It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
... is mutually exclusive...
Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Actually you are simply using circular logic to dismiss scientifically verified evidence based on nothing but pure faith in the government.
Why do you prefer faulty logic and faith to evidence and science?
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
17. Inaccuracy: Schou incorrectly quotes us as having spelled the name of our own organization wrong! The irony here is while making this ridiculous error he felt the need to nitpick regarding a small grammar mistake we made by using the word "specific" instead of "specifically". Schou quoting us, "Take the bizarre disclaimer at the end of the film: 'Citizens Investigative Team is not directly accusing anyone specific [sic] featured in this presentation as being complicit in the crime,'"
Why is he more concerned with our grammar than his own accuracy or bothering to validate or refute the evidence?
(error subsequently acknowledged in print and corrected in online version but our question still stands)
Originally posted by Azrael75
i am sure this is at the bottom of the list of important things to be concerned with here but if specific were modifying 'accusing' then it should be specifically, but i read it as modifying 'anyone' in which case you were correct the first time.
Originally posted by Soloist
Please explain how eyewitness statements are "scientifically verified". Who was the scientist that verified this "evidence"?
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Corroboration is the time tested and fully accepted systematic process used to validate eyewitness claims.
The fact that I have to keep explaining this to you guys over and over is scientifically demonstrating how pseudo-skeptics are inherently unable to understand the meaning of "science" when it works against their confirmation bias.
Originally Posted by Craig Ranke CIT
And this guy is a career journalist.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I am certain there are more people who saw it.
If we were the "snake oil salesmen" or crazy kooks that people try to make us out to be we would not be getting letters from first-responders who were all throughout that building saving lives on that day thanking us and encouraging us to keep it up because our "hard work will pay off in the end".
We KNOW we are on the right track and we KNOW that the work we are doing is ruffling a lot of feathers.
Burden of Proof
There is a really solid reason for placing the burden of proof on the
person who is proposing that an object exists, based on the balance of
effort required to provide evidence for or against something.
As we have seen, the proof on an object's nonexistence is actually
impossible in practice. On the other hand, it is not necessary to produce
the object itself to show that it does exist – all that is required is
convincing evidence for it - which in principle is a much simpler task.
So the balance of effort is overwhelmingly weighted in favour of the
person who is dreaming up these imaginary objects, and against the person
who seeks to disprove them. That is why we require a higher level of
up-front commitment by anyone who proposes that an object exists. They
must first provide convincing evidence of a proposed object's existence
before any serious discussion about it can begin. Until that happens there
is literally nothing to discuss.
This process is necessary to weed out half-baked ideas that would
otherwise endlessly waste people's time trying to debunk, or tie them up
in fanciful discussions about nonsense. At least in getting the originator
to provide evidence, the worst they can do is waste their own time.
/567ot7
Originally posted by jthomas
That is why we require a higher level of
up-front commitment by anyone who proposes that an object exists. They
must first provide convincing evidence of a proposed object's existence
before any serious discussion about it can begin. Until that happens there
is literally nothing to discuss.