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

gumboot said:
Why do so many Conspiracy Theorists confuse "hypothesis" and "theory"?
Click to expand...

Or, "deluded paranoid speculation" with "theory"? An hypothesis is an educated guess, and it's a valid part of the scientific process. The ramblings of conspiracists are the opposite.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
i cant stand up for you (i hope you know what i mean)
i do belive those documents are real, and i belive you worked on the technical part of the airplanes, and it also involved FDR's. but it is not realy enough for me to assure others that it is true.

i dont say it is faked docs, or they arent yours. there is just no way i can be sure. so i will not say, yes that guy is an expert.
Click to expand...

you believe thay are real or not? you are a wee bit contradictory? you are saying you believe me but not enough to tell others of my credentials?

unbelievable, read your post back and see what it is really saying. i hope this is just due to your poor english again

they are real. please tell me how i could possiblty get those specific type of documents. i used those for a reason.

are there any other docs i could supply that would allay your fears? pics of me on a plane? training course certs? picture of the medal that is mentioned in the docs i gave you with a time stamp on it (slokmed)

you either believe me or you dont, if so, you do not even have to say i am an expert on FDR but i have supplied docs that back up my claims that you have personally seen and believe are real
 
Are you asking for the best piece of evidence that there was a conspiracy or the best evidence that we need a new investigation?
 
Minadin said:
Or, "deluded paranoid speculation" with "theory"? An hypothesis is an educated guess, and it's a valid part of the scientific process. The ramblings of conspiracists are the opposite.
Click to expand...

and the Ramblings of the nontruthers here?
 
funk de fino said:
you believe thay are real or not? you are a wee bit contradictory? you are saying you believe me but not enough to tell others of my credentials?

unbelievable, read your post back and see what it is really saying. i hope this is just due to your poor english again

they are real. please tell me how i could possiblty get those specific type of documents. i used those for a reason.

are there any other docs i could supply that would allay your fears? pics of me on a plane? training course certs? picture of the medal that is mentioned in the docs i gave you with a time stamp on it (slokmed)

you either believe me or you dont, if so, you do not even have to say i am an expert on FDR but i have supplied docs that back up my claims that you have personally seen and believe are real
Click to expand...


not do to my poor english.

its like i said.

look i had the same here, i provided documents about my education into machineengineering, i didnt even blackout my real name, i provided them to a Mod here on jref. bacuase alot claims came up that i am not what i said i am.
but for the one it was not enough, and i did understand it. because there was no way for her to know if it is true or not.

also i have no clue if your docs are real or not. I do belive they are, i dont think you would make it up.
but i dont gonna go post and say, yes he is what he sais he is.
(Ich werde nicht meine Hand für dich ins Feuer legen.)

it is not enough to confirm it. sorry, nothing personal. try to understand.
when i send you my docs, there is no way for you to know if they are real.
 
RedIbis said:
So you're saying that for a theory to be true, it must have evidence behind it. Do you think it's necessary for there to be physical evidence? In other words, if my theory is premised on Column 79, do you think this column should exist, be available for examination, and any theory premised on this column without producing it is invalid?
Click to expand...

Red,
If you don't like the questions being put to you about the existence or accessibility of evidence, perhaps you could answer the (I think) very reasonable questions I asked you?


GregoryUrich said:
Are you asking for the best piece of evidence that there was a conspiracy or the best evidence that we need a new investigation?
Click to expand...

The OP explains this .... twice, in fact:
What in your mind is your ONE SINGLE BEST piece of evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job ?
Click to expand...
 
Dictator Cheney said:
not do to my poor english.

its like i said.

look i had the same here, i provided documents about my education into machineengineering, i didnt even blackout my real name, i provided them to a Mod here on jref. bacuase alot claims came up that i am not what i said i am.
but for the one it was not enough, and i did understand it. because there was no way for her to know if it is true or not.

also i have no clue if your docs are real or not. I do belive they are, i dont think you would make it up.
but i dont gonna go post and say, yes he is what he sais he is.
(Ich werde nicht meine Hand für dich ins Feuer legen.)

it is not enough to confirm it. sorry, nothing personal. try to understand.
when i send you my docs, there is no way for you to know if they are real.
Click to expand...

ridiculous

you believe me or you dont, you cant run away and use someone else as an excuse. i gave you them in good faith and you are throwing that back in my face

if you do believe then you should say that you have seen paperwork that was supplied by me to back up my claims

if you do not then you say to me you believe the docs are faked

there is no middle ground, you either believe me or you dont

i asked you if it was enough to supply you with proof of my claims and i did. the docs i supplied are not just any old docs DC. they are assessment records from military service for a specific year. they back up every claim i have made about my service.

again, if there are any other docs i could supply that would assure you enough to say to someone else that you have seen proof i am who i say i am then feel free to tell what it would take. can i fake the medal, can i fake pics of me on a plane, can i fake my old uniform, can i fake course certs, all of which back up my claims? if i was going to fake the docs i would probably have done a better job of scanning and resizing them than i did the ones i sent you in a hurry. how quickly do you think i could fake something like that from when i first decided to give them to you?

if you supplied similar docs to me in good faith then if i felt they backed you up i would tell others that you had supplied what i believe were backup to your claims. if i did not believe them i would say so and not back you up

you have wasted my time and yours i'm afraid and sadly it does not surprise me
 
So Red, please tell us what your theory about WTC7 is and how column 79 is evidence for it. You have been asked several times, and you have conveniently ignored the question. We would all love to hear it.
 
chillzero said:
Red,
If you don't like the questions being put to you about the existence or accessibility of evidence, perhaps you could answer the (I think) very reasonable questions I asked you?




The OP explains this .... twice, in fact:
Click to expand...

I would think that if you expect such a courtesy you would have attempted to answer my very simple questions.
 
RedIbis said:
I would think that if you expect such a courtesy you would have attempted to answer my very simple questions.
Click to expand...

You didn't ask me anything.

You ignored my attempts to bring you back to the subject at hand, and I specifically addressed the questions you asked others in order to accomodate you.

So please - what is your theory about column 79 that makes it clear in your mind as evidence of an inside job?
 
Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?
Click to expand...


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4067219&postcount=7

by RedIbis
WTC 7 Column 79
Click to expand...


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4067224&postcount=9

gc051360
And what about that particular column?
Click to expand...


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4067275&postcount=10
by Quad4_72
Nice try, but not good enough. Now, please give us your reasoning as to WHY column 79 is your best piece of evidence. In your reasoning, please provide calculations, scientific evidence, and relevant sources. Leave all speculation at the door.
Click to expand...




RedIbis;

Why are your synapses misfiring on this rather simple issue.

[3rd grade]RedIbis, WHY...IS...WTC 7...COLUMN...79...YOUR...BEST...PIECE...OF...EVIDENCE,...OR...EVEN...EVIDENCE...AT...ALL?[/3rd grade]
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
ridiculous

you believe me or you dont, you cant run away and use someone else as an excuse. i gave you them in good faith and you are throwing that back in my face

if you do believe then you should say that you have seen paperwork that was supplied by me to back up my claims

if you do not then you say to me you believe the docs are faked

there is no middle ground, you either believe me or you dont

i asked you if it was enough to supply you with proof of my claims and i did. the docs i supplied are not just any old docs DC. they are assessment records from military service for a specific year. they back up every claim i have made about my service.

again, if there are any other docs i could supply that would assure you enough to say to someone else that you have seen proof i am who i say i am then feel free to tell what it would take. can i fake the medal, can i fake pics of me on a plane, can i fake my old uniform, can i fake course certs, all of which back up my claims? if i was going to fake the docs i would probably have done a better job of scanning and resizing them than i did the ones i sent you in a hurry. how quickly do you think i could fake something like that from when i first decided to give them to you?

if you supplied similar docs to me in good faith then if i felt they backed you up i would tell others that you had supplied what i believe were backup to your claims. if i did not believe them i would say so and not back you up

you have wasted my time and yours i'm afraid and sadly it does not surprise me
Click to expand...

ok if you want so, i dont belive it.
i have no clue how British army docs should look like, there is no way for me to know if they are yours etc.
it was good enough for me, but now that you want me to confirm it to others, i must say, no i cant sorry.

I think you dont need my confirmation anyway, the guy you want to use it against is not an expert i think, i even think he has no clue. so actually you could show him how much you understand about FDR's when you would start debating technical issues. Like R. Mackey is doing. i never saw any docs from mackey, but i have the impression he seems to know what he is talking about more than that pft guy. Dont use your papers, use your knowledge.

If you want it confirmed, send you papers to someone that knows how british army papers look like, someone that knows your name and that those docs are yours.

i did not use my example of my experiance with that mod as an excuse.
no i used it because i understood her POV. for me it was bulletproof evidence of my education. But she told me that she cannot know if they are mine if they are real nd she also didn have a clue how swiss papers look like for my education, so i understood her POV and even had to agree.

i hoped you would understand it too, but it seems not. and i even took pictures of my papers and plans of my designs etc while holding it in front of my monitor that showed my JREF account.

dont take it personal.
 
RedIbis said:
So you're saying that for a theory to be true, it must have evidence behind it. Do you think it's necessary for there to be physical evidence? In other words, if my theory is premised on Column 79, do you think this column should exist, be available for examination, and any theory premised on this column without producing it is invalid?
Click to expand...

Do you actually read his responses? He quite clearly states the answer to that, and even I understood it although english isn't my native language.

Could you please give us your theory conserning column 79? You seem to be avoiding this question.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
ok if you want so, i dont belive it.
i have no clue how British army docs should look like, there is no way for me to know if they are yours etc.
it was good enough for me, but now that you want me to confirm it to others, i must say, no i cant sorry.

I think you dont need my confirmation anyway, the guy you want to use it against is not an expert i think, i even think he has no clue. so actually you could show him how much you understand about FDR's when you would start debating technical issues. Like R. Mackey is doing. i never saw any docs from mackey, but i have the impression he seems to know what he is talking about more than that pft guy. Dont use your papers, use your knowledge.

If you want it confirmed, send you papers to someone that knows how british army papers look like, someone that knows your name and that those docs are yours.

i did not use my example of my experiance with that mod as an excuse.
no i used it because i understood her POV. for me it was bulletproof evidence of my education. But she told me that she cannot know if they are mine if they are real nd she also didn have a clue how swiss papers look like for my education, so i understood her POV and even had to agree.

i hoped you would understand it too, but it seems not. and i even took pictures of my papers and plans of my designs etc while holding it in front of my monitor that showed my JREF account.

dont take it personal.
Click to expand...

So you did not even read them? They are RAF docs not Army.

I have talked FDR with turbo and his theory is laughable, no-one needs to be an expert to show a datachip can be corrupted or lose data and in any case he refuses to answer my questions and handwaves my experience. The lurkers need to know this also.

Is there anything else I can send to you?

Sounds to me like you are running away from this and using someone else as an excuse. Not very nice. I trust you yet you think I would fake something like that.
 
funk de fino said:
So you did not even read them? They are RAF docs not Army.

I have talked FDR with turbo and his theory is laughable, no-one needs to be an expert to show a datachip can be corrupted or lose data and in any case he refuses to answer my questions and handwaves my experience. The lurkers need to know this also.

Is there anything else I can send to you?

Sounds to me like you are running away from this and using someone else as an excuse. Not very nice. I trust you yet you think I would fake something like that.
Click to expand...

ehm sorry, i asumed RAF is Royal Air Force. And this is for me Army, propably this is wrong.

and i clearly said that i do belive you, and i dont think you would fake it, but i cannot confirm it for you, sorry.
you didnt like that answer and wanted me to decide between 2 things, and i decided, and now your not happy again.

i really think you can handle TF without me.
 
RedIbis said:
So you're saying that for a theory to be true, it must have evidence behind it. Do you think it's necessary for there to be physical evidence? In other words, if my theory is premised on Column 79, do you think this column should exist, be available for examination, and any theory premised on this column without producing it is invalid?
Click to expand...


Doesn't the sheer emptiness of your belief system trouble you at all? Some people cling to straws. You cling to invisible straws.

Do you hold any beliefs that amount to more than rhetorical tap dances? Is there the slightest bit of substance to anything that you argue?

Seriously.

Larry Silverstein lied, but the lie cannot be expressed in words. The FBI has no evidence showing the identities of the four hijacked aircraft. Something to do with column 79 proves that soundless explosives were planted by imaginary demolition workers.

Shouldn't at least a few second thoughts have intruded by now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom