9/11 — The Myth & the Reality

skepticalcriticalguy said:
Hey, I didn't say I believe that one.

You guys should read his "Overthrow of the American Revolution" series!!! It's great reading. Try it. Just for fun.
Click to expand...
I'll get right to it! After reading this it couldn't be more obvious that spending time with Mr. Skolnick's work is a worthy pursuit.

You do realize that you're moving backwards here, don't you, SCG? Don't you have any shame?
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
I don't know. I don't know him personally (not that that could determine whether he's honourable or a liar). Did he say that the plane parts were part of a Boeing 767?

One thing you guys are correct about; the internet is a great source of disinformation. And a great place to spread lies.

Keep in mind, however, that you only define a lie as a lie if it is intentional. A lot of disinformation spreads through the truth movenment unintentionally. You have to recognize that this can happen in the skeptic world too. You guys seem to jump all over any piece of info that fits your world view. Just like them!

(I should probably separate this into two posts; the predictable response will be that I'm implying that Hal is lieing; I am not saying that).
Click to expand...


I believe he did say they were parts of an "American Airlines" Jetliner, but that is an IIRC, and mine goes on the fritz from time to time.

Yes, the internet is a great place for disinfo. That is why I think most officials, most sicentists, most professionals, rely on the written record, the files of investigative information the FBI has, etc...

There is alot of reliable info on the net also, and distinguishing between the two is paramount. Unfortunately this can be influenced, on both sides, by your world views. For instance, I personally take what the MSM says as the official news, unless proven otherwise. I consider it a reliable source, but you may not.

Besides source critiquing, there is critiquing of the reporter, and their agenda. There is critiquing of the articles merits on its own.

There is evaluating whether outside influence did or did not have a role in the outcomes of scientific investigations. This is often done through, as R.Mackey has mentioned, other independent verifying investigations/reviews.

Peer review, by others equally, or superiorly qualified in your field, is another good source. Scholars has turned this principle into a mockery.

TAM:)
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
It's more about ommissions. And the scope. And the government contractors in the catseats.

You know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
No, I don't. The Commission report lays out the evidence of why the attacks happened.

Can you name anything substantial that it gets wrong or not?
 
We are getting into DRG territory now. He equates ommissions, even unintentional ones, with lying.

Commission Report fulfilled their mandate, and were under no obligation to do anything more...EOS.

TAM:)
 
Gravy said:
No, I don't. The Commission report lays out the evidence of why the attacks happened.

Can you name anything substantial that it gets wrong or not?
Click to expand...

That question will end up being unanswered, Gravy. Twoofers/CTists/Deniers won't answer that.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Whoops, I meant the NIST Report. I thought that's what Gravy meant.
Click to expand...
That is what I meant. Why do you think there are different versions of it? There's the WTC 1&2 report, and the WTC 7 report is in progress.

So what are you talking about?
 
Gravy said:
I'll get right to it! After reading this it couldn't be more obvious that spending time with Mr. Skolnick's work is a worthy pursuit.

You do realize that you're moving backwards here, don't you, SCG? Don't you have any shame?
Click to expand...

You don't get my point.

See, forget Skolnick, he's an extreme. You disregard any/all reporters work, calling it bunk, unless it's on the "official" news. (Even though that has proven to be bunk so many times, too).

You don't buy Hopsicker's investigations. Nor Madsen's. Nor Flocco's. (Don't bother slinging a link here).

So, you only believe science. But science can't tell you about history.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
You don't get my point.

See, forget Skolnick, he's an extreme. You disregard any/all reporters work, calling it bunk, unless it's on the "official" news. (Even though that has proven to be bunk so many times, too).
Click to expand...
Bollocks!

skepticalcriticalguy said:
So, you only believe science. But science can't tell you about history.
Click to expand...
Don't tell that to people in the following fields:
geology
paleontology
evolutionary biology
anthropology
archeology
evolutionary psychology
cosmology

because they all use science to tell us about the past.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
So, you only believe science. But science can't tell you about history.
Click to expand...


Have you heard of a group of academia called the "social sciences"? It includes social geography, classical studies, and, oh, what was the third arm of the social sciences? Oh that's right. HISTORY.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom