Debunker says what?

[Disbelief]

Ok, what's your stance??

Were there bombs in the building?? Were the eyewitnesses statements taaken out of context??

Deep is a no-claimer. He will dance and dodge, not taking a stance on anything, but he will try to point out minor inconsistencies and make them larger. When that goes nowhere, he will fall back on his no-claim stance and go back to JAQing.

 

[deep]

Deep is a no-claimer. He will dance and dodge, not taking a stance on anything, but he will try to point out minor inconsistencies and make them larger. When that goes nowhere, he will fall back on his no-claim stance and go back to JAQing.

Let me share a quote with you (reposted from Wikipedia: "Marcello Truzzi"):

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.​

– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987​

 

[BigAl]

Why am I here, in this thread? Because there's obviously a misunderstanding about certain eyewitness accounts, and I'm here to discuss that - in a friendly and lively way.

The "misunderstanding" would be the inability or unwillingness on the part of Twoofers to understand the use of metaphor, simile, and hyperbole as used by the people that were at WTC on 9/11 as well as the inevitable confusion and uncertainty demonstrated by statements made as the events of the day evolved.

You may find that the people here that had some eyewitness and/or professional involvement with the events of 9/11 are deficient in the sense-of-humor department when presented with your silly claims.

 

[BigAl]

Let me share a quote with you (reposted from Wikipedia: "Marcello Truzzi"):

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.​

And for those with relevant expertise and knowledge of relevant aspects of the events of 9/11, the burden has been made and made and made.

All the people that say otherwise demonstrate a failure to understand the facts on the public record for the events related to 9/11 and/or fail to demonstrate expertise in the relevant topic.

Richard Gage, I'm talking about you.​

 

[deep]

You may find that the people here that had some eyewitness and/or professional involvement with the events of 9/11 are deficient in the sense-of-humor department when presented with your silly claims.

My only "claim" in this thread is that you (collectively) haven't offered any proof for your negative hypothesis - please see above quote.

It's fine for someone to believe that those eyewitnesses were hearing bodies hit the ground, but there's certainly no proof of that.

 

[BigAl]

My only "claim" in this thread is that you (collectively) haven't offered any proof for your negative hypothesis - please see above quote.

It's fine for someone to believe that those eyewitnesses were hearing bodies hit the ground, but there's certainly no proof of that.

The eyewitnesses saw the bodies fall and heard the resulting noise. It's on video. (The Naudet film). How much evidence do you need?

Your ignorance of the facts and the professional literature and public record and any single area of relevant professional expertise is your problem.

 

[deep]

The eyewitnesses saw the bodies fall and heard the resulting noise. It's on video. (The Naudet film). How much evidence do you need?

Your ignorance of the facts and the professional literature and public record and any single area of relevant professional expertise is your problem.

I'm referring to the people who claimed that they heard something else entirely, and certainly didn't see a body fall. The negative hypothesis I'm referring to is that those people were mistaken, and what they really heard were bodies hitting the ground.

 

[BigAl]

I'm referring to the people who claimed that they heard something else entirely, and certainly didn't see a body fall. The negative hypothesis I'm referring to is that those people were mistaken, and what they really heard were bodies hitting the ground.

There are hundreds of kinds of things that make loud noises, frequently called "explosions" in a fire in any steel structure. People with any familiarity with those fires know this. This training predates 2001. You apparently are not one of these people.

Nobody that was an eyewitness to WTC says they saw anything that isn't explained by simile, metaphor and hyperbole.

Here's an architect that was in one of the towers who heard "explosions" and knew they were not man-made. Buried in my notes I have dozens of other reports of explosions in steel buildings that were made by something other than man-made explosives.

On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing structurally. Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor
office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell, his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a
building like that is off center, that's it."

http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande​

 

[deep]

There are hundreds of kinds of things that make loud noises, frequently called "explosions" in a fire in any steel structure. People with any familiarity with those fires know this. This training predates 2001. You apparently are not one of these people.

Where have I denied that lots of things make loud noises in a situation like that?

I'm saying that there is no proof that specific eyewitnesses who said they heard "a bomb" or "an explosion" were actually hearing bodies hit the ground. There's also no proof that they were hearing bombs go off, given all the loud noises in the building at that time.

 

[BigAl]

Where have I denied that lots of things make loud noises in a situation like that?

I'm saying that there is no proof that specific eyewitnesses who said they heard "a bomb" or "an explosion" were actually hearing bodies hit the ground. There's also no proof that they were hearing bombs go off, given all the loud noises in the building at that time.

There is no technical evidence, no audio recording on any video camera or any eyewitness account that is consistent in timing and loudness with man-made demolition.

All the claims of man-made demolition are based on cherry-picked out-of-context quotes that take on a different meaning when read in full and in the context of everything we now know about what happened.

 

[TJM]

The people in the investigation I posted didn't just get past the guards. And it wasn't in just one building.

They got past building security. Would you show where the article states that they were able to plant their bombs behind walls without nobody noticing?

What happened to all the layers of security beyond the guard in these post 9/11 cases?

Since your OP is nothing but an arguement from ignorance, I doubt explaining it to you would accomplish anything. It would be like you trying to show me the difference between the regular and the super-value combo. You'd be wasting your time trying sell me on something I'm not likely buying.

See how you never clear anything up?

See how you never debunk anything?

See how you never really say anything? Snark away, that's all you have.

 

[funk de fino]

So the sound of unknown explosions, which could potentially be evidence of explosives, could not possibly be caused by explosives.. because there's no evidence of explosives?

NIST studied the evidence for those explosion noises and re interviewed some of the claimants. They found nothing to suggest CD.

 

[johnny karate]

Given the information we have, which do you think is more likely:

1) Ultimately useless bombs were randomly planted in the towers by persons unknown for reasons unknown.

2) Loud explosions occurred as an expected result of two 110-story buildings crashing to the ground.

Yes they are in that option 2 would preclude the existence of any explosive devices. With that in mind, please make your selection.

Bump for deep44.

 

[triforcharity]

Deep, I undeerstand what you are saying. There is no way to determine what exactly every person heard on that day. There isn't enough evidence to decipher what they did hear. However, there IS enough evidence to come to the conclusion that it WASN'T A FREAKING BOMB!! There are hundreds of other things that go boom in a huge structure that is ONE FIRE!!

Now, could it have been large beams failing??? Sure
How about entire floor sections falling?? Possibly
Could it have been, I dunno, huge battery bank exploding?? Absolutely.
How about some poor souls body, traveling at terminal velocity hitting an aluminum structure?? Sure

Don't start on the faalling bodies thing. I will tear you up and spit you out like old Copenhagen in 1 post. Don't do it.

 

[Disbelief]

Let me share a quote with you (reposted from Wikipedia: "Marcello Truzzi"):

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.​

– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987​

You can continue to act like you are skeptical, but those who know your posting history understand that it is a smokescreen. If there ever is another investigation, even though there have been many independent ones, you will continue to act like you are always looking for more information because you are skeptical. Don't worry, all the regulars (and probably most lurkers) know you are really a truther.

 

[stilicho]

Deep is a no-claimer. He will dance and dodge, not taking a stance on anything, but he will try to point out minor inconsistencies and make them larger. When that goes nowhere, he will fall back on his no-claim stance and go back to JAQing.

That's what makes this type of thread at once entertaining and a frightful bore. Thirteen pages of stuff and not a single claim made either by HI or by deep.

This happens on plenty of other threads, too, and ultimately you have to conclude that the OPs aren't serious.

I suspect that the OP is trying to insinuate something but why not say what it is? I'd be more inclined to respect the 'truthers' if they simply said something like this:

"Security guards were fooled by agents smuggling contraband into a building the other day. I think this is what happened on 9/11, too."

At least that's something you can debate. This isn't a debate or even a discussion.

 

[FineWine]

Homeland Insecurity - The fact that you or I could smuggle a few ounces of ANYTHING into ANYWHERE does not mean that it was even remotely possible to smuggle MANY TONS of explosive and then CUT WALLS to install them, and WIRE THEM TO DETONATORS, and blow up a major occupied building without being detected and stopped.

If you think that's possible, you are not really in touch with reality on any level.

HI's mad premise was destroyed instantly. He has pranced, danced, and blown smoke ever since in a desperate attempt to obscure that fact. We get the idea that it is possible to smuggle a tiny amount of bomb-making material past security guards. We also get the idea that demolition experts state that many tons of charges would have had to be placed by teams working for months to bring down the towers. HI made a total fool of himself, yet again, by invoking Stacey Loizeaux, a top demolition pro who despises "truthers" for their dishonesty and stupidity.

He can't understand a word you're saying. His eyes are closed and his ears are plugged.

 

[stilicho]

HI's mad premise was destroyed instantly.

Another point missing from the story (but probably included in the audit) was the number of incidents in which the investigators were caught or observed during the exercises. If the audit report is mired somewhere in the middle of this thirteen pages maybe you could tell me if that aspect is included. If we don't have the audit report itself, we are arguing on the basis what a senator told a news service about what he heard.

 

[deep]

That's what makes this type of thread at once entertaining and a frightful bore. Thirteen pages of stuff and not a single claim made either by HI or by deep.

This happens on plenty of other threads, too, and ultimately you have to conclude that the OPs aren't serious.

I'm sorry it's boring, but that's because nobody in this thread seems to understand the importance of proving a negative hypothesis. There's also a very fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes "evidence".

Take, for example, the eyewitnesses from earlier in this thread - we can't prove what they were hearing (or not hearing), so we must accept that they heard unidentified sounds that were perceived as an "explosion" (paraphrasing). I would classify that as very weak evidence in support of bombs going off.

Evidence should be measured in degrees (strong, weak, etc), and just because there's evidence to support something doesn't mean there's adequate evidence for you to believe it.

 

[triforcharity]

So deep, can you PLEASE tell me why you have argued with me and others, but then say that you agree with us?? This makes no sense. Maybe I read too much into things, but it seems that YOU don't know what you believe.

So, were there bombs or not??

Where do YOU personally stand re:911???