9/11 Discussion Thread

#64
What I don't understand is how anyone could conclude there's zero percent chance of complicity and that there's nothing that should be looked into whatsoever. If the story's to be believed, everything that could fail failed: NORAD, FAA, secret service, skyscrapers, defense department, whatever group/individual was responsible for overseeing building debris investigation. Even from a status quo perspective one should want/expect/demand a (real) investigation, right? Shouldn't people have lost jobs or been demoted? (What actually happened was those who were responsible for the failures got promotions . . . which is also highly suspicious).

What I would expect of anyone without a dog in the fight to say would be at least a certain percentage of likelihood that something occurred along the lines of complicity, like, say, a forty percent chance . . . Something. Not f'n zero. Granted no one says that explicitly, but the tones of the defenders of the status quo seem to imply zero percent belief in complicity. Forget wtc7. The official story - along with the endless other things - says that the Pennsylvania plane literally burrowed into the earth completely hidden from sight . . . Like an earthworm . . . Leaving nothing visible whatsoever . . . except, of course, for the hijacker's passport left on the top of the ground! It's not possible to not become suspicious of such absurdities, as I see it, but apparently others here and elsewhere don't find this out of the ordinary.
 
#65
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.
If I wanted to defend the main stream story that says 7 collapsed at free fall speed bc of office fires and that the news stations knowing this in advance was a non-problem, I wouldn't want to go down that 'rabbit hole' either!

As far as WTC7 goes, I'd like I add this: reading the chronology of events surrounding NIST's shenanigans and attempts at explaining the matter, it's clear they squirmed and squirmed (and lied and lied) and that something's completely wrong somewhere concerning 7; this without even taking into consideration the video of 7 collapsing. David Ray Griffin's book on 7 demolishes the main stream story . . . which takes not much more than simply listing what occurred, (rather than conjecturing) . . . Bc it's very clear they had an agenda. (One of endless examples being the squirming around with the high school physics teacher's posted comment on complete free fall speed during a section of the collapse and it's curious removal).

As for there being "enough that discuss the specifics," I'd say quite the opposite is the case: there is zero that discuss the specifics in any adequate way whatsoever.
 
#67
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.
You aren't examining evidence. You are exploiting it. Take for example your use of thermite angle. It's my understanding this or something similar would http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm is more impressive instead of this http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html . Am I correct?

Point out where I'm attacking your character?
You are explicit you think there was a government conspiracy or a conspiracy by parties other than Al Qaeda and I'm the opposite, where have I presented an exaggerated version of your argument that would meet the definition of a strawman fallacy?
 
#68
You aren't examining evidence. You are exploiting it. Take for example your use of thermite angle. It's my understanding this or something similar would http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm is more impressive instead of this http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html . Am I correct?

Point out where I'm attacking your character?
You are explicit you think there was a government conspiracy or a conspiracy by parties other than Al Qaeda and I'm the opposite, where have I presented an exaggerated version of your argument that would meet the definition of a strawman fallacy?
So, what we have are some different views on whether or not the thermite thing is correct or not.

Did you watch the video in the last post I posted? It's in the quote box from super sexy. Watch it, please: it's only a few minutes long. I would say that that helps us tremendously in ascertaining whether or not there was or wasn't thermite. If one has concluded that there wasn't thermite, then I can't see how they will ever be able to square with the foundry-like molten lava situation.

As for attacking people's characters, I would say that you somewhat are with your CT psychology links, even though they're silly and toothless.
 
Last edited:
#69
You aren't examining evidence. You are exploiting it. Take for example your use of thermite angle. It's my understanding this or something similar would http://www.rense.com/general75/thrm.htm is more impressive instead of this http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html . Am I correct?

Point out where I'm attacking your character?
You are explicit you think there was a government conspiracy or a conspiracy by parties other than Al Qaeda and I'm the opposite, where have I presented an exaggerated version of your argument that would meet the definition of a strawman fallacy?
I have not presented a specific conspiracy here. Without that, I am not a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, to accuse me of this is slander.
Your straw man was invoking moon landing denial and lumping it in the same category.

Now with regards to the accusation that I'm exploiting evidence, what does that even mean? They found thermite. There should not have been any thermite. It is an anomaly that contradicts the official story. A whole lot of evidence, in fact, contradicts the official story.
 
#71
I'm a little surprised at the total lack of critical thinking of the skeptics on this topic. It was the same for the thread that went down in the great crash. All they do is just link to stuff they agree with and claim it's the best source and imply that everyone else is a nut job. Of course I see a lot of this on parapsychological subjects, but here, where the problems with the official story are rather obvious and there is a lot of clear visual evidence that contradicts official party line, this trait is more apparent.
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
#73
No. Serious question.
Doing "serious" now, are we?

I am not claiming any expertise at all, I am just being very skeptical about the expertise of these structural engineers and architects mentioned in this thread.
Skeptical for a variety of reasons.
One is that the statements they make are broad negative statements, they are talking about things that are "absolutely impossible".
That would mean they have tested every positive hypothesis, known ones and even unknown ones, seems very unlikely.

Another way they assert their expertise is by pointing out anomalies, but then we come to the point i was trying to make earlier, what is an anomaly in an event that happens only once?
What they would consider to be an anomaly is viewed from the framework of their professional intuition, but since this the first time this has happened, their professional intuition is not sufficient.

And there is also the fact that they feel the need to sign a petition, which makes it virtually impossible to move from their position if new data would come in.
I would trust them more if they just displayed healthy skepticism.
 
#74
Doing "serious" now, are we?

I am not claiming any expertise at all, I am just being very skeptical about the expertise of these structural engineers and architects mentioned in this thread.
Skeptical for a variety of reasons.
One is that the statements they make are broad negative statements, they are talking about things that are "absolutely impossible".
That would mean they have tested every positive hypothesis, known ones and even unknown ones, seems very unlikely.

Another way they assert their expertise is by pointing out anomalies, but then we come to the point i was trying to make earlier, what is an anomaly in an event that happens only once?
What they would consider to be an anomaly is viewed from the framework of their professional intuition, but since this the first time this has happened, their professional intuition is not sufficient.

And there is also the fact that they feel the need to sign a petition, which makes it virtually impossible to move from their position if new data would come in.
I would trust them more if they just displayed healthy skepticism.
There's no content here. Moving on...

 
#75
I have not presented a specific conspiracy here. Without that, I am not a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, to accuse me of this is slander.
Your straw man was invoking moon landing denial and lumping it in the same category.

Now with regards to the accusation that I'm exploiting evidence, what does that even mean? They found thermite. There should not have been any thermite. It is an anomaly that contradicts the official story. A whole lot of evidence, in fact, contradicts the official story.
Let's cut to the chase. Did Al Qaeda members conspire to bring about the events on 9/11? Yes or no? You need not explain beyond yes or no.
 
#78
Let's cut to the chase. Did Al Qaeda members conspire to bring about the events on 9/11? Yes or no? You need not explain beyond yes or no.
Here are a few things that we know: 7 of the hijackers were still alive after the attack. Osama was not listed on the FBI website as being wanted for 911. I went there many times to show people this curiosity. People claim to have asked the FBI why this was so and they said there was no hard evidence linking him to 911. The hijackers names were not on the manifests.

Where do we put this information, exactly? How do you suggest we contort it to have it square with the mainstream story?
 
Last edited:
#79
I am looking at the evidence, not forming theories. Apology accepted.
Dodging the question is bad for your back. You might need to see your chiropractor.
lol. Your are forming theories. You are creating a narrative that's at odds with what is known. And you are using at least one site that is at odds with what is known.
 
Top