This is how normal people discuss 9/11

reply to post by whatsecret

If he does but is refusing to use it on purpose, then he's a real as$hole.

We might agree on something after all.

Gage never brings anything new to the table.
He (and others) use the Gish Gallop technique of debating.

drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time.

Did you know that Gage the architect was never involved with any steel structure taller than a school gymnasium?

reply to post by samkent

We might agree on something after all. Gage never brings anything new to the table. He (and others) use the Gish Gallop technique of debating.

Sure, if he is sitting on the information that NIST refused to release under the FOIA request. I just don't see how that could be the case though.

Did you know that Gage the architect was never involved with any steel structure taller than a school gymnasium?

Honestly I never felt the need to research Gages background. But I believe you. I just have a feeling that you really want me to see the importance of his existence for some strange reason. Unfortunately I don't see it.

I don't care if he is the most experienced architect in the world and can walk on water or a genetically modified cyborg working for the flying spaghetti monster. I wish him a wonderful, enriched life, and wealth of all kinds, but his existence has absolutely no connection to me or anyone I personally know and care about.

Maybe some of you can convince me why I should care about Gage later, but so far I don't see a good reason to talk about this man or his business.

Maybe some of you can convince me why I should care about Gage later, but so far I don't see a good reason to talk about this man or his business.

There are only a few big(ish) names in the 911 conspiracy. He's one.
Alex jones is another. If you've listened to him a few times you will catch on to him.

Once you thrash out the big names the conspiracy evaporates.
No one else is talking about it.

You may have problems understanding the ins and outs of the collapse. But that doesn't mean the experts do.
Then if you realize the real experts understand it you can look at it from an angle of logic not suspicion.

reply to post by whatsecret


Why do you, or anyone else, need NIST's model first in order to be able to create your own model? Is the truth movement that helpless?

reply to post by samkent

There are only a few big(ish) names in the 911 conspiracy. He's one. Alex jones is another. If you've listened to him a few times you will catch on to him.

I'm not sure if you simply don't understand the issue with 9/11 or you do understand but believe it's more important to talk about why the conspiracy theories are wrong than why our government is covering up their activities related to 9/11, or you have a personal problem with individuals like Alex Jones and Richard Gage. I find it fascinating that you try to defend NIST and the 9/11 Commission by trying to prove that Richard Gage is wrong. You need to prove that the government is right instead, do you understand what I'm saying?

I said that a few times in this thread already, in my opinion no one must be right for NIST to be wrong.

It is possible that they are both wrong, the difference is that none of the people you keep trying to prove wrong are responsible for the investigation. In my case they only gave me an idea to study this incidence, That's it.

Members of our government did the rest all by themselves.

Once you thrash out the big names the conspiracy evaporates. No one else is talking about it.

Nothing evaporates. The cover up is alive and well. I don't want to make you agree with me, but it would be nice if you at least show signs that you understand what I'm saying.

You may have problems understanding the ins and outs of the collapse. But that doesn't mean the experts do. Then if you realize the real experts understand it you can look at it from an angle of logic not suspicion.

That may work for you, but for me to take their word for it, I need to borrow John Titors time machine, travel to a timeline before 9/11 and convince my other self to never ever research how the Government operates and not trust myself and my lying eyes because, well, they are lying. Unfortunately Titor took his device with him when he left in 2001.

Do you have any idea if Costco or Walmart carry the time distortion device? I might do it because TV is probably a lot more interesting that way.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Why do you, or anyone else, need NIST's model first in order to be able to create your own model? Is the truth movement that helpless?

I don't know about the truth movement, but I am that helpless. That's why I financially support the best of the best of scientist at NIST. Unfortunately transparency is not in their mission statement.

Even if I or anyone else could create their own model, why would anybody believe that it's right if it is based on theories of people that had no access to the evidence and testimonies submitted to NIST?

My question to you is this, do you think that any computer model is only as good as the input? I mean what if you input that all gravity comes from the moon instead of earth? would the building fly into outer space instead of falling to the ground? or what if you input the wrong fire temperature, of wrong type of steel? How would the model react to it?

Don't you want to make sure that all input was consistent with reality, especially if there are recommendations to change building codes based on this model?

I get it, you are just as stuck as I am. You just don't care about it.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Building "7" (the third of the WTC complex buildings that fell on 9-11 altho it was not hit by a plane) did not implode because of a few fires in the building.

edit on 11-8-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

Than why did Building 7 collapse?

Originally posted by swoopaloop

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Building "7" (the third of the WTC complex buildings that fell on 9-11 altho it was not hit by a plane) did not implode because of a few fires in the building.

edit on 11-8-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

Than why did Building 7 collapse?

Good question.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by geobro

 

and how about members that are told to go and ask people what time they heard about 9/11 in the u,k they never come back with the answer i wonder why

Last time you went down this road i debunked it.

the UK news was not reporting the attacks before they actually happened, i explained this to you once before. [/quote

well then how many people did you question enlighten me

you debunked nowt

edit on 20/8/13 by geobro because: (no reason given)

Have you heard Michael Scheuer tell his opinion about bin laden? And why the US justice Department never officially charge him for 9/11?

First off Scheuer was trying to sell a book and all the interviews and statement were written and released by the marketing department of his publisher. Everyone understands that so there are really no hard feelings between himself and his former colleagues. He, like everyone else. signs a contract that gives the books publisher exclusive right to advertise his image as well as his works. Again, when you leave the government and sign with a publishing company, people understand they are going to short stroke any publicly, true or not.

His book sounds interesting and I may read it someday with the knowledge that exploitation is the key to higher sales. This is an example: "I would guess that he is in the northeastern part of Afghanistan"

That is bull with a capitol B. Since 2006 everyone has known he was in Pakistan.

As far as the Justice Department goes he was already a fugitive with a 25 million dollar price on his head. There was no legal reason to charge him with anything else.

Originally posted by neformore
The problem with 9/11 is that people post what they think they know, usually based parrot fashion from other people posting what they think they know who have summarily dismissed information provided to them by actual experts because that information does not support the paradigm of their supposed argument.

In other words an awful lot of what is written is recycled assumption, which has turned into a self sustaining cycle. That is common place for an awful lot of conspiracy based arguments, but in this particular case it is more so because people cannot accept in their own minds that a relatively simple series of events can either happen and/or be so deadly, plus there is a mindset that the US is/was untouchable.

Its a massive cycle of ignorance.

Your assertion applies just as much to those who accept the official 9/11 story ("recycled assumption") as it does to those who don't accept it. The only difference is that 9/11 truthers take into account facts that were suppressed or quickly ignored after 9/11.

reply to post by micpsi

The only difference is that 9/11 truthers take into account facts that were suppressed or quickly ignored after 9/11.

Pseudo facts. Sprinkled with inuendo.

reply to post by geobro


No i did debunk it, remember, you couldn't provide any evidence that anyone other that you (and we only had your word for it) that the attacks were being reported in the morning, then i showed you a video of how the news was broke in the UK and finally explained to you how many huge problems there were with your claims.

yeah i debunked it, not that it needed debunked and anyone could tell you that you were mistaken.

reply to post by whatsecret


So your issues are that you do not trust NIST, that NIST does not make their model public and that you nor anyone you know is capable of reproducing NIST's results. Lets at least agree that from these issues you can not come to the conclusion that NIST is wrong, that NIST did not explain their methods, that there is a cover up or that NIST is lying.

Let me share with you some researchers that disagreed with NIST and created their own model to prove them wrong:

ascelibrary.org...

See, you don't need NIST's model, nor their input variables, in order to show they are wrong. You act as if the truth can only be recovered if we get access to NIST's models.

Personally, I do not have any reason to believe that NIST is wrong or lying. The report is widely supported. Nobody has been able to show their general conclusions are wrong. That is good enough for me. If for you it isn't, show they are wrong. Use your own models, like the researches I linked to did.

reply to post by spooky24

First off Scheuer was trying to sell a book

He wrote his first book anonymously and sold many copies before giving interviews.

I suppose he could have resigned, wrote a book anonymously then conspire with people like Anthony Shaffer to tell lies on tv to promote future book sales.

As far as the Justice Department goes he was already a fugitive with a 25 million dollar price on his head. There was no legal reason to charge him with anything else.

That is not consistent with the way our legal system works. Prosecutors love piling up additional charges. And adding another 3000 murder charges would only make their case stronger for the rest of the world. I cannot find any logical explonation for not doing so.

reply to post by -PLB-

So your issues are that you do not trust NIST, that NIST does not make their model public and that you nor anyone you know is capable of reproducing NIST's results. Lets at least agree that from these issues you can not come to the conclusion that NIST is wrong, that NIST did not explain their methods, that there is a cover up or that NIST is lying.

No I cannot agree to that. I can agree to disagree with you though.

See, you don't need NIST's model, nor their input variables, in order to show they are wrong. You act as if the truth can only be recovered if we get access to NIST's models.

How can they prove NIST wrong without knowing what NIST did? I'm concerned about NIST because they were the ones trusted and funded to investigate this thing.

Other people have done very good work independently which imply that NIST made mistakes, but without knowing the details of what NIST did no one can really prove that they are wrong. We can theorize about it though.

Personally, I do not have any reason to believe that NIST is wrong or lying. The report is widely supported. Nobody has been able to show their general conclusions are wrong. That is good enough for me. If for you it isn't, show they are wrong. Use your own models, like the researches I linked to did.

I'm confused.... You just linked to people that you said proved them wrong. But now you're saying nobody has been able to show that they are wrong, and that's good enough for you?

reply to post by whatsecret

Other people have done very good work independently which imply that NIST made mistakes,

But has anyone come up with a model (computer sim) that shows the end result we all seen, but has a different initiator?

People can knit pick this minor part or that. But they can't show us anything better. Unless they make up their own facts.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Other people have done very good work independently which imply that NIST made mistakes,

People can knit pick this minor part or that. But they can't show us anything better. Unless they make up their own facts.

Absolutely... That's why I think it's important to use the same facts as NIST did, make sure they are consistent with reality of 9/11, and if the results are the same, then no conspiracy, mystery solved.

Originally posted by whatsecret

Originally posted by swoopaloop

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Building "7" (the third of the WTC complex buildings that fell on 9-11 altho it was not hit by a plane) did not implode because of a few fires in the building.

edit on 11-8-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

Than why did Building 7 collapse?

Good question.

Not really. You need to get up to speed. Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro said:
“I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

Yet Silverstein spoke about "deciding to pull it" on public TV, then a year or two later, denied that he had meant demolishing WTC7! The liar!
Here's proof that fire fighters KNEW that WTC7 was about to be blown up:
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by micpsi

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

Yes I remember that article. I think it was supposed to somehow prove that conspiracy theorists are crazy.