taattua salaliittosoopaa.
"Ennenkuin kilpailu edes alkoi, meille kerrottiin että voittaminen on mahdoton koska kilpailun järjestäjä on julkistanut, tosiasiana, räjähteiden käytön."
"The proof will be subject to verification by a scientific panel of PHD engineers, physicists, and lawyers."
The contest entrant must "prove" that the towers came down without explosives. Since scientific inquiry can never prove any hypotheis, only confirm it to higher and higher degrees of probabiliy, in principle no one can ever win the contest, particularly if the judges will be scientist who understand the logic of science.
Further, after issuing the challenge, the website goes on to lay out a set of purported facts which it says can only be explained by explosives having been detonated. So before the contest even begins, we are told that it is impossible to win because the creator of the contest has already published, as fact, that explosives were set. He has denied the possiblity that anyone can "prove" otherwise, and therefore the "contest" is not an honest inquiry.
We are not told who the "scientific panel" will be, nor how the will be picked. Where is the credibility?
According to the website: "Mr. Walter is down to his last few $ Millions," but, proclaiming that, "Science is on my side!" He has, "has put aside one million dollars to challenge all his "shallow and snake like" attackers...to put up or shut up"
Why does it say he has "put aside one million dolllars," but not say where or in what form? Typically in a legitimate contest challenging people to perform a difficult act, there is an actual bank account set up, which can be verified. Both the "scientific panal" and the "million dollars" are given as empty assertions with no verifiable details.
Yet Scott talks about truthphobia! Apparently Scott is a Sheeple who uncritically swallows half-baked, internet assertions, and is angry because the rest of us don't say "Bah, bah!" and stupidly follow along with Sheeple Scott.
Scott is right that names won't hurt him, but what is hurting his credibility is his own lack of rigorous thought. He seems to have the brain equipment, but chooses not to use it and to let others do his thinking for him.
There may very well be an untold 9/11 story which should emerge. The government may very well be lieing and covering up. But uncritical acceptance of illogical internet websites will never succeed in uncovering the truth. Nor will self-indulgently writing off everyone who who does not fall in lockstep with the paranoids as "sheeple" result in any productive results. Maybe Scott is comfortable with his small life of littering the town with paranoid posters. At least that way he gets to be someone who is noticed: The town clown."
"Ennenkuin kilpailu edes alkoi, meille kerrottiin että voittaminen on mahdoton koska kilpailun järjestäjä on julkistanut, tosiasiana, räjähteiden käytön."
"The proof will be subject to verification by a scientific panel of PHD engineers, physicists, and lawyers."
The contest entrant must "prove" that the towers came down without explosives. Since scientific inquiry can never prove any hypotheis, only confirm it to higher and higher degrees of probabiliy, in principle no one can ever win the contest, particularly if the judges will be scientist who understand the logic of science.
Further, after issuing the challenge, the website goes on to lay out a set of purported facts which it says can only be explained by explosives having been detonated. So before the contest even begins, we are told that it is impossible to win because the creator of the contest has already published, as fact, that explosives were set. He has denied the possiblity that anyone can "prove" otherwise, and therefore the "contest" is not an honest inquiry.
We are not told who the "scientific panel" will be, nor how the will be picked. Where is the credibility?
According to the website: "Mr. Walter is down to his last few $ Millions," but, proclaiming that, "Science is on my side!" He has, "has put aside one million dollars to challenge all his "shallow and snake like" attackers...to put up or shut up"
Why does it say he has "put aside one million dolllars," but not say where or in what form? Typically in a legitimate contest challenging people to perform a difficult act, there is an actual bank account set up, which can be verified. Both the "scientific panal" and the "million dollars" are given as empty assertions with no verifiable details.
Yet Scott talks about truthphobia! Apparently Scott is a Sheeple who uncritically swallows half-baked, internet assertions, and is angry because the rest of us don't say "Bah, bah!" and stupidly follow along with Sheeple Scott.
Scott is right that names won't hurt him, but what is hurting his credibility is his own lack of rigorous thought. He seems to have the brain equipment, but chooses not to use it and to let others do his thinking for him.
There may very well be an untold 9/11 story which should emerge. The government may very well be lieing and covering up. But uncritical acceptance of illogical internet websites will never succeed in uncovering the truth. Nor will self-indulgently writing off everyone who who does not fall in lockstep with the paranoids as "sheeple" result in any productive results. Maybe Scott is comfortable with his small life of littering the town with paranoid posters. At least that way he gets to be someone who is noticed: The town clown."
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.