Originally posted by: kylebisme
But of course he didn't show anything of the sort, nor could he, because the math is my own work. So, can you please acknowledge TLC's dishonesty here?
Lie, dishonest, perjury, and etc...
I have my own definition for the above which suits my way of looking at life.
Perjury, to me, is the act of lying or making false statements on a material matter under oath that the accused knows to be false and does so for a motive unnecessary to prove. It is a crime! We have no one sworn in here so this does not apply.
Lie, to me is a bit different in that there is no oath or affirmation taken nor required.
It is the making of a false statement which the accused knows to be false and it goes to a material issue germane to the topic and has a myriad of motivating factors which define the severity of the lie.. A statement like, "Did you see that fish... It was at least 20 feet long" IF the utterer knew it was only 10 feet the statement would be a lie, but who cares! Whereas, a statement like, "You did x y z so you are a fraud and here is the proof" is not a lie if the proof goes to the statement AND the proof produced would lead a reasonable person to so conclude even if the proof relied upon is not true. Did the person reasonably rely on the evidence they presented or did they present it knowing it was false even if a reasonable person would assume it to be true?
These are some tuff hurdles for a person to overcome in order to find as fact that another is a 'liar'. I never conclude a person is lying... I simply present the facts or evidence of facts and let it go. I can't know what is in another's heart - motive - even if it is painfully obvious. So, I can't acknowledge anything without an undertaking well beyond just digging up prior posts.
I, as Plaintiff's pseudo attorney, if so requested by Kyle (in the case of 'my math'), cannot produce truth but will or would produce evidence of truth cuz I'd be called upon to be an advocate for Kyle. I'd be expected to present evidence in the most favorable light to support the Plaintiff's case. It is for the finder of fact to conclude truth/fact. That is not the role of an advocate!
All the folks who have ever made a statement for or against Kyle are challenged out of the jury pool.... as being biased... Who is left to determine fact? I can't think of a soul in this thread at least... So the effort is moot, in my opinion... Change of Venue? heheheh why... Is it material to the cause of WTC 7's collapse? Does Kyle's issue or TLC's vis a vis Kyle make the evidence or assumed facts any more factual or evidential? I doubt it.
I suggest we move on from the name calling and deal with the issue. If 'maths' are needed to support an assertion... produce them with the assertion. IF a simple visualization is suggested, what maths must support the eye ball... although, often, eye balls produce an assertion that needs 'math' support.
I've been trying to 'back door' the WTC 7 anomaly to avoid head on confrontation. I call it an anomaly cuz that is what I see it to be. IF my view is wrong then it is... I won't hold on to a snake to see if it bites and then determine if it is poisonous...
But one thing is certain... You cannot disprove a theory someone else proposes by defaming some one in here. They are just producing someone else's 'stuff'... The 'stuff' stands or falls on its own merit.. and so long as there are experts who hold that opinion or this one YOU can't disprove it no matter how hard you try But you can accept by what ever standard you apply... Reasonable doubt, Clear and convincing or By the Preponderance that the evidence is proof to you of the facts.
I'm not sure we have enough 'horsepower' in here to disprove one of our more elite minded science people's proffer if it is different than what the Truther or what ever the other side is.. UnTruther? hehehehhe have already introduced.
Facebook
Twitter