Thread: Missing Links and other Investigations of 9/11

Originally Posted by Jango

So yours and my words are not credible unless backed by experts?

THATS my problem in a nutshell...since you need it spelled out.

AGAIN, since you still fail to comprehend, we're not talking about who is or is not credible. How hard is that to understand? This is a very simple concept. Truthers lack credibility. Cooky has put forward that to gain credibility back, truthers should submit their claims to peer reviewed journals. Neither Cooky nor I have made the claim that ANYONE'S words are not credible unless backed by experts. Are our words MORE credible if backed by experts? Absolutely. That is just common sense. You taking it to the absolute extreme of pretending Cooky and I are trying to claim nobody is credible without experts backing them up is, to put it bluntly, a baldfaced lie. Looks like you have more problems than you thought.

Here are some examples since you have such a hard time with this whole concept.

Someone who actually saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon with their own eyes is going to be far more credible than some truther trying to pretend they are a video expert and can say conclusively that it wasn't a plane in the security video footage. The eyewitness doesn't need an expert backing them up, but the truther is making claims as fact when they are, in reality, opinion. Now, if said truther were to wrap up all his findings and how he came to the conclusions he did into an article that could be submitted to a group of people who are experts at still video footage, he would have a chance to have his findings validated through peer review. His opinions would still be opinions, but those opinions would have MORE credibility due to peer review. Peer review doesn't mean there is no possibility for mistake. It simply means experts in the field of question agree with the findings of the submitter.

Another good example is WTC 7. Truthers just LOVE to pretend they know all about structural engineering and make claims like "WTC 7 couldn't have fallen on its own due to fires". Are they qualified to make that kind of claim all on their own? No. They're not. They may TELL you they are. You may even believe them. That doesn't change the truth, does it. Now, if they made their case for WTC 7 requiring a controlled demolition to come down, and it was peer reviewed and the experts agreed that WTC 7 couldn't have come down due to fire, one would not only have a MUCH more credible position on this board, but they would actually be able to approach the NIST and demand some answers. Do truthers do this? No. Why? Because they know as well as you and I know that their claims are nothing but baseless rantings of some seriously deranged people. They turn up their collective noses at all the studies done so far. They ignore the fact that, aside from a very small minority, engineers the world over understand that WTC 7 could and in all likelihood DID collapse due to its unique construction and the circumstances surrounding the collapse on 9/11.

Do you get it now? Do you need more examples? Do you still not get how you lied when you claimed Cooky and I were making claims we never made nor would we make?

I knew this would turn into can't quite account for = missing 2.

You need to re-read your first paragraph. Some contradictions.

Originally Posted by Jango

I knew this would turn into can't quite account for = missing 2.

You need to re-read your first paragraph. Some contradictions.

There are no contradictions. If there were, you would have pointed them out. I see you still can't man up to your blatant dishonesty.

Here is what I wrote:

Originally Posted by Patriot911

I don't see any problem with it. Too many people, especially truthers, pretend that if there is a video that says what they want to hear, then the video must be right despite all the evidence it is wrong. It is also a sign of utter laziness. One should be able to express and defend their beliefs, not have a video do all their speaking for them. And then there is the issue where people, especially conspiracy theorists, do nothing but spam videos, and expect people to watch them all. This is a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) move if you ask me, especially when they are too lazy to even make a point or tell you where in the video their relevant point is made. It is a true sign of an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) who knows he has lost and wants to pretend he is still somehow relevant.

Where in there do I say ANYTHING even remotely close to whatever is said is not credible unless said by an expert? I talk about truthers being lazy and using videos they don't even know the contents of. I talk about truthers being unable to back up their claims. I talk about truthers pretending spamming videos somehow makes up for their lack of evidence and intelligence.

So go ahead and point out where my contradictions are. First rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging.

I post on a Kindle Fire. I can't copy and paste as flawlessly as I could on a PC, but re-read your 1st paragraph in post #61. Look specifically for 'contradictions', please. I want you to see it for yourself.

Originally Posted by Jango

I post on a Kindle Fire. I can't copy and paste as flawlessly as I could on a PC, but re-read your 1st paragraph in post #61. Look specifically for 'contradictions', please. I want you to see it for yourself.

You apparently need to learn the difference between credible and credibility. Maybe you should look up the difference. It is your claim that I and Cooky are claiming only experts are credible. That is false. We are both talking about how a truther can increase their, and by proxy the truther movements, credibility. For one to be credible, they need credibility. If you lie or try to use dishonest tactics, you lose credibility and fewer people are going to consider you credible. It has nothing to do with what degrees you have. Degrees can give someone a basis of credibility, but that same person can completely lose credibility if they lie or prove they don't know what they are talking about.

Judy Wood is an excellent example. She has a Ph.D. She is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot of the first order and she proved that with her billiard ball theory. Ever see a collapse completely stop on every floor before resuming? That is what she claimed SHOULD happen in a collapse. Even other truthers think she has lost all credibility and that is quite an accomplishment! On the other hand, if someone without a degree makes a claim and that claim proves out to be true, that person can gain credibility and eventually people consider that person credible. There are numerous people on this board who I don't know what degrees, if any, they hold, yet I find them very credible because what they say pans out when you check it out for yourself. There are other people on this board who I wouldn't find credible if they told me up was up and down was down because of their level of dishonesty and general idiocy.

Think of it this way. People can do things to earn your trust. That is the equivalence of credibility. Eventually you trust that person. That is the equivalence of credible. Using that analogy, Cooky and I are trying to tell truthers how they can earn people's trust by proving their theories. If truthers could get experts to back them up in a trusted manner (peer review), then that gives everyone, myself included, a certain level of trust that what the truthers are trying to claim is true. You are taking our efforts to increase the credibility of truthers as a statement that we only trust experts and distrust everyone else, which is patently false. Does THAT make any sense to you?

I see the boys are at work again, deleting information that is too close to home. Good work once again fellas.

Originally Posted by Patriot911

You apparently need to learn the difference between credible and credibility. Maybe you should look up the difference. It is your claim that I and Cooky are claiming only experts are credible. That is false. We are both talking about how a truther can increase their, and by proxy the truther movements, credibility. For one to be credible, they need credibility. If you lie or try to use dishonest tactics, you lose credibility and fewer people are going to consider you credible. It has nothing to do with what degrees you have. Degrees can give someone a basis of credibility, but that same person can completely lose credibility if they lie or prove they don't know what they are talking about.

Judy Wood is an excellent example. She has a Ph.D. She is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot of the first order and she proved that with her billiard ball theory. Ever see a collapse completely stop on every floor before resuming? That is what she claimed SHOULD happen in a collapse. Even other truthers think she has lost all credibility and that is quite an accomplishment! On the other hand, if someone without a degree makes a claim and that claim proves out to be true, that person can gain credibility and eventually people consider that person credible. There are numerous people on this board who I don't know what degrees, if any, they hold, yet I find them very credible because what they say pans out when you check it out for yourself. There are other people on this board who I wouldn't find credible if they told me up was up and down was down because of their level of dishonesty and general idiocy.

Think of it this way. People can do things to earn your trust. That is the equivalence of credibility. Eventually you trust that person. That is the equivalence of credible. Using that analogy, Cooky and I are trying to tell truthers how they can earn people's trust by proving their theories. If truthers could get experts to back them up in a trusted manner (peer review), then that gives everyone, myself included, a certain level of trust that what the truthers are trying to claim is true. You are taking our efforts to increase the credibility of truthers as a statement that we only trust experts and distrust everyone else, which is patently false. Does THAT make any sense to you?

Yes.....

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

I see the boys are at work again, deleting information that is too close to home. Good work once again fellas.

Stop whining....

Originally Posted by RtWngaFraud

I see the boys are at work again, deleting information that is too close to home. Good work once again fellas.

So cenydd is a mod who is censoring your input according to you?

This message has been deleted by cenydd.

ReasonFlamebait, attacks and responses - discuss the topic, NOT each other!!!

Which one of those flamebaits, attacks, and responses was "information that is too close to home"?

Originally Posted by DDave

So cenydd is a mod who is censoring your input according to you?



Which one of those flamebaits, attacks, and responses was "information that is too close to home"?

Good job kicking me out of LetsRoll....your powers reach further than I thought. Another paycheck...well earned.