David Ray Griffiths Answers All Our Questions

28th Kingdom said:
I don't think you can hide threads...but you can completely remove any trace of a user on your ignore list. Check under the control panel...you can either leave a note that the ignored member has posted (with the option to view the post) or you can make them disappear completely... I've chosen the latter and it's a D-LIGHT!

If someone on my ig-button starts a thread, and they're the only one who has posted...when you click on the thread, it will just be empty i.e. no posts.
Click to expand...
You can hide threads from people on your ignore list:
options.jpg
 
JamesB said:
Actually you are correct in that it is undebunkable, in the sense that your hypotheses are not falsifiable. Any evidence which supports you is unquestionably accepted, no matter how weak or unrealiable. Any lack of evidence is taken as proof of a coverup. Any evidence which contradicts your hypothesis is automatically taken as faked. There is no evidence, no matter how powerful or reliable that you would accept to contradict your fervently held beliefs.

So yes, based on your standards of evidence, we cannot "debunk" you.
Click to expand...

Providing an alternate theory... in NO WAY proves the first theory to be false.

I haven't even read over the 9/11 debunking sites, but I have scanned over a couple pages that have been linked from this forum... and this so-called, "debunking," is just beyond pitiful. It's basically a guy saying,

"Well... here is what the CT says... and well, I just think that's crazy because... opinion 1... opinion 2... opinion 3... so there I proved them wrong...because I was able to provide an alternative theory (regardless if it's 80 times as absurd i.e. the magical potion of silvery molten aluminum mixed with partially burned computers and carpets that glows orange) to account for that event."

"Koolaid - shaken... not stirred."
 
You can hide threads from people on your ignore list:
Click to expand...


Ach, dinnae tell him that. I was going to start a bogus thread with the title "28th: Spook Shrill" just to see if he responded!

Actually, I like that idea.....would I get into trouble for it?
 
Providing an alternate theory... in NO WAY proves the first theory to be false.
Click to expand...
so then by the same logic no CTers has ever, nor will ever, debunk the official story, correct?
 
Back to the thread topic. If we did submit questions, wouldn't they just delete them? They sure don't like anything like actual facts, for some reason. Like all the people banned from their forums.
 
JimBenArm said:
Back to the thread topic. If we did submit questions, wouldn't they just delete them? They sure don't like anything like actual facts, for some reason. Like all the people banned from their forums.
Click to expand...
If you look through that questions thread, you will discover a few sane people who contributed. Very sane. Very few.
 
JimBenArm said:
Back to the thread topic. If we did submit questions, wouldn't they just delete them? They sure don't like anything like actual facts, for some reason. Like all the people banned from their forums.
Click to expand...
Well, lets try it!

I posted an easy question. Maybe the specialists here should post more tricky ones. :)
 
28th Kingdom said:
Providing an alternate theory... in NO WAY proves the first theory to be false.

I haven't even read over the 9/11 debunking sites, but I have scanned over a couple pages that have been linked from this forum... and this so-called, "debunking," is just beyond pitiful. It's basically a guy saying,

"Well... here is what the CT says... and well, I just think that's crazy because... opinion 1... opinion 2... opinion 3... so there I proved them wrong...because I was able to provide an alternative theory (regardless if it's 80 times as absurd i.e. the magical potion of silvery molten aluminum mixed with partially burned computers and carpets that glows orange) to account for that event."

"Koolaid - shaken... not stirred."
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not how most of the debunking sites work. Since I write for one of them, I happen to be an expert on them. What most of them do is say, "These are the claims of the conspiracy theorists, these are unrealiable sources of information these theories are based on, these are the logical fallacies and outright lies that they are using to make their conclusions. These are the more reliable theories and logical conclusions that you should have made.
 
JamesB said:
Actually you are correct in that it is undebunkable, in the sense that your hypotheses are not falsifiable. Any evidence which supports you is unquestionably accepted, no matter how weak or unrealiable. Any lack of evidence is taken as proof of a coverup. Any evidence which contradicts your hypothesis is automatically taken as faked. There is no evidence, no matter how powerful or reliable that you would accept to contradict your fervently held beliefs.

So yes, based on your standards of evidence, we cannot "debunk" you.
Click to expand...

Replied to and quoted to highlight a recent signature addition, attributed to J. Swift.

I think it has some bearing on the nutjob you're replying to.
 
28th Kingdom sure has been saying some strange things on this thread. I entirely agree with him about the unfalsifiability of the CTs. Then he said
28th Kingdom said:
Providing an alternate theory... in NO WAY proves the first theory to be false.
Click to expand...
... which I actually assumed had been written by a debunker, because the CTs go on and on about how the "official" theory is the first theory, and it's perfectly sensible that theories on their own don't disprove older theories simply by dint of appearing later. Are we revealing 28th as a "fake" truther? (I put fake in quotes just to drive pedants like me crazy.)

I'd ask DRG why he was fatuous enough to start his book 9/11 Commission Omissions and Distortions with the hijackers "turning up alive". Though even the BBC reported on this before taking a step back and realising how idiotic it is. This is not a case of the police framing evidence for a crime against some specific person who is pleading his innocence. The committers of this crime are dead, so if you show up saying, "Hey, you said I committed this crime. Not only did I not commit this crime, I wasn't even in the States at the time, and I'm not even a terrorist." To which, presumably, the FBI say, "Uh, the fact that you're alive more or less proves you didn't commit the crime. I'll take you at your word you're not a terrorist as well. It's pretty clear we weren't talking about you, but about another guy with the same name as you. We've talked to our guy's friends, associates and family. He's definitely dead. Go about your business."
 
SezMe said:
Didja notice this phrase:


truthling??? Is that like truthiness only with a clapper?
Click to expand...
I heard that the 9/11 Truthling Movement was setup for the kiddies of Real Truthers. Under 8 years old to join. Accepted upon approval of dissertation on credibility of Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and The Great Pumpkin.

Was later disbanded when the 9/11 CT statements made by the Truthlings were deemed, by the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, to be indistinguishable from their own. Copyright infringement and all that.
 
SezMe said:
Didja notice this phrase:

truthling??? Is that like truthiness only with a clapper?
Click to expand...

Truthling is a Nico Haupt (aka Ewing 2001) term. I think it vaguely implies Truthers who don't support the same stuff Nico does (which means just about everybody in Denial Land).
 
Larry Lovage said:
28th Kingdom sure has been saying some strange things on this thread. I entirely agree with him about the unfalsifiability of the CTs. Then he said... which I actually assumed had been written by a debunker, because the CTs go on and on about how the "official" theory is the first theory, and it's perfectly sensible that theories on their own don't disprove older theories simply by dint of appearing later. Are we revealing 28th as a "fake" truther? (I put fake in quotes just to drive pedants like me crazy.)
Click to expand...

No CT proves the official story to be false. But, you know what does?

COMMON F****** SENSE!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom