Anti-semitism and 911 truth - "like two pees in a pod"

[BigAl]

No, the earliest conspiracy theory was that the towers were demolished. It started circulating a couple of hours after they fell.

Having been in Manhattan that day and with lots of other eyewitnesses, I don't recall anyone speaking of man-made demolition except as metaphor. Essentially nobody that saw the collapse speaks of man-made demolition.

 

[vinniem]

Having been in Manhattan that day and with lots of other eyewitnesses, I don't recall anyone speaking of man-made demolition except as metaphor. Essentially nobody that saw the collapse speaks of man-made demolition.

Here is the Alex Jones radio show from the day of 911

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X18aMCs9Pxw

(It is in several parts)

People on the show, including a structural engineer from new york, were already saying that the towers were demolished by 12pm on the day of 911.

 

[Thunder]

People on the show, including a structural engineer from new york, were already saying that the towers were demolished by 12pm on the day of 911.

well, then, that proves it. 9-11 Truthers made up their minds about that day before ANY of the evidence was in or had been analyzed.

so much for being scientific skeptics. only pseudo-skeptics make such irresponsible determinations before ANY of the facts are in.

..and you know I am right Vin.

 

[vinniem]

well, then, that proves it. 9-11 Truthers made up their minds about that day before ANY of the evidence was in or had been analyzed.

so much for being scientific skeptics. only pseudo-skeptics make such irresponsible determinations before ANY of the facts are in.

You mean like the news reporters who already determined Bin Laden was involved within minutes of the second plane hitting?

 

[WildCat]

People on the show, including a structural engineer from new york, were already saying that the towers were demolished by 12pm on the day of 911.

They were demolished, by planes and fire.

But what does that have to do with parky peeing in Sam's Coke?

 

[Thunder]

You mean like the news reporters who already determined Bin Laden was involved within minutes of the second plane hitting?

stop diverting the topic.

you are fully aware that you cannot consider yourself to be following the rules of scientific skepticism, and yet make such a dramatic call as to the cause of the collapse of the WTC towers, before ANY of the evidence was in.

true skeptics, take their time to analyze ALL of the evidence, look at the opinions of experts in the relevant fields, clear their mind of any pre-conceived notions of what happened and why, void their theories of politics, and then come up with a clear hypothesis of what occured, taking into account all of the verified and legitimate evidence involved.

this person, who decided that the towers were blown up, just hours after it occurred, it clearly not a true skeptic, or even a good scientist,

 

[BigAl]

You mean like the news reporters who already determined Bin Laden was involved within minutes of the second plane hitting?

The fact that bin Laden's gang had attacked us and killed Americans the previous fall and as he had in 1998 might have something to do with that.

Prior to 9/11/01, bin Laden was on record as intending to attack us.

 

[Thunder]

The fact that bin Laden's gang had attacked us and killed Americans
the previous fall and as he had in 1998 might have something to do with that.

Prior to 9/11/01, bin Laden was on record as intending to attack us.

don't let the truther divert the subject. we know its one of their most common strategies from avoiding being pushed up against a wall.

the fact remains that any one who decided that the WTC towers were demolished, just hours after it happened, was not acting as a scientist or a skeptic. and 9-11 truthers treat these people like Gods.

and this is why 9-11 Truth, part deux, is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

 

[BigAl]

Here is the Alex Jones radio show from the day of 911

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X18aMCs9Pxw

(It is in several parts)

People on the show, including a structural engineer from new york, were already saying that the towers were demolished by 12pm on the day of 911.

The name of the engineer, please. I'm not going to plow through the unlistenable Alex Jones (in multiple parts, no less) to get that nugget.

 

[Thunder]

The name of the engineer, please. I'm not going to plow through the unlistenable Alex Jones (in multiple parts, no less) to get that nugget.

watch him bring up the reporters and bin Laden again. its the core of the truther's tactics.

when backed into a corner, divert!!!!!

now i wonder: how much steel did this guy analyze before he made this call? how many videos of the collapses did he analyze?

how many engineers and architects did he consult? did he look at the plans and the design of the wtc?

did he submit his hypothesis to rigorous testing?

no? then his opinion is crap and he is a crap scientist.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You mean like the news reporters who already determined Bin Laden was involved within minutes of the second plane hitting?

News reporters made an educated guess, based on a limited amount of information, and happened to get lucky; the results of further investigation made it clear that their initial intuition was correct, and that Osama bin Laden was indeed behind the attacks of 9/11. Some other statements made by news reporters on 9/11 - for example, that eleven planes had been hijacked and that there was a bomb in Stuyvesant High School - turned out not to be correct on further investigation. Being sane people, those who made these statements recognise that they were in error.

Some people made a guess, based on a very limited amount of information, that the collapse of the Twin Towers was due to explosives. As further information became available, it became clear to anyone sane and sufficiently educated that this guess was incorrect, and that the collapses were obviously and demonstrably due to progressive deterioration of the structures adding to the damage caused by the initial impacts. Unfortunately, some of the people making the initial guess were not entirely sane, and chose therefore to reject the evidence that contradicted their initial guess. This has led them to reject, in effect, all the evidence.

Some other people have chosen to give their initial uninformed guess greater weight than all the results of investigation that have followed. They, too, are not entirely sane, and their opinions are of no consequence.

Dave

 

[Thunder]

FDNY personnel also said that it "looked" like a demolition. but they were going on appearance ONLY. plus they were running away from the damn thing, so they only got a couple seconds to view it.

but as far as science goes, you cannot claim to know what brought down the towers, just by watching it on CNN.

unless.....you are a moron who is a poor scientist and do not care about evidence, the scientific method, and rigorous fact-finding and expert opinions.

....i.e. Truthers.

 

[vinniem]

What exactly is wrong with you people?

I posted the link to the Alex Jones show because somebody asserted that the first conspiracy theory was about 4000 jews not turning up for work.

I have proved that categorically wrong because Alex Jones and others were saying on air that the towers were demolished with bombs just 2 hours after the attacks.

There is nothing more to be said. Will the poster who said that the 4000 jews was the first conspiracy theory be admitting that he was wrong?

 

[Thunder]

What exactly is wrong with you people?

take it easy buddy. no reason to get all frustrated.

do you agree that a true critical thinker and a scientific skeptic would NOT make a call about the cause of the collapse of the wtc towers until ALL of the facts and evidence has been thoroughly analyzed by expert engineers and architects?

 

[vinniem]

take it easy buddy. no reason to get all frustrated.

do you agree that a true critical thinker and a scientific skeptic would NOT make a call about the cause of the collapse of the wtc towers until ALL of the facts and evidence has been thoroughly analyzed by expert engineers and architects?

Talking of frustration....no, on second thoughts I won't go there.

 

[twinstead]

2 hours? Wow. I didn't realize Alex made that expert determination so soon after the collapses.

 

[vinniem]

2 hours? Wow. I didn't realize Alex made that expert determination so soon after the collapses.

How many times do I need to repeat that I simply posted the link to disprove the lies that the 4000 jews claim was the first conspiracy theory?

I offered no opinion on it whatsoever.

Do people acknowledge that the claim made earlier about the earliest conspiracy theory is false?

 

[deep]

do you agree that a true critical thinker and a scientific skeptic would NOT make a call about the cause of the collapse of the wtc towers until ALL of the facts and evidence has been thoroughly analyzed by expert engineers and architects?

Does that include WTC7, as well? Just curious.

 

[Thunder]

Talking of frustration....no, on second thoughts I won't go there.

no, please.....do tell us what you were going to say.

i am sure it was polite and civil. I am sure it was mature and held to the highest standards of debate.

 

[Dave Rogers]

do you agree that a true critical thinker and a scientific skeptic would NOT make a call about the cause of the collapse of the wtc towers until ALL of the facts and evidence has been thoroughly analyzed by expert engineers and architects?

Actually, no. It's ok to make a provisional conclusion on the basis of limited data available - for example, WTC7 wasn't brought down by explosives because there wasn't a bang, and the diesel fuel in the cellar may have been partly responsible. When expert analysis then becomes available, it's appropriate to re-evaluate that conclusion and revise if necessary - for example, the diesel fuel turns out not to have been a factor, but there still wasn't a bang so it still wasn't brought down by explosives. One of the many failures of conspiracy theorists is that they don't evaluate their conclusions in the light of new data, but rather misinterpret or misrepresent the new data to fit their conclusions.

Dave