An appeal to 9/11 conspiracy theorists

[clarky003]

Peer review is a reviewable write up or experiment from those in the same proffessional field. Im not stupid, yet you try to make anyone who questions the origional story of events seem that way as if everything has already been answered and all of the pre attack incompetance on officials parts is just an unfortunate mass coincidence. Like I said there are peer review papers from the 911 scholars for truth, its just the way you both try to put it across is as if nothing other than government body reviewed papers are valid, atleast have listen to David Ray Griffin's commentary on the commission report. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=David+Ray+Griffin

Edit: MIT engineers analysis of the collapses.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Wow, Clarky really doesn't understand what Peer Review means.

That explains a lot.
That honestly explains everything.

So the hundreds of proffessional such as civil engineers and physicists in the scholars for 911 truth who agree that physical characteristics dont explain the collapses particularly in the case of building 7 arn't under peer assesment from one another?.. is something only peer reviewed when it goes through government bodies?

This is not what Peer Review is.

where is the reasoning in that when the governments conclusions contradict the physics such as conservation of energy and law of entropy in the collapses, and people can keep being in denial about it but its blatantly clear the buildings all collapsed at near freefall speed in a vacuum, you can find all the calculations and peer reviewed papers you need on their site www.ST911.org .

BURDEN OF PROOF.
Give me direct links to and quotes for the following claims:
-"The towers fell at freefall speed."
-"the collapses contradict the laws of physics such as conservation of energy and entropy"
-"a pentagon missile defense system was operational in 2001"

If you fail to do so, I will have to assume you are making them up.

There are three purportedly "peer reviewed" papers listed on that site.
They are written by Steven E. Jones, David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott.

Jone's paper was reviewed by Griffin, and is therefore not objective.
Griffin's paper does not list any reviewers or publications.
Scott's paper is still undergoing revision and has not been peer-reviewed.

So, in terms of actual peer-review, NONE of these papers qualify.

It is also well known that no interceptors where able to get to any targets in time because they were all conducting war games on a simulated terrorist attack of the same nature on that very day at that very time, it just so happens most aircraft in the Washington / Newyork areas where participating in these drills.

That is not proof of any conspiracy. That is proof that the aircraft were conducting drills. Nothing more.

You are again exhibiting a HINDSIGHT BIAS by making a FALLACIOUS POST HOC ARGUMENT.

Stop using fallacious reasoning.

But you can contend with the more solid facts, how the guy who could barely handle a cessna wanted to pull off an impossible manouver to hit the renovated section of the pentagon when he could of just flew straight into it and done more damage.

This is another example of the HINDSIGHT BIAS.

However, this time you exhibiting it via a COMPLEX QUESTION FALLACY that presupposes both that:
1) There was no reason for the pilot to turn
and
2) The pilot was not physically capable of piloting the plane.
Neither of these premises are valid.

Lets also not forget the intial damage before there was reportedly a second explosion which collapsed the facade.

Good Lord, are you STILL claiming that the pentagon wasn't hit by a plane?

That claim has been consistenly debunked by everyone.

Even your own conspiracy theorists:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/jetliner.html
http://911review.com/errors/phantom/bumble.html
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

You, on the other hand, have naught but four Jpegs.

Story of your life, as I have said.

 

[clarky003]

I really didn't word it very well, but I knew exactley what it meant despite what you think. Possibly you may decide to grow up and instead of personally attacking me with what you call 'debunking' (which is nothing more than citing the official whitehouse version of events, you can lisen to how thorough they are in David Ray Griffin's commentary on the commission report), lisen to the physicists and civil engineers in the scholars for truth movement. You want debate with people who have peer reviewed papers.. go debate with them.

You talk constantly about logic aswell, and I dont question your logic.. I question your reasoning of thought. You have blinkers on, you implicitly assume that demolishion conclusions are implausable because of where the outcome of that hypothesis leads in your mind, basically Pathological science.. you do not believe the end result because of whatever reason.. (idealistic views) so therefore despite the near recorded freefall in vacuum speeds and lack of thourough investigation you reject any other possibility.

1) There was no reason for the pilot to turn
and
2) The pilot was not physically capable of piloting the plane.
Neither of these premises are valid.

It seems the reason he went for the more difficult manouver was so he can hit the renovated side of the pentagon, that stares you in the face.. pretty clever no?

It is more likely he was not physically capable considering the commentary by his flight instructor indicating he couldnt even handle a light aircraft properly. Need I repeat that.

Your assuming the least likely events given the circumstances and information.

Story of your life, as I have said.

Are you spying on me or something do you follow me around?, You don't know me other than my interest in the investigations and events around 911 so that shows you up for the condescending twozok you are.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Edit: MIT engineers analysis of the collapses.

Minute-by-minute analysis of the analysis:

1:20 - Intro sequence. People hear loud noises and say they "sound like" explosions.
This is ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE, as lots of things can "sound like" an explosion without being explosives.
It is especially bad that these quotes are taken from journalists, lay people and firemen and not anyone qualified to identify an explosive device based on sound.
Also, the conclusion based on this anecdotal evidence (that explosives exist) is based on a COMPLEX QUESTION FALLACY. This is deceptive and fallacious.

1:30 - The man is an ELECTRICAL engineer.
Why do you constantly omit the scientific domain of the individual, Clarky?
You're constantly calling Steven E. Jones a physicist, omitting that he is a NUCLEAR physicist.
This is deceptive.

2:00 - Our electrical engineer showed his demolitions expert friend to look at puffs of smoke that were "clearly" squibs. The expert then claimed that there is NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.
There is no cause to reject all other explanations outright, leaving this, again, a COMPLEX QUESTION FALLACY.

2:40 - This, for the record, is his hypothesis: "There exists no convincing and detailed account."

3:20 - The debris being recycled is taken to be a sign of a conspiracy. This is POST HOC reasoning.

3:50 - Our electrical engineer states that the WTC should have been reconstructed like TWA Flight 800, forgeting that the towers were tens on thousands of times larger. This is a FALSE ANALOGY.

5:00 - He claims the smoke in building 2 was "very black" indicating that the fire was actually cold. The video then shows us two pictures of LIGHT GREY smoke coming from the buildings.
He also claims that the office materials would not burn, but provides no evidence of such.

Both these things shirk the BURDEN OF PROOF.

6:20 - Guy says the core "should have withstood the damage" without qualifying that statement.
Guy says "the core contained no flammable materials" but then lists drywall and carpeting, and ignores the jet fuel.

6:50 - "The core was hermetically sealed." The core was not.

7:50 - list of various studies that "debunk" early pancake theories presented by a TV documentary. None are peer-reviewed. Most are avaliable on the internet.
Claims NIST does not support floor collapse, but leaves out that they do, obviously support an extremely similar sequence of events that does not involve explosives.

Wait, I thought NIST was a tool of the government?
Now he's QUOTE MINING them.

10:40 - Dust clouds could "only be caused by explosives". This claim isn't proven in any way, except through FALSE ANALOGY comparisons to a volcano.
You do not need an explosive for an ejection of dust to occur in a collapsing building. He is shirking the BURDEN OF PROOF by assuming the explosives are commonsense.

He also says he hasn't heard any other explanations, which is patently untrue.

12:00 - "Steel keeps a lot of its structural integrity even when heated." actual steel experts have determined that the WTC steel would have lost 90% of its strength.

Again, he is keeping his claims vague and ignoring any other explanation.

13:00 - Electrical engineer claims there was no possible way for the building to withstand more damage after the crash, ignoring the fires. This is another case of COMPLEX QUESTION.

13:10 - "It's hard to imagine office contents heating up." You aren't supposed to be imagining, stupid!

14:00 - Electrical guy says that fire drills a few weeks before the collapse are proof that "someone knew what was going to happen." This is a POST HOC argument.

Electrical guy calls power downs were "times when explosive charges could have been planted"
This is WISHFUL THINKING.

14:30 - "Okie that's all I have to say. Thank you!"
No, thank you guy working outside his field doing Science By Press Conference and presenting unproven premises based on fallacies as conclusions.

I am becoming very tired of BRIGHT RED ARROWS pointing to BLURRY CLOUDS in PIXELATED JPEGS.

 

[clarky003]

So would you prefer it not to be addressed? like it has been by offcial investigations. But again I can't help but feel it's pathological scientific reasoning in the denial of governmental invlovement or complicity. You find the alternative explaination no matter how unlikely or contradictory to scientific principals, anyway given he's a MIT engineer and knows what hes talking about im more inclined to lisen to him, unless you would like to submit a peer review paper to attempt to debunk that analysis.

NUCLEAR physicist.

thats a distortion, hes a BYU physicists , where did you get that from?

there are hundreds of good physicists and civil engineers in the movement.

I am becoming very tired of adressing these important issues

corrected. come up with something better or order the DVD where the images are of much better quality.

The moments before the collapses the smoke is very dark.. he's clearly not refering to that image in particular. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151 &q=WTC+1&pl=true

"The core was hermetically sealed." The core was not.

This is where you are wrong, if you read about the design of the building it was designed in 3 segments and each section is hermetically sealed in event of a fire http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/520856/posts.

actual steel experts have determined that the WTC steel would have lost 90% of its strength,

NIST determined non of its samples exceeded 600 C, where do you get your facts?? 600 C at maximum efficiencey transfering to the steel would weaken it 50% within 2/3 of the stress it can handle for a period of 3 hours without comprimising integrity, which is why steel structures with protection are very resistant to fires.

You aren't supposed to be imagining, stupid!

Thats what NIST did! imagined.. tested... didnt collapse, imagined more intense fires.. tested.. only failed in extreme case cenarios. No collapse models where built tested or visualised

This is ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE

The floors pancaked ontop each other, fires did this. This is also anecdotal evidence as there is no solid proof other than extreme case tweaked computer models. Even then it doesn't show how they would fall.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I really didn't word it very well, but I knew exactley what it meant despite what you think.

You claimed that Peer Review does not need to be objective, or published by mainstream science.
Both those things are essential to the peer review process.

You also claimed your website had peer-reviewed articles when it did not.

Possibly you may decide to grow up and instead of personally attacking me with what you call 'debunking' (which is nothing more than citing the official whitehouse version of events, you can lisen to how thorough they are in David Ray Griffin's commentary on the commission report)

Debunking is the verb that describes what I am doing.
If that offends you, please stop presenting bunk.

As for Griffin, summarize his points. I have already watched three 9/11 videos and all contain the same shoddy work and baseless claims.

Also, you are saying that since something comes from the governement, it is inherently untrustworthy.
This is wrong for two reasons:
1) The NIST is not created by the government, but rather by mainstream science as a veriatble whole. Therefore, the claim is a FALLACIOUS STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.
2) Claiming the government must be untrustworthy is a personal bias, and somewhat of a WISDOM OF DISGUST FALLACY.

lisen to the physicists and civil engineers in the scholars for truth movement. You want debate with people who have peer reviewed papers.. go debate with them.

So, you are rejecting all forms of peer review, a main staple of all valid scientific procedure, as unecessary?

Stop using faith-based arguments.

You talk constantly about logic aswell, and I dont question your logic.. I question your reasoning of thought.

Logic and reasoning are synonyms.

Goya famously stated that "The sleep of reason produces monsters."

In other words, when you reject logical thought and mainstream science, yet continue to act "sciencey", you are inventing a dangerous fantasy world.

Pathological science.. you do not believe the end result because of whatever reason.. (idealistic views) so therefore despite the near recorded freefall in vacuum speeds and lack of thourough investigation you reject any other possibility.

The fact that you cannot deny my logic shows that I am not exhibiting a bias.
Or, that if were, that bias is not influencing my conclusions.

this is maybe the hundredth time you have FAILED TO PROVIDE PROOF of the simple "freefall speed" claim.

Baxter provided sourcing showing the towers fell 3-5 seconds slower than freefall.

Are you spying on me or something do you follow me around?, You don't know me so that shows you up for the condescending twozok you are.

I am rather convinced that BRIGHT RED ARROWS pointing to BLURRY CLOUDS in PIXELATED JPEGS are an accurate summary of your belief system.

Considering, as an example, that you claim 9/11 defies conservation of energy, yet continuously claim to have invented perpetual motion machines.

You provide evidence that the terrorist exists and is a substandard pilot, and then simultaneously claim that he doesn't exist and was actually a space missile.

You claim that the towers were blown up by demolition squibs, but then claim that the were melted down by thermite.

So really, the idea that you'll latch onto whatever fantasy seems convincing is not unfounded.


I argue that, if you continue to avoid logical thought while simultaneously claiming to be scientific, you posts constitute nonsense and, therefore, spam.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

thats a distortion, hes a BYU physicists , where did you get that from?

"Steven Earl Jones is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy."

"Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, 'I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims'.

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: 'The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.'"

Yet another Clarky-claim dismantled. Distortion my eye. Notice your knee-jerk reaction and immediate assumption that my point was flawed.

there are hundreds of good physicists and civil engineers in the movement.

However, only one has been "peer reviewed" and that review is highly suspect because it was not conducted by objective parties. (Griffin and Scott)
Also, he is not a "good" physicist because his domain is NUCLEAR physics.
Since there are "hundreds" of other "experts", yet none have anything scientifically valid to say, this is an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY.

come up with something better or order the DVD where the images are of much better quality.

BURDEN OF PROOF
If you cannot provide adequate proof in the face of criticism, your argument is not valid.

The moments before the collapses the smoke is very dark..

So, moments before the collapse, the fire had cooled down?
That means the fire was very hot for most of the hour or so that the building stood.

This still fails to prove progressive collapse impossible. Also, that the smoke was dark only "moments before collapse" shows that Electrical Guy was being deceptive in saying WTC 2 did not have hot fire.

This is where you are wrong, if you read about the design of the building it was designed in 3 segments and each section is hermetically sealed in event of a fire http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/520856/posts.

This is called QUOTE MINING.
I would like to see exact proofs that the core was airtight, not just a mangled quote ... full of ... elipses.

EDIT:

The quotes aren't even from the real architect. The real architect who designed the WTC was named Minoru Yamasaki, not Aaron Swirski.

 

[clarky003]

this is maybe the hundredth time you have FAILED TO PROVIDE PROOF of the simple "freefall speed" claim.

Well that's all I have to quote really because you clearly dont want to time it yourself, proving your just not bothered or in denial about the most simple of matters. Do the physics for yourself

So, moments before the collapse, the fire had cooled down?
That means the fire was very hot for most of the hour or so that the building stood.

Find us all some nice solid proof that the fires could weaken all that steel symmetrically and people will be more inclined to believe the official pancake theory, even though pancaking would encounter all that resistance of the intact structure below which is the contradiciting nature of the physical evidence, as there is next to no resistance in the total collapse.

would like to see exact proofs that the core was airtight, not just a mangled quote ... full of ... elipses.

The government has the plans so ask them, they are 'classified' along with the confiscated video evidence of the pentagon, and the supposed 3 flight recorders that where recovered.

Best thing to do otherwise is lisen to the architect of the building.

 

[B_MAN]

peer review, and conflicting scientific data aside,

what about the government's concealment of evidence?
for example:

-the five frames of grainy film released depicting the explosion at the pentagon..
why not release the video surveillance of neighboring buildings?
why is there no evidence of a plane hitting the building(in the film)?
-why was much of the debris from ground zero shipped off immediately after
the incident? before it could be examined
-why hasn't the flight data recorder info for flight 93 been released to the
public?
instead, they've only allowed the victim's families to listen to
inconclusive bits of the cockpit voice recorder.. which they've been told
not to discuss with anyone
why don't they just back up all their claims by releasing every single bit of
data available?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well that's all I have to quote really because you clearly dont want to time it yourself, proving your just not bothered or in denial about the most simple of matters. Do the physics for yourself

The "ten seconds" they use as a figure is clearly not an exact measurement, but rather an estimation or simplification.

The actual measurements are 2-4 seconds slower than that, as baxter has shown in this thread.

By basing their conclusions off an estimate and not an actual time, they are making a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.

Find us all some nice solid proof that the fires could weaken all that steel symmetrically and people will be more inclined to believe the official pancake theory,

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.
The fires didn't nee to weaken the steel "symmetrically".
They only needed to weaken it enough for enough supports to give way.

even though pancaking would encounter all that resistance of the intact structure below which is the contradiciting nature of the physical evidence, as there is next to no resistance in the total collapse.

There was enough resistance to slow the huge structure's fall by 3-6 seconds.

BURDEN OF PROOF dictates that you should have provided proper numbers in the first place.
BURDEN OF PROOF also dictates that you must prove that a structure of the WTC's size could not fall within that timeframe.
So far, you have only proven that it muct have been more than than 9.2 seconds. You have NOT stated how much it should be less than.

The government has the plans so ask them, they are 'classified' along with the confiscated video evidence of the pentagon, and the supposed 3 flight recorders that where recovered.

This is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

Best thing to do otherwise is lisen to the architect of the building.

You mean the guy who WAS NOT THE REAL ARCHITECT.

The real architect who designed the WTC was named Minoru Yamasaki, not Aaron Swirski.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

peer review, and conflicting scientific data aside,

Rejecting or ignoring those two factors invalidates any scientific argument.

-the five frames of grainy film released depicting the explosion at the pentagon..
why not release the video surveillance of neighboring buildings?
why is there no evidence of a plane hitting the building(in the film)?

The plane was seen by 100 eyewitnesses and its debris was found scattered throughout the scene.

Saying the missing video contains mystery facts that show that the plane was fake is an ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
It is also ENTHYMEME since you are assuming the video was deliberately covered up to fool people.
It is also a TRIVIAL OBJECTION since the missing videos are irrelevant in the face of all the other facts, such as the confirmation of 100 people, the peer-reviewed analysis of a variety of experts and the fact that THE PLANE'S PASSENGERS WERE FOUND DEAD AT THE SCENE.

-why was much of the debris from ground zero shipped off immediately after the incident? before it could be examined

This is more HINDSIGHT BIAS. There are plenty of reasons why they might not have wanted a smouldering pile of debris in the middle of New York.

Most of the same issues as with the point above apply here: ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE, ENTHYMEME and TRIVIAL OBJECTION.

-why hasn't the flight data recorder info for flight 93 been released to the
public?
instead, they've only allowed the victim's families to listen to
inconclusive bits of the cockpit voice recorder.. which they've been told
not to discuss with anyone
why don't they just back up all their claims by releasing every single bit of
data available?

Again: ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE, ENTHYMEME and TRIVIAL OBJECTION.

The government could be keeping this information for any number of reasons. I'm willing to bet that this is standard procedure.
Calling it evidence of a conspiracy, however, is fallacious reasoning and therefore not valid.
ESPECIALLY when it is contradicted by scientific thought as a whole.

You have every right to ask for these documents.
But, until you have them, you cannot make any valid conclusions concerning their contents.

Please try as hard as you can to make arguments that aren't fundamentally flawed.

 

[B_MAN]

mecha, i love how you conclude that my arguments, according to your precious fallacy thread, are somehow invalidated by the fact that im curious as to WHY the government has neglected to disclose information

you're just contradicting yourself by saying "There are plenty of reasons why they might not have wanted a smouldering pile of debris in the middle of New York." well, instead of quoting your logical fallacy article, why dont you provide me with some?
"..the missing videos are irrelevant in the face of all the other facts, such as the confirmation of 100 people" well, if thats the case, then where would the danger be in releasing unedited surveillance footage?
"The government could be keeping this information for any number of reasons. I'm willing to bet that this is standard procedure." is this not fallacious reasoning and therefore not valid? you're willing to bet..

im afraid, since none of us work for the bush/cheney administration, and therefore cannot confirm ANYTHING, speculation is all we have to go on

 

[skull24]

I'm done with 9/11 conspiracys. The only thing that matters now is that we get the people who are responsible for the crime and thats it.

 

[baxter]

im afraid, since none of us work for the bush/cheney administration, and therefore cannot confirm ANYTHING, speculation is all we have to go on

Of course we do, other than scientific FACTS, common sense, logic, and our own belief that humanity would never sink to the depths the ghouls and idiots would drag us all down to, to justify their speculation, we have the truth.

The truth, incidentally is absolute, it does not reply on speculation, political agenda, wishful thinking or childish make believe.

It will always stand head and shoulders above the garbage that is promoted from internet conspiracy web sites.

Believe your own propaganda, believe your own loathsome version of events, believe whatever you want, I really don't care what you believe because your misguided views of anybody who forms there own ideas of what actually happened also coincides with the " official version " of events does not mean we are closed mined. It does not mean we have not considered the questions you think are so important. It means one thing. It means we have considered everything, unlike yourself and reached our own opinion.

Believing the “official version” of events as you like to slap in our faces is well removed from actually formulating your own ideas, something the ghouls and idiots are incapable of.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

mecha, i love how you conclude that my arguments, according to your precious fallacy thread, are somehow invalidated by the fact that im curious as to WHY the government has neglected to disclose information

You are not being purely curious. If you were, there would be no issue.
You are actually using your curiousity as an excuse to jump to several conclusions.
It's alright to ask questions. But you are not supposed to start imagining things once those questions aren't immediately answered.

The fallacious conclusions are as follows:

1: The pentagon footage wasn't released because it was dangerous.

2: NOTHING about 9/11 can be falsified unless you are in tha Bush administration.

3: The government cleaned up ground zero in an effort to conceal something.

4: The flight recorders are "inconclusive" and likely to be fabricated.

5: Footage from other cameras must have been clearer/better/than the one released. Also that the one released is likely fake.

None of these are rational conclusions.

The only reason you would want these things revealed is if you have already assumed that:

1: The pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, despite that all scientific research, eyewitness testimony and common sense demonstrate that it was.
2: Flight 93 was fake, despite all scientific research, eyewitness testimmony and common sense demonstrating otherwise.
3: The WTC was blown up by invisible bombs, despite that all scientific research and common sense demonstrating otherwise. And those few eyewitnesses who deny it are thouroughly contradicted by both the above.

Your questions are based on the above unstated assumptions aka ENTHYMEMES.

you're just contradicting yourself by saying "There are plenty of reasons why they might not have wanted a smouldering pile of debris in the middle of New York." well, instead of quoting your logical fallacy article, why dont you provide me with some?

Well I figured it would be self-evident, but here are five far more plausible reasons offhand:

1) The debris was considered a health/safety hazard.
2) The cleanup was an unwise symbolic effort.
3) The task of combing all the tonnes upon tonnes of debris for clues was deemed unfeasable.
4) Voters demanded that it be cleaned up.
5) They had simply neglected to consider the importance of the debris.

Note how none of these fly in the face of all scientific understanding as we know it.

you're willing bet..

I admitted outright that my opinion concerning why there would be a "coverup" is a guess.
If you say "I am guessing" and then guess, that's the truth.
As opposed to, for example, saying "I am only curious" and then concluding that there is a massive government coverup.

My guess is based on the following facts:
-The conspiracy theories are riddled with logical chasms, self-contradictions and pseudoscience.
-The official reports are plausible, consistent and scientifically valid.

Therefore, based on science and logic, there is no rational reason to believe 9/11 was staged.

If there is no rational reason to think 9/11 was staged, then the missing "evidence" can only be missing for mundane reasons.

In light of that logical conclusion, I am willing to bet that the mundane reason was simple bureaucracy.

speculation is all we have to go on

Dead Wrong.

Science is all we have to go on. And, frankly, science has repeatedly and consistently slapped you conspiracy guys six ways to sunday.

In the real world, there is such a thing as a stupid question.

The question is stupid when answers have already been provided to you, in the form of valid scientific research, and you keep asking the question anyways.

It's a sad form of STRAW MAN where you ignore scientific conclusions and focus on TRIVIAL OBJECTIONS based on ENTHYMEMES.

 

[clarky003]

science has repeatedly and consistently slapped you conspiracy guys six ways to sunday.

Considering pathological science is what brings you to your conclusions I don't think you can really comment.

The main reason you strongly appose any questioning of the official story is because quite obviously in your view of the world you find the alternative conclusion implausable and think everything has an official answer and conclusion already (not the case, especially with building 7). Which in turn leads you to ignore simple physical facts, fall times ( an extra 2 seconds still very close to freefall, you really have no idea, even experts have said a max of 15 seconds is still far too fast for the resistance that should of been posed by the intact structure below), etc that are not scientifically consistent with the official theory so you can discredit that alternative conclusion which is not yet truely known.

Saying your approaching it in a non biased manor and scientifically when.. and lets quote here,

and our own belief that humanity would never sink to the depths the ghouls and idiots would drag us all down to

..there is a clear defence for the innocence of people who you do not know, have no contact with, you basically still trust people who wiretap their own countrymen illegally, which of course is a bias. Amidst other things that have been said which show some peoples near complete lack of knowledge in the economic operations and processes which are all tied into this, such as the dependance of cashflow through the US economy from other nations and the economic events that took place around the drive to goto war, ie Iraq moving to the petro euro from the petro dollar.

It's complex, it's not as simple as the 'terroists hate our freedoms'. It's about money, it's about the US economy and it's dependance on other countries to keep it strong.

This video has nothing to do with 911 science but more so why it was good for the American economy, it's an economical timeline and compliation of facts from the mainstream and unclassified documents that attempt to explain the actions of the US government pre and post 911 and what it will lead to.

The truth and lies of 911

Also search for a book called The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski a member of the council on foreign relations, worked for intelligence under Ronald Reagan and one of the lead security taskforce advisors to the bush administration , It's shortsighted to presume these people are doing things for your best interests. The book gives you some insight into how these people think and it will scare the shit out of you.

 

[baxter]

Option A: What a normal sane person believes.

9/11 was a dreadful terrorist attack masterminded by Bin Laden. The towers came down because planes were flow into them. The pentagon was hit by flight 77.WTC 7 was hit by failing debris, burnt and fell down. The forth plane came down because the passengers fought back.

A massive independent investigation has produced reports that are universally accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

Option B: What the conspirators believe.

The US planned and executed it all by itself or with bin Laden. The towers were packed with explosives which brought them down. The Pentagon was hit by anything else other than a plane. WTC 7 was packed with explosives and was brought down as an insurance scam. The forth plane was brought down by a missile.

The massive independent report is a sham designed to cover up the truth that the following people were actually behind it.

CIA agent Larry Mitchell for meeting with bin Laden in the months before 9/11, and everyone else in the CIA who knows they're not actually trying to capture him after all
• GW Bush and various family members (if you're to believe the relevance of Bush family members being involved with the WTC security company Stratesec)
• Condoleezza Rice (if you believe she had enough knowledge to warn Willie Brown that he might be in danger)
• John Ashcroft (if you believe he had enough knowledge to decide not to fly commercial flights)
• Larry Silverstein (if you believe he knew 9/11 was coming and that there were explosives in WTC7)
• The 19 people who played the part of the hijackers, if you believe they were just their to play a role and were never on the planes
• Enough senior people at the FBI to block progress in the Moussaoui case, ensure the Phoenix memo was ignored, and more
• Ahmad Umar Sheikh for funding the hijackers, General Mahmoud Ahmad for ordering him to do so, and enough of the ISI to get the money and cover up that they were doing this for the US
• Everyone who found out about the attacks in advance, and chose not to go into work rather than warn anyone else, and didn't mention this after the fact (thousands of Israelis in the towers, and so on), and everyone who warned them
• Everyone responsible for the insider trading before the attacks, the CIA for supposedly monitoring these transactions but doing nothing about them, and enough of the SEC and FBI to ensure that the report was a whitewash
• The members of Bush’s secret service team on 9/11 (who presumably either knew in advance that he was safe, or haven’t spoken out about their surprise about what happened subsequently)
• The five "dancing Israelis" who filmed the attack "as it happened", and presumably many others in Israeli Intelligence, and enough people in the police or FBI to cover up the details of the case and get them shipped out
• Everyone responsible for planting evidence in the hijackers cars, bags and so on
• Everyone responsible for planting evidence in the WTC wreckage (passports etc), or removing it (WTC black boxes)
• Air Traffic Control and flight schedulers at the takeoff airports (to cope with the double flights), and to make sure they didn't follow procedure in reporting the hijackings promptly
• Whoever prepared the "special" planes swapped for the real flights, complete with "missile pod" for firing into the towers just before impact, and the ATC and Norad staff who didn't mention the swap
• Norad and senior officers working at the day (so they could lie about the war games and their lack of response)
• Fighter pilots who deliberately flew too slowly so they wouldn't reach the aircraft in time
• Whoever shot down Flight 93, and the senior officers who helped cover it up
• Everyone who researched the passengers, then all the actors who used that research to make fake mobile calls to their relatives, and either the phone company or the FBI for covering up the phone records
• Everyone involved in killing hundreds of passengers, assuming they didn't die in the crashes and were killed later
• Everyone involved in transporting their bodies to the various scenes if they did, or faking the DNA evidence if they didn't
• The people who researched the WTC to find out the best place to place explosives
• The people who planted the explosives through the WTC towers and WTC7
• Whoever detonated the WTC explosives at various different times of the day
• Enough of the New York Fire and Police Departments to shut up everyone else and make sure they didn't try to investigate why all their friends and colleagues died
• Everyone who prepared the remote control plane that really flew into the Pentagon, and whoever remote-controlled it, and the Washington Air Traffic Controllers who aren't allowed to talk about the extra radar blip they saw over the Pentagon (if Flight 77 really flew over it)
• The Sheraton hotel staff who reportedly saw the video of the plane as it flew past to the Pentagon, but have never said that it wasn't the "official" flight
• The people who ensured the Pentagon missile defence systems were disabled to the plane could hit
• The people who planted the fake Pentagon evidence, from body parts to black boxes, and those who prepared it
• The people who faked additional evidence around the Pentagon, bringing down lampposts etc in an effort to make it look like a large winged plane carried out the attack
• Rudolph Giuliani for having advance knowledge that the WTC was going to collapse, and for helping to ensure that the steel was disposed of quickly
• Enough people at American and United Airlines to keep quiet about the absence of the hijackers names from the passenger manifests
• Enough people at CNN not to question the absence of the hijackers names from the flight manifests, if you believe that's what their victims lists really are
• Enough people at FEMA and NIST to ensure any reports and analyses produced were whitewashes
• Enough senior officials at the many WTC insurance companies to ensure the doubts were ignored and claims were paid
• Everyone involved in producing the fake bin Laden "confession" video(s)
• Khalid Al-Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Bin Al-Sheeba for discussing how they planned 9/11 on audio tape even though this didn’t happen, and perhaps al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda for getting the interview (if we assume he knows it isn't true)
• All the other Al Qaeda members who've either implicitly or explicitly accepted responsibility for 9/11, even when they know it was carried out by someone else
• The staff of the 9/11 Commission for deliberately obscuring the truth

Option A or B ?

(I cannot take credit for the above list, here is the source)

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Considering pathological science is what brings you to your conclusions I don't think you can really comment.

Another term you do not apparently understand.

Pathological Science means pseudoscience that has a larger, more dogmatic following.

Pseudoscience is "any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by scientific research."

So, for the record:

-You base your opinion on three papers that do not use peer-review.

-You are claiming the whole of mainstream science is either fundamentally flawed or engaged in a mass-murder conspiracy. (without providing any rational reasoning behind either claim).

-The majority of your information is taken from, at best, amateur websites and documentaries that have been consistently and repeatedly been proven inaccurate or irrational.

-You consistently base your claims on innacuracies and logical fallacies, including (in just the last two days):
IGNORING BURDEN OF PROOF
POST HOC ARGUMENTS
COMPLEX QUESTIONS
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
QUOTE MINING
WISHFUL THINKING
FALSE ANALOGIES
WISDOM OF DISGUST FALLACIES
STRAW MEN
APPEALS TO AUTHORITY
ARGUMENTS FROM IGNORANCE
TRIVIAL OBEJCTIONS
ENTHYMEMES - and more.

-You engage in deceptive practices such as editing your posts after they have already been addressed, pretending that the simple logical flaws above don't exist or aren't important to address, presenting the same argument ad nauseum when it has already been addressed (often repeatedly), attempting to get people to buy DVDs, using terminology improperly or inaccurately in order to sound authoritiative, misquoting or misattributing quotes - and others.

All of the above diverge from or show disdain for scientific practice and basic logical argumentation.
Therefore, your claims are (by definition) Pseudoscientific.

The fact that the "9/11 Truth Movement" you support is so deeply entrenched and (relatively) widely trusted, despite these massive flaws, defines it as Pathological Science.

If you're going to try to discuss something with somebody, or even insult somebody, it helps to know what the words mean.

The main reason you strongly appose any questioning of the official story is because quite obviously in your view of the world you find the alternative conclusion implausable

Precisely.

I have used science and logic, and have found the alternative conclusion to be completely implausible, because it is a pseudoscience. (see the above points for a definition)
Since you have broken basically every standard of credibility, you are therefore incredible.

However, my "view of the world" has nothing to do with this.
I take that to mean that you think the basic standards of logical thought and science as a whole are negotiable, or "only an opinion".

If that is the case, that means your arguments are purely faith-based.
Hardly the scientific Clarky you're always making yourself out to be.

You cannot reject scientific procedure and claim to be scientific. You cannot have logic and use a dozen logical fallacies. These are mutually exclusive actions.

Which in turn leads you to ignore simple physical facts, fall times, etc that are not scientifically consistent with the official theory so you can discredit that alternative conclusion which is not yet truely known.

Alright, here are two standard and oft-repeated Klarky Klaims.

A - The tower fell faster than ten seconds.
B - The tower defied "simple physical laws".

Now, this is approximately the sixth or seventh time you have made these claims, and each time you have failed to back them up with science.

And the sad part is that science is incredibly easy.
Here's a step-by step example of how you can use real science.

Starting with Claim A:

1 - Exactly how long did it take the towers fall? Be as specific as possible, going into the decimals.

2 - How long should it have taken the towers to fall? Calculate this as closely as possible, taking as many variables as possible into account.

3 - Describe your methodology for both calculations. Note that taking the figures straight from a book or website is not valid research.

4 - Compare the two figures. Is one larger than the other?

5 - If you reached this step in the procedure, you have made science! Hooray!

Was that so hard?

Now, try it again with any of the other "simple physical laws" you vaguely allude to.

Easy as pie!

Saying your approaching it in a non biased manor and scientifically when.. and lets quote here,

and our own belief that humanity would never sink to the depths the ghouls and idiots would drag us all down to

..there is a clear defence for the innocence of people who you do not know, have no contact with, amidst other things that have been said which show your near complete lack of knowledge in the economic operations and processes which are all tied into this, such as the dependance of cashflow through the US economy from other nations and the economic events that took place around the drive to goto war, ie Iraq moving to the petro euro from the petro dollar.

That's one hell of a run-on sentence.

However, there are more things wrong with it than just terrible punctuation:

1 - The quote you quoted was actually baxter's, and he stated outright that it was his belief.
People can have beliefs, Clarky. Especially when they are supported by scientific fact in this case.

The important part is that those beliefs do not influence our scientific procedure.
You have FAILED to show any error in either baxter's or my arguments, and therefore your claims of bias in the results are fallacious.

Your claims, as I have proven, are based entirely on fantasy.
You have not proven likewise for either of us.

Finally:

1 - The logical basis of our justice system is innocence until proven guilty. Therefore baxter's refusal to accuse several thouand people of being mass-murderers without evidence is admirable.

2 - baxter has, in no way, "demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge" about anything, let alone the war in Iraq.
I'm fairly certain he didn't even mention Iraq.

3 - I'm not exactly sure why you even brought up Iraq.

That's a distracting tangent from the actual issue, which is that you have based all your arguments on mistakes and/or lies.

Drop the fantastical pseudoscience, please. You'll thank yourself in the long run.

 

[baxter]

Saying your approaching it in a non biased manor and scientifically when.. and lets quote here,

..there is a clear defence for the innocence of people who you do not know, have no contact with, you basically still trust people who wiretap their own countrymen illegally, which of course is a bias. Amidst other things that have been said which show some peoples near complete lack of knowledge in the economic operations and processes which are all tied into this, such as the dependance of cashflow through the US economy from other nations and the economic events that took place around the drive to goto war, ie Iraq moving to the petro euro from the petro dollar.

It's complex, it's not as simple as the 'terroists hate our freedoms'. It's about money, it's about the US economy and it's dependance on other countries to keep it strong.

This video has nothing to do with 911 science but more so why it was good for the American economy, it's an economical timeline and compliation of facts from the mainstream and unclassified documents that attempt to explain the actions of the US government pre and post 911 and what it will lead to.

I have resisted all I can to reply to your comments Clarky, and I apologies to all that believe, like me that this is simply flogging a dead horse and talking in circles.

My lack of understanding as you have tried to point out is NOT because I don’t understand international politics, or international foreign policies. It is not because I am a blinked sleep following my master. It is because I do not live in a permanent state of paranoia.

As for your assertion that these people are innocent and I don’t know them, therefore I am not in a position to judge them. I am in this position because they choose to take the public stadium; they choose to promote themselves or their beliefs. They actually encouraged my loathing.

They choose to insult the real innocent people, them being the victims of 9/11. I am actually being quite reserved when I refer to them as ghouls and idiots, because it does not go anywhere near the total and absolute sense of revulsion I feel for these people.

To try to promote youself, your product or whatever they seem to believe they are promoting, on the backs of innocent men, women and children who died in the most appalling way is the most obscene act I have ever witnessed regarding this dreadful event.

Anybody who profits from these claims is simply gaining “Blood money “ and even this understates their actions.

The banner of freedom of speech they operate under actually allows them to spread their obscenities, the same freedom that by their own accusations they question. Their double standards are mind-blowing as are their disregard of every single human virtue.

Incidentally I have never agreed with war in Iraq.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

edit: **** wrong thread delete this post

 

[B_MAN]

WTC 7 was hit by failing debris, burnt and fell down.

you should get the facts straight
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
ive seen the interview, WTC7 was demo'd

 

[kaf11]

If only there were some way I could reduce Mecha and Baxter into cheap internet video form, maybe people would listen to their logic...

 

[Kangy]

you should get the facts straight
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html
ive seen the interview, WTC7 was demo'd

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

What the hell kinda proof is this? You're just taking one quote and looking at it how YOU want to see it, which is exactly the same shit as applies to rest of your ridiculous and frankly idiotic arguments about 9/11.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

****, anything's a conspiracy theory if you want it to be. Come on, let's have some fun.

"We cannot rely exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance." - George W Bush

Oho! "Justice" is their codename for their scalar wave emitters! They plan to enable mutually assured destruction throughout the world by threatening their use!

But wait, that's just nonsense, isn't it? So is your argument, buddy.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

you should get the facts straight

You should get your facts straight, because I've seen your posts and I KNOW that YOU demolished that building!

i suppose they're trying to encourage people to go out and earn their high skill level (by questing/adventuring)
rather than paying for it

"Questing" is an obvious codeword for American forign policy.

By "paying for it" you obviously mean that destroying World Trade Center 7 was your way of making America pay.

this kind of stuff is really a shame
i experienced something similar with the last thieves guild quest
SPOILER
when i finally made it into the elder scroll library, instead of greeting me and thinking i was the lady, they immediately attacked me if i walked around(didnt sneak)

"Thieves guild quest" = Al Qaeda terror plot!
"Elder scroll library" = World Trade Center 7!
"(Didn't sneak) = (overt act of war against the United States!)
"They immediately attacked me" = war in Afghanistan!

You, sir, are a terrorist and a spy!
I call for your immediate ban, on account of the fact that acts of terrorism are NOT permitted on this forum!

 

[baxter]

I can actually throw my full weight behind Mecha's belief that B Man did infact demolish this building.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="B+man+and+wtc+7"&btnG=Search&meta=

Notice how every single shread of evidence has been removed, not a single reference to it anywhere. This smacks of suspision , I will dig deeper.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Why would the government cover up the google results?
Why don't they release them to the world if BM is innocent?

Why, I bet BM doesn't even have an alibi for that day!

 

[baxter]

This conspiracy is so massive that the only plausible answers is that google themselves are actually involved.This seems to be bared out by a further google search

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="google+protects+B+Man"&btnG=Search&meta=

Again every single shred of evidence has been removed. This proves they must be up to something and that they are either protecting B Man and/or the Government.

 

[B_MAN]

way to keep it civil guys

 

[DeusExMachina]

Have there been any conspiracy theories dealing with the London underground bombing?

 

[KagePrototype]

Have there been any conspiracy theories dealing with the London underground bombing?

crab people

 

[Mechagodzilla]

way to keep it civil guys

Zounds!
Once again, BM is showing his disdain for our western civility.

If google is involved (which they obviously are), then what are we to make of all these google videos?
Planted by the culprits? It's a mysteru!


But really BM, what did you expect?
Civility comes from rational discourse, which is something that had been abandoned the minute you, Clarky et al. began making patently unfounded accusations.

If we can't parody something that is so consistently wrongheaded and inaccurate, what candidates for mockery remain?

In any case, would it hurt you to say "gee, I was wrong"? There's no need to be so constantly hostile to everything that has been said, especially after we have gone to such lengths to argue, on your behalf, that you were being deceived.

 

[Kangy]

It's a mysteru!

MYSTERU?

Ha Ha Ha America!

 

[DeusExMachina]

I don't get it.