Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Loose Change: compelling evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theories or complete bullshít?
Options
Comments
-
In fairness to tunaman, he has consistently been extolling other videos - 911 Eyewitness, 911 Revisited (I think), possibly In Plane Site etc. - rather than LC.0
-
Actually you're right, I did think tunaman had originally linked to the LC video, my apologies tunaman.0
-
Ciaran500 wrote:
Incredible accuracy :rolleyes:
Your link doesn't work, but he allegedly flew the plane a few feet off the ground, which would take immense skill going at more than 500mph...He had a commercial pilots license so we know he was at least a comptent pilot
Here is what one of his instructors had to say about the skills of Hanour...
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nyt_hanjour1.html
"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."0 -
-
bonkey wrote:Heading back dangerously on-topic...
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
Witty (if virtiolic) article offering a perspective on LC which - to be honest - I tend to generally agree with the sentiments of.
You agree with all the logical fallacies that article has to resort to, in trying to present what you seem to think is such a strong arguement?
You and the author of that article have this grand delusion that loose change is the best and only evidence against the official conspiracy theory...
The only response to all the evidence for demolition is resorting to appeals to authority, and stating outright that it would have been impossible, with absolute certainty...
They also feel the need to use the incredibly weak holocaust denier accusation...
Is that really the best your side can come up with?0 -
Advertisement
-
It would take immense skill to do it without crashing into something, sure.tunaman wrote:Your link doesn't work, but he allegedly flew the plane a few feet off the ground, which would take immense skill going at more than 500mph...
From the same page: "...the Phoenix staff... feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner." Ooh, a safety hazard. You mean if he flew a commercial airliner, there's a severe danger he might crash it into something?tunaman wrote:Here is what one of his instructors had to say about the skills of Hanour...
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nyt_hanjour1.html
"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all."
I don't recall you answering my earlier question: who was at the controls of Flight 77 when it hit the Pentagon?0 -
tunaman wrote:You agree with all the logical fallacies that article has to resort to, in trying to present what you seem to think is such a strong arguement?
No, I agree with the basic premise that Dylan and his mates are either loony or liars. There is no credible argument that can be made to convince me that they genuinely believe the fiction they are peddling.
I can't speak for the author. Personally, I suffer no such delusion. I am aware, however, that LC is the most popular of its kind.You and the author of that article have this grand delusion that loose change is the best and only evidence against the official conspiracy theory...
There is no evidence. There are allegations that evidence exists, typically backed up by flawed logic, impossible physics, and frequent abuse of anyone who disagrees with them.The only response to all the evidence for demolition
As evidence of this last claim, I draw reference to the allegation that am possessed of a "grand delusion" in this post, frequent comments about my posting disinformation, etc.
As evidence of the first two claims, I suggest anyone simply read the "megamerge" thread.
Like your demolitions expert commenting on WTC7 that you referenced in the post you added to the other thread at a similar time to this one?is resorting to appeals to authority,
That's what you insist about the official explanation. Are you now admitting its an unreasonable position for you to have taken?and stating outright that it would have been impossible, with absolute certainty...
Weak in the sense that you believe the evidence to support it is somehow false?They also feel the need to use the incredibly weak holocaust denier accusation...Is that really the best your side can come up with?
Is this another post where you try to score as many points off your "disinformation tactics" list as possible?0 -
oscarBravo wrote:It would take immense skill to do it without crashing into something, sure.
If case you forgot he didn't supposedly just dive into the roof of the building...From the same page: "...the Phoenix staff... feared that his skills were so weak that he could pose a safety hazard if he flew a commercial airliner." Ooh, a safety hazard. You mean if he flew a commercial airliner, there's a severe danger he might crash it into something?
As in he couldn't control the plane...I don't recall you answering my earlier question: who was at the controls of Flight 77 when it hit the Pentagon?
If you are honest enough to admit the reason you ask if because you don't know either...
It really isn't important...0 -
bonkey wrote:There is no evidence. There are allegations that evidence exists, typically backed up by flawed logic, impossible physics, and frequent abuse of anyone who disagrees with them.
There is plenty of evidence, but you pretend you don't see it...
Then when you are presented with articles like these you fail to form any defence...
The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
Engineering Fantasies
http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/index.htmlThere is no evidence.
What's this then?
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003Like your demolitions expert commenting on WTC7 that you referenced in the post you added to the other thread at a similar time to this one?
I wanted to see how long it would take for you to try to discredit him...That's what you insist about the official explanation.
Welcome to reality...Are you now admitting its an unreasonable position for you to have taken?
In reality it's unreasonable for you continually trying to defend an impossible lie...Is this another post where you try to score as many points off your "disinformation tactics" list as possible?
You are the one trying to make a game out of this...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
No, but if he had, I'd imagine you'd be on here telling us all what an incredibly skillful maneouvre such a dive was.tunaman wrote:If case you forgot he didn't supposedly just dive into the roof of the building...
Oh look, you just called me dishonest. Charming debating tactic.tunaman wrote:If you are honest enough to admit the reason you ask if because you don't know either...
I don't "know" who flew it, in the sense that I didn't happen to look into the cockpit in the moments before it crashed. I "know" Hanjour flew it, in the sense that there's not one tiny shred of credible evidence that anyone else was flying it. As neatly supported by your next little gem:
Now that's just hilarious. What you're saying is, it doesn't matter who flew an airplane into the Pentagon - as long as it's not who the official story says it was?tunaman wrote:It really isn't important...
I mean, seriously - don't you want to lend any credibility to your version of events?0 -
As I said - the allegation that evidence exists. Evidence can be shown to be significant. Nothing you've presented thus far can be shown to be significant, and a hell of a lot of it can be shown to be downright wrong.tunaman wrote:There is plenty of evidence, but you pretend you don't see it...
Are these articles previously posted that I've admitted to being being stumped by, or are you just making up allegations here?Then when you are presented with articles like these you fail to form any defence...
Regardless, I've no doubt that you have no shortage of articles to throw at me one after another. To date, I believe the only ones I've refused to comment on are the ones where you've demonstrated an unwillingness to discuss them yourself. Oh, a bit like this latest one.
Now...why am I doing this? It should be clear, but on the assumption that you honestly can't see why, or on the possibilty that someone else can't figure it out themselves, I'll explain.
Assume you've read the article. You want me to comment on it, so I have to put the same time as you into reading it. Then I have to do background research regarding my position. I'll do you the cuortesy of assuming you do likewise before presenting your sources, although I have had reason to question that on occasion.
So, you present your source, writing a one-liner "oh, look at this one, bet you can't answer it". I, in turn, am then expected to write a full rebuttal of someone else's work. Consider that a 2-3 minute video of yoru demolition expert took over 1/2 an hour to write a rebuttal for, and think of how many hours of material you've posted, ignoring even the written material (where an A4 page owuld contain as much text as maybe 5-10 minutes of video).
So, if we exclude the reading and analysis that I assume we both do, what takes you maybe 10 seconds requires a response from me that could be of the order of hours, and require thousands of words to do it justice.
If I ask you to make a case about what you think of the contents, I get some shallow refusal on the grounds that I'm trying to avoid reading it.
If I refuse to bite I get accused of not having an answer.
If ist something I've never seen before, I get accused of not havnig a response before ever being asked for one!
And if I do anything less than the full rebuttal that a lengthy article would require, you can start pointing at the bits I haven't addressed, or the bits where I've had to shorten my argument to avoid writing a book.
In short, your argument isn't being based at all on the evidence and how well either of us can put our case. Its based on how you can literally swamp me with sources, put 0 effort into making your own case, and then accuse me of being stumped, unwilling to engage, or whatever, because I'm not willing to spend hours (cumulatively days, weeks or even months) rebutting each single one in detail.
I've asked numerous times - if you have an article with a new claim, then tell me what the new claim is, where in the article it is, and I'll address that. You refuse. What possible grounds do you have for refusal? I'm stumped. Its not like most of these things aren't at least 90% material we've already covered.
Why is it too much to ask you to tell me which bits you feel need responding to that haven't been previously addressed?
If what you want is an admission that I can't compete with your shotgun tactics...then sure. No problem. here goes : I cannot singlehandedly respond to every article and video made on the 911 subject that you can find and post a link to. No-one can.
If you want to take that as a sign of victory, or of how superior your position is, you go right ahead.
Alternately, if you're actually interested in discussing the issue, or even going to the extreme of arguing your own case then I'll be more than happy to respond to any case you make. I do note, at this point, however, that you've refused any challenge I've set you which involves you doing exactly this.
