|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 10/11/2006 : 08:48:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I wish I knew a way to make this clear to all of you. I'm not against providing evidence for the CD conspiracy theory. I just want to see if the official conspiracy theory is on weak-enough ground before I spend time on making a case for the CD conspiracy theory. As I have admitted here, my current belief in the CD theory is based on intuition--a gut feeling. This gut feeling is
based largely on my impression that official story doesn't add up.
<snipped for brevity>
Then my advice to you would be to quit making assertions of fact based on your gut-feeling-intuition of controlled demolition.
Because when you do, our initial reaction is to ask for you to back it up.
quote:
Maybe it's your way of telling me you have no independent support for the official theory. If so, just admit it and we can move on to the CD theory.
IMHO, that has been provided. We can't force you to look at it, or even accept that it is that.
So, perhaps you should just go ahead and assume that the official explanation is not validated to your satisfaction and that we cannot provide you with what you want/need, and proceed with producing a working theory based on CD.
Then, once you have your theory put together will all the proper research, scientific references, etc., you can then produce this and then we will decide if it meets our criteria for validation.
Because, we are also open to other possible theories, as long as they match our expectations and criteria.
How long do you think it will take for you to produce your theory?
Until then, good luck with your research.
(Note 1: I only speak for myself here, and do not represent the opinions of the rest of the group. With them, YMMV.)
(Note 2: I in no way admit that there is no independent evidence to support the official explanation.) |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 10/11/2006 08:52:06 |
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 09:10:30 [Permalink]
|
| I second Pleco's position. We have provided all the necessary independent support/information. Now you can form your own Hypothesis about 9/11 and come back when you do. |
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.] |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 09:11:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123
What part of my rather simple and admittedly speculative explanation do you find enters the realm of fantasy?
I'll give you speculative, but simple? Yours is by far the most complicated explanation of the two scenarios. There is nothing simple about it. In fact, it is the complexity of implementing the hypothesis that you favor that makes it the least likely of the two.
That complexity, on every level, is exactly what makes it an extraordinary claim…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 10:55:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123
What part of my rather simple and admittedly speculative explanation do you find enters the realm of fantasy?
I'll give you speculative, but simple? Yours is by far the most complicated explanation of the two scenarios. There is nothing simple about it. In fact, it is the complexity of implementing the hypothesis that you favor that makes it the least likely of the two.
That complexity, on every level, is exactly what makes it an extraordinary claim…
It's not a fcuknig claim!!! I was asked to explain how a CD could be accomplished where the explosions occur after the building starts falling. And I gave a scenario of how that could be done.
You have "claim" and "prove it" on the brain. Is there no room on this site to discuss ideas that are not claims or proofs? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 12:48:28 [Permalink]
|
| Now this is a waste of cyberspace! You make no claims and address no other claims for nine pages? What the FUCK is your point ergo? |
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.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 12:51:14 [Permalink]
|
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
It's not a fcuknig claim!!!
It certainly is a claim. One of many that you have made here.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 13:11:25 [Permalink]
|
| Ahhh...here we go. The same meltdown that every other 911 loon has when questioned on the ridiculousness of their idiotic scenarios.... |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 14:30:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
ergo(liar)123 said:
quote:
It's not a fcuknig claim!!!
It certainly is a claim. One of many that you have made here.
How is responding to a hypothetical question a claim? |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 15:21:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Now this is a waste of cyberspace! You make no claims and address no other claims for nine pages? What the FUCK is your point ergo?
As my op clearly points out, I am trying to gather evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory of what happened to Towers 1 & 2 of the WTC. This effort is not a claim--it is a request.
It's that simple.
But I'm beginning to suspect that the only evidence you people have that supports the final NIST Report is information and claims found in the final NIST Report or supplied by some other Federal office. And that's okay. Reading and re-reading the NIST Report makes it pretty obvious that the events we all saw just don't line up so well with what NIST concluded in their final report.
Sure, NIST explains some of the events we saw. But the events (in total) were not just unrelated, isolated events. They formed a system. To simulate the behavior of materials until the buildings "were poised to collapse" and simulating the entire, complete collapse of the those buildings is 2 different things.
It's interesting to note that most of the alternative conspiracy theories I've read focus on events that occurred while and after the buildings completely collapsed. I think they probably do that because it is the collapse itself, and the evidence at the scene after the collapse that doesn't add up with the official story of why they collapsed. It must be a coincidence that both NIST and the 9/11 Commission were told the scope of their work was to begin at airplane impact and end just before the buildings actually started to collapse. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 17:49:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123
What part of my rather simple and admittedly speculative explanation do you find enters the realm of fantasy?
I'll give you speculative, but simple? Yours is by far the most complicated explanation of the two scenarios. There is nothing simple about it. In fact, it is the complexity of implementing the hypothesis that you favor that makes it the least likely of the two.
That complexity, on every level, is exactly what makes it an extraordinary claim…
It's not a fcuknig claim!!! I was asked to explain how a CD could be accomplished where the explosions occur after the building starts falling. And I gave a scenario of how that could be done.
You have "claim" and "prove it" on the brain. Is there no room on this site to discuss ideas that are not claims or proofs?
Oh sorry. I didn't mean for you to get your knickers in a bunch over this. Let me rephrase then…
That complexity, on every level, is exactly why the theory that you have said that you favor, many times on this and in other threads, would need extraordinary supporting evidence if it is to be taken seriously…
How's that?
Remember to breath…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 18:47:45 [Permalink]
|
Visit www.implosionworld.com
Read their interesting analysis on controlled demolition scenario of WTC.
quote:
A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint
<snip>
Purpose
The purpose of this analysis is to explore the possibility of explosives or similar suplemental catalysts causing or contributing to the collapse of World Trade Center...
<snip>
This report will not, nor it it intended to, address the much wider scope of unanswered questions regarding those events. Rather this is a reasoned, factual analysis of a single group of questions and allegations that fall within our specific area of expertise. To that end, we hope that this report will be of benefit to all interested parties.
While the NIST report does not explicitly exclude nor comment on controlled demolition, a controlled demolition scenario and the NIST report looke to me like they are mutually exclusive. What other alternatives are there that are remotely plausible?
If they are mutually exclusive, then an analysis that rule out one scenario will support the other.
|
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. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 19:06:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
ergo123
What part of my rather simple and admittedly speculative explanation do you find enters the realm of fantasy?
I'll give you speculative, but simple? Yours is by far the most complicated explanation of the two scenarios. There is nothing simple about it. In fact, it is the complexity of implementing the hypothesis that you favor that makes it the least likely of the two.
That complexity, on every level, is exactly what makes it an extraordinary claim…
It's not a fcuknig claim!!! I was asked to explain how a CD could be accomplished where the explosions occur after the building starts falling. And I gave a scenario of how that could be done.
You have "claim" and "prove it" on the brain. Is there no room on this site to discuss ideas that are not claims or proofs?
Oh sorry. I didn't mean for you to get your knickers in a bunch over this. Let me rephrase then…
That complexity, on every level, is exactly why the theory that you have said that you favor, many times on this and in other threads, would need extraordinary supporting evidence if it is to be taken seriously…
How's that?
Remember to breath…
Granted. But this thread isn't about that theory. It never was. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 19:37:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Visit www.implosionworld.com
Read their interesting analysis on controlled demolition scenario of WTC.
quote:
A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint
<snip>
Purpose
The purpose of this analysis is to explore the possibility of explosives or similar suplemental catalysts causing or contributing to the collapse of World Trade Center...
<snip>
This report will not, nor it it intended to, address the much wider scope of unanswered questions regarding those events. Rather this is a reasoned, factual analysis of a single group of questions and allegations that fall within our specific area of expertise. To that end, we hope that this report will be of benefit to all interested parties.
While the NIST report does not explicitly exclude nor comment on controlled demolition, a controlled demolition scenario and the NIST report looke to me like they are mutually exclusive. What other alternatives are there that are remotely plausible?
If they are mutually exclusive, then an analysis that rule out one scenario will support the other.
And the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?
There can be defined a group called Males that is mutually exclusive from a group called Females. Proving that Males cannot fly does not provide evidence that Females can.
But thanks for your post. It got me thinking about me stance that if the official conspiracy theory is supported well enough, that I would drop the CD conspiracy theory. But of course, it is possible that the complete collapse could have happened without explosives, even if explosives were used. (Note, this is not a claim.) I mean Kevin Ryan, from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report. He argued that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451).
NIST, to my knowledge, provides no such likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan's analysis shows the probability that fires and damage could cause a complete collapse of the towers is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included.
And given the fact that NIST doesn't even attempt to explain why the buildings completely collapsed--or any of the damage to materials of the buildings, or evidence found after the buildings fell, I'll just go ahead and look for evidence of the cd conspiracy theory, and leave the official conspiracy theory in the dust it can't explain. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 19:59:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I think they probably do that because it is the collapse itself, and the evidence at the scene after the collapse that doesn't add up with the official story of why they collapsed.
You have yet to show this to be true. Why should we believe that? |
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.] |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 20:01:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ergo123:
...one in a trillion...
I love these kinds of statistics. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
Just to be clear...
Topic Locked
