Speaking of architecture...
Yes of course naming your group creatively and having a sole architect who must have slept through all his construction and engineering courses in college as your leader does not make the claims any more valid. Watch Richard Gage give his "awesome" demonstration of how dropping a cardboard box onto another one does not make the bottom one collapse. Seems exactly like how the towers were constructed! I cannot make this stuff up, you will have to watch the awesomeness...
Richard Gage (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (1/2) (30min)
Richard Gage (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (2/2) (30min)
Hardfire is a libertarian cable TV program that "obviously" took money from Halliburton to run these outrageous debates.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:In the light of those thinking processes and assumptions, I am also interested in the "arguments" that you and others say "don't hold up to science and facts."
That would be all of them. Including that my sister and friend were brainwashed by Dick Cheney and GW. But you never know I actually live in NJ and frequently go to NYC, know dozens of people in the city (including my sister and uncle), have been in the trade centers before 911, actually have a friend who worked in the towers and have visited ground zero many times after. But you are right I should start analyzing grainy Youtube videos and find where Dick Cheney planted nanothermite in WT7 while he claimed to be on "vacation". Or I could join the the Dylan Avery idiot brigade of combining whatever quote and video footage I want to make my own science fiction fantasy movie that will fool everyone with a low IQ. I will completely abandon all logic and start taking the words of online nut jobs who don't live anywhere near NYC but really "now" what is going on.
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower (60min) (BBC)
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what the hell it was thousands of people on a busy New York day saw hitting the towers.
inquisitiveteenager: What should the government do if we are attacked in the future?
What should the government do if we are attacked in the future?
I'm so nonconformist that I won't conform with everyone here and say that we should bomb the shit out of whoever attacks us. Criminals are criminals, and if you don't get wreak justice on those who attack you, you're simply setting yourself up as a victim of future crimes.
Political Atheists Blog
This guy has debunked all 9/11 "Truther" myths:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:My original assumption was that you were referring to the US's manned landings.
Yes they happened.
So, are you going to answer my questions about the witnesses or not?
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
krazy kaju:I'm so nonconformist that I won't conform with everyone here and say that we should bomb the shit out of whoever attacks us. Criminals are criminals, and if you don't get wreak justice on those who attack you, you're simply setting yourself up as a victim of future crimes.
You might like this story.
Natalie: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:My original assumption was that you were referring to the US's manned landings. Yes they happened. So, are you going to answer my questions about the witnesses or not?
"Yes they happened."
OK, in that case, I fail to understand your point- why you even bring up the subject of moon landings.
"So, are you going to answer my questions about the witnesses or not?"
Here is my answer, taken from another current thread, which gets into why I think it is a methodological mistake at this stage for "libertarians", "anarcho-capitalists" etc. to believe any pro-government "evidence", including any and all alleged "witnesses" :
"As I understand standard "libertarian" thinking [and assuming you are a "libertarian" or perhaps "anarcho-capitalist], the burden of proof lies solely with the government to prove its story, as the Bill of Rights was supposed to ensure, not the other way round.
Therefor, any self respecting "libertarian" is philosophically obligated [via the Bill of Rights] to start their investigation and review of any and all 911 evidence presented by the government [including all "witnesses", regardless of how trustworthy you might believe them to be] ,from the standpoint and mindset of someone who does not believe any part of of it - yes?, no?
Failing to start your investigation from such a consistently "anti government-story" mindset more or less guarantees that you have very little hope of uncovering any part of the truth about 911 - assuming that you are even interested in such an undertaking .
Most likely, you are not [interested in searching for 911 truth] .
Most "libertarians" ,"Austrians" "anarcho- capitalists" I run across here and elsewhere, appear to be more interested in preserving the sanctity of their movement , which they appear to see as being threatened by 911 "truthers" etc., than they are in any genuine open-minded search for truth that starts from the assumption that the government is probably lying.
Hence, right at the outset of their own investigations and review of any of the alleged "facts" of 911, any pretense at adhering to the principles of the Bill of Rights and of not believing any part of the governments story merely on principle, conveniently goes "right out the window".
Butler Shaffer recently had an excellent article on just this subject [ preserving the sanctity of movements at the expense of truth] on Rockwells site."
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Thats a lot of scare quotes.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Here is my answer, taken from another current thread, which gets into why I think it is a methodological mistake at this stage for "libertarians", "anarcho-capitalists" etc. to believe any pro-government "evidence", including any and all alleged "witnesses" :
Why is believing that some angry Muslims flew planes into the World Trade Center necessarily a pro-government belief?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Therefor, any self respecting "libertarian" is philosophically obligated [via the Bill of Rights] to start their investigation and review of any and all 911 evidence presented by the government [including all "witnesses", regardless of how trustworthy you might believe them to be] ,from the standpoint and mindset of someone who does not believe any part of of it - yes?, no?
Libertarians aren't obligated to follow the Bill of Rights and why are witnesses "provided by the government" if someone on CNN says they saw a passenger hit the first tower is he being presented by the government? If your neighbor says he was in NYC on business on 11 September saw a passenger jet hit one of the towers does that mean is he being presented by the government?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:...than they are in any genuine open-minded search for truth...
"There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out." - James Randi
Anyway back to the no-planers...
Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (1/2) (Video) (30min)Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (2/2) (Video) (30min)
Real video analysis... ouch that has to hurt.
Poptech: Speaking of architecture... Yes of course naming your group creatively and having a sole architect who must have slept through all his construction and engineering courses in college as your leader does not make the claims any more valid
Yes of course naming your group creatively and having a sole architect who must have slept through all his construction and engineering courses in college as your leader does not make the claims any more valid
" 825 architectural and engineering professionals
and 4581 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation."
Truly awe-inspiring debunking skills!
And for anyone who is actually interested in debate, I must stress that you ignore no-planers. They do not represent the majority of the 9/11 truth faction.
Angurse: Thats a lot of scare quotes. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Here is my answer, taken from another current thread, which gets into why I think it is a methodological mistake at this stage for "libertarians", "anarcho-capitalists" etc. to believe any pro-government "evidence", including any and all alleged "witnesses" : Why is believing that some angry Muslims flew planes into the World Trade Center necessarily a pro-government belief? onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Therefor, any self respecting "libertarian" is philosophically obligated [via the Bill of Rights] to start their investigation and review of any and all 911 evidence presented by the government [including all "witnesses", regardless of how trustworthy you might believe them to be] ,from the standpoint and mindset of someone who does not believe any part of of it - yes?, no? Libertarians aren't obligated to follow the Bill of Rights and why are witnesses "provided by the government" if someone on CNN says they saw a passenger hit the first tower is he being presented by the government? If your neighbor says he was in NYC on business on 11 September saw a passenger jet hit one of the towers does that mean is he being presented by the government?
"Why is believing that some angry Muslims flew planes into the World Trade Center necessarily a pro-government belief?"
Well it is a large part of the official story, is it not? Although I suppose that theoretically it is remotely possible [although extremely unlikely] that you or someone else reached that conclusion without any prompting or suggestion from the government propaganda machine [which includes CNN] whatsoever.
"Libertarians aren't obligated to follow the Bill of Rights and why are witnesses "provided by the government" if someone on CNN says they saw a passenger hit the first tower is he being presented by the government? If your neighbor says he was in NYC on business on 11 September saw a passenger jet hit one of the towers does that mean is he being presented by the government?"
You are right , "libertarians" are not obligated to follow the Bill of Rights- everyone [outside the government] is "supposed" to, not just "libertarians".
But sadly , at least as far as purported 911 evidence goes, not even "libertarians" , let alone "anarcho-capitalists", appear to be genuinely interested in pursuing an investigation into 911and all as yet still uncorrberated eye-witness testimony from such a consistently anti government-story perspective from the very outset, and instead habitually assume the truth of parts, or most, if not all, of the governments story.
Even standard issue 911 "truthers" have early on fallen into the trap of assuming that parts of the governments fairy tale are true and beyond dispute, and therefor "off the table" for "serious" discussion, and appear to see any questioning of such assumed pre-ordained "undisputed truth" as a direct threat to the sanctity of their movement - just like many "libertarians", "austrians" and "anarcho-capitalists" do , as Butler Shaffer at Lew Rockwell.com recently noted - although to be clear,he was not specifically talking about 911.
Sad, but true.
krazy kaju: This guy has debunked all 9/11 "Truther" myths: http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4
And David Ray Griffin has destroyed everyone of his claims.
Whats this? You've never read a book by Griffin? Im shocked!
Apologies if that seems a little rude, but Im sure your response to a keynsian who links to a blog by Paul Krugman as the ultimate proof 'debunking' Austrian economics, would be no less abrupt. If thats not the case, then you're a better man than I.
laminustacitus: It is ironic that some libertarians who denounce the inefficieny, and waste of government programs can at the same time assert that the government has not only accomplished a very much efficient inside-job, but then proceeded to be able to fool 99.9% of America with the resulting cover-up. For such individuals while government is very terrible at every-day tasks; however, when it comes to the world of conspiracy theory, government is able to pull off some of the most astounding feats of organization in all of history.
It is ironic that some libertarians who denounce the inefficieny, and waste of government programs can at the same time assert that the government has not only accomplished a very much efficient inside-job, but then proceeded to be able to fool 99.9% of America with the resulting cover-up. For such individuals while government is very terrible at every-day tasks; however, when it comes to the world of conspiracy theory, government is able to pull off some of the most astounding feats of organization in all of history.
I tend to agree with you since I believe this terrible tragedy was made up of many cases of bumbling incompetence piling up to reach incredible heights and not by some diabolical scheme orchestrated by a Machiavellian mastermind. But we have to give credit to Big Government for turning 9/11 to its own advantage immediately and very efficiently: when it comes to slaughtering people, lying and restricting freedom the private sector cannot hope to compare to the State.
Of course this doesn't mean the present terrorist season (like the past ones) is the product of small groups of fanatics and shrewd bureaucrats ready to turn it to their own advantage: the involvement of intelligence agencies from both sides of the Iron Curtain in the '70s terrorist season is well proven (and back at the time it was common knowledge) and let's not forget all those past episodes like the Turin riots of 1866 or the burning of the Reichstag which were pretty much organized from scratch by "those at the top".
"And for anyone who is actually interested in debate, I must stress that you ignore no-planers."
Yes, I agree , absolutely do not listen to any one claiming that its scientifically impossible for 120 ton thin-skinned aluminum tubes to fly completely inside/through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings without slowing down, and with no parts coming off on initial impact.
Bunch of freakin' loonies if you arsk me.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Well it is a large part of the official story, is it not? Although I suppose that theoretically it is remotely possible [although extremely unlikely] that you or someone else reached that conclusion without any prompting or suggestion from the government propaganda machine [which includes CNN] whatsoever.
So? One could use the internet to come to the same obvious conclusion, or is the internet part of the government propaganda maching?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: You are right , "libertarians" are not obligated to follow the Bill of Rights- everyone [outside the government] is "supposed" to, not just "libertarians". But sadly , at least as far as purported 911 evidence goes, not even "libertarians" , let alone "anarcho-capitalists", appear to be genuinely interested in pursuing an investigation into 911and all as yet still uncorrberated eye-witness testimony from such a consistently anti government-story perspective from the outset, and instead habitually assume the truth of parts, or most, if not all, of the governments story. Sad, but true.
But sadly , at least as far as purported 911 evidence goes, not even "libertarians" , let alone "anarcho-capitalists", appear to be genuinely interested in pursuing an investigation into 911and all as yet still uncorrberated eye-witness testimony from such a consistently anti government-story perspective from the outset, and instead habitually assume the truth of parts, or most, if not all, of the governments story.
Not sad, not true.
Nobody is obligated to follow the Bill of Rights, (minus those few who swear to oblige them). Trying to find a consistently anti-government-story is just as bad as trying to find a consistently pro-governernment-story. Can't the truth just be somewhere in the middle?
Seph: " 825 architectural and engineering professionals and 4581 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation." Truly awe-inspiring debunking skills!
Everyone can sign the petition
I'm just wondering how you missed that important tidbit of information? And is this an appeal to authority? It doesn't seem to appear that the site has any vetting process and will pretty much allow anyone to be added to the list to get to their belated goal of 1000 engineers in September of last year (notice they don't have to be structural, you could be a sanitation engineer for all they care). And being a student of engineering doesn't make them knowledgeable on the subject. Many "Truthers" have took engineering classes which I think is great but they have an agenda and cannot be trusted.
Can you point me to a single piece of work on that site that has been peer-reviewed or entered into a non-vanity scientific journal?
I think it's very telling and important information that the founder, Richard Gage, could be disproved so easily wrong in those videos.
Seph:And for anyone who is actually interested in debate, I must stress that you ignore no-planers. They do not represent the majority of the 9/11 truth faction.
Sure, just don't post fairy tales on a forum open to the public when Austrian Economics is on the verge of a revival. You can discuss architecture and engineering on your own 9/11 Truth sites or go to James Randi's forums.
Lets watch the awesomeness of Architects and Engineers for 911 "truth"....
Richard Gage (Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth) Awesome Free Fall Demo (Video) (1min)
Case closed.
solos:Everyone can sign the petition
Right, everyone can. And those that are architects will be noted as such, and those that arent, will be noted as such. Are you being deliberately dense, or is this just more of the typical Randian (see what I did there?:P) 'if i ridicule it, its like I defeated it!' doctrine?
solos:I'm just wondering how you missed that important tidbit of information? And is this an appeal to authority? It doesn't seem to appear that the site has any vetting process and will pretty much allow anyone to be added to the list to get to their belated goal of 1000 engineers in September of last year (notice they don't have to be structural, you could be a sanitation engineer for all they care).
How many non-relevant engineers do you find on the list? Go on, look.
solos:And being a student of engineering doesn't make them knowledgeable on the subject. Many "Truthers" have took engineering classes which I think is great but they have an agenda and cannot be trusted.
Unlike the government of course!
Poptech: Lets watch the awesomeness of Architects and Engineers for 911 "truth".... Richard Gage (Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth) Awesome Free Fall Demo (Video) (1min) Case closed.
You're right. If you watch that video having limited prior knowledge, (or an agenda) it does appear that its case closed.
Seph: Right, everyone can. And those that are architects will be noted as such, and those that arent, will be noted as such. Are you being deliberately dense, or is this just more of the typical Randian (see what I did there?:P) 'if i ridicule it, its like I defeated it!' doctrine?
um sure if you consider facts ridicule then this must be why you're getting so defensive.
Seph: How many non-relevant engineers do you find on the list? Go on, look.
This blog post was from the second of May. Permalink
A friend of this site recently went through their list of signees and discovered this total included architect and engineering students or other people that worked in the offices. When he eliminated everyone but those with licenses and/or degrees, he found the truth - 284 names. And this was being very generous with the degrees! Several landscape engineers are in this list. There are many electrical engineers and others whose specialty has nothing at all to do with structural engineering.
Seph: Unlike the government of course! And whats the truthers agenda, exactly?
I never said anything that implied the government didn't have an agenda.
The "Truther" agenda is they want the towers to be an inside job. Is it really that hard for you?
solos:um sure if you consider facts ridicule then this must be why you're getting so defensive.
solos:This blog post was from the second of May. Permalink A friend of this site recently went through their list of signees and discovered this total included architect and engineering students or other people that worked in the offices. When he eliminated everyone but those with licenses and/or degrees, he found the truth - 284 names. And this was being very generous with the degrees! Several landscape engineers are in this list. There are many electrical engineers and others whose specialty has nothing at all to do with structural engineering.
Well, thats exactly 284 times more than 1 architect....
And if we narrow the field to architects who have worked exclusively on steel high rises of over 100 stories, in Manhattan (because anyone who hasn't, obviously has no relevant knowledge) we can come up with zero architects!
solos:I never said anything that implied the government didn't have an agenda.
Just that we could dismiss truthers because they did.
solos:The "Truther" agenda is they want the towers to be an inside job. Is it really that hard for you?
...And the agenda of mathematicians is to enforce the Pythagorean theorem...zounds! They're all in cahoots!!!
Of course the agenda of 9/11 truthers is to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, if that wasnt their agenda, they wouldnt really be truthers, now would they? What on earth could you possibly prove from that? I thought it was obvious we were speaking of ulterior agendas....
Since a picture is worth a thousand words...thousands of tons of steel, being turned into dust in midair, shooting up past the original height of the building...can it really be heresy to suggest that this might not be the work of office fires and gravity?
The only credible alternative 9/11 theory that I've seen was <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories">this brief, and candid interview. </a>
I think the government may be in a better position to act now. For instance, there is some armchair quarterbacking going on about what the document "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US with Aircraft", really meant. The vagueness of it made it easy to dismiss at the time because there were no attacks going on. Certainly they looked out the window, but it was only later the attack happened. Knowing this, the government is now more likely to check for clues as to the date the attack will happen, and if it is close to an election, it may even raise the threat level.
I would imagine the first thing it would have to do is go before the UN and hold up a vial of air and ask the country to imagine it contained something terrible from some country Israel does not like. Then the proper response would be to level, and then rebuilt the country using cheap foreign labor no matter what the unemployment rate is in that country. This will flush out the first wave of terrorists. AC-130 gunships can them orbit over dense cities and fire streams of depleted uranium .50 cal ammo at the rate of 6000 rounds a minute. These rounds can go through entire apartment buildings and only hit terrorists. This time, not only will be have overlapping echelons of superior weapons systems on land, sea, air, and in space, but will will bring anti-garage door opener technology to level the playing field. Instead of pictures, we will have video cameras to film not only naked pyramids, but many other shapes as well, and we will threaten to show the world their nakedness if they don't tell us what we want to hear.
We are taking preventative measures anyway. They hated us for our freedoms, and we have addressed that. If we just had more bases in Saudi Arabia, 9/11 would never have happened. This time, we are leaving a hundred bases in Iraq to make sure they know we are breathing down their necks. At any time, we can fabricate any evidence we want and strike out and hit them hard for reasons we do not have to investigate, and this should keep them quite tame.
Right now, we are only spending $200 dollars for every $1 the Taliban are spending, and that is not enough. Petraeus admitted Al Qaida is not in Afghanistan anymore, so we obviously are settling for the Taliban. The hope is Al Qaida will return and fall right into our trap. We are patrolling constantly for the first sign of their tanks and fighter planes to make an appearance. Our armies will square off, and we will emerge victorious. Terrorism will unconditionally surrender, and we will declare victory over terrorism, and help it rebuild.
Natalie: krazy kaju:I'm so nonconformist that I won't conform with everyone here and say that we should bomb the shit out of whoever attacks us. Criminals are criminals, and if you don't get wreak justice on those who attack you, you're simply setting yourself up as a victim of future crimes. You might like this story.
Thanks, that's a good article.
Government was supposedly instituted to protect private property rights. US citizens pay the local, state, and federal governments taxes in order to do so. Thus, when the rights of US citizens are violated, whether they are violated domestically or abroad, I believe that the US government has a casus belli against the individuals and/or governments that violated the rights of the said US citizen.
Keith Ackermann: Terrorism will unconditionally surrender, and we will declare victory over terrorism, and help it rebuild.
Question: How can a battle tactic unconditionally surrender?
Its kind of like saying 'I'm going to beat up gravity' then I start punching the air.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: Keith Ackermann: Terrorism will unconditionally surrender, and we will declare victory over terrorism, and help it rebuild. Question: How can a battle tactic unconditionally surrender? Its kind of like saying 'I'm going to beat up gravity' then I start punching the air.
That was a joke, Laughing Man. It can't surrender, but we war against it anyway. It matters not at all which country it is waged against, it would appear.
Keith Ackermann: That was a joke, Laughing Man. It can't surrender, but we war against it anyway. It matters not at all which country it is waged against, it would appear.
It is difficult to tell joke from seriousness on the internet and since you are new I do not have a firm understanding of all your positions.
Laughing Man: Keith Ackermann: That was a joke, Laughing Man. It can't surrender, but we war against it anyway. It matters not at all which country it is waged against, it would appear. It is difficult to tell joke from seriousness on the internet and since you are new I do not have a firm understanding of all your positions.
The government should force everyone to learn how to be sarcastic on the Internetz.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel:The government should force everyone to learn how to be sarcastic on the Internetz.
I have taken your suggestion under advisement and have formulated a series of questions that can be passed out to all educational establishments in the United States:
1. How can you help the internet?
2. What do you like about the internet?
3. Say the internet was in trouble from an assassin, would you give your life for the internet?
4. Do you want to harm the internet? (Answer truthfully)
5. What do you feel when you think of the internet?
Ahh. I should have written this: The government should force everyone to learn how to recognize sarcasm on the Internetz.
Seph:"Yes of course naming your group creatively and having a sole architect who must have slept through all his construction and engineering courses in college as your leader does not make the claims any more valid." Ahhh wonderful facts....
mm dumb much? That was Poptech who said that, not me.
Seph: Well, thats exactly 284 times more than 1 architect.... And if we narrow the field to architects who have worked exclusively on steel high rises of over 100 stories, in Manhattan (because anyone who hasn't, obviously has no relevant knowledge) we can come up with zero architects!
Man you're dense. You didn't even comprehend the paragraph that said they all weren't structural engineers. There are electrical and garden engineers that signed that petition. But keep appealing to authority, on the Internet anyone is a professional!
Seph:Just that we could dismiss truthers because they did. ..And the agenda of mathematicians is to enforce the Pythagorean theorem...zounds! They're all in cahoots!!! Of course the agenda of 9/11 truthers is to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, if that wasnt their agenda, they wouldnt really be truthers, now would they? What on earth could you possibly prove from that? I thought it was obvious we were speaking of ulterior agendas....
..And the agenda of mathematicians is to enforce the Pythagorean theorem...zounds! They're all in cahoots!!!
Sorry I don't consider students as credible resources. You really have a difficult time processing information. I would not trust a bunch of "Truthers" who took Architecture 101 back in community college over professionals.
I think I get why "Truthers" find Austrian school of thought so appealing. It's because they don't have to deal with empirical evidence. All they have to do is post a picture without explanation. Sorry to tell you but because maths and Austrian Economics is based on apriorism does not mean you can do the same in engineering.
solos:I think I get why "Truthers" find Austrian school of thought so appealing. It's because they don't have to deal with empirical evidence. All they have to do is post a picture without explanation.
The Truthers find the Mises Institute because Alex Jones endorses Ron Paul and generally supports Austrian economics from a paleo-conservative perspective. They have no logical reason to find it, they are just following the leader. The problem is the truthers don't understand engineering or architecture. They are a bunch of engineering illiterates who believe in any conspiracy theory Jones tells them. If you watch all the videos I provided their joke arguments fall completely apart once logic and science is applied to them. The 911 Truthers are an example of Internet massive ignorance. I know for fact that none of them ever took a structural engineering course in their life, which is why they keep repeating nonsense that has long ago been debunked by REAL structural engineers. When I was studying Architecture in college the third year saw a large amount of students change majors because they could not handle the engineering classes. They thought all they had to do was draw and not worry about how the building would actually stand up. All I have to do now is show people these embarrassing debates to prove the Truthers have no arguments (except in their own deluded minds).
solos: mm dumb much?
solos:Man you're dense.
solos:You really have a difficult time processing information.
Poptech:I know for fact that none of them ever took a structural engineering course in their life
Poptech:They are a bunch of engineering illiterates who believe in any conspiracy theory Jones tells them
If anyone has a reason why I should continue this 'conversation', I would just loooove to hear it....
Seph:If anyone has a reason why I should continue this 'conversation', I would just loooove to hear it....
First you can go get an education in structural design and architecture. Then you can try reading the NIST engineering report and maybe learn something. Since you believe it is apparently impossible for an exploding 767 full of jet fuel to blast the spray on fire protection off the structural steel, and then obviously impossible for the ensuing fire to weaken the structural steel's load bearing ability. Maybe you could go over with us Minoru Yamasaki's one of a kind design which has nothing to do with any other steel or concrete skyscrapers in the world and explain to us using your imaginary engineering degree why these things are impossible. Oh I would love to hear it, I can't wait for your in depth engineering analysis using buildings and incidents which have no remote relation to 911. Please enlighten us.
Why the Towers Fell (60min) (NOVA)
Take your 9/11 troothing and shove it up the wazoo.
Shame on conservative terrorists for forcing the communist truther out of the government!
Now we'll never know the truth
Poptech: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:...than they are in any genuine open-minded search for truth... "There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out." - James Randi Anyway back to the no-planers... Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (1/2) (Video) (30min)Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (2/2) (Video) (30min) Real video analysis... ouch that has to hurt.
It seems to me that you, I, and others have 3 possible choices for overall methodology in reviewing /analyzing all alleged 911 "facts" and "events".1] Governmental Pre -Bias:
Utilizes a pre-existing, pre- review, pre-bias towards the governments story when reviewing any and all "facts " ,from whatever source, about 911.
Mentally lazy and convenient, however this "method" ultimately has nothing to do with real analysis that seeks real answers. 'nuff said.2] A Neutral, "Scientific" Method:
this requires complete and consistent neutrality on the part of the observer/reviewer throughout review - that is, a concerted, conscious, ongoing effort to remove all pre- existing bias one way or another on the part of the reviewer to try and ensure neither bias for, or bias against the official story , but at the same time an equally concerted, ongoing conscious effort is made to ensure no bias either for or against any other [unofficial] version of events, no matter how outlandish it/they might seem at the outset, is made both before and during such review , until that review has been concluded. 3] A "Legal" Methodology For 911 Investigation - Automatic Pre - Existing Bias Against the Governments Story Using a "Bill of Rights" methodology , the reviewer , pre-review, purposely takes the viewpoint that the government and its sycophants [such as N.I.S.T.] is probably lying and has good reason to lie, and that therefor, without exhaustive review of any/ all government supplied "facts", absolutely nothing it says about 911 should be trusted, until it can be verified many times, from many sources, as should nothing be trusted that supports the governments story that appears to emanate from private sources outside the government -[as it might not really be from outside the government after all]The Bill of Rights- Instant, One Size Fits All Pre- Bias Against Government StorysAs I have mentioned elsewhere, the Bill of Rights was a [failed] attempt to ensure that in at least all federal trials, that pre- existing bias against all aspects of the governments case was automatic, par for the course, perfectly legitimate and completely understandable.
The Bill of Rights might not be enforceable any longer in a US courtroom, but that does not prevent others from utilizing those same principles in their own , private investigations into the events of 911.
Your Choice
However, given those 3 [admittedly generalized] briefly outlined choices , you and others here like you consistently choose method [1] as your primary 911 review modus operandi, thereby ensuring that whenever you "review" any of the Baker/Wright videos you linked to, or when you "review" anything else contradicting the official version of the events of 911, that you will automatically and conveniently conclude that the side presenting the governments case has won the debate - at least in your mind.
Interesting..............to say the least, but ultimately you walk in circles and prove nothing - have fun with that, at least its good [none-mental] exercise for you!
Occam's Razor says prefer the simpler theory unless and until the more complex one is proven correct - in this case, the government story is the simpler theory.
BioTube: Occam's Razor says prefer the simpler theory unless and until the more complex one is proven correct - in this case, the government story is the simpler theory.
"unless and until the more complex one is proven correct."
Of course it has not been proven, either outside, or 'beyond a reasonable doubt" inside a courtroom, but that has not prevented you from siding with the government [i.e choice[1] ] , correct?
without getting into this free-flowing discussion - that's not Occam's Razor.
unless you know of some government theory that agrees it enacted the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and has a simpler theory about it's role in the terrorizing.