Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Slayhamlet]

Funny how it's me bumping that thread, while the Venezuela bashers always prefer to create new little hysterical threads parroting the latest out-of-context media campaign BS, isn't it?

But let's not derail.

Yes, Chavez-bashers are Venezuela-bashers, just as Bush-bashers are America haters.

You're a clown.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Oh no... we have someone who's profile says they are 30... and they are claiming 15 years experience...

we all know no one ever lies about their age in online forums... inside jobby job.

ETA: Damn it Tri... how many times were you told in the NWO orientation to make sure your online profiles match what you claim about your age and experience.

Shesh!!!

You lose your sea shells for this week.

I wouldn't be so surprised if he actually is 30. A lot of firefighters join as volunteers at a young age.

 

[triforcharity]

According to your JREF profile, you just turned 30 - and you already have 15 years of firefighting experience. That's quite impressive.

Yeah, good call. I should put my REAL birthdate up there for all to see. Then, they can contact my department, and via a FOIA request, it will show all personel with that birthdate. Good call!!
Sorry, I am much older than 30, but thanks for the compliment!!

 

[triforcharity]

Oh no... we have someone who's profile says they are 30... and they are claiming 15 years experience...

we all know no one ever lies about their age in online forums... inside jobby job.

ETA: Damn it Tri... how many times were you told in the NWO orientation to make sure your online profiles match what you claim about your age and experience.

Shesh!!!

You lose your sea shells for this week.

DAAMN!! I just GOT those shells!! I have been working REALLY hard to earn those. All that sweating cleaning the Kitty's box for nothing. And did ya'll HAVE to feed him tacos that week??

 

[triforcharity]

No, I am much older than 30 y/o/a. I have been a paid firefighter since 1994. I did however start off with a gig volunteering though. At a much younger age.

 

[TjW]

The definition does not require that there be no possible doubts about the historical narrative.
I think doubt that requires ignoring the convergence of large amounts of evidence to a single historical narrative in favor of your own hypothesis is unreasonable.

Do you have an example for "reasonable doubt"? What do you call the people expressing them?

@funk: evidence?

Perhaps a hypothetical example will help:
My son, alas, does not always tell me the full and complete truth. Sometimes he may actually lie to me. So I may ask him about his homework. "TjWscion", I may say to him, "have you done your homework?". "Yes", he'll almost always reply.
"Show it to me." And he will heave a mighty sigh, and go to his backpack, and rummage around, and will bring me some work that he has done.
"This is math", I might say. "What about your English and Social Studies". "Didn't have any, Ms. Soandso was out today".
"Bring me your Cornell notes, so I can check". And there will follow more sighing, and more rummaging, and a very sloppily written Cornell notes notebook will appear. There's no homework for English.
"Who was the substitute?"
"I dunno-- Ms. Somebodyelse, I think."
"You think -- you don't know?"
"Well --"
And so I contact the school, to make sure that Ms. Somebodyelse was, in fact, subbing for Ms. Soandso. As it turns out, she was. So I ask the school for her home phone number, to make sure no homework was assigned.
And the person answering the phone at the school says: "I'm sorry, we don't give out personal information on our teachers."
Of course, then she has to listen to a five-minute rant from me about how I'm a taxpayer, and I pay her salary, AND Ms. Somebodyelse's salary, and by God, I'm going to -- and in an effort to soothe the angry parent, she offers to call Ms. Somebodyelse and ask my question for me.
When she calls back, she says that Ms. Somebodyelse told her she didn't assign any homework, because Ms. Soandso had left a very complete lesson plan that didn't involve giving any homework. And I say "Thank you", politely, if a bit grumpily, and hang up.
And then it occurs to me that TjWscion is around that school all the time. He is probably acquainted with all the women that work in the school office.
Sure enougn, he admits that he is.
"So it's possible you could have arranged with Mrs Officelady to give the answers that she did -- couldn't you?"
"Well -- I suppose I could, but --" And he doesn't really finish his sentence, but I'm already on the Internet, doing a search on Ms. Somebodyelse, to try and find her phone number, so I wouldn't have heard it anyway.
It takes a couple of wrong numbers, but eventually I have the substitute herself on the phone. She seems a little puzzled that I called. "Didn't Mrs. Officelady give you the message? No, I didn't assign any homework today in Ms. Soandso's class."
So I hang up, and then it occurs to me: She's a substitute teacher. She's on a list, and she only works when someone from the school calls her in on a daily basis. If they don't call, she doesn't work. And who does the calling? Mrs. Officelady! It's all starting to hang together...

-- and I'm going to end my hypothetical here, because I'm starting to give my son very thoughtful glances, and this is, after all, only a hypothetical situation.

I would submit that at the beginning of the story I had reasonable doubts.
I would submit that by the end of the story I had unreasonable doubts. The exact transition point might be debated. But those I define as twoofers come in a lot closer to the end of the story than the beginning.

 

[R.Mackey]

Or you could be making up the whole thing just to throw us off the track.

Obviously, we're getting close to teh Truth. Better say your prayers, shill!

 

[MIKILLINI]

And you're the jury. Or is a jury not needed because "reasonable doubt" over the historical narrative of 9/11 doesn't exist?

We are not the jury per se, but what we have is research, evidence and evaluation from many sources. In other words, what we have is an extensive case file of facts that overshadows anything the twoof has thrown out there.

 

[TokenMac]

What's a truther?

Wow just one question distracted everybody.

Well almost everyone...BUMP

The points and questions asked in this thread that you avoid are pretty easy to answer if you are honest with yourself. Even though this will sound harsh, I mean this without malice, but to anyone your refusal to answer these very simple questions about logic and your own criteria for proof shows that you are in denial about your own views, you have a cognitive dissonance between what you want to believe, and what is reality. You cannot admit to yourself that you can't even meet your own standard for evidence.

Like that Columbia shuttle analogy we were asking you about a few months ago, the analogy is pertinent, and yet you handwaved it away and never acknowledged it. That habit of yours can be irritating at times

I know I can be sometimes impatient with you, but it's because I know you can do better than this. If you only were willing to answer our questions, face you own contradictions, instead of always running away, we might get somewhere.

ETA: also, I should add, that one of the things that are irritating about your posting, is that you are willing to endorse the most profoundly distasteful propositions without actually doing it. Like for example the DNA thing. What you are suggesting is that the DNA was faked, planted or tampered with. Of course, you will say that you never said that. You would be right, you didn't say that in those words, but what you are implying inevitably comes to that conclusion. If we follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, that is precisely what you are saying, and yet, you are unwilling to admit it (all of this, mind you, without a shred of evidence to back it up, just your unwillingness to support anything about the official story). Do you understand why this is infuriating sometimes?

What you call "leading questions", are in fact really what this discussion should be about. Not bickering over details of how hot the steel was or how column 79 was never found (none of us are engineers), what we should be discussing as laypeople is if our arguments can follow through, if our reasoning itself is valid and logical. That is all the questions I quoted and keep bumping are about, trying to figure out if your reasoning can make sense on its own. What we're killing ourselves trying to show you is that it doesn't.

Come on Red he was pretty nice about it too.

 

[Brainache]

Wow just one question distracted everybody.

Well almost everyone...BUMP

Come on Red he was pretty nice about it too.

You don't actually expect Red to acknowledge his irrationality on this subject, do you?

You don't think he'll actually fully explain why he holds such unreasonable standards for evidence that contradicts his fantasy, do you?

 

[funk de fino]

Funny how it's me bumping that thread, while the Venezuela bashers always prefer to create new little hysterical threads parroting the latest out-of-context media campaign BS, isn't it?

But let's not derail.

Show us all the Chavez threads i have started. Please.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Perhaps a hypothetical example will help:

<snip>

-- and I'm going to end my hypothetical here, because I'm starting to give my son very thoughtful glances, and this is, after all, only a hypothetical situation.

I would submit that at the beginning of the story I had reasonable doubts.
I would submit that by the end of the story I had unreasonable doubts. The exact transition point might be debated. But those I define as twoofers come in a lot closer to the end of the story than the beginning.

In other words, you can't give a practical example of "reasonable doubt" over the historical narrative of 9/11. Therefore, you need no jury and, as expected, your baby-language version of "truther" covers every doubt. From Able Danger to VicSims.

The label is a scapegoat helping you fight your own subconscious doubt. There's a lot of projection going on here.

 

[BigAl]

In other words, you can't give a practical example of "reasonable doubt" over the historical narrative of 9/11. Therefore, you need no jury

The 19 Arab hijackers are certainly in no need of a jury trial.

 

[TexasJack]

In other words, you can't give a practical example of "reasonable doubt" over the historical narrative of 9/11. Therefore, you need no jury and, as expected, your baby-language version of "truther" covers every doubt. From Able Danger to VicSims.

The label is a scapegoat helping you fight your own subconscious doubt. There's a lot of projection going on here.

In other words, you like to put words in people's mouth's, or thoughts.

 

[newton3376]

Yeah, that's the problem. You assume too much. If i would tell you that i'm indeed an engineer and/or scientist, you wouldn't believe me anyway. Not that it would matter for anything else but controlled demolition discussions.

FYI: We're watching you trapped in your web of little labels and poke fun at you.

In other words you aren't an engineer or scientist.

Not surprising.

 

[TjW]

In other words, you can't give a practical example of "reasonable doubt" over the historical narrative of 9/11. Therefore, you need no jury and, as expected, your baby-language version of "truther" covers every doubt. From Able Danger to VicSims.

The label is a scapegoat helping you fight your own subconscious doubt. There's a lot of projection going on here.

Do you feel that at the end of the story, where I was embracing the idea that the teachers and staff were conspiring with my son to prevent me from knowing whether he had homework assigned was reasonable behavior?

After all, I never accused my son of lying to me. I was just asking questions.

Do you think that at the end of the story I had reasonable doubt?

 

[ElCid]

general

This is an interesting and entertaining thread, so probably the right one to inform you that I have created a robotron3000 ultimate truth generator. Upon feeding it NIST and FEMA data, here is the Output:

Rejected. False results. Have not met a basic expectation of the scientific method to “..share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing others researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them."
The scientific method is the acceptable way to prove the truth

 

[BigAl]

this is an interesting and entertaining thread, so probably the right one to inform you that i have created a robotron3000 ultimate truth generator. Upon feeding it nist and fema data, here is the output:

rejected. False results. Have not met a basic expectation of the scientific method to “..share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing others researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them."
the scientific method is the acceptable way to prove the truth

gigo

 

[ElCid]

Gigo, I agree. But, let me feed your reply into RT3000.

The scientific method is thoroughly unlike garbage in all appreciable aspects. This model underlies the scientific revolution, NIST did not adhere....NIST logic error is considered as affirming the consequent

 

[A W Smith]

Gigo, I agree. But, let me feed your reply into RT3000.

The scientific method is thoroughly unlike garbage in all appreciable aspects. This model underlies the scientific revolution, NIST did not adhere....NIST logic error is considered as affirming the consequent

You will be pointing out specifically how NIST didn't adhere to the scientific method. Yes?

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.