Posted: May 05, 2010 3:41 pm
by PJG
Moridin wrote:
PJG wrote:
Moridin wrote:


PJG, what would falsify your belief? Don't say more research, because we both know that this is not true. If your position is unfalsifiable, why should we take you anymore serious than we take people who claim to have been abducted by aliens?

What belief are you suggesting I hold?

Pick anyone of your beliefs that are counter to the mainstream view presented in this thread if you want to be specific.

Tell you what - you make a list of the things that you think represent the "mainstream view presented in this thread" and I will tell you if I "accept", "don't believe/accept" or "don't know".

You see, throughout this thread - and you can see it even now - I have been told that I believe certain things when I do not. I have repeatedly been told that I must defend a position I do not hold and told I have the burden of proof when I have made no claim.

I have had nonsense "explanations" given - where it seems that instead of saying "I don't know" people are prepared to make up ANYTHING rather than contemplate that the official 9/11 story - especially the NIST Report into WTC7, which is what I originally came on the thread to ask questions and opinions on - may be found to be flawed. I have stated that IF there is evidence that is not consistent with the official story and there does appear to be some, then this should be researched further as all evidence that does not "fit" with a theory is. The idea that a "fossil rabbit in the Cambrian" would be ignored because its existence would not "undermine a well-established theory" is just nonsense. Mr. Shermer's comment appears to be a case of special pleading when it comes to "conspiracy theories".

The problem is that when I have said this, I am told I must answer the questions that I myself have asked .... I would not be asking the questions if I knew the answers. Right at the start of this thread I explained that reading the NIST Report into WTC7 and the Harrit paper and various other documents, checking claims made and going back to numerous papers and source websites - I was left with questions. I did not come onto this website to make claims, I came on to ask questions. In almost every case, the answers are not satisfactory, not because they don't fit in with my "beliefs" but because they are either clearly nonsense (like the "boxes of microspheres") or they simply pose more questions.