Don't think I've forgotten these questions:
Most of the underlying assumptions they choose to feed into their equations are false.
How can one expect to get a meaningful true/false calculation of probability if your starting assumptions are flawed?
I am really tired of reading all your bull sites, and you not returning the favor.
Read a few debunking sites. Spend 1/100th of the time you spend on reading the conspiracy theories and read an opposing point of view.
What are you really afraid of?
What if you are wrong Dan?
Why are you changing the subject to WTC7? Its fall time was never mentioned in the commission report.
you.
I'm not watching until you watch a debunking video.
You'd never make in the classroom Randomdude...
Hey dan, I just noticed that this video you used to try to change the subject deliberately crops out the entire eastern half of WTC7.
Why is that?
Could it be that the eastern part of the building collapsed well before this "scientist" began timing the fall of the rest of the building?
I won't expect an answer, but I will keep asking. Why don't you answer these questions? You'd never make it in a classroom not answering questions.
Ok, here's the list of questions for dan from this thread alone:
What are you saying, dan? Are you accusing the chief of the FDNY of lying and being a part of your still unposted conspiracy theory?
And why did you post a video of Cenk saying he believes the NIST report?
Why did this video you used to try to change the subject deliberately crop out the entire eastern half of WTC7?
And finally, can you admit you told a flat out lie in the post where you said the buildings next door to WTC 7 had no damage?
???
Not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, but I take it you are refusing to watch a single debunking video?
dan asked if I had anything else for him in another thread, so I need to bump this to remind him that he needs to answer these questions.
....and brave Sir Robin ran away.
Again.
Back to the original topic.
The NIST presser is now online here:
http://event.on24.com/eventRegistrat...serid=18909307
Shyam Sunder is even appearing on radio shows opposite twoofers. Here is a Canadian show with him and apparently the best-qualified twoofer to discuss an engineering report....
....a retired associate professor....
....of religious studies.
http://media.putfile.com/Dr-Graeme-M...r-Shyam-Sunder
Sunder has also been on the super duper liberal "No Lies Radio" show. The archive should be available late in the week.
PM devotes an entire page to this dramatic photograph by Rob Howard showing Flight 175 approaching the South Tower. Unsupported claims that the plane was not a jetliner have been the staple of efforts to discredit the 9/11 Truth movement for over a year. The selection of this as the centerpiece image is one of an array of techniques Popular Mechanics uses to falsely identify the 9/11 Truth movement with a campaign cleverly used to discredit it through associating it with claims for which there is no evidence, such as the claim that this plane carried a missile-firing pod.
PM provides no evidence for its assertion that the claims it attacks are representative of the army of conspiracy theorists. It cites at least one website for each of its claims, but the websites are not representative of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It makes no mention of 911Research.wtc7.net, the highest-ranking 9/11 Truth website returned by a Google search using "9/11". Several references are anonymous posts to sites that don't exercise editorial control
Here, the article falsely implies that emperors-clothes.com and StandDown.net both claim that no jets were scrambled to pursue any of the four commandeered jets. It then attacks this straw man by relating some details of the Commission's timeline (without sourcing the Commission's Report) to suggest that interceptors were scrambled, but that ATC couldn't find the hijacked flights because there were too many radar blips. The article makes no mention of the many problems with NORAD's account of the failed intercepts, but relates the following incredible assertion by NORAD public affairs officer Maj. Douglas Martin that there was a hole in NORAD's radar coverage:CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. ... Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11.
It was like a doughnut. There was no coverage in the middle.
This absurd idea that NORAD had no radar coverage over much of the continental US is distilled from the 9/11 Commission Report. Predictably, the article makes no mention of evidence that war games were being conducted on 9/11/01 and that false radar blips were deliberately inserted onto FAA radar screens.
distilled from the 9/11 commission report.
I hope you are not a science teacher.
If you are a teacher Dan, does your principal and/or superintendent know that you believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy that the US government is willingly lying to the public about?
Plagiarism does not help the twoofer movement.
I work on the web and create questions, but I don't think my thoughts on 911 would matter to anyone.......I just happen to believe that there was a lot more to 911 than has been released to the public....whatever your thoughts now, in the long scope of things, I think this will be vindicated...and guys like RG and Chumpy who have drank the 9/11 commission report koolaid will be saying...the er was right...
I hope you are not a science teacher.
If you are a teacher Dan, does your principal and/or superintendent know that you believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy that the US government is willingly lying to the public about?
And that is what chumpy has been reduced too....sad.
The same brain that criticizes others for using the 9/11 commission report finds no issue with 'distilling' from said report.
What do confirmation bias mean?
and
You keep holding your breath for a mystery 'revelation' to vindicate you. I will trust the ME, CE and architects that I have talked to on this subject.
You keep on with your purple faced distilling.
Whatever Fuzzy Wuzzy....There are plenty of ME, CE and architects who agree with me, which have looked at the evidence much closer than your personal friends and who are willing to put their professional reputations out there.....The same brain that criticizes others for using the 9/11 commission report finds no issue with 'distilling' from said report.
What do confirmation bias mean?
and
You keep holding your breath for a mystery 'revelation' to vindicate you. I will trust the ME, CE and architects that I have talked to on this subject.
You keep on with your purple faced distilling.
Your 12 years too late to this party Fuzzy.....go back and look through the 10,000 other 9/11 threads in this forum and then come at me with some real facts...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
