| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Alex_V wrote: | So to sum up, the existing evidence is not proof because it could have been faked.
Just as, if serial number evidence existed, that could not be proof either because it could have been faked.
In a similar way, there is no proof of existence because it could be faked.
What a nonsense. In short, as many have been saying all along on this thread, there is no evidence that could be presented which truthers would accept.
Luckily in the real world rational people accept that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. |
in the real world, evidence would of been provided proving flight 77 and other flights were the ones that crashed at each scene. as stated here..... http://physics911.net/georgenelson
but that was'nt done.
the evidence we are given is all trust based. looking for something that everyone can look at and be satisfied would involve each plane being identified. which should be easy to do. especially if the offical story is true.
you like to pretend i am saying it is all one way, but in reality all i am saying is if this evidence exsisted there would be no questioning the offical story upto a certain point(building collspes).
if you think everyone should be left in doubt, and holes should be left in the offical version that is your choice. however i fail to see how that is going to prove the offical story correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | in the real world, evidence would of been provided proving flight 77 and other flights were the ones that crashed at each scene. as stated here..... http://physics911.net/georgenelson |
George Nelson is an authority for what reason? For what reason should I consider any of the jumbled nonsense he spouts?
| Quote: | | but that was'nt done. |
Your allegation - you have no evidence that anything wasn't done, as I pointed out many posts ago.
| Quote: | | the evidence we are given is all trust based. |
Your allegation. Whatever evidence you are presented with is dismissed as 'trust-based', and evidence that is missing is the crucial stuff. Apparently. DNA, FDR and witness evidence is not 'trust-based' evidence - you can pour scorn on it all you like but it a damn sight better than any evidence your bunch can provide.
| Quote: | | looking for something that everyone can look at and be satisfied would involve each plane being identified. |
It has been done to everyone's satisfaction except for the truthers. Ask anyone who isn't a truther!
| Quote: | which should be easy to do. especially if the offical story is true.
you like to pretend i am saying it is all one way, but in reality all i am saying is if this evidence exsisted there would be no questioning the offical story upto a certain point(building collspes). |
I am saying that the evidence does exist for all except truthers to accept. Any evidence that does exist you seem to reject on principle. Do you have a single response to the plane parts, bodies and witnesses to the crash other than to shout 'FAKE'? I don't think you do. That is a nonsense argument IMO.
| Quote: | | if you think everyone should be left in doubt, and holes should be left in the offical version that is your choice. however i fail to see how that is going to prove the offical story correct. |
It has been proven - that is the reason why I support it. I fail to see why serial numbers are better evidence than body parts? - only in your mind, my friend. Why lack of video footage is more important than the huge body of witnesses that clearly exist to the crash? Why a total lack of any evidence (no plane) is more compelling than the astonishing weight of evidence supporting the plane crashing into the pentagon? Simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
as i have already said.
if you think everyone should be left in doubt, and holes should be left in the offical version that is your choice. however i fail to see how that is going to prove the offical story correct. it is quite simply a omission of evidence, evidence which is simply not provided or left out.
how do you prove all these reasons wrong, when you car'nt even prove the stated planes were the planes found at the scene.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/allport/allport11.html
| Quote: | It has been done to everyone's satisfaction except for the truthers. Ask anyone who isn't a truther!
|
name one person who questions the offical version who is'nt instantly labelled as a truther?
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
are these people 9/11 truthers? if so why? because they question the offical version?
i am finding difficult to find none truthers. everybody knows. most just don't post on forums or discuss the issue on the internet. proving to them the offical version is true is very difficult, especially when their are gaps in the offical evidence.
| Quote: | George Nelson is an authority for what reason? For what reason should I consider any of the jumbled nonsense he spouts?
|
and what reason are you authority, why should i believe what you say more than him? or visa versa. can you provide something that says hes wrong?
Last edited by marky 54 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it still amazes me critics argue against proving wrong the conspiracy theorists, by providing serial numbers that match records.
i use to think critics were all for proving wrong conspiracy theorists, and that they trusted in the offical story enough to welcome such evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | it still amazes me critics argue against proving wrong the conspiracy theorists, by providing serial numbers that match records.
i use to think critics were all for proving wrong conspiracy theorists, and that they trusted in the offical story enough to welcome such evidence. |
Tell me why DNA evidence is any less reliable than serial numbers in this case. Explain to me... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | it still amazes me critics argue against proving wrong the conspiracy theorists, by providing serial numbers that match records.
i use to think critics were all for proving wrong conspiracy theorists, and that they trusted in the offical story enough to welcome such evidence. |
Tell me why DNA evidence is any less reliable than serial numbers in this case. Explain to me... |
i really don't see the point, we are both going to continue to disagree, as we are both approaching this from totally different angles. you really need to listen where the doubts lay in evidence provided by the offical story. and then think about what piece of evidence would prove those doubts wrong as well as link all the current provided evidence into that scene only, ie: proves the current evidence was either found at the scene or taken from the scene and proves there were planes at all 4 sites and they were all the stated flights.
it would'nt prove anything about building collapses and some of the behind the scenes doubts, ie: put options etc. but it would clear up and prove the offical story is correct from the moment the planes took of to the point of the first collapse.
we were only told DNA evidence was collected. due to the grusome nature and subject it is understandble no actual evidence was provided proving it was found at the scene other than say so, so people have to trust this evidence was there as oppose to knowing it was there and having visual proof that cannot be argued with.
however visual evidence was given of plane parts at the scene, now a lot of people take this evidence to prove flight 77 hit the pentagon. but its not true, it only proves A plane hit the pentagon. some people use this fact as proof something else hit the pentagon.
the blackbox data released under the FOIA raises doubts also, which also makes people question the offical story even more.
so what serial numbers would do is firstly, provide visual evidence of the serial numbers, which each person who doubts the offical story would beable to go and check out at the appropiate place(currently however when people attempt to identify anything they are stopped and national security is given as the reason), or clear proof and documentation can be provided which shows the identifaction of the serial numbers.
on top of visual proof and the numbers checking out, you would know the following for certain.
the said flights DID crash at the stated site, the people were known to be on each flight therefore the DNA can only of came from the scene, and the blackbox data released under FOIA may have doubts on it, but it would prove nothing, as we now know the said flights did indeed hit each target therefore if the blackbox said the planes landed on the moon it would not matter, and could only be explained by some sort of error as oppose to flight 77 not hitting the pentagon.
it would prove this at all four sites.
nobody would beable to question the offical story upto building collapses.
it would proberbly prove more than that to, but i cannot be bothered going through everything, just a quick example, some say there were no terrorist on each flight, however if it was proved the plane parts found at each scene was from the said planes, then we know these planes had pilots. these pilots would not of done something like that, proving control was taken from them and therefore there must of been terrorist on each flight.
so it would prove it from start to the point of the first building collapse, to the vast majority, it is impossible to say to all.
other quick things it would prove wrong to the vast majority of doubters.
it was a missle at the pentagon.
the tapes were confiscated because they did'nt show a plane.
the lamppost were not knocked down by a plane.
the hole at the pentagon is to small.
no plane crashed at shanksville.
the hole in the ground at shanksville was fabricated.
i could go on and on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | we were only told DNA evidence was collected. due to the grusome nature and subject it is understandble no actual evidence was provided proving it was found at the scene other than say so, so people have to trust this evidence was there as oppose to knowing it was there and having visual proof that cannot be argued with. |
There are pictures of body parts at the Pentagon (evidence which I don't really agree with being made public), and also the accounts of responders at the Pentagon of the distress of dealing with human remains. I do not know of a single bit of information that would make us suspect that the forensic teams that dealt with the body parts were part of any conspiracy.
| Quote: | | so what serial numbers would do is firstly, provide visual evidence of the serial numbers, which each person who doubts the offical story would beable to go and check out at the appropiate place(currently however when people attempt to identify anything they are stopped and national security is given as the reason), or clear proof and documentation can be provided which shows the identifaction of the serial numbers. |
But couldn't the serial numbers be rejected on the same basis as any of the other visual evidence - the lamp-posts, the body parts, the plane wreckage? Why would visual wreckage with serial numbers pass that test - as if serial numbers are not just as likely to be faked as lamp-posts or other wreckage? I don't see, given your mindset on the other evidence put forward, why you would treat serial numbers with any more respect than the existing evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | why you would treat serial numbers with any more respect than the existing evidence? |
because it would prove wrong a lot of the other theorys and confirm the offical one is correct.
| Quote: | | There are pictures of body parts at the Pentagon (evidence which I don't really agree with being made public), |
i agree. like i said this is information you need to trust is true, however i find myself having to do that alot where a lot of evidence is concerned, rather than having something i can say with confidence, "yes it DID happen how we were told"
it dos'nt matter anyway, they will not release them, or confirm them and all critics on this site are against standard evidence in a plane crash being carried out or shown.
all i can say is if it was done, it would prove wrong a lot of other evidence that makes people suspicous. an example being
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFW2-_om64 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | because it would prove wrong a lot of the other theorys and confirm the offical one is correct. |
No, because you could just as easily claim it was faked as any other evidence.
This goes back to my original question - name one conceivable piece of evidence which, applying truther logic, I couldn't instantly reject. I got silence. The more I pressed you on how we could be sure serial numbers couldnt' be faked, the more you backed away from your point and started hedging your bets.
The question is whether you do it intentionally, or subconsciously.
PS any luck proving extra terrestrials and UFOs exist? How come you never talk about that stuff in critics corner?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | because it would prove wrong a lot of the other theorys and confirm the offical one is correct. |
No, because you could just as easily claim it was faked as any other evidence.
This goes back to my original question - name one conceivable piece of evidence which, applying truther logic, I couldn't instantly reject. I got silence. The more I pressed you on how we could be sure serial numbers couldnt' be faked, the more you backed away from your point and started hedging your bets.
The question is whether you do it intentionally, or subconsciously.
PS any luck proving extra terrestrials and UFOs exist? How come you never talk about that stuff in critics corner? |
ive already said before you turned up being arrogant and telling me i would only reject it, like you know, that it dos'nt matter anyway, they would never be released or shown. and critics obviously do not welcome such evidence being presented. so everyone just continues to be suspicious and i have no way of proving the stated flights were the ones at each scene inorder to prove wrong a lot of claims or other evidence.
it dos'nt change the fact, that the evidence i mention dos'nt exsist. i apologize for trying to see if it did exsist or if there was any way to prove it. i just assumed critics would know about any such evidence and be more eager to prove it, i was obviously wrong.
why bring u.f.o's into it? ah yeah the typical critic tactic, trying to smear by bring in unrelated subject, that they think is silly.
i don't need to prove anything about u.f.o's at all. i know u.f.o's are real, i saw one and it could only ever fit under u.f.o, i don't expect you to believe it, well especially not you, i don't think your capable of thinking for your self and looking at the evidence honestly without patronising or telling me what i think.
if you want to talk about it, start a thread. why must i talk about it in this place with people who are incapable of thinking or being totally honest?, it just seemed logical to talk about in a thread with the approiate title. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The discussion's going nowhere.
I maintain that there is plenty of evidence to prove that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. All the witnesses confirm it, the passengers were nearly all identified through evidence at the scene, and the wreckage is consistent with an AA commercial jet.
The only reason for disbelieving the existing evidence would be a wilful insistence that some conspiracy exists over the crash, even though no evidence exists to support that hypothesis.
Really, in terms of the Pentagon, there is only one reasonable conclusion to reach at this stage. To be fair, many truthers accept this, including it seems the Loose Change creators who peddled many of the conspiracy theories about the incident in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Really, in terms of the Pentagon, there is only one reasonable conclusion to reach at this stage. To be fair, many truthers accept this, including it seems the Loose Change creators who peddled many of the conspiracy theories about the incident in the first place. |
your the one who keeps peddling the pentagon, i was always refering to all four crashsites, and proving wrong theorys stemming from take off to the start of the first building collapse, across all four crash sites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ive already said before you turned up being arrogant and telling me i would only reject it, like you know, that it dos'nt matter anyway, they would never be released or shown. |
No, I only asked you to explain why serial number photos couldn't be faked, since you consider them to be such absolute proof. But you became extremely evasive and vague, which as far as I'm concerned proves my point. You cannot imagine any evidence which, were I to use truther logic, I couldn't reject. Therefore your quest for evidence is a complete sham.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Were there any chemtrails coming out of the UFO? (sorry, could not resist)
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It has been done to everyone's satisfaction except for the truthers. Ask anyone who isn't a truther! |
Just to pick a morsell from this mish-mash - Alex you are aware of the absurdity of this argument?
