NYC CAN Releases TV Spot

Originally posted by IsALL
Ok, lets start over.... you obviously don't understand your errors.

Oh the irony.

Originally posted by IsALL
I have noticed that you claim to have evidence. Care to share your evidence?

Never said that, plus you are shifting the burden of proof.

Originally posted by IsALL
Do you have evidence that 19 Muslim hijackers controlled the jets on 911?

Never said that either.

Originally posted by IsALL
Do you have any evidence of what really happened inside the WTC buildings?

Shifting the burden of proof.

Originally posted by IsALL
I would appreciate a reply that doesn't ridicule me for having questions.

Kinda hard not to because of your continous insults.

You are also not making any claims here, however, truthers are.

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
Oh the irony.

Yes lots of irony going around. Specifically from you. He who doesn't know everything, but may know everything. He who evaluated evidence, but doesn't have evidence. He who criticizes opinions of those who didn't state any.

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by IsALL
I have noticed that you claim to have evidence. Care to share your evidence?

Never said that, plus you are shifting the burden of proof.

Excuse me? So I guess you were lying then? Here is a quote from you:

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
No, because I have based my conclusions on evidence.

You must have evidence in order to base your conclusions on them! So technically, you claimed to have evidence.

Again;

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
I have not just listened to "the reports", I have evaluated the evidence and came to a conclusion.

What evidence did you evaluate to make your conclusion? Do you have evidence or not?

Again;

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
I don't need to know the full 100% story (although I never said I didn't) to come to a logical conclusion with the evidence provided.

You claimed that evidence was provided to you. Care to share that evidence? Or are you lying?

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
Never said that,

This is the reality check of your errors. YOU are the one who is shifting. I have been steady as a rock. You are now a proven liar, or suffer from alzheimers disease.

Show me your evidence that you just claimed to have.

I never claimed to have evidence, nor did I claim any position on the matter, so I have no burden. I have nothing to prove or disprove. Only you do, and it has been that way since the beginning of this topic and you didn't even realize it.

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by IsALL
Do you have evidence that 19 Muslim hijackers controlled the jets on 911?

Never said that either.

I never said you said that. I AM ASKING YOU. Do you have evidence that 19 Muslim hijackers controlled the jets on 911?

Yes or No?

You failing to answer these questions honestly is very telling.

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by IsALL
Do you have any evidence of what really happened inside the WTC buildings?

Shifting the burden of proof.

How in the world could I have any burden of proof when I am not trying to prove anything? I don't even have a position, or a conclusion, or anything to prove!

However, YOU DO. You just said you have evidence and a conclusion. You are AVOIDING answering. YOU are the one doing the shifting.

Your actions and errors on this topic are revealing a lot about you.

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by IsALL
I would appreciate a reply that doesn't ridicule me for having questions.

Kinda hard not to because of your continous insults.

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
You are also not making any claims here, however, truthers are.

You finally noticed I am not making any claims!!! HURRAY!!!

Now take a look at your error you made earlier!

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
I care whether my beliefs are right or not, which is why I am open to the possibility that it was a government conspiricy, but you have not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate your claims, which is why I am expressing critical scepticism of your claims.

If I am not making claims... then what exactly were you criticizing?!?!?!?!

Now do you see your blatant errors?

You made a fatal mistake in your tactics. You blindly criticized something that didn't even exist!

OH THE IRONY!


[edit on 27-8-2010 by IsALL]

reply to post by Jerry_Teps

Again with the ad hominems, no I am a mathematics and physics major (honours) and I am working on my Ph.D. I have evalutated the evidence, and came to the conclusion it was as the vast majority of investiagations concluded.

Ah a physics major and with honours no less. Hmmm, not the U.S. by way of your
spelling of 'honours'. Why don't you hop on down to You Tube and visit our resident physicist there, AlienScientist.




There are two channels you may look over:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

R.I.P. 9/11 Debunkers 9/11/2006

You tried... and you failed...
You'd get an A for effort if you weren't already being paid by Cass Sunstein.

Re-Investigate 9/11

"The use of 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent and other points of view, and information that might be inconvenient for a policy agenda." - Chris Sanders, Oil, Smoke & Mirrors



"For all of the 9/11 debunkers who want to argue please read below first so you do not make a fool of yourself.

A little information on what theories actually are:.
In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

(1) A scientific theory is a type of of deductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.

(2) Basically, to break the above information down, a scientific theory is scientifically testable through facts of scientific law.

So now lets move on to Intertheoretic reduction and elimination.
The definition of Intertheoretic Reduction: If there is a new theory which is better at explaining and predicting phenomena than an older theory (i.e. has more explanatory power), we are justified in believing that the newer theory describes reality more correctly. This is called an intertheoretic reduction because the terms of the old theory (such as the one put forward by the people covering up 911) can be reduced to the terms of the new one.

Now is cases where a new theory uses new terms which do not reduce the terms of an older one, but rather replace them entirely because they are actually a misrepresentation it is called an intetheoretic elimination. For instance, an obsolete theory that phlogiston is a substance released from burning and rusting material was eliminated with the new understanding of the the reactivity of oxygen

It certainly would prove an intriguing debate eh? Of course he has many of his own
videos up there. I wouldn't want you to get a nose bleed and we all await with great
anticipation to see how you enthrall us all with your mental acumen!

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

I guess honesty isn't a cornerstone requirement in the search for truth.

Over 1,200 archtiects and engineers HAVE NOT question the collapse of building 7.

That is a blatant lie.

You are absolutely correct. Tens of thousands have. 1200 of them signed up for the website.

2. Your right, claiming 1200 engineers who express scepticism over the collapse as meaningful is an illogical tactic.

You are correct. Anyone can see for themselves that the collapses were identical to CD, but did not have identical "triggers". Appeal to authority is wrong when BOTH SIDES do it.



[edit on 27-8-2010 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by IsALL
reply to post by hooper

 

FYI - I am an engineer.

What sort of engineer? Civil, electrical, biochemical....?

Just asking in the interest of our own safety.

reply to post by IsALL


Its pretty simple. The 1200 is based on the number of "signatures" on the websites petition. Not all are engineers and architects and very few have any background that would make their opinion of any greater value than say a store clerk. Having a degree in computer science does not, by a long shot, make you an authority on structures.

How many of the arch and eng have ever put there stamp on any kind of demolition plan.

Originally posted by IsALL

Originally posted by butcherguy
Just asking in the interest of our own safety.

Nice attempt at a veiled insult. Did you really think I would answer you after you insulted me?

Butcher guy? Go play with your meat.

Is that really the reason that you didn't answer?

I am sorry that you took my statement as an insult.

It was not meant as an insult, it was making a serious point. I honestly do not want to cross a bridge that a was designed by a person who believes in the wild and unaccepted theories that are proposed by the 911 conspiracy crowd.

The statement that you made at the end of your reply to me cannot be construed as anything but an insult. A very rude one at that, with a degrading sexual connotation.

Just for your info, my butchery is not concerned so much with the meat. It involves slaying, eviscerating and flaying.... usually, but not always in that order. I am not a meat-cutter by trade. I manage a specialty industrial combustion firm.

I am still interested in what sort of engineer you are, for other reasons too.

I believe that you were the person that threw the fact out there, and I am probably not alone in my curiosity.

Thank you.

What I can't fathom is that if WTC 7 was brought down by fire, why it came down in the 3 1/2 second or so that it did.

Why didn't the building fail gradually, as the fire burned through and exhauted fuel sources and continued to spread.

And, how can something so chaotic and out of control as an unchecked fire cause such a perfect collapse?

We are lead to believe that 3 high rise buildings were all brought down by fire, and all three collapsed perfectly in upon their own footprints, at or near free fall speed.

Anybody care to venture a guess as to what kind of odds a Las Vegas Casino would have waged against it happening?

[edit on 27-8-2010 by mark-in-dallas]

reply to post by mark-in-dallas

What I can't fathom is that if WTC 7 was brought down by fire, why it came down in the 3 1/2 second or so that it did.

It didn't.

Why didn't the building fail gradually, as the fire burned through and exhauted fuel sources and continued to spread.

Because the building collapsed, what you are describing is called "melting".

And, how can something so chaotic and out of control as an unchecked fire cause such a perfect collapse?

Uh, perfect? Ok, thats a new one. What is a perfect collapse and why do you think Building 7 collapse was perfect?

We are lead to believe that 3 high rise buildings were all brought down by fire, and all three collapsed perfectly in upon their own footprints, at or near free fall speed.

Well, thats what you are "led" to believe if your sole source of information are conspiracy websites. They have a vested interest in you being "led" in that direction, hence, that is what you believe.

Anybody care to venture a guess as to what kind of odds a Las Vegas Casino would have waged against it happening?

Against what happening? A terrorist attack? Pretty good odds considering it happened in 1993. Against a building collapsing that had been struck by a plane and was burning? 50/50.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by IsALL

 

Its pretty simple. The 1200 is based on the number of "signatures" on the websites petition. Not all are engineers and architects and very few have any background that would make their opinion of any greater value than say a store clerk. Having a degree in computer science does not, by a long shot, make you an authority on structures.

How many of the arch and eng have ever put there stamp on any kind of demolition plan.

Having any degree in engineering obviously gives you an edge in critical thinking compared to the hundreds of millions of uneducated people out there. Most store clerks don't bring that up.

reply to post by jprophet420
This relates to your last post regarding critical thinking and higher education.

What is your stand on nuclear weapons? Do we (as humans) need them?

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Donation Sent. I really hope this makes it to the Sheep.

reply to post by jprophet420

Having any degree in engineering obviously gives you an edge in critical thinking compared to the hundreds of millions of uneducated people out there. Most store clerks don't bring that up

Really? How so? And how is it relevant to the OP? The video in the OP is bascially an "appeal to authority", however, it fails to clearly state how those persons are authorities. Do you think that persons seeing that video, having no knowledge of AE911, will conclude that:

a) The architects and engineers have relevant education and expereince in those fields and activities that would render their opinion valid or...
b) Many of the so-called "architects and engineers" are students, persons never working in any relevant field of engineering or architecture.

I'm going with a) and therefore the video is a blatant lie.

Critical thinking skills can be found in all walks of life.

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


I live in NYC... I have friends who witnessed the tours fall. I personally know 2 FDNY fireman who were involved in the cleanup and rescue, my friends Aunt died in the WTC collapse, and to boot, one of my best friends was in Marines training when 9/11 happened and was privy to all sorts of details the public wasn't...

Sorry folks, 9/11 was a terrorist act perpetrated by radical islamic fundamentalists. If you had any clue, you would all know this. I am not trying to pick a fight, but its really tough to find anyone in NYC who buys the bs...we all know what happened. Only people going nuts over some "unexplained" video tape give these hairbrained theories any credence. Real NY'ers who were actually AFFECTED by these attacks know the truth. "Truthers" know precisely ZERO. Cut it out with this stuff, its embarrassing.

Originally posted by IsALL
Excuse me? So I guess you were lying then? Here is a quote from you:

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
No, because I have based my conclusions on evidence.

You must have evidence in order to base your conclusions on them! So technically, you claimed to have evidence.

Again;

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
I have not just listened to "the reports", I have evaluated the evidence and came to a conclusion.

What evidence did you evaluate to make your conclusion? Do you have evidence or not?

Again;

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps
I don't need to know the full 100% story (although I never said I didn't) to come to a logical conclusion with the evidence provided.

You claimed that evidence was provided to you. Care to share that evidence? Or are you lying?

No, you completely misrepresent my argument, I am talking about the evidence that the truthers present, it is obvious to see the context in which I am refering. The burden of proof is on the truthers not me.

Originally posted by IsALL
This is the reality check of your errors. YOU are the one who is shifting. I have been steady as a rock. You are now a proven liar, or suffer from alzheimers disease.

No, I never said anything about hijackers or that the government did not do it, I was refuting the notion that I was not interpreting evidence and I was being "spoonfed". The burden of proof is not on me, it is on the truthers, I can dismiss their claims as unsubstantiated, do you not understand formal logic?

Originally posted by IsALL
Show me your evidence that you just claimed to have.

I never said I had evidence, I said that my dismissal is based on their evidence. This is just an outright lie (or poor comprehension skills).

Originally posted by IsALL
I never claimed to have evidence, nor did I claim any position on the matter, so I have no burden. I have nothing to prove or disprove. Only you do, and it has been that way since the beginning of this topic and you didn't even realize it.

No, you are shifting the burden of proof onto me, when it is up to the truther to provide evidence for their position, I have not made any claims either.

Originally posted by IsALL
I never said you said that. I AM ASKING YOU. Do you have evidence that 19 Muslim hijackers controlled the jets on 911?

Yes or No?

You failing to answer these questions honestly is very telling.

You failing to answer my questions is very telling also. I never claimed that muslims hijacked the air planes, nor is it my responsibility to prove so, perhaps you should study what the meaning of the burden of proof is.

Originally posted by IsALL
How in the world could I have any burden of proof when I am not trying to prove anything? I don't even have a position, or a conclusion, or anything to prove!

It does not matter your current position, you are shifting the burden of proof from the truthers onto the sceptics. It is a logical fallacy.

Originally posted by IsALL
However, YOU DO. You just said you have evidence and a conclusion. You are AVOIDING answering. YOU are the one doing the shifting.

Really? What is that then? You cannot avoid my question then shift the burden of proof and do the same

Originally posted by IsALL
Your actions and errors on this topic are revealing a lot about you.

Proving my point about the ad hominems.

Originally posted by IsALL
If I am not making claims... then what exactly were you criticizing?!?!?!?!

Now do you see your blatant errors?

You made a fatal mistake in your tactics. You blindly criticized something that didn't even exist!

Are similarly, what was I claiming?

Originally posted by IsALL
OH THE IRONY!

Exactly.

You are guilty of the same tactics you accuse me of.

Either,

a) Prove that it was the government who conspired to destroy the buildings.

or

b) Grow up and move on. Learn from this and don't be completely immature next time.

Originally posted by dR. kNOWITALL
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

I live in NYC... I have friends who witnessed the tours fall.

That’s great, here’s a newsflash, WE ALL saw the towers fall……….What’s your point?

I personally know 2 FDNY fireman who were involved in the cleanup and rescue

Then you should have quite a good inside view of the blatant cover-ups and disregard for proper procedure regarding the collection of evidence and debris. You should also then be privy to the dastardly response of the EPA in regards to the safety conditions that affected the relief workers.

If this blatant disregard for the safety of the clean-up workers doesn’t give you pause alone, then you are forever stuck with your head in the sand.

, my friends Aunt died in the WTC collapse

Sorry for your friend’s loss, but this is irrelevant and makes you no more knowledgeable than anyone else….but you already knew that and merely used this as a tactic to gain more credibility…ridiculous.

, and to boot, one of my best friends was in Marines training when 9/11 happened and was privy to all sorts of details the public wasn't...

LOL! You’re an idiot if you really think being a Marine means anything. Unless your buddy was in the intelligence field, and high ranking with a TS/SCI with a full poly (and even then, means nothing) this claim is asinine at best.

Newsflash, I was in the Army with a TS/SCI and in the intelligence field during 9/11 and I knew not much more than the average Joe did. So please spare us the dramatics.

Sorry folks, 9/11 was a terrorist act perpetrated by radical islamic fundamentalists.

I understand that this notion is what probably keeps you sleeping at night. Hell, I don’t blame you at all as the truth regarding this event is probably the toughest pill anyone would ever have to swallow.

But if you ever take the time to critically think for yourself, you will in the end come up with a very different explanation as to what transpired that day.

Embrace the truth and it will set you free.

If you had any clue, you would all know this. I am not trying to pick a fight, but its really tough to find anyone in NYC who buys the bs

I beg to differ, I lived in NYC for several years immediately after 9/11 and I have met many a good New Yorker who is very frustrated with the official explanation and have many questions that have not been answered.

Search "New Jersey Girls"

...we all know what happened.

Apparently not!

Only people going nuts over some "unexplained" video tape give these hairbrained theories any credence.

Again, if you were to honestly put in just one hour of your own independent research this would not be your response.

Real NY'ers who were actually AFFECTED by these attacks know the truth. "Truthers" know precisely ZERO.

I have sacrificed more for this country then you will ever know, sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m a truther and proud of it. The irony of not wanting the truth.

Cut it out with this stuff, its embarrassing.

The narrow mindedness and inability of yourself and those like you to have the courage to accept the truth is what is the biggest EMBARRASSMENT of all.

GFY!

About 3000 people died on 9/11,an you people on here are arguing over what did and didn't happen. Clearly 3 buildings fell on the same day. What are the odds of all 3 falling and landing neatly in a pile like a controlled demolition. Probaly about as good as me winning the lottery 10 times in a year. Building 7 didn't even have a major fire like the other two. There are videos on youtube that explosions can clearly be heard on, and with NYC firemen discussing the explosions they heard. These are newscasts from that very day, so dont try to argue their validity. What needs to be discussed is who did this and why. We know the buildings fell, how is not important. The people who were responsible for this should be found and hung for all to see. And for anybody who believes the msm story, well you dont have enough intelligence to discuss this anyway. Not trying to be mean just honest. Maybe someday the truth will come out, one can only hope. Peace and love to all.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by mark-in-dallas

 

What I can't fathom is that if WTC 7 was brought down by fire, why it came down in the 3 1/2 second or so that it did.

It didn't.

You're right, my bad. It took 6 1/2 seconds. Still nearly free fall speed.

Why didn't the building fail gradually, as the fire burned through and exhauted fuel sources and continued to spread.

Because the building collapsed, what you are describing is called "melting".

Really? So you're saying the fire didn't cause the steel beams and other supports to melt then? And just what do you think the fire did to cause the building to collapse?

And, how can something so chaotic and out of control as an unchecked fire cause such a perfect collapse?

Uh, perfect? Ok, thats a new one. What is a perfect collapse and why do you think Building 7 collapse was perfect?

Well gee lets see, the buidling fell in on it's own footprint at nearly free fall speed. Nothing to slow the collapse, and little to no resistance.

We are lead to believe that 3 high rise buildings were all brought down by fire, and all three collapsed perfectly in upon their own footprints, at or near free fall speed.

Well, thats what you are "led" to believe if your sole source of information are conspiracy websites. They have a vested interest in you being "led" in that direction, hence, that is what you believe.


And the government has a much greater interest in yor buying into the bull# that you've been spoon fed. It's not like the goverrnment has EVER lied to us before, right?

Anybody care to venture a guess as to what kind of odds a Las Vegas Casino would have waged against it happening?

Against what happening? A terrorist attack? Pretty good odds considering it happened in 1993. Against a building collapsing that had been struck by a plane and was burning? 50/50.

Really? WTC 7 was attacked by terrorists. My bad again. I was under the impression that it collapsed solely due to a fire. Please educate me on just how the terrorists attacked WTC 7.

Stop trying to twist my words around. NO, the odds of three high rise buildings falling at near free fall speed and collapsing almost perfectly within their own footprints, one solely due to fire.