| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | 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.
|
Exactly marky, and why? Because critics are not allowed to post in 9/11 truth controversies where all the NPT stuff is discussed, that's why!
And, like other truthers, the NPT people will not accept their theories as debunked anyway, they simply bounce back with more of the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nothing stops critics discussing it, or proving it wrong in critics corner, yet they don't, but want to take the credit once the theorys had been disproved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | nothing stops critics discussing it, or proving it wrong in critics corner, yet they don't, but want to take the credit once the theorys had been disproved. |
Not at all, full credit to Chek and Gruts in particular for extensive work on the topic.
Mind you the theory is really so self-evidently absurd that it is hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | nothing stops critics discussing it, or proving it wrong in critics corner, yet they don't, but want to take the credit once the theorys had been disproved. |
Not at all, full credit to Chek and Gruts in particular for extensive work on the topic.
Mind you the theory is really so self-evidently absurd that it is hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously. |
but the fact is, alex trys to claim its down to critics. it dos'nt matter how absurd you think a theory is, you have to show it beyond doubt, this is where critics are lacking, they think calling people absurd gets the job done!
your bendy beam is the first time in ages that ive seen a critic with a arguement that challenges certain claims, that i have not believed for ages but still hear others say. "fire cannot melt steel" etc etc.
well maybe not, but maybe it can weaken it, as you showed.
still it dos'nt stop the other critics who did'nt do the research or investigastion, turning to smear everyone by using ridicule, thus turning the thread into a farce and burying the important information, and alienating people into ignoring it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 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!) |
I'm sorry but I disagree Alex - what 9/11 research has done it identify clear untruths in the official story, and worked progressivley towards finding what did happen. The first is a done deal - the second is and should be an ongoing process - replacement theories aren't actually neccesary to proving the official one wrong - but it is human nature that they are looked for - and it should be an ongoing process - the scientific process in reaching suitable ones. Hypotheses should be proposed, interrogated, debated and challenged. This has happened from within as well as from outside the Truth Movement.
It doesn't do anyone any good to paint cartoon realities for yourself. I don't claim that anyone who disagrees with 9/11 research is a "disinfo agent" or "shill" as the black and whitists on my side do, I had hoped that you, alex, as one of the more polite and reasonable critics, would not fall into the critic version of insulting everyone who agrees with you en masse as somehow being less rigorous with their research than people who don't.
What you say - that all counter points come from critics - is patently false - I won't go to the polar opposite and say critics have not played a vital role - but most of their rebuttals are so far fetched and removed from reality they are embarrasing.
I came to believe that the official story of 9/11 was a lie by reading every bit of conspiracy claim material I could find online AND every debunking and critic site as well. It was clear before too long, that the critics were clutching at straws, knocking down straw men or just launching ad hominem with 80-90% of their rebuttals, other arguments were compelling - for instance I came to this campaign thinking the pentagon issue was very unconclusive and was surprised so many people saw it as some kind of smoking gun - this is largley to the credit of some arguments I had read on debunking sites. But plenty has been rebutted wholely within our walls as you well know.
| Quote: | | 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! |
The "Truth Movement" is a very loose term for a collection of induviduals who all have their own ideas, united by the knowledge that the official story is false, and all evidence points towards government connivance or explicit involvement. What you say above perfectly demonstrates what you rebutted just before - this is the scientific process in action. Everyone brings their hypothosese to the table and we work towards some kind of conclusion.
If there had ever been a genuine independent investigation with subpoena powers, this task would be a lot easier. How ever the movement has become so strong because its basic remit is not proving what did happen, but proving what didn't. As far as a growing percentage of the population goes - that has been long achieved.
| Quote: | | Whatever it is, it couldn't be further away from a scientific method in my opinion... |
What would be the scientific method? Sticking to a story that is basically defunct by constructing absurdly complex theories around every anomoly until you are left with occams big bushy beard?
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | nothing stops critics discussing it, or proving it wrong in critics corner, yet they don't, but want to take the credit once the theorys had been disproved. |
I am truly amazed how delusional this statement is.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | Quote: | | 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!) |
I'm sorry but I disagree Alex - what 9/11 research has done it identify clear untruths in the official story, and worked progressivley towards finding what did happen. The first is a done deal - the second is and should be an ongoing process - replacement theories aren't actually neccesary to proving the official one wrong - but it is human nature that they are looked for - and it should be an ongoing process - the scientific process in reaching suitable ones. Hypotheses should be proposed, interrogated, debated and challenged. This has happened from within as well as from outside the Truth Movement.
|
It would be interesting to know, Stefan, what clear untruths you feel have been identified in the official story. All I have ever seen are opinions about various aspects, but never anything supported by hard evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Sticking to a story that is basically defunct by constructing absurdly complex theories around every anomoly until you are left with occams big bushy beard? |
This is of course completely ridiculous, the main reason truthers don't like to construct an alternate theory of what happened is because when they try to string together their theories it quickly becomes so bizarrely complex and illogical that it collapses under the weight of its own absurdity.
I mean seriously - absurdly complex theories - that a plane hit the pentagon, compared to what simpler alternative? A missile firing holograph drone, planted debris and bodies, and a disappearing 757, all for no conceivable purpose? That fire and physical damage weakened the buildings, compared to what simple alternative? Thousands of super nano thermite cutter explosives were secretly planted all over hundreds of floors of office space without anyone noticing?
That Osama is a terrorist? Compared to the idea that he is simultaneously alive, dead, created by the CIA, working for the CIA, a stooge, a patsy, and a body double?
Scientific method? You must be joking.
_________________
"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: Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | what 9/11 research has done it identify clear untruths in the official story, and worked progressivley towards finding what did happen. The first is a done deal - the second is and should be an ongoing process - replacement theories aren't actually neccesary to proving the official one wrong - but it is human nature that they are looked for - and it should be an ongoing process - the scientific process in reaching suitable ones. Hypotheses should be proposed, interrogated, debated and challenged. This has happened from within as well as from outside the Truth Movement. |
I don't think significant untruths have been uncovered, for what it's worth. I am sitting here racking my brain for a single untruth that the truth movement have uncovered. In my opinion, that is spectacularly poor progress.
My personal opinion on the 'hypotheses' that fly around within the truth movement, is that they are utterly irrelevent if the OT remains the most likely explanation. For example, to hypothesise about explosives or beam weapons or whatever (as James C is wont to do at every turn) is all well and good, but without evidence to actually disprove the OT it's a waste of your time - there is plenty of smear but no significant criticism of NISTs report that I can find, or any legitimate attempt from within the scientific community to question Bazant and Zhou's theories on the collapses themselves. Given those two facts, why waste time on theories about explosives?
| Quote: | It doesn't do anyone any good to paint cartoon realities for yourself. I don't claim that anyone who disagrees with 9/11 research is a "disinfo agent" or "shill" as the black and whitists on my side do, I had hoped that you, alex, as one of the more polite and reasonable critics, would not fall into the critic version of insulting everyone who agrees with you en masse as somehow being less rigorous with their research than people who don't.
What you say - that all counter points come from critics - is patently false - I won't go to the polar opposite and say critics have not played a vital role - but most of their rebuttals are so far fetched and removed from reality they are embarrasing. |
I suppose I have to moderate that opinion - to be honest I have hardly spent any time looking at laser beams or NPT tv-fakery. I have to admit I just assumed it was nuttery, and still do - if there's a job to be done dismissing that nonsense then I'm happy for the truth movement to do it.
