• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged The "official story" meme.

Zeuzzz said:
Quick! Truther feeding frenzy in progress!

The collapse of WT7 as it was given by NIST in the recent report is merely the unscientific view of what could have happened if all conspiracy theories and controlled demolition possibilities are not considered in the probabilities. In science you can not disprove something in the negative by ignoring it or discounting it by not even considering it, you have to address it and give probabilities to each event, at the very least.

Still I have no idea how a controlled demolition of WT7, or even the twin towers, fits into any sort of conspiracy narrative. Thus why I don't think it is a conspiracy.
Click to expand...


The air defenses of the US were absent during the attacks and FEMA arrived in NYC the eve of 9/11.
It was used to participate in two wars that have likely resulted in the deaths of over a million people.

= CONSPIRACY
 
DGM said:
Can you provide a compelling reason they should be considered as probable? So far, no one has.
Click to expand...


Just look at the science, engineering and history of steel structured buildings as they relate to fire and progressive collapses. Some ideas put forward over the years, yes, may be far fetched. And the general population that have no idea of the science behind such things are understandably going to be outraged by such queries, but to discount the quite considerable amount of scientists and experts (yes, some complete and utter Phd qualified idiots that don't deserve the title they have, I grant you) that have seriously considered such an eventuality as possible, to discount them completely, is not a scientific view. It's a cultural, epistemic and scientifically biased view.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
The air defenses of the US were absent during the attacks and FEMA arrived in NYC the eve of 9/11.
It was used to participate in two wars that have likely resulted in the deaths of over a million people.

= CONSPIRACY
Click to expand...

And there you have it; this post pretty much solidifies the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Clayton, check the like/dislike ratio for that video. Yes, youtube us generally full of idiots, but if the contents of the video transcends their idiocy level they will show this in the like/dislike ratio. That video is nearly 50/50 likes/dislikes. The general population is not swayed by the title or contents. I have no idea what you think this video proves.
Click to expand...

Think about it. 411 likes, 273 dislikes

It could be that liking the video may be the same as disliking the video.

I personally like the video as it exposes the power of the CFR.

I also dislike the video that flaunts the power of the CFR.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Just look at the science, engineering and history of steel structured buildings as they relate to fire and progressive collapses. Some ideas put forward over the years, yes, may be far fetched. And the general population that have no idea of the science behind such things are understandably going to be outraged by such queries, but to discount the quite considerable amount of scientists and experts (yes, some complete and utter Phd qualified idiots that don't deserve the title they have, I grant you) that have seriously considered such an eventuality as possible, to discount them completely, is not a scientific view. It's a cultural, epistemic and scientifically biased view.
Click to expand...
You seem to think the NIST reports were made to convince the general public, this is wrong.

I asked for a compelling case for probable. In other words, why all the complexity for nothing.
 
What does that mean? What complexity? Can you be more specific please?

I've seen my fair share of people here that are by no means scientifically illiterate or engineering illiterate who spend a considerable amount of time looking into such eventualities. Granted, the majority have come to the conclusion there is no conspiracy just as I have, but they would not have bothered spending any time considering such things if it was as clear cut as 'definately no conspiracy'.

I like Gregory Ulrich's posts here. He mocked anti truthers just as much as truthers. I could tell he was not bringing any emotional baggage or preconceived emotional bias to the science and engineering.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Did you view the video?

Hillary Clinton accidentally admits that the CFR runs this nation. Wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfpgl6NqF0I
Click to expand...


And Hilary Clinton speaking about how the counsel on foreign relations helps advise them, in what is now an international community, is significant how?

I think you will find that the CFR is not the evil NWO power you envisage it as. Maybe not the most liberal or open advisory group the government gets advice from, but not the worst.

I find the whole point about the new world order and one world government being a bad thing stupid. That's the natural progression of how humanity is progressing. It's not being steered by evil forces, as much as I hate corporate greed on occasions. The Earth did not come with countries painted on it's surface. And last time I checked it was round.
 
Zeuzzz said:
And Hilary Clinton speaking about how the counsel on foreign relations helps advise them, in what is now an international community, is significant how?

I think you will find that the CFR is not the evil NWO power you envisage it as. Maybe not the most liberal or open advisory group the government gets advice from, but not the worst.

I find the whole point about the new world order and one world government being a bad thing stupid. That's the natural progression of how humanity is progressing. It's not being steered by evil forces, as much as I hate corporate greed on occasions. The Earth did not come with countries painted on it's surface. And last time I checked it was round.
Click to expand...

You're kidding? Well I guess not. You obviously don't get that the CFR advises the US government to the advantage of its members. DUH.
 
Clayton Moore said:
You're kidding? Well I guess not. You obviously don't get that the CFR advises the US government to the advantage of its members. DUH.
Click to expand...

I totally get that, and totally agree with you. I just fail to see it's relevance in a 9/11 sub forum.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Just look at the science, engineering and history of steel structured buildings as they relate to fire and progressive collapses. Some ideas put forward over the years, yes, may be far fetched. And the general population that have no idea of the science behind such things are understandably going to be outraged by such queries, but to discount the quite considerable amount of scientists and experts (yes, some complete and utter Phd qualified idiots that don't deserve the title they have, I grant you) that have seriously considered such an eventuality as possible, to discount them completely, is not a scientific view. It's a cultural, epistemic and scientifically biased view.
Click to expand...

This was your answer to the question "Can you provide a compelling reason they should be considered as probable?"

Do you assert that this answer contains "a compelling reason"?
If not, do you HAVE any "compelling reason they should be considered as probable?"

You asserted earlier that you have seen "compelling arguments from both sides", and I asked you to give us what you consider to be the (or a) most compelling argument.

So far you have said that some possibilities have not been looked into. Hmm. I have a theory that there was an army of midgets, all armed with metal-cutting saws, who sawed away at the structural supports and made all the towers collapse that way.
It's certainy a possibilty.
But it has not been looked into by NIST. Should they have? Would you say I am making a compelling argument here?
If not, why not?


Now back to the "compelling atguments" you claim to have seen from the truther side: Please give us one that is actually an argument!
 
Oystein said:
...Now back to the "compelling arguments" you claim to have seen from the truther side: Please give us one that is actually an argument!
Click to expand...
Seconded. He seems to be determined to prove that his reasoning approach is pure 'truther style'.

For example ignoring any posts which present a clearly defined question:
ozeco41 said:
I haven't seen one compelling argument from the 'truther' side.
.....Then see if any on the 'truther' side have put forward compelling arguments - so give us the links to the two you find most compelling so we can comment.
...Your posting behaviour matches 'truther'. Try posting in 'non truther' style. Make clear explicit and limited statements instead of vague and ambiguous statements ...
Click to expand...
 
ozeco41 said:
The first think I noticed was the claim that there had been 'compelling arguments' from the truth movement.

So why won't Zeuzzz give us one so we can look at it.

AFAICS it would be the first one posted here.

;)
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting to hear the first compelling truther argument ever posted here. The floor is yours, Zeuzzz
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom