Jump to content

The Facts of WTC PLANNED & CONTROLLED DEMOLITION


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, theo102 said:

It's up to you to present your argument, not me.

 

You are saying all that is important is whether it fits with the concept of Ocam's Razor.

 

Well even Ocams' Razor only says usually -simplest-least number of steps etc

 

And you can't see why using that method of thinking has an inherent problem?

 

 

Edited by Reet Hard
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 440
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

911 was a huge scam. Regardless of the precise details. We all agree it was an orchestrated scam... Don't trust your Government. That we can agree on. Full stop.   

WTC Building 7 Primed for Demolition Prior to the day of September 11th 2001.   There is a video of "Lucky Larry" Silverstein, the owner of the WTC Complex, where he says he had a conversati

By elephant in the room I mean exactly what you're saying in regards to people like Silverstein and his pals. Most normies don't talk about that stuff, they just post jet fuel can't melt steel beam me

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Reet Hard said:

It is relevant because it shows how people never check the facts and just follow the party line and so no you don't need lots of people to be "in on it" because most will never question anything thereby destroying one of your key arguments.

 

It seems to me the problem isn't that some people think too much it's that most don't think at all and just repeat what they are told by the institutions they work for and the media.

 

That is nothing to do with...

 

demolition experts/plane part dropping teams/body disposal/video fakery teams/co-ordinators/plane disposal team/body burning and dna depositers/fake phone recording teams/fake tv teams ....on and on. Your claim is ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Irrelevant and a generalised nonsensical claim. It implies that only conspiracy theorists "think for themselves" which is so far from the truth it is almost opposite.

It implies nothing of the sort.

 

Your words imply that you are starting forma point of bias rather than looking for the truth, someone who believes some conspiracies are true is nota conspiracy theorist they are  a person who has looked at the evidence as best they can and decided something contrary to what they are being told is happening.


The education system teaches people form a young age to blindly repeat what it says in a book it does not encourage free thought and most workplaces are the same.

 

It is all about being a good little drone and people (not all but most) lose the ability to think properly.

 

Add to that the limiting of language, the de-platforming etc -all continues too exacerbate the destruction of the human's ability or inclination to think independently.

 

Then of course there is scientism another very real phenomenon.

 

That's the real world we live in, it's not a theory.

Edited by Reet Hard
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Don't quote Occam's razor for 911 - it really doesn't work.

Special pleading backed by a straw man about Bush and Cheney.

 

Occam's Razor is a general tool for reasoning about theories, there's nothing that would exclude theories about 9/11.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

That is nothing to do with...

 

demolition experts/plane part dropping teams/body disposal/video fakery teams/co-ordinators/plane disposal team/body burning and dna depositers/fake phone recording teams/fake tv teams ....on and on. Your claim is ridiculous.

You clearly don't understand compartmentalisation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

You are saying all that is important is whether it fits with the concept of Ocam's Razor.

 

Well even Ocams' Razor only says usually -simplest-least number of steps etc

 

And you can't see why using that method of thinking has an inherent problem?

 

Pretending that you've got a point to make isn't going to work.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, theo102 said:

Special pleading backed by a straw man about Bush and Cheney.

 

Occam's Razor is a general tool for reasoning about theories, there's nothing that would exclude theories about 9/11.

 

I agree my point is that there is a fundamental floor with Ocam's Razor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, theo102 said:

 

Pretending that you've got a point to make isn't going to work.

 

 

My point is that the simplest answer is not always the answer so you can't base everything on Ocam's Razor it has a very simple and obvious flaw.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reet Hard said:

My point is that the simplest answer is not always the answer so you can't base everything on Ocam's Razor it has a very simple and obvious flaw.

 

 

No,  Occam's Razor doesn't claim to give you the truth, only the most probable explanation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, theo102 said:

 

It's not important. What matters is whether or not the theory makes sense in terms of Occam's Razor. For example, the simplest explanation for the long detours that took the aircraft through radar dead spots was that they were swapped out, so no planes from the MSM account actually crashed as described.

 

That does not mean it is what happened.


Your assertion that other peoples' points do not matter and all that matters is whether it fits the Ocams Razor methodology is utter ridiculous.

 

That's four times I've made that point now so please don't try to gaslight.

 

That's the beauty of forums you can't really gas light because the evidence is all there in writing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, theo102 said:

No,  Occam's Razor doesn't claim to give you the truth, only the most probable explanation.

 

 

Precisely and what does it base probability on?

Edited by Reet Hard
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

I've made the same point 3 times please don't try to gas light.

You can't make a point when your argument is based on the assumption that I'm claiming that the planes were actually swapped out. I'm only saying that it's the best explanation for the facts.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, theo102 said:

Special pleading backed by a straw man about Bush and Cheney.

 

This is getting really boring now. Substitute Bush and Cheney with whoever postulated this totally unfeasible nonsense.

 

8 minutes ago, theo102 said:

Occam's Razor is a general tool for reasoning about theories, there's nothing that would exclude theories about 9/11.

 

All things being equal, the simplest explanation......WHOAH there! The "simplest explanation"? Dude!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, theo102 said:

No,  Occam's Razor doesn't claim to give you the truth, only the most probable explanation.

 

And right there is why 911 conspiracies don't fit. There are about a dozen of them with multiple variations. You lot can't even agree with yourselves.

 

Nukes, space weapons, no planes, some planes no pentagon plane, joos.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, theo102 said:

Special pleading backed by a straw man about Bush and Cheney.

 

Occam's Razor is a general tool for reasoning about theories, there's nothing that would exclude theories about 9/11.

 

But you are dismissing other people's logic and evidence based on Occam's Razor-doesn't work Captain.

 

On Ocams' Razor I am in full agreeemnt with Comedy Time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Comedy Time said:

This is getting really boring now. Substitute Bush and Cheney with whoever postulated this totally unfeasible nonsense.

 

Boring, meaning it's obvious that you have no point to make.

 

What "unfeasible nonsense" do you think I'm advocating, specifically?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Reet Hard said:

You clearly don't understand compartmentalisation.

 

Yes I do. You clearly don't understand compartmentalisation.

 

Answer the post properly and explain how these simple groups wouldn't know what is going on!!

 

demolition experts/plane part dropping teams/body disposal/video fakery teams/co-ordinators/plane disposal team/body burning and dna depositers/fake phone recording teams/fake tv teams ....on and on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, theo102 said:

You can't make a point when your argument is based on the assumption that I'm claiming that the planes were actually swapped out. I'm only saying that it's the best explanation for the facts.

 

 

 

More gaslighting attempts and people trying to tell me what I think and what my argument is 

 

yawn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reet Hard said:

But you are dismissing other people's logic and evidence based on Occam's Razor-doesn't work Captain.

 

Not true. No one has put forth an alternative explanation for the flight paths.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, theo102 said:

Boring, meaning it's obvious that you have no point to make.

 

No, just godforsaken mind numbingly boring. This isn't debate now it's side issue nonsense.

 

Just now, theo102 said:

What "unfeasible nonsense" do you think I'm advocating, specifically?

 

God knows, I can never understand which version of the 911 conspiracy claims any one of you is pushing. How about you fill me in and we go from there?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...