• 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.

9/11 Challenge, Split from: Fetzer wants debate

I have answered and proved your challenge is totally baseless.

Thank god I am normal. When I saw the planes hit the towers on 911 I thought what a terrible CRIME, lets catch the people who did it. I didn't think "ooh look, an interesting scientific phenomenon, lets see if I can produce a falsifiable theory".

If you can't see this then I can't help you.
 
Calcas said:
Afew people have referred to you as Jim Fetzer, but I haven't seen you respond.

Is Aqua323 Jim Fetzer?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...


Nah, high per day post count(#1 right now), British spellings, contempt for Gravy, strawmen.....We've seen him here before. Many times. :socks::socks:
 
Totovader said:
Actually- you didn't show that, you just said it and then gave an example that was easily falsifiable.

It helps my case by showing that your position is unscientific. If it is unscientific- it doesn't even reach the point of "jury". You're trying to skip over evidence, logic, reason, science, and reality and just jump into a guessing game.

If science plays no part in this- then why did you just admit that evidence is allowed in criminal cases? How does that evidence work if science is not allowed?
Click to expand...

I didnt say science isnt allowed. Scientific evidence is presented as part of the case and can be inconclusive or challenged by a defence expert.


Please tell me how you would falsify "all men are mortal"

You didnt read the wiki entry because that is the first example it gives. You are dishonest.
 
apathoid said:
Nah, high per day post count(#1 right now), British spellings, contempt for Gravy, strawmen.....We've seen him here before. Many times. :socks::socks:
Click to expand...

Ok, I know who you mean.

I sent in a report for them to look into it.
 
Aqua323 said:
I have answered and proved your challenge is totally baseless.

Thank god I am normal. When I saw the planes hit the towers on 911 I thought what a terrible CRIME, lets catch the people who did it. I didn't think "ooh look, an interesting scientific phenomenon, lets see if I can produce a falsifiable theory".

If you can't see this then I can't help you.
Click to expand...

Strawman.
 
Im still waiting to find out how you would falsify "all men are mortal", and why you pretended to read the wikipedia entry.

Unfalsifiable does not imply false.
911 is a crime, not a science.

Your challenge is baseless.
 
Totovader said:
You can keep waiting- this isn't a chatroom, this is a message board. If I don't reply it's because I'm not here.
Click to expand...

Says the man who whined because I wasn't here to join his thread instantly.]

I suspect you don't have an answer.
 
Aqua323 said:
I didnt say science isnt allowed. Scientific evidence is presented as part of the case and can be inconclusive or challenged by a defence expert.
Click to expand...

Then your theory would have to necessarily include science...

This completely contradicts your earlier claim. How do you resolve this contradiction?


Please tell me how you would falsify "all men are mortal"
Click to expand...

By finding a man that is not mortal.

You didnt read the wiki entry because that is the first example it gives. You are dishonest.
Click to expand...

I am dishonest just because you claim I am? I don't think so. I was going off the example you plagiarized, I said nothing in regards to it being in the wiki entry.

It should be pretty simple for you to follow at this point:

1) You have admitted that your case would necessarily have to include science.

2) As part of that scientific inquiry, your claims would have to be falsifiable (not that this is even the claim in my video).

3) You continue to dodge the OP- and in doing so have only shot yourself in the foot. Now you have no excuse to continue to avoid it.
 
Aqua323 said:
Im still waiting to find out how you would falsify "all men are mortal", and why you pretended to read the wikipedia entry.

Unfalsifiable does not imply false.
911 is a crime, not a science.

Your challenge is baseless.
Click to expand...
Kill everyone on earth, and hope I am a woman.
 
Aqua323 said:
Says the man who whined because I wasn't here to join his thread instantly.]

I suspect you don't have an answer.
Click to expand...

I did what you refused to do: started a thread based on your previous derailment, and then notified you of it via PM. When you did not respond, but the thread had received posts, I updated the rest of the visitors as to the status of your stalling. There was no whining involved.

Suspect all you want, I've already provided you with an answer.
 
Aqua323 said:
How do juries judge the claims of a witness. They decide how reliable they think the witness is, and they look at the case as a whole and see how the witness statements contradict or support each other.

This is very simple, why are you having trouble with this?
Click to expand...

Have you ever actually served on a jury (I have, twice to the point of verdict, once as foreman) or are you just making it up? (Most likely: you are relying on the Dick Wolf School of Legal Practice.)

Hint: one also listens to the lawyers, pays close attention to the judge's instructions, applies prior experience and understanding of the world, discusses the case in the deliberation phase...

And most important of all: takes into consideration the opportunities for good lunches and/ or shopping during the trial! Best reason for stretching out deliberations I know.
 
Aqua323 - You have not said a single thing in response to the OP- except for a fallacious special pleading.

I need you to respond to this now, and stop stalling. If you continue to post in here and dodge the question, I will be forced to report your posts again for derailment- and I'm not sure that you will last the amount of complaints already against you. I would much rather have you address the topic.
 
Aqua323 said:
I have answered and proved your challenge is totally baseless.

Thank god I am normal. When I saw the planes hit the towers on 911 I thought what a terrible CRIME, lets catch the people who did it. I didn't think "ooh look, an interesting scientific phenomenon, lets see if I can produce a falsifiable theory".

If you can't see this then I can't help you.
Click to expand...
So considering the lack of evidence to the contrary you support the war on terror?
There is evidence pointing toward Islamic extremists.
 
Aqua323, just be honest. There is nothing that will falsify your belief in an inside job, is there? That is precisely why you answered the challenge with evidence you know doesn't exist.

Answer me this. What if you contacted every single structural engineer in the world...all million + of them... and only a teeny tiny fraction(say 0.005 %) of them say anything remotely in support of any inside job claim. Would that at least give you a pause?
 
apathoid said:
Aqua323, just be honest. There is nothing that will falsify your belief in an inside job, is there? That is precisely why you answered the challenge with evidence you know doesn't exist.

Answer me this. What if you contacted every single structural engineer in the world...all million + of them... and only a teeny tiny fraction(say 0.005 %) of them say anything remotely in support of any inside job claim. Would that at least give you a pause?
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that a million SE actually read the NIST report to either agree or disagree with it? Never mind, I know the answer.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Is there any evidence that a million SE actually read the NIST report to either agree or disagree with it? Never mind, I know the answer.
Click to expand...


It was a hypothetical question, swing. A thought exercise.
Now, would you like to answer?

What if you somehow knew that nearly all of them were in agreement with NIST. Would that change anything for you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom