Why 9/11 bothers me more than the Holocaust

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by minnow
 


Well first, it was not within minutes. Second, Osama Bin Laden was a well known terrorist at that point so the media speculating that it was him, was not all that strange.




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie
There is absolutely no response to your query that will be acceptable to you.


wrong again, all I wanted was a answer to a very simple question - and it looks like I have my answer.... no peer review article. The reason is that they could not get it past the peer review process.


Just out of curiosity, was the N.I.S.T. report ever peer-reviewed?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by DoorKnobEddie
 




What is the product of deductive reasoning called? Proof.

Not when it's based on speculation.
And that's all the 911 conspiracy crowd has.



Prove it.

You can't prove you claims are more than speculation.
As has been mentioned all the conspiracy side has is YT vids and quick buck artists.



Instead of defaming everyone prove your claims.


Who are the "quick buck artists"?

You are are quickly discrediting Youtube. Prove your assertions.

Define the parameters in which scientists speculate.



You cannot answer any questions because you are confused. You do not know the meaning of "reasoning".



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DoorKnobEddie
 




It still remains that you have to prove your assertions.

It is not up to me to prove your speculations are 'speculation'. All the conspiracy side has are YT vids which would not stand up in any US court. It is up to you and the makers of these vids to prove their accuracy.

These quick buck artists I mentioned are people who make their living off of the 911 conspiracy. Richard Gage and Dr Judy Woods come to mind.
Neither of whom have jobs outside of their 911 tour dates.
If either of these two could prove their assertions they would produce a paper and submit it for peer review. Once reviewed and upheld they could write their own ticket in the industry. But they won't do it because they can't prove their side. Hense they earn a living solely off 911 tours.
I remember a vid where and audiance member asked RG why he has not produced papers and RG could not give a reasonable answer.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 





It is not up to me to prove your speculations are 'speculation'. All the conspiracy side has are YT vids which would not stand up in any US court. It is up to you and the makers of these vids to prove their accuracy.


You make a rather confused comment but I will endeavor to make my point. Neither of us is obliged to prove anything and ATS is not a court but an arena to discuss topic. You engage in no discussions but you dictate what is or is not acceptable as an opinion, consideration or theory. You want proof without understanding what proof is. You have refused to provide you definition of "proof" .



These quick buck artists I mentioned are people who make their living off of the 911 conspiracy. Richard Gage and Dr Judy Woods come to mind.


You seem to have a habit for defaming people. Can you prove that Richard Gage and Dr Judy Woods are "quick buck artists"?

Please provide evidence of their income streams and how it constitute quick buckness?




Neither of whom have jobs outside of their 911 tour dates.


Once again please provide proof .



If either of these two could prove their assertions they would produce a paper and submit it for peer review.


Define "peer review" and what are "these two" supposed to put in the "paper" you mention? What is the "paper" you mention made from?




Once reviewed and upheld they could write their own ticket in the industry.


Reviewed by whom and what industry?




But they won't do it because they can't prove their side.


Please explain how you are able to read their minds? Can you prove that you have telepathy?




Hense they earn a living solely off 911 tours.


What does "hense" mean? Can you prove they live solely off 911 tours?




I remember a vid where and audiance member asked RG why he has not produced papers and RG could not give a reasonable answer.


Please provide proof of this video you speak about? Also explain what you mean by a "reasonable answer"?
edit on 10-1-2013 by DoorKnobEddie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 





Just out of curiosity, was the N.I.S.T. report ever peer-reviewed?


That is a very good question.
The whole WTC7 situation is a mess, one that somebody thought they could just pass off as auxiliary collateral damage, that nobody would question ?
They were very wrong.
It's really ironic that the one event they thought the least about, might be the one that gets people really looking into 9/11.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoorKnobEddie
reply to post by samkent
 





It is not up to me to prove your speculations are 'speculation'. All the conspiracy side has are YT vids which would not stand up in any US court. It is up to you and the makers of these vids to prove their accuracy.


You make a rather confused comment but I will endeavor to make my point. Neither of us is obliged to prove anything and ATS is not a court but an arena to discuss topic. You engage in no discussions but you dictate what is or is not acceptable as an opinion, consideration or theory. You want proof without understanding what proof is. You have refused to provide you definition of "proof" .



These quick buck artists I mentioned are people who make their living off of the 911 conspiracy. Richard Gage and Dr Judy Woods come to mind.


You seem to have a habit for defaming people. Can you prove that Richard Gage and Dr Judy Woods are "quick buck artists"?

Please provide evidence of their income streams and how it constitute quick buckness?




Neither of whom have jobs outside of their 911 tour dates.


Once again please provide proof .



If either of these two could prove their assertions they would produce a paper and submit it for peer review.


Define "peer review" and what are "these two" supposed to put in the "paper" you mention? What is the "paper" you mention made from?




Once reviewed and upheld they could write their own ticket in the industry.


Reviewed by whom and what industry?




But they won't do it because they can't prove their side.


Please explain how you are able to read their minds? Can you prove that you have telepathy?




Hense they earn a living solely off 911 tours.


What does "hense" mean? Can you prove they live solely off 911 tours?




I remember a vid where and audiance member asked RG why he has not produced papers and RG could not give a reasonable answer.


Please provide proof of this video you speak about? Also explain what you mean by a "reasonable answer"?
edit on 10-1-2013 by DoorKnobEddie because: (no reason given)

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Or are you just trying to be antagonistic?
Dr Judy Woods and Richard Gage both gave up their normal careers in 2006 to join the 911 circus. They need this conspiracy to continue because no one or company would hire them now.

Peer reviewed means other experts look at the findings of the claimant to determine if the presantation is factually correct.

My definition of proof is something that could be substantiated in a court of law. Have you ever heard the court room line "Objection! Speculation!"?



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by DoorKnobEddie
 


The holocaust was the direct reason for the founding of the state of Israel,
I'm just giving my opinion on what I think has changed our world more not whose victims were more deserving.


Seen as both had consequences with a global reach I would say its about a draw.






top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join