Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[Slayhamlet]

So if I don't have Column 79 to prove my theory, you don't think my theory holds much water?

Here's a trick question: what is your theory?


Yes, I know it's not really a trick question, but you'll evade it like it were one anyway.

 

[RedIbis]

That's not an answer to my question. You're just reiterating your fallacy- and that doesn't help your case.

What question? I didn't see a question mark.

 

[Totovader]

What question? I didn't see a question mark.

Fair enough: that's not addressing my point- you're just reiterating your fallacy, and that doesn't help your case.

Is it a good idea to abandon logic in order to hold on to these fantasies of the so-called "Truth Movement", Red? Is it somehow better to ignore the evidence and reject fundamental scientific principles? Do conspiracy theories have something better (more reliable, more truthful, more factual) than reason?

You were asked for your best piece of evidence- what you responded with is something that is not evidence. I have to assume- from that- that you think the answer to each of the questions above would be "yes, science is inadequate to understand the universe- conspiracy theories are more equipped to understand the truth".

 

[RedIbis]

Fair enough: that's not addressing my point- you're just reiterating your fallacy, and that doesn't help your case.

Is it a good idea to abandon logic in order to hold on to these fantasies of the so-called "Truth Movement", Red? Is it somehow better to ignore the evidence and reject fundamental scientific principles? Do conspiracy theories have something better (more reliable, more truthful, more factual) than reason?

You were asked for your best piece of evidence- what you responded with is something that is not evidence. I have to assume- from that- that you think the answer to each of the questions above would be "yes, science is inadequate to understand the universe- conspiracy theories are more equipped to understand the truth".

My theory is based on Column 79. Do you think I actually have produce this piece of physical evidence for my theory to be true?

Is this a general principle of science? Or do the rules change depending on who premises their theory on the non existence of a piece of evidence?

 

[Totovader]

My theory is based on Column 79. Do you think I actually have produce this piece of physical evidence for my theory to be true?

Is this a general principle of science? Or do the rules change depending on who premises their theory on the non existence of a piece of evidence?

You aren't addressing my point at all- and you aren't answering my questions.

Again- my previous post was:

Fair enough: that's not addressing my point- you're just reiterating your fallacy, and that doesn't help your case.

Is it a good idea to abandon logic in order to hold on to these fantasies of the so-called "Truth Movement", Red? Is it somehow better to ignore the evidence and reject fundamental scientific principles? Do conspiracy theories have something better (more reliable, more truthful, more factual) than reason?

You were asked for your best piece of evidence- what you responded with is something that is not evidence. I have to assume- from that- that you think the answer to each of the questions above would be "yes, science is inadequate to understand the universe- conspiracy theories are more equipped to understand the truth".

 

[R.Mackey]

My theory is based on Column 79. Do you think I actually have produce this piece of physical evidence for my theory to be true?

Is this a general principle of science? Or do the rules change depending on who premises their theory on the non existence of a piece of evidence?

You don't have a theory.

And yes, you can have a theory based on something you no longer have, or something you will never have. Black holes, again, is the example that comes to mind.

What you're squawking about, however, is Column 79 as the key piece of evidence. That's a whole different story. Since you don't have Column 79 at all, this is obviously nonsense.

The semantic games are really, really sad. Please stop.

 

[RedIbis]

You don't have a theory.

And yes, you can have a theory based on something you no longer have, or something you will never have. Black holes, again, is the example that comes to mind.

What you're squawking about, however, is Column 79 as the key piece of evidence. That's a whole different story. Since you don't have Column 79 at all, this is obviously nonsense.

The semantic games are really, really sad. Please stop.

You haven't even bothered to answer any of my questions. It's quite simple actually. I have a theory, which is premised on Column 79. Do you think I need to produce this piece of evidence to support my theory?

Just answer yes or no.

 

[WildCat]

You haven't even bothered to answer any of my questions. It's quite simple actually. I have a theory, which is premised on Column 79. Do you think I need to produce this piece of evidence to support my theory?

Just answer yes or no.

Oh look, proven liar RedIbis is lying again, this time about having a theory.

 

[TJM]

There is no "best" piece of evidence. For you must have at least two pieces of evidence for one to be best. The "truthers" have none. By evidence, I mean actual empirical evidence, not "evidence" derived from speculation based on ignorance of scientific principles and personal incredulity. Of course the collapse is going to look funny...to the uninformed. Of course the explanation isn't going to make sense...to the uneducated.

Ah, but there you have it. Yes, the best evidence troofers have is, in fact, no evidence at all. In Twooferdom, not only is it possible to prove a positive with a negative, it is strongly encouraged. Take this true conversation I had with teh troof at my local watering hole:

ME: (to an interested college) "So as the collapse initiated and the columns were pulled inward,..."

Troofer: (drunk and yelling from the opposite of the bar) "That's a load of ****, everyone knows the towers were brought down by thermite."

Me: "Really? I didn't know that. How so?

Troofer: "Man, Bush's cousin was in charge of security at the WTC. They brought in demolition crews and rigged the towers to blow the weekend before 9/11"

Me: "How could you possibly know this? Marvin Bush had a seat on the board of one of the many security contractors on the job at the WTC, by the way. He gave up that seat well before 9/11 too."

Troofer: "Why did they remove all of the evidence before before anyone could investigate it?" They shipped it all off to China so nobody would find the explosive residue!"

Me: "So where's your evidence that the evidence no longer exists and no forensic investigation was conducted?"

Troofer: "Evidence? Evidence? How do you explain the hole in the C ring at the pentagon? Hmmm? How do explain the total lack of airplane parts in Shanksville? Why did Siverstein say...."

Me: "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up a minute, how 'bout answering my question; What is your evidence that there is no evidence?"

Troofer: "Dude, you suuuuuuuuuuuck! Total pwnage!"

Me: "Barkeep, I'll have a double."

Troofer: "So, what are you? NSA? FBI? CIA?"

Me: And keep'em coming.

 

[R.Mackey]

You haven't even bothered to answer any of my questions. It's quite simple actually. I have a theory, which is premised on Column 79. Do you think I need to produce this piece of evidence to support my theory?

Just answer yes or no.

Do you even read my posts?

And yes, you can have a theory based on something you no longer have, or something you will never have. Black holes, again, is the example that comes to mind.

But nonetheless, your question has no bearing on the OP, or your original answer.

---

ETA: Since that sounded terse, let me expound upon that.

In order to call a "theory" a theory, it must come with evidence that supports your hypothesis. (Note this is evidence that you must have, and must produce for verification. No sneaky word-twisting about stuff you have but don't, or stuff you should have, or whatever.)

In this case, you could, such as NIST does, have a theory for which the best piece of evidence -- this is what the OP asked for -- is theoretical. Perhaps simulations, scale models, trials, what have you. This is still evidence. Since this evidence has value, it is therefore of more value than something that does not exist, i.e. your Column 79.

Ergo, it is possible to have a theory based on, or premised on, physical articles that you do not have. You can support your theory in other ways. But you must support it somehow. In this case, if you do not have such an article, the article itself is no longer your best piece of evidence. It isn't there. Thus it isn't evidence. It isn't anything. It is therefore impossible for Column 79 itself to be your best piece of evidence. No matter what your theory is, assuming you indeed have one, which all of us rightly doubt.

QED.

So long as you do not confuse stuff you don't have with "Evidence," this should be very simple to understand.

 

[Sizzler]

Best evidence for inside job or best evidence that we aren't being told the truth (or only parts of the truth)?

For the former, I think the body of evidence supporting the official version is the best evidence (Commission Report, NIST WTC7 in particular).

As for an inside job I'd say the demolition of WTC7 is the best evidence because of the agencies it housed. I doubt any Saudi terrorists could set up CD without being detected.

 

[CHF]

I think this place and the fact that nothing is ever debunked here is pretty good evidence.

So when are you going to show this message board to the war crimes investigators in the Hague?

 

[Pardalis]

So both RedIbis and Sizzler, who have always claimed to be agnostic about 9/11, are now officially coming out as truthers?

 

[CHF]

As for an inside job I'd say the demolition of WTC7 is the best evidence because of the agencies it housed.

So the agencies it housed is proof of a demolition?

How so?

 

[johnny karate]

As for an inside job I'd say the demolition of WTC7 is the best evidence because of the agencies it housed.

How is something there is no evidence for evidence of something else? You might as well claim that the Loch Ness monster exists because Bigfoot told you so.

 

[HyJinX]

Best evidence for inside job or best evidence that we aren't being told the truth (or only parts of the truth)?

For the former, I think the body of evidence supporting the official version is the best evidence (Commission Report, NIST WTC7 in particular).

As for an inside job I'd say the demolition of WTC7 is the best evidence because of the agencies it housed. I doubt any Saudi terrorists could set up CD without being detected.

Most ridiculous post ever on this forum. Seriously. Sizz...you need to read my words carefully. What you wrote above is asinine and void of any sort of intellegence. Absolutely stupid. I'll give you the opportunity to reword you post...because you've truly proven youself to be a dolt in the post above. Really...it's the worst post ever. At lest try. Try harder. Try your hardest...because if this is the best you have...stop posting. You're truly not helping youself by being ignorant, ridiculous and lazy.

 

[TC329]

I asked this question of a friend of mine who believes 9/11 was an inside job.

What in your mind is your ONE SINGLE BEST piece of evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job ?

He had a hard time using just ONE SINGLE piece of evidence and in the end his evidence wasnt evidence at all. It was a question.

So truthers, please answer the question.

What in your mind is your ONE SINGLE BEST piece of evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job ?

I am talking bring to court evidence. Not any of this "It looks like a controlled demo" crap.

The list of WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville eyewitnesses who contradict the official story.

Again, I believe American citizens over the Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and has a WMD aresenal and mushroom cloud mushroom cloud mushroom cloud we're not torturing anybody because there are no secret cia european prisons and pat rambo tillman and jessica lynch and oh al qaeda al qaeda al qaeda oooga booga WMD crew.

 

[TJM]

The list of WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville eyewitnesses who contradict the official story.

Again, I believe American citizens over the Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and has a WMD aresenal and mushroom cloud mushroom cloud mushroom cloud we're not torturing anybody because there are no secret cia european prisons and pat rambo tillman and jessica lynch and oh al qaeda al qaeda al qaeda oooga booga WMD crew.

So you believe Wally Miller.

 

[HyJinX]

The list of WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville eyewitnesses who contradict the official story.

Again, I believe American citizens over the Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and has a WMD aresenal and mushroom cloud mushroom cloud mushroom cloud we're not torturing anybody because there are no secret cia european prisons and pat rambo tillman and jessica lynch and oh al qaeda al qaeda al qaeda oooga booga WMD crew.

Silly rabbit.

 

[TC329]

So you believe Wally Miller.

well wally didn't really witness anything but i do believe he matched the human remains the fbi brought him to the dna samples the fbi supplied him and matched those to the flight manifest the fbi supplied him all undocumented of course.

i also find his description of the impact to be more consistent with the physical evidence and in direct contradiction to the official fairy tale.