FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Why Can't Truthers Understand "Falsifiable"???
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:39 pm    Post subject: Why Can't Truthers Understand "Falsifiable"??? Reply with quote

falsifiable

adj : capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation [syn: confirmable, verifiable]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University[/quote]

English not your first language then?

-z

_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Why Can't Truthers Understand "Falsifiable"??? Reply with quote

Jay Ref wrote:
falsifiable

adj : capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation [syn: confirmable, verifiable]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


English not your first language then?

-z[/quote]

So why can't you test the theory that 9/11 had US Government complicity by providing evidence that the US had nothing to do with it?

You have only confirmed what I have previously stated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Why Can't Truthers Understand "Falsifiable"??? Reply with quote

scubadiver wrote:
Jay Ref wrote:
falsifiable

adj : capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation [syn: confirmable, verifiable]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


English not your first language then?

-z


So why can't you test the theory that 9/11 had US Government complicity by providing evidence that the US had nothing to do with it?

You have only confirmed what I have previously stated.[/quote]

I see you're trying to win by default now. If we can't show evidence that the government didn't do it, then they must've done it.

By that logic, can you show that it wasn't Rod Hull and Emu that didn't do it? If not, then that birds got a lot to answer for...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rod Hull - Master of the ridiculous. I'm so pleased you brought him into this "serious" debate.

Enjoy!

(I promise, I'm gonna bow out now, I'm just laughing too hard....)

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Why Can't Truthers Understand "Falsifiable"??? Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:


I see you're trying to win by default now. If we can't show evidence that the government didn't do it, then they must've done it.



That isn't what I am saying. If you can't show evidence that they didn't do it it doesn't follow that they did.

My point is that if the Government had conclusive proof that OBL had organised and carried out the attacks without any foreknowledge they would have held it up for all the world to see, wouldn't you agree?

If the FBI had intelligence that something was going to happen they would have come down on those suspects like a ton of bricks wouldn't you agree with the full backing of the US administration.

We have the opposite:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Bush states that he opposes a 9/11 panel to investigate foreknowledge:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

But no. We have that small piece of evidence that Bush told the FBI to "back off" from investigating the Bin Laden family and the Saudi ties to terrorism:


Even the Taliban warned the US of a potential attack:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2242594.stm


Even the FBI have admitted that there is no hard evidence that OBL organised and perpetrated those attacks.

I am starting to think I am wasting my time. I haven't a clue what your motivation or reason is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Why Can't Truthers Understand "Falsifiable"??? Reply with quote

scubadiver wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:


I see you're trying to win by default now. If we can't show evidence that the government didn't do it, then they must've done it.



That isn't what I am saying. If you can't show evidence that they didn't do it it doesn't follow that they did.

My point is that if the Government had conclusive proof that OBL had organised and carried out the attacks without any foreknowledge they would have held it up for all the world to see, wouldn't you agree?

If the FBI had intelligence that something was going to happen they would have come down on those suspects like a ton of bricks wouldn't you agree with the full backing of the US administration.

We have the opposite:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Bush states that he opposes a 9/11 panel to investigate foreknowledge:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml

But no. We have that small piece of evidence that Bush told the FBI to "back off" from investigating the Bin Laden family and the Saudi ties to terrorism:


Even the Taliban warned the US of a potential attack:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2242594.stm


Even the FBI have admitted that there is no hard evidence that OBL organised and perpetrated those attacks.

I am starting to think I am wasting my time. I haven't a clue what your motivation or reason is.


The idea that the Government allowed 9/11 to happen is wrong. They had no foreknowledge of the plot. They may have had warning signs of terror attacks, but governments have a lot of warning signs of terror attacks. Even the FBI director who criticised the lack of action said there was no foreknowledge of 9/11. If this is evidence of anything, its poor communication and incompetence, not conspiracy, but we already know that the Bush administration is a very poor one.

This does nothing to prove the rest of the conspiracy theory either, the ideas of explosives etc. That's partly why the CT movement is so ridiculed by people like me. It has layers and layers and layers that keep getting more ridiculous. There seems to be an idea that because Bush is a numbskull, the whole thing is rigged. Often things are a lot simpler than that.

The government may be guilty of complacency or whatever, but that doesn't mean it murdered thousands of people with radio controlled planes, or exploding towers or whatever.

I realise that a lot of the truth movement hate bush, and want a stick to beat him with. I suggest you find a real stick, rather than trying to make one out of thin air and speculation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pikey
Banned
Banned


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Check out and discover some of the reasons why I believe the official version is the conspiracy theory:-

http://www.holisticharmony.net.au/ukprobe/pentagon.swf

_________________
Pikey

Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nist and the 9/11 commission have not proven themselves to be tested.. nist won't meet with truth scholars under ANY cirmcumstances and the the 9/11 commission haven't explained the able danger unit, insider trading..etc..

your side of the argument is no more falsifiable than ours

i believe the only reason you are still here is that you can't accept that there is truth to our claims.

like i've said before.. some of the evidence i've seen critics present is totally reasonable and should be taken into consideration, as should evidence on our side of the debate.. but the agressive and egotistical, self centred way you involve yourselves in the debate (jref particulary), causes offence and and prevents a totally democratic discussion from happening. not only is the offensive nature of your posts a problem, but it is apparent that jref is not able to consider anything other than his own opinion. i can't imagine jref's opinion on anything will ever be changed by anything.

i would like to continue to debate individual issues . but also i'd like to discuss with critics how i think that a realisation (or atleast a consideration) of the monopoly the global elite have over society, is essential to getting past this stalemate situation between 'us' and our critics..
unfotunately, if you can't even acknowlodge things like the collapse of wtc7 being atleast
visually very similar
to a controlled demoltion.. the existance and nature of able danger as being highly suspicious.. and if you believe that a 747 definately hit the pentagon... i don't see how any steps towards this line of conversation, will be anything other than fruitless.

_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TimmyG wrote:
nist and the 9/11 commission have not proven themselves to be tested.. nist won't meet with truth scholars under ANY cirmcumstances and the the 9/11 commission haven't explained the able danger unit, insider trading..etc..


NIST is made up of experts. Engineers, scientists...their conclusions have been published and peer reviewed by other engineers and scientists worldwide. To what purpose would NIST be inclined to meet these self proclaimed "scholars"? The days of scientists having to justify their conclusions to religious dogmatists is long past. And that's what your "scholars" are...high priests of the CT cult. What light could they possibly shed on anything?
Quote:

your side of the argument is no more falsifiable than ours

No, you merely refuse to accept the verification of the OS. You refer to the 9/11 commission as a "single-source" what it is is well documented and footnoted to include the various sources and expert opinions. Just because you refuse to see doesn't indicate anything beyond imparting the sure knowledge that you remain voluntarily blind.
Quote:

i believe the only reason you are still here is that you can't accept that there is truth to our claims.

Because it's been shown objectively and repeatedly that there isn't.
Quote:

like i've said before.. some of the evidence i've seen critics present is totally reasonable and should be taken into consideration, as should evidence on our side of the debate..

Besides innuendo and logical fallacy there is no substance...and clearly no evidence...to your claims.
Quote:

but the agressive and egotistical, self centred way you involve yourselves in the debate (jref particulary), causes offence and and prevents a totally democratic discussion from happening. not only is the offensive nature of your posts a problem, but it is apparent that jref is not able to consider anything other than his own opinion. i can't imagine jref's opinion on anything will ever be changed by anything.


That is your opinion. I have not been any more rude or arrogant than any truther has been to me. But I'm sure your bias is comfortable to you. Truthers=good...Jay Ref=bad. I've got the picture...
Quote:

i would like to continue to debate individual issues . but also i'd like to discuss with critics how i think that a realisation (or atleast a consideration) of the monopoly the global elite have over society, is essential to getting past this stalemate situation between 'us' and our critics..


Great, once you clearly define "Global Elite" we'll be getting somewhere. If you really want to discuss and debate individual issues you'll need to avoid sweeping generalizations and be specific.
Quote:

unfotunately, if you can't even acknowlodge things like the collapse of wtc7 being atleast
visually very similar
to a controlled demoltion.. the existance and nature of able danger as being highly suspicious.. and if you believe that a 747 definately hit the pentagon... i don't see how any steps towards this line of conversation, will be anything other than fruitless.


  • WTC7 and a CD are only similar in that gravity was involved. (Unless you can explain any further similarities) CD's aren't nailed by iron falling from other buildings and then left uncontrllably burning for many hours...
  • Able Danger is suspicious how exactly? Be specific...cite evidence.
  • A 747 has never been implicated in the Pentagon attack. The building was purportedly hit by AA flight 77. A Boeing 757. Material evidence for this abounds. A personal friend of mine was an EMT at the Pentagon on 9/11. She saw body portions and remains of AA flight crew uniforms...the aircraft parts (engines, avionics, landing gear) found at the site all match the B757.


Indeed, if you cannot show evidence for the CT in any of these areas then further conversation is fruitless.

-z

_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Why Can't Truthers Understand "Falsifiable"??? Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:


If this is evidence of anything, its poor communication and incompetence, not conspiracy




So we are back to the incompetence theory. If that is the case why was nobody in the FAA or NORAD ever sacked or publicly reprimanded over this gross incompetence.


Johnny Pixels wrote:


but we already know that the Bush administration is a very poor one.



At least we agree on something or are you being sarcastic?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i meant 757, sorry. i make no claims about the pentagon hit.. except that i haven't seen solid proof that a 757 hit it. i am totally willing to accept that one did.. i just haven't seen the evidence. body parts could have been those from pentagon workers. plane parts could have been planted. i'm not saying they were. i'm saying they could have been.


Quote:
Besides innuendo and logical fallacy there is no substance...and clearly no evidence...to your claims


this is the problem you see jref. you haven't been listening.. my claims are:
the collapse of wtc7 looks very much like a controlled demolition.. larry silverstiens comment is unusual.. further independent investigation into wtc7 is required. there is evidence in the form of videos.

able danger had information on the alleged hijackers prior to 9/11. this information was delibrately isolated. why? my claim is, this is suspicious activity that should be rigorously investigated.

it was reported that mahmoud ahmed wire transfered $100,000. according to you this has been debunked, but by whom? you have stated very clearly that it doesn't matter to you why was ahmed fired?
my claim is this is very suspicious activity which should be investigated.

there were many terror drills in action on 9/11. more than ever in one day. some of them involved hijacked jets. my claim is that this is very suspicious activity which needs to be investigated further.

condeliza rice and bush have both said publically that they had no idea attacks like 9/11 were being planned. bush said that his administration had never invisaged terrorists flying planes into buildings on 'such a massive scale'... both are outright lies. why are they lying to the public?
my claim is this is very suspicious activity which needs to be seriously investigated.

these things should have been investigated thoroughly before the us and the uk started killing people in the name of the war on terror.

these are my claims. there is evidence to support them


concerning wtc7. the kink, squibs and speed of collapse are very very similar to that of a controlled demolition. that is a reasonable observation to make.. you have said very clearly that it isn't.. which makes me think you are quite stupid

_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2651
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TimmyG et al
You can rehearse your arguments all you like - perhaps it's good practice, but be aware that these guys have been groomed to disrupt and undermine any argument relating to 9/11
They personally are not interested in your argument and you can't persuade them. They have a robotised response mechanism

Quote:
Like many tricksters, some of Randi's antics have caused problems for himself. He was forced to resign from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) because his accusations provoked lawsuits against hte Committee. One of the most publicized involved physicist Eldon Byrd, a friend of Uri Geller. On May 10, 1988 Randi made a presentation for the New York Area Skeptics in Manhattan. After his lecture, during the question and answer period, a member of the audience confronted him with a tape recording, which allegedly had Randi speaking in explicit sexual terms with young men (the recording was not played during the public meeting). I was present and watched as pandemonium almost broke out. Randi did not completely regain his composure. He accused Byrd of distributing the tape and went on to claim that Byrd was a child molester and that he was in prison. He made the same assertion in an interview with Twilight Zone Magazine. This was untrue, and in a jury trial he was found guilty of defaming Byrd.

Randi has never been married, but his sex life has received published comment regarding rumors of pederasty, including from a longtime friend James Moseley. Randi threatened lawsuits over them, but he never carried through.

James Moseley's newsletter, now titled Saucer Smear, is celebrating its 50th year. Moseley is an irritant to both debunkers and true believers, and likely closer to the truth than either camp. (In his personal position statement he writes that he regards aliens as "3 1/2-D, 4-D or 4 1/2-D entities [and] whatever this phenomenon is, it has been a permanent part of the earth's environment at least since the dawn of recorded history, and remains here now.") Mosely posted a link in his September, 2001 issue, which is no longer valid, to both a clip of the tape and its transcript. Moseley describes the tape as consiting of "several short telephone conversations, recorded many years ago from his own phone by the Amusing One himself. Randi appears to be soliciting sex from these several young men. The only dispute is in regard to the circumstances of the recording. We don't want to get back into all that, as Randi's lawyer is still permanently on our mailing list, ever since he tried to sue us several years ago." Two years earlier, Moseley recounted Randi's public explanation, that the tape had been made "under the direction of the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey, to entrap harassing obscene callers." Moseley adds that "many people with knowledge of the situation - including your Smear editor - believe Randi's explanation to be nonsense."

_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Why Can't Truthers Understand "Falsifiable"??? Reply with quote

scubadiver wrote:


Johnny Pixels wrote:


but we already know that the Bush administration is a very poor one.



At least we agree on something or are you being sarcastic?


No, contrary to your assumptions, I am not a Bush supporter. I think the guy is an idiot and a liability. He is not a mass murderer though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2651
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Why Can't Truthers Understand "Falsifiable"??? Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:

No, contrary to your assumptions, I am not a Bush supporter. I think the guy is an idiot and a liability. He is not a mass murderer though.


Oh Jeezus It's obvious he is, he is, he is
A puppet for sure, but a mass murderer he is he is he is
An ill-bred son of an elite family
yes that's a fair accusation
A Mass Murderer
This is in no way for you Johnny Pixels because you are set up to do a job

_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction


Last edited by paul wright on Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Why Can't Truthers Understand "Falsifiable"??? Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:
scubadiver wrote:


Johnny Pixels wrote:


but we already know that the Bush administration is a very poor one.



At least we agree on something or are you being sarcastic?


No, contrary to your assumptions, I am not a Bush supporter. I think the guy is an idiot and a liability. He is not a mass murderer though.


Since you haven't commented on my "competence theory" point, have I hit an Achilles heel I wonder?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So JP, any comment on why noone was ever sacked or publicly reprimanded?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TimmyG wrote:
i meant 757, sorry. i make no claims about the pentagon hit.. except that i haven't seen solid proof that a 757 hit it. i am totally willing to accept that one did.. i just haven't seen the evidence. body parts could have been those from pentagon workers. plane parts could have been planted. i'm not saying they were. i'm saying they could have been.


Quote:
Besides innuendo and logical fallacy there is no substance...and clearly no evidence...to your claims


this is the problem you see jref. you haven't been listening.. my claims are:
the collapse of wtc7 looks very much like a controlled demolition.. larry silverstiens comment is unusual.. further independent investigation into wtc7 is required. there is evidence in the form of videos.


Well my bud, this is your lucky day because an independent investigation into the collapses on 9/11 has been completed and results posted here.

Please peruse it and let me know what you think. Remember, address the evidence...whomever Brent Blanchard may or may not be related to is purely beside the point.

(snip)
Quote:


these are my claims. there is evidence to support them


well let's see it then. I have linked to the independent investigation you've been craving...do me a favor and link evidence for the other assertions you are making and how they can trump the info in the report I linked. Remember this though...if the CD is impossible...then the stuff from your list I snipped no longer has any relevance.

Quote:

concerning wtc7. the kink, squibs and speed of collapse are very very similar to that of a controlled demolition. that is a reasonable observation to make.. you have said very clearly that it isn't.. which makes me think you are quite stupid


If you read the expert's investigation you will see who's being silly and who ain't.

-z

_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scubadiver wrote:
So JP, any comment on why noone was ever sacked or publicly reprimanded?


And it would prove that 9/11 was an inside job if they weren't how? If they were trying to cover it up then wouldn't they have made some scapegoats? According to you they planned and executed the murder of over 3000 people, but can't knock up a few patsies?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:
scubadiver wrote:
So JP, any comment on why noone was ever sacked or publicly reprimanded?


If they were trying to cover it up then wouldn't they have made some scapegoats?


If there wasn't a cover-up, why would there be any need for scapegoats? Because the 9/11 Commission should have identified those people who were responsible. Convenient that wasn't in the remit. The 9/11 Commission report emphasised what I may call "across-the-board intelligence failures". Convenient wouldn't you say?

Also, if there was a miscommunication between NORAD and the FAA, then no doubt it would have referred to the usual SOP's of scrambling jets to intercept hijacked planes that didn't happen on 9/11 because these SOPs do not require Presidential approval yet the opposite was implied by Cheney on his "meet the press" slot.

So don't you think that miscommunication between NORAD and the FAA is the responsibility of those higher up in the chain of command?

DUH!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scubadiver wrote:
Johnny Pixels wrote:
scubadiver wrote:
So JP, any comment on why noone was ever sacked or publicly reprimanded?


If they were trying to cover it up then wouldn't they have made some scapegoats?


If there wasn't a cover-up, why would there be any need for scapegoats? Because the 9/11 Commission should have identified those people who were responsible. Convenient that wasn't in the remit. The 9/11 Commission report emphasised what I may call "across-the-board intelligence failures". Convenient wouldn't you say?

Also, if there was a miscommunication between NORAD and the FAA, then no doubt it would have referred to the usual SOP's of scrambling jets to intercept hijacked planes that didn't happen on 9/11 because these SOPs do not require Presidential approval yet the opposite was implied by Cheney on his "meet the press" slot.

So don't you think that miscommunication between NORAD and the FAA is the responsibility of those higher up in the chain of command?

DUH!


But no matter how high up the failure of miscommunication goes, it doesn't make 9/11 an inside job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jay Ref wrote:


If you read the expert's investigation you will see who's being silly and who ain't.

Please peruse it and let me know what you think. -z



Well, here is my response. This is my personal opinion mind.

This report doesn't have the rigour of a scientific, peer-reviewed journal that you keep going on about. I am sure the mention of Wile E Coyote will lessen the chances of publication considerably.

I had a look at www.implosionworld.com. I read the "about" page and it doesn't really tell me anything to be perfectly honest. If anything, this web site has the look of an exciting children's theme park that doesn't really deserve any attention.

So here are my personal opinions.


Quote:

These Seismographs recorded the events at ground zero, including the collapse of all three structures.


At least this author managed to even recognise that WTC7 collapsed! Unlike the 9/11 Commission Report.

Quote:

In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal process at ground zero.


I wouldn't say that the above makes this an independent piece of research, would you agree?


Quote:

Our teams took thousands of photos.


So what?


Quote:

Protec has been given access to thousands of personal photographs.


Doesn't mean to say they had to look at them.

It is also interesting the Controlled Demolition Incorporated is not listed, the same company that cleared up after the Oklahoma bombing. Sense of bias there I feel.


assertion 1 wrote:

This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of the structure


The 9/11 Commission ignored the testimony of William Rodrigues, other witnesses who heard a loud explosion in the basement and a witness who had the skin ripped off his arms because of the heat, so why can't Protec ignore the same evidence? Explosives in basements are used to destabilise.


assertion 1 wrote:

Close examination of these events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure from the lowest floors.


Its convenient that the twin towers were surrounded by 15 storey buildings. Maybe they didn't watch the video footage made by Rick Siegel who video's dust plumes coming from the base of one of the towers.

assertion 1 wrote:

There is no third choice that could adequately explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.


How about installing explosives at different levels and using remote control devices at the appropriate floor? Witnesses at different levels reported hearing explosions. Set the explosions off at the appropriate floor and let gravity do its job.

assertion 2 wrote:

They followed the path of least resistance


This I agree with but they conveniently forget that the towers collapsed in ten seconds. Assertion 2 in its entirety doesn't prove that explosives weren't used.

Maybe they didn't read this:

Preliminary tests show steel quality did not contribute to towers' collapse:

http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

assertion 3 wrote:

Air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward


Its interesting he doesn't mention "vent" or "machine rooms" (but that's beside the point). Out of 90-odd floors these plumes came out only a few times. I would have thought these plumes would have been more extensive given the weight of the concrete.

assertion 3 wrote:

Neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible?


The extent of the plumes suggest they came from deep within the building, means structural failure can't be witnessed.


assertion 4 wrote:

Eye witnesses heard explosions. Such statements do nothing to refute scientific evidence that explosives were not used.


The alleged explosions can be small enough not to register on seismographs. Pointless assertion, IMO.

assertion 5 wrote:

1. Comments made by rescue workers etc have no value


Does that refute the science and physical properties of metals?

assertion 5 wrote:

2. "Molten steel" photographs inconclusive. The photos we have reviewed indicate fires not enough to melt steel.


It couldn't have been kerosene fuel, not after five or six weeks, and its interesting they don't mention the possible origins of the fires if they are such experts in demolition. The website suggests they aren't really experts in anything.

assertion 5 wrote:

3. To a man they do not recall seeing evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during removal activities


To validate this statement, every person involved in clearing up would have to be interviewed.

assertion 5 wrote:

4. Contact with Steve Jones.


Its interesting that Blanchard doesn't treat Steve as a loony given the purpose of the article.

assertion 6 wrote:

Steel held in storage.


Got no qualms about this one, but does this prove that explosives weren't used?

assertion 7 wrote:

Decision to "pull" - the comment wouldn't have affected decisions at the scene


Unless you are extremely rich like Mr Silverstein !!!

assertion 7 wrote:

[WTC7] did not collapse in that manner anyway.


Footage of demolitions on www.implosionworld.com seems to suggest otherwise.

assertion 8 wrote:

Three buildings collapsed due to fire


They aren't very well educated in the properties of metals then!

assertion 9 wrote:

... Chuck Jones is drawing dynamite in the hands of Wile E Coyote.


Up until this sentence I may have considered this article to be a valid argument against explosives but the inclusion of cartoon characters doesn't make this document particularly serious

In conclusion the report states:

Quote:

"Asking the tough questions" isn't the biggest challenge; its accepting the answers and decisively moving on to other areas that render their contributions productive and valuable.


So you would regard that as a scientifically valid conclusion?

My conclusion?

This so-called piece of research is complete nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scubadiver wrote:


My conclusion?

This so-called piece of research is complete nonsense as far as I'm concerned.


Is that your expert opinion? Your final answer? Remember that any lurkers are very free to visit that site themselves and will evaluate the (half)truth movement's non-reponse to this expert evaluation.

You guys really ought to eliminate this section and ban us skeptics in a hurry. You've provided the gallows and rope from which to hang yourselves.

-z

_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jay Ref wrote:
scubadiver wrote:


My conclusion?

This so-called piece of research is complete nonsense as far as I'm concerned.


Is that your expert opinion? Your final answer? Remember that any lurkers are very free to visit that site themselves and will evaluate the (half)truth movement's non-reponse to this expert evaluation.

You guys really ought to eliminate this section and ban us skeptics in a hurry. You've provided the gallows and rope from which to hang yourselves.

-z


That is the measure of your response is it?

Obviously I can't prove it but I do have a Masters degree in Applied, Social and Market research which partly involves the critical analysis of ethical and scientifically valid research.

This so-called article won't even get published, especially after mentioning cartoon characters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

scubadiver wrote:
Jay Ref wrote:
scubadiver wrote:


My conclusion?

This so-called piece of research is complete nonsense as far as I'm concerned.


Is that your expert opinion? Your final answer? Remember that any lurkers are very free to visit that site themselves and will evaluate the (half)truth movement's non-reponse to this expert evaluation.

You guys really ought to eliminate this section and ban us skeptics in a hurry. You've provided the gallows and rope from which to hang yourselves.

-z


That is the measure of your response is it?

Obviously I can't prove it but I do have a Masters degree in Applied, Social and Market research which partly involves the critical analysis of ethical and scientifically valid research.

This so-called article won't even get published, especially after mentioning cartoon characters.


Right....and I'm the Queen Mum's grumpy ghost.

BOO!

_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jay Ref wrote:
scubadiver wrote:
Jay Ref wrote:
scubadiver wrote:


My conclusion?

This so-called piece of research is complete nonsense as far as I'm concerned.


Is that your expert opinion? Your final answer? Remember that any lurkers are very free to visit that site themselves and will evaluate the (half)truth movement's non-reponse to this expert evaluation.

You guys really ought to eliminate this section and ban us skeptics in a hurry. You've provided the gallows and rope from which to hang yourselves.

-z


That is the measure of your response is it?

Obviously I can't prove it but I do have a Masters degree in Applied, Social and Market research which partly involves the critical analysis of ethical and scientifically valid research.

This so-called article won't even get published, especially after mentioning cartoon characters.


Right....and I'm the Queen Mum's grumpy ghost.

BOO!


Same old response... this is getting so boring *yawn*

Resorting to personal insults shows you arent able to have a competent discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd like to give my answer to the topics title question;

Cos its a big word wiv too many virticol lines innit.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That picture you posted still makes me laugh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



What do you think? Right to left;

James Randi, Chipmunk stew, Gravy, Johnny Pixels and Jay Ref.

Whats that Jay Ref?

YOU FOUND BIN LADEN!!!

No, you just need to consider waxing. Its manly. Really.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scubadiver wrote:


Same old response... this is getting so boring *yawn*

Resorting to personal insults shows you arent able to have a competent discussion.


From this thread, where I get accused of being a bot:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15623#15623

Andrew Johnson wrote:
NSA Forum Posting Bot
BIOS Version 1.6
Booting….

Loading Current Issues Database...done
Loading User Data… done.
Loading Forum User Personalities…done.
Loading Target Forum URL’s…done.
Routing to Internet…done.
Loading Discussion Loop Profiles…done.
Determining Forum Software build...
Logging on to Forums………………………………………………done.
Accessing Forum Threads...
Initialisation successfully completed.

Current Status: Active

Press Ctrl-U to Access User Console.
=============================================
Discussion Loop ID 36712654 ... In progress
Profiling Discussion.
Discussion Loop ID 36712656 .... In progress
Target User Time-wasting strategies… Parsing and initiating.

etc etc


From this thread, where I get called a *:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16800#16800

The Watcher wrote:
Despite the fact that he is not in the same league as Jay Ref, Johnny is trying to make a name for himself,

53 BS posts in 24hrs

What a prize *.

Get a frickin' life, Johnny!


From this thread where I get told I am full of it:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=17064#17064

Mooter wrote:
Actually, being super-serious for a minute I do have this to say. I am not a construction engineer of any kind but I have read the document from implosion world and I have to say, it is rather lame. Also, can't you maybe supply any other material to back up your claims?

With reference to an earlier comment about people here only being able to deal with non-sciencey people. I have yet to see many sciencey people posting questions on this board that are then willing to have a reasoned discussion about the questions. JP, you claim to be an engineer but then you resort to insults and such the like once you hear something you don't like. Anyone caring to take a quick look at the (many) posts you have made on this forum can see that really you are just full of sh*t!


From this thread where I get called a liar and my degree is questioned:
[url]
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16729#16729[/url]

[quote="Snowygrouch]You're rumbled my friend.

You should have been able to answer that immidaiately.

Instead you`ve given youself a get out clause of ANY technical questioning.

I have no interest in discussions with those who mislead others deliberately.

Goodbye.

PS try to find the reciept for that degree chap, I`d get a refund if I were you.[/quote]


Personal insults eh?

_________________

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would you like us to go through all the posts of you and your 'friends' to examine the nonsense we've had to take off of you?

If you dont like it here and you feel your not wanted/getting upset/not being loved like you would round Randi's place, then, i guess you know what i'm going to say right?

*...AWAY...OFF.

If you come here and instigate those kinds of responses by spamming the place with your logic defying OCT garbage then what do you expect?
Flowers?

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group