Common sense. Building 7 dropped straight into its own footprint, just shy of free-fall speed...6.5 seconds versus 6.0 seconds. No steel structure, in the history of steel structures, has ever collapsed at that speed and with that precision...unless it was a controlled demolition. Again, common sense.Unassumption wrote:What makes a presupposition less valid - for example, your idea of kittens blowing up the world trade centre rather than a controlled demolition?
What in the world are you talking about? Produce a quote.Unassumption wrote:...like some of the people you claim conspired together not even being alive at the same time
Is this possibly a mis-statement or something? I already explained I see these people as having no special efficiency or ingenuity. Why are you, yet again, assigning this position to me?Unassumption wrote:the hyper-competent government you have admitted your theory requires
I would say, you're misunderstanding various concepts. The fakery and fraud of, for example, the Vietnam War has "leaked" to many people, at this point. But the 10% or less of the population who are now aware enough to notice this murderous fraud...are not enough to upset the Pentagon's and the big bankers' schemes.Unassumption wrote:What would conspirators possibly have to gain, from leaking their conspiracy?
Likewise, the roughly 16% of Americans who suspect US government complicity in 9/11..are not enough (so far) to upset their conspiracy.
They don't expect to keep all things secret from everyone. Plenty of sailors and military pilots knew of the fraud of the Gulf of Tonkin. It didn't stop the Pentagon psychopaths from having their big money-maker war.
This is the second time you've trotted out this bare assertion of yours. The commissioners have NOT ruled in or out even one single thing about what may or may not have happened with 9/11. I say again...they have simply said they repudiate their own 9/11 Commission Report because there was wall-to wall corruption and indication of cover-up in the information-gathering process.Unassumption wrote:If you look into WHY [the 9/11 commissioners] are dismissing them as such, you'll see the reasons don't fit your conspiracy at all. You can't shave the details off a piece of evidence to make it fit your theories!
I have put no words in the commissioners' mouths as you falsely imply. I have not used their repudiation to support any specific aspect about 9/11. Again, an erroneous claim on your part. Good grief.
Government reps specifically and pointedly excluded the possibility of placed explosives. An extraordinary preclusion, given the fact that Building 7 fully collapsed in 6.5 seconds...and that this fact was specifically brought to their attention by hundreds of architects and engineers. By contrast, preclusion of the possibility the building was "poofed by a wizard" is not extraordinary.Unassumption wrote:They also precluded the idea it fell into a mine, was disolved in acid, poofed out by a wizard or shot by a missile
Numerous "sources"? Which sources are those? The only websites I've seen are run by anonymous, mysterious individuals. No names, no credentials, no nothing. Ultra-creepy, if you ask me.Unassumption wrote:There have been numerous sources across the net pointing out how ridiculous the controlled demolition idea is
By contrast, at just one site alone, Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth (.com)...there are currently one thousand and seven hundred architects and engineers who have loudly rejected the same thing the 7 commissioners have rejected--the 'official' story.
1700 architects and engineers...and they all have names, faces, credentials, addresses, phone numbers. If you can find even five identifiable individuals with names, faces and credentials and who have attempted to rebut these thousands of credentialed individuals...I'll eat my hat.
One of the most prominent "Truther-debunker" websites, 9/11debunking.com...no name is given, no credentials, no identity whatsoever...and yet thousands of debunker-wannabes swear by this site. Ironic.
How so? Where have you demonstrated that? There are evil people all over the world. Why is it plausible evil Middle-Easterners did 9/11...but not evil Westerners?Unassumption wrote:the controlled demo...supposes far far more than "angry muslims did it."
Obviously somebody had the ability to perp 9/11...because 9/11 happened. Why is one group plausible but the other isn't?
just shy of free-fall speed.
what does "just shy" mean? It didn't fall at free fall speed. If it was a controlled demolition, it would have fallen at free fall speed. It didn't, and this is INCONSISTENT with it being a controlled demolition.
It also did NOT fall directly into it's own footprint.
That your pre-concieved conclusions can drive you to look at the same footage I have seen and conclude that what happened didn't happen, is testement to the weakness of the human mind.
No steel structure, in the history of steel structures
If I was a pedant, I'd insist you add "that I know of," as I'm sure you haven't tested this with every steel structure that's ever fallen.
More importantly, how many steel structures HIT WITH A f*cking JET PLANE do you know of? How do you know this speed (even if it did fall unusually fast) would be unusual for towers hit by jets?
It's common sense your views are wrong.
I can do it too! Common sense is used by those without evidence to avoid debate.
What in the world are you talking about? Produce a quote.
You said Karl Marx conspired to cause the russian revolution, an event which happened after his death, and was performed mainly by people born while he was old or dying. You didn't say it, but you implied it, the theory you push nesecitates it. "The Bolshevik Revolution was fake. Lenin was fake. Marx was fake." If you don't think they were working with each other, what did that mean? How could they possibly profit from a plan that succeeded after many of them died?!
Earlier you said
"If, for example, I believe the cabalists are so brilliant, how would I explain their need to assassinate JFK? "
Later you said:
OK so...with regard to the Gulf of Tonkin, a conspiracy that involved hundreds and thousands of sailors and fighter pilots, and yet was successfully perpetrated and covered up for nigh unto half a century and is STILL successfully concealed from 90+% of America to this very day...
...this was perped by individuals who are NOT very bright or who ARE very bright?
Seems like a contradiction to me UNLESS you were not being sarcastic in that second quote and actually think a conspiracy that large could be performed by a government that wasn't hyper competent.
It doesn't matter if you admit it was competent (as the second quote seems to say) as your theory requires it is unrealistically competent. If it's competent enough to hide something from 90% of the population or to wage a phoney war, do you really think it would leak things and not take people who leaked it out let alone people spreading the information? I don't even believe YOU believe what you're saying - if you actually believed in these conspiracy theories, you'd be too scared to tell anyone. It's like theists don't really believe in an afterlife otherwise why would they fear death? Your actions speak louder than your words.
the 10% or less of the population who are now aware enough to notice this murderous fraud.
You know I meant the initial leaks, without which this 10% wouldn't exist. Of course I don't believe there is a conspiracy much less any leaking. This supposed 10% (a stat plucked out your ass most likely) probably all have their own individual conspiracy about what this 'crime' was. Yes there was corruption behind the scenes, that individuals and small groups profited from, but the main cause of the war was the very real cold war and policies it involved. That you can jump from corruption on the side to "the whole thing was one big conspiracy" is astounding.
the roughly 16% of Americans who suspect US government complicity in 9/11
So this competent government is just going to let that figure grow without doing anything to stop it? Really?
I have put no words in the commissioners' mouths as you falsely imply.
Either you said it for no f*cking purpose whatsoever, or you were implying that it was blocked for a reason that is evidence of your conspiracy. The only way this repudiation would be evidence of a conspiracy is if it was done because of something / anything that suggested one. The government could want to hide anything, not "we blew up 9/11." Incompetence (Especially given the CIA leaks) is a far more likely thing they wanted to hide!
Government reps specifically and pointedly excluded the possibility of placed explosives.
You mean they included aliens blowing it up with photon torpedos? They included the Kraken arising from the huden and hitting it with tentacle hentai? NO. They ignored a lot of other things, it is impossible for them to exclusively exclude one thing unless they look at infinite other things. Since you have no way of distinguishing between likely and unlikely causes (you reject ockham's razor) and haven't told me what makes some presuppositions "intilectually valuable" the octopus makes as much sense as any other explanation. Since the controlled demolition requires a conspiracy that eventually leads to things as absurd as the 'cold war is a lie' to fill it's plot holes, that is an absurd idea. They only had to SPECIFICALLY MENTION they were excluding this because of the number of idiots telling them this was the cause.
preclusion of the possibility the building was "poofed by a wizard" is not extraordinary.
Given you reject ockham's razor as "subjective" How can you possibly say that? Yes it's more extraordinary than the controlled demolition idea, but THAT is extra-ordinary in itself, for the same reasons a wizard did it is exta ordinary. There are other ordinary causes (did they check EVERY nation to see if they were behind it? EVERY company?).
Did they check if a cruize missile shaped like a plane hit it? Did they check if it was a remote controlled plane? There are plenty of other equally "reasonable" to your idea, ideas that have been proposed by other conspiracy theorists they didn't get investigated. It's not an 'exclusive' thing.
The only websites I've seen are run by anonymous, mysterious individuals.
I don't have names or credentials. I guess I must be in on your conspiracy too. i was going to post a bunch of youtube channels like dprjones, but I bet he's in on the conspiracy too. I bet he planned it out with disreli, willson, karl marx and me, right?
Yeah you're going to try the "i didn't say anything" excuse. You damn well implied it and if you say otherwise what the f*ck is this "they're creepy nameless sources" paragraph supposed to mean?
Did you say it for no reason? Unless you implied the things you're later claiming you DIDN'T imply, and phrased them this way as a way of being able to backpeddle like a politician, you said sh*t for NO goddamn reason throughout your rants.
You love quoting "big name" people (who are usually long dead). What's with you and arguments from authority? It doesn't matter what the source is, as long as the evidence they present is right. Your big name sources provide NO evidence except their 'authority.' These nameless sources provide EVIDENCE.
How the f*ck does the flight that went down in pensylvania fit into your conspiracy?
A PRIORI there is no way to know who did 9/11
but A POSTERIORI, we know evil muslims did it.
HOW? because all the evidence shows it!
One requires a massive conspiracy. One requires a guy getting in a plane. One is a lot simpler!
What next, the local murder down the road was done by the government? Since you have yet to give me a reason why some presupositions are less likely than others, and reject ockham's razor which most people use to differentiate between potential explanations, you either see no difference in credability between those 2 explanations (unlikely) or will say the random guy did it is more likely but refuse to say why because doing so would require admitting ockham's razor works and undermining your views on 9/11.
I already explained. Building 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds. Pure free-fall would've been 6.0 seconds.Unassumption wrote:what does "just shy" mean?
Where do you get that idea? Where in the world are you getting your info? Demolitions do NOT fall at exactly free-fall speed. There are at least small delays...up to and including longer delays, depending on how they want to bring the building down.Unassumption wrote:It didn't fall at free fall speed. If it was a controlled demolition, it would have fallen at free fall speed .
?? Yes, it did. Watch any of the videos. It fell straight down on top of itself...descended, tilted at a slight angle. And the slight angle tilt is a common 'controlled demolition' feature.Unassumption wrote:It also did NOT fall directly into it's own footprint..
That's pretty obnoxious, isn't it? You asked me how I differentiate between various theories...and I provided the explanation about free-falling steel structures. But in your response above, you then misrepresent me as though I was claiming that I achieve final conclusions through mere 'common sense.'Unassumption wrote:It's common sense your views are wrong.
I can do it too!
Are you kidding? That fact has been documented to death. It is one of the leading battle cries of the architect/engineer experts. There is absolutely no steel structure which has collapsed into a pile of rubble only one half second short of full free-fall speed...nor ANY demolition-style collapse of a steel structure...unless it WAS a controlled demolition. Not a single steel structure in the world has ever collapsed into a pile of rubble...from a fire or high speed impact or anything...other than controlled demolition.Unassumption wrote:If I was a pedant, I'd insist you add "that I know of," as I'm sure you haven't tested this with every steel structure that's ever fallen.
Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane.Unassumption wrote:More importantly, how many steel structures HIT WITH A JET PLANE do you know of?
Furthermore, the original builder/chief architect and engineer (John Skilling) AND the second chief engineer/architect (Frank DeMartini, who rebuilt the Towers after the '93 bombing) specifically declared the buildings' ability to withstand a jet airliner impact at 600 mph full speed:
"The Buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 , DC-8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. "
DeMartini went even beyond that, explaining that these buildings could easily withstand multiple airliner impacts...because it would merely be like a pencil poking through the screen mesh on a screen door. The structural integrity would remain virtually unaffected.
Get back to me when you've figured out what your claim is, bro. Mama mia. You really do go about feverishly putting words in people's mouths.Unassumption wrote:You said Karl Marx conspired...
You didn't say it, but you implied it...
In any case, I don't understand your conspiracy theory here. What exactly is the problem with a movement (whether the Communist movement or any other movement) that outlives one generation of leadership and moves on to the next generation? Communism has been successively led by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and so on. What's with all the bungled, butchered interpretations of my comments?
If it's as simple as you claim (just putting a "guy" on a "plane")...why couldn't either party do it?Unassumption wrote:One requires a massive conspiracy. One requires a guy getting in a plane. One is a lot simpler!
I'm having trouble keeping up with all your accusatory conspiracy theories about me! I "know" something about your inner thoughts? I'm not following you.Unassumption wrote:You know I meant the initial leaks!
In any case, the much smaller number of people who knew about the Gulf of Tonkin fraud from the very beginning...would be even less of a nuisance to the Pentagon murderers...compared to a very large number (probably in the millions) who NOW know about the fraud. So it strengthens my point all the more:
Conspirators usually don't need 100% secrecy. That's all I was saying. (?)
What do you mean--"of course"? There are conspiracies going on all over the world and all throughout history. Why would you dismiss out-of-hand the possibility of conspiracy...especially when there is plenty of cash motive and power-mongering motive to start wars?Unassumption wrote:Of course I don't believe there is a conspiracy
That's a big leap, to preclude the possibility of conspiracy...and then strangely you seem to circle back around, at the end of your short paragraph...and more or less admit there were those who WERE conspiring. (??) Maybe it's the late hour or something?
At this point, I have no idea what you're talking about. Incomprehensible. The fact remains...these commissioners are complaining they don't know WHAT the story is behind 9/11...and your leap, in saying the cover-up is only about "incompetence", is just that...a leap. Don't know what you're getting upset about.Unassumption wrote:Either you said it for no f____ purpose whatsoever or you were implying that it was blocked for a reason that is evidence of your conspiracy.
Ironically, you keep accusing me of the very thing you are doing...leaping crazily. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm prepared to concede that by itself we learn nothing from the repudiation of the commissioners...other than that 1) they have rejected their own report...and 2) they have complained of systematic cover-up.
But for me personally, I've looked at a bigger collection of puzzle pieces..and the commissioners' complaints of cover-up fit into a bigger context.
No, I do not agree with this guy's descriptions. It's interesting how much effort you're spending, trying to predict what my views might be...all across the far-flung corners of the cosmos. Anythng to get away from specific arguments and evidence regarding specific aspects, I guess?Unassumption wrote:I bet you'd would agree with the first four of these, without sarcasm.
I'm starting to understand why you were so steamed when I pointed out how, in stark contrast to scholarly 9/11 revisionists, the detractor/debunker wannabes are just a succession of silly pseudo-intellectuals like this guy. I truly don't understand why you would trade in credentialed, scientific, scholarly analysis...for a guy whom I suspect of working at Burger King and of having hygiene issues.
What's up with that?
Again with the appeals to authority? This time you're trying to discredit the guy with ass-pull elietist insults.
You don't know why we involk experts - it's not because they're alpha males, it's because they have seen evidence we haven't and we have evidence to suggest they are telling the truth. Whatever, it doesn't take a scientific genius to see what you've said is not a 'simple explanation' for the evidence.
The evidence comes first then the explanation.
But there are a huge number of things that could explain the same evidence - we chose the simple ones. It doesn't matter what evidence we propose if you're going to yell some convoluted reason why our evidence is somehow compatible with your theory.
That you have made up doesn't fit the video footage "evidence" doesn't mean you have any evidence.
I suspected you'd reject what he's saying, given it's sarcastic and all, despite it only being a slight stretch from what you actually believe.
That's a big leap, to preclude the possibility of conspiracy.
If you keep seeing people saying seemingly nonsensical things, maybe it's your reading comprehension that fails? As I repeatedly said, no one here is precluding the possability of conspiracies, in general. It's YOUR particular conspiracy we don't believe in. Do we have to explicitly remind you of the topic of the paragraph each sentence for you to not read it in the most nonsensical way?
From previous posts:Unassumption wrote:Given your unwillingness to explain how you differentiate out "Intilectually valid" presuppositions
Unassumption: "What makes a presupposition less valid - for example, your idea of kittens blowing up the world trade centre rather than a controlled demolition?"
RedStone: "Common sense. Building 7 dropped straight into its own footprint, just shy of free-fall speed...6.5 seconds versus 6.0 seconds. No steel structure, in the history of steel structures, has ever collapsed at that speed and with that precision...unless it was a controlled demolition. Again, common sense."
It's incredible how much mis-reading you do..and how much false/mistaken views/opinions you assign to the other guy.
I can see you're obviously running away from all the huge errors of your last big post. Controlled demos supposedly falling at perfect free-fall speed, and all that nonsense.
I have to be frank here and say...you don't have the first foggy clue as to the correct application of 'appeal to authority". To merely point to 1700 credentialed architects and engineers who might be a better source than some pseudo-intellectual Joe Schmoe wearing a baseball cap...that's an "appeal to authority"? Utter nonsense.Unassumption wrote:Again with the appeals to authority?
You predicted I would agree AND disagree? That's certainly covering all your bases. And to think you have sneeringly accused me of "reading comprehension" problems. Sorry, all due respect but...much of your comments (including the above example) are just a mass of butchered syntax and confusing contradiction. Another example follows below...Unassumption wrote:I bet you'd would agree with the first four of these...
I suspected you'd reject what he's saying...
Involk? What is "involk"? and what is this repeated "intilectual"? Do you mean "intellectual"? And why do you repeatedly substitute "weather" for "whether"? These repeatedly butchered spellings aren't just typos. I think you've previously claimed you're a college student. I have my doubts. That's a pretty profound lack of literacy. I would normally hold my tongue but...the unnecessary sneering impoliteness and silly condescension of so many of your comments, combined with numerous repeated references to private parts of my anatomy (which I'm beginning to wonder about, by the way) as a supposed depository for statistical information...I think it's time for a little firmness.Unassumption wrote:You don't know why we involk experts - it's not because they're alpha males
But back to your borderline gibberish comment about invoking (is that what you meant?) the 'experts". Which experts did you ever invoke? And the reference to "alpha males". What in THEE [sp] world are you talking about, guy? How would I know what your reference to 'alpha males' is supposed to signify?
So...the guy with the baseball cap and a blog with 278 views...has "seen evidence" and you have "evidence" indicating he is correct? In the meantime...he hasn't produced any evidence and you haven't produced any evidence...even in a single instance. Complete and total nonsense. I mean...this is really irrational. What's going on here, fella?Unassumption wrote:it's because they have seen evidence we haven't and we have evidence to suggest they are telling the truth.
If you can "see the truth," anyone can. First you accuse all the people who support the official story of being anonymous, then you accuse them of being plebians when you see their faces. I bet you actually think weather someone wears a baseball cap and other facts of their apparel are good signs of their intelligence. Unsure if that's more or less an indication that you've stopped even trying to defend your ideas, than you're spellchecking me. Obviously you can't be a scientist if you occasionally spell things wrong, FACT! But if you spend all your time practicing spellings, you'll know everything about the universe including the great cold war conspiracy, right? If you understand what I'm saying my spellings are good enough. My style might be flawed, but your substance is down the drain.
Responding to a post where I accuse you of not understanding sarcasm, you don't get that I was being sarcastic and accuse me of being contradictory. Given how literal you take figures of speech and idioms, are you a native speaker?
I love how you show you don't know what appeal to authority is, in your attempt to defend yourself; quoting a bunch of engineers on something unrelated to their field is an appeal to authority.
I won't waste good syntax on one such as you
I hate to parrot your snarks about 'comprehension'. but...you're having a severe comprehension issue:Unassumption wrote:Your 'common sense' answer was no answer at all.That's why I keep "missing" it. Because it's not an answer.
If you can "see the truth," anyone can.
I didn't say I could see all the truth of 9/11 through mere common sense. That's a false claim on your part.
Recall, if you will, sir...having asked me to explain how I preliminarily sort out good presupps from bad. You specifically ask how I differentiate between "kittens in Mongolia" and "controlled demolition". I explained simply that I use common sense...again, merely to preliminarily assess which fundamental assumptions are high or low quality.
You asked a question about 'assessing assumptions'. I answered the question about 'assessing assumptions'.
Your comprehension is almost zilch...or, you're deliberately twisting. Take your pick.
It's quite amazing to see how you've hurtled head-long away from all the evidence, evidence sources, and specific arguments I've put forth. You don't even make a pretense of having a decent courteous discussion over a specific matter. I certainly hope any lurkers here have had their eyes opened. That has been my minimum goal.
I accused?? They ARE anonymous...the ones sprinkled all over the Internet. No accusations are necessary.Unassumption wrote:First you accuse all the people who support the official story of being anonymous...
There have been a tiny handful, a few. You can count them on one hand...and in each scenario that I have come across so far, there are dubious circumstances that would cause one to question the motives and/or intellectual honesty.
Did you mean "plebeians" per chance? And I love the way you continue to gamely substitute "weather" for 'whether".Unassumption wrote:then you accuse them of being plebians when you see their faces. I bet you actually think weather someone wears a baseball cap and other facts of their apparel are good signs of their intelligence..
But no, it wasn't the face. It was the pompous, pseudo-intellectual, unsourced, useless ranting...along with the photo of himself, apparently passed out on his mom's floor, dead-drunk.
So yes...after a while, I begin to apply my version of Occam's Razor in sorting kittens from controlled demolition...and apparent trailer rednecks living with their mom, from thousands of people who are experts at structural engineering questions.
Call it 'preliminary application of preliminary common sense'...when I gravitate towards experts and away from amateur snarkers.
Spellchecking? No need to push the spellcheck button with words like weather, intelictuall, and 'than' instead of 'then'. It's right in one's face.Unassumption wrote:than you're spellchecking me. Obviously you can't be a scientist if you occasionally spell things wrong,
Like I said, I usually refrain from pointing such things out...but all the sneering condescension, and presumption of vast intellectual superiority...it's time for your reality check, my friend.
And now you've apparently graduated since this thread began and are now a "scientist"?! That's amazing.
Wow--the depth of your confusion...flabbergasting.Unassumption wrote:I love how you show you don't know what appeal to authority is, in your attempt to defend yourself; quoting a bunch of engineers on something unrelated to their field is an appeal to authority.
A comparable analogy would be if someone said they had a sore tooth and were going to seek out a dental professional...whereupon you would say "wait, I know this guy with a baseball cap who frequently passes out dead-drunk on his mom's floor...he works at Burger King but he has dental expertise"...
...whereupon the guy would say "uh...no, I think I prefer the dentist". Whereupon you cry "appeal to authority!!"
Instead of a sore tooth, I've got a collapsed building on my hands...so I prefer folks who are experts at structural analysis to the guy in the baseball cap. I can barely believe this has to be explained to you.
And...you are claiming the analysis of structural failure is not the area of expertise for structural engineers?? Bro, you need to choose another hobby. All due respect...critical thinking is NOT your forte. Sorry.
Flying planes into the tallest buildings (2nd, whatever) in America resulting in their total collapse wouldn't be traumatic enough for the conspirators to achieve their nefarious goals. No way, man, they've gotta also blow up this dumpy, smaller building that no one has ever heard of. America is not going to go along with the invasion of Iraq (or whatever post hoc conclusion they like to imply) by the mere destruction of the twin towers, but fuck with 7 World Trade and now it's personal!
Because the idea that 7 WTC was severely damaged by the collapse of the other towers is less than or equal to a secret controlled demolition for which there is terrible evidence to the conspiracy hack. (Don't controlled demolitions usually have explosionS?)
This is an example of how conspiracy theories cling to anomalies (or perceived anomalies in this case) and use them to imply, if not conclude that something scary is going on. (I heard something in the dark; it must be a ghost!) Getting caught up in such a small detail without the context causes one to miss the forest for the trees. In this case, the context is "Why bother with WTC 7 if one is attacking the twin towers and the Pentagon?"
I always laugh when the true believer accuses the skeptic of not being open minded. Yes one needs to be open minded, but not so open minded that the brain falls out. (That's a metaphor, by the way, not literal.)
You read it! You can't unread it!
Here's a guy who doesn't wear a baseball cap talking non-sarcastically about world trade centre 7. Maybe you'll listen to him given his accent, or use it as evidence he's an elietist who's in on the conspiracy.
I didn't say I could see all the truth of 9/11 through mere common sense. That's a false claim on your part.
I asked how, without ockham's razor, you could differentiate between potential explanations for the same phenomenon. You said common sense, and said nothing more, suggesting that was your whole answer. If you meant to say something else, you should have said it.
You reject ockham's objective razor as "subjective" and replace it with your subjective, vague and rule-less "common sense." There's no point arguing about the evidence if you can use 'common sense' to see the explanation for it is your theory.
The videos show your "evidence" is false. It doesn't matter how qualified an expert is, if we have videos showing the opposite. If you want to say the videos are doctored, fine, prove it.
A few thousand biologists don't believe in evolution; that's a tiny fraction of biologists. 1700 engineers may believe in a 9/11 conspiracy but there are far more who don't. If we believe the numbers these surveys give which I don't.
Now you're a scientist
You said I can't be going to college because my spelling sucks. I meant that neither the area I'm studying in is spelling intensive. Though it's a fact that spelling doesn't alter scientific facts, and isn't nearly as important as skill as you suggest. All forms of weather sound the same and we know which is meant entirely by the rest of the sentence, if we can do that out loud we can do it in text as we did before standardized spelling was a thing. Again, off topic insults are not supporting your 'theory.' Not to follow you into e-psychology land but I suspect you have a small ego, insisting you have this great knowledge all the 'sheep' lack every 5 minutes; people who actually have knowledge don't need to keep telling everyone.
accused?? They ARE anonymous
Then how do you seem to know the minute details in the life of the guy I linked from a short sarcastic video?
presumption of vast intellectual superiority
If i was feeling snarky I'd say It's not a presumption, it's where the evidence led me
I can't judge your intelligence based on this one forum thread but I can gague that you're not open to evidence so I'm not bothering with you and just typing whatever comes to mind. Your idea isn't worth discussing, until there's some reason to discuss it. As i said it's just a game for me.
So, I'm the nut and you're the Einstein? Well, Einstein...WTC7 was not "severely damaged by the collapse of the other towers" and that's the official conclusion of the US government in it's NIST publication-- "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7":triplemultiplex wrote:Ah, Building 7; the last resort of the 9/11 conspiracy nut.
...7 WTC was severely damaged by the collapse of the other towers...
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
What else ya got? I await your response here in my rubber room.
The point is, focusing in on such a tiny event in the context of the entire disaster is an easy way to get distracted when investigating this event or any other, for that matter. We skeptics call that "anomaly hunting." Giving so much weight to a small inconsistency, real or perceived, can lead one to erroneous conclusions. Especially when one starts their investigation already biased towards one explanation or conclusion and is searching for evidence to support it instead of allowing the evidence to guide their research. In this case, the bias is a search for any anomalies that might lend plausibility to a rejection of the 'conventional' narrative that a bunch of terrorists jacked some planes, crashed them into buildings, and they fell down.
Getting back to something we've discussed before; the idea of hyper-competency. I've mentioned it in the context of the conspirators being able to carry out a super complicated plan perfectly, but the same can be applied to a perceived anomaly on 9/11 that I think ropes people into conspiracy-land.
So often you hear from the truthers, "Why didn't the US Air Force shoot any of those planes down?" They feel like the military is such a highly trained, well equipped force that they should be able to respond to any threat at a moment's notice. Movies, television shows, video games and books reinforce this notion over and over. The culture in America has built up the idea of the US Military so much that many think they should be able to do anything. But in truth, the military is just another bureaucratic organization as full of waste, incompetence and poor communication as any other department.
Prior to 9/11 the United States did not keep armed fighter jets on immediate standby for any potential threats. The Cold War (if you believe the lame-stream media ) was over but America's defense posture was still directed towards threats coming in from outside. And when I hear recordings of the conversations between air traffic control and the military, I hear a bunch of people having a hard time communicating what exactly is going on and not really knowing how to proceed. They have trouble figuring out which planes are hijacked, which ones have crashed and where they are going.
It's a bureaucratic clusterfuck in a completely unanticipated situation and by the time there are fighters moving in the right direction, it's over. The bureaucracy is slow, including the military. The idea that the Air Force could've fill the skies with fighters the instant Tower 1 got hit is a fantasy. There is an undeserved assumption of hyper-competence in the military when really it's the DMV with tanks and bombers.
So when a person identifies this as an anomaly, the hunt begins for an explanation that satisfies their expectation of what SHOULD'VE happened.
You read it! You can't unread it!
There is an undeserved assumption of hyper-competence in the military when really it's the DMV with tanks and bombers.
Which is only more evidence for the urinal duce conspiracy D:
I hear a bunch of people having a hard time communicating what exactly is going on and not really knowing how to proceed
Hence all the training for crazy unlikely situations like the girl scouts rising up I guess. Though whatever happens next, will probably be something they haven't planned for, as usual. The future tends to be blurry!
Movies, television shows, video games and books reinforce this notion over and over.
The media is to blame, painting an unrealistic picture of a real thing most people are too ignorant about to know is unrealistic. When reality doesn't fit people's view of what reality is, partly from the movies, they'll say reality is unrealistic!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests