Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Childlike Empress said:
RedWorm?Childlike Empress
Click to expand...
fixed

Speaking of whom, the question he asked was reasonable. Some people like to know from what position you're starting or otherwise it could be unreasonably misconstrued. Hardly insulting compared with being sniped with complaints about you "not providing a theory". I suspect burden of proof is your biggest challenge [and reason], since the only response you've given thus far is a jpeg image talking about how your detractors disagree with you purely on a basis of blind patriotism.

Like I said... that stuff is really stale at this point.
 
Last edited:
I'm consistent, that's also true. I never gave a flying **** about what some people want to know from or about me. Problem for you? Your problem. Finished watching the videos?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
While accusing detractors of being "believers in everything they hear from the government" is a nice escape from the reality of the fact that people have actual views that are supported by competent professional experience and overwhelming evidence that is not based on uneducated crud... it really gets stagnant after a while...
Click to expand...

Yeah like Popular Mechanics and National Geographic? I'm guessing they peer reviewed each other.
 
Childlike Empress said:
First you quote that I claimed to have a theory, get bonus points in quoting me claiming that I have a "complete theory", like the number stated and you approved. Go ahead now, or better retract immediately because it was only a week or so when we had that exchange, and you don't want to admit to such a bad memory, do you? Proceed.
Click to expand...

Maybe I can help you.

At some time between the 1993 Truck bombing of the WTC and Sept. 11, 2001 there were explosives strategically placed on several floors of both WTC 1 and 2 as well as WTC 7 (aka The Solomon Brothers building) in downtown Manhattan - New York City, NY. Two planes were hijacked by remote control in order to make it look like they were hijacked by terrorists and made to look like they crashed into both tower 1 and 2. This caused the explosives that were strategically placed to be set off and cause a huge fireball which spread through the floors and eventually caused a collapse.

How does that sound?
 
RedIbis said:
My theory is that due to geo-political reasons, members of the Bush administration, including Rumsfeld were not telling the whole truth and prevented a thorough and comprehensive investigation into 9/11.
Click to expand...

And that, paperboy05, is as much as you'll get from RedIbis except for a vague statement that Silverstein made out like a bandit from the insurance claims. I would agree, in fact, with RedIbis that it's a serious fallacy to lump all truthers into one category. Apart from the simple division into left wing outcasts and right wing outcasts, and another into the self-deluded, the idiotic and the outright liars, there's also an orthogonal classification into such groups as no-planers, thermians, nukers, space beamers, Pentagon no-planers (not to be confused with no-planers, whom they despise), MIHOP-lites, controlled demolitionists and JAQers. It's a veritable smorgasbord of stupid (I forget who coined that term), with enough options that everyone can have their own personal truthy version of the truth. But for those for whom even this classification system is too restrictive, who don't want to be tied down to any specific truth, but just want to snipe from the sidelines, there's a special group caled the no-claimers, who will never make a positive claim about anything, restricting themselves to merely throwing out sarcastic remarks and mutually contradictory misinterpretations of different bits of evidence, and RedIbis is a well-known member of this sub-group.

Truther taxonomy is in itself a fascinating subject, and in a way it proves RedIbis's point that truthers aren't a monolithic bloc; there are many roads to the kingdom of denial.

Dave
 
Childlike Empress said:
Hahaha, you must confuse me with somebody else. You don't know what a working hypothesis is, just like aggle-rithm and the gang over there.
Click to expand...

A working hypothesis is a starting point for constructing a proposed complete hypothesis, when no complete hypothesis is yet available. It's normally provisionally accepted, but subject to modification in the light of further evidence, with the distinction from a complete hypothesis that there is a lower threshold for modification. As such, one of the most valuable uses of a working hypothesis is as a first draft for comments; opening up a working hypothesis to discussion is a good way to determine what are its weaknesses and where are the areas where further evidence needs to be compiled. Hostile analysis of a working hypothesis is particularly useful for this purpose, because a hypothesis that has been revised so it can stand up to hostile criticism is inevitably strengthened.

So it seems to me that the most useful thing CE could do with his/her working hypothesis is to outline it here, so we can point out its flaws. (I'm assuming that there are flaws in it, otherwise it wouldn't be a working hypothesis.) I for one would be very happy to offer criticism, and I suspect I wouldn't be alone.

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
What crap. It's amazing and pathetic at the same time. At the same time the truth is so obvious that trying hide the truth should be considered an accessory after the fact offense.

The towers could have been lumped together as coincidence but WTC7 and the stand down of the American military put that to rest.
Click to expand...
If someone punches me in the throat, and someone punches my nigh-identical twin brother in the throat with the same amount of force, and we both drop in roughly the same fashion, then that's not a "coincidence", that's consistent results.

WTC7 wasn't the only building that was destroyed besides the towers.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I think it is an area that planes flying into the US from the direction of the Atlantic Ocean are not allowed to fly over. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What does this fictional Atlantic No Fly Zone have to do with 9/11?

Clayton Moore said:
Actually I don't perceive those particular magazines as the spokesmagazines of choice for America's scientific community.
Click to expand...

Even if it wasn't their first choice many expert researchers do talk and work with those periodicals.
 
Dave Rogers said:
So it seems to me that the most useful thing CE could do with his/her working hypothesis is to outline it here, so we can point out its flaws. (I'm assuming that there are flaws in it, otherwise it wouldn't be a working hypothesis.) I for one would be very happy to offer criticism, and I suspect I wouldn't be alone.
Click to expand...

Normally, this would be welcomed by the one presenting a working hypothesis, so it can be refined. In the case of many conspiracy theorists however, any critique of a working hypothesis is met with accusations of "shill" and "sheep" and "neocon" and "poopy face".

(okay, I just threw the poopy face one in there, but you get the point)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom