Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[kookbreaker]

You were too. Read the links or shut your spew hole.

I think we are starting to see a meltdown here, folks.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Right, we are expected to investigate all your arguments, and you are not required to do the same. I've done it before pal.

Have you? Then all of the information detailed therein should be of no task for you to debunk.

It's all supplied for you right there in 5 links, and you really only need to read one. you are too lazy to aren't you....pal.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I think we are starting to see a meltdown here, folks.

Yes, random internet poster melts down due to the circular rambling of internet skeptics who can't really verify their own story let alone debunk the claims they are so skeptical of...

not really melting, more like getting bored with your fits of ego driven rambling.

 

[kookbreaker]

Yes, random internet poster melts down due to the circular rambling of internet skeptics who can't really verify their own story let alone debunk the claims they are so skeptical of...

not really melting, more like getting bored with your fits of ego driven rambling.

No, bub. We asked for evidence, you gave us speculation and spurious claims. That doesn't cut it. Now you are lashing out and claiming it is somehow our fault.

What you have produced is volume, not quality, nothing you posted gave anyone a reason to doubt the basic story of event.

Then you attack people, substituting insults when masses of dreck failed before. You are in a classic meltdown.

 

[Year Zero]

Claim:* The buildings collapsed straight down, and at virtually free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions, and then the rubble smoldered for months.



Translation: "This LOOKS like a controlled demolition to me, so it must be one.

 

[azazal]

I really like this one -

* Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections about 30 feet long, conveniently ready to be loaded on trucks.

Guess this is being ignored: http://www.911myths.com/html/30_foot_lengths_of_steel.html

Guess the 30 foot break couldn't be explained by the fact that the steel was shipped to the site prefab in sections that happened to be sized just right to fit onto trucks. No damnit, that's being logical again, can't do that.

 

[delphi_ote]

Overdue.

 

[Year Zero]

Overdue.

I don't quite get the specific meaning of this, but in some abstract way it makes a lot more sense than some of these conspiracy theories.

 

[Pope130]

I see that we've entered the "Overwhelm them with links and text" phase of the arguement.

Kookbreaker,
I believe this activity is properly called "Kiliking".

Robert

 

[Lynx2174]

Have you? Then all of the information detailed therein should be of no task for you to debunk.

It's all supplied for you right there in 5 links, and you really only need to read one. you are too lazy to aren't you....pal.

I'm suspecting that when people ask for evidence, they mean that they want you to write things in your own words, and provide sources for all things that could be considered assertions. not just posting links and copied text. that's considered extremely lazy.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Overdue.

Now that you've started:

Simplest Roast Chicken

1 5-6lb chicken,wing tips removed
1 lemon -- halved
4 whole garlic cloves
4 tablespoons unsalted butter -- (optional)
Kosher salt to taste
Freshly ground black pepper to taste
1 cup homemade or canned chicken broth -- water,
fruit juice or wine, for deglazing

Place oven rack on second level from bottom. Heat oven to 500 degrees.
Remove the fat from the tail and crop end of the chicken. Discard the neck and giblets or freeze for making chicken stock later. Reserve chicken livers for another use.
Stuff the cavity of the chicken with the lemon, garlic and butter, if using. Season the cavity and skin with salt and pepper.
Place the chicken in a 12-by-8-by-1 1/2-inch roasting pan, breast-side up. Put in the oven legs first and roast 50 to 60 minutes, or until the juices run clear. After the first 10 minutes, move the chicken with a wooden spatula to keep it from sticking.
Remove the chicken to a platter by placing a large wooden spoon into the tail end and balancing the chicken with a kitchen spoon pressed against the crop end. As you lift the chicken, tilt it over the roasting pan so that all the juices run out of the cavity and into the pan. Pour off excess fat from the pan and put the pan on top of the stove. Add the stock or other liquid and bring to a boil, scraping the bottom vigorously with a wooden spoon. Let reduce by half. Serve the sauce over the chicken or, for crisp skin, in a sauce boat.

Makes 4 servings

Note from author Barbara Kafka: "If there is no lemon, garlic or butter on hand, Kafka says, roast the chicken without them. Or play. Use peeled shallots or a small onion, quarter ed. Add a couple of sage leaves or orange wedges. To avoid a smoky kitchen, be sure your oven is clean before you start and use the right-size pan."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Presupposing conclusions based on past evidence to extrapolate about the future is induction...this is not incorrect as you assert.

Perhaps you should just abandon the terms of formal logic entirely. Past evidence used in induction is a premise, not a conclusion, and it's not really correct to call it a presupposition either.

No, not always, and deducing properly requires all available evidence to be gathered; they didn't even test the steel for explosive residue until two years after the fact. In fact most of the independant investigation didn't occur until after the AGENDA FOR WAR was approved.

This is evidence that you simply do not understand what deduction is.

Deduction is the inference of new facts implicit in already known facts. Correctly performed, deduction is absolutely watertight. The only way a properly carried out deduction can later be falsified is if the premises are falsified, which is what I said.

If all bachelors are men, and Jean is a bachelor, it is absolutely certain that Jean is a man. No possible evidence you can later uncover will falsify this. Anything correctly deduced from true premises cannot later be falsified.

You do not need to gather all the evidence before making deductive moves. This idea is simply wrong.

Exactly, my assertion this entire time.

At least you had one thing right, although it doesn't get you where you want to go.

I strongly suggest you take a refresher course in logic. I have used plain language, so the problem is on your end, as far as I can tell...but I could be wrong.

If you take such a course, feel free to ask your lecturer or tutor about this. They will back me up.

This could be the problem, I am one of those in the "there is no place for induction in logic" camp.

I don't know how you manage to function then. Induction is necessary to get anything significant done outside the realm of mathematics.

ummm....isn't that using induction to steer your conlusion?

It could be induction or deduction. If it turned out that Jean's being male affected the direction of the inquiry, and made previously irrelevant evidence look relevant to me, then deduction would be steering the enquiry.

 

[Year Zero]

Most of this "evidence" is based on the assumption of people whose qualifications and knowledge is unknown. For example, Mr. Hoffman obviously wasn't aware that the people who advanced the "pancaking" theory specifically stated that the collapse would be so catastrophic that the tower would fall at "near free-fall speeds". Yet he cites "near free-fall speed" as evidence for HIS theory. Now if he is doing a serious examination of various reports, and his goal is objective truth, why would he deliberately point out that advocates of the non-demolition thoery already pointed out the "near free-fall speed"? Was it laziness? Or was it that Mr. Hoffman did not want to cite evidence that might contradict his theory?

Or let's take the "powdered concrete" claim. He makes the claim that there was powdered concrete everywhere. How do we know this? What other things in the WTC might help cause that dust? How about:

1. DUST that was already there, particularly in the air vents.

2. DRYWALL

3. ceiling tiles


How do we know Hoffman was able to somehow measure the amount of concrete dust vs. dust from other sources and of course- SOOT AND ASH?



By using the patented SILENT tactic, CTs of 9-11, Hoffman being no exception, purposely AVOID real demolitions experts like the plague. The one thing they could do to conclusively advance their hypothesis, that is create an explanation and model for demolition, is something they not only avoid but curiously ignore. Why? Look at their argument:

1. The WTC LOOKS like a demolition in are unqualified opinions. Free-fall speeds or powdered concrete had to have been from a demolition!! Etc.


Well all one needs to do is first determine how the building would have to be rigged. Then, they must determine(aside from the problems a plane crash would cause) if the demolition would DO the very things they say the collapse could NOT do!! Yes that's right folks- if we had a demolitions expert making suggestings on how the building would be demolished, and a model was creating, it may very well involve NOT putting the building into "free fall"(which it was not anyway), and might NOT create "powdered concrete".


Then what would the CTs say? Who would buy their books then?

 

[Ed]

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, thysixzmnsjkdhfailuerlasjdfkdnnauksefh-whatever is right.

We Can't debunk this.

Because there is nothing there to debunk. No evidence beyond argument from ignorance and appeals to popularity. Nothing that can be debunked.

Saying something "can't be debunked" is not the same as saying something is true. There are many reasons something may not be able to be debunked:
1. It's true.
2. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis (aka IPU or Sagan's dragon)
3. There's not enough data to make any sort of authoritive determination (most UFO sightings, ghosts, and probably the majority of paranormal claims)
4. Fraud and misdirection.

The onus is not on anyone debunking a particular theory. It doesn't work that way. If you want your theory taken seriously, you have to prove it to at least the same level of proof as the currently accepted theory. So far, you've offered less evidence for your theory than the investigating committess and government officials have offered for theirs.

 

[Ed]

and have avoided the questions that might make one take notice:

Who? Why? How was it covered up?

 

[delphi_ote]

Ed keeps asking the right questions. Sadly, they're not going to be answered.

But you know what makes me sad? The fact that we ALL watched this happen on T.V. about a hundred thousand times. There is so much video of the towers falling, you can pretty much see people die from any angle you like. Millions of people went to New York after the towers fell just to see the rubble. The men responsible for destroying the towers were so proud of what they did, they made video tapes of themselves praising their imaginary friend and proclaiming their guilt and then mailed the video tapes to us.

Despite this huge body of evidence and shared experience, lunatics and attention whores still just can't settle on the boring or upsetting facts. Is there any hope for reason? How can we compete with this?

 

[Ed]

Ed keeps asking the right questions. Sadly, they're not going to be answered.

But you know what makes me sad? The fact that we ALL watched this happen on T.V. about a hundred thousand times. There is so much video of the towers falling, you can pretty much see people die from any angle you like. Millions of people went to New York after the towers fell just to see the rubble. The men responsible for destroying the towers were so proud of what they did, they made video tapes of themselves praising their imaginary friend and proclaiming their guilt and then mailed the video tapes to us.

Despite this huge body of evidence and shared experience, lunatics and attention whores still just can't settle on the boring or upsetting facts. Is there any hope for reason? How can we compete with this?

I recall that when the first Shuttle was launched there was talk about "walk". That is that as the shuttle rose, it sort of meandered from a true verticle trajectory. Thousands of hours were spent to quantify this. At the time of the launch, the damn thing "walked" 5 times more than they anticipated. Conspiracy? The point is that there are always holes in any body of data. To knee jerk and attribute conspiracy to them is a sign of fuzzy thinking.

In this case, given the circumstances, there are holes in the data and things that are unexplained. So be it. If there were some credible reason for a conspiracy these things might take on more weight, as it is it is "walk". Abscent any sort of unifying theory as to who and why some group of persons unknown might have wanted to do this (other than the putative perps) and how it was kept secret, we are idly sitting around speculating on why the shuttle didn't go straight up.

I note one thing of interest. I provided a quote from Bin Laden wherein he took responsibility for the planning of 9/11. It was stated that there was no evidence of this. Now there is, on this record, yet, I read naught of acceptance of this fact. As with Hovind, it appears that lies will be repeated, if not here, elsewhere, and inconvienent facts will be willfully ignored.

Frankly, if there were a conspiracy, the proponents of such do a piss poor job of advancing their view. Who, why and how of course are the first order of business.

 

[delphi_ote]

Frankly, if there were a conspiracy, the proponents of such do a piss poor job of advancing their view.

Clearly it's all part of the plan to keep us guessing.

But seriously. What event in the history of humanity was more thoroughly documented than these towers falling? How can there even be a discussion on this subject, let alone a "debate"? There's a certain point where being a candle in the dark is just impossible.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, random internet poster melts down due to the circular rambling of internet skeptics who can't really verify their own story let alone debunk the claims they are so skeptical of...

not really melting, more like getting bored with your fits of ego driven rambling.

... There, there, syntax. Take your medication, and all will be well.

Damn! I don't have any pictures of CATS!