9/11: are there a few irrefutable facts that prove what kind of event it was?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Petra Liverani, Mar 27, 2023.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 3 of 8
  1. Petra Liverani

    Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    Oh dear, James, you're simply talking in meaningless cliches that have zero to do with what I've presented. Virtually all the links I've presented for my irrefutable facts are to video or stories from the mainstream media and wikipedia. The only link that isn't to one of those sources is to an evaluation from Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret), former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority, on the website, Firefighters for Truth and Unity. Gonna rubbish the firefighters and a US Air Force aircraft accident investigator, James?

    I've made my case with irrefutable facts unchallenged by anyone on this thread. No case has been made the other way except using claims that echo the mainstream narrative aka Argument from Authority, eg, "We know that two aircraft crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York," with no defence against the refutation of these claims found - among many other places - here:
    https://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

    You say you don't disagree with my rules for critical thinking:
    1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
    2. Confine analysis to the irrefutable facts in the first analysis

    and yet you don't seem to understand that you aren't following these two rules in any shape or form.

    Because we were told that two aircraft crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York and we were shown images purporting to be of this occurrence doesn't make it an irrefutable fact. You get that, James, right? Being told something and shown images doesn't make something an irrefutable fact. And there are numerous angles from which this alleged fact has been attacked not just the absence of aircraft parts that I put forward - the fakery of the phone calls, the fact that the images are inconsistent with crash physics, the fact that the planes were reported flying at speeds inconsistent with their altitude, the anomalies in the reporting of the black boxes. But right off the bat, James, the notion of four planes flying around the best-defended airspace on earth unmolested by the breath of a single interceptor is so ludicrously against reality. Seriously, the complete nonsense one must accept to believe the mainstream narrative is just incredible.

    All you're doing is regurgitating claims from the narrative with zero evidence and zero refutation of my points, it's all hot air. My goodness, are you so blind to how you have no argument? Really?

    I've made my case and if you cannot see its validity and the fact that regurgitating claims from the mainstream narrative aka Argument from Authority does not a valid case make then so be it, I have nothing more to say.
     
    Petra Liverani, Apr 2, 2023
    #41

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Petra:
    I'm sorry you think so. How old are you, then? You didn't say.
    Not without good reason. How about you?
    If you were a genuine skeptic, you'd be aware of the pitfalls in claiming that anything is irrefutable, for starters.

    Conspiracy theories like that one you're pushing are often built on a careful web of lies and deliberate omissions. You appear to have done what other 9/11 conspiracy theorists have done for 20 years, which is to cherry-pick some facts that suit the narrative you decided on at the start, while ignoring all facts that tend to refute your theory and hypothesising lots of additional "hidden" facts that people are required to accept without any evidence at all, in order to buy into your belief system.

    Maybe you really do believe that you have tried to prove your pet hypothesis wrong. However, it is clear to me that, whatever you might have done to try to do that, your approach must have been fatally flawed.

    I don't know what your educational background is. I'm guessing it isn't in science or engineering. Am I right?
    Like I said, there is ample evidence that actual planes actually crashed in the WTC, and had actual people on them who actually died. It's not even hard to find. You say you have tried to disprove your hypotheses that the planes weren't real, the people weren't real, the WTC towers weren't hit by planes, etc. So, tell me what you did to try to disprove those things.

    Did you do anything more than watching your favorite youtube conspiracy channels?
    That's not quite what I said. Go back and read my response to your opening gambit.

    Note that, right back at the start, I took particular issue with your idea of "irrefutable facts", for several reasons that I patiently explained to you, but which, sadly, it looks like you've already forgotten or ignored.
    Yes, I get that.

    Do you get that being shown conspiracy theory videos on youtube doesn't make something an irrefutable fact either?

    Please let me know if you get that.
    All that is conspiracy theory 101 nonsense. Each of the elements you mentioned has been picked apart endlessly and the conspiracy theory convincingly debunked. It is more than 20 years since 9/11. I have no intention of trying to educate you on the facts - at least until you can show me you're living up to your own professed ideals of skepticism.

    So, tell me what those who don't believe in the conspiracy theories say about all these things you mention. Tell me what the common responses are to the points you just made. Then you and I can discuss this further. I want to see that you've gone looking for information somewhere other than in a conspiracy theory bubble of youtube and back-alley internet sites.
    It sounds to me like you haven't checked whether there is evidence for the "official" narrative, despite your claims to thinking critically and skeptically.

    It is a bizarre thing for you to claim there is "zero evidence" for the official narratives. What do you even mean by that? Who collected the primary evidence for the events of 9/11? Was it you and your conspiracist friends? I don't think so. Indeed, it looks like, in this very thread, you have cited evidence from other sources. I'd venture that, in fact, all the verifiable evidence you rely on to support your conspiracy theory comes from "official" channels.
    There's a lot of that going around, I hear.
    Don't be silly, Petra. Sketical thinker that you are, you must surely be aware that my not putting an argument to you does not indicate that I have no argument to put.

    As a good skeptic, you ought not to resort to logical fallacies and other simple errors in thinking, like that.

    Also, getting angry and trying to insult me doesn't help your argument. As a good skeptic, you would know that sort of approach is called the ad hominem fallacy. Right?
    Good.

    Please do yourself a favour and read something that isn't on a conspiracy website. Watch something about 9/11 that isn't a conspiracy video. Try to find somebody to talk to who is old enough to remember 9/11. I watched it all unfold live on TV; it's not something I will ever forget.
     
    James R, Apr 2, 2023
    #42

  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Petra Liverani

    Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    Please point to any video that doesn't show footage taken from the mainstream media or CSPAN that I've linked to.

    And I'm 62, yes I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news ... and I believed it for 13 years although I was certainly never an enthusiastic believer as I felt immediately it was being used to manipulate us ... until I watched the film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick. Yes, until the ripe old age of 53 I didn't believe a single, solitary "conspiracy theory" not because I was a slave to the mainstream narrative but because I was simply clueless. I woke up when the evidence clearly told me I should.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2023
    Petra Liverani, Apr 2, 2023
    #43

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    I have not claimed that your videos don't contain footage from mainstream news sources. I haven't watched them; there's no need - been there, done that.
    A very impressive effort for the evil government, or whoever you think is in onthe Great Conspiracy, to manipulate the entire world media into swallowing a bunch of lies, don't you think?

    I mean, full credit where it's due. These conspirators have pulled off one of the greatest conspiracies in history, and not a single person has leaked that it's all a conspiracy! Amazing control. Unprecedented.

    Let's face it: if these guys and gals have really done as great a job as you would have us believe, then you and I have no hope of ever getting to the truth about 9/11. You might as well give up. The conspirators will have the jump on you at every step.

    It's also incredibly brazen. Who'd have thought that you could get most of the world to believe in non-existent planes having non-existent crashes into buildings? Who'd have thought that you'd get the world to believe that these non-existent people had families and bodies and so on? Who'd have thought that a conspiracy could be concocted that would convince a whole range of experts in many different fields of things that just totally weren't true? These conspirators are geniuses, you have to admit. They knew how to plant just the right faked evidence in just the right places (LOTS of just-right places), so it would all look just like things would look if real planes with real people crashed into real buildings etc.

    Think of all the experts who had to be paid off or threatened to keep their mouths shut - and so effectively that none of them have spilled the beans in 20 years! It's amazing.

    And you'll of course remember the time when there was all the pretence and supposed confusion about what happened and who did it and all that, and then the conspirators made the false information trickle in, bit by bit, to make it all look just as it would look if real investigations were going on, and new facts were actually being discovered. Then there were all the inquiries and investigations, which the conspirators had to either convince with false evidence or else buy off. Think of the cost of keeping everyone quiet. Think of the cost of faking all that evidence! Whoever these shady conspirators are, their financial resources must be limitless.

    Of course, there is an alternative explanation which, if you ever bothered to really check it out, is a lot simpler: that the events of 9/11 happened essentially in the way they were reported on mainstream media, and that the subsequent investigations uncovered what happened and why, in just the way that "official" histories now records those events.
    This is the usual cry of the conspiracy theorist: "I don't trust the government or big business or rich people or powerful elites, so therefore they must all be lying to me."
    You watched one conspiracy film and it completely changed your view of the entire world?

    What happened to your skepticism that you so proudly trumpeted when you arrived here?

    What did you do to try to prove that film wrong? Did you check all its "facts"? Did you try to refute its claims, only to find that they were irrefutable? Did you read or view anything that was critical of that film?

    And now that your eyes are open to shady cabals and the evils of rich people, tell me: how many other conspiracies do you now believe in?

    Were the moon landings faked?
    Was the 2016 election stolen from Donald Trump?
    Did the CIA murder JFK?

    See, I'm guessing - based on how these things usually align - that you don't just believe in one conspiracy, but you now believe in many conspiracies. Perhaps you believe there are common threads. Maybe there's an Illuminati of rich evil people controlling the entire world. If you're a racist, maybe it's rich Jewish Illuminati people.

    This whole conspiracy belief thing often follows from a distrust of other people, as especially manifested in institutions: government, big business, elected leaders, the legal system, politicians. Perhaps you think they don't represent you. Therefore, they must be evil people with ulterior motives and complicated nefarious schemes, whereas most "ordinary" people are like sheep who are blind to what the evil ones are doing. But what gives you power is that you see through their schemes and their lies, even if you're powerless to stop them right now. At least you see them for what they are. You can always hope that one day the sheeple will wake up and then I guess there'll be a glorious revolution against the evil oppressors, led by those who first saw through the veil of lies. Maybe Donald Trump will be there to lead the revolution!

    So, tell me, Petra. Is it just 9/11, or is it the Illuminati controlling everything? I can't wait to find out.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2023
    James R, Apr 2, 2023
    #44
  8. Petra Liverani

    Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    Actually, no not unprecedented but I won't go into its many precedents at the moment. We also might say that the catastrophic failure of a multi-trillion dollar military and intelligence infrastructure four times in one morning is unprecedented or perhaps you can point me to a precedent? Nor has this catastrophic failure been explained with any degree of credibility hence my presentation of General Myers' gobbledygook response to Cynthia McKinney's question about the impact of the four war games on the morning of 9/11. Destruction of high rise steel frame buildings by fire - not just one but three in one day! - also unprecedented ... but perhaps you can point to precedents of high rise steel frame buildings coming down by fire?

    Fire Protection Engineers, Scott Grainger and Ed Munyak, speaking of their incredulity.
    Scott Grainger - youtube.com/watch?v=tmw9iql4e64
    Ed Munyak - youtube.com/watch?v=c0QEutd1Unc

    And if you are going to bother responding with regard to the fire protection engineers please do not respond with any reference to the source of the information but rather the content. It's content that counts, James, not source. Content.

    Yes, isn't it just. Boy did they overegg the omelette with 9/11. So much knee-slapping over this one. When, after four years of dedicated study, I had an epiphany realising the key truth of 9/11, namely, that it was a glorified exercise rather than an "inside job" per se the first thing that came to mind were the smug and smiling faces of Rumsfeld and Cheney.

    This is the thing, James, propaganda works very counterintuitively from how we might expect. When you understand that, you understand so very much.

    The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.
    Edited quote from Theodore Dalrymple, aka Anthony Daniels, British psychiatrist.
    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12...s-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-study​

    For their terror story they needed say just two planes into the towers - impossible of itself because of interception protocols - but that would have been enough, wouldn't it for a big terror story? But no - no, no, no, no - they had a passenger airliner hours later penetrate where? - no less than Defence HQ. Yes, the audacity is eye-watering, a passenger airliner hours after the first one into Defence HQ of the mightiest nation on the planet. You cannot get more ridiculous than that ... but that's the beauty - propaganda works better the more ridiculous it is. From centuries, if not millennia of experience, those in power know that the Emperor's New Clothes effect has a limitless elasticity ... and for some unknown reason the little people never seem to catch on.

    It's called The Big Lie. Such an obvious technique but works like a charm. So plane hours later into Defence HQ but they even overegged there too with an impossible 270 degree manoeuvre by little Hani Hanjour whose flight instructor told us that he cried when asked to attempt steep turns and stalls - youtube.com/watch?v=8o7tr-VE2Uo. They bamboozle us with nonsense. Sure, they KNOW that there will be a small minority who won't buy their BS ... but then they have the anticipated disbelievers catered for too with special propaganda just for them. While it was the JFK to 9/11 film that woke me up, James, I've learnt a helluva lot since and I now recognise that the film, while incredibly instructive, has got a few significant things wrong and is missing important information.

    So much falsification of history. Whaddya reckon? A 26-year-old French watchmaker burnt down wooden London by throwing a lighted torch into a bakery or King Charles II - who'd been exiled to Europe with plenty of time to admire the grandiose buildings - and his cronies made it look like the little French guy in order that they could have the people pay for the rebuilding rather than have it come out of the king's purse?
    https://off-guardian.org/2019/09/01/the-great-fire-of-london-cui-bono/
     
    Petra Liverani, Apr 2, 2023
    #45
  9. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    They were. My brother in law was in Manhattan that day and saw the smoke and the ash. He, fortunately, was not in the WTC that day.
     
    billvon, Apr 2, 2023
    #46
  10. exchemist

    exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,521
    Ah, but how can you sure you have a brother in law? He could be planted by the Lizard People. Or you could be hallucinating.
     
    exchemist, Apr 2, 2023
    #47
    James R likes this.
  11. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Well heck how can we be sure of ANYTHING? How can we know that World War II happened? Or that the Revolutionary War happened? How do we know the Earth isn't flat? Most people haven't been to orbit. How do we know that the round-earth THEORY isn't a psyops BIG LIE that the government is maintaining so no one asks any uncomfortable questions?
     
    billvon, Apr 3, 2023
    #48
  12. Petra Liverani

    Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    I know someone who was in the vicinity on the day too - funnily enough my local cafe owner when I lived in Campbelltown, a suburb of south west Sydney, where somehow I wouldn't really expect to find such a person - and he told me he saw a plane heading to the South Tower although from his perspective he didn't see it crash. I certainly believe he saw something - he doesn't in the least strike me as someone who is so easily persuaded by propaganda that he sees things that aren't there - however, it doesn't really matter what he saw as long as it wasn't the alleged UA175 containing 65 people and there is no clear evidence that it was while there is clear evidence against. As I said, I also know people who either knew people who allegedly died in the towers or knew people related to them. My hypothesis can easily accommodate all these things, they don't undermine it. According to my hypothesis we would certainly expect people to know people who allegedly died, it's just that their deaths were faked.

    People fake deaths all the time, they don't only happen in psyops. There's an Australian comedian, Greg Fleet, whose father faked his death. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...ian-Greg-Fleet-shares-father-FAKED-DEATH.html. British politician, John Stonehouse, also faked his own death. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01...-british-mp-fake-death-drama-series/101840138. People can have all sorts of good reasons to want to disappear and intelligence agents involved in hiring people for the purpose of this kind of fakery will get to know about them - of course, a lot of the time it's intelligence agents themselves playing the role - apparently Cantor Fitzgerald, one of the companies occupying floors above the alleged plane impact in the North Tower, laid off a number of employees not long before 9/11, rehired other people afterwards and then laid off the new employees after 9/11 to re-employ the old ones - unfortunately the website that had that information has disappeared. As I have no clear evidence I'm not stating this as fact, I'm simply showing a way of faking deaths. It's true though I've NEVER heard convincing evidence of any of these faked deaths being uncovered and that does puzzle me - I would've thought somewhere along the line one of these faked deaths would be exposed - people have put forward alleged exposures but they're not very convincing. Of course, when it's people participating in psyops they're going to go all out for them not to be exposed.

    When I discovered that the Great Fire of London 1666 was staged I wondered about the people who allegedly died. From memory it was only a few. One was a playwright, James Shirley, who supposedly died at the end of October a couple of months after the fire. He and his wife allegedly died on the same day from exposure resulting from living in a refugee camp set up for those who lost their living quarters. It struck me as anomalous that a 70 year-old playwright who was obviously highly regarded would die in this depressing situation and that both he and his wife died on the same day. I wondered if he may have wanted to disappear for some reason - owing money perhaps? Well, you'll never guess, I looked up his oeuvre and found a play, The Gamester, of which is said: "The play is noteworthy for its realistic and detailed picture of gambling in its era." Doncha love it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gamester
     
    Petra Liverani, Apr 3, 2023
    #49
  13. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Petra:

    In my previous post, I asked you a number of questions. You have not answered them. Why is that?

    I will add one or two more.
    As a good skeptic, you must surely be aware that some sources are more trustworthy than others. Therefore, sources matter, as well as content. I'm sure you will agree?
    You did four years of dedicated study on this?

    Can you please summarise for me what you did in those four years of study?

    Which institutions did you liaise with in your studies? Which experts did you consult? Where did you conduct your studies?

    Did you write up a report of your findings? Surely, you must have a lot to show from 4 years of investigation. Got a summary document I can read?
    Do you make your own films, to correct the record? Have you published the results of your research anywhere?
     
    James R, Apr 3, 2023
    #50
  14. billvon

    billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    Yep. Now if you can find 2995 more people who faked their deaths, you can start making valid comparisons.
    Ah! The old disappearing website! I think the "cruise missiles with holographic generators" was a much more fun conspiracy theory.
     
    billvon, Apr 3, 2023
    #51
  15. Petra Liverani

    Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    There is evidence suggesting a number of people were made up and some had already died or died around the time of 9/11. The thing is neither of us is in a position to determine either way so it needs to be left out of discussion.
    As I said that I wasn't stating the firing/re-hiring as a fact it makes no difference whether the website disappeared or not and I'm guessing it didn't offer hard evidence in any case. It was purely to show a possible mechanism for the fakery.
     
    Petra Liverani, Apr 3, 2023
    #52
  16. exchemist

    exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,521
    Well indeed. What irrefutable facts are there to support any of these hypotheses?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    exchemist, Apr 3, 2023
    #53
  17. Petra Liverani

    Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    James, I have asked a question that no one on this site, including you, has responded to in the appropriate manner so why don't we get back to the whole purpose of this thread - the establishment of irrefutable facts that prove what kind of event 9/11 was.

    To recap:
    Critical thinking rules
    1. Aim to prove your hypothesis wrong
    2. Stick to the irrefutable facts in the first analysis

    Definition of an irrefutable fact
    1. A fact that is self-evident / easily validated / non-controversial
    2. A fact that has been defended against attempted refutation

    You have admonished me:
    • It is dangerous to claim a fact as irrefutable - it can be but when a fact is self-evident / easily validated / non-controversial there is none but in any case the claim can always be contradicted.
      Comment: The facts that I have put forward are all non-controversial.
    • To look at what has been put forward as part of the narrative rather than looking at "conspiracy sites" - or words to that effect.
      Comment: As all my points apart from one actually come from the "source" so to speak your admonition makes no sense, does it? I'm not quoting conspiracy sites, I point directly to the source of the narrative. And where we might call a site a "conspiracy site", namely, Firefighters for Truth and Unity, I quote a retired Air Force aircraft accident investigator - a perfectly reputable source don't you think?
    Your claims and those of the others do not fit the category of self-evident / easily validated / non-controversial so for those claims to prove themselves as irrefutable a defence against attempts at refutation would need to be put forward, however, you have shown no such defence.

    I have presented a "conspiracy site", Consensus 9/11, for you to argue your claim against and you have ignored it. This is a link to the Consensus panel members. Let me know how you're better qualified to argue your case than these members.
    https://www.consensus911.org/panel-members/

    This is a link to all the refutations of the claims you regard as so well established. Please argue against these refutations to defend your claims. If you are not willing to put forward a claim with a defence against its refutation then we cannot proceed any further.
    https://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

    Just to say that I completely disagree with the few Consensus 9/11 members I have discussed the topic with about what kind of event 9/11 was - they think simple "inside job" where I think glorified exercise but we certainly agree on some points.
     
    Petra Liverani, Apr 3, 2023
    #54
  18. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    That's the thing with conspiracy theories, though. They typically have ad hoc explanations and excuses for every piece of evidence that doesn't appear to fit the theory initially. Most such explanations involve shady dealings carried out by faceless, unidentifiable men behind closed doors. There's never any actual evidence that any of that happened, though, which is where such conspiracies fail the test of critical thinking.
    Just to be clear: do you believe that the people who died are fake people who never actually existed in the first place? If so, how to you explain away accounts from people you know about relatives, friends etc. who actually existed and died in the 9/11 attacks?

    Alternatively, if you believe that the people are real but weren't actually killed in airplanes etc., what is your explanation for where all those missing people are now?
    No. It is very rare and hard to do in practice. People who fake their own deaths tend to get found out, as your examples show. It's very difficult indeed to fake somebody else's death, because those people tend to turn up alive and well.
    See what happened there? You developed some reasonable doubts, but then you made up an excuse to explain the contradictory evidence away, to your own satisfaction. You're not thinking skeptically about this conspiracy theory nonsense you've bought into.
    It wasn't staged. It is well documented. There are extensive contempory accounts of it.

    Given the time inteval between then and now, I'm sure it's much easier for you to invent an appropriate "psy-op" to explain away the Great Fire of London than it is to invent one to explain away 9/11 - an event you personally lived through.

    So that's two conspiracy theories you believe in, so far. How many others do you believe in? Is there an identifiable pattern to your beliefs? You say you're the skeptic. Have you thought this through? What have you done to try to prove to yourself that the Great Fire of London really happened - i.e. to attempt to refute the conspiracy theory you believe in? Anything?
     
    James R, Apr 3, 2023
    #55
  19. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    But you brought it into the discussion! Why did you do that?
     
    James R, Apr 3, 2023
    #56
  20. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    I'm still waiting to hear what you did in your four years of dedicated research on the topic.
    You're leaving yourself a lot of wiggle room, there. Very few things are self-evident; most things require some interpretation. Clearly, your interpretation of the "facts" of 9/11 is way out there compared to most people's. Under those circumstances, things that are self-evident to you might very well be controversial to me.

    The matter of validation is another can of worms. Unless you're personally validating things somehow - like personally examining first-hand evidence, interviewing witnesses, doing the tests on physical evidence, etc. - then you're forced to trust that somebody else has correctly assessed that evidence. Your "validation" then consists of trusting what that other person or organisation has found or published.

    Since you're in a conspiracy theory bubble, I'm guessing that there are lots of organisations and experts whom you don't trust to validate things. On the other hand, I'm sure there are individuals, groups and organisations whom you do trust, but whom others (myself, for instance) might not trust.

    Conspiracy theories come with built-in self-protection mechanisms. Number 1 is that anybody who says the conspiracy theory is bunk is either deluded or in on the conspiracy themselves. It follows that you will be quite willing to dismiss a cartload of self-evident or easily-validated facts if they don't seem to fit with the conspiracy theory you already believe.

    Conspiracy theories also tend to be full of half truths. They might refer to easily validated facts, but they only refer to the ones that can be made to fit the conspiracy theory. The easily-validated facts that tend to refute the conspiracy theory are explained away as unreliable, "faked" or a product of the supposed shady conspirators, who spread lies and disinformation.

    All the most relevant facts about 9/11, which tend to refute your conspiracy theory, have been well "defended against attempted refutation". However, that hasn't changed your mind about any of them. You're still arguing about them 20 years after the event. Clearly, the only facts that you truly regard as "irrefutable" are the ones served up by your favorite conspiracy theory proponents - the people who got you into this muddled mindset in the first place.
    Then they won't help you to refute the "official" narrative. Obviously. Your only hope is to find some controversial facts.
    I don't think it is impossible for a retired Air Force aircraft accident investigator to make mistakes, or to tell lies, if that's what you're asking me. I doubt that any source is "perfectly reputable".

    That's two absolutes you've served up in this thread: "irrefutable facts" and now "perfect reputation". Are you confident that you can be so sure of yourself that such things exist? Where did your skepticism go?
    Correct. I'm more interested in the flaws in your thinking and analysis, because I'm confident that those are what got you to where you are now, rather than any specific facts. Besides, like I said, we had these kinds of discussions 20 years ago with conspiracy theorists just like you, right here on sciforums. I don't think you're bringing anything new.
    Yes. You should, too.
    What qualifications do you think one needs for this? Do you have the relevant qualifications?

    You still haven't answered my questions about where you studied and what you studied and who you studied with in your four year investigation of the events of 9/11. Nor have you provided even a summary of your own findings from this four year investigation you conducted. Why not?
    I'm not making controversial claims here. You are.

    Why don't you give me a summary of your best arguments for the conspiracy theory? No Gish Gallop, please. Start with, perhaps, your best two or three points that convinced you of the conspiracy. Be sure to bring your irrefutable facts.
    Fine with me. You came to us. We didn't come to you.

    Is this the last we'll see of you on sciforums, then?
     
    James R, Apr 3, 2023
    #57
  21. exchemist

    exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,521
    This is idiotically mad. Half of London burnt down, including, tragically, St Paul's Cathedral. It was well documented in contemporary accounts, the best-known of which is that of Samuel Pepys:https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/blog/curatorial/londons-burning-samuel-pepys-great-fire-london

    The large number of Wren churches built across London in the years following the fire testifies to its extent, the most prominent of course being the current St. Paul's Cathedral. (I have sung in a number of them.)
     
    exchemist, Apr 3, 2023
    #58
  22. Petra Liverani

    Petra Liverani Registered Member

    Messages:
    46
    Petra Liverani, Apr 3, 2023
    #59
  23. exchemist

    exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,521
    On the contrary, there is no evidence of foul play. There was a strong wind, the summer had been very hot and dry, the largely timber buildings were very close together, so much so that the conventional way to control fires was to demolish buildings in its path, and the mayor was dilatory in getting this done. There were of course conspiracy theories at the time, involving the French, or Catholics, both of whom were popular objects of hatred for some at the time. But that says more about psychology than anything else. No evidence has come to light of any plot.
     
    exchemist, Apr 3, 2023
    #60
Page 3 of 8
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page