• 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.

...Richard Gage destroyed by Kim Hill

Again, this is because the entire Truth Movement is built upon the perceived credibility of individuals. So whenever Gage says something really dumb, the Truthers can't admit it

Well put.

Having decided that Steven Jones, DR Griffin and Richard Gage are the smartest men alive, truthers have to either hold their nose and tolerate the stench or they have to cease being truthers.

I once heard a theory that Judy Wood's main purpose for the TM was to make Jones and Gage appear brilliant by comparison. Makes sense in a way...
 
Such is not the case for science. Let's suppose, for sake of argument, Sir Steven Hawking professed a belief in ghosts with no evidentiary support whatsoever. This does not mean that his previous work suddenly becomes invalid. That's because his previous work can be replicated. In science, we would say that "Dr. Hawking made some brilliant contributions, but watch out for his kookery about ghosts," and that's all. It does nothing to the establishment, what we've learned, or what we know.


Wow, Sir Steven Hawking! No surprise you come up with him - including the "Sir". You play well to your audience of PopMech reading half wits. Disgusting to watch.
 
That was a historic moment, Algebra finally got something right. Everything else he said was lamer than "get my DVD".


Which, more obviously than anything else he says, tells us all that he's doing nothing more than trolling.

And yet people here keep responding to him.

I don't get it.
 
Wow, Sir Steven Hawking! No surprise you come up with him - including the "Sir". You play well to your audience of PopMech reading half wits. Disgusting to watch.

Well, CE, have you had a complete meltdown?

That last piece if gibberish was even more senseless than usual.

Oh Mi God! He mentioned Stephen Hawking! Simply the most well known physicist in the world today!

You know, I still don't have the first ****ing clue what your point was. So great job, truther!
 
Wow, Sir Steven Hawking! No surprise you come up with him - including the "Sir". You play well to your audience of PopMech reading half wits. Disgusting to watch.

Non sequitur much?

ETA: Or do you have something against Hawking?
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
"Such is not the case for science. Let's suppose, for sake of argument, Sir Steven Hawking professed a belief in ghosts with no evidentiary support whatsoever. This does not mean that his previous work suddenly becomes invalid. That's because his previous work can be replicated. In science, we would say that "Dr. Hawking made some brilliant contributions, but watch out for his kookery about ghosts," and that's all. It does nothing to the establishment, what we've learned, or what we know."
There is a huge difference between replicating and simulating.

The NIST work which is used to support the Official Theory, is based primarily on simulation and very little on replication.

MM
 
There is a huge difference between replicating and simulating.

The NIST work which is used to support the Official Theory, is based primarily on simulation and very little on replication.

Do you have a theory that fits the available evidence better? You don't even need to replicate, you can simulate--as long as it's at least as good as the NIST's simulation. If not, simulation or replicating or whatever, the NIST theory stands.
 
If people have nothing to say, you don't have to respond to them. It rather moots the purpose of the Ignore feature. Thank you.
 
There is a huge difference between replicating and simulating.

The NIST work which is used to support the Official Theory, is based primarily on simulation and very little on replication.

Computer simulation is a valid method of scientific investigation widely used in forensic engineering.

Clearly, your grasp of how science works is on par with your grasp of the sociopolitical climate:
Miragememories said:
I can't guess when, but sometime before the next presidential elections I expect a second 9/11 type incident.

Unfortunately, to be effective, the ante would have to be raised. The goal will be to empower the current regime with extraordinary powers. The only way Congress will concede to such a thing is if an incident of extreme magnitude takes place and the threat of further such incidents remains in the offing. As part of the granted powers, the presidential elections of 2008 would likely be canceled as an emergency measure.

I don't think toppling the Sears Tower will do the trick.

A nuclear event is the most likely scenario that would carry sufficient persuasive weight with the American public and Congress.

Should this occur, members of the 9/11 Truth Movement can only expect to survive if they move underground and it's doubtful that they would ever again be a serious force to be reckoned it, given the expectation of a declaration of martial law throughout the U.S.

The fact is, if 9/11 was an inside job, the perpetrators have committed themselves too far to let it all fail, unless they believe the next government will be somehow compelled to continue policies that the current one initiated (Iraq, Homeland security measures etc.).

It's quite possible that 9/11 Stage 2 is already in place and timed to be initiated if and when it's absolutely deemed necessary. The reason we haven't seen it so far is because it will be so horrific that they don't really want to "push the button" unless they feel it's absolutely necessary to maintain their initial goals.

I know looking at these words, it all seems so outlandish, like some cheap thriller vacation reading, but when you think back to 9/11 and events like WTC 7, if you really believe it was an inside job, after deliberately killing 3,000+ innocent people, how likely is it that those responsible would chicken out now?

I know that startling bit of retardation is over two years old, but it's an excellent example of rank stupidity from someone who now has the nerve to speak with authority about other intellectual issues.

And it still makes me giggle when I read it. :D
 
There is a huge difference between replicating and simulating.

"A nuclear event is the most likely scenario that would carry sufficient persuasive weight with the American public and Congress.

Should this occur, members of the 9/11 Truth Movement can only expect to survive if they move underground and it's doubtful that they would ever again be a serious force to be reckoned it, given the expectation of a declaration of martial law throughout the U.S. "

did you really write this? wow...talk about fear.
 
Computer simulation is a valid method of scientific investigation widely used in forensic engineering.

All of my buildings are apparently questionable designs as they were all designed by "simulations". I haven't done any full-scale tests of any of them. Or any of the components! Oh noes!

This just in: none of them have fallen down and they are performing as "simulated". Must be a conspiracy.
 
All of my buildings are apparently questionable designs as they were all designed by "simulations". I haven't done any full-scale tests of any of them. Or any of the components! Oh noes!

This just in: none of them have fallen down and they are performing as "simulated". Must be a conspiracy.

That's because you actually are (or work from the designs of) this Architect:



And your simulations are actually this:




YOU CAN'T PULL THE WORLD OVER MY EYES!!!! I SEE TEH TWOOF!!!
 
Who told the BBC and CNN that WTC7 had already collapsed before it did?

I'm having a hard time figuring out why this would have any relevance to the truth movemnets cause.There seems to be a suggestion that someone gave the news services information ahead of time but why would anyone do that?

Were they afraid that a major news network wouldn't report the collapse of a 47 storey building?Surely that would be a good thing if you'd just carried out an audacious controlled demolition in front of the worlds media.You could get away with it and be free and clear,so why go to the trouble of explicitly telling people about it ahead of time?

In a sane world,you'd carry out your plan and people would report it or not based on the reports coming in to them.This would have to rank as one of the most ridiculous "proofs" of NWO conspiracy in the truther grab bag.

:boggled:
 
wasn't it Reuters who first made the bad call?

as we have stated numerous times, many news agencies were talking about how WTC 7 was expected to collapse sometime in the afternoon. this wasn't big news.

The FDNY "pulled" all emergency personnel away from the building when they realized it was in danger of total structural failure. and sure enough, they was right!
 

Attachments

  • Red and Blue Pill.jpg
    Red and Blue Pill.jpg
    19.4 KB · Views: 0
The best prediction was on NBC when they said the towers were "leaning" and "maybe buckling" at about 9:07.
/ ?



Gage knew he'd won before the debate even got under way. His face lit up when the belligerent tour guide said: "Why tell the truth when you're appealing for people's well-earned money?".

John Clifton was a breath of fresh air as the Hardfire host. Did he get sacked for displaying impartiality?

Do you have a link to something about the leaning and buckling at 9:07 am on 9/11 ?
 
In a sane world,you'd carry out your plan and people would report it or not based on the reports coming in to them.This would have to rank as one of the most ridiculous "proofs" of NWO conspiracy in the truther grab bag.

Exactly. This is one of the themes I explored in my "Evil Genius" thread.

Years ago.

They just don't get it.
 
You listen. Your version of the so-called truth has changed multiple times now and still the likes of you just keeps rolling right along with it, never questioning it, with the same kind of scrutiny you question alternative theories. You should try to keep up with some of your friends here and reinvent yourself with a new logon even though you haven't been banned yet. Or maybe you already have? I really don't care. If we are so wrong, so ridiculous, and so irrelevant then why do you bother?

Why DO YOU BOTHER? Every frigging day now. For years.

Why do you bother trolling a forum that you have been banned from multiple times? Obsessed much?
 

Back
Top Bottom