• 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.

Watch trailer: 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out

Marokkaan said:
Damn, i think you are illiterate, because you are constantly ignoring what i wrote about the goal of her.

For the last time. She is an expert. You cant deny. Her role as an expert, is to tell about her knowledge about the scientific methods of a research.

Famed scientist, Lynn Margulis, provides crucial rules and elements within an investigative scientific analysis to procure an accepted hypotheses vs. what's depicted in the NIST report

You can see here the interview with here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og
Click to expand...

ah i see the stuff outside her field of expertise will be usefull you think.
 
Marokkaan said:
00000000000For the last time. She is an expert. You cant deny.
Click to expand...

We can, actually. Just like we can deny that that spaced-out hippy Hoffman has a freaking clue what he is talking about.

Her role as an expert, is to tell about her knowledge about the scientific methods of a research.
Click to expand...

Her role as an expert is to apply such data as are available to her to assess available evidence.

She has none.

Or could you, perhaps, show some evidence that the blithering air head has any idea how real men and women respond in an ermergency?
 
leftysergeant said:
We can, actually. Just like we can deny that that spaced-out hippy Hoffman has a freaking clue what he is talking about.



Her role as an expert is to apply such data as are available to her to assess available evidence.

She has none.

Or could you, perhaps, show some evidence that the blithering air head has any idea how real men and women respond in an ermergency?
Click to expand...

You're talking crazy. You want to deny she is an expert:boggled:

Her role, is to comment the scientific methods of science.

I dont want to repeat. do you have any other comments about the other experts?
 
Oh boy, yet another youtube video...

It must be true because youtube is the great oracle of all truth.

Noone would ever lie or deceive using youtube, would they?...:rolleyes:
 
Marokkaan said:
Ofcourse a scientist does not know the scientific methods of a scientic research hehe
Click to expand...

Not what I said. You just lied. Not a good way to win an argument.

What I said was, she's not an expert in the scientific method and how NIST used or did not use it. If all it required to be an expert in the scientific method is to be a scientist, any other PhD would have done. The reason she's there is to lend credibility. It has failed.
 
Marokkaan said:
“I would not have expected the whole building to just give in at once. And I thought it rather odd that they fell almost perfectly – in very similar ways. It seemed odd that lightning would strike twice.”
Click to expand...

Indeed, what are the odds that two identically built buildings that were hit by a very similar way would collapse in very similar ways, just coincidence? I don't think so. There must a reason for it. I can think of one, can you?
However Les Young can't and that says something.
 
Every time I hear a twoofer talk about "experts", this is what comes to mind:
 
Marokkaan said:
Ofcourse a scientist does not know the scientific methods of a scientic research hehe
Click to expand...

she is an expert in microbiology, genetics, Endosymbiotic theory and gaia theory. but not an expert on what she is talking in the video.
 
Classic appeal to authority fallacy.

Why is it that REAL authorities are ignored by truthers?
 
She does also not deserve the name of scientist. Because she does know nothing about the science of 9/11.

This is the logic of the debunkers LOL
 
Marokkaan said:
She does also not deserve the name of scientist. Because she does know nothing about the science of 9/11.

This is the logic of the debunkers LOL
Click to expand...

Why do you keep lying and putting words in our mouths? If you don't understand what we're talking about, just ask and we'll explain it (although I think it's pretty well explained already). The least you can do is stop lying.
 
double_o said:
Indeed, what are the odds that two identically built buildings that were hit by a very similar way would collapse in very similar ways, just coincidence? I don't think so. There must a reason for it. I can think of one, can you?
However Les Young can't and that says something.
Click to expand...

The way the fell the same, in perfection, with the same speed and both in there own footprint.

That are a lot of coincidences, u probably wont see that, but a highrise architect does see the coincidences.
 
Marokkaan said:
The way the fell the same, in perfection, with the same speed and both in there own footprint.
Click to expand...

Ah, this old chestnut. No. They. Didn't. Use the forum search function to learn why you're wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom