• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
If you feel there are problems with the evidence/logic used to obtain the conclusions that they did then please present it, otherwise you are left with agreeing that their assessment is accurate and other hypothetical explanations for the events are moot.
Click to expand...
Bingo, a point made to CTers over and over again but rarely, if ever, addressed. The problem is they don't have the knowledge or expertise to refute the expert analysis. All they can do it try and point out (alleged) omissions. In fact there has been no expert analysis, to my knowledge, refuting the official reports.

A fact which CTers ignore.
 
To put it another way, when the prosecutor on a criminal case presents his/her evidence in court, they don't explain to the jury how they eliminated every other suspect except for the one sitting in the courtroom; they deal with the one in the courtroom and the evidence that shows that person's involvement in the crime.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
To put it another way, when the prosecutor on a criminal case presents his/her evidence in court, they don't explain to the jury how they eliminated every other suspect except for the one sitting in the courtroom; they deal with the one in the courtroom and the evidence that shows that person's involvement in the crime.
Click to expand...
This because they are being asked to pronounce themselves over the suspect in the courtroom, and nobody else. They are not being asked to eliminate other suspects.
However, NIST, without being asked, eliminates other suspects - without reasoning. And since there is no reasoning to point to, I cannot support my point further than this. There simply is no such reasoning, and that's the problem I have with the report. Drawing a conclusion not based on any reasoning is logically faulty - it simply cannot be called a conclusion.
 
brumsen said:
This because they are being asked to pronounce themselves over the suspect in the courtroom, and nobody else. They are not being asked to eliminate other suspects.
However, NIST, without being asked, eliminates other suspects - without reasoning. And since there is no reasoning to point to, I cannot support my point further than this. There simply is no such reasoning, and that's the problem I have with the report. Drawing a conclusion not based on any reasoning is logically faulty - it simply cannot be called a conclusion.
Click to expand...

No, you assume they didn't do the work because they haven't published it.
 
Man, reading comments like those at that link (guy lost his gf), I can see that that movement is going to go absolutely nowhere.

They are complete and utter wingnuts. Ooh, the big bad doctors, pushin dem medicines...Ooh nurses, workin for the man....ooh, if my woman was against the 9/11 truth movement, I'd pack her bags.....

OMG....once again...prety much speechless.
 
brumsen said:
hahahahaha, that's a good one:rolleyes:

So you can use the verb believe in such a way that you won't be required to back it up, whereas any CT'er coming here would constantly have to back up the beliefs he states by means of evidence? Come on now. When you state your beliefs, you can be asked to justify them by means of evidence.
Click to expand...

Please, you shouldn't blame your inability to understand words on me.
 
brumsen said:
This because they are being asked to pronounce themselves over the suspect in the courtroom, and nobody else. They are not being asked to eliminate other suspects.
However, NIST, without being asked, eliminates other suspects - without reasoning. And since there is no reasoning to point to, I cannot support my point further than this. There simply is no such reasoning, and that's the problem I have with the report. Drawing a conclusion not based on any reasoning is logically faulty - it simply cannot be called a conclusion.
Click to expand...

You simply proceed from false assumptions. If I state a conclusion I don't have to justify why I didn't conclude something else. I'm merely expected to justify my actual conclusion.
 
brumsen said:
I already did.
Click to expand...
I must have missed that all these times. Please humor me and point out where NIST says that no one there studied events after collapse initiation.

Unless, that is, you mean to be saying that they did research it but wrote the report so as not to include that research. I've now asked you three times whether this is what you do want to say?
Click to expand...
I've been quite clear in my statements. I've made no claims about NIST studying events after collapse initiation. You definitively claim that they did not study those events. Please provide your evidence.

(About NIST finding no evidence of CD)
My evidence is that such research is nowhere to be found in the report. There is just the conclusion. My question is: what is it based on? Show me where in the report I can read about that, and I'll keep my mouth shut.
Click to expand...
You claim definitively that NIST did not look into the idea that explosives were used in the towers. Perhaps you are right. There is only one way to find out: contact NIST. Again, have you or anyone else done so?

edited for grammar
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
You simply proceed from false assumptions. If I state a conclusion I don't have to justify why I didn't conclude something else. I'm merely expected to justify my actual conclusion.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify one point: NIST did say they found no evidence to support the missile or CD theories. Brumsen claims that because they didn't publish their observations that led to that conclusion, they must not have researched these theories. That's a perfectly valid question to have (contact NIST fercryinoutloud), but it's not a basis for a definitive statement.
 
mrfreeze said:
Man, this poor guy lost his woman over this madness. http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10043
Click to expand...

So did Charlie Sheen.

Respondent began to obsess about vaccines being poisonous, about 9-11 being a conspiracy....
Click to expand...

LOL! I said that without surfing over; sure enough the guy also talks about vaccines. Note the charming avatar for "Live Free or Die Tryin'"--he's the kid whose dad showed just how scary a box-cutter can be.

Reading the comments it's clear that these polls saying lots of people are into 9-11 Denial are a bunch of bunk.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Since I don't know what I'm talking about, please explain to me what antiaircraft systems were installed at the Pentagon on 9/11/01.
Click to expand...
Gravy

-- The statement made was that the military does not use anti aircraft guns, and hasn't for twenty years. That was and is a load of crap.

-- The gentleman who scoffed about an Aegis cruiser being used is perhaps unaware that the US Army had, as recently as a few years ago, a Vulcan (very similar to the R2D2's on US surface combatants, aka CIWS (CIWS = Christ, It Won't Shoot! :p ) mounted on a tracked vehicle. The last one I saw was on anM-113, and was used as a AAA piece. (Digression: I had visions of a Vulcan on a track as a great crowd control weapon in OOTW, but my Army friends balked at that idea, for some good reasons. A man can dream.) I don't think the Vulcan is in the current ToE, but there may still be some in Reserve units.

-- The person who noted that "that is an anti missile weapon" is showing his ignorance or tunnel vision, not sure which. Anti missile defense is a lesser included case of Air Defense, or as the Navy used to call it, AAW. An "anti missile" weapon can most certainly be used as an anti aircraft weapon. Along those lines, the Patriot missile that shot down the (F-18, or was it F-16) in 2003 during the war was an anti missile weapon, so what was it doing performing as an anti air weapon? A little precision in expression is not too much to ask. (My USSR Russian equipment digression was a bit of a red herring, I must admit, it added little to the discussion without context, which is the use of them by various parties in the Mid East.)

-- My quibble with the discussion on this topic is the careless manner that Air Defense and AAA terms are being used. OK, so I am nitpicking.

-- Do I know what the IAD (Integrated Air Defense) template was at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001? No, I didn't work there then.

But

Gravy, you have piqued my interest. I know an Army Colonel (now retired) who was an ADA man. He was working in the Pentagon that day. His description of the noise, the lights, getting knocked off his feet (he was in an inner ring office not to far from where the plane hit) is an eye opener. I'll see if I can get him to share any letters of email he sent from back then. He's a prolific writer, so I suspect he's published something in the War College review or Parameters on that day's events.

If I can get ahold of him, he may be able to tell me about the IAD set up at the Pentagon. My worry is that it was classified as FOUO, or higher than that, and may be so now.

Will get back to you if I can get ahold of him.

DR
 
Darth Rotor said:
R2D2's on US surface combatants, aka CIWS (CIWS = Christ, It Won't Shoot! :p ) mounted on a tracked vehicle. DR
Click to expand...



Ha! Except when the Japanese Self Defenesers shot down an A-6 towing a drone (instead of the drone -ooops offset.) off Hawaii during RIMPAC 96!
 
Darth,

THe Vulcans are no longer in use on any tracked vehicles, even in Reserves, at least in any appreciable capacity. I've been in Guard, Active, or Reserve for the past 15 years (including multiple deployments, including being stationed with or working with AA and ADA units) and have yet to see one except for a historical display. So I don't think that was off by much.

Also, the Patriot system was originally designed as anti-aircraft, the anti-missile role was something of an add-on. In fact, this was part of the reason it took multiple Patriot missiles to shoot down each Scud..the software was not programmed to identify missiles by their radar signature, so anything that had a large return (including debris from an already-destroyed missile) had to be fired on. This is first-hand information from soldiers who operated these systems during Gulf I.

Since we're all nitpicking ;)
 
Hey all. Just joined this site which looks quite interesting. But I also have an ulterior motive...

here's the story:

I’m organizing a panel in San Francisco for The RU Sirius Show where a skeptic and an advocate of the “9/11Truth” campaign can debate. The panel will be on September 10, in the afternoon in SF. I’m looking for a well-spoken skeptic who has a history of public appearances who would like to be a part of it. (I'm still looking for the advocate as well, for that matter.)

As I understand the rules, I'm not allowed to post links yet, so I'll trust that anybody who is interested can find the show etc.

Presumably I can post my email address...

rusirius@well.com

I hope to hear from you.
 
RUSirius said:
Hey all. Just joined this site which looks quite interesting. But I also have an ulterior motive...

here's the story:

I’m organizing a panel in San Francisco for The RU Sirius Show where a skeptic and an advocate of the “9/11Truth” campaign can debate. The panel will be on September 10, in the afternoon in SF. I’m looking for a well-spoken skeptic who has a history of public appearances who would like to be a part of it. (I'm still looking for the advocate as well, for that matter.)

As I understand the rules, I'm not allowed to post links yet, so I'll trust that anybody who is interested can find the show etc.

Presumably I can post my email address...

rusirius@well.com

I hope to hear from you.
Click to expand...
Welcome.

Is this it? http://rusiriusradio.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom