9/11 demolition theory debunkers

Opps. [Deleted]

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Nathan-D]

Opps [Deleted]

Sorry, I tried editing one of my posts, but accidentally hit the "quote" button.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Jezus

See this exactly your problem.

You simply decide whether or not to "believe" sources based on your perception of their credibility.

How do you know that? You've no idea of the criteria I employ to evaluate anything.

I repeat, show me a source that you think lacks credibility but that you believe to be true.

Or can't you do that either?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Jezus

See this exactly your problem.

You simply decide whether or not to "believe" sources based on your perception of their credibility.

How do you know that? You've no idea of the criteria I employ to evaluate anything.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Jezus

You need to learn that science isn't about trusting the most credible source.

Priceless. What is it about? Trusting the least credible? Or one with very little credibility? Where on the scale should I be looking?

This can't get any better.

It is best not to trust ANY sources.

Instead evaluate each claim on a case by base basis.


And I already repeatedly told you I am not getting in a debate of the details with someone like you, it's been done way too many times...

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Jezus

See this exactly your problem.

You simply decide whether or not to "believe" sources based on your perception of their credibility.

How do you know that? You've no idea of the criteria I employ to evaluate anything.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Jezus

You need to learn that science isn't about trusting the most credible source.

Priceless. What is it about? Trusting the least credible? Or one with very little credibility? Where on the scale should I be looking?

This can't get any better.

It is best not to trust ANY sources.

Instead evaluate each claim on a case by base basis.


And I already repeatedly told you I am not getting in a debate of the details with someone like you, it's been done way too many times...

Do you think the second quote somehow invalidates the first? If so you're struggling with comprehension.

I'm not asking for a debate. I'm asking you to substantiate the two things you've claimed in this thread.

- that you have carried out original research

- that it is desirable to trust sources that lack credibility.


You can't do either, which is why you keep pretending that I'm trying to debate you. I'm specifically not.

I repeat: show some original research, and show me a source that you believe but that you also consider to lack credibility.

Or you could just admit that you're making it up as you go along.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you think the second quote somehow invalidates the first? If so you're struggling with comprehension.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
you've claimed in this thread.

- that it is desirable to trust sources that lack credibility.

Originally posted by Jezus
It is best not to trust ANY sources.

Instead evaluate each claim on a case by base basis.

Originally posted by Jezus
You need to learn that science isn't about trusting the most credible source.

You actually have to investigate the evidence and make sure it checks out.

You seriously don't comprehend the difference between trusting a source and being critical?


[edit on 2-9-2010 by Jezus]

Originally posted by Jezus
You actually have to investigate the evidence and make sure it checks out.

You haven't done this, have you? Otherwise you'd be able to show me that research you so proudly announced and then suddenly forgot about.

You seriously don't comprehend the difference between trusting a source and being critical?


[edit on 2-9-2010 by Jezus]

Okay, I see. You don't understand the meaning of "credible" in this sense. You think it means "sanctioned by authority" or something like that. It doesn't.

I'm not sure why you're persisting with this. You claimed to have done original research. This turned out to be untrue. Then you suggested that we should trust sources that we think lack credibility. When it was pointed out that this was a bit stupid you changed the subject again. If this is the level of sophistication you take into your analysis about 9/11 I can see why you're so confused.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Otherwise you'd be able to show me that research you so proudly announced and then suddenly forgot about.

I don't care if you think I did research or not. Deal with it.

Do your own research. Stop waiting for other people to prove it to you.

Research is NOT about reading and accepting other people's claims.

It is about THINKING for yourself and being CRITICAL of claims.

It is not smart to accept claims just because they support your opinion.

It is not smart to accept claims just because you think the source is credible.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShadeThen you suggested that we should trust sources that we think lack credibility. When it was pointed out that this was a bit stupid you changed the subject again.

Actually I never changed the subject and have been focusing on this insane comment you keep making...

Look at my statement in context, when do I in anyway "suggest we should trust sources that we think lack credibility"?

Originally posted by Jezus
Research isn't about looking at sources you THINK are credible.

Research and critical thinking is about challenging the information and finding out what checks out.

Originally posted by Jezus
You need to learn that science isn't about trusting the most credible source.

You actually have to investigate the evidence and make sure it checks out.

Originally posted by Jezus
It is best not to trust ANY sources.

Instead evaluate each claim on a case by case basis.

You need to learn to read the entire paragraph...just not one sentence...




[edit on 2-9-2010 by Jezus]

I am embarrassed for now long I participated in this ridiculousness.

Think for yourself.

Do not accept claims from ANY source.

Be critical of ALL claims.

If you take the time to do the research the truth is painfully obvious.

Originally posted by Jezus

I don't care if you think I did research or not. Deal with it.

Do your own research. Stop waiting for other people to prove it to you.

You have consistently and continuously missed the point throughout this thread. I'm not asking you to prove anything about 9/11 to me. I am utterly satisfied about what happened.

What I have been requesting is some evidence that you have done the original research that you claimed to have carried out earlier in the thread. My supposition is that far from having done any actual research you have simply swallowed what a couple of websites have told you.

And you've been notably unable to counter that.

Research is NOT about reading and accepting other people's claims.

So you keep saying. Which I assume must mean you have done some digging into the primary sources yourself.

And yet you leave us utterly in the dark about what those investigations might have entailed.

Look at my statement in context, when do I in anyway "suggest we should trust sources that we think lack credibility"?

Here are some things you've written in this thread:


- Research isn't about looking at sources you think are credible.


- You need to learn that science isn't about trusting the most credible source.


- Stop just believing whatever you think is credible.

I think I see where your mistake is now. You assume that I assign credibility to a source before I read it. That I automatically trust something that comes from an official channel or that I agree with. You've taken this idea, wrung it through your eccentric prose style and come out with some frankly odd pronouncements.

Do you see that when you write "Research isn't about looking at sources you think are credible" the logic is that it involves looking at sources you think lack credibility? Your error is that you seem to believe that credibility is assigned before the fact, when it is actually accorded to something that, by definition, you believe in. Do you see that the sentence "Stop just believing whatever you think is credible" is a complete oxymoron? By definition what we believe we find credible.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The important thing to take away from this thread is that there's no evidence to suggest that you have done any of the original research that you claimed. I think that speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Jezus
I am embarrassed for now long I participated in this ridiculousness.

Think for yourself.

Do not accept claims from ANY source.

Be critical of ALL claims.

If you take the time to do the research the truth is painfully obvious.

Then why are you accepting claims from websites with a truther slant because it's clearly obvious that that is what you're doing. You have done no research that backs up anything you say, otherwise you would've showed it already instead of just dodging the question for who knows how many pages. It seems like Truthers are either like you, all talk no evidence, or they just strawman. If there is any actual evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job (or that the Official Story is full of holes), it's most likely buried underneath all of the nonsense of steel having to melt, fireproof silent explosives, and so on.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade





Now you're just going in circles...

Originally posted by Jezus
You know, you could've just said you don't care enough to do your own research because you would rather believe the "official story" blindly.

It would probably take forever to do some reading and critical thinking.

The only thing that is irrational is someone that is intelligent enough to operate a computer but still doesn't understand the truth about September 11th.

I don't care to debate someone like you. I'm sorry if that annoys you.

The truth is so blatantly obvious, this debate has been done OVER and OVER again.

If you don't comprehend it by now, it is a personal issue...

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Jezus]

reply to post by Jezus


Where else is there to go? You can't provide the research you claim to have done and you struggle to get your point across because you lack erudition.

Speaks volumes.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You can't provide the research you claim to have done and you struggle to get your point across because you lack erudition.

Now you're REALLY going in circles!

Originally posted by Jezus
I genuinely cannot believe that you are failing to grasp this. I will explain it one more time.

The slightest bit of research and critical thinking will reveal the truth.

I have no interest in debating someone like you about the details.

It has been done MANY times already.

If you don’t understand the evidence by now, it is because of a personal issue.

I’m sorry if this is frustrating for you.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

and for those who say politicians dont lie...
www.youtube.com...
enough said?

[edit on 2-9-2010 by trutherman]

reply to post by Jezus


You realise that you're answering a different question to the one I'm posing? And that you're making yourself look either ignorant or evasive - or a troll - by doing so?

The answer to "what original research have you done?" is not "try some critical thinking". That's a dodge, and you're doing it because presumably you were not being entirely accurate when you claimed to have done some.

You can admit it, it's fine. Indeed you pretty much have all but admitted it. Your "research" is composed of a few spurious blogs and a bit of youtube. You're no different to most Truthers, so I wouldn't worry.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You realise that you're answering a different question to the one I'm posing?[

I "realise" that you are not trying to learn but instead trying to argue.

This is exactly why, as I have made abundantly clear numerous times, I am NOT going to try to prove anything to you, try to comprehend that. I don't care what you think because you are not at all interested in the truth.

How do I know that?

You took this post...

Originally posted by Jezus
Research isn't about looking at sources you THINK are credible.

Research and critical thinking is about challenging the information and finding out what checks out.

And responded with this.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Do you see that when you write "Research isn't about looking at sources you think are credible" the logic is that it involves looking at sources you think lack credibility?

This only leave two possibilities.

1. You seriously do have trouble with reading comprehension, because only an extremely ignorant person would make the leap of "logic". This might explain your reluctance or lack of ability to do your own research and critical thinking.

2. You are just trying to argue and derail from the main point. This might explain why you just keeping going in circles.

What is the main point?

The truth of September 11th is extremely, painfully, insanely obvious to anyone that is willing to do a little reading and critical thinking.

Think for yourself and PROVE it to yourself instead of trusting other people...



[edit on 3-9-2010 by Jezus]

reply to post by Jezus


What original research have you done as you claimed to have done? Please post a link or list what you have done.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Jezus

 

What original research have you done as you claimed to have done? Please post a link or list what you have done.

You should read the thread before you post.

I made it abundantly clear several times why I will not do that.

You are a perfect example of someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that they are familiar with the information but STILL some how believe the official story.

The contradiction is bizarre but it is obvious that nothing can change your mind.