• 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.

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

kookbreaker said:
Oh for Ed's sake: http://wtc.nist.gov/ or http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Are you freaking blind?

For the budget itself:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/nist_investigation_911.htm

From which I quote:

"NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million.

The President's FY 2004 budget request of $4 million focuses on using the results of the World Trade Center investigation to develop cost-effective solutions to strengthen existing and future buildings against attacks and natural disasters."



It takes stuff that is not garbage going in. What are the basis for the calculations?



You're not very good at this, are you?
Click to expand...

So where does it say how much of all that budget money they actually spent?

You could have posted the results if you have bothered to read them.

You know 87 billion was alotted for iraq, and a year after like 10% or less had actually been spent.
 
kookbreaker said:
Here's an idea. Why don't you do your own homework.

Bring what you've got instead of claiming something magic invalidates all our arguements.
Click to expand...


My own homework is having a working knowledge of formal logic, in regards to the available evidence, I have been pretty well aware of the claims from both sides for awhile just as you claim to be.

Using guess work, and induction, does not make fact, if it's magic to point that out to you right brainers then maybe I should try doing something different for a living.
 
thesyntaxera said:
So where does it say how much of all that budget money they actually spent?
Click to expand...

That is probably the weakest arguement yet.

You could have posted the results if you have bothered to read them.
Click to expand...

Did you even look at the links with test results? You sure as heck didn't read them since it has only been like ten minutes since I posted them.

You know 87 billion was alotted for iraq, and a year after like 10% or less had actually been spent.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? But you better back this statement up!

The only thing worse than a conspiracy crank is a lazy conspiracy crank. That's you, in case you are too dense to figure it out.
 
thesyntaxera said:
My own homework is having a working knowledge of formal logic, in regards to the available evidence, I have been pretty well aware of the claims from both sides for awhile just as you claim to be.

Using guess work, and induction, does not make fact, if it's magic to point that out to you right brainers then maybe I should try doing something different for a living.
Click to expand...

When you get to actually doing all these things you claim to be doing, let us know, OK?
 
kookbreaker said:
That is probably the weakest arguement yet.



Did you even look at the links with test results? You sure as heck didn't read them since it has only been like ten minutes since I posted them.



Excuse me? But you better back this statement up!

The only thing worse than a conspiracy crank is a lazy conspiracy crank. That's you, in case you are too dense to figure it out.
Click to expand...

really, your whole argument is weak, so whats that say?

I am looking at them now, you still could have posted them.

Back up this statement? this is a public fact that was all over the news, do your own research...or get off the debunk sites for awhile and read some actual news.
 
thesyntaxera said:
really, your whole aregument is weak, so whats that say?

I am looking at them now, you still could have posted them.
Click to expand...

Google is your friend. You can't blame me for your earlier lies.

Back up this statement? this is a public fact that was all over the news, do your own research...or get off the debunk sites for awhile and read some actual news.
Click to expand...

Evasion noted.
 
As far as I could see on the NIST site there is no results listed, this is just a description of the planned investigation that is predicted to take 24 months...

so when did it begin?

Who are the people doing it...do not just say the NIST organization...who are the actual people?

any results you could link to?
 
thesyntaxera said:
As far as I could see on the NIST site there is no results listed, this is just a description of the planned investigation that is predicted to take 24 months...

so when did it begin?

Who are the people doing it...do not just say the NIST organization...who are the actual people?

any results you could link to?
Click to expand...

You really are going out of your way to avoid seeing anything that might upset your worldview, aren't you.

The first link on this page: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Goes to this page: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Which holds the final report, as well as eight companion reports.
 
And I know I said buh bye but I can't pass up two things:

1. Regarding who the investigators actually were (not just NIST): The lead investigator was Shyam Sunder who obtained a Masters of Science in Civil Engineering and a Doctorate of Science in Structural Engineering from MIT. In his spare time he is the Deputy Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory.

2. The $87 Billion allotted for Iraq is simply wrong, I suspect intentionally so, though possibly only negligently so. The real amount of $87.5 Billion was split with about $51 Billion going to Iraq and $10 Billion to Afghanistan and the remainder on sundries. The majority of the $51 Billion was spent as it was meant for salaries for Reservists and National Guardsmen along with new equipment.
 
thesyntaxera, you've used the words "deductive" and "inductive" so much that when I read your posts they've lost all meaning. "Why wasn't a blah blah investigation done instead of a yada yada one?" You haven't properly defined what you mean by them, and I'm not at all convinced that they mean to other people what you think they mean.

So instead of asserting that a proper whatever kind of investigation wasn't done, why don't you tell us what would be a self-consistent explanation of the events of 9/11, and a few ways that the facts back it up? I'm not going to read some book that you refer to for the purposes of having this discussion. Tell us what it says, and strong points that it makes.
 
kookbreaker said:
You really are going out of your way to avoid seeing anything that might upset your worldview, aren't you.

The first link on this page: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Goes to this page: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Which holds the final report, as well as eight companion reports.
Click to expand...


"The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents."

thats interesting. only 200 peices of steel were saved from wtc1/2. this doesn't dispell anything.
 
thesyntaxera said:
"The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents."

thats interesting. only 200 peices of steel were saved from wtc1/2. this doesn't dispell anything.
Click to expand...

What were you expecting?

NIST has said for some time that they could not recover much of the steel that had a known location and was exposed to fire.

Your arguement was that steel tests were not done. Are you now sashaying into another arguement hoping we won't notice?
 
thesyntaxera said:
thats interesting. only 200 peices of steel were saved from wtc1/2. this doesn't dispell anything.
Click to expand...
You are correct, unless a detailed chemical analysis is done on every piece of steel that was used in the WTC it is worthless. I for one refuse to accept any more government cant until full DNA matching is done on the Pentagon, too.

Edited to add: Concrete does have DNA, right guys? I appreciate that I could look this up on Google but that might take a moment out of my busy and important life, so if you wouldn't mind looking it up for me that would be great.
 
Last edited:
thesyntaxera said:
ed..
600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation...
Click to expand...

The was a claim made as a testable fact.

Kookbreaker then posted:

For the budget itself:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...gation_911.htm

From which I quote:

"NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million.

The President's FY 2004 budget request of $4 million focuses on using the results of the World Trade Center investigation to develop cost-effective solutions to strengthen existing and future buildings against attacks and natural disasters."
Click to expand...


Which provided factual information and links for rebutting your 'fact'


Your response, thesyntaxera, was:

So where does it say how much of all that budget money they actually spent?
Click to expand...

Now, I am curious, syntexera. Is that an example of deductive or inductive reasoning? Just for clairification, mind you.

Press on.
 
A simple question for thesyntaxera/love:

The investigations conducted by the experts that have been referenced in this thread have come up with reasonable answers to the following questions surrounding the events of 911:
- Who was involved?
- What happened?
- Why did things happen?
- When did the events take place?
- Where were the locations of the significant events?
- How were the various activities leading up to these events acted on?

Please summarize your "theories" by answering each of the questions above.
All you have done so far is point to unsubstantiated reasons as to why you think the recognized experts are "wrong". Please tell us in your own words what you think actually happened. Start with when the idea was concocted 35 years ago to put explosives in the concrete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom