3292 replies to this topic

[Liquid Gardens]

And finally, two stars and Ectoplasmic Residue no more!  

[booNyzarC]

Liquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

And finally, two stars and Ectoplasmic Residue no more!  

Congrats

Well earned!  

[Czero 101]

Liquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

What official story am I faithful to Q?  I didn't even know until a few weeks ago that the official collapse theory was a composite of NIST and Bazant.  I realize how difficult it must be for you to come up with and give a positive, evidenced case for your demolition scenario without obfuscating it with criticism of the 'official story'; seriously, I give you an A for effort, I think it would be very difficult given the large gaps in the evidence.  And define 'pseudo-skeptic'; you seem to know enough about skepticism to not dare claim the mantle for yourself thankfully.  Here, let me give you a primer.  Skepticism entails asking the question, 'how do you know that'' to every conclusion you reach.  So when you pontificate about how truthers are the only ones brave enough to challenge the official story and state things about the mental state and decision-making processes of hundreds of thousands of experts, yea, I ask, apparently unreasonably to you, how you can possibly know that.  I've come up with two options, either you have extensive psychological training beyond what I think is even possible, or you are a telepath.  You disagree with this analysis so far?  It's in full compliance with non-pseudo-skepticism by the way.  And you seem to consistently find where skepticism naturally takes you, to the "we don't know" position, to be anathema; you've got a sale to close/debate to 'win', so that won't do.  Long story short, you'd be taken a little more seriously about your ideas about skepticism if you would actually put it into practice against points other than the ones that oppose your pet theory.

Which then leads to the state of your circumstantial evidence.  I've tried to explain this to you a few times, but maybe if I quote someone else it might sink in.  The following is from worldlawdirect.com:

"However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility."

See that 'benefit of the doubt' part and who has the burden, Mr. (Selective) Fairness?  Have you provided anything that doesn't have a non-demolition alternative?



So now you've provided real evidence of importance on TT?  I thought I had made this clear before so let me make it explicit (beyond the obvious that I can comment on whatever, whenever, at my leisure, when it is good for me; ya know, the exact same latitude you allow yourself).  Here's the familiar pattern:  you make a claim; I look it up and research it, including like a good pseudo-skeptic the arguments against your position; I find that, wow, you've overstated/exaggerated/neglected-all-other-possibilities in your original claim, we discuss it, and all too often end up with gems like (paraphrased) 'well it could be' and 'it'd be naive to think' and 'this is made credible by the all the other evidence', as well as excuses like 'what's the matter if I'm a over-certain'.  Every time you do this, it increases the amount of time I need to spend researching, I can't take anything you say as being true without assuming there's a boatload of unmentioned qualifications that take time, and work, for me to look into.  When you lay on such whoppers as your 'proven bias due to political sensitivity', most rational, or at least skeptical, people don't need to research that to know that it's most likely a load of bull, which it has turned out to be.  Your shifting of the goalposts to 'it'd be naive to think..' just further increases the work I have to do.  You could just say, 'yea I was a little over-the-top with my statement', but you don't, I don't think I've seen a single concession on anything from you, or even understanding of why I find your position so untenable; it seems almost pathological.  You are the one who set the standard here, things are 'blatant' and you are 'very certain' (the words of a true skeptic obviously...), I didn't set it.  We'd probably have a less exasperating conversation if you would have set the bar at what's required to justify another investigation, but you didn't.  Seriously dude, I've spent hours putting together responses to you on TT once you take in the research time I've put in; it gets to be a drag when I do that and I find out you're basing your 'evidence' on what 'could be', to the exclusion of all other possibilities.  It's not what I'm 'falling back on', in contrast, I don't need to look anything up to address your misunderstanding of what skepticism entails, I can go on all day about that off the top of my head and in a lot less time.



Ha, would you like me to send you a mirror, Reverend, so you can examine your own belief?  I know a lot more about 9/11 since I've been on UM, and a lot of it has come from my discussion with you.  You've made this suggestion before, that your evidence and argument is just so darned good and compelling that you accuse me of being unreasonable and requiring signed confessions to require convincing, which is ridiculous.  You are very certain right now; how would your position change if one of your Israeli agents was to come forward and confess to setting up a demolition, maybe with some explanations of what the demolitions were actually composed of instead of your appeal to a thermite demolition from the early 20th Century and a patent application?  Would you then be super very certain?  Because if that were to occur, it would be better evidence than pretty much all the 'evidence and logic' you've provided so far combined.  Do you disagree, maybe not with the 'combined' part (see this is how you qualify statements and note that you may be exaggerating), but if that were to occur it would be the best piece of evidence yet?  Doesn't that tell you anything about how strong your current evidence isn't?

So yes, I will address your post on TT, at my total leisure but probably sometime this weekend, but in the meantime I'd like you to think about something.  When you brought up that whatever point was more convincing because of all the other evidence, I asked you to jump to providing the best evidence so we can establish that and work our way out, and you replied that there is no 'best evidence'.  If you think that all your evidence is at the level of the 'media had foreknowledge' evidence (jesus man, even I can think of better evidence you've provided than that laugher) then there probably is going to be no bridging the gulf between us and our continued discussion is likely pointless and will just devolve into who can be a bigger smartass (you'll lose in that contest by the way), and I honestly have no desire for my discussions with you to devolve to boony and swan levels (not that those aren't instructive and entertaining of course).  If you do agree that there are gradients to your evidence, think about one or two good things that may lead to a more fruitful discussion after we go over the points in your latest TT post.

Cz

[skyeagle409]

Liquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

And finally, two stars and Ectoplasmic Residue no more!  

Congratulations!!

[Liquid Gardens]

skyeagle409, on 18 October 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

Congratulations!!

Thanks guys!

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 18 October 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

Typical armchair/pseudo-skeptic.  I have conversed with AE911T regarding their professional membership after flyingswan came up with a similarly slanderous claim.  I can confirm that the group do take their membership seriously; requesting proof of credentials from architects and engineers.  If you got registered booNy, then it would only be through deception – why don’t you put it to the test?  If you succeed, I know for a fact they’d remove you from the ranks afterwards at your request.  Or just drop them an e-mail requesting their member verification procedure?

This arose after someone joined AE911T claiming membership of a UK engineering institution.  AE911T claim that they contact the licensing authority to verify qualifications.  I contacted the institution in question and they said that for privacy reasons they don't provide information on members and AE911T had never asked them to verify details of any of their members.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 19 October 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

This arose after someone joined AE911T claiming membership of a UK engineering institution.  AE911T claim that they contact the licensing authority to verify qualifications.  I contacted the institution in question and they said that for privacy reasons they don't provide information on members and AE911T had never asked them to verify details of any of their members.

The fact is that AE911T verify members, including those you questioned, to the best of their ability.  Of course there are times the licensing authority cannot give out information due to the data protection act.  However, from the information AE911T provided me, including business contact details of the individuals which I won’t repeat here, there is no doubt in my mind about their credentials.  All you’ve really done is sling a bit of mud because clearly you don’t like that 1,700+ qualified architects and engineers demand a new investigation and would personally prefer to discredit them.  Please do let us know when in your investigation you come up with any actual evidence of those professionals not being who they say they are.

[Q24]

That was an interesting response, LG.  I’m disappointed that it did not address any of the questions or clarifications requested in my last post about the discussion we were having.  I wasn’t sure whether to respond but, given your attack, I suppose I should...

Liquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

What official story am I faithful to Q?  I didn't even know until a few weeks ago that the official collapse theory was a composite of NIST and Bazant.  

Ok, who do you think you’re kidding?  I think you know exactly what I’m saying – your stall is clearly set out.  I’ve seen it many times... the new member joins a discussion, claims to be objective (perhaps even fooling themselves)... it’s effective but never lasts long before their true/existing beliefs takeover.  I’ve never seen anyone change their mind  to any significant degree after committing to a position... they either have an open mind from the start or they don’t; they either have the ability to accept a 9/11 false flag or they don’t.  Sorry but I don’t think you seriously entertain any of the evidence I present suggestive of an alternative to the official story, much less have the desire to add it all up – for you the challenge is to dispute/maintain your existing worldview and I now know which side of the fence you are going to sit by default every time.  For this reason I feel comfortable bracketing you with faithful adherents of the official story.  After all, you might only have known about the official theories of NIST and Bazant a few weeks ago but you do believe their conclusions, don’t you?  I think you will fall in line with any part of the official story where it matters.  Of course, and bearing in mind you certainly have not had chance to research those official theories in full or even go through the complete for/against arguments yet, I’m sorry to say my point regarding your default loyalty is proven.  So please, save the innocent, “What official story am I faithful to Q?”  I’d love you to prove me wrong... but I can’t see it.

Liquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

I realize how difficult it must be for you to come up with and give a positive, evidenced case for your demolition scenario without obfuscating it with criticism of the 'official story'; seriously, I give you an A for effort, I think it would be very difficult given the large gaps in the evidence.  

I have no problem providing a complete evidence based case for the demolition (except that it would be a mammoth task in a single post).  I did notice that each time I attempted to turn the discussion toward that aim of evidence for the demolition previously on the Talking Turkey thread you haven’t responded for whatever reason.  For example, the WTC2 molten flow, the witness evidence of explosions, amongst more.  So we never really got going in that direction - the discussion remained focussed on failure of the official studies.  I do think that is an important area for consideration, but don’t criticise me for following that line when your responses, or lack of, determined the way ahead.

Liquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

And define 'pseudo-skeptic'; you seem to know enough about skepticism to not dare claim the mantle for yourself thankfully.  Here, let me give you a primer.  Skepticism entails asking the question, 'how do you know that'' to every conclusion you reach.  So when you pontificate about how truthers are the only ones brave enough to challenge the official story and state things about the mental state and decision-making processes of hundreds of thousands of experts, yea, I ask, apparently unreasonably to you, how you can possibly know that.  I've come up with two options, either you have extensive psychological training beyond what I think is even possible, or you are a telepath.  You disagree with this analysis so far?  It's in full compliance with non-pseudo-skepticism by the way.  And you seem to consistently find where skepticism naturally takes you, to the "we don't know" position, to be anathema; you've got a sale to close/debate to 'win', so that won't do.  Long story short, you'd be taken a little more seriously about your ideas about skepticism if you would actually put it into practice against points other than the ones that oppose your pet theory.

Yes, ‘how do you know that?’ is an excellent question.  But your presentation of the situation above is horribly backward.  Let’s get it straight – it was initially your claim, your argument, your denial which raised that the WTC demolition theory cannot be correct due to these hundreds of thousands of experts who have not protested in its favour.  It is very firmly you who profess to know their mindset upon which your argument depends.  And yes, indeed to that I speculate of the possibilities which show that your contention is unproven – my line of reasoning here is a counter to your pontification.  I don’t think we should be drawing conclusions based on any of this – you do.  I don’t believe the number of experts either side of the fence prove our arguments right or wrong either way (I mentioned to you before how I don’t put too much faith in ‘experts’) – apparently you do; it was your initial argument – it was your claim they should all be coming forward.  I most often raise experts as a defensive line, to challenge others’ arguments when required.  Look what sparked it on this thread – your comment about lacking ‘headway’ in the professional community.  With that straightened out, I put your own two options to you.

Liquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Which then leads to the state of your circumstantial evidence.  I've tried to explain this to you a few times, but maybe if I quote someone else it might sink in.  The following is from worldlawdirect.com:

"However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility."

See that 'benefit of the doubt' part and who has the burden, Mr. (Selective) Fairness?  Have you provided anything that doesn't have a non-demolition alternative?

You don’t need to explain that to me, I already raised this potential problem of circumstantial evidence first on the other thread, post #457: “this [reliance on circumstantial evidence] makes it terribly difficult to prove the overall case to anyone who wants to take up an opposing position”.

Now perhaps prove you are not a pseudo-skeptic and, instead of avoiding it as you have done to date, apply your quote and ‘benefit of the doubt’ to judgments of the official story.  For one example, the circumstantial evidence that the guilt of bin Laden, for which we went to war, relies upon.  I’ll say it again because it’s so important – the version of skepticism you have demonstrated leads to war, mine leads first to investigation.

Regarding the general state of circumstantial evidence, when all is considered for the official story and an alternative version of events, the corroboration of facts within every area of 9/11 favours the latter.  This is not coincidence, nor should it be the case given a ‘natural’ terrorist attack.  This is why I hold my views.  It didn’t come with any one piece of evidence, thus why I say no one piece of evidence is ‘best’.  It is only with a holding and understanding of all circumstances and evidence before, during and after 9/11 (and it is vast) that one can confidently reach the conclusions I have – a level of research which you yourself admit to being far from.  Perhaps this is a contributing reason to why my conclusions come across as disproportionally confident to yourself – you just don’t currently see what I do, whether for want or lack of knowledge, and I can’t hope to put it all down in any single post.

Liquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

So now you've provided real evidence of importance on TT?  I thought I had made this clear before so let me make it explicit (beyond the obvious that I can comment on whatever, whenever, at my leisure, when it is good for me; ya know, the exact same latitude you allow yourself).  Here's the familiar pattern:  you make a claim; I look it up and research it, including like a good pseudo-skeptic the arguments against your position; I find that, wow, you've overstated/exaggerated/neglected-all-other-possibilities in your original claim, we discuss it, and all too often end up with gems like (paraphrased) 'well it could be' and 'it'd be naive to think' and 'this is made credible by the all the other evidence', as well as excuses like 'what's the matter if I'm a over-certain'.  Every time you do this, it increases the amount of time I need to spend researching, I can't take anything you say as being true without assuming there's a boatload of unmentioned qualifications that take time, and work, for me to look into.

Yes, real evidence of importance, as opposed to a sideshow argument about whether that one author permitted 2,000 words and another permitted 2-3 times more words is ‘fair’ and as a result of politics.  It’s a diversion, irrelevant to evidence of the 9/11 false flag.  On the Talking Turkey thread I have provided information that the CIA and a Saudi government agent assisted the hijackers prior to the attack – that is not in doubt, all left to determine is if that assistance was intentional or not.  And if we cannot determine it beyond doubt, then you have no right to deny support to an investigation through misplaced confidence in the official story.

Leading on from the above, I do believe that what you describe as my “gems” and “excuses” are legitimate.  Well, legitimate cause for concern and investigation, not so legitimate when you produce exactly the same level of gems and excuses that went on to support a war.  You must understand that whenever either of us calls ‘well it could be’ in regard to 9/11, that we have a problem – more so for the official story considering a war was based on the event.  But I think I already know what you will do in response to that information on the Talking Turkey thread – produce exactly such speculation as ‘well it could be’ and in your overconfidence declare everything satisfactory; no investigation needed.  Again, I hope you prove me wrong.

Liquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

You are very certain right now; how would your position change if one of your Israeli agents was to come forward and confess to setting up a demolition, maybe with some explanations of what the demolitions were actually composed of instead of your appeal to a thermite demolition from the early 20th Century and a patent application?  Would you then be super very certain?  Because if that were to occur, it would be better evidence than pretty much all the 'evidence and logic' you've provided so far combined.  Do you disagree, maybe not with the 'combined' part (see this is how you qualify statements and note that you may be exaggerating), but if that were to occur it would be the best piece of evidence yet?  Doesn't that tell you anything about how strong your current evidence isn't?

Obviously my position wouldn’t change at all, though this appears the type of confession you are waiting on to change your mind... actually, I still don’t think you would change your mind, rather you would produce a gem or excuse, criticise me for ever raising it and appeal to your perception of my overconfidence.  Also above you have misrepresented/downplayed the evidence for thermite initiating the demolition.  If the example of the 20^th century thermite demolition and the thermite demolition patent are the best you can come up with, then clearly your knowledge of the full evidence and logic is lacking – those were only two examples, of which there are others, simply to demonstrate the method viable to pseudo-skeptical minds (office fire can weaken steel but not a 2,000^oC thermite reaction against a column they cry, hmm?).

Liquid Gardens, on 18 October 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

If you think that all your evidence is at the level of the 'media had foreknowledge' evidence (jesus man, even I can think of better evidence you've provided than that laugher) then there probably is going to be no bridging the gulf between us and our continued discussion is likely pointless and will just devolve into who can be a bigger smartass (you'll lose in that contest by the way), and I honestly have no desire for my discussions with you to devolve to boony and swan levels (not that those aren't instructive and entertaining of course).

You are misrepresenting my argument again.  It’s more that reporters on scene picked up on the WTC7 collapse foreknowledge, and such was overwhelming (some would say ‘unnatural’) certainty of that foreknowledge, it led to the media’s increasing confidence and even mistaken announcement that the building had already come down.  This somewhat conflicts with the fact it was allegedly an unpredictable/yet to be determined, first time in history event... yet fits well a demolition scenario, predictable in time and nature.  Sure it’s not a confession, but it’s one snippet of evidence to consider along with everything else.  I have to keep repeating that because it’s important to understand there’s no single piece of evidence that’s going to ‘blow your socks off’.  The process of understanding is to build the case until comes ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’.  Do you know I researched 9/11 for two years striving to understand the full evidence available, all the while holding out that the official story may be accurate, before I took my current position or dared produce anything like the confidence I do now?  It’s not a view you can easily take on after accepting the official narrative for so long and your selective derision of individual points says only to me that your wider knowledge and/or understanding are lacking.

Also to add, I’m sure you know it’s not cool to be a bigger smartass so you’re welcome to win that one.  And if I do come across like a smartass I’m sorry about that, it’s not intended, more a result of another cause – confidence or frustration for many reasons, being honest to a fault with my opinion, humour or just my tone not translating well into text, etc.  I know the discussion can seem a little personal sometimes, as I see it that’s unavoidable when large disagreements arise and we get into why we each think the way we do, but I am enjoying your posts, so far – I wouldn’t be challenging you to respond on the Talking Turkey thread otherwise.

Edited by Q24, 19 October 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 19 October 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

The fact is that AE911T verify members, including those you questioned, to the best of their ability.  Of course there are times the licensing authority cannot give out information due to the data protection act.  However, from the information AE911T provided me, including business contact details of the individuals which I won’t repeat here, there is no doubt in my mind about their credentials.  All you’ve really done is sling a bit of mud because clearly you don’t like that 1,700+ qualified architects and engineers demand a new investigation and would personally prefer to discredit them.  Please do let us know when in your investigation you come up with any actual evidence of those professionals not being who they say they are.

After having read through some of the "personal 9/11 statements" for many of the listed members over there, I don't think that it is fair or accurate to state that they all "demand a new investigation."  Some of them seem to be a little less emphatic than that, to put it lightly, and some don't appear to agree with everything that Gage claims.

At least we can see that Will E. Schenck doesn't agree with part of the Gage doctrine.  How many others just have questions regarding WTC7 and nothing else?  Speaking of which, just how informed can Mr. Schenck actually be if he refers to the 9/11 Commission Report regarding WTC7?  WTC7 wasn't even within the purview of the 9/11 Commission.

How about Azin Valy, who's personal statement is "It wouldn't hurt to do an independent investigation by highly qualified professionals."  Does he buy the whole package or is he just open to the idea of having another investigation for the heck of it?

I'm sure there are more, though I don't plan to read them all.

This is why I asked about why these groups like AE911Truth don't clarify which points their members agree or disagree on.  It wouldn't be hard to develop a poll and have their members vote on it.  This would also serve to illustrate how many are actually active and how many may have just signed up on a whim after watching some 9/11 propaganda video like Blueprint.

Edited by booNyzarC, 19 October 2012 - 04:33 PM.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

After having read through some of the "personal 9/11 statements" for many of the listed members over there, I don't think that it is fair or accurate to state that they all "demand a new investigation."  Some of them seem to be a little less emphatic than that, to put it lightly, and some don't appear to agree with everything that Gage claims.

Err... that’s why they are on the petition... to demand a new investigation.  Agreed that not all accept every point of Gage’s argument, neither do I... but the single uniting cause is a new and independent investigation; dissatisfaction with state of the official theory.

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

At least we can see that Will E. Schenck doesn't agree with part of the Gage doctrine.  How many others just have questions regarding WTC7 and nothing else?  Speaking of which, just how informed can Mr. Schenck actually be if he refers to the 9/11 Commission Report regarding WTC7?  WTC7 wasn't even within the purview of the 9/11 Commission.

Perhaps Mr. Schenck registered prior to the NIST WTC7 report and so refers to the lacking 9/11 Commission solution?  Then how do we know he still wants a new investigation?  Perhaps because he indicates agreement with some of the points for demolition and is still signed on the AE911T petition?

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

How about Azin Valy, who's personal statement is "It wouldn't hurt to do an independent investigation by highly qualified professionals."  Does he buy the whole package or is he just open to the idea of having another investigation for the heck of it?

I think we should give benefit of the doubt that Mr. Valy is intelligent and demands a new independent investigation for a reason, even if only to shore-up lacking areas and question marks of the government agency account.

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

This is why I asked about why these groups like AE911Truth don't clarify which points their members agree or disagree on.  It wouldn't be hard to develop a poll and have their members vote on it.  This would also serve to illustrate how many are actually active and how many may have just signed up on a whim after watching some 9/11 propaganda video like Blueprint.

I think that might be difficult to co-ordinate but I’ll ask Gage on your behalf and let you know of the response.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q, just a quick note as I'm on my lunch hour.  I did not really intend to 'attack' you, and although I'm sure I probably said things in my snarkiness that could be interpreted that way, I do not intend any of it as a personal attack.  I let the reins off of my natural smartassedness because I was irked by the implication that I'm discussing other issues on other threads, 'sideshows' as I think you put them, because I'm avoiding the real points, especially if that implication is that you've really delivered a 'gotcha' point that I can't or won't respond to.  Beyond the obvious that you have no say how I get to spend my time, and vice versa and I wouldn't expect I do, I have mentioned several times that I get too busy to respond and that the TT points require more of my time than posts like this that take about as long as it takes to type it out, so I don't think I've left you in the dark on that.  In my research I had found a debate summary from someone (I want to say 'Mohr' but not sure), and it was interesting but it had a list I think of about 200 points on it.  When I look at the TT thread and that it's been going on for 5 months, I did have a wave of despair as I don't want to slog through all 200 points, and lately I've felt like my responses have felt a little more like 'work' than fun, not that that is your fault.

I will try and give you a more thorough response to some of the other things in this post later, just because I think it will help clarify the context of our conversation going forward, or at least how I perceive it.  And as always I appreciate your response here.  I do not think you are like a lot of the other CTs and I mean that as a compliment.  One of the primary reasons I was interested in conversing with you after W Tell got bogged down with real life is that I saw you criticize fellow CTs' theories (might have been one of the no-planer ones), and I respect that.  It indicated to me that it's not about 'sides' and alliances with you but the argument and evidence itself, even though these same people most likely agree with you on the demolition, and I thought a lot of how you responded to it would be largely how I would have responded to it.  I think I'm going to move this convo over to TT also where I think it's more appropriate to the subject of the thread also.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 19 October 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

Q, just a quick note as I'm on my lunch hour.  I did not really intend to 'attack' you, and although I'm sure I probably said things in my snarkiness that could be interpreted that way, I do not intend any of it as a personal attack.  I let the reins off of my natural smartassedness because I was irked by the implication that I'm discussing other issues on other threads, 'sideshows' as I think you put them, because I'm avoiding the real points, especially if that implication is that you've really delivered a 'gotcha' point that I can't or won't respond to.  Beyond the obvious that you have no say how I get to spend my time, and vice versa and I wouldn't expect I do, I have mentioned several times that I get too busy to respond and that the TT points require more of my time than posts like this that take about as long as it takes to type it out, so I don't think I've left you in the dark on that.

Well honestly that is my implication, that you’re hitting on the easy/minor points and (what’s another word for “avoiding” that’s not so provocative?)... oh heck... avoiding difficult/important points.  It’s as easy to click on a link to Omar Bayoumi as to the ASCE journal guidelines.  Of course you can respond when and where you like, though when I receive response in one area in preference to another, it does suggest that I ‘gotcha’.  Ok wait, before you or booNy point out how I didn’t have the time or will to respond to booNy’s posts on Talking Turkey - the big difference there is that we had been over the same topic multiple times previously.

Liquid Gardens, on 19 October 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

I will try and give you a more thorough response to some of the other things in this post later, just because I think it will help clarify the context of our conversation going forward, or at least how I perceive it.  And as always I appreciate your response here.  I do not think you are like a lot of the other CTs and I mean that as a compliment.  One of the primary reasons I was interested in conversing with you after W Tell got bogged down with real life is that I saw you criticize fellow CTs' theories (might have been one of the no-planer ones), and I respect that.  It indicated to me that it's not about 'sides' and alliances with you but the argument and evidence itself, even though these same people most likely agree with you on the demolition, and I thought a lot of how you responded to it would be largely how I would have responded to it.

Exactly.  And there is a point about concessions which you raised.  If you look at my furthest back post regarding the Pentagon event, you will see that I leaned toward a missile theory.  The evidence that I came across since has led me away from that and to accept an aircraft impact.  You can also ask booNy... he thought I was rather rational when supporting one of his arguments, and that I turned crazy when I didn’t agree with him elsewhere... but I didn’t, it’s the same standards throughout.  Or just Google my posts on Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT forums (at least those which weren’t deleted) to see the abuse I received from... ahem, truthers... when disputing their theories. The conclusion must be it is your argument and evidence which are falling short!  So whilst I am happy to oppose conspiracy theories, are there any which you lean toward believing or even any in history which you accept as having been proven?  I’m wondering, what were the levels of evidence that you required?  You know when I raise that point about a ‘confession’, what I’m really asking is, what would be enough for you?  Or is the side you’re on the side you’re on, and that is that?

Liquid Gardens, on 19 October 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

I think I'm going to move this convo over to TT also where I think it's more appropriate to the subject of the thread also.

Ok, good idea, I’ll find it.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 19 October 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

Ok, who do you think you’re kidding?  I think you know exactly what I’m saying – your stall is clearly set out.  I’ve seen it many times... the new member joins a discussion, claims to be objective (perhaps even fooling themselves)... it’s effective but never lasts long before their true/existing beliefs takeover.  I’ve never seen anyone change their mind  to any significant degree after committing to a position... they either have an open mind from the start or they don’t; they either have the ability to accept a 9/11 false flag or they don’t.

I hear of people promoting a 9/11 false flag, but they haven't a clue as to how the government could have pulled it off and not get caught. First of all, where are you going to get the funding and the people? Secondly, how are you going to acquire aircraft and not raise suspicions later on? Acquiring and owning an aircraft leave behind paper trails.

Quote

I have no problem providing a complete evidence based case for the demolition (except that it would be a mammoth task in a single post).

Looking at the facts, there is no evidence of explosions nor that explosives were used in the WTC videos nor on monitors. Simply hearing a noise that sounds like an explosion isn't real evidence because many people have reported hearing sounds of explosions in other incidents where the sound was later attributed to something else other than explosives.

And remember, thermite is not an explosive. What can be found in thermite, can also be found in materials used within the WTC buildings.

Quote

I did notice that each time I attempted to turn the discussion toward that aim of evidence for the demolition previously on the Talking Turkey thread you haven’t responded for whatever reason.  For example, the WTC2 molten flow,...

Since the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, but high enough to weaken steel and melt aluminum, the molten flow seen in the photos and on video, was aluminum, which was evident in the photos where aluminum droplets are seen falling. In fact, I even posted a photo of what an aluminum droplet looks like, which was taken from the wreckage of a C-141 after fire destroyed the aircraft at Travis AFB, where I was a witness. Tons of aluminum was used in the facade of the WTC towers and tons of aluminum was used in the construction of the B-767s.

Quote

...the witness evidence of explosions, amongst more.

People around the world have reported hearing sounds of explosions during incidents, which were later attributed to something else other than explosives, so someone reporting hearing an explosion doesn't mean a thing if there is no evidence to back up the claim and in the case of 9/11, there is not a shred of evidence supporting any claim that explosives were used.


So we never really got going in that direction - the discussion remained focussed on failure of the official studies.  I do think that is an important area for consideration, but don’t criticise me for following that line when your responses, or lack of, determined the way ahead.

[Liquid Gardens]

Q24, on 19 October 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Well honestly that is my implication, that you’re hitting on the easy/minor points and (what’s another word for “avoiding” that’s not so provocative?)... oh heck... avoiding difficult/important points.  It’s as easy to click on a link to Omar Bayoumi as to the ASCE journal guidelines.  Of course you can respond when and where you like, though when I receive response in one area in preference to another, it does suggest that I ‘gotcha’.  Ok wait, before you or booNy point out how I didn’t have the time or will to respond to booNy’s posts on Talking Turkey - the big difference there is that we had been over the same topic multiple times previously.

I appreciate your honesty, but as usual you select one possibility, and miracle of miracles, it's the one that makes you look the best, a 'gotcha'.  Did you read anything I said about skepticism and 'how do you know that'?  Your assertion here fails on that front, there are other explanations, like the one I've specifically laid out:  it's stupid for me to respond to you without looking into the evidence, I don't know which things will take a click and which things are going to take hours.  And as I said, the way you state your positions and your over-certainty and salesmanship is partly responsible for the additional time I have to take.

Let's turn this around and see if you can see it a little clearer.  You just told me on this thread in the discussion of the evidence for the political bias, that you 'can't be bothered'.  Apparently though you can be bothered to almost immediately after it carpet-bomb sky with a post of quotes though and carry on with boony.  My point then must have been a gotcha that you are 'avoiding', using your same logic.  Right?  After work today I can do some laundry or I can paint my bedroom.  I'm not going to paint my bedroom because I don't have enough time; it's not because I don't want to or that I'm 'avoiding' it, I have prioritized my available time.  Shall I infer and automatically claim victory when you can't be bothered, feel a conversation has run it's course, or get bored?  I won't because it's illogical, so I don't know why you do.  The fact is I don't remember actually where we've left off exactly on TT, I haven't looked yet.  If you are requiring me to respond to you in some kind of order or else you're going to gloat, then set that rule up front.  'Easy' and 'minor' are also in the eye of the beholder, and since there is no 'best evidence', then that kinda means that there aren't any minor points anyway.

Quote

Exactly.  And there is a point about concessions which you raised.  If you look at my furthest back post regarding the Pentagon event, you will see that I leaned toward a missile theory.  The evidence that I came across since has led me away from that and to accept an aircraft impact.  You can also ask booNy... he thought I was rather rational when supporting one of his arguments, and that I turned crazy when I didn’t agree with him elsewhere... but I didn’t, it’s the same standards throughout.  Or just Google my posts on Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT forums (at least those which weren’t deleted) to see the abuse I received from... ahem, truthers... when disputing their theories. The conclusion must be it is your argument and evidence which are falling short!  

Look at that tiny little premise on which you are basing your 'must be' conclusion:  'it's the same standards throughout'.  You think very highly, although not very modestly, about your own reasoning capabilities; they must be consistent, it can't be that you are incorrect and that other people's reasoning capabilities are superior in some cases.  But "how do you know this?"  What exactly is your position on skepticism?  You do understand that everybody, everybody, has to work at critical thinking, there are a whole host of fallacies and illogical arguments that are very easy to fall prey to, and everybody does fall prey at some point.  I'm probably having trouble understanding your point here, but it seems that you are saying 'well, you agreed with me on this point but you don't on this other one, and my reasoning skills are perfect, so the conclusion must be that your arguments and evidence are insufficient".  Nice syllogism, but you've got a substantial problem with one of your premises if so.  On the good side, I do like to at least see some realistic wording: 'leaned' toward a missle theory.

Quote

So whilst I am happy to oppose conspiracy theories, are there any which you lean toward believing or even any in history which you accept as having been proven?  I’m wondering, what were the levels of evidence that you required?  You know when I raise that point about a ‘confession’, what I’m really asking is, what would be enough for you?  Or is the side you’re on the side you’re on, and that is that?

I don't know why you keep harping on this implication that my mind is made up and 'that is that'; seriously, it can very easily be applied to you just as well, your statements are not devoid of the red flags of possible bias.  Interesting question though, although I'd have to think about what I consider to be a conspiracy theory, can you offer me an example of what you consider a conspiracy theory that is the best founded?

[MID]

flyingswan, on 19 October 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

This arose after someone joined AE911T claiming membership of a UK engineering institution.  AE911T claim that they contact the licensing authority to verify qualifications.  I contacted the institution in question and they said that for privacy reasons they don't provide information on members and AE911T had never asked them to verify details of any of their members.

Rather like any organization with the word "Truth" in it's title..that has been formed since 9-11-01!

The idiotic statements made by the so-called "specialists and engineers" give it away today, as they did years back...

These clowns can't even recognize idiocy when it's spewed into their faces.  But using it as part of their base of operations?

Whew...it makes me wonder what I do here on these threads?!


Ooooh yea!
Yes, Truth is required about 9-11!

And I think there'll be 100 other truths advanced in the next decade, by all sorts of experts and analysts--all of them using false credentials and lack of evidentiary knowledge to describe their new theory, but as it is today, those new theories will purposefully ignore the 9-11 analysts, actual architects and other engineers, who executed a oainstaking engineering analysis and published their findings...scientifically astute, and verified as they all are.

But still, someone won't bother with learning about that, and we'll still have nonsensical alternative " theories".   I'm not looking for any swift resolution to the situation!