• 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.

Former conspiracy believer here

Calcas said:
That's what they do. They look at something that doesn't look like they expect it to look and immediately it becomes "obvious" that it is fake/set-up/planted/a conspiracy.

I honestly don't understand how people can make such leaps of judgment but apparently many can...
Click to expand...

The funny thing to me about this sort of reasoning on the conspiracy theorist's part, is that I feel almost the exact opposite: A set-up would almost certainly look exactly the way we'd expect it to . . .

apacherose105 said:
you prove yourself to be entirely impressionable and gullible, and weak.
Click to expand...

You're not very clear here with regard to who you're addressing. If it is your intent to assert that conspiracy fantasy believers are less gullible than your average world citizen, I would contend that you are wrong.
 
Diagoras said:
Even assuming that there is something anomalous about that, how does that prove the government masterminded this conspiracy? I don't see how you make that leap.

I asked for evidence of a government conspiracy, not some aspect of the collapse that you as a layman and a non-structural engineer cannot immediately think of a good explanation for.
Click to expand...

If WTC 7 didn't completely collapse due to debris from the falling towers and the ensuing small fires, then something else brought it down.

Explanations are very popular here, and there are some good sounding ones, but I prefer evidence.
 
SpaceMonkeyZero said:
So Red. Let's hear your "Theory" as to *WHY* (note, I'm not asking you HOW) WTC7 was a controlled demo. Seriously. WHY? WHY haven't any of you truthers had a coherent reason WHY *someone* would go through the trouble to CD WTC7 publicly when whatever they might have been getting rid of could have been a million other ways without cameras or firemen or tricky aerobatics?
Click to expand...

Why man (or woman)... Why?
 
RedIbis said:
If WTC 7 didn't completely collapse due to debris from the falling towers and the ensuing small fires, then something else brought it down.
Click to expand...
Small fires? Dude, what are you smoking? Look:
WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Explanations are very popular here, and there are some good sounding ones, but I prefer evidence.
Click to expand...
So give us the hard evidence already that proves the United States government was the agency responsible for this attack. I've asked you several times, and you keep pointing to supposed anomalies in the WTC7 collapse as if that somehow links the events of that day to the United States government.

It's like a judge saying "Well, John was obviously shot several times in the chest, but I don't think that minimal amount of bleeding could have really caused his death. Therefore, somebody else must have killed him. I'm going to sentence Henry for poisoning him, cause I have a hunch he might have."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SpaceMonkeyZero said:
Why man (or woman)... Why?
Click to expand...


You're asking me to speculate.

The more important question that absolutely requires proof is: Did WTC 7 collapse due to fire and debris from the towers' collapses?

If the answer is yes, than please forward the evidence to NIST so that they can produce a conclusive report.

If the answer is no, then further investigation is needed and other collapse scenarios must be considered.
 
Well Red, you know, their interim report has been available for a while.

I would wager good money their final report will not be all that different.

When it comes out, will you accept it?

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
Are you unable to tell the difference between smoke and fire?
Click to expand...
Well, typically large quantities of thick smoke coming out of the whole side of a building is a good indicator that there's some kind of intense fire in there. I don't know, maybe that's just me.

Check out the video a few posts up.
 
Diagoras said:
Well, typically large quantities of thick smoke coming out of the whole side of a building is a good indicator that there's some kind of intense fire in there. I don't know, maybe that's just me.

Check out the video a few posts up.
Click to expand...
Do we have a rookie of the year award for new posters? If so, I'm nominating this dude. :)
 
T.A.M. said:
Well Red, you know, their interim report has been available for a while.

I would wager good money their final report will not be all that different.

When it comes out, will you accept it?

TAM:)
Click to expand...

NIST is often honest. I believe them when they say that no core column steel samples that they tested experienced temps of 250C.

I believe them when they say they have not tested for explosive residue.

I believe them when they say that they have no explanation for the total collapse of the towers.

If it's not "all that different" from what they've already published, I'm sure I'll accept it as yet another inconclusive report based on a series of assumptions.

But maybe it will be more than that, an actual conclusive report that can stand the test of critical scrutiny.
 
Diagoras said:
Well, typically large quantities of thick smoke coming out of the whole side of a building is a good indicator that there's some kind of intense fire in there. I don't know, maybe that's just me.

Check out the video a few posts up.
Click to expand...

I'm sticking to my original theory that you were never a "conspiracy believer" as you call it, but someone who thought that this would be some clever way to make the "twoofers" look dumb.

Watching Penn Gillette pop a balloon would not convince anyone who has taken a serious look at what's wrong with the official story.
 
Diagoras said:
I asked for evidence of a government conspiracy, not some aspect of the collapse that you as a layman and a non-structural engineer cannot immediately think of a good explanation for.
Click to expand...


A few months ago I had a "truther" screaming at me in the middle of a restaurant for pushing a very similar line of questioning.

Abbreviated:

Me: "Does the lack of support for your theories among professional structural engineers not concern you?"

Him: "There are lots who know the 'truth.'"

Me: "Like who? Name a couple."

Him: "Judy Wood."

-- Here I must confess to not being very familiar with the name.

Me: "Never heard of her. Who else?"

Him: "There are lots more but they're all afraid for their lives if they speak out!"

Me: "Why? Shouldn't Judy Wood's brave example show others that they're not going to be killed if they "speak 'truth' to power?"

Him: "The Government, Man. They control the channels of communication and suppress dissent!"

Me: "The U.S. government is able to silence every other structural engineer in the world?"

Him: "They may be speaking about it in other places, but you'd never know 'cause the U.S. government controls the internet!"

Me: "Hey, Asshat, if you haven't noticed, we're in Japan. Does the U.S. government keep all the Japanese structural engineers 'afraid for their lives' here, too?"

Him: "Why do you think there are still U.S. military bases in Japan?"

Me: "You're an idiot."
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
NIST is often honest. I believe them when they say that no core column steel samples that they tested experienced temps of 250C.

I believe them when they say they have not tested for explosive residue.

I believe them when they say that they have no explanation for the total collapse of the towers.

If it's not "all that different" from what they've already published, I'm sure I'll accept it as yet another inconclusive report based on a series of assumptions.

But maybe it will be more than that, an actual conclusive report that can stand the test of critical scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Are you on global ignore, you have failed to read NIST and even make a rational statement. How can you get the whole thing wrong in one simple post and reveal you have not studied and clearly do not understand NIST.

Like you ignore facts and evidence, I think most people have ignored your lack of facts in your posts, or maybe just you. Why not say more false stuff, it makes you sound so truthy.

Please correct your post and make it more factual. Can you do that?
 
shuize said:
Him: "They may be speaking about it in other places, but you'd never know 'cause the U.S. government controls the internet!"

Me: "Hey, Asshat, if you haven't noticed, we're in Japan.
Click to expand...
10 to 1 he was there to experience the joy anime had brought him firsthand. :p
 
shuize said:
A few months ago I had a "truther" screaming at me in the middle of a restaurant for pushing a very similar line of questioning.

Abbreviated:

Me: "Does the lack of support for your theories among professional structural engineers not concern you?"

Him: "There are lots who know the 'truth.'"

Me: "Like who? Name a couple."

Him: "Judy Wood."

-- Here I must confess to not being very familiar with the name.

Me: "Never heard of her. Who else?"

Him: "There are lots more but they're all afraid for their lives if they speak out!"

Me: "Why? Shouldn't Judy Wood's brave example show others that they're not going to be killed if they "speak 'truth' to power?"

Him: "The Government, Man. They control the channels of communication and suppress dissent!"

Me: "The U.S. government is able to silence every other structural engineer in the world?"

Him: "They may be speaking about it in other places, but you'd never know 'cause the U.S. government controls the internet!"

Me: "Hey, Asshat, if you haven't noticed, we're in Japan. Does the U.S. government keep all the Japanese structural engineers 'afraid for their lives' here, too?"

Him: "Why do you think there are still U.S. military bases in Japan?"

Me: "You're an idiot."
Click to expand...
It was great he picked the dustified beam weapon one; Judy. very funny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom