View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 CT Facts and Myth links

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: 9/11 CT facts and Myth links

Postby SydneyPSIder » 05 Oct 2012, 09:23

Just on the OP, I note there has been a follow-up study on nanothermite/thermate/thermite etc which finds that the dust samples are a paint layer. I've had a quick glance over the study, and a quick glance over the original nanothermite dust investigation study in the past. It would be necessary to re-evaluate both of them closely. e.g. in the original study, applying heat to the paint chips resulted in a major visible exothermic reaction, caught on video (which is presumably legit). This would not happen with paint, as every building would then be much like the Hindenberg waiting to go off. This is a major weakness of the 'debunking' study which conveniently makes no reference to the exothermic potential of the chips.

However, the 'spray-on nanothermite' argument has never been one to me that was required to explain the extraordinary collapse of steel framed skyscrapers in a low temperature fire -- other demolition methods could easily have been used. Conventional thermite-based cutting devices may have been the first step, followed by timed C-4 plastic charges to blow out the joints and demolish the building. I don't actually see where a nanothermite spray coating is even required for such a demolition, although if such a thing was found, it would imply '19 Saudi Arabian terrorists' could not have gained the necessary access to apply such a coating and adds more incredulity to the official account.

There are way too many other points that stretch credulity in the official account to make all the problems go away, however -- patsy 'airline pilots' unable to even fly a single-engined Cessna, claims in the official story that don't fit the data, and so on. Same applies to Madrid, 7/7 and 21/7. All false flag operations and frame-ups on the evidence.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: 9/11 CT facts and Myth links

Postby really? » 05 Oct 2012, 10:25

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Arouet wrote:Yeah, I've dissected some of Scepcop's musings on that before. But I'm not asking Scepcop - he thinks using primarily testimonials is a reliable was to figure out if medication is effection- I'm asking you. How would you define what is a skeptical approach to a problem?

that's too big a question to answer here succinctly, and I'm not going to waste time constructing a detailed answer to satisfy every request you make. I have other things to do in the day. I'm not sure why you're 'testing' me, I have a science degree and work in a scientific and logical field. I use the hypothetico-deductive method every day. Winston has posted up a good summary on the home page defining what sceptical enquiry really is, I'll copy-paste that also, but it just seems you want to badger and carp at other posters here rather than address real questions and evidence about the original topic. I don't know if it's a mark of your personality or whether you're an active participant in that particular cover-up.

Last time I'm indulging one of your frequent off-topic requests.

True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

Questions everything and takes nothing on faith, even from cherished established institutions.
Asks questions to try to understand new things and are open to learning about them.
Applies critical examination and inquiry to all sides, including their own.
Withholds judgment and does not jump to rash conclusions.
Seeks the truth and considers it the highest aim.
Thinks in terms of possibilities rather than in preserving fixed views.
Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides.
Acknowledges valid convincing evidence rather than ignoring or denying it.
Possess solid sharp common sense and reason.
Are able to adapt their paradigms to new evidence and update their hypothesis to fit the data.
Accepts that there are mysteries and revels in trying to understand them.
Views science as a tool and methodology, not as a religion or authority to be obeyed. Understands the difference between the scientific process and the scientific establishment.
Acknowledges that the scientific establishment is subject to politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression, as all human based institutions are - and therefore must be critically examined and scrutinized, rather than taken on faith, especially in the light of contrary evidence to their claims.
Will admit they are wrong when the evidence calls for it.


PseudoSkeptics / Closed-Minded Skeptics

Does not question anything from established non-religious institutions, but takes whatever they say on faith and demands that others do the same.
Does not ask questions to try to understand new things, but judges them by whether they fit into orthodoxy.
Applies "critical thinking" only to that which opposes orthodoxy or materialism, but never to the status quo itself.
Immediately judges as false and debunks anything that contradicts their paradigm.
Are not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending their views.
Cannot think in terms of possibilities, but sees their paradigms as fixed and constant.
Are willing to lie and deceive to discredit their opponents.
Automatically dismisses and denies all data that contradicts materialism and orthodoxy.
Are judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about.
Scoffs and ridicules what they oppose instead of using objective analysis and examination.
When faced with evidence or facts they can't refute, uses semantics, word games and denial to try to obfuscate the issue.
Unable to adapt their paradigms to new evidence, and denies data which doesn't fit into them.
Dislikes mystery and uncertainty, and insist that all unknown phenomena must have a mundane explanation.
Views the scientific establishment as a religion and authority to be taken on faith and never questioned or challenged. Does not understand the difference between the scientific process/methodology and the scientific establishment institution.
Assumes that the scientific establishment is objective and unbiased, and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression for no other reason than blind faith in authority.
Will never admit that they are wrong no matter what, regardless of evidence.


I see some of you in this and it's not the good parts.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: 9/11 CT facts and Myth links

Postby SydneyPSIder » 05 Oct 2012, 12:33

really wrote:I see some of you in this and it's not the good parts.

tag-team trolling now. surely you pseudosceptics got all this stuff out of your system when this forum first got up?

the bad parts are all yours, jimmy, you just don't like people calling your game...
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: 9/11 CT facts and Myth links

Postby NinjaPuppy » 05 Oct 2012, 20:16

SydneyPSIder wrote:tag-team trolling now. surely you pseudosceptics got all this stuff out of your system when this forum first got up?

Oh hell no! :lol:

First off, I don't see it as "trolling" at all. I believe that we have a great bunch of core members here who express their views extremely well on all topics. I do feel that 'in the beginning' the skeptics chased off many, if not all of the opposition but I believe that if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the Spamalamadingdong. It's not like this place has a nasty vibe or attitude. It has an extremely logical and educational exchange of wit and wisdom. I've learned a lot about things that I would otherwise not understand. Heck, I've learned volumes about topics that I had zero interest in. ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: 9/11 CT facts and Myth links

Postby ProfWag » 05 Oct 2012, 21:16

NinjaPuppy wrote: Heck, I've learned volumes about topics that I had zero interest in. ;)

That goes for me too and includes the below topic that I learned volumes but had zero interest in: (Can you say, TMI?)

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=607&p=6432&hilit=bowel#p6432
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 CT facts and Myth links

Postby Scepcop » 15 Oct 2012, 20:43

Arouet wrote:So if someone linked to a thread that you made on this forum, an appropriate response would be: "Why would we believe someone like WInston Wu is a credible source on anything?"


Well at least I have character and professional references. See them here:

http://www.happierabroad.com/References.htm

And plus, I have no history of ever having lied or deceived anyone.

That makes me credible by objective standards.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: 9/11 CT Facts and Myth links

Postby Arouet » 15 Oct 2012, 23:56

You missed my point, which is that your opinions are not relevant to assessing the opinions of the people who post on your site.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: 9/11 CT facts and Myth links

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2012, 00:18

Scepcop wrote:And plus, I have no history of ever having lied or deceived anyone.



Yes you do.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3845
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests