OK Truthers, what is your smoking gun?

[DGM]

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.

Your question is not a simple one. Could you define the amount of ejected material that would meet your criteria of "tonnage" and "laterally"?

 

[ozeco41]

I don't think your interpretation and denial of others interpretation had a legitimate basis.

Understood and your right to disagree is respected.

However I posted reasoned explanations and no-one AFAICS ever addressed my reasoning. They bare assertion dismissed mine and some made their own counter claims which did not address what I argued.

I appreciated friendly expressions of concern as to my mental state by some who thought I was in error. I ignored a few snide personal comments by others who were convinced I was wrong. I denied then ignored false claims that people had addressed my arguments when they had not. So overall I decided I had stated my point and chose to walk away from argument which was descending truther style into entrenched denial and personal denigration. Although my skin is "thick enough" - PAs from truthers or trolls don't affect me - no point me forcing people into resorting to PAs

But that's just my interpretation of what is legitimate...

"legitimate" was one of the 3 factors which were undefined. I suggested approaches to argument which validly accomodated the undefined factors. No one has addressed those approaches to argument.

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

No problem. It's a dead issue as far as I am concerned. But one of a suite of issues where I remain in agreement with Jango.

......despite there being a number of areas where I strongly disagree with him.

 

[Bubba]

oopsie wrong place

 

[ozeco41]

Like many who spar with Trutherz, beachnut has worn out the ability to be "civil."

That is not a defence - rather it is a "plea in mitigation of sentence". It comes after a pleading or finding of "guilty"

Actually , he didn't wear it out, Truthers wore it out by seldom if ever reciprocating civil, informed and logical posts with same.

"He did it first" is a confession - not a defence. I meet it at least once a week driving school buses.
(Q) "Did you hit him?"
(A) "He hit me first."

The tools of rational conversation become blunted and useless when repeatedly pounded against irrationality.

So the user of the tool should consider carefully the risk management of deploying the tool???

"Is the chance of success better than the risk of damaging the tool?"

I don't use my carpentry chisels to open paint cans OR gouge holes in concrete.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Hence my change of username.

 

[jaydeehess]

What were the top ten dumbest smoking gun claims by the delusional 911 truth followers, leaders, ... What an idiotic movement.

One classic is the moving smoke smoking gun, where movement of smoke is evidence for 911 truth fantasy CD.
Or the squibs, where air is ejected, the smoking gun for CD. CD claims prove 911 truth persistent followers are gullible. 911 truth followers have no clue the WTC was 95 percent air, and a collapsing building ejects air; why are 911 truth followers so gullible.

There are very smart 911 truthers, but they figure out 911 truth is a failed movement quickly, in weeks; people who can do rational research, and pay attention, then check references recover from 911 truth's fantasy world, quickly.
The rational skeptics of the "official narrative", quickly see 911 truth followers have no clue what the "official narrative" is, and 911 truth followers can't define their fantasy narrative, or present a far out fantasy of CD, and BS. The rational skeptics of the "official narrative", finds the "official narrative" is based on evidence, science, and facts - leaving 911 truth lies in the past.


Then Dr. Steven E. Jones, who made up the fantasy of thermite, had the loaded gun...

When Dr. Steven E. Jones and his failed nuts made up the fake thermite paper, Dr. Steven E. Jones, co-author of the fake paper, writes:
"In short, the paper explodes the official story that ”no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.” The red/gray chips are the “loaded gun” of 9-11." 911 truth has the "loaded gun", but no Pulitzer, just fake evidence they made up to fool gullible followers.

You forgot the CIT/PfT " north of Citgo" fantasy. That deserves at least dishonorable mention. You also neglectedf "let's roll" , a supposedly fake and scripted part of flight 93.

 

[Travis]

For me a "conspiracy theory" is a proposition for an alternative explanation of a well known event that already has an established and accepted narrative. Furthermore this alternative explanation must, if it is true, shake up and change the core of how we perceive the world and our understanding of how it works.

 

[Jango]

For me a "conspiracy theory" is a proposition for an alternative explanation of a well known event that already has an established and accepted narrative. Furthermore this alternative explanation must, if it is true, shake up and change the core of how we perceive the world and our understanding of how it works.

That's it? Kind of a lousy standard.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

That's it? Kind of a lousy standard.

You could help build the castle or just throw rocks. Up to you.

 

[Jango]

You could help build the castle or just throw rocks. Up to you.

Rocks are a good defense when the castle is under siege.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Fine, I'll stop being nice if you're just going to be obtuse.

What standard would you use?

 

[jaydeehess]

Fine, I'll stop being nice if you're just going to be obtuse.

What standard would you use?

Bah! Forget the derail.
So far has anyone other than a debunker posted the "smoking gun" for a 9/11 scenario well outside of the commonly accepted history.

 

[beachnut]

How much energy do you require to eject material from the WTC?

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.

How much energy do you require to eject material from the WTC?
simple question

576,210,000,000 joules, is this enough, it was how much energy was released in each tower. ?

 

[GlennB]

Rocks are a good defense when the castle is under siege.

Empty word for 1000 posts. The Truther tango.

Post something of substance and people might begin to take you seriously (I have no idea why ozeco41 is making such an effort, given your apparent dedication to evasion).

 

[Nick Terry]

That's it? Kind of a lousy standard.

No, it's a decent enough description of the class of claims about 9/11, JFK, the moon landing, Sandy Hook, etc that are most frequently labelled 'conspiracy theories'.

For me a "conspiracy theory" is a proposition for an alternative explanation of a well known event that already has an established and accepted narrative. Furthermore this alternative explanation must, if it is true, shake up and change the core of how we perceive the world and our understanding of how it works.

It's far from perfect, but one thing it does, is distinguish between speculation immediately after events have happened, and contrarian claims made after enough evidence is in to support a widely accepted consensus about those events.

Travis may be overly optimistic when he implies that conspiracy theories typically offer alternative explanations, however.

 

[000063]

It's done by professionals in public relations who are very much a part of the official bureaucracy. How many of those professionals did it take to get America to go to war in World War I, Vietnam, Iraq? I don't know, but we saw and know that they used enough people to get what they wanted.

Now that the Argumentum ad populum and appeal to emotion are out of the way...what's next?

Yeah, about that; why didn't the bad guys behind 9/11 just plant WMDs in Iraq?

 

[ozeco41]

Hence my change of username.

I had not noticed the sig....

I've used two usernames:
econ41 on my first forum - which is not hard to decode e = Eric and do the subtraction on "41". You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to decode the rest.

I changed to "ozeco41" when I came here 2009 for reasons which are no longer relevant. The "oz" being phonetic AU - also obvious.

I've recycled both on other forums BUT the Avatar Graphic dates from day 1 - 13 Nov 2007. (14 Nov where I am - kilo TZ.)

 

[LSSBB]

Empty word for 1000 posts. The Truther tango.

Post something of substance and people might begin to take you seriously (I have no idea why ozeco41 is making such an effort, given your apparent dedication to evasion).

If Lot can find just one honest Truther, God won't destroy them.

Forget it, Lot. That ship has sailed.

That's not to say that good points haven't been made. Collapse progression? Interesting academic problem. Ditto on the paint chemistry. Acceleration determination algorithms? Cool beans. PDB in June? Wolfowitz statements? Enlightening retrospective on how things went wrong. Saudi stuff? Yes, getting their hand caught in the jar again, international politics. Bushes sure were tight with them, politics.

Inside job? I'll acknowledge when I see it. I'll call the blue sky a blue sky no matter who points it out. Only they keep calling the blue sky a rainstorm, no matter how much I give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

..and some are still as dumb as monkeys.

 

[NoahFence]

If Lot can find just one honest Truther, God won't destroy them.

Forget it, Lot. That ship has sailed.

That's not to say that good points haven't been made. Collapse progression? Interesting academic problem. Ditto on the paint chemistry. Acceleration determination algorithms? Cool beans. PDB in June? Wolfowitz statements? Enlightening retrospective on how things went wrong. Saudi stuff? Yes, getting their hand caught in the jar again, international politics. Bushes sure were tight with them, politics.

Inside job? I'll acknowledge when I see it. I'll call the blue sky a blue sky no matter who points it out. Only they keep calling the blue sky a rainstorm, no matter how much I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Not only that, but their insistence that the Pentagon and Shanksville never even happened. They can't connect it all, they know it, and so they ignore those two rather huge events. Not only do they call the blue sky a rainstorm, but they pour buckets over their own head and expect you to believe it's raining.