OK Truthers, what is your smoking gun?

[Nick Terry]

I read it as a false generalization.

Actually, Jango, William Seger's statement was an aphorism about two frequently juxtaposed terms whose definitions are a matter of considerable equivocation.

 

[Jango]

Actually, Jango, William Seger's statement was an aphorism about two frequently juxtaposed terms whose definitions are a matter of considerable equivocation.

No, it was nowhere close to being pithy/concise/comprehensive/complete nor was it a 'general truth' because it is not a universal truth, 100%, 100/100 forever times infinity. It is a false generalization.

 

[ozeco41]

Ulcer inducing, I'm sure.

Do you have a peer reviewed and published paper to support that postulation?

I do not have ulcer problems. However it is fact that my hair started to go grey AFTER I was married. It went fully grey after the kids came along AND I've lost a lot of hair since I started posting in WTC Conspiracy forums. AND each of those had never happened before.

Meanwhile I'll call you on this assertion:

The way it was phrased is not universally true.

And the points which follow are moot - fortunately for me 'coz it has been a long day following several long days and I'm not at my top form - not up to my normal "take anyone on" mental standards.

If he had instead asked a question with the same contextual standard but left it as a Yes/No/Undecided/X response, 'No' would be the logical choice out of the bunch just as 'Yes' was the logical response in mine. Which is why I brought out Open Secret. Also, note the difference between a question (my poll) and a statement (the quote that is being examined).

Otherwise - a nice try.

 

[Nick Terry]

No, it was nowhere close to being pithy/concise/comprehensive/complete nor was it a 'general truth' because it is not a universal truth, 100%, 100/100 forever times infinity. It is a false generalization.

You cannot have a universal truth about terms that have different meanings when used in different contexts. The word 'theory' has rather different philosophical, scientific and colloquial meanings. Neither philosophers nor scientists have been able to shake the general population from their habitual use of theory to mean hypothesis or even speculation. But philosophers and scientists also use theory to describe beliefs with wildly varying levels of certainty,

Quite minor changes can make a huge difference - for example when someone says 'that's just a theory', they are really implying an unproven claim. But when a creationist says apropos evolution, 'that's just a theory', they expose themselves as ignoramuses, since the theory of evolution is regarded as a well-proven scientific theory.

Fortunately, language has provided us with numerous synonyms, and our abilities to speak and comprehend language have also blessed us with the gifts of spotting things like context, nuance and humour. A sentence that would be logically invalid in a lengthy text on epistemology can be very apt when delivered as a one-liner on an internet forum.

 

[Oystein]

You're wrong. It was and remains a false generalization. Why? There is such a thing called an Open Secret. ...

Since an "Open Secret" is something that is widely known, the very content and/or source of that widely dispersed knowledge would constitute a smoking gun, not?

So which 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is, in your opinion, an "open secret" that has no smoking gun, or which 9/11 Conspiracy Theory has a smoking gun but is not an open secret?

 

[Animal]

No, you tell us what it is. However, just like when you failed to point us to the "plausible alternate narrative" you ensured us existed you'll avoid actually committing to demonstrable facts.

He is the latest in the series of "just asking questions" troofer.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hang on, was 9/11 a conspiracy because of some old Rush song?

Dave

 

[Nick Terry]

Hang on, was 9/11 a conspiracy because of some old Rush song?

Dave

Well, now you mention it, the Twin Towers clearly exhibited grace under pressure, and those planes - just moving pictures, weren't they? Shame that NIST forgot to test for echo; indeed, they clearly forgot to use both hemispheres of their brains.

Not sure how the temples of Syrinx fit into all this, though.

 

[Jango]

You cannot have a universal truth about terms that have different meanings when used in different contexts. The word 'theory' has rather different philosophical, scientific and colloquial meanings. Neither philosophers nor scientists have been able to shake the general population from their habitual use of theory to mean hypothesis or even speculation. But philosophers and scientists also use theory to describe beliefs with wildly varying levels of certainty,

Quite minor changes can make a huge difference - for example when someone says 'that's just a theory', they are really implying an unproven claim. But when a creationist says apropos evolution, 'that's just a theory', they expose themselves as ignoramuses, since the theory of evolution is regarded as a well-proven scientific theory.

Fortunately, language has provided us with numerous synonyms, and our abilities to speak and comprehend language have also blessed us with the gifts of spotting things like context, nuance and humour. A sentence that would be logically invalid in a lengthy text on epistemology can be very apt when delivered as a one-liner on an internet forum.

I DVR'd a show called History of the World on the History channel the other day. It is on Youtube too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvNV0GdMilA

It's explanation is as time went by 1) chimpanzee looking monkeys learned/started to walk upright which freed up their hands, 2) more evolved upright walking monkeys learned to use silicon rocks as sharp edge & 3) human like people show up.

 

[Jango]

Do you have a peer reviewed and published paper to support that postulation?

I do not have ulcer problems. However it is fact that my hair started to go grey AFTER I was married. It went fully grey after the kids came along AND I've lost a lot of hair since I started posting in WTC Conspiracy forums. AND each of those had never happened before.

No, just sarcasm.

I had gray hair by my early twenties. At 30, I'm more than half-gray, even gray in my goatee.

Meanwhile I'll call you on this assertion:



And the points which follow are moot - fortunately for me 'coz it has been a long day following several long days and I'm not at my top form - not up to my normal "take anyone on" mental standards.

Otherwise - a nice try.

You call me on it, but you forgot to mention the 'why' part of it. Nice try. Come at me when you're feeling back up to par.

 

[Nick Terry]

I DVR'd a show called History of the World on the History channel the other day. It is on Youtube too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvNV0GdMilA

It's explanation is as time went by 1) chimpanzee looking monkeys learned/started to walk upright which freed up their hands, 2) more evolved upright walking monkeys learned to use silicon rocks as sharp edge & 3) human like people show up.

By your apparent reasoning in this non-sequitur reply to my post, a theory is only as scientific and as rigorous as its dumbest proponent.

This may explain some of the problems you've been experiencing on this forum getting anyone to be convinced by your arguments.

 

[WilliamSeger]

No, it was nowhere close to being pithy/concise/comprehensive/complete nor was it a 'general truth' because it is not a universal truth, 100%, 100/100 forever times infinity. It is a false generalization.

Cut to the chase: If it's a false generalization, then you should be able to name at least one exception. What conspiracy theory can you think of where there is "a piece of incontrovertible incriminating evidence" but it's still commonly referred to as a "conspiracy theory"?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Is there a reference point for this though? Have other building collapses done similar things, like ejecting tonnage of material laterally?

There have been exactly two high rise fires in similarly constructed buildings. Both collapsed in the same manner, exhibiting nearly identical ejecta profiles.

No other buildings have been constructed in the manner of the WTC towers, so no comparable fires have ever occurred.

Now. Others have done the math elsewhere to describe the amount of energy released by the towers collapsing. Has any Truther done math analyzing the lateral ejection to show it incompatible with the kinetic energy release? No. Not once. Not ever. On three different forums I've hung out on "that looks weird" is the absolute, entire analysis of the energy.

Be the first Jango. Dare to boldly go where no Truther has gone before. Seek new knowledge and dare to perform complex calculations. You have before you the parts for a Genuine Bone Fide Smoking Gun - prove the lateral ejection of material during collapse exceeds the energy budget of mere gravity-driven collapse.

Don't forget to show your work.

 

[LSSBB]

You recently OP'ed a thread with a Poll Question - you wanted the question read literally - I supported you AGAIST those who wanted to insist that the literal question should not be answered. Your question included terms that were loosely defined so I gave lessons in how to reason when terms are loosely defined. And I copped ridicule bordering on personal attack as members practised mental gymnastics to avoid the simple fact that you were right -- and over 100 couldn't read and comprehend basic English.

I don't think your interpretation and denial of others interpretation had a legitimate basis. But that's just my interpretation of what is legitimate.

Pardon me though from further discussion. I have other train wrecks to attend to.

 

[Jango]

There have been exactly two high rise fires in similarly constructed buildings. Both collapsed in the same manner, exhibiting nearly identical ejecta profiles.

No other buildings have been constructed in the manner of the WTC towers, so no comparable fires have ever occurred.

Now. Others have done the math elsewhere to describe the amount of energy released by the towers collapsing. Has any Truther done math analyzing the lateral ejection to show it incompatible with the kinetic energy release? No. Not once. Not ever. On three different forums I've hung out on "that looks weird" is the absolute, entire analysis of the energy.

Be the first Jango. Dare to boldly go where no Truther has gone before. Seek new knowledge and dare to perform complex calculations. You have before you the parts for a Genuine Bone Fide Smoking Gun - prove the lateral ejection of material during collapse exceeds the energy budget of mere gravity-driven collapse.

Don't forget to show your work.

Thank you for the advice. However, when I get to the stage of having to basically learn grammar rules for the letters I'm using to represent a whole bunch of different ********...yeah, that's why the world has mathematicians and scientists, people who have technical knowledge. I am relying on Oz for that technical information. I have admitted to Oz that I am at a disadvantage given the difference between our knowledge foundation in math and science. So humbly, I regretfully have to decline the attempting to undertake your challenge. For starters, I wouldn't know where to begin or how to formulate the equation properly. I would have to learn that and then find out all of the equations involved in the Towers, which I don't know is even possible. I do not want to let my curiosity get involved in that. No thank you.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Your lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from asserting that the lateral ejection of debris exceeds the energy budget of a gravity driven collapse, though.

 

[beachnut]

Is there a reference point for this though? Have other building collapses done similar things, like ejecting tonnage of material laterally?

Gaining knowledge takes time; 911 truth followers, the true faith based believers spent zero time researching 911, calculating energy, or anything of value to understand 911.

E=mgh, there is more than enough energy in the collapse due to gravity to eject tons of material.

Did you run the numbers? I could post any number, you would not contest it, or check it. Is 137 tons of TNT in energy enough? 137 2,000 pound bombs worth of energy? Is it enough? 576,210,000,000 joules, is this enough?

How much energy do you require to eject material from the WTC? You are asking the wrong questions. How many 110 story buildings collapse due to fires not fought? Why did WTC 7 not eject tons laterally? Could it be the scale? What is E=mgh for WTC 7? Why did WTC 7 look like an implosion? Oh, I know, the interior collapsed first, leaving the facade to fall.

Is the lateral ejections your failed smoking gun?

 

[Jango]

Your lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from asserting that the lateral ejection of debris exceeds the energy budget of a gravity driven collapse, though.

Lie. I did not state it as a fact. I asked if there was a reference point, if it had been observed before. You said that there was a reference point, that it had been observed before. I did not dispute it. So what's the problem?

 

[Jango]

Gaining knowledge takes time; 911 truth followers, the true faith based believers spent zero time researching 911, calculating energy, or anything of value to understand 911.

E=mgh, there is more than enough energy in the collapse due to gravity to eject tons of material.

Did you run the numbers? I could post any number, you would not contest it, or check it. Is 137 tons of TNT in energy enough? 137 2,000 pound bombs worth of energy? Is it enough? 576,210,000,000 joules, is this enough?

How much energy do you require to eject material from the WTC? You are asking the wrong questions. How many 110 story buildings collapse due to fires not fought? Why did WTC 7 not eject tons laterally? Could it be the scale? What is E=mgh for WTC 7? Why did WTC 7 look like an implosion? Oh, I know, the interior collapsed first, leaving the facade to fall.

Is the lateral ejections your failed smoking gun?

You quoted me but did not answer the simple questions I asked. I had hoped that you would be civil and explain it to me. Sorry, I gave you too much credit.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Like many who spar with Trutherz, beachnut has worn out the ability to be "civil." Actually , he didn't wear it out, Truthers wore it out by seldom if ever reciprocating civil, informed and logical posts with same. The tools of rational conversation become blunted and useless when repeatedly pounded against irrationality.