9/11 Discussion Thread

#41
People often mention the incompetence of the Bush admin when 911 gets brought up. While we all understand the image that Bush, as the mouthpiece of the admin, gives is one of goofiness and incompetence, in actuality the admin - Rove, Cheney - was anything but incompetent. I can't understand how anyone could think otherwise. They were competent enough to steal the election and get us into wars they wanted. Cheney was competent enough to defy whatever laws prohibiting him from owning stock in Halliburton. Basically they were competent enough to do exactly what they wanted whenever they wanted to.

I challenge someone to give an example of their incompetence . . . in the sense that they didn't accomplish their objective.
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
#42
Don't be an idiot. There is impact damage, which is very knowable and fire damage, which is also very knowable. And yes, they did plan for the impact of a commercial airliner.
http://www.ae911truth.org/news-sect...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
Again, you are proving my point a bit. The paper you link to speaks of the building surviving the impact, which it did.
It does not speak about the subsequent collapse due to fire.
Idiot or not, The point I want to address stays the same, the "2000" claim expertise they do not have.
 
#43
I disagree. Bart's statement, "no one can really know because this is special" can be applied to absolutely any explanation anyone can come up with. An unfalsifiable statement is just belief dressed in a white lab coat. For this disaster to be unknowable, given that we know everything important about every material involved in the crash, it would have to defy present construction knowledge and physics to be unknowable. i.e. magic.
You can't disagree. Unless you are going to claim to have developed the concept and assigned importance to it yourself. What you can do (and are doing) is state that you believe the concept is as vital as Popper deemed it to be. Which is what I stated in my post.

And that's okay. Not unexpected. The fact is that the notion of " unfalsifiable statement is just belief dressed in a white lab coat" is in itself a belief.Looking for some form of perceiving that doesn't rely on beliefs is common and pointless. And you keep using the term "magic" when I doubt - from the way that you use it - that you have any clear knowing of what it is. Magic is more fundamental than most of the tings you are using as your guidelines.

Anyway, all this is tangential to the topic here - 9/11.
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
#44
The vid that super sex posted interviews the builders and they talk about the buildings being hit by planes. Did you watch it?

Also, as for them being "fully fueled," the same vid goes through example after example after example of buildings burning for hours and none of the structures are ever damaged. I believe every single one of them got rebuilt using the same structure and is still in use! But a few simple office fires in building 7 - what would be the tallest building in 30 some odd states - completely disintegrated the entire structure in one sixth of a minute? First time to happen so no one can understand it? Surely you jest
I am not jesting, that is Super Sexy's job.
I watched some of that did, but it seems to me that it are the same "experts" who claim to have proven a negative just by being in the proffesion they are.
That is exactly the false expertise we are talking about.

About building 7, I am not going down the rabbit hole of discussing the specifics, there are sources enough that explain most of the important issues.
But that leads usvto the problem with a grand conspiracy, all the sources that counter it automatically become part of the conspiracy.
At a certain so much people and orgnisations are included in the conspiracy that it collapses under its own weight, just like the WTC buildings.
 
#45
I am not jesting, that is Super Sexy's job.
I watched some of that did, but it seems to me that it are the same "experts" who claim to have proven a negative just by being in the proffesion they are.
That is exactly the false expertise we are talking about.

About building 7, I am not going down the rabbit hole of discussing the specifics, there are sources enough that explain most of the important issues.
But that leads usvto the problem with a grand conspiracy, all the sources that counter it automatically become part of the conspiracy.
At a certain so much people and orgnisations are included in the conspiracy that it collapses under its own weight, just like the WTC buildings.
BartV you ain't gonna win this argument. It's not a rational argument. In case you are not familiar with why CT's are hard so hard to counter argue, here's a short list of articles about the psychology that motivate Ct'ers.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/ResearchTopic/863
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insights-into-the-personalities-conspiracy-theorists/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/m...-conspiracy-theories.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
#46
Again, you are proving my point a bit. The paper you link to speaks of the building surviving the impact, which it did.
It does not speak about the subsequent collapse due to fire.
Idiot or not, The point I want to address stays the same, the "2000" claim expertise they do not have.
You're resorting to special pleading, you know that, don't you? I certainly reject that idea that this situation is so special that no one can understand it.

I find myself in a curious position here, one that I'm unfamiliar with. I'm arguing for the mundane and ordinary while the skeptics argue for the fantastical and strange.
I notice that Steve has resorted to the "conspiracy theorist" trope. That's rather laughable here since there is no 9/11 scenario that is NOT a conspiracy theory.
 
#47
You can't disagree. Unless you are going to claim to have developed the concept and assigned importance to it yourself. What you can do (and are doing) is state that you believe the concept is as vital as Popper deemed it to be. Which is what I stated in my post.

And that's okay. Not unexpected. The fact is that the notion of " unfalsifiable statement is just belief dressed in a white lab coat" is in itself a belief.Looking for some form of perceiving that doesn't rely on beliefs is common and pointless. And you keep using the term "magic" when I doubt - from the way that you use it - that you have any clear knowing of what it is. Magic is more fundamental than most of the tings you are using as your guidelines.

Anyway, all this is tangential to the topic here - 9/11.
Ah, I understand now. We're using the term "magic" differently. I have been using it in a very narrow context and you're going for the broader meaning. I respect the point you're making.

The whole bit with the unfalsifiable statement is a philosophical thing. If you're making an argument and definitive statements with another person to prove a point, you do need to play by certain rules in order to be taken seriously. And that includes staying within the boundaries of ordinary logic. Otherwise it's a 3rd grade level discussion.
 
#48
BartV you ain't gonna win this argument. It's not a rational argument. In case you are not familiar with why CT's are hard so hard to counter argue, here's a short list of articles about the psychology that motivate Ct'ers.
http://journal.frontiersin.org/ResearchTopic/863
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insights-into-the-personalities-conspiracy-theorists/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/m...-conspiracy-theories.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Are you aware that the official story is a conspiracy theory?
 
#50
I included the paper only because of the final sentence, which I bolded: "a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down." NIST rejected that idea?
I think so. Not completely sure though. I don't really care what NIST says anymore. They had to dismiss a lot of vital evidence. (See above)

With the inertia thing... You'd think the top of the buildings would follow the paths of least resistance?? Notice how they are already in a lateral tipping motion prior to the 'free fall' implosion.
 
#51
Are you aware that the official story is a conspiracy theory?
Yes, it's well known in the same way President Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy. This CT Craig is making a case for has the same elements as the CT moon landing hoax, full of what ifs, conjecture, ignoring facts...
 
#53
Yes, it's well known in the same way President Lincoln's assassination was a conspiracy. This CT Craig is making a case for has the same elements as the CT moon landing hoax, full of what ifs, conjecture, ignoring facts...
How does examining the evidence make me a conspiracy theorist Steve? Answer: it doesn't. To be a conspiracy theorist you need to be working from . . . wait for it . . . . a conspiracy theory.

This is what removes you from being credible in any way. You cannot address the evidence coherently, so you resort to character attacks and straw men.
 
#54
I am not jesting, that is Super Sexy's job.
I watched some of that did, but it seems to me that it are the same "experts" who claim to have proven a negative just by being in the proffesion they are.
That is exactly the false expertise we are talking about.

About building 7, I am not going down the rabbit hole of discussing the specifics, there are sources enough that explain most of the important issues.
But that leads usvto the problem with a grand conspiracy, all the sources that counter it automatically become part of the conspiracy.
At a certain so much people and orgnisations are included in the conspiracy that it collapses under its own weight, just like the WTC buildings.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
 
#55
Again, you are proving my point a bit. The paper you link to speaks of the building surviving the impact, which it did.
It does not speak about the subsequent collapse due to fire.
Idiot or not, The point I want to address stays the same, the "2000" claim expertise they do not have.
Do you mind if I ask who's expertise it is that you're relying on for your conclusions?
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
#57
I disagree. Bart's statement, "no one can really know because this is special" can be applied to absolutely any explanation anyone can come up with.
Not saying that, as i guess you know.
It are these 2000 engineers and architects who can not know based on their knowledge of construction and design.
They make these absolute negative statements that could only be made if they had studied the wreckage tried to model it. If they had done the diligent work to exclude every possible scenario, then they might say that the possibility of the collapse was highly implausible.

Problem, is they have not done the work.

If you believe that they can so easily claim to have proven a negative just by saying so, then it is you who believes in magic.
If you give engineers and architects the special power to do all that, simply based on their profession, without any investigation in the specific circumstances, then it is you who is guilty of special pleading.
An unfalsifiable statement is just belief dressed in a white lab coat. For this disaster to be unknowable, given that we know everything important about every material involved in the crash, it would have to defy present construction knowledge and physics to be unknowable. i.e. magic.
On the others side you have people who did do the work, who did study the wreckage, who did the simulations, who found fire to be a plausible explanation.

But because that goes against what the conspiracy theory says, therefore must, of course, be part of the conspiracy.

If there were to come a comity that investigated the work of the NIST, and they would conclude the NIST reports are valid, then they would become part of the conspiracy.
And if there were to be a comity that investigated the comity with a positive conclusion, that would also become part of the conspiracy. and so on ...
Every possible explanation is gobbled up by the conspiracy.

The irony, being accused of making unfalsifiable statements by a conspiracy theorist
 
#60
Not saying that, as i guess you know.
It are these 2000 engineers and architects who can not know based on their knowledge of construction and design.
They make these absolute negative statements that could only be made if they had studied the wreckage tried to model it. If they had done the diligent work to exclude every possible scenario, then they might say that the possibility of the collapse was highly implausible.

Problem, is they have not done the work.

If you believe that they can so easily claim to have proven a negative just by saying so, then it is you who believes in magic.
If you give engineers and architects the special power to do all that, simply based on their profession, without any investigation in the specific circumstances, then it is you who is guilty of special pleading.

On the others side you have people who did do the work, who did study the wreckage, who did the simulations, who found fire to be a plausible explanation.

But because that goes against what the conspiracy theory says, therefore must, of course, be part of the conspiracy.

If there were to come a comity that investigated the work of the NIST, and they would conclude the NIST reports are valid, then they would become part of the conspiracy.
And if there were to be a comity that investigated the comity with a positive conclusion, that would also become part of the conspiracy. and so on ...
Every possible explanation is gobbled up by the conspiracy.

The irony, being accused of making unfalsifiable statements by a conspiracy theorist
I love how you willingly refuse to consider evidence, but rather come up with lame excuses regarding conspiracy theories and hypothetical committees.

Way to think for yourself, Bart!
 
Top