• 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.

Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

Mince said:
No. Have you forgotten that the B-25 would have had roughly 1/gazillionth of the force a 767 would have slamming into a building? I forgot, was the B-25 a prop aircraft or a jet aircraft. I also forgot, is the 767 a prop aircraft or a jet aircraft? And wasn't the pilot of the 767 running at a very high speed trying to impact the building? I forgot again.

When come back, bring a sense of ratio and proportion instead of "OMG! Alex Jones said 9/11 was an inside job!!!1! That must mean 9/11 was an inside job!!!!11!1! ZOMG!!"
Click to expand...
impactenergywtc.jpg

enery
 
Brannagyn said:
Thankfully, it seems I can finallyy bow out of this thread. While Mark Roberts was content to end the discussion without addressing my specific points in any reasonable manner (thankful for that due to his clear inability to discuss things in a civil manner) I was honestly open to the idea that Totovader had picked up a failure in my logic and/or understanding of the Argument from Ignornace. Now that he's shown that is not true I can thankfully leave this one-sided effort at discourse without regret.



Yet again you seem to have failed to read what I clearly stated in earlier posts. I made a distinction between hard and circumstantial evidence and stated that while there was no hard evidence of conspiracy enough cricumstantial evidence existed to warrant further investigation.

Hence the use of Watergate as an example, the relevance of which you also entirely failed to appreciate.

Many 'debunkers' have stated here that political conspiracy is a valid field for further enquiry (go read mackey's thread on the 'Gravy line'). This is also the entire point of Peter Dale Scott's book "The Road to 9/11". Gravy claimed familiarity with this, something that flies in the face of his demands for 'evidence'.

'Hard' evidence is not required to justify the validity of an argument suggesting the possibility of a conspiracy. I was well aware of this and had no desire to derail the thread with discussion unrelated to the specific point I was addressing.

Robert's, and your, failure to grasp this is entirely due to your reading far more into my intent here than anything I wrote ever warranted (i.e. that I was secretly championing some claim regarding physical evidence that your 'hard' evidence had already invalidated).



Ths is just getting repetitive. My above explanation was only a restatement of my earlier ones over the nature of 'evidence' (i.e. hard & circusmtantial and their relation to the possibility of conspiracy vs physical events) yet you have completely failed to apprehend my meaning. Once again, what is the nature of this 'proof' of a lack of political conspiracy that you refer to.

I'm now asking you to go read Dale Scott's book, start a thread and invalidate the central thesis that a political conspiracy possibly occured and this possibility warrants renewed investigation of those involved.



And again, my post either went over your head or bounced off it.



This just as an example of the civility of some of the posters here.

Please go back and check. Tell me where I wasn't honestly open to the possibility of being wrong and willing to accept the blame. It turns out I wasn't actually wrong but now that Totovader clearly doesn't appreciate the fault in his logic there is no effort made to clear up or admit to any possibility of being wrong.



Again, complete failure to understand my meaning. You were wrong. I was allowing for the possibility that I may have been wrong by misinterpreting Gravy's intent.

It is a fantastic comment on the failures of this forum that such attitudes are openly expressed without fear of disdain by others.

Previously I had said that people here should try to avoid extremes of 0 or 100% certainty and always allow for the possibility of their error.

Others believe things are always 100% right or wrong. While in logic things are either A or Not-A (that damned hyphen again) in communicating ideas between reasonable people such extremes are a method guaranteed to polarize the discourse in an entirely negative fashion that promotes dogmatism and entrenchment rather than open-minded debate.



Once again, this was not a discussion about my "lack of evidence". I clearly mentioned circumstantial evidence existed related to my own personal views (views which such evidence alone is more than enough to justify, as above). The derail here was brought about by Roberts attempts to change the topic of discussion by demands for "evidence" about matters unrelated to what I was addressing, namely his faulty claims of anti-semitism's early prominence.

You can clearly see that when addressing my points on the issue Robert's repeatedly evades discussion of my specific critiques and finally begins to attempt to shift the topic of discussion entirely.

After he places me on ignore he immediately reverts back to the issue of anti-semitism.

Clearly he has a specific desire to paint the 'truth movement' in the most negative possible terms and his resorts to ad hominem attacks speak volumes against the constant refrain from him and others that it is in its last stages.

You wonder why there are so few 'truthers' here (a forum over-flowing with incivility, irrationality and dogmatism) and immediately assume there is a single specific reason. Once again, unfamiliarity with the very fallacies you frequently cite is on display.
Click to expand...

Wow. That was sad. You admitted you were wrong earlier, but now you were right and I just didn't understand you.

Of course. Of course.
 
What I would like to know is if these conspiracy theorists understand why they are not taken seriously or do they walk around wondering how no one can take them seriously? because form the perspective of a scientific person, it's pretty obvious.
 
Brannagyn said:
'Hard' evidence...

Dale Scott's book, ...
Click to expand...
You lack the evidence as does Dale's book. Complete fiction; like the Da Vinci Code. Stuff to suck you in to pure fictional implications of false conclusion he lets you take the leap to pure stupid ideas.

You start the thread, you defend the fiction. The author counts on ignorance of 9/11 and lack of thinking to sell his book of false information. You better read it again and this time use hard evidence and logic to evaluate.
 
Last edited:
Bump for Dictator Cheney
Dictator Cheney said:
And when building codes will be changed, alot experts will take a closer look at the theory where those changes are based on.
Click to expand...

Pardalis said:
Could you answer my question?

Don't you think that since the building code changes will make people look at the data, this makes it even less likely that the NIST's conclusions are a cover-up/conspiracy ?
Click to expand...
 
Personally, as a truther I would find it fascinating that building codes are being changed due to the research on the collapse of the WTC. I suppose it can only be that the experts in charge of building codes have been fooled by the evil NWO to believe that whole plane crash, fires, and collapse theory. Fools!
 
Gravy said:
As you know, trolls thrive on attention. If you think trolls are undesirable, why do you keep responding? I'd appreciate a thoughtful answer.
Click to expand...

I hear you, I had the false dream that he might answer this simple one, but I'm afraid I only deluded myself.

Good advice. :)
 
actually i answered your question :) It may be that the answer doesnt sweet you, but this is my answer.

not necessarily
 
Has anyone bothered to correct Gravy and find out if skyscrapers are designed to withstand airliner impact?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom