• 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.

I will abandon CD hypothesis if...

Ragnarok said:
Okay, a suitcase then! FFS, do you want me to ferret out a couple of 'corpse-in-a-suitcase' links, to prove my point?
Click to expand...

Well you can continue considering heavy objects to make your point. To consider mine, perhaps you'd find out how many bags it would take to hold 100lbs of marshmallow, or cherry blossom.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
What would a successful challenge to the report consist of?

And, if no challenge is presented, how would that disqualify the CD hypothesis in your view?
Click to expand...

For many Truthers the bar would just be set at Richard Gage giving a firm "Nuh-uh" and that will be all the challenge that they need.

I do, however, respect this stand, Sizzler, because many Truthers cannot get passed the Penn and Teller peeve "No one can convince me..." I just hope by "structural engineering community" you are not meaning AE9/11Truth, because those boys would argue against the sky being blue if NIST happened to write in the report that it was a beautiful day on 9/11.
 
From OP:

"for any serious challenge to be set forth by any engineering firm, individual, or "truther engineer"

This was over before it started. A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
 
Sizzler, what you believe about wtc7 is of very little importance, even to yourself.

What you believe about human nature, how people in all different walks of life make decisions, whom to trust and not to trust, and why -- that, by contrast, is of great importance to you and could have an enormous impact on your own life and on everyone else whose lives you touch along the way.

My suggestion is, put reading about wtc7 on hold, and start reading biographies instead. Read biographies of presidents (recent and otherwise), of ancient emperors, of medical pioneers, of scientists and inventors, of soldiers and sea captains and serial killers, of news reporters, of dictators and dissenters and revolutionaries, of athletes and actors and enterpreneurs, of prophets and popes, of drunkards and drifters, of artists and writers and photographers.

For each one you read, talk to an older relative of yours and ask what their life was like growing up or how their career got started and progressed or what they've experienced in their lives. If you run out of relatives, learn about the lives of their friends, bosses, customers, coworkers, preachers, and enemies.

There are some people (not many but some) who cannot be happy until they have become wise. I suspect you are among them.

However, if so, you are going about it wrong, focusing on the microcosm of 9/11 as if it will reveal to you the true nature of the whole world and its people. It's the other way around. If you want to know the nature of the world, learn it from the world, and then see what that knowledge tells you about what happened on 9/11.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
From OP:

"for any serious challenge to be set forth by any engineering firm, individual, or "truther engineer"

This was over before it started. A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
Click to expand...

Serious challenge was later defined as something in a respectable journal. If for example it makes one of the more serious engineering journals, it really shouldn't matter if a truther scientist is the author. I think you get the point.
 
Myriad said:
Sizzler, what you believe about wtc7 is of very little importance, even to yourself.

What you believe about human nature, how people in all different walks of like make decisions, whom to trust and not to trust, and why -- that, by contrast, is of great importance to you and could have an enormous impact on your own life and on everyone else whose lives you touch along the way.

My suggestion is, put reading about wtc7 on hold, and start reading biographies instead. Read biographies of presidents (recent and otherwise), of ancient emperors, of medical pioneers, of scientists and inventors, of soldiers and sea captains and serial killers, of news reporters, of dictators and dissenters and revolutionaries, of athletes and actors and enterpreneurs, of prophets and popes, of drunkards and drifters, of artists and writers and photographers.

For each one you read, talk to an older relative of yours and ask what their life was like growing up or how their career got started and progressed or what they've experienced in their lives. If you run out of relatives, learn about the lives of their friends, bosses, customers, coworkers, preachers, and enemies.

There are some people (not many but some) who cannot be happy until they have become wise. I suspect you are among them.

However, if so, you are going about it wrong, focusing on the microcosm of 9/11 as if it will reveal to you the true nature of the whole world and its people. It's the other way around. If you want to know the nature of the world, learn it from the world, and then see what that knowledge tells you about what happened on 9/11.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Wise words Myriad. I will keep this is mind. I seem to be wasting a lot of good time basically waiting for something to develop. It is like a nasty habit or something.

Which actually has led me to a question of my own. What keeps you coming back here time and time again? Not that I mind or anything, but just curious.
 
Sizzler said:
I will try to address all of your posts here. If I miss something just post me a reminder.

You all raise good points surrounding the logic of OP. I had a thought that sat well in my stomach and posted it. After some good replies I have had some time to think about it more. I still stand by OP, even considering the many good points made in this thread. I do so for a few reasons.

First, I believe that we all have intuition and it works everyday to help form certain beliefs. It isn't the only factor that plays into our decision making but perhaps in certain situations it could be the dominant one.

I think for things we have never seen before, intuition plays into decision making heavily. And certainly our intuition is shaped by our biases created by past experiences and such (but this is beside the point).

For example, when I saw the WTC towers fall, my intuition told me that the conspirators had known and planned for that to happen. Perhaps it was the cause and effect relationship between the crashes and collapses, but maybe not. Intuition is hard to pin point and for the purpose of this thread, not important.

On the other hand, our intuition can be and often is proven wrong. We usually accept we were initially wrong when given enough evidence. I did not assume "inside job", but instead thought Osama knew exactly how to cause the towers to collapse (ie, speed, place, timing, etc). When the the official story came out I accepted it at face value because it came from MS outlets and scientists. I accepted that my intuition was wrong.

However, 6 years later I saw new things that others called "evidence". My intuition returned except this time the conspirators and methods had changed. I have since been evaluating such "evidence" but have not been able to accept that my intuition is once again wrong. The official story has not thus far been strong enough, and the truther evidence hasn't been weak enough.

I accept that no hard evidence of CD exists, yet I still intuitively side with it and have allowed myself to do so because of the circumstantial evidence that surrounds the event.

At some point however, I would like to put this issue to rest because it can be quite consuming at times. I think WTC 7 is a good place to put this to rest, seeing as it is the main reason I allowed my intuition to resurface again. I previously stated that intuition can be wrong, and we can accept this at times. There are no rules of logic surrounding intuition, so I stand-by OP, and restate, I will accept my intuition for CD hypothesis as wrong, if the findings of WTC7 by NIST stick with no real opposition (will allow 3 years).

Real opposition meaning something from a engineering firm or from individuals published in a respectable journal.

Let me also state, if real opposition arises, that doesn't mean I will accept CD/inside job hypothesis as truth. I still need hard evidence to make such a claim. It just means I can't side with the official story, ie, I am still stuck at the same place I am now.
Click to expand...

OK. I can buy that. Not a very skeptical way of going about it to put more credence to your gut feeling rather than the overwhelming evidence but I guess it makes sense.
 
Some of you are a lot more understanding then I am. Sizzler has been coming here for months parroting the same nonsense that's been debunked many times before. It gets debunked again and he goes away only to come back with yet another.

How many times has he admitted he was wrong when he brought one of his ideas to this forum? Why on earth should anyone believe him now?
 
DavidJames said:
How many times has he admitted he was wrong when he brought one of his ideas to this forum? Why on earth should anyone believe him now?
Click to expand...

Assuming the ideas in these two sentences have any sort of relation (perhaps cause and effect), can you see the irony in it?

How would you feel about me if I didn't admit when I was wrong?
 
Pardalis said:
OK. I can buy that. Not a very skeptical way of going about it to put more credence to your gut feeling rather than the overwhelming evidence but I guess it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Thanks for understanding. I get the skeptical thing and I can easily use it for many other CT claims. However 9-11 is different. Perhaps I haven't yet pin-pointed why.

The official account isn't strong enough for me to wholeheartedly accept, yet the CD hypothesis et al. are not weak enough for me to ignore either.

I think where I may differ is in my acceptance of a reasonable possibility (lack of better word at the moment) that such conspiracy could have taken place.
 
Sizzler said:
It is your opinion that there is zero evidence for it.
Click to expand...

No, it's an objective fact.

There is absolutely no evidence that WTC 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition. If you still are sitting on some "evidence," let's have it.
 
Ragnarok said:
tell me why the dreaded thermate could not just be placed on a horizontal girder, allowing gravity to finish it's job?
Click to expand...

Firstly, one girder would not be acceptable, secondly the girders are as previously mentioned, underneath several inches of concrete, a layer of welded wire fabric and a steel deck.

Another problem to consider is occupancy. WTC7 was mostly civilian filled, if you have read the report you'll be able to tell me who's offices the deconstruction work must have taken place in.

The fourth and not the smallest problem is actually getting the materials in, who's going to let you in there to plant them, and who's not going to notice them in the normal workdays before 911?
 
Sizzler said:
The official story has not thus far been strong enough, and the truther evidence hasn't been weak enough.

I accept that no hard evidence of CD exists, yet I still intuitively side with it and have allowed myself to do so because of the circumstantial evidence that surrounds the event.
Click to expand...

You keep talking about truther "evidence." Would you list some examples? So far all I have been able to distill out of anything I have read of that kind is, "It was just too big and devastating and besides that, nothing like it has ever happened before. Oh, and it didn't look like I think it should."

If there is more than that, I would really like to hear it.
 
Sizzler said:
I recently came across a post by Newtons Bit that made a whole lot of sense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3967250&postcount=4



With this in mind, I hereby state that I will abandon the CD hypothesis if no serious challenge to NIST's WTC7 report is put forth.

In other words, if the "new phenomenon" put forth by NIST, which was responsible for the collapse of WTC7, is accepted by the engineering community and changes are made to building practices and codes to keep any other sky scrapper from falling, I will abandon the CD hypothesis and accept that all 3 WTC buildings collapses for reasons stated by NIST.

NIST needed 3 years to come up with their WTC7 hypothesis, so this is exactly how much time I will give for any serious challenge to be set forth by any engineering firm, individual, or "truther engineer".

You've heard it here, so hold me to it.

Cheers:)
Click to expand...


There is a reason why a rational person should care if an agenda-driven ignoramus abandons an absurd, thoroughly discredited fantasy? What might that reason be?
 
Sizzler said:
Thanks for understanding. I get the skeptical thing and I can easily use it for many other CT claims. However 9-11 is different. Perhaps I haven't yet pin-pointed why.

The official account isn't strong enough for me to wholeheartedly accept, yet the CD hypothesis et al. are not weak enough for me to ignore either.

I think where I may differ is in my acceptance of a reasonable possibility (lack of better word at the moment) that such conspiracy could have taken place.
Click to expand...


You state your problem very succinctly: you are devoid of critical thinking skills. You cannot compare the overwhelming evidence on one side with total lack of evidence on the other to reach a judgment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom