Loose Change

[Alek]

You believe in a JFK conspiracy? Okay...

Drop the condescension, ignoramus.

"An official investigation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), conducted from 1976 to 1979, concluded that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. This conclusion of a conspiracy contrasts with the earlier conclusion by the Warren Commission that the President was assassinated by a lone gunman."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

I know, I know. Wikipedia isn't sourceable, and the HSCA never existed. Get your head out of the sand, ostrich.

 

[gtc]

The US Government's theories are no more valid than the theories of others because they are offered from a position of authority.

Every time someone discredits Charlie Sheen's comments on the basis that he is a drug addled celebrity, people retort with argue the facts not the person.

But here you are discounting the government because they are in a position of authority.

I guess arguing from a position of celebrity trumps arguing from a position of authority?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Alek, any comments regarding this analysis of the collapse events?
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

 

[Regnad Kcin]

That seems perfectly reasonable but unfortunately it isn't. The US Government's theories are no more valid than the theories of others because they are offered from a position of authority.

Nice try with the suggestive "US Government" shading.

You're also assuming that what is "commonly accepted" is reasonable, which isn't true either.

I don't assume. And the general explanation of the 9/11 events is not only reasonable, but beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case, I'm going to have to turn your little argument on its ear and insist that you provide me evidence for the 9/11 Commission's account of how WTC 7, a 47-story steel skyscraper, collapsed in a spectacular 6.6 second near-free-fall symmetrical fashion...

That you find it unlikely doesn't make it so.

And again, you are making the claim that the "US Government" was behind the event(s), so you, my arrogant friend, must provide the proof.

Drop the condescension, ignoramus.

...Get your head out of the sand, ostrich.

One more ad-hom and you're on Ignore, bub.

 

[Alek]

Both schools would agree that the probability that particular passport fell out of that particular plane and landed on that particular sidewalk is equal to one, because we observed that it happened and it is now a certainty. You just have to be careful that you don't confuse the two definitions when you're around pedantic mathematicians.

I hope that clarifies things a bit.

Wrong. "We" didn't observe anything, speak for yourself. I didn't observe a passport flying out of a plane and landing on a sidewalk, therefore, it isn't a certainty. Even if I observe something happening, it isn't a certainty. Your idol Randi was a magician who spent a large amount of his time using tricks to convince people that they saw what in fact they did not. The probability that the passport story is true depends not only on the likelyhood of this event actually occuring, but on the credibility of those in the chain of custody of the evidence. Since human beings have been known to plant evidence and lie from time to time, especially yourself, this means that the probability that the passport story is true is necessarily less than one. I'm beginning to understand your particular problem as you reveal more about yourself. You have an irrational trust of authority, and you make regular appeals to it. You even use it in attempts to cause grief for other people, even perfect strangers who you disagree with, like Dr. Wood.

Did you study statistics, or statism?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Actually, I've given you enough consideration. Bye!

 

[emperorchaos]

Interesting how Controlled Demolition was the same company that cleaned up the Alfred P. Murrah building - under armed guard - in the government sponsored Oklahoma City bombing.

You don't have to commit the perfect crime. You just have to control the investigation that follows.

Interesting how Controlled Demolition is a company that does controlled demolitions and removes the debris caused by them.

They also cleaned up a building that collapsed during construction in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia?
*gasp*
Terrorists!
*gasp*
They all must be involved in some conspiracy!

The fact that you think the Oklahoma City bombing was government-sponsored is ridiculous. Who were they out to get?

 

[Alek]

Every time someone discredits Charlie Sheen's comments on the basis that he is a drug addled celebrity, people retort with argue the facts not the person.

But here you are discounting the government because they are in a position of authority.

I guess arguing from a position of celebrity trumps arguing from a position of authority?

You're confusing your fallacies here. Attacking Charlie Sheen so as to invalidate the information he presents is an example of argumentum ad homenim.

The government is an authority. The government theorizes that 19 hijackers wielding box cutters commandeered commercial jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center. The damage from impact plus jet-fuel fires weakened the steel in the buildings, and they collapsed. The government theory is true. This is an example of an appeal to authority.

Charlie Sheen's celebrity status says nothing about the validity of the statements he is making. The government's authority is likewise irrelevant.

The government theory is bunk not because it is authoritative (that would be just an inverted appeal to authority), but because its theory is contradicted by factual evidence.

 

[Alek]

Alek, any comments regarding this analysis of the collapse events?
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

Thanks for the link, it looks interesting. I will read it tomorrow morning.

You may wish to read this, an analysis of jet fuel and the WTC:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

This is a critical analysis of the movie Loose Change (the predecessor to LC2E) by a conspiracy theorist that I found interesting. He raises some good points:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

 

[Alek]

The fact that you think the Oklahoma City bombing was government-sponsored is ridiculous. Who were they out to get?

Instead of speculating on motive, I'll just refer you to the movie 9/11 The Road to Tyranny. It contains incredible footage that you likely have not seen which refutes the theory that Timothy McVeigh was a lone bomber, and points the finger at elements within the US government. You can find it using p2p file sharing software.

 

[Curnir]

The government is an authority. The government theorizes that 19 hijackers wielding box cutters commandeered commercial jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center. The damage from impact plus jet-fuel fires weakened the steel in the buildings, and they collapsed. The government theory is true. This is an example of an appeal to authority.

Wow...
Ok let me try.

The goverment says that the United States sent forces to europe during WW2. The goverment is telling the truth.

Yet... My grandfather fought in europe during WW2 and didn't see a single american soldier/sailor/marine/airman.

So if you say the Uncle sam sent troops to europe you are calling my grandfather a liar!

All the evidence that the US were involved in the european theater of war are fabricated and all te veterans who claim to have fought are in on the conspiracy or brainwashed!

Oh and btw I was beeing sarcastic...

The government theory is bunk not because it is authoritative (that would be just an inverted appeal to authority), but because its theory is contradicted by factual evidence.

.....

factual evidence

Show me.

 

[Alek]

Not necessarily. Some are merely missguided and/or missinformed.

So, the set of conspiracy theorists consists of people who are any of nutty, unstable, misguided, or misinformed, is that right? Apparently, conspiracies don't exist! I suspect that the number of people rotting in prison for the conspiracy to commit one crime or another might agree with you, after all, there is ne'er a guilty man in prison.

Interesting. Which conspiracy theory are you talking about?

I was referring to the official one which involves nineteen hijackers conspiring with an arabic mastermind in a cave to commandeer jets and fly them into buildings. That does fit the definition of a conspiracy, does it not?

As far as I know my goverment hasn't lied to me about the terrorist attacks on 9/11. You know... when the (mostly) Saudi Nationals crashed passanger jets into WTC and the Pentagon.

As far as you know.

Incidently, when I saw the second plane crash into the building, I said out loud:
Someone is going to try to blame this on the US goverment.

Your prescience is as remarkable as the government's credibility, it seems.

no no don't worry I won't apply for the million dollars

Is that a reference to the JREF prize? I'm not too familiar with that. What are the elgibility requirements?

 

[Z]

Instead of speculating on motive, I'll just refer you to the movie 9/11 The Road to Tyranny. It contains incredible footage that you likely have not seen which refutes the theory that Timothy McVeigh was a lone bomber, and points the finger at elements within the US government. You can find it using p2p file sharing software.

I know from personal information that you're full of crap here. I personally knew several members of McVeigh's unit. McVeigh was more than capable of pulling off the OK city bombing solo, and more than willing to do so. He was several decks short of a full house.

Interestingly, he was also, like you, a conspiracy theorist nut-job.

I'll never forget how one of my best friends, a former member of his unit, was yanked from the field by the FBI when the OK city bombing thing happened. This poor guy spent almost two days in questioning, just because he had the technical expertise to pull off the bombing. In fact, that interview was one of the first major clues they had as to WHO had done the bombing.

Sorry, Alek - that one is B.S.

My suggestion: stop placing empty faith in anonymous or amateur conspiracy videos and books. They are even less credible than the documents provided by the government, and FAR less credible than the information supplied by actual experts in-field. And that's part of the problem with the 9/11 nonsense - actual experts in-field agree with the official account of the events of that day. Only amateurs and anonymous conspiracy nut-jobs disagree.

 

[Alek]

Actually, I've given you enough consideration. Bye!

Before, you said this:

You believe in a JFK conspiracy? Okay...

Condescending remarks like that which are made out of ignorance and denial aren't "considerate".

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
The government is an authority. The government theorizes that 19 hijackers wielding box cutters commandeered commercial jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center. The damage from impact plus jet-fuel fires weakened the steel in the buildings, and they collapsed. The government theory is true. This is an example of an appeal to authority.
...

[nitpick] An appeal to authority would be Professor X. has a PhD in <field unrelated to WTC collapse analysis> and he believes the gov't's theory. So you should too. [/nitpick]

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks for the link, it looks interesting. I will read it tomorrow morning.

You may wish to read this, an analysis of jet fuel and the WTC:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

This is a critical analysis of the movie Loose Change (the predecessor to LC2E) by a conspiracy theorist that I found interesting. He raises some good points:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

I'll make an effort to find the time to look at these. This week has been full of OT at work, so no promises on a quick turnaround.

 

[Alek]

I know from personal information that you're full of crap here. I personally knew several members of McVeigh's unit. McVeigh was more than capable of pulling off the OK city bombing solo, and more than willing to do so. He was several decks short of a full house.

Interestingly, he was also, like you, a conspiracy theorist nut-job.

Ahh yes. So not only am I an anti-jewish nut-job, but I'm now a terrorist equivalent to Timothy McVeigh. Good work.

Here we have another fallacy. Whether McVeigh was "capable of pulling off the OK city bombing solo" is entirely irrelevant, and ignores the factual evidence to the contrary, which I referenced in a film.

I'll never forget how one of my best friends, a former member of his unit, was yanked from the field by the FBI when the OK city bombing thing happened. This poor guy spent almost two days in questioning, just because he had the technical expertise to pull off the bombing. In fact, that interview was one of the first major clues they had as to WHO had done the bombing.

This is relevant how?

Sorry, Alek - that one is B.S.

My suggestion: stop placing empty faith in anonymous or amateur conspiracy videos and books. They are even less credible than the documents provided by the government, and FAR less credible than the information supplied by actual experts in-field. And that's part of the problem with the 9/11 nonsense - actual experts in-field agree with the official account of the events of that day. Only amateurs and anonymous conspiracy nut-jobs disagree.

My suggestion is that you stop placing empty faith in so-called government experts with conflicts of interest who happen to be contradicted not only by a mountain of evidence, but by other experts. My beliefs aren't spoon fed to me by government and corporate shills. I reject their lies as easily as I reject the lies of laymen.

I also suggest you alleviate your abject ignorance of this matter by obtaining the film, and fast-forwarding to the section on the Oklahoma City bombing. It's called 9/11 The Road to Tyranny, by Alex Jones. I'm not going off track and enumerating the evidence here.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
Here we have another fallacy. Whether McVeigh was "capable of pulling off the OK city bombing solo" is entirely irrelevant, and ignores the factual evidence to the contrary, which I referenced in a film.
...

For the sake of brevity, and the benefit of the forum members who may not have the time to devote to the entire film, could you highlight some of the more compelling evidence from the film in a post here?

 

[Curnir]

So, the set of conspiracy theorists consists of people who are any of nutty, unstable, misguided, or misinformed, is that right?

Well now we get into how you define 'conspiracy theorists'

Apparently, conspiracies don't exist!

Really?

I suspect that the number of people rotting in prison for the conspiracy to commit one crime or another might agree with you, after all, there is ne'er a guilty man in prison.

oh that's just precious... Intimating that I have claimed that there is no such thing as conspiracies...
A very interesting debate technique you used there by the way... to expand the term 'conspiracy theories' from the normal definition (the communists are putting fluoride in the water supply to brainwash americans, black helicopters, roswell coverup, JFK shooting, RFK shooting, moon hoax or other conspiracy theories where there are NO evidence to be had) to ALL conspiracies (where there are evidence for conspiracies)... way to go I applaud your sly debating technique. You wouldn't happen to post on GFS would you?

I was referring to the official one which involves nineteen hijackers conspiring with an arabic mastermind in a cave to commandeer jets and fly them into buildings. That does fit the definition of a conspiracy, does it not?

See above.

(concerning wether my goverment has lied to me about 9/11)

As far as you know.

Show me where my goverment lied to me concerning 9/11

(concerning my prediction)

Your prescience is as remarkable as the government's credibility, it seems.

yeah right...

Is that a reference to the JREF prize? I'm not too familiar with that. What are the elgibility requirements?

yupp it's a reference to the JREF prize.

Check the main site for the rules.

 

[WildCat]

Of course, that doesn't explain the massive pyroclastic-like dust clouds and the horizontal ejection of debris near the top of the towers as they collapsed. But then again, neither does the official conspiracy theory.

I'm still in shock that you compared the dust cloud of the WTC collapse w/ pyroclastic flows. If they were even slightly comparable to pyroclastic flows everything the dust cloud touched would have been incinerated by the 500 degree C temps.