Your definition of a "truther" I assume is someone who is not satisfied with the official version of 9/11 and seeks the truth?
So your sentence could be re-phrased:
"Everyone who is satisfied with the official story is satsified with the official story, only people who are not satisfied with the official story are not satisfied with the official story!"
That's certainly enlightening analysis.... 
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
How about "the only people not satisfied with the 'official story' are people who cannot even imagine any evidence which would convince them anyway, although they still pretend they are looking for it".
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | How about "the only people not satisfied with the 'official story' are people who cannot even imagine any evidence which would convince them anyway, although they still pretend they are looking for it". |
No.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK then suggest some evidence which, applying truther logic, I could not instantly reject.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | Quote: | | It has been done to everyone's satisfaction except for the truthers. Ask anyone who isn't a truther! |
Just to pick a morsell from this mish-mash - Alex you are aware of the absurdity of this argument?
Your definition of a "truther" I assume is someone who is not satisfied with the official version of 9/11 and seeks the truth?
So your sentence could be re-phrased:
"Everyone who is satisfied with the official story is satsified with the official story, only people who are not satisfied with the official story are not satisfied with the official story!"
That's certainly enlightening analysis.... |
Thanks Stefan - Marky already pointed out the weakness in my statement a few posts ago, but your valued contribution is also welcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | OK then suggest some evidence which, applying truther logic, I could not instantly reject. |
Is that a riddle?
What exactly are you asking me for?
Define your terms properly and stop wasting your own time and mine.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Stefan wrote: | | Quote: | | It has been done to everyone's satisfaction except for the truthers. Ask anyone who isn't a truther! |
Just to pick a morsell from this mish-mash - Alex you are aware of the absurdity of this argument?
Your definition of a "truther" I assume is someone who is not satisfied with the official version of 9/11 and seeks the truth?
So your sentence could be re-phrased:
"Everyone who is satisfied with the official story is satsified with the official story, only people who are not satisfied with the official story are not satisfied with the official story!"
That's certainly enlightening analysis.... |
Thanks Stefan - Marky already pointed out the weakness in my statement a few posts ago, but your valued contribution is also welcome. |
Sorry, didn't mean to rub it in, was just skim reading the thread and that little number caught my eye. Didn't spot marky's comment.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its not that complicated. Truthers are always demanding evidence, but as soon as it is provided to them, they reject it.
I'm asking you to suggest evidence which, were I to pretend to be a truther, I couldn't instantly dismiss. If you think about it, whereas you are demanding actual evidence, all I'm asking you to do is imagine some evidence, which should be much easier.
But of course is that there is no conceivable evidence which couldn't be rejected by someone so convinced of the conspiracy that they can just wave away all evidence as planted, all witnesses as liars, all professionals as stooges. That's why the whole "quest for truth" is such a sham.
Marky briefly suggested that serial numbers would be absolute proof - but when pressed, quickly backed away from that statement and substituted it with a bunch of waffle. I hope you fare better.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Its not that complicated. Truthers are always demanding evidence, but as soon as it is provided to them, they reject it. |
There's a difference between countering something and rejecting it.
The problem with OCTers is they refuse to debate. If you have a counter point to something someone says - you present it, they present an argument against it and you throw your hands up and say "See! They just reject evidence!" - well couldn't the same be said about you rejecting the claims of "truthers"?
If your argument can stand up - you need to show why the objection raised to it is not valid, or provide a second counter to it. That's how a debate works.
You have to accept that the people you dismiss as "truthers" were supporters of the OCT at some point and did a lot of back-and-forthing between the debunking sites and conspiracy sites before going public with their concerns. Just logging into "9/11 myths" and regurgitating the first half-answer isn't going to cut it.
When people tell you why they don't believe that "9/11 myths" claim actually refutes the point they have made you can't spring to ascribing some ameteur-psycological label on them and say "oh you'll never accept any evidence you don't want to" because the chances are they've considered both sides very carefully and the ATC version won.
If you want to challenge that - form a coherent argument. No more of this hit and hope followed by insult MO of yours.
| Quote: | I'm asking you to suggest evidence which, were I to pretend to be a truther, I couldn't instantly dismiss. If you think about it, whereas you are demanding actual evidence, all I'm asking you to do is imagine some evidence, which should be much easier.
But of course is that there is no conceivable evidence which couldn't be rejected by someone so convinced of the conspiracy that they can just wave away all evidence as planted, all witnesses as liars, all professionals as stooges. That's why the whole "quest for truth" is such a sham. |
Pepik, much evidence presented hasn't been rejected, and has been used to reject duff theories within this movement. How many people today claim the planes had some kind of pods on them? How about holograms? Even the NPTers have backed away from that. Those claiming a cruise missile hit the petagon are in an extrememe minority whereas there was a time it was a widely discussed hypothosis.
9/11 research has been a perfect example of the scientific method at work - hypothesese have been presented and considered and rejected consistantly over the years as more evidence has come to light.
While the OTC resembles creationist-style religious faith in its adherence to an untennable position because it comes from an authority, or because it would be too much of a threat to an entrenched world view to drop.
| Quote: | | Marky briefly suggested that serial numbers would be absolute proof - but when pressed, quickly backed away from that statement and substituted it with a bunch of waffle. I hope you fare better. |
What would be good for me was someone how the actual collapse we saw was possible. Not some theoretical collapse with no specified speed and no accounting of the distance debris was thrown, or the pulverisation of materials. Someone actually showing how gravity could cause what we saw - that would be a great move forward.
For you men of faith, explanations are not neccesary, just assurances. I need something more - I need actual evidence.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll take that as a very long winded way of saying you can't think of anything.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | 9/11 research has been a perfect example of the scientific method at work - hypothesese have been presented and considered and rejected consistantly over the years as more evidence has come to light. |
I totally disagree with that appraisal. 9/11 research as a whole appears to me to have consisted of throwing barrel-loads of mud at a wall, and measuring progress by what small bits of it stick there. And rather than be self-policing, all of the hard work of actually disproving these crazy theories has been left to people outside of the movement. Let's face it, without debunkers you would STILL be talking about pods and melted steel and hijackers being alive etc. (in fact, many in the movement still are!)
Indeed, if asked to sum up the progress that the truth movement has made, I would bet that nobody would come up with the same statements. Nobody is quite sure what Steven Jones' 'scientific' analysis actually amounts to, nobody seems to know anymore what laws of physics the twin towers collapses have broken (despite saying that they did for YEARS!), and the Pentagon theories in particular seem to be a broken mess - what does anyone in the truth movement actually think about the Pentagon, because I sure as hell can't make it out!
Whatever it is, it couldn't be further away from a scientific method in my opinion... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | without debunkers you would STILL be talking about pods and melted steel and hijackers being alive etc. |
what rubbish, if this site is anything to go by it is the truthers themselves who have been doing the debunking where theorys are concerned, by using evidence. critics on this site never touch NPT for example.
it has took many truthers presenting actual evidence to disprove those claims. critics on this site have been completely useless at disproving anything.
because they don't use evidence they only use ridicule, or evidence free chat.
most of the debunking on this site, has took place in 9/11 truth controversies, via truthers proving wrong truthers, via using evidence.
critics corner was no help, and has been no help.
critics corner is just somewhere to come if you like being insulted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | what rubbish, if this site is anything to go by it is the truthers themselves who have been doing the debunking where theorys are concerned, by using evidence. critics on this site never touch NPT for example.
it has took many truthers presenting actual evidence to disprove those claims. critics on this site have been completely useless at disproving anything.
because the don't use evidence they only use ridicule, or evidence free chat.
most of the debunking on this site, has took place in 9/11 truth controversies, via truthers proving wrong truthers, via using evidence.
critics corner was no help, and has been no help.
critics corner is just somewhere to come if you like being insulted. |
The extreme irony of praising the movement's dismissal of NPT on one hand, then arguing elsewhere in this thread that no evidence of the plane crash at the Pentagon exists, almost defies belief!!!
Again the irony as you criticise ridicule and insults... by using ridicule and insults!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | what rubbish, if this site is anything to go by it is the truthers themselves who have been doing the debunking where theorys are concerned, by using evidence. critics on this site never touch NPT for example.
it has took many truthers presenting actual evidence to disprove those claims. critics on this site have been completely useless at disproving anything.
because the don't use evidence they only use ridicule, or evidence free chat.
most of the debunking on this site, has took place in 9/11 truth controversies, via truthers proving wrong truthers, via using evidence.
critics corner was no help, and has been no help.
critics corner is just somewhere to come if you like being insulted. |
The extreme irony of praising the movement's dismissal of NPT on one hand, then arguing elsewhere in this thread that no evidence of the plane crash at the Pentagon exists, almost defies belief!!!
Again the irony as you criticise ridicule and insults... by using ridicule and insults!!! |
i am stating fact, alex. your trying to take praise for theorys that no longer exsist or have a very limited amount of believers.
but where was you when tv fakery was being aggresively promoted on this site? where was you when missles hitting the wtc was aggresively promoted? npt, and the rest of it?
all this stuff was promoted and debunked in 9/11 truth controversies with no critic in site. they have now moved onto the hutchinson effect, have critics tried debunking this so far? no. and i doubt they will, that will be left to 9/11 truthers themselves.
i come into this part of the site to get evidence against theorys from critics, and always come away disapointed or insulted.
there are many theorys i am trying to find information to disprove, and critics have been no help what so ever. i only ever get excuses as to why you think the evidence is'nt needed, when it clearly is needed if anything is going to change.
come on alex, lets see you start a thread on the hutchinson effect and see your presented evidence against, or will you just wait for truthers to discuss it, and debunk it and then take the credit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | i am stating fact, alex. your trying to take praise for theorys that no longer exsist or have a very limited amount of believers. |
Not me personally, of course not. I'm talking about the likes of Mark Roberts, Ryan Mackey, Mike Williams...
| Quote: | | but where was you when tv fakery was being aggresively promoted on this site? where was you when missles hitting the wtc was aggresively promoted? npt, and the rest of it? |
I used to post on other parts of the forums but was basically ordered to only post here. So don't presume that free speech exists in this place.
| Quote: | | i come into this part of the site to get evidence against theorys from critics, and always come away disapointed or insulted. |
Unfortunately there is no mild cure for such delusions - at least I don't know one. If I think that the NWO is a delusion, and 9/11 truth is a delusion, how else would I expect believers in such to react when I confront them with my own?
That said, it is a shame that our discussions often descend into bickering - I'm sure nobody wants that to happen. But I think that's the natural way with internet forums unfortunately.
| Quote: | | come on alex, lets you start a thread on the hutchinson effect and see your presented evidence against, or will you just wait for truthers to discuss it, and debunk it and then take credit? |
I've no idea what the hutchinson effect is. Happy to discuss it - where should I look? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've no idea what the hutchinson effect is. Happy to discuss it - where should I look? |
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13395
yes this is the latest thing to be claimed, after holograms/tv fakery/ etc etc, this seems to be the next thing to move onto as other theorys have been debunked, not by critics.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11608
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11695
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11664
regardless, a new theory critics will ignore, then claim all the credit for once it has disapeared, because it is simply wrong.
this new theory i have not looked into myself properly yet, i have only looked at some things about hutchinson effect, to understand how it works and what the effects are.
but it seems everytime one gets proved wrong another is'nt far behind.
now while i do doubt some of the offical story, that dos'nt mean i fall for any old nonsense. pepik keeps ridiculing on the u.f.o thing, but hes narrowminded and dos'nt understand i only believe it because i actually saw one, and i was a sceptic beforehand. the same is true with 'chemtrails' which i did'nt name, i have seen trails that i believe need explaination as they cannot be contrails and do not behave like contrails.
however critics sit in here judging all people as irrational and people who will believe anything, yet can never offer any solid evidence which debunks any of the theorys yet try to claim the credit once the theory has been debunked by a none critic via research and investigastion, because they called somebody a conspiracy theorist.
heres your chance. i suspect hutchinson effect is a real thing, however feel the claims it was used on 9/11 are disinfo. yet critics will not touch it.
but will claim all the credit as it flutters away to be latter forgotten, yet the only critic contribution was them sat here calling everyone crazy and irrational, which dos'nt prove wrong any theory at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
