• What Happened to WTC Building 7 on 9/11?
    1,009 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TH89;24985050]There's nothing to discredit. I explained why such a massive conspiracy would need a massive number of conspirators. All you really responded with was "well, one reason why there weren't any whistleblowers could be because there weren't very many people in the conspiracy." What am I supposed to say to that?[/QUOTE] Lock the thread for theorist selective reading. Just about the only way of getting shudo to stop.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24986940] Also, hello again. I remember arguing about this two threads ago with you, and we're still going over exactly the same material. TH89, please, for the love of god ban him for being a troll.[/QUOTE] Don't ban him, if you do he'll just come back saying "Ha ha you guys are blind taking in the guv'mts lies hueueuheuheu"
[QUOTE=teeheeV2;24987004]Lock the thread for theorist selective reading. Just about the only way of getting shudo to stop.[/QUOTE] Garry wants people to be able to express their opinions. Even if we think they're dumb.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;24987005]Don't ban him, if you do he'll just come back saying "Ha ha you guys are blind taking in the guv'mts lies hueueuheuheu"[/QUOTE] -Snip, Word of God-
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986302]TH89 didn't exactly post 'factual support' either. lol[/QUOTE] I don't want to continue this thread, but TH post can be sourced with common sense, if you actually read it.
[QUOTE=TH89;24986859]So what you're saying is "the difference between creationists creating a fake journal to publish their papers and 9/11 truthers creating a fake journal to publish their papers is that creationists are wrong"?[/QUOTE] No, the point I was trying to get across is that people trying to support the 9/11 conspiracies will lose immense credibility from their superiors, peers, etc. [B]even[/B] if what the paper says is true. With creationists, the only thing hindering (happy?) them is the fact that people look at their findings and can plainly see that what they're saying is false. To claim the same is true for every and all conspiracy would be ignorant, as conspiracies in the past have proven true. Not all, but enough.
I can't think of any conspiracy theories turned true that weren't part of House or LOST, care to point me in the right direction
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24987223]No, the point I was trying to get across is that people trying to support the 9/11 conspiracies will lose immense credibility from their superiors, peers, etc. [B]even[/B] if what the paper says is true. With creationists, the only thing hindering (happy?) them is the fact that people look at their findings and can plainly see that what they're saying is false. To claim the same is true for conspiracies would be ignorant, as conspiracies in the past have proven true. Not all, but some.[/QUOTE] That doesn't excuse foreign journals. Or wikileaks. There are more ways and means, and they just aren't providing them. [quote]as conspiracies in the past have proven true. Not all, but some.[/quote] Like what, exactly?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24987223]No, the point I was trying to get across is that people trying to support the 9/11 conspiracies will lose immense credibility from their superiors, peers, etc. [B]even[/B] if what the paper says is true. With creationists, the only thing hindering (happy?) them is the fact that people look at their findings and can plainly see that what they're saying is false. To claim the same is true for every and all conspiracy would be ignorant, as conspiracies in the past have proven true. Not all, but enough.[/QUOTE] The scientific community is a democracy, you're not going to get "Eww your idea is something I don't like so I'll disregard it" That's not how it works. The most interesting thing that can happen in the scientific community is something that drastically overturns existing data. To be honest I'm sure there are mane scientists that do want for it to be an inside job, but because they are honest, they're not going to go out and lie about it until there is actual, peer reviewable evidence. And are you saying that "Conspiracies have been proven true therefore this is a conspiracy"?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24987223]No, the point I was trying to get across is that people trying to support the 9/11 conspiracies will lose immense credibility from their superiors, peers, etc. [B]even[/B] if what the paper says is true. With creationists, the only thing hindering (happy?) them is the fact that people look at their findings and can plainly see that what they're saying is false. To claim the same is true for every and all conspiracy would be ignorant, as conspiracies in the past have proven true. Not all, but enough.[/QUOTE] If they submitted an article to be peer-reviewed and it was correct, I doubt they would lose credibility.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24987223]No, the point I was trying to get across is that people trying to support the 9/11 conspiracies will lose immense credibility from their superiors, peers, etc. [B]even[/B] if what the paper says is true. [/QUOTE] Prove it.
[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;24987294]If they submitted an article to be peer-reviewed and it was correct, I doubt they would lose credibility.[/QUOTE] Exactly. People wouldn't go 'oh haha not this again lol fag' if it was decent evidence provided by a decent scientist. [editline]11:23PM[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;24987299]Prove it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24987261]That doesn't excuse foreign journals. Or wikileaks. There are more ways and means, and they just aren't providing them. Like what, exactly?[/QUOTE] I can think of Watergate right now. But yeah peer review is not a kindergarten, it's a huge collection of incredibly smart people in their field.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;24987323]I can think of Watergate right now.[/QUOTE] Watergate and Hindenburg I can give you, but the problem is they didn't have bunch of people pointing, posting things on the Internet saying "Aha, something is going on! Look look! Guys guys it's over there, I just wish, like, a security guard would accidentally overhear or something... look at my evidence! I'M NOT CRAZY!" They were more "Huh, look at what I just found -tells the press-"
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24987261]That doesn't excuse foreign journals. Or wikileaks. There are more ways and means, and they just aren't providing them. Like what, exactly?[/QUOTE] Providing? Maybe using? FFFFFFF automerge. I'm never going to get used to being a Grammar Nazi. In any case, it's time for me to head in, I got 4 hours and 30 minutes of sleep. So ffffff.
[URL="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=conspiracies+that+came+true"]Let me google that for you.[/URL]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24987429][URL="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=conspiracies+that+came+true"]Let me google that for you.[/URL][/QUOTE] Lets see what we have here. The Business Plot (Something that never happened, just went into planning), oh, look, what else... July 20th plot... again, nothing really happened, it was just planned. Lets see.. Operation Ajax, that happened, but lets put that in context: That was a government plot to install a pro-western royal family into the middle east after an uprising, while pouring money into local militants, not 'killing a bunch of our own countrymen and then pretending nothing happened' Oh oh, Project MKULTRA is a good one. But that turned out to be a huge waste of money on something that didn't work. Weird that. Most of these 'conspiracy's' were either incredibly small, didn't work, didn't go ahead, or were political operations that had no other intention but to restore the status quo, nothing unusual and goes on alot. Illuminati? Aliens? Mind control? Titanic? New World Order? 9/11? They encompass most conspiracy theories and are all equally unfounded. There is more to make of a conspiracy theory out of the Iraq war than there is 9/11.
[QUOTE=TH89;24987299]Prove it.[/QUOTE] You want proof my claims are legitimate? Read my sources. 'oh no, but your sources aren't legitimate'. Here, moar sources. 'not even going to bother to read it, waste of time'. Claims reasserted by sources. 'Prove it'. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning[/url]
[QUOTE=EcksDee;24987414]Providing? Maybe using? FFFFFFF automerge. I'm never going to get used to being a Grammar Nazi. In any case, it's time for me to head in, I got 4 hours and 30 minutes of sleep. So ffffff.[/QUOTE] to me you seem just as bad as ShukaidoX
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24987761]You want proof my claims are legitimate? Read my sources. 'oh no, but your sources aren't legitimate'. Here, moar sources. 'not even going to bother to read it, waste of time'. Claims reasserted by sources. 'Prove it'. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning[/url][/QUOTE] We debunked all your sources with our own two threads ago, you have a short memory. We're just kind of getting bored now.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24987637]Lets see what we have here. The Business Plot (Something that never happened, just went into planning), oh, look, what else... July 20th plot... again, nothing really happened, it was just planned. Lets see.. Operation Ajax, that happened, but lets put that in context: That was a government plot to install a pro-western royal family into the middle east after an uprising, while pouring money into local militants, not 'killing a bunch of our own countrymen and then pretending nothing happened' Oh oh, Project MKULTRA is a good one. But that turned out to be a huge waste of money on something that didn't work. Weird that. Most of these 'conspiracy's' were either incredibly small, didn't work, didn't go ahead, or were political operations that had no other intention but to restore the status quo, nothing unusual and goes on alot. Illuminati? Aliens? Mind control? Titanic? New World Order? 9/11? They encompass most conspiracy theories and are all equally unfounded. There is more to make of a conspiracy theory out of the Iraq war than there is 9/11.[/QUOTE] We're talking about TRUE conspiracies. Things like Iran-Contra, MK-ULTRA, Tuskeegee Experiments, the [I]multiple [/I]staged attacks against us to initiate declaration of war... things of that nature that bring some legitimacy to claims like these.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24987761]You want proof my claims are legitimate? Read my sources. 'oh no, but your sources aren't legitimate'. Here, moar sources. 'not even going to bother to read it, waste of time'. Claims reasserted by sources. 'Prove it'.[/QUOTE] No, we're not talking about 9/11 anymore. I'm asking you to prove that the peer-review process rejects legitimate 9/11 studies in order to save face. That is an outrageous and insulting claim to the scientific community and you better have some damn good evidence to back it up.
The scientific community in the U.S. of all places is [I]extremely[/I] biased. How is that so hard to believe? We have history books go through 'legitimate peer-review processes' and they come out as skewed, misconstrued images that will only serve to uphold the ignorance that is so blissfully apart of maintaining the status quo. How is it so hard to understand that perhaps [I]defiance against the state[/I] in the scientific community is extremely kept secret.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24987920]We're talking about TRUE conspiracies. Things like Iran-Contra, MK-ULTRA, Tuskeegee Experiments, the [I]multiple [/I]staged attacks against us to initiate declaration of war... things of that nature that bring some legitimacy to claims like these.[/QUOTE] No. Tuskeegee, Iran-Contra, Watergate all belong on one shelf. Illuminati, lizard people, Jesus bloodline, New World Order and 9/11 belong on another. Why? I'll put it plainly. The first three had three things: Logic, science, whistle blowers. The second has no science (And we've previously stated, many many times, such as why thermite was there, the effects of thermite, an analysis of structural integrity, the pancake effect, building design, weight ratios, effects of fire, reports from eye witnesses, etc), no logic, and no whistle blowers. Also, steel-based buildings have collapsed from fire, it's just the worlds first skyscraper to collapse from fire. The problem with that last statement was, that all the buildings (Including wtc-7) were damaged heavily from debris (Where there are many photos as evidence) and was the first time a skyscraper had a plane of that size crash into it (And no, Empire State had a tiny plane hit it at slow speed) If you want to research it all for yourself, check the last two threads and read all the links. Or, Google it yourself. [editline]12:03AM[/editline] [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24988116]The scientific community in the U.S. of all places is [I]extremely[/I] biased.[/QUOTE] Citation needed. I guess you work for a peer review committee, eh? [quote]How is that so hard to believe? We have history books go through 'legitimate peer-review processes' and they come out as skewed, misconstrued images that will only serve to uphold the ignorance that is so blissfully apart of maintaining the status quo. How is it so hard to understand that perhaps [I]defiance against the state[/I] in the scientific community is extremely kept secret.[/quote] Citation needed.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24988116]The scientific community in the U.S. of all places is [I]extremely[/I] biased. How is that so hard to believe? We have history books go through 'legitimate peer-review processes' and they come out as skewed, misconstrued images that will only serve to uphold the ignorance that is so blissfully apart of maintaining the status quo. How is it so hard to understand that perhaps [I]defiance against the state[/I] in the scientific community is extremely kept secret.[/QUOTE] what you have showed is that people will believe things that are wrong and hate anything that trys to change there opinion this is true for true and false things ps Alex Jones is a crazy d-bag
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24988181]what you have showed is that people will believe things that are wrong and hate anything that trys to change there opinion this is true for true and false things ps Alex Jones is a crazy d-bag[/QUOTE] I've spoken to Alex. He's very charismatic, you'know, Hitler charismatic.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24988116]The scientific community in the U.S. of all places is [I]extremely[/I] biased. How is that so hard to believe?[/QUOTE] Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true. It's "hard to believe" because I asked you for proof and you don't have any.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24988116]The scientific community in the U.S. of all places is [I]extremely[/I] biased. [/QUOTE] No, not really. I don't think the scientific community has ever disregarded things for reasons beyond facts, logic, and evidence.
Peter Joseph > Alex Jonhs
Just one example: medical science breakthroughs are withheld all the time. Mostly for the reason that huge companies can't make massive profits off of them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.