article. Which included the following:

"Major Fritz Meyer was piloting an Air National Guard helicopter when he saw TWA Flight 800 struck by missiles."

That allegation by Reed Irvine in his article is in irreconcilable conflict with the facts. Meyer did not and could not have seen a "shootdown" of TWA 800 by even ONE missile, much less "missiles", at 13,800 feet at 8:31:12 only 3-4 seconds BEFORE he saw the Massive Fireball explode in the 747's falling wreckage at about 5500-7500 feet at approximately 8:31:47. Reference Source

That is NOT a straw man argument. It's a rebuttal of what Reed Irvine himself said after he was dumbed down by his advisors. If you disagree with it, state your case and cite your reference source URLs, hopefully without any further messy pants performances.

This thread is about Reed Irvine and what he said in his article.

This is why your response to my post was a straw man argument - all I posted about was the two statements about "not one shred of physical evidence" and "the FBI had a secret room off-limits to anyone else." Your reply was not responsive to this argument, it was responsive to Reed's expertise or lack of it, or to what Meyer may or may not have seen, etc.

If you are unable to come up with a relevent response to my post, please, don't trouble yourself with responding at all. Your html skills may look impressive, but they do not make up for disingenuous rhetoric.