Yet ANOTHER architect dismisses "official" story

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 2, 2011.

  1. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IOW, according to truthers
     
  2. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah science does tend to be obsessed with truth.

    But yeah must be wrong opinion according to you... why are you arguing? Do you honestly think that drawing inferences from evidence you've NOT looked for in the first place is the proper way to do science?
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I only have you sneeringly posting that you reached your conclusion via the 'scientific method'...seems to me you have just been critiquing and parsing the word of the NIST,without specifics
     
  4. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dude, you're that obsessed with 9/11 truthers that you post here from your phone?!? :omg:


    :mobile:
     
  5. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you quote me where I "sneeringly post" that I have reached my conclusion using the scientific method?

    I only commented about NIST's conclusions here, and damm right I will critique their methods because these methods are unscientific and possibly misleading and/or ambiguous.

    That's all I'm saying, and I've made it very clear how and why I think a particular method wasn't good, specifically.. If you dispute any of this critique then by all means quote it and explain why you think the method is okay and why the problems associated to it do NOT apply.

    I have told you specifically some pieces of evidence they should have been explained and reconciled but they didn't. We were just talking about a VERY specific piece known as the swiss cheese steel from the FEMA appendix. And you interrupt that with vague heckling and now it's not specific enough for you?

    Let me ask you this: Say you have six cards in front of you, all of them face down.. You flip over one of them; it is a jack of clubs.. Which approach has led to a more certain conclusion:

    1) because you saw that the one card was a jack, you decide that none of the other cards are jacks because you've already found a jack. You proclaim this to be the case even though no other cards have been turned over.

    2) you flip over ALL the cards and determine that no other cards are a jack because you have seen them all.
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,006
    Likes Received:
    1,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think a better indication would be post rate, rather then method of access.

    You joined this forum 6 days after I did, yet you've posted 120 more posts then I have. I'd wager a bet that says all of these posts were in the 9/11 forum.

    Who's more obsessed with the topic?
     
  7. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's a big difference being obsessed with the truth versus being obsessed with truthers.
     
  8. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well paying jobs are tough to find these days, as are employees with such dedication. Airports 24/7, wherever. I do admire that level of dedication.
     

Share This Page