Experts speak out in new film

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Jul 30, 2011.

  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Spoken like a genuine 'truthseeker': "forget the embarrassing flaws of the OP, I want to change the focus!"

    Has anyone bothered to watch 'Fraud's link? No? Gage will be quite upset, I imagine.
     
  2. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,915
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You said that you misunderstood my intent because I said that I could show proof of the claim. I did not say that I could show proof. I said the exact opposite. You didn't misunderstand because I was ambiguous, as you claimed. You misunderstood because you don't know how to read.

    You misunderstood and blamed me for your confusion.

    I was not to blame for your failure to read the post.

    That's the point of that post.
     
  3. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LMAO! Are you for real? This film is just SO important, isn't it?

    Let me remind everyone what your FIRST post on this thread was, all the way back on page 1 :

    That's odd.. Didn't seem too interested in the movie in the op back then, did you?

    YOU decided to follow on a tangeant, completely off topic, about trends in truther beliefs, INSTEAD of giving two (*)(*)(*)(*)s about the stupid movie.

    THEN when called out on the comments you chose THIS THREAD as your opportunity to make, suddenly it's all "what about the movie? What happened to the op" and constant whining and complaining about going off topic only wanting to focus on the film that all YOU had to say about was "yawn".

    Now, many times I find the thing I'm arguing about isn't at all even close to what the thread's about.. You know what? I don't care.. I'm not too scared and I'm not a copout. If you make comments, anywhere, you should STAND BEHIND them. End of.

    But it seems some people like to spout nonsense, try to get people to think or believe a certain thing, with NO CARE about what the thread is about, but then just chicken out when called on their comments about how off topic their (*)(*)(*)(*) being debunked happens to be.

    Based on what you've been saying here, you seem to know not only the trend about this opinion decline, but even pinpointed the year! That's great! How'd you manage to do that? What do the numbers say for 2008 that's a departure from previous trends? I'll give you one last chance to be a man and stand behind the statement that you made.
     
  4. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You DID say you could show proof. I believe your exact words were, "Oh, I'm sure I could compile lists of active members and seek out lists of defunct truth groups to show the decline in 9/11 conspiracy belief."

    You couldn't compile any lists.. "What would that prove" can mean any number of things, suchas implications that I wouldn't be convinced even with the real proof you dug up so it wouldn't work..

    Now if the line is NOT TRUE, that you AREN'T saying you could compile these lists like you said, is if this was a false statement.. Then you're either lying, or you're being saracastic.. Unfortunatily words on a computer screen can't convey sarcasm.
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it isn't. I'm trying to get those that support it to say why they support it.

    So far, they seem unable to. Even the thread starter can't say which expert he finds the most compelling.

    Can you? Or will you try to make this thread all about me, instead?
     
  6. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The OP means, look at the film, the available information, and decide for yourself.
    Focusing on yourself is all part of your objective, as well as pretending everyone else is as well.
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you are saying to watch it, but don't discuss it.

    Admit it, you haven't even watched it yourself, have you?

    Another impotent 'truther' video, shilled out to the ignorant.

    Since 'truthers' cower from actually discussing the video in question, let's pose this question:

    Why aren't these 'experts' publishing their findings in respected papers and journals, and enlightening their fellow experts? Why do they lend their faces to a man whose main venue lately has been kook conventions?

    Enlighten us, 'truthseekers'.
     
  8. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Instead of spinning...perhaps you could reference a SPECIFIC you're trying to force everyone outside the team to acknowledge, or have a problem with?
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not 'spinning' anything. I've been asking anyone who actually watched the video which expert they find the most compelling.

    So far, no one has been able to answer this very simple question. I don't think anyone (including yourself) has watched it.
     
  10. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So...you have no comments on the experts...only comments on the observers?

    Refocus....ridicule...redirect. Outstanding effort.
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, you're wrong again ... try to follow along:

    Which which expert in the video you linked to do you find the most compelling?

    Let's discuss that expert and their findings.
     
  12. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,915
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did not say I could show proof. I said the opposite. I said that a list of truth group members would prove "absolutely nothing." You read what you wanted to read and then blamed me for your mistake.

    Again. The semantics game. You suck at it.
     
  13. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That wasn't your agenda back on page 1.. Nevertheless I don't care, you chose THIS thread to make an argument about public opinion and you are refusing to show evidence for your claim. No doubt this is because you HAVE NO evidence and you're making things up.

    I'm not trying to make it about YOU, I'm trying to dispute the comment that you made in this thread.

    Am I not allowed to challenge the comments you make on this forum or something?

    Since you don't have the guts to stand behind your comment or admit you made it up, I'll indulge.

    I agree with the statement made by Gage where he says the NIST report wasn't valid science. I'm not saying I agree with anything else or even I find it "compelling", but I agree with the necessity to have a real scientific investigation instead of the government spin report.

    And before you go asking, "why isn't it valid science" and all that, just remember that I've already been over that ages ago and nobody had anything to say about it.

    To recap, real science investigates and evaluates ALL evidence and produce an explanation that reconciles with ALL available evidence and observations.

    What NIST chose to do was only look at some evidence, while not considering other evidence or explaining its position in their explanation..

    1) Swiss cheese steel.. This is the perforated piece of steel that FEMA said needed further examination in the continuation of the inquiry. Instead, NIST said NOTHING about this steel and brushed it under the rug.. They did not make an explanation that could accomodate this evidence and how it got that way per such explanation.

    2) Selective evidence gathering.. Real science looks at ALL available evidence and observations, and makes an explanation that reconciles with EVERYTHING we have and see. Instead, NIST decided to, on the LIE that nobody heard any sounds of explosions, say they did NOT EVEN CHECK for evidence of explosive demolitions. Why not? Real science would have said, we examined all we could and looked for evidence of explosives.. We didn't find evidence of explosives so we could rule that out.. Instead they said they DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER looking for this evidence, but STILL arbitrarily ruled it out anyway! That's not science.

    3) Their own physical tests.. Of the TINY ammount of things they did in real life instead of their little virtual concoction, the results did NOT fit the explanation.. Their office burn test actually showed the temperatures needed to be much HIGHER than they managed to demonstrate in their simulations and their findings. So REAL science would have explained how those temperatures were met, NOT just brush under the rug the physical test that disproves their explanation and pretend it didn't happen.

    All the NIST report is is them programming a computer game, playing around with the input parameters, until they made pixellated towers fall on their computer screen.
     
  14. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They have.. Feel free to review any of the many studies done by various scientists and experts here:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/

    What's the point in arguing about all the truthers here about demolitions and such while pretending pier reviewed proffessional opinion doesn't exist, instead of just go look at these studies and debunk the source yourself?

    You could even pop 'round to the Open Chemical Physics Journal and debunk Steven Jone's and multiple other scientists when they claim they found evidence of thermite and such:

    http://www.benthamscience.com/open/...J.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

    Hopefully this will provide enough amusement for many plane rides to come. Joy!
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The J.O.N.E.S.? Hilarious. Do you really want to dig into that 'journal' to find evidence?

    The article in Bentham has been debunked long ago. Start with chain of custody and go forward. The very publishers at Bentham distanced themselves from that fiction.

    No trips this week, home with the family.
     
  16. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You said they only post non-peer reviewably and hide from enduring the criticizm of their own scientific community..

    You were wrong.. Many scientists and experts have submitted PEER REVIEWED studies for OPEN critique, your lie about them shying away from publishing peer reviewed and avoiding such critique nonwithstanding. Whether or not they were debunked or not, I could care less, the point is your statement about how these people don't put their theories to the peer review process is demonstratably false.
     
  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I stand by what I said. Neither the J.O.N.E.S. nor the Bentham paper were properly peer reviewed. (Reviewing your own work does not count as 'peer review')
     
  18. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what are you waiting for? The studies are there, go debunk them!
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Already did. Years ago. It's old news that only 'truthers' think is still relevant.
     
  20. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can I read your critique paper please?
     
  21. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's a little contradiction for you: Late last year a 'truther' group received NIST's burn video database via the FOIA.

    What does it show? It shows that NIST reports were not only based on rigorous testing, but that engineers, academics and scientists explicitly tested conspiratorial claims. This includes testing for bombs, explosive residue and thermite residue.

    Literally tons of information at the link.
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's all over the archives of this message board, and others.

    Time for research, 'truthseeker'.
     
  23. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow... No doubt I can't dispute that is literally TONS of information there! Wow.. Bloody dozens if not hundreds of GIGAbytes worth.

    So show us the part where NIST looked for explosive residue.. (NIST admitted they didn't look for it! Why would they say that if they did indeed look for it?)

    Also show which of those many gigabytes worth of files they managed to reconcile the results of their physical office burn test into their simulation findings, as the report itself doesn't contain this.
     
  24. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What your critique paper is here on this board?

    Where? Link please?

    I didn't know you really peer reviewed Steven Jones.. I want to see this! Link to the critique paper please.
     
  25. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    40 gigs total. Happy researching.

    Check out 42A0016 for one example explosive residue testing. It's one of the smaller files.
     

Share This Page