As I've pointed out before, it is fascinating that you produce article after article with a cry of "but what about this then". When its been challenged and shown to be far less clear-cut (if not downright misleading), you don't defend it, or argue your case for long. Ignoring the sidetracking with rubbish like your disinforamtion claims, you generally just switch to a new article with a new cry of "but what about this then"!
...and the needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like before.....
What exactly are you trying to prove? That the list of things you fervently believe in, but which upon examination are shown to be far from unquestionable...is endless? OK. You've done it. You have an effectiveyl endless source of material. I'm convinced of that. I don't think there's anynoe here who isn't convinced of that.
But that's all you're proving. You don't have a consistent position, other than to challenge the official story based on any grounds whatsoever, even when those challenges contradict each other. So how can you be proving anything else? About the only thing your sources all agree on is that there's something suspicious...but not what that something is, why its suspicious, or anything else.
Brilliant.I wanted to see how long it would take for you to try to discredit him...
Don't bother going to the effort of explaining why my critique is flawed, or why the issues I point out don't raise the uncertainty I make out....just make a passing comment that suggests I am trying to discredit the man himself rather than the methodology used to reach the alleged conclusions reached.
And true to my description - upon being challenged, you ditch this line of argument and present new "bet this'll stump you" links, with no argument of your own.trunaman wrote:stating outright that it would have been impossible, with absolute certainty...
...
Is that really the best your side can come up with?Welcome to reality...
In reality it's unreasonable for you continually trying to defend an impossible lie...
I'm quite happy for you to admit that this is your reality - that you are taking a position that you yourself argue is weak.
You asked the right question. Is that really the best you can come up with?
See, I reckon you'll be hard pushed to find where anyone supporting the official story has claimed things to be impossible. What they have typically done is said they don't believe it is possible and challenged you to explain the issues they see. You have, incidentally, never once met those challenges, without raising more questions that you don't have answers to.
All I did is show that this is yet another situation where you have clearly used the very tactics you claim are unacceptable.You are the one trying to make a game out of this...
But yes...to be honest....I am making a game out of this. Here's how and why:
You refuse to make your own case, preferring rather to act as a "linker" to other people's cases, which you all-too-often refuse to discuss in detail preferring to link to new material instead.
So other than when you do raise an interesting-enough point for me to be bothered taking your bait, I'm settling for showing your tactics, methods, reasoning and so forth for what they are - misdirection.
You want me to stop playing this game, then stop playing yours. Stop shotgunning hour after hour of video, and document after document, and make your own case.
jc0 -
bonkey wrote:As I said - the allegation that evidence exists. Evidence can be shown to be significant. Nothing you've presented thus far can be shown to be significant, and a hell of a lot of it can be shown to be downright wrong.
Your constant AVOIDANCE tactics are pathetic...
Family members of the victims, help present COMPELLING EVIDENCE of the LIARS trying to cover-up the crime...
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=9%2F11+press+for+truth
$3M initially given to investigate 9/11...
That's about $1,000 per person killed...
Does that sound right to YOU?
Your continual DEFENCE of known liars makes you a prime candidate for YOUR chip...
Why don't you go and get your chip now? as you know it's for YOUR own PROTECTION...
While the rest of us will face up to the UNDENIABLE reality that we are all being DECEIVED...But that's all you're proving. You don't have a consistent position, other than to challenge the official story based on any grounds whatsoever, even when those challenges contradict each other. So how can you be proving anything else? About the only thing your sources all agree on is that there's something suspicious...but not what that something is, why its suspicious, or anything else.
If people like YOU held up the official story and the liars telling to sell it to you, to the same standards, then you would REALISE how WEAK your position is...0 -
tunaman wrote:Your constant AVOIDANCE tactics are pathetic...
Yes yes. I know.
If you ever get tired of the ad hominem attacks, though, actually presenting this evidence you talk about would be much more convincing to do instead.
So...COMPELLING EVIDENCE, eh? Capitalised 'n all. Must be impressive. All I have to do is watch another video that you've posted, figure out which bits of it you actually want me to address, and then spend some hours explaining why this is not evidence that the buildings were blown up, and we can start the loop over again.Family members of the victims, help present COMPELLING EVIDENCE of the LIARS trying to cover-up the crime...
Or you could summarise their points, tell me where in the video I can find what it is I'm supposed to be lookign for, and how verbal evidence from family members of hte deceased is somehow supposed to be evidence that buildings were demolished in the first place....and not, say, evidence of politicians covering their asses because the screw-ups of 911 should have resulted in a load of heads rolling even assuming there was no government complicity.
So go for it. stop me dodging these issues like you keep saying I'm doing by just telling me what it is I'm supposed to be looking for in this link.
I wasn't aware investigations were budgeted on a death-toll head-count basis, but since you ask....no, it doesn't sound right to me. It also doesn't sound like evidence that the buildings were demolished to me either. Nor does it sound like anything but a carefully edited set of details because since then far more than $3M has been spent. Care to tell us how much, and how much that works out to per head? Or if not, would you care to tell me how much would sound right to you per head, and I'll let you know if you're in the ballpark.$3M initially given to investigate 9/11...
That's about $1,000 per person killed...
Does that sound right to YOU?
Well, thats a convincing argument. Very nicely done. Capitalising those words was a particularly nice touch....helps add that extra "oomph" to your logic, dontchya think?Your continual DEFENCE of known liars makes you a prime candidate for YOUR chip...
Why don't you go and get your chip now? as you know it's for YOUR own PROTECTION...
Anyway...lets not get diverted here. Where were we? Oh yes...
Tip for the next time, though....if you drop the capitalisation, it might come across as even more resonable.
I've lost track of the number of times I've had to tell you this...but I'm enough of a sucker to give it one last shot:If people like YOU held up the official story and the liars telling to sell it to you, to the same standards, then you would REALISE how WEAK your position is...
The work I defend from tirades like yours is the scientific work carried out by NIST. I have not defended the Comission Report, the FEMA report, the position or findings of the US Administration in general, nor any other related findings, documents, groups or whatever it is you want to accuse me of this time round. I have used information from some of thse sources when I believe it to be accurate and relevant, but never once have I suggested those works are beyond criticism nor defended them from valid and rational criticism.
Haven't done it, won't do it.
Furthermore, I have made it clear on occasion that there are grounds to challenge certain aspects of the investigations carried out, and also that I do not accept some of the findings.
I even offered to give you a question-on-question thread, you vs. me, where we'd see who dodged the most stuff. You could have started with "So bonkey, which parts of the whole affair do you not accept".
Did you accept my offer? No....you threw it back in my face along with another heap of ad hominem attacks.
Not once have you ever sought to ask about what I do and to not accept. You have taken my defence of the NIST final reports and my criticism of conrpiracy theories for their own flaws as some sort of indicator that lets you assume I'm 100% behind everything the officials say about 911....despite numerous incidents where it is blindingly true that this is simply not the case (e.g. my response to the allegations that the Pentagon lied to the Comission).
Its ironic that this is apparently typical of how you've reached your conclusions on 911 itself. You aren't interested in all the facts. You ignore facts that don't suit your conclusion. When those facts are pointed out to you, you resort to bluster, ad hominem attacks and so forth.
I've pointed out the flaws in your various arguments. Thats what a skeptic does. If you had thought to ever ask me (prior to this), I'd have pointed out where I believe there were and are flaws in the handling and findings of the affair.
But no. Why ask me to clarify comments I've made to that effect, when simply you can simply decide to believe something else suits you better. Having decided it to be true, you then parade it to the world, repeatedly, as though it were an unquestionable truth to which there are no honest counterpoints.
Again - you demonstrate either sloppy research (in not ever finding out what those bits I said I don't accept were), or wilful misdirection (in ignoring that I've even said it).
As it is, I'm done with you. Quite frankly, you're simply not worth any more effort. Anyone reading this thread who isn't already convinced of that isn't going to be convinced by anything new I can say either, so I can't even take the position that I continue to address you for someone else's benefit.
We're done. Good day sir.0 -
bonkey wrote:If you ever get tired of the ad hominem attacks, though, actually presenting this evidence you talk about would be much more convincing to do instead.
You really are incredibly sensitive...
How is calling you out for using avoidance tactics, an ad hominem attack?So go for it. stop me dodging these issues like you keep saying I'm doing by just telling me what it is I'm supposed to be looking for in this link.
Have you even looked at the 9/11 commission in any detail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was set up in late 2002...
The Commission's Executive Director was Philip D. Zelikow...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
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 November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”
Back to the so called independant investigation...
President Bush had initially appointed former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to head the commission, but he withdrew shortly afterward because he would have been obliged to disclose the clients of his private consulting business...
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/
The following all refused to testify under oath...
President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former President Bill Clinton, and former Vice President Al Gore all gave private testimony. President Bush and Vice President Cheney insisted on testifying together, while Clinton and Gore met with the panel separately.
Claims of bias within the commission
Some members of victims' families have claimed that the commission has numerous conflicts of interest.
They are too numerous to mention here...I wasn't aware investigations were budgeted on a death-toll head-count basis, but since you ask....no, it doesn't sound right to me. It also doesn't sound like evidence that the buildings were demolished to me either. Nor does it sound like anything but a carefully edited set of details because since then far more than $3M has been spent.
I stated the fact that the 9/11 commission was initially given just $3M...
Did I say it was evidence the buildings were demolished?
It's obvious evidence of a massive cover-up...Care to tell us how much, and how much that works out to per head? Or if not, would you care to tell me how much would sound right to you per head, and I'll let you know if you're in the ballpark.
Human life cannot be given a price, especially not based on pieces of paper...
These people however have no problem putting a price on life...The work I defend from tirades like yours is the scientific work carried out by NIST.
The fact that you continue to defend them, even though their work was basically anti-science, is sad...
They were given a conclusion and worked backwards, which you continue to avoid even admitting, let alone trying to explain...I even offered to give you a question-on-question thread, you vs. me, where we'd see who dodged the most stuff. You could have started with "So bonkey, which parts of the whole affair do you not accept".
Did you accept my offer? No....you threw it back in my face along with another heap of ad hominem attacks.
That was because you started with a ridiculous loaded question, and then you took offense when I threw it back in your face...Its ironic that this is apparently typical of how you've reached your conclusions on 911 itself. You aren't interested in all the facts. You ignore facts that don't suit your conclusion. When those facts are pointed out to you, you resort to bluster, ad hominem attacks and so forth.
Show me all these relevant facts you are talking about?I've pointed out the flaws in your various arguments. Thats what a skeptic does. If you had thought to ever ask me (prior to this), I'd have pointed out where I believe there were and are flaws in the handling and findings of the affair.
You have told me that you think it was mere incompetence at all levels, during the months before and again on the day of the attacks...
Which is exactly the same excuses as the 9/11 commission came out with...But no. Why ask me to clarify comments I've made to that effect, when simply you can simply decide to believe something else suits you better. Having decided it to be true, you then parade it to the world, repeatedly, as though it were an unquestionable truth to which there are no honest counterpoints.
What you call counterpoints, are in reality excuses...
I have never claimed to know the truth of what happened, as we are not supposed to ever find out...
Then again Bush is now talking about operatives and explosives in the buildings...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6083135,00.html
For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.
The alleged mastermind (KSM) was reported killed...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html
He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.
Are they now going to try to change their story?0 -
Tunaman, I will ask you once and once only to tone down your comments to other users. comments such as "pathetic" are unacceptable. also your use of all caps is comming accross as slightly agressive.
Please keep this in check. Thank you.0 -
tunaman wrote:
Oh god, this guy is still going on about WMD. :mad:tunaman wrote:Double post
0_o
To this idea that America may be creating terrorists. I'd say this has value now! Things are going to get an awful lot worse. I've been watching "The Road to Guantanamo" and this became obvious.
If i was an innocent party in that detention centre or any others i would want revenge very quicky upon release. The same thing i suppose with your house being shelled by American artillery and your families being killed for some shítty reason.
I dont get it all now, im just confused with all of this pure búllshít in regard to human life and moral issues.[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like - it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity ? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.[/FONT]
I have got two words for you Bush, one begins with "F"!! Guess the rest you stupid twat!!
Someone give Bush a dose of stress positions, regular beatings, sensory dep, humility, lies, a black site transfer and sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution.
Yes i was taken back by this film. How good is it to say that you have never been persecuted? Its brilliant!0 -
one week ban for Nick_oliveri.
Nick was referring to GWB and not tunaman as it initially appeared, so no ban. sorry nick.0 -
No bodgers! I can see how that post may have come across. Im happy in one way that GW is not a boards user!!
tunaman wrote:
For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.
The alleged mastermind (KSM) was reported killed...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html
He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.
Are they now going to try to change their story?
It could be said that he was talking about the hijackers being told in advance where to hit the buildings to cause maximum casualties.
Explosives being the jet fuel. But why would he refer to the hijackers as operatives? Maybe he was talking about a different event altogether!
He doesn't refer to it as 9/11, the letters he is most likely to utter in a speech!0 -
This quote sums you up, tunaman. You are completely and utterly unqualified to make this statement. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. You claim to know for a fact what didn't happen, but also claim that we can't know what did happen. And then you have the unspeakable gall to call scientists "anti-science". Unbelievable.tunaman wrote:The fact that you continue to defend [NIST], even though their work was basically anti-science, is sad...
Prove it.tunaman wrote:They were given a conclusion and worked backwards...0 -
Advertisement
-
And again you manage to not present the evidence, but to go off on a seperate topic.tunaman wrote:Have you even looked at the 9/11 commission in any detail?
Lets just recap this part of the conversation....Did I say it was evidence the buildings were demolished?
You alleged there was evidence of demolition.
I disagreed and said there was allegations of such evidence, but none of what had been presented stood up to scrutiny.
You got outraged, accused me of avoidance, and then posted some stuff.
I asked how this was evidence of demolition.
You respond that you never said it was evidence of demolition!!!!!
In other words you disputed my claim that evidence for demolition hasn't been presented, and to prove your point post something we both agree is not evidence for demolition.
Interesting approach.
No, its not. Its evidence that can be interpreted to support allegations of a cover-up. Not quite the same thing. That might sound like avoidance tactics worthy of a politican to you. To me, it sounds like precision - a trait thats necessary in analysis.It's obvous evidence of a massive cover-up...
Not only that, but if there is a cover-up, there is no suggestion of what is being covered up. It could be a coverup of gross incompetence and negligence. It could be a coverup of vast flaws in teh system that no-one wants to tackle. It could be coverup of a "Let it happen" conspiracy. It could be a coverup of a "made it happen" conspiracy.
Only the last of these would involve demolition of the buildings with US government complicity.
If 3 trillion dollars instead of 3 million dollars was the initial allocation, this logic says it still wouldn't have been enough. So what, exactly, is your point here?Human life cannot be given a price, especially not based on pieces of paper...
If you're trying to argue that it show the 9/11 investigation was underfunded, then it makes no sense because it also says that every other investigation into every other murder in history has been underfunded....meaning 911 doesn't stand out from the crowd.
If you want to argue that 3 million wasn't enough, then this logic doesn't support that argument. I support it, though. I say 3 million wasn't enough. Then again, I know that 3 million wasn't the total budget, so its not important that it wasn't enough because more was spent. A lot more. Would you care to tell us the total spent to date, given that you're so obviously concerned about underfunding?
If you, or anyone reading this, hasn't already done so, I urge you to read my "denigration of science" thread in this forum, where this type of "argument" is discussed in detail.The fact that you continue to defend them, even though their work was basically anti-science, is sad...
Short version: This very argument is "anti-science". It is attempting to lessen the worth of scientific work, not by attacking its scientific weaknesses but by trying to undermine the proven strengths of science as a discipline.
You are using everything except science to attack a scientific work and claim it does not hold up. The only people you're going to fool with that technique are those who are simply not well enough versed in science as sa discipline to recognise this flaw in your argument.
This, incidentally, would also explain why the vast majority of the content of Conspiracy Theories can gain popular support, but be dismissed out of hand by the scientific community. Its because the scientific community have a solid-enough basis to know that your rage against them is mere posturing and has no credible scientific basis whatsoever.
Its worth pointing out that this is another situation where the reality (scientific community dismisses Conspiracy Theory as being worthless) can be interpreted in entirely seperate ways, each of which suits one side.
The case can't be decided either way without considering the implications of the explanation, so lets to that.
If I'm right, then the people attacking science do so the way they do so because they either know no better, or know well enough to know its the only tactic that will fool others. The scientific community ignores such people becuase they can see the criticism is worthless from a scientific perspective, and was never intended to actually refute the findings...just to cast enough doubt on those who carried out the work that the findings become suspect.
Conversely, if tunaman is right, then almost the entire scientific community is in on some vast conspiracy either by being paid off, frightened into compliance, or as willing accomplices. These millions of people the world over are all part of the cover-up!! They refuse to apply their scientific methodology where it woudl be inconvenient to these cover-ups to do so, but manage to do it everywhere else to a high enough degree to make sure their "real" science actually works. They ignore the criticism of the conspiracy theorists because they don't want to be caught out, and are getting away with it because almost no scientist anywhere isn't already on their side.
Now...which of these is more probable?
If its my explanation, then the question become this:
Can tunaman offer a more credible, more probable third explanation, as to why what effectively amounts to the entire worldwide scientific community is turning a blind eye to these allegedly-obvious gross abuses of science?
I don't admit it, because other than the conclusion being that "the buildings are no longer standing", it is patently untrue.They were given a conclusion and worked backwards, which you continue to avoid even admitting, let alone trying to explain...
Its a claim which ignores long-established principles of scientific modelling and which - like almost all of your railing against science - relies on the entire scientific community buying into the coverup you allege exists.
Not only that, but its yet another claim you insist is true, but can't actually show it to be so.
The only excuse you had in order to suggest that it was loaded is that when the scientists said the data could not be used the way you used it they didn't really mean it.That was because you started with a ridiculous loaded question,
True to form, you didn't bother showing why they were wrong. You just stated it as a fait accompli.
Its yet another empty, non-scientific attack on well-established science being used to defend your case.
Its false, and because its false, your allegation that the question was loaded has nothing to support it except your repetition.
Lets just start with one - the relevant fact that NIST said certain direct measurements were made of too small a sample to be able to draw meaningful conclusions about the entirety.Show me all these relevant facts you are talking about?
You ignored this fact to present your case. When confronted with this fact, you hand-waved it away using the ususal non-scientific methodology rather than showing scientifically or mathematically - it is a question of statistics after all - why your claim is correct and why the scientists were wrong.
Well, yes. If you want to reduce both of our arguments to one-liners, and ignore the fact that I have stated every time this crops up that there I have issues with the 911 Comission, and that the only work I defend fully is the NIST report.You have told me that you think it was mere incompetence at all levels, during the months before and again on the day of the attacks...
Which is exactly the same excuses as the 9/11 commission came out with...
Of course, if I were to similarly ignore the finer detail of your arguments, the fact that you've repeatedly stated disagerement, and so forth, I could just as blandly claim that you and Dylan Avery believe and argue for the same thing.
I wouldn't do that, though, because in my eyes that would be a dishonest misrepresentation of a stance you've made abundantly clear.
So you don't know that the buildings were demolished!I have never claimed to know the truth of what happened,
Nor do you know that the US government was guilty of anything greater than gross incompetence!!!
Good of you to finally admit that. We're making progress. Finally.
Oh...wait...maybe thats not what you meant.
Did you mean, parhaps, that you don't know all the details of every aspect of the truth, but you do know the truth in a general, overall sense?
If so, then you must believe that its possible to know the truth of what happened in broad terms, without knowing every last detail and being able to answer every last question.
That would, however, undermine the criticism that there is something suspect about the existence of unanswered questions arising from NISTs research. It would mean that one can form a working hypothesis and even come to a definitive conclusion without addressing every single noted event.
This is what you said NIST were wrong for doing, so I must be wrong. You can't mean that you know the general, overall truth when you don't know all the truth of all the details. Well, you can, but it would require you to be using a double-standard compared to how you judge NIST.
So we're back to this looknig like an admission that you don't know the buildings were demolished.
SO which is it? You hold NIST to a different standard, or you don't actually know the buildings were demolished and that it was a government coverup?
In a speech that you yourself admit was written for him, no-one who was "in" on your conspiracy noticed this?Then again Bush is now talking about operatives and explosives in the buildings...
Wow - they terrified and cowed the worldwide scientific community at large, as well as countless other people. They pulled off the greatest scam in history, fooling countless people along the way...but after all of that they can't prevent or evne detect a script-writer trying to tell us what happened.
It's proof definitive!!!Bush was behind everything!!!
Except its not. Its not even evidence of anything.
Its just another interpretable situation that you can bend to your whim.0 -
oscarBravo wrote:No, but if he had, I'd imagine you'd be on here telling us all what an incredibly skillful maneouvre such a dive was.
Imagine...Oh look, you just called me dishonest. Charming debating tactic.
When did I do that?I don't "know" who flew it, in the sense that I didn't happen to look into the cockpit in the moments before it crashed.
Which was my point...I "know" Hanjour flew it, in the sense that there's not one tiny shred of credible evidence that anyone else was flying it. As neatly supported by your next little gem: Now that's just hilarious. What you're saying is, it doesn't matter who flew an airplane into the Pentagon - as long as it's not who the official story says it was?
There is no shred of credible evidence that he was flying it...
I am saying that the pentagon is a red herring...
Have a look at this well researched site, and let me know what you make of it...
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/0 -
oscarBravo wrote:This quote sums you up, tunaman. You are completely and utterly unqualified to make this statement. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. You claim to know for a fact what didn't happen, but also claim that we can't know what did happen. And then you have the unspeakable gall to call scientists "anti-science". Unbelievable.
Keep trying to dismiss if it makes you feel better...
It was impossible for those buildings to come down according to the official explanation...Prove it.
In case you missed it, the official story was born within hours on the streets, told by some supposedly random eyewitness...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fp7w_0_BzM0 -
bonkey wrote:And again you manage to not present the evidence, but to go off on a seperate topic.
Yet again you fail to answer the question...
I presented plenty of evidence, which you yet again avoided...
In case you had a temporary loss of vision, here it is again...
The Commission's Executive Director was Philip D. Zelikow...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
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 November-December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism,” in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, “the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”
They really couldn't have found anybody more suited to the role of covering up the crime, and creating an outrageous conspiracy theory...
Now unless you actually comment on this, instead of trying to avoid it, then it's obvious you aren't interested in having a proper discussion...0 -
Just as I thought, not interested in a proper discussion...
Here is some more very interesting information about the director of the 9/11 commission...
He was adjunct professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California in 1984-1985, and served in three different offices of the U.S. Department of State in the second Reagan administration.
Zelikow joined the National Security Council in the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, at the same time as Condoleezza Rice.
Philip Zelikow has co-authored many books. He wrote a book with Ernest May on The Kennedy Tapes, and another with Joseph Nye and David C. King on Why People Don’t Trust Government. He wrote Germany Unified and Europe Transformed with Condoleezza Rice.
Philip Zelikow served on President Bush's transition team in 2000-2001. After George W. Bush took office, Zelikow was named to a position on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and worked on other task forces and commissions as well, including the National Commission on Federal Election Reform.
Last but definitely not least, he wrote this incredibly important document, before the 9/11 commission had started their so called independant investigation...
In Rise of the Vulcans (Viking, 2004), James Mann reports that when Richard Haass, a senior aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell and the director of policy planning at the State Department, drafted for the administration an overview of America’s national security strategy following September 11, Dr. Rice, the national security advisor, "ordered that the document be completely rewritten. She thought the Bush administration needed something bolder, something that would represent a more dramatic break with the ideas of the past. Rice turned the writing over to her old colleague, University of Virginia Professor Philip Zelikow.” This document, issued on September 17, 2002, is generally recognized as a watershed document in the War on Terrorism.0 -
tunaman wrote:Just as I thought, not interested in a proper discussion...
About what????!!!???
Seriously. Let me run through this again...bonkey wrote:Lets just recap this part of the conversation....
You alleged there was evidence of demolition.
I disagreed and said there was allegations of such evidence, but none of what had been presented stood up to scrutiny.
You got outraged, accused me of avoidance, and then posted some stuff.
I asked how this was evidence of demolition.
You respond that you never said it was evidence of demolition!!!!!
In other words you disputed my claim that evidence for demolition hasn't been presented, and to prove your point post something we both agree is not evidence for demolition.
your response to this has been to post up a load of information about the chairman of a comission I have never defended, which has nothing to do with evidence of demolition.
I am interested in a discussion. I'm interested in discussing the evidence of demolition you claim to have.
When you present it, I'll discuss it.
While you continue presenting completely unrelated stuff, I will keep pointing out that you are attempting to change the subject, that you are repeatedlyu failing to present evidence you claim to have, and I will keep refusing to bite.0 -
bonkey wrote:About what????!!!???
Seriously. Let me run through this again...
I have presented the evidence for demolition in the form of videos and articles, but you have refused to even admit any of this evidence exists...your response to this has been to post up a load of information about the chairman of a comission I have never defended, which has nothing to do with evidence of demolition.
Why haven't you defended this commission?
Is it because you know you would be facing an impossible task?
The results of which became the official conspiracy theory...I am interested in a discussion. I'm interested in discussing the evidence of demolition you claim to have.
When you present it, I'll discuss it.
You are a funny man...0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement