• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

further, who paid for all of this? And the bribes?

Without some framework you would have us believe that it was done as a lark and that holds no water. Abscent some rationale the only way to interpret your alleged inconsistancies is as that: inconsistancies with no dubious overtones.
 
firstly, love and I aren't the same, a simple deductive investigation of our IP address's will reveal this to be true.

second...

I can debunk all of this skepticism on the simple premise that no deductive investigation has been done ever, regarding 911.

If no such investigation was conducted you have no solid ground to stand on to form a argument.

It's as simple as logic, or the lack there of on your part.

This is why it is so easy to meet each one of your points with more of my own skepticism.

You can't explain why no investigation was done, so why even listen to what you have to say? Your just throwing out conjecture in the other direction.


Find a copy of:

Confronting the Evidence: the case to reopen 911

in it wou will find a panel of actual experts, and a litany of anamolies that need investigation for this to be truly deductive.
 
thesyntaxera said:
firstly, love and I aren't the same, a simple deductive investigation of our IP address's will reveal this to be true.

second...

I can debunk all of this skepticism on the simple premise that no deductive investigation has been done ever, regarding 911.

If no such investigation was conducted you have no solid ground to stand on to form a argument.

It's as simple as logic, or the lack there of on your part.

This is why it is so easy to meet each one of your points with more of my own skepticism.

You can't explain why no investigation was done, so why even listen to what you have to say? Your just throwing out conjecture in the other direction.


Find a copy of:

Confronting the Evidence: the case to reopen 911

in it wou will find a panel of actual experts, and a litany of anamolies that need investigation for this to be truly deductive.
Click to expand...

Answer my questions
 
you all seem to think that the only thing a person can be implying is that there is some worldwide global conspiracy...

I am not saying that.

I am saying : be as logical as you claim to be.
 
thesyntaxera said:
you all seem to think that the only thing a person can be implying is that there is some worldwide global conspiracy...

I am not saying that.

I am saying : be as logical as you claim to be.
Click to expand...

Why? Who paid? How was it kept secret?

You are falling into the God of the Gaps fallacy. You can't explain something so you leap to an alternative, unwarrented explination.

If you cannot come up with some rationale, why bother spending time looking for a conspiracy?
 
ed..

I'll give you one...

inconsistencies with no dubious overtones is exactly what I am getting at.

Thats usually the real world. There generally aren't conspiracies of any size. But there are things of great size who to the untrained eye can take on the attributes of a conspiracy.

In this case if I were to make any claims, it would be that the administration was just watching it's back in light of the event and don't want any links between them and any one middle easterner made.

Remember John O'neil? He was the only person who could have tied them together...he died in the WTC on sept 11...

at the least they didn't respond accordingly, just as the last katrina disaster showed, and realize that their entire platform could be called into question, which might lead one to question their motives etc....

600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.

the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1

More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.

If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by now.
 
thesyntaxera said:
ed..

I'll give you one...

inconsistencies with no dubious overtones is exactly what I am getting at.

Thats usually the real world. There generally aren't conspiracies of any size. But there are things of great size who to the untrained eye can take on the attributes of a conspiracy.

In this case if I were to make any claims, it would be that the administration was just watching it's back in light of the event and don't want any links between them and any one middle easterner made.

Remember John O'neil? He was the only person who could have tied them together...he died in the WTC on sept 11...

at the least they didn't respond accordingly, just as the last katrina disaster showed, and realize that their entire platform could be called into question, which might lead one to question their motives etc....

600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.

the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1

More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.

If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by now.
Click to expand...

Translation: I can't answer any of your questions, Ed, so I will pretend they don't exist.
 
thesyntaxera said:
e600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.
Click to expand...

Bullhockey: The NIST testing alone has run some $20+ million.

the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1
Click to expand...

Who calculated these odds? What was their basis? I would bet there are a lot of false asumptions in there, there usually are.

More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.
Click to expand...

Bullmerde again.

If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by now.
Click to expand...

I see that to you Logic = Selective Trimming of Evidence.
 
Garrette said:
Translation: I can't answer any of your questions, Ed, so I will pretend they don't exist.
Click to expand...

yeah thats, right, or it could be that there is no need to.

Every question you ask is solidy covered in all of the many hours of material that have been created to capitalize on the fact that there hasn't been a deductive investigation.

It's kind of amusing and kind sad to watch you skeptics come from one direction, and when that doesn't work, retreat and come from another, and then retreat and come from another....

All you have to do is explain why no deductive investigation was done...

The reason no rationalized excuse is an acceptable answer is because it's a rationalization not fact.

apparently someone did elect to ride on the semantic train that runs on a closed track.
 
thesyntaxera said:
600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.
Click to expand...

Source?

the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1
Click to expand...

How did you calculate that? Also beware of statistics

More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.
Click to expand...

Assuming that's true, so what?

If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by
now.
Click to expand...

What has logic to do with the way governments spend money?
 
kookbreaker said:
Bullhockey: The NIST testing alone has run some $20+ million.



Who calculated these odds? What was their basis? I would bet there are a lot of false asumptions in there, there usually are.



Bullmerde again.



I see that to you Logic = Selective Trimming of Evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it cost 20 million, thats why there are no results to reveal....if you have something, post a link...if not...drop it.

Who calculated these odds? Does it take a math genius or common sense?


Selective trimming? Isn't that what you skeptics are doing....



see here you go again, i'll try this angle....whoops....didn't work...anymore you would care to share?
 
"I bet there are a lot of false assumptions there, there usually are..."

isn't that what you are using to come to a conclusion?
 
thesyntaxera said:
see here you go again, i'll try this angle....whoops....didn't work...anymore you would care to share?
Click to expand...

Well, if you keep bringing up new angles as your old ones don't work, why are you surprised that people respond to them?

Still, if you want to stick to just one thing at a time, Ed's list of questions is still waiting. Pick one of those.
 
richardm said:
Well, if you keep bringing up new angles as your old ones don't work, why are you surprised that people respond to them?

Still, if you want to stick to just one thing at a time, Ed's list of questions is still waiting. Pick one of those.
Click to expand...


what list of questions? I haven't changed my stance at all..but you all seem to be running mad as if your poor rationalizations are some how as good as evidence.

they aren't.

If a skeptic is someone who looks to the evidence, then what do you have to go on? All you have done is rationalize why there is none.
 
thesyntaxera said:
I'm sure it cost 20 million, thats why there are no results to reveal....if you have something, post a link...if not...drop it.
Click to expand...

Oh for Ed's sake: http://wtc.nist.gov/ or http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Are you freaking blind?

For the budget itself:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm

From which I quote:

"NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million.

The President's FY 2004 budget request of $4 million focuses on using the results of the World Trade Center investigation to develop cost-effective solutions to strengthen existing and future buildings against attacks and natural disasters."

Who calculated these odds? Does it take a math genius or common sense?
Click to expand...

It takes stuff that is not garbage going in. What are the basis for the calculations?

Selective trimming? Isn't that what you skeptics are doing....

see here you go again, i'll try this angle....whoops....didn't work...anymore you would care to share?
Click to expand...

You're not very good at this, are you?
 
I'm sorry, Ed. I left out an alternative translation:

It is in fact correct that I [thesyntaxera] am either a sock puppet or troll. Or possibly both. What is not in dispute is that I [thesyntaxera] have yet to add anything of substance and will not add anything of substance in the future..

And now Garrette chooses to follow his own usually-but-not-always-followed rule of not feeding trolls and sock puppets.

buh bye now luv ya
 
I say again...

Find a copy of
Confronting the Evidence: The case/call to reopen 911

watch it.

a panel of actual real living experts gives testimony, with logic evidential reasons to back up their conclusions.

There is no need for me to meander about getting lost in your quote jargon, they already covering everything from your angle in the lecture.

Not a single thing you have mentioned so far hasn't been covered in fact.

all these more realistic alternatives aren't really that realistic if you think about it.
 
thesyntaxera said:
If a skeptic is someone who looks to the evidence, then what do you have to go on? All you have done is rationalize why there is none.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence. It's just that you appear to find it more amusing to simply make stuff up.
 
thesyntaxera said:
I say again...

Find a copy of
Confronting the Evidence: The case/call to reopen 911

watch it.

a panel of actual real living experts gives testimony, with logic evidential reasons to back up their conclusions.

There is no need for me to meander about getting lost in your quote jargon, they already covering everything from your angle in the lecture.

Not a single thing you have mentioned so far hasn't been covered in fact.

all these more realistic alternatives aren't really that realistic if you think about it.
Click to expand...

Here's an idea. Why don't you do your own homework.

Bring what you've got instead of claiming something magic invalidates all our arguements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom