Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[beachnut]

I started here with the benefit of the doubt for them.

But after time and watching the endless repetition of the same strategy over and over and over without acknowledging new information does make me wonder.

I agree with you.

Linguistic gymnastics.

My belief in 9/11 conspiracy has been seriously fortified by their lack of anything substantial except for a few detail corrections.

The good news is they have served to motivate and inform me so as to increase my efforts to expose this further.

If this is the evidence for no conspiracy then no wonder 83% of Americans doubt the official story in one manner or another.

"""""""""The good news is they have served to motivate and inform me so as to increase my efforts to expose this further.""""""""

By having faulty logic and incomplete work as seen on your web site?

Does this mean your logic will be more faulty and your research more incomplete than it is now?

You have zero facts and you appear to be motivated by political views, beliefs, and you have suspended logic and reason.

You use what ever words you can find on the internet and do limited follow up to present a clear picture.

Your web site offers countless examples of this type of shallow research, similar to my shallow writing abilities.

 

[Moving On]

Yet another ridiculous logical fallacy. The vast majority of Americans believe in Heaven and Hell, so that's evidence that those places exist, right?

Great argument.

May I retract and convert everything I believe now?

Can I be a skeptic of conspiracy stories now instead of being a skeptic of the official story?

 

[uk_dave]

Swaying you has not even entered into my mind one time.

Sorry!

Soon it will be stamping of feet and cries of "I'm not listening nah nah neener neener"

 

[Moving On]

Much as a creationist will clutch their bible to their breast and proclaim that their faith in god has only been fortified by their encounter with those who promote the fact of evolution.

Who are you guys kidding?

It can only be yourselves.

Did you say that clutching the 9/11 Commission Report (in either its comic book form or original form). http://www.pentagonresearch.com/comic.html

Or were you clutching the NIST report?

 

[beachnut]

Very true. As I pointed out to gravy, my belief in a conspiracy was actuall increased by the sources these skeptics direct me to.

You would fail to calculate the design impact by a factor of 10.

Why would anyone be surprised if you took ideas and information presented to you and missed the meaning by a factor of 10?

Your ability to understand what happen on 9/11 is reflected by your calculations being off ten times from the correct number.

 

[Gravy]

Great argument.

May I retract and convert everything I believe now?

Can I be a skeptic of conspiracy stories now instead of being a skeptic of the official story?

You brought up a statistic about a belief in an attempt to bolster your case. Do you agree that believing that something is so does not make it so?

I ask you this, Russell: the next time you make a claim here, will you back it with evidence? For instance, you just made a claim that about 90% of what I write is unfounded. Yet you provided no evidence.

Will you do that, Russell? Will you make sure that each claim you make is backed with verifiable evidence? Is that asking a lot?

 

[beachnut]

Did you say that clutching the 9/11 Commission Report (in either its comic book form or original form). http://www.pentagonresearch.com/comic.html

Or were you clutching the NIST report?

how many people here know enough people to do a simple research project and prove, without help from NIST or any Government paper, 9/11 as it unfolded on 9/11.

I mean some of the simple things we have been discussing.

WTC1, 2, 7 falling, failure modes etc.

Who needs the government?

I do not need the government, Jefferson and Washington would be proud!

only dolts in the CT movement need the government!!

 

[Gravy]

Did you say that clutching the 9/11 Commission Report (in either its comic book form or original form). http://www.pentagonresearch.com/comic.html

Or were you clutching the NIST report?

Just show us where they are wrong, Russell. They contain abundant evidence. Just show us where they are wrong.

Fair enough? Or do you think that's asking a lot?

 

[Moving On]

Sure. I'll stop. Just ONE example of a negtive claim. Just one. Please! And I'll put this to rest. I'm willing to learn.



I'll move on once this issue is resolved.

Claims can be phrased in either the positive or the negative. Claims that are phrased in the negative are called counter-factual claims. “The time is 5 PM” and “the time is not 5 PM” are both claims, and they can both be proven true or false. Both claims state that things are a certain way; in fact, every factual claim implies a counter-factual claim, and every counter-factual claim implies a factual claim. The claim that “the time is 5 PM” implies the claim that “the time is not 4:59 PM”; likewise, the claim that “the time is not 5 PM” implies the claim that “the time is something other than 5 PM”.


What, then, of the old saw “you can’t prove a negative”? Clearly, plenty of counter-factual claims can be proven; furthermore, there is no distinction between factual and counter-factual claims that renders one phrasing provable and the other phrasing not. If no counter-factual claim could be proven, then no factual could be proven either — and vice-versa! We’ll be able to settle this issue once we’ve distinguished between two fundamental types of logic.

http://weblog.roth-cline.net/archives/2004/05/the_foundations.html

OK stop!

 

[uk_dave]

Swaying you has not even entered into my mind one time.

Sorry!

Did you say that clutching the 9/11 Commission Report (in either its comic book form or original form). http://www.pentagonresearch.com/comic.html

Or were you clutching the NIST report?

No Russell

Look in the mirror

You have a belief system based on no solid facts

The official version of 9/11 is based on solid fact

You say yourself that you believe planes crashed into the WTC towers

And yet your belief system doesn't allow you to accept that the damage caused by those planes is enough to bring down those towers.

So you cling to a belief that, based upon a published document, and a previous example of govt game planning a deceit, the towers MUST have been brought down by a small amount of explosives (because you at least recognise the absurdity of there being a large amount of explosive) as a .... addition to the damage caused by the planes. And it follows therefore in your belief system that those planes must have been either planned or allowed by that evil government conspiracy, despite the OBVIOUS problems in getting this amzingly complex plot to work with planes hitting when and where they are supposed to hit, no one coming forward with evidence of the plot and ........ well...for god's sake...just what was the motive? Planes not enough, it had to be demolition before the conspirators could acheive their aims?

No Russell, you are clutching the CT bible to your chest and refusing to see reality.

 

[Moving On]

Your web site offers countless examples of this type of shallow research, similar to my shallow writing abilities.

Stay in the present please.

UPDATE COMING - This website as it currently exists is approximately 5 months out of date. There are factual errors here I am aware of. There has been a flurry of data (NTSB) and video released (non conclusive) and I have had a trip to DC for personal investigation in August. It is taking me time to formulate my new opinions about Flight 77, create graphics and test the ideas before presenting them here. I am planning a significant revision within 60 days.

The trip to DC produced significant evidence for an aircraft performing the maneuvers that it was claimed to have. Other evidence combined with this has led me to conclude that an impact did occur. It does not change my position that I don't believe Hani Hanjour was in control of it. It has not changed my overall opinion that 9/11 was at the very least allowed and facilitated by small elements within the U.S. government. In fact, I have found more evidence for that.

Despite my new opinions, I still intend to keep this a site where ideas/possibilities will be expressed side by side for you to compare for yourself. I do not want to push one idea.

I apologize for the delay and the inconvenience. Please read not to "accept or reject but to weigh and consider" in the words of my grandfather. I trust that each of you is intelligent and looks at all ideas on a topic such as this. I don't know of a Pentagon site right now that is current on the new data to refer you to for the updates I mention or I would. If you are concerned about any particular fact, please contact me for clarification from the about page.

Thank you,
Russell Pickering
10-27-06

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/index.html

 

[Dazed]

Just show us where they are wrong, Russell. They contain abundant evidence. Just show us where they are wrong.

Fair enough? Or do you think that's asking a lot?

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

 

[uk_dave]

"Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

Covering their collective arses?

 

[beachnut]

YES - compare CTs to each other. Solid evidence.

I'm convinced - it wasn't a conspiracy.

Let's see what happens with that quote.

he is docker, as jessica, just a guess

but that will not make his/her calculation of the impact design energy of the WTC tower correct,

it is still 10 times off

 

[Moving On]

What's that?


Please, I could use a good laugh.



I'm curious, are you planning on getting people to believe the "truth" or are you just here to attack people who don't believe in your reasoning?

Garb,

Please stay informed.

A response is not an initial attack.

Read this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66233

example: "Ok we've licked eachother's sacks for long enough. Bottom line, you're a nut who thinks the government did 9/11. Out with it."

(It was apologized for later.)

Gravy tries to preclude people form believing in a conspiracy. I don't not preclude people from believing in a non conspiracy. I believe all sides should be heard.

Information control is a scary thing.

 

[uk_dave]

The engineer makes a perfectly understandable statement regarding the design parameters of the towers and it is considered false by the CT advocates.

Go figure

 

[jessicarabbit]

I wonder if we should trust the governments scientific reports in light of this

In 2004, “
a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates”[8] declared:
“The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad… Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had ‘engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method.’”[9]
It also found:

• There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.
• There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.
• There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.
• There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.[10]

 

[beachnut]

Stay in the present please.

does that mean you will change your ideas on the NTSB not being about to find the attitude by radar?

Will you include the fact the terrorist pilot had an FAA license?

Why have bad stuff up, It takes a few minutes to take down the areas that are faulty. Minutes.

Present, stay in the present, it is your web site, I read the disclaimer, fix it.

But your logic here is just like you site, and your statement reflected on that, I do not care it is my belief attitude which is not proof.

I never was taught to color my findings and research with belief.

Sorry, you have no facts and real evidence, it is not my fault.

 

[Dazed]

Just show us where they are wrong, Russell. They contain abundant evidence. Just show us where they are wrong.

Fair enough? Or do you think that's asking a lot?

Omissions and Errors in the Commission's Final Report
Rep. McKinney 9/11 Congressional Briefing
18 August 2005

by John Newman

http://www.911readingroom.org/bib/whole_document.php?article_id=422

 

[beachnut]

I wonder if we should trust the governments scientific reports in light of this

[/i]

Your 707 design impact of 5,493,904,362 is wrong.

It should be 380,800,000 Joules, you are off by more than 10.

Why? This makes the impacts of 9/11 ten times greater than design impact of 707.

Makes the tower standing after impact almost a miracle.

WOW,

ARE all CT guys off this much?