Previous  1  2  3  4  5

Oh! That's beautiful!





http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... a&t=124718

I am still waiting for an answer to my similar question at the beginning of this thread. All I get in return is opinion.

   

Actually I have already seen this bloated pile of tripe Doc, it has been on the trackers for a couple of days.

Shows like this exist because the people are ripping the wool off their eyes and the gatekeepers are getting worried.

Corporate owned media are a major part of the ministry of truth.

   

Maybe you should go to that forum , you obviously can't come up with a cogent argument so you may as well hang out with the sheeple so you can bleat to your hearts content.

   

An argument for what? That the official explanation is the true one? An argument in favour of that is not necessary, it's implied. "I believe the sun rose in the East today." I do not have to prove such statements. That I cannot 'prove' to your satisfaction that the sun did indeed rise in the east this very morning does not imply that it did not do so. Show me reproducible evidence that this fact I believe in is somehow incorrect.

I have still not, nor am I likely to ever, see one single piece of evidence to support a conspiracy. And that is the problem with arguing your point of view, there is absolutely nothing to support it, except for opinion. Even when presented with evidence from some of the smartest minds on the planet that your line of reasoning can't possible have any basis in reality - they become 'the ministry of truth'.

In the past, I have tried to show you evidence that your argument does not stand up under the slightest scrutiny. I've stopped doing that, because that train has gone so far off the tracks, I don't believe there is any way to put that train back on the tracks anymore. And because any such evidence makes me, in your eyes, part of the conspiracy. Best to let the train lie where it is and gather rust.

What happens when National Geographic publishes more data supporting man-made Global Warming? With they still be part of the Ministry of Truth?

   

You can't prove that the sun ever rose in the east! The sun doesn't rise, only the official story said that it did. Try to keep up with current events.

   

You are reading from a script, if you weren't you would know that the official story is a conspiracy theory.



Who promoted them to "some of the smartest minds on the planet" status, you?

What evidence are you referring to, a computer model which they won't share the input data to? Loading a single steel beam and suspending it over a pool of kerosene for a nice 30 minute roast, then suggesting that it proves that 220 stories of steel structure melted on Sept 11, 2001? Using the wrong form of thermite and alluding to it having the same effect as nano-thermite? Pretending that remote control wireless detonation doesn't exist? Pretending that the main body of an airplane is harder than its engines? Come on there Caleb, if anyone is avoiding reality it is you and "some of the smartest minds on the planet" working for National Geographic.




In the past you have parroted the same old song over and over. As far as you are concerned there is no evidence other than what comes from sanctioned sources. You are not likely to see any evidence that you refuse to look at. The only time you stopped spewing misinformation in this thread was when you found out that Gaulois was an accredited engineer. Don't confuse your self appointed Doctor title with notions of actually being a doctor.



Is a thief still a thief if he is not stealing something right now?

   

The conspiracy theory is the script. The official story is the one with "take it to court evidence".



I would think the Universities who granted them degrees did.




A computer model based on publicly available data? Why do they need to share what is given freely? Why do they need to even prove the thruthers version of reality isn't possible? They are the ones who claim it's not possible to melt steel with aircraft fuel. Yet, there it is. Any Smith knows you don't need to melt steel to be able to bend it.

And remote control detonation was discussed earlier. I still don't see you digging up a single demo guy who still uses them - let alone in the RF rich environment of New York. Making up words like "nano-thermite" still doesn't make it exist, and the crowd is still waiting on who planted this thermite and RF detonators and how they managed to get thermite to reliably ignite on cue and not when exposed to burning aircraft parts. And, the main body of an aircraft is aluminum, the engines are titanium. Feel free to look it up in a metallurgy text.

I guess you missed the video I posted 3 or 4 times in this thread, showing the plane staying, and the engines leaving the towers.



Well, I expected Vitrol as your belief systems were attacked. I think it was my second post. I've always said, I'll consider any changes to my believe system based on any evidence. All I've seen is opinion.

Another fine example of you making incorrect assumptions as well. I've known Gaulois was an engineer for years, as he has known I was. I stop posting right about the time it starts to get into the personal attacks, nothing to do with his entry into the discussion. Like about now.

And, when have I ever represented myself as a Doctor? I guess it must be your eyesight that's failing you.



Ahh, I see. So soon, the truthers will be your only trusted source of information. How narrow that world will become. They did have a great special about how man landed on the moon too.

   

For your information: Rupert Murdoch owns 67% of National Geographic channel, he (through his companies) has complete editorial control.

The official story has never been taken to court and neither has any any of the evidence.
As a number of the alleged hijackers were alive and well after Sept 11, 2001 and declaring their innocence and as the 911 Commission steadfastly refused to amend their list of hijackers we can say that their list of hijackers is not a fact and therefore is a theory. Hence the official story is a conspiracy theory.



Perhaps you should watch the National Geographic special so you will know what is being referred to, then you can explain how they, ( some of the greatest minds on the planet), came to their conclusions regarding the main body of an aircraft.



A classic example of ministry of truther statements. Gee whiz, is a guy who calls himself Dr Caleb representing himself as a doctor or does he really mean Debit Caleb?

   

One would have to be incredibly gullible to believe that every one of the supports would have given way within a tenth of a second, to get the perfect vertical drop, not once, but three times , once in a building which had not been hit by any plane.
One would have to be incredibly gullible to believe that every one of the supporting beams in building 7, which was not hit by any plane , would give way within a tenth of a second, to get the perfect vertical drop. The videos of the building burning show it burning on one side only, which would have caused it to give out on that side first , falling over sideways. It didn't , but dropped perfectly level.
The windows on the other side hadn't even broken.
Brent

   

I agree with you Brent, one would have to be incredibly gullible to believe the official story.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5