(04-01-2011, 01:48 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(03-31-2011, 08:55 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(03-31-2011, 04:37 AM)rothschild Wrote: . . . thus all that is observed is not empirical.

You realize that empirical law, data, research, evidence etc., has OBSERVATION as a necessary component, don't you?

Please explain your statement.

Does everything observed necessarily constitute empirical data?

Empirical arguments (arguments based on accumulated evidence, rather than theory or supposition) depend on empirical data (direct observations or experiences which be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively) in order to prove their conclusions.

(04-01-2011, 12:27 PM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote:

Like I said conspiracy theorists, good at asking questions, no so good at answering them.

OP, dammit son, get some new pictures.

Ok here is what really happened, I can't prove it myself but this guy I know was watching TV when it happened and he knows what happened.

it was like this, they handed out office decorations and a map showing each person where to hang them on the walls, during the 3 months prior to the attack, well these office decorations were actually made out of explosives and they had the employee's place them exactly where they needed to be, they were placed on the outside wall in the shape of a jetliner, and on the inside to take out strategic support beams.

they did this throughout the complex including building 7, the explosive devices contained a radio frequency detonator, it was set up so that Cheney could call George and then just 3 minutes later, all of the explosives went off in order toppling the buildings and fooling millions of people into believing they saw a jet hit the building.

and that's what happened, remember I told you my source is infallible and never wrong.

(04-01-2011, 02:22 PM)IMaDick Wrote: Ok here is what really happened, I can't prove it myself but this guy I know was watching TV when it happened and he knows what happened.

it was like this, they handed out office decorations and a map showing each person where to hang them on the walls, during the 3 months prior to the attack, well these office decorations were actually made out of explosives and they had the employee's place them exactly where they needed to be, they were placed on the outside wall in the shape of a jetliner, and on the inside to take out strategic support beams.

they did this throughout the complex including building 7, the explosive devices contained a radio frequency detonator, it was set up so that Cheney could call George and then just 3 minutes later, all of the explosives went off in order toppling the buildings and fooling millions of people into believing they saw a jet hit the building.

and that's what happened, remember I told you my source is infallible and never wrong.

Now THAT is an example of a sound argument, Dick.


I just don't understand why people don't see how logical it is.

(insert sarcasm)

(04-01-2011, 12:06 PM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote: So, how did the demolition crews set up all the explosives in the twin towers and building seven without any of the thousands of workers and visitors to the buildings noticing?

Where did they find all the people working in demolitions willing to blow up three huge buildings killing all the thousands of people inside?

How come the buildings collapsed from the top down unlike any other controlled demolition in history?

Chris Angel & David Blane were co-conspirators.

Fuck you all.

It was aliens.

Everyone knows. Well, everyone who will survive the invasion....

(04-01-2011, 07:59 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 01:48 AM)rothschild Wrote: Does everything observed necessarily constitute empirical data?

Is this a rhetorical question or an explanation couched in your adaptation of the Socratic Method?

Clarification by examples, please.

Answer the question with a yes or no and I'll provide examples if necessary.

(04-01-2011, 04:49 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(03-31-2011, 08:44 PM)rothschild Wrote: I tell you what: watch this interview and if you can show three of the claims that Dr. Sutton makes to be false I'll send you $50 via paypal.

Why are you challenging me? I might be the only one that HASN'T made a negative comment in this thread.

Because you strike me as being honest.

(04-01-2011, 02:13 PM)AriGold Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 01:48 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(03-31-2011, 08:55 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(03-31-2011, 04:37 AM)rothschild Wrote: . . . thus all that is observed is not empirical.

You realize that empirical law, data, research, evidence etc., has OBSERVATION as a necessary component, don't you?

Please explain your statement.

Does everything observed necessarily constitute empirical data?

Empirical arguments (arguments based on accumulated evidence, rather than theory or supposition) depend on empirical data (direct observations or experiences which be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively) in order to prove their conclusions.

Rothschild is an idiot.

No explanation, when requested, regarding his statement: “. . . thus all that is observed is NOT empirical.”

Never answering direct questions.

He, again, confirms he is nothing more than a puerile poser, with no grasp of terms he tosses about.

Sad.

(04-01-2011, 04:36 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 07:59 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 01:48 AM)rothschild Wrote: Does everything observed necessarily constitute empirical data?

Is this a rhetorical question or an explanation couched in your adaptation of the Socratic Method?

Clarification by examples, please.

Answer the question with a yes or no and I'll provide examples if necessary.

Sorry . . . I quit caring about your opinion when you dodged my legitimate requests for clarification of your musings.

You have nothing I either want or need.

(04-01-2011, 05:38 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: You have nothing I either want or need.

What if he has a huge penis?

Hahahahaha!

(04-01-2011, 05:41 PM)Cracker Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 05:38 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: You have nothing I either want or need.

What if he has a huge penis?

Who'd he steal it from?

Tiki's gender is blurred in my mind. I'm not certain Tiki is a chick. I commented on her/his hair once & Tiki said it was in a tail...dudes can be hot with a ponytail..just sayin'. I think I read Tiki talking about cooking before but that's meaningless as well, plenty of guys enjoy cooking.

I think Tiki is a guy...chances are, tomorrow I will think he is a she.

(04-01-2011, 12:06 PM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote: So, how did the demolition crews set up all the explosives in the twin towers and building seven without any of the thousands of workers and visitors to the buildings noticing?

Where did they find all the people working in demolitions willing to blow up three huge buildings killing all the thousands of people inside?

How come the buildings collapsed from the top down unlike any other controlled demolition in history?

^

I want answers to these questions wingnuts.

(04-01-2011, 05:38 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 04:36 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 07:59 AM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 01:48 AM)rothschild Wrote: Does everything observed necessarily constitute empirical data?

Is this a rhetorical question or an explanation couched in your adaptation of the Socratic Method?

Clarification by examples, please.

Answer the question with a yes or no and I'll provide examples if necessary.

Sorry . . . I quit caring about your opinion when you dodged my legitimate requests for clarification of your musings.

You have nothing I either want or need.

For the record, my question is rhetorical in the sense that the answer is patently obvious to anyone who isn't a fuckwit -- which apparently you are.

When observation of a particular thing remains constant irrespective of who is observing, it can then be said to be empirical; in those cases where observation deviates due to subjectivity, however, it is not empirical.

You're welcome.

(04-01-2011, 08:16 AM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote:

(04-01-2011, 02:11 AM)rothschild Wrote: Remember when Condi stated that "no one thought that terrorists would use aircraft as weapons"?

She lied through her teeth.

They knew there was a hijacking in the pipeline and they knew it was a distinct possibility that it would involve a target or targets having maximum symbolic significance such as the WTC, which had already been bombed by Islamic radicals. Yet they did nothing. Absolutely nothing. And there's a lot they could have done if they'd chosen to, such as instituting no-fly zones around likely targets. But they did nothing.

So, do you really think that boils down to mental deficiency? And not just the President and his cabinet, but all the advisors who brief them on matters pertaining to national security and terrorism. Is that what you think?

So, are you now saying ⁹⁄₁₁ WAS committed by Islamic extremists hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings?

So are you now saying ⁹⁄₁₁ WASN'T an "inside job"?

Make your fucking mind up dingbat.

Let's try again:

So, do you really think that boils down to mental deficiency? And not just the President and his cabinet, but all the advisors who brief them on matters pertaining to national security and terrorism. Is that what you think?

No I don't think its down to mental deficiency fucknut.

It's down to incompotence, something the Bush administration clearly excelled in.

(04-01-2011, 06:54 PM)Ordinary Peephole Wrote: No I don't think its down to mental deficiency fucknut.

It's down to incompotence, something the Bush administration clearly excelled in.

Well, pommy, incompetence is indicative of mental deficiency -- as is your failure to recognize that. Or are you a dishonest cretin?

Mincing words. Look how well the government handled Katrina.


Please don't tell me that was another conspiracy.