• 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:
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?
Click to expand...


no, my arguments was that a deductive investigation wasn't conducted, as you have just admitted.


[/QUOTE]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.?[/QUOTE]

In confronting the evidence, another MIT alum speaks to the audience about all of the flaws in the research...too bad I can't recall his name....you should really watch it before you try and debunk any of it, their case is pretty solid.


[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

If you don't understand what induction and deduction are then you have no clue about the method of scientific inquiry. It's also a good clue as to why you don't seem to comprehend the flaws in skepticism in this case.

Are you asking me to make up my own conspiracy theory for you to debunk? That wouldn't be very scientific would it!
 
thesyntaxera said:
no, my arguments was that a deductive investigation wasn't conducted, as you have just admitted.
Click to expand...

No, your claim was in post #186

600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.
Click to expand...

When I pointed out that was wrong, you waffled, then complained that there were no conclusions. Now you are back to your 'deductive' smokescreen, which is a poor covering for your intellectual dishonesty. I note that you have not backed off the 'only 600,000' claim.

What steel would you have NIST test, if you were running the tests?
 
thesyntaxera said:
In confronting the evidence, another MIT alum speaks to the audience about all of the flaws in the research...too bad I can't recall his name....you should really watch it before you try and debunk any of it, their case is pretty solid.
Click to expand...

If your are talking about Jeff King, I am not impressed.
 
"In this case if I were to make any claims, it would be that the administration was just watching it's back in light of the event and don't want any links between them and any one middle easterner made."

Thats hardly a claim...it's merely a logical guess. I was asked to make a guess...so I did...I am not claiming anything.


"When I pointed out that was wrong, you waffled, then complained that there were no conclusions. Now you are back to your 'deductive' smokescreen, which is a poor covering for your intellectual dishonesty. I note that you have not backed off the 'only 600,000' claim.

What steel would you have NIST test, if you were running the tests?"

You didn't point out that I was wrong, you disagreed, because you saw the budget for an investigation that was several years afterward.

the investigation budget for the 911 comission was approximately 600,000 dollars.

deduction isn't a smoke screen, and I feel this is just a way for you to avoid having to explain how it is okay for you to make inductive guesses and it's not okay for anyone else to.

If I were going to run tests on steel, it would be on building 7 as well as a more thorough look at wtc fragments. Too bad building 7 is gone without ever being tested.

Also, what about the environmental cover up following the attack...there was 500,000 tons of environmentally hazardous debris that was never cleaned up, some of it is still there, and many people are feeling the effects, more and more is being written about this as more people get sick from all the particulates.

Quit using your Red Herring tactics of taking the spot light off of the fact that the whole investigation sucked, as well as your pathetic responses. You haven't answered any of my questions in any serious way either.
 
thesyntaxera said:
You didn't point out that I was wrong, you disagreed, because you saw the budget for an investigation that was several years afterward.

the investigation budget for the 911 comission was approximately 600,000 dollars.
Click to expand...

Kookbreaker presented his evidence clearly and with references regarding the amount. Request that you provide the same.
 
kookbreaker said:
No, your claim was in post #186



When I pointed out that was wrong, you waffled, then complained that there were no conclusions. Now you are back to your 'deductive' smokescreen, which is a poor covering for your intellectual dishonesty. I note that you have not backed off the 'only 600,000' claim.

What steel would you have NIST test, if you were running the tests?
Click to expand...

If your Internet connection goes down, just bang your head against a brick wall. You'll get the same result. :p
 
I skipped over a page or two so forgive me if this has been answered. But whether it was a bomb or a plane how could the speed at which the buildings fell be different? If you blow up the 30th floor or a plane hits the 30th floor how does one or the other make the building fall faster? How does a faster falling building support the theory that bombs were built in back in the 70s?

Also, don't confuse living terrorists that helped the 9/11 hijackers with the hijackers themselves. Yes, people helped them that are still alive, but I garauntee that none of the hijackers survived.

People, such as this Love person, just don't get get how BIG the twin towers were. When I first saw the first plane hit, then the second, I turned towards my wife and said it's only a matter of minutes before they collapse. They didn't just collapse into their footprint, they collapsed all over Manhattan. The debri field was massive, not just a block or two but miles when you count the dust and debri that were blown by winds. Love and others just don't get that when you build a huge building it's made to support it's weight under normal conditions, not when three or more floors have been blown out. And when tons of building start moving there is nothing that will stop it, the upper floors were more than enough to crush what was under them once the structure was comprimised.

No, they just won't get it. You can argue with them but they are basing their assumptions on a few pictures which don't even begin to tell the story. So you've seen houses burn that didn't collapse? Did those houses have thirty more floors above them? Picture that, picture the burned out house not just supporting the roof, but tons of houses above it. It will certainly collapse crushing the whole stack.

Love, go out and buy some rice cakes. Stack about thirty of them. Put some weight on them. Nothing happens? Stand on the stack. Still supporting you? Then while still standing on the stack hit the middle cake with a hammer. Did the stack collapse? The whole stack? Imagine that. It once held your weight and when the structure was comprimised it collapsed. Same thing happened to the towers.
 
thesyntaxera said:
ed..

the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1
Click to expand...


Post hoc probabilities are problematic.

The probability of the order of cards in a shuffled deck is 52!:1 yet the deck exists.

BTW, 52!>54,000,000
 
thesyntaxera said:
If you don't understand what induction and deduction are then you have no clue about the method of scientific inquiry. It's also a good clue as to why you don't seem to comprehend the flaws in skepticism in this case.
Click to expand...
I understand what inductive and deductive reasoning are. What I don't understand is what you mean when you use the terms, and I'm not sure you think they mean what they mean to everyone else. So instead of complaining that the investigation was inductive, not deductive, why don't you spell out exactly what you're talking about?

And what you have not done is give us a top-down explanation that would fit the facts we know. What really happened in your opinion? Let's go from the general to the specific - first start off with the big-picture explanation, then we can get into how the known facts fit in.
 
thesyntaxera said:
Have a mod investigate the ip if you think we are the same.
Click to expand...

Why would you insist on that if you weren't a sock? How could you be so sure your IP addresses are different?

You're going to have to do better than that to fool people here, love.
 
Incredibly Inconvenient Question for 9-11 Conspiracy theorists #12:

"If the government planned 9-11 as a pretense to justify a war in Iraq, why couldn't they arrange some IRAQIS to be on the plane or construct a believable Iraq connection?"

Don't you think Bush wishes every night that there had been an Iraqi on at least one of those planes?
 
thesyntaxera said:
"In this case if I were to make any claims, it would be that the administration was just watching it's back in light of the event and don't want any links between them and any one middle easterner made."

Thats hardly a claim...it's merely a logical guess. I was asked to make a guess...so I did...I am not claiming anything.
Click to expand...

Care for another stack of waffles?

"When I pointed out that was wrong, you waffled, then complained that there were no conclusions. Now you are back to your 'deductive' smokescreen, which is a poor covering for your intellectual dishonesty. I note that you have not backed off the 'only 600,000' claim.

What steel would you have NIST test, if you were running the tests?"

You didn't point out that I was wrong, you disagreed, because you saw the budget for an investigation that was several years afterward.
Click to expand...

The figure you gave was wrong.

the investigation budget for the 911 comission was approximately 600,000 dollars.
Click to expand...

Which obviosuly was wrong. Or is deliberately avoiding the use of budgets from other services. Either way, deception to make a point is the goal.

deduction isn't a smoke screen, and I feel this is just a way for you to avoid having to explain how it is okay for you to make inductive guesses and it's not okay for anyone else to.
Click to expand...

You still misuse words to avoid your blatant errors and decptions.

If I were going to run tests on steel, it would be on building 7 as well as a more thorough look at wtc fragments. Too bad building 7 is gone without ever being tested.
Click to expand...

What would expect to find?

Also, what about the environmental cover up following the attack...there was 500,000 tons of environmentally hazardous debris that was never cleaned up, some of it is still there, and many people are feeling the effects, more and more is being written about this as more people get sick from all the particulates.
Click to expand...

Seperate issue, bozo. Poor cleanup does not equate to a conspiracy. It can mean local, state or federal government agency sloppiness (if true!), but it does not denote a federal plot to destroy the buildings.

Quit using your Red Herring tactics of taking the spot light off of the fact that the whole investigation sucked, as well as your pathetic responses. You haven't answered any of my questions in any serious way either.
Click to expand...

Your questions have been answered, you just decided that you don't like the answers. That does not mean the investigation sucks. The fact that you had to lie about it says volumes.
 
Well the thread asked if there are any conspiracy busters here and it looks like we have come out in force. Thank you comrades, for your excellent research.
 
Ed said:
What about the Presidential Blow Job?
Click to expand...


That's all the evidence you need right there. The conspiracy-theorists preaches a world with an omnipotent government that can get away with virtually anything- right in front of our eyes. But they don't have logical answers to questions about all the REAL conspiracies that were busted, Watergate, Lewinsky, etc. We're supposed to believe the government was able to pull of the WTC attack as a pretense to invade Iraq- so WHY not plant an Iraqi on there? CTs can tell us every conspiracy that is going right but can't explain those going wrong. Why not plant some chemical missiles in Iraq? Oh no wait, maybe the US government WANTED to destroy its credibility for some nefarious plan to be revealed in the future.
 
The PBJ is a godsend to rational people everywhere.

Thank you Bill and Monica.
 
PBJ???

2291.jpg


It's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time, it's Presidential Blowjob Time!!

I'll get my coat...

--- G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom