Peak Oil News and Message Boards

onlooker wrote:Just follow the clues and facts as opposed to the sanitized version of the facts.

Critical thinking is a good thing. But it requires also to put out any preconceived ideas to work... If you look for clues and facts to support an idea, you will find them. This makes most of "conspiracy" theories quite worthless, as they start from an hypothesis and look for clues and facts... Instead of assembling clues and facts first (without cherry picking), and form an opinion of what they mean.

Also, the basic rule of critical thinking on news is to look for the source of information. If the source is proved unreliable, or have no expertise, or the information relayed is changed to suit a POV, then it worths nothing.

So now we have crowdfunded sources of doomer propaganda publishing, masquerading as "think tanks"?

Bravo! Zerohedge would be so proud.

So, Outcast_Searcher saw something like economic doomers behind this news. But this came out of this institute:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_fo ... Innovation

And it appears that this is more some advertisement on their website for a future conference to be held on feb 22, with Robert Aliber, a recognised economist (in foreign investments) who studied quite deeply financial crisis, and wrote a book (Manias, Panic, Crashes). And in this interview, he doesn't exactly look like a doomer punk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... xIoFzPu8bY

In facts, he points out what actually happened in the recent correction of stocks, that inflation is coming and low interest rates from the FED are not sustainable.

The letter where he predict a major plunge in US stocks can be read here:
http://www.csfi.org/s/QUARTERLYJAN12018.docx

I don't have enough economic knowledge to argue against his POV. I think he may be biased because he study finance crisis, and so focus on what appears to him like the premise of a market crash. His concerns are anyway real, and he's not the only economist to warn about the imbalances in the global economy.

onlooker wrote:Actually what I am doing is separating those who are open minded from those who are not on this site. Just follow the clues and facts as opposed to the sanitized version of the facts.

Spoken like someone who probably watches Ancient Aliens on the "History" channel.

Did onlooker read the NIST report on 911 or did he stick with 911 youtube videos?

https://www.nist.gov/engineering-labora ... estigation

Cog wrote:Did onlooker read the NIST report on 911 or did he stick with 911 youtube videos?

https://www.nist.gov/engineering-labora ... estigation

Did you read the NIST report(s) on 911?

I doubt many, if any, at po.com have read them (in their entirety). The NIST findings are not absolutely accepted by the wider architectural/engineering community at large. In fact, their methods for determining the building 7 collapse have been highly contested. There’s strong evidence to suggest that their conclusion is inherently flawed.

charmcitysking wrote:

Cog wrote:Did onlooker read the NIST report on 911 or did he stick with 911 youtube videos?

https://www.nist.gov/engineering-labora ... estigation

Did you read the NIST report(s) on 911?

I doubt many, if any, at po.com have read them (in their entirety). The NIST findings are not absolutely accepted by the wider architectural/engineering community at large. In fact, their methods for determining the building 7 collapse have been highly contested. There’s strong evidence to suggest that their conclusion is inherently flawed.

LOL not accepted by 911 truthers no doubt.

asg70 wrote:

onlooker wrote:Actually what I am doing is separating those who are open minded from those who are not on this site. Just follow the clues and facts as opposed to the sanitized version of the facts.

Spoken like someone who probably watches Ancient Aliens on the "History" channel.

Yes. "Open minded" is one thing. Crazy / gullible is another.

For example, I took an open-minded look at the "911 truther" arguments and commentary (like fast crash doomers, they IGNORE all data contrary to their intuition), and "Flat Earther" arguments and commentary (same deal -- their ignorance of both science and basic math is a frightening indictment of our educational system). If having an "open mind" doesn't allow you to reject absolute nonsense which doesn't stand up to reasonable scrutiny, then you can have your "open mindedness" along with your loony ideas.

Cog wrote:

charmcitysking wrote:

Cog wrote:Did onlooker read the NIST report on 911 or did he stick with 911 youtube videos?

https://www.nist.gov/engineering-labora ... estigation

Did you read the NIST report(s) on 911?

I doubt many, if any, at po.com have read them (in their entirety). The NIST findings are not absolutely accepted by the wider architectural/engineering community at large. In fact, their methods for determining the building 7 collapse have been highly contested. There’s strong evidence to suggest that their conclusion is inherently flawed.

LOL not accepted by 911 truthers no doubt.

And that "strong evidence" would be? Your intuition? Because any time I see actual arguments presented in Youtube videos or impassioned comments, it's just silly. There is no real scientific rigor or mathematical rigor or serious validity checking. It's just "it seems this way to me, so it MUST be true".

Yeah. If that were the case, zerohedge would be a pack of predictive geniuses. In fact, not even CLOSE, given the track record of their predictions / claims.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:And that "strong evidence" would be?

The only thing more wasteful than going in endless circles with Short on ETP would be to start up another 911 discussion. Please don't encourage him.

http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

I don’t want to derail this thread too far, but to answer your question here’s a society of over two thousand architects and engineers who challenge the NIST findings.

I’m not an architect or an engineer, so I can’t say which group of engineers is correct and which one is incorrect. Can you Cog? Can you OS? Can you objectively discredit the arguments of this group’s opinion rather than just chalking it up to a gang of conspiracy theorists?

Nothing to do with my intuition here and this is certainly no YouTube video or zerohedge article.

Kevin Ryan wrote a really readable and detailed book about the matter called 'Another nineteen' where a full account of what happened on Sept.11, 2001 was detailed, and he left it there. Perhaps the best book on 9/11 so far:

https://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen ... B00DT5DI5M

charmcitysking wrote:http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

I don’t want to derail this thread too far, but to answer your question here’s a society of over two thousand architects and engineers who challenge the NIST findings.

I’m not an architect or an engineer, so I can’t say which group of engineers is correct and which one is incorrect. Can you Cog? Can you OS? Can you objectively discredit the arguments of this group’s opinion rather than just chalking it up to a gang of conspiracy theorists?

Nothing to do with my intuition here and this is certainly no YouTube video or zerohedge article.

And yet, you go to the site and the immediate list of "evidence" on the main page is the same old list of debunked nonsense that has been argued to death re 911 conspiracies for years. So if they can't do better than that as the primary drawing card -- it's just another conspiracy group.

But I know. I must be one of "them" you're worried about, since I believe in physics and logic.

charmcitysking wrote:http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

I don’t want to derail this thread too far, but to answer your question here’s a society of over two thousand architects and engineers who challenge the NIST findings.

As I've said before, if this organization or any other individual or organisation has evidence that the official story on the collapse of the towers is fraudulent, then they should immediately file a huge class action lawsuit on behalf of all the victims and their families seeking billions of dollars in damages in recompense.

Thats the way issue get decided in our country----things go to court, evidence is presented, and judges and/or a jury evaluate the evidence and decide on the merits of the lawsuit. Civil lawsuits don't have to meet the legal standards required of a criminal trial----so if there is evidence---any evidence at all------that will stand up in the court they they should file suit and go to trial with a civil lawsuit. If they actually want the truth to come out, thats the way to do it.

But no. They run a website instead.

The fact that "Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth" don't take their case to civil court says to me that they actually don't have any firm evidence that the official story isn't correct. These hucksters know that if they went to court and lost---they'd have to shut down their website and stop selling pamphlets to the masses.

So Architects and Engineers for 911 truth don't have anything that will stand up in court. Yes, they have a website----big deal----they know you don't have to actually prove anything you say on a website and they know there are people out there who will believe anything they see on the internet.


Thanks Jesus! Thats good advice!

CHEERS!

If anyone had told me on 9/11/2002 that the attacks of a year earlier would become the conspiracy theory that replaced the Grassy Knoll Shooter in the JFK conspiracy circles I would have said they were nuts. Here we are 15+ years after that first anniversary and the theorists are still going strong.

Just one more piece of evidence proving my lack of future prediction skills.

Some of you are clearly displaying the confirmation bias you are accusing others like me as having

onlooker wrote:Some of you are clearly displaying the confirmation bias you are accusing others like me as having

If you want to study buzzwords, study Occam's Razor.

In answer to Plant's observation that NO suits have formerly been filed against the US govt by US citizens because of the hurdles and difficuties of doing so.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/columns/ ... its.05.22/

The FTCA also limits suits in other ways. For suit to be brought, the government actor who caused the tort must have been acting within the scope of her government employment, and must have been performing a "nondiscretionary" function.

These limitations are very significant. Many intentional torts (except those committed by soldiers or federal agents) are held to fall far outside the scope of government employment. And few government functions are truly nondiscretionary.

A decision that implicates a policy goal, for instance, is a "discretionary" decision, which therefore cannot form the basis for an FTCA suit. Examples might include: a decision to issue a permit; a decision whether to carry out a safety inspection; a decision whether to parole a prisoner; a decision to have mail carriers drive a certain kind of dangerous truck; and -- certainly -- a decision made at the highest level of government concerning how many resources to devote to a problem, or whether to even address the problem in the first place.

In short, no matter how negligent or reckless a policy decision might seem in retrospect, the federal government is immune from suit from private citizens, no matter who gets hurt or how much property is lost. Congress has decided, very generally, not to allow policy judgments or their consequences to be litigated -- perhaps to avoid partisan lawsuits that attempt to attack policies that could not be defeated politically

And I will add, that naturally anybody would be hesitant to do so because of the rightfully perceived backlash and bias said person would almost certainly receive.
Let’s be honest here. Said person (s) would be viewed almost as traitors

There would be no bar to suing the federal government, if as you 911 conspiracy theorists believe the Twin Towers were brought down deliberately by controlled demolition. That would not fall under negligence or discretion. A conspiracy to commit murder is neither of those.

You don't have to "melt steel beams" to make them weaken and fail to support the loads they were designed for.

Tanada,

I pretty much believe the 9/11 basic premis. The ONE bit where there may be some lying is in the plane over PA, it may have been brought down by our fighters.

On the JFK controversy however I am not convienced. I just can NOT believe Oswald made those shots. No one else has been able to duplicate them. My Father was about as straight as you can get. He was also a remarkable marksman. He also thought that line about Oswald being the sole shooter was BS just based on his own experience.

I did recently read something new to me. The secret service man riding with LBJ 3 cars back claimed he smelt gunpowder. May just have been the excitement of the moment.

Even if you believe the official story, the whole case stinks. A collection of Saudi terrorists kill over 3000 US citizens on US soil and the US keeps on sucking Saudi cock before, during and after the event. The USA has never, ever exerted any pressure on the Saudis ease off on the succoring of terrorists.