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

Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

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.

Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 15:54

A talk by David Ray Griffin debunking the official defenders and Popular Mechanics with logic, facts, and empirical science.

Part 1 starts here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbY5_qtz83M
“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: Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

Postby Nostradamus » 28 Aug 2009, 02:01

I managed to get through 3 parts today.

He claims that defining a term, in this conspiracy, is in some sense empirical. Griffin needs to learn what empirical means.

Part 1 - Nothing offered
Part 2 - Blazing lies
1. The hijackers defeated the most sophistocated defense system in history
2. Calling Hanjour's flight an astounding trajectory
3. Virtually free fall speed
4. That has been no investigation
5. The signing he claimed

Best part of the show - how he mocks his own stance with his straw man attacks.
Still no empirical evidence.

Part 3 -
1. Pointless innuendos just like part 2 with a summary that the reports may be tainted. LOL
2. Extolling the truther movement because people he claims are tainted are part of the group is downright stupid.
First he says these are all tainted people because they have government connections and then points out that the truthers are also tainted.
3. Then comes the litany of organizations - still no empirical evidence sigh
4. More unfounded claims that 'the other side' did nothing - guess he never read the thousands of pages of reports by NIST, FEMA, universities, other countries, the ASCE, and other professional organizations

Blazing lies
1. Claims that everyone but his group is shoe-horning the facts to a theory
2. Bin Laden was not connected to 9/11.
His proof are the words of the Taliban. There are videos of the hijackers meeting with Bin Laden.

From http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-07-qaeda-tape_x.htm
An Arab television station broadcast previously unseen footage Thursday of a smiling Osama bin Laden meeting with the top planners of the Sept. 11 attacks in an Afghan mountain camp and calling on followers to pray for the hijackers as they carry out the suicide mission.


I probably missed other lies, but this is the first I caught. Can't wait to see the next 6 parts.

Basically if any one else is interested in watching these shows you can skip parts 1 to 3 and save a half hour of their lives. Basically no content up to this point and certainly no empirical evidence offered. Come to think of it, one blatant, idiotic lie in 30 minutes isn't so bad.

Best part of the show "Not everyone that cries facts, facts, really follows the empirical method". how can he mock the truth movement like that?

Seems this yokel can't wait to tell lies.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

Postby ProfWag » 28 Aug 2009, 02:35

Nostradamus wrote:I managed to get through 3 parts today.

He claims that defining a term, in this conspiracy, is in some sense empirical. Griffin needs to learn what empirical means.

Part 1 - Nothing offered
Part 2 - Blazing lies
1. The hijackers defeated the most sophistocated defense system in history
2. Calling Hanjour's flight an astounding trajectory
3. Virtually free fall speed
4. That has been no investigation
5. The signing he claimed

Best part of the show - how he mocks his own stance with his straw man attacks.
Still no empirical evidence.

Part 3 -
1. Pointless innuendos just like part 2 with a summary that the reports may be tainted. LOL
2. Extolling the truther movement because people he claims are tainted are part of the group is downright stupid.
First he says these are all tainted people because they have government connections and then points out that the truthers are also tainted.
3. Then comes the litany of organizations - still no empirical evidence sigh
4. More unfounded claims that 'the other side' did nothing - guess he never read the thousands of pages of reports by NIST, FEMA, universities, other countries, the ASCE, and other professional organizations

Blazing lies
1. Claims that everyone but his group is shoe-horning the facts to a theory
2. Bin Laden was not connected to 9/11.
His proof are the words of the Taliban. There are videos of the hijackers meeting with Bin Laden.

From http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-07-qaeda-tape_x.htm
An Arab television station broadcast previously unseen footage Thursday of a smiling Osama bin Laden meeting with the top planners of the Sept. 11 attacks in an Afghan mountain camp and calling on followers to pray for the hijackers as they carry out the suicide mission.


I probably missed other lies, but this is the first I caught. Can't wait to see the next 6 parts.

Basically if any one else is interested in watching these shows you can skip parts 1 to 3 and save a half hour of their lives. Basically no content up to this point and certainly no empirical evidence offered. Come to think of it, one blatant, idiotic lie in 30 minutes isn't so bad.

Best part of the show "Not everyone that cries facts, facts, really follows the empirical method". how can he mock the truth movement like that?

Seems this yokel can't wait to tell lies.

Thanks for taking the time to review these Nostradamus. Great work. And he has a PhD in Theology too. Guess you just can't trust anyone when they want to destroy a country. I'm just quickly running out of steam on these 9/11 conspiracy theories. After 4 or 5 days of looking at all the facts presented, I just see nothing there and no one can answer the simple questions I've asked. So, I'm moving on unless I see something really, really new that changes the scope of facts as we know them. Thanks again for an enlightening review that will save me a bunch of wasted time!
ProfWag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

Postby Nostradamus » 28 Aug 2009, 12:50

Don't bother with part 4 - it stinks. Aweful, just aweful - it's pitiful
1. Makes comments about the hijackers without apparent rhyme or reason
2. Claims the people that received cell calls from the planes did not

For a change there is a little presentation of evidence. A guy in Canada tried to make a cell call from a small plane. Couldn't. So Griffin does a stupid. He extrapolates this one effort to a universal claim.

Here is better evidence: Edward Felt and CeeCee Lyles successfully used cell phones to make call from Flight 93. The FBI claims that at least cell phone calls were made. The reset were made using airfones.

Regardless of whether or not there were cell phone calls it is clear that the bulk of the calls were made on the seat back phones on the plane.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

Postby Nostradamus » 28 Aug 2009, 20:48

Let's get empirical. Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal concerning cell phones and air travelers. The date is 1999. It shows that Gewdney needs to try again and that Griffith's claims in his presentation are well known hogwash at the time he talked.

http://www.cs.ccsu.edu/~pelletie/local/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html
Using cell phones aloft on commercial and private aircraft is banned not by the FAA but by the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates telephone use. In prohibiting airborne use in 1991, the FCC was mainly concerned about cell phones' potential to interfere with ground-to-ground cellular transmission.


The cellular signal from the air is also especially strong, since it is unimpeded by buildings or other ground clutter. That often means it can jump on a frequency already in use on the ground, causing interruptions or hang-ups.


The issue began heating up again in 1992, when Rep. Bob Carr, then a Michigan Congressman, and vice chairman of the Transportation Appropriations subcommittee, asked the FAA for a detailed look at alleged cellular interference. Rep. Carr had been reprimanded by a United flight attendant for using his cell phone while a flight to Chicago was delayed on the ground in Detroit. Mr. Carr, a pilot, says he regularly used his cell phone while flying on commercial planes in the late 1980s.


Mr. Sheehan, who is also a certified pilot, notes that cell phones are regularly used on private and corporate planes "thousands of times every day" without incident. He says he has dialed from the air on many occasions.


For those with a pseudoskeptical attitude here just remember this article was written before 9/11 and deals with issues other than the possibility of cell calls. It deals with aircraft safety and cellular system issues.

I have not delved into the next part of the speech, but for whatever nitpicking reason Griffin chose to claims cell phones can't be made he is demonstrably wrong apparently thousands of calls a day for over a decade.

You'd think this Yahoo could have done some simple math. Dewdney fails at say 10000 feet. That's 2 miles. Do you have to be closer than 2 miles to a cell tower to make a call? Griffin and Dewdney need to give themselves the Homer Simpson :? DOH head slap.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

Postby Nostradamus » 28 Aug 2009, 23:39

This is a synopsis of part 5. I doubt I'll get any further.

Part 5 - Continues on with this wrong claim that no cell phones were used
1. This cell phone issue is a wrong argument based solely on Gewdney's attempt which has been known to be wrong since the 1980s!
2. Goes on to point out that someone receiving a call was unclear about the device used by the caller. Whoopee.
3. Claims that the hijackers were small and could easily have been overpowered by the 60 people on board.

What a stupid statement! Shameful and stupid and deceitful! He calls the story absurd standing safely behind a podium. What a horrid, self serving, smug fiend he is.

Blazing lies
1. Claims that the FBI reduced the number of cell phones to 2. This is absolutely wrong. The FBI used 2 cell calls in the trial and never said there were not others.

So the point of all of these call claims, that are demonstrably wrong, is that he claims that calls were placed by 'voice morphing' devices that faked all of the calls.

From IEEE Spectrum: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed
What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing. Although that number seems low, keep in mind that it represents the furtive activity of a small number of rule breakers.


Here is Griffin admitting his idiotic notion was wrong and there were phones:
http://911blogger.com/node/8408#comment-139890

[url]The conclusion that Barbara Olson could not have made a call using an onboard phone seemed further confirmed by a page on the AA website that says, “Worldwide satellite communications are available on American Airlines' Boeing 777 and Boeing 767,” with no mention of AA’s Boeing 757.

My mistake, like that of Henshall and Rowland before me, was to assume that the AA spokesperson and this website were talking about AA 757s as they had always been, not simply about 757s at the time of the query, in 2004.[/url]

It seems that Griffin does his research poorly or more likely not at all.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

Postby Scepcop » 02 Sep 2009, 19:56

It seems that your critique contains nothing but ad hominem attacks. Everyone knows what empirical means. You are simply playing word games and denying again and taking official sources as truth even if they've been debunked.

Griffin has read more about this than you could ever. His scientific colleagues such as Kevin Ryan and David Chandler have read the NIST report and found only one page relevant that explained the collapse. The rest of the pages were irrelevant and mostly smoke and mirrors.

In fact, these scientists from the Truth Movement have forced NIST to admit to freefall. Didn't you see the video about it? NIST gave in cause it was cornered and forced to admit the obvious.

Again, steel requires 3000 F to melt. Office fires are only 1500 F. Doesn't add up.

A building collapsing from fire falls in the path of least resistance, not in the path of greatest resistance. That's common sense, which you lack.

Empirical is about the odds and probabilities.

For example, if a building is completely pulverized to dust, what are the odds that a passport is going to come out unscathed and that it just happens to belong to a hijacker? Billions to one?

Yet you accept that on gospel faith? Why? What is the source of your religious faith based belief in the official government propaganda?
“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: Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

Postby ProfWag » 02 Sep 2009, 22:08

I don't suppose I could convince you to read this, could I? (At least the chapter on the fires?...Maybe?)
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_ ... ew_2_1.pdf
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Film: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - Let's get empirical

Postby Nostradamus » 03 Sep 2009, 02:30

It seems that your critique contains nothing but ad hominem attacks.
That's common sense, which you lack.

I provided facts. You choose not to. You lack facts and take the position of pseudoskeptic with regard to 9/11 truthers.

Your argument here is an appeal to authority, an authority which is questionable. One of the main points in the video is cell phone usage on planes which was well known to work long before 9/11 and yet Griffin claims it is not possible. Some time after this speech he admitted that this was wrong. He also claimed no plane hit the Pentagon. His claims of momentum are wrong.

David Chandler can't even getting collapse times right so he is hardly a good source of information.
Again, steel requires 3000 F to melt. Office fires are only 1500 F. Doesn't add up.

No melted steel. Doesn't add up? It does NOT apply. Do you understand what 1500F means?

A building collapsing from fire falls in the path of least resistance, not in the path of greatest resistance.

That is wrong. The people making this claim need to take an introductory course in physics.

Empirical is about the odds and probabilities.


You need to look up empirical and understand what it means.

For example, if a building is completely pulverized to dust, what are the odds that a passport is going to come out unscathed and that it just happens to belong to a hijacker? Billions to one?

This is another example of a lie. No buildings were pulverized to dust. That is an outlandish lie.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron