• 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.

A question for debunkers, inspired by Chomsky:

3bodyproblem said:
OH DEAR ME!, THERE'S NO UNIFIED FIELD THEORY YET EITHER! Better start fastening everything to the ground...
Click to expand...

That's got nothing on the world of *rule10* evolution's gotten itself into...

Homeland Insurgency said:
Wrong sub-forum. Got anything else?
Click to expand...
If you're looking for some kind of 100% consensus on anything as a pre-requisite to make it a plausible theory that throws just about every major theory from evolution to the extinction of the Dinosaurs into complete chaos... As far as the WTC is concerned, all I've seen are the differences in the role of two mechanisms that were directly involved in their collapse, and the theories coming from a whole lotta kooks that can't even decide whether explosives, space beams, mini-nukes, etc. etc. brought down the towers... If you're looking for some sort of equilibrium between every one of those categories that's going to be one of those unreachable utopian fantasies... That's about the only description I can hand it.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Wrong sub-forum. Got anything else?
Click to expand...


As grizz pointed out, you're asking for exact consensus on the collapse. Ain't going to happen. And this is on the forgiving side. If you don't understand your own question, which is entirely plausible as well, you're not really capable of continuing the discussion. Sorry.
 
Discussion on steel structure collapse split to new thread.

Keep it civil and on-topic please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
As grizz pointed out, you're asking for exact consensus on the collapse. Ain't going to happen. And this is on the forgiving side. If you don't understand your own question, which is entirely plausible as well, you're not really capable of continuing the discussion. Sorry.
Click to expand...

This is like trying to argue that the difference between the NIST and Arup/Edinburgh collapse analyses somehow undermines the basic impact/fire/collapse premise, whereas in fact they instead argue about different aspects of same and the precise collapse initiation.

In fact, one thing I find particularly ironic is that members of the Truth Movement do not in fact found upon this issue more ofter inasmuch as it is the closest there is to learned professional disagreement on the collapse. Gage, for example, avoids it like the plague. Personally - and I am qualified to say this, hehe - I think it's because he's an incompetent nincompoop who doesn't understand the points at hand.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
That's got nothing on the world of *rule10* evolution's gotten itself into...


If you're looking for some kind of 100% consensus on anything as a pre-requisite to make it a plausible theory that throws just about every major theory from evolution to the extinction of the Dinosaurs into complete chaos... As far as the WTC is concerned, all I've seen are the differences in the role of two mechanisms that were directly involved in their collapse, and the theories coming from a whole lotta kooks that can't even decide whether explosives, space beams, mini-nukes, etc. etc. brought down the towers... If you're looking for some sort of equilibrium between every one of those categories that's going to be one of those unreachable utopian fantasies... That's about the only description I can hand it.
Click to expand...

The OCT set out to solve the problem from the perspective that there was no feasible way this could be done, if they even seriously considered it. Can you show me ANY directive for these operations that specifically states they made any concerted effort to search for explosives, of any sort?

Your declared opponents, the twoofers, have come at the situation from the opposite end of the spectrum of beliefs, and the more ridiculous ones have been flagged and rightly, should be dismissed. But, extremely intelligent people still have nagging doubts, and I don't feel the need to be ashamed for sharing them.

This thread seems to indicate there is a lot of 'cherry picking' over which ones to believe. All the twoofer's experts are cranks, and all the debunkers experts are, well...experts. There seems to be a bit of a disparity here.
 
Ragnarok said:
The OCT set out to solve the problem from the perspective that there was no feasible way this could be done, if they even seriously considered it. Can you show me ANY directive for these operations that specifically states they made any concerted effort to search for explosives, of any sort?
Click to expand...


This is a point other truthers have brought up, and it puzzles me (and others): Why would they need to specifically search for explosives to find any evidence of explosives?

The funny thing is that a member of one of the "X for 9/11 Truth" groups actually did take part in the search for evidence of explosives in the debris at the Fresh Kills landfill.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
This is a point other truthers have brought up, and it puzzles me (and others): Why would they need to specifically search for explosives to find any evidence of explosives?

The funny thing is that a member of one of the "X for 9/11 Truth" groups actually did take part in the search for evidence of explosives in the debris at the Fresh Kills landfill.
Click to expand...

When they gathered all the people who would take part in the initial search together, did they say, "Right ladies and gents, there is a slight possibility that this was done by ebil gubmint agents, and we want you to keep a very keen eye open for anything suspicious. Put all your concrete here, all your metal there, and all your little bits of wiring and suspicious detonator type material here."?
 
Ragnarok said:
When they gathered all the people who would take part in the initial search together, did they say, "Right ladies and gents, there is a slight possibility that this was done by ebil gubmint agents, and we want you to keep a very keen eye open for anything suspicious. Put all your concrete here, all your metal there, and all your little bits of wiring and suspicious detonator type material here."?
Click to expand...


Why are you asking me?
 
Ragnarok said:
Because you sounded like you knew what you are on about, and you just questioned my query about methodology. Nevermind.
Click to expand...


Hey, I was just asking a question. Oh, and also casting some doubt on your claim that evidence for explosives wasn't being looked for*. That gives me a free pass as far as knowing anything, doesn't it? That's how it works, right?

--
* And that came from a truther, although I wish I could remember who and what group he belonged to. Someone else here pointed it out last year sometime.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
What a copout. Maybe you should read some of those papers before you go promoting them as on your side as far as there being no more need for investigation.
Click to expand...
Whoever said there was "no need for more investigation"?

Would you mind telling me when the investigations stopped?

Just because no one is looking at your "pet theory" (although I've yet to see one) doesn't mean more research is not being conducted.
 
Travis said:
Chomsky not believing the US government was behind 9/11 is the one time in the history of everything that he got something right. So good for him. Now he only has all those BS books and all those annoying speeches to atone for.
Click to expand...

QFMFT.

I just felt that needed reiterating.
 
Ragnarok said:
The OCT set out to solve the problem from the perspective that there was no feasible way this could be done, if they even seriously considered it. Can you show me ANY directive for these operations that specifically states they made any concerted effort to search for explosives, of any sort?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether or not they specifically looked for evidence of explosives or not since they weren't there. I know this has been explained to you more than once but I'll do it again. There were no extremely loud bangs, which proves for a fact that there were no explosives. Once more in an attempt to drive this through your head. There were no extremely loud bangs, which proves for a fact that there were no explosives.

Your declared opponents, the twoofers, have come at the situation from the opposite end of the spectrum of beliefs, and the more ridiculous ones have been flagged and rightly, should be dismissed. But, extremely intelligent people still have nagging doubts, and I don't feel the need to be ashamed for sharing them.
Click to expand...

There are no extremely smart twoofers. The two are mutually exclusive.

This thread seems to indicate there is a lot of 'cherry picking' over which ones to believe. All the twoofer's experts are cranks, and all the debunkers experts are, well...experts. There seems to be a bit of a disparity here.
Click to expand...

Twoofers don't have experts. If they were experts they wouldn't be twoofers.
 
Last edited:
Ragnarok said:
When they gathered all the people who would take part in the initial search together, did they say, "Right ladies and gents, there is a slight possibility that this was done by ebil gubmint agents, and we want you to keep a very keen eye open for anything suspicious. Put all your concrete here, all your metal there, and all your little bits of wiring and suspicious detonator type material here."?
Click to expand...


Yes, in fact, they did.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4351313&postcount=308

Explains the steel investigation. Any problems with theclaims and you could contact the relevant personnel. I know you won't though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom