Reply With Quote
as of now you have 493 posts in this 9/11 thread alone- to my 68, thats more than a couple of hours, and thats just defense
Nope. Spent a few hours looking at both sides, decided one was more stupid and deceitful than the other, and pretty much stopped.
Years ago.
It was interesting. Don't regret it. Unlike you, I was curious.
as of now you have 493 posts in this 9/11 thread alone- to my 68, thats more than a couple of hours, and thats just defense
and youre really smart so...
you can do the math
Yes. I know much more about 9/11 than you do.
I freely admit that.
After all, you never read anything about it.
One would have to wonder why someone would post so much about something he knows nothing about.
We are indeed.
Not all theories are created equal, as anyone who spends time in 9-11 la-la land quickly finds out.
There is always a cost to getting information, and at some point the cost to get more perfect information exceeds the potential value.
Sure we could spend tons more money on replicating the NIST's work. But why?
Do you think that if we did, we would suddenly find out that the controlled demolition crowd was right?
I kind of view conspiracy theories to be giant pits of stupid.
Threads like this are the warning signs to people who might not be paying attention to where they are going, so they don't fall in and get all covered in stupid.
If one wants to ignore the "warning stupidity ahead" and wallow in the stupid by thinking that infowars is telling the truth, and Alex Jones is a smart, insightful guy, then go ahead. But don't say you weren't warned.
Think of it as a public service.
More "perfect information"to get more perfect information
RG has bought into the Bush-commissioned, 9/11 commission report(yeah, they got something right) and an imperfect NIST report and with his Bush-covered glasses wants us to believe that all that slight of hand by NORAD, Bush-Cheney, and the FAA and FEMA during the investigation never happened...
If you seriously don't know why perhaps you should visit on of the many memorial sites set up for the victims of Sept 11, 2001 and tell those families that they don't deserve to know why...Sure we could spend tons more money on replicating the NIST's work. But why?
Atta should never have been allowed to train as a pilot at Huffman aviation in the first place....he was being spooked by the FBI under Clinton and German intelligence when he visited Germany...then he some how gets into the country unnoticed under Dubya and starts to orchestrate the 911 attacks....all again supposedly unnoticed...
anyone want to take a shot at guessing what type(s) of fallacious argument this is?
what did Dekkers gain out of all that?
Google is your friend....Dekkers is a very shady character....remember hearing about the planes filled with coke that got busted in Mexico and then suddenly disappeared from the M$M a few years back? ....that was Dekkers........this guy is so shady no M$M corporate news will touch him...so we are left with independent investigators to work out the narrative...
yes, google has been a friend. Apparently Webster's dictionary is not yours.
do I need to define each word in my question?
"What exactly did Dekkers get out of all of this for his involvement?"
Not quite what I meant.
We could spend millions and millions of dollars to perfectly re-create every little matchstick's trajectory involved in the collapse of the twin towers, but what would we get?
All the data we have so far points to what was obvious to all but the most schizophrenic that day, that two large buildings collapsed from a combination of impact damage and uncontrolled fires for a sustained period.
The NIST's analysis got to the point where they could make some fairly good guesses as to what initially failed and why. That let them make some scientifically based recommendations for future fires in large buildings.
Never in any of their analysis were there any indications of controlled demolitions, although it was briefly considered. There just wasn't any evidence of it.
If you want to be butthurt over the fact that reality doesn't favor your preferred ideas, be my guest.
That's what needs to be investigated.....what is the Dekkers connection....the whole Huffman aviation connection was never touched by the 911 commission...why?"What exactly did Dekkers get out of all of this for his involvement?"
who's butt-hurt? You trying to declare premature victory in your own thread again?The NIST's analysis got to the point where they could make some fairly good guesses as to what initially failed and why. That let them make some scientifically based recommendations for future fires in large buildings.
Never in any of their analysis were there any indications of controlled demolitions, although it was briefly considered. There just wasn't any evidence of it.
If you want to be butthurt over the fact that reality doesn't favor your preferred ideas, be my guest.
....I'm just pointing out the fallacy in your logic, the NIST report is far from 'perfection', to you it maybe as close to perfect as we'll ever get but it's not perfect, and that leaves some margin that maybe their conclusions are wrong...
Unfortunately, there is no room in that margin for "controlled demolition".
There is no room in that margin for magic purple ponies, smurfs, Santa Claus, chupacabras, or the Easter Bunny either.
Some things are just not supported at all by any reasonable reading of the evidence available.
Trying to equate the "controlled demolition theory" to the "impact damage + fire theory", as if they are somehow equally probable is a bit like what creationists do when they claim "evolution is only a theory".
Not all theories are created equal Dan. Sorry.
Dan has no theory.
None of them do.
I whole-heartedly agree.
They don't try very hard to actually flesh out theories, simply because they know on some level, even the craziest ones, that their vague "they did it" beliefs won't really stand up to scrutiny.
The less those beliefs are examined, the more they can self-justify holding on to what amounts to dogma. The most any of them do is trot out tired saws, just like creationists, in the hope of keeping the faith.
This is wholeheartedly false.....there are too many assumptions in the NIST data that I don't know how you can prove without a doubt that there was no structured demolition...Unfortunately, there is no room in that margin for "controlled demolition".
Prove it!
@ demanding someone prove a negative.
Prove there was a "structured" demolition.
Prove it!
He stated that he can prove without a doubt that the NIST report is accurate....
nice qualifier....'the evidence available' what rubbish....Some things are just not supported at all by any reasonable reading of the evidence available.
So you're saying you can't prove it was a structured demolition.
OK, how about you just state your theory of what you think really happened?
I can't prove it, but I can't rule it out either...
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions