This is how normal people discuss 9/11

page: 17
8
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I just stopped by to see how normal people discuss 911. Yep looks the same as every other thread.

Same people defending the official story, that is very normal around here.

Facts are made to manipulated.

Just thought I'd put a few cents in....911 was an inside job.

Bye.




posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by totallackey
 


Data and methodology is not the same as models. But I will put a sock in it as it is useless to talk with peope who know very little about a subject but think they do.


Absolutely, without a doubt, the single most unrepentant, willful, ignorant, response ever uttered in the annals of ATS.

ETA: As if methodology would not, of necessity, include any models, whether they be concrete models or computer models, or any other type of models known to humanity.
edit on 2-9-2013 by totallackey because: further content



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
As if methodology would not, of necessity, include any models, whether they be concrete models or computer models, or any other type of models known to humanity.


Correct, methodology is the methods used, for instance, which simulation software is used, or in case of experiment, how the experiments are performed. The actual models are almost never included with a publication. At least not with the hundreds of papers I have read when I was doing my masters in engineering at the university. The process of peer review does not include reproducing or verifying the results, nor does is include verification of the models.

I will leave out the other part of you post as it is a bit ironic.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
It might be insignificant to you but to me it's a very confusing contradiction.

When I told you to prove that NIST is right you said that it is impossible to prove somebody right, you said that's not how science works. You told me that I need to prove them wrong instead.

But then you said that any competent person should be able to prove himself.or other scientist to be right without any help from anybody else. So which is it? Can you prove NIST right or are you not competent enough to do that?


You can never prove a (scientific) hypothesis or theory to be right. It is only possible to prove it wrong. So you can, for instance, prove NIST to be wrong. It seems to me that proving NIST wrong was the subject here. As far as I know the truth movement does not have a hypothesis of their own. Nor does any individual truther. I am not sure what part confuses you exactly. I won't be asking you to prove the work of a 911 researcher to be right when you post it. At most I will ask for evidence. Instead I, or more likely someone else, will prove it to be wrong. Unless of course it can not be proven wrong, in which case it will automatically not be scientific to start with.

One side note, when I talk about people proving they are right, it is not the same as proving a scientific theory is right. Its two different contexts.

Anyway, my main argument still stands. If you are a competent scientist you do not rely on NIST to prove them wrong. Nor do you rely on them to come with your own hypothesis and the science to support it.
edit on 2-9-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by totallackey
As if methodology would not, of necessity, include any models, whether they be concrete models or computer models, or any other type of models known to humanity.


Correct, methodology is the methods used, for instance, which simulation software is used, or in case of experiment, how the experiments are performed. The actual models are almost never included with a publication. At least not with the hundreds of papers I have read when I was doing my masters in engineering at the university. The process of peer review does not include reproducing or verifying the results, nor does is include verification of the models.

I will leave out the other part of you post as it is a bit ironic.


I cannot believe you continue, post after post after post, spreading this utter nonsense.

If the hundreds of papers you read did not include any actual models, or the supporting input and results data, then the only explanation for that is they too were published by the NIST.



posted on Sep, 2 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Yeah that must be the case. I predict you have never read a scientific paper by the way.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by geobro
 


Well then rather than debating it just now how about you send me a quick link to your thread once you have completed it

Thanks.
it is up now 9-11 what time did you hear about it



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Watching it happen on the news outside on a big screen tv with a bunch of people.
But,I didn't have much time for it because my wife was pregnant,and on the 21st,I was the proud papa of a baby boy. He will be 12 in ten days.



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 




Who on earth is the guy fronting your clip. Looks like an escapee from a Monty Python sketch.


he is a " representative of ` religious fundamentalist loonies brand : C `

who wants you to ignore all evidence that ` religious fundamentalist loonies brand : A ` carried out 9/11

and instead believe his unevidenced assersions that ` religious fundamentalist loonies brand : B` did it

yeah - I think that just about sums it up



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I might not be average but I am not abnormal.

Here's how I just discussed something on 9/11 on another thread, because that is MY experience of it.

I am neither crazy nor attention seeking, but something about it all makes me wonder, a lot, like major wonder.



I remember the day well, I was pregnant and it was an odd day from the start. I had also recently been at WTC and have a photo standing beside the WTC 7 logo on the building, and had also recently been on a plane that had a very odd occurence where it was literally super close to one of the twin towers and two fighter jets appeared, right beside us, I literally seen the pilots face and hand gesture, as close to the wing as could be. The flight attendant came rushing round closing all the shutters on the windows and men were shouting and rushing towards the cockpit. It was an Air India flight and I couldn't understand their words. I recall looking at my then boyfriend and saying ''it was nice knowing you'' as I seen the glass windows of a twin tower as close as you could imagine getting nearer and nearer.

My life hasn't been the same since, all sorts of things have happened since then and I feel a lot wiser and aware of the actual things happening in the world, the truth essentially.

Yesterday I bought a lottery ticket and the two 'lucky stars' are 9 11, maybe just a coincidence, but if it is then my life has had many odd ''coincidences''.




My own photos taken not long before the incident.

ETA the feather masks were added by me to protect my identity.




rememberbuilding7.org...
edit on 11-9-2013 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
8
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join