Fri, 17 December 2010
0:00:00 Comments[8]
|
- Although not a great vehicle for a debate I often go back to this thinking.
What would it take for me to disregard the evidence I have found to be credible that the Attack of the World Trade Centre known as 9/11 and reexamine the idea that the attacks were not a terrorist attack by the identified persons and were actually a staged event by the United States of America’s government?
1. The evidence promoted by the opponents of the official version of the collapse and the destruction of the various sites must be shown to be credible by publication in authoritative journals.
a. This must include a full explanation of the entire sequence and not a cherry picked number of discrete sections of the destruction to cast doubt.
2. An explanation must be provided as to how such a conspiracy could be conducted given the difficulties in maintaining silence and confidentiality in any group of human beings.
3. Clear evidence preferably containing documents demonstrating the conspiracy.
a. This would need to include some names that could be verified and cross referenced in order to prove the accuracy of the documents.
In the absence of the above the weight of evidence still remains in favour of the version of events that the attacks were an act of terrorism as officially described.
Without providing this type of evidence and continuing to make claims where previous evidence has been shown to not be credible then the debater who continues to promote claims that are not supported opens themselves up for ridicule.
The alternate view has been shown to be incorrect by the evidence and the majority of evidence presented by the alternate view has been dealt with and shown to be wrong.
The alternate view has had it quota of respect from this commenter and its continuation to promote a debunked view does not earn it any level of respect or consideration in the debate. Come back with some of the above and we can reopen the debate. If not then expect ridicule and derision.
The above it what it will take to have me reopen discussion on the subject and may not match other persons of a critical mindset.
- Aaron has obviously never worked in the public service (government) before. Bureaucracies have a hard time organising minor things let alone a major cover-up that 9/11 would require.
A least a dozen meetings are required to decide on when to have a meeting to actually discuss what we plan to do. And forget about keeping anything secret as "this is secret" is the magic phrase to pass on the info to all your colleagues.
For example look at this report on Canberra's bus service:
Other factors operating against the efficient conduct of the city omnibus service are :
Infrequency of the service ;
Non-observance of time-tables ;
Failure of drivers to stop buses when hailed ;
Overcrowding of buses ;
Inadequacy of night service causing serious restriction on social life ;
Absence of shelter sheds ;
Absence of suitable destination boards and distinctive lights on buses ;
Absence of lights and notice boards at termini and main sections.
Check the media about Action buses and you will find the above complaints so whats my point? The above report is from 1928! So government bureaucracy has managed to achieve nothing in 82 years.
- TheRealBobDole - I can present lots of credible and verifiable evidence, but will those bewitched by the 9-11 nonsense accepted it? I've tried in the past but the fanaticism displayed by the majority of 9-11 "truthers" convince me it's far more therapeutic to mock them. Are you interested in examining facts? The fallacious nature of the points raised by the OP can be found here:
http://www.911myths.com/
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home
- Such an emotional subject. First off, can we all admit that there are at least interesting points on both sides?
In terms of logical fallacies, you "Deniers" are equally as guilty(btw, an we stop attempting to poison the well with these immature, loaded labels?). Let's mine the above exchange for starters:
Tu quoque - "You should get your information from my biased source instead of yours". At least the OP cited a peer reviewed journal.
Straw Man - "obviously me saying that is just more evidence of the conspiracy". You should know better.
Argument from Personal Incredulity - "we do not waste time on fringe beliefs". Just because it seems unlikely doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true or worth consideration. Atheism in the US would be considered such, and we certainly don't dismiss it on those grounds.
False Dichotomy - What this whole debate seems to hinge upon. Why? Those skeptical of the official story aren't all insisting that GWB was remotely piloting cleverly disguised missiles into the WTC while Cheney ran out the back door after placing explosives. Alternatively, skeptics of the government cover-up story aren't all insisting that the U.S. always acts with transparent and altruistic actions. As with most things, the truth almost certainly lies somewhere in between.
@Eran, Occam's razor is a heuristic argument, not an inerrant rule. Please avoid citing it as such in an argument.
@Roy, it might be more convincing to those skeptical of the official story if you attempted to reason counter to their specific claims. This sarcastic dramatization of yours doesn't help either side. - My god - how many points can you get wrong in a single post, Aaron? Just a minute.. wait... HOLY BATCAVE! Of course! It's so clear to me now - I can't explain why I didn't see it before! All those so-called scientists at universities and such-like are all TOOLS of the Illuminati! They fabricate all this equation mumbo-jumbo to fool the masses, and the black-ops teams take care of those foolish enough to challenge them! Now it all makes sense!
- Aaron,
Perhaps instead of getting your information from Loose Change you should get it from Screw Loose Change. Every single one of your claims has been debunked multiple times, so your "overwhelming proof" is nothing of the sort. In fact, it's just a mishmash of false information and false interpretation. But obviously me saying that is just more evidence of the conspiracy.
And if you expect anyone here to repudiate your claims, I'm afraid that you're in for some disappointment. We will not be spending any time on the moon landing hoax theory either, by the way, so you're not alone in being disappointed that we do not waste time on fringe beliefs for which there is little credible evidence except in the minds of a few True Believers who will never be convinced that they are wrong.
Truthers are not Skeptics. Skeptics apply reason. Rule number one: Ockham's Razor. Your unsupported theory fails at the first hurdle.
Read the following to see why, if you're really interested:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/ - I'm a little dismayed at the mocking tone and insinuations inherent in the announcer's descriptions of the truth movement. "needless to say, the skepticzone does not share this view", Really? That seems to be a dismissal based on irrational unscientific adherence to mainstream political agenda and a peasant-like fear of being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist', hardly a scientific approach.
"Oddly enough, these people will proudly call themselves skeptics" Ok, now the announcer is being facetious, unscientific, illogical and irrational as of course they're skeptics, as they're skeptics of the official conspiracy story.
The condescending remark is symptomatic of the problem with the skepticzone, as they appear to be not objective skeptics but promoters of science and evidence that supports the state agenda.
I'm surprised Maynard could be so ignorant as to basic physics to assume some sporadic fires of medium intensity could bring a steel framed highrise down at freefall speed, symmetrically into it's own footprint, especially as no steel framed highrise as ever collapsed from fire even when they were engulfed with flames much more extensive, hotter and longer lasting.
Basic physics shows that freefall speed means that all the gravitational potential is expended in falling, any crushing of building materials would mean a fall rate much less than freefall (if at all) Therefore extra energy was involved, explosives are the only viable explanation.
The north tower ACCELERATED through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton's third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it's weight, which means it’s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.
The top section of the North Tower almost fully disintegrated before the lower section started to explode downward, this disintegration would absorb any momentum and expelled the mass laterally, there was NO piledriver left to cause any kind of gravitational collapse!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
The top section of the South Tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum.
The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of the upper section's toppling proves the removal of the lower section's resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.
An off centre, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.
The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage.
Even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.
Office fires don't burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, the large steel frame would draw away heat rapidly from hot spots. Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). "Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers."
The team at NIST could not get their computer model to collapse, in the end they managed a partial asymmetric collapse that looked nothing like the actual event by removing all thermal conductivity!!!
The smoke emanating from the towers turned black for a while preceding the collapses. Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.
Videos of people standing in the gash from he plane before the collapse proves the fires had progressed past their hottest point and combined with the sooty smoke, were cooling. Steel strengthens when it cools, it had survived it's weakest point. Why should it fail?
No steel high-rise has ever fully collapsed from fire.
Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive was found throughout the WTC dust and analysed by top scientists, and published in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. All throughout the dust, iron-rich micro-spheres were present, the only way they can be formed is through a highly explosive, extremely high temperature event whereby the steel is vaporised, forming small round droplets due to surface tension.
In conclusion, denial of such overwhelming proof, lends credence to suggestions that skepticzone is more interested in pursuing a Government political agenda as opposed to the truth.
Skepticzone could redeem itself by addressing the scientific evidence rationally and scientifically.
Post your comment:
