Only if you want to be laughed at.
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Galaxian wrote:PJG wrote:I do not think, for example, that there is any more evidence to support the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon than that it did not - my position is the default - I don't know. You on the other hand, are 100% convinced by the evidence you have seen that a plane hit. We have different standards regarding the evidence we need for us to accept a claim. I hope, and I cannot think of an exception to this, I do not accept a claim without evidence - when I do not have the evidence I say "I don't know", I don't just make up something that fits or accept what someone else tells me - unless I have found them very reliable in the past - and I haven't found governments to be very reliable in the past!
THAT ^ is the scientific process, little do they know it! We either KNOW something, in which case we say so. Or we do NOT know something, in which case we say so. Or we are UNsure, in which case we say so.
No, PJG, you don't have to leave (for now) on a civil note. [b]You beat the crap out him fair & square! :beercheers[/b]:
PJG wrote:Please could someone who accepts the official claim explain to aspire what nanotechnology is. He won't believe me - and he is clearly somewhat confused!
Galaxian - I am not sure that I entirely agree with your statement - though I appreciate the support. My only criticism is that I might say I "know" that two planes hit the twin towers. However, strictly speaking, I "accept" that two planes hit, or I am "satisfied" that two planes hit. If I was absolutely pushed, I would have to admit that I could be deluded to the point that 9/11 never happened at all - no planes hit and the twin towers are still standing!!
Of course, on a day to day basis, we say we "know" things - what we really mean is that we have sufficient evidence to determine them. Econ and some of the others claim to "know" that a plane hit the Pentagon or that WTC7 came down because of fires. In fact, almost all their "evidence" is basically an argument from incredulity. If you look back, many, many posts are variations on "I don't see where the plane went if it didn't go into the Pentagon therefore it went into the building" or "I don't see how accelerants could have been placed in the buildings, therefore it couldn't have happened" and so on. With the exception of Econ, just about everyone has tried to knock down evidence against their belief rather than put forward evidence supporting their belief... and many of the "methods" have been logical fallacies and ad homs.
I like to think I "know" that two planes went into the twin towers - I like to believe my own eyes and there does seem to be other evidence that this occurred. It is supported by so many things, so many witnesses and other evidence that I might even be pushed to say "I know". My problem - and the reason I stuck my neck out to ask questions about this in the first place is that so many people claim they "know" other aspects - and then use "evidence" that is inconclusive or circumstantial - or an argument from authority. So far as 9/11 is concerned - that means almost all of it. If you remove everything stated as "fact" by the government, how much of what happened on 9/11 do we really "know" and how much evidence do we have for it?
Best wishes
PJG wrote:Econ - I think you are still not understanding but I am stunned if you do not and that I have to spell this out. However, I will do so but I thought that my meaning was clear right from the start of the old thread.
...well if that is not denigrating simply suggest another word for a persistent tirade of negative comments about the work of a group of professionals. Clearly your use of English language is different to mine....I am not "denigrating" NIST because I am saying that maybe there is another explanation for their poor report. Of course there is only a "black and white" scenario - i.e. NIST must be incompetent or dishonest, IF the official story is correct. If the official story is NOT correct, then there are lots of OTHER possible explanations but I DON'T KNOW what they are/could be ....e.g. the scientists could have been "leaned on", the fact that they were not given access to physical evidence (and that evidence was destroyed) could have been deliberate, they may have been given a predetermined conclusion to work towards rather than giving themselves that "challenge" ... the list could go on and on and may include a hundred "explanations" - but none of THOSE can fit if those paying the piper are NOT calling the tune - i.e. don't have anything to hide. Do you understand this? I thought it was self-evident. I apologise if I should have stated what I thought was the obvious....
..well it aint irrelevant - it simply reflects the standards you keep insisting on. Which you espouse personally whether or not you choose to stand alone OR put yourself forward as a representative of some broader based group of like thinking persons as per your following statement......The idea that NIST or anyone else must provide a report that satisfies my own personal requirements is another completely irrelevant statement - of course they do not and I would be being unbelievably arrogant - and/or stupid - to state such a thing as an individual....
..and, for the umpteenth time, will you please stop "verballing" me as satisfied with the official story as a global claim. I grow tired of your repeated use of false generalisations. I have been explicit that I neither agree with nor disagree with the "official story" in globo. I have formed my own opinions on certain key facts where my opinions happen to agree with the official version. Those "own opinions" include, but are not limited to, my opinion that there was no demolition at WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. I have read little of the three out of four parts of the NIST reports, my focus having been on the one part of four which deals with mechanisms of collapse. So I do not appreciate your repeated false statements that I support or am satisfied with the "Official Story". Given your own demonstrably false claims to being agnostic on certain issues it is ridiculous that you falsely accuse me of being partisan on issues where I genuinely have made no claims and when my position is demonstrable agnostic....However, grass-roots movements have often started when someone asks a question and finds others are asking the same questions. Most disappear over time, but some develop and grow. You are satisfied with the official story - you feel that the evidence supplied to support their story is adequate. I do not - and some others do not either....
...I do not think, for example, that there is any more evidence to support the claim that a plane hit the Pentagon than that it did not - my position is the default - I don't know. You on the other hand, are 100% convinced by the evidence you have seen that a plane hit. We have different standards regarding the evidence we need for us to accept a claim....
...wow! Call that a sidestep? Totally ignoring that it is not the lack of evidence that underpins your stated views on recent discussions. It is the existence of evidence which you ignore/disregard/evade....I hope, and I cannot think of an exception to this, I do not accept a claim without evidence - when I do not have the evidence I say "I don't know",...
Correct though your following reasons are not why I agree with you....Look, there really isn't any point continuing this....
Yes - with the expected provisos about the non-professional use of "100% certain". There is no reasonable doubt that all three of those matters are true..... You are 100% certain that a plane hit the Pentagon, the three towers collapsed because of fires and damage and that the plane in Shanksville crashed and was not shot down....
...setting aside your loose terminology claims of 100% certainty I can "know" this because the evidence is conclusive to any person:...I do not see how you can possibly know this, let alone be 100% certain of most of it. That you accept it 100% - good for you.
...too true....We seem to agree that our standards of evidence are different....
...I don't think I have ever departed from the Forum Rule which, colloquially stated, says "Argue as hard as you want against the topic, avoid personal attacks." I have no problem entering discussion with you the person. But your approach to logic and consistency of position is a different matter....I hope we can end this on a civil and respectful note and just say that we agree to disagree. OK?
PJG wrote: With the exception of Econ, just about everyone has tried to knock down evidence against their belief rather than put forward evidence supporting their belief... and many of the "methods" have been logical fallacies and ad homs.
This discussion is going nowhere. We're stuck at some people refusing to explain their position in a way that would let them be proven wrong, and with PJG comparing people who don't agree with her to creationists.
I have already realized that the truth-movement is stuck in 2006 - the year they were at their strongest. The problem is, all their points have been debunked by both professionals and amateurs time and time again, but they don't learn from this. Instead, they just reiterate all their already debunked positions. It's really frustrating for someone trying to present a rational argument to be met by a wall of diffuse claims and youtube videos.
Back to Pennsylvania. Offering justification for my suspicions is quite easy, as I mentioned the wreckage was strewn over quite a large area (larger even, than I initially claimed above) totally contradicting the assertion that it was a 'crash'.
The following map summarizes the location of the most well-documented debris fields:
The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away
Using the scale indicated on the map, the engine can be seen to be fully a quarter mile away from the 'crash'. This is well-nigh impossible in what was said to have been a 15 mile per hour breeze on that day.
Also, we have the 'Freudian slip' by Donny Rumsfeld, shortly afterwards:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNT61h5_P60[/youtube]
If memory serves me correctly, it was ignored because the the utterly ridiculous insistence that an alternative explanation be provided was revealed for the logical fallacy that it was..
The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away
Morien wrote:This discussion is going nowhere. We're stuck at some people refusing to explain their position in a way that would let them be proven wrong, and with PJG comparing people who don't agree with her to creationists.
I have already realized that the truth-movement is stuck in 2006 - the year they were at their strongest. The problem is, all their points have been debunked by both professionals and amateurs time and time again, but they don't learn from this. Instead, they just reiterate all their already debunked positions. It's really frustrating for someone trying to present a rational argument to be met by a wall of diffuse claims and youtube videos.
...(Emphasis mine) This is quite clearly untrue, and a rash generalisation. No one seems to be able to answer the following;Back to Pennsylvania. Offering justification for my suspicions is quite easy, as I mentioned the wreckage was strewn over quite a large area (larger even, than I initially claimed above) totally contradicting the assertion that it was a 'crash'.
The following map summarizes the location of the most well-documented debris fields:
The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away
Using the scale indicated on the map, the engine can be seen to be fully a quarter mile away from the 'crash'. This is well-nigh impossible in what was said to have been a 15 mile per hour breeze on that day.
Also, we have the 'Freudian slip' by Donny Rumsfeld, shortly afterwards:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNT61h5_P60[/youtube]
If memory serves me correctly, it was ignored because the the utterly ridiculous insistence that an alternative explanation be provided was revealed for the logical fallacy that it was..
Jumbo wrote:The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away
Wasn't the stuff in New Baltimore mainly paper and the like? Similarly wasn't the debris at Indian Lake also small items? (Thus in any crash they are the most likely to travel a significant distance.)
Jumbo wrote:
The engine being 2000 ft away doesn't seem all that odd. The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph. That's quite a bit of energy there. The engine being 7-10,000 lbs in weight with that kind of impact could mean it gets thrown some distance. Why would it be directed there by 'breeze' surely the impact itself is more likely the cause.
If memory serves me correctly, it was ignored because the the utterly ridiculous insistence that an alternative explanation be provided was revealed for the logical fallacy that it was
Truther
A crazy person who believes the US government committed 9/11. Truthers get their inspiration from a moronic documentary called "Loose Change" which provides no facts whatsoever and has been thoroughly debunked. People who disagree with the truthers are repeatedly called government shills since truthers have no logical argument to counter the evidence.
Morien wrote:If memory serves me correctly, it was ignored because the the utterly ridiculous insistence that an alternative explanation be provided was revealed for the logical fallacy that it was
This is the gist of the approach offered by those who believe the Official rubbish. Unable and/or unwilling to defend their beliefs, they instead insinuate the madness of those who question them;
Jumbo wrote:The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away
Wasn't the stuff in New Baltimore mainly paper and the like? Similarly wasn't the debris at Indian Lake also small items? (Thus in any crash they are the most likely to travel a significant distance.)
The engine being 2000 ft away doesn't seem all that odd. The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph. That's quite a bit of energy there. The engine being 7-10,000 lbs in weight with that kind of impact could mean it gets thrown some distance. Why would it be directed there by 'breeze' surely the impact itself is more likely the cause.
The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph
Morien wrote:Jumbo wrote:The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away
Wasn't the stuff in New Baltimore mainly paper and the like? Similarly wasn't the debris at Indian Lake also small items? (Thus in any crash they are the most likely to travel a significant distance.)
No, they weren't . Please provide evidence of such if you believe it was...and I will counter appropriately.The engine being 2000 ft away doesn't seem all that odd. The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph. That's quite a bit of energy there. The engine being 7-10,000 lbs in weight with that kind of impact could mean it gets thrown some distance. Why would it be directed there by 'breeze' surely the impact itself is more likely the cause.
It was a fuckin' airplane, not a meteor. The fact that pieces of the plane (not lightwight paper, and such) debris landed 8 miles away, doesn't imply a 'crash' as described.The plane was inverted and hit the ground at over 500mph
Evidence, please. I have provided such to back up my suspicions, you have provided very little (if anything) to refute them....
uke2se wrote:Morien wrote:This discussion is going nowhere. We're stuck at some people refusing to explain their position in a way that would let them be proven wrong, and with PJG comparing people who don't agree with her to creationists.
I have already realized that the truth-movement is stuck in 2006 - the year they were at their strongest. The problem is, all their points have been debunked by both professionals and amateurs time and time again, but they don't learn from this. Instead, they just reiterate all their already debunked positions. It's really frustrating for someone trying to present a rational argument to be met by a wall of diffuse claims and youtube videos.
...(Emphasis mine) This is quite clearly untrue, and a rash generalisation. No one seems to be able to answer the following;Back to Pennsylvania. Offering justification for my suspicions is quite easy, as I mentioned the wreckage was strewn over quite a large area (larger even, than I initially claimed above) totally contradicting the assertion that it was a 'crash'.
The following map summarizes the location of the most well-documented debris fields:
The primary crash site, centered at the impact crater
The location of an engine: ~ 2000 feet away
The Indian Lake marina, ~ 3 miles away
The New Baltimore, ~ 8 miles away
Using the scale indicated on the map, the engine can be seen to be fully a quarter mile away from the 'crash'. This is well-nigh impossible in what was said to have been a 15 mile per hour breeze on that day.
Also, we have the 'Freudian slip' by Donny Rumsfeld, shortly afterwards:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNT61h5_P60[/youtube]
If memory serves me correctly, it was ignored because the the utterly ridiculous insistence that an alternative explanation be provided was revealed for the logical fallacy that it was..
Umm, we dealt with that earlier. I'll post the link again.
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests