The problem is that it's not : 'they come to this conclusion because they are incompetent', it's 'they are incompetent BECAUSE of the conclusions.'
Rubbish B'man ... speaking outwith your sphere of expertise IS incompetance.
Making accusation without real evidence IS incompetence.
Using un-definative tests IS incompetence ... the list goes on and on and on and on ... that their "conclusions" are incompetent is therefore
not unexpected.
We do not call them incompetent
because we do not like their conclusion but rather that they have demonstrated time and again that they ARE incompetent, through simple things like Gages' Gaggle utter FAILURE to do adequate and competent verification ... that is not us not liking what they "say" but a PHYSICAL demonstration that they cannot do simple checks ... or Jones et al USING known poor tests and methodology ... that is not just us not liking what they "say", but again a PHYSICAL demonstration of poor and incompetent work.
Seriously B'man if their conclusions are so flawed by using flawed methodology why do you seem to think we are so naive as just to call them out for incompetence according only to "conclusion" ???
We are smarter than that you know !!!
Seriously Press TV ... the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcastings English speaking branch station using an extremely quote-mined part of a bigger interview ...
seriously !!!
If you can cut down Noam Chomsky, who initially stated to the effect that it did not matter whether the government perpetrated the attacks or not because the results are the same. Which was viewed as a dispute of 9-11 truth...
Chomsky has never stated that the governement had involvment in 9/11 ... that is the expected gross twisting of words commonly used by truthers.
No-where does he in ANY of his books, interviews, debates or talks make the comment of him saying he believes in
any way that the US gubmint was involved ...
Here try find his saying
anything like that ...
chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website
Now, whether you agree or disagree with Noam Chomsky, he has a VERY WELL researched viewpoint and IS well respected in his field....
Quite so ... and yet he entirely DISAGREES with conspiracy ... he find truther claims
without substance.
"
On the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I'll comment, but reluctantly. There are far more important things to be concerned about, and these things can become an awful waste of time.
As for the theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly."
"
Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission."
He truly thinks 9/11 conspiracy theories are not even
worth discussion !!!
LiveLeak.com - Noam Chomsky on the 911 conspiracy theories
LiveLeak.com - Noam Chomsky Denounces 9/11 Truthers
On 9-11, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Nicholas Holt
On 9-11, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Svetlana Vukovic & Svetlana Lukic
The New War Against Terror, by Noam Chomsky (Talk delivered at The Technology & Culture Forum at MIT)
He is scathing of American foreign policy and imperialistic practises and on the using of 9/11 for political means ... but he finds
zero merit in any of the truther claims or inside jobby-job guff !!!
But I do find it amusing that truthers will use him to somehow as jam to their claims when he
clearly thinks you are all nuts ... but then again by being extremely SELECTIVE as to what quotes you use it can (
once again the inevitable cherry-picking quote-mining tactic so favoured of truthers) be made to "seem" he is in support of you when the reality is the opposite.
This shows my first statement correct ... truthers ARE incompetent !!!
and as it's been pointed out NO MATTER where you look concerning 9-11 there's something questionable that arises or some evidence of a cover-up, admissions of cover-ups and lies, distortions, etc...
And has equally been pointed out failure and incompetance are NOT the same as involvement !!!
Trying (
rather feebly as you are here openly discussing this issue) to mitigate the level of failure and ineptitude after the fact is also NOT the same as being the author of the fact !!!
That you fail to see how failure BEFORE and AFTER the fact is not some sort of proof of
causation, shows more your own immaturity of logic and reasoning.
The ONLY reason the official version has any legs to stand on is because people bought into the lies.
Maybe because it was correct ... do you not see still that it is impossible to keep fooling all the people all the time.
You can fool some people some of the time, but you simply cannot in the reality of the world fool everyone ... and you and your beliefs B'man are the "some".
Now I know that the conspiratorial mindset seems to believe themselves keepers of information somehow shielded or hidden, by the utterly inane reason of us being too in awe or fearful of the "them", and that if we were only to "open our minds" to your truth then we would see what mindless drones and sheep we were.
Yet you forget the fact that most of us have heard what you have to say, the same things endlessly repeated for years now ... and still don't believe your "theories".
Yet that fails to answer why so little people whom have proven by ability to think deeply by reason of attainment of professional qualifications ... whom are
more than capable of thinking for "themselves" and whom genuinely have nothing to fear from what you say STILL do not support you.
Now I know that you love to tout ae911 as to
you having over 1000 "professional" people on there seems like a lot and yet that number is well BELOW one tenth of one percent of ANY of the relevent professions ... it is a
completely INSIGNIFICANT level of support they have ... they just have not managed to garnish greater because they are WRONG !!!
Simply because you are unable to convince other people that you are right doesn't make you more right and everyone else more stupid ... none of us here B'man find yours or creatives arguments "compelling" because (
despite creatives lame appeals to higher IQ) they FAIL at every standard of scientific, engineering and genuine inquiry.
You have flawed and false science ... you have great reliance on the weakest kinds of "evidence" and you have total dependency on "possibilities" as opposed to realities ...
If your theories did have validity then why have you to date failed to ignite the populace in general and why have you failed utterly to garnish a properly professional level of support from those considered REAL experts in the relevent fields ???
Why is every single one of the front faces of Da Twoof speaking OUTSIDE their fields ???
Does that not give you
cause for concern that concerning matters of building forensics and collapse they ONLY have radio hosts, teenagers, theologians, low-rise architects, water-testers, self-appointed DJ's (CIT), etc upfront of the cause ???
Why do you NOT have people of the calibre of Bazant on your side ???
You (truthers), without
any technical education comparable to the scientists that supported the NIST report, will call them liars and you
fail to see the infancy of that !!!
Literally the reverse of the type of attitude that came about when people came out saying the earth was round the 'flat earthers' (as we would call them today)... though much less in extreme.
Why do people like you always like to equate yourself with stuff like this ... that you are the lone voice of reason swimming against the tide of resistance stuff ... :roll:
Especially given the push for science on one side of the mouth, yet rejecting the principle's of the scientific method that were IGNORED in the NIST reports (which at the very least would have TESTED for explosive materials merely for scientific scrutiny),
Why do you still state that the scientific method was ignored ... do you have the necessary education in science to make that claim ???
No, you do not ... and the simple fact is that NIST were
not remiss in any part of their invesitgation.
You seem hung up on them having needed test for explosives citing ONLY eyewitness testimony ... the WEAKEST of all evidence ... so please do explain in what universe where there is ZERO physical trace of explosives in what would be an ENORMOUS demolition and why without that required PHYSICAL evidence NIST or anyone else should have done testing for stuff with ZERO physical evidence of ???
Do you test for a broken leg when examining your dental patient ???
Not without signs of physical injury to that leg you don't !!!
You are desperatly clinging to a non-issue here B'man ... for there simply was ZERO/NADA/ZILCH physical evidence of explosives present ... which would be impossible were they actually there !!!
Why can you not understand this ... are you
so desperate to hold on to any point no matter how weak or impossible to keep alive the utter fantasy of explosives ???
and the commission report through it's lack of subpoena powers was impotent to find real answers.
Bollocks ... do you really think the conclusion would be different
were those powers there at that time then ???
BUT, if you raise ANY doubts, about these stories you are demonized first and the position handled in an 'if there's time left' fashion,
And maybe so B'man because, like the Flat Earthers of today, you are just plain wrong !!!
The Flat Earth Society
which in EVERY CASE glosses over the one minute detail of the explanation that violates other aspects of the explanation and focuses on the singular issues rather then the tapestry of information and evidence.
Proper examination requires such ... just as looking at the "tapestry" of rape cases shows overwhelming men to be the cause so minute investigation shows not all men guilty.
Minute detail investigation AND the whole picture clearly show "outside job" ... period !!!