The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[proudfootz]

I'm told this thread (and other incarnations) have going on for years.

So you're saying all the fine folks who've been contributing to this thread are no better than comic book fans?

You have contempt for Weaver and other would-be 'debunkers'? Because they have a need to be 'right'?

Like you do?

Really funny to see you throwing all your friends under the bus just to pretend you had a point!

Wow! You really think the ones laying facts are part of the let's pretend game conspiracy theorists are? Do you believe I was referring to them when I was talking about conspiracy theorists arguing with each other?

Those guys are grown adults. They're the ones saying, guys, it's not real.

I was referring to when conspiracy theorists argue contradictory points with one another by making up shit. Like when I argued stuff about Trump I couldn't possibly know and you tried retort with something you couldn't possibly know. Assertion vs assertion. Only I knew I was talking shit, having a laugh. You thought you were making an argument.

So you made shit up and when you got called on it you have a snit fit.

But you have to pretend like you don't care all that much.

Tough spot to be in for you.

I didn't simply get "called out". You tried to suggest that clandestine agencies, which I made up, don't have to tell the President anything. It was like responding to me saying Superman would simply crush Batman by saying not if Batman had his kryptonite pants on - exempt meaning it; like it was real.

You think clandestine agencies are 'made up'?

You're farther gone than you seemed at first.

The President is privy to information. Confidential stuff. Top security clearance. To say that this is being withheld from him is layering even more conspiracy on top of what's there.

Next you'll be telling us you made up Donald Trump.

[Animavore]

Wow! You really think the ones laying facts are part of the let's pretend game conspiracy theorists are? Do you believe I was referring to them when I was talking about conspiracy theorists arguing with each other?

Those guys are grown adults. They're the ones saying, guys, it's not real.

I was referring to when conspiracy theorists argue contradictory points with one another by making up shit. Like when I argued stuff about Trump I couldn't possibly know and you tried retort with something you couldn't possibly know. Assertion vs assertion. Only I knew I was talking shit, having a laugh. You thought you were making an argument.

So you made shit up and when you got called on it you have a snit fit.

But you have to pretend like you don't care all that much.

Tough spot to be in for you.

I didn't simply get "called out". You tried to suggest that clandestine agencies, which I made up, don't have to tell the President anything. It was like responding to me saying Superman would simply crush Batman by saying not if Batman had his kryptonite pants on - exempt meaning it; like it was real.

You think clandestine agencies are 'made up'?

You're farther gone than you seemed at first.

The President is privy to information. Confidential stuff. Top security clearance. To say that this is being withheld from him is layering even more conspiracy on top of what's there.

Next you'll be telling us you made up Donald Trump.

In this case, yes. The clandestine agencies are made up. Because it was me who made them up.

[proudfootz]

I see - your vague reference was meant to be an over-the-top joke.

Keep on trying!

Eventually you'll learn to put something funny in to prevent the jokes from falling flat.

[Animavore]

Anyway; I'm bored of this kids game already. Post #2, which was completely ignored by all, says it all. The conspiracy fantasy RPG isn't anything like reality. Nice hobby, like cryptozoology and ghost hunting, but not of much academic or historical interest.

[psikeyhackr]

Anyway; I'm bored of this kids game already. Post #2, which was completely ignored by all, says it all. The conspiracy fantasy RPG isn't anything like reality. Nice hobby, like cryptozoology and ghost hunting, but not of much academic or historical interest.

Post #2 does not contain the words 'physics' or ''gravity' and 'mass' is only used for 'mass murder'.

9/11 is a physics problem that must be solved before the conspiracy crap is even worth mentioning.

Physics is boring to morons.

psik

[Just A Theory]

It's been 17 years, why hasn't the physics problem been solved yet?

[Animavore]

Anyway; I'm bored of this kids game already. Post #2, which was completely ignored by all, says it all. The conspiracy fantasy RPG isn't anything like reality. Nice hobby, like cryptozoology and ghost hunting, but not of much academic or historical interest.

Post #2 does not contain the words 'physics' or ''gravity' and 'mass' is only used for 'mass murder'.

9/11 is a physics problem that must be solved before the conspiracy crap is even worth mentioning.

Physics is boring to morons.

psik

I see you've been at this for at least 7 years, and that the physics has been explained to you repeatedly.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that physics is boring to morons. They might be able to understand it if they showed an interest and applied themselves a little. Not being able to comprehend physics, however, after being explained to numerous ways from layman's terms to technical (with equations and everything) over a number of years...

[proudfootz]

Anyway; I'm bored of this kids game already. Post #2, which was completely ignored by all, says it all. The conspiracy fantasy RPG isn't anything like reality. Nice hobby, like cryptozoology and ghost hunting, but not of much academic or historical interest.

Post #2 does not contain the words 'physics' or ''gravity' and 'mass' is only used for 'mass murder'.

9/11 is a physics problem that must be solved before the conspiracy crap is even worth mentioning.

Physics is boring to morons.

psik

This is another one of Animavore's little 'jokes'.

It has to be. Who'd cite a Gish Gallop that included debunked stuff like Popular Mechanics and NOVA?

[Animavore]

Anyway; I'm bored of this kids game already. Post #2, which was completely ignored by all, says it all. The conspiracy fantasy RPG isn't anything like reality. Nice hobby, like cryptozoology and ghost hunting, but not of much academic or historical interest.

Post #2 does not contain the words 'physics' or ''gravity' and 'mass' is only used for 'mass murder'.

9/11 is a physics problem that must be solved before the conspiracy crap is even worth mentioning.

Physics is boring to morons.

psik

This is another one of Animavore's little 'jokes'.

It has to be. Who'd cite a Gish Gallop that included debunked stuff like Popular Mechanics and NOVA?

Oh no. I'm deadly serious.

Who'd misuse the term "Gish gallop" but a conspiracy theorist?

The article does not request that you debunk every little thing to debunk it (true Gish gallop). It is one that piles on entities with each one increasing implausibility. After that you use Occam's razor to slice it.

And the conspiracy doesn't add up no matter what way you slice it.

(For reference look at the related article on what a real conspiracy looks like and how even a small handful of individuals can't keep their mouth shut. http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm )

[GrahamH]

Who'd misuse the term "Gish gallop" but a conspiracy theorist?

Typical Truther tactic of poisoning the well. Irrespective of whether the site refers to sources that may have been 'debunked' on some issues. the site presents a chain of quotes and sources for the reports of 'molten steel'. A rational response would be to refute that chain of evidence if it was incorrect. But it seems Truthers don't do that. If they are challenged in one area they deflect to something else, as happened here.

Truther: "There was molten steel!"
Dbunker: "There was a report of "molten steel" which can be traced to these reports and no physical evidence..."
Truther:" "Who'd cite a Gish Gallop that included debunked stuff like Popular Mechanics and NOVA?"

[psikeyhackr]

I see you've been at this for at least 7 years, and that the physics has been explained to you repeatedly.

So that means you can find a post with good data on the distribution of steel down one of the Twin Towers?

Provide a link.

Did the first Level have to support more weight than the 100th Level or not? Shouldn't Middle School physics be able to deal with that question?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

So where is a decent experiment that does a complete collapse? Give us a link.

psik

[Animavore]

I see you've been at this for at least 7 years, and that the physics has been explained to you repeatedly.

So that means you can find a post with good data on the distribution of steel down one of the Twin Towers?

Provide a link.

Did the first Level have to support more weight than the 100th Level or not? Shouldn't Middle School physics be able to deal with that question?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

So where is a decent experiment that does a complete collapse? Give us a link.

psik

I have three options here. I can look it up for you on the web. I can look up this thread to find where someone already answered this for you. Or I can tell you to do your own homework.

The first is pointless given the second, and if you really cared about the third you'd have already done it.

Like I've said; the conspiracy dies with Occam's razor (post #2). You claim that 9/11 is really a physics problem; but what are you hoping the physics will show you except evidence that the official story is not what we've been told? A conspiracy.

With the conspiracy ruled out there's no reason to think there is anything more to the story.

[psikeyhackr]

I have three options here. I can look it up for you on the web. I can look up this thread to find where someone already answered this for you. Or I can tell you to do your own homework.

Like I have not seen this psychological bullsh!t strategy before.

You imply something is there and that I am too lazy or incompetent to find it, even though no one has found it in SIXTEEN YEARS.

I burned the NCSTAR1 report to DVD years ago. The NIST admitted in three places that they needed to know the distribution of weight of the towers in order to analyze the motion due to the aircraft impacts and then never did it.

I am SO LAZY that I built a model to show that the mass and distribution of mass affected the motion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

So after nearly 10 years since I did that we still get psychological BS from people who haven't done squat and can just blather.

psik

[Animavore]

Nice model, but it is not a scale model of the tower, it's not even built in the same way. It is not set on fire. And it is not penetrated by the object hitting it. It's not even hit at the equivalent point near the top. It doesn't prove anything.

The Hiroshima part is the most bizarre and nonsensical non-sequitur I've ever seen.

You imply a conspiracy when you say, "But we are supposed to believe that these buildings fell to the ground in less than two hours due to strikes from aeroplanes." Despite claiming you're not into conspiracy theory.

Your model sucks. It's laughable. And you seem to be under the apprehension that unless everyone else builds a model themselves they aren't in a position to say anything, but this shoots yourself in the foot because why should anyone trust your model? The reality is I need only look at the different models provided and assess which one I find most convincing and yours is as convincing as a dog belonging to a guy called Ralph who he insists he's taught to say his own name.

Lastly, most importantly, and this goes for the rest of you conspiracy theorists, you don't provide a plausible alternative. You can't point to anyone other than the terrorists who are supposedly involved. You can't provide robust models or any academic papers.

The problem with you people is that you think you are owed an explanation when one has already been given. But it is you guys who owe the rest of us an explanation. You need to provide a full account of everything that day which is consistent and concordant with the facts and evidence. You can't do that, though, so you try pick holes in the one given believing finding a hole proves you right; a false dichotomy.

[psikeyhackr]

Nice model, but it is not a scale model of the tower, it's not even built in the same way. It is not set on fire. And it is not penetrated by the object hitting it. It's not even hit at the equivalent point near the top. It doesn't prove anything.

Wrong!

It proved that changing the mass and the distribution of mass of a vertical flexible structure changed the behavior of the structure due to a shearing impact.

Therefore that type of data is necessary to analyze what happened to the Twin Towers.

So where is it?

psik

[Animavore]

Nice model, but it is not a scale model of the tower, it's not even built in the same way. It is not set on fire. And it is not penetrated by the object hitting it. It's not even hit at the equivalent point near the top. It doesn't prove anything.

Wrong!

It proved that changing the mass and the distribution of mass of a vertical flexible structure changed the behavior of the structure due to a shearing impact.

How?

[proudfootz]

Who'd misuse the term "Gish gallop" but a conspiracy theorist?

Typical Truther tactic of poisoning the well. Irrespective of whether the site refers to sources that may have been 'debunked' on some issues. the site presents a chain of quotes and sources for the reports of 'molten steel'. A rational response would be to refute that chain of evidence if it was incorrect. But it seems Truthers don't do that. If they are challenged in one area they deflect to something else, as happened here.

Truther: "There was molten steel!"
Dbunker: "There was a report of "molten steel" which can be traced to these reports and no physical evidence..."
Truther:" "Who'd cite a Gish Gallop that included debunked stuff like Popular Mechanics and NOVA?"

Typical debunker tactic - misrepresent another person's post in a quest to proclaim 'victory'.

Debunker #1: "Post number 2 is a long list of claims that proves my point!"
Skeptic: "You must be joking to cite a Gish Gallop like that."
Debunker #2: "Haha! The Skeptic is avoiding the specific issue of molten steel."
Skeptic: "The citation of post 2 wasn't in support of a specific claim about molten steel."

[Animavore]

He may have gotten mixed up witb the other post related to #2.

Good example. The molten steel argument above is addressed in the website quoted and linked in post #2.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

It's all there.

This conspiracy stuff is a fun "what if " hobby, kinda like creative writing class, but don't pretend It's anything more.

[proudfootz]

Anyway; I'm bored of this kids game already. Post #2, which was completely ignored by all, says it all. The conspiracy fantasy RPG isn't anything like reality. Nice hobby, like cryptozoology and ghost hunting, but not of much academic or historical interest.

Post #2 does not contain the words 'physics' or ''gravity' and 'mass' is only used for 'mass murder'.

9/11 is a physics problem that must be solved before the conspiracy crap is even worth mentioning.

Physics is boring to morons.

psik

This is another one of Animavore's little 'jokes'.

It has to be. Who'd cite a Gish Gallop that included debunked stuff like Popular Mechanics and NOVA?

Oh no. I'm deadly serious.

Given your self-proclaimed tendency to troll this thread to your unfunny jokes, it's impossible to tell your 'parodies' from what 'serious' would-be debunkers usually claim.

Who'd misuse the term "Gish gallop" but a conspiracy theorist?

I'm not misusing it - you appear not to know what it means:

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity[1]) is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.

This is exactly what post #2 is - a laundry list of claims it would be exceedingly tedious to refute.

The article does not request that you debunk every little thing to debunk it (true Gish gallop).

Funnily enough, GrahamH seems to think that even if some 'facts' claimed in the post have been debunked, it is still valid:

"Irrespective of whether the site refers to sources that may have been 'debunked' on some issues..."

Maybe you two should get together and cobble together a new meaning of Gish Gallop that accommodates both of your notions.

It is one that piles on entities with each one increasing implausibility. After that you use Occam's razor to slice it.

Funny thing is, your idiosyncratic definition doesn't match what normal people mean by it.

And the conspiracy doesn't add up no matter what way you slice it.

You seem to imagine if you rebut some claim included in some particular theory you've refuted them all - that is bad logic in anyone's book.

(For reference look at the related article on what a real conspiracy looks like and how even a small handful of individuals can't keep their mouth shut. http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm )

Yes, I've seen similar claims.

It just doesn't hold up to logic or common sense.

Just because one conspiracy became exposed in only a few years mean all conspiracies will be. Those conspiracies that have been exposed have been kept under wraps for various lengths of time. Some are immediately discovered, some take a few years to become common knowledge, others can take decades.

Just because one author imagines all conspiracies are exactly alike doesn't make it so.

[Animavore]

Your definition of Gish gallop confirms mine.

And what has what Graham H thinks got to do with me?

Post #2 is one argument. Not a string of them. And the reason this conspiracy is implausible is because of the thousands that need to be involved in keeping it, each individual and groups of individuals along the way approached and went along without saying anything or having a moral objection.