Truthers at the JREF, learned anything yet?

[uk_dave]

....100 tons of Flight 93 disappearing into an empty ditch.

The use of 'disappearing' and 'empty ditch' indicates that you are not a rational person.

The nosecone of Flight 77 making the exit hole at the Pentagon.

This statement indicates that you're not a rational person.

Single core column failure in WTC 7, weakened from fire, pancake collapse or gravity driven global collapse.

You mean it didn't collapse like what you imagined it should?

As well, I don't believe in the global incompetence theory, nor do I believe in coincidence theory.

You mean the events of that day didn't happen like what how you fink they should've, innit?

 

[tanabear]

First off, the relevance to 9/11 is?

Second off, oh those lies. Saddam really wasn't a murdering madman you know, in fact he single handed cured Polio then went back in time in a time machine he invented. I heard he also made puppies cute. What a guy.

Relevance to 9/11?

We supposedly invaded Iraq due to the traumatic effects of 9/11. Saddam was cooperating with Al-Qaeda and he was producing and stockpiling large amounts of WMD. On any given day he could have given these weapons to Al-Qaeda to use against us. All of these claims were false. So all of the money we've spent and the lives we have lost have been due to neo-con conspiracy theories. The Department of Homeland Security was created also due to 9/11. The Olympics are a "bread and circus" event. Well, not entirely, but the point is that the United States and other nations spend an awful lot of money and much of it is wasted. What is wrong with spending some money to test the validity of NIST's hypothesis?

Wrong.

No one needs to demolish anything in order to demonstrate the known vulnerability of light-weight trusses when applied as joists to heat. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that demolition is involved, why not accept the verifiable fact that a fire was involved and then inquire among those who are most competent to give an informed opinion about how fire behaves? Not because fire fighters have authority, but rather because they have competency

The vulnerability of the light-weight trusses to fire is not what I was referring to. I was talking about Bazant's crush-down/crush-up theory. The upper block crushes the lower block with negligible damage to itself, then when the upper block hits the rubble pile, it self-destructs via the crush-up effect. The other experiment would be demolishing a steel-frame high-rise with structural damage and fire and have its destruction mirror the collapse of WTC7. What has NIST or any other engineering group done to test the validity of these assumptions?

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but quite frankly I think you're mad.

I think Orwell summed it up best, "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

Nevertheless, mentioning the experimental method to a JREF'er is like mentioning the name Prince Humperdinck to Miracle Max.

 

[johnny karate]

Nevertheless, mentioning the experimental method to a JREF'er is like mentioning the name Prince Humperdinck to Miracle Max.

Perhaps we are not best judge of such things.

I strongly suggest you take your notion of the experimental method as it relates to the collapse of the twin towers to a scientist and see what that person has to say.

Please let us know how it turns out.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I don't believe in any of those. Please add, 100 tons of Flight 93 disappearing into an empty ditch. The nosecone of Flight 77 making the exit hole at the Pentagon. Single core column failure in WTC 7, weakened from fire, pancake collapse or gravity driven global collapse. As well, I don't believe in the global incompetence theory, nor do I believe in coincidence theory.

Red you haven't learned anything if you can mention the nosecone of flight 77 as making the exit hole in the Pentagon.

I haven't come across anything logical portraying the nosecone as the section of the plane credited for creating the exit hole.
How could you have reached that conclusion?

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

It's such a shame that people make up their minds first and then come here to battle out their differences. It's sometimes hard to change your point of view. Changing your mind is often regarded as defeat, but requests for evidence or information are only useful when willing to accept the meaning of the received information. The goal should be to gain a better understanding of what you study. The question whether thruthers have learned anything is therefore a matter of acceptance which can only lead to a flame war when the gained information is not weighed in an honest manner.

SYL

 

[papasmurf]

This is the problem! Truthers think someone is supporting the "official story" when they debunk everything 9/11 truth comes up. 9/11 truth is fantasy and junk. Truthers are only against the "official story" and fail to see how stupid all the conclusions (when the truth movement decides to make one) of 9/11 truth are. Thermite, beam weapons, nukes, and explosives are all the same, fantasy ideas not supported by evidence.

It is debunking, you just think you have something, you don't, and you can't produce evidence of what you think you have. Does your failure to understand 9/11 mean you lack knowledge in fields related to 9/11, or are you ignoring evidence on purpose? The debunking works like this, you make a claim about something; take the stupid idea a plane can't hit the ground going 400 mph due to ground effect! A stupid idea and clearly any pilot can see is false! It is not false because it does not agree with the "official story", it is due to physics and it is pure stupidity. It is so stupid I can't believe a pilot made it up! You clearly lack knowledge and are unable to gather the correct evidence to make rational conclusions.

If you understood physics you will see WTC7, 1, and 2 all fell in a time consistent with a gravity collapse. Simple momentum models show this to be the case. If you can't handle NIST, and the dozens of other studies with explanations for the WTC collapse, you lack the knowledge. There has been many opportunities for you to learn what most take for granted due to their study of 9/11, or engineering background, or cause they are smart, or they have experience, or they are true skeptics who don't take what Jones says to be gospel, but check it out and find him to be a liar due or ignorance or on purpose.

Your failure to learn is proven in your post dedicated to only deny the "official story". You are not a skeptic, you act like a cult member who ignores reason, logic and facts to believe in your fantasy of 9/11.
Why can't you try to learn about 9/11? It has been 6 years, many people can figure out 9/11 in minutes using a very small amount of evidence.

Simple momentum models show this to be the case?

I smell *****.


btw, where is the "hard evidence" that supports the official story?

Just curious.

Maybe the passport or the flight manuals?

Perhaps the Koran and the cockpit recordings?

Riiiggghht.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Simple momentum models show this to be the case?

I smell *****.


btw, where is the "hard evidence" that supports the official story?

Just curious.

Maybe the passport or the flight manuals?

Perhaps the Koran and the cockpit recordings?

Riiiggghht.

Perhaps you have solid, tangible evidence that overshadows the evidence already collected and researched?

 

[Travis]

We supposedly invaded Iraq due to the traumatic effects of 9/11.

Really, I had been agitating for an invasion or Iraq since 1998. I guess I had a time machine.

Saddam was cooperating with Al-Qaeda and he was producing and stockpiling large amounts of WMD.

Secular Saddam cooperating with uber-religious Osama is something I never thought probable. I still wanted Saddam taken out since a secular murdering madman is still just as deadly to his people as a religious one.

On any given day he could have given these weapons to Al-Qaeda to use against us. All of these claims were false.

True, but Saddam was still a genocidal madman.

So all of the money we've spent and the lives we have lost have been due to neo-con conspiracy theories.

Nope, what we did was forcefully remove one of the deadliest and most oppressive dictators in history that probably wasn't a thread to the US, I never really thought he was, but was a huge threat to his own people.....and then we screwed up the rebuilding phase.

The Department of Homeland Security was created also due to 9/11.

True, but is your argument that the Department of Homeland Security is mismanaged, over funded or unnecessary?

The Olympics are a "bread and circus" event. Well, not entirely, but the point is that the United States and other nations spend an awful lot of money and much of it is wasted.

You might be interested then in this fact:

America's Olympic effort is coordinated by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Unlike most national Olympic committees, USOC receives no continuous federal government subsidy, relying instead on corporate and individual contributions and on the proceeds of its direct marketing program.

Courtesy of this website.

What is wrong with spending some money to test the validity of NIST's hypothesis?

What's wrong with sending a rocket to the moon to make sure it isn't made of cheese? Perhaps, the problem is, spending a lot of money to satisfy the fantasy of a select minority. If you want to make a case for redoing the NIST investigation you are going to have to come up with a more persuasive case than "I just don't trust the government."

 

[thesyntaxera]

I think I do agree a bit with RedIbis when it comes to the statements they made about "debunking". I think, personally speaking, it isn't a very honest way to investigate claims. Unfortunately, the only way to test any claims in this situation to the satisfaction of those sympathetic to "Truth Movement" claims would involve reconstructing and reenacting the entire incident precisely as it was said to have happened, and to have absolutely full and free access to all the evidence and information that they may so chose to seek.

Even then I have my doubts. I doubt that the most vocal proponents of these idea's would act honestly if they were to suddenly have every available resource. If it was found that the Official account was totally accurate, I still think some in the Truth community who are so attached mentally and egoistically with being the valiant whistleblowers would still cry conspiracy, because without one they have no real self defined purpose for living. Perhaps their heads would explode...who knows?

So what have I learned...?

1. It's a cult of personality in most cases. In this case you have several personalities trying to gain attention for their own agenda by capitalizing on the deaths of thousands. Take that "who stands to benefit" crap and aim it straight at those who are leading this "movement".

2. Dude, come on! This whole phenomena started as internet movies. I am sorry, but my faith in the scientific and logical rigor of these films is lacking. Seriously...come on. Quit letting others think for you. Anyone can cut and paste clips together. Just because it's compelling doesn't mean it's true.

3. Remember to take stock of what is actually being said. A evening spent reviewing statements by supposed truth seekers should reveal them to be engaging in the same thing they complain about. Debunking. It's a semantic game that never ends. One side states they have evidence, and arguments. The other side retorts with arguments but no actual evidence....ad nauseum.

At some point, you actually have to consider the evidence, and take note of the fact that the side you are supporting as a "truther" has nothing but rhetoric, loud voices, and emotive music set to traumatizing video collages.

By now, hopefully, one should see the house of cards teetering.

4. This is a good one, though I can't remember who told it to me

Correlation does NOT automatically equal causation. Peoples ignorance of this simple idea is what allows these truth spreaders to proliferate idea's and get more attention drawn to themselves.



So, in conclusion...you are either A: Willing to base your beliefs about this event on a cadre of halfwitted media whores whose sole sources of evidence lies in the reediting of video clips over and over, cherry picking quotes and evidence, not to mention outright dishonesty, questionable motives, and an overt lack of expertise....OR...You are going to B: Follow the evidence that has been reviewed by peers with relevant expertise.

It's pretty simple really.