Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 8 votes

911 Pentagon Video Footage


  • Please log in to reply
3292 replies to this topic

#2491    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 October 2012 - 01:54 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 17 October 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

Interesting, I may have read that a little too quickly last night.  Thanks for the info guys.

No problem LG.  At least you exhibited good faith when presented with what you found to be a compelling rebuttal.  It will be interesting to see if Q24 reciprocates with any concessions regarding the issues that you raised within the same post.

Cheers.


#2492    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 October 2012 - 05:11 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 17 October 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

The expert who received the FDR data from NTSB, Dennis Cimino, says that ALL FDRs are assigned, for the obvious reason--if there is a midair collision and the wrecks end up in a ball on the ground, there must be SOME way to determine which FDR belongs to which aircraft.  Common Sense, you guys, common sense.

Sky thinks it does not matter if the FDR is assigned, but then he thinks low level flight is anywhere below 10,000 feet.

If you were a pilot you would know something about 10,000 feet altitude in respect to aircraft operations, but since you have just made it clear that you didn't, reconfirms that you are not a pilot at all. :no:

Quote

That the recorder was unassigned demonstrates clearly that the data was made up.  It would NEVER pass in any court of law as being legitimate evidence.  The only thing that it evidences is FRAUD AND DECEIT on the part of the person submitting it.

Thus, the FDR evidence WORKS AGAINST the official narrative.  It and almost every other piece of evidence available.

If you knew anything about aircraft accidents you would have known that the FAA and NTSB use other data and means to backup FDR data. In addition, the transcribed data from the recovered FDR were reduced from the recorded binary values to engineering units from conversion formulas obtained from Boeing and American Airlines for tail number; N644AA, airframe serial number 24602.

Now, are Boeing and American Airlines considered government agencies?

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 October 2012 - 05:39 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2493    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 17 October 2012 - 06:26 PM

No Sky, but they are typical modern large american corporations, and it has been demonstrated that MANY of them work hand-in-glove with the government.  For example, it is well documented that various telecoms did Bush's dirty work for him in intercepting communications illegally.  And the government blessed that criminal activity by passing FISA II which gave those corporations immunity for their crimes.

FDR tampering is probably a crime.  Don't know, just guessing.  But when the government does it, you act like it's no big deal.

The bogus FDR data corroborates the testimony of those who saw a Boeing north of the Citgo station.  Either of them is evidence that the official story is a lie, and both together demonstrate it more strongly.

It's interpretation of ALL the evidence Sky.  That is where you fail.


#2494    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 17 October 2012 - 06:50 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 17 October 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

The bogus FDR data corroborates the testimony of those who saw a Boeing north of the Citgo station.  Either of them is evidence that the official story is a lie, and both together demonstrate it more strongly.

Funny enough as Fetzer/Cimino had also made an error in claiming that the FDR data clearly shows the airplane passing OVER the Pentagon, when it has been confirmed that a Plane struck the Pentagon.


As I have discussed this before the RA data they datamined and calculated was incorrect.

If the FDR was indeed fabricated, by Fetzer and Cimino's own admission, then the Government sure as hell did a piss poor job in fabricating a FDR that is way off what the official report says.

The fact of the matter is, neither Fetzer or Cimino can come to an agreement between what happened.

Can you please tell me why Cimino has not yet retracted his statement that the Cabin Door data showed 0 values (basically never being opened) after being advised that the model jet the FDR came from was not updated to include this data in the FDR?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2495    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 October 2012 - 07:45 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 17 October 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

No Sky, but they are typical modern large american corporations, and it has been demonstrated that MANY of them work hand-in-glove with the government.

So what if they do? What's the big deal?!  Are you now claiming that families of passengers  and crew of American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175 were in a conspiracy as well?

Quote

For example, it is well documented that various telecoms did Bush's dirty work for him in intercepting communications illegally.

The real dirty work is being done by those who push lies, disinformation, and misinformation for the sole purpose of deceiving the public on the 9/11 attacks.

Quote

FDR tampering is probably a crime.

Where's your evidence that the FDR was tampered with? If you don't produce the evidence for all to see, then it will be very clear that you are guilty of pushing another lie.

Quote

The bogus FDR data corroborates the testimony of those who saw a Boeing north of the Citgo station.

But wait, you have claimed that "no Boeing was involved" and now, look what you are posting!

Babe Ruth said:

View PostBabe Ruth, on 23 April 2012 - 05:47 PM, said:

Well, the planes hit at WTC, but not @ Pentagon or Shanksville.

Once again, you get so caught up in your own deception routine that you tend to trip over yourself while we sit and watch.

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 October 2012 - 08:05 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2496    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,401 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:17 PM

Is this a script from the Fringe show ? :tu:
If so It splanes all the missing people and parts. Other wise ITs all in a few of these BRminds!

This is a Work in Progress!

#2497    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:47 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 17 October 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Is this a script from the Fringe show ? :tu:
If so It splanes all the missing people and parts. Other wise ITs all in a few of these BRminds!

BR, has been caught changing his stories time after time after time.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2498    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:27 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Guidelines are not typically 'broken', and even that is an empty charge when they come flat out and say that part of their guidelines is that they allow longer articles as they see fit.

Does acceptance of breaking the guidelines, in favour of one author but not another, make the decision any less biased?  I think not.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

"I'll take that as a 'no' ", you don't have any evidence that the bias you perceive was because of political sensitivity.

I don’t have any concrete evidence that every one of Rupert Murdoch’s hundreds of media outlets without exception editorialised in favour of the Iraq war due to a political decision at some level either... but that obviously was the case (it would be unbelievable to find a large random group where 100% agreed with the war).  That instance was also a form of editorial bias in place of fair reporting of the facts, though given your responses I wouldn’t expect you to see/accept it.  I rather hope, to be consistent, that you would argue along the lines the bias existed because the creators of the conflict were luminaries and that the Iraq war was ‘plain correct’, etc.  Whilst I would, and did, question that media bias just as much as in the present case regarding mainstream journals.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

The media and political establishment that you haven't shown to be relevant at all to this decision?

I don’t understand how you can miss it.  You already accept that editors can break their own guidelines “as they see fit”.  So the only question would be:  do you think editors are like robots; wholly objective and free of media influences and political considerations?  Of course they are not – they are affected as much as anyone else, have a position of power/responsibility to add and must answer to their superiors.  Even I would think twice about what I published if I were such an editor, for fear of stirring up a hornets’ nest and safety of my position.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

It's not 'pre-conceived', it's 'post-conceived' from evidence and the conclusions of experts qualifed to examine the scientific questions.

How does it go?  Oh puhleeze?  The media and political establishment concluded that the towers came down as a result of the impacts and fires and that bin Laden was responsible on the first day.  Bazant drafted his hypothesis (the one that still provides backbone of the official collapse theory today) only two days after 9/11, before evidence was gathered or any investigation had taken place – of course the conclusion was pre-conceived.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Your analogy here is nowhere near the mark.

It’s an example of how any level of compelling circumstantial evidence can be disputed, if one so wishes.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

What matters if your certainty is unfounded is only nearly every data point that you touch on in support of your demolition scenario.

So what?  Then I jumped the gun, demanded an investigation and conclusive answers.  Better than to lull people into a false sense of righteousness in support of a war, no?  By the way, I don’t believe I’m wrong at all – I have a very high level of confidence in my conclusions due to culmination of the vast evidence I have researched – that is not a concern to me at all.  I’m more challenging you – what if you are wrong?  All you want to talk about, are the oh so terrible consequences if I am wrong – OMG Q, if you are wrong, then you are wrong and... nothing.  But what if you are wrong, LG?  How does that compare?  Perhaps we should have got a real investigation, and real answers, so we didn’t need to be in this position?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

The question is whether he was treated fairly or not, not 'more fair'.

I disagree.  Both ‘more fair’ or ‘less fair’ are degrees of bias.  This is the question.  Well... the side-point.  The question was actually about whether the 9/11 truth movement have published in mainstream journals.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

I don't know what you think is 'wrong' here.  Here's the part that I quoted from you that I was referring to:

I already said what is wrong – that you cut out the expert quote that supports what I said and isolate it as only my opinion.  This piece goes together: -

View PostQ24, on 11 October 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Certainly the NIST study, if it ever were to be peer-reviewed, would be derided for not proving the case of what happened on 9/11...

Perhaps the most telling external analysis came from NIST’s own former chief of the fire science division, James Quintiere, at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference: -

“I wish that there would be a peer review of this ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable ... Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another ... In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”



You see how the expert quote supports my opinion?

That’s the whole reason I posted it – so that I am not just giving my opinion.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

So to be clearer, I don't trust your non-expert appraisal of Bazant, the ridiculous Chinese paper, nor the NIST study.

You don’t have to ‘trust’ me, only the obvious facts.  Fact:  Bazant’s hypothesis is so full of assumptions detrimental to the building survival it’s unreal (literally).  Fact:  the ridiculous Chinese paper placed the WTC1 impact in the wrong location (you’d know this if you’d seen the paper).  Fact:  results of the NIST study indicate the buildings were more likely to stand up than collapse due to the impacts and fires and fail to prove the collapses even possible within the observable impact and fire reality at all.  You don’t need to be an expert to discern any of these basic facts.  Though if still in doubt, consult the experts, like Quintiere above.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 16 October 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Your ridiculous argument here is that unless someone provides you with the number of professionals who have specifically voiced opposition to your position, and have definitely evaluated your points (nice 'out' that you've built in), then we should be impressed by the 1700+ professionals in the truther movement a decade later.

No, that is not my argument - you have intentionally or not adopted a strawman argument.  Let’s start from the beginning.  I initially set out to show that the number of professionals is growing within the truth movement – and due to the figures, this is undeniable (post #2417).  You then put forward an argument that a significant number of individuals not within the truth movement have evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me.  The challenge that followed is to prove that your argument is unfounded in figures; it’s just an opinion.  You don’t know that a significant number of professionals have evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me at all – you can’t back it up, but you’d like to believe it.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#2499    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:32 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 17 October 2012 - 12:23 AM, said:

Thanks for the info Q.  I retract my accusation that you were being misleading about Gourley's paper being peer-reviewed.  It apparently wasn't as thoroughly peer-reviewed, but at this point I think it's fair for you to use the term.  I'm not that intimate with standards for scientific studies and that should have tempered my accusation.  I will say I'm surprised that only two reviews are required, I was thinking it would require more than that.

No problem.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 17 October 2012 - 12:23 AM, said:

As long as we're clearing the air, I'll take this opportunity to return the favor on two irking points myself:

1 - Your original statement, "There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject" is now down to "it would be naive to believe that political considerations are not taken into account by publishing editors.".  Those two statements are a significant distance apart, 'proven' is not based on the standard of what one thinks is or is not 'naive to believe'.  You don't seem to have any evidence of political sensitivity and therefore don't have any evidence that the differing word count standards is actually 'biased', meaning applying different standards illegitimately.  I believe this results from what we just talked about, your over-certainty, and here's a prime example of the problem with it.  It not only retards the progress of the conversation, it leads to statements that are at this point unsupported and not true.

I’m honestly bored of this particular discussion.  Let’s leave the facts to speak for themselves: -

“Discussions must have fewer than 2,000 words or word-equivalents.”
“Closures must have fewer than 2,000 words or word-equivalents.”

~ASCE submission guidelines
http://www.asce.org/...ournal-Content/


“The journal editor may waive these guidelines to encourage papers on topics that cannot be treated within these limitations. Such topics may include state-of-the-art reviews and detailed case histories. However, authors are advised that most topics can be covered within these limitations, and that clear justification is required for longer manuscripts.”
~ASCE submission guidelines
http://www.asce.org/...al-Submissions/


“So, I sent a rather heated email to the JEM staff, asking them why Dr. Bazant was allowed to completely ignore the 2000 word limit in criticizing me and my Discussion paper, when I complied with it in good faith. I told them there were three ways to fairly resolve the situation.

First, JEM could pull my Discussion paper and his Closure paper from publication. JEM refused to do this. In hindsight, I’m actually glad they didn’t choose this option. The results of Dr. Bazant’s Closure paper are ludicrous, and demonstrate the utter bankruptcy of his theory. Even though I was treated unfairly, on balance I’m glad both papers were ultimately published.

Second, JEM could allow me to revise my paper free from the 2000 word limit I had originally complied with in good faith. If I was allowed to revise my paper without worrying about the word limit, I could have included all of my criticisms of his paper, and included mathematical equations to support my arguments. JEM refused to do this. This would have been the preferred option, but for some reason, I was not allowed to resubmit a revised paper exceeding the 2000 word limit.

Third, JEM could force Dr. Bazant to revise his paper to comply with the 2000 word limit. This was not preferable, but at least would have leveled the playing field. I would rather everyone have the same opportunity to fully develop their arguments and let the public decide who to believe. Unfortunately, this is not what ended up happening. After several rounds of email correspondence, JEM decided that they would ask Dr. Bazant to revise his paper to comply with the 2000 word limit, and remove the offensive language I had identified.

You can imagine my surprise again when I learned last week that both of our papers had been published in the October issue of JEM. I was never given another opportunity to review Dr. Bazant’s Closure paper before it was published. If you read through it, you can see why. Dr. Bazant was not required to comply with the 2000 word limit, as the JEM staff promised me he would. My rough estimate is that in his Closure’s response to my Discussion is between 4000 and 6000 words in length.

His Closure paper still derides me for not including equations in support of my position, without mentioning that there is no way I could have done that and still complied with the 2000 word limit, and that I was not allowed to revise my paper by JEM staff. Any fair peer review would not have allowed him to say this. JEM knew full well I was required to comply with the 2000 word limit, while Dr. Bazant was not.”


http://911blogger.com/node/18196.

Everyone can draw their own conclusions whether this constitutes ‘bias’ in favour of Bazant/against Gourley.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 17 October 2012 - 12:23 AM, said:

2 - You've quoted this from swan a few times:  "NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse".  You are not including the rest of the context, "Engineers don't put safety factors into their calculations for fun, they do it because no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error. You don't design a building to stand up, just. You design it to stand up under the worst conditions you can think of, and then make it stronger again by a substantial factor. That means that a prediction of a collapse within the margins of error of the input parameters would be enough to declare the building unsafe.".  The part that you exclude is relevant to what you are quoting from swan and directly qualifies what he means by it, which means you are pretty much quote-mining which is fallacious.

Yes, it’s a great quote isn’t it?  A rare moment of truthfulness.

The reason I don’t feel the need to reproduce all of that text is because it has no bearing whatsoever on the initial quote.  So please could you explain what context you think the rest of that text adds to the quote?  Because I honestly don’t see it.

Is it that... no, I’ll just let you explain.  This should be interesting.  Do beware - flyingswan has misled you before.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#2500    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:08 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 17 October 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

If the FDR was indeed fabricated, by Fetzer and Cimino's own admission, then the Government sure as hell did a piss poor job in fabricating a FDR that is way off what the official report says.

Fact of the matter is, the FDR data was not fabricated and your remarks once again, reconfirm you have no knowledge on the way things are done in the world of aviation.

Quote

The bogus FDR data corroborates the testimony of those who saw a Boeing north of the Citgo station.  Either of them is evidence that the official story is a lie, and both together demonstrate it more strongly.

It's interpretation of ALL the evidence Sky.  That is where you fail.

Fact of the matter is, FDR data did not depict American 77 north of the gas station and it was impossible for anyone to have seen American 77 north of the gas station unless the gas station was in Florida. The path of destruction proves beyond any doubt American 77 passed south of the gas station.

Other than the path of destruction leading to, and inside the Pentagon, do you know another reason why it would have been impossible for American 77 to have passed north of the gas station in question?

Remember, you have made the following claims:

*************************************************************************************
Babe Ruth says:

*  No Boeing (B-757) crashed into the Pentagon.
______________________________________________________

Babe Ruth says:

*  American 77, which was a B-757, passed north of the gas station.
______________________________________________________

Babe Ruth added:

A P700 anti-ship cruise missile struck the Pentagon

**************************************************************************************

Seems you cannot make up you mind! :no:

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 October 2012 - 11:13 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2501    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,182 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:21 PM

Skyeagle... pay closer attention who you are replying to.

In your post above you are obviously replying to BR, but have quoted Raptor's post and are talking to him as if he were BR






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 17 October 2012 - 11:21 PM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#2502    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 17 October 2012 - 11:44 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 17 October 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Skyeagle... pay closer attention who you are replying to.

In your post above you are obviously replying to BR, but have quoted Raptor's post and are talking to him as if he were BR

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. :tu: Apologies to RaptorBites. The post was meant for BR.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2503    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,613 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 18 October 2012 - 12:22 AM

View PostQ24, on 17 October 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

Does acceptance of breaking the guidelines, in favour of one author but not another, make the decision any less biased?  I think not.

How difficult can this be:  you can't break guidelines if there are other guidelines in place specifically allowing different word counts by editorial discretion, the same editorial discretion I might add that allowed the truther's reponse paper to published in the first place.  It's like saying that because a baseball batter got to first base due to a walk that it breaks the guideline that you need to get a hit to be able to advance; multiple guidelines coexist.  Here's the definition for you of 'bias', from dictionary.com:  "a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."  What is your evidence of prejudice due to political sensitivity?  Zip.  What is your evidence of prejudice at all?  Zip.  No guidelines that I can see vowing that all discussion and closure papers will be of equal length out of respect to some people's ideas of 'fairness'.  Even if they are biased, how do you know the cause, you consistently just pluck out one possibility and ignore the others.  Maybe Bazant is good friends with the editor and that's why he ultimately got more words; it'd be biased but it's got nothing to do with anything political.  Why don't these even register on your probability board?  Is this another consequence of overcertainty?

Quote

I don’t have any concrete evidence that every one of Rupert Murdoch’s hundreds of media outlets without exception editorialised in favour of the Iraq war due to a political decision at some level either... but that obviously was the case (it would be unbelievable to find a large random group where 100% agreed with the war).  That instance was also a form of editorial bias in place of fair reporting of the facts, though given your responses I wouldn’t expect you to see/accept it.  I rather hope, to be consistent, that you would argue along the lines the bias existed because the creators of the conflict were luminaries and that the Iraq war was ‘plain correct’, etc.  Whilst I would, and did, question that media bias just as much as in the present case regarding mainstream journals.

What is with these 'analogies'?  There is pretty concrete evidence that Murdoch's views align with the neocons/conservatives and the media he controls overtly reflects his views.  Scientific journals do not publish political opinion, they don't really compare to news media.  You are just grabbing out of thin air that the JEM is also biased politically, not even going to try to connect one of the editors to Neocons/Zionists/CIA?  It shouldn't be that difficult, albeit still uncompelling.

Quote

I don’t understand how you can miss it.  You already accept that editors can break their own guidelines “as they see fit”.  So the only question would be:  do you think editors are like robots; wholly objective and free of media influences and political considerations?  Of course they are not – they are affected as much as anyone else, have a position of power/responsibility to add and must answer to their superiors.  Even I would think twice about what I published if I were such an editor, for fear of stirring up a hornets’ nest and safety of my position.

What's the matter Q, doncha like it when others insist on people they don't know behaving in ways that are not agreeable to your overall argument?  LIke when you tell me how all the hundreds of thousands of other experts either haven't looked at your blatant demolition theory or are cowed by the awesome oppression of the 'establishment'?  Anyway, the issue here is simple, you feel entirely justified saying that mainstream journals have been proven to be biased against truthers due to political sensitivity.  Your evidence of this?  Lots of people, of an unknown quantity, are biased due to political sensitivity.  If you think that's satisfactory, that's fine, duly noted; I agree, this is boring.

Quote

So what?  Then I jumped the gun, demanded an investigation and conclusive answers.  Better than to lull people into a false sense of righteousness in support of a war, no?  By the way, I don’t believe I’m wrong at all – I have a very high level of confidence in my conclusions due to culmination of the vast evidence I have researched – that is not a concern to me at all.  I’m more challenging you – what if you are wrong?  All you want to talk about, are the oh so terrible consequences if I am wrong – OMG Q, if you are wrong, then you are wrong and... nothing.  But what if you are wrong, LG?  How does that compare?  Perhaps we should have got a real investigation, and real answers, so we didn’t need to be in this position?

I've seen how you have culminated and glued your vast evidence together with large globs of your imagination, I don't find it nearly as convincing.  As I said before, why are you piddlying away your time on 9/11 when clearly, under these standards of yours, we need a much more thorough investigation of alien visitations, there's all kinds of evidence of the government interfering with ufo investigations, they must be hiding something, what if I'm wrong, nothing?  The fate of the earth potentially hinges on it if I'm right.  And really, this paper word count 'unfairness' seems all the more pouty when you are so willing to jettison 'fairness' in order to get the investigation you want.  You do realize that the people you want to investigate, because of the enormous downside if you are correct, have rights too?  You need to provide some probable cause to get very far, and your direct evidence of anything is very limited.  You've also shown how you would wield this fairness; Bazant is already a criminal, Silverstein is complicit in mass murder if not an accomplice, all based on some very circumstantial evidence buttressed by the solidity of your overcertainty and the unsound logic of an appeal to consequences, which has nothing to do with the truth value of the proposition.

Quote

No, that is not my argument - you have intentionally or not adopted a strawman argument.  Let’s start from the beginning.  I initially set out to show that the number of professionals is growing within the truth movement – and due to the figures, this is undeniable (post #2417).  You then put forward an argument that a significant number of individuals not within the truth movement have evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me.  The challenge that followed is to prove that your argument is unfounded in figures; it’s just an opinion.  You don’t know that a significant number of professionals have evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me at all – you can’t back it up, but you’d like to believe it.

Yet you seem to also understand exactly what I'm referring to, you seem to realize that you need an explanation for why so many experts are not on your side which is where we diverted into some unfounded statement you made about the only people brave enough who are unbiased or don't succumb to political pressure are truthers.  We had a long back-and-forth about your assumptions about the behavior and mindset of hundreds of thousands of experts?  It's got nothing to do with 'like to believe it', you may not believe it, but I like it when you and I agree on something, like in general the tragedy of the ridiculous Iraq War, even though we agree on very little about 9/11.   I believe it because I think the alternative you propose to be unlikely, and I've explained why many times:  the interest in the most famous building collapses of all time, the controversy concerning the collapses driving experts to look into it, the benefits (again, Nobel prize level stuff) of blowing the cover off the biggest story of all time.  I know you've replied to all those, but I think your civil war fears are a bit overwrought; a whole bunch of your argument relies on the complacency of Americans and you're simultaneously worried about those same Americans rising up in a civil war... as long as the electricity, food, cable, and internet are running, I can assure you your concerns of an uprising are unfounded.  If your point is just that the number of professionals in the truther movement is growing and that has no other significance, then I agree, for whatever it means.  Do the truthers dutifully deduct from their count of experts when they die, or is this number just inevitably always going to increase?

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2504    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,613 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 18 October 2012 - 12:26 AM

snip - double quote

Edited by Liquid Gardens, 18 October 2012 - 12:27 AM.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2505    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,613 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 18 October 2012 - 12:49 AM

View PostQ24, on 17 October 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

I’m honestly bored of this particular discussion.  Let’s leave the facts to speak for themselves: -

Everyone can draw their own conclusions whether this constitutes ‘bias’ in favour of Bazant/against Gourley.

Interesting timing on your boredom; don't think it hasn't already been noted that as soon as boony whips out some math to support his scientific arguments, you also get bored and weary of the repetition.  But I'm with you, this is boring, everyone can also draw their own conclusions as to whether '"There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject" is founded by "it would be naive to believe that political considerations are not taken into account by publishing editors.".

Quote

The reason I don’t feel the need to reproduce all of that text is because it has no bearing whatsoever on the initial quote.  So please could you explain what context you think the rest of that text adds to the quote?  Because I honestly don’t see it.

Is it that... no, I’ll just let you explain.  This should be interesting.  Do beware - flyingswan has misled you before.

Whether I've been misled is debatable, flyingswan has replied on the differences in peer review, especially pertaining to the 'peer' part.  You don't see how, "no-one ever knows everything, there are always margins of error" modifies and qualifies the part you quote?  That's fine, everyone can again draw their own conclusions, just trying to help you clean up your arguments.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users