|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
 Posted - 10/08/2006 : 14:34:46
|
This thread is for you to post evidence you have that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 on 9-11-01.
If you do not have evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 on 9-11-01, please do not post anything on this thread.
Also, please do not post any evidence from the NIST Report, as I've seen it already.
Thank you in advance for you cooperation.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 14:39:18 [Permalink]
|
| Just to be clear, ergo, when you say "supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to as 'the official story') of what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 on 9-11-01," you're really just asking what happend to make the buildings collapse, right? Or in other words, you want people to post evidence that the WTC could collapse if a jet liner slammed into it, correct? |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 14:59:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Just to be clear, ergo, when you say "supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to as 'the official story') of what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 on 9-11-01," you're really just asking what happend to make the buildings collapse, right? Or in other words, you want people to post evidence that the WTC could collapse if a jet liner slammed into it, correct?
No. I'm looking for evidence, other than the NIST Report, that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to this as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01.
Think of it this way: Think of the NIST Report as being the official conspiracy theory of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01. Dave at least suggested--if not stated as much--that the NIST Report was the "official story." Now, find independent evidence that supports the findings in the NIST Report.
In other words, treat the NIST Report like the bible. One shouldn't cite what the bible says as evidence that what the bible says is true, right?
So I'm looking for independent--i.e., non-government-linked--evidence that the NIST report is valid.
Further, I don't want to get into, nor will I engage in, a debate over why the evidence I'm seeking needs to be non-government-linked. If you have non-government-linked evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to this as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01, please post it. If not, please move on.
If you want to whine about the criteria I have put and just now added to my request, start your own thread about it or write your representatives in congress.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 15:05:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No. I'm looking for evidence, other than the NIST Report, that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to this as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01.
I'm asking if we all agree that, for instance, planes hit the WTC. And if we do that, then the only thing that would be in dispute is the question of whether the act of crashing the planes was enough to make the towers collapse or whether something else-- like explosives-- was enough. I was just asking for clarification. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 15:20:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
No. I'm looking for evidence, other than the NIST Report, that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to this as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01.
I'm asking if we all agree that, for instance, planes hit the WTC. And if we do that, then the only thing that would be in dispute is the question of whether the act of crashing the planes was enough to make the towers collapse or whether something else-- like explosives-- was enough. I was just asking for clarification.
Nothing is in dispute. I am simply (or what I thought was simply!) looking for non-government-linked evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to this as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01.
If the NIST Report says the buildings were hit by planes, then evidence supporting that would be appropriate. I am not disputing what the NIST Report says--I'm just looking for supporting evidence for what it says. If the NIST Report does NOT claim the buildings were hit by planes, then evidence supporting the buildings were hit by planes would not be appropriate for this thread.
The non-government-linked criterion will be challenging. Any evidence that cites the NIST Report will, obviously, not qualify as non-government-linked evidence. Keep in mind, however, that a source will not be "disqualified" under this criterion--only specific pieces of evidence. So if, say, MIT supports the official story with A, B and C, but C is taken from the NIST Report (while A & B weren't), I will toss out C, but still consider A & B. That is, of course, unless MIT is receiving government funds (Federal). That would make them government-linked. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:11:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
The non-government-linked criterion will be challenging.
Indeed. Since the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a government entity, then none of the floor plans or design notes qualify as "non-government-linked" evidence. In other words, all evidence related to how the buildings were built is evidence that you'll toss out. Any quotes from cops, firemen, or other governmental employees will also be prejudicially thrown out. All that's left is video, photographs, news articles and quotes from private citizens and non-governmental corporations, very few of whom were actually allowed into the crash site for safety reasons.
I'm surprised you're not asking for evidence that any evidence presented is non-governmental in nature. If someone posts a photo credited to Joe Schmoe, how do we know that Mr. Schmoe isn't on the government payroll? Of course, once you allow in that sort of speculation, all bets are off for anything that might be considered evidence under your restrictive rules. |
- 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 - 10/08/2006 : 16:35:39 [Permalink]
|
Is the port authority a FEDERAL agency? If so, then you are right--any evidence provided by them is inappropriate for this thread.
I'm not sure why you said "Of course, once you allow in that sort of speculation, all bets are off for anything that might be considered evidence under your restrictive rules."
I'm not making any rules of what is or isn't considered evidence. I just stipulated what I wanted posted on this thread.
So if you don't have any evidence of the type I'm looking for, please just stay off the thread.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:45:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Is the port authority a FEDERAL agency? If so, then you are right--any evidence provided by them is inappropriate for this thread.
What's it matter if it's a Federal agency, when all sorts of state and city personnel have to be in kahoots with the Feds in order to pull off the explosives conspiracy? Aren't you dismissing government-sourced evidence because it will necessarily be "tainted" in order to maintain the cover-up? But yes, the Port Authority was created under the Federal Constitution as a governmental body since it deals with the regulatory authority of two independent states, as well as interstate and international commerce.quote:
I'm not sure why you said "Of course, once you allow in that sort of speculation, all bets are off for anything that might be considered evidence under your restrictive rules."
I'm not making any rules of what is or isn't considered evidence. I just stipulated what I wanted posted on this thread.
Yes, you set the rules for what you will consider as "evidence" in this thread, and what you will "toss out."quote:
So if you don't have any evidence of the type I'm looking for, please just stay off the thread.
Just like Cune, I'm trying to clarify what will and won't be accepted before even trying. You titled the thread, "Just to be clear..." so be clear, and answer the implied question:
If a photo is offered to you in this thread, and John Doe Private Citizen claims to have taken the photo, will you demand evidence that John Doe is not a Federal, state or local employee? Yes, no or maybe? What are the criteria? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:47:14 [Permalink]
|
The Port Authority is not a federal agency. Its full name is The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It's a bi-state agency. Thus their documents aren't acceptable, right?
Edited: Thought you'd said only federal agencies were excluded. Never mind! |
| Edited by - Master Yoda on 10/08/2006 17:02:51 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 16:49:06 [Permalink]
|
From the other thread:
quote:
You have asked me for evidence that my theory is true and i have declined your request. It's not that i don't understand your request, i just choose not to comply with your request. Repeating your request will only result in me continuing to say "no."
So you can take this thread and shove it. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 17:00:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
The Port Authority is not a federal agency. Its full name is The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It's a bi-state agency.
I was wrong: "The Port Authority is jointly headed by the governors of New York and New Jersey."quote:
Thus their documents should be acceptable, right?
Only if there's some sort of arbitrary assumption, "Federal equals crooked, but State equals honest." I don't know why that should be the case, since the Feds can just as easily bribe a state employee into lying as they can their own employees. The threat of jack-booted thugs smashing in your door to feast on your childrens' livers works either way. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 18:50:06 [Permalink]
|
| Is all the mathematic models (evidence?) on all of the Conspiracy debunking sites (such as popular mechanics website), as well as, the eye witness video and extra-video reports of seeing two airplanes crashing into the buildings counted? Was not everything you, Ergo, are complaining about covered in the previous thread? The conspriracy theory you are supporting is not backed by evidence of any kind. The only thing (non government oriented) that can be proven is that two planes that were highjacked by islamic terrorist did crash into the building and set several floor on fire (seen on the video). All else is speculation. I think you are just trying to isolate all the evidence that could be considered and throwing it out just to say "Now, see here no evidence to support a non-conspiracy theory therefore it was a conspiracy." It is the same as the bible thumber saying "I am not considering any arguments of non christians or those affiliated with non christians, and since no christians disbelief in god he must be real." Seriously, where are you going with this? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 19:13:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
I'm not sure why you said "Of course, once you allow in that sort of speculation, all bets are off for anything that might be considered evidence under your restrictive rules."
I'm not making any rules of what is or isn't considered evidence. I just stipulated what I wanted posted on this thread.
quote:
Yes, you set the rules for what you will consider as "evidence" in this thread, and what you will "toss out."
But that isn't the same as making rules regarding what is evidence and what isn't evidence. I'm just asking people to restrict what they post on this thread. Believe it or not, what happens on this thread does not impact the entire world.
quote:
So if you don't have any evidence of the type I'm looking for, please just stay off the thread.
quote:
Just like Cune, I'm trying to clarify what will and won't be accepted before even trying. You titled the thread, "Just to be clear..." so be clear, and answer the implied question:
If a photo is offered to you in this thread, and John Doe Private Citizen claims to have taken the photo, will you demand evidence that John Doe is not a Federal, state or local employee? Yes, no or maybe? What are the criteria?
For you, Dave, use the following rule of thumb: When in doubt, just don't post it. I think that will make both our lives easier. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 19:15:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda
The Port Authority is not a federal agency. Its full name is The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It's a bi-state agency. Thus their documents aren't acceptable, right?
Edited: Thought you'd said only federal agencies were excluded. Never mind!
I did say only the Feds are excluded. Thanks for paying attention! I think you might be the first one to do that!! Dave took it upon himself to add state and local governments. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 19:17:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
From the other thread:
quote:
You have asked me for evidence that my theory is true and i have declined your request. It's not that i don't understand your request, i just choose not to comply with your request. Repeating your request will only result in me continuing to say "no."
So you can take this thread and shove it.
I'll take that as a "I don't have any evidence that didn't come from the official conspiracy theory..." Thanks for being honest--that's the first step. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2006 : 19:19:37 [Permalink]
|
| NO! You said "non-government". That was not specific enough to mean just the Federalis. So quit patting yourself on the back. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Just to be clear...
Topic Locked
