If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

The Ad Hominem logical fallacy: Attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself.

What argument? I started this thread to point out that people are probably being scammed and to explore how that reflects on the wider issue. I'm not responding to a specific point.

You, on the other hand, are. And instead of address it you've decided to, um, attack the poster instead of the issue. Irony much?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Not true. There are many things throughout the world that have no full detailed explanation, and yet it still does not disprove the accepted general explanation. We don't know the exact physical progression of the breakup of the Titanic either but that doesn't mean that whole bit about the iceberg is false and it was really sunk by an alien submarine.

Titanic sunk by Alien submarine- the proof!

You do get the point I'm making, I trust.

The point that you are being silly is obvious. You keep trying make fun of the most absurd explanations but you don't question the absurdity of the official explanation.

Skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. Therefore every level further down has to support more weight than the level above. That means it had to be stronger and therefore required more steel which means it would be heavier.

So the OBVIOUS QUESTION is how was the steel distributed in the WTC and all other skyscrapers. But you can't find that information on any skyscraper even though the Empire State Building is 80 years old and designed without electronic computers.

9/11 is a reason for laughing at physicists for not raising that obvious question, IN TEN YEARS.

psik

reply to post by GoodOlDave
I definitely do not think that you don't pay attention to what these people are saying. From reading your posts, I get a clear sense that you pay much closer attention to these people than I do. I don't really care much about the people; I try to pay attention to the information.

I know that the penthouse of WTC 7 collapsed prior to complete collapse. I think Gage has used videos without that bit snipped, but I don't really care - by the time I first heard of Richard Gage, I had already seen original video, read reports, and developed my own opinion (which includes the penthouse collapse being a logical step in a possible demolition scenario, but not proof one way or the other). His research gave me new avenues to look down, but didn't sway me at all.

I don't know for sure what UA175 hit, but I'm willing to accept that there's a lot of stuff that would probably make exploding sounds when a plane hit it. Regardless, I didn't learn of eyewitnesses who heard explosions from Griffin; I learned it from watching the news on 9/11/01. I don't think explosions constitute proof of demolition, but I think dismissing that possibility because you don't like the guy you first heard it from is a poor researching practice.

I know that the mysterious blue tarp outside the Pentagon wasn't very mysterious. I'm pretty sure Avery stopped including that bit in the Loose Change film after it was shown to be a triage tent. I think adjusting your opinion when presented with new information is a good thing.

I think Alex Jones is abrasive, annoying, and maybe a little insane. I also think he's right sometimes, but I wouldn't trust anything he says without corroborating it somewhere else first.

I haven't seen anything that definitely shows the pre-impact flash to be a reflection. If you can point me to something I've missed, I'd appreciate it. You had first suggested that only Avery's grainy video showed the "missile" and he deliberately omits the videos that don't show it. Now it seems you're suggesting that all the videos show it, but they all refute the missile theory. Am I reading you wrong, or did you really just change your argument that dramatically?

I took a quick look at your Titanic link above. Not WWN's finest work, but pretty funny stuff. Even funnier are the comments, a lot of which are from people who seem to believe the story is true. I feel like you assume that's the type of people you're talking to here, but that's just not the case. I will confess to a high tolerance for considering crazy ideas, but I'm not a sucker, and none of the people you mentioned above are scamming me.

I think it's awesome that your erudite vocabulary stems from Looney Tunes - those were smart, subversive, funny shows that challenged and respected their viewers' intelligence, and I wish we had more of them.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The point that you are being silly is obvious. You keep trying make fun of the most absurd explanations but you don't question the absurdity of the official explanation.

You just don't get it, do you? There is no such thing as "the official explanation" and the only ones who claim there is such a thing as "an official explanation" are those damned fool conspiracy web sites you go to..which is where you're getting this "official explanation" label to begin with. The only "official" thing about the 9/11 attack is that four planes were hijacked by Islamic fundamentalists, three of them hit buildings, and the entire WTC complex wound up being destroyed. The rest is based 100% on eyewitness accounts, interviews, material evidence, and educated guesses. There is NO official explanation for why the towers collapsed or how WTC 7 was destroyed, which is why we have multiple explanations (The FEMA report, the NIST report, the Perdue report, the MIT report, etc) which frequently contradict each other.

It would be one thing if the truthers looked at the evidence and derived the possibility of a conspiracy from it. It's patently obvious that what the truthers are really doing is coming up with a predetermined scenario and then manhandling the evidence to conform to it. This is where all those half baked accusations of "all the eyewitnesses are secret agents", "all the evidence was planted", "all the videos were fakes", "The planes were holograms", etc accusations are coming from, not from any intellectually honest research.

Skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. Therefore every level further down has to support more weight than the level above. That means it had to be stronger and therefore required more steel which means it would be heavier.

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that this wasn't how the towers were designed. Each floor was held up by a horizontal brace connected from the internal core to the outer perimeter, and no floor contributed to the structural integrity of any other floor. If one floor wasn't able to withstand the impact of the initial collapse then none of the floors would have been able to withstand the impact of the collapse. It is little wonder why you continue to cling to these conspiracy scams if you steadfastly refuse to listen to any evidence that contradicts them.

I invite you to show me how I'm wrong- please point out where in the 9/11 commission report that explains how thr towers were destroyed. The copy I have doesn't mention how the buildings collapsed one way or the other. Apparently your copy is different.

9/11 is a reason for laughing at physicists for not raising that obvious question, IN TEN YEARS.

OR, it's the case they know something that you don't. Or, to be precise, it's something that you really don't want to know.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The point that you are being silly is obvious. You keep trying make fun of the most absurd explanations but you don't question the absurdity of the official explanation.

You just don't get it, do you? There is no such thing as "the official explanation" and the only ones who claim there is such a thing as "an official explanation" are those damned fool conspiracy web sites you go to..which is where you're getting this "official explanation" label to begin with. The only "official" thing about the 9/11 attack is that four planes were hijacked by Islamic fundamentalists, three of them hit buildings, and the entire WTC complex wound up being destroyed. The rest is based 100% on eyewitness accounts, interviews, material evidence, and educated guesses. There is NO official explanation for why the towers collapsed or how WTC 7 was destroyed, which is why we have multiple explanations (The FEMA report, the NIST report, the Perdue report, the MIT report, etc) which frequently contradict each other.

The Official Explanation for WTC 1 and 2 is that:

THE COLLAPSE WAS INEVITABLE.

That is not much of an explanation but that is what the NIST says. Dr. Sunder said in a podcast on PBS that the north tower came down in 11 seconds. But it is easy to make a magical collapse simulation in a computer based solely on the conservation of momentum and even with a constant mass distribution the collapse takes 12 seconds.

So the bottom line is that the government is full of crap.

More importantly the physics profession is full of crap for not addressing this in TEN YEARS.

So all it comes down to is BELIEVE what the government tells you no matter how stupid it is in relation to how physics really works.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The Official Explanation for WTC 1 and 2 is that:

THE COLLAPSE WAS INEVITABLE.

That is not much of an explanation but that is what the NIST says. Dr. Sunder said in a podcast on PBS that the north tower came down in 11 seconds. But it is easy to make a magical collapse simulation in a computer based solely on the conservation of momentum and even with a constant mass distribution the collapse takes 12 seconds.

You're changing your story in mid-discussion, which I find disingenuous. The NIST report isn't the "official explanation" nor does it say anywhere in the report that it's the "official explanation". In fact it says right in the preface that it's largely an educated guess. Let me guess- you haven't even actually read the NIST report and you're just assuming it's the "official explanation" from what you read on those damned fool conspiracy web sites, aren't you?

Tell me, what is your opinion on NIST's observation that the collapse of the north tower destroyed the water supplies for WTC 7's firefighting systems from the street? I'm presuming you aren't a total bull [censored] artist and you actually have some superficial knowledge of what the report says.

So the bottom line is that the government is full of crap.

No, the bottom line is that noone will ever be able to explain precisely how the towers collapsed down to every nut, bolt, and rivet of the building...but that does not give you license to fill the vaccuum with your unworkable conspiracy accusations.

If you disagree with the NIST report, that's perfectly fine. I myself subscribe to the Purdue report...and if you don't know what the Purdue report says then you have no business posting your conspiracy claims here. What you don't seem to understand is that if your side doesn't agree with any of these other conclusions then it becomes your responsibility to provide us with an alternative scenario that better fits the facts, and so far, all those con artists like Richard "the towers were cardboard boxes" Gage have been doing for years is asking you to give him more of your money. Heck, on his website right now, he's stumping for donations NOT to conduct his own investigation, but to help pay for making yet another DVD. At least FEMA, NIST, Purdue, MIT, and the others took a legitimate stab at explaining how the towers collapsed.

At what point will it finally dawn on you that you've been suckered by these scammers, and suckered badly ?

More importantly the physics profession is full of crap for not addressing this in TEN YEARS.

Ah, yes, it's the "you're right and a hundred thousand experts are wrong" scenario again. At this point, how can you deny with a straight fact that you WANT these conspiracy claims of yours to be true?

Originally posted by magicrat
I don't know for sure what UA175 hit, but I'm willing to accept that there's a lot of stuff that would probably make exploding sounds when a plane hit it. Regardless, I didn't learn of eyewitnesses who heard explosions from Griffin; I learned it from watching the news on 9/11/01. I don't think explosions constitute proof of demolition, but I think dismissing that possibility because you don't like the guy you first heard it from is a poor researching practice.

I don't dismiss it simply because I detest Gage's obvious scamming practices. I dismiss it because it's utterly impossible for anyone to secretly rig an occupied building with controlled demolitions without any of the occupants noticing. For one, planting controlled demolitions is a massive undertaking that takes extensive coordination and smaller demolitions that rival a bull in a china shop, and for another, the tower had its own army of security, engineers, custodians, inspectors, and the like with full time jobs throughout the building from keeping the elevators running to laying ethernet cable for computer networks to inspecting for water damage after it rained. Willaim Rodriguez himself would have had access to every part of the building where these supposed controlled dmeolitions would have needed to be planted, and we know this because he shows off the key to those restricted area to everyone. Both of these points are religiously avoided by every conspiracy mongor out there, Gage included, because they know addressing it would require a complete suspension of logic and critical analysis. I'm sure you've seen more than your share of unrealistic "armies of sinister secret gov't agents planted everywhere" and "the towers were pre-built with explosives" accusations.

The point is, if one of the explosions we heard was from an innoculous, non-conspiracy reason (I.E. an electrical transformer blowing up from the fires) then logically we can presume that all the explosions we heard were from innoculous, non-conspiracy reasons because of this sheer improbability of controlled demolitions. The blatant disingenuous nature of the theories' main proponents is but the icing on the cake.

I haven't seen anything that definitely shows the pre-impact flash to be a reflection. If you can point me to something I've missed, I'd appreciate it. You had first suggested that only Avery's grainy video showed the "missile" and he deliberately omits the videos that don't show it. Now it seems you're suggesting that all the videos show it, but they all refute the missile theory. Am I reading you wrong, or did you really just change your argument that dramatically?

All right, allow me to rephrase my statement. Since every close up video of the plane impact showed no missile pod nor any missile launch from the plane whatsoever, it is necessarily a fact that every video taken further away regardless of clarity will show no missile pod nor any missile launch from the plane. If you wish to debate whether the flash was from a reflection or from some other natural phenomena, be my guest, but in the end it still played no part in the collapse of the towers and it shows a complete and utter lack in integrity for Avery to suggest that it did.

I think it's awesome that your erudite vocabulary stems from Looney Tunes - those were smart, subversive, funny shows that challenged and respected their viewers' intelligence, and I wish we had more of them.

Thank you. Conversely, you have shown yourself to be an articulate and intelligent person, and I can tell you are of a higher caliber than most of the conspiracy proponents here as you'd be accusing me of being a secret gov't agent sent to spy on you by now.

Since you are of the more rational sort, let's dispense with the "damned fool conspiracy web sites" and "secret gov't agent sent to spy on us" rhetoric. Please explain how an obvious intelligent person such as yourself had been swayed by these conspiracy claims...which you yourself have to admit sound ludicrous on the surface.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Please explain how an obvious intelligent person such as yourself had been swayed by these conspiracy claims...which you yourself have to admit sound ludicrous on the surface.

"Come into my lair" said the spider to the fly.
The only Ludicrous claim, Is the Gov knows best, and would never hurt us.
Gage and his Scamming writings, Hmmm.

Funny, The Majority of the 911 Commissioners , say the Fix was in, it was a SHAM,From the start.

Chat is good Sir , But lets stay honest to each other.

One side is hiding evidence , the other is digging for it, can you tell which side is which?

My biggest problem with the truther movement... is its based on half truths and information that said truther found on the internet...

Don't speak on this subject unless you meet the following

1. You were at the scene of 9/11 (anyone?)
2. Some sort of CREDIBLE job in lockheed Martin sector.

I really think that dumps most of the truthers off...

I can say the same thing about any big terrorist attack... look at the train pictures... I believe it was a car, because of the size of the debris (or maybe its my monitor resolution)

anyways, the 9/11 truth movement is just hilarious...Keep up the "good?" work?

I agree total scam! GOOD post OP

reply to post by Tw0Sides

Funny, The Majority of the 911 Commissioners , say the Fix was in, it was a SHAM,From the start.

Could you show a link to this???

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The Official Explanation for WTC 1 and 2 is that:

THE COLLAPSE WAS INEVITABLE..

You're changing your story in mid-discussion, which I find disingenuous. The NIST report isn't the "official explanation" nor does it say anywhere in the report that it's the "official explanation". In fact it says right in the preface that it's largely an educated guess. Let me guess- you haven't even actually read the NIST report and you're just assuming it's the "official explanation" from what you read on those damned fool conspiracy web sites, aren't you?

Then you are saying the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan without an Official Explanation of 9/11 from anybody.

That is so much better.

3 years, $20,000,000 and 10,000 pages and it is not OFFICIAL.

ROFLMAO

To me you are just wasting time on semantic trivia. So on the basis of your trivia you win.

Congratulations.

psik

p.s. I have admitted many times that I have not read the 10,000 pages of the NCSTAR1 report. I have also told everyone that it does not specify the total amount of concrete in the tower. In 3 years not one person has provided data to contradict me.

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
My biggest problem with the truther movement... is its based on half truths and information that said truther found on the internet...

Don't speak on this subject unless you meet the following

1. You were at the scene of 9/11 (anyone?)
2. Some sort of CREDIBLE job in lockheed Martin sector.

I myself am neither, but I have talked to people who worked in the north tower and who were in the building when the plane hit (she worked on a lower floor and was able to get out). It is from conversations with her (as well as her own opinions of the truthers) that I know the claims being made by the truthers are complete rubbish. For one, the maintenance personnel at the towers had worked there for years, so any supposed secret agent showing up to infiltrate them would have stood out like a sore thumb. For another, every maintenance project, and I mean EVERY maintenance project, they tasked to outside contractors would have been overseen by same said NYPA personnel so nothing was secret. For another, security was locked down so that only people with the specific security cards (or those who were allowed in) could access any given floor. For yet another, she herself heard and witnessed explosions. She personally witnessed sheets of flame pouring out of the elevator shaft and push a man clear across the room, and as she went down the emergency stairs she said it sounded like giant boulders were crashing down the stairs after her. PLUs, she saw with her own eyes the interceptors over NYC, proving that whole "no interceptors were scrambled" is hogwash right there.

So, what do the truthers say when I point all this out to them? That the woman I talked to was a secret gov't agent. Of course.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You're changing your story in mid-discussion, which I find disingenuous. The NIST report isn't the "official
Then you are saying the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan without an Official Explanation of 9/11 from anybody.

That is so much better.

3 years, $20,000,000 and 10,000 pages and it is not OFFICIAL.

I shouldn't need to tell you than if you need to resort to strawman arguments in the hopes you can win the debate by introducing irrelevent proxy debates, it's an admission you know you are LOSING. Thank you.

The discussion wasn't over the reason why we went to war with Iraq or Afghanistan. The discussion...which YOU started...was over the "official explanation" for the collapse of the towers. If you're acknowledging you've been hoodwinked by those damned fool conspiracy web sites and there is in fact no "official explanation" for their collapse then I would appreciate it if you would just come out and say it.

p.s. I have admitted many times that I have not read the 10,000 pages of the NCSTAR1 report. I have also told everyone that it does not specify the total amount of concrete in the tower. In 3 years not one person has provided data to contradict me.

...mostly because everyone else knows you don't have a microbe of tangible proof of any conspiracy so you need to resort to luring others down a rat hole of strawman arguments that have absolutely no relevence to the discussions about 9/11. The point to be resolved is how the fires and the impact managed to reduce the structural integrity of that first floor that collapsed, not the total amount of concrete in the building.

For the sake of argument we will concede your point that the towers did in fact contain concrete.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Of course Dave, and great answer... And of course EVERYONE who saw it happen is a government agent... Even the people who saw American Airlines on the side of the plane...

I call shenanigans on the entire truther movement

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
My biggest problem with the truther movement... is its based on half truths and information that said truther found on the internet...

Hmm no it's not. That might be how some people do their research, which includes all OS supporters, but some of us have enough background in engineering and physics to do our own research, and come to our own conclusions.

Your problem is you come here with a bias toward the OS, and full of media made up nonsense about what 'truthers' believe.

Don't speak on this subject unless you meet the following

1. You were at the scene of 9/11 (anyone?)
2. Some sort of CREDIBLE job in lockheed Martin sector.

So you were there, or you work for Lockheed Martin? It goes both ways you know.

I really think that dumps most of the truthers off...

And most OS supporters including you I would guess? See ya!

Actually being there doesn't mean you would understand the physics of the WTC collapses, or the pentacon plane impact.

I can say the same thing about any big terrorist attack... look at the train pictures... I believe it was a car, because of the size of the debris (or maybe its my monitor resolution)
anyways, the 9/11 truth movement is just hilarious...Keep up the "good?" work? I agree total scam! GOOD post OP

You are hilarious. Have you read any of the long threads on this subject, or are just making assumptions because the MSM has told you what to think?

Physics doesn't give a dam about your opinions on 'truthers'. Do you have an explanation for the physics problems of the collapses that the OS doesn't explain? How about the fact that NIST didn't explain the collapses at all? Did you even know that?

Originally posted by samkent
Could you show a link to this???

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

9/11 Commissioners say "Official Story" a Lie

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies

You claim its a scam because ae911 truth are not advancing their claims? they are travelling the country giving speeches about their claims, how is that not honest work?

Here's one picture I NEVER see on truther websites (If I did I must have skipped over it)

But how could this
1. be a missle
2. be a gov. plane (considering the window formation)

reply to post by DrNotforhire


Hmm you need to do more research into what the arguments are.

Most of us here agree a plane hit the towers, what we don't agree with is the governments explanation of the collapses of all three buildings, because the physics of the collapses is not consistent with a fire induced collapse.

The claim that sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns, for example, is what you should be trying to prove to us, if you can.

No one cares what you believe, or not, only what evidence you can offer. Do you have any new evidence that we haven't already heard a million times? Is this the start of a new cycle of OS supporters repeating the same old stuff, it's been awhile since the last one.

reply to post by ANOK


yet there is plenty of information that proves your theory wrong

here's ONE said example.. see the scientific process in the math?

I don't see that in the truther movement

www.debunking911.com...