The Worlds Experts Cry Out! not

This is case of the sheep controlling the sheep all to uphold a false paradigm that is destined to crumble inevitably. At some you will all have to go through the paradigm shift, unless less you are reptilian then it won't really matter to you either way.

~Namaste'

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Thats just the cause for concern, I dont consider the FACTS about what happen, to be faulty, or disastrous under scrutiny. Its just the opposite again

I think it makes a great deal of sense why there would be those who would question the MSM story of 9/11, it just doesnt make sense for those to DEFEND the MSM story of what happened.

Unless they are defending, but instead pimping out rhetoric....again

Your response pretends as though there are numerous looming holes in Truthers theories about what happened, and neglects the looming enormous (or lack there of when speaking about the pentagon) in your own. Once again acting as though truthers are this mindless minority when in fact they are not.

And I am certain there are no more then 4 pages of responses most times because YOUR responses do not warrant a response.


This is back and forth tactic used by the media and other people to mislead. I see right through you, and I see your tactic, and you will not work. You pretend as though everyone is equally confused or divided on the issue by misrepresenting the popularity of the opinions presented.

reply to post by hooper


No the numbers reflect importance. If my numbers are not close then please tell me what they should be?
Our government wastes money left and right. They spent more on the clinton scandal and on bonds then 911.
Simple math.

reply to post by samkent


The facts are, that the worlds experts have a lot of unanswered questions, but have SEEN how other people who speak about 9/11 are treated. I remember when Barbara Streisands hubby came on the view back when rosie o'donnel was on it, and at the end of his segment he said.. 'Go to 9/11 Truth dot com". I did.. The next day, apparently so did Rosie... She brought it up during the discussion, and was SLAMMED by liz hassbitch, and even on RECORD breaking viewership, they were unable to renew rosies contract... Keep in mind, the BIG fight with Elizabeth Hasselbitch happened after it was announced she wouldnt return to the show.

You are transparent in here my friend, we see through you.

reply to post by samkent


Where are you getting this stuff? I mean have you ever heard of youtube? You can see 100,000 videos from different people who work in those various industries you just listed, who see this as a problem, and have numerous unanswered questions.

Once again, your pretending like there isnt any experts.. Have you ever even watched a 9/11 truther video? There are experts riddled in these movies, what the hell are you talking about?

reply to post by SamLuv

I remember when Barbara Streisands hubby came on the view back when rosie o'donnel was on it, and at the end of his segment he said..

Are those the kind of people you really trust?
Why don't you trust experts in the field?

Originally posted by SamLuv
reply to post by samkent

 

Where are you getting this stuff? I mean have you ever heard of youtube? You can see 100,000 videos from different people who work in those various industries you just listed, who see this as a problem, and have numerous unanswered questions.

Once again, your pretending like there isnt any experts.. Have you ever even watched a 9/11 truther video? There are experts riddled in these movies, what the hell are you talking about?

Would a court accept Youtube as evidence? I doubt it.
Why won't any of these experts author a paper and submit it for review?

reply to post by hooper


Well you can go on assuming that the only truth and important things in the world come out of the mouths of certified experts...... That is a travesty in my opinion, but feel free to keep on keeping on. It's your mind afterall.

If the world agreed with that ridiculous notion, we would have less than 1/4 of the technological advancement and inventions we have now.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

Why wouldn't this fall under the same damaged thinking.

These persons (a) are claimed to be an authority
None of these persons say (b) is true
Therefore (b) cannot be true

It follows the same type of crap logic.

reply to post by TKDRL

Well you can go on assuming that the only truth and important things in the world come out of the mouths of certified experts...... That is a travesty in my opinion, but feel free to keep on keeping on. It's your mind afterall.

Sounds like you are desperately looking for an excuse to ignore people that say things you don't want to hear. Well, I will trust "experts" when they are talking about issues that are relevant to their field of expertise. I trust doctors to tell my about my health and engineers to design the bridges that I drive over. You are more than welcome to just trust only those folks who render opinions that satisfy your bias.

If the world agreed with that ridiculous notion, we would have less than 1/4 of the technological advancement and inventions we have now.

Actually, the world's technological and scientific advancements are due directly to that "notion". That is to say the concept of speacialization wherein society allowed certain individuals to concentrate on and become experts in certain fields of understanding. If the world relied on your "notions" then we would all still be painting pictures in caves.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
Why wouldn't this fall under the same damaged thinking.
These persons (a) are claimed to be an authority
None of these persons say (b) is true
Therefore (b) cannot be true
It follows the same type of crap logic.

Because in your first scenario one person makes one claim. The person and the claim can both be examined. In the next scenario you are assigning a value to a non-statement. That cannot be examined.

reply to post by samkent



Submit a paper for what? To refute the official story? Dr. Steve Jones of BYU did submit a paper on his website in 2006. He was put on paid leave and retired after that. I don't know anything about this man but there is your
It seems as though it cost him his job but I'm not sure.

Actually they kind of do. But of course PH.Ds who do not drink the Coolaid are "whackjobs" according to 911 deniers.

Originally posted by KoolerKing
reply to post by hooper

 

No the numbers reflect importance. If my numbers are not close then please tell me what they should be?
Our government wastes money left and right. They spent more on the clinton scandal and on bonds then 911.
Simple math.

Actually, the investigation of 9/11 was the largest law enforcement investigation in US history and is still ongoing.

The matter of the fact is that there is no reason to believe or investigate anything other than the very simple fact that 19 men conspiried to hijack four planes and crash them. Spending millions more would not have yielded any other facts.

Actually they kind of do. But of course PhDs who do not drink the Coolaid are "whackjobs" according to 911 deniers. That 911 deniers open a thread for mutual touching does not mean experts in a variety of fields did not say their bit about 911, some of them even going as far as publishing a paper on the subject. We can even produce names. I never noticed any of the deniers quoting an PhD .

Same for the investigation, we have names and faces who said their bit about 911, where are the names and faces who come forward in defense of the official conspiracy theory.

This is a lame attempt to pick up an situation and try to write it into the exact opposite of what it is.

reply to post by hooper


So much did they spend?

reply to post by hooper


You did not answer my question. How do you know spending more money would have not turned up any more facts. Great answerBravo

reply to post by hooper


Sure!!!!!!! The worst attack on us soil and not 1 not 2 not 3 but 4 planes get high jacked. a building is reported falling before it actually happens and only 3000 americans get murdered. Whatever.

Originally posted by KoolerKing
reply to post by hooper

 

You did not answer my question. How do you know spending more money would have not turned up any more facts. Great answer

Bravo

Be honest now, you're not looking for "more" facts - you're looking for different facts. Spending more money and asking the same questions is not going to yield different answers.

Originally posted by KoolerKing
reply to post by hooper

 

So much did they spend?

I believe I saw a figure once where over 1 million FBI manhours were spent on 9/11. And thats just the FBI. That doesn't include local police assisting in the investigations, the CIA, the NSA, etc.

reply to post by hooper


Lets talk cash.

reply to post by samkent


I have a friend that's owns an engineering company.
They got their hands on plans for WTC.

Go to Google images and search for this
world trade center building plans


He says he's not surprised that it fell.

This coming from someone that looks at plans all day long.