Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

O.K- I guess I have a little more time to waste on you guys. Do you actually believe expert testimony to be a given? Just because you have training in a field that your opinion is not to be challenged. Why don'y you check Daubert vs Dow pharmeceuticals in 93. Its basic finding is that an expert must show his opinions are equivalent to established scientific facts. This does not mean that the expert can simply say " yes my opinions are consistent with established science". they must SHOW that to be the case.
 
Non Believer said:
O.K- I guess I have a little more time to waste on you guys. Do you actually believe expert testimony to be a given? Just because you have training in a field that your opinion is not to be challenged. Why don'y you check Daubert vs Dow pharmeceuticals in 93. Its basic finding is that an expert must show his opinions are equivalent to established scientific facts. This does not mean that the expert can simply say " yes my opinions are consistent with established science". they must SHOW that to be the case.
Click to expand...

yep, and guess what?

ALL of the scientists involved in the official account of events are working within established scientific facts, and all of the 'scientists' claiming a conspiracy are working with:

Thermite demolition
Beam weapons
Holograms

Go figure.
 
Non Believer said:
O.K- I guess I have a little more time to waste on you guys. Do you actually believe expert testimony to be a given? Just because you have training in a field that your opinion is not to be challenged. Why don'y you check Daubert vs Dow pharmeceuticals in 93. Its basic finding is that an expert must show his opinions are equivalent to established scientific facts. This does not mean that the expert can simply say " yes my opinions are consistent with established science". they must SHOW that to be the case.
Click to expand...

Wrong thread. You're making some claims, now prove them. The default position is not "the government conspired to blow up the towers after staging a plane crash." You need to provide evidence.

You're not even an expert, but all you give us to go on is your opinion. So, by your own logic, we shouldn't give you then time of day until you post some evidence.

Wait, maybe I haven't established a proper framework for that suggestion or something else.
 
Also I am willing at some point to debate demolition vs airplane alone, but the first order of buisness in proving a scientific hypothesis, is to check how that hypothesis stands up against scientific scruitny. This is the job of the official story supporters to do first. If at that point your theory is not sound, then it can be compared to others. Don't try to run away from proving your position because you are anxious to disprove others.
 
You're prevaricating. Answer the points put to you on this thread numerous times.
 
Non Believer said:
Also I am willing at some point to debate demolition vs airplane alone, but the first order of buisness in proving a scientific hypothesis, is to check how that hypothesis stands up against scientific scruitny. This is the job of the official story supporters to do first. If at that point your theory is not sound, then it can be compared to others. Don't try to run away from proving your position because you are anxious to disprove others.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

The collapse mechanism as a result of the plane impact and subsequent fires is known, examined, discussed and found to be accurate on a number of threads on this site. You want to re-hash the damn thing again?

NO!
It's your turn to propose a hypothesis and provide the evidence to support it.

Put up or shut up.
 
Non Believer said:
I never saw your response to Skilling and Demartini, but we know its either they were misquoted, or they didn't understand.
Click to expand...

They were wrong. They thought they had it right, but they were wrong. It happens.

NASA thought it was safe to launch the Challenger. They were wrong.

The Captain of the Titanic thought it was safe to cruise at high speeds through the North Atlantic during iceberg season. He was wrong.

Napolean thought invading Russia was a good idea. He was wrong.

Japan thought it was a good idea to attack Pearl Harbor. They were wrong.

The Russians thought it would be a good idea to build a nuclear reactor without a containment building. They were wrong.

People make mistakes. Sometimes they pay for them, sometimes others do. It happens. It sucks, but it will continue to happen, so long as people are people.

Deal with it.
 
UK Dave- please SHOW who all the scientists are. You guys just don't get it. Your claims have to supported with evidence, not just assertions of evidence. Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.
 
Non Believer said:
UK Dave- please SHOW who all the scientists are. You guys just don't get it. Your claims have to supported with evidence, not just assertions of evidence. Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Look at where you're at. YOU came here, we didn't come to you.

So, it's up to you to tell us what YOU think happened on 9/11 and provide the evidence upon which you base that belief.

If you want someone to talk you through the NIST report I suggest you find a structural engineer and pay them to sit down with you and explain it.
 
Non Believer said:
UK Dave- please SHOW who all the scientists are. You guys just don't get it. Your claims have to supported with evidence, not just assertions of evidence. Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you take your own advice and post evidence of your theories. If you consider this a waste of your time, you can always stop posting on this forum.
 
Horatius said:
They were wrong. They thought they had it right, but they were wrong. It happens.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but they were wrong about something they never dreamed in a million years would be put to the test.

If you add the opinions of experts about things that will probably never happen to the list, there's probably a lot more wrong out there than we could ever imagine.
 
Non Believer said:
The ostensible facts are very much against you in this, and you really learn that your opinions are worthless without references to objective scientific literature. As for your lingering questions that I have supposedly refused to answer, put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

Non Believer said:
O.K- I guess I have a little more time to waste on you guys. Do you actually believe expert testimony to be a given? Just because you have training in a field that your opinion is not to be challenged.
Click to expand...

Why is it that conspiracy theorists demand standards of evidence from their critics that they REFUSE TO APPLY TO THEMSELVES?

"Non Believer," you are not an expert, so YOUR OPINION DOES NOT EVEN REACH THE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE FOR WHICH YOU REQUIRE CORROBORATION.

Non Believer said:
UK Dave- please SHOW who all the scientists are. You guys just don't get it. Your claims have to supported with evidence, not just assertions of evidence. Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.
Click to expand...

Now this is just plain stupid. You got your tail kicked when you attempted to derail the thread with philosophy and now you attempt to intimidate by bringing up "the law."

In a court of law, your "suit" would be thrown out without "our side" having to put on any defense at all, because you have yet to present a positive accusation with evidence sufficient to meet even the lowest standards of legal proof.
 
Non Believer said:
Also why don't you guys take a look at the "resonable man" arguments in law, because I will be using them when I have some more time to waste.
Click to expand...


Oh, this ought to be good. :rolleyes:

ETA: Caution, NonB: there are some real lawyers here.
 
Non Believer said:
Also I am willing at some point to debate demolition vs airplane alone, but the first order of buisness in proving a scientific hypothesis, is to check how that hypothesis stands up against scientific scruitny. This is the job of the official story supporters to do first. If at that point your theory is not sound, then it can be compared to others. Don't try to run away from proving your position because you are anxious to disprove others.
Click to expand...
You have already been shown the proof. The fact that you don't understand it or refuse to believe it your problem. Now go ahead and provide evidence for your CT.
 
UnBeliever said:
Do you actually believe expert testimony to be a given? Just because you have training in a field that your opinion is not to be challenged.
Click to expand...
Your problem appears to be that you equate all expert testimony with "opinion". Given your reluctance to address the technical details of the NIST report, I can only assume you apply this to... anything written by anyone.

Why don'y you check Daubert vs Dow pharmeceuticals in 93. Its basic finding is that an expert must show his opinions are equivalent to established scientific facts. This does not mean that the expert can simply say " yes my opinions are consistent with established science". they must SHOW that to be the case.
Click to expand...
You have yet to explain where and how the NIST report failed to do this...
 
Last edited:
Why don'y you check Daubert vs Dow pharmeceuticals in 93. Its basic finding is that an expert must show his opinions are equivalent to established scientific facts. This does not mean that the expert can simply say " yes my opinions are consistent with established science". they must SHOW that to be the case.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is one of the reasons that:

1. Expert Witnesses have to actually be experts

2. They are cross examined in court.


Now, if we applied the same rules to Dylan & Co, I wonder what the result would be?
 
I'm hoping that non-believer has run off to prepare a stunning case for us.

:)

With his requests for a testible hypothesis that he understands, is anybody reminded of Intelligent Design and its attempted potshots at Evolution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom