Point to any facts in the 9/11 truth movement. You have no facts. Zip.
No the government does not have to make you believe anything. You are the one who is challenged to find a single fact in the truth movement. Your truth movement is just lies. You will never find facts because you have political biases which blind your ability to find facts on 9/11. You have a problem. The government can not make you learn how to use your own mind to be logical and knowledgeable. You have failed to get an education that teaches you how to think without having your biases mess up the process. You have a problem. You believe lies and can not let them go. This is an example of illusion. You think you are right and you can not let the facts mess up your illusion. You have "drank the Kool-Aid" and you are not able to think on your own. You have a problem.
Your thinking is so flawed you make up stuff to make sure you illusions on 9/11 are never challenged in your own mind. Such a revelation would ruin you politically biased mind forever and you could become a rational human again able to function in the real world and think for yourself. But you would rather be a lemming in the truth movement.
Why are you unable to shake your biased views and let your mind work?
You share the views of nuts and dolts who make up lies about 9/11. With only 0.00067 percent of all engineers in the United States in the truth movement, you have aligned yourself with insane bitter biased politically minded folk who would do anything to satisfy their political goals and prostitute their professional lives to lies.
You should be very proud, you are at least as culpable as some PhDs and so call "scholars" in the sad disrespectful movement of lies and fraud.
"The government does not have to make me believe anything"... can you word that out properly to fit the context of this thread? I would appreciate it. You don't have to tell me CTs are all debunked, I acknowledged that. My problem is with the way the USG lays out evidence to the public. How they respond to their burden of proof after initiating war, and pass acts allowing unwarranted wiretapping.
Tell me if you think the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports are, together, properly explain the attacks in the stances I've listed. Thanks.
I don't actually believe that a government has a responsibility to explain the details of every single major event that occurs to every member of their citizenry.
The whole POINT of a representational democracy is that you elect other people to make decisions on your behalf SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
This sort of government REQUIRES a certain degree of trust given from the population to the elected representatives, otherwise it doesn't work.
Therefore, we have to trust that the government staff investigating it (from the FBI, NTSB, NIST, and so forth...) will do a good job, and we have to trust that our elected leaders will respond sensibly to the results of these investigations.
A democracy in which every single action has to be analysed and approved by the entire population simply would not work. Who has time to digest all of that information? Not me!
Thus, the great flaw in democracy is that it requires its citizens to trust their government. Perhaps that explains why US politics is so much more volatile than other Anglosphere nations - Americans simply don't trust their government.
-Gumboot
That's an awesome point. So you think the Bush admin + congress aren't responsible for assembling a full report at all? We should just believe them if they push us to a 100 years war?
Do ya think the war on terror is a minor event which doesn't require a full and open investigation for the people to understand what happened?
Would you please point out an equation printed in NCSTAR 1? How about an acronym that has not previously been defined?
Every single NIST report starts with an executive summary written on the layman's level. The entirety of the NCSTAR 1 has been written on a layman's level so that it is accessible to the public. The companion reports and appendices were specifically split off from the NCSTAR 1 so that people would not have difficulty understanding it. If you do, if members of the public do, it is not the fault of NIST. They have done everything in their power to make it accessible, and this type of willful ignorance, especially among the conspiracy community is nothing less than shameful.
So, your primary complaint is that you have to do a lot of reading in order to figure out exactly what happened. Sorry, science is complicated.
There I was worried you forgot about me!
The 16th ammendment was not a request, the Brady Bill was not a request. Congress made a law. NIST was ordered.
Yes, because the genesis of the investigation was to make buildings safer. Hence the name National Construction Safety Team Act. Modeling the collapse will provide no useful input for making buildings safer in the future. Once they begin to collapse, they will collapse.
Modeling and defining the collapse initiation point will allow designers to look at each step towards collapse initiation. Thicker foam insulation, concrete cores, improved lateral bracing systems, these are definitive, realistic systems that can be improved to make buildings safer in the future.
However, if you honestly believe that modeling the collapse will make buildings safer, you can write your well-worded, thoughtful analysis down and send it to the Congress, the National Science Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, or any of the innumerable counterparts in other countries.
Honesty and impartiality are not at issue here. Your original criticism was that NIST failed to investigate the collapse due to a deliberate omission on their part. Having retreated from that position, you're now blaming the congress for being dishonest? Do you believe that the entire congress is in on the conspiracy?
Congress made legislation that fit to their interest in the matter. They provided money for an investigation whose purpose was to make buildings safer using the WTC towers collapse as a case study. There was no dishonesty.
Red herring. Nice try, though.
Calling people names does nothing to further debate. Consider this: If you have doubts about something and you discuss it with others, what should be the end result of your discussions?
If your doubts are based on misinformation, incomplete or faulty data, or poor reasoning, your opinion should change when presented with the correct information.
If your doubts are valid, exposing misinformation, incomplete or faulty data, or poor reasoning, others opinions should change. So what do you see as going on here?
You should never apologize for asking questions. This would not be much of a critical thinking forum if you didn't.
I only get disoriented because of the anture of the report. So, the NIST isn't anything close to a criminal investigation at all? It's only a technical report parallel to the actual COLLAPSE of the towers? I always thought it was proof of everything that happened, but if even you guys are stepping back and saying "thats not what it was required to do", then I think i'm getting the picture now. Sorry for not understanding before. Correct me if I'm wrong now:
Since the NIST is not a full investigation in the collapse of the towers and WTC7, I blame congress for never carrying out a full investigation on the towers.
Is that OK?
Almond, do you think the NIST report is enough to justify the collapses we witnessed, even thought it wasn't it's purpose to explain the collapse progression?
Yurebiz:
My only comment relates to your question of whether we have the right to doubt. The answer, of course, is yes you have the right to doubt. If all the truth movement was doing was doubting, or just asking questions, we wouldnt be here arguing. it is the insinuations, and the outright baseless accusations that the truthers have made, not only against their government, but against hundreds of honest, hardworking american scientists and engineers, that has the "debunkers" on the backs of the twoof movement.
TAM
Yeah I got that. Every CT theory can be easily debunked, simply because we got no way of investigating what happened, in a plausible way.
The government on the other hand, has all the resources to it, but they deny to do it. I don't feel that's being fair with the public.
Even if different agencies are being fair and releasing reports which support the official story, they still should be responsible for putting everything together in a better way than we saw in the 9/11 Commission Report.
I think your teachers failed you on how the basics of democracies work as well. (Although, so may failures and what is the one constant? Another discussion perhaps). Bush is actually a prime example of the self sustaining nature. Quite simply he will be gone in under 2 years, he will be powerless in less than a year. Already we have seen a drastic reduction in his capabilities after the midterm elections. No member of his government is likely to have a role in future governments due to the reputation Bush and crew have built up. As it gets closer to election time conservatives will be falling all over themselves to distance themselves from Iraq. His poll numbers are getting near the comical.
In a nutshell, bad presidents can happen. When you review the bad presidents in US history you will find they had little lasting effect (well maybe Reagan but they still think he was a good president, go figure). Bush is very clearly in this camp. It will be very funny to see his placing on the next historian's poll
It's all a matter of opinion really.
IMO the worst President in US history should have been impeached, yest he's going to complete 8 years.
In his mandate, we got the (permanent?) suspension of habeas corpus for suspects on terrorism, we got the NSA freely wiretapping anyone they want, we have lies on WMD to start another war, and we're now going for Iran. Thats pretty long lasting in my oppinion, but thats just me with my biased and flawed political views.
Funny, but out of everything you have to say, the above paragraph is the one I hjave the most trouble with. First of all, all the CTers do is ask questions. They make no attempt to do the legitimate research necessary to answer them. This is a waste of everyone's time. I could say "Couldn't fairies have knocked down the towers? Hey, I'm just asking questions." and then someone else has to take the time to either refute or deride my theory.
This leads to my second problem, and that is the complete lack of scientific method evident in the above quote. Here's how it works. There's a theory that fits most, but maybe not all of the facts (in this case, the official theory will be that one). Someone else says, "Hey, I don't think that's right. It doesn't answer all the questions." Then, that person comes up with a new theory that not only explains what is already explained, but also fills in some of the gaps. Maybe not all, but it needs to do a better job than the existing theory. The burden of proof is on the person who disagrees. That's science.
Galileo did not say, "I don't think the Sun revolves around the Earth. I have a new theory, and it's up to the Church to prove it." No, he looked through his telescope, did the math himself, and presented a completed theory himself.
Not once have I seen a CTer present a theory that a) explains all available evidence, and b) fills in some of the gaps they say they see are present.
If you know of such a theory, please point us to it.
Thats a good point, but no, the burden of proof is on the person who first makes the allegation against a known fact. The fact is, on 9/11, that The towers and pentagon were hit by airplanes, and both towers + WTC7 collapsed.
If you want to take the 9/11 Commission report as fact, be my guest, but that is an arguable matter. As you know, a great deal of people, and that's not limited to CTers, believe the 9/11 Commission Report omitted much of the story.
Different agencies came up and said Al Qaeda did it. Bush took it as granted and invaded Afghanistan with approval from congress.
Do you think the USG provided sufficient reasons to justify the war on terror, for the people, with the 9/11 Commission Report?
)