Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[PhantomWolf]

Honestly I don't know why everyone is playing with Red, it's blatently obvious he has no theory, he just wants someone to say "You need to have the column to come up with a theory and prove it" so he can say "Uhuh!, but NIST doesn't have the column, therefore their entire theory is unprovable!"

Since people here aren't dumb enough to believe that you can't prove your case without the physical column (heck they have jailed people for murder without the weapon or the bodies before) and can see right through Red's lame attempt, I really can't see why the tennis match is contiuning.

Red though you won't to take any notice, numerous people have stated that you don't need the column to put forward a theory. Can yopu prove a theory with out, well scientifically you can never prove a theory right anyways, you can only show that with the current data the theory is the one that fits the best. What you can do scientifically is prove a theory wrong. Now if you can come up with a thoery that is less complex than NISTs (ie take into account less assumptions, or shows why assumptions made are valid assumptions) or you can falsify NISTs theory by showing that it is impossible somewhere, then you might have a case, since I see no sign of you doing either, stop wasting everybodys' time.

 

[1337m4n]

What is RedIbis's theory? I though he was Just Asking Questions.

 

[TC329]

At least Dawn Vignola, Dave Winslow, Michael Tinyk, Steve Patterson, Mitch Mitchell and Barbara Ensor all put the plane on or just off the edge of I-395.

how/where can i see/hear them tell their accounts?

 

[Totovader]

Wrong. Your first attack against me in this thread was when you claimed that I didn't answer your questions, which as I pointed out to you would be a bit difficult since you didn't actually ask any questions.

It was then you proceeded to ignore the simplest possible question.

... to which I replied:

Fair enough: that's not addressing my point- you're just reiterating your fallacy, and that doesn't help your case.

Is it a good idea to abandon logic in order to hold on to these fantasies of the so-called "Truth Movement", Red? Is it somehow better to ignore the evidence and reject fundamental scientific principles? Do conspiracy theories have something better (more reliable, more truthful, more factual) than reason?

You were asked for your best piece of evidence- what you responded with is something that is not evidence. I have to assume- from that- that you think the answer to each of the questions above would be "yes, science is inadequate to understand the universe- conspiracy theories are more equipped to understand the truth".

... and which you have ignored.

Do I need to continue to post it, or are you going to respond?

Even if your question came first- which it obviously didn't- it's a red herring and doesn't belong here. You claimed that "Column 79" was evidence of your conspiracy theory- now you are trying to turn around your appeal to ignorance as proof of an invalid claim... but in order to do so, you would first have to admit that your claim is invalid and in the process commit a strawman.

I know what you're trying to do- and I'm not going to go in circles around you and wait for you to catch up. Either address my post above or move on. It's just that simple. We've been through this before and your tactic has not worked. Try something new: respond.

 

[Mince]

What is RedIbis's theory? I though he was Just Asking Questions.

Here, I'll answer for RedIbis since he seems utterly incapable or unwilling to do so.


[RedIbis]Well, I don't really have a "theory". Actual scientific theories are derived from extensive and exhaustive observation, experimentation and testing, not YouTube videos and Google searches. Sorry.[/RedIbis]

 

[RedIbis]

Since people here aren't dumb enough to believe that you can't prove your case without the physical column (heck they have jailed people for murder without the weapon or the bodies before) and can see right through Red's lame attempt, I really can't see why the tennis match is contiuning.

.

Are you sure about that? If you were to go through this thread and see the variety of ways people responded to my posts, you will not find such uniformity.

I give you credit for recognizing the exercise, but you should be able to recognize how much emphasis is placed on physical evidence to prove theories, except when the absence of evidence if offered as proof for official theories.

This is bias, pure and simple. People around here are not nearly as skeptical as they claim.

 

[R.Mackey]

The only person in this thread offering absence of evidence as proof is you.

You've provided no theory,

You stated in your first post, "Column 79" in response to the question in the OP, which is something that does not exist,

You complain about "bias" amongst us.

Incredible. Yet, amazingly, you persist.

By the way, you never acknowledged my answer to your question.

 

[RedIbis]

Doesn't the sheer emptiness of your belief system trouble you at all? Some people cling to straws. You cling to invisible straws.

Do you hold any beliefs that amount to more than rhetorical tap dances? Is there the slightest bit of substance to anything that you argue?

Seriously.

Larry Silverstein lied, but the lie cannot be expressed in words. The FBI has no evidence showing the identities of the four hijacked aircraft. Something to do with column 79 proves that soundless explosives were planted by imaginary demolition workers.

Shouldn't at least a few second thoughts have intruded by now?

Doesn't the tedious and repetitive nature of your posts trouble you? And you are blatantly derailing the thread by bringing up Silverstein?

It's like your suicidal by mod. You make this way too easy.

 

[stateofgrace]

Are you sure about that? If you were to go through this thread and see the variety of ways people responded to my posts, you will not find such uniformity.

I give you credit for recognizing the exercise, but you should be able to recognize how much emphasis is placed on physical evidence to prove theories, except when the absence of evidence if offered as proof for official theories.

This is bias, pure and simple. People around here are not nearly as skeptical as they claim.

Really?

So when you claim that column 79 is your evidence, nobody is supposed to raise an eye brow and ask you back up you claim?

 

[RedIbis]

The only person in this thread offering absence of evidence as proof is you.

And what exactly do you think NIST's entire WTC 7 theory is premised on? Despite what Sunder has said, video of the exterior of the bldg and architectural and mechanical blueprints are in no way evidence for their collapse theory.

Spare me the indignation, I've yet to read you express even a shred of skepticism for this unprecedented proposition.

 

[RedIbis]

Really?

So when you claim that column 79 is your evidence, nobody is supposed to raise an eye brow and ask you back up you claim?

Yes, I do expect you to raise an eyebrow, and I would hope you would raise it anytime someone proposes a novel phenomenon or two without physical evidence.

 

[R.Mackey]

And what exactly do you think NIST's entire WTC 7 theory is premised on? Despite what Sunder has said, video of the exterior of the bldg and architectural and mechanical blueprints are in no way evidence for their collapse theory.

Spare me the indignation, I've yet to read you express even a shred of skepticism for this unprecedented proposition.

At best this would be an Ad hominem tu quoque, and it has nothing to do with either the OP or my remarks.

However, since you apparently still didn't read my reply, NIST's theory is supported by simulation, calculations of component strengths and failure modes, and video and related records where possible. It isn't as strong as a theory that also has physical remains of the structure to bolster its conclusions, but it is a totally valid way to conduct science.

I hold out the possibility for alternate hypotheses, maybe even one better than NIST came up with. But you don't even have one. You're not participating. You're griping, and badly. Nobody here is fooled.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, I do expect you to raise an eyebrow, and I would hope you would raise it anytime someone proposes a novel phenomenon or two without physical evidence.

Just a suggestion, you might consider how much that column was carrying. How much of the floor area did each column support and by how much does the load change in adjacent columns when one fails in a building designed like WTC 7. If the load capacities for these components are known, then it can be determined at what point others would give way with a redistributed load. How do simulations conducted by NIST lack in that area? Those would be nice places to theorize whatever you see fit.

Just my two cents... "Column 79" is not much a statement for a theory to begin with but to explain it to you would be repeating material already said

 

[stateofgrace]

Yes, I do expect you to raise an eyebrow, and I would hope you would raise it anytime someone proposes a novel phenomenon or two without physical evidence.

That is not what you posted is it? You claimed column 79 was your evidence, didn’t you?

So, care to offer up your evidence, rather than referring to a report I have spent a few days reading? Not as though I am in a position to comment on it yet, as I have not read it fully, I take it you have.

So skeptism as kicked in, could you point out where I should look? Your evidence is?

 

[RedIbis]

At best this would be an Ad hominem tu quoque, and it has nothing to do with either the OP or my remarks.

However, since you apparently still didn't read my reply, NIST's theory is supported by simulation, calculations of component strengths and failure modes, and video and related records where possible. It isn't as strong as a theory that also has physical remains of the structure to bolster its conclusions, but it is a totally valid way to conduct science.

I hold out the possibility for alternate hypotheses, maybe even one better than NIST came up with. But you don't even have one. You're not participating. You're griping, and badly. Nobody here is fooled.

I do have a theory better than NIST's. Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

 

[Totovader]

... like I said- a strawman.

Difference between NIST and Red: NIST did not say "a lack of this column proves this theory", Red is saying that. This is also known as the argument from ignorance. Red will try to now back peddle by committing an even bigger argument from ignorance claim: that a lack of the column proves that NIST cannot be right.

 

[stateofgrace]

I do have a theory better than NIST's. Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

No this is not true; please stop acting like the poor oppressed victim. People want you to valid your claims, to back your claims with evidence and science.

Now, you claimed column 79 was your evidence, so please back up your claim ( with evidence and science).

 

[RedIbis]

People want you to valid your claims, to back your claims with evidence and science.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

See what I mean?

 

[HyJinX]

I do have a theory better than NIST's. Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

Do you mean irrelevant, insignificant internet posters with zero evidence or credibility and no education to back up thier claims? You think they really are concerned about you and your ilk? Really? You're a factor here? Really?

Puh-lease Red. You and the rest of the TM® have absolutely zero relevance or play any sort of roll in any of the findings concluded by NIST or any other reputable organization. You're sad.

 

[R.Mackey]

I do have a theory better than NIST's.

Oh, really?

Let's hear it.

Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

Aaaahhh... You're not likely to get funding on the strength of "I have a theory." You need to actually tell people about it.

Besides, in the above, you admit that you do not have a theory. You may, possibly, still have a hypothesis. One that you refuse to share with anyone.

I'd also like to hear more about these "novel phenomena" you have in mind. Generally, finding even one is grounds for a Nobel prize. I'll go halfies with you, how does that sound?

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

No, it is not pure speculation. It is a hypothesis backed by experiments. Simulations are a valid means of conducting experiments! They do not need the column to have a valid theory, no more than we need to create a mass singularity to have a valid theory of black holes.

Speculating is the crap that you do, i.e. gainsaying their conclusions without any better results of your own, in fact any results of any kind. Or even a speculative alternate hypothesis.

Basically, all you've done is confirmed that you either do not understand, or you implicitly reject, the Scientific Method. Having done so, all of us are fully justified in not taking you seriously at all.