9/11, a total lie, but why?

  • Thread starter Heeeed the Ball
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.


cosmicchris00 said:
Here's a quest for you, what do you think another galaxy is like? Take all the time you need.
Click to expand...

Which one? There are at least 100 billion out there. But that's just a guess, because it takes us years just to get to planets in our own solar system, and I don't trust science because it changes its mind.
 
PinzaC55 said:
One of the features of the scientific method is that it is subject to "peer review". If scientist X puts forward a hypothesis or theory it needs to be testable, observable and repeatable. Scientist X then publishes their results either in a paper or journal for the scrutiny of other scientists. The other scientists pick over every point in the paper and it is either agreed with, in which case Scientist X gets kudos and maybe even a Nobel Prize or it is proven to be wrong in which case the scientists who prove it wrong get the kudos and Scientist X goes back to the lab.
"Truthers" can dream up all kinds of ideas but as soon as they are subjected to scientific scrutiny they are proved wrong. Saying "the government covered up the evidence" carries no weight and nor does "I can't understand how this happened" or "I have never seen this happen before".
Click to expand...

Oooh you want peer reviewed journals eh? These are just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles.html
http://www.jod911.com/Roberts_WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.jod911.com/
http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/peer-reviewed-911-truth.html
 
Last edited:
ProfessionalMackem said:
Oooh you want peer reviewed journals eh? These are just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles.html
http://www.jod911.com/Roberts_WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.jod911.com/
http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/peer-reviewed-911-truth.html
Click to expand...

I just clicked on the first link and found that the subject "truther" of the paper was "Dr. David Ray Griffin an emeritus professor of theology and religious philosophy" :lol:

I don't why they even bothered.
 
PinzaC55 said:
One of the features of the scientific method is that it is subject to "peer review". If scientist X puts forward a hypothesis or theory it needs to be testable, observable and repeatable. Scientist X then publishes their results either in a paper or journal for the scrutiny of other scientists. The other scientists pick over every point in the paper and it is either agreed with, in which case Scientist X gets kudos and maybe even a Nobel Prize or it is proven to be wrong in which case the scientists who prove it wrong get the kudos and Scientist X goes back to the lab.
"Truthers" can dream up all kinds of ideas but as soon as they are subjected to scientific scrutiny they are proved wrong. Saying "the government covered up the evidence" carries no weight and nor does "I can't understand how this happened" or "I have never seen this happen before".
Click to expand...
That statement carries absolutely no gravitas when you consider scientists and nobel prize winners have stated that "the Bush administration distorted scientific knowledge for partisan political reasons." You'd have to be an imbecile to believe the absurdities in the official report.
 
daedalus said:
That statement carries absolutely no gravitas when you consider scientists and nobel prize winners have stated that "the Bush administration distorted scientific knowledge for partisan political reasons." You'd have to be an imbecile to believe the absurdities in the official report.
Click to expand...

Were they talking about 9/11 when they said that?
 
Narraback said:
Which one? There are at least 100 billion out there. But that's just a guess, because it takes us years just to get to planets in our own solar system, and I don't trust science because it changes its mind.
Click to expand...

Sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

Take some more time or just admit you don't know
 
PinzaC55 said:
I just clicked on the first link and found that the subject "truther" of the paper was "Dr. David Ray Griffin an emeritus professor of theology and religious philosophy" :lol:

I don't why they even bothered.
Click to expand...

So? Changing the goalposts again I see. He talks about empirical evidence. Care to refute anything he claims?

What about these?
http://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/

Or about these links by architects, engineers, scholars, lawyers, firefighters ?
http://www2.ae911truth.org/links.php
 
Hammer said:
Eh? Did the scientists say the Bush administration had distorted scientific knowledge in their conclusions about 9/11?
Click to expand...

To answer -not specifically, but still pretty damning nonetheless.
The open letter from the independent Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions.

"This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."
 
daedalus said:
To answer -not specifically, but still pretty damning nonetheless.
The open letter from the independent Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions.

"This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."
Click to expand...

That was about the Bushies' policies on stem cell research and global warming, not 9/11.
 
daedalus said:
That statement carries absolutely no gravitas when you consider scientists and nobel prize winners have stated that "the Bush administration distorted scientific knowledge for partisan political reasons." You'd have to be an imbecile to believe the absurdities in the official report.
Click to expand...

Links to names of the scientists please, and their exact words.

I never said my statement carried gravitas. Which part of my description of peer review was incorrect ?

ProfessionalMackem said:
So? Changing the goalposts again I see. He talks about empirical evidence. Care to refute anything he claims?

What about these?
http://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/

Or about these links by architects, engineers, scholars, lawyers, firefighters ?
http://www2.ae911truth.org/links.php
Click to expand...

We seem to be talking at crossed purposes here. Are you a "truther" or a rational person ?
 
SYB_DC said:
That was about the Bushies' policies on stem cell research and global warming, not 9/11.
Click to expand...
Well, not just those, they said the government had manipulated information to fit its policies on everything from climate change to whether Iraq had been trying to make nuclear weapons.
 
cosmicchris00 said:
Sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

Take some more time or just admit you don't know
Click to expand...

I haven't got a clue what your question is to be honest. But judging by the flip-flopping, backtracking, and downright bizarre nature of some of your posts on this thread I'm not sure you do.
 
PinzaC55 said:
I just clicked on the first link and found that the subject "truther" of the paper was "Dr. David Ray Griffin an emeritus professor of theology and religious philosophy" :lol:

I don't why they even bothered.
Click to expand...

Actually I have just figured it out. You didn't even read part way through that first paper, you just linked to it didn't you ? FFS.
 
PinzaC55 said:
Links to names of the scientists please, and their exact words.

I never said my statement carried gravitas. Which part of my description of peer review was incorrect ?



We seem to be talking at crossed purposes here. Are you a "truther" or a rational person ?
Click to expand...

You do realise that the two need are not mutually exclusive?

PinzaC55 said:
Actually I have just figured it out. You didn't even read part way through that first paper, you just linked to it didn't you ? FFS.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? Dr David Ray Griffen is a top lad.
 
ProfessionalMackem said:
Oooh you want peer reviewed journals eh? These are just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles.html
http://www.jod911.com/Roberts_WTC7_Lies.doc
http://www.jod911.com/
http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/peer-reviewed-911-truth.html
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

The Journal of 911 studies ffs

Fuck off man.

PinzaC55 said:
I just clicked on the first link and found that the subject "truther" of the paper was "Dr. David Ray Griffin an emeritus professor of theology and religious philosophy"

I don't why they even bothered.
Click to expand...

You should have clicked on the third link, it turns out to be a complete dismantling of the "truther" position. Just ProfessionalMackem showing his scepticism and full reading of everything before he posts it as fact again.
 
Last edited:
Narraback said:
I haven't got a clue what your question is to be honest. But judging by the flip-flopping, backtracking, and downright bizarre nature of some of your posts on this thread I'm not sure you do.
Click to expand...

So you're quite capable of trailing back through countless pages and selctively extracting the information to paint your own picture of my intellect, sanity etc. but you're incapable of answering a simple question.


You're a bit of a crap argument really
 
Occam's Razor said:
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

The Journal of 911 studies ffs

Fuck off man.



You should have clicked on the third link, it turns out to be a complete dismantling of the "truther" position. Just ProfessionalMackem showing his scepticism and full reading of everything before he posts it as fact again.
Click to expand...

The lies and absurdities of the official report of that day continue to be challenged-and it's getting harder to simply straight bat them off with smilies. Like senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota( which still has not been responded to on here) who said NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people.” Why would they lie? His statement is staggering, you'd think you were reading about the defences of some banana republic, not the most advanced military defences in the history of mankind that spends $550 million per year. And yet they expect us to believe a few Arabs with stanley knives brought this superpower to its knees... beyond all imagination!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top