So still think the towers were brought down without bombs?

[RandomGuy]

If you go to the middle of this topic you will see Mouse already answered all your shit,
in fact Chump had to sign off he was so embarrassed.



Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?
----------yes
Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?
-----------yes
Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?
------------yes
Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?
------------yes
If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?
------------what do you mean brought down at free fall?

How much kinetic energy does a mass moving at 10 mph have in relation to its mass?
ke=1/2*m*(velocity)*(velocity)
----------?

How much weight could either of the towers have supported without collapsing, in terms of the buildings own weight? (2 times, 3 times, 100 times, etc)
--------?

What explains the visible sagging of the damaged sections prior to the buildings' collapse?
----------damage


yay. Some honest answers.
We know a plane affects a buildings ability to bear weight now.

Does it increase its ability to bear weight, not affect it, or reduce it?

[RandomGuy]

What does all that Popular Mechanics math have to do with a steel framed Building? Since no other Steel Framed Building has collapsed how do you know your shit is not just a theory?

Your just talking out your ass. Put away the slide ruler and talk facts Brah!

OH GOODIE!! We get to talk about facts now.

Fact:

Moving objects have kinetic energy

Fact:

kinetic energy equations are known

Fact:

Gravitational acceleration is a known constant

Fact:

Moving objects that collide with stationary objects impart energy and apply force.

Fact:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Fact:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

Fact:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I could give you my views, Then I could give you the scientific evidence, and I can give you what others have found. But it will be of no use since AggieHoops says I am here just to Troll. So maybe another day when he's not around to delete my shit.


Hmmm, 1) I have no mod rights (nor do any of the other regular mods, Kori has taken that operation "in house" )

2) I haven't deleted any of your shit, because no matter how many user names you post under, and how many times you quote one of your other user names to try and back them up, you still haven't presented a tangible argument as to what went down, and it's fun to watch you talk out of your ass the whole damn time, in search of some kind of coherent thought.

[RandomGuy]

Seeing as how I am up past my bedtime, I think I will go to bed.

G'night.

p.s. physics will trump evasive bullshit every time.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Who wants some pissed off Ex Mod insulting their every post?

Says the poster with 5 billion aliases that has posted such gems as:


I hate to be the one to uncork your head from your ass


Please do me a favor and uncork your head before you reply w/o doing your research first.


Did you fall off the crib in your trailer when you was reaching for that 1/2 empty can of Bush beer your pappy left after falling asleep while watching re runs of Dukes of Hazard? Are you acting stupid to get a rise from folks?



Really mouse, spare us all the misdirection bullshit and whining about being moderated, and answer the fucking questions.

You always seem like a pretty cool guy on the boards, but this thread is making me question that perception.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

OH GOODIE!! We get to talk about facts now.

Fact:

Moving objects have kinetic energy

Fact:

kinetic energy equations are known

Fact:

Gravitational acceleration is a known constant

Fact:

Moving objects that collide with stationary objects impart energy and apply force.

Fact:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Fact:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

Fact:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You'll have to forgive Buddy Holly.

If you want to talk about urban housing in San Antonio, he knows his shit. Physics, not so much.

[RandomGuy]

As I said in my first post before asking anything:


They are very simple questions, and you would be surprised at how hard they are for CTers to answer.

This is the pattern of responses I have gotten in other forums:

RG: Are rubber ducks yellow?
(notice a simple, easy to answer, yes or no format)

CT: The giant conspiracy hates ducks and here are the links with pictures of ducks being sacrificed on satanic altars.
(notice that nowhere here is the question actually answered)

They have a disturbing habit that mirrors a politician in a news interview: instead of answering a straight, honest question, they go off and talk about what they want to talk about.

Remember these questions are just starting points. I am perfectly willing to follow them where they go, and even give a few points to CTers. They just won't even be halfway honest and try. Hopefully I will get some intellectual honesty here, but I doubt it.

[RandomGuy]

You'll have to forgive Buddy Holly.

If you want to talk about urban housing in San Antonio, he knows his shit. Physics, not so much.

To each their own, but really do a google search under physics tutorials and see how many websites offer step by step instructions.

This is SO basic.

I have even gone so far as to purposefully put obvious errors in my calculations, just to see if anyone is actually paying attention. Care to guess if any CTer has ever noticed?

(note: I have not done so here, but if you find one, please point it out and I will fix it)

[Suns Fan]

Seeing as how I am up past my bedtime, I think I will go to bed.

G'night.

p.s. physics will trump evasive bullshit every time.


I hope you remember that when I bring some juicy physics facts Friday!

[ChumpDumper]

If you go to the middle of this topic you will see Mouse already answered all your shit,
in fact Chump had to sign off he was so embarrassed.Shit mouse, I got to go out sometime -- all debunk and no play, etc....

I see you haven't posted your comprehensive alternative theory, so I'll check back later.

[smeagol]

I see you haven't posted your comprehensive alternative theory, so I'll check back later.

Don't waste your time. It's pretty clear he does not have one.

Neither has Dan not mookie.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Seeing as how I am up past my bedtime, I think I will go to bed.
G'night.
p.s. physics will trump evasive bullshit every time.
-------------------------------------------------
I hope you remember that when I bring some juicy physics facts Friday!

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/gameon.jpg


I will now make the following preditions about the "physics facts" I will be presented with.

1) They will have been cut and pasted directly from one, if not several popular conspiracy theory website.

2) The poster will not be able to demonstrate that he/she has grasped the underlying concepts or LOGICAL implications of what was posted.

3) They will not really address my posting concerning kinetic energy.

4) They will have been debunked somewhere by someone who knows more about science and physics that then either the poster, myself, or the person who originally wrote the "facts".

I would love to be proven wrong about any of this, but here is a theory of mine that has yet to be disproven anecdotally:

To believe in this conspiracy, you must have weak critical thinking skills or a lack of knowledge about science and logic, usually both.

The value of any theory is in its predictive ability. I used the above theory to make my predictions.

Let's see how it pans out. ;)

[Deadbeat Dad]

1) They will have been cut and pasted directly from one, if not several popular conspiracy theory website.


WTF do you expect? Do we have to get President Bush himself to come to your house and confess?

Why do you asshats keep telling everyone else to do all the work and prove the WTC had explosives, why don't you dick puppets get off your ass and prove they it didn't?

Since you don't like videos,eye witness reports, and documents pasted what's left? It's like saying prove Kennedy was shot by one gunman. You guys could have been sitting right next to him and have his brains fall on your laps and you will find a way to say it was staged.

Mouse don't waste your time they will never believe anything they read.

[RIP CITY.]

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/gameon.jpg


I will now make the following preditions about the "physics facts" I will be presented with.

1) They will have been cut and pasted directly from one, if not several popular conspiracy theory website.

2) The poster will not be able to demonstrate that he/she has grasped the underlying concepts or LOGICAL implications of what was posted.

3) They will not really address my posting concerning kinetic energy.

4) They will have been debunked somewhere by someone who knows more about science and physics that then either the poster, myself, or the person who originally wrote the "facts".

I would love to be proven wrong about any of this, but here is a theory of mine that has yet to be disproven anecdotally:

To believe in this conspiracy, you must have weak critical thinking skills or a lack of knowledge about science and logic, usually both.

The value of any theory is in its predictive ability. I used the above theory to make my predictions.

Let's see how it pans out. ;)

Translation: It doesn't matter what you say I won't listen

[=RTM=]

RandomGuy you just killed any hopes of any type of debate.

[Whottt.]

Are you serious RandomGuy You get to make all the rules on a debate so that you can win the debate? I just read your conditions it's like saying have sex but there will be no looking ,touching, and you must keep your clothes on, what kind of debate can you have on a web forum if you can't copy and paste shit you find?

[The Power Hour]

The hell with this shit everyone stop trying to debate with these closed minded fools. Let's turn this shit around.

No more posting until they start to prove some shit.

Prove to us a steel framed building can collapse into a pile of dust show us the evidence

Show us a picture of a plane hitting the pentagon, not a few pics of a yellow ball of flames.


I will now make the following predictions about "RandomGuy and his brokeback buddy Chump" I will be presented with.

1) They will have been cut and pasted directly from one, if not several popular conspiracy theory website.

2) The poster will not be able to demonstrate that he/she has grasped the underlying concepts or LOGICAL implications of what was posted.

3) They will not really address my posting concerning kinetic energy.

4) They will have been debunked somewhere by someone who knows more about science and physics that then either the poster, myself, or the person who originally wrote the "facts".

I would love to be proven wrong about any of this, but here is a theory of mine that has yet to be disproven anecdotally:

To believe in this conspiracy, you must have weak critical thinking skills or a lack of knowledge about science and logic, usually both.

The value of any theory is in its predictive ability. I used the above theory to make my predictions.

Let's see how it pans out.

[RandomGuy]

WTF do you expect? Do we have to get President Bush himself to come to your house and confess?

Why do you asshats keep telling everyone else to do all the work and prove the WTC had explosives, why don't you dick puppets get off your ass and prove they it didn't?

Since you don't like videos,eye witness reports, and documents pasted what's left? It's like saying prove Kennedy was shot by one gunman. You guys could have been sitting right next to him and have his brains fall on your laps and you will find a way to say it was staged.

Mouse don't waste your time they will never believe anything they read.

You are falsely shifting the burden of proof onto me to prove/disprove YOUR theory.

This actually violates the laws of logic. Scientists didn't prove the basic laws of physics by disproving false equations. They proved the laws by observing and offering evidence that the equations they gave fit the data and that the theories/laws could be used to make predictions based on that theory.

I do believe eye witness accounts.

I do believe videos.

I do believe documents.

I evaluate any conclusions drawn on this evidence by using critical thinking, logic, and knowable science.

If you draw conclusions about evidence, and those conclusions are not logically deducible from that evidence I will not believe the conclusion.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't matter what you say I won't listen

At least you're honest.

[The Power Hour]

At least you're honest.

That makes one. Until RandonGuy puts down the spam sandwich and starts answering some questions, this debate is dead in the water.

[RandomGuy]

The hell with this shit everyone stop trying to debate with these closed minded fools. Let's turn this shit around.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Fallacy: Burden of Proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have claimed that explosives took down the towers. The burden of proof rests on you.

For you to prove your affirmative thesis, you must rule out other possibilities. My questions offer you a place to begin to do that, all you have to do is to answer them honestly, and we can go from there.

You claim to be honest people who question things because you should never just believe what you are told.

Live up to that.

[RandomGuy]

That makes one. Until RandonGuy puts down the spam sandwich and starts answering some questions, this debate is dead in the water.

I'll trade you one for one then, if you will give your word you will answer my questions as posed.

If you give your word, then you can even go first.

[RandomGuy]

(crickets)

Hello?

[RandomGuy]

I'll trade you one for one then, if you will give your word you will answer my questions as posed.

If you give your word, then you can even go first.

Hello?

(shrugs)

I will check back.

[=RTM=]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Fallacy: Burden of Proof
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have claimed that explosives took down the towers. The burden of proof rests on you.

For you to prove your affirmative thesis, you must rule out other possibilities. My questions offer you a place to begin to do that, all you have to do is to answer them honestly, and we can go from there.

You claim to be honest people who question things because you should never just believe what you are told.

Live up to that.


I thought you just said no coping and pasting from websites?

[Phenomanul]

Mouse, with no disrespect whatsoever - cause I do consider you to be a free thinker - remind us where you obtained your physics degree?

Again, no disrespect... I just want you to realize that you can't go around calling someone out on physics concepts when the argument really goes both ways. Few people in here have a complete handle on the subject. But one thing is for sure; you must realize that most of the conspiracist's claims are playing on a fringe understanding of physics from the mindset of a 90% of the populace - but this basis doesn't necessarily make them true. Most people can be swayed by sugar coated concepts that suit the needs of their limited, and sometimes ignorant, understanding. To them the arguments make sense.

In fact, some of the arguments such as nbadan's assertion that explosions are required to propel dust and debris away from the core of the collapsing structure illustrate the limited understanding being propagated by some of these conpiracist websites. Or that the presence of white smoke/fumes automatically suggests the use of thermite. In light of real physics, however, none of the conspiracists' claims hold much credence.

Some, including myself, can see the events of 9/11 for what they were - terrorist attacks. Are there questions that remain unanswered? Sure.... because the dynamic data required to answer them went down with the buildings themselves. Because the window of opportunity to get the data closed before we knew what we were looking for and because the some parts of ground zero were inaccessible for weeks. That doesn't mean that I can speculate on the missing data and try to fill the holes with other distracting agendas. Did other buildings have to fall before I could believe that the WTC buildings would? Not necessarily. Not once before had a fully loaded passenger plane crashed into a building square on at 400+ mph. There was no precedent for such event.

Am I supposed to believe that 'out of context' pictures prove much of anything?... No.

Am I supposed to believe that conspiracists really understand what 'free-fall' speed really means when they constantly fail to identify it.... much less understand it?

When they refuse to acknowledge that diesel generators, water storage tanks, and vehicle-fuel tanks were the possible culprits for subsequent explosions - choosing instead to believe more exotic explosives were being used - it beckons the question on whether or not they are fabricating the story that suits their needs. Do they construct what they want to see and ignore the rest?

When their arguments are filled with this many holes, how can I even take them seriously....

The biggest conundrum in the conspiracist's logical framework is that we are to believe that so many things were orchestrated under the noses of thousands of people and that no one noticed... Furthermore, that the perpetrators have somehow managed to remain completely silent on the matter. The lack of leaks on a conspiracy of this magnitude, after six years no less, indicates that there is no conspiracy.

Am I to believe that one of the nation's most notoriously lackluster presidents orchestrated a maniacal scheme to perfection??? We're talking about Bush here.... George W. Bush! Even the Roswell incident is 10 times more believable than this conspiracy.

[RandomGuy]

Are you serious RandomGuy You get to make all the rules on a debate so that you can win the debate? I just read your conditions it's like saying have sex but there will be no looking ,touching, and you must keep your clothes on, what kind of debate can you have on a web forum if you can't copy and paste shit you find?

(sigh)

Actually, if you notice, I didn't set out any conditions.

I simply predicted what would happen.

This kind of poor reading comprehension is also something that I have found to be a hallmark among conspiracy theorists, and other zealots.

Y'all are free to make your argument any way you wish. It was not my intent to imply any rules for making your case in the post you are responding to here.

[=RTM=]

Mouse, with no disrespect whatsoever - cause I do consider you to be a free thinker - remind us where you obtained your physics degree?

From the #1 physic


http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7596/cleold8.jpg

[johnsmith]

(sigh)

Actually, if you notice, I didn't set out any conditions.

I simply predicted what would happen.

This kind of poor reading comprehension is also something that I have found to be a hallmark among conspiracy theorists, and other zealots.

Y'all are free to make your argument any way you wish. It was not my intent to imply any rules for making your case in the post you are responding to here.



Although I do think it's garbage to post under several different user names in order to make your point.

[FromWayDowntown]

[b]The hell with this shit everyone stop trying to debate with these closed minded fools. Let's turn this shit around.

I've yet to see any evidence that there is a debate going on here -- much less that there are a whole bunch of posters who need to be directed to stop engaging in such a debate.

Random Guy is asking questions that "nobody" on the conspiracy/thermite/bombs/PowerHour/whottt./physics911 side will answer. Difficult to have any sort of debate when "nobody" is answering reasonable questions.

[=RTM=]

When their arguments are filled with this many holes, how can I even take them seriously....



When the Pentagon the most Secure Building in the Nation with cameras every 50 feet has no video of the so called plane that struck it? That opens the door to so called holes in any 9/11 debate.

[Extra Stout]

Although I do think it's garbage to post under several different user names in order to make your point.
Mouse is not, and never has been, serious. His act is a variation on Sacha Baron Cohen's comedic stylings. It is admittedly difficult to resist his trolling.

[=RTM=]

Although I do think it's garbage to post under several different user names in order to make your point.

If this man chowder drinking homo is going to use the next 5 pages talking about
how he hates me I rather go finish cleaning the toilet, see you guys at our normal time later..............

[RandomGuy]

[QUOTE=Phenomanul
When they refuse to acknowledge that diesel generators, water storage tanks, and vehicle-fuel tanks were the possible culprits for subsequent explosions - choosing instead to believe more exotic explosives were being used - it beckons the question on whether or not they are fabricating the story that suits their needs. [/QUOTE]

Actually, the set of noises that sound like explosions actually include things that aren't even explosions.

As something of a history channel buff, I have watched a lot of shows on engineering failures.

Quite often, when metal or a structure is stressed and suddenly the forces acting on it exceed the structures ability to resist those forces, witnesses always report hearing "explosions" that were nothing more than steel cables snapping, or objects hitting things at great speeds.

If you blindfold 100 people, line them up in a parking lot/street next to a tall building, and drop a 200 pound weight from 20-50 stories up, then ask them what they heard, it is quite reasonable to think that the word "explosion" would come up more than once.

I would even bet a good $1000 of my real money that if you did that experiment, you would get at least 10% of those present to say they heard a bomb.

Go a step further with that thought experiment.

Just before you drop the object tell the hundred people that there is a terrorist attack underway.

Care to guess how many blindfolded people out of a hundred would say they heard an explosion or a bomb?

[=RTM=]

Am I supposed to believe that 'out of context' pictures prove much of anything?... No.



So given that logic you must think JFK is still alive? or do you pick and choose what pics are real or fake?

[The Power Hour]

Mouse, with no disrespect whatsoever - cause I do consider you to be a free thinker - remind us where you obtained your physics degree?

Again, no disrespect... I just want you to realize that you can't go around calling someone out on physics concepts when the argument really goes both ways. Few people in here have a complete handle on the subject. But one thing is for sure; the conspiracist claims play on the logical reasoning of physics from the mindset of a 90% of the populace but this basis doesn't necessarily make them true. Most people can be swayed by sugar coating concepts to suit the needs of their limited understanding. To them the arguments make sense. In fact some of the arguments such as nbadan's assertion that explosions are required to propel dust and debris away from the core of the collapsing structure illustrate the limited understanding being propagated by some of these conpiracist websites. In light of real physics, however, none of the conspiracists' claims hold much credence.

Some, including myself, can see the events of 9/11 for what they were - terrorist attacks. Are there questions that remain unanswered? Sure.... because the dynamic data required to answer them went down with the buildings themselves. Because the window of opportunity to get the data closed before we knew what we were looking for and because the some parts of ground zero were inaccessible for weeks. That doesn't mean that I can speculate on the missing data and try to fill the holes with other distracting agendas. Did other buildings have to fall before I could believe that these would? Not necessarily. Not once before had a fully loaded passenger plane hit a building square on. There was no precedent for such event.

Am I supposed to believe that 'out of context' pictures prove much of anything?... No.

Am I supposed to believe that conspiracists really understand what 'free-fall' speed really means when they constantly fail to identify it.... much less understand it?

When they refuse to acknowledge that diesel generators, water storage tanks, and vehicle-fuel tanks were the possible culprits for subsequent explosions - choosing instead to believe more exotic explosives were being used - it beckons the question on whether or not they are fabricating the story that suits their needs. Do they construct what they want to see and ignore the rest?

When their arguments are filled with this many holes, how can I even take them seriously....

The biggest conundrum in the conspiracist's logical framework is that we are to believe that so many things were orchestrated under the noses of thousands of people and that no one noticed... furthermore, that the perpetrators have somehow managed to remain completely silent on the matter. The lack of leaks on a conspiracy of this magnitude, after six years no less, indicates that there is no conspiracy. Am I to believe that one of the nation's most notoriously lackluster presidents orchestrated a maniacal scheme to perfection. We're talking about Bush here.... Even the Roswell incident is 10 times more believable than this conspiracy.

That was very well written are you a sports writer? No disrespect to you Phenomanul But if you have not seen 'In Plane sight' I would have to spend another 7 days trying to explain many things you can see for yourself.

I rather just move froward on this debate. Let me know when you see it.

[RandomGuy]

Mouse is not, and never has been, serious. His act is a variation on Sacha Baron Cohen's comedic stylings. It is admittedly difficult to resist his trolling.

Yup. It probably wouldn't suprise you to learn that this is not uncommon on other message boards that I visit occasionally.

I normally don't return the tit for tat, because it makes your case look like you have to use appeals to emotion over logic, but it is fun to throw an occasional bit back.

[Phenomanul]

So given that logic you must think JFK is still alive? or do you pick and choose what pics are real or fake?


That is neither here nor there....

[RandomGuy]

Am I to believe that one of the nation's most notoriously lackluster presidents orchestrated a maniacal scheme to perfection. We're talking about Bush here.... Even the Roswell incident is 10 times more believable than this conspiracy.

The guy can't even say nuclear without adding an extra "u", and I am to believe that he is part of a sinister conspiracy?

I honestly believe this guy is a bit dain-bramaged from the alchohol and drug use in his youth.

[RandomGuy]

I thought you just said no coping and pasting from websites?

I didn't. Go back and read the post. I simply predicted what would happen.

(hint: This s*** has been done to death)

[RandomGuy]

So given that logic you must think JFK is still alive? or do you pick and choose what pics are real or fake?
Fallacy: Straw Man



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

[The Power Hour]

Some, including myself, can see the events of 9/11 for what they were - terrorist attacks. Are there questions that remain unanswered? Sure....


Just don't talk about them or face being piled on by the Bush lovers in this forum, and be accused of wearing a tin foil cap.

[Phenomanul]

When they refuse to acknowledge that diesel generators, water storage tanks, and vehicle-fuel tanks were the possible culprits for subsequent explosions - choosing instead to believe more exotic explosives were being used - it beckons the question on whether or not they are fabricating the story that suits their needs.

Actually, the set of noises that sound like explosions actually include things that aren't even explosions.

As something of a history channel buff, I have watched a lot of shows on engineering failures.

Quite often, when metal or a structure is stressed and suddenly the forces acting on it exceed the structures ability to resist those forces, witnesses always report hearing "explosions" that were nothing more than steel cables snapping, or objects hitting things at great speeds.

If you blindfold 100 people, line them up in a parking lot/street next to a tall building, and drop a 200 pound weight from 20-50 stories up, then ask them what they heard, it is quite reasonable to think that the word "explosion" would come up more than once.

I would even bet a good $1000 of my real money that if you did that experiment, you would get at least 10% of those present to say they heard a bomb.

Go a step further with that thought experiment.

Just before you drop the object tell the hundred people that there is a terrorist attack underway.

Care to guess how many blindfolded people out of a hundred would say they heard an explosion or a bomb?

Good point... I believe this was mentioned in the other 9/11 thread....

[RandomGuy]

That was very well written are you a sports writer? No disrespect to you Phenomanul But if you have not seen 'In Plane sight' I would have to spend another 7 days trying to explain many things you can see for yourself.

I rather just move froward on this debate. Let me know when you see it.

Har, "In Plane Sight" is so bad other conspiracy theorists think it is full of shit.

http://www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html

[RandomGuy]

STILL waitin' on them questions.

I guess you aren't really interested in the truth.

Surprise surprise.

But hey buy a t-shirt and bumper sticker from loose change, so they can continue to fight the fight, eh?

[=RTM=]

Since when do you let others determine your own opinions? I'm sure I can find a website that thinks everything is full of shit, from Jesus, to Jews being murdered.

Watch the film so I can here from your mouth, not someone else's.

[ChumpDumper]

When the Pentagon the most Secure Building in the Nation with cameras every 50 feet has no video of the so called plane that struck it? That opens the door to so called holes in any 9/11 debate.Get back to me with the position of each camera relative to the path of the plane, the fps rate of each camera and let me know exactly how many frames each camera should have caught of a plane traveling at 530miles per hour.

[=RTM=]

[QUOTE=Phenomanul
When they refuse to acknowledge that diesel generators, water storage tanks,

Actually, the set of noises that sound like explosions actually include things that aren't even explosions.


What kind of generator made this explosion in 1993?


http://img.search.com/thumb/f/f2/WTC_1993_ATF.jpg/360px-WTC_1993_ATF.jpg

[=RTM=]

ChumpDumper
Get back to me with the position of each camera relative to the path of the plane, the fps rate of each camera and let me know exactly how many frames each camera should have caught of a plane traveling at 530miles per hour.






Let me go get my floppy's with the pictures. But for now how about a view from the HWY, funny how that footage was taken by your Government.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/383-large.jpg

[=RTM=]

Gas station footage taken also.


http://www.rense.com/general63/PentagonCitgo.jpg

Until you and your kool-aid drinking friend RandonGuy can answer where and why the films are missing you have no rights to belittle others and ask meaningless questions.

[=RTM=]

Maybe you can use photo shop to fool others with your Bush propaganda.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg

[ChumpDumper]

So when I ask you about all the cameras on the Pentagon grounds, you start talking about cameras outside the Pentagon. Why is that?

[Extra Stout]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

Video 2 has an especially nice still frame of the front of a 757 at 00:25.

[=RTM=]

http://www.theedgeam.com/images/img/painful.jpg



Flight 77

*

There is no evidence that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was Flight 77.
*

There Pentagon's security cameras offer evidence that a Global Hawk was shattered by a missile. The missile may have been launched automatically from a defense system around the Pentagon

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

The conspirators hijack four planes only to replace one with a UAV. One with a cloaking device that made eyetinesses see a jet airliner. It is then shot down by a missile lauched form the Pentagon but hits the Pentagon anyway.

The replaced 757 and the 64 people on board we placed inside and outside the building to make it look like a plane hit it.

Thanks for your trolling mouse. Your satire is a great service here.

[RandomGuy]

Since when do you let others determine your own opinions? I'm sure I can find a website that thinks everything is full of shit, from Jesus, to Jews being murdered.

Watch the film so I can here from your mouth, not someone else's.

Pay me $40 for my time.

I have watched so many other crappy 9-11 movies, and each and everytime it has come out to diddly-shit.

What kinds of critical questions have you asked yourself about what the movie claims?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.theedgeam.com/images/img/painful.jpg



Flight 77

*

There is no evidence that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was Flight 77.
*

There Pentagon's security cameras offer evidence that a Global Hawk was shattered by a missile. The missile may have been launched automatically from a defense system around the Pentagon

The global hawk didn't enter service until Afghanistan when the FIRST prototypes were tested.

OOPS.

What about all the eye witnesses that saw a jetliner?

[=RTM=]

Pay me $40 for my time.


Ok I shall move on in search of Intelligent views............

[RandomGuy]

Let me go get my floppy's with the pictures. But for now how about a view from the HWY, funny how that footage was taken by your Government.



So when was this happy fun picture taken?

[=RTM=]

The global hawk didn't enter service until Afghanistan when the FIRST prototypes were tested.

Says who? If it was being tested it means it was already built. You think the air force is going to e mail RandomGuy every time they build a new aircraft?

Are you that naive to think It had to be a global hawk? It could have been a number of things, the bottom line it was not a passenger full of bodies with some sort of jet fuel with a super turbo hot top secret chemical's that disintegrate metal. humans, and black boxes. but leaves open books and computer monitors un scorched.






What about all the eye witnesses that saw a jetliner?

Oh now you are saying eye witnesses are creditable but when we used them we are talking about tin hat wearing fools? how does that work?

[RandomGuy]

Ok I shall move on in search of Intelligent views............
Tell me again, why the fuck I should watch your movie?

I will trade you.

Read the following and offer comment, and I will watch your movie.

--------------------------
February 26, 1993. It started like most other days. A 4 A.M. wake up, coffee and a buttered roll while driving to work at the Manhattan Central Office. At 12:18 P.M., lunch was being served when we received a call via a street alarm box at the corner of West & Liberty Streets. At the same time Engine Company 10, whose quarters are across the street from the World Trade Center, called us via radio and reported a possible transformer vault explosion on West Street near the Trade Center.

Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office. We didn't think this one was going to be any different. When Engine 10 advised us by radio they had a working fire in the Trade Center, we thought the transformer vault was located within the basement of the complex. Not a routine event, but still,it's only a transformer vault we thought.

http://www.fdnewyork.com/wtc.asp

"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."

To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.

"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.

Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use."

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_towering_security_2/index.htm

This is a deceptive quote from a conspiracy theory site...

"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...

...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."

Now let's examine what he said in the context he said it. Here is the part conspiracy sites leave out..

“When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_broadway_electrical_supplys/

He said "The way I see it, it had to be the rivets" but the conspiracy sites remove this important insight. They skipped over the sentence. There is only one reason to do something like that. To mislead the reader by removing all other possibilities for the sounds.

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

Even bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions.

“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.

“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me.”

The person saying it was an explosion also says bodies hitting the floor sound like explosions. I'm sure they do. I'm sure an acre of concrete floor crashing down onto another acre of concrete floor also sounds like an explosion.

[FromWayDowntown]

The global hawk didn't enter service until Afghanistan when the FIRST prototypes were tested.

OOPS.

What about all the eye witnesses that saw a jetliner?

I want to know who killed all of the people who were on the jetliner, including the Solicitor General's wife?

You'll have to excuse me if I'm a bit skeptical that the Solicitor General was cool with the notion that the government was going to execute his wife in an effort to stir up the American people and create a justification for war.

[RandomGuy]

Ok I shall move on in search of Intelligent views............


Try this intelligent view.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html

[ChumpDumper]

Gas station footage taken also.

Until you and your kool-aid drinking friend RandonGuy can answer where and why the films are missing you have no rights to belittle others and ask meaningless questions.The Citgo and hotel footage aren't mising at all. In fact they have been available on the internets for several months.

Citgo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk)

Doubletree (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ)

Turns out they weren't released earlier because they simply didn't show anything worthwhile, in addition to all those pesky legal issues.

Nice to know you are on the cutting edge of the truth movement -- so much that you were completely ignorant of the official release of these videos in September and December of last year.

Now that I've answered your question, could you let me know what you think really happened on 9/11?

[RandomGuy]

Oh now you are saying eye witnesses are creditable but when we used them we are talking about tin hat wearing fools? how does that work?

I believe people when they say they hear explosions.

There are LOTs of things that sound like explosions. MOST of them aren't explosives.

I DON'T buy your CONCLUSIONS, because you obviously cast away anything that doesn't fit your theory.

[ChumpDumper]

What theory?

[RandomGuy]

So when eyewitnesses are good enough for YOUR theory that's great, but aren't good enough to support the assertion that a jetliner actually hit the building?

How does THAT work?

[RandomGuy]

What theory?


They don't have a theory, per se.

They have a pile of "evidence" copied and pasted ad infinitum.

[mookie2001]

^randomguy thats weak

[RandomGuy]

Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place

[RandomGuy]

Even though our civilian airliner pilots had been trained to cooperate with hijackers and not try to physically resist, and even though short knives and box cutters were allowed in carry-on luggage, we shouldn't believe the absurd claim that four or five strong and very determined men armed with knives and a fanatic eagerness to die killing Americans could take over an unlocked cockpit.

[RandomGuy]

The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.

[RandomGuy]

Although the 1993 WTC bombing was obviously the work of terrorists, the idea that the 2001 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists is ludicrous.

[RandomGuy]

The same nefarious conspirators that pulled off the single largest concerted suicide attack in history forgot to make a hole in the Pentagon to help fake the airliner impact site.

[RandomGuy]

When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.

[RandomGuy]

When we hear witnesses describing "something like a bomb going off" in the Pentagon, we should ignore subsequent (and concurrent) eyewitness reports of a rather large passenger jet flying into exactly the same spot, and ignored reports and photos of engines, landing gear, other aircraft parts, aircraft passengers, and other debris being found on and in the site, and absolutely no evidence of any explosive.

[RandomGuy]

Any videos of the crashes that surface more than a day or two after the event are obviously computer-generated fakes, because the time it took to create the fake videos explains why they weren't immediately released. Because everyone knows that if someone takes home video of a disaster, they run straight to a media outlet to share it with the rest of the world.

[RandomGuy]

The same government conspirators who plotted this complex event didn't prepare fake videos ahead of time. They waited until the events happened to prepare the computer-generated fakery, which delayed their release until a cloud of suspicion could fall on their authenticity.

[RandomGuy]

No buildings in history ever fell because of fire until 9-11. And if the WTC towers were the first modern, steel structures to collapse by fire, it is not a testament to the intelligent engineering put into the design of skyscrapers in general, but only evidence that the WTC was brought down by other means. No, I don't mean by airplanes filled with thousands of pounds of fuel ramming into them, I mean by a bomb. Yes!

[RandomGuy]

Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000°F in order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and engineers have told us about heat of only about 700°Fweakening steel is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords, and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.

[RandomGuy]

If a large plane crashes into a large skyscraper and starts a raging fire inside, then a woman later waves from the outside edge of a lower part of the huge jagged entry hole, then that's proof that the fire inside isn't actually all that hot.

[RandomGuy]

If there is disagreement on the approach angle and bank of the plane hitting the Pentagon in an official report and from online bloggers, then we can safely assume that the plane, in fact, did not exist.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't make sense that remains of the hijackers and passengers, who hit the sides of mostly open-spaced office buildings at hundreds of miles an hour and ejected out the other side, were some of the first remains discovered, and not under thousands of tons of rubble straight down. The body parts must have been planted on streets, on the roofs of buildings, and through broken windows by burglars. Or something.

[RandomGuy]

Disagreement between government reports and eyewitness accounts do not mean that the individuals witnessed the same event; they only mean that the accounts that don't agree with my paranoid point of view are lies as part of the government cover-up, are mass hallucinations, or, just to be thorough, both.

[RandomGuy]

Since verbose, difficult-to-read scientific reports contradict my claims of conspiracy, I'll use a different approach: Nothing says "Science" like lots of photos, drawings, and short captions in a PowerPoint or Flash animation backed by spooky "conspiracy music."

[RandomGuy]

The WTC towers fell straight down (more or less), which proves that it was a controlled demolition. If it were a true building falling down, it would have fallen over like a popsicle stick.

[RandomGuy]

Although video clearly shows smoke and debris being blown out the pancaking WTC upper floors as the floors collapse against each other, but video of planned, controlled building demolitions clearly shows bright flashes of explosions before the building begins collapsing, the explosives planted in the towers must be some new super-secret kind because the explosive effect obviously goes back in time and starts the collapse of the building before the explosions throw stuff out the windows. So now there's the whole "Government Stuff Can Travel Through Time" consipiracy, and don't get me started.

[RandomGuy]

When an eyewitness describes a loud sound or strong, sudden vibration as "like a bomb," it means unequivocally that it was a bomb, because, you know, people have so much experience identifying bomb noises versus nearby passenger jet crashes.

[RandomGuy]

99.9% of the world's top engineers, architects, physicists, and chemists are all wrong, and I am right, because I read the Intarweb and I am so smart.

[RandomGuy]

If I repeat the same absurd claims enough times, they will become truth: There are over 6.5 billion people in the world, and about 1.1 billion of those people use the Internet. Chances are, I could claim anything on the Web, and at a million-to-one odds, over a thousand people would believe me. In the age of the Internet, that makes me an expert


(the hydrostatic paradox of controversy--RG)

[RandomGuy]

Any information that comes from the government is suspect, because everybody knows that "the government" is one vast conspiracy utterly controlled by a small number of evil-doers, not made up of millions of honest, hard-working people, at all levels of bureaucracy, of all ages, of all parties, of all walks of life, each fighting in their own way for truth, justice, and the American way.

[RandomGuy]

The jets that crashed were not piloted by hijackers, but by "advanced robotics and remote-control technology." So the video footage of "men of middle-eastern descent" boarding each of the aircraft was falsified, the cockpit voice recordings were falsified, the ground service crew, mechanics, and flight crew of the four aircraft didn't notice any of the advancedroboticsandremotecontroltechnology while prepping the aircraft, body parts of known terrorists were planted at the crash sites, the live phone conversations between crew, passengers, and their loved ones on the ground were implanted memories and falsified recordings, and the Flight 93 passengers actually wrestled with some hidden robotic equipment, not terrorists.

[RandomGuy]

"The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist 'Pearl Harbor' event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries." You know, because that strategy has worked so well in the past. And no it is not shameful to mention "conspiracy" and "Pearl Harbor" in the same breath.

[RandomGuy]

The government has a track record of blowing up its own buildings to push its own nefarious agenda, like they did in the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 WTC attack, because, you know, those attacks enabled the government to, you know,... do stuff, and stuff. So you can see this isn't a new idea for them.

[RandomGuy]

Confusion of timelines and action reports at the time of the largest modern enemy attack on the United States were intentionally deceptive, and not the result of actual confusion, inconsistent memories, or finger pointing that usually accompany failures of intelligence.

[RandomGuy]

Ok that was about eneough.

The list is much much longer.

http://www.sawyerhome.net/whatilearned.html

and comes with tons of groovy links.

[spursgirl20]

Mouse, with no disrespect whatsoever - cause I do consider you to be a free thinker - remind us where you obtained your physics degree?

Again, no disrespect... I just want you to realize that you can't go around calling someone out on physics concepts when the argument really goes both ways. Few people in here have a complete handle on the subject. But one thing is for sure; the conspiracist claims play on the logical reasoning of physics from the mindset of a 90% of the populace but this basis doesn't necessarily make them true. Most people can be swayed by sugar coating concepts to suit the needs of their limited understanding. To them the arguments make sense. In fact some of the arguments such as nbadan's assertion that explosions are required to propel dust and debris away from the core of the collapsing structure illustrate the limited understanding being propagated by some of these conpiracist websites. In light of real physics, however, none of the conspiracists' claims hold much credence.

Some, including myself, can see the events of 9/11 for what they were - terrorist attacks. Are there questions that remain unanswered? Sure.... because the dynamic data required to answer them went down with the buildings themselves. Because the window of opportunity to get the data closed before we knew what we were looking for and because the some parts of ground zero were inaccessible for weeks. That doesn't mean that I can speculate on the missing data and try to fill the holes with other distracting agendas. Did other buildings have to fall before I could believe that these would? Not necessarily. Not once before had a fully loaded passenger plane hit a building square on. There was no precedent for such event.

Am I supposed to believe that 'out of context' pictures prove much of anything?... No.

Am I supposed to believe that conspiracists really understand what 'free-fall' speed really means when they constantly fail to identify it.... much less understand it?

When they refuse to acknowledge that diesel generators, water storage tanks, and vehicle-fuel tanks were the possible culprits for subsequent explosions - choosing instead to believe more exotic explosives were being used - it beckons the question on whether or not they are fabricating the story that suits their needs. Do they construct what they want to see and ignore the rest?

When their arguments are filled with this many holes, how can I even take them seriously....

The biggest conundrum in the conspiracist's logical framework is that we are to believe that so many things were orchestrated under the noses of thousands of people and that no one noticed... furthermore, that the perpetrators have somehow managed to remain completely silent on the matter. The lack of leaks on a conspiracy of this magnitude, after six years no less, indicates that there is no conspiracy. Am I to believe that one of the nation's most notoriously lackluster presidents orchestrated a maniacal scheme to perfection. We're talking about Bush here.... Even the Roswell incident is 10 times more believable than this conspiracy.

This person is well educated. :)

[mookie2001]

yeah hes got like 4 degrees, everyone knows that

[The Power Hour]

yeah hes got like 4 degrees, everyone knows that


If only he could use one of them to see the truth.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/wtc-merge-321pan_lrg.jpg

[Carrot Top]

not me

[gtownspur]

Mouse is the only chamillion douchebag on these internetses.

[FromWayDowntown]

If only he could use one of them to see the truth.

What "truth?"

If it's the truth, why is everyone on your side of the argument so afraid of explaining what the truth is? If it's the truth, it should be something that is easy enough to explain -- at least in general terms.

That it somehow cannot be explained in simple terms suggests to me that it's probably not "the truth."

[smeagol]

What is your threory of what happened, mouse?

What is your theory of what happened, dan?

What is your theory of what happened, mookie?

Whay is your theory of what happened, elpimpo?

[Extra Stout]

What is your threory of what happened, mouse?

What is your theory of what happened, dan?

What is your theory of what happened, mookie?

Whay is your theory of what happened, elpimpo?
mouse's theory is that he really enjoys screwing with all of us

dan's theory is that if he lies enough times, a small fraction of people will believe him and support his ideology

mookie and elpimpo's theory is that it is better to err on the side of fighting the power

[Phenomanul]

:lol

[RandomGuy]

mouse's theory is that he really enjoys screwing with all of us

dan's theory is that if he lies enough times, a small fraction of people will believe him and support his ideology

mookie and elpimpo's theory is that it is better to err on the side of fighting the power

I have a theory of my own:

Conspiranuts generally suffer from low self esteem. This is what they do to make it seem like they have more status, and I mean that in the primate pecking-order kind of way, than they actually do.

That is part of what makes them so rabid and dishonest when it comes to actually presenting "evidence". If the evidence is wrong then so is their self-image as oppressed underdogs, rebels, and anti-heros.

Having never really done well in school, they generally gravitate towards something that offers them some modicum of intellectual self-identity.

This is why they drone on and on about "research" and reading and keeping an open mind, and all the other things that lend genuinely intelligent people some credibility when it comes to talking about topics.

It is simply to make up for their own (generally unacknowledged) shortcomings, that they accuse others of lacking what they themselves lack, however unconsious they are of those shortcomings.

It is, I think, on an emotional level, akin to the jealosy that athletically untalented people feel towards gifted athletes.

On some level, they KNOW they aren't doing good critical thinking, or good fact-checking, and that they are being intellectually dishonest. This is why the first thing they charge debunkers with are a lack of these very things. If they don't possses these qualities, then no one else does either. This again plays into the pseudo-intellectual trapping that they like to wrap themselves in. If they can delude themselves consiously into thinking that they are honest seekers of truth, then they can easily dismiss others who don't agree with themselves as being deceived, or worse, deceivERs.

I guess the internal line of reasoning there is that "if I am smart and honestly seeking the truth, and I have come to position X, then anybody who doesn't agree with X, MUST be dishonest, stupid, and deceitful."

My 2 cents.

Flame away, conspiranuts. Your pychological underpinnings are showing. :p:

[RandomGuy]

What "truth?"

If it's the truth, why is everyone on your side of the argument so afraid of explaining what the truth is? If it's the truth, it should be something that is easy enough to explain -- at least in general terms.

That it somehow cannot be explained in simple terms suggests to me that it's probably not "the truth."

The thing that galls me most is when I point out things like the amount of physical force involved, I am "not factoring in all the variables and taking into account the resistance, and the design of the building, etc ,etc ,etc" but when a conspiranut posts similar computations in "Physics 9-11.com" THAT guy is spot on, and no similar demands are made of HIM.

:bang :bang :bang :bang :bang :bang :bang :bang :bang

I can't even get a true or false answer to THIS from the CTers:

"True or false, a moving object has kinetic energy".

Ask simple basic things and you get a look like this: :dizzy

[RandomGuy]

More food for thought:

If there is a big conspiracy, they would be motivated to purposely post a bunch of easily debunkable crap on the internet, so that anybody who is half-way intelligent would see how much bullshit is out there and conclude that the entire movement is looney.

SO

If the truth movement has been infiltrated in this manner, how do YOU know what is real and what is meant to be easily debunkable?

How does at CTer know?

IF there is a conspiracy, and someone like you jackasses believe the most outlandish, illogical crap and spreads that around, THEN either:

1) You are lying about what you believe, and work for the evil conspiracy.

or

2) You are too stupid to tell reality from the fabricated fantasy of the infiltrators.

Which is it? Evil or stupid?

[Nbadan]

If there is a big conspiracy, they would be motivated to do just that. Post a bunch of easily debunkable crap on the internet, so that anybody who is half-way intelligent would see how much bullshit is out there and conclude that the entire movement is looney.

Welcome to Phy ops 101.

[Extra Stout]

Dammit you blew my cover RG.

[Extra Stout]

If there is a big conspiracy, they would be motivated to do just that. Post a bunch of easily debunkable crap on the internet, so that anybody who is half-way intelligent would see how much bullshit is out there and conclude that the entire movement is looney.

The only logical explanations:

1) dan is completely full of crap

2) dan is an evil genius running psyops for the Bush Administration

[RandomGuy]

Welcome to Phy ops 101.
If the truth movement has been infiltrated in this manner, Dan, how do YOU know what is real and what is meant to be easily debunkable?

How does mouse know?

[ChumpDumper]

The answer is clear. Dan is part of the conspiracy.

[RandomGuy]

The only logical explanations:

1) dan is completely full of crap

2) dan is an evil genius running psyops for the Bush Administration

This is actually a logically sound conclusion.

If there is an evil conspiracy, and they put out obviously false evidence for most to find, then anybody who believes all the "evidence" is either not intelligent enough to figure out that the fake stuff IS fake, or lying about what they believe in order to spread the disinformation.

Like I said, if you believe all the conspiracy crap AND there actually IS an evil conspiracy, then you are either stupid or part of that conspiracy, and by definition, evil.

If there ISN'T an evil conspiracy, then you can't be evil (because you can't be part of a conspiracy that doesn't exist), but you CAN be stupid.

THEREFORE

IF you believe ALL the conspiracy evidence you MUST fall into one of two categories:

1) Stupid

2) Lying and evil.

[Nbadan]

If the truth movement has been infiltrated in this manner, Dan, how do YOU know what is real and what is meant to be easily debunkable?

How does mouse know?


Scientific method RG. Unless you think 911 was intelligent designed too?

[Extra Stout]

Scientific method RG. Unless you think 911 was intelligent designed too?
Uh-oh, RG. I guess since you disagree with dan you're now officially a bible-thumping neocon.

[RandomGuy]

If the truth movement has been infiltrated in this manner, Dan, how do YOU know what is real and what is meant to be easily debunkable?


Scientific method RG. Unless you think 911 was intelligent designed too?

If you have not read the NIST report, but have only read conspiracy websites, then you cannot claim to be using anything even remotely approaching "scientific method". :rolleyes

I have read both official stuff and conspiracy stuff. I have spent (wasted) hours of my time watching conspiracy videos.

I am sure you can claim the latter part of that, but doubt you can claim the first.

[RandomGuy]

Uh-oh, RG. I guess since you disagree with dan you're now officially a bible-thumping neocon.

Yup. That's me.

(pulls out Pat Roberson fan club card)

See?

[FromWayDowntown]

Still waiting for "the truth" . . . .

[smeagol]

Still waiting for "the truth" . . . .
Sit down, relax, make yourself a drink . . . 'cause mouse and dan will not provide it anytime soon.

[RandomGuy]

Sit down, relax, make yourself a drink . . . 'cause mouse and dan will not provide it anytime soon.

Heh, you can't really blame them. The "truth" movement seems to have actual truth in short supply. :lol

Perhaps a better label would be the "truth according to us" movement.

[smeagol]

all elpimpo wanted is for you holier-than-thou high-and-mighty naysayers to actually respond to 9/11 conspirators' assertions. some of you did, for a while, before reverting back to ad hominem attacks and "so what's your theory then?" copy-and-pasting.
:blah :blah :blah :blah :blah

[FromWayDowntown]

all elpimpo wanted is for you holier-than-thou high-and-mighty naysayers to actually respond to 9/11 conspirators' assertions. some of you did, for a while, before reverting back to ad hominem attacks and "so what's your theory then?" copy-and-pasting.

The "so what's your theory then" questions are borne of the fact that the "naysayers" -- curious how those who accept a view that is compatible with the official story are labeled "naysayers;" as if the notion of a conspiracy should be the starting point for this discussion -- put forward facts and asked questions related to those facts, only to be told that there was some amorphous "truth" they didn't get. When you've been told that there's some truth that you just don't get, it makes sense to me to ask what that "truth" is.

If you actually sat and read the thread, the very thing that you're asking for has been done from its inception. Posters like Chump Dumper, Random Guy, Extra Stout, Phenomanul, and many others who have responded to the assertions of a 9/11 conspiracy and the sparse evidence presented to support an argument that 9/11 happened somehow differently than the orthodox view. In almost every instance, when a 9/11 conspiracy theorlet is introduced, those who don't buy the conspiracy argument have presented answers that certainly appear to be rooted in scientific principles in response. Those posters seem to know a great deal more about physics and engineering principles than I do. That the conspiracy theorists might not feel bound by those principles is, I think, among the more telling deficiencies in the conspiracy arguments.

Furthermore, I'm appalled by the intimation that the non-conspiracy types are somehow unwilling to debate these issues. This thread hasn't reached 25 pages and 600+ posts because of an unwillingness to have a discussion. That some don't buy the conspiracy notion and won't likely do so absent concrete proof of such a conspiracy isn't the equivalent of a refusal to have a genuine discussion. If anything, I think the reverse characterization is more apt -- I'm not sure that many of the conspiracy theorists are truly interested in having a discussion of this subject.

Ultimately, I don't know that asking for someone to spell out a coherent theory from the conspiracy sect about what "really happened" on 9/11 is an ad hominem attack. It seems to me to a logical retort in the debate that's been on-going in this thread and others.

If there's some "truth" that people like ChumpDumper, RandomGuy and others just aren't accepting, I would think it would be fairly easy to spell that "truth" out in some detail. Hence, my question. Remarkably, nobody on the conspiracy side is willing (or able) to do that.

[smeagol]

and i did say that, for awhile, there were good posts on how high temperatures compromised the integrity of the steel structures long before temperatures reached the melting point of steel -- good posts on how the towers fell slower than free-fall velocity, etc. but for every one post like that, there is a page of posts of name-calling, sarcasm and silly emoticons. This exchange is exactly what I'm talking about --

Sorry the thread does not reach your quality control standards. You are probably better of not reading it, then.

[smeagol]

very incisive, as usual
It's ironic you would say that given your propensity to post one line meaningless zinggers.

[Extra Stout]

however, i do think it's really very stupid and ignorant to absolutely refuse to believe that the American government either had a hand in this or had foreknowledge of it. The attacks fit in with their plans so well that it's extremely suspicious.
It is reasonable, and indeed well-documented in official papers, as well as in readily available non-fiction books by people like Bob Woodward, that the neoconservative movement was angling for an invasion of Iraq well before Bush entered the White House for various geopolitical and strategic reasons, that they realized that such an attack would be unsupportable absent an acute causus belli, that several key figures from the neoconservative movement ended up in the Bush Administration up to and including the Vice President, that the U.S. government all but ignored Al-Qaeda during Bush's first eight months in office, and that when 9/11 happened the key figures decided it was as close to a causus belli against Iraq as they were going to get.

It didn't fit into their plans all that great, since the attackers were not Iraqis, and were part of a terrorist organization that was opposed to the secular government of Saddam Hussein, but they were Arab Muslims, and Americans were angry and looking for retribution, so it was close enough.

[smeagol]

elpimpo's 9/11 theory is that the administration had a very good idea of what was going to happen and when, but chose to look the other way in order to escalate military involvement in world war 4. (taking a page from fdr's book, though I do not think Bush had as much foreknowledge as delano did of pearl harbor). As for them planting bombs in order to collapse the towers -- i'm not sure, though i lean strongly toward the absence of said bombs. it does make sense, however, on some levels, including that they wanted 9/11 to be an even more spectacular disaster, and that it might have been safer to pull the towers than leave them as smoldering husks in the middle of the city. However, though I do not think that the use of bombs can be precluded by science, i do think that science adequately explains how the towers could have fallen without bombs. but in light of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, it makes no difference, really, whether the Bush admin 1) was so stupid that they couldn't stop it 2)was so evil they condoned it 3)was so diabolically evil that they planned and executed the attacks.

Props for being the first one with an alternative theory.

[smeagol]

i prefer "drive-by posting style"
:lol

The one thing I do appreciate is your sense of humor.

[Extra Stout]

and i did say that, for awhile, there were good posts on how high temperatures compromised the integrity of the steel structures long before temperatures reached the melting point of steel -- good posts on how the towers fell slower than free-fall velocity, etc. but for every one post like that, there is a page of posts of name-calling, sarcasm and silly emoticons. This exchange is exactly what I'm talking about --
The difference between you and others is your motivation. You have a general distrust for authority, especially when that authority has shown itself to be corrupt. You are open to the idea that they are capable of anything.

That is not a bad thing.

You are intellectually curious, have real questions, and are looking for answers. You don't necessarily have the background to answer them yourself.

Neither is that a bad thing.

I don't even get too irritated with mouse's posts, since he obviously is just screwing around with everyone. He does these really elaborate gags over a long period of time to get a rise out of people, for example, his whole "Mavs Fan" routine which lasted several years. "9/11 Truther" is just another character.

Where I get indignant is where a dishonest person tries to manipulate the curiosity of a non-technical layman by copying and pasting a whole bunch of pseudo-scientific bullshit that can trick the layman into thinking there is something to the conspiracy theory. It is so obviously bullshit to someone who has a technical background, yet I see how easily it can deceive somebody who doesn't deal with these concepts all the time.

It gets ridiculous when the same con man asks questions about why certain "evidence" is missing, when that is evidence is not in fact missing, and can be located with five minutes of research at most.

So eventually, it gets kind of old posting the same debunking over and over again from the same basic principles over and over again, as the same bullshit artist flings a few more strands of spaghetti against the wall to see if they stick, crossing his fingers hoping he can stir up confusion, and I just have to call a spade a spade: Nbadan is a liar.

He is not unique in being a liar; the tactics of the 9/11 Truther are very similar to that of the creation scientist. They both spew pseudo-science. They both appeal primarily to the non-technical person. They both prey on preconceived notions of what people want to believe. They both are motivated by ideology and don't really care about the facts, because swaying people to their ideology is the higher purpose.

[Extra Stout]

the admin's enemy isn't iraq, it's fundamentalist (militant) islam. i really do believe they thought they could go into iraq and fashion those poor oppressed people into our allies. Same with afgahnistan. the plan is to have a longterm presence in the middle east -- and we would have a formidable presence with turkey, iraq and afghanistan as bases for our military operations. iraq is just one step in a larger plan
The admin's enemies are instability, and threats to American supremacy.

Yes, they really believed they could go into Iraq and fashion a democracy that would cause peace and democracy to spread throughout the Middle East. The neocon idea was that the Middle East was the greatest remaining source of instability on the globe, and that American might could change that.

Bush did not really want to go into Afghanistan. Tony Blair convinced him that since the Taliban were harboring Osama bin Laden, who after all was the one responsible for the terrorist attacks, that they should be first in line.

And, there were some, who, say, used to be CEO's of particular corporations, that saw a way to make a lot of money regardless of how things panned out.

[RandomGuy]

It is reasonable, and indeed well-documented in official papers, as well as in readily available non-fiction books by people like Bob Woodward, that the neoconservative movement was angling for an invasion of Iraq well before Bush entered the White House for various geopolitical and strategic reasons, that they realized that such an attack would be unsupportable absent an acute causus belli, that several key figures from the neoconservative movement ended up in the Bush Administration up to and including the Vice President, that the U.S. government all but ignored Al-Qaeda during Bush's first eight months in office, and that when 9/11 happened the key figures decided it was as close to a causus belli against Iraq as they were going to get.

It didn't fit into their plans all that great, since the attackers were not Iraqis, and were part of a terrorist organization that was opposed to the secular government of Saddam Hussein, but they were Arab Muslims, and Americans were angry and looking for retribution, so it was close enough.

It is astounding how simple this is, and how hard it is for the CTers to grasp.

If you don't mind, I will shamelessly copy and paste this. heh, it will save me from having to re-type something similar.

[RandomGuy]

and i did say that, for awhile, there were good posts on how high temperatures compromised the integrity of the steel structures long before temperatures reached the melting point of steel -- good posts on how the towers fell slower than free-fall velocity, etc. but for every one post like that, there is a page of posts of name-calling, sarcasm and silly emoticons. This exchange is exactly what I'm talking about --

See the thing is that when you even get close to cornering CTers on their bull-puckey, they will squirm and resort to ad hominem, then complain that you are "setting the rules of the debate" by not letting them get out of answering honest questions. If that doesn't work they simply pooh-pooh the questions and THEN go on and post pages of copied and pasted conspiracy crap.

Their goal is NOT to find the truth, but to spread the word of their religion to as many potential converts as possible.

Once you understant THAT, their actions and words make a lot more sense.

[RandomGuy]

The difference between you and others is your motivation. You have a general distrust for authority, especially when that authority has shown itself to be corrupt. You are open to the idea that they are capable of anything.

That is not a bad thing.

You are intellectually curious, have real questions, and are looking for answers. You don't necessarily have the background to answer them yourself.

Neither is that a bad thing.

I don't even get too irritated with mouse's posts, since he obviously is just screwing around with everyone. He does these really elaborate gags over a long period of time to get a rise out of people, for example, his whole "Mavs Fan" routine which lasted several years. "9/11 Truther" is just another character.

Where I get indignant is where a dishonest person tries to manipulate the curiosity of a non-technical layman by copying and pasting a whole bunch of pseudo-scientific bullshit that can trick the layman into thinking there is something to the conspiracy theory. It is so obviously bullshit to someone who has a technical background, yet I see how easily it can deceive somebody who doesn't deal with these concepts all the time.

It gets ridiculous when the same con man asks questions about why certain "evidence" is missing, when that is evidence is not in fact missing, and can be located with five minutes of research at most.

So eventually, it gets kind of old posting the same debunking over and over again from the same basic principles over and over again, as the same bullshit artist flings a few more strands of spaghetti against the wall to see if they stick, crossing his fingers hoping he can stir up confusion, and I just have to call a spade a spade: Nbadan is a liar.

He is not unique in being a liar; the tactics of the 9/11 Truther are very similar to that of the creation scientist. They both spew pseudo-science. They both appeal primarily to the non-technical person. They both prey on preconceived notions of what people want to believe. They both are motivated by ideology and don't really care about the facts, because swaying people to their ideology is the higher purpose.

:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap :clap

[Nbadan]

See the thing is that when you even get close to cornering CTers on their bull-puckey, they will squirm and resort to ad hominem, then complain that you are "setting the rules of the debate" by not letting them get out of answering honest questions. If that doesn't work they simply pooh-pooh the questions and THEN go on and post pages of copied and pasted conspiracy crap.

Their goal is NOT to find the truth, but to spread the word of their religion to as many potential converts as possible.

Once you understant THAT, their actions and words make a lot more sense.

Absent any real theories backed by the use of the scientific method, the 'official' 911 story is nothing but a conspiracy theory. What gets me is that I've seen this type of 'sheeple' behavior too many times before, especially when it concerned the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein before Gulf War 2. Almost all the posters who believed the administration’s claims then about the Iraqi immanent threat, Al-Queda links, and WMDs are falling into the non-CT group today, save maybe one or two new clones.

And like in pre-Iraq war 2003, when they were calling me a conspiracy theorist for claiming that Saddam had destroyed most if not all of his WMD capacity, was not a immanent threat to the U.S., and had no verifiable Al-Queda links, all which we know are true now, I am confident that eventually in time the truth regarding 911 will come out and I will be proven right again. And then like now, the posters who were calling me a conspiracy theorist for being right about doubting the official story of 911, will simply disappear, regulate themselves to the club again, or simply change their screen names once more to protect their gullibility.

[Nbadan]

Oh, and one last thing, debating should be about building coalitions based on the ideas that you are presenting and the way they are presented. Claiming some sort of premature ideological victory before anything is presented, or trying to form generalizations about your opponenets in order to catagorize them as weak-minded, or whichever sub-group makes you feel intellectually superior, actually says more about you than it does about them.

[FromWayDowntown]

Oh, and one last thing, debating should be about building coalitions based on the ideas that you are presenting and the way they are presented. Claiming some sort of premature ideological victory before anything is presented, or trying to form generalizations about your opponenets in order to catagorize them as weak-minded, or whichever sub-group makes you feel intellectually superior, actually says more about you than it does about them.

This from a poster who characterizes those who disagree with him as "sheeple."

[=RTM=]

Forget all the Bush bashing, and Tin foil for one second, what is a person out of curiosity wanted to ask a question about 9/11, what kind of response would he, or she, get in this topic?

[ChumpDumper]

And like in pre-Iraq war 2003, when they were calling me a conspiracy theorist for claiming that Saddam had destroyed most if not all of his WMD capacity, was not a immanent threat to the U.S., and had no verifiable Al-Queda linksSo you actually had a theory back then.

Bravo.

As someone who claimed the exact same thing and was proven just as right with regards to Saddam, I ask you once again what you think really happened. You will never convince anyone of your opinion/theory/viewpoint if you never actually state it. You did with Saddam, why can't you now?

Would you like a link to the thread for full alternative 9/11 theories?

Sincerely,

a "new" clone

[Extra Stout]

debating should be about building coalitions based on the ideas you are presenting
A rare moment of honesty.

[RandomGuy]

Forget all the Bush bashing, and Tin foil for one second, what is a person out of curiosity wanted to ask a question about 9/11, what kind of response would he, or she, get in this topic?


Puh-lease. There is a big difference between asking honest questions about 9-11, and simply using confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) to see only the things that re-inforce your preconceived notions.

I urge anybody to read the link above. It is a good way to get some perspective on the "truth" movement.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

If anyone truly believes that this administration would not go to any lengths to get thier war they are lying to themselves.

[Extra Stout]

If anyone truly believes that this administration would not go to any lengths to get thier war they are lying to themselves.
Another brainless partisan lets his guard down.

Bush and Cheney must have done it because you believe they would go to any lengths to start a war, including killing thousands of innocent Americans in New York and Washington.

Corroborating evidence is unnecessary; you take it as a matter of faith.

It's not enough to say they manipulated the public's reaction to the attacks to sell their war, because that is just not quite evil enough.

[RandomGuy]

bumpski