144 replies to this topic

[rambaldi]

el midgetron, on 01 March 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

  Its obviously a foreign concept to you but people actually think for themselves.

People perhaps, but conspiracists?
Quite frankly the number of them who are unable to put the content of the YT-Videos they claim to be evidence for whatevertheybeleieve into own words, suggests otherwise.

[flyingswan]

Faeden, on 01 March 2011 - 06:39 PM, said:

Some conspiracy theories that were laughed at in the past turned out to be true, so it would also be idiocy to write off every conspiracy theory as hokum just because you have a grudge against "tin hat types" or fear out side of the box thinkers. I am not talking about illogical theories here like the flat earth kind of claims, only ones that can happen in reality, like governmental, war based, fascist, or political conspiracies etc.

Not that many.  Conspiracies are uncovered all the time, but the only one I can think of that was speculated about, ie was a conspiracy theory, before it turned out to be true was the allegation during the Cold War that left-wing organisations in the West were in the pay of the Soviet Union.  Come Glasnost and the Russians admitted it.

Edited by flyingswan, 02 March 2011 - 02:15 PM.

[Stundie]

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

If the "evidence" was consistent one would expect an agreed hypothesis that explained it.

Exactly, so if the evidence was consistent with a natural collapse, then there would be no need for alternative theories, but because the official story comes up short and doesn't explain all the phenomena, then alternatives exist.

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

The fact that truthers argue among themselves suggests that they are picking which things they like and which things they don't on some other basis than evidence.

They are arguing amongst themselves because they don't agree with each others hypothesis.

The point is that they all agree is that the official story is wrong.

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

So what is the evidence that the official story is wrong, what is the agreed piece of evidence that falsifys it?

There is too much to evidence but the time that Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC for instance clearly falsifies it.

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Neither does it disprove the official story.

The official story is wrong, if it was rock solid, then there wouldn't be any need for alternatives.

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Because you haven't shown that the official story is wrong.

I have shown you in the other thread that Dick Cheneys arrival time at the PEOC is wrong.

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

You all claim that it is, but you argue about why.

We don't argue about why, we know why the official story is wrong. What there is disagreement about is the alternative theory. i.e. if the official story didn't happen, then what happened.
Just because there is no agreement between 2 parties, doesn't mean that the official story is right.

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

If there was a "smoking gun", you'd all agree on it.

We all agree that the official story doesn't add up.

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

You seem to be claiming that a single explosion could bring down each building, but you don't explain how.

I don't need to explain how because you believe that no explosions were needed.

So anything more than none would still bring down the building according to your own logic. lol

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Unless you do, your claim is just pointless speculation.

It was never a claim, it was highlighting that your pointed is flawed. lol

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

It could have been nano thermite, or a death ray, or remote-control airliners or any of the many ways proposed, but "could have been" isn't proof of anything.

No, but you can't prove how it collapsed either.

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

The official story has a detailed collapse mechanism for each building that fits facts like the observed bowing of the walls of the Towers or the penthouse collapse of WTC7.

hahahahahahaha!! Perposterous!! lol

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Any alternative must not just poke holes in this, but also show how it fits these observations.

If there are holes in it, then it's not worth much.

And more importantly, no alternatives are needed. If the official story is flawed, then it's flawed regardless of whether there are better or worse theories out there. lol

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

If the structures were that near to collapse, you wouldn't need an explosion at all.

Exactly, so why is a CD theory not possible then?

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Either you need a big demolition effort because impact/fire isn't enough, or you accept the official story.

What a load of hypocritical nonsense.....lol

If you believe that the towers collapse without explosives, then simply put any amount explosives above NONE would still cause the building to collapse.

Like I said, unless you think by adding explosives would somehow cause the structure to survive??   lol

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 02 March 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

We don't argue about why, we know why the official story is wrong.

Quite, never mind the evidence, your mind is made up.

You still don't get it, do you?  It isn't enough to say that the official story is wrong, you have to first prove it, ie provide the "smoking gun", and then come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better.  Unless you do that, all you have is an unfounded opinion.

For instance, if the only thing you have against the official story is Cheney's arrival at PEOC, (something that is by no means agreed, by the way), then an alternative hypothesis that says that the official story is true apart from Cheney confusing his arrival time would be a better fit.  This is not a "smoking gun".

Quote

hahahahahahaha!! Perposterous!! lol

Is that an example of your logical reasoning?

Edited by flyingswan, 02 March 2011 - 03:00 PM.

[Stundie]

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

Quite, never mind the evidence, your mind is made up.

Hogwash. There is plenty of evidence which shows the official story is wrong, just because you choose to deny or ignore it doesn't mean there is no evidence, it's just means you are denying it or ignoring it. lol

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

You still don't get it, do you?

Yes, I do but it's obvious that you don't. lol

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

It isn't enough to say that the official story is wrong, you have to first prove it, ie provide the "smoking gun", and then come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better.

What a load of b******s!

You are right in that it isn't enough to say the official story is wrong, of course you have to prove it. So once it has been proven, then the official story is wrong.

It is not up to anyone to come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better....lol

If there is evidence the official story is wrong, then it is wrong, it doesn't automatically make it right again because someone can't provide a better theory. That statement alone highlights all that is wrong in your thinking and logic.

If the official story is proven wrong, then it is wrong. End of story!! lol

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

Unless you do that, all you have is an unfounded opinion.

I do not have to provide an alternative theory if I have already proven that the official theory is wrong.

And therefore it is not an unfounded opinion unless I claim something is wrong without supporting evidence.

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

For instance, if the only thing you have against the official story is Cheney's arrival at PEOC, (something that is by no means agreed, by the way), then an alternative hypothesis that says that the official story is true apart from Cheney confusing his arrival time would be a better fit.  This is not a "smoking gun

Complete tosh!! hahahahahahaha!!!

Of course it's not agreed by you because you are denying and ignoring the facts. lol

If Dick Cheney himself says that he was in the PEOC before the Pentagon attack and Mineta agrees with him as well as Dick Clarke, then the official story is wrong and Cheney must have been there before 9:58am as the official story claims.

I do not need to provide any other hypothesis.

Also if you are claiming that Cheney is confused and that the official story is STILL CORRECT, then you have to provide EVIDENCE that Cheney is confused otherwise.....it's your over evaluated opinion. lol

Your opinion do no equal evidence! lol

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

Is that an example of your logical reasoning?

No, comments on your logic and arguments. lol

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 02 March 2011 - 03:31 PM, said:

What a load of b******s!

You are right in that it isn't enough to say the official story is wrong, of course you have to prove it. So once it has been proven, then the official story is wrong.

It is not up to anyone to come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better....lol

If you cannot come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better than the official story, then the official story remains the best one, whether you like it or not.  It's no good saying that the official story fits facts A, B and C, but is wrong about fact D if your alternative only fits D and is wrong about A, B  and C.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

I must say, "What a load of b******s!" really advances one's argument.

[Stundie]

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 04:40 PM, said:

If you cannot come up with an alternative that fits all the facts better than the official story, then the official story remains the best one, whether you like it or not.

Although the official story might remain the best one.  

That still doesn't make it correct when there is evidence which shows you it is wrong.   lol

So while you are stuck on the best theory as you hilariously put it, which isn't correct but the best one because no one as come up with an alternative, then alternatives have to be allowed if you are a skeptic.

With that kind of thinking, it's a case of why bother making a better light source like a bulb (like the one which goes off in your head!    ), when we already have the best light.....candles. lol

You are arguing your personal beliefs not what theories are possible or not.

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

It's no good saying that the official story fits facts A, B and C, but is wrong about fact D if your alternative only fits D and is wrong about A, B  and C.

But what if there are facts D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and so on and so forth that refute or show your best theory is wrong, do you then ignore all these because they don't work with your best theory?? lol

I'll tell you what, lets not derail this thread. It's descended in to 9/11 which some posters said it would and not why people believe in conspiracies.

So I'll be over on the Dick Cheney thread and we'll see exactly your best theory works out on there. lol

[Stundie]

747400, on 02 March 2011 - 04:44 PM, said:

I must say, "What a load of b******s!" really advances one's argument.

In the same way as posting a 9/11 debunking bible really advance ones arguments.  

Fight fire with fire as they say. lol

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 02 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

So what is the evidence that the official story is wrong, what is the agreed piece of evidence that falsifys it?

See, this line you keep repeating is a prime example of pseudoskepticism.

You ask for evidence that the official theory is wrong whilst ignoring the fact that it has never been proven in the first place - it is you who need to provide this evidence in support of the case; it doesn’t automatically begin as ‘true’, no matter how much you would like it to be.

Let’s see what currently backs the official story…

• Well there’s the legal case against Osama bin Laden… no wait… there never has been such a legal case and if FBI comments are anything to go by then it would be laughed out of court anyway.
  
  
• Ok but there’s the 9/11 Commission Report… otherwise known as the Ommission Report… containing supposition, inaccuracies and which completely glosses over those intelligence (and many other) issues we have been discussing on the other thread.
  
  
• Aha the WTC collapse reports... hmmm… a hypothesis which NIST admit is unlikely at best and which completely ignores a whole host of evidence.
  
  
• I know, there’s the NTSB and FBI reports on the planes… which show flight paths of unidentified aircraft… with no black box or aircraft part serial numbers on record.

I could go on and in more detail but you get the idea – every aspect of the official theory is on flimsy grounds to begin with.

And you would like for us to provide evidence that it is wrong?  

I’m sure it doesn’t work like that.

It needs to be proven that the theory is right, not proven that it is wrong.

Otherwise it shows that you are starting with the theory as your basis rather than the evidence… and we wouldn’t want to do that now would we?

Incidentally,

[acidhead]

Q24, on 03 March 2011 - 02:43 AM, said:

See, this line you keep repeating is a prime example of pseudoskepticism.

You ask for evidence that the official theory is wrong whilst ignoring the fact that it has never been proven in the first place - it is you who need to provide this evidence in support of the case; it doesn’t automatically begin as ‘true’, no matter how much you would like it to be.

Let’s see what currently backs the official story…

• Well there’s the legal case against Osama bin Laden… no wait… there never has been such a legal case and if FBI comments are anything to go by then it would be laughed out of court anyway.
  
  
• Ok but there’s the 9/11 Commission Report… otherwise known as the Ommission Report… containing supposition, inaccuracies and which completely glosses over those intelligence (and many other) issues we have been discussing on the other thread.
  
  
• Aha the WTC collapse reports... hmmm… a hypothesis which NIST admit is unlikely at best and which completely ignores a whole host of evidence.
  
  
• I know, there’s the NTSB and FBI reports on the planes… which show flight paths of unidentified aircraft… with no black box or aircraft part serial numbers on record.

I could go on and in more detail but you get the idea – every aspect of the official theory is on flimsy grounds to begin with.

And you would like for us to provide evidence that it is wrong?  

I’m sure it doesn’t work like that.

It needs to be proven that the theory is right, not proven that it is wrong.

Otherwise it shows that you are starting with the theory as your basis rather than the evidence… and we wouldn’t want to do that now would we?

Incidentally,

awesome.. freakin bulletproof Q24.. bring it flyingswan.. Q's winning

[Little Fish]

A 1+1=2
B - what evidence do you have?
A - if I take an apple and another apple, i have two apples.
B - but maybe it works only with apples.
A - I've tried with oranges, it works with those too.
B - have you tried pears?
A - no I don't have any pears.
B - it has not been demonstrated with pears, therefore it is not proven.
A - but mathematicians have proven it, here's the complex proof.
B - I don't understand that, its too complex and I'm not a mathematician, here's a debunking page with some stuff that casts doubt on it. its up to you to prove it.
A - here are videos of some more mathematicians proving it
B - you are relying on 3 "mathematicians", where are all the other hundreds of thousands of mathemticans? 99% of mathematicans are silent so they clearly disagree.
A - here's a youtube video using grapes and another using bananas, it clearly demonstrates 1+1=2
B - that guy looks funny, he's also put up a weird dancing video, why would you rely on evidence from a guy who publicly dances in his underpants?
A - what evidence do you have that 1+1 is not 2?
B - burden of proof is on you, until you demonstrate it with pears you have not proven it.
A - here is another video- 1 pear and another pear gives you 2 pears.
B - they don't look like pears to me.
A - they are green, they taper to the top where there is stalk, they are pears
B - they look blue-ish to me
A - that's the lighting
B - can you prove that, or preferably demonstrate in natural daylight
A - here's a paper regarding black body radiation and another discussing internal lighting effects
B - that guy believes in god and dyes his hair blue, we can't trust him with science, the other paper is not peer reviewed.
A - here's a similar paper that's been peer reviewed
B - that journal is not a respected journal, can you find one in a top journal.
A - no, I don't have access to the top journals.
B - you should leave mathematics to the proper mathematicans, you're not an expert.
A - I've reclalibrated the video, you can see it is green.
B - it looks yellowish to me.
A - I've redone the experiment in daylight conditions, here it is.
B - even if you have shown that 1 pear plus 1 pear equals 2 pears (which I don't accept) you only did the test on monday, what about other days of the week?
A - it's self evident.
B - there maybe soliton magnetic effects when 2 pears are placed together at the end of the week.
A - can you prove there are these effects?
B - burden of proof is on you, not me.
A - but you said soliton magnetic effects would affect pears.
B - well we just don't know, we can't jump to conclusions, until you "one-one-tooowers" prove pears are not affected by these effects, we don't know either way.
A - here's a petition with thousands of respected mathematicians and fruit farmers stating that 1+1=2
B - that's not evidence, what evidence do you have that 1+1=2, besides that could be an 'L' rather than a '1'
A - oh, eff off
B - you "one-one-toower" conspiracists resort to abuse because you have no evidence.
moderator - A is banned.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 03 March 2011 - 02:43 AM, said:

And you would like for us to provide evidence that it is wrong?  

I’m sure it doesn’t work like that.

It needs to be proven that the theory is right, not proven that it is wrong.

I'm afraid you've got it completely backwards.  

You can never, ever, prove that a hypothesis is right, there might always be the discovery of some new fact that will conflict with it.  On the other hand, you can prove a hypothesis wrong by discovering such a conflicting fact.  That's the scientific method in a nutshell.

The problem arises when the facts are not well established, or mutually conflicting as is usually the case with eyewitness evidence.  All you can say then is that a hypothesis is the best fit to the available evidence.

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 02 March 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

But what if there are facts D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and so on and so forth that refute or show your best theory is wrong, do you then ignore all these because they don't work with your best theory??

Two points:

First, what are these facts D to L that conflict with the official explantion to the extent that they disprove it completely and make an "inside job" the only possible explanation?  Which of them is the "smoking gun" rather than a minor error?  I've asked you this before and I'm still waiting for an answer.

Second, the trouble with your wildly differing versions of the conspiracy scenario is that one may fit perceived anomaly D, but miss E to L, the next fits E, but misses D and F to L, etc.  If you think all these are important, you have to have a theory that includes them all.  If you don't think some of them need to be considered, which of the common ones do you dismiss?

[flyingswan]

Little Fish, on 03 March 2011 - 10:33 AM, said:

A 1+1=2

So? I could write a similar conversation where A's 1+1=2 corresponds to the official story and B's doubt to the conspiracy theory.