SpeedRacer 1 #1 August 2, 2009 http://www.cracked.com/funny-44-conspiracy-theories/ Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #2 August 3, 2009 Now see, if you put all theories in one basket, you get a pile of rotten eggs. bad eggs taint the good eggs. I don't see any of the reputable organisations that do not jump to conclusions but refute scientifically and professionally what happend on 9/11 included in your link. Like these guys; http://www.ae911truth.org/ http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 http://stj911.org/ http://911scholars.org/ http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ http://www.v911t.org/ and the list goes on... See, I could care less what you think, but as soon as you compare Steven Jones and all these other scholars and professionals that question the supposedly official story to tin hatters and satan worshippers, just like you have in your link... ...Then you become the foolish conspirer. If there is so much doubt about the official report, so much coincidence, so many reputable people questioning it. Why not look into it? It is damn simple, too much evidence is emmited, too many important witnesses have mysteriously died... Yet you don't mind paying billions or trillions to fight a pointles war that is also founded on such lies, by the same old people in question.... Meanwhile the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If you are so sure the the official story is correct, Show me evidence that it is peer reviewed! because it is not, why? Because it is a crock of shit, simple. You cannot refute physics."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #3 August 3, 2009 The tinfoil hat version has already been debunked many times over. Post what you like, I'm not returning to this thread. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #4 August 3, 2009 QuoteThe tinfoil hat version has already been debunked many times over. There goes that tin foil hat thing again, I had never heard of that until you neo con lot in here started going on about it. Using that line instead of actually using your own brain to refute what people say is a cop out for sheep. Debunked you say? With false physics and false evidence. Your debunkings have been debunked also numerous times, round in circles we go! QuotePost what you like, I'm not returning to this thread. So you are the type to poke somone in the shoulder and run away? Turn up to a debate and say "I won" without actually having a discussion? haha, And you wonder why your opinion isn't worth anything?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #5 August 3, 2009 http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #6 August 3, 2009 See, more intellegent, neo con type information and debate. Such substance and research, no wonder you guys rule the roost! "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #7 August 3, 2009 I was watching Batman on tv tonight. There was all these people trying to figure out the Joker's formula that was killing people. Batman did it in an hour and saved the day. Good thing that Batman is still out there providing information to the public. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 August 3, 2009 QuoteUsing that line instead of actually using your own brain to refute what people say is a cop out for sheep. You mean like your use of neo-con in the sentence immediately preceding it? Would you consider billvon a neocon, since he blew gaping holes in your "theories'? Quotehaha, And you wonder why your opinion isn't worth anything? We *know* why yours isn't.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #9 August 3, 2009 QuoteYou mean like your use of neo-con in the sentence immediately preceding it? A noun used in debate is not the same as using the noun as debate. There is a distinct difference. QuoteWould you consider billvon a neocon, since he blew gaping holes in your "theories'? Bill has never blown any 911 theory away, all scientists know that a peer reviewed journal is needed to complete a hypothesis, Dr. Steven Jones ‘has’ produced a peer reviewed journal, NIST ‘has not’. In fact NIST bases their entire calculations of the collapses of all 3 WTC buildings on simultaneous, symmetrical (freefall speed) collapse of the initial floors that gave way, a rather unlikely hypothesis considering random fires were supposedly to blame. They took over 5 years to come up with thier 1st final report, then took a heart beat to ammend it once the 'tin foil hatters' pointed out the obvious flaws. You don’t need to be a physicist to work it out."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #10 August 3, 2009 QuoteBill has never blown any 911 theory away, all scientists know that a peer reviewed journal is needed to complete a hypothesis, Dr. Steven Jones ‘has’ produced a peer reviewed journal, NIST ‘has not’. This is a red herring. I seriously doubt NIST needs to have their investigation peer reviewed. They are all scientists and engineers working together on an investigation, not a new scientific idea._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #11 August 3, 2009 put on your tin foil hat and watch this. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #12 August 3, 2009 NTSB reports are not peer reviewed either. So what?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #13 August 3, 2009 Quote Bill has never blown any 911 theory away, all scientists know that a peer reviewed journal is needed to complete a hypothesis, Dr. Steven Jones ‘has’ produced a peer reviewed journal, NIST ‘has not’. Uh, no dude, that's stupid. Getting your articles to pass peer review for a serious, reputable professional journal is kinda important. Making up your own peer reviewed journal to feature your own articles isn't. That means nothing. QuoteThere goes that tin foil hat thing again, I had never heard of that until you neo con lot in here started going on about it. Using that line instead of actually using your own brain to refute what people say is a cop out for sheep. Your arguments have been refuted, many times over. When you consistently demonstrate that you are unwilling or unable to listen to reason or participate in real debate then there's nothing left to do but lable you what you are. And no-one in this thread who's called you a tin-foil-hatter is a neo-con, including me.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #14 August 4, 2009 QuoteThis is a red herring. I seriously doubt NIST needs to have their investigation peer reviewed. They are all scientists and engineers working together on an investigation, not a new scientific idea. Explain how thier investigation is not a hypothesis? It is simply that, a very expensive and not very thourough one!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #15 August 4, 2009 QuoteNTSB reports are not peer reviewed either. So what? Does the NTSB's investigations have such a strong opposition of thought from the scientific community? I don't think so. Are the results from the NTSB's investigations of utmost importance for world security and currently effecting the livlihoods of millions of lives world wide? How much has the war in Iraq cost? in comparison to a non biased investigation?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #16 August 4, 2009 Quote You don’t need to be a physicist to work it out. You just need... the Bat-computer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,280 #17 August 4, 2009 QuoteAre the results from the NTSB's investigations of utmost importance for world security and currently effecting the livlihoods of millions of lives world wide? How much has the war in Iraq cost? in comparison to a non biased investigation? . . . They took over 5 years to come up with thier 1st final report So the NIST report, which took 5 years to produce, is responsible for the war in Iraq? Remind me when Iraq was invaded? What about Afghanistan?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #18 August 4, 2009 Quoteput on your tin foil hat and watch this. Tongue http://www.popularmechanics.com/...ary_law/1227842.html From your link; QuoteMany conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7 So the popular mechanics report is based on NIST's hypothesis and clearly mentioned asymmetrical damage yet does not explain the completely symmetrical collapse. QuoteAccording to NIST, popular mechanics did not invesigate the collapses themselves, they used (false, assumed)data from the NIST report, the report that is itself in question. Why do you think there are teams of scientists, scholars, firefighters, engineers, architechts and other intellectuals fighting for another investigation? Because the NIST report was so squeaky clean and thourough? come on! You act like I am the only one that does not believe the report! There are hundreds of thousands of people world wide that openly refute the official story, if you took away the ridicule from individuals like you lot in here (mainstream believers), then that figure would jump to many millions. Many people I have talked to do not believe the official story, but do not wish to discuss it, mainly due to this' tin foil hat' attitude from sheepish fools, that are simply jumping on a bandwagon. It is a very touchy subject that opens wounds, and questions the authority we are subject to. We don't want to know about the shit heap our civilisation produces, we just wan't to go on living our cushy lives at the expense of the sad truth that is so evident to us all every day!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #19 August 4, 2009 Quote There are hundreds of thousands of people world wide that openly refute the official story, if you took away the ridicule from individuals like you lot in here (mainstream believers), then that figure would jump to many millions. Millions of creationists too. Good for both of you. Doesn't mean it's real. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #20 August 4, 2009 Quote So the NIST report, which took 5 years to produce, is responsible for the war in Iraq? We'll considering iraq was invaded in a heartbeat, based on assumtion, that turned out to be well, false. i will have to say, NoWhat i was trying to say, is that you don't mind spending billions or trillions of dollars to 'get even' with the evil doers but do mind spending a couple of million obtaining the truth! Quote Remind me when Iraq was invaded? as soon as it would seem legitemate, You can be sure that attack was planned well in advance. the funny thing is the whole world (includng iraq)knew it was going to happen before they started, good game guys, good game!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #21 August 4, 2009 QuoteMillions of creationists too. Good for both of you. Doesn't mean it's real. I would consider the creationsts akin to those that belive what they have been told by the autorities, as, creationists tend to beleive what they have been told by the authorities. A similarity there, no?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #22 August 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteMillions of creationists too. Good for both of you. Doesn't mean it's real. I would consider the creationsts akin to those that belive what they have been told by the autorities, as, creationists tend to beleive what they have been told by the authorities. A similarity there, no? yes, the similarity is that both sets are intellectually vacant. Both hold their beliefs based on faith, because facts aren't important or helpful to the belief. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #23 August 4, 2009 Quoteyes, the similarity is that both sets are intellectually vacant. Both hold their beliefs based on faith, because facts aren't important or helpful to the belief. you realise what you are saying don't you! You are actually agreeing with me! Wow!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #24 August 4, 2009 QuoteGetting your articles to pass peer review for a serious, reputable professional journal is kinda important. Making up your own peer reviewed journal to feature your own articles isn't. That means nothing. You cannot peer review your own journal, that is not what peer review is about. it is about being open to the scientific community, kinda opposite to what the NIST have been. "next question please" sound familiar? or have you not done your research?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #25 August 4, 2009 QuoteExplain how thier investigation is not a hypothesis? Why does every hypothesis to you have to be peer reviewed? I don't understand why you are grasping this particular straw so hard._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
