Petra Liverani
Registered Member
If you can nominate a few - with due to consideration of any refutational material of said facts - James I'd be much obliged.
9/11: are there a few irrefutable facts that prove what kind of event it was?
- Thread starter Petra Liverani
- Start date
- Status
If you can nominate a few - with due to consideration of any refutational material of said facts - James I'd be much obliged.
Well, you can't say I didn't try.BINGO!
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
seems like your more interested in having a debate about philosophy
what are you saying is not true ?
Well, I already did nominate quite a few. You told me you wouldn't bother responding to individual posts.
I do not intend to respond to your post about your list of 10 irrefutable facts, in consequence of that.
For a minute there, you sounded like you were interested in having a discussion, but apparently that is not the case.
Goodbye.
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
My apologies. I didn't read your post properly and I didn't quite get that you were putting forward all your claims as irrefutable facts. In fact, all the items you put forward as "irrefutable facts" have been addressed so in that case you need to include in your claim of irrefutable the addressing of those claims. By definition, if the planes were faked there were no hijackers so you'd need to argue against the evaluation of the aircraft accident investigator I put forward as my irrefutable fact. I don't say "the planes are faked" is an irrefutable fact as I know that topic is disputed but I do put forward the investigator's evaluation as an irrefutable fact and as far as I know no one has challenged this evaluation.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This one is even nuttier. The planes were faked, apparently.
This could be a gateway to QAnon and beyond................
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Before my first post on this thread, I checked her out. I could have posted her slab posts here there and then, particularly the places where she states she will not be responding to individual posts. You do it your way, I'll do it my way.Shouldn't we wait before Petra Liverani posts something on the matter here, rather than start addressing what they might have said elsewhere, and criticising them for it? If you want to discuss what was said by someone on another website, perhaps sign up to that other website?
Last edited:
Yes. That was the very first conspiracy theory about 9/11 - that the planes were missiles with holograph generators that made them look like airplanes.
At this point I have heard them all, from holographic cruise missiles to nanothermite to controlled demolition. It should be noted that most conspiracy theorists don't have any single theory on what happened - they hop from one to the other so no one can nail them down on their theory, while saying "hey, if I am having all these ideas, and my buddy has similar ideas, there's no way to be sure that what actually happened, happened!"
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Really? I had no idea this was previously suggested. Hopping from one to the next is a Gish Gallop technique, of course. (It takes longer to dismantle a silly notion than to articulate it.)
These people have either never heard of Ockham's Razor or they refuse to apply it.
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
In my question I should have established agreement on what constitutes an irrefutable fact.
I'd argue that an irrefutable fact is either:
--- A claim that is easily validated or self-evident or that people accept as true for whatever reason unequivocally
--- A claim where defence against attempts at refutation is proven valid
I'm a little puzzled at how people have put forward claims that they presumably know arguments have been made against without reference to those arguments and show that the claim has defended itself against them.
On this page are arguments that challenge the various claims made so far relating to phone calls, terrorists, etc and there is a great deal of disputation of the narrative elsewhere on many points, quite a lot of it made by experts (one of my own points include the words of an aircraft accident investigator) and - as people have pointed out - I have my own pages and comments elsewhere but for this exercise I've tried to simplify by putting straightforward points that are less controversial.
https://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/
So far, no one has put forward as an irrefutable fact a claim that hasn't been disputed nor have they argued with any of mine.
If you are going to put something forward as an irrefutable fact whose validity has been disputed you need to include an argument that recognises the dispute. Otherwise, you're just just using the logical fallacy, Argument from Authority. The narrative says X, experts agree, irrefutable fact. Come on, where is the rigour here?
I'd argue that an irrefutable fact is either:
--- A claim that is easily validated or self-evident or that people accept as true for whatever reason unequivocally
--- A claim where defence against attempts at refutation is proven valid
I'm a little puzzled at how people have put forward claims that they presumably know arguments have been made against without reference to those arguments and show that the claim has defended itself against them.
On this page are arguments that challenge the various claims made so far relating to phone calls, terrorists, etc and there is a great deal of disputation of the narrative elsewhere on many points, quite a lot of it made by experts (one of my own points include the words of an aircraft accident investigator) and - as people have pointed out - I have my own pages and comments elsewhere but for this exercise I've tried to simplify by putting straightforward points that are less controversial.
https://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/
So far, no one has put forward as an irrefutable fact a claim that hasn't been disputed nor have they argued with any of mine.
If you are going to put something forward as an irrefutable fact whose validity has been disputed you need to include an argument that recognises the dispute. Otherwise, you're just just using the logical fallacy, Argument from Authority. The narrative says X, experts agree, irrefutable fact. Come on, where is the rigour here?
Last edited:
I have done so.
You are free to ask questions here. But when you ask questions, you take on a bit of a responsibility to read the answers to those questions. If you are so intellectually lazy that you can't be bothered to read the replies, it does not bode well for any attempt at a rational discussion.
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
My apologies - you did state a fact as irrefutable but I don't understand how that irrefutable fact proves the scheduled plane necessarily took off or if it did that it crashed. It would be interesting to know why you didn't, in fact, take that flight. What was the reason? It could be the very fact that you didn't take it tends to support more the notion of its fakery than less.
The weather was bad enough that they kept delaying takeoff for the Sept 10 flight I was on, and there was a landing curfew in San Diego due to runway work. We beat the deadline with about 20 minutes to spare.
The first flight out the next morning was American Airlines flight 11, connecting to San Diego via LAX.
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
OK, so not an irrefutable fact at all. You assume you would have been put on AA11 the next day had your scheduled flight failed to take off but that isn't something you can be sure of.
I should have questioned you about your irrefutable fact because if it had been your scheduled flight, it certainly would have been interesting to know why you didn't take it ... but it wasn't.
So it's true I have been remiss in not reading people's posts properly and I will ensure I do that in future but this discussion shows that my claim still stands: no irrefutable facts from anyone with no refutations of mine.
I might be lazy in not reading people's posts properly but ...
Another irrefutable fact - my brother in law lost two co-workers who were working in WTC2 that day. (They were in the Morgan Stanley investment offices.)
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
Yes I know someone whose insurance agent worked in one of the towers and I know other people who know relatives of people who allegedly died, etc. Barbara Olson was obviously a very well-known person and there's a slightly-known comedian in Australia who supposedly lost his mother in Flight 77 too, etc. I have to admit it massively stretches credulity to accept that so many deaths were staged (although there is evidence that a significant number of people were simply made up) and that the people who allegedly died have been "sheepdipped" somehow, however, all the purported evidence for injury is completely consistent with "drill" injured and there is no convincing visual evidence of deaths - the images of jumpers are consistent with fakery. The thing is, if the US government was responsible for 9/11 then we wouldn't expect them to have people killed and injured for real, what they wanted for real is obviously the destruction of all the buildings at the WTC plus a couple of others, they wouldn't have wanted to kill and injure people for real, they would have only wanted us to believe in their death and injury and as they would have been using demolition professionals to bring the buildings down it's not something they could have done anyway - how would you pay professionals to completely evacuate some buildings - obviously WTCs 4, 5, 6 and 7 where no deaths were recorded but only partially evacuate 1, 2 and 3? It makes no sense plus there's no convincing evidence of it.
OK here comes the crazy.
No, they are not. No one has analyzed them and been able to show any signs of Photoshopping.
Last edited:
Petra Liverani
Registered Member
https://www.sciforums
A useful metaphor is to think of an event as a jigsaw puzzle. Let's say someone gives us 20% of the pieces of a jigsaw and tells us that the jigsaw makes an image of either a desert or a beach. If all the pieces given to us are of sand we might reserve judgement on whether the image is of a beach or a desert but if the pieces are of surf waves or other clear beach-distinguishing-from-desert features we know the image must be of a beach and not of a desert. Then let's say we are given more pieces that aren't clearly coloured and have ill-defined lines such that we cannot really tell if they represent beach or desert, there is nevertheless no need to puzzle over them because we already have the very clear image of a beach told to us by the surf waves that clearly distinguish the image as being of a beach and not of a desert. We know that as long as those less clearly defined pieces don't somehow tell us "this is a desert" they must make part of an image representing a beach.
I have put forward pieces of the 9/11 jigsaw puzzle that clearly distinguish the event as a Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation in the form of a Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise where the only reality is the destruction of buildings pushed out as a real event. There is now no need to puzzle over any other pieces unless they can be clearly shown to represent "real event" ... but, in fact, reality simply won't allow it. Reality doesn't work that way. When you have sufficient pieces of the puzzle to clearly distinguish an event as being one thing rather than another there is nowhere else to go.
Presented to you are irrefutable pieces of evidence that distinguish 9/11 as a psyop from a real event ... clearly evidenced by the fact that not a single piece of irrefutable evidence has been presented that distinguishes the other way. All that's been presented for the competing hypothesis of "real event" are claims that squarely fit the category of the logical fallacy argument type, Argument from Authority.
But although I know it is simply against reality for any piece of evidence to contradict my chosen hypothesis I always keep an open mind. Who knows I could be wrong somehow. So I shall now put my feet up and wait for any irrefutable pieces of evidence that distinguish 9/11 as a real event from a psyop.
A useful metaphor is to think of an event as a jigsaw puzzle. Let's say someone gives us 20% of the pieces of a jigsaw and tells us that the jigsaw makes an image of either a desert or a beach. If all the pieces given to us are of sand we might reserve judgement on whether the image is of a beach or a desert but if the pieces are of surf waves or other clear beach-distinguishing-from-desert features we know the image must be of a beach and not of a desert. Then let's say we are given more pieces that aren't clearly coloured and have ill-defined lines such that we cannot really tell if they represent beach or desert, there is nevertheless no need to puzzle over them because we already have the very clear image of a beach told to us by the surf waves that clearly distinguish the image as being of a beach and not of a desert. We know that as long as those less clearly defined pieces don't somehow tell us "this is a desert" they must make part of an image representing a beach.
I have put forward pieces of the 9/11 jigsaw puzzle that clearly distinguish the event as a Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation in the form of a Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise where the only reality is the destruction of buildings pushed out as a real event. There is now no need to puzzle over any other pieces unless they can be clearly shown to represent "real event" ... but, in fact, reality simply won't allow it. Reality doesn't work that way. When you have sufficient pieces of the puzzle to clearly distinguish an event as being one thing rather than another there is nowhere else to go.
Presented to you are irrefutable pieces of evidence that distinguish 9/11 as a psyop from a real event ... clearly evidenced by the fact that not a single piece of irrefutable evidence has been presented that distinguishes the other way. All that's been presented for the competing hypothesis of "real event" are claims that squarely fit the category of the logical fallacy argument type, Argument from Authority.
But although I know it is simply against reality for any piece of evidence to contradict my chosen hypothesis I always keep an open mind. Who knows I could be wrong somehow. So I shall now put my feet up and wait for any irrefutable pieces of evidence that distinguish 9/11 as a real event from a psyop.
Last edited:
I am beginning to suspect that Petra is a young person who has no direct memory of 9/11 or its aftermath. She sounds like the sort of person who learned everything she knows about 9/11 by reading conspiracist web pages and watching youtube conspiracy videos.
Some of the sheer nonsense she has been brave enough to admit to believing almost beggars belief. But I say "almost" because some of us lived through 9/11 and saw these nutty conspiracy theories gradually developed and embellished by nuts and people with bad motives.
If you're wondering, Petra, why nobody over the age of 40 here is much interested in going toe to toe with you on your nonsensical conspiracy rubbish, the short answer is: we've been there and done that, years ago. All of those old discussions from back in the 2000s are still available. If you're really as interested in irrefutable facts and answers to your favorite conspiracy talking points, you could do worse than to read through some of the old threads here, where most of the common nonsense is picked over.
What would be better, however, would be for you to take a step back from your current beliefs and just start to find out what the "other side" has to say on 9/11, for a change. Clearly, you're currently stuck deep in a mire of disinformation and madness. Read the "official" investigations, or just "official" accounts, for starters. Read wikipedia on 9/11, for heaven's sake! Don't read it and think about all the ways it might not be true. Instead, read it and ask yourself what follows if it all happened exactly as described by the "official" accounts. Who knows? You might be able to dig yourself out of the mess you've got yourself into.
3000+ people died on 9/11. Your assertions that those were "fake people" who did not really exist are just plain offensive to the families and loved ones of those who died. You need to stop looking at this event as an intellectual puzzle with a hidden solution that only you and some other conspiracy theorists have the nouse to solve, and start looking at it as a normal compassionate human being.
When somebody tells you that his brother-in-law, or his sister or his mother died in 9/11, try to put yourself in his position. How would you like it if somebody like you told you that, no, your mother didn't really exist and so couldn't possibly have been on a plane which also never really existed and that therefore you're a liar and your grief is not real etc.?
Please grow up, Petra. Stop making fun with other people's misery.
Some of the sheer nonsense she has been brave enough to admit to believing almost beggars belief. But I say "almost" because some of us lived through 9/11 and saw these nutty conspiracy theories gradually developed and embellished by nuts and people with bad motives.
If you're wondering, Petra, why nobody over the age of 40 here is much interested in going toe to toe with you on your nonsensical conspiracy rubbish, the short answer is: we've been there and done that, years ago. All of those old discussions from back in the 2000s are still available. If you're really as interested in irrefutable facts and answers to your favorite conspiracy talking points, you could do worse than to read through some of the old threads here, where most of the common nonsense is picked over.
What would be better, however, would be for you to take a step back from your current beliefs and just start to find out what the "other side" has to say on 9/11, for a change. Clearly, you're currently stuck deep in a mire of disinformation and madness. Read the "official" investigations, or just "official" accounts, for starters. Read wikipedia on 9/11, for heaven's sake! Don't read it and think about all the ways it might not be true. Instead, read it and ask yourself what follows if it all happened exactly as described by the "official" accounts. Who knows? You might be able to dig yourself out of the mess you've got yourself into.
3000+ people died on 9/11. Your assertions that those were "fake people" who did not really exist are just plain offensive to the families and loved ones of those who died. You need to stop looking at this event as an intellectual puzzle with a hidden solution that only you and some other conspiracy theorists have the nouse to solve, and start looking at it as a normal compassionate human being.
When somebody tells you that his brother-in-law, or his sister or his mother died in 9/11, try to put yourself in his position. How would you like it if somebody like you told you that, no, your mother didn't really exist and so couldn't possibly have been on a plane which also never really existed and that therefore you're a liar and your grief is not real etc.?
Please grow up, Petra. Stop making fun with other people's misery.
- Status