37 FACTS that contradict the "official" BS story

your challenge is useless.
I have proven several publications wrong and insufficient that you people post LOL

 

Oh so either you can't or you're a coward. In other words useless. Thanks.

 

apparently everyone needs glasses out here.

I said:

I have proven several publications wrong

 

Oh wow, he seriously said, "I have proven several publications wrong?" Talk about nutty

 

That's why one engine was found a long ways away, and witnesses identified pieces falling from the sky before it SUPPOSEDLY crashed in Shanksville, and buried itself.

 

Confiscated, I think. No wait, that was Washington. That ONE in the bucket of digger that they like to feature is still available though, I think. No other ones exist though. Guess they gave up after that prop was so obviously faked. Just a story, made up, and total BS, as is usual with the "official" BS story.

 

the engine was found 300 yards away,and NO credible witnesses claim pieces were 'falling from the sky before the crash'

- - - Updated - - -

Prove it was 'faked'

 

Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to travel 300 yards."

 

From the link:

From Techbriefs:

Their own research shows the fires reached temperatures three times greater than required to reduce the load bearing capacity of the WTC by 75%

They just confirmed that NIST was correct in their assessment.

 

Not only does the engine have momentum in the direction of travel, it also has angular momentum from the rotation of the fans.

 

You came here to post that you're not ready to post in a thread that you created?

Did you get hacked again?

 

Nope. I'm encompassing the variety of goofball responses I've seen thus far, and the inability of these.....folks....to directly address any point consistently, CO-boss. Way to answer the call out dude.

 

"In between flights" is his euphemism meaning he can't refute the facts presented. It's his fall back position. (That and calling names "shill!!" "boss!!" )
You know what that term means in street lingo, right?

 

Does he have a forward position?

I've never seen it.

I've only seen him post other people's opinions that he thinks he agrees with until months later when he actually reads the opinions at which point he claims he was hacked, tricked, etc.

 

I adressed ONE point,like asked directly AND consistently,so stop whining and hedging...

 

another ad hominem attack

 

yawn

the only thing that is nutty is you think it applies to anything BUT 911. LMOA



same goes for ANY area. LMAO

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis

Author information ► Copyright and License information ►

See "Minimizing Mistakes and Embracing Uncertainty" , e272.
See "Truth, Probability, and Frameworks" , e361.
See "Power, Reliability, and Heterogeneous Results" , e386.
See "The Clinical Interpretation of Research" , e395.
See "Author's Reply" , e398.
See "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Problems in the Analysis" in volume 4, e168.
See "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Author's Reply to Goodman and Greenland" in volume 4, e215.
See "Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science" in volume 5, e201.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.


Go to:
Abstract

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.



Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies [1–3] to the most modern molecular research [4,5]. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims [6–8]. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.

Go to:
Modeling the Framework for False Positive Findings

Several methodologists have pointed out [9–11] that the high rate of nonreplication (lack of confirmation) of research discoveries is a consequence of the convenient, yet ill-founded strategy of claiming conclusive research findings solely on the basis of a single study assessed by formal statistical significance, typically for a p-value less than 0.05. Research is not most appropriately represented and summarized by p-values, but, unfortunately, there is a widespread notion that medical research articles should be interpreted based only on p-values. Research findings are defined here as any relationship reaching formal statistical significance, e.g., effective interventions, informative predictors, risk factors, or associations. “Negative” research is also very useful. “Negative” is actually a misnomer, and the misinterpretation is widespread. However, here we will target relationships that investigators claim exist, rather than null findings.It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false

 

You did, and I'm assessing it, but carefully. Why? Because the "gang tackle" format here and trying to respond to it, gives me a headache. (In other words, the shill plan is effective). WHEN I respond, it'll be in a concise fashion and specifically chosen points of contention, for the reader to either answer, or dodge. The ones that dodge, I'll not waste any time with. But it will all be when I choose to do so. All I've been reading here are mostly insults, and more insults. Doesn't sound very productive engaging this kind of nonsense at this point. I'll formulate my response in such a way that leaves no doubts who is dodging, and who is engaging honestly. Till then? I'm going to watch the children in here play a little more first.

 

Translation: I will post this tired excuse, and then never address it again.

 

I hope that goes for mine as well. I was direct and to the point:

I was neither rude nor off topic in mine, so I expect that you will get to it. As you've pointed out, at your own leisure discretion, of course.

 

You forgot, about the capitalization during that translation. Obviously that changes the passive voice to the active voice. In other words, it means: Shortly I'll try to distract you by asking you to jump through some different hoop as a condition of my response.

 

yeh and your alternative is simply bail like you did on the other thread with the pentagon light pole mower.

 

Fraud is backpedaling,it seems...He demands we address HIS points,post-haste,but hems and haws when he's up..

 

I dont know about fraud, but I have listed facts and the troughers simply bail. LMAO

 

Jojo the 'Trougher' has yet to post any facts, but his clock is sparkling clean.