Where critics have been very good is in rationalist, fact-based rebuttals. I recently read Ryan Mackey's criticism of David Ray Griffin's methods and conclusions, and I just think it is a brilliant piece of work that utterly dismantles Griffin as any sort of credible commentator, particularly on NIST's report. That is invaluable work which could never have come from within the truth movement, and for which Mackey will almost certainly receive no mainstream credit. In a similar way, I invite anyone to find a single false note on the entire 911myths site, which in my opinion has done more than any other resource to defuse vast swathes of ill-informed nonsense from the truther arsenal (it is still a site to watch, and promises some very interesting new material in the near future).
| Quote: | The "Truth Movement" is a very loose term for a collection of induviduals who all have their own ideas, united by the knowledge that the official story is false, and all evidence points towards government connivance or explicit involvement. What you say above perfectly demonstrates what you rebutted just before - this is the scientific process in action. Everyone brings their hypothosese to the table and we work towards some kind of conclusion.
If there had ever been a genuine independent investigation with subpoena powers, this task would be a lot easier. How ever the movement has become so strong because its basic remit is not proving what did happen, but proving what didn't. As far as a growing percentage of the population goes - that has been long achieved. |
Yet when asked for proof, I feel the truth movement falls incredibly short of proving what it assumes it has already achieved. I invite you to prove here that the official story is defunct, if such has already been achieved. This is where the truth movement continues to be disunited - those who claim they are just asking questions (the moderate minority), and those who have already reached their conclusions without having the answers (the vast majority).
One example - if collapse could not have occured in the twin towers, then why no single paper published that proves such to the scientific community? Why no single structural engineer who will support the truth movement's accusations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: |
One example - if collapse could not have occured in the twin towers, then why no single paper published that proves such to the scientific community? Why no single structural engineer who will support the truth movement's accusations? |
Yep - not even a N Korean, Iranian or Cuban. The USA does have plenty of enemies who would just love to shove Uncle Sam's face in the mud. Not a peep from any of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | nothing stops critics discussing it, or proving it wrong in critics corner, yet they don't, but want to take the credit once the theorys had been disproved. |
I am truly amazed how delusional this statement is. |
your deluded, you think everyone who has questions about 9/11, all question the same things and all believe the same things.
the majority question things along these lines http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679&q=in+the ir+own+words&total=3743&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
but critics like to probe for how it was done if it was a conspiracy, when in fact it dos'nt matter one bit, all that matters is wether the offical story is right.
hence it is not delusional to show that something is wrong, even if you know it is wrong in the first place, how do you show those who believe it? by calling them delusional? well you could, but it won't work.
critics are just making up exscues to not prove something wrong, but then want all the credit when it has been proven to the believers of it that it is wrong.
my point is if it was left to critics, nothing would of been proved wrong at all. all critics would of done is call people names and give everyone good reason to ignore critics and leave them in their own section away from the others, because they cannot seem to be civil.
hence its left to truthers themselves to prove things, thats were all the debunking and proving takes places, critics corners is somewhere to be insulted, took out of context and lied about interms of what people believe, and be fodder for pepik to get his ego boost without him actually proving anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| as usual i leave critics corner with no more reason to believe something, and no more reason not to believe something than when i first entered it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | Quote: | | Whatever it is, it couldn't be further away from a scientific method in my opinion... |
What would be the scientific method? ... |
You tell us. Seriously. I'm interested to know what you understand by this phrase. I'll bet a tenner donation to Oxfam you either don't respond or tweak the actual meaning to suit the laxity required by your 9/11 CT purposes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
...my point is if it was left to critics, nothing would of been proved wrong at all... |
What has been proved wrong about the Official Theory?
(p.s. we're only "critics" in this tiny part of The World that they call Critic's Corner on the UK 9/11 forum). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
but critics like to probe for how it was done if it was a conspiracy, when in fact it dos'nt matter one bit, all that matters is wether the offical story is right.
|
It matters hugely. The narrative of 9/11 CT is something that is totally missing from CT arguments. Just to take a few examples -
How did the conspiracists manage to spread Boeing 757 debris in and around the Pentagon without being noticed when thousands of eyes were turned towards a huge crash, close to a busy road, in broad daylight?
How was the DNA evidence from Flt 77 faked, when it would require samples to be taken from victims' homes (typically hair samples) and matched with (typically) tissue and blood samples from the crash site itself?
How did the conspiracists manage to plant many thousands of massive explosive charges in well insulated yet very public spots within the Twin Towers? And do the heavy pre-preparation required for CD of massive steel members. And have the charges survive in the impact zones?
I could go on forever...
These - any countless other questions related to the narrative of a 9/11 conspiracy - are part of the reason that the scientific method spits on 9/11 CT. The CT is much much worse than the OT. And I mean much.
In the worlds of nuclear physics, quantum theory, astronomy, evolution and so on there are things that are as yet unexplained and other things that seem to be total anomalies. That doesn't mean that any old crackpot theory about nuclear physics (etc) is equally admissible. We need a better theory to justify kicking out the old one. If you think 9/11 CT is better than the OT then show us the evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
but critics like to probe for how it was done if it was a conspiracy, when in fact it dos'nt matter one bit, all that matters is wether the offical story is right.
|
It matters hugely. The narrative of 9/11 CT is something that is totally missing from CT arguments. Just to take a few examples -
How did the conspiracists manage to spread Boeing 757 debris in and around the Pentagon without being noticed when thousands of eyes were turned towards a huge crash, close to a busy road, in broad daylight?
How did the conspiracists manage to plant many thousands of massive explosive charges in well insulated yet very public spots within the Twin Towers? And do the heavy pre-preparation required for CD of massive steel members. And have the charges survive in the impact zones?
I could go on forever...
These - any countless other questions related to the narrative of a 9/11 conspiracy - are part of the reason that the scientic method spits on 9/11 CT. The CT is much much worse than the OT. And I mean much. |
so if the offical story dos'nt add up, it cannot be questioned because we don't know how it may of been carried out?
so if money goes missing out of my bank account, i cannot question it, because i cannot prove how it may of happened?
apply the same logic to everything and what your saying sounds crazy.
we have to solve the case before its investigated properly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | critics are just making up exscues to not prove something wrong, but then want all the credit when it has been proven to the believers of it that it is wrong.
my point is if it was left to critics, nothing would of been proved wrong at all. |
I am beginning to question your sanity. This is getting beyond delusional.
_________________
"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: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | critics are just making up exscues to not prove something wrong, but then want all the credit when it has been proven to the believers of it that it is wrong.
my point is if it was left to critics, nothing would of been proved wrong at all. |
I am beginning to question your sanity. This is getting beyond delusional. |
of cause you are, when was there ever a point where you was'nt? you've deluded yourself to think anyone who questions 9/11 must believe everything that goes against the offical version.
my observerations are of critics on this board, which alex says if it was'nt for you critics people would still believe certain theorys, yet critics here have done nothing in the way of proving them wrong. they are to busy calling people delusional. anything ive been able to rule out has been via my own research or others research in other parts of the forum, not via critics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | when was there ever a point where you was'nt? |
Yes. | Quote: | | yet critics here have done nothing in the way of proving them wrong. they are to busy calling people delusional. anything ive been able to rule out has been via my own research or others research in other parts of the forum, not via critics. |
This is a load of steaming nonsense, if not delusional it is certainly a shameless lie.
_________________
"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: Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | when was there ever a point where you was'nt? |
Yes. | Quote: | | yet critics here have done nothing in the way of proving them wrong. they are to busy calling people delusional. anything ive been able to rule out has been via my own research or others research in other parts of the forum, not via critics. |
This is a load of steaming nonsense, if not delusional it is certainly a shameless lie. |
no pepik, you fail to tell the difference between your opinon and my opinon. it is not a lie, it is my experience of trying to converse with critics.
i'll turn up and ask questions or make a point to get the otherside or pointers to information that sheds more light, for my efforts i get ridiculed, called delusional so on and so forth, yet all im looking for is something to prove wrong all the theorys with evidence as oppose to personnal slurs or baffling logic and waffle. there are things i have concerns about, there are grey areas, and things that are clearly wrong.
im simply looking for ways to disprove theroys wether i believe them or not, so everyone(not just me and my personnal opinon) can see clearly WHY it is wrong, IF it IS wrong.
its not all one way.
i quickly learned critics corner was a waste of time in attempting to do this, nothing has changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | there are things i have concerns about, there are grey areas, and things that are clearly wrong. |
That is a fair and reasonable statement. | Quote: | | critics here have done nothing in the way of proving them wrong |
That is not.
_________________
"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: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | no pepik, you fail to tell the difference between your opinon and my opinon. it is not a lie, it is my experience of trying to converse with critics.
i'll turn up and ask questions or make a point to get the otherside or pointers to information that sheds more light, for my efforts i get ridiculed, called delusional so on and so forth, yet all im looking for is something to prove wrong all the theorys with evidence as oppose to personnal slurs or baffling logic and waffle. there are things i have concerns about, there are grey areas, and things that are clearly wrong.
im simply looking for ways to disprove theroys wether i believe them or not, so everyone(not just me and my personnal opinon) can see clearly WHY it is wrong, IF it IS wrong.
its not all one way.
i quickly learned critics corner was a waste of time in attempting to do this, nothing has changed. |
I would have some sympathy for you Marky, if you hadn't just spent many posts trying to suggest that DNA evidence should be disregarded. And that witness reports might as well be ignored.
Many of the 'theories' that critics are asked to respond to are very hard to deal with in a clear, reasoned way. For example, the theory implicit in a lot of truth movement material and within this thread...
| Quote: | | The DNA evidence at the Pentagon (and Shanksville) was either planted or faked |
How is one to counter this 'hunch'? Truthers are not saying "The evidence suggests that DNA evidence was faked" because they have no direct evidence that it was faked. Truthers are actually saying "To be true, an NPT theory at the Pentagon and Shanksville demands that DNA evidence be either faked or planted at the scene".
And of course the DNA evidence COULD have been planted or faked - there is almost literally no way for any critic to 100% disprove that theory. Any evidence to the contrary could be faked itself. I couldn't disprove that Santa's elves put it there either.
Can you see how, in this circumstance, you cannot be provided the clear falsifying evidence that you require? And can you also understand how the burden of proof, in such a case, must surely rest with those making the extraordinary claim that evidence has been planted or faked? Is it unreasonable for a critic to make such a demand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
no alex you miss the point. there are numerous people who question areas of 9/11, regardless of my opinon or what i think.
just by questioning certain areas must mean there is a mistrust of the presented evidence given to support the offical story.
this includes DNA and photos of plane parts. now if im trying to prove to those who still doubt areas of the pentagon for example, that the DNA and plane parts were not faked or planted, (which people must think to think no plane hit the pentagon, am i wrong?) i would not beable to do so, and do not know they was'nt myself. you say you cannot prove they were not planted and waffle on about how its is impossible to do so, so its no wonder that has not been ruled out by many people who STILL believe the pentagon and others areas are fishy even WITH that evidence.
that is my point, it dos'nt mean i think they were planted, i just cannot say they were not with any certainity or at least show others they were not.
which is why i went on about serial numbers that proves plane parts came from said planes, inorder to prove that it was'nt just a plane that hit, but it was the stated planes, therefore no planting of evidence took part!.
however as you know we then go on a roundabout. about how even that evidence could be faked, and then im told that i would reject it blah blah blah, and have words put in my mouth and told how i think.
a bit like your doing now, purposily missing the point to fit your belief system or turning it into something you want it mean.
overall the problem was pointed out a while ago, however critics keep going on about it, and taking my motives for questioning or finding out the information or if it exsisted the wrong way, inorder to fit their belief system and how they like to see me, hence i keep having to explain WHY i was asking, and WHY i was saying what i was saying.
to be clear, the problem was pointed out a while back, that the serail numer evidence could be faked to or dismissed. which is fair enough, however i don't believe that is any reason not to present it. afterall, all that matters is if the offical story is true. and if evidence can be released strengthening it, there is less reasons to doubt it. and many(not all, obviously some would still question things) would have to accept the offical story is true upto the building collapses at least.
regardless it aint gonna happen in the foreseeable future. so as far as im concerned discussion over.
| Quote: | | The DNA evidence at the Pentagon (and Shanksville) was either planted or faked |
can you show where you got this quote from? i cannot find it anywhere and i checked every post in the thread, did i miss it?, are quoting me? someone else?
i'd like to check for myself what came before and after, to see how much snipping you had to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
...
that is my point, it dos'nt mean i think they were planted, i just cannot say they were not with any certainity or at least show others they were not.
which is why i went on about serial numbers that proves plane parts came from said planes, inorder to prove that it was'nt just a plane that hit, but it was the stated planes, therefore no planting of evidence took part!.
|
If this is truly your way of thinking then you'll live in a permanent state of confusion. It isn't logically possible to prove negatives (except in mathematics), and this is what you're calling for. "Offer proof that the DNA wasn't planted". This can't ever be done, Marky (and I'm not saying you ever uttered those exact words, but they are typical of what you do say).
Such subjects depend on assessing evidence in a reasonable way, like judge and jury.
The evidence - assessed beyond a reasonable doubt - is that the DNA was genuine. If you want proof it was genuine you'd need one of those time machines to go back and follow the sampling and testing procedures. You'd also need to be in several places at the same time, and look over the shoulder of every technician and doctor involved and know a good deal about the subject yourself.
And even then you'd only satisfy yourself. Other CTists would just categorise your "proof" as that of a shill or disinfo agent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | which is why i went on about serial numbers that proves plane parts came from said planes, inorder to prove that it was'nt just a plane that hit, but it was the stated planes, therefore no planting of evidence took part!. |
But would they prove it? Why would the prove it in a way DNA wouldn't? You won't explain.
The reason you are so excited about serial numbers is because they aren't available. As soon as they are provided you would reject them because we "just can't be sure" that they weren't planted. Its a complete charade.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We had this with the CCTV evidence at the Pentagon, great cries of "Release the videos, they must show something else!" When finally the FBI released the videos under FOIA, they showed the cameras were directed on to the gas station forecourt and hotel car park, not a distant building, just as one would expect. To the truthers, evidence is always vitally important, until it is seen, when it suddenly becomes inconclusive. "The towers could not collapse just from one floor giving way or at that speed" A Cambridge academic shows mathematically that is just what would happen, then "He must have got it wrong, but we have no calculations of our own" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i give up with the thick headed critics who cannot seem to read what i said without refitting it or snipping it to mean what they want, so they can go on a rant.
1. i never asked anyone to prove dna was real, i asked if there was any serial number evidence, to prove that no planting of evidence took part.
2. i wanted to beable to prove to people that evidence was'nt planted. how you can question each crash site and think the evidence was'nt planted is beyond me. so i thought the serial would prove it to people once and fror all.
3. the problems producing the evidnce was pointed out many posts ago. therefore it has been concluded, the end off. end of debate, i got the answers, i realise it would'nt solve anything.
why do critics still think im asking for the evidence? i was simply explaining why i was asking in the first place and then the process that the debate took.
why car'nt critics read a whole post? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | "Offer proof that the DNA wasn't planted". This can't ever be done, Marky (and I'm not saying you ever uttered those exact words, but they are typical of what you do say).
|
your right i never said those words. now your making it up.
| Quote: | | And even then you'd only satisfy yourself. Other CTists would just categorise your "proof" as that of a shill or disinfo agent. |
i agree, but i already said before your reply that this was concluded and pointed out. however that angle did'nt cross my mind before i started the debate. maybe because i saw it as something that would take away any ounce of doubt on these areas for me, and then assumed it would for everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The reason you are so excited about serial numbers is because they aren't available. As soon as they are provided you would reject them because we "just can't be sure" that they weren't planted. Its a complete charade.
|
i have already explained the reason, its not my fault you choose to ignore it and make up your own reasons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
