• 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.

Jason Bermas Back-Pedelling.

Lyte Trip said:
You're going to have to because there is NO WAY you or anybody can debunk our north of the citgo evidence.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the difference between a smart person and a stupid person is?


Smart people can conceive of things that stupid people can't.

You can't conceive of any way to debunk your evidence. But you're stupid. Therefore, you being unable to conceive of a means of debunking your evidence is meaningless.

However, it is entirely possible that one of the smart people here at JREF will be able to conceive of such a thing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there will be several means of debunking it within minutes of it being released.




If it ever is realeased, that is.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Wrong.

None of you have been able to demonstrate the physical damage as having been caused from the plane if it flew on the North side.

If you can not.....our evidence will prove that the physical damage was staged which in turn proves 9/11 an inside job.

It is not our responsibility to prove any details beyond which we have evidence for.
Click to expand...

You know, im looking forward to seeing a comprehensive timeline of how the evidence was planted and how they can prove that specific witnesses are actually lying etc. Should make for a good matrix followup.
 
Horatius said:
Do you know what the difference between a smart person and a stupid person is?


Smart people can conceive of things that stupid people can't.

You can't conceive of any way to debunk your evidence. But you're stupid. Therefore, you being unable to conceive of a means of debunking your evidence is meaningless.

However, it is entirely possible that one of the smart people here at JREF will be able to conceive of such a thing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there will be several means of debunking it within minutes of it being released.




If it ever is realeased, that is.
Click to expand...

LOL. Perfect.

Nominated.
 
Fetzer vs. Dunn

For those innocents who still wonder what, if anything, the conspiracy liars actually have, Fetzer's debate with military historian J.R. Dunn is a great place to look. I will post links in a separate thread.
 
Lyte Trip said:
Wrong again.

You so aren't getting this yet!

There will be nothing for you to debunk in what we present.
Click to expand...

ZOMG Lyte.

I remember this guy on MySpace. He was talking about the same crap several weeks ago about how he found some great evidence that no one else saw and was going to reveal it to the world.

When I asked him what his conclusions were, he said "Neither a missile, global hawk, or Flight 77 hit the Pentagon", or somewhere along those lines.

I can't wait till his present this daming "evidence" to a court system, instead of YouTube or Google Video.
 
If the Twoofers want a debate...

...They should sue. Get themselves a lawyer, and sue the government for "wrongful death," like how Nicole Simpson's in-laws sued OJ for killing Nicole.

They could probably also sue Larry Silverstein.

The only problems are...they'd have to present credible evidence to a judge, and testify under oath.

That's why you rarely see Holocaust deniers come to the defense of their buddies in court.
 
Kiwiwriter said:
...They should sue. Get themselves a lawyer, and sue the government for "wrongful death," like how Nicole Simpson's in-laws sued OJ for killing Nicole.

They could probably also sue Larry Silverstein.

The only problems are...they'd have to present credible evidence to a judge, and testify under oath.

That's why you rarely see Holocaust deniers come to the defense of their buddies in court.
Click to expand...

Or, if they're not interested in the courts (or the legality of the lawsuit were challenged), they should do what responsible researchers do when they discover something that is scientifically, philosophically or politically important: publish it. If the data are irrefutable and the logic is sound, then it should be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It should be subjected to scrutiny and made available to the public in a freely accessible way.

And no, I don't consider the Journal of 9/11 Review to be a valid journal.
 
The Almond said:
It should be subjected to scrutiny and made available to the public in a freely accessible way.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think they'd prefer to continue talking ominously about the amazing evidence they're about to release that will break this whole thing wide open.

But hey, what do I know?
 
The Almond said:
they should do what responsible researchers do when they discover something that is scientifically, philosophically or politically important: publish it. If the data are irrefutable and the logic is sound, then it should be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It should be subjected to scrutiny and made available to the public in a freely accessible way.
Click to expand...

Well we all know that's never going to happen. The majority of CTer like to pretend they are reasonable, logical people with legtimate scientific evidence. But when you ask them why their ideas aren't accepted by the mainstream scientific and academic community their answer is always the same: all those people are either too afraid to speak out, are part of the conspiracy or are being threatend by the conspirators.

Same goes for their opinion of mainstream media (domesitic and foreign) and local law enforcement. They show themselves for the tin-foil hatters they really are when they believe EVERYONE in authority is "in on it".
 
Disorder in the court!

The Almond said:
Or, if they're not interested in the courts (or the legality of the lawsuit were challenged), they should do what responsible researchers do when they discover something that is scientifically, philosophically or politically important: publish it. If the data are irrefutable and the logic is sound, then it should be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It should be subjected to scrutiny and made available to the public in a freely accessible way.

And no, I don't consider the Journal of 9/11 Review to be a valid journal.
Click to expand...

Right, that would be log-rolling.

Yes, they can send it to Scientific American or if the don't like that, send it to a Canadian or French journal.

But they won't. They'll send it to journalists instead, knowing that reporters don't have the foggiest clue about science and mechanics.
 
well they better prove something hit the pentagon, as we know from the doubletree video...there WAS NO FLYOVER.

TAM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom