Bumpski.
Because it is better to have this at the top so I don't have to find it later.
the only truth I'm noticing is all these 'faith believer' not acknowledging that these blueprints could be real, but then again, when something doesn't fit into your 'hypothesis', faith believers just tend to block it out..
(HANDS OVER EAR) LA LA LA....................I CANT HEAR YOU!
Oh my
Only a liar or an idiot would try to use architectural layout drawings to make a point about construction details.
I am very reasonably sure they are real.
What I question is whether or not the conclusions that are drawn from them are supported by the available evidence.
In this case, I highly doubt that the conclusions reached by the infowars article even come close to what can be substantiated by the evidence that they base their claims on.
It is a little bit like setting a ball on a basketball court on the surface of our planet and concluding that means it is proof positive that the sun is going around the earth because if the earth were really going around the sun, the ball should move.
The wild ass conclusion cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence.
Again, see the confirmation bias bit on wikipedia.
That is actually the whole problem with the 9-11 "truth" movement in a nuts .
The conclusions that they reach from available evidence aren't supported by that evidence.
Example:
Evidence: A building collapses.
Conclusion: It must have been explosive demolition.
Evidence: A horrible tragedy happens.
Conclusion: It MUST be part of an evil conspiracy's plan.
Although there are some (ok, a LOT of) verified cases of the 9-11 truth movement just making up, I generally try to treat each bit of evidence as valid until proven otherwise.
I DO differentiate between the validity and logicalness of conclusions drawn from evidence and the validity and logicalness of evidence itself.
it was part of some evil conspiracy plan, in your 911 Commission Report mind, did not Al Queda and these hijackers conspire to fly planes into the wtc?, and was it evil?
Ah, in that sense it was an evil conspiracy of Al Qaeda and anti-western reactionaries.
This is somewhat different than the "multi-generational" conspiracy of elites working on the perfection of control, mass-extermination of most of humanity, enslavement of the easily-controlled remainder, in which ALL things are part of this omnipotent plan.
Perhaps a better phrase would be "grand evil conspiracy".
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-27-2007 at 11:53 AM.
By the way, this is one of the worst examples of rank hypocrisy I have ever seen.
Tell me Dan, did you accept the infowars assumptions on faith, or did you actually test any of their conclusions?
I will not let you get away with ignoring this question, so you might as well answer it.
Not that I can depend on you to answer it truthfully, but hey, I WILL get an answer eventually.
Still waitin on the answer, dan.
I do believe Stout has a crush on me
What evidence is that RG? Did they finally release the blueprints from both Towers so that their assumptions can be scientifically tested?In this case, I highly doubt that the conclusions reached by the infowars article even come close to what can be substantiated by the evidence that they base their claims on.
I am trained in sciencebut my day job for the last twenty years is in the visual arts
This monkey was trained in science too...
Did you just accept, on a assumption of faith, the official story even though there has never been any do ention released to support the FeMA pancake theory, now officially debunked, nor the official explaination by NiST, whose results could not be duplicated under the scrutiny of the scientific method?
Who's the real hypocrite here RG?
Nbadan is Alex Jones. Everything makes sense now.
thats what its all aboutDid you just accept, on a assumption of faith, the official story even though there has never been any do ention released to support the FeMA pancake theory, now officially debunked, nor the official explaination by NiST, whose results could not be duplicated under the scrutiny of the scientific method?
post of the year
dan just dumped on yall
I haven't seen anything more believeable on the whole.
If you've got it, please let us all in on it.
More lying bull : "scrutiny of the scientific method."
Excuse me, has one of your websites had an engineering firm perform experiments trying to model the twin tower collapse? Have they published conclusions?
Has it been peer reviewed?
Are there even any structural engineers in the "truth" movement? Would they even know how to read a blueprint?
September 15, 2001
"The Reflecting Wall at MIT," a 12-by-25-foot wooden replica of a fragment of the wall of the World Trade Center installed next to the MIT Chapel, was dedicated last Friday afternoon when 400 students, faculty and staff laid roses, candles and notes on the structure.
It was conceived as a temporary space where people may pause to reflect on the more than 5,000 people who died in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania after terrorists piloted hijacked airplanes.
The request for a temporary space for reflection was first voiced during the MIT-wide community meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 12 in Killian Court. It was translated into a proposal by a committee of staff and faculty in consultation with representatives of the undergraduate and graduate students. The committee was assisted by Helene Lipstadt, a visiting associate professor of architecture who studies monuments and their effects on people.
The committee and student representatives worked side by side with Assistant Professor of Architecture John Fernandez, who was studying the blueprints and structure of the 30-year-old buildings the day after the disaster.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/reflectingwall.html
So there's another guy that was in on it.
The crux of the matter is that the conspiracy theorists believe that their armchair observations carry more weight than the technical judgments of large teams of qualified experts.
Even Oliver Stone is in on it!
Inside a flimsy temporary office on a dusty movie lot here, a young man sits in front of a computer, showing off a three-dimensional rendering of the collapse of the World Trade Center. It was assembled by merging the blueprints for the Twin Towers - the before-picture, you might say - with a vast collection of measurements, including some taken with infrared laser scans from an airplane 5,000 feet above New York, just days after 9/11.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/...e/fmlede30.php
After seeing the newly released blueprints, I have to admit: I have completely changed my mind about 9/11. The proof is there in the core plans.
[credit to some guy in another forum]
we get it
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
