|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/04/2006 : 16:34:08 [Permalink]
|
ergo123 said:
quote:
Conspiracy Theory:
From Wikipedia--A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence. Researchers who advocate the conspiratorial view claim that most major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
From American Heritage Dictionary--conspiracy theory, n., A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
As such, the government's descriptions of what occurred on 9-11-01 qualify.
I'm still not sure why some of you get so bent out of shape over that. It makes you look silly. I don't get why you get stuck on the term. Why not just get over it and move on?
Obviously your basic reading skills are in doubt here.
The 19 hijackers conspired together to crash planes into buildings.
Yet somehow, to you, this means that the official investigation and explanation of the events of 9/11 is a "conspiracy theory".
Obviously it is a ploy on your part to associate the negative connotation of the phrase "conspiracy theory" with the official explanation of events.
I, and others, reject your amature attempt to spin the official explanation. It is imbecilic, inappropriate, and makes you seem stupid.
I'll "move on" when you agree to abandon the use of logical fallacy to try and add weight to your own delusional explanations of the events of 9/11. Until then, you can expect to be corrected every time I see you try and slip a fallacious argument into your conspiracy theorist screed.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 16:43:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Yes Dave. The DECREE was unscientific (but it was based on the known science of its time).
The decree was based on the Bible, specifically Psalms 93:1 and 104:5, along with Ecclesiastes 1:5.quote:
The theory (which is what I was talking about) that the Earth was the center of our solar system, and the universe, WAS scientific.
But that's not what Galileo (who you brought up) was actually arguing against. He was arguing that the Church shouldn't take poetry (the verses I mentioned) literally, and he wound up making the Pope feel mocked while doing so. He wasn't tried by the Inquisition for arguing against a scientific theory, he was tried for heresey.quote:
I never mentioned the DECREE--that's you inventing things to fit the way you think, again...
You mentioned Galileo, who's known for arguing with the Church about geocentrism. And he actually didn't have any real evidence that the Earth moved around the Sun, either. That didn't come until 200 years later. So yes, Galileo was, indeed, arrogant in regards his position on Copernicism (though not a moron).
Oh, where is that theory of collapse in the 9/11 Commission Report again? I'd really like to read what you claim is the "status quo," since your claims don't agree at all with what I find to be the official theory. And you know, of course, that sometimes the status quo is correct, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 17:07:46 [Permalink]
|
And let me ask you this directly, ergo:
Before any floor was impacted, while the tower had a huge gash in its northern perimeter columns, several severed and several weakened columns in the core, freshly-buckled southern perimeter columns (let's say it's one microsecond after the last column buckled), and the top of the building visibly leaning to the south, just exactly which part(s) of the actual building, in your opinion, could have stopped the downward motion of the upper 16 stories? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 17:13:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say the building could only fall nearly as fast as free-fall (the 9/11 CR clocks them at about 10 sec; free-fall would be 9.2 sec) if the collapse is aided with explosives. You convert that to me saying explosives make it fall faster than free-fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When did I do that? I said, correctly, that the NIST report has 1 WTC completing its collapse in somewhere between 27 and 37 seconds, total. I also correctly said that free-fall from 93 floors is 8.38 seconds (of course, it would be more accurate to use center of mass, at 101 floors, or 8.73 seconds - 9.3 seconds would be a drop from the 114th floor, which didn't exist), and that NIST clocks the collapse of the outer sections of the building at about 12 seconds, 43% longer than free-fall. You have yet to actually address those facts, except to repeat your assertions about explosives, and make the false claim that I brought the subject up (hell, I never even said that you said that explosives would bring the building down faster than gravity, that was R.Wreck).
Just to set the record straight, in the OP ergo said:
quote:
But some of the other sites (like scholars for truth.org) show evidence that it is physically impossible for the buildings to have fallen as fast as they did due to gravity alone.
Has this been discussed on the forum? If so, please direct me to that discussion. If not, does anyone have the expertise to comment on how the buildings could fall at near-free-fall speed?
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 17:14:12 [Permalink]
|
GM: Isn't AlQaeda a covert alliance of people? And if they really did pull off 9-11, that makes them powerful. God, for a group of skeptics you sure don't think very flexibly. I thought you would be more open-minded.
RE: "We tend to avoid hijacking terminology for the purpose of increasing the emotional impact of our arguments." Okay, now you are just making stuff up. This is so obviously untrue. Have you read any of the responses here? And many of you have hijacked the term "conspiricy theory" for the express purpose of increasing the emotional impact of your argument. It didn't always have the connotation it has now, you know.
And no--you look silly when you ignore the definition of a term--even if it has been hijacked and given a negative connotation.
My theory--like the government's--IS a conspiracy theory. Let's compromise--I'll call the government's theory the "official conspiracy theory." Now that we are all clear on terms, we can move on!
HH: Just because what we know as science and the scientific process are different now than they were before doesn't make what Galileo and his collegues did unscientific. It just wasn't as refined as it is now. But I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you on this irrelevant topic. I don't care if you don't understand what I am talking about on this one. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 17:19:28 [Permalink]
|
Dude: I don't really care if you move on or not... You are the one stuck here.
RW: Thanks for clearing that up. I wish people here would have just answered "No" to my question on expertise. It would have saved me the time of finding it out the long way. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 17:36:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just because what we know as science and the scientific process are different now than they were before doesn't make what Galileo and his collegues did unscientific. It just wasn't as refined as it is now.
That you don't see the difference speaks volumes. And I understand what you think you are talking about. You are just completely wrong. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/04/2006 17:37:03 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 17:38:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
GM: Isn't AlQaeda a covert alliance of people?
Is impacting 2 airliners into WTC a covert operation? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 17:54:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123...
GM: Isn't AlQaeda a covert alliance of people? And if they really did pull off 9-11, that makes them powerful. God, for a group of skeptics you sure don't think very flexibly. I thought you would be more open-minded.
RE: "We tend to avoid hijacking terminology for the purpose of increasing the emotional impact of our arguments." Okay, now you are just making stuff up. This is so obviously untrue. Have you read any of the responses here? And many of you have hijacked the term "conspiricy theory" for the express purpose of increasing the emotional impact of your argument. It didn't always have the connotation it has now, you know.
And no--you look silly when you ignore the definition of a term--even if it has been hijacked and given a negative connotation.
My theory--like the government's--IS a conspiracy theory. Let's compromise--I'll call the government's theory the "official conspiracy theory." Now that we are all clear on terms, we can move on!
Well of course your back pedaling here doesn't change what you've meant when you've used the term "conspiracy theory" so far in this discussion. I thought you'd be more honest. Well, no, I really didn't. So far here you've shown that you have no integrity whatsoever. This is just another of your feeble attempts to back your way out of another one of your mistakes. You've got no balls, ergo123. If you did you'd simply admit that you've been using the term "conspiracy theory" incorrectly, stop using it that way, refer to the official explanation as the "official explanation", then move on. That would be if you had any integrity.
Oh, and you don't really have a theory, at least not one that you've mentioned. Just like the Creationists and their claim to have a theory with Intelligent Design, all they have is their own incredulity and their resulting doubt that the official explanation is true. Their position is exactly like yours. They don't believe the consensus explanation, mostly for lack of ability or willingness to understand, and therefore believe it must be false. Your incredulity does not constitute evidence to support what you claim to be a conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 17:54:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
HH: Just because what we know as science and the scientific process are different now than they were before doesn't make what Galileo and his collegues did unscientific.
So just because what they were doing wasn't science, it doesn't mean their conclusions weren't scientific? Do you care to defend that insane logic?
quote:
But I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you on this irrelevant topic. I don't care if you don't understand what I am talking about on this one.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 18:06:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Cuneiformist: Wouldn't you consider a group of 19 people able to foil all the defenses of the strongest nation in the world "powerful?" And sure, there is a negative connotation to the phrase--but so what? "Online forum" has a negative connotation is some circles, but that doesn't mean all online forums are negative. but yes--I am using the term in an unconventional way. But is it wrong to do so? Is being unconventional wrong?
Ugh. By a strict definition, the 19 men did conspire to ram planes into important US landmarks. But a 'conspiracy theory' has a specific connotation in this country. Conspiracy theories in the conventional definition involve powerful individuals-- world leaders, business tycoons, etc. Not people entering the country on student visas. Moreover-- and this is key-- they are, by definition, secret. When the government publishes a book discussion who the terrorist were, and how they did what they did, it is not a 'conspiracy theory' by the conventional understanding of the phrase.
You write like a native-speaker, and your colloquialisms suggest that you were born in the US. You've seen (or heard of) the television program "The X-Files"? You've seen (or heard of) Oliver Stone's film "JFK"? Those involved textbook comspracy theories.
Of course it's not "wrong" to be unconventional. However, in a debate it is usually best to use words and terms only in their most common or accepted use. Otherwise, you create misunderstanding. For instance, when you wrote above about a "government conspiracy theory" I thought you were talking about the conspiracy theory where the government was involved inthe attack. But that's not what you meant. What you meant was the "official theory" or the "government's theory" or some such. Better to use that, so no one gets lost.
Alternatively, you can say from the outset (as I suggested above): Even though the conventional definition of "conspiracy theory is X, I will use it to mean both X and Y" or something.
But again, the general understanding of the phrase "conspiracy theory" is clear to any native-speaking American. That the website you linked had to spend a few paragraphs talking about it strongly suggests this. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 18:14:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Conspiracy Theory:
From Wikipedia--A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence. Researchers who advocate the conspiratorial view claim that most major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
From American Heritage Dictionary--conspiracy theory, n., A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
As such, the government's descriptions of what occurred on 9-11-01 qualify.
I'm still not sure why some of you get so bent out of shape over that. It makes you look silly. I don't get why you get stuck on the term. Why not just get over it and move on?
NO!! The story of the 9/11 hijackers isn't secret! The data have been published! The official story can tell us who did it and how! The hijackers made films about what they were going to do. Al-Qaeda has all but taken credit for it! There is no secret element to the official story of 9/11.
Any native-speaking American (or Canadian or Brit, etc., for that matter) gets this. That you don't is what's silly. And if you wanted to "move on" you wouldn't have bothered to find definitions to support your claim and post them after having already addressed it.  |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 18:39:24 [Permalink]
|
Ergo-- tomorrow, why not prove us wrong. Go ask ten random people the following question:
"Have you heard about the 9/11 conspiracy theory?"
If the say yes, ask what they heard.
If they say no, say the following:
"This theory says that 19 men boarded planes and slammed then into 3 major US landmarks. A 4th plane was also probably supposed to his such a landmark, but crashed in Pennsylvania "
Record or write down the reactions you get from this and let us know how it went. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 19:25:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I wish people here would have just answered "No" to my question on expertise. It would have saved me the time of finding it out the long way.
You haven't yet shown that the buildings fell "at near free-fall speed." All you've done is claim that the 9/11 Commission Report claims that they fell in 10 seconds. You haven't shown that the Report actually claims any such thing (much like you refuse to support your assertion that the Report presents an explanation of why the towers collapsed). And the current official story has the collapse taking more than twice as long. You won't bother to address that, though, since it interferes with what you think is the "status quo," and therefore would eliminate your dream of being a glorious underdog, fighting for the Truth-with-a-capital-T.
But you're no hero of science, since you're afraid to question the beliefs in your own head. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 21:28:14 [Permalink]
|
Cunei: It is the government's conspiracy theory--i.e., the theory the government has about the conspiracy (involving the secretive man named Osama Ben Laden, and his secretive organization called al-Qaeda) to attack targets in the USA.
Not that the government was involved in the conspiracy!
Why is it so hard for you to understand--that " ' " between "government" and "s" indicates possessive.
And like you said, if our government came out and told of its role in the attacks of 9-11-01 it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory--it would be a confession. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/04/2006 22:13:54 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The physics behind the collapses
Topic Locked
