Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

Mechagodzilla said:
...

He has clearly, very clearly, managed to convince you too.

... the lies described in those articles.
Click to expand...
I read the pages he linked before any of his post. My "conversion" is my own choice, not his doing. I responded with what I thought were perfectly plausible evidences of what I believe are rational alternatives to the common belief.
But note, I have stated countless times my neutrality of the subject.
I do think the planes did substantial damage to the buildings.
I don't think Bush was in the middle of this.
I do think it's possible the buildings could have fallen without demolitions.
I don't think it's reasonable to completely rule out alternative contingency plans of this act of terrorism.

I think you cannot call them lies, because you do not have proof they are. Dismissing something as false without verifiable proof and claiming they use pseudo science without understanding how the conclusions were made is a fallacy.
Making as many resolute assumptions as you do while ignoring repetitively stated personal facts of ones belief is a fallacy.
Going on and on about something with the intent of changing someone's mind by doing what you think is proving them wrong, is ridiculous and uselessly redundant.

All of this is making me very, very tired.
 
I think you cannot call them lies, because you do not have proof they are.
Click to expand...
I call them lies because, when it is broken down, that is what they are.
The claims made by the conspiracy websites are quantifiably untrue under the world's definition of truth.
I do not want to quibble with metaphysics and existentialism here.
Claiming that science, as a whole, is inadequate is a lie.
It is libelous and irresponsible.

There have been no valid facts stated.
Not a single one.
Show me one relevant valid fact.
Peer-reviewed, with link and quote.
My only assumption is that the conspiracy websites know less about science than a panel of the world's experts.

Claiming otherwise demonstrates a willful rejection of science.

Did you read the definition of pseudoscience?
Did you read the list of logical fallacies?

Those are the things that separate religion from the secular domain of any valid investigation.
If you do not demonstrate an understanding of them, it would be irresponsible to take your claims seriously.


I am also getting very sick of people calling me ignorant when I have repeatedly repeated the same three points:

1: No 9/11 conspiracy theory presented has made an argument that does not classify as pseudoscientific.
2: No 9/11 conspiracy theory presented has been devoid of logical fallacy.
3: No theorist has shown NIST or FEMA to classify as anything other than the most accurate reports possible.

And everyone has ignored them and/or dismissed these points as unimportant.

That is mind-bogglingly irresponsible.

Read these articles iin full please, I beg you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
I don't want children growing up to be gullible just because the internet told them to.
I am not in league with the bush administration. I am not a liar. Wikipedia is not in league with the bush administration. They are not liars.

I am honestly concerned that people are slandering the scientific community and no-one cares.

I have never felt this saddened about such failure to think logically. Not in the first "gays are evil" thread.
Not in the second 'gays are evil" thread. Not in the "evolution is evil" thread.

The conspiracy theories are inferior to those arguments because they are not based in pure intangibles.

Instead of faith in a powerful and invisible god, it is faith in powerful and invisible bombs.

Why is everyone rejecting science?!





Dismissing something as false without verifiable proof and claiming they use pseudo science without understanding how the conclusions were made is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

You actually have the balls to call the burden of proof a logical fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_a_negative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_a_negative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_a_negative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I already asked you to read what a logical fallacy is.
You have no excuse for this flagrant error.

Ignoring the burden of proof is the fundamental flaw behind every conspiracy theory.
And you just fell for it.
So, how else are you being decieved into trusting flawed logic?
 
So very tired.
I'm not reading any of that because like I said, you are just wasting mine and everyone's time, and I personally have nothing to prove. As I said many pages ago, I have no intention of fighting anyone over this.

I would however like to note a correction to a previous statement of my own saying no comparable event has ever happened, but on page 56 of the NIST report is a blurb explaining the contrary, circled (or rather squared) in what was red before I saved it as jpg:

empsttblrb.jpg


Here is a B-25. It is not very large.
http://www.b25.net/b25sln.html
 
I can't be botherd to read 35 pages, so can someone just tell me whos right?
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
So very tired.
I'm not reading any of that because like I said, you are just wasting mine and everyone's time
Click to expand...

The article I posted is one paragraph long, and it proves, without doubt, that your entire worldview is inherently invalid.

If that critical knowledge is a waste of your time, then maybe you shouldn't be wasting your time stopping by to tell everyone how apathetic you are.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
The article I posted is one paragraph long, and it proves, without doubt, that your entire worldview is inherently invalid.

If that critical knowledge is a waste of your time, then maybe you shouldn't be wasting your time stopping by to tell everyone how apathetic you are.
Click to expand...
You don't know anything about my "worldview", but you keep acting as if you do.

This thread is beat.

Nobody wins.

I don't want to keep going back and forth in a bullshit slinging contest.

Drop the subject already.

I've been going over the NIST report, and so far it doesn't prove jack shit.

You can go ahead and rebound with mountains of pointless and misunderstood information in your zeal to maintain you e-persona, but I'm done listening to it.

Think what you want. I'm through listening to tunnel minded drivel about something that has been blown completely out of proportion by people with no interest in the simple realm of possibility.

I am now unsubscribing from this thread, you should do the same.

/end
 
just what I was thinking!
I don't think I've subscribed to any threads ever, except maybe by accident.

<Kirovman> lol
 
Yay for Zryuken.
A worldview based in flawed logic is invalid, I am afraid.

He's repeatedly stated a disdain for the process of proving an argument before claiming it valid, so I don't really have much choice but to call this like I see it.

Coming in, saying that NIST is invalid (without proof) and then leaving forever is not exactly proving my conclusions wrong in any regard.

This is a very depressing thread. Everyone keeps making outlandish claims and then acting like the ability to write in english is somehow enough.
 
Reality wins...conspiracy theorists lose. That is how this thread ends.
 
_Z_Ryuken said:
You don't know anything about my "worldview", but you keep acting as if you do.

This thread is beat.

Nobody wins.

I don't want to keep going back and forth in a bullshit slinging contest.

Drop the subject already.

I've been going over the NIST report, and so far it doesn't prove jack shit.

You can go ahead and rebound with mountains of pointless and misunderstood information in your zeal to maintain you e-persona, but I'm done listening to it.

Think what you want. I'm through listening to tunnel minded drivel about something that has been blown completely out of proportion by people with no interest in the simple realm of possibility.

I am now unsubscribing from this thread, you should do the same.

/end
Click to expand...

Bye Z!
Once again I like to clarify my position... The collapse/impact/no plane at shanksville is significant evidence that we arent getting the full story from the media. I, myself, am neither republican nor democrat. I am a constitutionalist.
" To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic."
Anyone who takes media directly from any kind of source like a website, or even Television is a fool. Everyone knows a lot of storys will get wrong information and likewise. The reason that the government is suspicious here is the fact that they are being so secretive about this whole operation, if they are so confident with the official story why dont they release full video tapes from the pentagon? is it really so hard? 5 frames does not mean anything. After 9-11 when media requests video footage of the attack the FBI says we don't have a single video fo the crash. (what about the 4 video tapes you confiscated???)
The one french guy releases his book about the pentagon and believes taht some sort of truck type bomb goes off. His book is released and the FBI calls him crazy and releases a short 5 frames of the 'impact' on the building.
So they lied? they DO have video. the author writes a second book boasting its a missile now oooohhh ahhhh. FBI gets mad but not enough to release the full video tape.

Even the confiscated tapes that the owner is trying to legally take back through a lawyer is being denied over and over. Why? is it still part of a crime scene? I thought the crime was solved!? Why do you sill need it!
If the government would back themselves up once in a while for why they do things, then I would be able to trust them. Do they want themselves to look guilty? whats the point in that?
 
Again, not even conspiracy theorists believe the missile claim. In fact, most call it intentional disinformation designed to make people look like idiots.

If you don't trust any organization in the world, maybe you'll trust the disorganized?

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/jetliner.html

Since it obviously was a plane, "covering up" the videos has no known malicious motive.

Looking guilty and being guilty are very different things.

Look at how many of the points in your post are unchecked assumptions and baseless statements.
I could claim that lack of common rationale to be "evidence" that you are guilty of lying about 9/11 to spread disinformation.
But that would be silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top