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.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 04-25-2007 at 09:01 AM.
(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.
From the #1 physic
Although I do think it's garbage to post under several different user names in order to make your point.
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.
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.
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.
If this man chowder drinking 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..............
[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?
So given that logic you must think JFK is still alive? or do you pick and choose what pics are real or fake?
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.
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 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.
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.
That is neither here nor there....
I didn't. Go back and read the post. I simply predicted what would happen.
(hint: This s*** has been done to death)
Fallacy: Straw Man
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes 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 cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
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.
Good point... I believe this was mentioned in the other 9/11 thread....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?
Har, "In Plane Sight" is so bad other conspiracy theorists think it is full of .
http://www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html
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?
Since when do you let others determine your own opinions? I'm sure I can find a website that thinks everything is full of , from Jesus, to Jews being murdered.
Watch the film so I can here from your mouth, not someone else's.
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.
[QUOTE=RandomGuy]What kind of generator made this explosion in 1993?
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
