Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

Russell Pickering said:
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.
Click to expand...
Russell,

The people here who don't believe the conspiracy theory have nothing to gain or to lose from this.

The only motive is a dislike of false information being taken as fact.

The CT advocate, on the other hand, does have something to gain or lose.

The CT'er believes a government conspiracy occured on 9/11 and that this lead to the murder or 3000 of their fellow citizens. That's not something to be taken lightly.

The normal reaction would be to want to see that it is not true and to find the rational explaination for what happened that day.

The people here, and in particular Gravy, provide that rational explaination.

The fact that the CT'er doesn't accept that explaination and will try to counter it with opinion and gut feeling is very frustrating.

But ultimately, I can go to bed tonight safe in the knowledge that 9/11 occured pretty much as has been detailed in the official version and in particular that the collapse of the WTC towers was the result of the plane impact and not CD.

You however, cannot.

So, I do wonder what you are going to do about this.

Personally, if I were in your shoes I would be considering emigrating away from a country that had been taken over by a despotic murderous regime, or I would be compelled to take direct action to oppose and defeat that regime. Somehow I don't believe I would be wasting my time posting on an internet forum.

So, do you really believe the US government killed those people?
 
Dazed said:
"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
Click to expand...

Do you really have to be reminded that the Commission brought this to the public's attention? From the article:

For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.
Click to expand...
Then:
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.
Click to expand...
And with the resulting release of the tapes, we learned that NORAD in fact had no chance to intercept the planes. Their foolish attempt to cover their asses was actually covering up the fact that they didn't have the information they needed, in the time necessary, to make the interceptions.

Have you heard the tapes and read the transcripts? In no way do they bolster any CT claim. And this story shows that the Commissioners and staff members were doing their jobs: trying to find the truth.
 
jessicarabbit said:
I wonder if we should trust the governments scientific reports in light of this

[/i]
Click to expand...

Has anyone from NIST, any structural engineers, architects or demolition experts claimed that THEIR findings have been distorted or suppressed by the govt?
 
I'm just facilitating the debate, it tends to get bogged down in semantics and personal debate. Stick to the evidence.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Did you see the dissolves there? Were those questions?

I have been there and conducted interviews myself for the film OK? I know how it works.

I am not going to renumerate the observations here. I am sure we will start fresh here with new ones and I will address them in present time.

I am sober.
Click to expand...

I saw the dissolves. Of course, not being a CTer, I did not immediately suspect or accuse the creator of the video of hiding important evidence *ahem*.

Whether there were questions being asked during those dissolves is rather irrelevant to my query above, since it is obvious that the right questions were certainly not asked - i.e. to pinpoint such things as his location (not even a street reference, direction, distance, etc.), no information whatsoever on his opportunity to observe, not a single detail about the damage he observed, etc. You know, the important things to "truth" seeking.

I trust that you are sober, since you have indicated that you do not drink. My question to you about that last night was genuine, and you have answered it.

Russell Pickering said:
You say tomato I say tomato.

Spin it as you wish. I see it this way.

As part of the act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence


or


used in any suit or action for damages.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to a link citing the actual Act? Statutory interpretation happens to be within my area of expertise, and I will gladly look at it and provide an interpretation from a legal standpoint once I see the actual act. It could go either way, depending on the exact language and punctuation used in the actual statute. Statute writing is precise, and its interpretation depends upon the exact language and punctuation (with any preamble also being a factor in some instances).

Linguistic gymnastics.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair characterization, especially if you are applying it with a broad brush to everyone here who does not agree with your theories. That is not to say that it never happens even among skeptics, but it is by orders of magnitude far less frequently employed by critical thinkers than by those who fail or refuse to employ critical thinking skills.

What you see as “linguistic gymnastics” is nearly always precision and reading in context, instead of cherry picking only the words that one likes or that one thinks supports his argument. As I have said before, context is important. So is precision.
 
Last edited:
Russell Pickering said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well my question remains: Do you or do you not wish for people to know the "truth" or are you going to say you do not care about having a person ,who even says is pretty damn impartial to what information he sees, be informed to what you believe to be fact.

I told you I wasn't convinced, and you went off and said you didn't care, this is why I ask.
 
Gravy said:
Their disagreement was with Bush's use of science in policy making, as the title makes clear.

Present your evidence that NIST was interfered with.

Present your evidence that NIST is wrong.

Is any of this sinking in yet, Jessica?
Click to expand...

Gravy do you work for the CIA?

Only an insider or somebody with an IQ of 60 could ignore such things.
 
Jessica,

Try not to be so parochial. I know it's a common problem with those on the CT side of things but honestly, the US is not the whole world.

Just as climate change is a global issue and is studied by scientists from around the world, so is the collapse of the WTC towers.

Engineers NEED to know why those buggers cames down because their professional integrity (not to mention their PI insurance) depends on knowing.

Even if every scientist in america was corrupt and in the pocket of the admin, you would be hearing a chorus of opinion from the international community objecting to the official version of 9/11 just as there is a global scientific consensus regarding AGW
 
Dazed said:
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
Click to expand...

We try not to dump links here without comment, Dazed. When CTs do that I never read them unless something specific is pointed out and its relevance noted. Can you provide an example of a significant error in the Commission report from that link? We're talking about things that affect the validity of the report's conclusions, of course.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
Russell Pickering said:
I saw the dissolves. Of course, not being a CTer, I did not immediately suspect or accuse the creator of the video of hiding important evidence *ahem*.

Whether there were questions being asked during those dissolves is rather irrelevant to my query above, since it is obvious that the right questions were certainly not asked - i.e. to pinpoint such things as his location (not even a street reference, direction, distance, etc.), no information whatsoever on his opportunity to observe, not a single detail about the damage he observed, etc. You know, the important things to "truth" seeking.

I trust that you are sober, since you have indicated that you do not drink. My question to you about that last night was genuine, and you have answered it.



Can you point me to a link citing the actual Act? Statutory interpretation happens to be within my area of expertise, and I will gladly look at it and provide an interpretation from a legal standpoint once I see the actual act. It could go either way, depending on the exact language and punctuation used in the actual statute. Statute writing is precise, and its interpretation depends upon the exact language and punctuation (with any preamble also being a factor in some instances).



I don't think that's a fair characterization, especially if you are applying it with a broad brush to everyone here who does not agree with your theories. That is not to say that it never happens even among skeptics, but it is by orders of magnitude far less frequently employed by critical thinkers than by those who fail or refuse to employ critical thinking skills.

What you see as “linguistic gymnastics” is nearly always precision and reading in context, instead of cherry picking only the words that one likes or that one thinks supports his argument. As I have said before, context is important. So is precision.
Click to expand...

We don't want to convert you hun, we only wan't a certain calibre of people on our side.
Click to expand...
 
Russell Pickering said:


OK stop!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. And for proving my point.

Claims can be phrased in either the positive or thenegative. Claims that are phrased in the negative are called counter-factual claims.
Click to expand...

9/11 is a conspiracy = positive claim = factual claim
9/11 is not a conspiracy = negative claim = counter factual claim

So, to clarify: "9/11 is not a conspiracy" is NOT a positive claim.
 
Gravy said:
We try not to dump links here without comment, Dazed. When CTs do that I never read them if unless something specific is pointed out and its relevance noted. Can you provide an example of a significant error in the Commission report from that link? We're talking about things that affect the validity of the report, of course.
Click to expand...

Did you read the report by the 60 scientists before dismissing it?
 
jessicarabbit said:
Gravy why should we trust the NIST report when 60 influential scientist concluded that



Source http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_in...ts-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html
Click to expand...

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?
 
Gravy said:
Present your evidence, please.

I guess you do not agree that you should back your claims with evidence. Why is that Russell?
Click to expand...

Repetition is not truth.

Only the weakest of minds will let your continous hypnotic drone past their conscious mind.

I pay VERY close attention to the evidence that I do present and what topics you avoid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom