| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:57 pm Post subject: The Major Mistakes |
 |
|
After having engaged in countless arguments about minor details of the 9/11 attacks, and pointing out the same logical fallacies over and over, I felt it was time to compile a list of mistakes that are at the very foundation of the "truth" movement. All the talk about "free-fall" and "natural blast furnaces" and "pulling" buildings amounts to nothing if the very basis of the CT ideas is flawed.
Generally, it seems that all the CT'ists have in common is a belief in an "inside job", either "MIHOP" or "LIHOP". It is my contention that everything they base this belief on is flawed in one way or another. Following is a list of the major mistakes often made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists that lead them to conclude it was an "inside job".
1. No Hypothesis
In trying to decide whether something is true or not, the best method is to formulate a hypothesis, then ask yourself, "What would the world look like if my hypothesis is correct?" as well as, "What would the world look like if my hypothesis is wrong?" You then know what to test for and what evidence to gather that would help answer both questions.
Not only has the truth movement neglected to follow through on this step, they have skipped it entirely. There IS no hypothesis to support. By this I not only mean there is no single, unified idea that everyone can get behind, but NO ONE in the truth movement, not ONE SINGLE individual (at least, none I've talked to, and I've talked to a lot of them), has a hypothesis! I personally believe this is because any hypothesis that is clearly spelled out will make them sound foolish, if not downright insane.
"Truthers" respond to this by saying it's their job to ASK questions, not answer them. It's up to someone else to conduct an investigation. That's fine, if that's what you want to do, but for heaven's sake, stop calling it a TRUTH movement if you aren't trying to learn the truth!
2. Confusion about what is verifiable
As any rational person knows, not all ideas are equally verifiable as being true or not. The statement "2 + 2 = 4" is clearly verifiable and cannot be rationally disputed, but the statement "there is truth in beauty" is so subjective as to be meaningless. In between these two extremes lies a vast spectrum of ideas that range from completely objective to a mere matter of opinion. A few examples of what is verifiable and what is not demonstrate how this relates the the "truth" movement:
Verifiable: The average force generated by the collapsing top section of Tower 1 exerted on the lower section; the maximum tolerances of the still-intact lower section.
Less verifiable: The exact extent of the damage, the exact temperature at every point in the damaged section.
Even less verifiable: The exact nature of the materials that produced certain common chemicals found at the site and in the dust cloud.
Absolutely unverifiable: The predicted behavior of government servants and officials when faced with an unprecedented catastrophe.
"Truthers" seem to think that the calculations made by structural engineers, which they make ALL THE TIME in their work and which have a proven track record, are simply a matter of opinion and can be proved wrong by competing calculations made by less-qualified individuals. At the same time, they believe that the actions and motivations of individual human beings follow strict, predictable laws. Government officials are always greedy and power-hungry and will do anything to support their interests, Islamic fundamentalists live in caves and are too stupid to plan elaborate attacks, George Bush's hesitation in the classroom is PROOF that he knew about the attacks beforehand, anyone who criticizes the truth movement is a government shill -- none of these things follow from the evidence. The actions of ONE person can't be predicted, and it is sheer folly to suggest that whole groups will always behave the way you expect them to.
3. Unwarranted Extrapolation
How do "truthers" know that the WTC towers shouldn't have fallen the way they did, and that flight 93 should have left larger pieces of debris and recognizable bodies? Easy -- they look at similar, smaller-scale phenomena and they scale up. Just like in the movies, where a gorilla can grow to the size of a house and still be as agile as a normal-sized ape.
Wrong. When phenomena are scaled up or down, their properties can change dramatically. Imagine, for instance, a building that is 500 feet tall, 50 feet square at the base, and weighs one million pounds. If you built a building twice as big - 1000 feet tall and 100 feet on a side -- it would weight twice as much, right?
Wrong. It would weigh TEN TIMES as much, unless you plan to increase the empty space in the building proportionally (by making the ceilings twice as tall, for instance). Right away, that tells you that the same structure that worked for the first building wouldn't necessarily work for the second one, it needs to be ten times as strong. This means either adding more structure or totally rethinking the design. It's easy to see here that scaling up introduces a whole host of problems for the builders, and would, of course, completely change the way the building behaved in a catastrophe.
4. Applying Common Sense to Uncommon Situations
Common sense is useful in everyday living. That's because it helps us face the sorts of problems that we're likely to face in the course of an ordinary day.
Common sense, however, fails woefully where ever extreme conditions exist. Nothing in our everyday lives enables us to understand the forces involved in the deceleration of a fast-moving airliner hitting the ground, for instance. Most people can only imagine the complexities involved in the activities of large organizations such as the FAA, NORAD, or the various branches of government. Common sense, unfortunately, leads us to believe we have a firm grasp on these things, and we make our judgements based on what is essentially an illusion.
Common sense tells us that the fastest way to deliver a package is to take it from point A to point B, but Federal Express would tell you otherwise. Common sense tells us that a repairman should be able to tell you the exact time he will be at your house, but the repairman, who has no way of predicting how long repairs will take, would disagree. In short, common sense leads us to oversimplify situations where we don't have the information to make an informed judgement. We all want to understand what's going on, but that's not always possible. It's important to keep an open mind to the possibility that what we THINK is happening is not necessarily likely to happen.
Well, that's the four big mistakes that I usually come across. If anyone sees anything I've missed or finds error in my logic, then I'd be happy to hear from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The need for 2) makes 1) imposssible without speculation, which advocates of 2) would then distort the debate with. 3) is fully reversable and 4) is always relative
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | The need for 2) makes 1) imposssible without speculation, |
So speculate. Come up with a hypothesis. See if it hold water. If it doesn't, try again.
| Quote: | | which advocates of 2) would then distort the debate with. 3) is fully reversable |
What do you mean by "reversable"?
| Quote: | | and 4) is always relative |
I suppose so...what is "common sense" to a qualified structural engineer is closer to reality than "common sense" to, say, a college film student, at least when it comes to structural design and tolerances. That's why I tend to trust people when what they are commenting on is part of THEIR everyday lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just remembered one more:
5. Looks Can Be Deceiving
Just because something looks, sounds, or smells like something, doesn't mean it IS that something. There are many things in this world that look superficially like other things, but are not related in any way. Dust clouds and pyroclastic flows, for instance, look very similar, but not only have very different properties, they have different causes as well.
Other examples:
1. All that goes BANG is not an explosive device.
2. A building that falls straight down was not necessarily imploded just because all imploded buildings fall straight down.
3. Not all hot, glowing metal substances are melted steel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: | | The need for 2) makes 1) imposssible without speculation, |
So speculate. Come up with a hypothesis. See if it hold water. If it doesn't, try again. |
Where's my motivation to speculate with you? I have Illusions to speculate into infinity with
| Quote: | | which advocates of 2) would then distort the debate with. 3) is fully reversable |
you dont pull me up on 2) I notice
| Quote: | | What do you mean by "reversable"? |
Now are you seriously telling me the Offical Story doesnt contain massive extrapolations? there's "fully reversable" for you: and theres deeper levels of that too
| Quote: | | Quote: | | and 4) is always relative |
I suppose so...what is "common sense" to a qualified structural engineer is closer to reality than "common sense" to, say, a college film student, at least when it comes to structural design and tolerances. That's why I tend to trust people when what they are commenting on is part of THEIR everyday lives. |
Your in the "cult of experts" if you seriously believe that. The findings and theories of experts have to stand up as practical answers that answer the balance of probabilites before they should be accepted as credible. They rarely do: and with 9/11 the whoppers from the "experts" have been huge indeed. Why should I defer to an "expert" with a theory that doesnt make sense of all my questions? No reason at all, unless I want my thinking done for me: and in many areas of life I do. I dont question what consitiutes expert healthy eating advice for example. But I know that is me giving permission to that expert to give me their advice: I have the power of my own mind, and I give or recind it at my own whim. I owe the expert nothing automatically
Not the first time I've come across people like yourself though aggle-rythm. Bias towards accepting the pronouncments of experts over one's own sense of judgement is a typical product of the university indoctrination system. This instills a logical left-brain reality model that its utterly inadequate for really grasping the nature of the psyche and the motivating factors that shape the world...which is why left brain thinking is so easy to manipulate, and so prefered by the system... deference to authority is a valued characteristic in those selected to administer on behalf of that authority
Which is why yesterday I commented that the JREF members show little ability for critical thinking (with at least one notable exception)... but a great ability in thinking critical of anything that threatens the pronouncements of the status quo...its a conditioned reflex btw. Randi has led you all up a blind alley as far as I'm concerned. The Tibetans call it "the error of the intellect"
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Where's my motivation to speculate with you? I have Illusions to speculate into infinity with
|
If you're not motivated to formulate a hypothesis about what happened on 9/11, then it seems a little silly to make excuses about why it can't be done.
| Quote: |
Now are you seriously telling me the Offical Story doesnt contain massive extrapolations?
|
I never said that extrapolations were invalid, just UNWARRANTED extrapolations. What unwarranted extrapolations does the so-called "official story" make?
| Quote: |
Your in the "cult of experts" if you seriously believe that. The findings and theories of experts have to stand up as practical answers that answer the balance of probabilites before they should be accepted as credible. They rarely do: and with 9/11 the whoppers from the "experts" have been huge indeed. |
Wait a minute. You're trying to tell me that the findings and theories of qualified structural engineers rarely "stand up as practical answers that answer the balance of probabilities?"
Really?
REALLY?
This is your position, then?
When was the last time you were in a building that collapsed out of the blue? Do you think it's LUCK that makes them so reliable?
| Quote: |
Not the first time I've come across people like yourself though aggle-rythm. Bias towards accepting the pronouncments of experts over one's own sense of judgement is a typical product of the university indoctrination system.
|
I can see how an expert's opinion may be in error. However, why would the opinion of a non-expert be considered MORE valid? I mean, if you can't trust the word of the ONLY people who know what they're talking about, then how could you believe anything?
| Quote: |
Which is why yesterday I commented that the JREF members show little ability for critical thinking (with at least one notable exception)... but a great ability in thinking critical of anything that threatens the pronouncements of the status quo...its a conditioned reflex btw. Randi has led you all up a blind alley as far as I'm concerned. The Tibetans call it "the error of the intellect"
|
"Appeal to Eastern Thinking" -- one of my favorite fallacies! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your not looking in a good position to comment on others mistakes when your not understanding your own Aggle-Rythm. There's thread after thread on this forum about all of your points, go find an answer there
(Again btw, you didnt refute "which advocates of 2) would then distort the debate with" in your call for speculation)
| Quote: | | "Appeal to Eastern Thinking" -- one of my favorite fallacies! |
Prideful response to a challenge to your own "sacred dogma" (Hail Randi!)
I'll stick to the path of "Self Liberation though seeing with naked awareness" thanks. Its a cracking view
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Bias towards accepting the pronouncments of experts over one's own sense of judgement is a typical product of the university indoctrination system. This instills a logical left-brain reality model that its utterly inadequate for really grasping the nature of the psyche and the motivating factors that shape the world...
|
But when it comes to calculating the number and type of demolition charges required to bring down a 100+ storey building who/what would you look to John White? Your 'sense of judgement' ? Or so-called experts who have performed this kind of work for years? And wouldn't those experts need to be highly qualified and with a well-proven track record?
A mundane little question, I realise, but a very practical one for any would-be mass-murdering conspiracist.
That covering up the outcome would come down to manipulating the psyche of the masses, I wouldn't disagree with for a moment. But they have to get to that position before it becomes an issue.
And this is where your approach to the whole debate appears dishonest. You seem to have a belief in 911 CT. You seem to believe that most people are duped/manipulated into believing the official explanation. That's perfectly acceptable as far as it goes. But what isn't acceptable is that at no point do you give even a summary of how the first objective of the CT was achieved - the violent and total destruction of huge buildings.
Adapt it and refine that summary in the light of the debate that follows, by all means. Continue to refine it until you end up with a plausible and coherent method by which the TT were brought down - nobody could object to that process.
Why are you so reluctant to do so?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: | | The need for 2) makes 1) imposssible without speculation, |
So speculate. Come up with a hypothesis. See if it hold water. If it doesn't, try again. |
Where's my motivation to speculate with you? I have Illusions to speculate into infinity with
| Quote: | | which advocates of 2) would then distort the debate with. 3) is fully reversable |
you dont pull me up on 2) I notice
| Quote: | | What do you mean by "reversable"? |
Now are you seriously telling me the Offical Story doesnt contain massive extrapolations? there's "fully reversable" for you: and theres deeper levels of that too
| Quote: | | Quote: | | and 4) is always relative |
I suppose so...what is "common sense" to a qualified structural engineer is closer to reality than "common sense" to, say, a college film student, at least when it comes to structural design and tolerances. That's why I tend to trust people when what they are commenting on is part of THEIR everyday lives. |
Your in the "cult of experts" if you seriously believe that. The findings and theories of experts have to stand up as practical answers that answer the balance of probabilites before they should be accepted as credible. They rarely do: and with 9/11 the whoppers from the "experts" have been huge indeed. Why should I defer to an "expert" with a theory that doesnt make sense of all my questions? No reason at all, unless I want my thinking done for me: and in many areas of life I do. I dont question what consitiutes expert healthy eating advice for example. But I know that is me giving permission to that expert to give me their advice: I have the power of my own mind, and I give or recind it at my own whim. I owe the expert nothing automatically
Not the first time I've come across people like yourself though aggle-rythm. Bias towards accepting the pronouncments of experts over one's own sense of judgement is a typical product of the university indoctrination system. This instills a logical left-brain reality model that its utterly inadequate for really grasping the nature of the psyche and the motivating factors that shape the world...which is why left brain thinking is so easy to manipulate, and so prefered by the system... deference to authority is a valued characteristic in those selected to administer on behalf of that authority
Which is why yesterday I commented that the JREF members show little ability for critical thinking (with at least one notable exception)... but a great ability in thinking critical of anything that threatens the pronouncements of the status quo...its a conditioned reflex btw. Randi has led you all up a blind alley as far as I'm concerned. The Tibetans call it "the error of the intellect" |
Well, that's just all kinds of stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Bias towards accepting the pronouncments of experts over one's own sense of judgement is a typical product of the university indoctrination system. This instills a logical left-brain reality model that its utterly inadequate for really grasping the nature of the psyche and the motivating factors that shape the world...
|
But when it comes to calculating the number and type of demolition charges required to bring down a 100+ storey building who/what would you look to John White? Your 'sense of judgement' ? Or so-called experts who have performed this kind of work for years? And wouldn't those experts need to be highly qualified and with a well-proven track record?
A mundane little question, I realise, but a very practical one for any would-be mass-murdering conspiracist.
That covering up the outcome would come down to manipulating the psyche of the masses, I wouldn't disagree with for a moment. But they have to get to that position before it becomes an issue.
And this is where your approach to the whole debate appears dishonest. You seem to have a belief in 911 CT. You seem to believe that most people are duped/manipulated into believing the official explanation. That's perfectly acceptable as far as it goes. But what isn't acceptable is that at no point do you give even a summary of how the first objective of the CT was achieved - the violent and total destruction of huge buildings.
Adapt it and refine that summary in the light of the debate that follows, by all means. Continue to refine it until you end up with a plausible and coherent method by which the TT were brought down - nobody could object to that process.
Why are you so reluctant to do so? |
Caught in your own fruit-loop there. No "expert" in the world has CD'd a building over 50 stories, for example
Then again no expert in the world has come forward with a credible explanation for how a jet fuel fire caused a pancake collapse. Failing floor truses bolted and welded? What about the core? The first attempt at an official version denied it existed! Fire ball down to the lobby? The elevator shafts dont connect. The reason for the molten metal in the basement? (which no critics deny). This week Ive been treated to "it looks like a pyroclastic flow, but isnt" (what a gem!)
Thats why I call critics co-incidence theorists. The number of co-incidencesrequired to defend the offical story are enormous...the co-incidences required for the freak failure of so much of the structure all at the same time
More to the point, I've yet to see any critic refute that the 9/11 commission was a whitewash following the release of "press for truth". We ALL know why: it cant be done.
I say, get with the campaign: we havnt had a proper investigation, democracy is being gutted, and the military industrial complex bangs the drums of War. Support the call for a new investigation. Stop trying to construct theories to explain what, being intellectually honest, we equally all know we cant get the data to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt WITHOUT the ability to do a real investigation which can get at the filesand put people under oath + polygraph test. Put your energy into communicating to others what the solid problems with the official story ARE. I know you have doubts
| Quote: | | That covering up the outcome would come down to manipulating the psyche of the masses, I wouldn't disagree with for a moment. But they have to get to that position before it becomes an issue. |
boy are you pawned there
| Quote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
| Quote: | Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all” ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7).
|
|
I thought it was critics who were supposed to know how to "ask the right questions?"
Obviously not
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | | John White wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: | | The need for 2) makes 1) imposssible without speculation, |
So speculate. Come up with a hypothesis. See if it hold water. If it doesn't, try again. |
Where's my motivation to speculate with you? I have Illusions to speculate into infinity with
| Quote: | | which advocates of 2) would then distort the debate with. 3) is fully reversable |
you dont pull me up on 2) I notice
| Quote: | | What do you mean by "reversable"? |
Now are you seriously telling me the Offical Story doesnt contain massive extrapolations? there's "fully reversable" for you: and theres deeper levels of that too
| Quote: | | Quote: | | and 4) is always relative |
I suppose so...what is "common sense" to a qualified structural engineer is closer to reality than "common sense" to, say, a college film student, at least when it comes to structural design and tolerances. That's why I tend to trust people when what they are commenting on is part of THEIR everyday lives. |
Your in the "cult of experts" if you seriously believe that. The findings and theories of experts have to stand up as practical answers that answer the balance of probabilites before they should be accepted as credible. They rarely do: and with 9/11 the whoppers from the "experts" have been huge indeed. Why should I defer to an "expert" with a theory that doesnt make sense of all my questions? No reason at all, unless I want my thinking done for me: and in many areas of life I do. I dont question what consitiutes expert healthy eating advice for example. But I know that is me giving permission to that expert to give me their advice: I have the power of my own mind, and I give or recind it at my own whim. I owe the expert nothing automatically
Not the first time I've come across people like yourself though aggle-rythm. Bias towards accepting the pronouncments of experts over one's own sense of judgement is a typical product of the university indoctrination system. This instills a logical left-brain reality model that its utterly inadequate for really grasping the nature of the psyche and the motivating factors that shape the world...which is why left brain thinking is so easy to manipulate, and so prefered by the system... deference to authority is a valued characteristic in those selected to administer on behalf of that authority
Which is why yesterday I commented that the JREF members show little ability for critical thinking (with at least one notable exception)... but a great ability in thinking critical of anything that threatens the pronouncements of the status quo...its a conditioned reflex btw. Randi has led you all up a blind alley as far as I'm concerned. The Tibetans call it "the error of the intellect" |
Well, that's just all kinds of stupid. |
Prove it: or is that just a "statement of faith?"
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Caught in your own fruit-loop there. No "expert" in the world has CD'd a building over 50 stories, for example
|
It's not my loop, it's yours. I don't believe it was CD.
So how did the conspirators achieve these 'firsts'? The application of general principles? Where were those principles learned, if not commercial CD? Would they have recruited a CD expert/s to advise?
If you get an independant re-enquiry will you want to see demolition experts giving testimony?
Vulcanologists?
Concrete technologists?
You'll want the very best. How will the best be selected?
Or do you not intend to deal with the physical evidence at all?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | So how did the conspirators achieve these 'firsts'? The application of general principles? Where were those principles learned, if not commercial CD? Would they have recruited a CD expert/s to advise?
If you get an independant re-enquiry will you want to see demolition experts giving testimony?
Vulcanologists?
Concrete technologists?
You'll want the very best. How will the best be selected?
Or do you not intend to deal with the physical evidence at all? |
What skeptics, the great font of "common sense", can't answer simple questions like that themselves?
Ignored on Zelicow's expertise I notice
I wonder why?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | So how did the conspirators achieve these 'firsts'? The application of general principles? Where were those principles learned, if not commercial CD? Would they have recruited a CD expert/s to advise?
If you get an independant re-enquiry will you want to see demolition experts giving testimony?
Vulcanologists?
Concrete technologists?
You'll want the very best. How will the best be selected?
Or do you not intend to deal with the physical evidence at all? |
What skeptics, the great font of "common sense", can't answer simple questions like that themselves?
Ignored on Zelicow's expertise I notice
I wonder why? |
Given your stated opinion of "expert opinion" I'd like to know whether you'd call expert scientific witnesses at the proposed re-investigation.
You avoid answering. I can't give it for you as that in itself would be improperly putting words in your mouth (as I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate to point out)
So what's your answer?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Caught in your own fruit-loop there. No "expert" in the world has CD'd a building over 50 stories, for example
Then again no expert in the world has come forward with a credible explanation for how a jet fuel fire caused a pancake collapse. |
I think I need to compile another list of WILLFUL errors made by proponents of the conspiracy theory. These are logical errors, deliberately applied. Such as the one perpetrated here: Pretending that jet fuel fire was the ONLY factor in the collapse of the buildings, when you know as well as I that the jet fuel only STARTED a larger fire, which was compounded by the heavy damage to the structure and the fire-protection system. It's hard to believe how often this tactic is still being used despite being repeatedly exposed as bogus.
(By the way, NIST disagrees with the pancake theory, although the distinction is difficult for the layman to make. According to their report, the pancaking effect was a symptom of the collapse, not the cause of it. ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Your not looking in a good position to comment on others mistakes when your not understanding your own Aggle-Rythm. There's thread after thread on this forum about all of your points, go find an answer there
|
This is another common tactic of CTer's, I've noticed. Instead of answering a simple question, they claim they've already answered it, and refer you to a vague source in which the answer can be found somewhere. If I come back with, "I can't find it," the response will be, "Keep looking", thus putting an end to any fruitful discussion.
Which, if you're a "truther", is exactly the outcome you want. Your participation in a fruitful discussion can only hurt your case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | John White wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: | | The need for 2) makes 1) imposssible without speculation, |
So speculate. Come up with a hypothesis. See if it hold water. If it doesn't, try again. |
Where's my motivation to speculate with you? I have Illusions to speculate into infinity with
| Quote: | | which advocates of 2) would then distort the debate with. 3) is fully reversable |
you dont pull me up on 2) I notice
| Quote: | | What do you mean by "reversable"? |
Now are you seriously telling me the Offical Story doesnt contain massive extrapolations? there's "fully reversable" for you: and theres deeper levels of that too
| Quote: | | Quote: | | and 4) is always relative |
I suppose so...what is "common sense" to a qualified structural engineer is closer to reality than "common sense" to, say, a college film student, at least when it comes to structural design and tolerances. That's why I tend to trust people when what they are commenting on is part of THEIR everyday lives. |
Your in the "cult of experts" if you seriously believe that. The findings and theories of experts have to stand up as practical answers that answer the balance of probabilites before they should be accepted as credible. They rarely do: and with 9/11 the whoppers from the "experts" have been huge indeed. Why should I defer to an "expert" with a theory that doesnt make sense of all my questions? No reason at all, unless I want my thinking done for me: and in many areas of life I do. I dont question what consitiutes expert healthy eating advice for example. But I know that is me giving permission to that expert to give me their advice: I have the power of my own mind, and I give or recind it at my own whim. I owe the expert nothing automatically
Not the first time I've come across people like yourself though aggle-rythm. Bias towards accepting the pronouncments of experts over one's own sense of judgement is a typical product of the university indoctrination system. This instills a logical left-brain reality model that its utterly inadequate for really grasping the nature of the psyche and the motivating factors that shape the world...which is why left brain thinking is so easy to manipulate, and so prefered by the system... deference to authority is a valued characteristic in those selected to administer on behalf of that authority
Which is why yesterday I commented that the JREF members show little ability for critical thinking (with at least one notable exception)... but a great ability in thinking critical of anything that threatens the pronouncements of the status quo...its a conditioned reflex btw. Randi has led you all up a blind alley as far as I'm concerned. The Tibetans call it "the error of the intellect" |
Well, that's just all kinds of stupid. |
Prove it: or is that just a "statement of faith?" |
Get your own house in order. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Caught in your own fruit-loop there. No "expert" in the world has CD'd a building over 50 stories, for example
Then again no expert in the world has come forward with a credible explanation for how a jet fuel fire caused a pancake collapse. |
I think I need to compile another list of WILLFUL errors made by proponents of the conspiracy theory. These are logical errors, deliberately applied. Such as the one perpetrated here: Pretending that jet fuel fire was the ONLY factor in the collapse of the buildings, when you know as well as I that the jet fuel only STARTED a larger fire, which was compounded by the heavy damage to the structure and the fire-protection system. It's hard to believe how often this tactic is still being used despite being repeatedly exposed as bogus.
(By the way, NIST disagrees with the pancake theory, although the distinction is difficult for the layman to make. According to their report, the pancaking effect was a symptom of the collapse, not the cause of it. ) |
Oh really? Which experts did they refute to do that then?
(heavily ironic laughter)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jsut_peopel wrote: | | John White wrote: | | jsut_peopel wrote: | | John White wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: | | The need for 2) makes 1) imposssible without speculation, |
So speculate. Come up with a hypothesis. See if it hold water. If it doesn't, try again. |
Where's my motivation to speculate with you? I have Illusions to speculate into infinity with
| Quote: | | which advocates of 2) would then distort the debate with. 3) is fully reversable |
you dont pull me up on 2) I notice
| Quote: | | What do you mean by "reversable"? |
Now are you seriously telling me the Offical Story doesnt contain massive extrapolations? there's "fully reversable" for you: and theres deeper levels of that too
| Quote: | | Quote: | | and 4) is always relative |
I suppose so...what is "common sense" to a qualified structural engineer is closer to reality than "common sense" to, say, a college film student, at least when it comes to structural design and tolerances. That's why I tend to trust people when what they are commenting on is part of THEIR everyday lives. |
Your in the "cult of experts" if you seriously believe that. The findings and theories of experts have to stand up as practical answers that answer the balance of probabilites before they should be accepted as credible. They rarely do: and with 9/11 the whoppers from the "experts" have been huge indeed. Why should I defer to an "expert" with a theory that doesnt make sense of all my questions? No reason at all, unless I want my thinking done for me: and in many areas of life I do. I dont question what consitiutes expert healthy eating advice for example. But I know that is me giving permission to that expert to give me their advice: I have the power of my own mind, and I give or recind it at my own whim. I owe the expert nothing automatically
Not the first time I've come across people like yourself though aggle-rythm. Bias towards accepting the pronouncments of experts over one's own sense of judgement is a typical product of the university indoctrination system. This instills a logical left-brain reality model that its utterly inadequate for really grasping the nature of the psyche and the motivating factors that shape the world...which is why left brain thinking is so easy to manipulate, and so prefered by the system... deference to authority is a valued characteristic in those selected to administer on behalf of that authority
Which is why yesterday I commented that the JREF members show little ability for critical thinking (with at least one notable exception)... but a great ability in thinking critical of anything that threatens the pronouncements of the status quo...its a conditioned reflex btw. Randi has led you all up a blind alley as far as I'm concerned. The Tibetans call it "the error of the intellect" |
Well, that's just all kinds of stupid. |
Prove it: or is that just a "statement of faith?" |
Get your own house in order. |
Uh-huh. Well theres a fella out of his depth without a flotation device
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: | Your not looking in a good position to comment on others mistakes when your not understanding your own Aggle-Rythm. There's thread after thread on this forum about all of your points, go find an answer there
|
This is another common tactic of CTer's, I've noticed. Instead of answering a simple question, they claim they've already answered it, and refer you to a vague source in which the answer can be found somewhere. If I come back with, "I can't find it," the response will be, "Keep looking", thus putting an end to any fruitful discussion.
Which, if you're a "truther", is exactly the outcome you want. Your participation in a fruitful discussion can only hurt your case. |
Your right Aggle-rythm. It is what Coincidence Theorists do.
Why look at yourself and your own assumptions at the start of this thread
The only reason you want me to dance your dance is becuase you wish to set the tempo. Having already exposed more than a few blatent blind spots in "the critics" on this thread, it should be clear to you I dance to my own rythm
Quid pro quo: you get serious about addressing my points and I'll consider addressing yours more in the manner of your expectations
Best offer your going to get: and why?
Becuase a dialogues foundation is built upon trust
| Quote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
| Quote: | Prof. Zelikow's area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions,” which he defines as “beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." In his academic work and elsewhere he has taken a special interest in what he has called “‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events [that] take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene. In the United States, beliefs about the formation of the nation and the Constitution remain powerful today, as do beliefs about slavery and the Civil War. World War II, Vietnam, and the civil rights struggle are more recent examples.” He has noted that “a history’s narrative power is typically linked to how readers relate to the actions of individuals in the history; if readers cannot make a connection to their own lives, then a history may fail to engage them at all” ("Thinking about Political History," Miller Center Report [Winter 1999], pp. 5-7).
|
|
Lets start with why this guy was chosen as Executive director of the 9/11 commission, shall we?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | John White wrote: | | Quote: | So how did the conspirators achieve these 'firsts'? The application of general principles? Where were those principles learned, if not commercial CD? Would they have recruited a CD expert/s to advise?
If you get an independant re-enquiry will you want to see demolition experts giving testimony?
Vulcanologists?
Concrete technologists?
You'll want the very best. How will the best be selected?
Or do you not intend to deal with the physical evidence at all? |
What skeptics, the great font of "common sense", can't answer simple questions like that themselves?
Ignored on Zelicow's expertise I notice
I wonder why? |
Given your stated opinion of "expert opinion" I'd like to know whether you'd call expert scientific witnesses at the proposed re-investigation.
You avoid answering. I can't give it for you as that in itself would be improperly putting words in your mouth (as I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate to point out)
So what's your answer? |
I'll indulge you. Draw on qualified person's in their feild chosen from around the world, at least one from each member state of the UN security council, with the 9/11 families having a veto if they can show conflict of interest. They want the truth more than anyone so there in the best position to arbitrate. Should be relatively fair
'Course thats just an individual opinion 
Rearrange these words to make a logical sentance:
Up In Organise Cant A Brewery P*ss Critics Evidently
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
I'll indulge you. Draw on qualified person's in their feild chosen from around the world, at least one from each member state of the UN security council, with the 9/11 families having a veto if they can show conflict of interest. They want the truth more than anyone so there in the best position to arbitrate. Should be relatively fair
'Course thats just an individual opinion
Rearrange these words to make a logical sentance:
Up In Organise Cant A Brewery P*ss Critics Evidently |
If you seriously think that any US administration, even Democrat, would have a mass of Russian and Chinese experts sitting in judgement on 9/11 issues then you might well be better off back over at Malvern Messages talking to yourself.
The setup you propose is exactly the technique you attack among the manipulators. Create an investigation that is as confused and debatable as possible, then spin. You have no wish to see an answer to the 9/11 questions, you simply wish the debate to continue forever so you can continue to lead your paltry band of sad acolytes. Power, and a very poor version at that. The power of the clairvoyant over their devotees, the local Citizen Smith, some minor ...
The apparent veneer of reason overlying your fundamental mysticism is very thin and cracked. Let's stop having these little chats shall we? There's no "trust" in you over here on my side.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh so at least you looked at my little local info site huh?
If you dont want to talk to me Ignatz its easy enough for you not to come to this site anymore: otherwise your rather stuck, arn't you? 
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | John White wrote: |
I'll indulge you. Draw on qualified person's in their feild chosen from around the world, at least one from each member state of the UN security council, with the 9/11 families having a veto if they can show conflict of interest. They want the truth more than anyone so there in the best position to arbitrate. Should be relatively fair
'Course thats just an individual opinion
Rearrange these words to make a logical sentance:
Up In Organise Cant A Brewery P*ss Critics Evidently |
If you seriously think that any US administration, even Democrat, would have a mass of Russian and Chinese experts sitting in judgement on 9/11 issues then you might well be better off back over at Malvern Messages talking to yourself.
The setup you propose is exactly the technique you attack among the manipulators. Create an investigation that is as confused and debatable as possible, then spin. You have no wish to see an answer to the 9/11 questions, you simply wish the debate to continue forever so you can continue to lead your paltry band of sad acolytes. Power, and a very poor version at that. The power of the clairvoyant over their devotees, the local Citizen Smith, some minor ...
The apparent veneer of reason overlying your fundamental mysticism is very thin and cracked. Let's stop having these little chats shall we? There's no "trust" in you over here on my side. |
Without getting into an argument about specific points (which I'm not going to do on this topic) it is surely obvious by now that the 911 Commission was so hobbled as to produce an essentially worthless report that saw no responsibilities lacking in anyone, anywhere.
It will take an extraordinary step - such as an international Commission - to have even a hope of instituting any trust in another one.
And another one there will have to be, because the true events of 911 are not getting swept under any carpets for a generation or two no matter how fervently some might wish it would all die down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Lets start with why this guy was chosen as Executive director of the 9/11 commission, shall we? |
I've read the Wikopedia article as well as several other independent sources about Zelikow. It's interesting that Wikopedia was the ONLY source that claimed his "area of academic expertise is the creation and maintenance of, in his words, “public myths” or “public presumptions”".
This is an odd claim to make, as most other sources would say that his primary area of expertise would be in history and international law, and not in "public myths", although he appears to have written on the subject. His most well-known works are on the Cuban missile crisis and Presidential history.
So, how could Wikopedia be wrong? It isn't wrong, strictly speaking. It just skews the truth in the direction of the contributor's beliefs. That's why anything I read in Wikopedia I take with a grain of salt. If I really want to get to the bottom of things, I look for corroboration in other sources.
Anyway, to answer your question, it appears he got his position because he was a long-time associate of Bush and/or members of his cabinet. Perhaps he was given the post out of gratitude for support of the administration, or perhaps they wanted someone who would downplay the administration's lack of foresight in the attacks. I don't think he was a particularly good choice, given the fact that the commission was supposed to be non-partisan. It's one of many things that the administration could have handled better, but it's not proof of wrongdoing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: |
Your right Aggle-rythm. It is what Coincidence Theorists do.
|
I'm still not clear what you mean by "Coincidence Theorist". I've asked you about it on another thread and, predictably, did not get a straight answer.
If I'm not mistaken, I think you mean someone who dismisses evidence as being a coincidence when it clearly could not be. The strawman argument usually employed here is as follows: "Is the fact that three skyscrapers collapsed on the same day a coincidence?"
Am I correct so far?
The preceding strawman is easily dismissed, as no one has claimed that it is a coincidence, since all three collapses had a common cause -- a coordinated attack using airliners. The real issue, though, is how we determine whether something is a coincidence or there is a chain of causation.
This issue comes up in the legal system all the time. If there is any possibility of coincidence -- such as a suspect's fingerprints being found at a crime scene, but there are other reasons he might have been there besides committing a crime -- then causation cannot be assumed. Proof is needed.
Coincidences happen far more often than people think. If you happen to be in a grocery store at the same time as a childhood sweetheart you haven't seen in twenty years, but neither of you notices the other, is that a coincidence? Not really. Someone has to NOTICE it before it can be called a coincidence, otherwise, it's as if it never happened.
Here's where the problem lies: We get to decide whether something is a coincidence or not simply by virtue of noticing it. If we really want to find coincidences, we can really dig for them and -- surprise! -- they're EVERYWHERE! Even if something has only a one-in-a-million chance of happening, think of how much opportunity it has. Even in a small community there are billions (or as Brits say, thousands of millions) of interactions happening; one-in-a million events will happen thousands of times a day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Anyway, to answer your question, it appears he got his position because he was a long-time associate of Bush and/or members of his cabinet. Perhaps he was given the post out of gratitude for support of the administration, or perhaps they wanted someone who would downplay the administration's lack of foresight in the attacks. I don't think he was a particularly good choice, given the fact that the commission was supposed to be non-partisan. It's one of many things that the administration could have handled better, but it's not proof of wrongdoing. |
I:E: You dont actually know
(PS: did you watch pressfortruth? Heavy on the clue aspect of that sentance)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | John White wrote: |
Your right Aggle-rythm. It is what Coincidence Theorists do.
|
I'm still not clear what you mean by "Coincidence Theorist". I've asked you about it on another thread and, predictably, did not get a straight answer. |
Not one you liked, no.
| Quote: | | If I'm not mistaken, I think you mean someone who dismisses evidence as being a coincidence when it clearly could not be. |
Belief
| Quote: | | The strawman argument usually employed here is as follows: "Is the fact that three skyscrapers collapsed on the same day a coincidence?" |
Theres no straw
| Quote: | | Am I correct so far? |
No
| Quote: | | The preceding strawman is easily dismissed, as no one has claimed that it is a coincidence, since all three collapses had a common cause -- a coordinated attack using airliners. The real issue, though, is how we determine whether something is a coincidence or there is a chain of causation. |
You just dont see it do you? Thats assuming your being honest
| Quote: | | This issue comes up in the legal system all the time. If there is any possibility of coincidence -- such as a suspect's fingerprints being found at a crime scene, but there are other reasons he might have been there besides committing a crime -- then causation cannot be assumed. Proof is needed. |
Thats not co-incidence. Theres a cause: a reason. What you mean is that "guilt cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt": in your legal example
| Quote: | Coincidences happen far more often than people think. If you happen to be in a grocery store at the same time as a childhood sweetheart you haven't seen in twenty years, but neither of you notices the other, is that a coincidence? Not really. Someone has to NOTICE it before it can be called a coincidence, otherwise, it's as if it never happened.
Here's where the problem lies: We get to decide whether something is a coincidence or not simply by virtue of noticing it. If we really want to find coincidences, we can really dig for them and -- surprise! -- they're EVERYWHERE! Even if something has only a one-in-a-million chance of happening, think of how much opportunity it has. Even in a small community there are billions (or as Brits say, thousands of millions) of interactions happening; one-in-a million events will happen thousands of times a day. |
Youve just massively contradicted yourself. Heres how it goes: defense of offical story from critics = question facts using logical fallacies and explain anything that can't be dismissed as co-incidence
Live with it, you lot are dis-proving nothing
Back to press for truth: a direct question
Was the 9/11 commission whitewashed, yes or no?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | I'm still not clear what you mean by "Coincidence Theorist". I've asked you about it on another thread and, predictably, did not get a straight answer. |
Not one you liked, no.
|
You're right, I didn't like your answer, which was:
| Quote: |
Its definatley a coincidence: anyone denying that? And its a coincidence with interesting ressonances. Does it mean anything? Or is it just a co-incidence? No data either way: but regardless, the tremours in the public psyche are still felt
|
The reason I didn't like it is because it resembled more the rantings of a lunatic than a straight answer to my question, which was "why shouldn't we consider 'coincidence theory' a straw man?"
| Quote: | Back to press for truth: a direct question
Was the 9/11 commission whitewashed, yes or no?
|
The question is not as direct as you may think. What do you mean by "whitewashed"? Do you mean it "was whitewashed" by an outside entity, or it exhibited the properties of "being whitewashed"? I'm going to assume the latter.
I would say it seems obvious that the administration tried to hide or downplay its own failures, but the 9/11 Commission clearly did not shy away from asking for the truth. The documentary you've been touting, "Press for Truth", clearly demonstrates this when it shows the committee's questioning of Condaleeza Rice. If they really wanted to insulate the Bush administration from any dissent, they wouldn't have even asked for Rice's testimony, and they certainly wouldn't have pressed the issue regarding the August memo about Bin Laden.
Do you disagree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | (misquoted by Aggle-Rythm) | John White wrote: | | Its definatley a coincidence: anyone denying that? And its a coincidence with interesting ressonances. Does it mean anything? Or is it just a co-incidence? No data either way: but regardless, the tremours in the public psyche are still felt |
|
How dishonest!
That reply was some well deserved mockery of critics trying to bait members into declaring "its a conspiracy" over the fact that the date of the small plane crash in new York (10/11/06) is the symbolic reverse of 9/11 and that its an interesting co-incidence!
| John White wrote: | Thats why I call critics co-incidence theorists. The number of co-incidences required to defend the offical story are enormous...the co-incidences required for the freak failure of so much of the structure all at the same time, for example
|
Gosh how hard was that!
Unless I am to conclude you are so wrapped up in your internal dialogue you didnt even notice?
Its you who appears to be "losing it" dear Aggle Rythm: as your pathetic attempts to claim pyroclastic flow is not associated with controlled demolition show
Equally pathetic is your failure to acknowledge the obvious whitewash of the 9/11 commission and your aparent delusion that it "asked the tough questions": together with the implied insult into the integrity of the Jersy Girls, without which even that flawed investigation would undoubtably been denied the public
I can only conclude that you have not studied the material you claim to be able to refute
You'll be needing one of these:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/11-Commission-Report-Omissions-Distortions/dp/ 1844370577/sr=1-2/qid=1160862474/ref=sr_1_2/202-9860112-7406265?ie=UTF 8&s=books
Come back when you've done some work
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
