• 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.

Some simple Tower 7 questions

Wizard said:
Flaws and errors then. Not lies.
Click to expand...

They are lies if they put them in on purpose, and no one who claims to have done as much work as they claim could have made the mistakes they did unless they planned on lying. So either they lied about their work or they lied in the film. Take your pick.
 
Wizard said:
Jones was mentioned. What lies has he told?
Click to expand...

That he was in any way competant to say a thing about 911?

(c'mon, this is mister 'look at the metal with metal sticking out of it I finded!', in addition to other massive physics and engineering boners)
 
Wizard said:
The chairman of the 9/11 Commision admitted that they were lied to.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the point. If we have to disregard any study in which one or more participants lied, then we may as well trash the criminal justice system, since few defendants will tell the unswerving truth. Yet you would have us ignore the entire 9/11 Commission Report on a similar basis.

But look carefully at what you've written above: "The chairman admitted that they were lied to." Admitted? Poor word choice. He did not lie, therefore he has nothing to admit.

Instead it would be more correct to say that the Chairman determined that he was lied to. How else would he know this in order to tell us?

How did he determine this? There are many ways:

  1. Those who lied may have corrected themselves later
  2. Testimony was found to be inconsistent with other testimony
  3. Testimony was found to be inconsistent with facts
Pay particular attention to that last bullet -- in many cases, lies can be detected and corrected on the basis of evidence.

The fact that the 9/11 Commission Chairman is aware of lies does not invalidate its conclusions. Far from it. A few lies (and prevarications, omissions, exaggerations, and simple mistakes) are expected in any investigation. Because he was able to detect and correct them, this demonstrates that the investigation was thorough and self-consistent.

Now, if you'd like to follow this line of reasoning further, how about you take a crack at some evidence? Why don't you find out what lies he's referring to, back it up with some citations (newspaper articles are fine), and try to dig in a bit further. I'm already aware of several of these, and they don't cast any doubt at all on the official story in my opinion. Let's see what you can find.

Deal?
 
kookbreaker said:
That he was in any way competant to say a thing about 911?

(c'mon, this is mister 'look at the metal with metal sticking out of it I finded!', in addition to other massive physics and engineering boners)
Click to expand...

So he hasn't told an actual lie either
 
Wizard said:
So he hasn't told an actual lie either
Click to expand...

What would call a guy who mistates the 2nd law of thermodynamics to make his case look better?

Either I'd call them a Creationist or Dr. Jones. Either way, they are lying (or, in Jones case, so inanely incompetent that they must have lied about their education).
 
R.Mackey said:
You seem to have missed the point. If we have to disregard any study in which one or more participants lied, then we may as well trash the criminal justice system, since few defendants will tell the unswerving truth. Yet you would have us ignore the entire 9/11 Commission Report on a similar basis.

But look carefully at what you've written above: "The chairman admitted that they were lied to." Admitted? Poor word choice. He did not lie, therefore he has nothing to admit.

Instead it would be more correct to say that the Chairman determined that he was lied to. How else would he know this in order to tell us?

How did he determine this? There are many ways:
  1. Those who lied may have corrected themselves later
  2. Testimony was found to be inconsistent with other testimony
  3. Testimony was found to be inconsistent with facts
Pay particular attention to that last bullet -- in many cases, lies can be detected and corrected on the basis of evidence.

The fact that the 9/11 Commission Chairman is aware of lies does not invalidate its conclusions. Far from it. A few lies (and prevarications, omissions, exaggerations, and simple mistakes) are expected in any investigation. Because he was able to detect and correct them, this demonstrates that the investigation was thorough and self-consistent.

Now, if you'd like to follow this line of reasoning further, how about you take a crack at some evidence? Why don't you find out what lies he's referring to, back it up with some citations (newspaper articles are fine), and try to dig in a bit further. I'm already aware of several of these, and they don't cast any doubt at all on the official story in my opinion. Let's see what you can find.

Deal?
Click to expand...


If you are already aware of them then I won't be presenting them for you.

You asked how I know the official story is a lie. There is no official story for the complete collapse of the towers and the NIST report is flawed in it's assessment of collapse initiation. It is all conjecture regarding fireproofing which has not been proven by any standard of evidence.

Before I start refuting the official story I would like a complete official story.
 
Wizard said:
If you are already aware of them then I won't be presenting them for you.
Click to expand...
So, in other words, you refuse to examine, understand, or even back up your assertion that the 9/11 Chairman said that?

In that case, kindly show yourself out. Like I already explained to you, I'm not interested in your beliefs. You've made it clear that you intend to cling to them without doing any actual work.

Wizard said:
You asked how I know the official story is a lie. There is no official story for the complete collapse of the towers and the NIST report is flawed in it's assessment of collapse initiation. It is all conjecture regarding fireproofing which has not been proven by any standard of evidence.

Before I start refuting the official story I would like a complete official story.
Click to expand...
More unsourced beliefs. Sorry, not impressed.
 
R.Mackey said:
So, in other words, you refuse to examine, understand, or even back up your assertion that the 9/11 Chairman said that?

In that case, kindly show yourself out. Like I already explained to you, I'm not interested in your beliefs. You've made it clear that you intend to cling to them without doing any actual work.


More unsourced beliefs. Sorry, not impressed.
Click to expand...

I will not be leaving.
 
Wizard said:
I would like the long list please
Click to expand...

"They're really setting us up for a smallpox attack...
It's not a question of if & when it's gonna happen."
--[SIZE=+1]Alex Jones, [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Infowars, 9/26/02[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1][/SIZE][SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
This will take a few day or weeks
 
beachnut said:
"They're really setting us up for a smallpox attack...
It's not a question of if & when it's gonna happen."
--[SIZE=+1]Alex Jones, [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Infowars, 9/26/02[/SIZE]


This will take a few day or weeks
Click to expand...

That's an opinion not a lie.

We are talking about Steven Jones not Alex Jones, by the way
 
Wizard said:
Will the commission be producing a recut edition to fix those lies?
Click to expand...
how many lies did loose change fix in their second edition? how about the recut? how many lies will be fixed in the final cut?


BTW, alex jones presents his opinions as fact, id call that a lie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom