Do you feel truthers are dangerous, unpatriotic and embolden the terrorists?

Do you feel the truthers who claim it were not terrorists, but elements of the army or secret services who carried out the bombings in Damascus contribute to damaging the nation

reply to post by Cassius666

No, I believe that such people are merely expressing their Constitutional Right to Free Speech. The Constitution does not specify WHAT type of speech is considered free. Therefore, they are free to express their beliefs. Period.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So what example does GoodOlDave have that is heavier and stronger toward the bottom?

I don't need a model of anything, as it's pretty clear you have no credibility for me to even need any model. Explain to me the third grade physics of how a hollow building is comparable to a solid tree stump, again.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So what example does GoodOlDave have that is heavier and stronger toward the bottom?

I don't need a model of anything, as it's pretty clear you have no credibility for me to even need any model. Explain to me the third grade physics of how a hollow building is comparable to a solid tree stump, again.

They are both inanimate.

It is not my fault if you think the comparison to a bullet hitting a man is more relevant.

psik

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

He was comparing a man to a skyscraper are you saying that is better?

Tree stumps are not steel and concrete either.

psik

Excuse me, but he's not the one going around pretending to be a physics expert and belittling others for "not understanding elementary physics that even a third grader can understand".

I think what you're actually saying here is that you're quoting physics that would only sound realistic to a third grader.

Most likely a third grader would have a better grasp of the conservation of momentum than you.

Dominoes

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
They are both inanimate.

It is not my fault if you think the comparison to a bullet hitting a man is more relevant.

psik

The comparison is how damage to a single part can cause a chain reaction of events that cause the whole to collapse.

You seem to think that the planes hit the towers and blew up every floor with magic. No one is saying or thinking that, yet that's the type of rhetoric you have been using. It's not physics, it's blatant misleading posts.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


They are comparisons made for different purposes. Your claim that a plane can't knock down a building because of some deficiency in the energy it can create is countered by the analogy of the bullet (or indeed a lot of other analogies).

It is not made false by your insistence that a tree stump should behave in the same manner.

For the most part I think they are misguided but what they are doing is hurtful and damaging, though their intent is anything but. It's a shame.

I have one very close friend who was a first responder EMT that day (he's now a search and rescue paramedic who has worked most of the major disasters of the last decade throughout the world), he got to the site about 20 minutes after the second tower fell and was only a few blocks away when Building 7 fell. He saw that one first hand, saw how damaged it was before it came down and had been told throughout the day that they expected it wasn't going to last. He doesn't believe any of the Truther stuff at all and gets very angry about it to the point where he can't even engage Truthers in a debate about it anymore, or it will completely ruin his week. It's a very emotional thing for him, having worked the pile for five straight days with almost no rest trying to find survivors (and as we know there were none), five days he spent mostly pulling bodies and small pieces of bodies from the rubble.

My cousin is also a fireman and fire investigator with 19 years on the job in a major city, not in New York, but like all firemen everywhere 9/11 is a very emotional topic for him. I went with him to the NYC fire museum and he spent the whole time telling me the details of the lives and careers of various firemen represented in the 9/11 memorial they have there, which he knows by heart even though he never worked in New York. As a fire investigator, he knows pretty much all their is to know about the science of how fires work and we've discussed those aspects of the WTC collapse and he has no doubt that the official story, about how the jet fuel melted the steel structure, is true.

My point is, the first hand knowledge of one of my friends who was there and the second hand knowledge I've had from someone I'm close to who understands these matters as well as anyone alive all points to the Truther story being at best misguided, and worst the work of some people with an alternative political agenda callously using this tragedy to advance their cause and even worse in some cases to enrich their own pocketbooks.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

They are comparisons made for different purposes. Your claim that a plane can't knock down a building because of some deficiency in the energy it can create is countered by the analogy of the bullet (or indeed a lot of other analogies).

It is not made false by your insistence that a tree stump should behave in the same manner.

I did not say "knock down" I said:

If an airliner can destroy a skyscraper 2000+ times its own mass in less than two hours that is fine.

I did not say a tree stump would behave in the same way I said a stump was inanimate just as a skyscraper is inanimate. Neither stumps nor skyscrapers have knees that can bend or muscles that can go limp. So comparing the larger impacted mass to an animate object is totally idiotic.

But how much would the mass of equal height slices of a 200 pound stump change toward the bottom? Not much I suspect. I am not trying to say a stump is a good example just a much more intelligent than a comparison to a man.

Accusing people of saying things they didn't is so intellectually impressive also.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Most likely a third grader would have a better grasp of the conservation of momentum than you.

Dominoes

psik

In that case you won't mind posting the names of any of the noted physicists who actually consider you a credible colleague in physics, vs some high school kid who thinks he's Steven Hawking because he learned what conservation of momentum is from a physics text book...or at least I hope you're a high school kid, since you seem to have a hell of a lot of free time on your hands for you to be building all these models and filming yourself repeatedly hitting them with rocks tied to a string.

I notice that not even the people responding to your Youtube videos are taking you seriously. Why do you think things would be any different here?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


I did not say a tree stump would behave in the same way I said a stump was inanimate just as a skyscraper is inanimate. Neither stumps nor skyscrapers have knees that can bend or muscles that can go limp. So comparing the larger impacted mass to an animate object is totally idiotic.

But how much would the mass of equal height slices of a 200 pound stump change toward the bottom? Not much I suspect. I am not trying to say a stump is a good example just a much more intelligent than a comparison to a man.

Accusing people of saying things they didn't is so intellectually impressive also.

psik

You're confused. Your contention that an aircraft cannot destroy a building because of some perceived irregularity between the size of the two is falsified by the comparison with the bullet and the person. It doesn't matter how many examples you can give of stuff that doesn't fall down when hit by the bullet.

The point of the analogy is not to suggest that a person and a bullet are similar to the plane and the tower, but to show that your specific point about disparity in mass is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Do you feel the truthers who claim it werent terrorists who carried out the attacks, but that it happened under the directive of the ruling party, or at least the military arm of the nation should cease their activities?

Do you feel the truthers who claim it were not terrorists, but elements of the army or secret services who carried out the bombings in Damascus contribute to damaging the nation and embolding the terrorists?

No i do not, questioning what we're told is how we discern that we have been lied too. While i don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theory I do support their right to question the government as should you if you truly are a patriotic american. Freedom of speech means that they can believe and say what they want, and if hate mongering protestors such as Fred Phelps do not have their activities ceased why should we cease the activites of people looking for answers?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You're confused. Your contention that an aircraft cannot destroy a building because of some perceived irregularity between the size of the two is falsified by the comparison with the bullet and the person. It doesn't matter how many examples you can give of stuff that doesn't fall down when hit by the bullet.

The point of the analogy is not to suggest that a person and a bullet are similar to the plane and the tower, but to show that your specific point about disparity in mass is ridiculous.

One of us is either confused or stupid. Skyscrapers cannot collapse as a result of hearts stopping. Why don't you test and see how many men can keep standing that way?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
One of us is either confused or stupid. Skyscrapers cannot collapse as a result of hearts stopping. Why don't you test and see how many men can keep standing that way?

psik

Do you even grasp the simple concept of a metaphor? That's not how they work. It's not a literal parallel.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You're confused. Your contention that an aircraft cannot destroy a building because of some perceived irregularity between the size of the two is falsified by the comparison with the bullet and the person. It doesn't matter how many examples you can give of stuff that doesn't fall down when hit by the bullet.

The point of the analogy is not to suggest that a person and a bullet are similar to the plane and the tower, but to show that your specific point about disparity in mass is ridiculous.

One of us is either confused or stupid. Skyscrapers cannot collapse as a result of hearts stopping. Why don't you test and see how many men can keep standing that way?

psik

I'm sorry, I can't possibly make this any plainer. The point is about the difference in mass. If it's confusing to you because of the animate nature of a human then try a different analogy. A fire begun by a match can knock a building down, for example.

This isn't falsified because you can think of something that a match-generated fire can't destroy. And it's not falsified because the match is unlike the plane. It's a point about the generation of energy. And it's very simple, really.

* * * * * * * ATTENTION * * * * * * *

The topic of this thread is: Do you feel truthers are dangerous, unpatriotic and embolden the terrorists?, not each other, your personalities, or other personal variables. Please discuss, debate the OP and stay on topic.

Thank you

Originally posted by argentus
* * * * * * * ATTENTION * * * * * * *

The topic of this thread is: Do you feel truthers are dangerous, unpatriotic and embolden the terrorists?, not each other, your personalities, or other personal variables. Please discuss, debate the OP and stay on topic.

Thank you

apologies, Argentus, you are right, but in our defense, it's nigh difficult to discuss things rationally when a member has a conscious agenda to drag every conversation into an argument over junk physics, over and over and over.

That said, the OP asks a very astute question, even though he was referring to the Damascus issue and not 9/11. I think his rationale is akin to the demonstrations against the Vietnam war, where the leaders in North Vietnam watched the demonstrations and rioting here against the war and they instantly knew they wouldn't need to defeat US forces in the field. They simply needed to keep grinding US forces (and instigate an atrocity or two to horrify the public, and let's face it, the Viet Cong and the NVA weren't exactly the good guys here either) until US forces were forced to leave from public pressure. The tactic is sound and it clearly worked...but that's NOT what's happenign here, either in the Damascus issue or the 9/11 issue.

Imagine you're an Islamic fundamentalist and you went out and committed some terrorist act against civilians to instigate terror. Odds are you didn't do it because you get your jollies from hurting people. You did it because you have a personal agenda (religious fundamentalism or bringing down the ruling regime) and you want to influence public policy by either blackmailing the authorities or instilling no faith in the authority's control among the populace. This has been the operational plan for terrorists (or guerillas or insurgents or whatever) since warfare was invented.

...THEN, a bunch of characters who imagine themselves to be oh so enlightened becuase they read something on the internet somewhere come out of nowhere and insist your activities aren't to fulfull your personal agenda, but to fulfill a wide assortment of crackpot schemes from framing some third world country to take their lithium to some vague plan for Israel to take over the world that noone can reasonably explain. Some of these people will even insist you don't even exist, and your terrorist act you were so proud of was really filmed on some sound stage and all the victims were paid disinformation agents.

Knowing this, I will say no, not only do truthers NOT embolden the terrorists, they are in fact undermining the plans of the terrorists because they're actively rerouting what the terrorists are doing for their OWN separate political agenda. The only benefit the truthers would have from such people is if they turn around and attempt to claim there's "widespread unrest among the population over the 'truth' behind the attack" to instigate public unrest and humiliation against the targetted authorities (I.e. like Ahmadinejad did with his own 9/11 rhetoric and his holocaust remarks) but they know this is a pretty weak hand to play. I notice Ahmadinejad pretty much abandoned the 9/11 truthers and the "Jewish World Order" pretty soon thereafter.

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
Everything else is just uneducated, ignorant noise.

not really. many "debunkers" are highly educated people.
now, whether they are honest, that's another thing.

I'm sorry but truthers don't strengthen terrorism WHAT SO EVER. There hasn't even been terrorism in the US since 9/11. The war on terror is nothing but bull#. Have you been reading the news? A direct link between the hijackers and Saudi Arabia was found and the whole idea is being avoided by the court system. Why? If the government's story holds true, then why would they prevent this from being pursued? Conspiracy or not, 3,000 people died on that day, and the victims' families deserve to know the truth. There's so many errors with the 9/11 commission, there's so much information that has been redacted, there's so many professional architects/physicists/engineers that detest the science that occurred on that day, how can the US government possibly # up the investigation of the most heinous crime on American soil? And what about the military stand down? No one in the government was penalized for neglecting to fulfill their duties on the day the US was "attacked" and 3,000 innocent lives were lost?

Truthers have heard the official story. We point out inconsistencies. The government sheep hear the official story and they sleep soundly. Open your eyes America.

reply to post by homervb


I was with you until the very end. You're absolutely right about the coverup, about the families, about the nonsense and opportunism of the war on terror.

But the idea that Truthers of all people are in the vanguard of getting that sorted out is preposterous. At best they're a silly sideshow which, if anything, gets in the was of genuine attempts to discover what went on.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by homervb

 

But the idea that Truthers of all people are in the vanguard of getting that sorted out is preposterous. At best they're a silly sideshow which, if anything, gets in the was of genuine attempts to discover what went on.

A silly slideshow? Professional architects, engineers, chemical experts and pilots are nothing but a silly slideshow? Yes, the average blue collar 9-5er is no rocket scientist, but there are thousands of professional experts that will detest what happened that day. As for the political aspect, we will never know. Anything stamped with "classified" will never see the light of day. But if you can look at the official story yourself and see many inconsistencies then what makes the truth movement so crazy? I agree there are some people who think the planes were holograms but we all know that is just straight up clown shoes lol some people try to stretch it out a little TOO far.