"You guys obviously haven't done your research"

CHF · 10th April 2008, 03:38 PM

What research are twoofers talking about when they say this?

Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan?

That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin?

That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ?

That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon?

That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?"

What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done?

fullflavormenthol · 10th April 2008, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by CHF

What research are twoofers talking about when they say this?

Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan?

That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin?

That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ?

That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon?

That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?"

What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done?

It means that sense we don't agree with them we couldn't possible have read the same things they have, because if we read them we would be left with no choice but to agree with the "truth".

Incidently this is the same circular argument you will get from Christians regarding the Bible.

WildCat · 10th April 2008, 03:57 PM

"Research" = watching truther videos on youtube.

twinstead · 10th April 2008, 04:11 PM

WildCat. Dude. You know the YouTube generation ROCKS!

WildCat · 10th April 2008, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by twinstead

WildCat. Dude. You know the YouTube generation ROCKS!

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...6112580409.gif

mrbaracuda · 10th April 2008, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...6112580409.gif

Now that you mention it.. they don't most of the time! Shocking discovery!

mrbaracuda · 10th April 2008, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

"Research" = watching truther videos on youtube.

You forgot videos.google. You know, for the hardcore researchers who can endure more than 15 minutes tops.

milesalpha · 10th April 2008, 05:34 PM

Just wanted to point out that Youtube has been declared "The Root of All Evil" by Lewis Black, joining beer and Trump.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows....aspx?sid=7618

Should I be worried that I agree with all of his assessments?

WildCat · 10th April 2008, 05:42 PM

Hey, my Steve Earle video on youtube has 12,600 views! And the top linking site is Steve Earle's myspace page!

MikeW · 11th April 2008, 12:29 AM

Most truthers seem to believe the "inside job" case is so blindingly obvious, that anyone who gets to see the details will immediately be converted. When they encounter someone who isn't a true believer, then, they see only two alternatives.

a) "you haven't done the research"
b) you have seen the "research" and know it's an "inside job" but are intentionally covering it up

The third possibility, that you've done the reseach and found flaws in their phony "evidence", is so damaging to their world view that they won't even dare consider it. They just "know" 9/11 "was an inside job", so people saying otherwise must simply be wrong. No doubt must be allowed to slip in, otherwise the whole facade will begin to crumble.

Dave Rogers · 11th April 2008, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

It means that sense we don't agree with them we couldn't possible have read the same things they have, because if we read them we would be left with no choice but to agree with the "truth".

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, don't we all feel the same way about them?

Dave

DC · 11th April 2008, 01:54 AM

when you dont belive the CT, you did not read them or did not understand them.
when you dont belive the Debunkings, you did not read them or did not understand them.

Its the same stuff on both sides

padragan · 11th April 2008, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

when you dont belive the CT, you did not read them or did not understand them.
when you dont belive the Debunkings, you did not read them or did not understand them.

Its the same stuff on both sides

After having spent some time over the last few years on several boards where CT are discussed I must respectfully disagree that it should be the same thing. One thing separates the two sides in a very obvious way: Evidence. I've seen twoofers rund like the devil were chasing them rather then actaully looking at evidence. To me it is clear which side is based on fact, observation and critical thinking and which side is based on pure and blind faith.

Therefore, I'd say that skeptics DO understand conspiracy theories, they just don't agree when all facts are reviewed.

DC · 11th April 2008, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by padragan

After having spent some time over the last few years on several boards where CT are discussed I must respectfully disagree that it should be the same thing. One thing separates the two sides in a very obvious way: Evidence. I've seen twoofers rund like the devil were chasing them rather then actaully looking at evidence. To me it is clear which side is based on fact, observation and critical thinking and which side is based on pure and blind faith.

Therefore, I'd say that skeptics DO understand conspiracy theories, they just don't agree when all facts are reviewed.

the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers

padragan · 11th April 2008, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers

Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community.

DC · 11th April 2008, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by padragan

Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community.

oh they belive they show alot ov evidence, they also belive that they have alot peer-reviewed papers. witch oc is denied by the other side

deep · 11th April 2008, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by CHF

What research are twoofers talking about when they say this?

Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan?

That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin?

That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ?

That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon?

That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?"

What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done?

Questions like that are highly contextual - perhaps you could provide a few examples? Or have you not done your research?

deep · 11th April 2008, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by padragan

Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community.

Wait, compared to a huge pile of "published/reviewed work"? What do you mean by that?

If you meant peer-reviewed, which scientific journals can I find this peer-reviewed research in?

Dave Rogers · 11th April 2008, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers

Is there an echo in here?

And back to reality: the big difference is that we, as debunkers, tend to look at the totality of the evidence and reconcile our understanding to a best fit to it, whereas conspiracy theorists invariably take a position where a significant proportion of the evidence is claimed, either without proof or with highly dubious proof, to have been fabricated. A possible exception is instances like the faked explosions on the Trinity Church video, but even there proof exists of fabrication, in the form of (a) two versions of the video being available and (b) Mark De Martini's stereo separation analysis.

So the difference is, we adjust our perceptions to fit the evidence, and truthers adjust the evidence to fit their perceptions.

Dave

padragan · 11th April 2008, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by deep44

Wait, compared to a huge pile of "published/reviewed work"? What do you mean by that?

If you meant peer-reviewed, which scientific journals can I find this peer-reviewed research in?

Yes I mean peer-reviewed. Many researchers/engineers/scientists from different parts of the world have done analysis and calculations on the events that day and published them for peer-review. And that is on top of the work done by NIST. Gravy have alist that can be found here:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/peer...tcimpacts%2Cfi

Where are the peer-reviewed papers from the twoof movement?

padragan · 11th April 2008, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

oh they belive they show alot ov evidence, they also belive that they have alot peer-reviewed papers. witch oc is denied by the other side

Peer-review is not about faith. You either HAVE submitted a paper for review or you have not.

It's absurd to see you trying to make this an open "We think this, you think that, both theories are of equal probability and value" type of thing.

Face it, in terms of real evidence, you know the kind that wouldn't be thrown out of a court hall followed by laughter, we have lots, you have nothing.

JamesB · 11th April 2008, 07:20 AM

You wouldn't believe how many times I have heard this line, even after I explain to truthers that I write for a blog on truthers (currently approaching 3000 posts) and have probably read and watched 10 times as much of this crap as they have. Sad, I know.

Hyperviolet · 11th April 2008, 07:39 AM

They think we don't know that a 3rd building came down on 9/11 without even being hit with a plane!

Groundbreaking and shocking.

zomg.

Pardalis · 11th April 2008, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

They think we don't know that a 3rd building came down on 9/11 without even being hit with a plane!

Groundbreaking and shocking.

Yeah, alot of twoofers say that this has not been reported by the media, but I distinctly remember returning home from work on 9/11 (at around 5pm) and seeing it collapse live on television.

DC · 11th April 2008, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Yeah, alot of twoofers say that this has not been reported by the media, but I distinctly remember returning home from work on 9/11 (at around 5pm) and seeing it collapse live on television.

i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^

DC · 11th April 2008, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by padragan

Peer-review is not about faith. You either HAVE submitted a paper for review or you have not.

It's absurd to see you trying to make this an open "We think this, you think that, both theories are of equal probability and value" type of thing.

Face it, in terms of real evidence, you know the kind that wouldn't be thrown out of a court hall followed by laughter, we have lots, you have nothing.

its more about, who is peer reviewing

Sporanox · 11th April 2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^

Yes, and I hope you don't think that.

Instead of trying to come up with a more general summary of the argument, as other have done above, I'll just cite the various verbal acrobatics truthers have been forced to do over the years with their "science." If you point out that traditional explosives were impossible to use, they claim thermite. If you point out there is no evidence of thermite and it wouldn't fulfill their "too fast collapse scenario," they go back to the exploding windows. If you point out the same thing you did the first time, they claim "smart air."

It's rich. Now when have you seen debunkers jump around the place?

Pardalis · 11th April 2008, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^

Yeah, they knew the collapse was imminent, kind of goes against the CD theory doesn't it?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75768

twinstead · 11th April 2008, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

its more about, who is peer reviewing

That is 100% correct. I could submit a paper claiming the Holocaust was a hoax to a neo-nazi organization and call it peer review.

But is it really?

padragan · 11th April 2008, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

its more about, who is peer reviewing

No it's not, any paper/article submitted to scientific journals is a fair target to anyone. ANY scientist/engineer can write down a case where they prove someone wrong (provided that they actually ARE wrong that is), it's not that only a selected handfull people controlled by the NWO can read the articles and papers.

So, you are wrong, the reason twoofers don't have any peer-reviewed papers is that they don't pass the quality check. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that IS the case.

twinstead · 11th April 2008, 08:26 AM

Maybe the establishment is in on it? Down with The Man! Power to the People!!

DC · 11th April 2008, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

That is 100% correct. I could submit a paper claiming the Holocaust was a hoax to a neo-nazi organization and call it peer review.

But is it really?

i gues the neonazis would claim it is peer reviewed, and somehow they would be right. while somehow they would be wrong

DC · 11th April 2008, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by padragan

No it's not, any paper/article submitted to scientific journals is a fair target to anyone. ANY scientist/engineer can write down a case where they prove someone wrong (provided that they actually ARE wrong that is), it's not that only a selected handfull people controlled by the NWO can read the articles and papers.

So, you are wrong, the reason twoofers don't have any peer-reviewed papers is that they don't pass the quality check. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that IS the case.

why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering?

defaultdotxbe · 11th April 2008, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering?

its pretty much a catchall for any shadowy organization behind any outlandish conspiracy

Pardalis · 11th April 2008, 08:59 AM

Is it me, or is the truth movement trying to cast off Alex Jones?

It's been a couple of posts now from truthers trying to make it look like it's the "debunkers" the ones who put too much emphasis on AJ's claims.

padragan · 11th April 2008, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering?

Feel free to search/replace NWO with Illuminati, The Bush Cabal, Republicans, The gubbmint or whatever it is you think may be behind all of this (but hey, if there's an evil conspiracy out there, why settle for the lesser evil when NWO is so much more fun?). It still does not change the fact that any proffesional can challenge a published article at any time after it's been published. It's part of the scientific method you know... to constantly see if claims hold up, and when they don't replacing them with a better theory.

Have you seen a massive massive critique launched ANYWHERE against these peer reviewed articles? A simple yes or no will do.

DC · 11th April 2008, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Is it me, or is the truth movement trying to cast off Alex Jones?

It's been a couple of posts now from truthers trying to make it look like it's the "debunkers" the ones who put too much emphasis on AJ's claims.

well i dont represent the truth movement or any other group

i never liked AJ nor LC

DC · 11th April 2008, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by padragan

Feel free to search/replace NWO with Illuminati, The Bush Cabal, Republicans, The gubbmint or whatever it is you think may be behind all of this (but hey, if there's an evil conspiracy out there, why settle for the lesser evil when NWO is so much more fun?). It still does not change the fact that any proffesional can challenge a published article at any time after it's been published. It's part of the scientific method you know... to constantly see if claims hold up, and when they don't replacing them with a better theory.

Have you seen a massive massive critique launched ANYWHERE against these peer reviewed articles? A simple yes or no will do.

a massive massive critique?
no

DC · 11th April 2008, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

its pretty much a catchall for any shadowy organization behind any outlandish conspiracy

AQ is NWO?

defaultdotxbe · 11th April 2008, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

AQ is NWO?

what outlandish conspiracy are they behind?

oh wait, truthers think outlandish means the opposite of outlandish

10th April 2008, 03:38 PM	#1
CHF Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,875	"You guys obviously haven't done your research" What research are twoofers talking about when they say this? Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan? That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin? That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ? That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon? That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?" What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done?

10th April 2008, 03:47 PM	#2
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,417	Originally Posted by CHF What research are twoofers talking about when they say this? Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan? That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin? That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ? That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon? That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?" What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done? It means that sense we don't agree with them we couldn't possible have read the same things they have, because if we read them we would be left with no choice but to agree with the "truth". Incidently this is the same circular argument you will get from Christians regarding the Bible.
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

10th April 2008, 04:11 PM	#4
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	WildCat. Dude. You know the YouTube generation ROCKS!
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

10th April 2008, 05:34 PM	#8
milesalpha Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2006 Location: Parts Unknown aka Nova Scotia Posts: 375	Just wanted to point out that Youtube has been declared "The Root of All Evil" by Lewis Black, joining beer and Trump. http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows....aspx?sid=7618 Should I be worried that I agree with all of his assessments?
	__________________ Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open manhole and die. Mel Brooks

11th April 2008, 12:29 AM	#10
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911	Most truthers seem to believe the "inside job" case is so blindingly obvious, that anyone who gets to see the details will immediately be converted. When they encounter someone who isn't a true believer, then, they see only two alternatives. a) "you haven't done the research" b) you have seen the "research" and know it's an "inside job" but are intentionally covering it up The third possibility, that you've done the reseach and found flaws in their phony "evidence", is so damaging to their world view that they won't even dare consider it. They just "know" 9/11 "was an inside job", so people saying otherwise must simply be wrong. No doubt must be allowed to slip in, otherwise the whole facade will begin to crumble.
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911

10th April 2008, 03:57 PM	#3
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,983	"Research" = watching truther videos on youtube.

10th April 2008, 04:57 PM	#5
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,983	Originally Posted by twinstead WildCat. Dude. You know the YouTube generation ROCKS! http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...6112580409.gif

10th April 2008, 05:02 PM	#6
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Originally Posted by WildCat http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...6112580409.gif Now that you mention it.. they don't most of the time! Shocking discovery!

10th April 2008, 05:03 PM	#7
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Originally Posted by WildCat "Research" = watching truther videos on youtube. You forgot videos.google. You know, for the hardcore researchers who can endure more than 15 minutes tops.

10th April 2008, 05:42 PM	#9
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,983	Hey, my Steve Earle video on youtube has 12,600 views! And the top linking site is Steve Earle's myspace page!

11th April 2008, 01:28 AM	#11
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol It means that sense we don't agree with them we couldn't possible have read the same things they have, because if we read them we would be left with no choice but to agree with the "truth". Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, don't we all feel the same way about them? Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th April 2008, 01:54 AM	#12
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,649	when you dont belive the CT, you did not read them or did not understand them. when you dont belive the Debunkings, you did not read them or did not understand them. Its the same stuff on both sides
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

11th April 2008, 02:26 AM	#13
padragan Scholar Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 116	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney when you dont belive the CT, you did not read them or did not understand them. when you dont belive the Debunkings, you did not read them or did not understand them. Its the same stuff on both sides After having spent some time over the last few years on several boards where CT are discussed I must respectfully disagree that it should be the same thing. One thing separates the two sides in a very obvious way: Evidence. I've seen twoofers rund like the devil were chasing them rather then actaully looking at evidence. To me it is clear which side is based on fact, observation and critical thinking and which side is based on pure and blind faith. Therefore, I'd say that skeptics DO understand conspiracy theories, they just don't agree when all facts are reviewed.

11th April 2008, 03:02 AM	#14
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,649	Originally Posted by padragan After having spent some time over the last few years on several boards where CT are discussed I must respectfully disagree that it should be the same thing. One thing separates the two sides in a very obvious way: Evidence. I've seen twoofers rund like the devil were chasing them rather then actaully looking at evidence. To me it is clear which side is based on fact, observation and critical thinking and which side is based on pure and blind faith. Therefore, I'd say that skeptics DO understand conspiracy theories, they just don't agree when all facts are reviewed. the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

11th April 2008, 03:27 AM	#15
padragan Scholar Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 116	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community.

11th April 2008, 03:51 AM	#16
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,649	Originally Posted by padragan Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community. oh they belive they show alot ov evidence, they also belive that they have alot peer-reviewed papers. witch oc is denied by the other side
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

11th April 2008, 04:07 AM	#17
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367	Originally Posted by CHF What research are twoofers talking about when they say this? Is it that they don't believe we've read the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan? That we haven't heard of their grand priest David Ray Griffin? That we didn't take the time to read what the FDNY saw and heard at GZ? That we didn't read the witness statements from the Pentagon? That we haven't seen the same talking points set to different music in a dozen "documentaries?" What is this earth-shattering "research" that debunkers haven't done? Questions like that are highly contextual - perhaps you could provide a few examples? Or have you not done your research?
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367

11th April 2008, 04:14 AM	#18
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367	Originally Posted by padragan Yes I know, but for some strange reasons they are not the ones showing up for "evidence hour". And the examples are many, but the most obvious one is the total lack of peer reviewed papers from the twoof community compared to the huge pile of published/reviewed work from the skeptic/scientific community. Wait, compared to a huge pile of "published/reviewed work"? What do you mean by that? If you meant peer-reviewed, which scientific journals can I find this peer-reviewed research in?
deep Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,367

11th April 2008, 05:27 AM	#19
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney the pretty same is claimed by the twoofers Is there an echo in here? And back to reality: the big difference is that we, as debunkers, tend to look at the totality of the evidence and reconcile our understanding to a best fit to it, whereas conspiracy theorists invariably take a position where a significant proportion of the evidence is claimed, either without proof or with highly dubious proof, to have been fabricated. A possible exception is instances like the faked explosions on the Trinity Church video, but even there proof exists of fabrication, in the form of (a) two versions of the video being available and (b) Mark De Martini's stereo separation analysis. So the difference is, we adjust our perceptions to fit the evidence, and truthers adjust the evidence to fit their perceptions. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th April 2008, 07:17 AM	#20
padragan Scholar Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 116	Originally Posted by deep44 Wait, compared to a huge pile of "published/reviewed work"? What do you mean by that? If you meant peer-reviewed, which scientific journals can I find this peer-reviewed research in? Yes I mean peer-reviewed. Many researchers/engineers/scientists from different parts of the world have done analysis and calculations on the events that day and published them for peer-review. And that is on top of the work done by NIST. Gravy have alist that can be found here: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/peer...tcimpacts%2Cfi Where are the peer-reviewed papers from the twoof movement?

11th April 2008, 07:19 AM	#21
padragan Scholar Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 116	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney oh they belive they show alot ov evidence, they also belive that they have alot peer-reviewed papers. witch oc is denied by the other side Peer-review is not about faith. You either HAVE submitted a paper for review or you have not. It's absurd to see you trying to make this an open "We think this, you think that, both theories are of equal probability and value" type of thing. Face it, in terms of real evidence, you know the kind that wouldn't be thrown out of a court hall followed by laughter, we have lots, you have nothing.
	Last edited by padragan; 11th April 2008 at 07:30 AM.

11th April 2008, 07:20 AM	#22
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	You wouldn't believe how many times I have heard this line, even after I explain to truthers that I write for a blog on truthers (currently approaching 3000 posts) and have probably read and watched 10 times as much of this crap as they have. Sad, I know.
JamesB Master Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 2,136	__________________ I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago. -David Ray Griffin-

11th April 2008, 07:39 AM	#23
Hyperviolet Damnum Fatale Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Glaschu Posts: 988	They think we don't know that a 3rd building came down on 9/11 without even being hit with a plane! Groundbreaking and shocking. zomg.
	__________________ The English are worried about the Euro being brought in because of loss of national identity and rising prices. In Scotland, people are just worried in case they have to close Poundstretcher. Last edited by Hyperviolet; 11th April 2008 at 07:40 AM.

11th April 2008, 07:46 AM	#24
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Hyperviolet They think we don't know that a 3rd building came down on 9/11 without even being hit with a plane! Groundbreaking and shocking. Yeah, alot of twoofers say that this has not been reported by the media, but I distinctly remember returning home from work on 9/11 (at around 5pm) and seeing it collapse live on television.

11th April 2008, 08:07 AM	#25
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,649	Originally Posted by Pardalis Yeah, alot of twoofers say that this has not been reported by the media, but I distinctly remember returning home from work on 9/11 (at around 5pm) and seeing it collapse live on television. i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

11th April 2008, 08:08 AM	#26
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,649	Originally Posted by padragan Peer-review is not about faith. You either HAVE submitted a paper for review or you have not. It's absurd to see you trying to make this an open "We think this, you think that, both theories are of equal probability and value" type of thing. Face it, in terms of real evidence, you know the kind that wouldn't be thrown out of a court hall followed by laughter, we have lots, you have nothing. its more about, who is peer reviewing
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

11th April 2008, 08:18 AM	#27
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Quote: i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^ Yes, and I hope you don't think that. Instead of trying to come up with a more general summary of the argument, as other have done above, I'll just cite the various verbal acrobatics truthers have been forced to do over the years with their "science." If you point out that traditional explosives were impossible to use, they claim thermite. If you point out there is no evidence of thermite and it wouldn't fulfill their "too fast collapse scenario," they go back to the exploding windows. If you point out the same thing you did the first time, they claim "smart air." It's rich. Now when have you seen debunkers jump around the place?
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

11th April 2008, 08:23 AM	#28
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney i think most twoofers claim that it was reported in the media, some 20 minutes to early^^ Yeah, they knew the collapse was imminent, kind of goes against the CD theory doesn't it? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75768

11th April 2008, 08:24 AM	#29
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney its more about, who is peer reviewing That is 100% correct. I could submit a paper claiming the Holocaust was a hoax to a neo-nazi organization and call it peer review. But is it really?
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

11th April 2008, 08:25 AM	#30
padragan Scholar Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 116	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney its more about, who is peer reviewing No it's not, any paper/article submitted to scientific journals is a fair target to anyone. ANY scientist/engineer can write down a case where they prove someone wrong (provided that they actually ARE wrong that is), it's not that only a selected handfull people controlled by the NWO can read the articles and papers. So, you are wrong, the reason twoofers don't have any peer-reviewed papers is that they don't pass the quality check. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that IS the case.
	Last edited by padragan; 11th April 2008 at 08:28 AM.

11th April 2008, 08:26 AM	#31
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	Maybe the establishment is in on it? Down with The Man! Power to the People!!
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

11th April 2008, 08:52 AM	#32
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,649	Originally Posted by twinstead That is 100% correct. I could submit a paper claiming the Holocaust was a hoax to a neo-nazi organization and call it peer review. But is it really? i gues the neonazis would claim it is peer reviewed, and somehow they would be right. while somehow they would be wrong
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

11th April 2008, 08:54 AM	#33
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,649	Originally Posted by padragan No it's not, any paper/article submitted to scientific journals is a fair target to anyone. ANY scientist/engineer can write down a case where they prove someone wrong (provided that they actually ARE wrong that is), it's not that only a selected handfull people controlled by the NWO can read the articles and papers. So, you are wrong, the reason twoofers don't have any peer-reviewed papers is that they don't pass the quality check. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that IS the case. why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering?
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

11th April 2008, 08:57 AM	#34
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney why do so many ppl say NWO here NWO there, so you guys listen to much Alex Jones paranoia mongering? its pretty much a catchall for any shadowy organization behind any outlandish conspiracy
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

11th April 2008, 08:59 AM	#35
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Is it me, or is the truth movement trying to cast off Alex Jones? It's been a couple of posts now from truthers trying to make it look like it's the "debunkers" the ones who put too much emphasis on AJ's claims.