Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Stevens

Members
  • Posts

    266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arkansas

Recent Profile Visitors

1,708 profile views

Mark Stevens's Achievements

  1. You're again making this about me and what I think when I haven't offered any opinions. You continue to beat around my point. You again prove my point by saying the "fringe" research is the "bona-fide" scientific evidence when again, that is just not the case. If that evidence was the bona-fide evidence, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the NIST report. What I'm saying is the report and the information contained within it is the accepted science, that is the bona-fide evidence. You know what I am saying. You don't have to accept that report, that is fine. But, in refusing to accept that science you become a climate change denier. You dismiss accepted science and instead say your science is the real science. You know what I'm saying. This isn't about my 9/11 beliefs or whether I believe the NIST report. I'm simply saying, the NIST report is the accepted science. Climate change science and whatever report/study is the accepted science. If you dismiss either of these items you are dismissing what is considered by the general public to be the "bona-fide evidence." Your evidence is the "fringe" evidence, your science is the "pseudoscience" until it becomes the accepted science, even if it is actually the truth. Until it is accepted as the truth, it's not. Again, this is not about my personal beliefs on 9/11 or even climate change.
  2. You're speaking directly to my point though. Much like a climate change denier says "there are thousands of scientists who reject the [insert organization or report here]" you say the same, but with the WTC. This puts you on the opposite side of mainstream, peer reviewed, community accepted, public protecting science. The thousands of scientists and engineers you speak of are still only in the 2%. The other 98% says you're wrong and right or wrong that is the voice that is listened to, that is the voice of "reason." Nothing you say or post will change that. The question I'm trying to get you to answer, is does that then make it suitable to censor your argument? Both situations fit your criteria for censorship. If you are for banning climate change dissent based on scientific concensus, you have to logically be for banning 9/11 truth discussion based on the same scientific consensus. They are one and the same. Your agreement with the consensus/research or lackthereof doesn't change the scientific agreement that exists in both areas. At the end of the day the criteria you have laid out for censorship includes your WTC 9/11 truth arguments. If censorship as you want it were put into effect, you would be equally censored. I get that you think you are right about 9/11 and you think climate change deniers are wrong, but that doesn't change where science sits on those two issues. On one you are on the same side as science, on another you are not. This isn't meant to be a 9/11 debate so there really isn't a point in trying to convince me one way or the other. I'm just pointing out what science says about the issue and how that relates to your ideas of censorship.
  3. A couple of others I have which are related. I have some others related to SS agent shot at DP but I can't find them right now.
  4. It's really not though. If somewhere around 99% of scientists, architects, and engineers agree on the science which says the WTC fell according to the official story, then it's whatever is said by the other 1% that is actually considered "pseudo-scientific bunk." If somewhere around 99% of scientists agree on climate change, whatever is said by the other 1% is what is actually considered "pseudo-scientific bunk." At least on this subject, due to scientific consensus, you are the one spreading propaganda, you are the one spreading lies and false advertising. You are in exactly the same camp as climate change deniers. There's really no way around it. Science is not on the side of climate change deniers and science is not on the side of 9/11 truthers. But, your beef isn't with me....it's with the scientific community. I'm pretty removed from 9/11 debate, and it would take me some time to refamiliarize myself with these topics if I am going to speak intelligently about them (at least in providing my own opinions). I'm just saying what the scientific community says and what science as a whole says. If the science is wrong, then prove it. Saying things like "c'mon that's just now how it works" isn't really physics, and doesn't do much to negate what the science they are using to back their points says.
  5. It's just not that simple though. If it were predicated on science, at least science which is accepted by the scientific community at large, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd be discussing the hangings for treason that we seen over the last few years. The fact is that peer reviewed and scientific community accepted science says that there is nothing to what Gage and A&E have to say. One example being: Based on this acceptance by the scientific community, or lackthereof, the arguments put forth by Gage and the like would not be considered bonafide science, but instead pseudoscience worthy of scorn, ridicule, and censorship. It would seem like 9/11 truth is built on the denial of science, much like you say climate change denial is. How would they both not be equally censored? Comparing 9/11 truth to climate change...for every scientist that states climate change is nothing, there are 1000 who say they are wrong and climate change is a real concern brought on by all the things claimed to bring it on. Similarly, for every scientist (or architect or engineer) who states the WTC was brought down by a CD, there are 1000 others saying it wasn't and it was a natural occurence of being struck by a plane and burning. If the logic says that based on scientific consensus we should censor climate change denial, then based on scientific consensus we should ban and censor 9/11 truth. (disclaimer: While I do not generally adhere to the claims of Gage or A&E 9/11 movement, I do believe 9/11 was part of a larger conspiracy.)
  6. I couldn't disagree more. Censorship is a very slippery slope, especially with vague "in the public interest" rationality. Why wouldn't censoring 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories be in the public interest? For many people, especially based on a "scientific consensus," those conspiracy theorists are spreading lies, false advertising, and eroded trust in government based on outlandish and thorougly debunked claims. How is it not in the public interest to stop that? What exactly is the definition of "public interest?" Who decides what that definition is? Who makes up the "public?" Who decides that population? In the end, if we start censoring one idea it sets precedent that can be built upon which allows other ideas to be censored. Before long, if you speak against a party, a politician, a government program, you are a criminal. There are literally hundreds of government programs either live, or only on paper that we all have some kind of interest in and in which we speak out against, when is that speech censored? When is this forum shut down? So much more I want to say, but I'll leave it at...slippery slope indeed...
  7. The irony of whining about ad hominem attacks while basically attacking others isn't missed on me. That aside, you seem to suffer from an association fallacy. "Bush (allegedly) lied about his whereabouts on 11/22/63, therefore this grainy picture of a guy with a marginal resemblence is absolutely Bush." Bush's alibi can be bogus, and that can not be him in the photo. The two items are not mutually exclusive. You seem to draw correlations and associations that don't actually exist except in your mind. You also seem to forget that at least a few of the names you have mentioned do infact think Bush's alibi deserves scrutiny and have hardly "refused to comment" on the topic. It actually doesn't though. Considering the Hoover "Bush" memo hasn't actually been "proven" to be directed to this Bush. Again, don't get me wrong...I do believe it is likely this Bush who the memo is referring to, but again it has not been proven. The difference between your Oswald comparison is that a person who can be atleast marginally identified as Oswald was not photographed in the window multiple times standing next to multiple people. Your comparison isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and "c'mon man really, that's the best you got?" I'm not aware of any photo which shows any one in the window, much less one with features that in any way resemble Oswald. I'm not aware of any photo which shows anyone standing around with a person who resembles Oswald. So again, your comparison, while a good shot a "haha Mark I zinged you," sems to have missed the mark. This "Bush" person on the other hand is photographed multiple times standing next to multiple people, where are they at now? Where are the "I saw Bush in DP" stories? Probably right next to the "I saw Roselli take a shot from the storm drain" stories. I haven't seen anyone "deny GHWB's history with the Company." I have seen people deny this grainy photo is him, I didn't realize that by doing one you were doing the other. If you deny the photo, you deny association to the CIA, check. Joe, we probably agree on most basic aspects. I do agree that the Bush family is a "weird and heavy hodge podge of secrets." I though am not sold on "involvement" in the JFKA but I can believe he soon knew who was responsible, as I believe most did most in that circle. I don't for one second believe he was in DP on 11/22 nor is he the person photographed.
  8. I think you touched on one aspect these guys just continue to gloss over, hundreds of witnesses would have seen Bush in Dealey Plaza and would be able to attest to his identity, yet not a single witness has come forward (I guess they were got to). In this and the other purported Bush photo, he is clearly standing around and seemingly engaging with others. Not just those who appear to be officers or detectives, but witnesses and "looky-loos" as well. The reason no one has come forward and stated that "yes that is Bush in the photo because they saw him there," is that it wasn't Bush. That doesn't matter though to these guys, the grainy photo looks something like him. So even though he is verfied at another location, and not a single person who engaged with "Bush" has verified his identity...the grainy photo just proves it's him. Don't get me wrong, I follow the general logic and subscribe to the idea that Bush has been involved with the CIA since pre-BoP. That doesn't mean this is him though and mentioning this so called "fact", or the Hoover "Bush" memo doesn't strengthen the argument but shows how many straws you all are willing to grasp at in a feeble attempt to make your point.
  9. Wait, so yall are telling me the guy below isn't the shooter? Everything matches from the back... It's not going to be easy explaining this away, it's obviously him from the back... Bob Hoskins obviously shot Oswald, anyone can see its the same person.
  10. Might be of some help... https://books.google.com/books?id=tywEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false https://houstonhistorymagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/8F-HH-1.2-optimized.pdf
  11. Yes it has, and always has been. What site can I download the file that shows me what candidate Robert Wheeler voted for in every election? You keep dodging all my questions while trying to make zingers that don't stick. Maybe you could address the points instead of constantly deflecting.
  12. Sorry for the massive multi-quote... I'm not sure what your beef with Caddy or with whatever he posts is, but maybe you should take that up with him. In the meantime, it might help you to be familiar with what you're posting. For instance from your link... So this isn't some shakeup of the establishment, this is a Congressionally ordered mandate which he...followed. Ah man, he zung it to the Deep State by following their wishes..hyuck..he shore did. Could you share with any of us where we can get classified voter information to "sift" through? The absolute irony of not knowing who Powell is, then saying I don't know who she is.... I'm quite familiar with who she is. What I'm not familiar with is what puts her in a position to actually have any of the knowledge or information to make the claims she has. She doesn't is the point, she's just making crap up and saying whatever and you don't care because it fits your views, regardless of validity, truth, or reason. She joined the "team" after the election and came on immediately saying fraud, theft, blah blah blah. She never had time to gather information or conduct any legitimate investigation. She came on spouting her preconcieved conspiracy theories and you lot sucked it up without question because....Apparently the inept Democrats pulled off the greatest caper in history... The evidence is all right here....
  13. Well first...lmao. Who is this person to "confirm" anything? How would she ever have verifiable first hand knowledge? Second, what the person said was she "heard" servers were confiscated. Hardly a "confirmation." Considering the company has no servers in Germany and the fact the Army has said it is bullshit is just....the reach of the Deep State? You thinking Biden will ever give a concession speech or will not be the 46th President is fairly textbook... https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder#1 I might stare at my feet, but it will be to watch them move forward, progress, and move on. You'll continue to run in place and throw your tantrums and tell us we are the losers who can't get over it.
  14. Why do you keep saying this? Wyman Howard is the commander. I guess this is probably stupid of me because you never post evidence for any of your other paranoid delusions, but do you have anything to back this up?
×
×
  • Create New...