Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 Truth Movement Gaining Scientific Credibility

page: 3
71
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


I did, but only because someone else discussed an election.. I just continued the metaphor.


Even if that were a decent excuse, you just tried to deny it in your last post. That shows that not only do you realize how weak it was but you wanted to pretend you never did it. Now you are going to admit you did it but not stand behind it but blame it on someone else? LOL. Link me to them starting the metaphor PLEASE!



You're pretty tiring man.


I know. Many of you OSers get tired of having to defend your own contradictions over and over and over again. I may not have all the answers but at least I am honest and being honest never wears me out. Keep running though.


I have changed it to a Starbucks analogy, I hope you find that less confusing.


Thank you for admitting the election analogy was really really weak but I have already torn apart your starbucks analogy too. Just give up.




posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Sorry dood, but 9 isn't 9% of 8400.

We're talking about 1/10th of 1%.


LOL. Yeah I really did not pay attention to what numbers you were using because you can put any x in there you want and your analogy is wrong to start with. Why would I start paying attention to your math when the logic it rests on is already faulty?

This is why you cannot prove your analogy is any good. All you can do is point out my lack of attention to a detail that did not matter. Nice!



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Says the guy who can't do simple math.

Listen.

The point is simple.

1000 is a very small percentage of the millions of engineers in the world.

If you had 2%, maybe you could claim there's a huge silent majority, but less than 1/10th of 1%.. cmon.

And guess what, I'm not claiming what the others believe, but it's clear that if there a popular belief amongst engineers, there'd be more evidence.

Like I said, most studies and polls say anything less than 1% is essential statistically insignificant.

So, why go around saying, "a statistically insignificant number of engineers agree with me?"

You might as well say, "a majority of people that think America is secretly run by satanic cults agree with me".

Both are meaningless.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Sure I'll play this game.

Imagine Ron Paul ran for president and the same percentage of US residents voted for him as there are Engineers on record against the OS.

The US has 300M people.


Nowhere in Bonez' post does he begin this election analogy. You are now just blatantly lying to back away from a bad point that you cannot stand behind but cannot just admit was bad either. Sad. You are a liar and deserve no more attention.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You're kidding right?

Weren't you the one that claimed I was a proven liar because I decided to stay up a few extra minutes?

Chris isn't go to bed therefore 9/11 is an inside job.

And you'll still accuse me of being petty.

Believe me, math is more important to figuring out if those were demos than if I stick to my stated bed time plan.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Says the guy who can't do simple math.


I can do simple math just fine. I just do not bother doing math that comes from a bad premise. If I cannot get past your premise, why would I check your numbers?


Listen.

The point is simple.

1000 is a very small percentage of the millions of engineers in the world.


That is right. What percentage of those millions have spoken out in favor of the OS?


If you had 2%, maybe you could claim there's a huge silent majority, but less than 1/10th of 1%.. cmon.


Where do you get any number on which to base the silent majority? You are just assuming that a small percent of vocal people means an even lower percent keeping quiet. You do realize that works both ways. There is an even smaller amount of them speaking out in favor of the OS so according to you and even smaller amount quietly support the OS. That means 1% believe the OS is a lie. Less than that believe it is true. The rest have not said anything at all so you have nothing but assumptions.

You are right, it is simple. Why can't you get it?


And guess what, I'm not claiming what the others believe, but it's clear that if there a popular belief amongst engineers, there'd be more evidence.


Evidence of what? How is it clear? Just saying things makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't it? You are gonna live forever and always be happy too!


Like I said, most studies and polls say anything less than 1% is essential statistically insignificant.


Less than 1% of what? You keep saying the whole but you do not have a sample of the whole to measure with. You only have this number. You need to show us that an even greater percentage back the OS in order for any of what you are saying to be valid.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU?


So, why go around saying, "a statistically insignificant number of engineers agree with me?"


I am not sure. You are the one with the lower number of engineers voicing agreement with you. You tell me. I apparently have about 1000. How many do you have?


You might as well say, "a majority of people that think America is secretly run by satanic cults agree with me".

Both are meaningless.


That is just silly. snip


[Mod Edit - snip insult]
Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 28/2/2010 by Sauron]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


This is absurd:

You can't do math or read.

This is the FIRST PARAGRAPH of his post:

"No, actually they don't count, so I'm going to shut you down right here. During an election, only those who get off their butts to get out and vote to elect presidents, governors and congresspeople, count in electing said officials. Those who did not vote do not count in the election results."

So, you're resorting to calling me a liar, when you are absolutely incompetent.

You couldn't find questions ONE PAGE BACK. You can't do basic math.

You call me petty after branding me a liar because I stayed up later than I'd originally stated.

You call me a liar, even though the proof is in the SECOND SENTENCE of the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the post... and even after the word ELECTION IS BOLDED.


Honestly, I wouldn't trust your opinion 9/11 at all because you're, like I said, incompetent.

Ignore me please.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by seethelight]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


You're kidding right?

Weren't you the one that claimed I was a proven liar because I decided to stay up a few extra minutes?


No I said you were a proven liar because you clearly stated as fact that you were making your last post for the night and then posted a dozen more times in the next hour+.

You stated something as fact that turned out to not be true. How is that not a lie? Anyway, I really did not think it was going to rub you so close to home. I would have laughed something like that off but I think today you have shown why it bothers you so much.


Chris isn't go to bed therefore 9/11 is an inside job.

And you'll still accuse me of being petty.


No...just kind of stupid. I never said any such thing so to put it like that is really just stupid. Petty would be giving it credit.


Believe me, math is more important to figuring out if those were demos than if I stick to my stated bed time plan.


Yeah but we are not talking about the math involved in the demos. We are talking about the math in the analogy you started, then denied, then accepted but lied about being someone else's idea. When math matters, I pay attention. When it is gibberish with numbers attached and I cannot get past the gibberish, I ignore the numbers.

Why do you make me explain the same things over and over and over again?



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


Says the guy who can't do simple math.


I can do simple math just fine. I just do not bother doing math that comes from a bad premise. If I cannot get past your premise, why would I check your numbers?


Listen.

The point is simple.

1000 is a very small percentage of the millions of engineers in the world.


That is right. What percentage of those millions have spoken out in favor of the OS?


If you had 2%, maybe you could claim there's a huge silent majority, but less than 1/10th of 1%.. cmon.


Where do you get any number on which to base the silent majority? You are just assuming that a small percent of vocal people means an even lower percent keeping quiet. You do realize that works both ways. There is an even smaller amount of them speaking out in favor of the OS so according to you and even smaller amount quietly support the OS. That means 1% believe the OS is a lie. Less than that believe it is true. The rest have not said anything at all so you have nothing but assumptions.

You are right, it is simple. Why can't you get it?


And guess what, I'm not claiming what the others believe, but it's clear that if there a popular belief amongst engineers, there'd be more evidence.


Evidence of what? How is it clear? Just saying things makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't it? You are gonna live forever and always be happy too!


Like I said, most studies and polls say anything less than 1% is essential statistically insignificant.


Less than 1% of what? You keep saying the whole but you do not have a sample of the whole to measure with. You only have this number. You need to show us that an even greater percentage back the OS in order for any of what you are saying to be valid.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU?


So, why go around saying, "a statistically insignificant number of engineers agree with me?"


I am not sure. You are the one with the lower number of engineers voicing agreement with you. You tell me. I apparently have about 1000. How many do you have?


You might as well say, "a majority of people that think America is secretly run by satanic cults agree with me".

Both are meaningless.


That is just silly. snip


Last response you get, at least for a while:

Polls say the numbers are valid, give or take 1% for error. In other words they could be wrong by up to 1%. Scientific data will sometimes say as much as 5-7%.

Not surprised you didn't know that.

1% of the total number of licensed engineers have expressed an opinion about this.

The "evidence" is that if there was huge popular groundsweel we'd see some proof, like thousands signing petitions, or joining this or similar groups, or writing papers about it, or talking to the media in large numbers.

None of that is happening.

Sorry if I don't trust your math, you're reading is for snip your comprehension is for snip you're ability to understand complex arguments is for snip.

So yeah, hard to believe that you'd make such a simple math mistake unless you were also incompotent at that.


And before you start whining, remember you've repeatedly called me a liar.

I assume that in your confused state you see any threat to your faith as a lie, but I have a lot of ACTUAL proof of your basic inability to find simple thing, answer easy questions do basic math.




Mod Edit: Profanity – Please Review This Link.
[Mod Edit - quote]

[edit on 28/2/2010 by Sauron]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 


This is absurd:

You can't do math or read.

This is the FIRST PARAGRAPH of his post:

"No, actually they don't count, so I'm going to shut you down right here. During an election, only those who get off their butts to get out and vote to elect presidents, governors and congresspeople, count in electing said officials. Those who did not vote do not count in the election results."

So, you're resorting to calling me a liar, when you are absolutely incompetent.


OK either you are a liar or stupid. You pick. That is not the analogy you put forth. That is the point I am making. You cannot compare this to an election unless you have an opposition count. You do not. The analogy is poor and it is clearly yours.

You may have just misunderstood what you were reading. I am willing to believe that.


You couldn't find questions ONE PAGE BACK.


I found those questions just fine. You said that there were questions I already claimed not to find. Those questions were not to me and I never claimed to not find them until you told me I had apparently said that.

I still cannot find any questions I originally told you I could not find. Those would be the ones I cannot find. Do I need to link you back to your post to show you what I am talking about because you are obviously very confused.


You can't do basic math.


Sure can. I am sick of going over this with you. You have said it three times now. I have already told you twice why I ignored your numbers. Instead of telling me why that was wrong, you just repeat this nonsense. I guess my argument is just too good for you so you resort to repetitive nonsense. Autistic children do this too.


You call me petty after branding me a liar because I stayed up later than I'd originally stated.


LOL. OK show me where I called you petty or admit you just lied about that.


You call me a liar, even though the proof is in the SECOND SENTENCE of the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the post... and even after the word ELECTION IS BOLDED.


I am sorry you did not understand what you were reading. I really truly am. If you want stupid instead of liar for that, you can have it. Now you are just a liar over the "petty" thing. I guess that makes you a liar and stupid. Seems like poor choices to me.



Honestly, I wouldn't trust your opinion 9/11 at all because you're, like I said, incompetent.


I know. You are basing that on me ignoring your math because it was based on nonsense. You are basing that on me not being able to find questions that do not even actually exist. You are basing that on me giving you crap about posting 12 times after saying you would stop. High standards you have for incompetence. I sure hope you are not in charge of hiring anyone anywhere.


Ignore me please.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by seethelight]


Sounds like you are ready to throw in the towel because defending nonsense and lies gets really tiring.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
Last response you get, at least for a while:


I guess you are never going to show me where I called you petty then.

Thanks for finally admitting you are indeed a liar!



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
The petition that has been signed just demands a new independent study.

The people that sign it are not specifically stateing that they believe that it was a controlled demolition.

Read the petition.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


Here's a simple question for you:
How many engineers can you find that agree with the official story? (sources?) Feel free to answer with a percentage of the structural engineers in the world.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
When the brother of the president is on the board of directors for the security company of the WTC, anything can happen.


Yet another truther lie that has been debunked here before - he was not on the board of the security company when 9/11 happened!


Besides, not many people had access or needed to be in the cores of the towers and that's where the explosives would have been placed. In the cores, out of sight of everyone.


You still ignore the fact that many man months would be required to carry all the explosives in and wire them up.... without anyone noticing!


if GPS was used, then they would.


Just exactly how would GPS be used?



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
You mean these scientists are gaining MAINSTREAM scientific credibility. Which many of them already had to begin with. There is just a stigma that comes with "conspiracy theories" because people don't want to hear them and often automatically assume they are trash just because of what they are, especially if they are tied to an emotional event. When in reality political conspiracies of some magnitude occur on almost a daily basis.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
Russia Today is NOT a credible source.

So 1/10th of 1% of the worlds engineers think 9/11 was a demo, that isn't actually very impressive.

Statistically, that means NO engineers do, because most surveys/studies have a margin of error of AT LEAST 1%.

So less than a 10th of that is meaningless.

Russia Today = Fail
Statistically insignificant number of engineers = fail

And on and on...


Now I realize I should have ignored you a few threads back. You're the same £$%£ that's in every 9/11 related thread trying to debunk the truth movement with insults to other ATS members and pulling statistics out of you &$$ all the time.

And by the way, seethelight/dereks = same person.

On Topic: Good to see more of the movement out there on the media (call it alternative if you will), but it is very important that this isn't given less attention as the years drag along.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Yet another truther lie that has been debunked here before - he was not on the board of the security company when 9/11 happened!

Please quote where I said he was on the board on 9/11. Oh you can't quote me because I didn't say that? Well, that means you would be the dishonest one. If you can't even be somewhat honest, why even post?



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Yes, the official story behind the 9/11 attacks is false. All I need to say is one thing and if you can't believe it, then you don't understand physics. A building does not, and can not, collapse in on itself at free fall speed, from being hit by a plane, at the top. It is impossible. They never found the plane that hit the pentagon. They never found the plane that crashed on the way to the white house. And building 7 wasn't even hit by anything at all, yet it still fell at free fall speed just like the towers.

The main problem is, the story has already been told. This is all old news now. The public believed the lie, and thats it. The truth will never come out, because the truth is now the conspiracy. It will always be a conspiracy no matter what evidence is found. So don't waste your time trying to prove 9/11 was an inside job. It is hopeless. The public will never believe the lie of the truth.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by xxshadowfaxx]

[edit on 27-2-2010 by xxshadowfaxx]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
Last response you get, at least for a while:

I won't hold my breath.

How many warnings does this "seethelight" clown have to get before he's permanently booted?



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by dereks
Yet another truther lie that has been debunked here before - he was not on the board of the security company when 9/11 happened!

Please quote where I said he was on the board on 9/11. Oh you can't quote me because I didn't say that? Well, that means you would be the dishonest one.


Aw give him a break, he's still just figuring out how to rephrase things from debunking911.com in his own words and he still doesn't understand what most of it means yet.

Another on-going issue I keep having with "dereks" is that he seems to believe only one side of the debate ever has to prove anything, and the other side is automatically exempt from having to prove anything simply because that's what he already thinks so then that's obviously what happened.






top topics



 
71
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join