Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oneironaut Zero
Your ‘accurate’ statement was nothing but your baseless accusation that ‘any scientist that supports any 9/11 conspiracy theory is disreputable’. You’ve gone out of your way to dance around their actual science, and dismissed everything they have said out of pure bias. You haven’t really done anything to prove the scientists who are skeptical of the official report are anything but credible, by any other method but simply stating that the are skeptical of the official report.
Their is no actual science. They use samples that given to them by random people on the street. They failed at the most basic parts of gathering data. I proved that the study you provided is bunk and that the publishers
Quote:
Bentham Publishers has dropped the journal which published the Active Thermitic Materials paper by Harrit and Jones:
No scientist is going to waste his time debunking, junk science. Because it's fake science.
Quote:
Peer review? Oh, you mean like the impartial and unbiased peer review that the NIST report had to vigorously withstand, in order for its contents to be published? Just what was that standard of review, anyway? Let’s see:
You mean the internal peer review, that NIST charges itself with?
They were officially charged with studying it. And they actually know what they are talking about, unlike your paper that was dropped by the publisher..
Quote:
I don't think I've seen any evidence that the paper in question was dropped because of faulty science, and not simply because it would have been an indictment on the status quo – a potentially career-ending risk – which, we know, happens quite often in the scientific community.
Of course it was dropped because it was faulty. It was, you can't defend the science because you don't understand it. It's all based on making shit up and having people like yourself believe it, because government bad.
A private company didn't need to respond to the status quo, but it does need to respond to fake science if it wants to attempt to appear legit.
Internal peer review between scientists is far better than no peer review and no one actually taking it serious in the respective scientific communities.
People online believing whatever they read is not proof that your paper has any modicum of knowledge.
Quote:
If you’re going to dispute that known phenomena, I seriously doubt I’m going to be able to take you seriously enough to even bother rebutting.
Don't than. Realize how must delusion you are causing yourself.
Quote:
As the video I previously posted showed, he was reputable enough to get even NIST to revamp their report.
Not reputable at all actually. Report was changed because people like yourself online believe whatever they read.
Quote:
IF 9/11 was an inside job, and any number of the related theories are true, then yes, I am saying that that would be a strict possibility. We have more evidence that our government is now actually an oligarchy, instead of a traditional democracy (oligarchies, themselves, often perpetuated by an illusion of democracy), and if that is the case, and 9/11 was a direct consequence of that, then yes – again – that is what I would be implying (although it would probably be a little more far-reaching than just ‘the Bush Family’).
So you are delusional? You're a believer in the Illuminati. That's what it sounds like to me. Why would anyone take you seriously?
Our government being broken does not lead to an oligarchy.
Quote:
I hate to say it, but: Spectacle
Still not making any sense.. If they were flying the planes into the towers, they didn't need explosives to piss Americans off. You just disproved your own point. If it was about it being a "spectacle" they accomplished that with airplanes.
Quote:
Remember that, if this conspiracy exists on the level that some allege, it would be arguably the biggest psy-op ever.
Awesome, and I can make up more conspiracies and call them even bigger psy-ops. So cool man. World War II never happened, Jews don't exist! I swear.
Quote:
Distraction and misdirection and spectacle would be the driving forces of the deception.
But their is no conspiracy and their is no deception expect the ones you believe that are pushed by people making money off people like yourself who are tricked into buying crap literature and products. Or going to sites and giving people link advertising revenue.
You're a consumer being manipulated by the Alex Jones of the worlds, how does it feel?
Quote:
People had to have the experiences burned into their heads. It would have to be televised. It would have to be looked back upon and relived and stand as an absolute justification, whenever we so offered up our emotional vulnerability by watching the attack play out over and over. It had to create Shock and Awe on a level that doesn’t happen when you just hear about some attack that’s happened. How many more viewers of the tragedy do you think the alleged conspirators gained by having practically every news channel in America already trained on the scene, when the second plane hit?
And what did they accomplish? Nothing. Wars overseas that could be started without attacking our center of commerce.. As I said.. your theories wouldn't stand up in a court room.
Let me guess, the Challenger explosion was an Illuminati plot to scare Americans away from space exploration!
Tragedy's happen, terrorism happens, people are nuts. You have no proof for your washed out words so they hold no water in any court of reason or logic.
Quote:
The purging of a ‘little known’ CIA site right there at ground zero – which could have conceivably oversaw the operation – would have been ideal in such an alleged conspiracy. Wouldn’t it?
Lol no.. Because the conspiracy you talk about would be so deep that no one would be investigating the conspiracy in the first place.
You're logical misunderstanding of spy work is clear and obvious.
Also a conspiracy this deep and no ones ever come out as being involved or knowing anything? Impossible.
It's just bullshit sold by snake oil salesmen. And makes them a tiny sum of dough.
You just keep digging yourself deeper into an illogical hole. So a secret base they destroyed on purpose.. instead of keeping it a secret.. they reported it in newspapers. Seems sensible.. or they could have just kept it completely under wraps....
Quote:
I don’t have an answer for that, but I will say that having a suspicion of something is not the same as ‘believing’ in it. Keep slicing away at those strawmen. And you had the nerve to try to call someone else out for making black and white arguments.
The problems is you don't have an answer for anything. You have "suspicions" based on what people on the internet have made you believe. They are not your own thoughts or your own conclusions, junk science and conspiracy sold to you by profiteers of misinformation.
Keep slicing away at that baseless conjecture of "suspicions" . I'll keep slicing away at facts, science and logic.
Quote:
You are really bad at this. Since you need to be reminded (again), I’m not offering any ‘smoking guns’, here, just the little traces of evidence that people like you say ‘don’t exist.’
You actually haven't provided any traces of evidence. You might want to check your argument over again.. you have suspicions.
Quote:
Before you came into this thread, I said that people who say ‘there is no evidence’, are usually doing so while ignoring all the evidence and actually looking/waiting for proof. Once you came here – doing exactly that – I then told you that you were doing exactly what I’d been previously talking about. And now, here we are again, witnessing the same thing.
You have trouble understanding what evidence is. That's your problem not mine. Calling something evidence, does not make something evidence.
I'm witnessing the same thing all over the web. People like yourself who are convinced that conjecture is evidence and that junk science is actual science.
Here we are again.
Quote:
I’m not offering proof of any conspiracy theory.
Clearly. You're not even providing evidence.
Quote:
I don’t have any, and I probably won’t have any. I’m just attempting to show that the ‘there is no evidence’ argument that people (like yourself) make is – as you would say – ‘a steaming pile of bullshit’.
There is no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. And you have yet to provide any evidence of the contrary.
Quote:
It’s just speculation on my part, at the moment. If I can find any proof of that, I will let you know.
Indeed. Empty speculation.
I speculate that the Twin Towers never came down and are actually still in New York City and that what you see is a hologram of it not existing. People from 9/11 are trapped their in a wormhole.
Quote:
Lol. Keep hacking away at those strawmen. hack/slash/stab
I just leveled up. I've pretty much knocked down all of your strawmen, are you psychic?
Quote:
It’s backed up by an internal investigation – which has been disputed, rewritten, and criticized by other scientists. Period. If that is the standard at which you sear something into your brain as ‘absolute truth’, then I actually pity you.
I never said it was absolute truth or 100% accurate. It doesn't need to be to support my argument. See if it's inaccurate in parts that doesn't imply or prove a conspiracy.
I certainly will trust something with internal peer review over something that doesn't follow any scientific protocol.
Quote:
Because I tailor every answer to you, specifically, based on what you’ve said. You, instead, for the most part, have been attacking the ghosts of your past ‘truther battles’; accusing me of things I have never said, and making assumptions about what I might believe, with no other reason to do so than that you feel I’m a ‘truther’. It’s sad, and it’s obvious, and you should really stop.
Are you not a truther.. You just like to entertain ideas of 20+ year plots to take down the towers just to enter into a war in a place we already went to war?
What is your point other than misunderstanding what evidence is?
Quote:
More evidence? The only thing I have seen you provided is the NIST report and an affinity for dismissing every argument that disagrees with the NIST report. Did I miss something?
The arguments are fallacious. If the NIST report is flawed it doesn't imply that people pushing 9/11 as a government plot are in the least bit accurate.
Where are the serious rebuttals to the NIST report? Not ones relying on dubious sampling procedures? Those I'd take seriously, those no one bothers with.. because you were right it's about sensationalism.. and they sold it to you.
It was thermite.. Is a laughable joke that no one in intellectual communities takes serious.
Quote:
Trying to set up another strawman already. You work fast, don’t you? I don’t know jack about law (well, very little), but that my mentioning one of the most obvious laws in the country has you coming at me like I’m trying to show off some vast, legal knowledge is hilarious. I’ll play, though…
Sticks and stones will break my bones
So other than quoting some legal, how exactly was the law broken?
If someone obstructed.. Why wouldn't someone take them to court? Or is it because you don't understand law and don't realize that no one broke any?
Quote:
I’m sure there’s probably a ‘law book’ on that, somewhere. You know how we can’t trust anything we find on the internet…unless it’s on the NIST website…
Well.. we can't trust any science that uses dubious sampling procedures. We can't trust articles that are dropped by their "science" publishers..
Basic things you can use to narrow down junk science from real science...
Quote:
Ah, yes, because letting all suspects investigate their own crimes is how justice should always be carried out.
Because NIST is a suspect in 9/11 in only your world. It's a big government conspiracy that every agency is in on, yet no one knows except people like Alex Jones. They so smart.
Indeed they were rightfully blamed for mismanagement of intelligence. I'm saying, I'm sure they investigated as well.
Proof for my claim; What doesn't the FBI and CIA try to get intelligence on? If they didn't.. well that would be another failure on their part.
And does the FBI or CIA often make currently relevant information available to the public?
Quote:
Ah, and there it is; that strawman you were setting up to fall, moments ago. Right on cue. I never said I knew much about law. I simply referenced one that should be common sense to pretty much anyone, and it was valid. Nice try, though.
Law is not common sense; that's why people spend years in school studying it.
Throwing away a knife in a murder is clear obstruction. Having a government agency study parts of the rubble and disposing of the rest instead of.. storing billions of dollars worth of rubble in some location for what reason?
Quote:
Lol @ ‘my “movement”’. Love that shadowboxing. You are like the Strawman Cinderella Man. Lol.
What I'm saying is you're all the same. You all think you have your own independent thoughts, but their all exactly the same.
Quote:
Actually, the skeptical side has provided pretty strong motive. False flags about as old as conventional war, itself, I believe, and for you to say that there was no motive for the U.S. to get into the strategic position we are moving toward now, in the Middle East, through way of deceiving and sacrificing thousands of people (isn’t that what war does, by definition???), then you are completely, and utterly, asleep.
On the further skeptical side I understand that a strong motive for war can easily be attained without possibly destroying our economy and attacking a smaller non-civilian target with planted causalities.
My ball? I know they weren't identified before. What your doing is dodging the real thing I said
Quote:
You don't think theirs airport footage of these people boarding planes??
Their is footage of them at the airports.
Evidence that these men hijacked the planes, phone calls.. etc..
Quote:
Still working on that part, I take it?
I can't make you think, I can only give you information.
Quote:
And another strawman bites the dust! hack/slash/stab!
I don't think you actually know what a strawman is.
Quote:
The thing I alleged, you implied in the first sentence of the previous quote! LOL.
I allege this is a waste of our time. You don't want to believe it's not a conspiracy so you won't.
Quote:
I don’t even know what this means….?
You obviously weren't online in 2001.
Quote:
Of course you did.
All you’ve helped to do is prove that I’m willing to entertain an uncertain idea, enough to think critically about it and remain skeptical about a popular, opposing argument that is riddled with inaccuracies and loose ends. I thank you for that. The difference between us, in this, is that you just went one step further and placed all of your faith in the official report and its proponents. So much so, that you ignore any evidence to the contrary, and use your faith as an ego boost, whenever you get the chance to talk down to those crazy conspiracy theorists.
Uncertain ideas is a great way to sugar coat ideas that make no logical sense and have no evidence supporting them. I think Cthulhu destroyed the towers.
I didn't put all my faith in anything, I choose to ignore dubious evidence meant to craft a fake plot. When you provide science and evidence on what happened let me know. I'm not ignoring any evidence, because what you are calling evidence is in fact bunk. It's akin to creationism.
Quote:
You are really out of touch.
This is the reality of scientific publication. It is subject to (and often saturated with) corruption and manipulation, just like anything else. You have placed
faith in a governmental review board to investigate itself and call that ‘peer review’, while completely ignoring just how hard it is for many other
legitimate works to get published, due to unpopular ideas. Like you said, ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it to.’ You only claim sources as ‘dubious’, because they aren’t the ones you have already placed your (mainstream) faith in,
not because you’ve actually specified something being wrong with their science.
Well yes.. it's dubious because the study you push was taken from people in the city not collected on site. It's a failure in every scientific protocol.. Theirs no need to even read past that line in your study. There is no reason to believe that the source is accurate. Am I saying the official report is 100% accurate? No, never have. But I'm saying there is no reason to take the study you cite seriously.
We could critique the peer review process for hours but it's not even necessary to support my argument.
Quote:
I’m not saying that peer review isn’t a helpful tool, but you are making the implication that ‘if it isn’t in a peer reviewed journal, it isn’t true’, and that is just plain false. In other words:
No I agree it doesn't necessarily mean it's false.. but when no one will peer review something... it tends to lead towards false and junk science.
Quote:
And I’ll continue to point out hypocrisy, when I see it. ^There it is.
It's not though. Believing a study just because it was written when it doesn't follow scientific protocol is your fault, not mine.
Quote:
I might expect this from someone who is completely ignorant of U.S. false flag operations of the past. There may be no proof, which I have never suggested that there was, but to say that there is no evidence (since you have such a hard time differentiating between the two) is bullshit, just as you said.
Blah blah.. It was false flag..Why? because of this dubious article.
Quote:
Ironic that you would use the world childish, when it is exactly about maturely presenting your position. Anyone will tell you, that if you can’t make a valid point, you just make an invalid one as loudly and as aggressively as you can.
I'm not aggressive whatsoever. I've made all my points above in the last post and in this post.. You just don't read them.
Quote:
What it’s also about is that, we do try to hold our members to a certain standard around here, and if it’s shown that you can’t hold your debates without relying on personal insults, then you won’t be welcome to debate here. Has nothing to do with the views you have, but how you present them. If that’s not something you can handle, then you can kick rocks. Otherwise, we can debate like gentlemen – not toddlers.
I'm not going to sit here and listen to someone with a worse attitude than my own on how to debate like gentlemen and not toddlers. If you can't look into the mirror and see your own childish behavior than perhaps you shouldn't be critiquing others behavior?
I don't need a members standard speech when I've been here since 2008; please go back to your high horse shop and get a refund.
Quote:
When that happens, I’m sure someone will let me know. Forgive me if I don’t rely on your own personal assessment of your performance to dictate whether or not I’ve accurately defended my position.
Consider yourself officially. Let known.
Quote:
You know…peer review and all…
Consider yourself peer reviewed.
Quote:
Your tone is my business.
It is in not in fact your business. If you were a moderator doing there job you would be sending private messages to an uninvolved third party to moderate the issue for us. Otherwise I think what your doing is throwing a bunch of empty words onto the forum because you can't defend your positions on believing false studies.
I'll be waiting for a quote of when I called someone an "idiot".. As for the rest... Calling theories bullshit; when they are.. Isn't against any forum rules. Nor is sarcasm as far as I'm aware? I can't say shut up? Is that like a fuck you now? I'll say it again.. Put up, or Shut up.[/quote]
Quote:
I apologize. I thought I’d seen you call someone’s views “idiotic” in this thread, but I believe I got you confused with Jookia. (In looking at your post history, though, you have thrown a few ‘morons’ around, in your time, though.)
Oh noes.. Call the moron police. When did Dreamviews turn into the Oh noes my internet feelings were hurt over nothing crowd? Oh they didn't?
Quote:
As for the rest, the forum rules state:
Yep didn't break any of them. So thanks for bringing up nothing for no reason. I call ideas moronic when I see them, and I'm sarcastic.. Don't like it don't talk to me.. I'm not going to sit here and "flame" you so move on or discuss. But don't sit here whining about forum rules that no one broke.
Quote:
And I’ll say it again: Plenty of evidence has been ‘put up’, much of which you have completely ignored.
Zero evidence has been put up. None of what was provided qualifies as evidence.
Quote:
So, basically, all you’re doing is tell everyone who doesn’t agree with you to ‘shut up’, because you’re certainly not considering their points. Bill O'Reilly? Is that you?? :chuckle:
Nope I'm saying those who believe Alex Jones and the Misinformation crew profiteers should just keep their clap traps closed. No one in the scientific community takes 9/11 truthers seriously. If you want to have discussions based around evidence, provide some real evidence.. Anyone can make up things and call them facts.. that doesn't mean educated folks are going to believe them and no one should be faked into taking this shit seriously.
And I loled at rainman because he nitpicks my words and doesn't seem to notice your impropriety. You know what they say about people in glass houses?
P.S. Learning the difference between yourself and what you believe. They are not one and the same.. A person can hold stupid views without being stupid. Just as someone can call your views stupid without personally insulting you. I don't identify my views as my being so I'm not easily offended; maybe this can be a lesson for you. Disconnect yourself from your beliefs because they can easily be false. No reason to feel insulted unless someone is going after your character.