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.


- - - - -

Beleive It Or Not, A Sceptic Is Someone Who:


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#91    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,822 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 01 December 2012 - 12:22 PM

View Postturbonium, on 01 December 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

Melting the steel is done afterwards - in China. There's no hurry to melt it in China.

But if the steel remained in the US, it can't be metled fast enough. Because it's within our reach, you have a cousin who works there and tells you about it. Many people are soon protesting the facility to return all evidence they've illegally obtained from a crime scene.

Not if it's all in China.
If it's in China, you have no control at all about what happens to it.  What's to stop the Chinese finding the evidence you are trying to hide?  For an example of what can happen, as I posted recently in the Apollo thread, the Chinese took the Apollo 17 commemorative sample given them and analysed it to check it really was from the moon.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#92    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,329 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:17 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 01 December 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

If it's in China, you have no control at all about what happens to it.  What's to stop the Chinese finding the evidence you are trying to hide?  For an example of what can happen, as I posted recently in the Apollo thread, the Chinese took the Apollo 17 commemorative sample given them and analysed it to check it really was from the moon.

In China, the evidence is gone.  It is not available for some curious whistleblower or concerned citizen to examine.

Are you really that naive?


#93    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,822 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 01 December 2012 - 04:07 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 01 December 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

In China, the evidence is gone.  It is not available for some curious whistleblower or concerned citizen to examine.

Are you really that naive?
If it's in China, there is nothing to stop some Chinese metallurgist examining it, or the Chinese authorities making propaganda use of anything incriminating.  As I said, if it's gone abroad, there is no longer any control over what happens to it.  Exporting it is an enormously risky course for a conspirator to take.

If the Apollo samples had really been faked, it would similarly have been risky to hand them out all over the world.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#94    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,329 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 01 December 2012 - 07:40 PM

No, there is nothing to stop them.  You're right about that.

But neither is there anything to compel them to do so.  It seems to me that in a country claiming to operate "under the law" should issue an order to the Chinese, informing them the steel was part of a crime scene and we needed to look at it close.

That didn't happen, of course.  What happened was that the US refused to investigate anything at all.  Our Prescient President knew all the answers that afternoon, and we don't need no stinkin' investigation.  Just that simple.  For 2 years or so.

So, I don't know what your point is, but I do know what happened and didn't, eleven years after the fact.  More and more stuff comes out that works against the official story.


#95    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,626 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 01 December 2012 - 08:02 PM

Is this going to turn into yet another cockamamie 9-11 thread?


#96    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,336 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 02 December 2012 - 06:32 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 01 December 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

If it's in China, there is nothing to stop some Chinese metallurgist examining it, or the Chinese authorities making propaganda use of anything incriminating.  As I said, if it's gone abroad, there is no longer any control over what happens to it.  Exporting it is an enormously risky course for a conspirator to take.


First of all, it's a far, far riskier option to keep the steel in the US. There was an enormous public outcry when the steel was shipped so quickly, and I'm sure know which country I'm referring to here - the US. I'm not aware of ANY outcry by the Chinese.

You suggest...

"Chinese authorities making propaganda use of anything incriminating.."

Weigh the potential benefits of doing that against the potential drawbacks..

I'm not sure of what benefits there are in using it as a propaganda tool. Perhaps you think we were engaged in a 'Cold War' woth China in 2001, similar to the US-USSR Cold War. You'd also be wrong to think it.

As for drawbacks - take a look at this source, which cites China-US trade and investment from 2001-2005..

Trade and investment have soared since China joined the WTO in 2001

The United States is China's largest trading partner

US exports and imports have both more than doubled since 2001

Apart from growth in trade, China's WTO entry has sparked a boom in foreign direct investment


https://www.chinabus...9/ChinaData.pdf

It should be abundantly clear to you what the drawbacks would be if China had chosen to use the steel as a propaganda tool back in 2001. If you want to talk about an "enormously risky course" to take, how about China risking $Billions annually in trade and investment!!

But let's say they'd want nothing better than to kill their biggest trading partner. Let's say they decided to tell the world about finding evidence of explosives in the WTC steel. What happens then? The US flatly denies it, of course. They accuse China of fabricating research to make the US look bad. Once it left US soil, it could easily be tampered with by Communist interests who obviously 'hate our freedoms'!! Or some such drivel...

China is the much better option for the conspirators.


#97    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,822 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 December 2012 - 11:12 AM

View PostObviousman, on 01 December 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Is this going to turn into yet another cockamamie 9-11 thread?
Sorry, I'll desist.  I've made my point, BR and Turbs can do their usual if it makes them happy.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#98    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,329 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 02 December 2012 - 02:37 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 02 December 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Sorry, I'll desist.  I've made my point, BR and Turbs can do their usual if it makes them happy.

You have not made a point.  You have offered a nonsensical statement, nothing more.  The destruction of the forensic evidence regarding the WTC is well known.  Anybody who is familiar with CSI knows that crime scenes must be preserved.

That you rationalize such things as unimportant is more insight into just how challenged you are in critical thinking skills.  If there was a point made in your previous posts, that is it. :cry:


#99    Cradle of Fish

Cradle of Fish

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,583 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." - Dr. Johnson

Posted 02 December 2012 - 10:49 PM

View Postturbonium, on 02 December 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

Weigh the potential benefits of doing that against the potential drawbacks..

Good, now apply that same logic to the Bush Administration. What really was gained as a result of 9/11? More debt - Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions. More instability in the Middle East, tens of thousands dead, all for a couple of percentage points for Haliburton? Surely such a powerful corporation would be able to find a much better idea to make a profit that didn't risk the lives of every boarf member and their conspirators?

I am not a man, merely a parody of one.


#100    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,329 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 03 December 2012 - 02:37 PM

View PostCradle of Fish, on 02 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Good, now apply that same logic to the Bush Administration. What really was gained as a result of 9/11? More debt - Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions. More instability in the Middle East, tens of thousands dead, all for a couple of percentage points for Haliburton? Surely such a powerful corporation would be able to find a much better idea to make a profit that didn't risk the lives of every boarf member and their conspirators?

Don't forget that the SEC invoked Rule 12(k).  That allowed the next day clearance of $240 billion in US securities without the usual rules and procedures regarding identity of those surrendering them.


#101    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:06 AM

Are you saying that there was a conspiracy to change the meanings of skeptic to make it anti conspiracy theorists and pro government?
:w00t:



Anyway:
also scep·ti·cism (skĕp'tĭ-sĭz'əm) Posted Image
n.
  • A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See synonyms at uncertainty.
  • Philosophy.
    • The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
    • The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
    • A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
  • Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2

skepticism, scepticism
a personal disposition toward doubt or incredulity of facts, persons, or institutions. See also 312. PHILOSOPHY. — skeptic, n., adj.skeptical, adj.

And:



Skeptics and scepticism

Should we be concerned that some Skeptics do not seem to understand the meaning of scepticism?

Quote

A word about the distinction between sceptics and skeptics. A generic "sceptic" questions accepted beliefs. In this way, we have "man didn't go to the moon" sceptics. (Some people won't believe anything.) Skeptics are different: they espouse the evidence-based approach – and find the world wanting in many respects.

Scepticism, or skepticism, is neither denialism nor a movement. Based on the Greek skeptomai, which means to think or consider, it usually means doubt or incredulity about particular ideas, or a wider view about the impossibility of having certain knowledge. This uncertainty is a philosophical position, and philosophical scepticism includes attempts to deal with it, through systematic doubt and testing of ideas.
So, let's be clear. In the US you can be a climate skeptic. In the UK you might consider yourself a Skeptic and approach knowledge in a sceptical way. It also appears that it is possible to be a Skeptic and yet not be a sceptic. Hyde's parenthetical "Some people won't believe anything" dismissal of "bad" sceptics suggests very little understanding of what scepticism really means.

http://www.guardian....history-science


When is a 'skeptic' not a sceptic?

http://blogs.telegra...-not-a-sceptic/


#102    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,336 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 08 December 2012 - 07:15 AM

View PostCradle of Fish, on 02 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Good, now apply that same logic to the Bush Administration. What really was gained as a result of 9/11? More debt - Iraq and Afghanistan cost trillions. More instability in the Middle East, tens of thousands dead, all for a couple of percentage points for Haliburton? Surely such a powerful corporation would be able to find a much better idea to make a profit that didn't risk the lives of every boarf member and their conspirators?

You missed my point. I was specifically referring to the conspirators weighing the benefits to the drawbacks - as it touches on them.  What method would be better for a conspirator disposing of  the steel, in other words.

So with 9/11, there were huge benefits - for very few people, And the many drawbacks are still being felt by the rest of us. That is just fine to them. They reap the rewards by our blood and pain. It isn't a drawback to an evil scumbag

A better idea? What's a better idea for them than huge profits of war?


#103    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,336 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:41 AM

View PostRender, on 04 December 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

Are you saying that there was a conspiracy to change the meanings of skeptic to make it anti conspiracy theorists and pro government?
:w00t:



Anyway:
also scep·ti·cism (skĕp'tĭ-sĭz'əm) Posted Image
n.
  • A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See synonyms at uncertainty.
  • Philosophy.
    • The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
    • The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
    • A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
  • Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

    Skepticism or scepticism (see spelling differences) is generally any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,[1] or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere.[2

    skepticism, scepticism
    a personal disposition toward doubt or incredulity of facts, persons, or institutions. See also 312. PHILOSOPHY. — skeptic, n., adj.skeptical, adj.

    And:



    Skeptics and scepticism

    Should we be concerned that some Skeptics do not seem to understand the meaning of scepticism?


    http://www.guardian....history-science


    When is a 'skeptic' not a sceptic?

    http://blogs.telegra...-not-a-sceptic/

    Skeptic or sceptic is nothing more than two different, acceptable ways to spell it. A skeptic is always a sceptic because they are the exact same thing.

    The term skeptic (or sceptic!) has been 'hijacked' by the pro-Government side. Self-proclaimed 'skeptics' like James Randi and Michael Shermer are two prime examples of high-profile  propagandists. "Skeptic" magazine should be sued for fraudulent labeling. More and more they seem to be popping up.

    In every case, they spout nothing but pro-government tripe. So is that just an incredible coincidence, or is it an intentional ploy?

    A label to fool people, The 'skeptics' are evidence-based, always seeking out the truth hidden behind the lies. A 'Skeptic' magazine will expose the liars who dare to doubt our honest government! They are given the label of 'conspiracy nuts'.

    It's a complete farce.


    #104    Babe Ruth

    Babe Ruth

      Non-Corporeal Being

    • Member
    • 8,329 posts
    • Joined:23 Dec 2011
    • Gender:Not Selected
    • Location:27North 80West

    Posted 08 December 2012 - 03:31 PM

    View Postturbonium, on 08 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:


    Skeptic or sceptic is nothing more than two different, acceptable ways to spell it. A skeptic is always a sceptic because they are the exact same thing.

    The term skeptic (or sceptic!) has been 'hijacked' by the pro-Government side. Self-proclaimed 'skeptics' like James Randi and Michael Shermer are two prime examples of high-profile  propagandists. "Skeptic" magazine should be sued for fraudulent labeling. More and more they seem to be popping up.

    In every case, they spout nothing but pro-government tripe. So is that just an incredible coincidence, or is it an intentional ploy?

    A label to fool people, The 'skeptics' are evidence-based, always seeking out the truth hidden behind the lies. A 'Skeptic' magazine will expose the liars who dare to doubt our honest government! They are given the label of 'conspiracy nuts'.

    It's a complete farce.

    Exactly!  It is an illustration of Orwell's notion that if the language and meanings of words can be corrupted, the result is that thought processes follow in being corrupted.

    A society conditioned to believe in such silly things as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny will EASILY believe any fiction thrown their way, especially if there are pictures, and the fiction is repeated frequently enough.  Throw in violence and psychological trauma, and such memories are etched into the public psyche forever.


    #105    skyeagle409

    skyeagle409

      Forum Divinity

    • Member
    • 30,246 posts
    • Joined:14 Apr 2006
    • Gender:Male
    • Location:California

    • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

    Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:18 AM

    View PostBabe Ruth, on 03 December 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

    Don't forget that the SEC invoked Rule 12(k).  That allowed the next day clearance of $240 billion in US securities without the usual rules and procedures regarding identity of those surrendering them.

    What does that have to do with 9/11? The Air Force was charged hundreds of dollars for toilet seats but that was no reason to fly airliners into buildings.

    KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




    0 user(s) are reading this topic

    0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users