9/11 Truth Movement Gaining Scientific Credibility

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

I'm not trying to make that comparison, that would imply I have evidence.

I am simply putting your numbers into perspective.

1000 people would be a lot to fit into a VW bus, but it's not a lot of engineers, no matter how you look at it.

You just compared it to an election. Did you forget already?

And really, we've seen that at least some of those thousand are screwballs. and of course the real numbers would have to include retired engineers and that would make the percentage MUCH MUCH smaller.

Btw., those questions you couldn't find are a few posts up.

Please answer them if you can.

I did not realize I was here to answer any questions for you. I am simply pointing out the huge flaw in your logic. You cannot compare an election to this until you have the number of the opposition. That is how reality works, deal with it.

Originally posted by seethelight
Btw., those questions you couldn't find are a few posts up.

Please answer them if you can.

I still do not see any questions to me anywhere above in the thread. Care to link to them?

I also do not remember telling you that I could not find them the first time but ok. Apparently I claimed I could not find some questions. When did I say that and where are these questions anyway?

[edit on 27-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by seethelight
1000 people would be a lot to fit into a VW bus, but it's not a lot of engineers, no matter how you look at it.

It absolutely is a considerable amount of architects and engineers when you compare it the number of architects and engineers who have publicly supported or tried to prove the official version.

You can't provide a list of 1000 architects and engineers who support or can prove the official version of 9/11. Therefore, according to the numbers, of the architects and engineers that have gone public, there are more that support 9/11 truth than support the official version, period.

Originally posted by seethelight
1000 people would be a lot to fit into a VW bus, but it's not a lot of engineers, no matter how you look at it.

I'm going to add to my post above and flip this on you. Since you can't come close to providing 1000 names that support the official version of 9/11, whatever names you can come up with isn't a significant number to support the official version either. There, reverse psychology.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


That's not the comparison I'm talking about.

I'm not saying Ron Pauls loses to candidate X, because that candidate got more votes. I'm saying that the number is a tiny percentage and if you wanted to compare that percentage to votes in an election...

etc.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


That's laughable.

Do I go around saying my point of view is significant because a certain number of profession X agree with it?

No.

Do you?

Yes.

Is the number you claim to be significant not significant at all?

Yes.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Again, that's a false comparison.

No one feels the need to go out and say, hey, I'm an architect that believes the OS.

In fact I know lots of clever people and only one of them thinks the "inside job" yada.

And hey, why not answer my questions?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Dood are you blind?

this thread is two pages long....

here's a link to the last page.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

That's not the comparison I'm talking about.

I'm not saying Ron Pauls loses to candidate X, because that candidate got more votes. I'm saying that the number is a tiny percentage and if you wanted to compare that percentage to votes in an election...

etc.

Then you have no idea what you are talking about. If the only people that vote are the 1000 people for Ron Paul, HE WINS.

That is why your comparison is so off the mark here. You do not realize that Ron Paul wins unless more people vote for someone else. Where are your voting architects and engineers for the OS?

If you want your analogy, you can have it. It simply proves that the OS is not believed because more people have voted and the OS being bunk won so far.

You cannot talk about an election without acknowledging a loss to candidate x because if there is no candidate x or no one votes for him, Ron Paul wins and that makes his 1000 voters pretty damn significant in number and almost complete in percentage of voters.

Do you need me to explain it any more for you?

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Dood are you blind?

this thread is two pages long....

here's a link to the last page.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dude, are you insane? When were those questions ever posed directly to me? When did I claim I could not find them? When did I ever say I was even going to acknowledge them? What is wrong with you?

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Again, that's a false comparison.

No one feels the need to go out and say, hey, I'm an architect that believes the OS.

In fact I know lots of clever people and only one of them thinks the "inside job" yada.

And hey, why not answer my questions?

This is why comparing it to an election is so stupid. If the only people that speak up are two drunks that want Ron Paul then he wins the election and gets 100% of the vote. 100% is pretty significant. Why did he win? Because no one felt the need to speak up and vote against him. You are really stretching with this one.

Originally posted by seethelight
And hey, why not answer my questions?

I'll answer them then.

Originally posted by seethelight
Why not ask why Stephen Jones would create propaganda?

It would appear you're talking about the molten steel at the WTC? Well here's NIST blatantly lying about that molten steel and NIST being debunked:





Make sure you watch the entire video. If you do not and you attempt a response, you will be put on "Ignore" and you'll just be typing to yourself.

Originally posted by seethelight
Why not name another non-steel-reinforced building over 40 stories?

I don't know what you mean by this.

Originally posted by seethelight
Why not explain why the hundreds of timed explosives needed to demo two skyscrapers were NEVER reported by a single witness?

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

Originally posted by seethelight
Why not ask why the buildings started falling at the point of the plane's impact?

If you created 9/11, wouldn't you want the buildings to start falling at the point of the planes' impact zones?

Originally posted by seethelight
How'd the secret demo team know where the planes would hit?

They wouldn't. Or, if GPS was used, then they would. Only an investigation will give us those answers.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


the movement has been going so fast as of late, its been hard to keep up.

with A&E taking big steps approaching senators last week, along with more media coverage are just the start to a larger movement.

think tea party X 10.

all the 'Trusters' are going to deny it, say there is no evidence, and whatever comes to their minds. A&E will just let the investigators find out who the conspirators are. Right now they are only working with what can be proven. Thermite/thermate no matter how many idiots deny this, its still peer reviewed. Witness accounts of hearing explosions, and that the towers all fell into their own footprint with little or no resistance during collapse.

NIST has lied!

The commission report has lied!

the media has lied!

these investigators will do their job to the best of their ability when they do the investigation. which is likely to happen since, well you know the public awareness about 9/11 now.

it cant be stopped.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Dood, it's about the percentage of a whole. Last I checked WTC conspiracies weren't on a ballot.

This is why I NEVER stated in the originl analogy anything about an opponent and their votes.

I can make another comparison for you.

There's 8530 (or so) Starbucks in America.

So if you decided to visit the same percentage of Starbucks as there are engineers that have joined AE911, you'd only have to visit 9.

If you you claimed to have been to a large percentage of Starbucks by visiting 9, people would think you were crazy. If you said I am an authority of Starbucks, I've been to 9, people would think your nuts. Etc., etc.

Can't see how'll you'll be confused by that, but you always surprise me.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by seethelight]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


So you're not gonna talk about Jones. clever move that.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


you don't know how the WTC was different than any other skyscraper?

Best look into that before claiming to know the "truth".

Even most Faithers can answer this one.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You can't demo a building like the WTC, top down, btw., without demoing the steel frame. So yeah, no core charges are gonna cut it.

You would need hundreds of TIMED explosives to ensure that it came down.

No one has reported ANYTHING like that.

And guess what, the fewer explosives used, the bigger the individual charges need. So fewer, but much more noticeable and still necessarily timed, or it won't work.

Demos don't use explosives to destroy buildings as they collapse, the destroy the supports very quickly so literally, nothing is holding it up and it goes straight down.

Seriously watch this:



Sooooo many of you Truthers say, "it looks like a demo".

This is what a demo looks and sounds like.

You can't miss it.

NO way that happens to two hundred storey building and the only evidence is dust coming our of windows as it collapses.

Turn up the volume man, then compare it to what witnesses heard.

They heard a few loud bangs, one about every 15 - 20 minutes.

Open your mind.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Dood, it's about the percentage of a whole. Last I checked WTC conspiracies weren't on a ballot.

LOL. You compared it to an election, not me. An election results are a percentage of the whole. That whole is all the people that voted, it does not count the people who stayed home and kept silent.

So... your comparison to an election says that so far, way more people who are qualified to at least have an opinion have claimed the OS is a fraud than not.

If you do not like that analogy, you should not have tried to use it.

This is why I NEVER stated in the originl analogy anything about an opponent and their votes.

Are you denying that you used two elections as an analogy? Ron Paul and some socialist in prison? Did I read that wrong? Should I go back and quote it for you? Now you are just denying your own analogy. Just admit it was bad instead of pretending you never said it. Your words do not vanish just because you denied them.

I can make another comparison for you.

There's 8530 (or so) Starbucks in America.

So if you decided to visit the same percentage of Starbucks as there are engineers that have joined AE911, you'd only have to visit 9.

If you you claimed to have been to a large percentage of Starbucks by visiting 9, people would think you were crazy. If you said I am an authority of Starbucks, I've been to 9, people would think your nuts. Etc., etc.

You have no clue what you are talking about. I know that those other 91% of starbucks are, do, and stand for. You cannot say the same about all the silent architects and engineers. You are just getting worse at this.

You do not get it. The point is that until you have a number of architects and engineers voicing opposition, you cannot make any of these analogies as they all include knowing the number of the whole. You do not have that with 9/11. You have been asked to produce a list and you dodge that all over the place.

Can't see how'll you'll be confused by that, but you always surprise me.

Well, I must admit that stupid sentences with no logic to them do confuse me. When you toss all reality out the window and try as hard as you can to pretend something makes sense that obviously does not, I am going to be confused. You got me there.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


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

You're pretty tiring man.

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

reply to post by K J Gunderson


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

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