9/11 Challenge, Split from: Fetzer wants debate

[e^n]

Is there any evidence that a million SE actually read the NIST report to either agree or disagree with it? Never mind, I know the answer.

There isn't, as such evidence would be extremely hard to find. However given that this is probably the largest engineering report of its kind and such a massive worldwide event I find it hard to believe that engineers wouldn't read it. They are bound ethically to correct errors and I have yet to see any serious errors pointed out which hold up to scrutiny.

 

[beachnut]

Is there any evidence that a million SE actually read the NIST report to either agree or disagree with it? Never mind, I know the answer.

The fact is almost all engineers think the 9/11 truth movement and your ideas on 9/11 are crap. Ask a few not in your crazy movement. Most engineers can figure out 9/11 without NIST or your truth movement. Funny, your list of engineers in below 0.001 percent of all engineers. 6 years and no facts yet. Just exploding coke cans.

 

[twinstead]

Just my layman's opinion, but...

I would imagine that many, many serious engineers and structural engineers around the would would be quite interested in the NIST report; this thing is actually changing building codes.

I would also imagine that if it were the steaming pile of falsehoods that so many truthers claim it is, one would think a flood of those who really knew what they were talking about and had the relevant knowledge and experience would mention something.

So, you truthers can hold on to believing that any expert who hasn't weighed in on the matter may very well be in your camp if it makes you feel better.

Rational folks know better.

 

[beachnut]

Says the man who whined because I wasn't here to join his thread instantly.]

I suspect you don't have an answer.

your status pertains to your thoughts? Ideas on 9/11. ??

 

[pomeroo]

911 was a crime, right? How are crimes resolved in courts? Either "beyond a reasonable doubt", or "balance of probabilities". Please find me a jury that has ever had to rule on the falsifiability of the prosecutors position.

No, the jihadist attacks were not "crimes." They were acts of war.

 

[D'rok]

No, the jihadist attacks were not "crimes." They were acts of war.

I'm half-way through a bottle of port, so I'm inclined to participate in the derail...

Acts of war by whom? Iraq? Afghanistan? If it is war, it is a new kind of war that you are trying to fight in the old way. You were not attacked by a nation-state. Why are you invading, destroying, and occupying nation-states - one of which had no connection to jihadist terrorists? Why are you threatening to do the same to another nation-state that has no connection to the jihadists that attacked you? Please explain.

Pardon the rant.

 

[Totovader]

I'm half-way through a bottle of port, so I'm inclined to participate in the derail...

Acts of war by whom? Iraq? Afghanistan? If it is war, it is a new kind of war that you are trying to fight in the old way. You were not attacked by a nation-state. Why are you invading, destroying, and occupying nation-states - one of which had no connection to jihadist terrorists? Why are you threatening to do the same to another nation-state that has no connection to the jihadists that attacked you? Please explain.

Pardon the rant.

Pomeroo won't be able to avoid this one- but I'd appreciate it if he did...

 

[OneShotKi11]

I could have sworn there were cameras that i heard about that filmed the inccident.
Something about a gas station and a hotel that filmed it.
Was that not true or something?
Because if there was such film of these events then it inst something that is far fetched when it comes to evidence needed to prove themselves wrong!

I believe a plane hit the pentagon but im not going to side with you on this because i do believe that would the answer to the question. I believe the footage exists and has yet to be shown to people for whatever reason.
If this is not the case then so be it i am wrong, but if im right then it seems kind of stupid to say that this doesnt count as an answer to your question!

 

[Totovader]

I could have sworn there were cameras that i heard about that filmed the inccident.

As far as the Pentagon is concerned: yes.

Something about a gas station and a hotel that filmed it.
Was that not true or something?
Because if there was such film of these events then it inst something that is far fetched when it comes to evidence needed to prove themselves wrong!

It does exist and has been released- what Aqua323 is unwilling to admit is that he requires a clear picture of the event, instead of the security cameras that filmed the impact. A clear picture is unreasonable as I have already covered. Not to mention the fact that even if a clear picture existed, they would still claim it was a conspiracy- just like they do with the WTC.

I believe a plane hit the pentagon but im not going to side with you on this because i do believe that would the answer to the question. I believe the footage exists and has yet to be shown to people for whatever reason.
If this is not the case then so be it i am wrong, but if im right then it seems kind of stupid to say that this doesnt count as an answer to your question!

He could have answered "blue" and it would have been a response to the question, but as for it being an answer- no, it's not an answer... not a reasonable one at least.

If I'm wrong and Aqua323 only requires footage of the impact, then we have that and his criteria is satisfied: had he been honest, then he would no longer believe in the conspiracy theory. If I'm right, however, and he demands a clear picture of the impact, then his criteria is irrational as no reasonable person would expect such a thing in this context. His bias clearly overwhelms his inquiry and he's therefore irrational and- as he admits- unscientific.

No conspiracist can answer the Challenge without arriving at this inevitable conclusion: they either prove themselves wrong by giving criteria that already exists, or they prove themselves wrong by showing how irrational their position is. This works because conspiracy theories are the antithesis of science- and science prevails.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Hmmm i will now try my best to think of one for them and await a response. That has to be a legitimate answer somewhere that they could give that would be able to stand up to your question.

 

[beachnut]

I think UBL called it something like war, so act of war is good; what do you call it?

I'm half-way through a bottle of port, so I'm inclined to participate in the derail...

Acts of war by whom? Iraq? Afghanistan? If it is war, it is a new kind of war that you are trying to fight in the old way. You were not attacked by a nation-state. Why are you invading, destroying, and occupying nation-states - one of which had no connection to jihadist terrorists? Why are you threatening to do the same to another nation-state that has no connection to the jihadists that attacked you? Please explain.

Pardon the rant.

Act of war; UBL told us they have been at war with us for many years before 9/11.

Afgan guys should have helped us, they have had a relationship with UBL for a while before 9/11. You can not count Afgan as not with the terrorist; gee they got money from UBL. If the Taliban had helped us round up UBL, then we could have let them burn books and stone women longer.
.
Iraq? Oh please, we have been fighting Saddam since 1991; if Saddam had been competent we would have lost a lot of planes, he shot at us a lot. Iraq; unless you play into the BS politics, was a separate fight; not terrorist related (oh no, gee why are the terrorist hiding in houses in Iraq; they are not really there???). We are lucky the Iraq killers are 7 times worse at killing us than the Vietcong. If you want to think Iraq was related to the terrorist you can fall for the political tripe. But Saddam was independent of 9/11. That being said, Saddam did not do much to help us find UBL; did he? Plus why are the terrorist in Iraq? I wonder how many nations support people who are trying to kill American soldiers in Iraq? Dangerous story; no wonder CNN and other news sources are unable to get a story; must be too dangerous to get.

You are right, UBL and people who take up his war with us are not like solders of a country. But UBL was pretty much in bed with the Taliban. Unless you have a different idea.

If you think we are threading Iran (you seem to imply this). Who does not love Iran, gee, they just take hostages and kidnap people for 300 or 400 days. Nice guys. I love their president, he is such a kidder, no Holocaust, great guy. Seems like the NAZI influence is still alive in Iran; got to love Iran.

Why not an act of war? You can call it terrorism; but it seems AfganLand at the time was actually a "terrorist sponsored" state, not a state sponsoring terrorism. Looks like we were caught by "terrorist who sponsor a state". Is there a new term for this?

What would Fetzer say?

 

[Totovader]

Hmmm i will now try my best to think of one for them and await a response. That has to be a legitimate answer somewhere that they could give that would be able to stand up to your question.

Be my guest- but last time you and I crossed paths, you were unable to. I believe you also tried to come up with something about the torches and the angled cuts and played off like you were an expert, but were unable to answer relatively simple questions about the techniques used. I would hope you have learned your lesson this time around and will not try to pass off lies as facts.

 

[bofors]

In particular this is meant for Aqua323, who sought a personal debate here after I asked if any conspiracists would be willing to pick up where bofors left off and actually provide a critique of the NIST report due to the fact that bofors did not.

I did provide a critique of the NIST report. It is by Hoffman here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Try reading it (it's not 10,000 pages long). If you find anything wrong, please let me know.

 

[Totovader]

I did provide a critique of the NIST report. It is by Hoffman here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Try reading it (it's not 10,000 pages long). If you find anything wrong, please let me know.

No, that's Hoffman's critique- which was already addressed. You never provided your critique- which would be quite amusing since you have never even read the report. Since you choose not to read the report and instead rely on an argument by proxy, I asked in that thread if any other conspiracists would be willing to do what you were incapable of doing. No one accepted that offer- however, Aqua323 seems to want to pick a fight, so that's where this thread comes from.

This thread is not about you, however- unless you feel you can address my Challenge.

 

[beachnut]

I did provide a critique of the NIST report. It is by Hoffman here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Try reading it (it's not 10,000 pages long). If you find anything wrong, please let me know.

All of Hoffman's conclusions are wrong. So easy. Please pick someone with new conclusion on 9/11; Hoffman was wrong a long time ago. You need to have new stuff not previously found to be misleading, false, and just plain lies.
You really need to pick which of his false conclusions you now think is correct base on new evidence. Good luck.

Fetzer's beam weapon is easy to debunk too.

 

[T.A.M.]

I did provide a critique of the NIST report. It is by Hoffman here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Try reading it (it's not 10,000 pages long). If you find anything wrong, please let me know.

Why would we let you know...it is Hoffman's critique, so I would let Hoffman know. When you provide YOUR OWN critique of the paper, and if I feel the need to read it, then I will let YOU know.

Same goes for the Bazant paper you have claimed to have read but have not provided any analysis of.

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

I'm half-way through a bottle of port, so I'm inclined to participate in the derail...

Acts of war by whom? Iraq? Afghanistan? If it is war, it is a new kind of war that you are trying to fight in the old way. You were not attacked by a nation-state. Why are you invading, destroying, and occupying nation-states - one of which had no connection to jihadist terrorists? Why are you threatening to do the same to another nation-state that has no connection to the jihadists that attacked you? Please explain.

Pardon the rant.

Al Qaeda is a stateless entity that was sponsored by the Taliban. When the Taliban refused to hand over al Qaeda's leaders, they became complicit in the attacks.

As a courtesy to Totovader, I kept it brief.

 

[Par]

I think ZENSMACK’s confusion is stemming from the fact that he thinks that if something can be true, then the notion or hypothesis that it is true must be scientific in nature.

 

[Totovader]

Hmmm i will now try my best to think of one for them and await a response. That has to be a legitimate answer somewhere that they could give that would be able to stand up to your question.

Does your lack of a response indicate that you were unable to come up with an answer?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Al Qaeda is a stateless entity that was sponsored by the Taliban. When the Taliban refused to hand over al Qaeda's leaders, they became complicit in the attacks.

As a courtesy to Totovader, I kept it brief.

I'd suggest it was the other way about actually. The Taliban were struggling after taking Kubul and seem to have run out of money, even were being pushed back, then OBL arrived fresh from being kicked out of Sudan and suddenly the Taliban was swamped in money again. Rather than them being sponsered by the Taliban, I'd say it was more likely that they sponsered and supported the Taliban, which would certainly explain the major reluctance to the handing over of OBL. Would you hand over your cash cow?