The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Moridin]

!	MODNOTE Continued from here: http://www.rational-skepticism.org/post177837.html#p177837I Fallible

I think a quote from Michael Shermer could be fitting here.

"The belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (that includes, in addition to Holocaust denial, creationism and crank theories of physics), and is easily refuted by noting that beliefs and theories are not built on single facts alone, but on a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry. All of the “evidence” for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy" - Michael Shermer

http://trueslant.com/michaelshermer/201 ... -truthers/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-s ... 84154.html

[aspire1670]

All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off...

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

"-The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history... Some of them like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil have come out for less.

-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most, if not all, of them. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples’ statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about a gag order imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag order on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder by the government or the building owner. Why? They don't even know...

Conspiracy theorists bring up an article in Fire House magazine which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the article’s context to make it seem like the firefighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_ ... m?Section=
OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=
25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_ ... eArticles&
SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026

Many of these men and women come from the military, yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the government’s next mass murder than come out and expose this.

-The courts for imposing a gag order [SEE above]

-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...

-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?

-All the people in the Pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly trucked in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? Again, no answer...

-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They won’t say anything.]

-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like the BBC and Al Jazeera. Why? No answer here either...

-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.

-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 27842.html

-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent organization doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact, the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a handful can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team of structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work with other teams using the same evidence and specifications.

-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.

-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to China before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the firefighters.

-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context, then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is that the engineers don't know about Jones’ work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones' work to any structural engineer?

-Structure Magazine who published a report saying the collapse of WTC 7 may have been due to one column failing.

-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why? No clue...

-The CIA

-The FBI

-FEMA

-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorists say is impossible is possible.

-NORAD

-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorists say never existed.

-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.

-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorists say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.

-American Airlines (Pentagon)

-United Airlines (Pentagon)

-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes

-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology

-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)

-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)

-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.

-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings

-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover

-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)

-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)

-People who detonated the buildings"

-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.

Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed. Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involve, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...

A common excuse for no one coming out who was part of this so called 9/11 conspiracy is they fear death. If you analyze the argument carefully you realize they are debunking themselves. Why would even people in the military be more fearful of exposing this than the common conspiracy theorists behind a computer monitor? Either they don't believe what they're saying or they actually think they are more fearless than the thousands of others who would have had to be "in on it". As if people in the CIA or FBI couldn't figure out how to get the message out if they wanted to without exposing who they are. People, dates, places, memos and other evidence could easily be disseminated to the public without exposing who they are. The only reason they claim the people are paralyzed with fear is because they have too in order for the conspiracy story to work."

Oh, I almost forgot, you would also need plenty of these.

[PJG]

~snip~

PJG, what would falsify your belief? Don't say more research, because we both know that this is not true. If your position is unfalsifiable, why should we take you anymore serious than we take people who claim to have been abducted by aliens?

What belief are you suggesting I hold?

[PJG]

My evidence:

"The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC7 under an ordinary building contents fire".
NIST NCSTAR 1-9:331

That is why I claim NIST had a predetermined conclusion into which they had to shoehorn evidence - my evidence is there in black and white in the NIST report. Are you going to claim this indicates anything other than a predetermined outcome or are you going to apologise for this:.....

Context.
Context.
Context.

You persist in taking key elements out of the context of the sequence of analysis PJG. Get the sequence and context correct:

Analysis steps 1 to n shows clearly that there was no demolition ( and no evidence of unexpected fires to cover your recent several weeks side tracking.) Status: dozens of interlocking and mutually supporting items of evidence - versus BTW your possible one element of anomalous evidence.

Analysis step n+1...since the evidence says no demolition the collapse must have been by fire induced structural mechanisms but we ain't clear what it was.

Analysis Step n+2...since lots of people are interested in why - across the spectrum from genuinely interested professionals to outright dishonest truthers and all shades between - so "...The challenge was to determine if a fire-induced floor system failure could occur in WTC7 under an ordinary building contents fire".

So your falsely based question fails..."Are you going to claim this indicates anything other than a predetermined outcome..." because, read properly in context, it does not indicate a predetermined outcome in the sense you mean rather that the "no demolition" outcome had been reached legitimately before the structural details were known. The "no demolition" case does not rest on the detailed mechanism.

So your implied insult also fails: "...or are you going to apologise for this:....."

Quote mining at its worst anyone?

You are kidding, right?

[uke2se]

I really don't get how anyone could see a preconceived bias in that out of context quote. It's a mission statement, a hypothesis.

[Moridin]

~snip~

PJG, what would falsify your belief? Don't say more research, because we both know that this is not true. If your position is unfalsifiable, why should we take you anymore serious than we take people who claim to have been abducted by aliens?

What belief are you suggesting I hold?

Pick anyone of your beliefs that are counter to the mainstream view presented in this thread if you want to be specific.

[aspire1670]

~snip~

PJG, what would falsify your belief? Don't say more research, because we both know that this is not true. If your position is unfalsifiable, why should we take you anymore serious than we take people who claim to have been abducted by aliens?

What belief are you suggesting I hold?

Well, and this is just a wild shot in the dark, you believe that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition and that the vast conspiracy that achieved this continues to operate to blind all but a chosen few to this fact. What does this remind me of?

[Moridin]

Maybe there is some implicit knowledge amidst the cognitive dissonance that truthers avoid to responding to such questions?

[uke2se]

~snip~

PJG, what would falsify your belief? Don't say more research, because we both know that this is not true. If your position is unfalsifiable, why should we take you anymore serious than we take people who claim to have been abducted by aliens?

What belief are you suggesting I hold?

Well, and this is just a wild shot in the dark, you believe that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition and that the vast conspiracy that achieved this continues to operate to blind all but a chosen few to this fact. What does this remind me of?

The thing is, some truthers would never admit to such. Taking the position you describe requires the intellectual fortitude to actually take a position that could be proven wrong. A truther isn't interested in being proven wrong, and wouldn't take the position, opting instead for JAQing off, saying "we need new a investigation", but failing to be specific about exactly what the investigation is for or why it's important and not just intellectual masturbation.

[PJG]

~snip~

PJG, what would falsify your belief? Don't say more research, because we both know that this is not true. If your position is unfalsifiable, why should we take you anymore serious than we take people who claim to have been abducted by aliens?

What belief are you suggesting I hold?

Pick anyone of your beliefs that are counter to the mainstream view presented in this thread if you want to be specific.

Tell you what - you make a list of the things that you think represent the "mainstream view presented in this thread" and I will tell you if I "accept", "don't believe/accept" or "don't know".

You see, throughout this thread - and you can see it even now - I have been told that I believe certain things when I do not. I have repeatedly been told that I must defend a position I do not hold and told I have the burden of proof when I have made no claim.

I have had nonsense "explanations" given - where it seems that instead of saying "I don't know" people are prepared to make up ANYTHING rather than contemplate that the official 9/11 story - especially the NIST Report into WTC7, which is what I originally came on the thread to ask questions and opinions on - may be found to be flawed. I have stated that IF there is evidence that is not consistent with the official story and there does appear to be some, then this should be researched further as all evidence that does not "fit" with a theory is. The idea that a "fossil rabbit in the Cambrian" would be ignored because its existence would not "undermine a well-established theory" is just nonsense. Mr. Shermer's comment appears to be a case of special pleading when it comes to "conspiracy theories".

The problem is that when I have said this, I am told I must answer the questions that I myself have asked .... I would not be asking the questions if I knew the answers. Right at the start of this thread I explained that reading the NIST Report into WTC7 and the Harrit paper and various other documents, checking claims made and going back to numerous papers and source websites - I was left with questions. I did not come onto this website to make claims, I came on to ask questions. In almost every case, the answers are not satisfactory, not because they don't fit in with my "beliefs" but because they are either clearly nonsense (like the "boxes of microspheres") or they simply pose more questions.

[uke2se]

Tell you what - you make a list of the things that you think represent the "mainstream view presented in this thread" and I will tell you if I "accept", "don't believe/accept" or "don't know".

- Hijacked airliners slammed into the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
- The resulting damage and fires caused the towers to collapse.
- Debris from the collapse of the towers caused fires in WTC 7.
- Damage from the collapse of the towers ruptured the water mains, knocking out any fire fighting effort in WTC7.
- After burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to the fire weakening the structure.
- A hijacked plane crashed in Pennsylvania due to a struggle between passengers and hijackers.
- The criminals perpetrating the attacks were 19 misguided Muslim extremists, funded in part by rich Muslim extremists.

That's the mainstream view. What do you not agree with?

[PJG]

I was replying to Moridin.

Uke2se, I have wasted so much time attempting to educate you in fairly basic chemistry and replying to your apparently pointless questions that I hope you will not be offended if I ignore your posts.

[Moridin]

I have stated that IF there is evidence that is not consistent with the official story and there does appear to be some, then this should be researched further as all evidence that does not "fit" with a theory is. The idea that a "fossil rabbit in the Cambrian" would be ignored because its existence would not "undermine a well-established theory" is just nonsense. Mr. Shermer's comment appears to be a case of special pleading when it comes to "conspiracy theories".

No, because a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian (you didn't even get that quote right) is not an unexplained anomaly, it is something much more; it is something that can neither be predicted nor accommodated by evolution. This is not the same as unexplained anomalies. Every controlled scientific experiment you read about in Science or Nature most likely has unexplained anomalies, but if you look at the bigger picture, you will see that these are not really relevant.

But please, stop your passive aggressive tactic of being opressed (no one is buying it) and tell us what would disprove your position. Stop squirming. Describe what would disprove your position or admit that your belief is unfalsifiable.

[HoG]

I'll humour you uke2se, but really I'm just bookmarking the new thread.

- Hijacked airliners slammed into the WTC towers and the Pentagon: WTC, Accept. Pentagon, don't know but I'm leaning towards accept.

- The resulting damage and fires caused the towers to collapse: Don't know but I'm leaning towards accept.

- Debris from the collapse of the towers caused fires in WTC 7: Accept

- Damage from the collapse of the towers ruptured the water mains, knocking out any fire fighting effort in WTC7: Accept

- After burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to the fire weakening the structure: Do not accept. If you re-word it to after burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to fire weakening the structure and the damage caused from the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, than I would say I don't know but I'm leaning towards accepting it.

- A hijacked plane crashed in Pennsylvania due to a struggle between passengers and hijackers: Accepted because it's the most rational explanation, although you have to admit it's a pretty suspicious looking crash site.

- The criminals perpetrating the attacks were 19 misguided Muslim extremists, funded in part by rich Muslim extremists: Don't know.

[uke2se]

I was replying to Moridin.

Uke2se, I have wasted so much time attempting to educate you in fairly basic chemistry and replying to your apparently pointless questions that I hope you will not be offended if I ignore your posts.

No worries. Your evasion is devastating to your case, so it all works in my favor, really.

[uke2se]

I'll humour you uke2se, but really I'm just bookmarking the new thread.

- Hijacked airliners slammed into the WTC towers and the Pentagon: WTC, Accept. Pentagon, don't know but I'm leaning towards accept.

- The resulting damage and fires caused the towers to collapse: Don't know but I'm leaning towards accept.

- Debris from the collapse of the towers caused fires in WTC 7: Accept

- Damage from the collapse of the towers ruptured the water mains, knocking out any fire fighting effort in WTC7: Accept

- After burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to the fire weakening the structure: Do not accept. If you re-word it to after burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to fire weakening the structure and the damage caused from the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, than I would say I don't know but I'm leaning towards accepting it.

It seems you accept the official story thus far then.

- A hijacked plane crashed in Pennsylvania due to a struggle between passengers and hijackers: Accepted because it's the most rational explanation, although you have to admit it's a pretty suspicious looking crash site.

No, I don't think there's anything suspicious about it. Glad you accept this part of the official story as well, though.

- The criminals perpetrating the attacks were 19 misguided Muslim extremists, funded in part by rich Muslim extremists: Don't know.

So, is this the part where you want further investigation? I mean, you accept (or lean towards acceptance) the entirety of the official story. What more do you want?

[cursuswalker]

But please, stop your passive aggressive tactic of being opressed (no one is buying it) and tell us what would disprove your position. Stop squirming. Describe what would disprove your position or admit that your belief is unfalsifiable.

Bloody hell. Why didn't we think of this before?

[HoG]

Actually you'll notice that I don't know for the majority of the questions but am leaning towards the official explanation. I still don't fully accept the official explanation as I do think it leaves things out.

[uke2se]

Actually you'll notice that I don't know for the majority of the questions but am leaning towards the official explanation. I still don't fully accept the official explanation as I do think it leaves things out.

For this to be true, there must be parts about the official story that I left out of my list. Which parts were these?

[HoG]

HoG wrote:I'll humour you uke2se, but really I'm just bookmarking the new thread.

- Hijacked airliners slammed into the WTC towers and the Pentagon: WTC, Accept. Pentagon, don't know but I'm leaning towards accept.

- The resulting damage and fires caused the towers to collapse: Don't know but I'm leaning towards accept.

- Debris from the collapse of the towers caused fires in WTC 7: Accept

- Damage from the collapse of the towers ruptured the water mains, knocking out any fire fighting effort in WTC7: Accept

- After burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to the fire weakening the structure: Do not accept. If you re-word it to after burning for many hours, WTC7 collapsed due to fire weakening the structure and the damage caused from the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, than I would say I don't know but I'm leaning towards accepting it.